Jump to content

Talk:Hymen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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)

non-human hymens?

Aah, clams have hymens? Really? Their reproductive systems are so different from mammals that this seems hard to believe... same for lots of other animals in that list. 87.162.88.99 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

The "Hymens in other animals" section of this article really has gotten out of hand, taking up an unreasonably large chunk of the page and (thanks to the alphabetical section headers) a majority of the table of contents. It even contains more entries than the main article that it cites, List of animals with hymens (41 vs. 32), many suspect. This entire section should be replaced with just a couple of sentences and a link to the list, and given the draw articles relate to sexuality have for juvenile vandalism, entries in that article not supported by reference should be deleted. Kirk Hilliard (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

the purpose of the hymen

Question: What is the purpose of the hymen?

uhm... to block penises? Gringo300 07:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
To help prevent infection, maybe? --Max 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Another idea, strictly personal opinion: In cultures in which men place a high value on virginity in a bride, such as some very traditional cultures, anything that provided "some" evidence of virginity (reliable or not) would enhance a woman's chances of acquiring a husband and reproducing. Therefore, even if the hymen was a genetic mutation originally, women who possessed one would be more likely to marry and reproduce (passing this gene/trait on to their female offspring) than those lacking the hymen. So there would be an evolutionary advantage that would result in greater relative reproduction rates among the hymened. Sort of like the spots on a peacock... Unimaginative Username 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems flawed to me because I'm resonably convinced this emphasis on virginity is a fairly recent thing. I doubt people 20 thousand years ago shared the same concerns. So at most the virginity expectation may have helped preserve the hymen. Nil Einne 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The pain idea seems flawed to me for many reasons. For example it's rather unlikely that a kid is going to realise it's painful until they've tried it but by that time it's too late. The immunity idea also seems flawed. I don't see any reason why you have to be exposed in that specific area. The immune system simple doesn't work like that. The only thing that matters is that you are exposed to the type of bacteria. Nil Einne 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me this whole discussion is missing the point. The first thing you need to determine is when exactly the hymen 'evolved'. If other apes have a similar anatomical structure then it likely 'evolved' in a common ancestor, a lot earlier then humans. More importantly, there is no reason to assume the hymen ever served any purpose. It may simply be a result of the way the vagina develops. Commentators might find it helpful to read the evolution and related articles since I think a better understanding of evolution will help people when considering questions such as this one. And of course all this speculation is OT here. Best take it to the reference desk Nil Einne 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Suggested New Image: 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)

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

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).

Images

http://www.the-clitoris.com/f_html/hymen.htm

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20010301/883.html

http://www.superkarate.ru/hymen/hymen.htm

http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/EDG2701%20All%20Classes/Sex%20and%20Sexism%20(rev).htm

http://www.hpchile.cl/forense/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:estudio-anatomico-del-himen-y-su-repercusion-en-medicina-legal&catid=12:medicina-forense&Itemid=61

http://labios.blogia.com/2004/101602-en-el-principio-fueron-los-labios-de-eva-inmaculados-y-sin-desflorar....php

http://www.csjn.gov.ar/cmf/cuadernos/2_1_27.html

http://forenses.mforos.com/996699/5346573-sexologia-en-fotos/

http://www.emedicine.com/asp/image_search.asp?query=Hymen

http://slave1.imagebeaver.com/files/i/5b3/saf474b1b6e20e52.jpg

Hymen Picture

http://slave1.imagebeaver.com/files/i/8d8/saf474b1d4925edb.jpg

http://www.deflorationmovies.com/hymen.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fa/c/ce/Zoom-hymen2.jpg

http://132.203.53.11/bio90192/chap7/reprodev.htm

Hymen Picture

http://www.surfaceridermovies.com/previews/vivien/images/hymen.jpg


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.163.41.115 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

types of hymens -- External links

I'm pretty sure that the list of types of hymens is NOWHERE NEAR complete. Gringo300 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi.. is there such thing as hymen growing back.. as in naturally healing back? if the person hasnt had sex for 6 years? so meaning say this person has had sex before... but after not having it for 6 years.. there is a hymen present all over again..?? is there such thing? cos thats what Happenned to me.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.27.23 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For personal advice, you may wish to use a more appropriate forum, such as Scarleteen or UCSB's SexInfo. Articles on the hymen from both of those sites were reachable through the external links section until it was removed on 3 August 2009 by 59.94.42.199 with the comment "not meet the guidelines". The last version with external links intact is here. -- Thinking of England (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the External Link guidelines at WP:ELNO and don't see how these external links, as a whole, violate them, so I have restored them. Issues with individual links should certainly be discussed. -- Thinking of England (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

In The Cable Guy they talk about "popping the cherry" on the karaoke machine. // Liftarn (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)


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).

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)

In any case, if the section belongs on Wikipedia, it should be filed under "Virginity" instead. Virginity deals more with the cultural implications, while Hymen deals with an anatomical feature. I think we should be fine moving the section to Virginity and just leaving a link to it and maybe a summary. Sidhe3141

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) --FlammingoParliament 11:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, found it: God of Marriage! --FlammingoParliament 11:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


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)

Then provide them, please. The "professional" bit carries no weight here, nor should it; we do citation instead of original research. Claiming professional distinction to influence an article's content is a violation of Wikipedia policy as well. 65.9.106.78 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

unsourced statement

"Pulling on the septate portion of the hymen will cause permanent damage to the hymen and the vagina itself." I have removed this from the article pending someone verifying/clarifying and sourcing it. fabiform 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Obsolete information?

The line, "There is no such thing as "congenital absence of the hymen", ie it is a myth that girls are born without a hymen," though sourced, is from 1987, and I've seen some other sources that refute this claim, and are more recent. Lordio 09:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What might damage the hymen...

"What might damage the hymen

The hymen is not normally damaged by playing sports, using tampons, pelvic examinations or even straddle injuries.[21]

... It is rare to damage the hymen through accidental injury, such as falling on the top tube of a bicycle. "

What the heck? Who wrote this? It makes no sense. Every other viable source I've checked said yes indeed those things can damage the hymen. And falling on the top tube of a bicycle? What? Is that just there to make us cringe? 70.137.149.233 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The first line under "Myth" is either a Freudian slip or wrong: "The condition of the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a woman past puberty has actually engaged in sexual intercourse."

It says right at the top of the page that "it is not possible to confirm that a woman or post-pubescent girl is a virgin by examining the hymen".

If you want to write a myth, write this: "The condition of the hymen is a reliable indicator of whether a woman past puberty has actually engaged in sexual intercourse." That is a myth.


I'm questioning the use of the word "damage" in relation to the hymen, which is a changing presence in a female's development. It thickens, thins, tears, stretches, becomes a ring of interrupted tissue after childbirth. This isn't damage, this is normal function. We need a different word.68.211.229.245 (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FIRST MYTH IS ACTUALLY TRUE -- FREUDIAN SLIP?

The first line under "Myth" is either a Freudian slip or wrong: "The condition of the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a woman past puberty has actually engaged in sexual intercourse."

It says right at the top of the page that "it is not possible to confirm that a woman or post-pubescent girl is a virgin by examining the hymen".

If you want to write a myth, write this: "The condition of the hymen is a reliable indicator of whether a woman past puberty has actually engaged in sexual intercourse." That is a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyhatchet (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


removed following :

  • The hymen gained it's name from a notable 11th century knight by the name of Sir William Hymen. [citation needed] Sir Hymen gained so much glory on the fields of battle that he was said to have earned the right to take the virginity of well over 30 women.

as there is no reference and google search doesn't show up anything that could have led to this.

It's named after the god Hymen

Do we need this section at all ?Probably a modern 'myth' johnmark†

Remove image

I suggest removing the image Hymen_virginal.jpg - it's fake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.131.170 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the caption to read "Artist's impression of a virginal hymen". Hopefully that will resolve things. Asarelah 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just about to state that you changed that part.
So that image being in this article is slightly fine again while the fate of it (stay or delete) is debated. Flyer22 18:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's quite unlikely you'll find a photo of a virgin these days without getting charged with child pornography. 83.174.130.200 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Surgery Offers Muslim Women Illusion of Virginity

Gynecologists say that in the past few years, more Muslim women are seeking certificates of virginity to provide proof to others. That in turn has created a demand among cosmetic surgeons for hymen replacements, which, if done properly, they say, will not be detected and will produce tell-tale vaginal bleeding on the wedding night. The service is widely advertised on the Internet; medical tourism packages are available to countries like Tunisia where it is less expensive. --By ELAINE SCIOLINO and SOUAD MEKHENNET Published: June 11, 2008 New York Times --72.75.89.167 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs complete rewriting and remove all illustrations (needs real pictures)

These concepts of a hymen are so antiquated I am awed to see Wikipedia stray so far from science. The only cases when skin at the opening of the vagina gets in the way of penetration/menstruation is when there's a DYSFUNCTION, meaning that a vast majority of women do not have hymens. If a women has a hymen (I have yet to see any serious picture (not illustration) of a hymen, it is a religious fabrication. In fact it would be the same as saying men's prepuces (non circumcised men) geting the way of copulation. Yes it does happen, but in these very rare cases, it is called "phimosis” ". A vast majority of women do not have hymens. The point is that lack of the hymen is the norm, and IF the vagina's opening is somehow blocked then the dysfunction may be described as "Hymen blocked" but that is the exception not the norm.

