Talk:Hymen

Function

Where is there a section under contents entitled "function?" Seriously, how much progress have we made over the ages if Wikipedia is not but a great corporate front. Are clear answers truly necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.72 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Modern perspectives unclear Ortner sentence

By examining women's bodies for the existence of the hymen, researchers have used it to determine whether or not women are "virtuous." Sherry B. Ortner, professor at the University of Chicago, explains how "the hymen itself emerges physiologically with the development of sexual purity codes" as an element of patriarchy.

I could not understand what Sherry B. Ortner is supposed to be saying above. Could someone withj access to the source rephrase it for clarity? If the article was not protected I would have added a template. The hymen emerges ... as an element of patriarchy? "physiologically"? Maybe the full quote would be better, as it reads like a non-sentence to me. 84user (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the issue is the word and the definition, "membrane" in the provided definition sense misleads people to visualize something blocking the vaginal entrance. When in fact nothing "blocks" the vaginal entrance except in cases of medical anomalies. The only difference lies in "how large is the opening when "assessed" exactly the same way, either by Foley catheter or by drawing the lips apart and downward. What doctors see when looking at the vaginal opening is actually the hymenal remnant, which indeed may vary in "remnancy". The issue of patriachy and controversy comes not from the medical field per say but how lay people interpret scientific documents. The fact that one of the largest anatomy books gives it 4 lines and Encyclopedia Britanica gives it no article AT ALL tells us something about the non relevance of the hymen. What starts off being called hymen in neo-natals is actually a vaginal protusion from incomplete fetal development. But this will become clearer once I get my references together. thank you for your patience.--Tallard (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the article before lockdown

• Who is in favor of the changes I made before lockdown:

They included merging the duplicate references, adding a reference to the quote from 1500s, removing an unreferenced fact, and changing the headers to a "modern" and "historic" and moving the quote from the 1500s to historic. I also took the one of the "myths" and added it into the lede. This is the version Tallard labeled as "vandalism". To my eye, they were very sensible, and followed Wikipedia style rules.

Of course, I am. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Who is in favor of the reversion back made before lockdown:

I'm not sure of your wording, do you mean who's in favor of the article as it presently stands?--Tallard (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Add name here

I do not wish to fight you on "coalescing" the Emans references, and/or "completing" the other references, I never had issues with those edits (and would have kept them were it not for the edit flood that made selective reverting impossible, as noted in my 11st revert), as long as no new religious sources are inserted to validate the science section. It's all the deleting and renaming and rephrasing I was disagreeing to, these are separate issues.--Tallard (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I expected a flurry of edits upon release of the lock, but all that happened was that a user provided a missing citation. I added a number of edits myself (well commented, I hope), but am not advocating one version over the other. If an earlier version is used as the reboot point, just reapply those edits you agree with. (I'd have waited longer, but I'm underway in a few hours, and will not see how this all turns out for a month or so.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting scarcity of book references compared to other anatomical subjects of discourse

