Talk:Hymen

hair scrunchies?

I really question the necessity of having the link to the picture of a hair scrunchie. I think that the comparison is adequate, and the parenthetical link is sort of awkward. MeredithParmer 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who inserted the link to the picture and I agree it is awkward. I inserted the link in response to people who felt that non-Americans would not understand the term. Dr.Monica 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-human hymens?

Question: Has the hymen been found in any of the apes or primates or for that matter any other mammal?

Treg (Tregg@doitnow.com)

It's also found in other mammals (according to one source: lemurs, guinea pigs, mole rats, hyenas, horses, llamas, and fin whales). --Wik 22:50, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

From a scarleteen.com interview w/ Hanne Blank

Scarleteen: Do other animals [have hymens]? HB: You betcha they do. Many mammals have hymens, including (but not limited to) llamas, guinea pigs, bush babies, manatees, moles, toothed whales, chimpanzees, elephants, rats, lemurs, and seals. This is because mammals' reproductive systems often tend to develop in similar ways to one another, so they have a lot of similarities in structure.

JustADuck 21:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How thick is elephants hymen? How wide is the hole in the middle of it? How about whales? Do whales and elephants bleed when they fuck for first time?

wouldn't some of them have multiple holes like some human hymens? or some of them be imperforate hymens like some human hymens? Gringo300 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure and can check with HBlank if this is a vital question to answer for the article, but from what I remember of her research into animal hymens, the only animal that consistently had a "sealed for your protection" type of hymen was the guinea pig, who regrows the hymen after every fertility cycle. Most hymens are not imperforate as far as I know, since imperforate hymens tend to cause issues with drainage. MalcolmGin 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of the hymen

Question: What is the purpose of the hymen?

uhm... to block penises? Gringo300 07:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To help prevent infection, maybe? --Max 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From scarleteen.com's interview with Hanne Blank, author of some book on virginity:

"Scarleteen: What's [the hymen] even for?

HB: I like to joke that it's good for keeping the bears out. But really, we don't know why human beings have hymens. They don't seem to serve any purpose for us, or for many of the other animals that have them. In some animals, the hymen appears to have more of a function: guinea pigs' hymens dissolve when they are fertile, letting male guinea pigs mate with them, then grow back and completely close off the vagina when the guinea pigs are not in heat. Scientists are not really sure what good this does the guinea pigs. But it is an excellent party trick."

JustADuck 21:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "prevent infection" idea seems a strange one, on two fronts. Since the human hymen should typically have a large hole in, from birth, it's not keeping anything out. And since it gets damaged during sex, the only time anything is *expected* to be going in and out, that means there's automatically an open infectable wound right at the moment where infection is the highest risk.

I have two ideas, but neither of thee have any basis whatsoever, and I am unsure either is convincing.

1) Given the following premises: a: sex has significant danger of internal damage, infection, esp in kids. b: Hymens cause pain on first sex, at least in kids. c: pain makes people more reluctant to indulge in sex d: puberty causes the desire for sex outweigh the risk of pain. Then: A: from a, there is an evolutionary advantage to not having sex until you can reproduce B: from b+c+d, hymens are a ssytem to make this happen.

2) Immunity: I think I may have read this idea somewhere but nowhere reliable: New Scientist, or the net. Basically, if you're going to get pregnant, it's good to have some cuts to be sure you're exposed to plenty of the nasty bacteria in that area so your immune system is used to it. Because in a few months, when you have birth, the tear in your hymen from sex is gonna look like nothing, and you better have developed immunity to any bacteria that might get into a vaginal cut by then.