I am going to work on completing these thoughts and welcome all references (I have limited access so it may take a while) but this needs to change.

Most of this article belongs on the bible pedia, not on wikipedia. --Tallard (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some serious DEmythification.

    • No, it is not fine "in the meantime" something that is false is not acceptable in the meantime. It's not a matter of liking or not (other than yourself) this drawing simply does not show a hymen. There has already been a request for a proper picture and while waiting for someone to find a proper picture of a hymen to publish, it is best not to have anything. If you revert me again, I will take this further, the edit is perfectly valid--Tallard (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
A 100 year old book has almost no bearing on 21st century science, jeesh!--74.174.236.67 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The burden of proof is upon the person wanting to introduce a concept, prove the presence, not the absence, this is just as ridiculous as religious people asking non believers to prove there is no god. I taught human physiology/zoology/anatomy several years in university and not a single of my textbooks provided any pictures of hymens because modern science doesn't even acknowledge the concept. Understandings of anatomy have incredibly changed in the near CENTURY since that image was drawn. You want to show an image of a hymen, you must find a proper modern image, this drawing simply does not belong in any modern article. The only possible compromise I see is to create a section further down in the article discussing historical views of the topic. You're the one wanting an image, it's up to you to find one, just make sure it's representative and clear.--Tallard (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Physiology may have changed since the introduction of genetics and biochemistry, but anatomy hasn't changed much in the past 100 years. We still have the same number of bones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. Find a source that says the image is incorrect. Don't use personal opinions, use facts and verifiable sources. Essjay was another great scholar who used the same style of argument you are using. You are also contradicting yourself, saying hymens don't exist, and then saying I should use a modern image of one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No actually my request demonstrates the contradiction of the image itself. YOU (and others) can't find an image because there aren't any "normal anatomy" photographs of a hymen because there aren't any. Simple as that. This in no way is "original research", it's merely lack of evidence for your point of view.--Tallard (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that the functional equivalent for males is phimosis go to that page and look at the visual presentation. This is the only suitable representation hof an anatomical abnormality.--Tallard (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing the clitoral hood with the hymen. The clitoral hood covers the clitoris. The hymen is not the "functional equivalent" of the foreskin. Someone who "taught human physiology/zoology/anatomy several years in university" would certainly know the difference. I admire your enthusiasm, but it is best to stick to reliable sources, and avoid introducing personal opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made no such confusion, I am perfectly aware of all anatomical issues at hand. I clearly stated a functional (as in intercourse) versus anatomical, developmental or physiological similarities. The point is first intercourse is not "normally" or "generally" painful, neither for men nor women. No science says the opposite. The article as it stands is using too much "religious perception" versus "scientific knowledge". If certain authors want to push a religious perspective onto people, then we need to create a strong distinction between the two. The 100 year old drawing being used only opinionates on where a religious person would find a hymen, not where a properly trained doctor would actually see "one".--Tallard (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I can see why you would make this assumption, but I do not believe that Tallard is making that mistake. It helps to also read his contributions to the recent AfD discussion for List of animals with hymens (now merged, per consensus); I believe that his reasoning is that the popular definition of a Hymen is a membrane that covers the vaginal opening (and thus interfers with "penetration/menstruation"), and since this in not typically the case, the Hymen is a myth and does not exist. At first glance this appears to be a straw man argument, but I believe that his reasoning is more subtle than that. He argues that in medical and scientific fields the phrase "hymen" is no longer used, as the tissue it once referred to is considered too insignificant to merit a name. Thus the illustration from Gray's Anatomy does not show a hymen because it does not include a vaginal covering (as per the popular understanding of the term) and the tissue that is labeled as the hymen is no longer called that by modern physicians and anatomists. By similar reasoning "a vast majority of women do not have hymens". So Tallard, is that a fair representation of your argument? -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Do a search in Pubmed or Medline, or Google Scholar and see how many scientific and medical journal articles use the word "hymen". Don't speculate, do the research. It really isn't that hard to do, and it is more productive for the article than chatting on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, mostly, except I'm not a "he"... and the drawing "tissue labelled as a hymen" points to the edge of the opening, it in no way "shows" anything "hymeny" except to a paradigm'ed mind.--Tallard (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
s/he/she/ with my apology. (Darn those pesky pronouns! I suppose that I am still making assumptions, but my odds must have improved vastly.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
To me, what Tallard meant by "functional equivalent" was a physical abnormality that is analogous in that it impedes sexual intercourse. I didn't read it as implying that that the normal foreskin and the hymen are functional equivalents. William Avery (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
exactly--Tallard (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You are correct in your wiki-rules, but incorrect about content. There is nothing verifiable about the hymen, it is however notable, in a religious context, no argument there :) .--Tallard (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a poor analogy. If the hymen is as immaterial as the soul, and as closely linked to religion and metaphysics (as Tallard is asserting), then the article does indeed need a complete rewrite, as in its current form it describes a purportedly material anatomical feature. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tallard appears to be of the Essjay school of expertise. Stick to reliable third party sources and avoid original thought. If Tallard wants to express his theories and opinions, they belong in a blog. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Gray's Anatomy Image

Tallard has objected to the use of this drawing taken from the 1918 edition of Gray's Anatomy, expressing concerns ranging from the age of the source (which does have the benefit of placing the work in the public domain) to claiming that it does not show a hymen and that its not a photograph. It is instructive to compare the drawing to the very similar photograph on the lower left of this page from the UC Santa Barbara SexInfo site. The Gray's Anatomy drawing is very dark in the center, but it is sufficiently clear to show a similar feature to what is labeled the hymen in the photograph. Note that the UCB SexInfo site is a student maintained site, and should not be taken as a primary source. There is no indication of the source of the photo in question or how typical the subject is. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have located the source for the photograph (which I mention above as being very similar in form to the Gray's Anatomy drawing). The full page from which it is taken is available here, described here as page 88 of "Photographic Anatomy of the Human Body" by Chihiro Yokochi, M.D., Johannes W. Rohen, M.D., and Eva Lurie Weinreb, Ph.D.; Igaku-Shoin Ltd., Tokyo, 1989. (Images and pages excerpted from it and 13 other anatomical texts are accessible from here.) The 1989 edition is the third, with previous editions released in 1971 and 1978, and I don't know if this photograph appears in earlier editions. A review of the second edition describes the book as mostly containing "photographs illustrating dissections of various regions of the human body", and presenting many "novel views" including "the individual variations of the hymen (p.61)." -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The authors' more complete cadaveric anatomy text is, "Color Atlas of Anatomy: A Photographic Study of the Human Body" (Sixth Edition) by Johannes Wilhelm Rohen, Chihiro Yokochi, Elke Lütjen-Drecoll; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. It is available for limited preview on Google Book Search here. A nearly identical image to the one above (same subject, but with angle and lighting almost imperceptible changed) appears at the top of page 362. The captions differs slightly, omitting the word "virgin" from the earlier caption of "External genital organs in the virgin female (anterior view)" and the line from the "hymen" label bifurcates, now pointing to the 9 o'clock as well as 6 o'clock position. Page 357 (listed in the index under "hymen") is omitted from the preview; there is no indication whether it is "the individual variations of the hymen" view described in the above quoted review of their smaller book. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

POV/NPOV Terminology

Thank you Tallard for bringing this article to the attention of the Rational Skepticism Project; it will certainly benefit from fresh, skeptical voices. One issue you have raised is the use of loaded terminology such as "restoration", "intact", "normal", "damage", etc. I would add to that list "virginal", which appears in many of the medical sources I have read, where they refer to the hymen in its "virginal state" while in the same breath stating that it is not possible to confirm virginity by examining the hymen. This apparent contradiction arises from the fact that while the state of the hymen is not necessarily indicative of sexual experience in that many are fragile enough to be stretched or torn by accidents or hygiene practices, and others are strong and stretchy enough to survive intercourse intact, a significant number (and the quoted low-end figure of 30% is still significant) are torn during initial intercourse. Thus some of the literature chooses to use "virginal" as a synonym for "intact" while not claiming that the "virginal state" of the hymen correlates with the "virginal state" of the patient. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger of List of animals with hymens

A decision has been made to merge List of animals with hymens with this article.

