Chastity Fraud: Marriage Annulled Over Virginity Lie - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 06-03-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

View: Marriage Annulled Over Virginity Lie
Source: Time
posted with the TFP thread generator

Marriage Annulled Over Virginity Lie
Tuesday, Jun. 03, 2008
Marriage Annulled Over Virginity Lie
By Bruce Crumley/Paris

When French Justice Minister Rachida Dati on Monday ordered an appeal to a court decision annulling a Muslim couple's marriage on the grounds that the wife had lied about being a virgin before the wedding, the acclaim was almost universal. The ruling's logic — essentially creating the legal concept of chastity fraud — was widely seen as an attack on women's rights that undermined decades of progress on sexual attitudes. The lower court's ruling seemed as well to have put Muslim religious concerns above France's strictly secular laws. But for the woman whose public repudiation sparked the controversy, Dati's decision means something else: the prolongation of a humiliating process to get her out of an unwanted marriage.

"Despite everything, my client was quite pleased with the [original] ruling because it allowed her reclaim her liberty," the woman's lawyer, Charles-Edouard Mauger, told the daily Le Figaro when asked why he hadn't appealed a verdict that France's secretary of state for urban affairs, Fadela Amara, reviled as "a fatwa against the emancipation of women." While Mauger was unable to speak to TIME on Tuesday, his colleagues following the case acknowledged their client was "traumatized to learn the Justice Ministry had ordered an appeal, because all she wants is this marriage over, this terrible attention and pressure off her, and to get on with her life as a free, single woman."

Until the state's challenge is heard, however, the woman — identified only as a 25 year-old nursing student from northern France — is condemned to play the role of symbol for the many forces that have seized her case as a major cause. The storm broke out last Thursday, when France's national media picked up on the unpublicized April 1 verdict annulling the couple's 10-month marriage on the husband's complaint that his wife's prenuptial assurances of virginity were false. The judge had reasoned that the wife's claimed virginity constituted "an essential quality decisive for the consent of her husband to wed." That, protestors argued, reduced the woman — and by extension all women — to the status of goods whose acquisition could be renounced by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden impurities or defects in them.

"We know that women's rights are never secured, but we never thought we'd see such regression in our country," reacted Martine Aubry, the Socialist mayor of Lille, where the case was heard. France's conservative secretary of state for social solidarity, Valérie Létard, called the decision "an attack on the integrity of women and a violation of the fundamental rights of all individuals."

The fact that both husband and wife are Muslim further fueled the controversy. Though religion was never cited in the litigation or ruling, the case played into broad concern in France over the spreading influence of Islam. "These strong reactions across all France demonstrate the difficulties we're experiencing in our relationships between our societies and Islam," said French Urban Affairs Minister Christine Boutin Monday on RTL radio. She added that had the case not involved Muslims, it wouldn't have generated the same emotions in a country where over 700 marriages are annulled by courts every year.

Boutin's view is supported by controversial Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan, whose views on Islam's place in the West have often swept him into the media?s glare. "People don't realize how damaging it can be to be reduced to a symbol, and have the elements of your life and humanity ignored in favor of stereotypes," says Ramadan. "I hope this woman quickly regains her right to tranquility, independence, and her own identity so she can just go back to living her own life."

I find it interesting that the court didn't hear any evidence about religion during the litigation, but the whole idea and precedence this creates by the way that I read it is that it creates a situation for women to be chattel. A possession or object instead of a person.

Quote:

reduced the woman — and by extension all women — to the status of goods whose acquisition could be renounced by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden impurities or defects in them.

Reading the above, just makes me shiver. I cannot believe that someone would be able to find something like this acceptable. Could someone divorce because of being sterile? having cancer? getting fat?

ngdawg · 06-03-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Could someone divorce because of being sterile? having cancer? getting fat?

They aren't legal grounds for divorce, but they have been reasons.

Why are the courts even bothering with this? Fraud in and of itself is a valid reason for annulment(re: Rene Zellweger, c. 2006). If she, whether Muslim or not, reprsented herself to be something it was found later she was not, and that issue was a deal maker or breaker, it's not even newsworthy. Why it's made so is the fact that the fraud charge involved her sexual past-she presented herself as a virgin. She lied, big whoop.
Rights groups have a real problem with cultural mentality. Granted, there are some things they should stick their nose in-genital mutilation in some African tribal cultures comes to mind-but this is not the mutilation, imprisonment or torture of another. She lied.
Dati needs to find something else to occupy his time and the human rights mouthpieces need to as well. If it goes back to court, they'll be pissed off; if the marriage gets annulled, they'll be pissed off. There are more pressing issues.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 12:11 PM

The fact that this particular annulment pertains to women's sexuality should be immaterial. But it won't be. People simply aren't willing to be reasonable in cases like this and insist on weighing in their useless and meaningless opinions. Me? All I can say is that she's not a whore, she's a human being and deserves to be treated as such, however marriage is an agreement which is not unlike a contract. If you misrepresent yourself in the contract said contract could be void.