Just noting how last week the link to hymen in Encyclopedia Britannica was removed because it pointed to the wrong article (the god). Well, I think the link was maybe there purposefully, to remind people that Encyclopedia Britannica DOES NOT HAVE A HYMEN ARTICLE, how interesting. The hymen is one single sentence in the "external genitalia" article. Such paucity (EB and 4 lines in Gray's Anatomy, as in most other encyclopedias) is something to keep in mind when considering this huge debate... Should Wikipedia be better informed about medical issues than anatomy books and other encyclopedias, are 2-3 specific articles enough to send Wikipedia on a major scientific journey of declaring 2-3 articles all knowing truth, above and beyond published books... May I bring your attention to how many "scientific articles" come out each year on broccoli is good for you, well not, coffee is good for you, or maybe not, cholesterol is bad, cholesterol is good. A couple of articles do NOT make a scientific truth, we must beware. We need some degree of scientific perspective. That's just how science goes, you never trust in just one article, it's the overwhelming evidence, summarized in books which are more valid than miscellaneous articles. Just a note...--Tallard (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are drawing your own conclusions again. The article needs less OR and more cited material. You used the same logical strategy for Gray's Anatomy. Unlike Sherlock Holmes and the barking dog, the absence of information in one source or another has no bearing here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out what the Encyclopedia Britannica does say about hymen (anatomy). It does not have a separate article, but it does refer you to where it is discussed in four different articles. Their "vulva" article actually states "In virgins the vaginal orifice is covered by a membranous fold of skin known as the hymen; after sexual intercourse only fragments of the hymen remain along the margins of the opening." This sounds much more like the "mythical hymen" than anything I have seen here. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Grays Anatomy 39th Edition says HYMEN VAGINAE:The hymen is a thin fold of mucous membrane situated just within the vaginal orifice. The internal surfaces of the folds are normally in contact each other and the vaginal orifice appears as a cleft between them. The hymen varies greatly in shape and area. When stretched, it is annular and widest posteriorly. Sometimes it is semilunar, concave towards the mons pubis. Occasionally it is cribriform or fringed. It may be absent or form a complete, imperforate hymen. When it is ruptured, small round carunculae hymenales (also known as carunculae myrtiformis) are its remnants. It has no established function, plus another 4 minor references to it later on. Also, I don't think there are loads of "scientific articles" "saying broccoli is good for you, well not, coffee is good for you, or maybe not, cholesterol is bad, cholesterol is good". Most scientific research makes fairly specific and limited observations and claims that are backed up by the research. The news media and/or government bodies or interested groups then take those narrow claims and pad them out or interpret them into news articles, government policy or promotional material that say X is good then X is bad, then X is maybe good or maybe bad. Ha! (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

I think undue weight is being given to a "maternity ward nurse" and a graduate student. I want to remove the section: "In late 2005, Monica Christiansson, former maternity ward nurse and Carola Eriksson, a PhD student at Umeå University announced that according to studies of medical literature and practical experience, the hymen should be considered a social and cultural myth, based on deeply rooted stereotypes of women's roles in sexual relations with men. Christiansson and Eriksson support their claims by pointing out that there are no accurate medical descriptions of what a hymen actually consists of. Statistics presented by the two state that fewer than 30% of women who have gone through puberty and have consensual intercourse bleed the first time. Christiansson has expressed an opinion that the use of the term "hymen" should be discontinued and that it should be considered an integral part of the vaginal opening."

Reply: It's good that you asked here first. I agree with you that it's undue and should not stay in its present form. On the other hand, there are very compelling reasons to have a section covering modern perceptions along these lines. I think the treatment of Christiansson and Eriksson should be retained, but reduced to approximately one sentence. Additional sources should be added, to provide a broader range of thought about this issue. My suggestion (just a suggestion!) is, for now, shorten it to: "In 2005, Monica Christiansson and Carola Eriksson proposed that the hymen should be considered a social and cultural myth, based on deeply rooted stereotypes of women's roles in sexual relations with men." Then, with time, editors should expand the section, but not by simply writing more about these two authors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment this theory is a fringe theory, not in the negative sense of the word but because it departs significantly from the mainstream view. As such it needs to be evaluated on how notable it is per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I can't see that their work (their study of the literature) has been cited as significant or notable by the scientific community; what's it's scientific standing? For the convenience of English speakers there's an English article on their work here [1] and an English translation of the referenced link here [2]. I also think that "Modern Perspective" is a technically accurate but misleading title. The overwhelming majority of modern perspectives is that the hymen exists and is as described in this article. Ha! (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

+1 on undue weight analysis. I'm not saying their research shouldn't be there, nor a section on modern medical perceptions, but I do think the article is unbalanced as it is. I'd like to see a wider variety on medical opinions, not just a single study. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that it's undue. Pygmypony (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Grays

There must be a mix up, the edition cited does not have this text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The condition of the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a woman past puberty has actually engaged in sexual intercourse.

