Frenchman sued by wife for not having sex
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
That is very weird. Everyone knows you should only be able to sue third-parties if your spouse stops having sex with you. In U.S. law, it's called "alienation of affection".
In Australia sex is something you negotate on a continuing basis. Reproduction on the other hand aparently is something for the partnership (there was a debate a while ago to ban vecetomies and other sterilisation unless you had consent from your partner as well as yourself)
Vlech. Fail. She has hands, ffs.
What else is marriage about? Seems fair to me. She went into it with certain expectations that were not met.
Not if he had a medical condition. I can't imagine being physically unable and being sued for it. That's harsh
Viagra.
That's WAY fucked up. Nobody should get to decide that someone else must have children. If any boyfriend of mine tried to make decisions about my body like that, I'd kill him.
So what constitutes not enough sex? And what else can we sue for? Failure to provide children? Not bringing home enough money? Failure to do the laundry for 3 years?
This is just fucked up and I cannot believe they allowed it to stand. If it's a big deal get a divorce, she had the choice, it's her own fault. Frivalous lawsuits make the world go around huh?
I guess this opens up the door for guys to sue on the same basis though. Can't see the words "suck it bitch or I'll sue" going down too well. Figuratively speaking. :shrug:
This is just fucked up and I cannot believe they allowed it to stand. If it's a big deal get a divorce, she had the choice, it's her own fault. Frivalous lawsuits make the world go around huh?
I guess this opens up the door for guys to sue on the same basis though. Can't see the words "suck it bitch or I'll sue" going down too well. Figuratively speaking. :shrug:
I knew a guy at work, had a wife and kid, the wife also worked there and was very good looking. She advanced faster than he did, but worked longer hours also. He was bitching about not getting enough, so I said, well when both parties are working getting together for sex might not be as frequent as otherwise. His reply to that was he needed sex every day and if she wasn't going to take care of business he was going to find someone that would. That was an attitude that I knew was the start of ending a relationship. They got divorced about 6 months later.
Just....don't get married. Don't put your life in the law's hands.
In most states living together for 6 months is the same as being legally married. So maybe just avoiding live in sex is safer. Besides live in sex is never as good as visiting sex IMO.
No matter where you are or what you've heard "common law" is still a lot different than a full marriage.
SlidesandScaffolds
Registered Member
Besides live in sex is never as good as visiting sex IMO.
My husband and I would disagree with you sir. When you're with someone, highly active in the bedroom, the body becomes a territory for which the time of marriage can be a time of map making. The delicious valleys, hills, depths, roads taken and not taken (or maybe to be taken later), among other things need time to be properly enjoyed.
Riding through a national park with only 2 seconds per acre doesn't seem nearly as satisfying as setting up camp and romping in the woods
In what way? In no fault states the assets accumulated from the time when common law went into effect are still divided 50-50, and if kids are involved they are still made the most important consideration just like in your so called full marriage.
My husband and I would disagree with you sir. When you're with someone, highly active in the bedroom, the body becomes a territory for which the time of marriage can be a time of map making. The delicious valleys, hills, depths, roads taken and not taken (or maybe to be taken later), among other things need time to be properly enjoyed.
Riding through a national park with only 2 seconds per acre doesn't seem nearly as satisfying as setting up camp and romping in the woods
I can only go by my own experience and what others have told me. I've been married twice and had a ten year non live in relationship. The non live in relationship was the best sex I've ever had (yes it was still a monogamous relationship).
I'm not going to get into an argument over every single jurisdiction.
Generally speaking:
The Common law relationship must be proven (can be difficult sometimes). Sometimes proof of sex required...imagine that lol.
The couple usually must declare it (usually to an accountant for tax purposes - that's just fucked to me).
You are correct, if there is a child involved, proof is in the pudding so to speak lol and the only difference is that you didn't spend 40000 dollhairs for a piece of paper.
Asset division at the dissolution is different. It just is because of the estimation of when the union came into effect, the usual lack of a matrimonial home and quite frankly people who are common law rarely fight over every little thing like full on married people do.
Generally speaking:
The Common law relationship must be proven (can be difficult sometimes). Sometimes proof of sex required...imagine that lol.
The couple usually must declare it (usually to an accountant for tax purposes - that's just fucked to me).
You are correct, if there is a child involved, proof is in the pudding so to speak lol and the only difference is that you didn't spend 40000 dollhairs for a piece of paper.
Asset division at the dissolution is different. It just is because of the estimation of when the union came into effect, the usual lack of a matrimonial home and quite frankly people who are common law rarely fight over every little thing like full on married people do.