Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Broken Contracts, Broken Hearts
A student in her 20s and an engineer in his 30s marry in France. They are Muslim. It turns out that she is not a virgin and, since the marriage agreement was based on "an error in the essential qualities of the bride,"--forbidden under the language of Article 180 of the Civil Code--the court agrees to annul the marriage.
Is this ruling:
1) "a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women," as Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara says.
or is it
2) a reasonable outcome in a contract dispute?
I'm inclined to favor the latter, especially since the possibility of doing a decent, peaceable, Western thing, like getting a marriage annulled for misrepresentation if the bride fails to deliver a bloodstained sheet, might forestall more grisly extra-judicial solutions, like honor killing.
The woman does not want an appeal:
"I don't know who's trying to think in my place. I didn't ask for anything. ... I wasn't the one who asked for the media attention, for people to talk about it, and for this to last so long."
For his part, the husband says it wasn't the sex, it was the lying.
Discuss.
Via alert reader Mark
|6.5.08 @ 10:11AM|#
I'm pretty sure in this case he's supposed to kill her for honor reasons, so that basically makes the argument moot.
Episiarch|6.5.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Katherine, you failed on the headline, which should read "Broken Hymens, Broken Hearts".
Invisible Finger|6.5.08 @ 10:17AM|#
I'm inclined to favor the latter
I'm not. The guy could have easily done the due diligence before
entering the contract.
the husband says it wasn't the sex, it was the
lying.
Welcome to Planet Earth, douchebag!
John|6.5.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Very simple, virgins have nothing to go by. They can't tell if someone is bad in bad or is "inadequate." Desiring a virgin means you're probably very insecure about your sexuality.
|6.5.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Why are we talking about this? It appears that both parties are
satisfied with the outcome; nobody has suffered permanent or
irreparable harm.
Oh, right- the nannies and busybodies don't believe these two
people are capable of acting in their own self-interest.
Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 10:27AM|#
What's the downside to anyone of him getting the
annulment?
I also would be interested to know what other historical examples
of "error[s] in the essential qualities of the bride" have led to
annulments being granted in the past. Is this some obscure section
of code not invoked for 100 years, or ar annulments regularly
granted on less culturally provocative bases?
|6.5.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Why anyone would want a virgin is beyond me.
I have no friggin' idea.. The idiotic preoccupation with female
virginity is not restricted to Muslims. I've met numerous
Christians that think it is somehow very important.
I like a woman who knows how to play the sexual game. I'm somewhat
jaded now, but I have been taught some things by partners that were
kinda neat.
If she asserted that she was a virgin, it is a violation of
contract and the marriage should be annulled if the groom
immediately requests it. If he merely assumed she was a clumsy,
inexperienced virgin, tough luck buddy. Divorce court for you and
watch your assets.
|6.5.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I'm not. The guy could have easily done the due diligence
before entering the contract.
How? Inspecting the package prior to signing the contract? I
suspect that package inspection is just as taboo as virgin
defiling.
|6.5.08 @ 10:42AM|#
This could actually fly in the US if a court ruled the deception
was a material fraud affecting the essentials of the marriage. He
would have to convince the court that he would not have married her
had he known and that her virginity was an essential element of the
marriage.
Just for fun, here are a couple other reasons for an annulment (at
least in VA):
One party had been a prostitute and didn't tell the other
party.
Felony conviction of which the other was not informed.
Wife pregnant by another or husband had impregnated another in the
last 10 months without telling the other.
Isn't studying for the bar exam fun?
P.S. Invisible finger...what, exactly, would due diligence have
been?
|6.5.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Is this outcome worse, or more degrading to her human dignity, than if she had felt compelled to go to a plastic surgeon for "reconstructive surgery" in order to successfully dupe the deluded bozo?
Ben|6.5.08 @ 10:44AM|#
I think this is good. A contract was written, it was broken, the courts invalidated it.
|6.5.08 @ 10:45AM|#
I've ruined a few virgins in my day, and not only do they suck in bed, but they get all clingy and cry-y later. No more of that for this kid.
Episiarch|6.5.08 @ 10:47AM|#
I've ruined a few virgins in my day
What, you were so bad they became lesbians or something? Thanks a
lot, jerk.
|6.5.08 @ 10:50AM|#
This is yet one more example of how our society oppresses women by restricting their sexual freedom!
|6.5.08 @ 10:51AM|#
There is obviously a market value to virginity. This is plainly
an "economic" merger, and not a marriage for love. Fraud was easily
proven. No one died in the process. French legal system, For the
win!
