> > >
> > >>And I have to also ask..... what about a wife that refuses
> her>husband's
> > >
> > > advances?
> > >
> > > He has to stop if he lacks consent.
> >
> > He can stop feeding her, he can accuse her of "emotional
abuse" and
> > have her locked out of the house...provided he's smart enough to
> > aggressively use the wonderful system feminists have unwittingly set
> up...
> >
> > >  What recourse does the husband have?

Ditch the bitch.



> > >
> > > Rosy palm.
> >
> > See above
> >
> > >  Is refusal of sex in a marriage grounds for a divorce?

Absolutely.





> > >
> > > A marriage can be annuled if not consumated but no, you cannot get
> a divorced
> > > based on her refusing sex.  Keep in mind that fault is not really
> required
> > > tho...to file for divorce.  In that regard you don't even need a
> reason.
> >
> > Not exactly true, prior to the wide spread adoption of "no-fault"
> > divorce in the US, virtually every state recognized the "failure to
> > provide a partner with a reasonable degree of sexual pleasure in the
> > marriage" as grounds for divorce. In most of those jurisdictions
> > (outside the US) where "fault" is still the basis for divorce,
> refusing
> > sex to a partner is almost always still considered a violation of the
>
> > marital contract and cause for divorce...as it should be since,
> > regardless of what Parg/Hyerdahl would have you believe, marriage is
> > still defined as a *conjugal* (IE: SEXUAL) union and it goes without
> > saying that without sex there is no marriage...

Absolutely.



>
> Not so.  All the states have some form of no fault divorce, with NY
> being the most picky.  There is no right to derive sexual pleasure
> within a marriage, just the right to hope.  AND, there are people who
> marry for reasons other than sex, and those marriages are all valid.

Only idiots like you.



>
> >
> >Should a husband in this position be allowed to leave the marriage on
> an even
> > > footing without reprisal?
> >
> >A union cannot be a "conjugal" union if there is no sex
between the
> > partners to the union. If one individual deliberately denies sex to
> > their marital partner, it seems to me they are denying the most
> > fundamental characteristic of the union which should be considered
> > grounds for a consequence free separation/divorce.

The bitch should have to pay damages for fraud and breach of contract. There
ARE consequences for adults who don't live up to LEGAL contracts.



> >
> Inherent in divorce is the same separation of assets laws regardless of
> who wants sex and who does not.

Absolutely NOT.



  It becomes quite irrelevant in the US.
>  People divorce with all divorce laws intact; if you have seperate
> property it
> > > is generally still your seperate property in a community property
> state unless
> > > you have co-mingled such, etc.
> > >
> > >>There are two sides to a coin. We need to consider them both.
> > >
> > > There are no seperate divorce laws for husbands who are turned down
> sexually;
> > > they have the same laws as anyone else. :-)

Shut up stupid.


> >
> > Which simply demonstrates how fundamentally unfair and unjust the
> > courts have become and how our society has been hoodwinked by
> feminist
> > rhetoric and numbed by feminist dogma into a belief that there should
> be
> > no such thing as personal responsibility for women and that women
> should
> > not be held accountable for violating freely and solemn given vows...
>
>
> Well, it always comes down to that with you bitter twitters;  "...life
> is soooo unfair man."

Shutup bitch. We all know you're a bitch. Think you're fooling someone?


>
> >
> > .."Ken"  hahahahahahahaha
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/13/05 6:44:25 AM ---