Re: Male Virginity and Circumcision

Michael Nakis (
26 Oct 1995 06:32:26 GMT

I prepared the following text for a special occasion, and I decided to
also post it here hoping that it might help some people better understand
what this discussion is all about.


My two hypotheses are as follows:

1. There exists indeed such a thing as a virgin hymen for males.

2. Circumcision was invented in order to do away with this
inconvenient and embarrassing aspect of male anatomy.

I do not have much reason to believe that I am different from the average
male, so I will take the freedom to speak of males in general, even
though my observations of male anatomy involve myself only. I do,
however, have reasons to believe that my observations apply to males in
general because I know that other males have also evidenced the direct
effects of what I have observed.

In brief, the first hypothesis begins with the observation that males are
born equipped with a little piece of skin which holds the foreskin bound
to the underside of the glans. This skin, which I shall call €hymen€, is
thinner than the foreskin itself, it is located on the inner side of the
foreskin, it is oriented radially to the rim of its opening, and it
connects the foreskin to the glans exactly at the lower end of the
opening of the urethra. The foreskin can not be retracted without
stretching this hymen, which in turn pulls the glans backwards and
downwards as it is stretched. When the hymen has been stretched to its
maximum extent, the foreskin barely leaves the entire glans exposed, and
any further retraction is impossible without tearing the hymen, even
though there is plenty of foreskin to retract, had the hymen not been
there. Due to its precarious (and seemingly unnecessary, and therefore
highly suspicious,) position, this hymen does indeed get torn on the
first or one of the first times the male engages in sex, resulting in
pain and bleeding, in a way identical to the way females experience
defloration. (Unless of course the male has been circumcised, in which
case the hymen has been removed together with the foreskin.) In light
of all this, I am trying to suggest that virginity is obviously
applicable to males, and I find it astonishing that science does
not seem to be aware of the fact, and that folklore all over the world
does not pay even the slightest amount of attention to it, in sharp
contrast to the huge amount of attention that female virginity receives.

The second hypothesis begins with the observation that circumcision cuts
away the male virgin hymen together with the foreskin, meaning that in
cultures where every male gets circumcised before first sexual
intercourse, the fact that virginity is actually applicable to males will
be virtually unknown. As a matter of fact, in cultures in which every
male is circumcised soon after birth, it is practically guaranteed that
there will be absolutely no way that anybody will ever have any allusions
in this direction. This observation, along with the known fact that
throughout the history of the human race males have traditionally been
overly protective of their almighty macho image, makes me suggest that
circumcision may have been invented precisely in order to conceal the
fact that virginity is applicable to them. Another way to reach the same
conclusion is by considering that virginity has been regarded as such an
€undesirable€ condition by various cultures in ancient times that some of
them went to the extent of establishing rituals of artificially induced
defloration of females prior to their marriage, by means of phalluses
made of wood or stone, sometimes attached to Priapus-style statues. It
may be that the ritual of circumcision for males originates from a
similar distaste towards virginity, and that it is in fact the equivalent
of the female defloration ritual, the only difference being that the real
reason behind this mutilation has been conveniently forgotten, and yet
compulsively kept alive all the way to our times.


Michael Nakis.