If he wants an unchewed piece of gum as opposed to one scrapped off
from under a desk, that's his business.
Cinlee|6.5.08 @ 10:51AM|#
...they get all clingy and cry-y later
Cold hearted snake. You're right to call yourself "kid".
Episiarch|6.5.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Think Black Dahlia.
OK, you have redeemed yourself. However, a Dario Argento reference
would have been better.
shecky|6.5.08 @ 10:55AM|#
I don't get it. Both people involved seem fine with the annulment. Why should anyone else care?
Guy Montag|6.5.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Yet again a case where people went running to the government for
a "who you can/can't do license" and it results in a mucky
ending.
Government has no place in romantic relationships.
|6.5.08 @ 11:06AM|#
The guy could have easily done the due diligence before
entering the contract.
He probably has, the article doesn't mention whether he's a
virgin.
|6.5.08 @ 11:12AM|#
A couple of strange quotes from the FA:
"In a democratic and secular country, we cannot consider
virginity as an essential quality of marriage," said an expert on
French secularism, Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux.
[rector of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur] likened the court
decision to "equating marriage with a commercial
transaction."
Different people, but both French, ostensibly speaking from a sense
of shared French values.
My question is, absent the covenant before God (this is a secular
society), what is civil marriage but a commercial transaction?
BakedPenguin|6.5.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Why anyone would want a virgin is beyond me.
You can finger paint afterwards...
|6.5.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Wow, the French do actually get something right now and then.
How individual people react to this ruling says a lot about
them.
We will never restore fairness to the institution of marriage in
this country (USA) until we recognize it's true nature as that of
being a business deal.
As it stands in the U.S. today, marriage is the only type of
contract that can be broken unilaterally by one of the parties, at
will and for no reason. It is only fair and reasonable that each
party be held accountable for misrepresentation of any defects that
exist when the contract is entered.
ktc2|6.5.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Okay, the muslima.com ads are kinda creepy.
As to the topic at hand. If she stated she was, and she wasn't then
the contract (marriage) should be void. Not a big issue
really.
It's not about her "right" to have sex, etc., ad nauseum. It's
about her lying about it in a contract.
Virgins are not worth the work, been there, done that. The "extra"
tightness doesn't last long, they don't know what they like or how
to please a man and it's hard as hell to scrape them off
aftewards.
Well,|6.5.08 @ 11:27AM|#
an engineer in his 30s
at least one of them was a virgin.
(and, as always, my favorite part of these stories is the google
adsense; "Beautiful muslim singles for matrimony, Browse photos for
free!"
ktc2|6.5.08 @ 11:32AM|#
As someone who spent years in various European countries (as a young teen) you got to go down to about 12 years old to find a virgin there.
|6.5.08 @ 11:35AM|#
you got to go down to about 12 years old to find a virgin
there
So, what you are saying is that the plot of Once Bitten is
based on a true story?
J|6.5.08 @ 11:35AM|#
I personally understand why people would want to marry or to
marry as a virgin (although I don't quite feel that way myself).
That's part of why marriage should be treated like a contract -
people have different views about what is important, and it should
reflect them. I also can see being way more upset about the lie
than the fact that someone isn't a virgin - especially if you think
marriage is a big deal, finding out that you've been lied to about
something you find even somewhat important is a pretty big
blow.
Seems like a pretty good reason to void it, personally. I have no
idea about french laws, but it seems like they should write up
individual marriage contracts to make things less fuzzy, so people
who care and don't care about things like this do whatever they
want.
Rhywun|6.5.08 @ 11:35AM|#
The idiotic preoccupation with female virginity is not restricted to Muslims.
It sure isn't/wasn't. Just read The Song of Ice and Fire. It's all
about the virgins in both the medieval Euro-like and the medieval
Asia-like cultures.
As for the "contract", unless hubby pulls out a piece of paper with
her signature under the words "I am a virgin", I call bullshit.
Obviously, this is a concession to cultural expectations. If she
lied about doing windows, would he get the annulment??
ktc2|6.5.08 @ 11:40AM|#
"If she lied about doing windows, would he get the
annulment??"
If it were in the contract, and I am the judge yes he would.
|6.5.08 @ 11:42AM|#
I don't get the French reaction to this.
In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and assert that if it
wasn't a Muslim couple, the outrage would be non-existent. The
reaction of the people bothered by this outcome seem to completely
ignore the fact that there was in fact deception that occurred, and
it is quite possible that the marriage would have never happened if
the truth were known.
