A French woman has won a ruling from Europe’s top human rights court, with a panel of seven judges unanimously saying she should not have been blamed in her divorce for not having sex with her husband.

https://wapo.st/3WzzTmz

What you think?

I am CONSTANTLY reminded that people at the peak of their career can still be STUPID.

A Judge who has supposedly been PRESIDING over court cases for YEARS and practising law for even MORE years made a decision that even a TWICE-RETARDDDED person would NOT have made.

Sex is one of the CARDINAL component of any marriage.

When you marry someone, it means you expect to fuccck them and ONLY them for the rest of your life.

That means you are committing to get your SUPPLY of sex from only ONE source for the foreseeable future.

If your spouse SUDDENLY cuts off your supply of sex, they are ABUSING you.

And you have the right to seek a DIVORCE. And that divorce should rightfully be the FAULT of the person who cut off sex.

Reverse the case so that it's the husband, the sole breadwinner, who cut off his wife's access to money and there would be a STAMPEDE between the Judge and SEVERAL women advocacy group to brand the man a FINANCIAL ABUSER.

It's rhe same thing!

Plus when you consider the fact that MOST women have all the personality of a wet LOG of wood and the NAGGING capability of a colicky infant, you'll realise it's MADNESS to live with a strange woman over an extended period of time without fucking her.

You CANNOT expect an essentially strange man to be your constant shoulder to cry on without providing him a constant pussy to nut in.

It's just MADNESS!
And the Judge is MAD too!

budaatum:


What you think?

So who should be blamed for refusing to have sex with her husband..?? The state?? Her husband??

Over wokeness is just worrying feminists... Best thing is y'all should remain single.. not that u will get married and start looking for woke laws reinforce ur inability to be a good companion and friend to your partner

advanceDNA:


So who should be blamed for refusing to have sex with her husband..?? The state?? Her husband??

That's an odd rephrase of the question.

If I don't want to have sex with you my husband, indeed "blame" me. I am after all responsible for my choice not to have sex with you, though on deeper investigation it might be because you are actually lousy at sex or I just don't love you no more.

But the question here is, is it my duty to let you fuq me because we are married even if I don't want you to?

budaatum:
➜What you think?

The right to bodily autonomy — the right to one's body without fear of violence or discrimination — is not given up in marriage. I do agree that a woman or man should not be blamed for refusing his/her partner's sex even in marriage. Of course, this also means that a man or woman has every right to get a divorce if he/she is not comfortable with being denied sex.

advanceDNA:
➜So who should be blamed for refusing to have sex with her husband..?? The state?? Her husband??
➜Over wokeness is just worrying feminists... Best thing is y'all should remain single.. not that u will get married and start looking for woke laws reinforce ur inability to be a good companion and friend to your partner

1. No one should be blamed! If a man does not want to have sex, it's OK. And if a woman does not want to have sex, it is equally OK. If one partner decides to leave in order to seek sex with another partner, that is also OK.

2. Yawn! 🥱🥱🥱🥱

Namaster:
Sex is one of the CARDINAL component of any marriage.

When you marry someone, it means you expect to fuccck them and ONLY them for the rest of your life.

That means you are committing to get your SUPPLY of sex from only ONE source for the foreseeable future.

If your spouse SUDDENLY cuts off your supply of sex, they are ABUSING you.

And do you think that should give you the right to force open the supply and take all the sex you want?

If so, what's your opinion of spousal rape?

The body belongs to the owner. Same way money belongs to who made it. But in marriages, both men and women have advocated that body and money belong to both parties as they are supposed to become 1.


If it's a deal breaker for you, and your partner deny you sex or money, you can divorce them.

budaatum:


And do you think that should give you the right to force open the supply and take all the sex you want?

If so, what's your opinion of spousal rape?

If there's spousal rape, can there be spousal stealing too if the wife takes husband money without his consent?

budaatum:


And do you think that should give you the right to force open the supply and take all the sex you want?