"It may persist after copulation,so that it cannot be considered as a test of virginity". This is the text from Grays. I think this supports the point in question.J8079s (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Breakthrough

Newly published data from Australia suggest that the condition of a ruptured hymen is the result of vaginal atrophy, not due to a lack of penetration, but due to a lack of regular dilatory arousal.

98.230.60.95 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

Historical Perspectives

Wikipedia articles must represent realistic perspectives shared by the majority of people. This article presents no historical perspectives. Only the views of atheism and secular humanist religions are represented. The article would benefit from inclusion of historical data. For the majority of human history, and into the present day, the hymen is viewed from the perspective of Truth. The article presents only fragments of what readers would expect from a decent encyclopedia.

The existing fragments are practically useless, because the majority of people derive little no benefit from knowing them. Wikipedia is first and foremost designed to be of use and benefit to Internet users, not to advance godless religions and the occult. This article is not an exception. The majority of people believe a hymen should remain intact before marriage, and apply religious or sacramental significance to it. It is the tiniest fraction of people who apply atheist doctrine to the subject. This perspective should be included.

If religions such as atheism have a monopoly on using this article, it will not be objective, because atheism speaks only selected facts, omitting the remainder of information available on a subject. I propose to add a section to the article: historical data. The terminology used will be historically authentic, but modernized where necessary. In it's present state, the article squarely proselytizes in atheism, feminism, and secular humanism.

The entire article demonstrates strong bias against innocence, God, marriage, human genetic programming, biblical teaching, and natural law. Wildly rare, and racially bound exceptions to nature are used as a platform to advance an agenda in conflict with the white female. The article feigns ignorance, by omitting pertinent data. Now let's get with the program, and present an objective, balanced and complete survey of the subject.

I'll check back here before I add the new section. Traditionally, historical data is placed at the beginning of an article, so that's where I'll put it. If any other editor disagrees with any of the material presented, questions the copyright status of the references, or claims I'm posting my own research, please use this talk page to voice your concerns, and I will try to help you. We all want wikipedia to be the best it can be. None of use want to advance our personal agendas at the cost of Truth. I have full faith in the other editors to put aside their personalities, and come together to make a better article.

I apologize for the number of words in this section, but I had a lot to say. Thanks for giving the time to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. AwesomeMachine (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Unfortunately I'm unlikely to re-visit this page to delete whatever this religious nut (presumably from US) inserts into this article. Hopefully some sane person will do it. Otiose99 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiserero (talk • contribs)

Purpose

Usually something on the body has an evolutionary purpose. I've been trying to figure out, what purpose does the hymen have? Is it like an appendix, or does it actually perform some biological (rather than social) function? --Golbez (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

'humour'

Slugs have been added to the list of animals with hymens. This entry (no pun intended) is apparently a running joke on a comedy podcast and has been removed before(?) I am not an anatomist, so I have not edited the article. However when I looked at the history of the merging of the 'list of animals with hymens' page, this seems to have been a problem previously

hymen in slugs and other animals

This is indeed a joke and we may need to block this article or implement other measures if this continues. Or add a deliberate section on hymen jokes in wikipedia? Richiez (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

the 'joke' is on Wikepedia. It's not about slugs having hymen's per se, it's about slyly adding ridiculous, but not obviously so, information.Adagio67 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hymen histology

While widely referenced as "mucous membrane" in Gray's and many other places it is not at all a mucous membrane but as far as I know identical to the epithelium of the outer vagina, exact histology dependent on age and perhaps species. However I can not find any good sources giving more detail at the moment. The "mucous" classification probably predates modern histology and survived as historic anomaly. Richiez (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) There doesn't exist a hymen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.219.237 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

- This person is absolutely correct, its defiantly epithelial tissue and not a mucous membrane as such, Both its histology and its origin from the mullarian duct support this. I'm not saying the hymen doesn't exist as the person above but the terminology used by Grey and many other sources calling it a mucous membrane is technically wrong. 217.115.124.11 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The hymen doesn't exist!