Instead they seem to be focusing only on the type of fraud
(virginity) and seem to be upset that the ruling doesn't contradict
Muslim beliefs.
How else do you interpret the comments that focus only
on"secularism" and judgment about whether virginity should be an
issue? Religion really has no bearing on a case like this. It's a
question of fraud, not a question of religous beliefs.
I think this was a reasonable outcome. Even in france, they mention
other cases where a wife used to be a prostitute and didn't
disclose it and had the marriage annulled -- why no outrage over
that? It's all fraud that may make someone think twice about
marrying someone.
Episiarch the Superficialist|6.5.08 @ 11:45AM|#
It sure isn't/wasn't. Just read The Song of Ice and Fire.
It's all about the virgins in both the medieval Euro-like and the
medieval Asia-like cultures.
While I don't disagree with you, trotting out an (excellent) series
of fantasy novels to make your point doesn't seem too
compelling.
|6.5.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Everybody seems to accept the proposition that there is fraud
involved. Has anyone actually read and reviewed a written contract
wherein the former wife covenanted that she was a virgin? That the
husband's obligations under the contract hinge upon a condition
precedent, namely that the wife be a virgin?
I would not put too much stock in the findings of the judge as we
all know that judges are not exactly intellectual giants as thery
are nothing more than hacks feeding off of what others produce.
Judges are almost universally captive to the state and merit
respect only when they embrace natural rights, the primacy of the
individual over "society" and reject each and every socialist,
progressive and collectivist statute, rule, regulation, rationale
and judicial doctrine.
|6.5.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Everybody seems to be missing the most fundamental point: Why
should the state be involved in matters of marriage, at all?
Is there one word in the United States constitution that supports
the proposition that the state has a role in the institution of
marriage? Of course not. Of course, many of our state constitutions
do provide for state involvement in marriage-but, my associational
and property rights, guaranteed by the federal constitution, trump
the powers granted to a given state in that state's constitution
concerning marriage.
|6.5.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Everybody seems to be missing the most fundamental point:
Why should the state be involved in matters of marriage, at
all?
Nobody's missing that point. It's been discussed around here ad
nauseum to the point where it's a given.
|6.5.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Everybody seems to accept the proposition that there is
fraud involved. Has anyone actually read and reviewed a written
contract wherein the former wife covenanted that she was a
virgin?
Oral misrepresentation can be fraudulent too, you know.
Hey, if she lied about it, and it was important to him, why
shoudn't he be able to annul?
Not to be too crass, but if a car dealer sold you a used car, told
you it had never been in an accident, and you found out it had,
wouldn't that be fraud? Shouldn't you have some legal remedy?
Scott66|6.5.08 @ 12:40PM|#
"Everybody seems to accept the proposition that there is fraud
involved. Has anyone actually read and reviewed a written contract
wherein the former wife covenanted that she was a virgin?"
Verbal contracts are binding they are just hard to prove. My guess
is she admitted she lied.
Paternity fraud is a real issue. Genetically a certain percent of
women are predisposed to being promiscuious. I can certainly
understand why this man would take the position he did but then I
am not nearly as judgmental as a lot of the posters on this thread
seem to be.
|6.5.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Genetically a certain percent of women are predisposed to
being promiscuous.
Any exterior physical indicators on this particular phenotype?
|6.5.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Government has no place in romantic
relationships.
Where's the evidence this was a romantic relationship? All the
article says is that it was an attempted marriage.
Has anyone actually read and reviewed a written contract
wherein the former wife covenanted that she was a
virgin?
I've never actually read one, but I understand that Orthodox Jewish
wedding contracts often include such representations.
M2|6.5.08 @ 2:18PM|#
I have been with two virgins. One was real and we eventually changed her status. The other, in time, admitted that a boyfriend's penis had been inserted into her vagina when she was sixteen, but for some reason, for her, that simply didn't count (maybe it was expunged from her record when she turned eighteen, because she had remained celibate from the date of initial entry. Pretty odd if you ask me.
|6.5.08 @ 2:18PM|#
The problem here isn't that the court would annul the marriage
for some misrepresentation (if that in fact occurred), it's that it
seems from the quote (I haven't RTFA) to be saying that
non-virginity is prima facie evidence of
misrepresentation. What else could the court mean when it says
there was "an error in the essential qualities of the bride"? It
doesn't say "she misrepresented her sexual history to the groom" it
just finds her lacking in some "essential qualities." That finding
is absurd and is the crux of the problem here.
