Is it right for a judge to rule on this?

[Tahuti]

You know, Jewish wedding contracts contain the requirement that the man provide sex for his wife when she wants it, but the wife has no duty to ever service her husband.

Well, I was about to just tell the same about Islam, until I read this.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, I was about to just tell the same about Islam, until I read this.

There is such an overlap between Sharia and the "laws" of other Abrahamic religions that you wonder why some Abrahamists are so eager to outlaw it.

 

[squall78]

did she want it that bad, or was it that good?

 

[Agent327]

http://jezebel.com/5837448/man-fined-14000-for-not-having-sex-with-wife


So, this dude is being fined $14,000 for not having sex with his wife.

Now, a divorce I can understand, but the fine?

Is this something the courts should rule on?

Marriage is a legal contract, and marital obligations might be considered part of this contract. So yes, any judge can rule on this - and apparently the spouse didn´t file for divorce.

 

[Elrohir]

I think the notion of being fined for doing (or not doing) things in a marriage that leads to unhappiness is an interesting one. I'm curious as to how far it could be pushed -- could a man get any settlement money if his wife refused to cook dinner more than once a month? (Or what if she just cooked really badly?) That seems archaic, but then, so do fines for a lack of sex. (And I'm suspicious that similar results would come out if the complaining party was a male -- the courts might be flooded with too many cases. )

You know, Jewish wedding contracts contain the requirement that the man provide sex for his wife when she wants it, but the wife has no duty to ever service her husband.

Yeah, but those requirements go back to a time when a man could initiate, and receive, a divorce for pretty much any reason. (Presumably, men would simply divorce their wives if they refused to put out often enough.) Women couldn't initiate a divorce, generally speaking -- so their rights to food, shelter, and sex were specially protected because they lacked a general right to leave if the marriage was unsatisfactory. So actually, so protections were really concessions to women due to their inferior legal/religious status and rights. (I'm being descriptive, not normative, here -- no judgment on the practice intended.)

 

[woody60707]

I hate to bring in the R-word, but really, it treads the line close.

 

[Hygro]

What's the "r-word"

 

[holy king]

rigger.

 

[Artifis]

Brings to mind Malaysia's Obedient Wives Club, which is somewhat the mirror image of this situation (although equally absurd in its logic).

The club’s president, Rohaya Mohamed, said it was open to women of all religions and would conduct seminars on how to be a good wife as well as offer marriage counseling. “A man married to a woman who is as good or better than a prostitute in bed has no reason to stray. Rather than allowing him to sin, a woman must do all she can to ensure his desires are met,” Rohaya told the newspaper.

At least you can be assured that as a (female) member of this club, you wouldn't have any issues in not getting enough sex with your husband.