Don't you just love spam blogs? This morning I came across 'reference list', which appears to have run my last post through a translator into another language (?French), and back into English again. The 'author' may think that this makes the post 'original', but it also makes it complete garbage. Here, for your delectation, is the new version in full (compare it with the real post below this one):
Family Lore: Marital obligations
Also in The Times, but on a degree lighter note, I enjoyed Gary Slapper’s Weird Cases column yesterday. The odd if it should chance in query this week concerns a Kenyan publish who is suing the leaders of a coalition of women’s groups who organised a seven-day flee of indecent relations with men, as a study exception at the country’s patrons and federal problems. The publish has issued laic proceedings, claiming that his chain had refused to principles his conjugal rights because of the flood.
Whether an deficiency of coupling in the direction of seven days is a legally actionable oppress is not specified in most countries, says Slapper. What was tested, motionlessly, was whether a chain was in cell of her marital obligations when she often badgered her mate in the direction of coupling. I degree dubiousness in some method that we command dig this tested as untouched here. As Slapper points free, these were the facts of a 1960 fracture if it should chance: To excite him into copulation she would, in the beginning hours of the morning, pull his outward show of one’s teeth, fascinate check of him not later than the ears, and joggle his check violently to and fro. Unfortunately in the direction of the mate, motionlessly, not later than giving in to her demands he was adjudged to drink ‘condoned her cruelty’. Divorce farm was demonstrably more absorbing wager then.