The completeness of the lists and even the criteria for inclusion are unclear from the sources, and no argument was made during the AfD discussion indicating that anyone felt the (in)complete list would benefit the main article at this time. In support of that decision I performed a selective merge, bringing in the references but not including the full list, as the main article deals sufficiently with the subject given the sources we have at this time.

Does anyone here feel that the full list does actually belongs in this article? If so, better sources are required. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regligious bias NPOV needs fixing

Richard Arthur Norton your reverts and input are completely religiously biased and demonstrate that you have very little understanding of human anatomy. Stop reading bibles and blogs and pop culture webpages, go to the library and do some proper biological reading. Half the references on this page are useless web tidbits doing circular referencing. Half of the article could be deleted for sheer nonsense. You obviously have no understanding of NPOV and proper scientific referencing.--Tallard (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tallard, I understand you to say that as an anatomy lecturer, you have never seen the hymen referenced in a text. I don't know how general your classes were and if you have ever taught detailed course in gynecology, but is it possible that a general anatomy text might choose not to devote any space to a structure as insignificant as the hymen (a mere remnant from fetal development, and functionally unimportant in the vast majority of cases)? But is the hymen discussed in modern gynecological texts?
Many such texts are available for limited preview on Google Book Search. Those that I have scanned do discuss the hymen, and appear to do so in the same vein as the article. Two examples are Alan H. DeCherney, et al., Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment: 9th Ed, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2002 and Sally E. Perlman, et al., Clinical Protocols in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, Informa Health Care, 2004. While most illustrations are drawings, there is a detailed photograph of the a hymen shown during labial traction on the lower half page 104 of Perlman (2004). -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Taking into consideration only photographs, you will note in your search 3 things. 1. Photographs are always of infants. 2. The vulva is usually presented in it's relaxed position and not it's open position, 3. A photograph is anecdotal until there are so many photographs that one is able to create a generalization. The photo you referred to makes absolutely no "representation" to the effect of representing a majority of cases. On the children point, we might be able to find a compromise in the general scope of this article by separating infants from girls and women. If you take the time to go through all the scientific references presented here, they're all about the forensics of child rape. This will allow you to take note that the article presents the "hymen" as a general female trait when in fact all the presented evidence is pertaining to some very very young girls whom are not yet fully opened up. --Tallard (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The medical texts I have skimmed, while describing how the hymen changes with the age of the patient, discuss it in infants, children, adolescents, and adults. I am not trying to cherry pick sources, but I have only looked at a handful of texts. Are you suggesting that the term "hymen" is not used this way in most mainstream modern medical sources? If you choose to define the hymen as a vaginal covering that "gets in the way of penetration/menstruation", then it certainly is not a normal anatomical feature, but I have not seen such a definition used anywhere except in this discussion. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tallard is confusing "truth" with verifiable information. Philosophers write about truths. Some people think they know the truth, despite what reliable sources write. Wikipedians take third party information from diverse sources and use it to build articles. If you want to write about editorial conspiracies, or take the position that the hymen is a philosophical construct that doesn't exist in anatomy, save it for your blog. Wikipedia isn't a medical text book, and it is not a personal blog. I don't care about your career teaching anatomy, it is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia. Role playing and editing died with Essjay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Richard, I am not confused at all. The few scientific sources mentioned (many of the "references" aren't references at all (eg Cecil Adams is just not a scientific reference)) in this article pertain to children not women. Richard you are the one confused about the relationship between "reliable sources" and verifiability. The references presented have been wrongly interpreted and the child aspect omitted from practically every quote because some religious people are trying to impose a religious viewpoint instead of a scientific one. This article is not philosophical, it's supposed to be about anatomy, unfortunately, most of the references have been distorted and cherry picked (pardon the pun) using case studies from child age rape analysis about hymens not being useful in determining sexual abuse, then using the same references to go on and on about "normal" and "intact" hymens and "damaged" hymens in women. To achieve "Verifiability" you can't use the same reference to state opposing facts. This article is filled with so many weasel words and sentences, removing them would rewrite the entire article, which I don't have time to do.--Tallard (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess I just keep cutting and pasting the same arguments over again. I will do it one more time. I know I am not going to convince you of anything different than what is entrenched already in your mind. Wikipedia is not a medical journal or a medical textbook. It is a general knowledge encyclopedia. Weasel words have nothing to do with you removing the article image. Making personal attacks against me doesn't aid the process. Pulling the Essjay card isn't helpful either. I understand philosophically you don't believe hymens exist, but Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal thoughts, that is for a blog. Just type hymen into Pubmed to see the medical usage. The soul doesn't have to exist to have an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Your view of insults is a little odd, you've accused me of taking a "philosophical" view whereas I'm not, I'm just unbiasely reading scientific sources regarding a scientific issue, you've called me "confused" from the very beginning and I've said nothing worse to you. The thing is you believe that your viewpoint is neutral and it's not. The point is the content of this article is highly biased, as it uses "sources" then grossly misquotes them to create an entirely different reality. Gray's anatomy, in addition to no longer using the ridiculous drawing that you want here, has a total of 4 sentences on the hymen, does that not tell you something? Encyclopedia Britanica's main entry for hymen is the god, NOT the body part. Most references out there do discuss hymens in child forensics, but NOT in the way it is presented in this NPOV article. The image at the opening of the article is the first and lasting impression given to the reader, it is of the utmost importance. By using an OBSOLETE IMAGE, which misrepresents literature, YOU are attempting to misinform the readers. If the readers actually went to any of the reputable scientific references listed herein, without cherry picking the facts, they would get a different story.--Tallard (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The insult was "... completely religiously biased and demonstrate that you have very little understanding of human anatomy". Please avoid ad hominem attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 January 2009
  • Anatomical images from the past 400 years don't become obsolete just because of age. Human evolution hasn't added any new bones or organs in recent memory. Any reference work can have an error, the New York Times has a column of corrections each day. Find a source that says that Gray's made an error. If I remember you equated the hymen to the foreskin in a previous argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Back it up with some reliable sources. So far it is just a lot of chat on the talk page. Find a source that says that Gray's misidentified a hymen and that the image actually portrays something else. All you offered so far are your Essjay credentials and lots of chat. Are you refering to "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". While I respect Umeå University, I was just there two weeks ago, a "former maternity ward nurse" and a "PhD student" is not scientific consensus. It isn't even enough to play most board games. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
the source is already included, that drawing is no longer used in Gray's Anatomy. You are misrepresenting the actual facts. The already included "scientific" sources are about child abuse forensics, the article is pretending to describe all females. Many of the sentences and your desires actually CONTRADICT the present sources. I've read your EssJay allusions, which I'd never heard of before, and the situation does not apply in the least. The only thing that matters here is the drawing and most of the content misrepresent notable sources. Even the article itself is in perpetual contradiction stating the concept of an intact hymen is completely useless in forensics, which is a consensus, then contradicting itself by talking about "normal" hymens. All the notable references herein actually state that the hymen is already pretty vestigial by the time of birth. The only references that go on and on about "women's" hymens is the pulp culture web references. Those should not constitute the BASIS or the CORE of a scientific article. When comparing all other dictionaries and encyclopedias, don't you see that Wikipedia, with this amplified constructed amalgamation of various subject matters has actually managed to redefine the hymen BEYOND how science defines it, and now offers up this misinformed long non encyclopedic article for mass consumption. Yes BEYOND..., you stated earlier that Wikipedia is not a scientific textbook, then how do you defend an article that goes beyond the scope of scientific understanding, you contradict yourself.--Tallard (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is exactly Essjay, instead of pointing to a reference that says that the Gray's image is labeled incorrectly you stated your qualifications, and used them as your argument to delete the image repeatedly. Wikipedia isn't Knol or a blog. While I respect you, and the "former maternity ward nurse", only reliable third-party sources can be used. One more time: Wikipedia isn't a science textbook, it is an encyclopedia. It covers all aspects of a topic from reliable sources. It has articles on the heart as well as the soul. It has articles on the brain as well as the ego and the id. It has articles on melancholia as well as bile. It contains anatomy and physiology as well as as the philosophy of the human body. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS edits

I delinked "cherry" in the lead, it linked to the fruit and not the slang, I removed see also items per WP:SEEALSO and removed a foreign language EL. Which one(s) don't folks like or don't agree with? Thank you, --Tom 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I mistakingly removed the "reflist" from the article and did in fact "damage" the article if that is what happened?? Sorry for the confusion, carry on :) --Tom 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hymen image from Gray's Anatomy

