The Re-virginization of Brides

According to the laws of Deuteronomy, if a man takes a wife and after the wedding he slanders her by saying that she was not a virgin at the time they got married, “then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity. Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town” (Deuteronomy 22:12-17).

In many places, the evidence of a woman’s virginity is still required by the family of the groom. An example of this practice is found in a story reported in The Daily Telegraph of Australia:

On her wedding night, Aisha Salim will hand her blooded sheets to her in-laws as proof of her virginity.

But there's one problem: Like most woman her age, Aisha has smoked, drank, had sex and even lived with one of her past boyfriends.

However, if the family of her soon-to-be husband - or even her own family - knew this, she could be killed.

Aisha has therefore opted to have her virginity surgically restored in a delicate but painful surgery called hymenoplasties - where the hymen is re-created from the already torn tissue, or a new membrane is inserted.

Read this sad story by clicking here.

This practice, as stated in this law, is practically unworkable, since the absence of blood after the first intercourse does not say anything about the virginity of the bride. The intent of the law was to preserve family honor since the woman’s behavior would bring shame to her father and her husband.

The law did not work then and it does not work now.

Claude Mariottini
Profesor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Marriage, Virginity

The Case of the Chastity Ring

Can a teenager girl wear a chastity ring in school? A young Christian teenager lost her case because a court denied her request to wear her virginity ring on her finger. The judge who decided the case said the ring in question was “not intrinsically a Christian symbol like a cross” so her right to “manifest” her religion in public was not infringed.

The following story appeared in TimesOnline:

A teenager who took her school to court claiming breach of human rights because she was forbidden from wearing a chastity ring has lost her case been ordered to pay £12,000 in legal costs.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, claimed the ban at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, was an "unlawful interference" with her right to express her Christian faith.

But deputy High Court judge Michael Supperstone said today that the ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith and upheld the school's right to enforce its uniform policy.

Lawyers for Ms Playfoot told an earlier hearing that her chastity ring was a "religious artefact" and should therefore be exempt from the school's general ban on jewellery -in the same way that Sikh pupils were allowed to wear bracelets known as Kara bangles

But the judge ruled that "whatever the ring is intended to symbolise, it is a piece of jewellery."

He added that Ms Playfoot's human rights had not been breached because she "voluntarily accepted the uniform policy of the school" and there were "other means open to her to practise her belief."

The judge also ordered Ms Playfoot's father, Philip, to pay £12,000 towards the school's legal costs. She was denied permission to appeal against the ruling.

Ms Playfoot said she was "very disappointed" by the decision and predicted that it would lead to other Christians being prevented from "publicly expressing and practising their faith".

A spokesman for the Church of England said it was a "great pity" that Ms Playfoot's "commendable commitment to upholding Christian teaching on chastity should have provoked controversy and the need for litigation."

"In this case, wearing a ring, though it is not intrinsically a Christian symbol like a cross, is clearly a symbol of the desire to uphold and practise an aspect of the Christian faith."

The National Secular Society, which has criticised the case as a "manipulative attempt to impose a particular religious viewpoint on the school", welcomed the result.

Ms Playfoot is one of a group of Christians at the Millais School who wore the ring engraved with a Biblical verse as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

In court her lawyers claimed that the school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

It is that last statement that is disturbing:

In court her lawyers claimed that the school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

There is a double standard in society today. Many societies, including our society here in the USA, go out of their way to please and appease religious groups by allowing them to express their religion. These religious groups are allowed to wear, as the report said, headscarfs, religious bracelets, veils, garments, and other items that clearly express religious faith. However, the same privileges are denied to others just because they are Christians. To me, this is a double standard that must be addressed.

The whole issue is very complicated. We live in a pluralistic society, a society with Christians and atheists, Moslems and Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs. Should we please all or none? It seems that the courts have decided to favor the few against the many. What do you think?

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Chastity Ring, Christian Symbols, Religion, Virginity