France is to enshrine in law the end of so-called “conjugal rights” – the notion that marriage means a duty to have sex.
A bill approved on Wednesday in the National Assembly adds a clause to the country’s civil code to make clear that “community of living” does not create an “obligation for sexual relations”.
The proposed law also makes it impossible to use lack of sexual relations as an argument in fault-based divorce.
Though unlikely to have a major impact in the courts, supporters hope the law will help deter marital rape.
Overall, I think this is a good idea.
My thoughts on the part about removing refusal of intimacy as justification of divorce are more nuanced, however - and partially informed from anecdotal experience.
Yeah it’s a whole different argument.
Being married does not entitle you to sex - great.
Wanting to divorce because not enough sex - fine.
It’s not so much that you felt the other person was obligated to provide the sex (though probably this is th real arhument) but more that it just turned out you are not that compatible or you just grew apart. Should a person not be allowed to divorce if they fell out of love with their partner, ergo they turned out to have less or no more sex?
Should a person not be allowed to divorce if they fell out of love with their partner, ergo they turned out to have less or no more sex?
They absolutely should, and they will still be able to, nothing’s changed there.
I think of it like housework. No one should be compelled by the law to do housework. But if one person in the house is doing no housework, the others have a real and justified complaint. It’s not legal grounds for eviction, but it should be a material point against them in any dispute mediation that takes place.
To translate that: if one party in a marriage is withholding sex, they don’t get to claim a full 50% right to all the assets in the marriage. I’m not saying zero, but…
Exactly why this law needs made clear:
No one is entitled to sex
‘Withholding sex’ isn’t a mark against someone in a divorce and in no way should it be a factor in whether someone is entitled to their fair share of the fruits of a shared life should it come to an end.
If sex is housework, sleeping with that person is a chore, and god if that’s not the world we live in anymore.
Don’t take an analogy literally. That’s bad faith.
And if you don’t think marriage is a stated intention to have a sexual relationship, then we simply disagree. But your opinion, much as I honor it, is your own innovation.
Fault divorce makes you prove that harm is being done thus a divorce is needed. This is removing no sex as a fault. I think there are usually financial ramifications from being the at fault spouse. Thus there would be financial repercussions for refusing to have sex with someone. Obviously a bad thing.
There is a thing called no-fault divorce that requires no proof of harm. I don’t know if France has this, but it is how you get around needing any reason besides that one spouse wants to.
As long as “I don’t like her anymore” is an acceptable reason, it won’t have a practical effect. But if you have to file according to a narrow set of categories like infidelity and abuse, that’s a problem.
They did say it would be removed as a reason for “fault-based” divorce, not divorce generally. You won’t be able to say “he’s at fault for not wanting sex” and so get a preferential settlement.
A huge victory for the assexual community.
assexual
That extra S kinda changes things.
One more s would be needed, to be sure
asssexuals are a pain in the ass
I was surprised to see it existed in France. I tried to search for other countries that have that particular kind of law, but only found general areas, not specific countries.
It was a quite debated matter amongside law specialists, if i remember my time learning it. Like there was an obligation of community in the text, translated as an obligation of sexuality in jurisprudence since more than a century, but some recent interpretation of it were far more tolerant. I remember one case where judges ruled that a lesbian woman married to an asexual man for the apparences, and both living their sexual lives separately was still proper marriage because they cared for each other. Still was kind of an exception though, i’m happy to see it change officially at last.
As a French, it’s about time
Honeyyy it’s time for our state mandated sex!
*Pulls out state-mandated condom and state mandated vibrator*
impossible to use lack of sexual relations as an argument in fault-based divorce
Is it an acceptable argument in other kinds of divorce? Ive never had to look into it so I don’t know nearly any of the rules, also not French, but that seems like a pretty good excuse to me?
Yeah I don’t get this part. Preventing marital rape is a good thing.
But then why force people to stay married if they are unhappy with the sexual situation? Seems like this would have the opposite of the desired effect.
In a “fault” divorce, it could allow people to use the obligation of a spouse to perform sexual acts as a way to assign blame in the divorce. Basically allowing one partner to claim harm and therefore pursue financial damages or even leverage in custody disputes because they were owed sex. It trapped people in situations where they were forced to have sex or face potential civil penalties if their partner refused a no-fault divorce.
deleted by creator
I’m unfamiliar with french law. But I doubt you need a reason to divorce. If 2 ppl no longer have sex and they want to divorce over it, they probably can.