To be clear, if she represented to him that she was a
virgin when she wasn't then there is nothing wrong with the court
finding that such a misrepresentation induced the groom to enter
into the contract when he otherwise would not have and voiding the
contract for that reason. There is something terribly
wrong with the court presuming the mere fact of female
non-virginity is dispositive.
Scott66|6.5.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Any exterior physical indicators on this particular
phenotype?
Tattoos? Cigarettes?
|6.5.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Genetically a certain percent of women are predisposed to
being promiscuious.
That is a problem -- whatever that percent is, it is surely much
smaller than the 100% of men so predisposed, creating a
shortage.
|6.5.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Emergency room doctors I have spoken with in Jordan say it isn't
uncommon for an angry groom and a teary bride to show up in the ER
on their wedding night, with the groom complaining that there was
no blood and thus the bride wasn't a virgin, and the virgin
professing her virtue. Some virgins simply don't bleed the first
time. So who ruled the woman wasn't a virgin?
I think this is a very slippery slope and a bad precedent, even if
both parties in this case are copacetic with the ruling.
And, by the way, the ruling need not necessarily have any bearing
on whether the woman is now at risk for a dishonor killing.
Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"
http://www.redroom.com/author/ellen-r-sheeley
jtuf|6.5.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Warty | June 5, 2008, 10:09am | #
Why anyone would want a virgin is beyond me.
Why don't you ask the person who first picked you?
Mr Anonymous|6.5.08 @ 3:01PM|#
a reasonable outcome in a contract dispute?
I say this one, but it might bear pointing out that I also believe
women and men should be free to file civil suits against adulterous
spouses for breach of contract and that men who marry due to
cuckolding should be free to sue for fraud (actual damages, not
punitive).
Why someone would want to marry a virgin in the first place,
however, is completely and utterly beyond my powers of
comprehension.
|6.5.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Scptt66-
Some verbal contracts are enforceable. Some. There is a little
legal phenomenon called the statute of frauds-in american and
english law. I don't know about the frenchies.
R C Dean-
Did the used car dealership disclaim all warranties, as is typical?
If the answer is yes, then I might lose.
Sure, I agree that one should have a legal remedy where one has
been defrauded. I just don't think that the remedy should be
exclusively dispensed by a court of the state. In other words, the
notion that the administration of justice should be monopolized by
the state is just so much communist clap trap. Backwards.
Loserville. Mr. Rothbard would agree with me.
|6.5.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Some verbal contracts are enforceable. Some. There is a
little legal phenomenon called the statute of frauds-in american
and english law.
Contracts "in consideration of marriage" are subject to the statute
of frauds, which is really a rule of evidence (namely, the
defendant can require the plaintiff to produce a written contract
before the alleged contract can be enforced).
I don't think it would really apply in this case, though, which
seeks nullification of the contract. Someone trying to prevent
nullification of a contract is really helped by claiming that "I
can't be bound to that contract unless it is in writing." The
plaintiff would simply reply "You're right, its not in writing, and
therefore it is, you guessed it, unenforceable and therefor null
and void."
Did the used car dealership disclaim all warranties, as is
typical?
Even if they did, that is not necessarily a defense to a claim of
fraud in the inducement of the contract. The buyer would have to
have actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying facts.
Anonymous Attorney|6.5.08 @ 4:30PM|#
As it stands in the U.S. today, marriage is the only type of
contract that can be broken unilaterally by one of the parties, at
will and for no reason. It is only fair and reasonable that each
party be held accountable for misrepresentation of any defects that
exist when the contract is entered.
Actually, all contracts can be broken unilaterally at will and for
no reason. That the wronged party may pursue a remedy does not mean
that the contract may not be broken. Contract law in fact
encourages "efficient" breaches of contract.
|6.5.08 @ 4:34PM|#
jtuf | June 5, 2008, 2:48pm | #
Warty | June 5, 2008, 10:09am | #
Why anyone would want a virgin is beyond me.
Why don't you ask the person who first picked you?
She didn't know. And she was drunk. Ah, l'amour...
|6.5.08 @ 5:55PM|#
As it stands in the U.S. today, marriage is the only type of
contract that can be broken unilaterally by one of the parties, at
will and for no reason.
Many Employment agreements can be terminated by either party, with
or without cause, without the other party being able to collect any
damages. The only exceptions are
(1) employment agreements that have a specified term or damages
clause (typically only big-shot executives have these) and
(2) terminating someone for the wrong reasons (racial
discrimination, etc.) in which case the remedy isn't really a
matter of contract or law, but is more of a civil rights
remedy.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245