While the state can marry anyone the state wants, regardless of sexual history, the religion creates a definite contractual context. It's that context and how it applies to law that's in question.

I you're a member of a religion in which one can only become married after drinking 4 gallons of milk in a week, and one of the parties lies about drinking the milk, the same question of religious context pertaining to the law could be in question.

BTW, does she really want to be married to a ponce like this?

ironman · 06-03-2008, 12:22 PM

I really don't see anything wrong with the decision of the court to annul the marriage. One must remember that marriage is a contract, and that if one is made to believe by the other something that is untrue, false, or hide something from the other that could affect his or her decision to go ahead with the contract, then it has to be annul. In Guatemala, one can ask for a marriage annulment if either wife or husband hide reproductive problems to the other, and I think that is fair. I might be a douche that wants my wife to be virgin and able to breed, and that plays a big role in taking my decision to marry her, if she lies to me, I was led to believe something untrue and so, my decision was taken over false expectations.

samcol · 06-03-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

I really don't see anything wrong with the decision of the court to annul the marriage. One must remember that marriage is a contract, and that if one is made to believe by the other something that is untrue, false, or hide something from the other that could affect his or her decision to go ahead with the contract, then it has to be annul. In Guatemala, one can ask for a marriage annulment if either wife or husband hide reproductive problems to the other, and I think that is fair. I might be a douche that wants my wife to be virgin and able to breed, and that plays a big role in taking my decision to marry her, if she lies to me, I was led to believe something untrue and so, my decision was taken over false expectations.

agreed.

Daniel_ · 06-03-2008, 02:02 PM

She represented herself as something that she later admitted was untrue.

The fact that is was her sexual history is not relevant (to me) - if she'd lied about her income, or he'd lied about his level of education, it would still be fraud, and certainly under English legal history I'm sure this would have been covered as "breach of promise".

snowy · 06-03-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

BTW, does she really want to be married to a ponce like this?

No, she didn't, hence why she was happy with the original ruling; the article states that she is disappointed that the controversy surrounding the decision because she wants her marriage to be over.

I don't see this as an issue directly related to Islam; I'm sure that in France there are many remaining vestiges of the Catholic Church's influence on French law and thought that also came out in this ruling. Personally, I don't like the idea of women as chattel, and I regret the effects a ruling such as this may cause--is it worth the cost of freeing a single woman from a bad marriage? I don't know; I suppose we'll find out.

Frosstbyte · 06-03-2008, 03:36 PM

Fraud is fraud, and is and always ought to be good reason for annulling a contract. Chastity may not be a material term to you or me, but it is to some people, and if someone enters into that contract with them based on that fraudulent claim, I think there's every reason to consider that grounds for mutual rescission.

The case is easily mischaracterized as having something to do with oppressing women. Like those above, I don't think that's the issue in the slightest.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

No, she didn't, hence why she was happy with the original ruling; the article states that she is disappointed that the controversy surrounding the decision because she wants her marriage to be over.

Sounds like someone I'd like. I hope this dies down soon so she can get on with living her life.

girldetective · 06-03-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Willravel said: The fact that this particular annulment pertains to women's sexuality should be immaterial.

Why do you say this? Do you mean sexuality or gender? If gender, I dont believe it is immaterial. In fact, I believe it is rooted in her being a woman. Fraud may be distasteful, but this sets a scary precedent for women.

Quote:

Original Post stated: The lower court's ruling seemed as well to have put Muslim religious concerns above France's strictly secular laws.

Putting religious laws above secular?! Please. Another dangerous precedent.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

Why do you say this? Do you mean sexuality or gender? If gender, I dont believe it is immaterial. In fact, I believe it is rooted in her being a woman. Fraud may be distasteful, but this sets a scary precedent for women.

If a person, male or female, lies about their sexual history, and the sexual history has serious religious implications, then the other party should be given the opportunity to annul. It's about false pretenses, not a woman's right to have sex before marriage.

girldetective · 06-03-2008, 06:30 PM

Can a woman sue a man for the same lie, and win? Is that allowed? And if there are children involved? Does the woman leave her life and raise them hoping for child support? How will it be enforced? Or if it is a drunken marriage?

There are still women who are stoned to death for indiscretions in this world. When was the last time you heard of a man being stoned to death because of a decision he made to use his body, but didnt want to tell anyone out of fear.

If I am found by a priest to have mortally sinned and I refuse to repent, and he tells my husband then am I subject to divorce? What if on the first date I lie about something having to do only with me and nothing with you, that happened long before I met you, and is really none of your business, and 8 years later you learn I lied. Am I then a target? And who decides this, whose whim at whatever time?

