|
muhly22222 -> RE: Very Disappointed Day (2/14/2013 5:00:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CountZeppelin
All law derives from Common Law, and Common Law is simply what the "reasonable person" considers Just.
Given that, I'm confident a strong case could be made.
After all, we commonly award monetary damages in accident cases to spouses who have been denied
the consolation of sex due to the culpable party's malfeasance.
And yeah, I got my law degree by mailing in boxtops.
Just playing with ideas here.
Those aren't very good ideas. All law is not derived from the common law, and even if it were, the common law is not simply what the reasonable person considers just. Law is derived from a number of sources, particularly in the modern world, where many, many pieces of the law have been codified. The common law doesn't simply look at a situation and say, "What would the reasonable person think is fair here?" Instead, it's based on an attempt to find what actually is just, which sometimes means applying the reasonable person standard.
So no, there's no case that could be made that the woman was at fault in refusing to perform oral sex on her husband (or even the other way around). If it was that big of a deal to him, he could make a claim of incompatibility, but that's it.
The type of claims you reference are what are known as "loss of consortium" claims. And it's not just the loss of sexual intimacy that's taken into account, it's the lack of physical intimacy, the inability to participate in the household, possibly the lack of ability to be emotionally close, the inability to communicate with each other.
I got my law degree by sitting in classrooms and putting in 80- to 90-hour weeks for three years.
|
|
|
|