User Tallard keeps removing image, see her arguments above —Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (via posting script) 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm coming here in response to the RfC. Could the editors here please clarify this question: is the image in question still in use in the most recent edition of Gray's Anatomy, or only in older editions? Answering that question might be helpful in resolving the discussion here. Beyond that, my reaction is to express neutrality on the image, with the following inclinations. In general, I think it's a bad idea to delete content repeatedly when there is no consensus to delete. Also, I find it unreasonable to accuse an editor of religious bias based only on that editor's preference for using an image that, on the face of it, is from a mainstream source. Are there peer-reviewed scientific articles that the editors here can agree on as supporting the views on one side or the other? (I realize that's been discussed above, but I find the discussion inconclusive.) I remember seeing photos on the web; would one of those be better? (I consider the argument that a photo is "anectdotal" to be without merit, unless the photo is actually of an anomaly.) Is there a strategy of keeping the image, but explaining the controversy in the text? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Gray's Anatomy in its current edition uses photographs and not engravings, and does cover the hymen as Tallard says from her trip to the library. We can't use an image from the web, we have to use one that is free from copyright restrictions. We can use a photograph from a volunteer live model, but that would be challenged by the same person, since she is starting from the premise that the hymen doesn't exist. As I understand her arguments the hymen is a religious or philosophical construct, like the soul, and doesn't exist in reality. The only sources cited that the hymen doesn't exist comes from a former nurse and a graduate student. It is a fringe belief. Maybe she is one of the two authors of that article. To see Google scholar search of hymen look here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This statement is misleading, GsA covers the hymen in one short developmental paragraph, no details, no illustrations. It is covered as a fetal developmental residue. If the hymen were an ethereal concept, ok, but this is an external anatomical feature we're discussing. I've never implied there is no such thing as hymen at all, but one must distinguish the weight of that statement in it's science context, Does the phimosis page go on and on about the various shapes and configurations and inconsequential rape examinations, NO. Phimosis simply happens to a certain percentage of boys either who's parents didn't train the skin properly, or teach the boy or birth defect. The hymen article, as a medical/scientific article, should use the same overall rational/presentation. (even though each skin is not "developmentally" related, they do have the exact same sexually painful consequences, but they are quite rare.--Tallard (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
We have discussed this previously, the foreskin "structure" being too small leads to the "condition" of phimosis in boys and men. AS the "condition" of the "hymenal remnants" being insufficiently opened leads to the pseudo "condition" of "intact hymen" in girls and women.
I agree with Tryptofish (although I note that Tallard has already stated that the picture is absent from newer editions of Gray's, and that this has not been disputed). It shouldn't be too hard to explain the controversy in the text, I wouldn't have thought - including the fact that modern anatomists dispute its reality. Once that is done, the picture is no more out of place than the first image at, say, Centaur is - it's a picture of what the thing is supposed to be, not necessarily a claim as to its subject's reality. Anaxial (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The engraving is absent because they abandoned the engravings for photos. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The only source cited saying the hymen doesn't really exist is: "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". It makes for fun reading from an obscure Swedish website, but it is not science, it is just the fringe opinion of two people in Sweden. With Tallard it makes three people, if we assume that she isn't one of the authors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
So the hymen is in more modern editions of Gray's? That would certainly change the issue. And, indeed, I've researched a bit more, and it is cited to exist in: McMinn, R.M.H.; et al. (1993). A Colour Atlas of Human Anatomy. London: Wolfe. p. 257. ISBN 0-7234-1915-9. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help) However, that source does not refer specifically to adults (and, if I understand Tallard correctly, she only disputes its existence in adults, not in infants). If there is a genuine controversy here, it should be possible to find cites to support that, and, if there isn't, there's no issue. Either way, I don't see a problem with the picture. Anaxial (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Richard has mislead you, in GsA, the hymen is briefly mentioned as a developmental remnant, but NO details, NO illustrations of hymens. Those Swedish PhDs are not arguing with scientists, they're arguing with religious extremists.--Tallard (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Her argument was "[Gray's] has a total of 4 sentences on the hymen, does that not tell you something". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
All I know for sure is that I was forced to operate to restore a hymen that had been removed by a non consensus act.21:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfkeeper (talk • contribs)
  • In answer to the question posed by Tryptofish, no objection has been voiced above concerning any anomaly in the drawing itself. The complaint is that the feature labeled as the Hymen "points to the edge of the opening, it in no way "shows" anything "hymeny" except to a paradigm'ed mind". -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Richard and Kirk. That point about the fact that the image shows the residue of a hymen, rather than an intact hymen, is true, but that need not disqualify the use of the image, if it shows the typical anatomy of an adult woman. I think that Richard's explanation of recent versus old editions of Gray's makes very good sense. I've looked quickly at his Google Scholar link (I'd prefer PubMed), and, aside from the references about infants and children, and those with authors named Hymen, there clearly are post-2000 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals about hymens in adult women. I'd like to give Tallard an opportunity to respond, and cite peer-reviewed literature from academic journals (not expressions of opinion at websites) to the contrary. But, absent that, I have to say the weight of evidence now clearly supports using the figure, albeit with some text explanation of the controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
sorry for my tardiness. The drawing used is a general distant view of a woman's anatomy, yes, but upon looking closely, there simply is nothing there to call a hymen or a residue of a hymen, so why use it such a poor drawing to illustrate a hymen? It is of very poor resolution. There are photographs of children's hymens on the internet, they are mostly in relaxed/natural position and not stretched and often times these same articles note that without correct stretching, you don't really see anything. Some of these forensic articles even dare state that "it is so painful to the touch that it should be ever so gently swabbed and not handled at all, well how are we accept such a non scientific approach. Now of course I'm not an editor of Gray's Anatomy but it seems to me that when such a textbook DISCONTINUES an image and chooses NOT to replace it with a newer image, without going into the "whys" it's simply because there is scientific consensus. That is not a controversy. Of the post-2000 articles I've read, most deal with child abuse forensics or hymenoplasty. Hymenoplasty being a strictly cosmetic religious decision - hymen article does have consensus that "intactness" has no relevance whatsoever to virginity - articles emanating from religious cosmetic surgery articles should bear no weight in scientific writing. On one side you have scientific articles not discussing hymens in adult anatomical terms, on the other side you have child forensics and religion. I really don't see how the religious POV can force the scientific POV into some sense of controversy about "normal" hymens. I have previously proposed the analogy of the phimosis and penis articles. How inaccurate would it be to use a phimosis picture as the lead picture of the wikipedia penis article. There is no controversy in science, the controversy is in religion only--Tallard (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify your remark about the image showing "the residue of a hymen, rather than an intact hymen". The drawing is rather dark in the center, but it closely resembles the photograph on the lower left of this page (from the UCB SexInfo site) which purports to show an intact hymen of an adult woman. I am also unclear as to what the controversy is that needs text explanation. [Note that a separate discussion regarding use of potentially loaded terms such as "intact" has been started above.] -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right: my wording was rather clumsy, sorry about that. All I was trying to say was what you had referred to just before: that it, arguably, is not very "hymeny" in your word, as in a structure that would obstruct the opening to the vagina. I was trying to say that, even acknowledging the possible correctness of that observation, that should still not disqualify the image, if the image presents typical adult anatomy. I didn't mean anything more than that. As for "controversy," I was using the word as it has been used by both Anaxial and me in this talk, in the sense that the website cited by Tallard, even if found to not be by itself a reason to delete the image, does present a viewpoint that could be acknowledged in the text of the article (as could the point about "hymeny"). I say that without having anything specific in mind about something lacking in the current version, but rather just in a sense of fairness to the varying viewpoints leading into this RfC. I can certainly understand that women can have very reasonable concerns about institutional views about virginity etc., and think it would be fine to acknowledge that in the text if some editors feel it needs to be done more than it already is, but I am leaning against using that as a reason to delete the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd have no issues with using the GsA 100 y/o drawing further down in the article to reflect historical viewpoints of what "normal female vulvas look like" because the drawing doesn't actually show any hymen, but then it would belong on the vulva article not here..., it's to say the drawing is OF a hymen is just plain unscientific. Richard has oft mentioned "anatomy has not changed" but he is wrong on that point, on issues of female anatomy things HAVE changed. Some people still question the existence of the G-spot, orgasms, and the psychological benefits of hysterectomies, of course things have changed. And GsA omission reflects that. There is no scientific controversy... Child abuse forensic articles also are on consensus that the "appearance" of the hymen is irrelevant, and most of these forensic articles are using unstretched vulvar images.--Tallard (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification; the "hymeny" quote came from earlier discussions. Tallard certainly needs an opportunity to respond, and I do apologize in advance if I have mischaracterized her primary objection to the image. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The claim is being made, it seems, that there is no clearly identifiable feature (at least in adults) that can be readily identified as a hymen, and that the picture is therefore, at best, misleading. If that's a genuine controversy among anatomists, it seems to be worth mentioning in the article and/or the image caption. If, on the other hand, there's general consensus that the picture is more or less accurate, then there's no controversy, and no need to mention one. Anaxial (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The picture is accurate of the vulva but not of a hymen. There is no scientific controversy, only a false debate probably becoming fashionable because of cosmetic hymen constructions. I shy away from the suffix RE as in science it is recognized that the vagina's opening is mostly complete by the time of birth and whatever is left gradually dissipates through normal life (hormones) and activities (sports, sudden movements, touching/fingering). There IS consensus on these matters, they ARE already in the article, but they are so very underplayed and distorted and the drawing does nothing to help, it only muddles matters. Yes some women, maybe 30%, according to various studies, do have hymen remnants that may interfer, but generally do NOT interfere with sex. Hymenoplasty hymen creation, according to references I read on these these very wikipedia pages actually entails more bleeding than if the woman's vagina was left to it's own virginal devices.--Tallard (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
To my mind, no evidence has been adduced from recent sources that 'the hymen' is an anatomical structure recognised by Western/Scientific medicine. I therefore tend to agree with Tallard. William Avery (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A search for "hymen" using Scirus turns up ~24,000 hits, 674 of which are also on PubMed. A great many of these are dated as recently as 2008, which would indicate that it is still recognised by many modern anatomists. If its existence really is controversial, it shouldn't be too hard to find a source to that effect. Anaxial (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes there are plenty of "hits" for the word hymen, but switch your search to an image search and you will find a completely different result. Subject matters that oppose religious viewpoints to scientific ones on a matter of adult external anatomy would benefit greatly from photography (as per the original request already on the page). As responsible editors, we have to have verifiability, photographs of external anatomical structures on women should be the easiest thing to find right? If there were "normal hymen" pictures, we'd have them, we can't invent photographs that don't exist. We can't prove a controversy when there was never any evidence of the initial statement. The few available photographs are usually non-stretched child vulvas, which tell us pretty much nothing about children, and even less about adults. You will also find "case file images" of abnormal hymens, such as imperforate or septate, or whatever other configuration choice is chosen. Use of such an image must be limited to a section on faulty or incomplete development.

