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