From our other sites
The story
Japan’s Civil Code spells out a married couple’s duties to live together, cooperate, and support one another, but it says nothing about sex. Even so, past court rulings have treated a spouse’s lack of sex as “grounds that make it difficult to continue the marriage,” justifying divorce — meaning legal scholars and judges alike have long operated on the premise that “married couples are supposed to have sex,” according to Risa Oshima, a professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, whose remarks have sparked debate. On 5ch, reactions ranged widely: some argued that if sex is a “duty,” then affairs or sex work should be tolerated in exchange; others pointed out that continued refusal can become grounds for divorce; still others questioned the very necessity of the institution of marriage.
People often say they can’t refuse sex with their spouse because “it’s a marital duty.” But is there actually a legal duty for married couples to have sex? We asked Professor Risa Oshima of Aoyama Gakuin University, an expert in family law.
The Civil Code states that married couples have duties to live together, cooperate, and support one another, but there’s no provision about sex. That said, this hasn’t been enough to conclude there’s no duty to have sex — because, although rare, there have been court rulings granting divorce on the grounds that a lack of sex with one’s spouse amounts to “grounds that make it difficult to continue the marriage.”
The Civil Code is written in deliberately abstract terms so judges can apply it flexibly. In practice, rulings have been shaped by the prevailing social norms surrounding marriage at the time. Up to now, both legal scholars and judges have operated on the assumption that “married couples are supposed to have sex,” and most past court rulings have been grounded in that assumption.
Source: news.yahoo.co.jp / Read the original article here
What people said
／ ＼
/ ∧ ∧
/ / ＼(＼(ヽ人∧
｜ /⌒＼ ／⌒｜｜
｜｜ ⌒･ /･⌒ ｜｜
｜人 ノ ヽ ﾉ ｜
Ｖ｜ ／ヽノ＼ ｜ /
)人ヽーー―ノﾉ／
＼＼ヽ二ノ／/
／ ＼＿／ ＼
｜ |＿＿| ｜
Way off base,
no taste at all.
Fine by me — as long as cheating's allowed too.
Exactly this.
Regardless of gender, you'd need to be allowed to use sex work or sleep with someone else.
The wife holds the reins here.
The "duty" thing goes both ways lol
Plenty of husbands are done with their wives too lolol
Then just split the assets fairly, pay child support until they turn 18
(or until they finish university), throw in the pension split,
and get divorced already.
It's the men who aren't ready to commit to that.
Are you saying it's the men who don't want the divorce, huh lol
That varies case by case — men don't have to shoulder the entire child support bill either lolol
I remember seeing that on TV.
A husband not wanting to is grounds for divorce.
Forcing a wife who doesn't want to is also grounds for divorce.
No problem with that, right?
You'll get ambushed by one of those affair-exposé YouTubers.
They'll hit you with 4.5 million yen in damages, times two people.
That's why once you're in a sexless marriage ("resu"), you just have to get divorced.
There's same-sex marriage these days too, you know.
Cut a sexless wife loose before you get caught in the affair-damages trap.
That's so Heisei-era, takes me back. (Heisei: Japan's 1989–2019 era)
That's basically how it works in Japan too.
then sure, why not.
An affair gets legally messy, so sex work's the way to go.
Background and Key Points of This Discussion
The Civil Code’s duties for married couples — to live together, cooperate, and support one another — contain no provision on sex. In the end, courts have simply applied the abstract clause “grounds that make it difficult to continue the marriage,” interpreted according to the prevailing social norms of each era. In other words, the presence or absence of sex alone doesn’t automatically grant a divorce; the full circumstances of the relationship are weighed. In the thread, two camps clashed — those arguing that if sex is a “duty” then affairs or sex work should be permitted, and those saying “if you don’t like it, just get divorced” — but both sides treat the duty as a kind of transactional exchange, which misses the article’s actual point about shifting social norms. It’s also a common misunderstanding that only the refusing spouse is automatically at fault; the outcome depends on the specific circumstances.
※This article was compiled from excerpts and a summary of the 5ch (News Speed+) thread “Is Sex a Marital Duty in Marriage? What If You Say ‘I Don’t Want To’? A Legal Scholar Weighs In.”
Leave a Reply