Utterly ridiculous.
Where do you find what sort of utensils that Christians used to eat? Well, according to your logic, they didn't use any forks or knives or spoons. They don't write about it, so they must not have used any utensils. Apparently, they ate soup with their bare hands...
You see, Marlowe, people don't normally write about things that are taken for granted, nor do they write about things that people "all" agree on. Most of the writings we have are written to give suggestions on solving problems or making general proclamations. Mary's viriginity was not a prime issue of importance when people were discussing the resurrection of Christ. That talk only came later.
Thus, there are these two reasons why we don't find Christians talking about Mary's virginity the first 150 years. It was either already well known or it was not worth arguing about because it was already accepted.
Regards
I do this for a living. The absence of evidence of this teaching for 300 years is evidence that it was not taught for 300 years. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence, and in the absence of such evidence those with the burden of proof, i.e., those asserting that it was the teaching of the Church during those 300 years, must overcome that evidence or they have no evidence at all.
So the absence of evidence of this teaching is circumstantial evidence that it was not taught. Those are the rules of evidence. Deal with them.
The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the fact. You assert that this was Apostolic teaching, that this was doctrine from the time of the Apostles.
Prove it.
Unnecessary exclusion. There is also the possibility that we don't find Christians talking about Mary's virginity (beyond the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ) because she did not remain a virgin.