PDA

View Full Version : Man ordered to pay wife for lack of sex



Glass
30th November 2011, 12:55 AM
A court in France has ordered a man to pay 10,000 euros ($A13,500) in damages to his long-frustrated ex-wife after he failed in his marriage "duties" by withholding sex from her for years.

In the May ruling, published on Tuesday in the Gazette du Palais judicial review, an appeals court in the southern city of Aix-en-Provence upheld an earlier decision to award the damages for "absence of sexual relations".

The couple, who are both 51, married in 1986 and have two children. They divorced in January 2009 in Nice.

In its ruling, the court said the man's wife deserved the damages due to the suffering she endured because of her sexless marriage.

"The wife's expectations were legitimate in the sense that sexual relations between married people are an expression of their mutual affection and part of the duties that proceed from marriage," the court said.

It dismissed the husband's argument that health problems and long working hours had simply reduced the opportunities for the couple to have sex.

The court ruled that he had not proved "any health problems that would make him completely incapable of having intimate relations with his wife".Article @ the Age (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/12181010/man-ordered-to-pay-wife-for-lack-of-sex/)

I wouldn't have gone for health problems myself. I would have gone the dingo defence. But that's just me.

I notice the judge disregards the workload and tiredness from such as an excuse.

PatColo
30th November 2011, 01:54 AM
Is there any documented case in the West in the past, say 3 decades, when a family/divorce court awarded a man damages coz the wife embargoed the booty? Or is this just the latest push in the satanists' "feminism" agenda of women getting carte blanche in zio/masonic divorce court?

meanwhile in Africa,

Zimbabwe women accused of raping men 'for rituals' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15876968)

By Steve Vickers BBC News, Harare

Glass
30th November 2011, 02:13 AM
I think you will find there have been a few attempts but no luck. As for France I'm sure they have done this before over there. I don't think the guy argued properly. It could have been looks, technique, hygene, noise, smell..... so many things. Then how could the judge judge? They would have to determine those "facts" for themselves.

Weird that women had to kidnap and steal semen using drugs. They should move to a western country. The men their buy their own drugs.

PatColo
30th November 2011, 02:18 AM
But, but, Judge!! (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/malodorous-perp-gets-90-days-jail) :o

Glass
30th November 2011, 02:24 AM
But, but, Judge!! (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/malodorous-perp-gets-90-days-jail) :o

oh Dear. :eek:

hoarder
30th November 2011, 05:41 AM
That seems like a double edged sword.

gunDriller
30th November 2011, 06:21 AM
AA batteries are expensive.

perhaps he could have gotten re-chargeables AND a battery charger for his wife ? the least he could do if he's withholding his charms. much cheaper than court settlements.

Dogman
30th November 2011, 06:25 AM
Hell, it is usually the other way around. Husband wants, wife has headache.

po boy
30th November 2011, 06:54 AM
State sponsored marriage don't you just love it.

General of Darkness
30th November 2011, 06:57 AM
But, but, Judge!! (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/malodorous-perp-gets-90-days-jail) :o


WHY DID I CLICK ON THAT? Damn you PatColo, I'm going to have nightmares now.

mamboni
30th November 2011, 06:58 AM
When the hell did the state acquire jurisdiction over [private] bedroom activities between married folk? This is worse that ridiculous; it's proof that the state is out of control drunk with power and has declared war on traditional marriage. This case is a warning to all men: if you get married you can and will be crucified for your conduct public and private at the behest of your wife and the whim of the state. To marry today is to enter into virtual indentured slavery to the state with wife as proxy. I'm sad to say it but anyone man who marries today is gullible and ignorant and deserving of his fate. The West is truly in a cultural and legal death spiral.

po boy
30th November 2011, 07:00 AM
When the hell did the state acquire jurisdiction over [private] bedroom activities between married folk? This is worse that ridiculous; it's proof that the state is out of control drunk with power and has declared war on traditional marriage. This case is a warning to all men: if you get married you can and will be crucified for your conduct public and private at the behest of your wife and the whim of the state. To marry today is to enter into virtual indentured slavery to the state with wife as proxy. I'm sad to say it but anyone man who marries today is gullible and ignorant and deserving of his fate. The West is truly in a cultural and legal death spiral.

When they obtained a marriage LICENSE, I guess no one told them they could write their own contract.

Dogman
30th November 2011, 07:00 AM
WHY DID I CLICK ON THAT? Damn you PatColo, I'm going to have nightmares now. Call it an "Easter egg" from hell!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_%28media%29

1702

Neuro
30th November 2011, 07:06 AM
Call it an "Easter egg" from hell!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_%28media%29

1702
Hmmm, Pesach or Passover Egg! ;D

Dogman
30th November 2011, 07:08 AM
Hmmm, Pesach or Passover Egg! ;D Take your choice, that was one ugly woman!

SWRichmond
30th November 2011, 07:20 AM
Lex Malla, Lex Nulla. I'm just, you know, OVER IT. Try to collect this "fine", please.

Spectrism
30th November 2011, 09:48 AM
If a judge ever pulled that kind of crap on me, I would cut his little weenie off and shouve it down his throat.

TheNocturnalEgyptian
30th November 2011, 01:01 PM
Why is only one part of the marriage the injured party? Aren't both sides equally injured in that they are not receiving sex? Makes no sense.

Joe King
30th November 2011, 01:05 PM
Why is only one part of the marriage the injured party? Aren't both sides equally injured in that they are not receiving sex? Makes no sense.Because only one part of the marriage was claiming injury.
ie he was ok with the situation.

Old Herb Lady
30th November 2011, 01:13 PM
Um , how could it be a sexless marriage if they had 2 kids together ?
Did she have to get him drunk those 2 times ? Maybe she turned into a lunatic after bearing children. (very common)
There's way too much more to the story than in that article. I don't care how tired he was for 23 years, Mr. Pantsmonster was being shined elsewhere.

Neuro
30th November 2011, 02:13 PM
I don't care how tired he was for 23 years, Mr. Pantsmonster was being shined elsewhere.Hahaha! ;D