Please. I am indignant.

I mean really, please. It appears to be in re false pretenses, but the religious law is not. It is specifically about women.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 06:41 PM

This woman isn't being stoned to death. She even wants the annulment.

girldetective · 06-03-2008, 06:47 PM

Yes. However, it sets a precedent both for men/women and for religious/secular forums. I mean really dont you think its messy and dangerous ground to tread, not to mention unfair?

I understand that the woman doesnt want to be used as an example, and I sympathize with her. I am no fan of unwanted attention, and I would probably hide out and not speak at all to the press. However, I thought this posting was about the subject rather than only the piece itself.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 06:56 PM

This won't be expanded to stoning. It's an annulment based on false pretenses. Plenty of women around the world have marriages annulled because their husbands lied about something major before they got married.

girldetective · 06-03-2008, 07:41 PM

>>This won't be expanded to stoning.<< It just has.

. . .

Its the idea. You do understand dont you about the precedent, and based on historical recollection how it may make women feel as if owned? Surely you get that.

Sorry to be so gurgley. I havent eaten dinner and had only Junior Mints for lunch. Nonetheless, even after the full meal waiting for me I will wonder how you can posture this way.

Frosstbyte · 06-03-2008, 08:10 PM

The precedent this sets is that if you enter into married under fraudulent terms, it is grounds for annulment. It is a broad reading of fraud which allows more marriages to be annulled for more reasons, including very personal reasons like religious preference-which I personally value as a protection of free exercise. To be honest, I think anything else you attribute to it is your own personal bias and has nothing to do with the actual impact of the decision.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

>>This won't be expanded to stoning.<< It just has.

Who was stoning? Who was stoned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

Its the idea. You do understand dont you about the precedent, and based on historical recollection how it may make women feel as if owned? Surely you get that.

Precedent for this is people lying before getting married. It just happens to be a Muslim couple. Christians, Jews, and Hindus could have just as easily done this. Shoot, atheists could have.

If I met a wonderful woman, fell in love and found out she used to be a man, I'd get a big fat annulment. Not because I'm against people doing what makes them happy, but because he/she lied to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

Sorry to be so gurgley. I havent eaten dinner and had only Junior Mints for lunch. Nonetheless, even after the full meal waiting for me I will wonder how you can posture this way.

I'll come over and cook you dinner.

Shaindra · 06-04-2008, 04:01 AM

How about we just allow them to divorce or annul because they want it, and let the religious and misogynistic overtones stay out of court rulings? Yeah, she lied. What if he lied about having a million dollars? Or that he was going to be a "modern husband"?

I dislike making presumption of virginity an even implied part of the marriage contract.

The_Jazz · 06-04-2008, 04:12 AM

How about we all get our collective panties out of a wad because this is happening in France and doesn't mean shit in the US, Canada, UK or Australia? It doesn't set any precedent except in France. This is an annullment for fraud which - to the astonishment of some of you - is a perfectly acceptable reason in all 50 states of the US. It's the details of the fraud that has everyone all fired up here. What if she'd been a he and misrepresented that? Where's your righteous indignation then?

Personally, I feel sorry for the woman. This has got to be her worst case scenario. She didn't want any of this.

Christ, talk about tempest in a teapot (except in France where it actually means something).

girldetective · 06-04-2008, 05:54 AM

Collective panties?! Relax, its just a discussion. I dont think it was ever implied in discussion where this set a precendent. In my own mind I wasnt thinking of a geographical place so much as thought patterns that persists in re women in the world in general. You know, I am a woman. These things are important to me. And the secular vs religious law thingy has always been a stone in my shoe. I mean I have to drag out my soap box occasionally. I read the original post as not so much about the case itself, more a question posed about the example this sets.

And, 007 offered dinner so it cant be all bad.

Quote:

Original Posting : I find it interesting that the court didn't hear any evidence about religion during the litigation, but the whole idea and precedence this creates by the way that I read it is that it creates a situation for women to be chattel. A possession or object instead of a person.

Quote:
reduced the woman — and by extension all women — to the status of goods whose acquisition could be renounced by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden impurities or defects in them.

Reading the above, just makes me shiver. I cannot believe that someone would be able to find something like this acceptable. Could someone divorce because of being sterile? having cancer? getting fat?

Cynthetiq · 06-04-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Who was stoning? Who was stoned?

Precedent for this is people lying before getting married. It just happens to be a Muslim couple. Christians, Jews, and Hindus could have just as easily done this. Shoot, atheists could have.

If I met a wonderful woman, fell in love and found out she used to be a man, I'd get a big fat annulment. Not because I'm against people doing what makes them happy, but because he/she lied to me.

How did he/she lie to you? Did you ASK them directly that they were a woman? Is that an actual question you've posed to your girlfriend?

