Friday, May 30, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

by The Australian

Thanks to Michael Murray for the link.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23786668-12377,00.html

Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

FRANCE plunged into a heated debate about its marriage laws today after learning that a court had annulled the union of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not the virgin she had claimed to be.

Politicians, feminists and human rights activists denounced the verdict, handed down last month but reported in the national press only on Thursday, as an affront to the legal equality of men and women and a violation of a woman's privacy.

The hoodwinked husband's lawyer responded just as forcibly that civil marriage was a legal contract. The court invalidated this one because the wife had lied about what French law calls an "essential quality" of a contracting party, he said.

Concerns about traditional Muslim views creeping into secular French law hung over the debate, but the strictly legal basis of the verdict forced critics to ask how two principles - contract fraud and sexual equality - could be reconciled.

"It is profoundly shocking that, in our country, a marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-virginity before the marriage," Frederic Lefebvre, spokesman for President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing UMP party, said.

Prominent feminist Elisabeth Badinter said the courts should defend Muslim women, not pressure them.

"The end result will be that some Muslim girls will rush to hospitals to have their hymens sewn back together again," she told France Inter radio.

Muslims make up about eight per cent of the population in France, which has vigorously defended its secular system against their occasional religious demands by banning Islamic headscarves in the civil service and in state schools.

Xavier Labbee, the husband's lawyer, denied that religion had anything to do with the verdict.

"The law says that when there is an error concerning essential qualities of one of the spouses, an annulment can be sought," he said on LCI television.

The same clause has been used in French courts to annul marriages in which one person discovered only afterwards that the other had concealed a divorce or had a physical or mental disability that made a normal sexual life impossible.

The rector of a large mosque in the northern city of Lille, where the case was tried, also denied Islam played any role.

In Islam, Amar Lafsar said, "virginity is not a necessary condition for marriage". The religion preached chastity before marriage but Muslims could heed or ignore the message.

"They're free," he told RTL radio. "They're in a country of law and liberty. Each is free to respond or not to the message."

Badinter said the verdict ignored the fact some traditional Muslim families shunned sexually active single daughters.

Recalling some young women were even murdered in so-called "honour killings", she said the wife in this case "did not have the freedom not to lie ... she lied in self-defence."

Laurence Rossignol, women's rights spokeswoman for the opposition Socialist Party, called the verdict unconstitutional.

"If the civil code could produce such a decision, we have to change it urgently," she said.

Lefebvre suggested an appeals court review the verdict.

"We are certainly not going to ask the wife to appeal, because if the verdict is annulled and the marriage is validated, that would probably not be good news for her," he said.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, May 30, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 1415 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #186349 by paulifa1 on May 30, 2008 at 7:45 am

Just amazing, you would think that loving your new wife would come into play here, at worst finding out your wife isn't a virgin when you thought that she was should involve a heart to heart with her over a nice glass of wine (OK then maybe tea if your a mad muzzie!) followed by a making up session...

What the hell is wrong with these wrong thinking freaks!!!

Although, it is probably the best outcome for the wife, after all who would want to stay married to such a twat anyway?

Other Comments by paulifa1

2. Comment #186350 by qomak on May 30, 2008 at 7:47 am

Relax, they're very peaceful people. They just want to see blood at the first night of the wedding that's all.

Other Comments by qomak

3. Comment #186355 by gr8hands on May 30, 2008 at 7:53 am

What about the groom? Was he supposed to be a virgin as well? Why no "honor killings" of the men who are not virgins?

Other Comments by gr8hands

4. Comment #186356 by irate_atheist on May 30, 2008 at 7:53 am

Fucktard.

She's better off without him.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

5. Comment #186360 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

French court annuls marriage on the ground that woman is not a virgin.

Is it 1 April again?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

6. Comment #186361 by j.mills on May 30, 2008 at 8:00 am

Well, I expect none of us will have much sympathy for the groom here, but it's worth noting that he hasn't only discovered his wife's not a virgin: he's also discovered that even before they're married she's lied to him about something she knew was important to him. Maybe not well matched from square one...

Other Comments by j.mills

7. Comment #186362 by Cartomancer on May 30, 2008 at 8:04 am

Now, I don't know much about the French legal system, but it does strike me as somewhat odd that virginity can be considered a relevant "quality" in the contracting party, much less an "essential" one for the institution of marriage. Presumably the marriage contract is defined by French civil law or statute, and thus its essential qualities fairly explicitly laid down. I would be very surprised if virginity - or indeed any sexual behaviour stipulations - were among them.

