French man ordered to pay wife 10,000 euros for lack of sex

[FarCenter]

AFP - A court in France has ordered a man to pay 10,000 euros ($13,300) in damages to his long-frustrated ex-wife after he failed in his marriage "duties" by withholding sex from her for years.

In the May ruling, published on Tuesday in the Gazette du Palais judicial review, an appeals court in the southern city of Aix-en-Provence upheld an earlier decision to award the damages for "absence of sexual relations".

The couple, who are both 51, married in 1986 and have two children. They divorced in January 2009 in the city of Nice.

In its ruling, the court said the man's wife deserved the damages due to the suffering she endured because of her sexless marriage.

http://www.france24.com/en/20111129-french-man-ordered-pay-wife-10000-euros-lack-sex

[trumad]

1. Hope my wife never sues.

[Capt. America]

19. Tru: you're not supposed to be outside the sports forum.

[trumad]

22. Yeah I know...

[MADem]

2. What--was the wife stupid or something? She should have filed for divorce

much sooner.

This is an absurd ruling, IMO. The court overreached into the private lives of these people, and the wife shouldn't have sued for the cash; just divorced his ass after year one of unhappiness.

[Bunny]

5. Agreed.

It's ridiculous for the court to dictate penalties for failure to have sex.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Perhaps she didn't want to divorce until the children grew up

We don't know how old they are, but the final divorce happened after 22 or 23 years of marriage, so it's quite possible she waited for that. She may have felt that breaking up their home for the sake of her sex life would have been selfish.

[MADem]

17. Well, you cut your cloth according to your measure. If she was unhappy, she should

have left. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If she made the decision to stay, that's on her, and her husband shouldn't be required to pay for her decision.

She could have divorced the guy and kept the home intact if that was her concern--I know a couple of folks who did it that way. They went from marrieds to roommates, and raised their kids. Worked out well, too--the Fergie and Edward model, if you will.

Of course, all this is speculation, but I still think the wife was out of line for bringing the lawsuit, and the judge wrong for ruling as he did.

Imagine the outcry if the gender roles were reversed, and it was the husband suing for lackanooky, and the judge ruling that the wife had to pay for not 'putting out' as they say? We'd be hearing "How DARE the judge treat the woman like a prostitute? Perhaps the man stunk and that is why she didn't give him any play!" and things of that nature.

Sometimes, people are just not compatible. Sometimes, people make poor choices. It happens. After a year or so, you can pretty much figure out that it's not going to fix itself. Spending over a decade stewing over the matter, and then taking your gripe public to a court of law? I can only wonder if the goal wasn't public humiliation.

[redqueen]

18. +1

This case and the decision are laughable and idiotic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. I noted that they weren't named in the report, so I don't think public humiliation was the goal

Sharing a house with someone you've divorced is not an option many people would find acceptable; the 'Fergie and Edward' (I think you mean Andrew, as in Prince Andrew) model depends on enough money for one building to have 2 completely separate households. 'Roommates' could end up having to be literal for a lot of people, and that's hardly going to solve the problem of the lack of a sex life.

I don't think that putting the children first counts as 'having your cake', so I can't see it like you. As you say, we are speculating, but I think that means we can't just say the wife and judges (this is an appeals court upholding an earlier decision) are 'wrong'.

[Bunny]

25. Regardless of why the wife may have stayed in the marriage,

you cannot have courts attempting to enforce a concept such as 'marital duties'. Until very recently, the concept of marital rape didn't exist - a woman was required to submit to her husband, whether she wanted to or not. Thank god we've changed our thinking on that, at least in most western societies.

The person who isn't getting their sex needs met has options, the legal system should not be one of them.

[MADem]

30. +1. It honestly sounds like sharia law--and not in a good way. NT

[redqueen]

32. "The person who isn't getting their sex needs met has options"

Indeed, masturbation first and foremost.

This idea that people are somehow entitled to access to someone else's body to use for sex rather disgusts me.

[MADem]

28. Sometimes, the names don't cross the pond because either we have differing standards,

or the media believes that we cannot pronounce them, or because no one gives a crap about the "who," just the what.

I did mean Andrew--I hadn't had my coffee.

You don't need separate households--you just need separate bedrooms. That's the model of my friends--they didn't go anywhere--they simply no longer had a guest room. They transitioned very well, and occasionally shared meals, though he tended to work late anyway so he wasn't home at the dinner hour, generally, anyway.

I had another set of friends who had a duplex, a big house downstairs and an apartment above. The husband moved upstairs, and the kids stayed in place in their own rooms. If the ex-wife wanted to go out, he came down and babysat when they were young, and was "in the house" when they were older.

When you think about it, it's the fairest situation--why should the kids have to bounce from parent to parent, have two rooms, be forced to travel on weekends and holidays, completely fuck up their little lives, just because their stupid parents can't be civilized? Now, Fergie and Andrew can afford the huge house, but people can do it with less house and a mature attitude--if they put their kids first. Once the children are grown, well, things can change and the two can deconstruct their arrangement if they'd like. If one parent wants to run off and get married, they'd better be able to afford to house their kids in place, so they don't have to be disrupted, as well as their new spouse in a separate location--until the kids reach adulthood.

