My post to you shows it at the second entry in 1980's, and instead of pointing that out to me, you dig up an older dictionary that shows it as the sixth entry.
Which supports my assertion that the further back you go, the more unusual it becomes to use the word, virgin, as a noun for a man.
Go back far enough, and the more conservative authorities do not accept such use.
So let's see:
1200: virgin means a chaste woman of great piety.
1300s: first known use of virgin for a man (which for all I know may have been used by a gay man to describe his boyfriend).
1960: a man as a virgin is the sixth definition in Webster's--way down the list.
1980s: a man as a virgin has climbed to number 2.
2000's: virgin = person.
And so the women's libbers have won: men are now officially feminzed.
Well not this man, because I am a conservative.
of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in 1755. A quick perusal of same, turned up no entry for the word "virgin". LOL
The use of the word, virgin, to describe a woman can be traced to 1300.
Oh--and look up the word, perusal, and you will see that your use of it is incorrect.
Personally, if I found out that a suitor had slept with any woman, I'd have nothing to do with him physically. He'd be tainted. Like a poisoned well. A willing partner to darkness.
I'd still marry him to keep him from contaminating other virgins. But sex would be OUT. He could do CHORES, though. Buy me things. You know. Cars, houses, diamonds. And since his tainting was none of my doing, I would be free to pursue my sex life as needed. After all, my virginity shouldn't be clouded by the sins of my husband. I would remain pure as the driven snow and the blackness of my husband's evil, filthy past would never pollute my virgin body. *cue angelic choir* < /sarc >
I used the same dictionaries, just 29 years apart, to refute your stated position , that your 1984 dictionary ( a different edition completely from both of my Websters! )had changed, due to the "sexual revolution" of the mid '60s! My dictionaries give exactly the same definition, at the same place, though one was published prior to the "sexual revolution" and the other, published decades after.
The only divergence, in my dictionaries, is word swap "boy" for "youth". Now, YOUTH comes from the youngster, which, in the late 1500s, denoted a young man of no experience of any kind, including but not solely, sexual.
Samuel Johnson did NOT include the word virgin in the first edition of his dictionary; which was published in 1755. I own the set. You don't and there's no way that you've even seen one of them, let alone peruse either of the two gigantic volumes, which comprise the full dictionary. Not every known word found its way into these volumes.
You want to nit pick? Okay, sweetums, I show you up, yet again! I happen to have a rather good vocabulary and unlike you, know and use words with skill and alacrity; though I have forced myself to dumb down my written English here, because of people like yourself, who know little of their mother tongue. so read the following and weep!
peruse...1) to read through, as with thoroughness or care. 2) to read. 3) Archaic..... to survey or examine in detail.[ late Med. ]
Ergo, there was less than nothing incorrect with my use of the word; however, a very great deal WRONG, with your claim, that I had missed used the word.
But keep on posting, you're proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to every person who reads this thread, just how little you know and what and who you really are; which isn't much! ;^)