You can't see if someone is a virgin or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.219.237 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact of an existing or unexisting hymen doesn't necessarily prove if the person is or not virgin. Hymens are different for every women, some aren't even born with one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.99.173 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

To IP 95.155.219.237... If the hymen did not exist, this article would not be saying with certainty that it does. Not being able to tell if someone is a virgin in some cases by examining the hymen does not make the existence of the hymen any less real. Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

nonetheless you should mention that the hymen usually doesn't break when you have sex and put more emphasis on the fact that you can't tell if someone is a virgin or not by looking at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.198.23.156 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That is mentioned, as is elsewhere in the list of surgeries the one that sometimes must be performed because an unfortunate has a hymen that is imperforate--lacking the usual opening to permit the exit of the menstrual flow--or too tough/inelastic to permit sexual intercourse. I don't remember off the top of my head which old medical forensics book I found it in, but the author recounted several cases where he had found the hymen still intact, including one in which the woman was pregnant. 75.177.89.14 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are there no hymen pics?

I don't want to see stupid illustrations. I want a hymen pic so I can actually see what it is. Can one of the editors upload a pic of their hymen or daughter's hymen? THANKS! 70.176.86.69 (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The above person disturbs be greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.35.103 (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Upload a picture of their daughter's hymen? Ugh! Asarelah (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• If someone can find a medical picture that shows the hymen, I'm not against the idea of uploading an actual picture of a hymen. However the suggestion that someone take a picture of their daughter's vagina for Wikipedia comes across as creepy and to be honest, such a picture would probably be nothing but trouble for the person who took it because people could argue that the daughter isn't old enough to agree to pictures of her genitalia being posted on Wikipedia. This isn't even bringing up the headache that would come from it potentially being seen by many as a pornographic picture of a minor's genitalia. That said, you'd have to find a fair use image, which is the other big issue. The Commons has some pictures, but nothing with an actual human body.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're all more perverted and creepy than the guy who started this section. Who said the daughter had to be a minor? I think this request is valid, especially with contextual, side-by-side photos (or other arrangement) showing development of the vagina. In general, child pornography laws allow for medical photography and literature. True pornography requires sexualized context. There is no overt consensus on this; I think someone should at least try it before screaming "taboo", ostracizing a potential new editor, then offering the equivalent of "find it yourself, perv".

The cover to The Scorpions' album, Virgin Killer is prominent child pornography on Wikipedia (a sexually-suggestive naked adolescent girl), which was kept despite ISP blocks on a wide range of UK editors and administrators.

I seem to recall the article Falaka once had an image of an Egyptian minor's feet bound in preparation for whipping. It appears to have been removed without a fuss when an objection arose. I don't see why that can't be done here. By discouraging this, you are encouraging users to go to a non-encyclopedic source for their information, whether you like it or not, which may end in worse consequences via child porn charges than a smart photo taken in a medical context. But, hey, that's not your problem, right, censors? At the very least, there should be a developmental illustration showing the changes in vaginal growth mentioned in the text.

Read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANE before raising an objection, next time. WP:PR0N also references WP:NOTCENSORED. Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from considerations of where the photo comes from, it would serve us better than a century-old drawing or woodcut or whatever that low-quality illustration from Gray's is.1canuckbuck (talk)1canuckbuck —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... the person above is correct. I can't believe that after all this time this cartoon image is the best there is. Regardless of what the source is it can hardly be argued that this is a suitable alternative. Though the way the request is worded is weird to say the least a single unidentifiable image for illustrative medical purposes is not pornography. Though as mentioned the person doesn't have to be a minor I would prefer a clear and unambiguous image to another poor quality one. I would do it myself but don't know anybody with a definitively intact one that I would even dare to ask and suspect that's the major problem here. Biofase ^flame| stalk  20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the hormonal environment of puberty causes the hymen to become stretchy and dissolve, it becomes difficult to visually differentiate it from the surrounding tissue. "Clear and unambiguous" basically doesn't exist in an adult, or at least is very rare / abnormal. File:Vagina_virgen.JPG is a user uploaded photo of a virgin, but the hymen there is not "intact" and has visible carunculae myrtiformes. The hymen is much clearer in a pre-pubescent individual, and for very good reasons we don't/shouldn't have people taking these kinds of photos, as minors cannot consent and it is potentially abusive. I think it is clear we should be looking for appropriately licensed medical photos and those are not common. I did find one photo that is creative commons, but it has a non-commercial licence and therefore we CANNOT upload it and use it in the article, however, here is a link to it: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/221916192_fig2_Fig-3-Prepubertal-hymen Mvolz (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Breaking the hymen?

