A woman's purity certificate went viral. Time to talk about that whole 'virginity' thing.

The conversation about virginity doesn't seem to go away. So let's set the record straight.

Are you a virgin?

Sure, the question might seem simple at first glance...

Nope. Not so fast.


When we dig into what "virginity" really means, it gets a little more complicated.

Just like this photo that went viral. Check it out: Just a young woman in a wedding dress beaming as she stands next to her father on her big day.

Nope. Not so fast. Take a closer look...


Image via ABC News/YouTube.

They're both holding a "Certificate of Purity" from her doctor.

Now, I'm not here to knock the fact that Brelyn Bowman had a goal that was important to her that she achieved. But there is something messed up about the, um, measurement of that goal.

Here's the thing: It's impossible to "prove" someone is a virgin using a hymen test.

The basis for Bowman's test was whether her hymen — a membrane in the vaginal canal — was still intact. While the test worked for her, it has long been debunked as a useful tool to determine whether someone has engaged in sex.

There are two big issues here: First, not all hymens are created equal. Some people are born with hymens that are not intact. And, second, even if someone is born with it intact, the hymen can tear due to a variety of nonsexual activities, like horseback riding or gymnastics.


Quick! Someone tell her to get off that horse or it'll render all obsolete virginity tests useless! Photo by richard266/pixabay.

OK, so if the hymen test doesn't work. What does?

Wait! Back that horse up because we're putting it before the cart.

There's no set definition for virginity. People commonly say that a virgin is someone who has never had sex. But what counts as sex?

Does oral sex count? Anal intercourse? Conventionally, people have tended to believe that only penis-in-vagina intercourse counts. But then ... are gay people always virgins? What about people who engage in other sexual contact?

I wouldn't blame you if you're scratching your head right now because it all seems pretty complicated and confusing.

It's hard to parse it all because virginity isn't a biological state. It's a social construct.



Think about it: The valuation of virginity is only targeted toward women.

There's no test for people without vaginas.

That's because virginity and sexual purity emerged way back in ye olden times as a way to control women's behavior. And we see that in all the sexual double standards we have between men and women.

See what I mean? GIF from "How To Lose Your Virginity."

In spite of the fact that virginity can't be proven, it's still used as a way to measure a woman's so-called "purity."

Look at the phenomenon of purity balls: A girl's "sanctity" is promised to a male protector (father) until it's (presumably) handed off to a male spouse. (The possibility that the young woman won't be with a man or ever get married? IMPOSSIBLE.)


Fathers and daughters dance during a purity ball. Image via ABC News/YouTube.

There's nothing wrong with choosing to wait to have sex. But let's make sure we provide young people with fact-based information to help them make that decision.

Providing comprehensive sex education, which would explain that a hymen test isn't an accurate test of virginity, could be a great start. Comparing people who have multiple sexual partners to chewed gum doesn't provide the proper foundation to make a fully informed decision.

A Harvard study revealed that abstinence-only education does not make a student less likely to engage in premarital sex. They're just as likely to have it, but less likely to use contraception the first time. You know what actually helps students delay sex (and use contraception to boot)? Comprehensive sex ed education.

Behold, the power of accurate knowledge!

The whole notion that a woman's "purity" — and thus her value — is tied to whether she has had sex or not is just plain wrong.

As Jessica Valenti, author of "The Purity Myth," says:

The purity myth is the lie that women's sexuality has some bearing on who we are and how good we are. Because, really, I think that we all know that young women are so much more than whether or not they have sex.

We really should be teaching our daughters that our ability to be good people is based on their intelligence, their compassion, their kindness — not what they do with their bodies.

I'm not judging Bowman for her decision.

Instead, I'm aiming my judgment at a society that perpetuates misinformation about sex and our bodies.

This article originally appeared on November 11, 2015


Remember those beloved Richard Scarry books from when you were a kid?

Like a lot of people, I grew up reading them. And now, I read them to my kids.

The best!

If that doesn't ring a bell, perhaps this character from the "Busytown" series will. Classic!

Image via

Scarry was an incredibly prolific children's author and illustrator. He created over 250 books during his career. His books were loved across the world — over 100 million were sold in many languages.

But here's something you may not have known about these classics: They've been slowly changing over the years.

Don't panic! They've been changing in a good way.

Keep Reading Show less
Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness explains one way the rich get richer.

Any time conversations about wealth and poverty come up, people inevitably start talking about boots.

The standard phrase that comes up is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," which is usually shorthand for "work harder and don't ask for or expect help." (The fact that the phrase was originally used sarcastically because pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is literally, physically impossible is rarely acknowledged, but c'est la vie.) The idea that people who build wealth do so because they individually work harder than poor people is baked into the American consciousness and wrapped up in the ideal of the American dream.

A different take on boots and building wealth, however, paints a more accurate picture of what it takes to get out of poverty.

Keep Reading Show less

"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937) and actor Peter Dinklage.

On Tuesday, Upworthy reported that actor Peter Dinklage was unhappy with Disney’s decision to move forward with a live-action version of “Snow White and the Seven Drawfs” starring Rachel Zegler.

Dinklage praised Disney’s inclusive casting of the “West Side Story” actress, whose mother is of Colombian descent, but pointed out that, at the same time, the company was making a film that promotes damaging stereotypes about people with dwarfism.

"There's a lot of hypocrisy going on, I've gotta say, from being somebody who's a little bit unique," Dinklage told Marc Maron on his “WTF” podcast.

"Well, you know, it's really progressive to cast a—literally no offense to anybody, but I was a little taken aback by, they were very proud to cast a Latino actress as Snow White," Dinklage said, "but you're still telling the story of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.' Take a step back and look at what you're doing there.”

Keep Reading Show less