If so, what's your opinion of spousal rape?

First of all, NEITHER the judgement nor my opinion is on the issue of RAPE.

The judgement goes to the matter of "NO-FAULT DIVORCE".

In a No-Fault Divorce, the LESS financially-bouyant spouse (usually the woman) is ENTITLED to benefits like alimony and HALF the Marital (aka the man's) assets.

The point of securing a divorce judgement where the court acknowledged that the woman was at FAULT is to prevent her from DENYING him sex and still TAKING his money and property.

NOBODY is advocating for rape!
NOT me!

And NOT the French courts that made the initial judgement that the woman was at FAULT so she had to run to a European Court of Human Rights to secure this SHADY judgement.

NO court in the WHOLE of France would grant her a NO-FAULT divorce.
That's why she ran to the ECHR.

NO-FAULT Divorce = MO' money.
FAULT Divorce = NO money.

That's what the case is about.

Sex is not a marital duty. Humans love pleasure too much and some dumb people get married just to have unrestrained sex, only to get disappointed.

Namaster:
First of all, NEITHER the judgement nor my opinion is on the issue of RAPE.

The judgement goes to the matter of "NO-FAULT DIVORCE".

In a No-Fault Divorce, the LESS financially-bouyant spouse (usually the woman) is ENTITLED to benefits like alimony and HALF the Marital (aka the man's) assets.

The point of securing the a divorce judgement where the court acknowledged that the woman was at FAULT is to prevent her from DENYING him sex and still TAKING his money and property.

NOBODY is advocating for rape!
NOT me!

And NOT the French courts that made the initial judgement that the woman was at FAULT so she had to run to a European Court of Human Rights to secure this SHADY judgement.

NO court in the WHOLE of France would grant her a NO-FAULT divorce.
That's why she ran to the ECHR.

NO-FAULT Divorce = MO' money.
FAULT Divorce = NO money.

That's what the case is about.

It is your response that made the provision of sex sound mandatory that made me bring up marital rape.

The fault determines the payout, and the woman being at fault means she gets paid less, which is what the appeal court overturned in this case.

Is it your opinion that she deserves less or nothing because she denied himsex, even though he would have deprived her by "prioritizing his career over family life and been bad-tempered and insulting"?

Should I let him fuq me because he is my husband, even though he is bad-tempered towards me and insulting?

budaatum:
➜It is your response that made the provision of sex sound mandatory that made me bring up marital rape.The fault determines the payout, and the woman being at fault means she gets paid less, which is what the appeal court overturned in this case. Is it your opinion that she deserves less or nothing because she denied himsex, even though he would have deprived her by "prioritizing his career over family life and been bad-tempered and insulting"? Should I let him fuq me because he is my husband, even though he is bad-tempered towards me and insulting?

These are some of the questions that couples need to resolve before marriage as many enter marriage pretending it is a sort of open contract when in fact it isn't meant to be any such.

Kobojunkie:
These are some of the questions that couples need to resolve before marriage as many enter marriage pretending it is a sort of open contract when in fact it isn't meant to be any such.

I think you are asking that people be hyper intelligent before entering marriage.

Should stupid ignorant people not marry?

What about dishonest people? After all, this man was likely not "prioritizing his career over family life and been bad-tempered and insulting" before they married.

budaatum:


It is your response that made the provision of sex sound mandatory that made me bring up marital rape.

The fault determines the payout, and the woman being at fault means she gets paid less, which is what the appeal court overturned in this case.

Is it your opinion that she deserves less or nothing because she denied himsex, even though he would have deprived her by "prioritizing his career over family life and been bad-tempered and insulting"?

Should I let him fuq me because he is my husband, even though he is bad-tempered towards me and insulting?

I have read MORE about the case.

Apparently, the woman started RATIONING sex to her husband since 1992!

The moment they had their FIRST child, she DRASTICALLY reduced his access to sex.

In spite of this, the abuse did NOT start until 2002.
And she completely STOPPED fucking him in 2004.