I've heard time and time again the hymen doesn't break, it only stretches and moves out of the way. The source for the hymen actually breaking doesn't even seem that reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.252.255 (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That you have heard something repeatedly is no indication of the truthfulness of the statement. Can you offer a reliable source to prove that the hymen does not break? The sources in the article look plenty reliable to me. Your claim sounds like a combination of hearsay and original research. Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

At the time that the IP made the comment, the article stated that the hymen breaks, and the source used for the hymen breaking was unreliable (still is, going by WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS standards). At the time of your comment, Yabopomonofonomopo, the lead had already been changed to more accurately reflect what happens to the hymen during activity where its original state is altered. Indeed, there are reliable sources that state that it doesn't break or which use the words "may return to nearly its original condition," "may be remnants (carunculae myrtiformes)," "may appear completely absent after repeated penetration," "may be lacerated." I wouldn't consider that 1915 source reliable, however, since it's from a time where a lot still was not known about human anatomy (sexual or otherwise). Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A world dominated by modern scientists with selfish desires

Additionally, the hymen may be lacerated by disease, injury, medical examination, masturbation or even physical exercise. For these reasons, it is not possible to definitively determine whether or not a girl or woman is a virgin by examining her hymen.[2][4][5]'

All "atheist" excuses for proving their point. First of all, most modern medical scientists do not want to accept a creator (God is "unscientific" they say. Never even trying to seriously think who or what is God, they dismiss God). Why is the hymen there in the first place? Random chance? It must have a purpose. Chance theorists will never be able to answer this question. The hymen should have a purpose. Why are bottles of ketchup, drinks etc. sealed. Is it not a common sense question? Scientists will say: "Research shows...". Is that research really honest research? Let this be answered by modern, selfish materialistic medical scientists and doctors. Wikipedia may not allow the truth today but everyone in their hearts know they are wrong. -59.95.15.250 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And what does that make you? This is not a question of God. There's a mountain of evidence that hymens don't necessarily break with intercourse or break without having intercourse. It's only religious nutters that still live in the dark ages who still believe otherwise. If the hymen is supposed to be like the seal of a bottle then God made one truly defective product. Or is everyone with a torn hymen or even none at all just lying about not having had intercourse? And why does only one brand have it? Is He sexist as well?

For the record I am a born again Christian though a bit of an unconventional one and even the bible recognises that hymens are unreliable indicators of virginity. How's that for His wisdom over tribal superstitions held by uninformed individuals? As for its purpose, I don't know. Why do horses have it where the "seal" doesn't really matter much? Or maybe it's just to play a joke on people like you! Biofase ^flame| stalk  04:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol at the comparsion with a bottle of ketchup! 80.212.186.32 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are there no IRL pics of hymens?

I wanted to show my son what to look for, but all there are here are these cartoons that look nothing like the real thing. Please rectify this! Thank you! 70.162.46.129 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect citation for "only 43% of women reported bleeding the first time they had intercourse"?

I cannot find anything that supports the claim "only 43% of women reported bleeding the first time they had intercourse" or any references about such a survey in either of the citations that are attributed to it. I've looked up both books on Google Books, there is no instance where the word "percent" is preceded by "43" or "forty-three".