Is virginity even a quality? Surely it might just as easily be called a privative? All this talk of actually existing qualities in individuals sounds hopelessly Aristotelian anyway. Is there actually any physical or mental difference between a virgin and someone who has indulged in sexual activity? That hymen business is something of a red herring as far as I'm aware (though female anatomy is not something I really know much about).

Other Comments by Cartomancer

8. Comment #186363 by Brian English on May 30, 2008 at 8:09 am

Cartomancer. you'd know that the French legal system is based on the Napoleonic code, which is based on the Roman jus blahdey blah blah (techical expression of I've forgotten.) Thus you should be all over the hymen angle here.

Other Comments by Brian English

9. Comment #186366 by sent2null on May 30, 2008 at 8:11 am

At the risk of being stoned by the overwhelming consensus that the French court decision was wrong. I'll say that if you look at it from purely a contract position, the man was told that she was a virgin prior to the marriage. If his marriage to her was preconditioned by that statement being true, then the fact it was false is grounds for a fraud in the marriage. In the US courts "fraud" is commonly used as a basis for declaration and granting of divorces.

Even though it involves Muslims, if it were important to you that you marry say a person who had no kids and after doing so you find out that they materialize a few from a previous union would that potentially push you to a divorce? Let us keep Love out of the equation for a bit, just look at it dispationately...I think if you do that you see it isn't as cut and dried as many seem to think. Now all that said, if the reasons for this particular annulment have a base of religious inspiration that is unfortunate BUT the strictly secular nature of rulings from the court (and in particular the French court which prides itself on its secular rulings) would force it to decide based on purely on the idea of contractual violation (fraud) rather than the underlying potential religious motive of the Man seeking the annulment.

Peace pipe guys?

Disclaimer: Edited 2 minutes after first post.

Other Comments by sent2null

10. Comment #186367 by Brian English on May 30, 2008 at 8:12 am

Is there actually any physical or mental difference between a virgin and someone who has indulged in sexual activity?

The smile is a big give-away. Also, young women who play sport, may have torn the hymen. So they say. Not having been a young women recently. :)

Other Comments by Brian English

11. Comment #186370 by The Red Fox on May 30, 2008 at 8:17 am

"...in France, which has vigorously defended its secular system against their occasional religious demands by banning Islamic headscarves in the civil service and in state schools". I don't often agree with the French, but I'm with them on this one.

You'd think that the couple would work it out if her virginity (or lack of) meant that much, but this is muslim marriage, and most likely arranged in which case neither party probably cares much for each other anyway.

Besides which, women are bartered for like commodities, and if she's been "used" then she's no good apparently. What can I say, most of these marriages are shams designed to give the man a female slave.

Other Comments by The Red Fox

12. Comment #186377 by cerad on May 30, 2008 at 8:22 am

I think the real issue is how much choice did the bride have.

1. Did she have a chance to say no to the marriage or was it completely arranged?

2. What would have been the consequences of her admitting to not being a virgin? Would her family have killed her?

Other Comments by cerad

13. Comment #186382 by jawtheshark on May 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

@sent2null

Agree completely. If this "condition" was put in the wedding contract, then the court decision is 100% right.

To give a stupid example: if I agree in my wedding contract that I must wear red socks during intercourse and once I wear blue socks, then I'm breaching the contract and my wife could demand divorce. It really is that simple.

Of course, we don't really know if there was an explicit wedding contract. If not, then everything I said is invalidated. You got your wife "as is" ;-)

Other Comments by jawtheshark

14. Comment #186392 by Pattern Seeker on May 30, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #9 sent2null-

I can see where you are coming from, but it looks like a case of "he said/she said" which means basically whose word do we trust? In cases like these, we all know that the man's word carries more weight than a woman's. The question is why do we believe him over her? Looking back at the story, it doesn't even look like her or her lawyers had anything to say or else they didn't print it.

BTW- What's in your peace pipe?

