Advanced search

News story - French man fined for lack of sex?

(7 Posts)
stirlingstar Fri 09-Sep-11 12:57:44

I wonder if there is already a thread about this? If so, pls redirect me...

On the BBC news quiz of the week there is a question that alerted me to this story (sorry - couldn't find the story on the BBC itself). I find it very hard to believe! Thoughts??

Office colleague suggests that real story is 'woman filed for divorce, judge agreed divorce was fault of man, man has to bear cost of divorce' - which is rather less inflamatory and maybe leads to more of a question about the reporting angle taken...

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.”

UsingMainlySpoons Fri 09-Sep-11 13:11:48

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

stirlingstar Fri 09-Sep-11 13:45:46

There must be thousands of French married couples not having sex for WHATEVER reason. What is the implication for them?

And more disturbingly, isn't this basically a marital rape law?

UsingMainlySpoons Fri 09-Sep-11 13:48:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

confidence Fri 09-Sep-11 15:09:12

And more disturbingly, isn't this basically a marital rape law?

Kinda, almost...

Not exactly because there's a difference between acknowledging the existence of a contract, and allowing someone to do specific things to enforce that contract. For example, a judge might rule that we have a contract that says you owe me a thousand pounds - and if you default then you are guilty of breach of contract and there are various recourses I can take. BUT, that doesn't mean I'm automatically entitled to come round and rob your house to recover my money.

I find it hard to believe this ruling is possible though, and am sure there must be more to it. How could any society survive the precedent? You can't just go telling people they owe their spouses money if they don't shag them. It's completely ridiculous.

stirlingstar Fri 09-Sep-11 15:38:51

Yes fair point

It does seem unbelievable taken at face value as reported

skrumle Fri 09-Sep-11 17:29:47

it is a very disturbing ruling based on anything i've seen about it. the problem is that most reports tend to go with a "did you ever" tone...

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: