Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex

[cowcommander]

A Frenchman has been ordered to pay his ex-wife £8,500 in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their marriage. 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/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

[OKDem08]

1. ahhh...l'amour et l'argent

[Selatius]

2. I see it as too much of an intrusion by the gov't into the lives of people.

If a couple divorces in the US for whatever reason, each person gets half the shared assets under common law. If there was a prenup, then it follows that, but the US gov't has no real role regulating the aspects of a marriage outside of preventing abuse or unsanitary living conditions for children. The gov't ideally shouldn't be in this area at all.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. Tis a pity that she

Had Sarah's voice, michele's eyes, and the sex appeal of Rick santorum.

[eShirl]

4. Staying in a sexless marriage for 21 years implies one has accepted the situation, doesn't it?

[Lance_Boyle]

5. Reverse the genders and DU would be up in arms.

As it stands I expect a lot of "you go, girl!" and other assorted sexist nonsense from this thread.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Don't really matter

if the French use precedent in their civil law. The die is now cast.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. Excellent point

Now every divorce case will have the husband saying the sex life was inadequate and therefore should not need to pay alimony (or pay a lesser amount).

Placing a monetary value on interpersonal relations is going to be a problem.

[NightWatcher]

7. Maybe he didn't want to schtup her. Can he sue her for 21 years of nagging?

What's next, sued for leaving the toilet seat up or erasing her soaps from the DVR?

If you don't like em, divorce em and move on already.

[InkAddict]

9. Read up on the "masked" schizoid personality who behind

closed doors, where government et al should not intervene, feels "safe" to unmask what really makes the diordered tick--coldness unempathic selfishness, and an inability to express love, verbal promises and little pecks on the cheek notwithstanding.

Aside from reproductive success that in and of itself provides the disordered individual with a societyally approved mask of normalcy, this individual has a cold non-empathic disorder of the limbic system but realizes a "safe" arena in which to reneg on what doesn't come naturally and perhaps by what even seems repulsive.

Once kids are in the mix, the "normal" partner's leaving may depend on how much friend/family support exists for that "normal" partner's rational judgement which may by that time be severely impaired. Friends/family may only see the mask of the relationship(This includes marital counselors who chalk it up to a lack of communication skills.) or who ascribe to marriage fundamentalist religious values re the relationship, i.e., it was a state that was willingly chosen by BOTH parties.

Further, in the absence of adequate financial support, a shelter and policies related to poverty are not good places in which to raise children. Court domestic relations judges are even likely to award custody of the children to the "sick" individual. In the absence of an official diagnosis, noone can know with certainly just how the relationship functioned or failed to function. In the absence of the wife, could the kids then become the unwitting "inside" objects of abuse. Involutary platonic marital relationships are not exactly life-affirming even where adequate finances support merely shelter and meals. It represents pure emotional/psychological abuse no matter what coping skill the object of abuse might be use to ward it off.

In this case, perhaps there were no children or the spouse stayed long enough and was devious enough to make a plan and execute it, but involutary celibacy is crazy-making, and I applaud this judge's determination though it's far from justice for the loss and self-loathing this woman may have had to work out alone to get to this point.