DewiMorgan 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image / Diagram Concerns

Diagram

This website has a good diagram of the different types of hymens. Should we see if we can get permission to use it? I have been unable to find any other diagrams with the different types, public domain or otherwise. -- Kjkolb 15:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

posted image

The posted image is copyrighted, according to http://www.the-clitoris.com/f_html/hymen.htm : "From the book "Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving" Page 34. Copyright 1982,1985, 1986, By William H. Masters, M.D., Virginia E. Johnson, and Robert C. Kolodny"

Someone with more experience should deal with this. Canaen 06:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested New Image: Vulvabigopen2(english).jpg

File:Vulvabigopen2(english).jpg

Vulvabigopen2(english).jpg

I noticed that there is an image available for use in the Commons which shows the remnants of the hymen in an adult female. In my opinion, it's not great, but it's miles better than the antiquated diagram that's up right now. I believe this to be the only photo (besides the copyrighted one which used to be here, but was removed) which actually purports to show the hymen. Because there always seems to be a lot of controversy about human-sexual-anatomy photos, I thought that I would propose it for inclusion here before changing the main article. I think that unless a superior (in terms of being informative, not aesthetically pleasing) image can be found, that this should be used. Thoughts? --Kadin2048 20:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I gave it a couple weeks and a few edits gone by, and nobody seemed to say anything about the photo, so I thought I would be bold and put it in and see what people thought. My reasons for doing so are because the current diagram (the 1918 one), to be perfectly frank, sucks. It doesn't really show anything, and frankly the whole vulva-as-gaping-maw just isn't terribly realistic. People would be better served by just about anything; the photo is the best I could find in the Commons. Barring anything that's more illustrative of the topic at hand, that is the hymen, I think it should be kept. I am aware that it is not great photo. The colors are off, the crop is too tight, and the resolution isn't that good. If anyone has anything better, I have no attachment to it other than it being better than the diagram. --Kadin2048 06:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is highly educational.--Patchouli 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Image: Hymen virginal.jpg

I added the image of virginal_hymen.jpg. This is one example but you can see an intact hymen. --Nicholasolan 13:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

types of hymens

i'm pretty sure that the list of types of hymens is NOWHERE NEAR complete.

Gringo300 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural myth

I added a section about recent Swedish findings that question the existance of human hymens as an anatomical detail that can be reasonably defined. Anyone know of similar claims from other researchers?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah in Sweden it's generally accepted as a myth nowadays since some recent research, don't know if this research is limited to sweden though 193.13.57.88 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah even Swedish Wikipedia states it's a myth, better get that part worked out

Not anymore. The wording was not neutrally worded and completely unreferenced. Now it's just the plain old "mucus membrane fold" (slemhinneveck). And Swedish Wikipedia in general has a really poor track record when it comes to reasonable interpretations of NPOV.

Besides that, I am getting more and more skeptical about the traditional anatomical view. I admit that I'm not neutral on this one, being a rather avid feminist, but I can't really see how one separates the hymen from the vaginal opening in terms of anatomy. What distinguishis it from the nearby tissue? If it weren't for the misconceptions, myths and stereotypes about virginity it seems as if it seems that it would merely be considered the rim of the vaginal opening.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the commentary above, I would like to add that the hymen IS an anatomical detail that can be reasonably defined in that you can easily see it during an exam. Medically speaking, it is not the same as the vaginal opening, since the opening itself is just empty space. The hymen extends from the vaginal wall and could be considered the "rim" of the vaginal wall. The vaginal wall is muscle covered by mucosal tissue, however, whereas the hymen is mucosal tissue without a muscular component. The tissue of the external genitalia near the hymen is also mucosal in nature. This tissue forms other structures which can easily be distinguished from the hymen on exam. Being a feminst myself, I think there is entirely too much emphasis on the condition of the hymen, especially since the condition of the hymen is mostly unrelated to virginity status. However, when there are injuries or disease processes in this tissue, medical professionals need words to describe the location and nature of the lesions. At this time, whether the word "hymen" is culturally acceptable or not, using it will accurately communicate the location of the lesion. Dr.Monica

Not only that, Dr. Monica, but it's pretty clearly established that even the medical professionals who should know often don't know how to diagnose hymenal state consistently and reliably. -- Malcolm Gin 09:24 28 June 2006 (EDT)

I flagged this article for NPOV. I think that the bit on the cultural significance of the hymen is worded in an inflammatory manner, and that this article is (At best) poorly sourced. Some of the sources are specific to certain cultures (Turkey) and others come from websites like Scarleteen, which is really not a scholarly source. I question the educational value of this content, and feel that it may have been planted here by "feminists" (Misandrists) to further their point of view. I admit that the hymen is in and of itself a poorly documented bit of anatomy, but I feel that this article could have been created in a more encyclopedic, neutral way. Pygmypony 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More material available soon/now

You all will want to revise this section when Hanne Blank's book, Virgin, An Untouched History comes out next year. There is already some citeable hymen-related material in the book's FAQ.

