FRANCE: Husband's lack of libido leads to monetary damages for ex wife

I was just reading Marie Claire magazine and it seems I missed a story back in September coming out of Nice, France, about a woman who sued her ex husband for monetary damages for failing to, how shall I say?…for failing to provide her with consortium, aka, lots and lots and lots of whoopie during the tenure of their marriage. I am very serious. Her name is Monique and his name is Jean-Louis and she sued him for something like 10,000 euros because at some point during their 21 year marriage, he just basically stopped “performing in the boudoir.” And it doesn’t seem like he had diabetic impotence or anything like that, you know a medical condition or anything. He was just “too tired.” According to the Marie Claire Bulletin, the French courts sided with the wife  in this matter. The country’s civil code apparently “duty-bounds” spouses to “bonk.” And regularly. I think the exact quote is “married couples are duty-bound to share a communal life and that means that  sexual relations must form a part of a marriage.”
Wow, I say. That’s crazy. The judge basically has monetized marital sex as if it’s a commodity or something. Think about it, you get paid because your spouse was too tired to “service” you? Are you serious??? So in the alternative, does this mean that a person who willingly provides this “service” in a marriage is entitled to have the value of it “equitably distributed” during a divorce? In other words, do you get more financial reward at the end of a marriage if indeed you provided this service per the French Civil Code??? I mean, this ruling opens the door for a lot of weird interpretations. The minute you start to monetize the value of marital sex, you enter a slippery slope, I think, were you basically tell people that sex has a monetary value. Isn’t that void for public policy the world over? This idea  of sex having a monetary value? Why should that be any different just because people were married?
And it’s not only the French. Even in New York, you can get a divorce on the basis of constructive abandonment. And that means that your spouse refuses to have sex with you. Plus, I’ve seen cases where they have factored that into the equitable distribution discussion. They effectively monetize marital sex….Peculiar…. Why is sex so important, I’ve often wondered? Where now its to the point that folks are getting paid because they weren’t getting enough of it in a marriage?….I wonder if they were Catholic? Because technically they shouldn’t even be doing this unless they are trying to procreate! No, I’m very serious.  And the wife in this case, Monique, was in her late forties. So you know she wasn’t even trying to procreate. So technically, this whole thing is very…lascivious and wrong! I’m sorry if that sounds puritanical. Because on the one hand I think that people should have as much of it as they want; but on the other hand, sometimes I think it should be banned and then on the third hand, they shouldn’t have even been having sex in the first place if they are Catholic and the husband was perfectly within his right to refuse to do it. If they were Catholic. And even if they were not, I still think there is something wrong with this ruling. I think its sends a bizarre message about sex and marital sex in particular. Don’t you concur?
Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/franck-chilli/6175516999/sizes/m/in/photostream/