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

15. Comment #186395 by steveroot on May 30, 2008 at 8:43 am

What is this thing about the woman having to be a virgin? If the man is ignorant and homophobic (certainly religion is irrelevant here, eh?), it could be that he doesn't want to put his jones where someone else's jones has been. This at the very least involves ignorance of epithelial turnover in mucous membranes and female reproductive physiology in general. Irate said it most succinctly, as usual!
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

16. Comment #186397 by bugaboo on May 30, 2008 at 8:44 am

Insufficient data to comment on this particular case. But noticed this:

"In Islam, Amar Lafsar said, "virginity is not a necessary condition for marriage". The religion preached chastity before marriage but Muslims could heed or ignore the message."

What other messages the religion preaches can Muslims choose to ignore or heed? Am i missing something?

Other Comments by bugaboo

17. Comment #186400 by esuther on May 30, 2008 at 8:46 am

The contracts I have seen (I have translated scores of them) have been international business contracts, but all contain the phrase "subject to the laws of..."
I would be curious to know if this was an actual paper 'legal' contract, subject to the laws of France. If so, do the laws of France specify that virginity of one of the spouses may be a condition of the marriage? If it is a contract concluded by the families privately it is should have less weight.

I am thinking now of the marriage of Diana and Prince Charles which required that Charles' bride -- for obvious reasons of royal lineage blah blah-- not be previously squirted at. (The fact that Charles had done considerable squirting himself was of course irrelevant -- even in the question of royal bastards). Presumably that WAS a legal contract, with a dozen lawyers stamping and signing.

I suspect this marriage contract was a private one, and so am baffled that the French courts would uphold it.

As for the woman, I do not envy her. She will not be welcomed back in her father's house. I suggest she emigrate immediately to, say, Denmark.

Other Comments by esuther

18. Comment #186404 by flibble on May 30, 2008 at 8:52 am

Oh dear. I have to admit that I'm also "ignoran[t] of epithelial turnover in mucous membranes". Please don't lump in with this guy though :D

Other Comments by flibble

19. Comment #186410 by ridelo on May 30, 2008 at 9:00 am

If it was so important for the husband that his wife was a virgin, he only had to check her birth horoscope...

Other Comments by ridelo

20. Comment #186414 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:08 am

Sent2null,

I had a similar thought but I kept it to myself. From a contract perspective, the man had every right to anull the marriage.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

21. Comment #186418 by Sally Luxmoore on May 30, 2008 at 9:12 am

"hoodwinked" husband ???

What's that all about? Is the implication that this was a deliberate attempt at deception on the part of the woman? Sounds far too sympathetic to that ignorant misogynistic man to me. . .

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

22. Comment #186433 by TheSwede on May 30, 2008 at 9:33 am

Seriously, I see nothing wrong here.

She lied to him about something that he thought of as very important. Why the courts need to annule the marriage is beyond me, but him getting a normal devorce, that would be the normal way to go.

We shouldn't get all worked up for nothin. And this, this is nothing.

Other Comments by TheSwede

23. Comment #186446 by home8896 on May 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

This is ages and ages of valuing virginity in females and negating any value for male virginity all wrapped up in a pretty little "but SHE LIED TO HIM" bow. The fact is this law remains valid in France, and that is disheartening. At least that had no bearing on my marriage and divorce here in Kentucky.

Whatever, she's better being annulled from the guy. Let's just hope we don't see her name in the papers in a few weeks because her family honor killed her.

Other Comments by home8896

24. Comment #186451 by sent2null on May 30, 2008 at 9:54 am

Pattern Seeker wrote:

BTW- What's in your peace pipe?

ha ha, nothing at all...I use it simply as a symbol. Though I'd gladly substitute a nice mug of beer for the empty pipe to make sure you mates get something out of the exchange though!

Other Comments by sent2null

25. Comment #186454 by deBeuk on May 30, 2008 at 9:57 am

One would think a contract demanding one of the parties being a virgin would be unconstitutional and therefore void.

Other Comments by deBeuk

26. Comment #186463 by kevy34 on May 30, 2008 at 10:08 am

I know this is off topic but i was reading on CNN where they discovered another lost tribe in Bazil - i think it was Brazil - somewhere on South America anyways. We have to get someone in their immediately to save their souls - they have no idea who Jesus is and I wouldn't want them to spend an eternity in hell!! Why would god create these people - put them in south america and then reveal himself to a bunch of morons in the middle east hoping that his revealed word would someday reach them and they would be saved? Its not fair that the rest of us know about jesus and had the chance to be saved but they don't.

