Virginity Is Largely Psycho-sociological, Not Biological
There are asymmetries in human sexuality, to be sure, starting with the differing biological roles that a male and female have in reproduction, but there is also a lot of cultural interpretation involved in understanding sexuality, because human beings are social creatures who adhere to social norms. Thus, in sexual relationships, there are actual presumptions built in that are not scientific fact so much as cultural convention. One of those is the valuation of 'virginity' whatever that means in a culture. In fact, the preferences of males for virgins is not a biological orientation, but a psychological and social preference. You write:
If a female is a virgin, she has an un-used body (associated with an un-inseminated/un-impregnated body), which means a male can use her body (associated with being able to inseminate/impregnate her body), which means her sexual value is higher (to him).
From WP:
There are cultural and religious traditions that place special value and significance on this state, predominantly towards unmarried females, associated with notions of personal purity, honor, and worth. Like chastity, the concept of virginity has traditionally involved sexual abstinence. The concept of virginity usually involves moral or religious issues and can have consequences in terms of social status and in interpersonal relationships.
But strictly speaking, these valuations of virginity aren't biological strictly speaking, because defining virginity usually requires shallow indicators like "intact hymen" or "having intercourse" which themselves are often misleading indicators. For instance, the process of hymenorrhaphy is the surgical reconstruction of the hymen. Having intercourse might be argued to occur after penile penetration that lasts mere seconds. And a woman who has never had any penile penetration may have had prolonged sexual activities in every other conceivable way. So, the notion of virginity isn't so much biological as it is sociological.
For more information on the philosophy of sexuality, please read Sex and Sexuality (SEP) and Feminist Philosophy of Biology (SEP). There is a long history of men making "biological claims" about women that give them social dominance without any legitimate biological science to support them:
The science of biology is of importance to many feminists because women's biology has been used to rationalize women's oppression. There is a wide range of biological arguments supporting the oppression of women. Take for example Edward H. Clarke's nineteenth century argument that intensive study would physically harm women by diverting energy from their uterus to their brain. He claimed that higher education would result in women with “monstrous brains and puny bodies … [and] abnormally weak digestion”
Justification, Double-Standards, and Epistemology
Now, the root of this question has nothing to do with sexuality at all, but philosophically speaking, is more of a question about "justification of a double standard" which is epistemological in nature since justification of a claim to truth is the philosophical meat in this post. By asking about a double-standard, you are using loaded language philosophically speaking since epistemologists do not like to be accused of inconsistent logic and its application thereof:
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same. It is often used to describe treatment whereby one group is given more latitude than another. A double standard arises when two or more people, groups, organizations, circumstances, or events are treated differently even though they should be treated the same way. A double standard "implies that two things which are the same are measured by different standards".
On it's face, no, no double-standard can be justified, because to do so implies that logical consequence breaks down. In mathematics, you only have a function if the same inputs give you the same output every time, so the idea that we can have similar or identical premises, but then lead to a different conclusion is an affront to logical consequence itself. There's a word and a whole sub-field of epistemology for this: rationality. Double-standards are a sign of irrationality, and philosophers on the whole aspire to be rational.
Therefore, the question you ask is better asked, not whether a double-standard can be justified (because from a preference for rationality it can't), but whether men desiring women who are sexually inexperienced be justified for biological reasons? And there are certainly reasons some men would prefer to have an encounter with a 'virgin'. The obvious one men often cite is being free from disease. Historically speaking, sexually transmitted infections posed a risk to a man's health. Another is an appeal to the virtue from religion X (where X is any of the traditional Abrahamic religions).
Are these reasons good? Well, therein lies the rub. 'Good' is an axiological consideration and one that is relative to the culture. These days, with birth control and modern medicine, appeals to disease or biological superiority in reproduction, at least in the modern world, don't hold much weight. A person who gets an STI can often have it cured, and biological age and not smoking is much more important than frequency of intercourse for correlating to good outcomes in birth. So, on the face, the notion of virginity doesn't hold much scientific merit in demanding more abstinence from women than men.