"Hey, were you born a girl?"
"I just wanted to ask if you were born a man and switched to being a girl. So were you born a man?"

If they ommited that fact by never mentioning it how is it a lie to you? As far as she is concerned she is now a woman and will continue to be one for the future. Now I could see if she was reverting back to being a man as a dealbreaker, but if she continued being a woman, how is that a lie?

In the same vein could one be a recovered alcoholic/drug addict and that be grounds? It's their past right? That's what is important right?

Or is the most important thing the very much future that the two people have and how they will create that future?

Willravel · 06-04-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

How did he/she lie to you? Did you ASK them directly that they were a woman? Is that an actual question you've posed to your girlfriend?

If I'm dating a woman seriously, I've already brought up the fact that I want to have children, biological offspring. That's when the question is asked. If she's not interested in giving birth sometime in the future, that's a deal-breaker. A man with surgery cannot give birth.

So yes, I ask.

Cynthetiq · 06-04-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If I'm dating a woman seriously, I've already brought up the fact that I want to have children, biological offspring. That's when the question is asked. If she's not interested in giving birth sometime in the future, that's a deal-breaker. A man with surgery cannot give birth.

So yes, I ask.

that's fair. so if they are later to be found to be sterile you'd divorce them.

Willravel · 06-04-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

that's fair. so if they are later to be found to be sterile you'd divorce them.

If she knew she was sterile and I married her with the intent to reproduce? File that under "cry me a river". And no, I'd probable shoot for an annulment (depending on my lawyer's advice).

I don't lie to women I'm dating and I expect the same from them.

Cynthetiq · 06-04-2008, 08:26 AM

secondary question to everyone.... what is the difference between annulled and divorced? IMO it's is the same.

Willravel · 06-04-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

secondary question to everyone.... what is the difference between annulled and divorced? IMO it's is the same.

"Have you ever been divorced?"
"No, I haven't."

snowy · 06-04-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

secondary question to everyone.... what is the difference between annulled and divorced? IMO it's is the same.

Quote:

Annulment is a legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is retroactive: an annulled marriage is considered never to have existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

Martian · 06-04-2008, 09:04 AM

I've got to side with willravel on this one. I really don't see how the virginity or lack thereof is relevant. As shocking as it is, there are some cultures that still place an emphasis on such things. It was her choice to represent herself as something she isn't and this is the result of that. It sounds like everyone is more or less getting what they want out of it. Why does it have to be turned into some sort of feministic thing?

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no gender issues here. The guy is religiously opposed to marrying a woman who isn't a virgin, which is cool. I mean, sure it's a bit backwards and anachronistic, but it's his choice. I'm against marrying a woman over 40. The sole reason it's an issue is because she lied about it. Therefore he entered into a contract under false pretenses and she has committed fraud. Where does she become the victim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

secondary question to everyone.... what is the difference between annulled and divorced? IMO it's is the same.

For legal and religious reasons an annulment may be more desirable in some situations. Also, an annulment means no alimony or other costly and time consuming divorce proceedings. It's the marriage's undo button.

dlish · 06-04-2008, 09:08 AM

im on the same wavelength as will here and was going to use the same example.

if i was married and found out that my wife was a man. it'd be goodbye charlie! its the principle of truth. and im not talking about small lies here.

im not so sure about the reigious background of the woman or her husband, but if he got married to her thinking she was a virgin and she gave him that impression, coupled with the sigma of not being a virgin at marriage in the muslim world, then he/she has a right to annul the marriage. it matters not who annuls. in islamic law, there is no differentiation in this case. any party can annul.

but this isnt really about religion than about frances opportunity to run rifts and divides within the fragile peace between the islamic community and the rest of france.

JohnBua · 06-08-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

She represented herself as something that she later admitted was untrue.

The fact that is was her sexual history is not relevant (to me) - if she'd lied about her income, or he'd lied about his level of education, it would still be fraud, and certainly under English legal history I'm sure this would have been covered as "breach of promise".

This is it in a nutshell. This marriage was based on a lie. So it should be annulled.

Dragonknight · 06-08-2008, 06:07 PM

Either way it goes she lied, and she didn't want to be in the marriage anyway. I don't see the problem with the annulment. The fact that she lied should be reason enough for the annulment. If my wife asked me a question that really meant something to her, something soo important that us getting married hinged on the answer, and I lied to her....Would I expect her to stay married, no. No matter what the question pertained to, the fact that I lied should count and I should be expected to accept the consequences for the lie.

girldetective · 06-08-2008, 08:30 PM

Willravel: Your case of sterility used as an example seems understandable and certainly reasonable to me, if a little off subject. I understand it represents a spouse lying to another spouse about something of great import. However, in your case the sterility affects you presently. How do a partner's premarital indiscretions affect your life given that they were done discreetly and with no bad outcome, such as disease or something?