I hate fucking religion. I need to get in this fight. I need to take some of these morons on. I took on a Creationist high school teacher once - loved it!! Blew him out of the water.

Kevin White BA Forensic and Physical Anthropology,
BSC. Applied Microbiology - University of Saskatchewan

Other Comments by kevy34

27. Comment #186471 by Quiddam on May 30, 2008 at 10:25 am

The real danger here is that the woman has become a potential 'Honour' killing victim.

Regardless of whether she lost her hymen through sport or sex, in many Muslim circles she has publicly dishonoured her family and that means she must be obliterated.

She maybe better off without a misogynistic stone-age husband, but only if she can stay alive.

Other Comments by Quiddam

28. Comment #186473 by rustylix on May 30, 2008 at 10:27 am

Suppose she was a very convincing transsexual, and certain moral/personal/religious values, i.e. abstinence, kept the groom from finding this out until the wedding night. Should the marriage not be annulled?

Is there something about this comparison I'm overlooking?

My personal opinion is to fuck your bride/groom hundreds, or thousands, of times prior to marriage.

Other Comments by rustylix

29. Comment #186476 by Strigoia on May 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

I have to agree with the people who think this isn't a big deal. My fiance has told me he was a virgin when we met, and frankly, if I found out now that he'd lied, it would completely undermine my faith in him and we probably wouldn't stay together. I wouldn't have cared so much if he hadn't been, but the lie would eat at me forever. (Perhaps that seems extreme, but honesty is extremely important to me.)

Now, mind, I think it's absurd that Islamic culture puts so much emphasis on female virginity, to the point of declaring a woman worthless if she has premarital sex. But we may be blowing this out of proportion. People in America get divorced for lesser reasons every day, and nobody bats an eye.

The real question, I think, was how much choice the woman had. Was it an arranged marriage, was she forced to lie, did she want the divorce, how will her family treat her now, will she be able to remarry someone of her own choosing, etc. I'm far more concerned for her welfare now than for the loss of what most likely would've been a troubled marriage.

Other Comments by Strigoia

30. Comment #186478 by stereoroid on May 30, 2008 at 10:45 am

I've long thought that the emphasis on virginity, in primitive cultures, is related to sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). A hymen is a quick, visual confirmation that a woman has not been sleeping around, and is thus STD-free. You could argue that it's a reflection of a preference against promiscuity, but I would argue that preference is also about STDs: the consequences of STDs are more serious and direct than the consequences of promiscuity.

In some cultures this goes to extremes e.g. the way some men in sub-Saharan Africa go looking for virgins, in the hope that raping them will rid them of a HIV infection. Yeah, that's going to work...

Other Comments by stereoroid

31. Comment #186484 by Wosret on May 30, 2008 at 10:50 am

Isn't this merely grounds for divorce? Not annulment?

Wouldn't "virginity" need to be directly outlined in the marriage agreement? How is this more grounds for annulment than any other lie or deception your spouse may have fooled you with? "What you can't benchpress 200 lbs? Only 175? Well I consider it an important quality that a man can benchpress 200 lbs. You lied to me! Annulment please!"

Clearly, by the wording on the article (though there is very little information to go on, completely lacking the wife's side of the story) presumably it was not, and presumably the marriage was consumated. So, I'm with Cartomancer, unless they can seriously demonstrate that virginity is a "quality" (which I also agree is a rather odd thing to begin with) then I don't see any real grounds for annulment. Divorce, yes, annulment, no.

Other Comments by Wosret

32. Comment #186485 by Pattern Seeker on May 30, 2008 at 10:53 am

sent2null-

You can keep the pipe, I have plenty already. Though I will say I would gladly buy any of my freethinking mates a beer even though I don't drink anymore. I still feel if used judiciously it can make a fine social lubricant. I just prefer mine in a more smokable form. Different means. Same results.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

33. Comment #186487 by Wosret on May 30, 2008 at 10:57 am

29. Comment #186473 by rustylix

Yes, there is something quite obvious you are overlooking. Unless you then had sex with the transexual, then the marriage would not have been consumated, and you could get it annulled.

