French Dude Forced to Pay Ex-Wife Damages for Not Having Enough Sex With Her

[lestatdark]

Dodece said:
The ignorance, and chauvinism in this thread is astounding. Many western nations have such laws, or interpretations of such laws. It is actually a act of persistent spousal abuse, and the courts will treat it as such regardless of gender. Yes men have successfully sued their wives for this, received preferential treatment in divorce over this, and have even had marriages annulled outright. This story is hardly extraordinary, and neither is the outcome.

Not to sound too perverse, but marriage is nothing more then a contract that modifies ownership of property. When you get married it becomes a case of shared ownership. Your genitalia are no longer just yours. They also belong to your spouse, and seeing as it is their property too they have a right to use them. Seeing as the act of sexual intercourse is also important for good physical and mental health. It can be said that the access is actually necessary, and through constant deprivation you are causing your partner real harm. When you harm someone you can be held accountable for those actions.

In this case the judge made the correct ruling. The husband didn't seemingly deny his actions which obviously did cause his ex wife distress. He failed to live up to the contract. He should have been penalized. This is like the easy part of the contract really is twenty to thirty minutes a week going to kill you. How tired do you have to be to not have a good time. I think it is ridiculous in the case of both sexes.

Western nations you say? Odd, because the cases I recollect of these kind of situations happening (man suing woman for lack of sex during marriage) are mostly on african and asian countries. After a very long and extensive search, I found no account of these situations happening in the westernized world (they are probably cases about it, i'm not saying there aren't, I just didn't find anything).

I'm not saying that what you wrote isn't true. There are laws that work for both cases, but I think this threard's point is that it's hardly enforced when it comes to the opposite side. Mostly because it's still a stigma in westernized countries for a man to suffer any kind of sexual offense to his person, because the female side is always the most protected (understandabily and completely right, as I pointed out in my first post), but it gets to a point where it becomes too hypocritical. 

You say it's chauvinism to point out that this situation is a double standard. I ask you this then: What do you think would be the overall reaction, not only here, but also by the common public, should the roles reversed? Do you not think for one second that you would have pro-feminist protests and expressions of disdain towards the man because of trying to force something that his wife didn't want?