I'm not sure who of you are here because of the outside help request on the image, and who is here for my own request for Scientific Skepticism. Do we need to separate handling of both requests, although nearly inseparable...--Tallard (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My other issue with this article is that it goes beyond the scope (length and detail) of all encyclopedias and textbooks and articles, so suddenly Wikipedia knows more on this topic than scientists? This is the kind of problem that scientific skeptics need to handle.--Tallard (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I invite everyone to view the Google scholar listed above. I have gone through the first several hundred hits, and NONE of them discuss normal women hymens, it's mostly newborns and imperforates, a couple of mentions on preadolescence, and several on the uselessness of "hymen assessment" in forensics and several other psychodrama issues. Richard opinionates that the mere mention of the word hymen on a document constitutes 'evidence' of all hymen pseudo-factoids presented in the article and justifies a vulva image instead of a hymen photograph. But this is the incorrect way of conducting an reference search. To be honest, I have not spent much time searching this on the internet. I fell on this article one day by chance and was completely astounded that it strayed so far from science in it's POV and it's use of non scientific references. I am relying on the hundreds of science articles and books I've had my hands on since 1985 in a university setting, which all were strangely silent on any hymen controversy. Scientists are pretty much in agreement that from conception to death, a hymen is temporarily formed as an intermediate structure, non functional entity) and then eventually ceases to exist, this is consensus, references already in the article. This entire debate, I can't seem to find the correctly worded Wikipedia guideline, is a non scientific one. It's just some lay people promulgating that only the first half of the scientific timeline is true, but that given optimal conditions, a normal woman will keep her normal hymen throughout life. This is the falsity presented here through misrepresentations of it's own sources. Agreeing on a proper illustration for something so rare is a challenge indeed, and only the very first small step towards fixing this article.--Tallard (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why can't we say (until we get a better picture) something along the lines of "this is an image of a hymen from an early edition of Gray's Anatomy, but modern anatomists no longer regard it as valid"? With the appropriate cite, of course. The image is still of historical relevance, since presumably the editors of Grey's thought that was what they were illustrating, whether they were or not. Anaxial (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
We could say "this is an image of a hymen from an early edition of Gray's Anatomy, but modern anatomists no longer regard it as valid" but that would be original research. No one has provided a source beyond the two people at Umea. No one found a record of anyone saying that Gray's either misidentified the hymen, or that contemporary anatomists don't recognize the concept of a hymen anymore. Wikipedia isn't a place for original thought, that is what a blog is for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I sense a potential compromise on the horizon... I agree to a point... the drawing COULD have a place later on in the article, but clearly since no hymen is visible, the caption should be along these lines "Early edition Gray's Anatomy illustration of a woman's vulva indicating approximate location of hymen remnants--Tallard (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That caption works - if we can confirm it, per Kirk Hilliard's request below. Though, frankly, I don't see what difference it makes where it's placed in the article, so long as the caption about it's unreliability is there. Anaxial (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Quoting Tallard: "Scientists are pretty much in agreement ... a hymen is temporarily formed as an intermediate structure, non functional entity) and then eventually ceases to exist, this is consensus, references already in the article". I don't think that consensus has been reached here on that statement. What references are you alluding to? -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Find a quote from a reliable source that says the image in Gray's anatomy is incorrect. All I see is a lot chat on the talk page, and no referencing of material from reliable sources. All the wording is from Tallard and her Essjay-like use of her credentials to say she is right and everyone else is wrong. Original research is fun, but best left for a blog or Knol. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
the image has NOT been in Gray's anatomy for many many years.--Tallard (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Richard please stop accusing me of being a "falsifier of credentials" you are implying that I'm acting in bad faith which is against wikipedia Good Faith Principals. You are really missing the point here. I am reading references and obviously seeing entirely different wordings than you. There's a cognitive disconnect somewhere here.--Tallard (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to where I wrote you were a "falsifier of credentials" please? I said you were using Essjay tactics when you said you taught anatomy, and used that in place of providing reliable sources for your changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the focus of the intro paragraph for your Essjay page, or did you miss that aspect--Tallard (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, please stop adding religious references to this article, considering the article is already overly religiously biased, your behavior is bordering on purposeful intent to disrupt and deceive, this is a scientific issue, please use non religious materials,.--Tallard (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The references he just added today were to forensic textbooks, one published by the Oxford University Press. I think it would be useful to see some evidence that these are religious tracts (presumably masquerading under misleading titles). Even if they are, there is no reason not to include them in the text if we add "religious sect X holds belief Y" as a qualifying statement. If they can't be clearly identified as religious tracts, then we need quotes from similar reliable sources that state the contrary, and we can discuss the controversy in the article. But I do think we need to calm down here a bit; tempers seem to be getting a little frayed. Anaxial (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My request pertained to his last two references: Jewish Medical Ethics, Muslims and Virginity--Tallard (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a medical textbook. It incorporates all lines of thought. Science is a small aspect of the world. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
We can still qualify the statements from those sources, rather than leaving them out, as I mentioned above. And I'm unclear why you did delete the references to the forensic textbooks, since they appear to be exactly the sort of thing we're after - are you saying that they don't support the statements made? Anaxial (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tallard that these are strange choices as citation for a one sentence description of the imperforate hymen (as part of the list of types). The only other sentence devoted to this condition is at the start of that section, and it cites two references that are, more appropriately, medical texts. There is nothing wrong with sources dealing primarily with religious or cultural issues as citation for religious or cultural statements, but they are not preferred for general anatomical or medical statements. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I quite agree with that. Anaxial (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the redundant religious references, mostly because they were redundant. I read a Wikipedia guideline somewhere about over referencing being discouraged (Can't remember how to find it again, I'm often confounded with Wikipedia non content article searchability, sorry). Not every line needs referencing and there is little reason for multiple referencing.--Tallard (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a medical textbook. Medical science doesn't have a monopoly on information. An encyclopedia uses all reliable sources to gather information on a topic. Like any topic, there are legal concepts, scientific concepts, and philosophical concepts that may be convergent or disparate. All are equally valid so long as they are sourced to a reliable medium. We don't need a tyranny of science pushing out all other voices. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we gather information from literary works as well, but we use relevant sources to cite their corresponding statements. We don't cite Henry the Fourth in the article on gout where it states that the affliction is most common in men's toes. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A poor analogy to what I just wrote. I didn't mix fiction with non-fiction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Granted. The separation in your case was not nearly as extreme. But the statement you are providing citation for is a medical one -- a description of a condition and its treatment -- and it is a rewording of a nearly identical sentence at the start of that section, one which already had two references. What do these new references add? The latter reference, "Social, Medical, and Legal Control of Female Sexuality Through Construction of Virginity in Turkey", is quite interesting in that it discusses an "alternative medical treatment of imperforate hymen", a novel, and (at the time, at least) uncommon procedure in which the hymen is punctured with a needle and a Foley catheter is inserted for two weeks until the new, small opening heals; this is opposed to the traditional hymenotomy where a much larger incision is made and where, in Turkey, the patient is given a report to present to a future husband attesting to the fact "that her hymen is not unbroken, but only because it was opened by the doctor". (What a bizarre world.) This would be a very relevant citation were the article expanded to discuss such things, but not a preferred citation for the current statement. The former reference, "Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics", on the page you cite, hypothesizes that many early anatomists doubted the existence of the hymen because they performed their autopsies on "sinful women or prostitutes, the overwhelming majority of whom are no longer virgins". It does go on to give a very short mention of imperforate hymen, but why bother with such a reference when the statement is already well cited with medical sources. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the Gray's Anatomy drawing in an anatomy infobox (as with vulval vestibule). The caption, "External genital organs of female. The labia minora have been drawn apart." is taken from Gray's itself. If the eventual consensus is for retention of the image but with a comment about changing medical viewpoints (a comment supported by an appropriate source, not one chosen simply to appease one faction or the other) then the caption could be added to. I have also requested help on this article from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy. I'll report here on my literature search on medical and anatomy texts in a couple of days, but someone more familiar with the literature (and with access to a physical library) could do a much better job. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The info box kinda freezes that old drawing as a lead image, I don't agree with that, but if a majority of editors want that, I will acquiesce. However, in that eventuality, it is of great important to word it very cautiously.--Tallard (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Tying it in as lead was not my intent, but I do see that the template's usage page does state that it should be placed "at the top of the page". I like the uniformity with other anatomy pages that it provides, along with the slight reduction in scale of the image and its "boxing in". While I do think that the way you split the caption was an improvement (I was troubled by the big, bold "Hymen" on top of a drawing that is so dark in the center that its unclear what the label points to), in practice, the "Name" field appears to be for that of the anatomical feature, not of the image (the image being just one of several pieces of information in the infobox). Perhaps this is an argument against usage of the info box until we can get a better image. I don't know. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, Anaxial, Tryptofish and William, you were asking for additional references regarding development. So I added one solid scientific reference (of the rare web pages not circling back to a wikipedia mirror!) to put some meat on the Developmental aspect. I was previously stating that all the information and references supporting my words were already in the article, but it's the writing style that was misrepresenting the references. This is what I have fixed. Please note that several paragraphs were "doubling up" on information, so they came together, and got reorganized. I did not need to change anything hardly except to place things in their proper chronological order (which was already in the previous phraseology, except it was hidden by the poor writing quality. Actually the only sentence I blatantly removed was the "the hymen is broken by penetrative sex" which looked like someone flew by and plunked it in there. I did this in the wee hours of the morning, so please forgive my punctuation and doublets mistakes, these sometimes escape from my fingers.--Tallard (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Photographic Anatomy of the Human Body" by Chihiro Yokochi, M.D., Johannes W. Rohen, M.D., and Eva Lurie Weinreb, Ph.D.; Igaku-Shoin Ltd., Tokyo, 1989 is a photographic, cadaveric anatomy text. Figure 7.21 on page 88, "External genital organs in the virgin female (anterior view)", closely resembles the Gray's Anatomy engraving and it labels as "hymen" a feature corresponding to that labeled in Gray's. (As described above, the authors' larger text (available for limited online preview) also includes this photograph.) I assume that any objections to the anatomical accuracy of the Gray's image must equally apply to this photograph. I do think that comparison of the images does highlight just how dark the vestibule is in the Gray's engraving, as only after viewing the photograph am I really able to tell what the engraving is representing. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated and referenced in present article, in order for an image to be suitable for hymenal assessment considerations, the labia must be pulled apart and downward otherwise the "view" is muddled by the angles of the vagina and the body. Because hymenal remnants naturally get lesser with age, it is important that the "model's" age be given.--Tallard (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the caption accompanying the same photograph in "Color Atlas of Anatomy" (the authors' larger text) states "Labia reflected", which I assume to be equivalent to the Gray's caption's "The labia minora have been drawn apart". As key pages are omitted from Google Book Search, I do not know if the subject's age is given, but appearance clearly indicates postpubertal. (I suppose another, presumably irrelevant, similarity with the Gray's engraving is that they are both based on cadavers.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hymenal Remnant vs Hymen. In an anatomy book I was reading today at the library (need to go back tomorrow and complete all my referencing, thanks for your patience) I was able to confirm a terminology issue that hounded me since the first time I read this page, but only now do I realize how this may be the crux of why things went ary in hymenal discussions around the world. The vagina's development is actually in two distinct parts, the upper 2/3 is formed first with from one set of fetal cells, while the lower third of the vagina is formed from different cells, and forms it's cavity much later than the upper portion. The lower portion actually juts out of the urogenital sinus and it's actually this vaginal protrusion which got named hymen at birth when doctors saw "this strange shape" protruding from the little girls genitals. oh my. Well I learned something today. :) I suppose in light of this, some of these anatomy and fetal development books I read today, use hymenal remnants instead of hymen from ages 1-2 and beyond. This all makes more sense to me this way. As the vaginal protrusion starts its resorption process from moment of birth, and the vagina's opening through the years gets larger and larger.--Tallard (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard your edits were harmful, inappropriate for this discussion and overwhelming in number.

