La Loi D’Amour : French Judge Awards Damages To Ex-Wife For Lack of Sexual Relations With Former Husband

A judge in Nice has not only granted a divorce but damages to a 47-year-old wife for insufficient loving by her 51-year-old husband (known only as Jean-Louis B.). The damages appear to work like a type of loss of consortium claim against a spouse and was issued under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life.”

The ruling in my view is le stupide. The judge insisted that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage.” Ok, if that is true and there is no such thing as a platonic marriage in France, that is a good reason for a divorce. But damages?

The wife had already proceeded with the divorce when she returned to demand 10,000 euros in compensation for “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”. How does one calculate those damages? Is it the commercial value of purchased sex on the street?

The judge from Aix-en-Provence found that, despite the husband’s claims of health problems, “[b]y getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”

I find that quite a stretch as the basis for damages based on a statute that defines marriage as a “shared communal life.”

Source: Telegraph

11 thoughts on “La Loi D’Amour : French Judge Awards Damages To Ex-Wife For Lack of Sexual Relations With Former Husband”

  1. A stoning? I hope you girls brought a beard!
    Matthias: Look, I don’t think it should be a sin, just for saying “Jehovah”.
    [Everyone gasps]
    Jewish Official: You’re only making it worse for yourself!
    Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
    Jewish Official: I’m warning you! If you say “Jehovah” one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
    Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
    Jewish Official: Was it you?
    Stoner: Yes.
    Jewish Official: Right…
    Stoner: Well you did say “Jehovah. ”
    [Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
    Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even… and I want to make this absolutely clear… even if they do say, “Jehovah. ”
    [Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]

  2. ben d

    i think that’s a rock throwing offense.

    one way or another, someone gonna get stoned

  3. “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”.
    21 years of no sex??????

    and you think there is a problem with the court rcognizing that this woman was essentially neglected throughout the pendancy of her so called ‘marriage’?
    So men will pay wome FOR sex (thus equating its worth with $$$$$….) BUT will not recognize that there is an actual human female at the other end of the deed who may also feel that there is a worth to a sexual relation? So, a woman or man who ‘shop’ elsewhere outside of marriage are ‘breaking the marriage contract’ enough so that they will either negate a pre-nup or have no defense to the request of a divorce….?????


    this is exactly why the USA is in desperate need of FRANCE!
    Mon Dieu! Mon Dieu, ces types américains pensent masturber moyens de comptage de leurs billets d’un dollar … lentement ….

  4. Refflaw: “This kind of decision must have used Sharia Law to get this ridiculous outcome!”

    Doesn’t that usually involve cutting something off or hanging one by something?

  5. I can’t imagine the horrific precedent something like this would set if it happened as reported and IF it held up to an appeal.

  6. It sure doesn’t make the ex-wife look any better, that she demands retroactive pay for lack of sex.

  7. Read this yesterday….I wonder why the delay of 21 months….after the divorce…

  8. Theres a long joke about this sort of thing. I’ll spare you the details but the punchline is:
    If I had known I would have given you ALL my business honey!

Comments are closed.