46

During 2017's TEDx Oslo Talk The virginity fraud, the presenters refer to a (supposed) study on the reliability of virginity testing around 9:15 mark:

The absurdity of virgin testing is illustrated in a study done on 36 pregnant teenagers. When doctors examined their hymens, they could only find clear signs of penetration in two out of the 36 girls. So unless you believe, in 34 cases of virgin births, we must all agree that also our second myth has taken a vital blow.

However, I can't find the paper; the presenters do not mention neither year, country nor authors of the study. The only reference to it I found on the Internet points back to the talk. Which is suspicious, since the study perfectly reinforces talk's points, is extremely evocative, so - supposedly - it should be well-known.

Did this study happen?

Dragomok
  • 655
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9
  • 5
    Actually, virgin births are quite possible. Ejaculation at the opening to the vagina can result in conception even though no penetration occurred. – Loren Pechtel Apr 03 '18 at 23:20
  • 3
    More general question about such examinations: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4187/is-it-possible-to-reliably-examine-if-a-girl-is-a-virgin – Andrew Grimm Apr 04 '18 at 02:07
  • 2
    @LorenPechtel I got a teatcher was also a Ginecologist/Obstetrian. I remember well he said most himen are complacent meaning they are elastic enough to not deform/get damaged after penetration. Also he said Ejaculation at the opning CANNOT result in conception that is BS – jean Apr 04 '18 at 13:40
  • 9
    @jean sounds like we need a separate question for that claim. – DavePhD Apr 04 '18 at 13:42
  • 5
    @jean UK government says "It’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse if, for example:... •your partner ejaculates near your vagina •your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina" https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/975.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=128 You can ask a question being skeptical of it. – DavePhD Apr 04 '18 at 15:49
  • 1
    @LorenPechtel I suspect this would not appease the kinds of people who perform virginity testing. – Ryan Reich Apr 04 '18 at 16:13
  • 3
    @DavePhD UK National Health Service provides homepathy "medicine" that alone can prove UK NHS sometimes favor folklore above science =). I will not ask a question on that because I already know why a spermatozoid can have a hard time to get inside the uterus if it was not alread ejaculated here (through the himen) – jean Apr 04 '18 at 16:29
  • 7
    @LorenPechtel It's "possible" to win the lottery too. Sperm can only swim in liquid, they can't rappel their way into the vagina. You'd need very specific circumstances for something like that to happen. – barbecue Apr 04 '18 at 16:48
  • 1
    @jean While the NHS infuriatingly still pays for homoeopathy, their written health *advice* is generally spot on, and represents the current state of research. I'd take their written consensus over a single OB/GYN's opinion any day (even if, in this particular case, they're talking about a one in a million event). – Konrad Rudolph Apr 05 '18 at 07:33
  • 2
    @barbecue Luckily sperm provides its own liquid, and the vagina and aroused vulva are lubricated. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 05 '18 at 07:35
  • @KonradRudolph Vagina is a alkalyne environment due to keep it (almost) free from bacteria. Ejaculating in finger and putting it at the himen can get a woman pregnat, possbile but veeery unlikely. Also note a spermatozoid takes several hours to travel a few inches, are you really expecting it to travel several hours more in an alkaline environment? – jean Apr 05 '18 at 10:34
  • 1
    @jean You got **all** your facts wrong. If your vagina is alkaline or “almost free from bacteria”, see a doctor now. It’s supposed to be acidic. It’s also supposed to harbour lots of beneficial bacteria. Furthermore, seminal fluid has its own pH and acts as a buffer. You also got the speed completely wrong. Sperm can travel at up to 4mm per minute, which means it needs less than 7 minutes to travel an inch. Yes, the mean is slower but not in the order of hours. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 05 '18 at 11:21
  • @KonradRudolph Yes you are right, my bad. Vaginas are acid (PH 4.5 or less, above it bacteria multiply fast enough to cause diseases). It's a bad environment to spermatozoids due to (try) keep it (almost) free from bacteria. Ejaculating in finger and putting it at the himen can get a woman pregnat, possbile but veeery unlikely. Also note a spermatozoid takes several hours to travel a few inches, are you really expecting it to travel several hours more in that environment? – jean Apr 05 '18 at 11:31
  • @barbecue yes, indeed, and we have a lottery winner every week. Since the mentioned study focused on pregnant adolescents, the samples may already have been skewed toward "lucky winners". – Klaws Apr 05 '18 at 13:38
  • 1
    @KonradRudolph And remember that there are a lot of teens fooling around short of intercourse--a low probability multiplied by a lot of chances tends to equal some events. – Loren Pechtel Apr 05 '18 at 16:16
  • 1
    @Klaws SOMEONE wins the lottery weekly, but any given person does not. Similarly, SOMEONE might possibly get pregnant in the manner described, but it's not likely at all. That was my point. – barbecue Apr 05 '18 at 20:11

1 Answers1

63

See Genital Anatomy in Pregnant Adolescents: “Normal” Does Not Mean “Nothing Happened” Pediatrics, January 2004, volume 113, pages e67-e69.

