In order to determine this objectively, we need to consider whether a 'reasonable' person would believe intercourse took place. The facts stand at this; there was stimulation of the genitalia by an external object and ejaculation. It is necessary to have a good understanding of the exact nature of 'sexual intercourse'. Under the Crimes Act (1900) s 61h sexual intercourse is defined as-
a) sexual connection occasioned by the penetration to any extent of the genitalia (including a surgically constructed vagina) of a female person or the anus of any person by:
(i) any part of the body of another person, or
(ii) any object manipulated by another person,
except where the penetration is carried out for proper medical purposes, or
(b) sexual connection occasioned by the introduction of any part of the penis of a person into the mouth of another person, or
(c) cunnilingus, or
(d) the continuation of sexual intercourse as defined in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
Pre 1992 this definition was limited, particularly in the actual description of what penetrates the vagina (thought to have to be a penis) but through the Criminal Legislation (Ammendment) Act (1992) this definition was extended as represented by subsection a) to include 'penetration to any extent' and 'any object manipulated by another person'. Since the purpose of the act was not medical/artistic but purely for sexual gratification and assuming consent (hopefully!!!) we can determine that sexual intercourse did in fact occur. The question then does not become one of law but of belief as to whether or not the element of 'virginity' has been broken. I am therefore of the opinion that 'virginity' is a subjective, intangible status within the confines of religious and moral beliefs and the extent to which 'virginity' was lost will be mitigated by a number of factors including, but not restricted to, the actual act of sexual intercourse itself.