virginity testing

[soylentgreen]

You might as well argue that since tests for cancer, AIDS, and STDs admit a known percentage of false negatives and false positives, sometimes with grave consequences, we ought to avoid testing for cancer, AIDS, and STDs.

For the argument to have merit, you have to quantify how often false positives and false negatives occur, and whether they can be detected in other ways.

Now... I'm not necessarily arguing in favour of virginity testing in an era where premarital sex isn't prohibited by law. It strikes me as a breach of privacy and trust. But if you're going to argue against it, you're going to have to rely on something other than "It returns false positives and false negatives in some indeterminate percentage of cases."--which is true of literally every medical diagnostic known to man.

But in this case it returns a false answer not because the tests are at fault but because the assumption is made that the hymen can only be broken by having sex. Which is not the case with cancer ,aids or stds.

Nor is it the only reason given to stop doing such tests. Apart from a breach of privacy it serves no purpose but to degrade women as a commodity whose only worth is in that they are a virgin.

 

[TheGoverness]

Has he said this?

Yes, he has.

 

[Bum]

“have yearly trips to the gynecologist to check her hymen.”

What in the ever loving f*ck is wrong with people?!

 

[holbritter]

Christianity is a bizzare religion with many weird ideas. Some are harmless and of no concern. But others like this one are harmful, treating woman as objects valued for their virginity. Can any christian here defend this shameful practice of no worth that has only the purpose of continuing the superstitious belief of christian men's superiority and ownership of women?

This IS NOT a practice of all (or even half) of the Christian faith.

Biggest broad brush I've heard in a while, congrats.

 

[COTO]

As I framed it, it sits within a larger question. its a balance between the consequences of those false results and the potential benefit of the right results. My post does not discuss the potential lifesaving benefits of 'early detection' like cancer, or AIDS because there is no lifesaving benefit to a virginity test. there is no medical benefit at all. What you get is nothing but a flawed cultural validation of the privacy breach, and the potential for abuse, humiliation, , shame, shunning, depravation, and if you end up with a guy on the other side of this 'deflowering' being named, he's having his own set of problems derivative from either an that 'accurate' result or one that lies. Even the health care professional is impacted by the request and the ethical ramifications of this decision involving a minor made by parents, or a possible controlling misogynistic fiancé looking for freshness in his peach, for nothing much better than an possible inaccurate often misunderstood result on both ends.

Hence you're arguing that the test has no benefit whether accurate or not. I get that.

This is fundamentally a question of moral values/priorities, and I see no point in debating it here. Like abortion, it comes to rest on a fundamental values judgment as to which is the greater harm.

Now that I've said this, I trust you understand why I only addressed the first statement in your post. Arguing the latter part (on an Internet message board of all places) is a waste of time. And frankly, if your argument is that virginity testing is immoral regardless of accuracy, you're foolish to assail it on the basis of accuracy.

 

[COTO]

But in this case it returns a false answer not because the tests are at fault but because the assumption is made that the hymen can only be broken by having sex. Which is not the case with cancer ,aids or stds.

The issue is that a virginity test can return false positives (intact hymen despite intercourse) and false negatives (broken hymen despite lack of intercourse).

Thus far, nobody has quantified how likely these false positives/negatives are to occur, or addressed whether there are remedial/contingency tests to detect them by other means. Such an exercise is likely impossible given it requires a proven reference diagnostic, and (in the language of @bbthegreat's article) "no medical procedure exists that can accurately determine if a woman—or a man, for that matter—is a virgin".

Reasonably, we need these data to judge virginity testing on the basis of accuracy. The fact that we know the test isn't perfect isn't sufficient. This was my point in #9 and #22.

If your argument is that virginity testing is unnecessary/immoral regardless of accuracy, this is a separate argument and, if presumed true, renders the issue of accuracy moot. See #30 above.

 

[COTO]

Yes, he has.

OK. I'll take your word for it.

In this case, it's a clear double standard and I don't see how he can justify it. Either he believes premarital sex is a serious moral offense, in which case he has no excuse for turning a blind eye to his sons' offenses, or he doesn't believe premarital sex is a serious moral offense, in which case he has no excuse for violating his daughter's privacy to uphold a moral standard he doesn't believe in.

I'm not quite sure what he hopes to accomplish, but then again I don't understand rap and rap culture generally. :shrug:

 

[HIP56948]

Why Do American Doctors Perform Virginity Tests?

"“So-called virginity testing is nothing more than an assault on young women with no scientific or medical basis,” says Jonah Bruno, director of communications at the New York State Department of Health. And yet, girls and women are suffering from the fears and consequences of “failing” a virginity test and grappling with the aftermath of being forced to undergo such an invasive exam"

Women are suffering for no reason. No medical procedure exists that can accurately determine if a woman—or a man, for that matter—is a virgin. The hymen often tears or wears away as women age and during everyday activities like running, just as it can stretch during sex.

Hymens, like many body parts, vary widely in shape and size. Most can be found near the entrance of the vagina, forming a crescent or doughnut shape around the opening. Some women have a septate hymen, in which there’s an extra bit of membrane that creates two openings; a microperforate hymen, a membrane that nearly covers the entrance to the vagina entirely; or a cribriform hymen, one with many little holes. Very rarely, a woman may have a hymen that completely covers the entrance of the vagina, called an imperforate hymen. These types of hymens can make it difficult to menstruate or have sex and might require minor surgery. At times, girls are born without a hymen; others are born with hymens so thick, they remain intact even after having sex.

"Virginity testing is “incompatible with professional obstetric and gynecological ethics,” wrote Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D., adjunct professor of ethics in obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, in a 2015 article he coauthored in The Lancet. Medical professionals have the “responsibility to lead efforts to enact legislation that prohibits virginity testing,” it read.

Thanks for your post. I had no idea that there were various types of Hymens, regarding thickness, longevity, types..etc.
An eye opener.

 

[btthegreat]

Hence you're arguing that the test has no benefit whether accurate or not. I get that.

This is fundamentally a question of moral values/priorities, and I see no point in debating it here. Like abortion, it comes to rest on a fundamental values judgment as to which is the greater harm.

Now that I've said this, I trust you understand why I only addressed the first statement in your post. Arguing the latter part (on an Internet message board of all places) is a waste of time. And frankly, if your argument is that virginity testing is immoral regardless of accuracy, you're foolish to assail it on the basis of accuracy.

Geez, you still are not getting it. The words are sitting there, and they are in the correct order in two consecutive sentences, and you insist that there must be some question about what my argument is and what it includes and what it does not. .

 

[soylentgreen]

This IS NOT a practice of all (or even half) of the Christian faith.

Biggest broad brush I've heard in a while, congrats.

Nor is hating homosexuals or beating children or treating women as property or being anti abortion or demanding that atheists be jailed or many of the other bizzare beliefs that some christians hold to.

Yet strangely, when we find someone proposing these types of ideas it is usually based upon the words, "because god said so."

And you of course are just using one of the oldest and weakest excuse that christians use when trying to deny the harmful idiology their beliefs do in fact produce. Which is that when pointing out one of these harmful practices there will always be one who pops up and says, "not my god." As if that somehow excuse those who hold the belief that their god does want these harmful things.

 

[soylentgreen]

The issue is that a virginity test can return false positives (intact hymen despite intercourse) and false negatives (broken hymen despite lack of intercourse).

Thus far, nobody has quantified how likely these false positives/negatives are to occur, or addressed whether there are remedial/contingency tests to detect them by other means. Such an exercise is likely impossible given it requires a proven reference diagnostic, and (in the language of @bbthegreat's article) "no medical procedure exists that can accurately determine if a woman—or a man, for that matter—is a virgin".

Reasonably, we need these data to judge virginity testing on the basis of accuracy. The fact that we know the test isn't perfect isn't sufficient. This was my point in #9 and #22.

If your argument is that virginity testing is unnecessary/immoral regardless of accuracy, this is a separate argument and, if presumed true, renders the issue of accuracy moot. See #30 above.

No, i disagree. The fact that doctors are still doing the test at the requests of fathers for the purpose of discerning the value they will hold their daughter at is of concern. We can protest the doctors actions for holding a test that has no value. The lack of morality here is not just in asking for the test but that of those who get paid to give the test.

Reasonably, we need these data to judge virginity testing on the basis of accuracy.

Reasonably!!!! Care to give a reason for a virginity test?

 

[COTO]

No, i disagree. The fact that doctors are still doing the test at the requests of fathers for the purpose of discerning the value they will hold their daughter at is of concern. We can protest the doctors actions for holding a test that has no value. The lack of morality here is not just in asking for the test but that of those who get paid to give the test.

FWIW, I believe any physician ought to be able to opt out of conducting the examination on moral/ethical grounds.

Reasonably!!!! Care to give a reason for a virginity test?

Follow the links at the search in post #7 and you'll find dozens.

Geez, you still are not getting it. The words are sitting there, and they are in the correct order in two consecutive sentences, and you insist that there must be some question about what my argument is and what it includes and what it does not. .

You're the one who started off post #10 with "Its worse than useless if in fact you can have false results either way." Why even broach the subject of accuracy if it's completely irrelevant to your argument?

 

[soylentgreen]

FWIW, I believe any physician ought to be able to opt out of conducting the examination on moral/ethical grounds.


Follow the links at the search in post #7 and you'll find dozens.


You're the one who started off post #10 with "Its worse than useless if in fact you can have false results either way." Why even broach the subject of accuracy if it's completely irrelevant to your argument?

So a physician should. But the concern here is those who do not. They are acting unethically.

No, i do not see them as being reasonable. Following a fake religion defies reason. Not getting addicted to sex by staying a virgin is ridiculous not reasonable. And spirituality is simply another fake religious lack of reasoning.
Try arguing any of those so called reasons and lets see how far you get.

Because that is what the physician is selling. A fake story that his / her opinion has any accuracy to it.

 

[holbritter]

Nor is hating homosexuals or beating children or treating women as property or being anti abortion or demanding that atheists be jailed or many of the other bizzare beliefs that some christians hold to.

Yet strangely, when we find someone proposing these types of ideas it is usually based upon the words, "because god said so."

And you of course are just using one of the oldest and weakest excuse that christians use when trying to deny the harmful idiology their beliefs do in fact produce. Which is that when pointing out one of these harmful practices there will always be one who pops up and says, "not my god." As if that somehow excuse those who hold the belief that their god does want these harmful things.

I regret to inform you, I am not a Christian. Again with your broad brush.

 

[COTO]

So a physician should. But the concern here is those who do not. They are acting unethically.

No, i do not see them as being reasonable. Following a fake religion defies reason. Not getting addicted to sex by staying a virgin is ridiculous not reasonable. And spirituality is simply another fake religious lack of reasoning.

Try arguing any of those so called reasons and lets see how far you get.

Hm. Debate the entirety of religious thought/practice with some anti-religious guy I just met on the Internet ...or... keep my hands free to eat naan while browsing DP.

Cranky atheist ...or... hot bread.

It's a close one, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the bread this time, Bob. It's seasoned and everything.

 

[d0gbreath]

I hope his daughters aren't equestrian women.

 

[Deuce]

The issue is that a virginity test can return false positives (intact hymen despite intercourse) and false negatives (broken hymen despite lack of intercourse).

Thus far, nobody has quantified how likely these false positives/negatives are to occur, or addressed whether there are remedial/contingency tests to detect them by other means. Such an exercise is likely impossible given it requires a proven reference diagnostic, and (in the language of @bbthegreat's article) "no medical procedure exists that can accurately determine if a woman—or a man, for that matter—is a virgin".

