France Moves to Abolish the Concept of Marital Duty to Have Sex, Redefining Consent Within Marriage

France has taken a significant legal step toward redefining the boundaries of consent within marriage by moving to formally abolish the long-standing notion of “conjugal rights,” the idea that marriage implies an obligation to engage in sexual relations. The move follows the approval of a new bill by the French National Assembly, which seeks to clarify that marriage does not confer automatic or lifelong consent to sex between spouses.

The proposed legislation introduces a new clause into France’s civil code explicitly stating that a “community of living” within marriage does not amount to an obligation to engage in sexual relations. In addition, the bill eliminates the possibility of citing a lack of sexual relations as grounds for fault-based divorce. Although supporters acknowledge that the change is unlikely to drastically alter court rulings in practice, they argue that its symbolic and educational value is substantial.

The bill’s sponsor, Green Party lawmaker Marie-Charlotte Garin, framed the reform as a necessary confrontation with outdated assumptions that continue to linger in society. According to her, allowing the concept of sexual obligation within marriage to persist implicitly endorses systems of domination that can enable abuse. She emphasized that marriage should never be treated as a space where consent is assumed to be permanent or irrevocable simply because vows have been exchanged.

Legally, the reform addresses an ambiguity that has existed for decades. France’s civil code outlines the duties of marriage as respect, fidelity, mutual support, and assistance, alongside a commitment to shared living. Nowhere, however, does the law explicitly refer to sexual obligations. The idea of conjugal duty originates instead from medieval church doctrine, which historically influenced civil interpretations of marriage.

Despite the absence of any explicit reference to sexual obligations in modern law, French courts have occasionally interpreted “community of living” broadly. In a widely publicized 2019 case, a woman was deemed at fault in divorce proceedings after being accused of withholding sex from her husband for several years. The ruling implied culpability on her part, reinforcing the idea that sexual availability was an expected marital duty.

That judgment was later overturned at the European level. In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against France, stating that allowing refusal of sex to be used as grounds for fault-based divorce violated fundamental human rights. Feminist groups and human rights advocates hailed the ruling as a landmark victory, arguing that it reaffirmed bodily autonomy within marriage.

Following the ECHR’s decision, French judges have effectively been prevented from issuing similar rulings, making the new law largely a clarification rather than a radical legal shift. Nonetheless, campaigners insist that formalizing the principle in domestic law is essential to dismantling harmful social beliefs that still portray wives as sexually obligated to their husbands.

Recent high-profile criminal cases have intensified the urgency of the debate. The 2024 Mazan trial, in which Gisèle Pelicot was repeatedly raped while drugged and unconscious by men allegedly invited by her husband, shocked the nation. Several defendants claimed they assumed her consent based on her marital status and assurances from her husband, underscoring how deeply ingrained misconceptions about marital consent remain.

France criminalized marital rape in 1990, aligning itself with broader international human rights standards. More recently, the country further strengthened its legal framework by expanding the definition of rape to focus explicitly on consent. Under the updated law, rape is now defined as any sexual act carried out without “informed, specific, prior, and revocable” consent. Silence or lack of resistance is no longer interpreted as consent.

Supporters of the new bill argue that it reinforces this modern understanding of consent by removing any lingering suggestion that marriage overrides individual autonomy. Critics, however, contend that the reform undermines the traditional concept of marriage, which they view as inherently involving sexual intimacy. The debate has sparked strong reactions, particularly among conservative voices who fear that marriage risks being reduced to a mere cohabitation arrangement.

Ultimately, France’s decision reflects a broader global shift toward centering consent and personal agency in intimate relationships. By explicitly rejecting the idea of marital sexual obligation, the country aims to align its legal framework with contemporary human rights standards and send a clear message: marriage does not nullify the right to say no.