im 24..and im masturbating since i was 18.. My worry is abt my virginity...somebody has told me for a finger test.. I can easily finger my vegina..but i have never insert anything in it..my masturbating was just rubbing..
A lot of neo-liberals would give you confusing answers to this. The simple truth is the hymen is the only and solely reliable indicator of virginity despite everything neo-liberals hypocrites will tell you. You can check in a mirror to see if you can perceive your own hymen. In my opinion you would have known if your hymen had broken while you were fingering yourself and since you don't go inside there's no reason to suspect that you would have broken it. Contrary to Western popular lores and myths, the hymen is not a trivial piece of skin that could just fall off like it's nothing - you would definitely feel it when it breaks and you are penetrated for the first time! The other thing you ought to know is that going inside wont increase your pleasure in any quantifiable way as claimed by Westernised delusional pseudo-experts in the field as most research and medical serveys points out that the female primary source of pleasure is and remains the clitoris or clitoral bulb, while the vaginal cavity only provides a sense of intimacy and connectedness to a male partner. It would take around 20 mins on average of vaginal penetrative sex for a woman to achieve orgasm, whereas only 5 mins of clitoral stimulation could provide the same effect!
Note: this is an a different view.
The ONLY way for you to lose your virginity is by having a penis enter your vagina.
Women MAY NOT HAVE an intact hymen even without sexual activity of any kind. It CAN BE TORN via normal physical activities. It may have even torn BEFORE BIRTH.
You ARE a virgin.
The ONLY way for you to lose your virginity is by having a penis enter your vagina.
Women MAY NOT HAVE an intact hymen even without sexual activity of any kind. It CAN BE TORN via normal physical activities. It may have even torn BEFORE BIRTH.
You ARE a virgin.
Cite one reliable study that account for the number of girls born without a hymen. Cite only one please.
I know what are the chances of a child born with Down syndrome to a mother who give birth after age 30 or her odds of miscarriages.
But what are the odds of a child being ever born without a hymen or a hymen being torn before birth as you succinctly put it.
Cite me but one study that confirm this stupid myth, I want to see that for myself!
I know what are the chances of a child born with Down syndrome to a mother who give birth after age 30 or her odds of miscarriages.
But what are the odds of a child being ever born without a hymen or a hymen being torn before birth as you succinctly put it.
Cite me but one study that confirm this stupid myth, I want to see that for myself!
Hi Viro,
I never said "born without a hymen." I said "torn before birth" and I stand by that. It is commonly accepted but I know of no such study because ...
IT DOESN"T MATTER if her hymen is intact or not and we do not check newborn girls for an intact hymen.
It has NOTHING to do with virginity which is what the question was about.
The ONLY way to lose your virginity is by having a penis inserted into a vagina. That's it.
I never said "born without a hymen." I said "torn before birth" and I stand by that. It is commonly accepted but I know of no such study because ...
IT DOESN"T MATTER if her hymen is intact or not and we do not check newborn girls for an intact hymen.
It has NOTHING to do with virginity which is what the question was about.
The ONLY way to lose your virginity is by having a penis inserted into a vagina. That's it.
This's got to be one of the most original definition of virginity I've come across so far. Does does it mean that lesbians are perpetually virgins unless they have sex with biological males then? That's what it seems to be implying. Also I'm curious, does your philosophy include men or are men never virgins?
[Ps. How can a hymen tear before birth? What? In the womb!?! No wonder you can't cite any source. Do you think you can at least try to explain how on earth this could happen, especially when the baby is inside the womb and the baby's genitalia is undeveloped, minuscule and virtually closed!?!?]
[Ps. How can a hymen tear before birth? What? In the womb!?! No wonder you can't cite any source. Do you think you can at least try to explain how on earth this could happen, especially when the baby is inside the womb and the baby's genitalia is undeveloped, minuscule and virtually closed!?!?]
Obviously Viro you and I disagree.
I know you won't believe anything I say but here's the definition from Wikipedia, just as one example:
"The traditional view is that virginity is only lost through vaginal penetration by the penis, consensual or non-consensual, and that acts of oral sex, anal sex and mutual masturbation do not result in loss of virginity."