Reasonably, we need these data to judge virginity testing on the basis of accuracy. The fact that we know the test isn't perfect isn't sufficient. This was my point in #9 and #22.

If your argument is that virginity testing is unnecessary/immoral regardless of accuracy, this is a separate argument and, if presumed true, renders the issue of accuracy moot. See #30 above.

The issue of accuracy comes after the issue of motivation for caring about virginity in the first place.

 

[soylentgreen]

I regret to inform you, I am not a Christian. Again with your broad brush.

I did not say you were a christian, i said one will always pop up and give the same weak excuse you have done.

There is no broad brush here. There is just you looking to make excuses for the harm christians do.

 

[soylentgreen]

Hm. Debate the entirety of religious thought/practice with some anti-religious guy I just met on the Internet ...or... keep my hands free to eat naan while browsing DP. View attachment 67273317

Cranky atheist ...or... hot bread.

It's a close one, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the bread this time, Bob. It's seasoned and everything.

Always love to see a cop out. Hope you enjoy the bread as much as i enjoyed pointing out the lack of reason you thought existed.

 

[COTO]

Always love to see a cop out. Hope you enjoy the bread as much as i enjoyed pointing out the lack of reason you thought existed.

You started a thread specifically on virginity testing and I engaged you (and others) on the two points I felt were worthwhile discussing. I'm one of a whopping two outliers willing to put up with posting in one of these echo chambers.

Don't fault me because I don't want to argue broader religion for the umpteenth time just so you can scratch an itch.

 

[holbritter]

I did not say you were a christian, i said one will always pop up and give the same weak excuse you have done.

There is no broad brush here. There is just you looking to make excuses for the harm christians do.

Where is there an 'excuse' in anything I've said?

 

[danielpalos]

Christianity is a bizzare religion with many weird ideas. Some are harmless and of no concern. But others like this one are harmful, treating woman as objects valued for their virginity. Can any christian here defend this shameful practice of no worth that has only the purpose of continuing the superstitious belief of christian men's superiority and ownership of women?

Practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy are worse, yet there is no Religious Test for that.

 

[soylentgreen]

You started a thread specifically on virginity testing and I engaged you (and others) on the two points I felt were worthwhile discussing. I'm one of a whopping two outliers willing to put up with posting in one of these echo chambers.

Don't fault me because I don't want to argue broader religion for the umpteenth time just so you can scratch an itch.

I have no need to argue any broader definition or religion. You made a claim that there were good reasons and are now using the excuse of not wanting to argue religion as a way out of having to explain what those reasons are and why they are good.

I understand. You do not have any good reasoning.

 

[soylentgreen]

Where is there an 'excuse' in anything I've said?

Really!! I need remind you of your own words?

You said. "This IS NOT a practice of all (or even half) of the Christian faith."

This is basically trying to hide a tree in a forest. Your excuse for the bad deeds of a few is that not all practice it.

 

[COTO]

I have no need to argue any broader definition or religion. You made a claim that there were good reasons and are now using the excuse of not wanting to argue religion as a way out of having to explain what those reasons are and why they are good.

No. I posted a link to a search that, if followed, will take you to a litany of online resources discussing the physical, social, emotional, and spiritual ramifications of extramarital sex, and by extension, the importance of virginity.

You'll find material on sexual disease, sexual exploitation, coercion, unwanted pregnancy, emotional/physiological impacts of losing one's virginity (particularly for women), impacts on marital bonding, loss of irreplaceable opportunities to build moral character, defiling of a covenant picturing the marital covenant between Christ and his Church, loss of an invaluable purity in a union between man and wife, etc., etc.

If you want to pick one specific item out of this list to argue it, I suppose I can butt heads with you for a few posts--help scratch that itch. But don't say I never did anything for you. :coffeepap