We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Beer drinkers beware! In some parts of the world, non-performance is a serious matter:
An Italian man who married without telling his bride he was impotent must pay damages for abusing her “right to sexuality”, a top court has ruled.
The man had failed to fulfil his conjugal duty and deprived his wife of the chance to be a mother, Italy’s Supreme Court said.
His wife had already had the marriage annulled on the grounds of non-consummation.
The amount of damages will now be decided by a lower court in Sicily.
If this poor guy’s self esteem low to begin with, it must be hurtling down through the earth’s crust by now.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The “annulment for impotence” rule is the law in many if not most jurisdictions within the U.S. The damages part is a little more tricky, but could be framed as a fraud claim.
Hold the phone! There is a right to sex that is enforceable in court in Italy?!
This throws a whole new light on the “positive rights” thing for me.
In the US, we’re only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, not the right to, well, you know . . . .
Its not recognizing a positive right so much as recognizing one of the rights (implied in this instance apparently) under the contract.
What an opportunity! pop two Cialis (sp?) or Viagra and have at it. After 3 hours you call your doctor. Then you make a commercial and counter sue. What we call a ‘product endoursement opportunity’.
BTW, if his lawyer can find enough men to swear that the woman is so hairy fat and ugly that any normal male would be put off, what happens then?
This is very interesting! I believe non-consummation of marriage is grounds for annulment in most common law countries. However, I’m almost positive that particular clause hasn’t been used for years – not around here, anyway. Imagine the uproar if a male attempted to annul a marriage because his wife wouldn’t have sex with him; the feminists would be positively frothing at the mouth. No doubt they’d support this woman’s quest for fulfilment, however.
I think the woman has a point, a contract is a contract. But I share the concern that the other way around this would not fly.
The world must keep a firm hand on it !
I think the woman has learned to kick the tires, check under the hood, and test emissions next time.
Yet another reason why pre-marital sex is good. If she’d insisted on giving him at least one test spin before buying, the whole mess could’ve been avoided.
He should have told her he could not perform. I assume, given their location, that they are Roman Catholics. Unsurprising then given that the primary function of marriage is the begetting of offspring.
An atheist myself but still it seems to me that one of the main reasons for marriage is the protection and welfare of children. (Few tax advantages anymore!)
Of course were it that the female was infertile, or frigid, the man should be able to have the marriage contract annulled and sue for damages.
Well, self enlargement is not an option, either. He should have told her.
“If this poor guy’s self esteem low to begin with, it must be hurtling down through the earth’s crust by now.”
So I hope you’re not saying that stroking a man’s ego is more important than being honest with a woman??
Sorry but I don’t feel sorry for a young man’s self-esteem without knowing what it is that’s making him impotent. Most cases of young male impotency or premature ejaculation are caused by alcohol & drug use, excessive caffeine use, lack of sleep, etc… all things that can be easily rectified if the man isn’t a selfish jerk. I bet a lot of men whining about their sexual dysfunction are unwilling to make healthy lifestyle changes for their sexual health. Those guys aren’t going to get my sympathy.
And even if the guy lives an ultra-healthy life, and still has sexual problems due to an illness… I still think he should’ve been up-front & honest with a woman he was going to MARRY. After all, shouldn’t people base a relationship as important as a life committment on TRUTH? Maybe this woman’s motivations are more about the honesty angle than the sex angle…
Chloe:
If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was the husband chasing his wife through the courts for the same reason, would you feel he has the legitimacy that you’re awarding the female in this case? I really am curious about this. A great many females I know would be utterly outraged if a man annulled a marriage because his wife wouldn’t have sex with him (ergo denying him the right to children, yadda yadda). And then if he sought damages – ye gods! Hell hath no fury. I hope you have the intellectual honesty to answer truthfully.
Why are you assuming it’s impotence, anyway? My friend’s ex-fiancee hardly ever had sex with her. He wasn’t impotent – when it happened it happened – his sex drive was just incredibly low. And yes, they broke up because of it.
If a husband is punished by the courts for non-performance, why is he sent to prison when he performs and his nonperforming wife cries rape?
I drink a lot still I’m peforming at my potential. Don’t be mislead by such arguments. It is all rubbish and nothing else.