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

• Lan wrote on 2011-09-07 03:27

  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.
  
  But this apparently happened in—where else?—France, where a man known in court documents as Jean-Louis B. was ordered to pay out around $14,000 to his ex, answering the prayers of dozens of stand-up comedians and talk show monologue writers:[QUOTE][T]he 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.

  The ruling is based on "article 215 of France's civil code, which states married couples must agree to a 'shared communal life,'" which the judge holds includes sex.[/QUOTE]
  
  http://gawker.com/5837378/man-ordered-to-pay-ex+wife-14000-over-lack-of-sex
• Kollin wrote on 2011-09-07 03:30
  LOL, so stupid.
• paladin wrote on 2011-09-07 03:31
  Another reason to never visit/live in france
  Really any other country a judge would shoot you down
  Divorce for lack of sex?
  What is this,if your married it means you must have sex and have kids?
  I can not think of any country who would have something so ridiculous!
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-09-07 03:31
  WTF.
  They take their sex very seriously over there.
• LiqwedHitman wrote on 2011-09-07 03:32
  umm...wow... really i get that people look forward to sex in a marriage but this is just absurd and why did she wait two years later? Women like this piss me off
• Cynic wrote on 2011-09-07 03:40

  Quote from Chockeh;580501:

  WTF.
  They take their sex very seriously over there.

  
  
  Well, France is known as the country of love, and they seem to associate sex with love over there, so..
  
  It's still dumb as f*ck, but I guess logical in their eyes.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-07 03:41
  Another stupid case no doubt biased towards women.
  I doubt a man could sue their ex-wife over the lack of sex. >_>
• Cathaoir wrote on 2011-09-07 03:53

  Quote from Yoorah;580515:

  Another stupid case no doubt biased towards women.
  I doubt a man could sue their ex-wife over the lack of sex. >_>

  
  
  I was thinking this same thing. People would consider that sexist and look down upon the guy. But if a woman does it, then they get praised for their act of feminism.
• Cynic wrote on 2011-09-07 04:02
  Mmm.. on one hand, it's annoying, though on the other, I am somewhat glad men finally see what it's like.
  Sexism is bad either way, but women have undoubtedly had more of it than men.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2011-09-07 04:06

  Quote from Yoorah;580515:

  Another stupid case no doubt biased towards women.
  I doubt a man could sue their ex-wife over the lack of sex. >_>

  
  
  Well, now that such a case happened over there about a owman who sued the guy.
  A guy could sue his ex-wife for the same reason and refer to this case.
  It would be sexism if they refuse it to him if they accepted it for a woman.
• truefire wrote on 2011-09-07 19:14
  I know inability to please one's wife sexually can be terms of divorce in Islam, so the idea of any country--not just France--having lack of sex as a term of divorce does not surprise me much. In fact, I'd argue that it's very telling about either the divorcer or the relationship in general if someone is actually willing to divorce for such a reason (either there being other issues in the marriage or the divorcer being pretty shallow and non-committal). Yes, sex can be a big deal in a relationship, but if the relationship's strength is defined solely by it, then that is usually a sign of a bad relationship. If the relationship was happy in every other way, it would surprise me that the wife would divorce on these terms. There are surely other 'ways to express affection' than just sex in France; hell, the quote even regards sex as just one of them. So, unless he was being negligent in most or all ways of expressing affection (even then, isn't that usually something you go to a counselor for first? Or better yet, just talk about it with your spouse), this shouldn't have held weight in court.
  
  The only thing particularly surprising to me is that she received any compensation at all, let alone the amount she did.
• TA wrote on 2011-09-07 19:28
  Hell yeah. That's what I'm talking about!
• starpaw7 wrote on 2011-09-12 18:06
  That much money? :what:
  
  
  To all of you talking about France/sexism/bias on this;
  
  This 'law' is present in America - you can legally divorce your spouse on the grounds of little or no sex.
  
  I am not doubting in the slightest that the woman here is either a total moron, just mooching the man as much as she can; or the ex-wife has a grudge against him, or rather he could be a scumbag who deserved the cost.
  
  I could guess all of these scenarios, but the only thing that this article tells of is what was written on the legal papers and not the whole back-story behind this.
  
  Personally, if the first two scenarios were correct, that amount of money is too extreme for those ideas :fail3:
• Cynic wrote on 2011-09-12 18:21

  Quote from starpaw7;585567:

  That much money? :what:
  
  
  To all of you talking about France/sexism/bias on this;
  
  This 'law' is present in America - you can legally divorce your spouse on the grounds of little or no sex.
  
  I am not doubting in the slightest that the woman here is either a total moron, just mooching the man as much as she can; or the ex-wife has a grudge against him, or rather he could be a scumbag who deserved the cost.
  
  I could guess all of these scenarios, but the only thing that this article tells of is what was written on the legal papers and not the whole back-story behind this.
  
  Personally, if the first two scenarios were correct, that amount of money is too extreme for those ideas :fail3:

  
  
  Divorcing is one thing, but forcing a person to pay actual cash for lack of sex is just retarded as hell.
• Tedio wrote on 2011-09-12 19:13
  So....Why where they not knocking boots regularly?