Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex
By Our Foreign Staff
12:41PM BST 05 Sep 2011

The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.

A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.
The rare legal decision came after the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom.

A judge in Nice, southern France, then granted the divorce and ruled the husband named only as Jean-Louis B. was solely responsible for the split.
But the 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.
“By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”

He should have just fell asleep on his back, and let her do all the work xD

Wow. I know that the Bible states that we should fulfill our spouses sexual desire, but this is a bit extreme and cold to me. I'd be scared to marry that woman ever again. ha ha.

Where in the Bible does it state that?

Anonymous Source: For what it's worth (LOL) it says it in 1 Cor. 7:2-5. I believe that's probably the reference the Judge was probably referring to.

Exactly what I was going to post. ;)

Exactly what I was going to post. ;)

1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs.

All three of the Bibles I own state that a man should fulfill his obligations to his wife, and likewise for the wife for her husband.

NIV: "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband."
King James: "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."
The crappy basic English version: "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband."

Out of curiosity, what version of the Bible mentions sexual needs? In the same Bible, it states that sex should be used strictly for procreation, and that "sexual needs" are lust, and therefore sin.

The version I posted is the NLT. 1 Corinthians 1:1-7 Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life.[a] 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness.

I am not going to argue or get into a sexual debate over a forum as I feel it is inappropriate. However, please show me the exact verse where God states that sex is ONLY to be used for procreation. If that was the case the MAN would always get an orgasm and find pleasure, and the needs of the woman would be dismissed because for her to find or have pleasure would be "sin."

It's going to take me a few moments to search through three Bibles, so I may have to Google it. In the mean time, does lust not apply when thinking about your spouse?

Anonymous: Here's what I found pertaining to sex and the bible: http://diskbooks.org/p3.html

Ah, thanks a lot, this makes a little more sense. I always interpreted it to mean that you can't have lustful thoughts, period, not just towards a third party.

This is awesome! Thank you!

@Queenbutterfly: No problem, enjoy! If you look at the top, you can download the ENTIRE thing in PDF format. It's a pretty interesting read actually.

Thanks! I am constantly getting into debates with other Christians on sex and Biblical concept of it. It's quite annoying and now I just tell people, "You do it like you do it how God thinks you should do it; and I will do the same." :)

@QueenButterly: I agree. I've studied religions for a while now and I think a lot of people tend to think wrong about it. I've heard arguments from both sides of it, but the ones that are FOR it seem to make the strongest argument.

LOL. I read this and thought it was hilarious.

Sounds like her claim to receive money was for more than the lack of sex. There had to be other reasoning. Either way, what a nut. Seriously boohoo, get over it nut case. Relationships change throughout the years. Sometimes sex is one of the things.

She sounds like a frigid old bat. I don't blame her husband for not touching her. He should be the one getting money for putting up with her for 21 years. I'd be shocked if she didn't nag the shit out of him for some sex. I found the most guaranteed way to not get any is to nag the hell out of your partner.

Getting no sex turns me into a bitch...so I imagine 21 years of no sex has turned her into a Pterodactyl...

LMAO @ Winged Centaur

Does this set precedent for men to sue their ex-wives, if she happens to turn into a frigid bitch that doesn't "satisfy needs?"

I mean, I could definitely sue for not enough BJs. And by not enough, I mean, they should be happening at least once an hour.

I'd say this is ridiculous, although sex is not just intercourse, what about the woman who wants that and the man who is paralyzed or has erectile disfunction, does that mean he is not truly married? There are many couples who do not include much sex in their marriage especially after decades together. If you are 70 and 68 and stop having sex are you married for the next 20 years?

I don't think the ruling would have been the same if the sex roles had been reversed. Somehow it would be wrong for a man to sue his ex-wife for a lack of sex. It would make him seem like some sort of inconsiderate pig. The woman would seem like a victim for this expectation of sex, and everyone would understand her lack of a sex drive.

Yet in this situation, it's just expected that all men have sex drives and not having sex is some sort of a crime.

I can't imagine this being a good precedent either. Putting pressure on libido lacking people is not nice.

Also, did they VOW to have sex with each other? There is no part of a marriage certificate of marriage documentation that relates sex to marriage. Maybe the Bible does, but the Bible is not literature to base rulings on. Since you don't have to be Christian to get married, any Christian literature should not be part of a court case.