Dlish: Do you know what the expectations for men coming to the marital bed are? Virginity for both? I dont know, but I hope its fair and true on both sides. Interesting note of yours re France's muslim population and their tenuous peace. Im going to read more about it.

Martian · 06-09-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

Dlish: Do you know what the expectations for men coming to the marital bed are? Virginity for both? I dont know, but I hope its fair and true on both sides.

Why should that be the slightest bit relevant?

Judging by the material available, there's more to this than meets the eye. Regardless, it's not like he sprung this on her. Odds are it was mentioned at some point and the whole not having sex before marriage bit would seem to be a strong indicator. If we assume for the sake of argument that all parties entered into this arrangement willingly, then the sole issue here is that she defrauded him. His status, expectations of him, none of that matters in the slightest bit.

Every couple and every individual needs to decide for themselves what's right. This guy thinks his wife ought to be unsullied and that's his call. Personally, I'd much rather the girls I sleep with not be virgins, because that's a whole big mess (literally and figuratively) that I'd just rather avoid. He may have a double standard for his wife-to-be and that's fine too. If he can find a woman who agrees with it, then good on him. Shockingly, they do still exist.

dlish · 06-09-2008, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

Dlish: Do you know what the expectations for men coming to the marital bed are? Virginity for both? I dont know, but I hope its fair and true on both sides. Interesting note of yours re France's muslim population and their tenuous peace. Im going to read more about it.

GD - its the same as christianity. pre-marital sex for either party is forbidden. so yes that means virginity for both. period.

whether you can prove virginity on a guy is a different story.

highthief · 06-09-2008, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

I really don't see anything wrong with the decision of the court to annul the marriage. One must remember that marriage is a contract, and that if one is made to believe by the other something that is untrue, false, or hide something from the other that could affect his or her decision to go ahead with the contract, then it has to be annul. In Guatemala, one can ask for a marriage annulment if either wife or husband hide reproductive problems to the other, and I think that is fair. I might be a douche that wants my wife to be virgin and able to breed, and that plays a big role in taking my decision to marry her, if she lies to me, I was led to believe something untrue and so, my decision was taken over false expectations.

Agreed. As I understand it, both parties want the annulment anyway.

Cynthetiq · 06-10-2008, 09:54 PM

well, now you can just get a surgery peformed and continue to lie about your premartial sex status.

Quote:

View: Surgery Offers Muslim Women Illusion of Virginity
Source: NYTimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Surgery Offers Muslim Women Illusion of Virginity
June 11, 2008
Surgery Offers Muslim Women Illusion of Virginity
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and SOUAD MEKHENNET
PARIS — The operation in the private clinic off the Champs-Élysées involved one semicircular cut, 10 dissolving stitches and a discounted fee of $2,900.

But for the patient, a 23-year-old French student of Moroccan descent from Montpellier, the 30-minute procedure represented the key to a new life: the illusion of virginity.

Like an increasing number of Muslim women in Europe, she had a hymenoplasty, a restoration of her hymen, the vaginal membrane that normally breaks in the first act of intercourse.

“In my culture, not to be a virgin is to be dirt,” said the student, perched on a hospital bed as she awaited surgery on Thursday. “Right now, virginity is more important to me than life.”

As Europe’s Muslim population grows, many young Muslim women are caught between the freedoms that European society affords and the deep-rooted traditions of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

Gynecologists say that in the past few years, more Muslim women are seeking certificates of virginity to provide proof to others. That in turn has created a demand among cosmetic surgeons for hymen replacements, which, if done properly, they say, will not be detected and will produce tell-tale vaginal bleeding on the wedding night. The service is widely advertised on the Internet; medical tourism packages are available to countries like Tunisia where it is less expensive.

“If you’re a Muslim woman growing up in more open societies in Europe, you can easily end up having sex before marriage,” said Dr. Hicham Mouallem, who is based in London and performs the operation. “So if you’re looking to marry a Muslim and don’t want to have problems, you’ll try to recapture your virginity.”

No reliable statistics are available, because the procedure is mostly done in private clinics and in most cases not covered by tax-financed insurance plans.

But hymen repair is talked about so much that it is the subject of a film comedy that opens in Italy this week. “Women’s Hearts,” as the film’s title is translated in English, tells the story of a Moroccan-born woman living in Italy who goes to Casablanca for the operation.

One character jokes that she wants to bring her odometer count back down to “zero.”

“We realized that what we thought was a sporadic practice was actually pretty common,” said Davide Sordella, the film’s director. “These women can live in Italy, adopt our mentality and wear jeans. But in the moments that matter, they don’t always have the strength to go against their culture.”

The issue has been particularly charged in France, where a renewed and fierce debate has occurred about a prejudice that was supposed to have been buried with the country’s sexual revolution 40 years ago: the importance of a woman’s virginity.