I know you won't believe anything I say but here's the definition from Wikipedia, just as one example:
"The traditional view is that virginity is only lost through vaginal penetration by the penis, consensual or non-consensual, and that acts of oral sex, anal sex and mutual masturbation do not result in loss of virginity."
Obviously it applies to men. Once a man inserts his penis he is not a virgin.
No, in the traditional sense other forms of sex do not count.
Perhaps the hymen didn't form completely, much the same as the penis doesn't properly form all the time. Maybe there was some trauma. Can you cite any study showing the all women are born with a closed hymen??? No? Because no such study exists.
Translation for Viro. Put aside your stupid views about women! Her virginity is no more important than that of the male.
Perhaps the hymen didn't form completely, much the same as the penis doesn't properly form all the time. Maybe there was some trauma. Can you cite any study showing the all women are born with a closed hymen??? No? Because no such study exists.
Translation for Viro. Put aside your stupid views about women! Her virginity is no more important than that of the male.
"Put aside your stupid views about women! Her virginity is no more important than that of the male."
The only people who have a "stupid views" about women here is you. When did I say that female virginity is "more important than that of the male"? Where did you infer that from? What is it in what I've said that makes my views stupid in your 'objective eyes' given that you are the one who are unable to sustain your position? Your rhetorical enquiry is clearly dumb. The hymen is a well documented anatomical part of the body, what more studies do you need? Are you dumb? Or what? You like Wikipedia why don't you check it out for the hymen!?! The person who needs to prove his point here is you because you are the one asserting something that was never documented before, something based on pure hearsays. Let me remind you of your assertion: that the hymen may be torn before birth - that is inside the mother's womb, and inside the baby's vegina, assuming of course the hymen had developed by then! Of course it can't be proven because it is based on hearsays and speculative explanations. Comparing it with malformed penises at birth is contradictory and incongruent with your point since the fact that a few penis birth defects per year (albeit a well documented fact) have never warranted the trivialisation or dessociation of penises with sex in the general population, whereas you seem to assume that the lack of a few hymens at birth should warrant the dissociation and complete trivialisation of the hymen with regards to sexual intercourse in the general female population.
The only one who have "views" about women here is you. She asked a question I gave her an unbiased answer. It's up to the OP to decide what she wants to do with it. And my view was: if her hymen is intact, it is a good indicator of her virginity. You on the other hand are making it a point to trivialise the hymen and even asserting your own views about virginity by stating [I quote] "her virginity is no more important than that of the male" - that's your own personal opinion! It must, however, have been important enough for the OP to ask the question from what I take. On top of that you didn't actually even negate what I said in first instance [quoting my first comment]: that "the hymen is the only and solely reliable indicator of virginity"; did anything you said negates this point? No. Thus even if we assume that your perspective is correct viz. that the lack of hymen doesn't signify loss of virginity, a view which you stand firmly by no doubt, surely that doesn't negate my view that the actual presence of the hymen is indeed a good indicator of virginity! Now how does that translate into me having "stupid views about women" or that female "virginity is more important than that of male"?!? You didn't negate what I said; the only difference is that you keep making it a point to trivialise the hymen, why?
In the West it's as if we have been brought up to hate the hymen; if we could erase it from our gnome we probably would; it has come, through neo-liberal discourses, to be regarded as some kind of deformity, useless, and without its place in the woman's body! I personally find such discourses dehumanising and mysogynistic if you ask me.
The only people who have a "stupid views" about women here is you. When did I say that female virginity is "more important than that of the male"? Where did you infer that from? What is it in what I've said that makes my views stupid in your 'objective eyes' given that you are the one who are unable to sustain your position? Your rhetorical enquiry is clearly dumb. The hymen is a well documented anatomical part of the body, what more studies do you need? Are you dumb? Or what? You like Wikipedia why don't you check it out for the hymen!?! The person who needs to prove his point here is you because you are the one asserting something that was never documented before, something based on pure hearsays. Let me remind you of your assertion: that the hymen may be torn before birth - that is inside the mother's womb, and inside the baby's vegina, assuming of course the hymen had developed by then! Of course it can't be proven because it is based on hearsays and speculative explanations. Comparing it with malformed penises at birth is contradictory and incongruent with your point since the fact that a few penis birth defects per year (albeit a well documented fact) have never warranted the trivialisation or dessociation of penises with sex in the general population, whereas you seem to assume that the lack of a few hymens at birth should warrant the dissociation and complete trivialisation of the hymen with regards to sexual intercourse in the general female population.