This is more probably about “we are divorcing because you refused to fuck me, so now you owe me something”
It’s that the lack of sex can’t be used as a reason for a fault-based divorce. A fault based divorce can have legal consequences for things like alimony and child custody.
People can still separate via a no-fault divorce.
They’re saying it can’t be used as a reason for assigning blame in a divorce. Infidelity is a classic example of when someone can be “at fault” and so assigned blame for the marriage ending.
“No-fault” divorce exists for situations where the relationship is no longer tenable but not because anyone did anything damaging.
You don’t need any argument in no-fault divorce. IMHO that’s how it should work everywhere; it’s not like you need to prove your case in court to get married in the first place.
The other kind of divorce is no-fault divorce. You don’t have to give a reason there, you silly goose!
Speaking as a man, I don’t anyone to fuck me out of obligation, I want to be fucked by a someone who is really into me and wants to fuck me because they are a really into me and are horny as fuck for me :3
what happens if your friends owes you like three fiddy?
I don’t fuck crustaceans from the cretaceous period.
Only rational civil unions should exist and have whatever legal powers the people involved deem necessary so long as they aren’t against public policy
Marriage should not be a recognized institution and should be relegated to the halls of religious extremists
There are less hyperbolic ways to say marriage shouldn’t carry various legal benefits over civil unions just because it’s more or less become a tradition.
This reads like someone showing up for Christmas dinner with the family and tearing down the decorations because they don’t like how commercialized the holiday has become.
It took until 2026 for France to remove the sex requirement of marriage
Don’t pretend it’s some innocent institution
It should be scrapped entirely as a legal mechanism and replaced wherever possible
I didn’t pretend marriage is universally innocent. I said it’s a tradition just like hanging colourful lights on a tree within a home in December, and that it’s just as aggressive to state everyone be rid of their decorations as that the concept of marriage should be abolished.
I didn’t say I thought you were wrong - I said the initial comment read a bit hot off the stove.
It’s not just a tradition it’s a tradition that actively creates and informs legal rules anchored to that tradition
Your analogy between the enduring institution of marriage with Christmas lights is simply false
Your argument seems more against religion (and inferrably monogamy) than it does marriage itself. Especially if “civil union” is your alternative.
I don’t see what the benefit would be to just go through the family law and replace the term “marriage” with “civil union”.
Health Insurance is a big one.
Civil unions can be a mere superficial replacement of the name but it can also be a creative and new way to create legal relationships
Civil unions being basically just marriages is lazy and people should just enter into legal relationships with one another for various reasons (child custody, medical determinations, property distribution etc)
There are tax and government benefit reasons to get married it’s an artificially maintained institution to perpetuate notions of the family and continued existence of a people
It needs to be abolished and society needs to respect different and specific legal arrangements that people make instead
So you want to remove all of the various privileges and duties bundled together as legal marriage, save for the ones that people manually enter into. I think that’s a terrible idea.
People already have freedom to contract. With a competent lawyer you can already co-parent with one adult, give another your medical power of attorney, and specify the disbersment.of property after you pass in a relatively tax-efficient manner. Even if you’re married to someone and want those other adults to all be someone other than your spouse.
If we did what you suggest and remove the underlying default bundle of agreements we call marriage, we would dramatically increase the cost of divorce and the rate of economic spousal abuse. All someone would have to do to get out of a “marriage” absent its original terms would be to burn the copies of their agreement, and even the simplest separations would be subject to adversarial litigation.
I think there’s some wide latitude to modify that default bundle and remove some of its limitations and presumptions. (Especially when it comes to taxation and social welfare, where a UBI + ~40% flat tax is better in nearly every way). But humans do pair-bond, and it seems to make much more sense to argue for the actual changes you want rather than insisting that we wholly disregard the atomic unit of human civilization.
Okay, you right, I wrong, Merry Christmas.
I don’t agree with this at all. If you are a very sexual person and suddenly your partner isn’t thats not your fault and you have a right to be happy with someone else if you so choose
This is what No-fault divorce is for.
I think about it all too often…There are several concepts you may wish to read up on, such as polyamory and divorce.
