121
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
121 points (99.2% liked)
World News
39862 readers
2457 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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think it is a bit more complicated.
If we accept that adultery is a reason for "fault divorce", this makes it easy for an undiscovered adulterer to turn it into a no fault divorce, take a full half and then "have found" new love right as the divorce is fully settled.
That's not a good reason to punish a woman for not wanting to have sex. There's never a justification for that.
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?
How dare you support rape like this!
/s
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.
Is having sex in the usual marriage vows?
Not having sex doesn't make you at fault. Rapists make that claim to pretend they're right. But they are not, they are lying. Only rapists defend that lie.
You start from the conclusion that it makes you at fault, and you deduce that it must be part of the vow. Your reasoning is nonsense, you are trying to justify a conclusion that is already wrong by inventing a premise that doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as a promise for sex in marriage vows, you fucking clown.
He's saying that but you said there an oath? Were you meaning something else?
So what's the vow about having sex?
You're giving nothing here, so I'll assume there's no substance to what you're saying.
That doesn't answer the question.
I'm married, and nowhere in our vows did my wife agree to be my sex slave.
Considering the questions continued after your previous comment, no it doesn't.
You're referring to some ephemeral oath or vow, and we're asking you to specify the exact oath or vow that would make a woman legally a sex slave.
Cite the text.
It wonders why you can not make a simple citation to support the foundation* of your argument.
Which vow?
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.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country
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_Gis%C3%A8le_Pelicot
All over the news for months here and it made some degree of International noise, at least in Europe. Dunno about the US.
Edit to your edit - "not true anymore" is an understatement, it hasn't been true for 30 to 35 years.
Thank you for clarifying
Yeah, you should not be trusted at all for this. It's ridiculous.