Are couples in Luxembourg required to have sex? And does refusing to do so constitute a “fault” in divorce proceedings? While the question may seem outdated, it remains a relevant legal issue today.
A recent case in France brought the matter back into the spotlight. In 2019, a French woman was found “guilty” of having refused sexual relations with her husband for years, leading to a divorce granted on the grounds that she was solely at fault. The case was ultimately appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which condemned France in 2025.
The ruling highlighted France’s continued reliance on a legal principle dating back to the Napoleonic Code of 1804, which enshrined the concept of “conjugal duty”. This obligation to engage in sexual relations within marriage, however, had deeper historical roots, reinforced over centuries by the Church as a means of curbing adultery and preventing illegitimate births. For much of this history, women – those most affected – had little say in the matter.
That changed just days ago, when French MPs voted unanimously in favour of a law establishing that there is no obligation for sexual relations within marriage. The bill now moves to the Senate, with its authors hoping for enactment by summer 2026.
But what about Luxembourg? Does the concept of conjugal duty still exist across the border?
The answer is unequivocal: no. Luxembourg law explicitly excludes any sexual obligation within marriage. According to the judiciary, “the notion of ‘conjugal duty’ has never been enshrined in legislation under this specific name.” Additionally, “the evolution of criminal law has progressively made any idea of sexual obligation within marriage incompatible with Luxembourg law.”
A key development came with the law of 7 August 2023, which clarified the notion of sexual consent. Consent, the law states, “must be free and explicit, cannot be inferred from a lack of resistance, and can be withdrawn at any time.” This principle applies to every sexual act, including within a couple.
In the absence of consent, the act constitutes rape – a principle already established in a landmark 1994 ruling, which stated: “It is now accepted that rape between spouses is punishable in the same way as that committed by a perpetrator against a person to whom they are not bound by matrimonial ties.”
Rape carries a criminal sentence of five to ten years, with the penalty increased “when the rape victim is the spouse or divorced spouse, the person with whom the perpetrator lives or has habitually lived,” the judicial administration further specifies.
Since 1 November 2018, divorce for fault has been abolished in Luxembourg – a change that has fundamentally altered the legal landscape. According to Nadia Chouhad, a lawyer at the bar and managing partner at NC Advocat, this means the judge no longer examines matters of adultery, “conjugal duty”, or the private life of a couple.
“When you appear before the judge, you simply talk about how to organise child custody, maintenance payments, the liquidation of assets if applicable, and nothing else”, she explained.
The Ministry of Justice confirmed this interpretation. “Although the duty of fidelity is still an essential element of marriage and its maintenance remains coherent, it no longer plays a role in divorce proceedings,” a ministry spokesperson stated. They added that “conjugal duty has had no impact on either the cause or the consequences of divorce since 2018.”
The removal of fault-based divorce has also streamlined judicial proceedings. Chouhad noted that prior to the reform, divorce cases could drag on for years. “Because we considered stories of cheating, or desertion of the marital home, we were in the realm of emotion, of resentment, and a divorce could last for years”, she recalled.
Today, the process is significantly faster. “Between the moment a person files for divorce, the summons to the hearing, and the moment the divorce is granted, it can be as little as two months. I had a case like that just recently”, the lawyer said.
From a legal standpoint, the message is clear: intimacy and the notion of “conjugal duty” no longer have a place in Luxembourg’s courts. However, this does not diminish the cultural or moral significance of sexual relations within a couple – quite the contrary.
Despite the legal clarity, there will always be individuals who “feel obliged” to engage in sexual relations with their partner. While this mindset may be more prevalent among conservative and religious populations, sexologist Laura Hendriks cautions that “sexual coercion can exist in all social and cultural environments.”
Based in Luxembourg, Hendriks has frequently encountered this phenomenon, particularly among women. She notes that many tell themselves “it’s normal in a couple to force yourself,” “the good of the couple must come before my personal well-being,” or “if I refuse, I’m being selfish.”
“These beliefs generally reflect a lack of emotional and sexual education, particularly on the issue of consent,” Hendriks explained, adding “The challenge is not to assign blame, but to recall a fundamental principle of human integrity: desire is not owed, it is built and shared in a relationship based on reciprocity. This requires being able to recognise the suffering and needs of each person.”
When sexual needs within a couple are not met, she noted, “suffering can arise. This suffering deserves to be recognised without being trivialised as mere frustration. Sexuality is not just a physical act: it touches upon attachment, self-esteem.”
Does this mean it is acceptable to end a relationship due to a lack of sexual relations? Hendriks answers in the affirmative: “Yes. It is important to recognise that this is also a legitimate right. Ending a relationship because a fundamental need is no longer being met is neither superficial nor shameful.”
She draws a clear distinction between leaving and staying under duress. “What becomes problematic, however, is not leaving, but demanding, threatening, coercing or punishing. Leaving is sometimes a more respectful decision than staying in a relationship progressively consumed by resentment.”
Hendriks also warned that “sexuality is particularly susceptible to manipulation because it touches on intimacy and personal worth.” Both men and women, she noted, can exploit this vulnerability: “Some men may threaten separation when there is no longer sexuality, and indirectly play on a financial risk that could fall on the partner.” Similarly, “some women may exert pressure around child custody, or the family consequences of a breakup, while having no desire to work on the couple’s sexual dynamic.”
In conclusion, Hendriks offered a guiding principle: “We protect a couple not by imposing sexuality, but by simultaneously protecting the right to consent, the right to need, AND the right to leave.”
