French man ordered to pay damages for not having enough sex

[Graham Kennedy]

Source

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.”

Truly disgusting.

[stitch626]

Wow.

[Nutso]

Get a dildo, woman!

[Graham Kennedy]

Once upon a time it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife, because the law presumed that wives had given automatic consent to sex in perpetuity by getting married.

Seems like those days may be on the way back.

[McAvoy]

...Well the reverse can be true then. Sue your wife for more sex.

[Graham Kennedy]

And whilst this story passed the headlines quite quietly, can you imagine the shitstorm that would blow up if a man did that to a woman?

[Mikey]

And whilst this story passed the headlines quite quietly, can you imagine the shitstorm that would blow up if a man did that to a woman?

That was the first thing I thought of. If a man brought this suit against a woman, it would be screechingly decried as medieval and misogynistic. Somehow, once again, wrong isn't wrong when it's committed against a majority.

I'm also interested in how this judge assigned a monetary value to sexual relations. Would the number have been different if the woman were prettier, or the guy had a different-sized apparatus? Or did he just canvass a sample of hookers in the south of France and take an average cost?

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I'd bet real money on the latter, Mikey.

[McAvoy]

Well can't call her a whore because she got money for a lack of sex. But that judge basically made her into one. Monetary value of sex per week/month/year.

[Mark]

Again....the French blow me away.

[Mikey]

Again....the French blow me away.

And what is the monetary value of that, again?

[Tinadrin Chelnor]

Again....the French blow me away.

And what is the monetary value of that, again?

Ask the judge, he appears to be clued up about such things.

[Tyyr]

That must be one ugly woman. 10,000 Euros for 21 years? Even if you figure one lay a month minimum she's only worth about 40 Euros a pop.

[Mark]

Oh, the image that has gone off in my head. Oh the pain!!!!

[Graham Kennedy]

I wonder what would happen if the guy had stood up and said "Now that the court has ruled that my ex-wife is actually a 40 Euro a time whore, I'd like to pay for another couple of lays, for old time's sake."

Nothing good, I expect.