Would someone care to help me out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.224.212 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Need a real woman's hymen?

Does this article need a picture of a real hymen? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think so. but not a single hymen pic. it's good if we can add few different hymen pictures--Sasithmadu (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

The writer of this section goes out of the way to equivocate. Urania3 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Urania3, regarding this edit you made, I made some changes with this edit. I moved the template down to the section you were concerned about and removed some unsourced material. I also removed one instance of Template:Who; this is because the comment was about women in general or a specific group of women, and the women are not notable. It's similar to stating "Some people get sick." We can't pinpoint "who" in that case; we are talking about people in general. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the source, we could state "Some Muslim women" instead of "Some women." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed this source as very poor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to cultural significance

As this page stands today the section "Cultural significance" is pretty miserable. For example, referring to "certain communities" missing reference reminded me of a fairly recent documentary I've seen about Romani people. There's even reference to virginity in specific chapter of that article (although lacking scientific citations, too). However, I think it would be proper to put a "main article"-type reference to virginity page here since that seems to be the proper place for discussion on this subject. P0wer (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Other ? Animals

Man is not an animal. I propose to rename the section to "In animals" or just "Animals" what is more appropriate (in English). 85.206.97.208 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Correctly speaking, our species most certainly is an animal. It is not a plant or fungus species. 2.31.166.209 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Man is an animal. As for the section heading, see WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• impeforate hymen

Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 09:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction?

In the third paragraph of the article it says, "The hymen does not regenerate itself after it is torn", but then later in the article, under the Trauma section in the third paragraph it says, "Trauma to the hymen may heal without any visible sign of injury". This seems very contradictory to me, but I'm not going to edit it because I'm not an anatomist and I do not know which one is correct.Emilyhoerr (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an anatomist either, but my reading of "Regenerate" does seem to indicate that they are contradictory, as healing without scar tissue is (apparently) regeneration. But a full transection is a tear that will be visible once healed, scar tissue or not, so maybe this is what is meant by "not regenerate" - as the transection will be visible after healing, even if there is no scar tissue. In the end the source that says "no regeneration" seems to be the opinion of a single person, as opposed to the peer reviewed studies which showing healing without scarring, plus several books that say that lack of sign of injury to the hymen is not at all indicative of lack of sexual abuse - so I'd be inclined to just omit the statement on regeneration altogether. Although I wrote the trauma section so I'm predisposed in its favour :). Mvolz (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, like I stated here, one wonders what is meant by "does not regenerate." If I'm thinking of "regenerate," I'm thinking of the hymen being restored in its entirety, not merely parts of the hymen healing. I will look into sources on the matter later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Regeneration in humans article that Mvolz pointed to shows what I think of when I think of regenerate. It currently states that regeneration in humans "is the regrowth of lost tissues or organs in response to injury. This is in contrast to wound healing, which involves closing up the injury site with a scar." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Virginity

Mvolz, regarding this, what do you mean? It's best to note why the state of the hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity, rather simply stating "the state of the hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, we simply follow what the sources state. And, of course, there is no need to list in the lead every reason that the hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: - I agree that we just need to report what the sources state. But having this statement here implies that it's primarily unreliable because the hymen is easily damaged by behaviour. But there are actually *lots* of reasons it's potentially unreliable, and this may in truth be the *least important* or even an *untrue* reason why it's unreliable.

There has long been the idea that gymnastics, horseback riding, and a gynaecological exam etc can cause hymenal transections, but the *only* study to ever look at this found no evidence this was the case. It could be true, but at present there's no reason to suspect it actually is or that this represents a significant reason it's unreliable.

There is also a large body of research that shows the hymen can be resilient to sexual activity; even rape victims who were virgins commonly have no damage even on examination afterwards, even if they have damage to other genital tissue; and even when there is damage, it can heal without any visible sign of damage. See: Hymen#Trauma So while it's true the hymen is an unreliable indicator of virginity, the reason for that is actually the *opposite* of what's suggested by that statement. It was once considered unreliable because primarily because it was believed it was easily injured; but it turns out it's also unreliable because it's *not* easily injured. There are even reports of intact hymens following childbirth!