Except that is exactly what this law states - that you can onesidedly divorce based on a sexless marriage. So now you cant divorce for fault and need your spouses approval
That… is not how any of this works. You can totally divorce even if your spouse refuses. There’s mutual consent, at fault, mutual acceptance of marital breakdown (irreconcilable differences), and definitive severance- i.e, you are no longer living as a couple.
As a side note, it’s fucking hilarious that your worst possible imaginary scenario is what’s been actual reality for most women until extremely recently.
Am I just misunderstanding what your saying, to me the worst case scenario for women would be what the right in American wants, for men to have to give approval for a divorce.
That’s absolutely not what I want, I’m just saying sexalual drive varies greatly and if you are someone who loves sex and suddenly you find yourself in a dead bedroom,. You should have the right to leave the relationship and make yourself happy
I think you are misunderstanding this thread.
The person I’m replying to thinks the law change means you are potentially trapped in a marriage you no longer want and need your spouses ‘approval’ to leave (in the case of a sexually dead marriage) - which isn’t just US right wing fantasy, it’s been a reality for women worldwide and still is in many places.
They are incorrect btw. You have the right to leave a dead bedroom marriage. You have the right to find a more sexually compatible partner. The law changes we’re discussing do not remove any of these from people under french law.
Can you pls not misgender me thank you
Apologies, removed the (men)
I mean I am not from France but as far as I can see there is not an option in this list from that is not a fault and not strictly a way to do a divorce on your own. https://refugies.info/en/procedure/60a7b164331be50014dd88cc
How does this work then can you guide me to information about it?
The only option here would be to not live together which maybe impossible for you financially or could even be boycotted by your partner and it would take a year at least as far as I can see here. So therefore their needs to be a different way you didn’t had on your list or on the refugirs info side that’s an option for a faultless one sided divorce because you are in a sexless marriage
Well i listed a series of literal legal divorce categories in france, just in english names.
the at fault one is the only one affected by this change, and you can still have other reasons why you think the other person tanked the marriage ( a “fault” divorce is basically “I can’t stay married to this person, they broke it” which is why they’re saying "no, you can’t say “refused to give me the sex i want” - It’s a pressure tactic that can get in the bin)
Like all laws you can get dispensations and other proofs - like you said in this economy you might me stuck together but if you have separate personal bills and can prove you’ve been out dating other people, living in a different room and having a separate life it would probably fly. Also again, it’s just the sex that’s no longer a reason, for you to get to the point where you have a dead bed marriage and are unable to talk out a reasonable arrangement or divorce there are going to be a lot of other reasons you can cite for an at fault divorce.
But realistically, most people work it out. An at fault is usually a punishment move. Sometimes the punishment is deserved , sometimes it’s just spite. This law aims to remove sexual coercion.
Ok but where is that other possibility you are talking about? There are like you said and stated 4 different ways:
Both agree and agree on the splitting of possessions
Both agree and disagree on the splitting of possessions
Your spouse commits “serious or renewed violation of the duties and obligations”
And you don’t live together anymore for at least a year and this is not consensually (which it seems you would also have to prove)
Given you live in a dead bedroom relationship (say after you got children or due to medical problems) and you accepted it (which can take years already). From these 4 choices you are basically out of luck and stuck. Either you get a new place (and potentially abandon your children) or you can proof that you life together but in rapture(I think that’s the correct word) but this can very easily be impeded by your spouse and if you are the primary caregiver for your children even hard to proof. I mean you can get your own bank but when your partner just doesn’t give you money you kinda still have to use the shared one or get bills paid by your partner. Do I miss anything here? Because this means instead of however long a divorce will take it will now take at least a year more. Because if I see this correctly with the acceptance period and cout time this will already take upwards of 4 years or 5% of your life were your needs will not be satisfied(or even attempted to be satisfied).
I don’t know about France but most civilized countries I know about have laws against rape in marriage, without looking it up I guess France have too. Martial obligations should encompass normal relationship things like caring for each other, being consensual and having sex. Saying key points for a median relationship like sex are not part of your obligation in a marriage feels absurd to me. Feeling coerced to have sex to not fault the marriage for me feels again completely illogical even as an argument. At this point your marriage is broken because at least one partner is very unhappy with it. This will just prolong the time you are stuck in a broken marriage and therefor maximize unhappiness. Having a dead bedroom marriage can even lead to you being unfaithful, faulting your marriage. Sex is the strongest urge in humans after all. This all just seems like a lot of Christian morals and not much of useful laws.
