This post goes out to one of my fabulous NFP clients: earlier this week we were chatting about normal NFP-related charting stuff but before we logged off she said, "Wait— can I ask you a question?"

Of course!

"So... I heard someone saying that they won't let their daughter use a tampon because it violates her virginity. I didn't know what to say because I had NEVER heard that before and I was like, 'Wait, is this right? I need to ask Christina'."

I love that I'm the first person she thought to ask. 🤣🤣🤣 My quick response was, "Yeah, that's a thing.... but it's not actually a thing." Meaning, "Yes, some Catholics and other parents do believe that, but it's not true and we are not at all required to believe that." The very quick summary is that some people still believe that an intact hymen is a physical marker of virginity, and therefore the possibility of breaking the hymen by inserting a menstrual product is forbidden in case it would violate a girl's physical "virginity."

It's interesting because this conversation with my client happened not too long after I had a discussion with a school principal who is hosting a Group Viewing of CYCLE PREP. She and I had been talking about how her particular school community would probably not be comfortable with her showing the video segment on insertable period management options (tampons and menstrual cups, specifically), so we worked out a plan for that.

Since this topic has been on my mind, I wanted to take a few minutes to share my thoughts on this, in case you've ever wondered about it or heard someone else say it!

First: some discomfort with insertable devices is just related to culture.

When you look at usage of different period products across various demographics in the USA, you can see that Non-Hispanic White Americans are more likely to use tampons than any other group, with Non-Hispanic Black Americans (especially Haitians) being least likely. What we don't have is clear commentary on all of the various factors that contribute to this.

> Some of it could be misconceptions about purity or virginity, like worrying about keeping a hymen "intact."

>> Part of it could be how active mothers in different cultural groups tend to be with instruction on period product usage since it's difficult to start using an insertable device if you have no instruction on how to do so properly.

>>> A lot of it could simply also be "cultural comfort" with certain ideas— much like the practice of removing shoes upon entering a home. I personally know people who swear that wearing outdoor shoes inside is the most disgusting, horrible thing you can do to your home. Others that I know are absolutely disgusted at the thought of walking around without proper footwear and would consider it abhorrent to have guests walk around in socks or—worse yet!—put on a pair of communal house shoes that other people's feet had been in!

Regardless of where you stand on the great shoe debate, I hope this illustrates how people can just naturally have a sort of "ick" about something... and it's possible to see both sides. So, decreased usage of insertable products doesn't necessarily mean any sort of incorrect thoughts about virginity... it could be lots of other factors. This is why I am always very careful in my programming to defer to parents' judgments, recommendations, and comfort level for their daughters and why I was happy to consult with this principal to ensure she could present things in a comfortable way for her community.

But...

I do actually think this emphasis on virginity as a physical construct is very harmful.

Before I offer some commentary, I want to take a quick look at where this idea comes from, especially within a Catholic context. The prime example is a document called the Protoevangelium of James, which was considered by many early Church Fathers to be an authoritative document worthy of inclusion into the Biblical canon. Eventually, it was deemed that this writing did not meet the proper criteria for inclusion, but it still holds a certain amount of authority within Catholic tradition, for example: this document is where we learn the names of Mary's parents—Anna and Joachim. In this account of Mary and the birth of Christ, we read about a woman named Salome hearing of the virgin birth from Mary's midwife. It's actually unclear in the text which Salome this references: maybe she is the same Salome mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, the wife of Zebedee and the mother to James and John.

Regardless of her identity, upon hearing the news, this is what happens:

You can hear the resonances with "doubting" Thomas' story in the Gospel of John 20:24-28

In the case of Jesus and Thomas, the open wounds are proof that the man is truly Jesus of Nazareth, resurrected from the dead. The physical act of touching Christ's body allows Thomas to consent to the miracle that has happened, and results in immediate praise of God in acknowledgment. It's much the same for Salome, who seeks to confirm Mary's virginity after birth by examining the hymen. Upon finding it intact, the miracle is confirmed and she repents of her disbelief. This is interesting, because it suggests that even though Mary did not have sex (a fact!), her virginity would not have been preserved if her hymen tore naturally when Jesus passed through the birth canal. So the check that Salome performs is not just about identifying Mary's virginity in the conception of Jesus, but also the preservation of her physical virginity through the process of childbirth. 

So the idea that virginity is tied to the physical appearance of a hymen is not without its history in Catholicism. I'm not suggesting we made it up— it was a common belief in the Ancient Near East and continues to be a belief in many cultures today— but it's just... really incorrect.

Why? Here's a quick (not exhaustive) list:

1. Okay, let's start with the obvious assertion that if Mary's hymen did tear naturally in childbirth, it would have absolutely ZERO bearing on whether or not the conception of Jesus was virginal, and ZERO impact on our belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary afterwards. Childbirth is not the same as sex. So if Mary did have a hymen that was not torn in any observable way, that's not proof of virginity. That's proof that her body parts perfectly expanded to make way for her child to enter the world without causing her any physical trauma. And I think that's a different statement than "her virginity was preserved, even through childbirth."
2. The hymen is a physical structure which presents in LOTS of normal, natural variations for women. Some women hardly have any tissue there to begin with, so there would be no obstruction or "intact" structure to examen to determine physical virginity. Additionally, the shape and elasticity of a woman's hymen naturally changes over time, so just because it is different now from some time before doesn't necessarily mean anything has happened to it except natural changes.
3. Some girls are born with something called an imperforate hymen, which means the vaginal opening is mostly covered. This can pose medical issues in some cases, if the tissue prevents menstrual effluent from leaving the body, causing pain and other complications with urination and bowel movements. The treatment? A hymenectomy to open or remove the tissue. This is a medical procedure performed for the health and wellbeing of the patient and has nothing to do with sex or virginity.
4. The Catholic Church would also include the sins of oral sex an anal sex as violations of virginity, which would not lead to hymen perforation.
5. The hymen is a very flexible band of skin, which has even more elasticity under the influence of estrogen. In many cases of intercourse, the hymen is flexible enough to accommodate penetration without experiencing any sort of "tearing" (which also means, no bleeding). So, while it can be common for women to experience some bleeding when they begin having intercourse, it is by no means a universal experience.
6. Because there is no single shape or structure to women's hymens, it is actually very difficult to determine whether an individual hymen has undergone any significant change in shape with a single examination. Even in cases of hymenoplasty— where a woman's hymen has been surgically altered following intercourse to "appear" normal again— the end result is completely dependent upon the interpretation/opinion of the surgeon who has to guess what the skin might have looked like before.

For these reasons (which are by no means exhaustive!), I think we can conclude that the hymen is not (and has never been!) a reliable physical marker for virginity in women. 

Thus, Catholic parents do NOT need to be worried about moral issues with letting their daughters use tampons or cups if they want to! 

But of course parents can and should discuss any concerns they have about insertable devices with their daughters— it's not unreasonable to worry about chemicals, or the risk of toxic shock, or ensuring that your daughter uses properly-sanitized materials. It's also within the prerogative of parents to set boundaries about which products they are comfortable providing for their daughters. And that's okay!

The point that I want to make is that none of those practical issues have anything to do with what is a MORAL option for period management.

I wish I had a lot more time (and skill) to write here about WHY I have such a distaste for overly-simplistic, overly-physical virgin piety in our Faith.

Which isn't to say that I don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (I absolutely do!) or the incredible, beautiful witness of those who vow virginity for the sake of the Kingdom (praise God they do!)

— but it just means that I think we have to be very careful about attributing moral value to the appearance of someone's body.