World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Yeah it's a whole different argument.
Being married does not entitle you to sex - great.
Wanting to divorce because not enough sex - fine.
It's not so much that you felt the other person was obligated to provide the sex (though probably this is th real arhument) but more that it just turned out you are not that compatible or you just grew apart. Should a person not be allowed to divorce if they fell out of love with their partner, ergo they turned out to have less or no more sex?
They absolutely should, and they will still be able to, nothing's changed there.
No, no, there's a big change here.
Yes, divorces still go through as before, that doesn't change. What does change is the context of fault in the divorce.
If sex is a marital obligation, the party refusing it can be considered at fault for the marriage failing. This usually carries consequences when it comes to splitting the assets, with the judges usually penalising the party "at fault".
This makes it so that refusing to have sex cannot be grounds for being found at fault, and makes things more balanced.
Yes this is correct, we're in complete agreement there. The comment I was responding to worded it vaguely though, which made it sound like you cannot get a divorce because you have a sexless marriage. It made it sound like people were being forcibly kept married, which is false. You can get divorced because it's Tuesday, or because the moon is in retroflux. Holding your spouse responsible for those things is a different story, however.
For reference here's the part of the comment I replied to:
Emphasis mine.
I admit I worded my comment vaguely because I was rather tired and wasn’t sure how I should express the nuance I feel around that. But to fix that:
In my experience, going from a reasonable, mutually healthy level of intimacy to one party just completely lacking interest is essentially never the core issue in play, but it is an exacerbating issue. For instance, with my ex, who I was with for five years: for the first couple years, things were pretty great. Then she ended up slipping into perhaps the worst long-term episode of severe depression and video game addiction I have ever seen in my life. I’m talking 12-14h at least a day in a KRPG, completely withdrawing from IRL social interaction (including with me, for the most part) and supplanting it with constantly being on voice chat with the various clans she was a part of over time in the game. Mind you, I enjoy gaming myself, and have struggled with overdoing in the past as well, but never to this extent in terms of length and severity. And despite trying to find numerous ways to help/support her, encouraging her to find different and better therapists and psychiatrists, and figuring out how to rebalance her meds - including offering to just be on the phone with me for 30 seconds at the beginning of the call and just saying “I give permission for my partner to discuss this stuff with you and try to find a better solution because my mental state prohibits me from doing that right now”, being effectively unable to make any motion in a positive mental health direction. To the point that it got so bad that I became severely depressed and began aggressively self medicating, eventually to the point that I realized staying in the dynamic would probably kill me, in a very literal sense. She would barely come out of her room for dinner towards the end, and I was absolutely not about to get her to just let me “use” her for intimate gratification when the chemistry was completely gone and she was gonna just lie there like a fish - I’d have felt like I was assaulting her, and I refuse to do that.
So: no, it shouldn’t be the grounds for a divorce (or partner separation, I happen to not give a shit about marriage outside of the context of tax benefits, but I take a committed partnership very seriously), but it can and should be considered an exacerbating circumstance in a relationship that has extremely serious, long-lasting problems that essentially put everything into a death spiral.
Also: I’m sharing this for context and nuance as an explanation of my opinion. I’m not asking for or desiring feedback or constructive (or otherwise) criticism or judgement. Me explaining this is an infinitesimal fraction of the lived experience of it, like you saying your partner is “pretty cool”, when there are myriad shades of nuance to a partnership. It is a closed chapter of my life, and I am better for it.
Uh... Does this imply that in a sexless marriage one is allowed to have sex with a third party without incurring fault?
NO. It is, quite literally, the opposite. How do you misinterpreted it that badly?
A marriage is a legal contract, and it binds the parties to mutual support, fidelity, respect, and cohabitation.
This serves to clarify that sex is NOT included in that list of obligations, but do note that fidelity IS. You don't get to get to justify cheating with "I wasn't getting any...".
That said, the parties are obviously free to come to an agreement on what works best for them - and if that includes extramarital sex, then that's fine as long as both agree.
I think of it like housework. No one should be compelled by the law to do housework. But if one person in the house is doing no housework, the others have a real and justified complaint. It’s not legal grounds for eviction, but it should be a material point against them in any dispute mediation that takes place.
To translate that: if one party in a marriage is withholding sex, they don’t get to claim a full 50% right to all the assets in the marriage. I’m not saying zero, but…
Exactly why this law needs made clear:
No one is entitled to sex
'Withholding sex' isn't a mark against someone in a divorce and in no way should it be a factor in whether someone is entitled to their fair share of the fruits of a shared life should it come to an end.
If sex is housework, sleeping with that person is a chore, and god if that's not the world we live in anymore.
Don’t take an analogy literally. That’s bad faith.
And if you don’t think marriage is a stated intention to have a sexual relationship, then we simply disagree. But your opinion, much as I honor it, is your own innovation.