Voulez vous coucher avec moi ce soir? You’d think that when women ask that question of men in France, they’d be receptive. In fact, in my experience, French men are overly amorous. When I was a French exchange student at the ripe old age of 15, an older guy approached me at a club and tried to woo me with this line: “Did you know zat Frenche men make ze best loveurs?” I didn’t care to find out.
Well, times have changed, because apparently the French aren’t such great lovers anymore. A 2010 poll taken by the French Institute of Public Opinion found that 76% of people surveyed were having relationship problems due to a poor sex life. And it seems that a poor sex life was what brought about a divorce between Jean-Louis B. and Monique, a middle-aged couple in the birthplace of the language of love.
But after enduring 21 years of a near sexless marriage, a divorce was simply not enough for Monique. Mrs. B. wanted to be compensated for the lack of sexual rendezvous with her ex-husband, so she sued him for it….
File this one under
sex sexless scandals. Monique sued the 51-year-old Frenchman under article 215 of the French civil code, which states that married couples must agree to lead a “shared communal life.” Monique requested 10,000 euros in damages (or about $14,000) from Jean-Louis B. for the lack of action going on in her boudoir.
And thanks to an especially passionate French judge, we now know that sex — and lots of it — is part of a “shared communal life,” no matter how tired you claim to be, or how many headaches you claim to have. With the assistance of Google Translate, touched up by a Paris-based expat reader of Above the Law, we have reprinted the decision at the end of this post.
The Telegraph has more information on the case:
The ex-husband claimed “tiredness and health problems” had prevented him from being more attentive between the sheets.
But a judge in the south of France’s highest court in Aix-en-Provence ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent.
“By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”
While I’m glad that Monique won her case, girl totally should’ve put a higher value on her vag. Let’s break this down, shall we?
According to Monique, 21 years of a marriage lacking in sexy time is worth 10,000 euros. That’s about 476 euros (~ $670) a year, and about 39 euros a month (~ $54). Honey, you may be 47 years old, but the average hooker charges more per session than you do per month.
Like a mind, sex is a terrible thing to waste. But sex that’s worth less than $2 a day isn’t a waste of all that much. No wonder Jean-Louis B. pulled the tired card so much — sex with Monique sounds like it was a snooze.
Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex [Telegraph]
Not tonight, Monique! Frenchman ordered to pay ex-wife £9,000 for not having sex after marriage [Daily Mail]
Man Ordered to Pay Ex-Wife $14,000 Over Lack of Sex [Gawker]
Frenchman Ordered to Pay Wife for Lack of Sex [Constitutional Daily]
MONIQUE v. JEAN-LOUIS B. — DECISION
The trial judge was right to award the sum of 10,000 euros in damages to the wife on the basis of Article 1382 of the Civil Code (C. civ., Art. 1382), for lack of sexual relations for many years. If the husband denies the lack of sex, considering the acts were just spaced over time due to his health problems and chronic fatigue generated by his work schedule, the virtual absence of sexual intercourse during several years, albeit with occasional times, contributed to the deterioration of relations between the spouses. Indeed the wife’s expectations were legitimate to the extent that sex between spouses are notably the expression of the affection they have for each other, as they are part of continuity of the obligations arising from marriage. Moreover, it appears that the husband has failed to demonstrate health problems that would render him completely unable to have intimate relations with his wife.
The two adult children are henceforth the responsibility of the father as they have declared to be residing with him, it is necessary to terminate any paternal contribution for their maintenance and education. It is for the father to undertake the appropriate procedure to end the direct payment procedure which has become moot. To the extent the mother is responsible for any contribution for heir maintenance, the father has made no such request. But it is duly noted that she has offered to pay 250 euros a month in this capacity for one of the two children.
CA Aix-en-Provence, 6 ch. B, May 3, 2011, No. 09/05752, No. 2011/292: Juris-Data No. 2011-014496