Which reminds me. After discussing gay marriage with someone, I got to wondering what exactly counts as consummation for lesbians? I'm pretty sure that oral sex doesn't count for heterosexuals...am I wrong about that? Or is an exception made? Hmm... maybe I'm just being dense, but there isn't anything they can really do that I think would count as consumation for a heterosexual marriage.

I'm betting the legal writing on the subject would be rather entertaining.

Other Comments by Wosret

34. Comment #186502 by sent2null on May 30, 2008 at 11:44 am

Kevy34,

Nice sarcastic way to describe the pre- revelation problem The other week I had the joy of engaging a couple of Jehovah's witnesses that made the mistake of coming to my home to "spread the word" as they put it. Inside of 15 minutes of calm rational discourse on my part, I succeeded in having them run off convinced that I was the devil. I mentioned the pre-revelation problem and they only responded with confused silence...might that have been the seed of reason planted and ready to sprout??? Who knows , but I sure had fun sowing the seeds of doubt in their minds. ;)

Other Comments by sent2null

35. Comment #186503 by brue68 on May 30, 2008 at 11:53 am

I dunno, it seems stupid, but assuming that this was not an arranged marriage, I'd be pretty upset if my (hypothetical) wife had hidden something like that from me. I don't care if she's a virgin or not, but I don't like secrets. It sets a bad precedent. Or am I being overly emotional? Of course in all honesty, I don't think I'd divorce over it, just mope for a while and get out of doing dishes.

Other Comments by brue68

36. Comment #186520 by Nairb on May 30, 2008 at 1:36 pm

There are quite a number of reasons for annulation in the Article 180 of the civil code _ sterilitité, impotence, or even if he had lied about a previous relationship.

The juge explained that the mariage was annulled because she had lied about virginity and not because she was not a virgin. If the ruling was based on her virginity then the law would probably be revised.

There has apparently been a fairly political reaction. Socialist saying the laicity of the republic is threatened. The right governing UMP party - female muslim Minister of Justice and judge Rachida Dati said the law protects people by giving opportunities for parties to get out of their marriage. She is a tough cookie so it is not because she is being nice to the husband.

I think if the 2 had been atheist, it would not have gotten in the paper but Sarkozy has a reputation of being ready to accomodate very slightly the communautarian approach ( non existant in France - no data can even be collected about religion by the government). He has encouraged the different muslim currents to create a central muslim authority in France even publicly considering govt funding such an organisation ( illegal for religous cults) to avoid wahabii money causing extremism.
So the socialists are shooting at anything that can be interpreted as communautarian in this area as they know it is very unpopular.

Lefebure may either have not understood or spoke too soon or wanted to preempt the socialist potshots.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/societe/20080530.OBS6276/epouse_nonvierge__dati_defend_lannulation_du_mariage.html

Other Comments by Nairb

37. Comment #186536 by Aidan86 on May 30, 2008 at 2:23 pm

The woman lied about her sexual history. Their religion is irrelevant and the annulment is justified.

Other Comments by Aidan86

38. Comment #186539 by Madphatcat on May 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Someone please tell me how to quote so I don't do this in the future:

"The same clause has been used in French courts to annul marriages in which one person discovered only afterwards that the other had concealed a divorce or had a physical or mental disability that made a normal sexual life impossible."

Well that just about sums it up doesn't it. Looking at it purely secularly, seems that *concealment* of anything that one spouse deems essential results in an annulment in France. And to that I merely yawn. I too think this should result in a regular divorce, but then again I don't see the point of annulments in general. Either way, this isn't a religious issue.

Other Comments by Madphatcat

39. Comment #186544 by HappyPrimate on May 30, 2008 at 2:58 pm

If we women were really smart, we'd have the hymen routinely removed at an early age so men would never be able to tell if we were virgins or not. It would be a moot point. I dare say men would not stop marrying women because of that. Note also that some women do not bleed even if they are virgins so he'd have to get down there and do a very close inspection. It is silly anyway in today's world. If you don't think children born are yours, there's DNA testing. Virginity concerns need to go the way of the dinos.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

40. Comment #186551 by Nairb on May 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Madphatcat

Yes it is a yawn.

So why is it going ballistic in the french press and tv with everyone commenting on "the incredible threat to the republic" ?

Because someone needs to get some secular bonus points in front of the electorate.

