Student auctions off virginity for offers of more than £2.5 million

Zyphlin · Jan 17, 2009

This girl was actually on the morning drive time show, The Junkies, up here in DC on thursday. They were asking her a lot of questions about all this so I'll see what I can relay in regards to some of the things stated here.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Wow, how many pathetic men are there in this world?

Shes most likely not even a virgin, probably more likely a slut.

Seems she's definitely a virgin, but she's also there by technicality alone. Says she had only 2 serious boyfriends. She's said she's given...lets say oral reports...rather often to guys she's with. And as was said on the radio to try to make it FCC friendly, while the territory she's selling is supposedly uncharted land the one on the other side's had a flag stuck in it and been claimed.

So yeah, verging on technical. In regards to "slut"...meh, don't know. If she's telling the truth and only been really majorly with two guys, that's hardly "slutty".

emdash said:
isn't this illegal?

Apparently its set to happen at the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas, where prostitution is legal.

Tashah said:
Jeesh. I wonder how her parents cope with this.

Her sister apparently was more of a wild child than her in regards to this type of thing. Additionally, it seems her plan with the money is not just in going to school.

From how she told it on the radio, she plans on not only using it for school but investing it in stocks, getting her parents a new home, putting some in the bank, and other such things.

She's honest to goodness seeming to look at this completely from a capitalistic, business stand point. She has a commodity that she recognizes people want (not only decently attractive virgin blank, but semi-celeb status now due to how much this blew up). She realizes that through the sale of it one time she could finance a great bit of her life and help out those she loved.

Would I ever want my daughter to do it? No. Do I think its how one should lose their virginity? No. Do I think she's some kind of crazed monster whose immorality will destroy morality? No. She someone obvious a bit detached from her sexuality a bit with a very business like, realistic mind.

As to the first picture on this thread...wow that was horrible. She's by no means super model worth but I would guess that the majority of guys on this board if they were single and met her at a bar they wouldn't bar her from their bed:

Though gotta admit, that nose is a bit trifling.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 17, 2009

1069 said:
Unless she doesn't consider it "something personal and intimate" about herself.

We've had this argument before, and I doubt I will ever convince you. But, for the benefit of the class:

These things are biologically intimate. Sexual activity causes the release of hormones that make people more attracted to each other and that create feelings of intimacy and closeness. This "mere biological function" that you think can be safely reduced to a business transaction chemically manipulates the emotions of the people who engage in it.

1069 said:
When a woman goes in for a gyn exam, is she sharing "something personal and intimate" with the doctor? :roll:

Considering that neither of them, typically, is experiencing sexual pleasure from the encounter, neither of them is exchanging bodily fluids with the other, and certainly neither of them will have an orgasm from the experience?

Nope.

1069 said:
Look, small children don't view their sexual organs as being any different from any other part of their body, until we condition them to believe this.

It isn't about sexual organs. It's about sexual acts. There is a difference.

1069 said:
All of the above is objectively true, but there is no objective truth in statements about "intimacy" or statments which attribute some spiritual meaning to sex or to sexual organs.
These are not objective, universal truths. They're subjective.
I trust you recognize the difference.

All of the reasons why my statements are objectively supported by biology aside-- yes, I do recognize the difference between subjective opinions and objective facts. But my track record suggests that I don't consider that distinction particularly important unless subjective opinions are in direct contradiction to objective facts.

Alex · Jan 17, 2009

Korimyr the Rat said:
And this is no different than what you are doing, except that your mask is labeled "freedom". You are just as much attempting to impose your moral values upon me as I am attempting to impose my moral values upon Ms. Dylan-- because her "rights" are no more real, no more objective, than my "morals."

Except that your "imposing" is causing unnecessary laws on an entire population of people, the prostitute is not. No one is trying to change your morals, you are trying to change other people's morals and abusing our legal system in the process.

Korimyr the Rat said:
And your need to impose your beliefs on other people-- by the very same force and punishment, no less!-- contributes to the moral decay of society.

Prostitution has been around for countless years. There has been no decay in society, except in certain people's minds. Our legal system is abused by people like this. That is the real decay of society, when people cannot live freely because others want their ego to be the deciding factor.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Not for every long, and it is not an existence to be envied. Your argument is based on one of the most unnatural and dehumanizing situations that a human being can be forced into, and is thus not a sound basis for moral philosophy.

It is degrading because she is taking something that is personal and intimate about herself and reducing it to a business transaction. She is reducing herself to an object of someone else's pleasure, for someone that neither cares about her nor has any reason to.

And now, when she does find someone she is willing to share herself with, it will be that much less special, that much less personal and intimate.

So much subjectivity here, our laws cannot be based on such things. If they are, we would be drown even more in them.

How do you know that her virginity is something "personal and intimate about herself"? Maybe she does not feel that way, not everyone cares about sharing it the way you do. You are making an assumption based on your own philosophies, without any respect for her own thoughts. She is an individual who is capable of having her own ideas about herself, the same way you are. The difference is, as already stated, she is not imposing it on an entire population of people with our legal system.

