Have Sex Or Get Sued
September 6, 2011 3 Comments
If you’re not having sex with your partner, you may not be fulfilling your marital obligations.
Love and marriage are much more than sex, but a recent court decision proves that sex is significant. The story goes something like this: an unnamed Frenchwoman marries a Frenchman (“named only as Jean-Louis B”), he doesn’t hold up his sexual end of the bargain, she sues him, wins, and he picks up the pieces (pays her “damages”).
This isn’t a scenario I intend to trivialize. It would be difficult to be married to someone who didn’t want you, desire you and give you the physical intimacy that you ache for. A “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage” is a serious dry spell enough to drive anyone crazy.
Despite the husband’s reasons for refusing sex, which included “tiredness” and “health problems,” the judge couldn’t help but side with the sex-starved wife. He ordered Jean-Louis B to pay for damages because “a sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent.”
I’m inclined to agree with the judge’s decision. I don’t want to imagine what 21 years without sex is really like. But let’s say the wife claimed emotional neglect. Would the judge have ruled in her favour? Would it be the same as physical neglect?
In this case, it’s hard to separate wrong from right. When you turn sex into an obligation, it’s zapped of all passion, romance or spontaneity. Then again, sometimes you have to suck it up for your partner.
Contact the author here: tinybart@morningquickie.com
Wow, I totally disagree. Fair enough divorce if you’re not getting sexual satisfaction from your partner and you want it, however, to get damages for it? That’s shocking! That’s basically condoning rape, saying once you’re married if you say no you’re gonna have to pay a fee (coercion into sex is rape), or saying you have to be a prostitute within marriage. It’s a disgraceful ruling.
Sex is not and should not be compulsory whether you are married or not. By all means leave a partner who isn’t providing for your needs, but to have them pay you compensation for them not having sex with you? That would imply that the sex was rightfully theirs – sexual property, anyone? I have to agree with the commenter above, and express surprise that rape wasn’t mentioned in this post.
I don’t disagree with you. As I said, I think this ruling could turn into a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line between obligations and individual freedoms? Sex should never feel like an obligation (and definitely should never turn into coercion), so you’re right in saying that if you’re not getting sexual satisfaction in your marriage, maybe you should get out. At the same time, I can’t help but feel bad for the wife in this situation. You love that person and want to express it, but you’re refused for 21 years! At the end of it, though, I do agree with you. She should have got out a long time ago. Our sex drives obviously change over the years depending on various factors. He wasn’t feeling it, so should he really have to pay her in damages? No. This matter should have been settled at the divorce stage. The end.