  • Sexual myths about the female body are by no means trivial and as these myths are fairly well known, except for the womb-fury, they need to stay there so people know that the article handles the myth issue. Womb-fury does not 'really' exist so you can't just plunk it in there on its own, that is vandalism pure and simple.
  • You are removing phrases left right and center and requiring [citation needed] for almost any sentence that does not comply with your POV. Wikipedia DOES NOT REQUIRE references for ALL sentences when they fit well with the information presented. This article is already over sourced, given it's small size and need not be. We are in the middle of discussing the relevance of the genitals drawing and assessing it's impact on the article, which involves assessing the articles tone. If you go about deleting a bunch of content, that is harmful to the process and therefore also vandalism.
  • You addition of 'hymen conformations' creates doubled information leading to the usual contradictions with later paragraphs; vandalism as you should know better. More and more your actions confirm you are only participating in order to disrupt.--Tallard (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia discourages adding trivia sections even if they are called by another name. Some information was merged into the main article and other information was kept at the new header name. The article is being cleaned up to conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What exactly is my point of view? I wasn't aware that I had one, beyond having the article sourced. Every fact must be sourced. If an entire paragraph comes from one source, that paragraph can have the reference at the end. Questionable information must be removed. A blog can have unsourced information, but Wikipedia must have every fact traced back to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, please do not break up other peoples' posts on the discussion page. I moved these down to conform with Wikipedia guidelines.