I am close to Hanne Blank, so I don't want to edit the article and introduce bias, but it should be a very food source of both reference (with an extensive bibliography) and fact-gathering/fact-checking when it comes out. -- Malcolm Gin 9:20, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

Historical significance (section makes no sense)

The information in this section seems to contain some contradictions. It says that transsections can only be created by penetrating trauma and that a small number of females are transsected on first penetration. This seems to suggest that transsection occurs only in later penetration and also implies that penetration is traumatic. Many sexually experienced women have completely transsected hymens from intercourse and most would not describe the process as traumatic. This section also seems to make it clear that there is no such thing as accidental transsection and then suggests that an intact hymen is not an indicator of virginity. Maybe these things are true in their own way, but as currently presented, this section makes no sense. The Crow 12:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His/Her?

Is the his/her part /really/ necessary in the mention of the slang term "cherry"?

"The slang term "cherry" is also commonly used as a reference to a woman's hymen. Specifically, the phrase "popping the/her cherry" indicates a loss of a woman's virginity."

That's the text as it is now, and it makes no sense to include males when referin specifically to woman's loss of virginity. Either change it to truly include both sexes, or don't bother with the awkward his/her construction.

It says "the/her," meaning one can use the phrase "popping the cherry" or "popping her cherry." There's, uh, no 'his' there.

The slang term "Pop ___ cherry" is used in a more broad context by young people these days. I've heard it said many times that a young man popped his cherry in reference to doing an activity the first time. It's not just used in the sexual/anatomical sense anymore.. Pygmypony 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a young person, and I have not heard young men (or women) using "popping _ cherry" do describe doing something new. I would guess that usage is probably contained in an area and is not widespread. I have heard youth using it in the sexual sense, albeit not frequently. Jebler 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive heard the term used in many different states ( My family travels alot), so it isn't likely that its only contained in a region.

Cleaned up

I've cleaned up the "historical significance" section because it had turned into a pile of self-contradictory gibberish and useless citations. There were a lot of references indicating all the things that don't cause hymenal transection, except for sexual intercourse, implying that in fact hymenal intactness is a valid indicator. This contradicted the numerous repetitive statements that hymenal intactness is unreliable. I have eliminated the repetitive verbage and also the contradictory junk. I think it still clearly shows that hymental intactness is not a reliable indicator of virginity, without all the gibberish and repetition that was there before. The Crow 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing spree

Well, I think that's pretty much all the research I've done reflected in the article. You will note that I didn't touch the historical, cultural, and other animal sections, though these could use some work and some references. I also didn't verify the paragraph on fetal development so that will need checking/expaning/referencing. I have finished being bold now, so have at it. fabiform 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural construction section

After some research, I've concluded that the "Cultural construction" section is self-referential original research and not consistent with WP:OR and WP:SELF. I cannot find published primary references to this content elsewhere, thus it appears that Monica Christiansson used Wikipedia to publish original content. Perhaps it's true content (I happen to think it isn't), but as it is a violation, it can't stand here. The Crow 11:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original paper is described at http://www.genus.se/Aktuellt/Nyheter/?articleId=2512 and http://www.genus.se/?languageId=1 but I agree that the section you have removed was not encyclopedic. Rather it described a minority POV without identifying it as such. Andrewa 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added a descriptive paragraph on this to the article, with reference to thesis released under CC. Towsonu2003 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Question

