It's a bad idea.

Some are virgins because they were not particularly attractive to men and perhaps likely would have fallen had they been approached by some attractive man's advances.  Some who are virgins may not have been had their circuмstances been different; some who are not virgins may have been had their circuмstances been different.

I believe that the exalted virgins praised by the Church were so, not out of mere necessity (just because they were ugly and no one wanted them, for instance); but out of a pure, a conscious choice to remain chaste. The merit is in the choice. The sacrifice. That is the virtue of purity which is really praised by the Church and worthy of sainthood.

It is the same with men. For example, if a man remains faithful to his wife even though he has many opportunities to be with other women, that is truly heroic and should be praised. Not the same with a man who just happens not to ever have such opportunity or options; but if he actually did, he would surely commit adultery. There is no merit on that.

St. Jerome said something on this regard:

If you introduce old women, and soothsayers, and prophets, and vendors of Jєωels and silken clothing, you imperil her chastity; if you shut the door upon them, she is injured and fancies you suspect her. But what is the good of even a careful guardian, when an unchaste wife cannot be watched, and a chaste one ought not to be? For necessity is but a faithless keeper of chastity, and she alone really deserves to be called pure, who is free to sin if she chooses. If a woman be fair, she soon finds lovers; if she be ugly, it is easy to be wanton. It is difficult to guard what many long for. It is annoying to have what no one thinks worth possessing.

But the misery of having an ugly wife is less than that of watching a comely one. Nothing is safe, for which a whole people sighs and longs. One man entices with his figure, another with his brains, another with his wit, another with his open hand. Somehow, or sometime, the fortress is captured which is attacked on all sides.

I believe that the exalted virgins praised by the Church were so, not out of mere necessity (just because they were ugly and no one wanted them, for instance); but out of a pure, a conscious choice to remain chaste. The merit is in the choice. The sacrifice. That is the virtue of purity which is really praised by the Church and worthy of sainthood.

This girl, a perfect example of true chastity:

But I am not aware of any Church teaching that says that a person who has been unchaste in the past should never marry.  (There have, however, been times when that idea was applied to women as part of worldly culture.)

There is an explicit command in Leviticus 21 about marrying virgins. Granted, it is in the Old Testament and is addressing priests but I found it very interesting. I think it was so explicit because they were prohibiting marriage to widows; (as it was a given that most girls would not be undefiled before Marriage, anyway). 

10 The high priest, that one who is chief among his brethren, whose brow has been anointed with the holy oil, and his hands consecrated for the priestly office, who wears the sacred vestments, may never bare his head, or rend his garments,

11 or go near a dead body upon any occasion. Though it be his father or mother, he must not expose himself to defilement,

12 but keep within the Lord’s holy precincts, so as not to bring defilement on them, a man consecrated to his God by the holy oil that anointed him; the Lord’s own priest.

13 And when he marries, he must marry a virgin;

14 not a widow, or a rejected wife, or a harlot, or a woman dishonoured; she must be a virgin of his own clan,[3]

15 so that the stock of his family is not debased by the blood of common folk; I, the Lord, have set him apart.

…
24 All these commands Moses handed on to Aaron, and to his sons, and to the people of Israel.