58
A huge victory for the assexual community.
assexual
That extra S kinda changes things.
Overall, I think this is a good idea.
My thoughts on the part about removing refusal of intimacy as justification of divorce are more nuanced, however - and partially informed from anecdotal experience.
Fault divorce makes you prove that harm is being done thus a divorce is needed. This is removing no sex as a fault. I think there are usually financial ramifications from being the at fault spouse. Thus there would be financial repercussions for refusing to have sex with someone. Obviously a bad thing.
There is a thing called no-fault divorce that requires no proof of harm. I don't know if France has this, but it is how you get around needing any reason besides that one spouse wants to.
Yeah it's a whole different argument.
Being married does not entitle you to sex - great.
Wanting to divorce because not enough sex - fine.
It's not so much that you felt the other person was obligated to provide the sex (though probably this is th real arhument) but more that it just turned out you are not that compatible or you just grew apart. Should a person not be allowed to divorce if they fell out of love with their partner, ergo they turned out to have less or no more sex?
Should a person not be allowed to divorce if they fell out of love with their partner, ergo they turned out to have less or no more sex?
They absolutely should, and they will still be able to, nothing's changed there.
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.
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.
For reference here's the part of the comment I replied to:
Should a person not be allowed to divorce if they fell out of love with their partner, ergo they turned out to have less or no more sex?
Emphasis mine.
Uh... Does this imply that in a sexless marriage one is allowed to have sex with a third party without incurring fault?
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.
I think of it like housework. No one should be compelled by the law to do housework. But if one person in the house is doing no housework, the others have a real and justified complaint. It’s not legal grounds for eviction, but it should be a material point against them in any dispute mediation that takes place.
To translate that: if one party in a marriage is withholding sex, they don’t get to claim a full 50% right to all the assets in the marriage. I’m not saying zero, but…
Exactly why this law needs made clear:
No one is entitled to sex
'Withholding sex' isn't a mark against someone in a divorce and in no way should it be a factor in whether someone is entitled to their fair share of the fruits of a shared life should it come to an end.
If sex is housework, sleeping with that person is a chore, and god if that's not the world we live in anymore.
Don’t take an analogy literally. That’s bad faith.
And if you don’t think marriage is a stated intention to have a sexual relationship, then we simply disagree. But your opinion, much as I honor it, is your own innovation.
impossible to use lack of sexual relations as an argument in fault-based divorce
Is it an acceptable argument in other kinds of divorce? Ive never had to look into it so I don't know nearly any of the rules, also not French, but that seems like a pretty good excuse to me?
Yeah I don’t get this part. Preventing marital rape is a good thing.
But then why force people to stay married if they are unhappy with the sexual situation? Seems like this would have the opposite of the desired effect.
In a "fault" divorce, it could allow people to use the obligation of a spouse to perform sexual acts as a way to assign blame in the divorce. Basically allowing one partner to claim harm and therefore pursue financial damages or even leverage in custody disputes because they were owed sex. It trapped people in situations where they were forced to have sex or face potential civil penalties if their partner refused a no-fault divorce.
I'm unfamiliar with french law. But I doubt you need a reason to divorce. If 2 ppl no longer have sex and they want to divorce over it, they probably can.
This is more probably about "we are divorcing because you refused to fuck me, so now you owe me something"
You don't need any argument in no-fault divorce. IMHO that's how it should work everywhere; it's not like you need to prove your case in court to get married in the first place.
The other kind of divorce is no-fault divorce. You don't have to give a reason there, you silly goose!
Only rational civil unions should exist and have whatever legal powers the people involved deem necessary so long as they aren’t against public policy
Marriage should not be a recognized institution and should be relegated to the halls of religious extremists
There are less hyperbolic ways to say marriage shouldn't carry various legal benefits over civil unions just because it's more or less become a tradition.
This reads like someone showing up for Christmas dinner with the family and tearing down the decorations because they don't like how commercialized the holiday has become.
It took until 2026 for France to remove the sex requirement of marriage
Don’t pretend it’s some innocent institution
It should be scrapped entirely as a legal mechanism and replaced wherever possible
I didn't pretend marriage is universally innocent. I said it's a tradition just like hanging colourful lights on a tree within a home in December, and that it's just as aggressive to state everyone be rid of their decorations as that the concept of marriage should be abolished.
I didn't say I thought you were wrong - I said the initial comment read a bit hot off the stove.
It’s not just a tradition it’s a tradition that actively creates and informs legal rules anchored to that tradition
Your analogy between the enduring institution of marriage with Christmas lights is simply false
I was surprised to see it existed in France. I tried to search for other countries that have that particular kind of law, but only found general areas, not specific countries.
It was a quite debated matter amongside law specialists, if i remember my time learning it. Like there was an obligation of community in the text, translated as an obligation of sexuality in jurisprudence since more than a century, but some recent interpretation of it were far more tolerant. I remember one case where judges ruled that a lesbian woman married to an asexual man for the apparences, and both living their sexual lives separately was still proper marriage because they cared for each other. Still was kind of an exception though, i'm happy to see it change officially at last.