Btw if sex is not a martial obligation why is faithfulness again? Does sex now matter for marriage or does it not?
For me this feels just like populism. instead of useful and meaningful changes to an obviously broken law a bandaid is used that just makes the law more broken. It is based on “things have occured” without any data to back it up just on a “feels like it level”. Why, instead, scrap option 3 and 4 and just replace it with a “doesn’t work for me anymore” option? Why is there still a judgement based system and not a relationship quality based system in place? Because this is just veiled populism, sexism and religious moral.
Nothing I love more than seeing gross takes on the Internet from my home state.
What’s gross? Dead bedrooms are a thing and become a thing sometimes even in healthy relationships. If you are a sexual person and suddenly your partner is not. It’s unfair and selfish to make the other partner stay committed. I’m not advocating for affairs but I do believe people have a right to be happy and being stuck in a marriage without sex seems like it would be miserable
This isn’t saying you can’t get a divorce. It’s saying a woman cannot be legally obligated to fuck her husband.
Then that woman is going to be single. I know truth hurts, but it’s reality
Oh no. Some sexist guy in the American Midwest won’t date the nebulous concept of a woman with bodily autonomy! What ever will the women do???
You stay lonely sweetheart. Happily married 23 years now and I tagged you as forever alone
“happily”
I’m sure she’s happy and not stuck. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Is adultery illegal in France? Is it still cause for a fault-based divorce? While I very much agree with the change they are making, I think refusal to have sex should rule out adultery as a cause for fault based divorce. Just seems wrong to say you can’t have sex with anyone other thatn this one person who won’t have sex with you, so you are at fault if you have sex… horrible wording, but I think y’all get what I am saying.
What if one partner wants a divorce because the other partner was having sex with other people due to there being no sex within the marriage?
I can see not being able to divorce someone (at fault or whatever it’s called) just because they don’t want to have sex, but would they then be able to divorce you (at fault) if you seek it elsewhere and are open about it?
Just curious as it would be an interesting situation.
didn’t even know it was a law in france
duty ≠ obligation
To need it explained and clarified into body of law is scary.
Obligatory literally is in the definition of duty…
I have the duty of cast my vote in any election, not an obligation.
A simple example.
Yes it is. Just like if you have jury duty.
In my country, jury duty can be refused and is deemed as a role, not an obligation. It is an honor, as it is very rare to have such added role in court; takes very complex and often serious crimes. People called for it often accept but I have heard of situations where people object from personal or moral values.
And, again, in my country, voting is not an obligation, nor legal, nor moral. It is a right and the duty to vote is considered a matter of respect towards the right that was acquired through a revolution and the individual right to be part of the political destiny of the nation, no matter how small.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs, here, but I don’t care.
A duty arises from a personal sense of necessity to do something. Call moral obligation if it is easier for you. Being moral relative… Obligation is determined, enforced and enforceable by law.
So much duty, smells like shit.
Are you thinking of the word “right”? Because duty do equal obligation, explicitly.
What exactly do you think the meaningful difference is between duty and obligation?
If the law says that teachers have a obligation to report the injuries of chicken to the nurse, and that hall monitors have a duty to report the injuries of chicken to the nurse, I would expect both to be dismissable and potentially subject to a litigious parent.
I’m so confused. Why should teachers report injuries of chickens to a nurse?
There isnot point to marriage at this point lol
…what do you think the point of marriage is (or was)?
You know you can have sex with someone without being married. The two concepts aren’t actually requisite of each other.
Did not think id come across someone bemoaning the illegality of marital rape today. You either do not understand what you are talking about or you are a genuinely horrible person.
My parents are still married and they haven’t had sex in like a decade.
I know because when I was a kid, I sleeped in their room often, never seen it happen
Not even during the day?
deleted by creator
Fault based divorce is already a stupid concept (under the law).
Someone MAY be at fault, but you should never need to provide a reason beyond “I don’t want to anymore” to commence divorce proceedings.
Marriage is just legal protections for the partners in the event of a separation (i.e. rights to split assets and whatnot).
But it’s still entirely voluntary.
Well, in nice countries anyway.
