Nor did they bother to point out what was some of the controversy over the groups asking for the boycott and as pointed out, this is something that women have done in the past:
Sex boycott is not an entirely new concept, having been used by European and North American women opposed to war in Iraq in 2003.
Thousands of actresses all over the world took part in a reading of the ancient Greek play, Lysistrata, as part of a protest against the war as they refrained from sex.
The play, written by Aristophanes in 415 BC, features Greek women who, fed up with their warmongering husbands, go on a sex strike in a bid to end the endless conflicts.
Eventually, the menfolk succumb and agree to a truce.
Last December, hundreds of Italian women pledged to go without sex unless their men promised to refrain from setting off dangerous illegal fireworks.
It was also reported but of course at not the same level as this potential lawsuit, that muslim women groups were not in support of the sex boycott.
Some men as well as women were not in support of this.
Did it work? CNN is reporting it did work, but when you read other media reports? it's less clear despite the success claims.
The larger discussion that probably should take place, it's about sex and it's not about sex didn't get the kind of media attention that "Sex starved Kenyan sues" will get...
We often decry men viewing us as sexual objects, but the reality is women withholding sex as a threat creates some hypocrisy issues, to me it's a shame that is all these women felt they had going for them to use as a threat, though I also think the lawsuit is ridiculous, men are being portrayed as such weak creatures they can't go seven days without sex. It's a sad commentary on both sexes...