France has been in an uproar about an annulment given a Muslim couple because the husband discovered on his wedding night that his wife was not a virgin. A tribunal in the northern city of Lille granted the annulment, based on the man’s contention that the woman’s virginity was a “determining factor” in his decision to marry and that she had lied to him.
Now an appeals court in Douai has overturned the annulment because the “absence” of virginity “had no bearing on the marriage”, therefore quashing the right to annul.
The original annulment brought furious protests from women’s groups who slammed it as a victory for religious fundamentalism and a blow to the emancipation of women
The husband’s lawyer protested the overturning of the annulment was very worrying. “Our individual liberties are seriously threatened.”
Should whether a woman is a virgin or not be a critical factor in a valid marriage?
What do you think?
In my book, if the woman marrying should be a virgin so should the prospective husband. She is no merchandise that he buys new. She is a person that has lived before he met her. She made her choices. If this was to remain a virgin that was her choice.
To me it is not so much the fact that she was a virgin but that they, the couple talked about this. If they knew that this is a dealbreaker for him they should not have been married.
Again, to me this is not so much about facts but about trust.
And what if she was married before as this happens all the time these days? Will he still expect her to be a virgin? It does not make sense.
The fact that spouses be faithful to each other from the time they are married seems much more important to me.
It’s preferable. ;<)
Seriously folks.
France is toast.
This is clearly in the realm of “unreasonable accommodation”.
France was right, its like buying a diamond and finding out you have a Zircon. Its O.K. Heidi, I agree it works both ways.
Wow. I wouldn’t think this would generate discussion. I would have thought a few of us would comment: ‘of course it doesn’t matter!!’.
Some of you think it’s important to be a virgin when you marry? I’m surprised at that… but if that’s important to you then by all means – try and do it!
Virginity is something that should be discussed BEFORE marriage if that’s important to you… and should not be the basis for annulment.
Neil asks:
Should whether a woman is a virgin or not be a critical factor in a valid marriage?
Only if being a virgin was a contractual obligation — either implicit or explicit — of the marriage contract.
This is not so much an issue of ethnic or cultural traditions as it is contractual. If for these two people it can be shown that virginity on the part of the woman was an implicit condition for them marrying, and this condition was not met by her, that is a legitimate reason to annul the marriage.
The alternative, I suppose would be divorce…but that would assume a marriage existed in the first instance, which I don’t believe is the case here. A marriage ceremony does not a marriage make. Other factors need also be there to “consummate” a marriage and, obviously, one of the most important conditions was missing (and I don’t use the term “consummate” in its strictly sexual act sense).
First question: How does anyone know she wasn’t a virgin?
He “discovered” it on their wedding night? She didn’t scream and cry? Pretend to be shy? She didn’t bleed? She *gasp* liked sex?
Well, dammit, men (no, not no one here)! Don’t just sit there with yer mouths open! Shoot the hussy!
Yeesh, what people won’t fricken fash about…
Chimera wrote:
First question: How does anyone know she wasn’t a virgin?
You’ve obviously never been with a virgin.
And, yes, there are ways to tell — even for the layman — other than penetration.
I thought we were discussing virginity as a requisite for a valid marriage, Turns out to be a gynecology 101 course. Are we digressing?
She broke the law. That is why the state, by way of a tribunal, annuled the marriage.
Jim, I hope you are joking! Which law stipulates that either party be a virgin in order to be married?
And what does the state have to decide in this? I surely do not understand. I hope there is no prison term for the poor woman!
But in any case the woman is much better off without this kind of guy!
Tony,
Yes, especially if her underwear come under a lock and key.
Heidi:- If there was a tribunal sitting on the case it seems to me they were looking into whether a law was broken and evidently a law was broken. For all I know maybe she was tried for lying on her marriage licence form. The France had something to do with it because appointed the tribunal. I agree with your last two sentences.
“You’ve obviously never been with a virgin.”
Well, not that I was checking for, at any rate…
“And, yes, there are ways to tell — even for the layman — other than penetration.”
Do tell! Seriously.
Chimera asks:
Do tell! Seriously.
No, I think I will yield to Paul’s observation that we’ve gone off topic and not go there.
But there’s always Google Images.
Have fun. Knock yourself out.
Good morrow, all!
“ahem” Uh, Paul? Digressing is MY bit, remember?
“because the husband discovered on his wedding night that his wife was not a virgin.” If she lied about being a virgin, that more or less constitutes breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, or whatever. However, as the story is represented, we only have the man’s word that he “discovered” that she was not a virgin. And we are to trust his word over hers, exactly how?
The original purpose of marriage, as laid out in Semitic tradition, was to establish three things:
Property: women, like sheep, goats and camels, were property, and other men had to respect one’s claim on one’s property.
Paternity: since it has always been, “Mama’s baby, and Daddy’s maybe”, in order to make sure of paternity, the woman had to be pure up to the marriage, and faithful thereafter. (Not that there was any such compunction on the man’s part about any of that)
Posterity: somebody had to inherit the sheep, goats and camels, it had to be a male, so it had to be a son of that marriage in order to have other men respect the inheritance of same.
As long as women are still considered property, as long as paternity is not so much a matter of trust as it is one of control, as long as posterity depends upon the previous two attitudes, no society can really call itself civilized…as if any ever could…and Paul, THAT’s how you might digress…CTZen
“…I think I will yield to Paul’s observation that we’ve gone off topic and not go there.”
But that was precisely the topic, Tony!
If virginity is a prerequisite for marriage, how can you tell is a woman is a virgin? I say you can’t. Even doctors will say you can’t. You say different. So…we’re all *ahem* ears.
Bwok BWOK bok bok bok…
Sorry CTZen but digress is a word and a verb not owned by any particular individual…altough I must admit you do it very elegantly and efficiently.
Good morrow, Paul!
In that case, I’ll alert my solicitor that my class action suit to copyright and trademark the word “digress”, in all its functions in the English language, will not be going ahead. *sigh* Pity. I was so looking forwarding to addressing the Supremes. (Damn! The royalties would have bem AWESOME!)…but I digress…D’oh! – CTZen
CTZen:
I don’t know how they pulled it off, but apparently Paris Hilton has trademarked the phrase “That’s hot!” and Michael Buffer, the Emcee at high-end boxing matches, has trademarked “Let’s get ready to rumble!”