I think this wife's decision to just sit around for a decade "expecting" sex, and then suing her husband for it in the eleventh year, is absurd. Sorry. I can't change my mind on that score. I hope the husband countersues. This kind of nonsense has no place in the public legal system. IMO, anyway.

[NickB79]

36. Well, you've obviously never been in her shoes

Let me state from experience that being in a sexless marriage is probably one of the most emotionally painful, confusing things that can happen to a spouse. It's easy to say "divorce him if you're not happy", but the ironic thing is that you start blaming yourself for the lack of intimacy, wondering what's wrong with you, if you caused this, and how can you then fix it? You still love the person you're with, how can you divorce them if you think you're partly to blame for the situation?

[MADem]

38. If you "blame yourself" for over a decade, then you do only have yourself to blame.

Mental health services are available as part of insurance these days, and even poor people can find public assistance help on those lines if they root around long enough. In five minutes, any psychologist or mental health therapist worth their salt would be able to tell you "It ain't you, it's him" or "Cut the cord, stop wasting your time" or some other useful advice.

If you still love the person, you're not going to drag them into court and demand money for no nooky, either. And what is that money going to do? Pay for a prostitute to make up for lost time?

This case has no business in the court, and I don't care if it is a woman suing a man, a man suing a woman, a woman suing a woman, or a man suing a man. Work your shit out, and if you can't, part ways. If you're demanding money in exchange for lack of sex, you're basically inferring that the sex act has a monetary value, making one or both parties in the relationship a prostitute.

[stevedeshazer]

3. That means I'm at least due beer and travel money.

[seabeyond]

4. that is funny... lol. nt

[Canuckistanian]

7. LOL

That was good.

[malaise]

15. Best DUzy for the week

[treestar]

35. ROFL!

[Petrushka]

6. --- nevermind ---

:hide:

[JDPriestly]

8. I hope this puts the D. Strauss-Kahn matter in a better

perspective for American DUers.

The French are -- well, the French.

[seabeyond]

9. no. i dont see rape having anything to do with this. french or otherwise

how totally offensive.

nor sexual assault. what both accuser accuse.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Strauss-Kahn has also had a great many affairs.

The rape charge - which I agree this isn't anything like - may very well not be true; the charge of sexual assault on Tristine Banon may conceivably not be. But the large number of consensual affairs definately are.

[seabeyond]

11. as is his current prostitution ring issue arising not the same. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. OK, that one I didn't know about. He does get around...

[MADem]

21. The guy's middle name should be Sleazy....here's a brief run-down

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/11/dominique-strauss-kahn-prostitution-scandal

He is keeping a low profile in Paris, has grown a white beard, and polls show he is the least popular politician in France.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, forced to quit as head of the IMF and shelve aspirations to become the next French president, had hoped to find solace in France after criminal charges were dropped against him in New York over the alleged attempted rape of a hotel cleaner. But he is dominating the front pages again after his name was linked to a high-profile investigation into an alleged prostitution ring at a luxury hotel in Lille.

The Hotel Carlton affair centres on allegations of pimping at top hotels in the northern French city, where women from France and massage parlours in Belgium were allegedly supplied for hotel customers and local officials. Eight people are under formal investigation, including a senior police officer, a local barrister and businessmen. Five have been imprisoned as the inquiry continues.

The investigation raises questions about the links between police and business figures and the underworld of sex work in France and Belgium. Prostitution involving people over the age of 18 is not illegal in France but pimping and living off the benefits of it is...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. The only one I feel strongly about is the Tristane Banon accusation.

Using prostitutes and having affairs has been substantiated, but while, as you say, it's sleazy, it's his private life and not my business.

The accusation of raping a hotel cleaner would be very serious indeed if true, but is unsubstantiated and, indeed, looks very probably false to me.

Attempting to force a kiss on Ms Banon without her consent is both serious and substantiated.



I'm willing to give him a pass on anything legal involving consenting adults, and on anything not backed by evidence, but the Banon accusation doesn't appear to meet either of those criteria.

[MADem]

26. Well, like Herman Cain, where there's smoke, there's probably fire.

There's a lot of smoke around that guy. I doubt Banon was the only one to get "the treatment" from that guy...and then some.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. That's an attitude I strongly deprecate,

Because the corollary is "if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick".

[MADem]

40. Yeah, but mud will dry up and you can brush it off. Fire will burn your house down. NT

[seabeyond]

33. thinking further, you bringing up dsk. as a poster stated below. no one is owed sex. in marriage

the man not getting it. are you saying dks gets to take it, whether the wife wants to give it or not?

viva la france.

that is called

rape

[Recovered Repug]

13. Some men pay for sex.

Now one guy has to pay for not having sex? :dilemma:

[JCMach1]

16. If he can just put it off a few months... the fine might be 0

[lunatica]

20. Maybe he should have sued her for not getting the hint

Whatever that was. Withholding sex is usually for some reason. Did she not bathe or shave in all the right places? Did she insist on being the Dominatrix while he wanted to be on top? Really. These are serious issues!

[Remmah2]

27. Herman Cain may be next on the list.

Giving it to everyone but his wife.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

31. +1. nt

[TwilightGardener]

34. Well-said.

[backtoblue]

37. agree! nt

:hi: