Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex

A Primal Nut

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

Probably the most rediculous court ruling I've ever seen in Europe. The guy even had health problems.

Can you imagine if it was the other way around and the woman was fined for not having sex with her husband?

Seriously when will courts and government figure out that they need to stop interfering with the private lives of their citizens. I'm seeing more and more of these rediculous court payouts for thing that are no business of the justice system.

FatherLen

she must have been really ugly...

roast

Maybe he should sue her for not being able to get him up.

J K

We're all paying for it, one way or ......no wait

scholar007

Who's taking the horse to France?

Saila

cant blame him really, he was nailing the mistress he's not made of energy

stupidusername

If she'd shaved her legs then maybe he would've

/Generalising

CardBordWindow

If only he'd bought her a rabbit!

Dangerous Man

Disgraceful decision.

LeeHoffmann

This spells trouble :eek: Hope it gets overturned

suicide_circus

Looking forward to seeing similar verdict if a man takes the same case against his wife

smash

The photo in the article looks like a meme...

py2006

Shocking stuff!

If the roles were reversed...well ya know yourself!!

Greentopia

A Primal Nut wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

Probably the most rediculous court ruling I've ever seen in Europe. The guy even had health problems.

So he says. How many men would admit to not being able to perform in the bedroom because they have sexual problems like erectile disfunction for example? especially as the case is now public.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Can you imagine if it was the other way around and the woman was fined for not having sex with her husband?

Of course the law should apply equally, but there's nothing to suggest it wouldn't be.

Greentopia

FatherLen wrote: »

she must have been really ugly...

Uh huh, that's why he married her in the first place :rolleyes:

py2006

Greentopia wrote: »

Of course the law should apply equally, but there's nothing to suggest it wouldn't be.

I think its more to do with the reaction in general if the roles were reversed!!

Greentopia

roast wrote: »

Maybe he should sue her for not being able to get him up.

Would you say the same thing if she turns out to be hot? anyway it sounds to me like that's exactly why she's sueing him .
Or maybe he really doesn't find her attractive any more in which case they should be in the divorce courts instead if they can't work it through.

Paddy Cow

What a ridiculous ruling.

ScumLord

suicide_circus wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing similar verdict if a man takes the same case against his wife

Haven't we already had those cases? Verdict, wife didn't have to put out.

It's a bit ridiculous to expect someone who doesn't want to have sex to have sex regardless.

Dangerous Man

ScumLord wrote: »

Haven't we already had those cases? Verdict, wife didn't have to put out.

It's a bit ridiculous to expect someone who doesn't want to have sex to have sex regardless.

Exactly - and that's what this comes down; this is a disgusting decision and should be overturned.

My name is URL

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”.

Wtf was stopping her from leaving during those 21 years? Ridiculous verdict and it sets a dangerous precedent.

Mickey H

Why didn't she just go f**k herself...

Pun intended

Greentopia

My name is URL wrote: »

Wtf was stopping her from leaving during those 21 years? Ridiculous verdict and it sets a dangerous precedent.

Staying together for the sake of kids? not uncommon, I know at least two couples who've done so.
She should have just divorced him though whatever the reason.
Or maybe she wanted a divorce and he wouldn't grant her one? *shrug*

ETA: also, how many guys here would be saying well done to that guy, ...buy that man a pint etc. an he deserves every penny for putting up with an (obviously) ugly and frigid bitch for 21 years if it was the other way round? would you be equally worried about dangerous legal precedents against women? hmm...

flutterflye

I don't even know where to begin.
That is just so wrong.
Divorce on the grounds of lack of sex - fair enough, but to be forced to pay compensation is just beyond ridiculous.

Wetai

Wasn't there something fairly similar to this recently enough? The guy was impotent or something had erectile dysfunction and the wife sued him for lack of sex.

e: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056282074

chughes

He should have got Dominique Strauss Kahn to act on his behalf.

DSK would have blown her case out of court.

A Primal Nut

Of course the law should apply equally, but there's nothing to suggest it wouldn't be.

So you support the law in Afghanistan where women are forced to have sex with their husband four times a week? Given that European governments opposed that law vehemently, I think there is every reason to suggest they wouldn't support making sex a legal requirement for wives.

ETA: also, how many guys here would be saying well done to that guy, ...buy that man a pint etc. an he deserves every penny for putting up with an (obviously) ugly and frigid bitch for 21 years if it was the other way round? would you be equally worried about dangerous legal precedents against women? hmm...

Perhaps some people say those things but I've never heard anyone suggest the courts should interfere. It's a private issue between two people and she has no right to sue. I would certainly be worried if women were legally obliged to have sex with their husbands (as in Afghanistan).

YouTookMyName

Ooohhh la la dis is terrible no?

4leto

He probably was conscious of her smoking.

woodoo

Could a man have sued a women for the same. Not a change in hell.

Greentopia

A Primal Nut wrote: »

So you support the law in Afghanistan where women are forced to have sex with their husband four times a week?

The events we're discussing here happened in France? I wasn't talking about Afghanistan. Talk about leaping to conclusions! of course I wouldn't support such a law.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Perhaps some people say those things but I've never heard anyone suggest the courts should interfere. It's a private issue between two people and she has no right to sue. I would certainly be worried if women were legally obliged to have sex with their husbands (as in Afghanistan).

Well obviously she does have the right to sue or else the judge wouldn't be able to make a ruling on the case. I agree it should be a private matter though.