I am no doctor, but my understanding is that it is common for women to not have a hymen, virgins or not, since it can be broken by a whole bunch of different physical activities. I have looked up info on this in years gone by when it was a question of mine and all the anatomy books I have read (eg Gray's anatomy, the main one used in australia if not elsewhere) say it is not a reliable sign of virginity at all. (And if it's importance is as a sign, it's not as though guys who want to marry a "physical" virgin can look to check for it anyway). There is a thread on the "virgin if raped?" question in womens' discussion if you wanna go read that, looksgood (guys can read on that board, right, just not post except in the men's shed? Have I got that right??). To me, the covenant that is established betw spouses is one established by God, and not blood anyway.
The hymen question these days seems to be most practically important in demonstrating whether a very young girl has been raped or abused, since most young children do have them (I think). Another reason why God invented them perhaps? It isn't seen as conclusive in those cases for older girls, since the presence or absence question by then is far more "hit and miss". Also, the books I mentioned checking in do state that some people are just not even born with one.
Virginity is far more than physical. Looksgood, if you don't mind me saying so, if you wind up marrying the woman you are seeing now, you will not be robbed of anything, and neither will she. It will take healing, of course, but God will make a point of seeing to that personally. What you share will be exclusive and precious, and God will ordain and guard that for you both.
Makk
PS, Crystal, everyone's 2 cents is worth 2 cents on here