The furor followed the revelation two weeks ago that a court in Lille, in northern France, had annulled the 2006 marriage of two French Muslims because the groom found his bride was not the virgin she had claimed to be.

The domestic drama has gripped France. The groom, an unidentified engineer in his 30s, left the nuptial bed and announced to the still partying wedding guests that his bride had lied. She was delivered that night to her parents’ doorstep.

The next day, he approached a lawyer about annulling the marriage. The bride, then a nursing student in her 20s, confessed and agreed to an annulment.

The court ruling did not mention religion. Rather, it cited breach of contract, concluding that the engineer had married her after “she was presented to him as single and chaste.” In secular, republican France, the case touches on several delicate subjects: the intrusion of religion into daily life; the grounds for dissolution of a marriage; and the equality of the sexes.

There were calls in Parliament this week for the resignation of Rachida Dati, France’s justice minister, after she initially upheld the ruling. Ms. Dati, who is a Muslim, backed down and ordered an appeal.

Some feminists, lawyers and doctors warned that the court’s acceptance of the centrality of virginity in marriage would encourage more Frenchwomen from Arab and African Muslim backgrounds to have their hymens restored. But there is much debate about whether the procedure is an act of liberation or repression.

“The judgment was a betrayal of France’s Muslim women,” said Elisabeth Badinter, the feminist writer. “It sends these women a message of despair by saying that virginity is important in the eyes of the law. More women are going to say to themselves, ‘My God, I’m not going to take that risk. I’ll recreate my virginity.’ ”

The plight of the rejected bride persuaded the Montpellier student to have the operation.

She insisted that she had never had intercourse and only discovered her hymen was torn when she tried to obtain a certificate of virginity to present to her boyfriend and his family. She says she bled after an accident on a horse when she was 10.

The trauma from realizing that she could not prove her virginity was so intense, she said, that she quietly borrowed money to pay for the procedure.

“All of a sudden, virginity is important in France,” she said. “I realized that I could be seen like that woman everyone is talking about on television.”

Those who perform the procedure say they are empowering patients by giving them a viable future and preventing them from being abused — or even killed — by their fathers or brothers.

“Who am I to judge?” asked Dr. Marc Abecassis, who restored the Montpellier student’s hymen. “I have colleagues in the United States whose patients do this as a Valentine’s present to their husbands. What I do is different. This is not for amusement. My patients don’t have a choice if they want to find serenity — and husbands.”

A specialist in what he calls “intimate” surgery, including penile enhancement, Dr. Abecassis says he performs two to four hymen restorations per week.

The French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians opposes the procedure on moral, cultural and health grounds.

“We had a revolution in France to win equality; we had a sexual revolution in 1968 when women fought for contraception and abortion,” said Dr. Jacques Lansac, the group’s leader. “Attaching so much importance to the hymen is regression, submission to the intolerance of the past.”

But the stories of the women who have had the surgery convey the complexity and raw emotion behind their decisions.

One Muslim born in Macedonia said she opted for the operation to avoid being punished by her father after an eight-year relationship with her boyfriend.

“I was afraid that my father would take me to a doctor and see whether I was still a virgin,” said the woman, 32, who owns a small business and lives on her own in Frankfurt. “He told me, ‘I will forgive everything but not if you have thrown dirt on my honor.’ I wasn’t afraid he would kill me, but I was sure he would have beaten me.”

In other cases, the woman and her partner decide for her to have the operation. A 26-year-old French woman of Moroccan descent said she lost her virginity four years ago when she fell in love with the man she now plans to marry. But she and her fiancé decided to share the cost of her $3,400 operation in Paris.

She said his conservative extended family in Morocco was requiring that a gynecologist — and family friend — there examine her for proof of virginity before the wedding.

“It doesn’t matter for my fiancé that I am not a virgin — but it would pose a huge problem for his family,” she said. “They know that you can pour blood on the sheets on the wedding night, so I have to have better proof.”

The lives of the French couple whose marriage was annulled are on hold. The Justice Ministry has sought an appeal, arguing that the decision has “provoked a heated social debate” that “touched all citizens of our country and especially women.”

At the Islamic Center of Roubaix, the Lille suburb where the wedding took place, there is sympathy for the woman.

“The man is the biggest of all the donkeys,” said Abdelkibir Errami, the center’s vice president. “Even if the woman was no longer a virgin, he had no right to expose her honor. This is not what Islam teaches. It teaches forgiveness.”

tnt666 · 04-10-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

She represented herself as something that she later admitted was untrue.

The fact that is was her sexual history is not relevant (to me) - if she'd lied about her income, or he'd lied about his level of education, it would still be fraud, and certainly under English legal history I'm sure this would have been covered as "breach of promise".

