Woman granted annulment because her husband can’t get an erection

A woman has been granted an annulment by a judge because her husband can't get an erection.

Justice Wendy Baker, a judge with the British Columbia Supreme Court in Canada, granted the Lower Mainland woman an annulment after the unhappy couple testified about their inability to have intercourse.

In the case before Justice Baker, the woman wanted her marriage voided for religious reasons, claiming her husband couldn't maintain an erection, CBC reports.

The couple were married in August 2018, but after suffering from problems consummating the marriage they are said to have attended counselling sessions at the Chinese Alliance Church.

During these sessions the woman said her husband-to-be never let on that sex might be an issue.

From the date of their marriage until March 2019, they attempted sexual intercourse each month — though the couple differ on how many times a week, and who was most willing to try.

The couple stopped living together after the woman asked her husband to see a doctor, who ended up assuring them both there was "nothing wrong" with the man.

According to the judge, the man blamed the woman for their failure to consummate and even claimed that "he has a new girlfriend, and they have sexual intercourse regularly".

  • Tiger and giant lizard found at drug cartel leader's home in major drugs bust

The new girlfriend gave no evidence as to his alleged sexual prowess.

The judge's ruling delved into the history of annulment — specifically, the burden of proof needed to establish a marriage really can't be consummated.

According to a Paris Review article, the trials Baker referred to involved couples having sex in semi-private quarters, while close family, legal observers and doctors awaited nearby.

But Justice Baker determined such a strict standard of proof would not be necessary today.

"I am satisfied the extremely strict standard of proof required in earlier centuries resulted from an apparent horror of impotency within the cultural norms of those times," she said. "I am not satisfied that this extremely strict standard of proof is necessary or appropriate today."

As such, Baker said it wouldn't be necessary for the husband in the British Columbia case to submit to a medical exam to prove he couldn't maintain an erection "so as to achieve sexual penetration, and the consummation of their marriage", and the judge granted the annulment.

Source: Read Full Article