Is Virginity A Matter Of The State Now?

Apparently yes, according to the court decision yesterday, in Lille, northern France. It had also been deemed as "an essential quality" of a woman. The Court accepted the petition of the husband who, on the wedding night, found his new wife not a virgin and he sent her home to her parents that very same night, and immediately started legal petition to have the marriage annulled. This happened in April and yesterday the Tribunal Court granted his petition. The marriage is now legally non existent.

However, the matter evoked huge outcry in all sectors, inciting social debates and furious political storm, obligating the Minister of Justice, originally reluctant, to command the public prosecutor the presentation of an appeal and a reversion. The Prime Minister condemned it as "going back to the middle ages" and added that "if necessary, would take the matter to the High Court of Repeal and jurisprudence."

The groom's reasons: The rejection of the bride was not entirely because she was not a virgin, but her lie leading him to believe she was.

The lawyer representing the husband: His client felt he could not build a solid union with a liar right from the start of their life together, and in whom he felt he could never trust.

The rejected wife: "I am relieved that the marriage is over. Can't stay with a man who thinks virginity is more important than the woman herself."

The court in Lille: "The marriage was contracted under the influence of an objective error, which had been the determining factor of the agreement of marriage. And, the woman had admitted that she lied."

The public: Outrageous to consider virginity as an essential quality of a woman, violation of liberty and human rights, incrimination against women when no one ever questions a man's virginity ...

Me: I am somewhat confused. Like watching a film scene of a court of justice, featuring a prolonged proceeding and listening to the prosecutor and defence lawyer, both brilliant, each giving very convincing arguments. Confused and complicated further by witnesses' sometimes contradicting accounts, I often find that I agree with EVERYBODY! Or, put in another way, I disagree with ALL of them.

My views: Well, the husband was right in that he felt he couldn't construct a permanent union with a woman who lied. But I doubt also whether her not being a virgin was not the primary motive. Although he lives in modern times with French nationality and an engineer, he is a Muslim.

The woman should never have lied but ... If she couldn't tell the absolute truth about herself with someone she was to spend the rest of her life with, how often she would need to lie in a whole life time? But then, if virginity was in their religion, or personal and deep-rooted conviction as the foremost virtue, she was likely so frightened that her loved one wouldn't accept her. Which had now been proven true.

As to the public, in the personal matter between husband and wife, it's nobody else's business why they got together or why they part. The Law? Definitely needs mending, but not because this particular couple should be united together again as a married couple, but virginity or lack of it should never be legal ground for an annulment.

Tags:virginity,marriage,law

• Current Mood: blah