Should married women be compensated by their husbands for lack of sexual intercourse in marriage? What about men whose wives are in the habit of giving excuses for lack of sex on husband’s request… The case under supplies a little answer as in the case of a French couple.
The rare legal decision came after the 47-year-old wife, Monique, filed for divorce two years ago. She blamed the break-up of their marriage on her hubby, Jean Louis’, lack of sex drive.
A judge ruled this applied to sex in marriage. The man blamed “tiredness” and health problems.
The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.
A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.
The rare legal decision came after the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom.
The judge in Nice, southern France, then granted the divorce and ruled the husband named only as Jean-Louis B. was solely responsible for the split.
But the 47-year-old ex-wife then took him back to court demanding 10,000 euros in compensation for “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”.
The ex-husband claimed “tiredness and health problems” had prevented him from being more attentive between the sheets.
But a judge in the south of France’s highest court in Aix-en-Provence ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent.
“By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”
According to Daily mail, a survey by the French Institute of Public Opinion questioned 1,000 adults and found that 76% of them ‘suffer relationship problems resulting from inactive sex life with partners.
Half of those interviewed in the polls also said they had ‘no desire’ to make love, apparently loosing their sex urge due to years of sex starvation.
More than a third of French women confessed to citing headaches, fatigue or ‘not in front of the children’ as excuses for saying no.
One in six men admitted similar excuses. Figures show that one in three traditional French marriages ends in divorce.
Now, Kindly contribute to this poll…Should husbands or wives be made to pay financial compensation to spouse after divorce because of low libido or denied sexual satisfaction??? Please sign below and make a contribution!
An analyst’s opinion….
In the news, a judge in France has ruled that a man named in court documents as “Jean-Louis B.” is solely at fault in the divorce proceedings between him and his wife due to “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage.” As if that wasn’t humiliating enough, he’s been ordered to pay his now ex-wife 10,000 euros as some sort of compensation for all the orgasms she didn’t get to have during that time period.
There are so many things wrong with this decision. First of all, if we’re going to put a monetary amount on all that sex they didn’t have, 10,000 euros seems way low. The average French person has sex 121 times per year, which works out to be 2,541 sexings over the course of 21 years. 10,000/2,541 =~4 euros per sex. If sex was worth so little to her in the first place, why was it capable of being the sole factor in the dissolution of their marriage? Logique, Madame B.!
More seriously, this ruling seems to fall on the wrong side of the issue of consent. Nobody, male or female, should be forced to have sex against their will, and telling someone they’re legally obligated to have sex with their spouse brings back memories of laws–laws that still exist in some parts of the world–that say it’s totally okay to rape someone if you’re married to them. (Historically, most victims of these laws have been women.) This goes without saying, but when and how to do it is an extremely personal decision that should stay between the two people who are married to each other, and if they can’t come to an agreement that works for both people, they probably shouldn’t be together.
They definitely shouldn’t stay together for 21 years, and if they do, it’s on both of them, no? Do any French/lawyer people want to chime in with insight on how the judge came to interpret the law in this way? Because from where I’m sitting, it seems completely absurd.
Kindly visit this page>