On one side the female muslim minister of justice says "the law is there to protect people in marriage". On the other the entire political establishment AND the female muslim minister of cities says "I am scandalised, I thought it was a report from Kandahar"

Really brilliant :-)
Both of them in the same government :-)

I smell staged political event.

All we need now is the film - Fitna 2 anyone?

Other Comments by Nairb

41. Comment #186555 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Why the hell is everyone so concerned about the private lives of two French people?

OK so the man wanted an annulment because his wife lied to him. Sounds fine to me. None of our business (or the government's) really...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

42. Comment #186556 by mmurray on May 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I think that anyone who is going to get divorced the first time they discover their partner has deceived them should give marriage a pass. People are more complicated than that.

"I don't think I'd divorce over it, just mope for a while and get out of doing dishes. "

This a more realistic point of view :-)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

43. Comment #186560 by acs on May 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Disgusting.

Albeit, if virginity can be a characteristic of legal nature - would britney spears have been guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct when she announced she was a virgin in 2003?

Other Comments by acs

44. Comment #186561 by njwong on May 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I believe that among the 13 wives Prophet Mohammad married were widows (Khadijah, his first wife) and divorcees (his own adopted son's ex-wife). Therefore, I doubt virginity would be a reason for annulling a marriage under Muslim religion.

It is more likely that the woman have told the man she was chaste before he proposed marriage, so the man felt he had been lied to or deceived by the woman on discovering she was not "pure" as she had claimed to be.

As the article indicated: In Islam, Amar Lafsar said, "virginity is not a necessary condition for marriage".

Other Comments by njwong

45. Comment #186563 by Nairb on May 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm

If you dont get on with your partner and want out, what do you do?
Hmm, if you get divorced then the wage earner may have to support the non wage earner.

Ahh, but if there was no marriage ....

Other Comments by Nairb

46. Comment #186564 by noodly_noodleson on May 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm

In certain cultures, the emphasis on women's virginity stems from practices of filial inheritance when women were seen as vessels for men to create heirs. Eventually this led to demonising female sexuality in general. Women were (and in some places still are) little more than property to be bought, sold and thrown away if "damaged."

I don't think anyone's arguing that people shouldn't make silly contracts if they want to. The problem is the system the contract reflects.

Other Comments by noodly_noodleson

47. Comment #186572 by Cartomancer on May 30, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Which reminds me. After discussing gay marriage with someone, I got to wondering what exactly counts as consummation for lesbians? I'm pretty sure that oral sex doesn't count for heterosexuals...am I wrong about that? Or is an exception made? Hmm... maybe I'm just being dense, but there isn't anything they can really do that I think would count as consumation for a heterosexual marriage.

I wasn't even aware that the archaic legal requirement for sexual consummation of a marriage was still on the books. If it is then it's probably in breach of many, many human rights and anti-discrimination laws, or at least it damn well should be. I think that any test case brought on such grounds would blow that one out of the water, so even if the law hasn't been scrapped already it's effectively just as inoperative as the laws which require me to train in archery every Sunday, and allow me to fire my crossbow at marauding Welshmen in Coventry after midnight.

But yes, female intercourse puzzles me too. Even after I had my friends draw me a set of anatomical diagrams...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

48. Comment #186575 by Vinelectric on May 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm

njwong

You may also want to know that Muhammad kept a concubine, an Egyptian Coptic called Mariya. Not a slave captured in war, but a gift from whoever was ruling Egypt at the time!!! However, such is the inconsistency of Islam that what applies to Muhammad does not necessarily apply to anyone else. He is "special".

As for virginity, it is certainly not a necessity and, in fact, Shia teachings allow temporary marriages for the purposes of sexual gratification so you shouldn't demand to expect your bride to be virigin. However say that out loud in the Middle East and you will be beaten up.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

49. Comment #186576 by Vinelectric on May 30, 2008 at 5:24 pm

steveroot

Forget about epithelial turnover, ever heard of STDs? I know some parts of Essex where you'd need to get a medical check even if you only had a wet dream. I even know a girl called Chlamydia!!

The conservative types can be quite reassuring if you're paranoid like me!!!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

50. Comment #186577 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 30, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Hmm....

Not very interesting or very important.

equality? human rights? The dude didn't get what he thought he was getting, that's it. Who cares if he's a Muslim.

There are many more important things for us to get all bent out of shape over.

Moving on...

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

Reload Comments | Back to Top