Yak! no!
Difference in income or education would NEVER be grounds for annulment of marriage, sheesh!

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

How about we all get our collective panties out of a wad because this is happening in France and doesn't mean shit in the US, Canada, UK or Australia? It doesn't set any precedent except in France. This is an annullment for fraud which - to the astonishment of some of you - is a perfectly acceptable reason in all 50 states of the US. It's the details of the fraud that has everyone all fired up here. What if she'd been a he and misrepresented that? Where's your righteous indignation then?

Personally, I feel sorry for the woman. This has got to be her worst case scenario. She didn't want any of this.

Christ, talk about tempest in a teapot (except in France where it actually means something).

False!
What happens in one "Western Civilized" country impacts all countries in the era of globalization, or hadn't you heard of this. Many years ago in France Muslim women started getting hymenal fabrication down by doctors in order to fake their virginity (with AND without consent of prospective husbands).

Now this ridiculous surgery has become mainstream on this side of the ocean and is even covered by medical insurance in some places.

This is a global world, what happens to one happens to all.

SecretMethod70 · 04-10-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnt666

Yak! no!
Difference in income or education would NEVER be grounds for annulment of marriage, sheesh!

Sure it could be. Middle class person lies and says they're wealthy during their relationship with another wealthy person. Thinking they're in love, and that there is no money motivation since the other person says they're wealthy, the actually wealthy person does not demand a prenuptial agreement. They get married, "whoops! I lied, I'm actually not rich at all." Down the line they get divorced and the middle class person gets a good chunk of the money.

More importantly, it's just plain misrepresenting yourself. If you marry someone thinking they are one thing and it turns out they were lying and they are actually another, then that is most certainly reason for an annulment.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnt666

False!
What happens in one "Western Civilized" country impacts all countries in the era of globalization, or hadn't you heard of this. Many years ago in France Muslim women started getting hymenal fabrication down by doctors in order to fake their virginity (with AND without consent of prospective husbands).

Now this ridiculous surgery has become mainstream on this side of the ocean and is even covered by medical insurance in some places.

This is a global world, what happens to one happens to all.

The problem here is the value the husbands place on virginity, so much so that their prospective spouse would rather deceive them than tell the truth.

Cynthetiq · 04-10-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnt666

This is a global world, what happens to one happens to all.

really? then that would mean that religious freedoms would be happening to everyone.

or is it just the negative things that happen?

06-03-2008, 12:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	I really don't see anything wrong with the decision of the court to annul the marriage. One must remember that marriage is a contract, and that if one is made to believe by the other something that is untrue, false, or hide something from the other that could affect his or her decision to go ahead with the contract, then it has to be annul. In Guatemala, one can ask for a marriage annulment if either wife or husband hide reproductive problems to the other, and I think that is fair. I might be a douche that wants my wife to be virgin and able to breed, and that plays a big role in taking my decision to marry her, if she lies to me, I was led to believe something untrue and so, my decision was taken over false expectations. __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

06-03-2008, 02:02 PM	#6 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	She represented herself as something that she later admitted was untrue. The fact that is was her sexual history is not relevant (to me) - if she'd lied about her income, or he'd lied about his level of education, it would still be fraud, and certainly under English legal history I'm sure this would have been covered as "breach of promise". __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

06-03-2008, 06:30 PM	#12 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	Can a woman sue a man for the same lie, and win? Is that allowed? And if there are children involved? Does the woman leave her life and raise them hoping for child support? How will it be enforced? Or if it is a drunken marriage? There are still women who are stoned to death for indiscretions in this world. When was the last time you heard of a man being stoned to death because of a decision he made to use his body, but didnt want to tell anyone out of fear. If I am found by a priest to have mortally sinned and I refuse to repent, and he tells my husband then am I subject to divorce? What if on the first date I lie about something having to do only with me and nothing with you, that happened long before I met you, and is really none of your business, and 8 years later you learn I lied. Am I then a target? And who decides this, whose whim at whatever time? Please. I am indignant. I mean really, please. It appears to be in re false pretenses, but the religious law is not. It is specifically about women. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata Last edited by girldetective; 06-03-2008 at 06:40 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-03-2008, 06:47 PM	#14 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	Yes. However, it sets a precedent both for men/women and for religious/secular forums. I mean really dont you think its messy and dangerous ground to tread, not to mention unfair? I understand that the woman doesnt want to be used as an example, and I sympathize with her. I am no fan of unwanted attention, and I would probably hide out and not speak at all to the press. However, I thought this posting was about the subject rather than only the piece itself. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata Last edited by girldetective; 06-03-2008 at 06:52 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-03-2008, 07:41 PM	#16 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	>>This won't be expanded to stoning.<< It just has. . . . Its the idea. You do understand dont you about the precedent, and based on historical recollection how it may make women feel as if owned? Surely you get that. Sorry to be so gurgley. I havent eaten dinner and had only Junior Mints for lunch. Nonetheless, even after the full meal waiting for me I will wonder how you can posture this way. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