I've been reading up on this article, and my knowledge of the female reproductive system is generally great. However, the only thing that confused me is that the hymen covers the vaginal opening, right? if so, since it blocks menstrual fluids/whatever to pass, would it not also block urine from leaving the bladder? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several points: (1) the hymen normally only covers part of the opening of the vagina, so menstrual fluids are able to escape. (2) urine exits the body from the bladder through the urethra and out the urethral meatus which is about half way between the vagina and the clitoris, so even if the vagina is completely sealed, it wouldn't initially get in the way of urination. (3) You might want to double check the medical definitions of vagina and vulva as in every day terms some people call the whole female genital are the "vagina", but this is not how we are using it in this article. I hope that makes it a little clearer. See also Image:Fem isa 2.gif. fabiform 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another related question: the text says "A woman's hymen is destroyed when she gives birth". OK, what about sexual intercourses then? As it's written, it sounds like the hymen is only destroyed when a woman gives birth. Unless we're talking about different levels of "destruction". Marcusbacus 16:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the story of Blessed Virgin Mary and his son, Jesus of Nazareth. It is written in the Holy Bible. 195.70.32.136 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote you back some more of the article to answer your question: "...a traditional belief that an intact hymen indicates a state of intact virginity. However, it is not possible to confirm that a woman or post-pubescent girl is a virgin by examining the hymen.[5]" "Only 43% of women report bleeding the first time they had sex; which means that in the other 57% of women the hymen likely stretched enough that it didn't tear." [20] Essentially, even if the hymen is torn during sexual intercourse (which is not always the case) it is still present, and it is there to be destroyed should the woman give birth. Hope that makes sense. fabiform 11:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hymen is proof of the seven day creation!

This article is under heavy censorship by atheists. There is no mention that hymen alone can kill evolution. Hymen serves absolutely no purpose besides reinforcing the moral commandment of "thou shall not fornicate". Hymen is proof that humans were created by an intelligent cause, instead of evolved from monkeys. 195.70.32.136 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that only enforce the lack of fornicating between men and women? I mean, men don't have hymens, so what's to stop them from fornicating from here to Jerusalem?

"instead of evolved from monkeys" -- Lemurs as well as chimps have hymens, so I'm not sure what you're going on about here. Scientifically speaking (you probably deny their existence though), I also think it'd be more than likely our predecessors had hymens too. -- Northgrove 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to 195.70.32.136: File:Hymen.png

;) Towsonu2003 06:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion section is just counter to the spirit of wikipedia. Who gave this retard a computer?

Hear, hear

Monkeys have a hymen, in fact many mammals do. The believed purpose for a hymen is for male animals to know if the female is able to breed. This has been a lost trait by humans. Humans did evolve from apes. The DNA of humans and chimps are extremely similar. Christianity isn't even close to the age of the earth including the age of humans, and neither is Judaism. Christianity is only followed by 33% of humans. Not to denounce religion, because many people need it and it can be a great thing and this isn't what this discussion is about. But there are three enemies to man kind: fanaticism, superstition and ignorance. By the comment the gentlemen left above, it shows his view of religion is warped by all three of these things.

I would like to apologize to other Wikipedia users on behalf of the above Christian. We are not all insane, and not all of us think science and religion are incompatible. 207.237.193.23 23:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on culture

Honestly, I'd like to see a little more discussion on the various fallouts of the hymen myth. In some cultures women can get in serious trouble if their hymen doesn't live up to the archetypal "seal of the vagina" formation. Currently we have some ultra-neutrally-worded fillibuster about feminist movements and patriarchal myths (am I the only one reading contempt into the utter unreadability of that section?) I really would like to see that section updated to reflect the real consequences of the hymen myth on real women in the world; it continues to shock and disturb me how little women -- and doctors! -- really understand about the hymen, and this article could do more to address that. If not for relieving widespread disinformation and myths, what is wikipedia for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.121.9.244 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to see less feminist rhetoric and more encyclopedic knowledge, please. This isn't the "misandry message board." This is a place of learning! Please respect Wikipedia. I know we don't see eye-to-eye on the cultural significance of the hymen, but I hope we can see eye-to-eye on the value of Wikipedia. Pygmypony 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hymen as procedure?

How do I have to read this: You must know, this young lady, with the assistance of Mr Loyd, formed the third couple who yesterday sacrificed to Hymen. (letter by fictitious Jery Melford, in: Tobias Smollett, Humphry Clinker, 1771) --Flammingo^Parliament 11:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, found it: God of Marriage! --Flammingo^Parliament 11:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Significance

I removed the "POV-section" tag under 'Cultural Significance'. I am a clinical, medical professional and have experience in the subject matter. I am more than willing to provide source documents if requested. Please go to my talk page if you wish to discuss this decision. MadScientistMatt 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]