Frankreich will das Konzept der ehelichen Pflicht zum Sex abschaffen

Reading the article, there wasn’t any actual law dictating this, just a vague mention of „community of living“ in marriage that some judges were interpreting as including an obligation for sex in cases of divorce.

Wacky judges.

This basically just means that a guy cannot divorce his wife for „withholding sex“.

Married or not, rape was and still is illegal.

… you know your marriage is failed when.

Just for info, the „marital duty“ doesn’t exist already in French law.

But because some cases had pretty wild interpretations of the „community of living“ clause (spouses should live together, basically), and tried to bring an imaginary obligation for sexual relationships into the mix, they are specifying the fact it absolutely does not include that.

… I thought it was about who does the washing up… but then again people do have some kinky ideas of mixing it up while washing the plates…… maybe it’s because they like doing a doggy style so they can both watch X-Files…..

Unpopular opinion but I have mixed feelings about this ruling. It’s either too much, or not enough, but right now we’re basically in a half assed situation.

Either we all agree that marriage is a very outdated concept about making alliances between families to breed kids and we get rid of it at once, or we maintain it.

If we maintain it, either it’s a symbolic ceremony for romantic purposes that has no legal standing, or it’s a legally binding contract and then the law gets involved.

If it’s a contract, every contact has breach clauses and a purpose. If a marriage is not meant to end up in reproduction and facilitate rights in that regard, then it needs another purpose. Here we are in the case of gay marriage, where marriage grants you rights and responsibilities if your spouse dies or is incapacitated. Let’s not forget that marriages also grant citizenship, and all it entails, which is a big deal.

In that aspect, the absence of sex in a marriage being a breach of the contract is understandable. Sex between the two parties + will to make a binding contract are the defining criteria.

It does not mean someone has to have sex with their married partner, but that if one of the two considers the other does not uphold their part of the deal (sex) then it’s acceptable to break the contract.

In that regard, the consequence is not „force people to have sex“ but rather „why did you get married in the first place“ or „why didn’t you want to divorce“. Everyone involved knows that before getting married. And everyone knows why some people stay married when they are in a dead bedroom, often preventing the other from moving on with their life : it’s about money.

Now of course there are asexual people. People who would like to have sex but can’t, due to health issues. Many exceptions, particular cases and so on.

Again the problem here is not sex, consent, or anything related. But rather the entire concept of marriage. If a couple wants a ceremony for romantic purposes they don’t need a legally binding contract for that. If two people (not necessarily a couple) want to agree on a contract to give each other rights, then marriages should be available for friends, family. If it’s about giving to someone else the right to take medical decisions for you if you are incapacitated, or rights and responsabilities over your kids in case you die, or about making a financial alliance to buy a home, friends could do that. And also divorce in your friend marriage. Divorce from your family, remarry into another family. Many people have roommates and friends for longer than they are married. Many people run away from their family and find new ones.

TL:DR my point is marriage should either disappear as a legal contract, and contracts should be reformed much more deeply to allow more types of contracts for housing and medical purposes, or marriage should remain but be expanded with many more types of marriages.

There should no duty and obligations after marriage. No one can force anyone to do anything. Also no one should be obligated to provide roof and food. It should be given by free will not forced by law.