The only one who have "views" about women here is you. She asked a question I gave her an unbiased answer. It's up to the OP to decide what she wants to do with it. And my view was: if her hymen is intact, it is a good indicator of her virginity. You on the other hand are making it a point to trivialise the hymen and even asserting your own views about virginity by stating [I quote] "her virginity is no more important than that of the male" - that's your own personal opinion! It must, however, have been important enough for the OP to ask the question from what I take. On top of that you didn't actually even negate what I said in first instance [quoting my first comment]: that "the hymen is the only and solely reliable indicator of virginity"; did anything you said negates this point? No. Thus even if we assume that your perspective is correct viz. that the lack of hymen doesn't signify loss of virginity, a view which you stand firmly by no doubt, surely that doesn't negate my view that the actual presence of the hymen is indeed a good indicator of virginity! Now how does that translate into me having "stupid views about women" or that female "virginity is more important than that of male"?!? You didn't negate what I said; the only difference is that you keep making it a point to trivialise the hymen, why?
In the West it's as if we have been brought up to hate the hymen; if we could erase it from our gnome we probably would; it has come, through neo-liberal discourses, to be regarded as some kind of deformity, useless, and without its place in the woman's body! I personally find such discourses dehumanising and mysogynistic if you ask me.
Viro,
Step down off your pulpit.
Your answer is not "unbiased." You insist that "the hymen is the only and solely reliable indicator of virginity."
That is not true. You deny that it may be torn, even though as you agree, some males are born with deformed penises. What is the difference?
Can it not be torn by physical activities? Does this mean they are not a "virgin?"
We're done with this conversation.
Step down off your pulpit.
Your answer is not "unbiased." You insist that "the hymen is the only and solely reliable indicator of virginity."
That is not true. You deny that it may be torn, even though as you agree, some males are born with deformed penises. What is the difference?
Can it not be torn by physical activities? Does this mean they are not a "virgin?"
We're done with this conversation.
Listen I'm not denying anything, I've told you even if what you're saying was true it doesn't efface the fact that, I reiterate: the hymen is the sole reliable indicator of virginity! If the hymen is present there's a great chance the female is a certified virgin; what's the problem with that? I don't see how that makes me biased. Do you know a better objective indicator perhaps???
"Can it not be torn by physical activities? Does this mean they are not a "virgin?""
Objectively they may or may not be; if they are they can't prove it anyway. But if the hymen is present from an outsider's objective view there's a high probablity that she is. Even YOU aren't denying this, so I'm not even sure why I'm arguing this over with you!?! I've been repeating the same thing over and over in plain English, yet you keep putting forward the same silly points.
Perhaps you just want me to admit something silly like a woman could just walk on the street and her hymen falls off suddenly. No I'd never admit such nonsense, but even it is true it wouldn't deny the implication of an intact hymen for those who do have it! If someone doesn't have it, then she decides if she's a virgin or not, and people can believe whatever they want to - it's all subjective and relative! It's plain and simple I don't see what's the problem is.
"Can it not be torn by physical activities? Does this mean they are not a "virgin?""
Objectively they may or may not be; if they are they can't prove it anyway. But if the hymen is present from an outsider's objective view there's a high probablity that she is. Even YOU aren't denying this, so I'm not even sure why I'm arguing this over with you!?! I've been repeating the same thing over and over in plain English, yet you keep putting forward the same silly points.
Perhaps you just want me to admit something silly like a woman could just walk on the street and her hymen falls off suddenly. No I'd never admit such nonsense, but even it is true it wouldn't deny the implication of an intact hymen for those who do have it! If someone doesn't have it, then she decides if she's a virgin or not, and people can believe whatever they want to - it's all subjective and relative! It's plain and simple I don't see what's the problem is.