"Man Ordered to Pay Ex-Wife $14,000 Over Lack of Sex"

Two years ago in France, a women divorced her husband because after twenty one years of marriage, they didn't have enough sex. The judge ruled that this was solely the husband's fault.

Now that two years have passed, she's suing him again, saying that the lack of sex has given her "emotional damage." The husband must now pay 10,000 euros (approximately $14,000 in USD) in damage fees.

It's bad enough when your wife divorces you over a lack of sex and the judge rules you "solely responsible." It's worse when she takes you back to court two years later and garners 10,000 euro in damages.

The ex-husband claimed "tiredness and health problems" prevented him from doing the dirties with his wife. However, a judge in 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."

According to article 215 of France's civil code, "married couples must agree to a 'shared communal life,'" which according to the judge, includes sex.

So sex it up, guys. It's the law. ;D

Here's the article: http://gawker.com/5837378/man-ordered-to-pay-ex+wife-14000-over-lack-of-sex

I read this on Yahoo! around a few weeks ago, and I thought it was really stupid. Women can sue their male partners if they don't want to have sex with them and gain money, but if the guy tries to have sex with his female partner and she doesn't want to, it's considered to be attempted rape. And you thought men were sexist to women.

Seriously...wtf happened to our justice system...?

>>3 Well I think it's different if they're married. A lot of men will rape their spouses, but the women don't/can't sue because a lot of countries don't consider rape by a spouse as actual rape.

Also, forcing a girl's clothes off and telling your husband to have sex with you are two different things. It's not like she jumped him and forced sex on him.

And judging by your diction, I'm assuming that you're an Amuurican. This didn't happen in America, it happened in France. And since France is (statistically) the most sexually active (not how many partners through out the life time, that would be good ol' GB--I'm talking about how often), it's not that surprising that this happened.

The answer is simple,our judges learned not to challenge the dreaded Frying-Pan-Of-Doom which all housewives are usually found carrying.

Even most anime characters have learned not to challenge such a thing...no matter how strong they are.

Due to the problem of only one image per post I had to continue here,but really, If more men could learn how to use the Frying-Pan-Of-Doom, then our judicial system would be so much easier to handle. Take this guy for example, he has the right idea.

>>4 I would think that 3 is aware of what constitutes rape. The fact that rape occurs all over the world on a daily basis bears no weight on the current discussion.
I also don't think its fair for you to assume their American or act as though that's something to hold against them.
It doesn't really logically follow hat you could be sued for not having sex with someone. I don't know the ins and outs of french law but it is based largely on the republic system with strong democratic values. That implies a system and society that put value in liberty. It seem logical to me that such a society would allow person in a marriage or otherwise to elect to not have sex on a regular basis with someone just as they ought to be allowed to have sex when they choose.

>>7

Well, as of this thread, apparently you'd be wrong.

>>7 "It doesn't really logically follow [that] you could be sued for not having sex with someone." Tell that to the judge, kid. xD

Well... at least that gives the guys an excuse to get some action with the wives!?

>>9 One judge in France isn't the arbiter of what is logical only of legal matters within his domain. It'd be a gross miscarriage of justice if the man involved did not file an appeal in a higher court of law. The idea you can compel a free person to do anything and punish them for failure without some expressed contract is just stupid. There is nothing in the legal codes of France that says the man must have sex with his wife so I would like to believe that if this case were adjudicated by a rational human being with any love of liberty would not ask this man to pay "damages" to his vindictive ex-wife. The judge is reading in such a broad definition of what France defines marriage as that, in most 1st world legal systems it would be easy to have the verdict overturned.

The title made me think it was spam...

LOL WHUT? HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>4 Lol, first of all, I'm Canadian. Nice job being prejudiced though.

I'm sorry if I didn't write my post correctly. What I'm trying to say is: if men want to have sex with their wives, but the wives don't want to, then they just have to suck it up. I understand that, but if women want to have sex with their husbands, and they don't want to, they can sue them and even gain money from it?

Also, "Seriously...wtf happened to our justice system...?" was just an expression. Sorry if you misunderstood that.

Are you fucking kidding me... When did this become a law?

>>15 Because shut up. I imagined that's the answer the guy got when he asked that same question.

this is the most stupid and dumest thing i have ever read. the husband is fucked and the wife is a bitch. to the judge where the hell did he come up whith that. it makes no sence. its not right if it was the other way around the guy wouldnt get any money. but becouse its a woman she can sue and get money for not haveing sex. wtf happend to justice.

>>17 Actually, he didn't get fucked. Neither of them did. Zing!

>>18 Oh you.

Really all this comes down to people wanting to get fucked. This is why we can't get real with ourselves.

Isn't that really what all conflicts are about?

haha i would think it be the oposite lol

awesome *_*

i wonder if thats posible here in the u.s.

>>24 God I hope not.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

>>25 I hope not either, or we'd all be in trouble

>>27 Well the men would be. A lot of women wouldn't mind it so much. Though I think it's funny I don't think that's possible here in the states.

ROFL!!

Why marry if you just want sex?

>>30 Agreed. And >>5 and >>6 just made me think of Tangled lol.

That`s an `interesting` law o_o;; ........ Kinda want to go to France now.

>>32 As i said before...Why marry if you just want sex??

ha nice