A woman, who was blamed by French courts for her divorce because she no longer had sex with her husband, has won an appeal in Europe’s top human rights court, the court said on Thursday, reigniting a debate in France over women’s rights.
…
[Lawyer, Lilia Mhissen] “This decision marks the abolition of the marital duty and the archaic, canonical vision of the family,” she said in a statement. “Courts will finally stop interpreting French law through the lens of canon law and imposing on women the obligation to have sexual relations within marriage.”
Idk man, legally blaming a woman for a divorce because she no longer wants to have sex feels pretty rape culture-y to me, regardless of any additional information or context. If it’s one party’s fault, then one party did something wrong. Do you think it’s wrong for someone to have the right to refuse sex? In other words, should women have the right to say no?
I definitely agree that either person in the marriage has the right to say no. But I also think that this would be a good enough reason for the other person to want a divorce.
Now if the other person wants to divorce after one rejection, that’s clearly a lack of foundation, imho. But sustained rejection sure.
Now one would wonder why would a person be rejecting for this long. Medical issues are not the same as some other reasons.
There’s a difference between wanting a divorce, and the woman being legally at fault for not wanting to have sex.
I agree, lack of physical intimacy can be a legitimate deal breaker for a relationship, but the divorce should be no-fault.
I think it is a bit more complicated.
If we accept that adultery is a reason for “fault divorce”, this makes it easy for an undiscovered adulterer to turn it into a no fault divorce, take a full half and then “have found” new love right as the divorce is fully settled.
That’s not a good reason to punish a woman for not wanting to have sex. There’s never a justification for that.
A marriage is supposed to be a partnership, a joined life. Failing to support your partner is an issue.
But then we get squeamish about this specific example, but that’s where the logic should lead to no-fault divorce.
It’s not our business to say she must have sex with her husband nor to know why, but at the same time she’s not supporting their shared life. The easy, ethical way out of this is to agree with both sides: your sex life is no one else’s business and it looks like your marriage is not working
So is “no fault” a thing in France? Shouldn’t it be?
How dare you support rape like this!
/s
In the context of swearing an oath that you would have sex, yes it would be your fault for breaking the oath. Inferring a duty to be raped is taking this to ridiculous levels. If someone doesn’t want to they ofc shouldn’t have to, but, that is why I am asking about the legal consequences of being at-fault.
Saying, ‘you broke your oath’ is one thing. Forcing someone to fulfill their oath under threats of violence, or destitution are another. I wish people on here had a better grasp of nuance.
Is having sex in the usual marriage vows?
Removed by mod
He’s saying that but you said there an oath? Were you meaning something else?
Removed by mod
So what’s the vow about having sex?
Removed by mod
That doesn’t answer the question.
I’m married, and nowhere in our vows did my wife agree to be my sex slave.
You’re giving nothing here, so I’ll assume there’s no substance to what you’re saying.
Not having sex doesn’t make you at fault. Rapists make that claim to pretend they’re right. But they are not, they are lying. Only rapists defend that lie.
You start from the conclusion that it makes you at fault, and you deduce that it must be part of the vow. Your reasoning is nonsense, you are trying to justify a conclusion that is already wrong by inventing a premise that doesn’t exist.
There is no such thing as a promise for sex in marriage vows, you fucking clown.