Re trivia parag. Only you here believes myths on female sexuality are to be considered trivia. Myths are a major component of mis-knowledge of female sexuality. All three of these items ARE Myths and they are appropriately presented as the are.
Re "your" POV, yous edits and purposeful misreading of references demonstrates that you are of those who believe in the religious view that women should still be falsely castigated because of the shape of genitals.--Tallard (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, please stop vandalizing the intro by changing the meaning of the properly referenced statement "However, it is not possible to confirm that a woman or post-pubescent girl is not a virgin by examining the hymen." by replacing "not with "not always". It is already referenced and agrees with all other criminal, legal scientific references. As Kirk and others previously responded to you, if you want to insert religious views on a scientific topic, do so in an appropriate paragraph further down about religious connotations.--Tallard (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Using double negatives is confusing: "it is not possible to confirm that a woman or post-pubescent girl is not a virgin by examining the hymen." When the positive is clearer. The statement is contradicted by the definition of an "inperforate hymen", hence the modifier. Please stop pulling the religion card, it is irrelevant to the discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You did not change the double negative, you changed cannot "confirm" to "cannot always confirm" which reverses the meaning of the sentence. To change the latter portion of the sentence only without changing the meaning of the entire sentence, you'd need to write something like: "whether or not she is a virgin". An imperforate hymen is an extremely rare (sources vary between 1/2000 to 1/10000) medical anomaly and does not affect a statement about the normal situation, which an intro deals with by definition. --Tallard (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And that would preclude your statement from being true. Always is not the same as almost always, and never is not that same as almost never. One is a certainty the other is less certain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to dissect everything, then we must leave most of the sentence as is, and add in at the end, the "exception about the extremely rare occurrence of imperforate hymens". As these anatomical anatomies are already described further in the article, there is no further need to discuss them in the intro.--Tallard (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RE Richard's issue with 1500s talk on Scarian's talk page: the Section:Modern Perspectives has to do with the demythifying the use of hymens (hymen remnants in adults) in conversations (whether medical or lay) on the point of virginity. That section used to be nicely grouped and composed and it all flowed together, before it got pulled apart and every single word dissected. The point is myths about the "OLD WAYS", as in year ZERO and BC, about "virgin hymens" persist to this day. These myths have dire consequences to women of all races around the world, and myths should never be used to put people down. Scientists have been trying to demythify this since at least the 16th century, but male ego about marrying a "virgin" (among other issues) has always gotten in the way. Forensics books on child-teenage-adult rape (those cited here and most of those not cited here) reach the same conclusion, the hymenal remnant is not a good tool to use when assessing whether or not a child was raped, "hymen" examination is usually inconclusive. So when all forensics agree, and most of the fields of science and medicine agree, then there IS consensus on that point. What baffles me is any women-teenager who ever looked at herself knew this but some societies live under such a veil of myth that people don't even bother looking or "looking before entering". Even in the 16th century some scientists had clued in to this. Therefore, enlightened scientists from the 16th century were the beginning of modern thought on this issue. But believe me I know first hand (well ok, second) how difficult it is for a good many people to let go of myths that are so ingrained in our pop culture. We see it in all spheres of life and it can only hoped that Wikipedia editors can rise above the myth and find some degree of reason in this not inconsequential matter.--Tallard (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia, you should expect every word to be dissected, and every unsourced fact removed. It is best to start with the reference and then work on the wording, not write the facts as you know them and then hope someone will add a source later. All unsourced material has to go. It is original research to say that the quote from the 1500s was the start of modern thought on hymens if it isn't supported by the reference used. The statement had no reference until I added one. Try adding sources to the article, it takes fewer ascii characters than your combined effort on the talk page. You keep restoring unreferenced material, and argue here to keep it, instead of doing a Google search yourself. And please save all the "dire consequences" for your blog, this is an encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Your issue to Scarion was not the reference but calling 1500s modern. That was your point, that's what I responded to. Great you found the reference, woohoo. You know full well that on most wikipedia articles often only about the third of the sentences are referenced, that's because most people realize there's consensus on things. That's the W policy reference guideline is for, referencing what is non consensus. In this case, demythification is consensus. You were not obliged to find a reference as most people are totally in agreement, it how the world turns. I do hunt for references, for things I know to be wrong, when things are correct and appropriate, I assume consensus.--Tallard (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Skip the sarcasm, please. It doesn't help your case. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Tallard, I hear what you are saying about "modern thought" and "demythification", but I do not understand what specific facts you are challenging, nor do I see that which I assume you are suggesting supported in the literature. You have talked about an unreasonable "burden of proof" akin to "asking non believers to prove there is no god", but if modern medical texts state as fact something that the rest of the scientific community considers myth, there should be published articles challenging their views. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You (Tallard) have called for a "complete rewriting" of the article, and this is a difficult task when other editors do not see the evidence behind your stance. Most new articles start out as a rough outline of the initial editor's understanding of the subject, and then are flushed out, with citations added over time. Here, editors are attempting to defend an article against what they, in good faith, view as unsourced edits by someone possibly pushing an agenda, leaving you with the herculean task of having to provide justification for every small change. This is compounded by the fact that, irrespective of "myths", the article does have a lot of problems, but that your edits in support of general improvement are viewed suspiciously. I do think you should copy the article over to a user subpage so that you can implement the rewrite without having to justify every incremental step. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, if she can't justify her edits now, or supply references to back up her edits here and now; rewriting the article, then substituting the whole article later, will not solve the problem. I think the best suggestion is to add her version to a blog or write it for Knol. They don't need to be referenced, and you don't need to cooperate with anyone in those two venues. If she wants to cooperate here, she needs to work as part of a team, and not call the merging of duplicate links vandalism, and not call the adding of fact tags vandalism, and not call the adding of references to unreferenced facts as vandalism. Dropping the sarcastic tone would help too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, now, now! that is fine if you're a full-time editor, of which I am NOT. The library is miles from my place and public transport is not easy here and I don't have use of my roommates vehicle, so bear with me, I'm spending time at the library when I can, and looking at the materials AGAIN. Like I said in my first revert of your 20something changes, I would have reverted on the non consensual ones, but the problem is, you flooded the page with so many intertwining edits that individual ones could not be reverted, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID. Reference "completion" is not the heart of the debate. Reference completion is fine, I have no issues with reference completion. But you rushing me to be on your timetable is not ok with me. Adding flags is one thing, but deleting the sentences within days is too fast! Wiki policy states that if something is monstrously consensually wrong, then yes remove it, OTHERWISE, leave the flag on for a reasonable amount of time so other editors can get to it also. Maybe you live next door to a great library but I don't.--Tallard (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Differences in Hymenal Morphology Between Adolescent Girls With and Without a History of Consensual Sexual Intercourse from Vol. 158 No. 3, March 2004 of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine describes a UCSB study involving 85 subjects aged 13 - 19 who, after being interviewed regarding sexual history, underwent a physical examination where the appearance of the hymen was photographically documented, presence of notches or clefts was noted, and the width of the posterior hymenal rim was measured. Deep notches or complete clefts were found in 13 of 27 girls admitting past intercourse but in only 2 of 58 girls who denied intercourse, both of whom had described a painful first tampon insertion (an experience reported by 48% of all subjects). The article provides detailed description of the study, further results and analysis, comparisons to past studies, and 5 photographs. While this article might not necessarily provide a useful citation, is of bearing to this discussion as it contradicts the assertions that the hymen does not exits in post-pubertal women ("modern science doesn't even acknowledge the concept") or that it is an anomaly in women and the only photographs to be found are "case file images" of atypical subjects. The term "hymen" is use matter-of-factly in this article to refer to a well defined anatomical feature expected to be present in all subjects, and representative photographs are provided. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

