Another strong case against Western Heterosexuality.

In traditional, non-western societies, marriage was only a social duty of men, with no obligation of any romantic/ emotional or social bonding, and hence very few marriages had these elements. Even the sexual oblitation of men was limited to sex for procreation.

Now, even in societies like India, which are highly westernized and heterosexualized, law has started to require that it is the duty of the spouse (especially men) to fulfill the sexual needs of the partner, even when the number of children desired has been reached. And if this need is not fulfilled then the other spouse (in most cases women) can sue for a divorce.

This law is extremely oppressive. Is law really concerned about fulfilling the sexual needs of people? Then, how can it prevent men from having sex with each other... then in fact, the law should come up with adequate provisions to safeguard such relationships.

If law is under no obligation to give people the right for sexual fulfillment, then it cannot force men to serve their wives sexually. After all, marriage is only for reproduction. 

There cannot be two standards