As a French, it's about time
I don't agree with this at all. If you are a very sexual person and suddenly your partner isn't thats not your fault and you have a right to be happy with someone else if you so choose
There are several concepts you may wish to read up on, such as polyamory and divorce.
Except that is exactly what this law states - that you can onesidedly divorce based on a sexless marriage. So now you cant divorce for fault and need your spouses approval
That.. is not how any of this works. You can totally divorce even if your spouse refuses. There's mutual consent, at fault, mutual acceptance of marital breakdown (irreconcilable differences), and definitive severance- i.e, you are no longer living as a couple.
As a side note, it's fucking hilarious that your worst possible imaginary scenario is what's been actual reality for most women until extremely recently.
I mean I am not from France but as far as I can see there is not an option in this list from that is not a fault and not strictly a way to do a divorce on your own. https://refugies.info/en/procedure/60a7b164331be50014dd88cc
How does this work then can you guide me to information about it?
The only option here would be to not live together which maybe impossible for you financially or could even be boycotted by your partner and it would take a year at least as far as I can see here. So therefore their needs to be a different way you didn't had on your list or on the refugirs info side that's an option for a faultless one sided divorce because you are in a sexless marriage
Well i listed a series of literal legal divorce categories in france, just in english names.
the at fault one is the only one affected by this change, and you can still have other reasons why you think the other person tanked the marriage ( a "fault" divorce is basically "I can't stay married to this person, they broke it" which is why they're saying "no, you can't say "refused to give me the sex i want" - It's a pressure tactic that can get in the bin)
Like all laws you can get dispensations and other proofs - like you said in this economy you might me stuck together but if you have separate personal bills and can prove you've been out dating other people, living in a different room and having a separate life it would probably fly. Also again, it's just the sex that's no longer a reason, for you to get to the point where you have a dead bed marriage and are unable to talk out a reasonable arrangement or divorce there are going to be a lot of other reasons you can cite for an at fault divorce.
But realistically, most people work it out. An at fault is usually a punishment move. Sometimes the punishment is deserved , sometimes it's just spite. This law aims to remove sexual coercion.
Ok but where is that other possibility you are talking about? There are like you said and stated 4 different ways:
Both agree and agree on the splitting of possessions
Both agree and disagree on the splitting of possessions
Your spouse commits "serious or renewed violation of the duties and obligations"
And you don't live together anymore for at least a year and this is not consensually (which it seems you would also have to prove)
Given you live in a dead bedroom relationship (say after you got children or due to medical problems) and you accepted it (which can take years already). From these 4 choices you are basically out of luck and stuck. Either you get a new place (and potentially abandon your children) or you can proof that you life together but in rapture(I think that's the correct word) but this can very easily be impeded by your spouse and if you are the primary caregiver for your children even hard to proof. I mean you can get your own bank but when your partner just doesn't give you money you kinda still have to use the shared one or get bills paid by your partner. Do I miss anything here? Because this means instead of however long a divorce will take it will now take at least a year more. Because if I see this correctly with the acceptance period and cout time this will already take upwards of 4 years or 5% of your life were your needs will not be satisfied(or even attempted to be satisfied).
I don't know about France but most civilized countries I know about have laws against rape in marriage, without looking it up I guess France have too. Martial obligations should encompass normal relationship things like caring for each other, being consensual and having sex. Saying key points for a median relationship like sex are not part of your obligation in a marriage feels absurd to me. Feeling coerced to have sex to not fault the marriage for me feels again completely illogical even as an argument. At this point your marriage is broken because at least one partner is very unhappy with it. This will just prolong the time you are stuck in a broken marriage and therefor maximize unhappiness. Having a dead bedroom marriage can even lead to you being unfaithful, faulting your marriage. Sex is the strongest urge in humans after all. This all just seems like a lot of Christian morals and not much of useful laws.
Btw if sex is not a martial obligation why is faithfulness again? Does sex now matter for marriage or does it not?
For me this feels just like populism. instead of useful and meaningful changes to an obviously broken law a bandaid is used that just makes the law more broken. It is based on "things have occured" without any data to back it up just on a "feels like it level". Why, instead, scrap option 3 and 4 and just replace it with a "doesn't work for me anymore" option? Why is there still a judgement based system and not a relationship quality based system in place? Because this is just veiled populism, sexism and religious moral.
duty ≠ obligation
To need it explained and clarified into body of law is scary.
Obligatory literally is in the definition of duty…
I have the duty of cast my vote in any election, not an obligation.
A simple example.
Yes it is. Just like if you have jury duty.
Are you thinking of the word “right”? Because duty do equal obligation, explicitly.
What exactly do you think the meaningful difference is between duty and obligation?
If the law says that teachers have a obligation to report the injuries of chicken to the nurse, and that hall monitors have a duty to report the injuries of chicken to the nurse, I would expect both to be dismissable and potentially subject to a litigious parent.
I'm so confused. Why should teachers report injuries of chickens to a nurse?
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
58 points (96.8% liked)
World News
53759 readers
488 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS