Re: Male Virginity EXPLANATION - fixed quotes

Michael Nakis (
21 Oct 1995 11:19:14 GMT

I realized that Microsoft Word inserts those "smart" quotes in the text,
which may be unreadable if you are using a non-MS-Windows newsreader.
NetCom's NetCruizer also does not seem to strip them out. So, I am
reposting this article with the quotes fixed. I hope I did not miss any.
My apologies.

In <4698e7$> (David Stites) writes:

>I think it is a two part problem.
>1) Is there such a thing as a male hymen?
> That should be easy enough to answer. I believe circumcision is
>primarily a practice of Jews and those who worship a jewish god
>(Christians). There should be thousands, if not millions, of peoples
>in the world who would have stories about male bleeding if it is a
>widespread phenomenon.

It is indeed a very easy thing to answer. I will do it in two steps.
Step number one, it is an undeniable fact that there exists a tiny little
piece of skin which carries out the precarious, seemingly unnecessary,
and therefore highly suspicious task of holding the foreskin tied to the
underside of the tip of the penis. Now, you may have some reservations
as to exactly what the function of this little piece of skin is; you may
not be so sure that it is a virgin hymen. Which brings me to the second
step: If it is not a hymen, then how do you explain the bleeding? You
might say, "well, I guess I fucked so hard that I ripped my dick", but no
matter how you choose to look at it, the fact remains the same: there is
something there which gets torn on the first, or one of the first, sexual
intercourses, and causes bleeding. If this rupture occurs to a
sufficiently large number of men to preclude "accidents", then as far as
biology is concerned, it is by definition an incident of "defloration",
that is, loss of virginity. (Well, ok, I guess it is obvious that I am
extending the definition here so as to cover males.)

Besides, there probably *ARE* millions of men all over the world who have
such stories; they just do not tell anybody. I hope you agree that this
is a very delicate subject for both men and women, and it is unlikely to
be carried very far outside an intimate relationship. I have been told
by ex-girlfriends of mine of this bleeding occurring to at least two
other guys, but I am sure those guys would have never told me so
personally, or, worse yet, admitted so in public! It is also a very
difficult subject to try to make a scientific statement out of; the
danger of ridicule is too high, as the theory would certainly be
vehemently objected by the established "traditional macho male" academia.


So, it is like a big huge common secret, known to large numbers of the
population, yet admitted by nobody. This very thread in this very
newsgroup invites everyone (both men and women who have evidenced it) to
come out of the closet.

As far as how widespread a phenomenon it is, I have to repeat that the
biological function of the male virgin hymen does not seem to be as
well-developed as its female counterpart, and therefore rupture of the
hymen is not GUARANTEED to happen during the sexual life of an
uncircumcised male. It will only happen if woman happens to be
especially "narrow" AND copulation is insisted upon despite the
difficulty and the pain for both partners.

>2) If 1 is true was circimcision inviented to hide this?
> I am reminded of the man who asked his wife why she cut the end
>of the ham off before she cooked it. She said that she didn't know, that
>was just the way her mother had done it. A few days later the man asked
>his mother-in-law why she cut the end of the ham off before she cooked
>it. She said she didn't know, that was the way HER mother had done it.
>A few weeks later he asked the grandmother if she knew the answer to
>his question and she smiled and said that it was the only way she
>could fit it into the pan she had at the time.
> How much of what we do is done by rote without knowing the why of
>it? In your case, how are we to know the reasoning behind something
>that was started thousands of years ago? Without the ability to travel,
>or at least look, back in time we can never know the answer to some
>questions. I think this is one of them.
>Just my opinion,
>David Stites
>Don't tread on me

Well, very nice paradigm, but you should have guessed my answer:
Millions of archaeologists and anthropologists as well as other
scientists all over the world strongly disagree with you, David.
Theories, in any science, physics included, are created by people who
meticulously collect all possible evidence, however minuscule that may
be, and then do nothing but educated guesswork.

Perhaps there exists no *hard* evidence anymore as to why some crazy Jews
decided to start mutilating the genitals of their male infants a few
thousand years ago. (And I do not want to hear anyone suggesting that
they started it because their God told them so.) But if we could say for
sure that other completely separate cultures have been practicing similar
forms of genital mutilation, then this does in fact constitute a piece of
evidence which can be put in use to make the point that circumcision is
not just someoneĀ€s crazy idea, and there is a certain degree of PURPOSE
behind it.

I do not know whether the "Roots" series can be trusted on the matter,
but I can remember one of the episodes suggesting that circumcision was
actually practiced by African tribes as part of an initiation ceremony
for young boys who were about to become adults. I hope you agree that
there could be no correlation between the cultures of African tribes and
the Judeochristians; if what "Roots" depicted is in fact correct, then
those cultures must have invented the ritual separately.

There are other pieces of information that are relevant to my point. For
example, we know for a fact that various cultures throughout history have
practiced artificially induced defloration on females, and specifically
on virgin girls who were about to be married, by means of wooden or stone
phalluses, or even whole Priapus-style statues. The only difference is
that in those cultures the ritual was a well known custom, and not
something that was kept secret. Since virginity was considered by those
cultures as undesirable, it is reasonable to suggest that if there is
indeed such a thing as male virginity, then artificial defloration of
males would have also been desirable by them. For reasons of
preservation of male ego, however, the ritual of artificial defloration
of males may have been disguised in such a way as to obliterate any
evidence of the fact that virginity is actually applicable to males.
Circumcising young boys on the eight day of their life kind of guarantees
that nobody will ever see an intact male hymen in the entire culture.

Hope that is enough,
Michael Nakis.