So obviously she'd decided that he's NOT the man she wants to be married to.

The man abuses her and she no longer found him sexually attractive.

So my question to you is this:

Why did it take until 2012 (10 years after the abuse started) for her to file for DIVORCE?

If she CHOSE to stay married, she is OBLIGATED to act like a married woman. And that includes FUCCCKING her husband.

Speaking of which, the answer to your question is YES! Sex is MANDATORY in marriage.

A married man that is NOT getting fucccked is getting FUCCCCKED in that marriage.

budaatum:
➜I think you are asking that people be hyper intelligent before entering marriage.
➜ Should stupid ignorant people not marry?
➜ What about dishonest people? After all, this man was likely not "prioritizing his career over family life and been bad-tempered and insulting" before they married.

It is not about being hyper-intelligent but being extra careful when picking a match in a relationship.

2. Those, you cannot do anything about.

3. There are those and that is why folks should be grateful for divorce in such cases.

Kobojunkie:
1. No one should be blamed! If a man does not want to have sex, it's OK. And if a woman does not want to have sex, it is equally OK. If one partner decides to leave in order to seek sex with another partner, that is also OK.

2. Yawn! 🥱🥱🥱🥱

If u don't want to have sex...then in the first place u have no business in the arrangement called marriage where sex is part of being a companion...

advanceDNA:
➜If u don't want to have sex...then in the first place u have no business in the arrangement called marriage where sex is part of being a companion...

There are many couples in asexual—no-sex —marriage agreements out there. Not all marriages are defined in the way you assume they are as people define companionship differently. So, for you to suggest that those who do not want sex should have nothing to do with marriage is absurd!

budaatum:


That's an odd rephrase of the question.

If I don't want to have sex with you my husband, indeed "blame" me. I am after all responsible for my choice not to have sex with you, though on deeper investigation it might be because you are actually lousy at sex or I just don't love you no more.

But the question here is, is it my duty to let you fuq me because we are married even if I don't want you to?

I guess u are woman...as usual...your negative action is never really urr fault...its always someone else that caused it....

U cheat...it's always ur husband that caused it.
Paternity fraud......ur husband made u do it..
Prostítution....men refused to help you...
Even murder....it's always some guy that made y'all do it...

If he's lousy at séx...and you dont want to fix it and u don't love him anymore..then walk away from the marriage ..

...but u want to remain in the marriage and pull your feminists shiit that u have a right to refuse sex as long as u want....

A woman that does not want to be fffucked and fffucked, should stay single and not married.

Same way a man that is not ready to pay bills should not marry, otherwise woman will turn his mental state upside down.

Kobojunkie:
There are many couples in asexual—no-sex —marriage agreements out there. Not all marriages are defined in the way you assume they are as people define companionship differently. So, for you to suggest that those who do not want sex should have nothing to do with marriage is absurd!

The context of this thread is obviously not about two pple agreeing to to have sex...so whats all these ur marriage with no sex about??

advanceDNA:
↪The context of this thread is obviously not about two pple agreeing to to have sex...so whats all these ur marriage with no sex about??

I was only pointing out there that marriage/companionship is not as one-dimensional in scope or definition as you seem to assume. As a result, in a situation where two individuals agree to marry without explicitly specifying no sex, they each continue to hold on to their bodily autonomy rights.

So, even if you chose to marry a prostitute in order that you can Bleep her brains out, in the end, she retains the right to say no to sex whenever she chooses to. And you are also well within your right to divorce her at that point too.

Kobojunkie:
I was only pointing out there that marriage/companionship is not as one-dimensional in scope or definition as you seem to assume. As a result, in a situation where two individuals agree to marry without explicitly specifying no sex, they each continue to hold on to their bodily autonomy rights.

So, even if you chose to marry a prostitute in order that you can Bleep her brains out, in the end, she retains the right to say no to sex whenever she chooses to. And you are also well within your right to divorce her at that point too.