However, you missed the most important sentence in the Result paragraph: "but the mean width of the posterior hymenal rim was not significantly different between the 2 groups (2.5 mm vs 3.0 mm; P = .11)". The main tool for reading scientific articles is the P value. If your observations are not statistically different, then all observations are but anecdotes, and science is not built on anecdotes. Statistically significant results are necessary. In this case, it conforms to all the forensic articles, that the hymenal remnants are not reliable in assessing virginity. This result is just one more that conforms with the other forensic articles, the hymenal remnant is not reliable to assess virginity, statistically speaking.--Tallard (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My purpose in mentioning this study was two fold. First, I thought that the language used and the evidence provided in the article spoke against the assertions that the hymen either didn't exist at all or was not present in post-pubertal women, or that the term was an anachronism and was not used in modern science or medicine, and I hoped that the summary I presented would give a flavor of the language used. Additionally, I specifically wanted to mention the numbers regarding the deep notches or complete clefts because I thought that it addresses what appears to be a common misunderstanding. The hymen is culturally associated with virginity and its condition has been used for testing virginity (reliably or not) and this implies some degree of correlation. Conversely, the statement that it is not possible to confirm that a post-pubertal woman is a virgin by examining the hymen is nearly ubiquitous. Many people consider these ideas incompatible, and remain confused or accept one and consider the other a myth or a lie. These numbers show how there can be a strong correlation (P = 0.001) while at the same demonstrating how unreliable any test would be. I originally followed the summary with a remark that a test with a type I error (assuming null = "not virgin") of 52% could not be considered reliable. (Type I errors can be reduced to 33% at the expense of raising the type II errors to 9% by shifting the criteria to include lesser notches, but that is still hardly reliable.) In the end I decided that the post was too long and chose to let the numbers speak for themselves. The posterior rim width results aren't mentioned in the article's conclusions, but they are important as such measures are used forensically and appear to correlate well in younger subjects (such as 3 - 8 year olds). I was certainly not trying to suppress this, and might have expanded on my "further results and analysis" remark had I though that my summary could be interpreted as a suggestion that reliable "virginity testing" was possible. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that the latter half of what I wrote above (addressing the perceived dichotomy) is WP:SYNTH at best. Also, care must be exercised if the study itself is to be used in the article, as it is a primary source; see WP:MEDRS#Definitions. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
on Hymen-virginity relationship: Clinical intervention in child sexual abuse, in the chapter Validation of sexual abuse:
"For many years attorneys, judges, police officers and child-protective-services have relied on the presence or absence of physical signs to validate child sexual abuse. The emphasis upon physical examination is totally misplaced from the perspective of validation. Instead the validation process should emphasize investigation interviewing.
"Nevertheless, a physical examination should be performed for every child if sexual abuse is suspected, the purpose of the examination is threefold:
-To identify physical trauma or conditions that may require medical attention (ie pregnancy)
-Collect corroborating evidence, if such signs exist
-Reassure the child and his or her parents that the youngster is alright, unharmed and undamaged (or if injuries or associated conditions [VDs or pregnancy] are present that they have been identified and treated.)
[...]
It is inappropriate to rely on the findings of a physical examination to rule in or out a diagnosis or child sexual abuse. A physician or other medical professional who performs physical examinations can never invalidate a sexual abuse case by reporting that there are no findings to suggest that sexual abuse has occurred. In fact, physical findings will be present in very few cases. Use of the presence of physical findings as a standard of proof of child sexual abuse is totally inappropriate. Medical professionals should vigorously resist attempts by others to require adherence to such a standard of proof.
"Numerous protocols for medical examination for child sexual abuse have been published. Despite a mystique attached to medical examination, the process in fact should be simple and straightforward: [...] Always, a medical examination for sexual abuse should be performed in the context of a complete physical examination. The practice deemphasizes the genital and rectal examination and enables assessment of the youngster's overall condition.END QUOTE
Major points: hymenal remnant (notice do non use of hymen) is inconclusive, physical examination is inconclusive, for years pros have made errors, usually sexually abused child will have no signs. Once again, as with Kirk's reference, we demonstrate there is no controversy at the scientific end; science pretty much agrees on the "condition" of the vaginal opening is nearly irrelevant. However, controversy is falsely created by blogs (as Richard keeps alluding to), blogs and pop culture webpages such as Scarlateen and Cecil misrepresent "knowledge" to lead young women into believing the shape of their vaginal opening says something about their "experience", and it does not, because their is simply too much natural variation to be able to draw such conclusions. So if the state of the hymenal remnants is so inconclusive, why do pop culture websites and blogs keep contradicting science? I leave you to think of my previously issued idea on that. Myself, as a scientist, I stay away from blogs and pop culture websites like an elephant from mice (myth NOT busted by mythbusters :) sorry I had to input some humor). --Tallard (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm back after being away for a couple of days, and I would like to comment on three things. (1) First, I recently became aware of the essay WP:FLAT (through another RfC, actually), and I want to recommend it to the editors disagreeing here. You probably will not all see yourselves the same ways in it, but I think it is very useful in recognizing the kinds of arguments to steer clear of because they will not get us anywhere. (2) Second, about that double-negative question, I would like to suggest a compromise wording that I think incorporates the valid points that have been raised by each side: "However, it is not possible to confirm that a woman or post-pubescent girl is a virgin by examining the hymen." No confusing double-negative, and no misleading equivocation. (3) About the basic question of whether there is such a thing as a hymen in normal adult women, I continue to believe that scientific peer-reviewed references are the way to find the correct answer, and anything else is just opinion. I've read the article identified directly above by Kirk, and also done my own PubMed search. Kirk summarizes that article very fairly (and I think it actually might be useful to cite as a reference), and I really think it goes a long way towards settling the argument. The only other post-2000 peer-reviewed article that I would also add is this review from J. Reproduct. Med., published two years before the other one, and indicating the relative lack of careful prior data collection in post-adolescent women up to that time. These are both (unlike many of the other sources discussed in this talk) true peer-reviewed academic science. Taken together, they seem to me to demonstrate that the 2004 study (the one identified by Kirk) is really the first such study to be done in a solidly scientific way, and it unambiguously demonstrates that scientists recognize the concept of "hymen" (as attributed in this talk to the Gray's Anatomy figure) as a modern and real anatomical structure (albeit with all the caveats about variability and about changes over time and so on). I think the RfC question really does end there. Nothing about that takes anything away from the fact that there are verifiable and noteworthy ways in which hymens have been "misused" to subjugate and harm women. But the claim that hymens are not "real" in an anatomical sense is just POV pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back and thank you, that was a wonderful article, I'm going to make sure I read 'til I know it. I often wish Wikipedia made these treasures easier to come upon. This debate does indeed seem to be in a similar situation of being a cold topic for many many years, but recently reheated, because of muslim pushed hymenoplasty, seems like the perfect timing to reaffirm the science side...
2)That was the first compromise I offered to Richard, I still think it's the ideal way.
3)The RfC was not on whether "or not" "there is a hymen in "all" females", but on the appropriateness of that drawing to act as a lead. My point is that this article goes WAY beyond what encyclopedias and anatomical books go into, using "occasional articles" (as stated in your Flat Earth reading suggestion) and lots of pop culture (dedicated websites and not .edu sites, as discussed in FE). There is also the issue of hymenal ring, hymenal remnant, hymenal opening, versus just hymen. Plenty of the literature presented herein use the adjective form instead of/or in conjunction with the noun and that seems more precise to me, as there is the developmental aspect to be considered here. And I have more references on this matter coming in the next few days. (As I mentioned elsewhere, my reference access is not easy or quick) and I do believe that stating the RfC is over and done with, just because of one article is a little precocious. The RfC was regarding the low quality drawing no longer in use by GA which does not "show" a hymen not about existence or not of hymen in general sense. Being that the drawing shows absolutely nothing (low res) and is made to look like a woman's vulva, and we've discussed/referenced in length about the natural differences due to age, the need for a child specific photograph is even stronger than before the RfC discussion started. This article needs a proper hymenal ring photograph of a child. I myself detoured the debate to many issues because I felt that in order to answer the "yes or no to the image", we needed to get everyone up to par on the developmental issues at stake. I am still a relative novice at Wikipedia contributing and a part-timer for the foreseeable future, so I don't yet know how to acquire photographs.
  • In light of this debate, that 100y/o out-of-use drawing seems even more inappropriate. I still have strong hesitation about a potential chosen photograph. Take for example figures 2 and 4 or Kirks's reference, both have had sex, one is notched, one not. Using both of these photos side by side would be a perfect illustration of the "teenager hymenal ring variation within activity groups", and would ensure that Wikipedia remains on neutral ground regarding the virginity issue, which is the main attraction for the readers of this article.--Tallard (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the thank you! Let me briefly reply to several of the points you made in response to my comment before, as well as to the article Kirk found, and about good/bad brocolli/coffee farther below. I'm glad you liked WP:FLAT as much as I did, and I hope that the other editors here will also take a look at it, because I think that they may find it useful in rebutting your arguments. Actually, I don't have any quarrel with you concluding from the article that Kirk found that hymen examination is of no value forensically or puritanically, and I'm all in favor of making that point clear in this page, and I suspect that you will find support for that from most other editors. As for what the RfC was about, I feel like that has been changing from day to day, but I can certainly agree that the time has come to stop discussing whether modern science still recognizes the hymen as an anatomical, rather than mythical, entity, and instead discuss what would be the most useful image(s) to employ in the article. Now about the conclusions that I drew from the scientific literature, I stand by what I said. Let's look critically at that brocolli/coffee argument. Of course it's true that science is constantly being revised. But the way to address that correctly is to find a more recent peer-reviewed study that contests what the article that Kirk found said. (I doubt that you'll find it, because I already looked!) But until a peer-reviewed study is published with different conclusions, it is not the role of WP to independently evaluate those studies that have been published (which would be synthesis and original research), but to report them. The fact that there haven't been large numbers of redundant studies does nothing to undercut the validity of the study that exists. It just shows that it was not particularly controversial among real scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no objections to using the Gray's Anatomy engraving other than the lack of detail revealed due to its scale and its darkness at the center. The hymen is labeled in this engraving (and it resembles the modern cadaveric illustration discussed above). To imply otherwise in the caption (without a source addressing any inaccuracy) would be WP:OR. There is no requirement to use the caption from the original text, but I don't see any need to change it (other than adding "with hymen barely visible" to accentuate its shortcomings *grin*). There are plenty of images out there, but this is the only copyright-free one we have. If we had more, we could present it as in Cochlea, as one of the "Additional images", replaced in the infobox by something showing more detail and a "map image". Perhaps we can commision such a map from one of the wikiartists. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Vocabularly used in the article should reflect the common, accepted terms used in the modern literature. If I understand correctly, Tallard has been advocating the use of the term "hymen remnants" for the developed hymen. I have been unable to find this usage elsewhere. (I do find "remnant" used to described the carunculae myrtiformes in parous women.) If a significant minority of the literature uses or advocates use of this novel vocabulary, then it should be mentioned in the article. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • This image [1] is copied from the image being discussed in this article. By viewing the comparison (one image fades into the other, give it time to load) here [2] one can get an impression of what's missing (the detail lost in the dark area) from the image being discussed
  • There is this image [3] from Wikimedia Commons. It's a photo rather than a drawing though and so using it might cause the exchange of one set of objections with some others.
  • I agree that the current image should stay. I find most of the argument against it staying to be conjecture, original research and invalid comparison. I can go into detail on why but that detail is very long, it's already been said and I think it would just wind people up and encourage further argument.
  • I also agree that a better image should be found or made. Transforming the hymen in the existing image so it's more in line with the one I linked to above shouldn't be too hard. Ha! (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The same image is used in the 39th edition of Gray's Anatomy, which is the edition previous to the current one and is dated 2005. It's slightly darker and has a tiny bit more detail in the dark areas but not enough to help. It's under 107 FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM - Female external genital organs, subsection SKIN, subsection LABIA MAJORA and is labelled Fig. 107.1 The female external genetalia. "Hymen" is used 5 times on 5 pages in the book. If the image wasn't found in the 40th edition, it's possible the right section wasn't viewed. Ha! (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hymen/Archive_1&oldid=1136808737"