You know what they say: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. And I've got to assume it was fury, plain and simple -- or spite, to be more precise -- that drove a woman in France to sue her ex-husband for $14,000 because he refused to have sex with her during the 21 years they were married. What but the humiliating sting of rejection would drive someone to seek monetary compensation for an absence of action in the bedroom? Why else would you even attempt to quantify the cash value of two decades of sex?
Which brings me to what I think is the most fascinating aspect of this case: How exactly does one put a price on sex? Speaking strictly of those persons who are not represented by a pimp, of course. Is there some kind of crazy mathematical formula that can be applied?
Perhaps details like position and duration are considered equation-altering variables. I would imagine an after-work quickie to be less valuable than a morning sex marathon ...
Then again, if the Frenchwoman in question wasn't getting any at all, she must have been dealing mostly in approximations and generalizations when she came up with the sum of $14,000. Twenty-one years of marriage ... that's less than $1,000 annually. Let's figure she allocated about $650 for each year, so $650 divided by 12 months ... okay, basically, in the eyes of this lady (and the judge who awarded her the dough), 1 month of married sex is worth roughly $54.
Huh! How 'bout them apples! I guess that's a pretty good deal? But not knowing the frequency and flavor of a given month's activities, it's difficult to say.
Still. If the Frenchwoman is planning on using her compensation to buy some lovin', I hope she doesn't try to make that wad last for 20 damn years. Blow it all at once, I say! Go out with a bang. So to speak.
Why do you think this woman sued her ex for lack of sex?
Image via Daniel Borman/Flickr