We're likely going to be seeing a lot more of them; a lot from France in particular.

NB - I am not disparaging any culture or ethnic group, I'm simply intimating demographic statistics.

While I agree of course with the ruling in general, it does seem that on a case by case basis certain factors could have more weight than in other cases. Specifically I would think it plausible to reason that if the groom held female virginity as an important condition of marriage (regardless of how stupid I think that is), and if the bride knew the groom held female virginity as an important condition of marriage and then lied about it (and its provable she lied, in this case she admitted it.) I don't know I'd be adverse to granting an annulment in this case.

It's easy to think that women have rights. You often hear men on these boards complaining about women and how *everything* goes our way in the legal system. (Trust us, fellas -- that's not true. And women still make less than men for the same job. Explain how that's fair?)

Anyway, I'm always appalled by how men -- even in this country -- place so much emphasis on a woman's virginity. Of course the guy doesn't have to be a virgin. Just the women.

Are some men that insecure about themselves and their 'little" penises? Do they worry that the other guy will be better than them in bed? What other reason could there be for the instance for women to be virgins? If it was a matter of disease, both men and women would have this demand placed on them.

I know some religions preach that women should be virgins. But come on. You have "cafeteria Catholics" out there. Can't other religions pick and choose what to follow and believe? Get with the 21st century. And if guys are that worried about being bad in bed, educate yourself by buying a book, video, etc. There's no excuse for crapping on women over virginity. Ever.

On the one hand, I certainly agree that this shouldn't be important, but marriage is basically a contract. If you enter into a contract by lying to someone about something that would have caused them to decide not to enter into that contract... that's fraud in the inducement. It doesn't matter if that quality was a good thing for them to decide on. It's still fraud.

If she'd lied but she didn't know it was really that important to him, if say she thought he loved her either way (which he should have), then I'd say she should have been honest but no, it shouldn't be grounds for an annulment. In this case, she intentionally lied knowing that it would cause him to enter into a marriage he wouldn't have committed to otherwise. Right or not, marriage is basically a contract. Ethically, I think that if you lie to obtain a contract, it's entirely right for that contract to be legally voidable. No matter how stupid that lie might have been.

That's from an ethical standpoint, mind, not a legal one; legally this may well fit with the standard they've established. But, IMO, if you know full well that Joe is only going to marry a dog person, and you're a lifelong cat person, and you spend months telling him lies about the French bulldog you claim you had when you were a kid and how much you supposedly hate cats, just so he'll marry you, and then you bring a cat home three months into the marriage... that's your own fault. No matter how silly his standards might have been, you were the one who lied to obtain the marriage.

I'm currently in the process of patenting a revolutionary product as a companion to the intact hymen.

During a young man's teen years, a small contraption will be placed just inside his urethra. Upon the man's first sexual encounter, the device will react to vaginal (or anal!) fluids, and essentially act as an exploding permanent dye pack for the penis. This way, a prospective brides will know in advance if the man's virginity is intact.

I expect them to sell like hotcakes within conservative religious communities!

The woman in question is now saddled with this jerk.

Given my ignorance of French law and its civil law system, it is hard to put the decision in context, but from an ethical standpoint, I have to agree with Susan. The woman committed fraud and the contract should be void. The man never would have married her if she was not a virgin. She lied about being a virgin in order to get him to marry her. Therefore, she committed fraud to get him to marry her, i.e. lied about a material fact (it seems then that the decision is really whether materiality is an objective or subjective standard).

Regardless of whether the marriage was entered into fraud, the article states that they had sex on their wedding night and thats where the problems began. Is this not rape then? Rape by fraud, since he never would have had sex with her (at least not in these circumstances) if she hadn't lied? Or, in the words of the great Wendy Murphy: "The message that the court sends today is ... that a [wo]man's ability to obtain sex through fraud with regard to who [s]he is is more important than a [man]'s fundamental right to control h[is] own body,"

I don't know the in's and out's of French civil law. Nor do I think that virginity confers some moral high ground. But if it is the case that the wife was dishonest about an aspect of her culture that even she acknowledges is important to her culture, why is that unimportant? Does a divorcee get financial benefits that a person receiving an annulment would not be entitled to? Does he have to support her, pay her money...blah blah blah? I think it the issue may be a more important than the tone of this article suggests.