Judge rules that a spouse must consent to sex with spouse...

[Svartalf]

rather the reverse... ol' Nap would never have wasted an opportunity to stick the 11th finger inside a woman

[Svartalf]

In that case, my ex-husband owes me approximately 90 million Euro.

I'll make it up for you if he pays me a lot less.

[FBM]

Need to see a pic of the wife before I can comment further.

she's 47, maybe more now, and likely has that anger set as her default facial expression.

A 47+ y.o. woman who has had practically no sex for the past 21 years. I'm going to have nightmares tonight.

[Svartalf]

Yeah, real waste...

[Coito ergo sum]

What if she had vaginosis?

[Svartalf]

Her husband would have cast that right in her face and not been found at fault

[hadespussercats]

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.
A 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.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-sex.html

Wow - so, as I understand it, a spouse does not have to submit to their spouse, and it is possible to rape a spouse (if they don't consent to sex). But, if they fail to consent to sex often enough, then money damages can be recovered for the refusal to consent. Interesting decision.

"the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom."
The reason for the divorce was lack of sex.

That doesn't seem out-of-line to me. After all, unconsummated marriages could be annulled, even in the days before divorce was widely accessible. And if marriage is defined as a monogamous union (which it often is-- even though it needn't be), a husband who refuses to have sex with his wife is denying her a sexual life. Which, considering how long she put up with it, might be worth damages. She gave up her sexy years never having sex. That's a shame.

Would you feel differently if it were a man divorcing a woman for 21 years of, "Not tonight-- I have a headache"?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.
A 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.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-sex.html

Wow - so, as I understand it, a spouse does not have to submit to their spouse, and it is possible to rape a spouse (if they don't consent to sex). But, if they fail to consent to sex often enough, then money damages can be recovered for the refusal to consent. Interesting decision.

"the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom."
The reason for the divorce was lack of sex.

The point wasn't the "reason for divorce" -- reason for divorce in most places nowadays can be "I don't love you anymore."

That doesn't seem out-of-line to me. After all, unconsummated marriages could be annulled, even in the days before divorce was widely accessible. And if marriage is defined as a monogamous union (which it often is-- even though it needn't be), a husband who refuses to have sex with his wife is denying her a sexual life. Which, considering how long she put up with it, might be worth damages. She gave up her sexy years never having sex. That's a shame.

Would you feel differently if it were a man divorcing a woman for 21 years of, "Not tonight-- I have a headache"?

I don't feel any which way about why they are getting a divorce. I thought it funny that money damages were awarded for failure to fuck. I would think if the sexes were reversed, and a man was awarded money damages because his wife wouldn't submit to him sexually enough, there might be a different reaction to this. What it says is - you don't have to consent, but if you don't consent, you may have to pay. I find it more curious and funny than anything else.

[hadespussercats]

Hey! I'm not Seth!

And I get what you're saying.

[Seth]

I don't feel any which way about why they are getting a divorce. I thought it funny that money damages were awarded for failure to fuck. I would think if the sexes were reversed, and a man was awarded money damages because his wife wouldn't submit to him sexually enough, there might be a different reaction to this. What it says is - you don't have to consent, but if you don't consent, you may have to pay. I find it more curious and funny than anything else.

I'd have to see a picture too. I wonder if, on appeal, the fact that she's (hypothetically) put on 200 pounds since they got married might mitigate the award.

I can certainly agree that failure to engage in conjugal relations ought to be grounds for divorce...on either side...but money damages? That's outrageous.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

[Svartalf]

What are "grounds" for divorce? I mean, divorce requiring "grounds" was done away in French law when I was a little boy, or maybe even before I was born (sorry, I haven't brushed up on my Law in nearly 20 years).
Now, all it winds down to is determining "faults" so the judge will rule in favor of one spouse (former)

[Callan]

Hey! I'm not Seth!

A sig for someone, methinks....

[Warren Dew]

Which, considering how long she put up with it, might be worth damages.

Depends on her excuse for not noticing for so long. "It's been 20 years since we've had sex - but I'm sure tonight will be different!"

She gave up her sexy years never having sex.

Your lack of age is showing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hey! I'm not Seth!

Dammit! Sorry....my apologies for that...