this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
609 points (99.4% liked)

World News

53001 readers
2262 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

France is to enshrine in law the end of so-called "conjugal rights" – the notion that marriage means a duty to have sex.

A bill approved on Wednesday in the National Assembly adds a clause to the country's civil code to make clear that "community of living" does not create an "obligation for sexual relations".

The proposed law also makes it impossible to use lack of sexual relations as an argument in fault-based divorce.

Though unlikely to have a major impact in the courts, supporters hope the law will help deter marital rape.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Speaking as a man, I don't anyone to fuck me out of obligation, I want to be fucked by a someone who is really into me and wants to fuck me because they are a really into me and are horny as fuck for me :3

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

what happens if your friends owes you like three fiddy?

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I don't fuck crustaceans from the cretaceous period.

[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honeyyy it's time for our state mandated sex!

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago

*Pulls out state-mandated condom and state mandated vibrator*

[–] bossito@lemmy.world 56 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A huge victory for the assexual community.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 97 points 3 days ago (1 children)

assexual

That extra S kinda changes things.

[–] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

One more s would be needed, to be sure

asssexuals are a pain in the ass

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 93 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 71 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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?

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 11 points 2 days ago

They did say it would be removed as a reason for "fault-based" divorce, not divorce generally. You won't be able to say "he's at fault for not wanting sex" and so get a preferential settlement.

[–] Slatlun@lemmy.ml 47 points 3 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] azr79@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

didn't even know it was a law in france

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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?

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 27 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It’s that the lack of sex can’t be used as a reason for a fault-based divorce. A fault based divorce can have legal consequences for things like alimony and child custody.

People can still separate via a no-fault divorce.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

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"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

The other kind of divorce is no-fault divorce. You don't have to give a reason there, you silly goose!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Quilotoa@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 24 points 3 days ago

As a French, it's about time

load more comments
view more: next ›