U have a right to ur body..... once u cease to be a sexual companion in a marriage to ur husband or wife who wants sex, should u be told before getting your sexless àss out of the union??

advanceDNA:
➜U have a right to ur body..... once u cease to be a sexual companion in a marriage to ur husband or wife who wants sex, should u be told before getting your sexless àss out of the union??

There is NO LEGAL FRAME that allows for such cessation of that right in the case of marriage. So, whether a person is in a marriage— even in the case of a sexual companionship— or not in a marriage, that right remains — bodily autonomy — remains intact. That right to say NO remains under any circumstance is recognized by the Law. Going against that is going against the right of an individual and hence the Law itself.

Kobojunkie:
There is NO LEGAL FRAME that allows for such cessation of that right in the case of marriage. So, whether a person is in a marriage— even in the case of a sexual companionship— or not in a marriage, that right remains — bodily autonomy — remains intact. That right to say NO remains no matter the situation.

Nobody is arguing body autonomy with you ..


But u shouldn't wait to be taken court for divorce after u decided to switch to a sexless marriage with a partner who still wants sex.....thats selfishness....u should take ur sexless marriage out of the marriage....

U cannot change the MO of the marriage and expect the marriage to remain the same and how you want it

advanceDNA:
➜Nobody is arguing body autonomy with you ..
➜But u shouldn't wait to be taken court for divorce after u decided to switch to a sexless marriage with a partner who still wants sex.....thats selfishness....u should take ur sexless marriage out of the marriage....
➜U cannot change the MO of the marriage and expect the marriage to remain the same and how you want it

Shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments no dey tire you?

2. Are you a child? People don't usually have to do anything in your interest. Their interests usually come first and they expect you to decide whether you will accept them as they are or make changes appropriately. You should instead learn to protect yourself when you are not happy with a situation. 🙄🙄🙄

3. Yes you can change your MO whenever you wish. We are all human beings and change is a constant with us. What is out-of-character is pretending we will always remain the same throughout any situation or condition. 🙄🙄🙄

Kobojunkie:
Shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments no dey tire you?

2. Are you a child? People don't usually have to do anything in your interest. Their interests usually come first and they expect you to decide whether you will accept them as they are or make changes appropriately. You should instead learn to protect yourself when you are not happy with a situation. 🙄🙄🙄

3. Yes you can change your MO whenever you wish. We are all human beings and change is a constant with us. What is out-of-character is pretending we will always remain the same throughout any situation or condition. 🙄🙄🙄

.same thing.....the more reason u have no business in the marriage... because it started to become all about u alone....

advanceDNA:
➜same thing.....the more reason u have no business in the marriage... because it started to become all about u alone....

You don't get to decide what people can or cannot do.The world does not revolve around your particular preferences even in marriage. Learn this and gain necessary wisdom for yourself! 🙄🙄🙄

advanceDNA:
...but u want to remain in the marriage and pull your feminists shiit that u have a right to refuse sex as long as u want....

Actually, if you'd bothered reading the article you'd note she filed for a divorce, but the reason you never saw that is, I am a woman, I am a feminist, I blinded you.

Kobojunkie:
It is not about being hyper-intelligent but being extra careful when picking a match in a relationship.

2. Those, you cannot do anything about.

3. There are those and that is why folks should be grateful for divorce in such cases.

Extra careful, in my opinion, requires brain use and intelligence, I'd think.

budaatum:
↪Extra careful, in my opinion, requires brain use and intelligence, I'd think.

I kinda assume it ought to be common sense like making sure to invest only when you are sure of returns and whatnot.

Helpout12345:
A woman that does not want to be fffucked and fffucked, should stay single and not married.

Same way a man that is not ready to pay bills should not marry, otherwise woman will turn his mental state upside down.

Sounds like you want to marry an ashewo, so your money for table, her back for ground.

You do know some women work and help with the bills, right? And some even pay all the bills while the man sits on his ass.

Is it ok for him not to get and sex therefore?