Is selling your virginity empowering?

[Melanie_]

The feminist are bitter because the virgin did not earn her dues in the upward toil to become rich at the expense of a man.

Feminists fought (and continue to fight) for a woman's right to do what she wishes with her own body; this is an extension of that, so I don't see why feminists would be bitter.

Argus...

If she gets millions from this is it really a dumb choice? I don't think so. Let's admit that most women lose their virginity while drunk to some fumble-fingered teenage boy they'll start hating a few weeks or months later, in the back seat of a car, or in their parents' basement. It's not like it's a big, romantic and beautiful event to be cherished forever.

You must be lots of fun on Valentine's Day. You remind me of the classic words of Billy Joel:

Come out Virginia, don't make me wait

Catholic girls start much too late

Oh but sooner or later it comes down to fate

I might as well be the one

Darlin only the good die young.

But you're probably right, it might not seem like such a dumb choice to those of us who are well past adolescence, and who see the starry eyed romance of first love as not nearly as valuable as 3.5 million.

[kimmy]

Argus...

If she gets millions from this is it really a dumb choice? I don't think so. Let's admit that most women lose their virginity while drunk to some fumble-fingered teenage boy they'll start hating a few weeks or months later, in the back seat of a car, or in their parents' basement. It's not like it's a big, romantic and beautiful event to be cherished forever.

You must be lots of fun on Valentine's Day. You remind me of the classic words of Billy Joel:

But you're probably right, it might not seem like such a dumb choice to those of us who are well past adolescence, and who see the starry eyed romance of first love as not nearly as valuable as 3.5 million.

Argus is so completely right about this. From everything I hear, most girls' first time falls so far short of "the starry eyed romance of first love" that it's debatable where it's worth $3.50, let alone $3.5 million.

Personally, I did save my first time for after I was out of high school, and I saved it for someone who I'd been with for a year and stayed with for another 6 years and who is still one of my most treasured friends. The first time we had sex was not nearly as good as the 2nd, or 3rd, or all the times we had after that. The first time was limited by barriers between my ears, which when removed made sex a far better experience. To be honest, the first time was the one I do kind of wish I could have sold for a medium sized fortune, because it's the one I value the least. While religious kooks of all stripes continue to attach great importance to virginity, for most of us in North America at this point in time the mythology that surrounds virginity is just an odd holdover from a bygone age.

-k

[RB]

Feminists fought (and continue to fight) for a woman's right to do what she wishes with her own body; this is an extension of that, so I don't see why feminists would be bitter.

The word empowering is what struck me - if a man is paying millions for something, it is business folks, I think he will have a large say no doubt and it questions who still have power.

[kimmy]

The word empowering is what struck me - if a man is paying millions for something, it is business folks, I think he will have a large say no doubt and it questions who still have power.

So is he going to have her wash his dishes as well, or something?

-k

[DrGreenthumb]

The word empowering is what struck me - if a man is paying millions for something, it is business folks, I think he will have a large say no doubt and it questions who still have power.

I dunno about power but someone is going to be a millionaire afterwards. I'd feel more used for having to flip burgers 40 hours per week for a year for what? 20 grand?, than I would after an hour of sex for 3.5 million.

[BigAl]

You must be lots of fun on Valentine's Day. You remind me of the classic words of Billy Joel:

But you're probably right, it might not seem like such a dumb choice to those of us who are well past adolescence, and who see the starry eyed romance of first love as not nearly as valuable as 3.5 million.

Argus is so completely right about this. From everything I hear, most girls' first time falls so far short of "the starry eyed romance of first love" that it's debatable where it's worth $3.50, let alone $3.5 million.

Personally, I did save my first time for after I was out of high school, and I saved it for someone who I'd been with for a year and stayed with for another 6 years and who is still one of my most treasured friends. The first time we had sex was not nearly as good as the 2nd, or 3rd, or all the times we had after that. The first time was limited by barriers between my ears, which when removed made sex a far better experience. To be honest, the first time was the one I do kind of wish I could have sold for a medium sized fortune, because it's the one I value the least. While religious kooks of all stripes continue to attach great importance to virginity, for most of us in North America at this point in time the mythology that surrounds virginity is just an odd holdover from a bygone age.

-k

Agreed, Kimmy. I can't speak for men everywhere, clearly, but I know my first time was...really not so good. If I had a choice between that memory and -- heck, even a hundred bucks -- I would definitely trade it in for cash. It strikes me that this woman's plan is delightfully underhanded in that she's underscoring the fact that, for some reason, people clearly DO still associate virginity with value. I don't know any of those people myself -- there was a comedian who made a comment to the effect of "seventy virgins aren't worth one talented hooker with some experience". Can't say I totally disagree. I love it when people provoke extreme feminists (or extremists of any stripe) so this girl is in my good books.

[Mr.Canada]

This is soliciting for prostitution. Nothing more, nothing less. It's selling her body for money.

[BigAl]

This is soliciting for prostitution. Nothing more, nothing less. It's selling her body for money.

That may be so, but it's good money. Everybody has a price, Mr. Canada.

[RB]

So is he going to have her wash his dishes as well, or something?

-k

you simply don't compromise values, principles, or morals.

Here is a call for all women to name the price for having sex.

Men, welcome, take your pick. You would soon find who and what is worthless.

[Oleg Bach]

you simply don't compromise values, principles, or morals.

Here is a call for all women to name the price for having sex.

Men, welcome, take your pick. You would soon find who and what is worthless.

Couldn't resist having a peek at this thread. The average soccer mom who provides sensual pleasure for her husband would dump him like a cold potatoe once he is destitute - prostitution exists on all levels - at least the common hooker is honest.

[BigAl]

Couldn't resist having a peek at this thread. The average soccer mom who provides sensual pleasure for her husband would dump him like a cold potatoe once he is destitute - prostitution exists on all levels - at least the common hooker is honest.

Egad, much as I kind of hate to agree with you, I have to semi-concur on this one. I don't think that's true of every soccer mom or hockey dad, but I will say that money clearly makes a person more attractive, and (as I've said) everyone has a price. It's that whole "Indecent Proposal" theorem played out in reality.

[Melanie_]

Agreed, Kimmy. I can't speak for men everywhere, clearly, but I know my first time was...really not so good. If I had a choice between that memory and -- heck, even a hundred bucks -- I would definitely trade it in for cash. It strikes me that this woman's plan is delightfully underhanded in that she's underscoring the fact that, for some reason, people clearly DO still associate virginity with value. I don't know any of those people myself -- there was a comedian who made a comment to the effect of "seventy virgins aren't worth one talented hooker with some experience". Can't say I totally disagree. I love it when people provoke extreme feminists (or extremists of any stripe) so this girl is in my good books.

Well, I can't remember that far back, so I won't even try to think about my first time.

Big Al, while I agree that it is good fun to provoke extremists, I don't think that extreme feminists would be bothered by this. Extreme misogynists, maybe, who want to control what a woman does with her body, or extreme followers of religion, who think there is some Magic Sky Pixie judging all of our actions. As I said before, feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices, so I think this girl would be in most feminists' good books, too.

[BigAl]

Well, I can't remember that far back, so I won't even try to think about my first time.

Big Al, while I agree that it is good fun to provoke extremists, I don't think that extreme feminists would be bothered by this. Extreme misogynists, maybe, who want to control what a woman does with her body, or extreme followers of religion, who think there is some Magic Sky Pixie judging all of our actions. As I said before, feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices, so I think this girl would be in most feminists' good books, too.

Clearly you're a feminist I can respect Melanie. The reason I made that comment is because I have known too many so-called "feminists" who could be labeled extreme, and I've had conversations with a few of them (in real life) about this very issue. The general consensus among them seems to be that this woman is setting women's liberation back a few decades because she's ostensibly saying it's okay to sell your body, and it's even something to be proud of...I think this is kind of a stretchy argument, what do you think?