06-03-2008, 12:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The fact that this particular annulment pertains to women's sexuality should be immaterial. But it won't be. People simply aren't willing to be reasonable in cases like this and insist on weighing in their useless and meaningless opinions. Me? All I can say is that she's not a whore, she's a human being and deserves to be treated as such, however marriage is an agreement which is not unlike a contract. If you misrepresent yourself in the contract said contract could be void. While the state can marry anyone the state wants, regardless of sexual history, the religion creates a definite contractual context. It's that context and how it applies to law that's in question. I you're a member of a religion in which one can only become married after drinking 4 gallons of milk in a week, and one of the parties lies about drinking the milk, the same question of religious context pertaining to the law could be in question. BTW, does she really want to be married to a ponce like this?

06-03-2008, 03:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Fraud is fraud, and is and always ought to be good reason for annulling a contract. Chastity may not be a material term to you or me, but it is to some people, and if someone enters into that contract with them based on that fraudulent claim, I think there's every reason to consider that grounds for mutual rescission. The case is easily mischaracterized as having something to do with oppressing women. Like those above, I don't think that's the issue in the slightest.

06-03-2008, 06:41 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This woman isn't being stoned to death. She even wants the annulment.

06-03-2008, 06:56 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This won't be expanded to stoning. It's an annulment based on false pretenses. Plenty of women around the world have marriages annulled because their husbands lied about something major before they got married.

06-03-2008, 08:10 PM	#17 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	The precedent this sets is that if you enter into married under fraudulent terms, it is grounds for annulment. It is a broad reading of fraud which allows more marriages to be annulled for more reasons, including very personal reasons like religious preference-which I personally value as a protection of free exercise. To be honest, I think anything else you attribute to it is your own personal bias and has nothing to do with the actual impact of the decision.

06-04-2008, 04:01 AM	#19 (permalink)
Shaindra Psycho Location: Massachusetts	How about we just allow them to divorce or annul because they want it, and let the religious and misogynistic overtones stay out of court rulings? Yeah, she lied. What if he lied about having a million dollars? Or that he was going to be a "modern husband"? I dislike making presumption of virginity an even implied part of the marriage contract. __________________ "Never regret something that once made you smile."

06-04-2008, 04:12 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	How about we all get our collective panties out of a wad because this is happening in France and doesn't mean shit in the US, Canada, UK or Australia? It doesn't set any precedent except in France. This is an annullment for fraud which - to the astonishment of some of you - is a perfectly acceptable reason in all 50 states of the US. It's the details of the fraud that has everyone all fired up here. What if she'd been a he and misrepresented that? Where's your righteous indignation then? Personally, I feel sorry for the woman. This has got to be her worst case scenario. She didn't want any of this. Christ, talk about tempest in a teapot (except in France where it actually means something). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-04-2008, 08:26 AM	#26 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	secondary question to everyone.... what is the difference between annulled and divorced? IMO it's is the same. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-04-2008, 09:08 AM	#30 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	im on the same wavelength as will here and was going to use the same example. if i was married and found out that my wife was a man. it'd be goodbye charlie! its the principle of truth. and im not talking about small lies here. im not so sure about the reigious background of the woman or her husband, but if he got married to her thinking she was a virgin and she gave him that impression, coupled with the sigma of not being a virgin at marriage in the muslim world, then he/she has a right to annul the marriage. it matters not who annuls. in islamic law, there is no differentiation in this case. any party can annul. but this isnt really about religion than about frances opportunity to run rifts and divides within the fragile peace between the islamic community and the rest of france. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-08-2008, 06:07 PM	#32 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	Either way it goes she lied, and she didn't want to be in the marriage anyway. I don't see the problem with the annulment. The fact that she lied should be reason enough for the annulment. If my wife asked me a question that really meant something to her, something soo important that us getting married hinged on the answer, and I lied to her....Would I expect her to stay married, no. No matter what the question pertained to, the fact that I lied should count and I should be expected to accept the consequences for the lie. __________________ Freedom is NOT Free.

06-08-2008, 08:30 PM	#33 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	Willravel: Your case of sterility used as an example seems understandable and certainly reasonable to me, if a little off subject. I understand it represents a spouse lying to another spouse about something of great import. However, in your case the sterility affects you presently. How do a partner's premarital indiscretions affect your life given that they were done discreetly and with no bad outcome, such as disease or something? Dlish: Do you know what the expectations for men coming to the marital bed are? Virginity for both? I dont know, but I hope its fair and true on both sides. Interesting note of yours re France's muslim population and their tenuous peace. Im going to read more about it. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata