(All the following material is cribbed from Elizabeth Clark's _Women
and Religion_:)

Jerome (c. 342-420) was the foremost church father to advocate (and
practice) the celibate life.  Ascetic renunciation saw a surge in
popularity during the fourth century:  one line of thinking is that
Constantine's conversion and the subsequent legalization of
Christianity removed the possibility of martyrdom as a sign of a
believer's depth of committment to the faith.

Jerome only spoke praisingly of those women who adopted his "ascetic
tutelage", and to o convince women to abandon sexuality, he painted
marriage in the ugliest of colors.  His _Against Jovinian_ "has been
cited as influential on the misogynist strain in literary traditions of
the Middle Ages"(39).  Jovinian "argued against an excessive exaltation
of virginity that he deemed quasi-heretical", claiming that virgins
were no better than wives in God's eyes, baptism makes all equal, and
no special heavenly rewards awaited virgins.  [ViVa Jovinian -- ed.]
Jerome's virulent reply outraged the Roman public, who rather supported
marriage.  This initial rejection the text suffered makes the fact that
its basic premises were eventually adopted within the Church hierarchy
all the more surprising.  (Or, it's not surprising at all, depending on
how one reads the situation.

Another treatise, _Against Helvidius_, was written in response to a
Roman layman who argued that, although Mary was a virgin at the time of
Jesus' birth, she did not remain one afterwards.  Jerome claimed the
opposite, enlisting her as an important component of his pro-virginity
campaign.  (Canto IV comes to mind -- the Marian procession by the
Garonne, the different curving lines that contribute to and scatter
apart the cultural vortex containing Mary: no wind is the king's: but
the wind blew through those church councils, headed towards some fairly
long-lived consequences, and recombined nonetheless, refashioned into
pious & half-pagan "sa'ave Regina"s, no matter the bossy slanders of
the Jeromes in the way.)

Jerome also insisted Joseph was a lifelong virgin.  He asserts that the
brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in the gospels were cousins or
other relatives.  The Lateran Council of 649 "declared the perpetual
virginity of Mary to be a doctrine of the Catholic church" (42).

from _Against Jovinian_:  "What others will hereafter be in heaven,
that virgins begin to be on earth.  If likeness to the angels is
promised us (and there is no difference of sex among the angels), we
shall either be of no sex as are the angels, or at all events, which is
clearly proved, though we rise from the dead in our own sex, we shall
not perform the functions of sex..." (54).

It sounds to me like Jerome considered virginity to be of crucial
importance for both sexes (if they planned on being super-faithful to
God.)  He resembles a Manichean in this respect -- his contempt for the
body and its repugnances knew no bounds, save those exceeded in the
sexless afterlife.  To be a spiritual athlete after Jerome's
pro-virginity positions found more and more important supporters meant
to be celibate, whether male or female.  The women, however, received
special virginity coaching through the figure of Mary.

I knew I kept those undergrad textbooks for something.
-Jon

On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 03:36  PM, Dirk Johnson wrote:

> I've been wondering about that myself.
>
> It always made sense to me (without, I admit, investigation).  I've
> long
> thought that the origin of a concern with virginity had to do more with
> the transmission of property/status than with anything else.  Since
> maternity was normally never in question,  it was only necessary to
> control that in order to ensure transmission of property to one's own
> bloodline.  So, virginity only made any difference where a woman was
> concerned because only paternity would ever be in doubt.
>
> Then morals accrued to sex acts.  First it was easiest to apply them to
> women, from the habit of controlling their sexual contacts with an eye
> toward property.  Of course, women would be jealous of men and want
> them
> to remain faithful to them (Hera), but not "virgin".  Then Christianity
> came in (in particular Paul).  Then sex became something for everyone
> to
> avoid.  Then the idea of virginity came to mean "purity" for men as
> well
> as women.  It would have taken a while to take hold in Europe (if it
> ever actually did).  Mediaeval latinity seems about right to me.
>
> Again, I admit that I can't produce evidence, and it throws my
> assumptions under the lamp.  Is this just BS?  Was there a widespread
> idea of a male virgin in the Occident before mediaeval latinity?
>
> charles moyer wrote:
>
>>    And was the term "virgo" really made  male in mediaeval latinity?
>>
>> Charles
>> ----------
>>
>>

Foucault makes sense, but only to people with the good fortune to
understand him.  For those who cannot, he is never appropriate, and
should be avoided, as one avoids too much thought about the unconscious.