[Melanie_]

I can't see how it is setting women's liberation back at all. Women's lib was about being free from being controlled by men either personally (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc) or societally (government, religion, social norms and values). This woman is free to make a choice, good or bad, and follow through on it (or not) of her own volition. Its like the old saying, "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Feminists might not like the choice she is making, but they have to agree that it is her choice to make.

[kimmy]

As Argus said early on, the men who are offering millions of dollars to "take her virginity" are the ones who have been clowned.

This woman has made a mockery of the idea that a woman's virginity is a precious commodity, and in my view that is an idea that deserves to be mocked. The idea that a woman was "ruined" or loses all her value once she's had sexual intercourse just isn't relevant anymore. It's not an idea that's helpful to women at all. Historically it has been pretty harmful, in fact, and remains so in many 3rd-world hell-holes.

you simply don't compromise values, principles, or morals.

Here is a call for all women to name the price for having sex.

Men, welcome, take your pick. You would soon find who and what is worthless.

I don't agree at all that she's calling all women to put a price on sex.

She has highlighted an antiquated notion that still holds some attachment for many in our society. Whether she's satirized it, or just profited mightily from it, the fact that somebody is apparently willing to shell out $3.5 million for sex with a virgin is pretty astounding.

As for men "taking their pick"... men already do take their pick, but I think you're wrong on the criteria.

For most men, I don't think "she puts out" is much of a concern once they're at a certain level of maturity. Once men are adult enough and confident enough, they understand that they will be able to find willing sexual partners. The possibility that a certain woman might "put out" is of little importance in a world where women are generally quite willing to engage in sex with men they find sufficiently interesting. Of course for highschool kids and young adults, "she puts out" might be a matter of high importance. But I can't picture a man of quality telling his buddy "I've gone out with this girl a few times, and I like her, but I'm not sure that she'll have sex with me..."

If a woman can catch and keep a particular man by teasing him with the possibility of sex, I would bet dollars to donuts that the man is probably not worth catching or keeping in the first place. And if teasing him with the possibility of sex is the only strength a woman has going for her in trying to attract a mate, she is probably about the equal of the guy she winds up with.

-k

[BigAl]

I can't see how it is setting women's liberation back at all. Women's lib was about being free from being controlled by men either personally (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc) or societally (government, religion, social norms and values). This woman is free to make a choice, good or bad, and follow through on it (or not) of her own volition. Its like the old saying, "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Feminists might not like the choice she is making, but they have to agree that it is her choice to make.

I agree with you 100% Melanie; however, it's been my experience that when one decides to associate oneself with a political or social movement, it becomes very easy to blind oneself to the reality of the scenario in favour of one's own interpretation of dogma. Clearly, this woman is making a feminist statement -- in the true vein of feminism -- but I think a lot of intense young women would disagree with her premise simply because sex is involved. The minute you start making sex any kind of commodity, that seems to be when the really hard-core elements of feminism start getting edgy about the whole subject. What do you think?

[RB]

I don't agree at all that she's calling all women to put a price on sex.

I also don't think she would make a call like this, the call is a suggestion. It is so much easier ladies to make loads of money, why not give it a go.

[cybercoma]

kimmy, sex is way more important than the impression you are giving. Not only in the basest level, but in a meaningful and enlightened sense as well. Sure, there are exceptions to everything, but I think very few people would stay in a relationship with someone they are attracted to if they are never going to have a sexual relationship with that person. To not be able to express yourself in that manner with the person you love can be damaging to a person. "She puts out", may not be critically important, but "she doesn't put out" is. And it's not just a matter of the woman putting out. It would be equally true to say "he doesn't put out".

[DrGreenthumb]

It would be equally true to say "he doesn't put out".

Maybe, but a helluva lot more rare, to the point of sounding funny when you read it.