reuters.com
www.reuters.com

A woman, who was blamed by French courts for her divorce because she no longer had sex with her husband, has won an appeal in Europe’s top human rights court, the court said on Thursday, reigniting a debate in France over women’s rights.
…
[Lawyer, Lilia Mhissen] “This decision marks the abolition of the marital duty and the archaic, canonical vision of the family,” she said in a statement. “Courts will finally stop interpreting French law through the lens of canon law and imposing on women the obligation to have sexual relations within marriage.”

  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
    1416·
    18 hours ago

    This article is skipping the whole other side of what’s being ruled on. What are the consequences of trying to get divorced while being ruled at-fault for it? They refer to it as ‘rape culture’, but that seems like extremely inflammatory language without knowing ‘why’. Like, is it a threat of being kicked out of the house destitute as the person at fault gets nothing? I agree that would be coercive. I just want the consequences explained so we know why it is rape culture as I don’t live in France.

    Edit: to everyone tripping over themselves to white-knight against rape justifications this is closer to why I asked / the legal particulars

    • acargitz@lemmy.caEnglish
      181·
      21 hours ago

      If someone is facing financial repercussions for not wanting to have sex with someone else, that’s rape culture kind of by definition.

      Also, the article is not skipping on other aspects. The husband apparently threatened violence as well. It’s right there in the article:

      The woman, who married her husband in 1984 and had four children with him, wanted the divorce, but contested being blamed for the breakdown, arguing it was an unjust intrusion into her private life and a violation of her physical integrity. She cited health problems and threats of violence from her husband as reasons for why she had not had intimate relations from 2004 onwards.

      Basically she’s saying to the court “it’s none of your business why I don’t want to have sex with him any more”, and …she’s right.

    • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      213·
      21 hours ago

      Idk man, legally blaming a woman for a divorce because she no longer wants to have sex feels pretty rape culture-y to me, regardless of any additional information or context. If it’s one party’s fault, then one party did something wrong. Do you think it’s wrong for someone to have the right to refuse sex? In other words, should women have the right to say no?

      • rollerbang@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        21 hours ago

        I definitely agree that either person in the marriage has the right to say no. But I also think that this would be a good enough reason for the other person to want a divorce.

        Now if the other person wants to divorce after one rejection, that’s clearly a lack of foundation, imho. But sustained rejection sure.

        Now one would wonder why would a person be rejecting for this long. Medical issues are not the same as some other reasons.

        • earphone843English
          71·
          18 hours ago

          There’s a difference between wanting a divorce, and the woman being legally at fault for not wanting to have sex.

          I agree, lack of physical intimacy can be a legitimate deal breaker for a relationship, but the divorce should be no-fault.

        • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          16 hours ago

          A marriage is supposed to be a partnership, a joined life. Failing to support your partner is an issue.

          But then we get squeamish about this specific example, but that’s where the logic should lead to no-fault divorce.

          It’s not our business to say she must have sex with her husband nor to know why, but at the same time she’s not supporting their shared life. The easy, ethical way out of this is to agree with both sides: your sex life is no one else’s business and it looks like your marriage is not working

          So is “no fault” a thing in France? Shouldn’t it be?

        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
          36·
          20 hours ago

          But I also think that this would be a good enough reason for the other person to want a divorce.

          How dare you support rape like this!

          /s

      • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
        46·
        21 hours ago

        it’s wrong for someone to have the right to refuse sex?

        In the context of swearing an oath that you would have sex, yes it would be your fault for breaking the oath. Inferring a duty to be raped is taking this to ridiculous levels. If someone doesn’t want to they ofc shouldn’t have to, but, that is why I am asking about the legal consequences of being at-fault.

        Saying, ‘you broke your oath’ is one thing. Forcing someone to fulfill their oath under threats of violence, or destitution are another. I wish people on here had a better grasp of nuance.

    • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
      81·
      20 hours ago

      Fuck “extremely inflammatory”. We shouldn’t tip-toe around calling out sexual violence. Does the woman want to have sex? No. Is it demanded/coerced of her anyway? Yes. That’s rape, bro.

    • guy@piefed.socialEnglish
      44·
      15 hours ago

      Don’t trust me, but I think France is one of the countries that still don’t view rape of your spouse as rape

      Edit: this is not true anymore

      • Uruanna@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        21 hours ago

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country

        France Explicitly criminalised The law criminalises rape, including spousal rape, and domestic violence, and the government generally enforced the law effectively. The Court of Cassation authorized prosecution of spouses for rape or sexual assault in 1990. In 1994, Law 94-89 criminalised marital rape; a second law, passed 4 April 2006, makes rape by a partner an aggravating circumstance in prosecuting rape. (Article 222-24(11) of the Criminal Code)

        I figure the crux of an argument would more likely rest on defining consent, which is where there’s always progress to be made.

        Also there was a massive trial that ended just recently about the mass rapes of a wife who was drugged to sleep by her husband and offered to people for years without her knowledge. Of the 50 guys including the husband, most of them got prison I think.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapes_of_Gisèle_Pelicot

        All over the news for months here and it made some degree of International noise, at least in Europe. Dunno about the US.

      • heavydustEnglish
        11·
        18 hours ago

        Yeah, you should not be trusted at all for this. It’s ridiculous.