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.

  • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 hours ago

    No, no, there’s a big change here.

    Yes, divorces still go through as before, that doesn’t change. What does change is the context of fault in the divorce.

    If sex is a marital obligation, the party refusing it can be considered at fault for the marriage failing. This usually carries consequences when it comes to splitting the assets, with the judges usually penalising the party “at fault”.

    This makes it so that refusing to have sex cannot be grounds for being found at fault, and makes things more balanced.

    • wpb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yes this is correct, we’re in complete agreement there. The comment I was responding to worded it vaguely though, which made it sound like you cannot get a divorce because you have a sexless marriage. It made it sound like people were being forcibly kept married, which is false. You can get divorced because it’s Tuesday, or because the moon is in retroflux. Holding your spouse responsible for those things is a different story, however.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I admit I worded my comment vaguely because I was rather tired and wasn’t sure how I should express the nuance I feel around that. But to fix that:

        In my experience, going from a reasonable, mutually healthy level of intimacy to one party just completely lacking interest is essentially never the core issue in play, but it is an exacerbating issue. For instance, with my ex, who I was with for five years: for the first couple years, things were pretty great. Then she ended up slipping into perhaps the worst long-term episode of severe depression and video game addiction I have ever seen in my life. I’m talking 12-14h at least a day in a KRPG, completely withdrawing from IRL social interaction (including with me, for the most part) and supplanting it with constantly being on voice chat with the various clans she was a part of over time in the game. Mind you, I enjoy gaming myself, and have struggled with overdoing in the past as well, but never to this extent in terms of length and severity. And despite trying to find numerous ways to help/support her, encouraging her to find different and better therapists and psychiatrists, and figuring out how to rebalance her meds - including offering to just be on the phone with me for 30 seconds at the beginning of the call and just saying “I give permission for my partner to discuss this stuff with you and try to find a better solution because my mental state prohibits me from doing that right now”, being effectively unable to make any motion in a positive mental health direction. To the point that it got so bad that I became severely depressed and began aggressively self medicating, eventually to the point that I realized staying in the dynamic would probably kill me, in a very literal sense. She would barely come out of her room for dinner towards the end, and I was absolutely not about to get her to just let me “use” her for intimate gratification when the chemistry was completely gone and she was gonna just lie there like a fish - I’d have felt like I was assaulting her, and I refuse to do that.

        So: no, it shouldn’t be the grounds for a divorce (or partner separation, I happen to not give a shit about marriage outside of the context of tax benefits, but I take a committed partnership very seriously), but it can and should be considered an exacerbating circumstance in a relationship that has extremely serious, long-lasting problems that essentially put everything into a death spiral.

        Also: I’m sharing this for context and nuance as an explanation of my opinion. I’m not asking for or desiring feedback or constructive (or otherwise) criticism or judgement. Me explaining this is an infinitesimal fraction of the lived experience of it, like you saying your partner is “pretty cool”, when there are myriad shades of nuance to a partnership. It is a closed chapter of my life, and I am better for it.

    • Prime@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Uh… Does this imply that in a sexless marriage one is allowed to have sex with a third party without incurring fault?

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        NO. It is, quite literally, the opposite. How do you misinterpreted it that badly?

        A marriage is a legal contract, and it binds the parties to mutual support, fidelity, respect, and cohabitation.

        This serves to clarify that sex is NOT included in that list of obligations, but do note that fidelity IS. You don’t get to get to justify cheating with “I wasn’t getting any…”.

        That said, the parties are obviously free to come to an agreement on what works best for them - and if that includes extramarital sex, then that’s fine as long as both agree.