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to summarize the medical history and genital examination findings in 36 adolescents who were pregnant at the time of, or shortly before, their sexual abuse examination. The medical history and photocolposcopic slides were reviewed; patient age, history of consensual sexual contact, gestational age of the fetus, and written documentation of the examination findings were analyzed. All the authors reviewed all the images jointly and were blinded to medical history other than pregnancy status; reviewers indicated their interpretation as “nonspecific,” “suggestive evidence of penetrative genital trauma,” or “definitive evidence of penetrative genital trauma.” Nonspecific examination findings included variations of normal anatomy and hymenal configurations, notches or irregularities in the hymenal rim that extended to less than half of the width of the hymenal rim, and apparently enlarged hymenal openings surrounded by normal hymenal rims. Suggestive evidence of penetrative genital trauma included deep notches in the posterior half of the hymen that extended almost to the base of the hymen and clearly visible scars. Definitive evidence of penetrative genital trauma included clefts in the posterior half of the hymen that extended through to the base of the hymen. These interpretations were based on an evidence-based classification system.11 If the written documentation of the findings was not discernable in the photographs or there was a lack of consensus among reviewers, those cases were interpreted as “inconclusive.”

RESULTS

The average age of the subjects was 15.1 years (range: 12.3–17.8 years). Pregnancy was confirmed during the clinic visit, before the visit by another clinician, or subsequent to the visit by a qualitative β human chorionic gonadotropin urine or serum sample or pelvic ultrasound. One adolescent was pregnant with her second infant (the first was also the product of a rape and was delivered by caesarian section), 1 had a miscarriage and dilatation and curettage procedure 2 weeks before her examination, and 1 had an abortion 2 months before her examination. All 3 of these adolescents had normal examinations. One 13-year-old adolescent, ∼6 months pregnant, received the first confirmation that she was pregnant during the sexual assault examination. Fig 1 shows a normal examination in the 13.8-year-old adolescent who is 8 weeks pregnant with her second child. Overall, 22 (64%) had normal or nonspecific examination findings, 8 (22%) had inconclusive findings, 4 (8%) had suggestive findings, and 2 (6%) had definite evidence of penetrating trauma. All but 1 of the inconclusive cases were patients examined >4 years ago. The photographs for these patients either failed to demonstrate a documented cleft with a second examination technique such as balloon-covered swab or with the prone knee-chest position, or the documented cleft appeared to be a shallow notch in the photograph. When the inconclusive category was eliminated, 82% of the examinations were normal, 11% were suggestive, and 7% were definitive for penetrating trauma. Fifty-six percent (N = 20) of pregnancies were a result of sexual abuse, 41% (N = 15) were a result of consensual sexual contact, and in 1 patient (3%) it was unknown whether the pregnancy was a result of abuse or consensual sexual contact. By date of the last menstrual period or by pelvic ultrasound, 39% were ≤8 weeks pregnant, 28% were 9 to 18 weeks pregnant, and 19% were >18 weeks pregnant. The duration of pregnancy was undetermined in 5 subjects (14%). Six (17%) presented for examinations within 4 weeks of their last sexual contact; only 1 subject was examined within 2 weeks of her most recent sexual contact. Overall, the average time between the most recent sexual contact and the examination was 3.1 month for the normal group, 2.9 months for the inconclusive group, 1.75 months for the suggestive group, and 1 month for the definitive group.

DISCUSSION

Despite definitive evidence of sexual contact (pregnancy), only 2 of 36 adolescents had genital changes that were diagnostic of penetrating trauma.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 24
    Would any kind of penetrative sex count as "penetrating trauma", or is that a phrase that means forcible penetration? – DJClayworth Apr 03 '18 at 17:43
  • 17
    @DJClayworth It doesn't mean forcible. If doctors observed "clefts in the posterior half of the hymen that extended through to the base of the hymen" then they labeled that "definitive evidence of penetrative genital trauma". – DavePhD Apr 03 '18 at 17:55
  • 20
    "Penetrative trauma" just means "injury due to penetration". The traditionally expected injury is a ripped hymen, though others could occur. – Sebastian Redl Apr 04 '18 at 07:38
  • 2
    @vaxquis False. "The frequency of laceration or tears was greater in the CONS group than the N-CONS group but not statistically significant" (23.9% vs. 21.4%" https://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/training/core_sane/wednesday/Genital%20Findings.pdf official link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17073065/ – DavePhD Apr 04 '18 at 13:40
  • 2
    @DavePhD *chuckle* [you misunderstood me, but I don't blame you](http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/38/38578027d9161f8b4a33a5c81b3c9ce5eae0c54e994b5665cdd6262580fed6b7.jpg) - a nice find though, thanks for the links! –  Apr 04 '18 at 15:18
  • @DavePhD "greater but not significant" is an oxymoron. Not significant means it wasn't greater. The *measured value* was, but not the estimated variable. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 05 '18 at 07:37
  • 2
    @KonradRudolph Truly greater in the studied sample, but the data concerning the sample does not allow one to confidently say "greater" for the total population. – DavePhD Apr 05 '18 at 11:51