Re-virginized ?

There is an article from Reuters that I saw on Yahoo today: "Muslim women in France regain virginity in clinics"

There are such quotes as: "She had her hymen re-sewn, technically making her a virgin again." And, "They have had sex already but are expected to be virgins at marriage..."

It is understandable the pressure that these women and girls have placed on them to conform to a certain cultural expectation. But this entire idea is disingenous at best and spiritually deformed at worst. I do not claim to know the understanding of Muslims regarding viriginity in Islam. However, my guess would be that it has something to do with the spiritual benefits of chastity. Hopefully I am not naive and that it does not have something more to do with possessiveness.

What I'd like to know is when the idea was formed that "intact hymen = virgin." Physiologically, it could be used to test if a woman has had intercourse in the past. But this test is highly flawed to begin with as there are a variety of reasons a hymen may not be intact unrelated to sexual intercourse. I pity the poor women in the past (and today) that were falsely accused of loose living simply because her hymen was not intact.

Being a virgin is like having never seen a movie. Once you have gone to a theatre and seen a movie, you can never again truthfully say that you have not seen a movie. Once you step out of the movie theatre, there is little that anyone can do to prove that you have seen a movie, but the fact still remains. Hymenoplasty may perfectly conceal the fact that a woman has had sex, but it can't change the fact that she has had sex.

Again, I can understand that a woman feels the need to conform to her culture's expectations. But let us not confuse terminology regarding a physical manifestation with one that is metaphysical or experiential. So the first quote is plain wrong. The only way you can technically be a virgin is if you are actually a virgin. Having a hymen or not does not change that, technically, physically or otherwise.

Thus clearing up the confusion, and having some idea of a definition of virginity, that is not related to some physical manifestation, I'd like to address the second quote. If someone is expected to be a virgin and are not, how is surgery going to change that fact. What is the purpose? To trick an unsuspecting husband? To "protect" unsuspecting parents and the family? What is the real purpose of virginity and why it is so essential the Muslims culture? If it is so important, what are the stumbling blocks for women retaining their true virginity?

Now I don't write about Islam, I write about my understand of Orthodox Christianity. We can learn about our own issues by seeing how others deal with the similar issues. In my 13 odd years of being a convert to Orthodoxy, I have come across a variety of understandings of chastity and virginity. It is a remarkable large topic for something that seems to simple in its definition. I'll summarize them below:

Complete, unconditional: This understanding is that all sex before marriage is unacceptable, both for males and females.

Boys will be boys: This understanding relates that it is hard to control boys' "hormones." It proscribes little if anything for males, but that sex before marriage is completely unacceptable for females. This could also be called "sowing the wild oats" and other euphamisms. But as a friend so crudely noted, "Who do you think they are screwing?" Apparently not someone of marriage material.

You can't fight it: This understanding is that teenagers and young adults are so sexually excited that we, as parents, aren't able to keep them from having sex. So we might as well not stigmatize them.

Now these three understandings are generalizations, but not by much. And also remember I have heard these positions by practicing Orthodox Christians. Now it is my understanding, belief that total, complete chastity was the only acceptable practice. That is, virginity until marriage. Unfortunately the reasons behind virginity are not clearly taught to the faithful. All we get is this strange "heaven" or "hell" understanding. If you're a virgin your "good," if not your "bad." This is a strange simplification of the truth reasonings behind virginity and chastity. So much more could be written, but I've already vered off my original post. So I'll save it for another post, hopefully soon.

Response to a Roman Catholic viewpoint

I tried to post feedback to a Roman Catholic oriented website, but their feedback mechanism was broken, so I thought I'd post it here. Not some of my better writing, but be that as it may...


In regards to: "Mount Athos objects
to ecumenical openness"

Although certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective, this article fails to understand the true issues within the Orthodox Church regarding the Roman Catholic church. I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. To say that there is a prerequisite acknowledgement that if you are Orthodox you specifically are not in communion with the Roman Pope, is quite correct, and not at all strange. If the Orthodox were in communion with Rome, we would be Roman Catholic. Conversely to intimate that Roman Catholics are in some way in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (let alone other Patriarchs and Metropolitans), is quite strange indeed. The issue of communion is that communion means two or more parties share a common understanding and agreement to a set of ideas. This simply isn't the case between the RC and the Orthodox.

The person that espouses ecumenical dialogue always assumes the "other" side will see the error of their ways and join them. This is the unspoken understanding of both sides. A Roman Catholic would most likely expect the Orthodox to join in the Roman understanding of hierarchy (i.e. monarchy in the Pope). The Orthodox also think of the result of ecumenism as the Catholics joining the Orthodox both in hierarchy and in theology (Catholics abandoning that which the Orthodox find foreign, strange, and/or evil). You can say your are an ecumenist and want communion only if you are willing to abandon what you know now and accept what others teach (i.e. the Orthodox). Otherwise you are an imperialist. It is for this reason the Orthodox do not hold out much hope in ecumenical dialogue and bilateral relations. We do not think that Rome will ever change. Unfortunately Rome thinks (and has always thought and acted that) the Orthodox will change. There is a distinct possibility that the only reason for the Patriarch of Constantinople to act in the manner he acted is to try to garner favor for something else. Mt. Athos might fear a situation not unlike the Byzantine emperor asking for the West's help against invading Muslim armies, only to have Constantinople sacked, and Orthodox churches looted.

In addition, because of the writers lack understanding of the tenents of Orthodoxy, he thinks the monks at Mt. Athos are part of some kooky ultra-religious sect of Orthodoxy. There is no Islamic-style Wahabi school of thought to which they adhere. They are simplying seeing bad intentions followed through with bad practice (on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople) and which to correct his understanding. To welcome a schismatic or heretic (and such schisms and heresies all Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy must renounce) as a canonical bishop is indeed shocking to most Orthodox.

In most of Orthodoxy, including the monks at Mt. Athos, communion with Rome can only mean that Roman Catholics renounce erroneous teachings and be rejoined to the traditional Orthodox faith, Christology, eccesiology, etc.

This shouldn't be shocking to a Roman Catholic, as they should think the Orthodox should become RC.