Skip to main content

Proposed virginity tests in Indonesia

From The Guardian:
A plan to make female high school students undergo mandatory virginity tests has been met with outrage from activists, who argue that it discriminates against women and violates their human rights.
Education chief Muhammad Rasyid, of Prabumulih district in south Sumatra put forward the idea, describing it as "an accurate way to protect children from prostitution and free sex". He said he would use the city budget to begin tests early next year if MPs approved the proposal.
"This is for their own good," Rasyid said. "Every woman has the right to virginity … we expect students not to commit negative acts."
The test would require female senior school students aged 16 to 19 to have their hymen examined every year until graduation. Boys, however, would undergo no investigation into whether they had had sex.
It always fascinates me how the terms of the debate over various sexual and reproductive issues are so different from country to country.

The opponents of the virginity tests (in Indonesia) seem to rely on one basic argument against the law, which is that some young women might have broken hymens due to sexual assault or for other non-consensual reasons. The test for 'sexual purity,' in other words, might render a false positive.

Note what is not being questioned:
  1. Female virginity is really important and losing it before marriage is shameful.
  2. The state has a legitimate interest in policing female virginity.
  3. Forcibly subjecting a young woman to a hymen check is not per se illegitimate. (UPDATE: The "deputy head of the national commission on violence against women" condemned the proposal on human rights grounds.)
Links:

Article in The Guardian (August 21, 2013): Female students in Indonesia may be forced to undergo 'virginity tests' 

Article in Al Jazeera (August 22, 2013) that reports on international reaction to the virginity test proposal: Netizens denounce Indonesia 'virginity tests' plan

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...