France to abolish concept of sex as conjugal right in marriage

Lawmakers in the National Assembly approved a bill on Wednesday that would add an explicit clause stating that a couple’s “community of living” cannot be interpreted as an “obligation for sexual relations.”

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

France is preparing to write a clear rule into its civil code: marriage does not create an obligation to have sex.

Lawmakers in the National Assembly approved a bill on Wednesday that would add an explicit clause stating that a couple’s “community of living” cannot be interpreted as an “obligation for sexual relations.” The same text would also block spouses from relying on lack of sex as evidence in fault-based divorce proceedings.

If enacted, the reform would do two things at the statutory level:

Closes the door on “conjugal rights” arguments by spelling out that cohabitation does not equal a sexual duty.

Removes non-sex as a divorce “fault” lever, making it unusable as a basis to assign blame in fault-based divorces.

Supporters say the legal value is not just procedural. They’re positioning it as a public signal that consent remains required within marriage and that the law should not leave any grey area that can be exploited.

The push is designed to eliminate a longstanding ambiguity. While the French civil code already lists marital duties such as respect, fidelity, support and assistance, and refers to “community of living,” it has never explicitly mentioned sexual obligations. The “conjugal duty” idea has deeper roots in older church traditions rather than modern statutory language.

This bill is being framed less as a radical overhaul and more as a compliance and clarity upgrade: aligning domestic law with the direction already set by the ECHR.

France already recognises marital rape in law, and the country has continued tightening its consent framework. Since November last year, the legal definition of rape has been expanded to centre non-consent, moving beyond the earlier model that relied on proving “violence, constraint, threat or surprise.” Under the newer approach, consent must be informed, specific, given beforehand, and revocable, and silence or lack of reaction is not consent.