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
>----------
>
>