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.”
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.
Removed by mod
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.