Why it’s time to stop saying ‘virgin oak’

This post stands at the intersection between whisky and something else I’m passionate about: female empowerment. Yes, we’re going to talk about virgin casks.

This term has long been common parlance for a cask made from new oak — at least since they came into more frequent use in the late 1930s, when newly introduced legislation on bourbon production mandated their use.

Storing whisky (and other spirits such as rum or genever) in oak casks started out of necessity, as a method of transportation. Distillers would employ whatever vessels were available, typically reusing shipping casks that had previously held fortified wines such as madeira or sherry.

Their use became more widespread after importers, bottlers and drinkers noticed that spirits which had spent some time in wood were more palatable than those which hadn’t. However, before 20th-century experiments revealed the chemistry behind this, price was still a primary motivator in cask choice — and something second-hand was cheaper.

Today, armed with a greater understanding of how wood improves whisky, the new cask is a prized tool. In some cases they’re a legal requirement, and many distilleries have them designed to unique specifications. But while scientific knowledge has progressed, the language used to describe these casks hasn’t.

So, what does it mean to say something is “virgin”?

The definition of virgin as an adjective is something “not yet used, exploited or processed”. Describing new casks this way is technically correct, and many industries besides whisky employ the term; glass manufacturers describe brand-new products as “virgin”, and the term is rife in the raw materials market.

But the issue with this word isn’t technical — it’s sociocultural.

Virginity is an arbitrary and inherently misogynistic measure of desirability and worth, used synonymously with loaded terms like “purity”. It centres around the idea that something which hasn’t been touched by another ‘occupant’ has more social and monetary value.

Troubling, right?

Keeping this word and these connotations in circulation hampers the cause of gender equality and helps perpetuate outdated attitudes to female bodily autonomy. Any industry still employing the term has to accept complicity in that.

You may well be reading this and judging it as an overreaction. But ask yourself: why does a cask need to be described as a “virgin”? Is there any circumstance in which you couldn't just say “new oak” instead? 

I’d like to see a few (more) whisky makers, drinks media companies, retailers and commentators pop their heads above the parapet on this one. A couple of shout-outs to those who already have: the excellent Kristiane West (read her take here); and drinks content site VinePair (I’m unsure if it’s down to company policy or writer preference, but this feature about bourbon exclusively uses the term “new oak”).