Is "precedent" a legal term in France?
Because if anything has ever screamed "dangerous precedent" at the very top of it´s lungs, it is this one....
A Frenchman has been ordered to pay his former wife €10,000 for failing to fulfil his marital duties in the bedroom department, the Telegraph reports. The 51-year-old's missus filed for divorce two years ago, on the grounds of insufficient sex. A judge in Nice granted the petition, declaring that libido-light "Jean-Louis B" …
The ramifications of this are twofold. I guess the "sorry darling, I've got a headache" excuse is out of the window?
Also, can I now sue the ex missus for failing to dress up like a French maid and 'making me happy with her mouth' whilst tickling my balls with a feather duster?
I demand justice for my balls!
Paris, cos you know she would...
I wondered about that, too. I don't want to come over all PC and everything, but putting an exact price on the value of marital sex strikes me as an "interesting" thing for a court to do.
This road leads somewhere and is doubtless paved with good intentions, but I don't intend to follow anyone down it to find it.
You can still say no during marriage, but say no too many times and it's grounds for divorce, sometimes even annulation. Some immigrant jackass got himself deported in the US because of this; he married a fat chick (to get legal migration status, it seems) but delayed *any* kind of sex for years before she filed for divorce.
Sounds about right; if you aren't getting any sex, why keep the marriage? And 21 years w/o shagging???
... it is English to think that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex at all. Marriage *is* about "sharing a life together", but that does not imply anything to do with exchanging bodily fluids or producing offspring. We have the good sense to realise that living together has nothing to do with sex, which probably boils down to the fact that we lost the Catholic notion of "marriage is about nothing other than sex (but you must not enjoy it)" some time ago, and, to my mind, we are better off without it.
I'm baffled by most of the responses here.
Marrying someone does indeed imply a sexual relationship. Apart from anything, the marriage is not valid (in English law and the eyes of the Catholic Church) until it is consummated so having some sex is an absolute necessity for a married couple.
It is not reasonable on a specific occasion to say "You married me, you must have sex with me now" but it is perfectly reasonable to expect to have an active sex life and by the same token, it is a perfectly valid reason for a divorce if there isn't one.
After all, what sort of a relationship between a man and a woman is it if there is no physical expression of love. A piss poor one in my view.
... I have many relationships with women that do not involve "physical expression of love" - my mum and my sister and several female friends spring to mind. Your statement seems to regard the only relevant relationship between a man and a woman as either a) a marriage or b) sexual. You are wrong on several counts:
1. "Sexual relationships" and "marriage" are not synonymous.
2. "Loving relationships" and "marriage" are not synonymous
3. "Sexual relationships" and "loving relationships" are not synonymous
The only way your post is accurate is in the mutual expectations of the two (or more) partners in a relationship - a breach of those expectations may lead to breakdown.
It is beyond time that it is accepted that there are people who do not especially like sex, or consider themselves to be asexual. This does not make them bad, ridiculous, or worthy of moral and legal punishment.
In the same part of the marriage service as it talks about "forsaking all others" the couple also promise to "have and to hold".
Sure you have no right to force your partner to have sex, but by the same token, if they are no longer interested in having a sexual relationship then they are just as much cheating on their marriage vows as someone playing away from home. They should therefore no longer have the right to consider themselves married.
The traditional vows in the English Christian service pretty much tell you what to expect and what your obligations are. It isn't small print, it's spelled out clearly at the time. Read and listen before agreeing to the contract!
Also for Christians, I think Corinthians mentions that if you are depriving your spouse of sex for more than a short time (while you concentrate on other things), then yes, you are robbing them of their rights and God will hold you accountable.
Atheists (and the french did make a good go of becoming the first atheist nation) of course can do what they want and so can their spouses because morality is just something we put together to help with the survival of the species. In this case morality isn't working for the continuation of the species, so she should probably "dispose" of him and hide the evidence, then she'd have lots of resources, allowing her to mate at will and do her bit for humanity. As long as she doesn't get caught, its all good.
What if, through physical handicap, sex in the traditional form is impossible? I don't think you'd say that it would be impossible for those two people to get married because of that. (Maybe they'd be able to use a special "exemption" form!)
The problem with this story is not that they got divorced (or even had their marriage annulled for some strange clause about non-performance) - all of which, to one degree or another, could be understandable. The problem is that the man got FINED. Really? Maybe in a divorce settlement some kind of consideration could be made in terms of recompense (she gets the car, some alimony, etc., and the lack of sex is a contributing factor) - but normally a fine means that you're violating a rule or law. In this case, the penalty should be ... not being married any more. I don't see how anybody can be actually fined for not having sex.
In fact, getting money for the hardship (Lack of it...?) of celibacy sounds more like the result of a straight lawsuit (mental / emotional anguish) than anything else. (Kind of like how I could sue somebody for banging pots and pans against my ears for years.) But for the judge to site a marriage clause - the only result of failing to meet it should result in divorce, not a fine - seems absurd. Unless there actually is a French marriage clause that says if you don't perform you get fined? I don't think so.
In English law a marriage is voidable (rather than actually being void but it is capable of being annulled at any time) "if the marriage has not been consummated due to incapacity of either you or your spouse to do so; " so yes, sex is a requirement.
Further, for a Roman Catholic marriage, the marriage can be annulled by the Pope at any time for non-consummation regardless of the reason.
In neither case is physical handicap a valid reason for preventing an application for annulment being granted either by the courts or the Pope as appropriate.
Sex is central to marriage in the eyes of English law, the Catholic Church and in almost all cultures around the world. You may not believe that to be appropriate, but that's how it is.
"Marrying someone does indeed imply a sexual relationship. Apart from anything, the marriage is not valid (in English law and the eyes of the Catholic Church) until it is consummated so having some sex is an absolute necessity for a married couple."
You may think so, but check with any Bride of Christ.
So, the greatest (self proclaimed) lovers are failing in their duties. What shall we see next? Yanks who only proclaim on subjects where they can display knowledge? Religious tolerance from other than ones own beliefs? Truth from politicians? A non grasping politician? No, I believe in this as much as I believe in Nirvana. My own views about Frogs have not, and never will, change but for a judge to challenge a mans right to refuse sex to his partner should be paramount or a chargeless supply of analgesics be made available to counter their headaches, for both sides I add. I have three points less tolerance for Frogs than I do politicians, if that gives you any clues.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019