A third reason it's unreliable is there is considerable congenital variation in the amount hymenal tissue. Some women are born without one, or very minimal tissue, such that it simply isn't visible. See: Hymen#Anatomic_variations Historically people incorrectly thought this meant they "lost" their hymen, but this just isn't how tissue works. You can stretch or transect (tear) tissue, but this will at least leave remnants. It doesn't just disappear when injured unless it's cut away in a hymenectomy. A lack of a hymen typically does not indicate lack of virginity, but rather congenital absence.

The 4th reason it's unreliable is some hymenal changes aren't caused by behaviour at all, but rather hormones during puberty which affect genital tissue, and has nothing to with behaviour whatsoever. See: Hymen#Development_and_histology Because of loss of virginity often coincides with puberty, the cause of the changes that were historically attributed to sexual activity may in fact be caused primarily by puberty instead.

So to suggest that's it's primarily unreliable due to ease of injury from non-sexual behaviours is misleading and potentially entirely or mostly wrong given there are so many other reasons, some of which are better substantiated. This is all info from the page, I've just synthesised it. Probably too much synthesis for the page itself, but I do think there's enough evidence to warrant omitting the sentence :).Mvolz (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mvolz, no need to ping me since this page is on my watchlist. I went ahead and pinged you since I didn't last time and you only just now responded to my above comment.

As for what we report, I understand your concerns, but we can only go by what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. And per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be using secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to primary sources. You have relied on primary sources for material you've added to this article, but we shouldn't. There is no need to do that in the case of this topic. You stated, "the *only* study to ever look at this found no evidence this was the case," but what secondary or tertiary source supports that study being the only study to look at the matter? Furthermore, that study is from 1994. See WP:MEDDATE. The material you added to the "Trauma" section would be tagged by a WP:Med editor as needing non-primary sourcing. I'm a WP:Med editor, but I usually don't use tags.

My point is that we go with what the literature states, whether or not we think the material is true. Except for WP:Fringe cases, it's not for us to doubt the literature, especially based on one study or one or more studies as opposed to what an academic book source or literature review states. There are academic book sources on Google Books that we can and should use for this topic. There should be something in the article, both in the lead and lower, about why the hymen may not be a reliable indicator of virginity. And I state "may not be," because an intact hymen hasn't been entirely ruled out as indicating virginity.

We give examples in leads all the time. The lead is meant to summarize, not be an exhaustive list. And when the lead states "for example," as it did in this case, that's clear. And use of "may be," like the lead used for "may be lacerated by [so and so]" allows leeway for the possibility that it may not be harmed by these things. I'm all for keeping the less proven aspects limited or excluding them per WP:Undue, but we should be using secondary and tertiary sources to determine what is more likely and what isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

____

References

Other Animals Dispute

There seems to be a lot of disagreement among academic sources about which other animals have hymens:

• Only elephants: Hobday, A. J., L. Haury, and P. K. Dayton. "Function of the human hymen." Medical hypotheses 49.2 (1997): 171-173.
• Lemurs and possibly other primates: Cold, Christopher J., and Kenneth A. McGrath. "Anatomy and histology of the penile and clitoral prepuce in primates." Male and female circumcision. Springer, Boston, MA, 1999. 19-29.
• Llamas, guinea pigs, elephants, rats, toothed whales, seals, dugongs, and some primates: Blackledge, Catherine. The story of V: A natural history of female sexuality. Rutgers University Press, 2004.

At least some of those species actually have mating plugs and others have cases of abnormal fetus hymens persisting into adulthood (eg: Tan, Rachel H H, and John J Dascanio. “Infertility associated with persistent hymen in an alpaca and a llama.” The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne vol. 49,11 (2008): 1113-7.)

--Vagary (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)