Conjugal rights and non-consummation: Do these things still exist?

[bohemianbint]

Just having an debate with DH about whether conjugal rights still exist? And whether you can still annul a marriage on the grounds of non-consummation? Surely the idea of conjugal rights must have gone out of the window in the early 90's when raping one's wife became illegal?

(Not relevant to either of us, just having a lively discussion!) Can anyone shed any light?

Seriously can't find anything about it on Wikipedia or anywhere...

i knew a couple that had there marriage annulled a couple of years ago. It was a pile of bollocks, she was seeing someone else, he was minted, they decided it was the more 'convenient' option. . They got away with it as far as a know.

interesting question.

bump!

Yes, annulment for non-consummation still exists. The decision by the courts that a man could rape his wife (RvR) made the old presumption to 'conjugal rights' redundant. However, refusal to have sex would be grounds for divorce as unreasonable conduct.

A relative of mine's marriage was annulled on the grounds of non-consummation, about 10yrs ago. Wife didn't want kids, he did. For him, it was important that it was annulled as he was Catholic and wouldn't have been able to re-marry if he's just had an ordinary divorce. Of course, the marriage had been consummated, but apparently it didn't count as the intention had not been for conception . Amazing how things can be bent for convenience, isn't it?

It really is dark ages stuff. I had no idea until recently that it was fine in law to rape your wife up until about 16 years ago.

We just got married the other week so have been talking about it. I wouldn't have got married pre-1992 (was it?)

Was it also ok for a woman to rape her husband?

No, because in law until frightening recently, rape was ONLY defined as penetration of the vagina with a penis (ie not the vagina with a broken bottle or the anus with anything - that was just a sexual assault)

Blimey.

Actually you still can't commit rape without a penis, only now it includes penetration of the mouth or anus, so gay rape is now an offence.

No one has a right to have sex with you if you don't want to but they have a right to divorce you if you don't (want) to have sex with them - seems reasonable enough to me

What I don't get is how you would PROVE the marriage had not been consummated? Obviously in the days of virgin brides that would not have been a problem but can't see it working nowadays.

Eastenders are tackling this with hev and minty....

I think non-consummation is a religion based concept only nowadays

MArriages are often both religious and civil partnerships

I am not sure that non-consummation is relevant to the civil partnership unless you want to call it "unreasonable behaviour" as grounds for divorce

non-consummation is grounds for annulment while with-holdin conjugal rights (even though they don't actually exist in practical law any more) is grounds for divorce...as i understand it anyway

Other common-law countries have expanded their legal definition of rape to include hands, objects etc, so not only men can commit rape.

"Conjugal rights" have gone just about everywhere I can think of. Sex without consent = rape, even if the parties are married.

Don't know much about family law (horrible subject), but refusing to have sex is an ingredient in "breach of consortium", though probably not in itself.