Korimyr the Rat said:
I am also opposed to all of these. The only difference is that laws against are so much more difficult to enforce-- and all of these things, for all of the harm that they do, do less harm when prostitution is not involved with them.

So a person who sleeps with a prostitute and cheats on their spouse is worse then when it is not a prostitute? That is some hardcore conditioning right there.

If a married person chooses to do business with a prostitute, that is the problem of the married couple, not the prostitute. The married person is the one who broke vows. Did the prostitute participate in their wedding and swear to not sleep with the spouse? Chances are, no. It was the married person who made the promise so it is their infidelity, no one else.

Maximus Zeebra · Jan 17, 2009

Zyphlin said:
Seems she's definitely a virgin, but she's also there by technicality alone. Says she had only 2 serious boyfriends. She's said she's given...lets say oral reports...rather often to guys she's with. And as was said on the radio to try to make it FCC friendly, while the territory she's selling is supposedly uncharted land the one on the other side's had a flag stuck in it and been claimed.

So yeah, verging on technical. In regards to "slut"...meh, don't know. If she's telling the truth and only been really majorly with two guys, that's hardly "slutty"..

Everyone can SAY they are a virgin, that doesn't make them so if they actually aren't. Most likely it just makes her a liar in addition to being a slut.

Yuk.. Anyone seen transformers? That head there doesn't really fit the body to be mildly honest.
Still looks like a transvestite in the face.

Yup, definetely a transvestite.

Definitely comes off as a virgin :roll:

Worst of all, she is hiding her **** :shock:

DeeJayH · Jan 17, 2009

me thinks he doth protest too much

come out of the closet already Max

Cardinal · Jan 17, 2009

Kandahar said:
I'd do her, but she definitely isn't worth $3.7 million.

To you, maybe. To some zillionaires out there, $3.7 million is pocket change. And the fact that someone is willing to pay that much is proof unto itself that the market value of her unpenetrated vajayjay is in fact $3.5 million.

As for the rest of this thread, I can see that there is still a sizable chunk of the population that Hester Prynne would find completely familiar.

Dynamic · Jan 17, 2009

rivrrat said:
A spiritual thing? Sex? LOL I think if it's "spiritual", they're doing it wrong.

I never said you couldn't think.

Might I laugh at you for how you view life? Would it make me a bigger person?

The people SAYING it are taking it literal, since figuratively we ALL "sell our bodies" every single day.

And I never said I liked that idea either did I? So what's your point?

No, they are expected to perform a service agreed upon by both parties beforehand.

I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong. But I do not agree with you.

They're selling a service, just like everyone else in the fricken world. In the case of prostitutes, it's a sexual service. Being a computer admin can have "grey areas". It's not a product that's black and white. Neither is selling janitorial services. Or computer services. Or housekeeping services, or waitressing services. And, btw, aren't waitresses expected to be submissive while people tell them what they want, demand that they are brought what they want, and then get bitchy if it's not "just right"? Isn't the customer "always right"? Aren't they expected to do whatever they're told to?

No service is black and white. The terms of service are always agreed upon by the people involved. People agree upon the terms of their employment upon agreeing to take a job. All jobs are different, even in the same field. Prostitution is no different from any other job in any respect.

That's nice you see it that way. But I do not. And you have failed to convince me. But that's okay. I don't need convincing.

I wish I didn't have to, but I don't own enough property yet to live off my land without any products from others.[/QUOTE]

I'm not touching this one. Perhaps in another thread if it ever comes about.

Cardinal · Jan 17, 2009

Zyphlin said:
Seems she's definitely a virgin, but she's also there by technicality alone. Says she had only 2 serious boyfriends. She's said she's given...lets say oral reports...rather often to guys she's with. And as was said on the radio to try to make it FCC friendly, while the territory she's selling is supposedly uncharted land the one on the other side's had a flag stuck in it and been claimed.

I see that being a problem. The whole allure of the virgin is that you could be the one to go where no man has gone before (like, anywhere). So the fact that someone else's pee pee has been somewhere inside Natalie lowers the value of her virginity considerably.

Men who desire virgins want real virgins, and don't have the patience or money for lawyers to argue over what constitutes a technical virgin. In their minds they know what a "virgin" is quite perfectly, thankyouverymuch.

Dynamic · Jan 17, 2009

1069 said:
1. This is a groundless assumption. unless you've slept with her yourself, you have no idea whether or not she's a virgin.

2. We've pretty much established that "selling one's body' is a logical impossibility, unless one is selling it to a med school as a research cadaver, and even then they can't collect it until you're already dead.

3. I would be, too. 3 million is an outlandish sum, possibly the highest ever paid for a single sex act.

4. We've only seen two still photos, which appear to be of two entirely different people- one mildly unattractive, one mildly attractive.
They can't both represent her actual appearance, since they don't look alike at all. We really have no idea what she looks like.

Can't sell a body? What about slaves? They were not really "sold"?

DeeJayH · Jan 17, 2009

prostitution is a short term lease

Zyphlin · Jan 17, 2009

Cardinal said:
I see that being a problem. The whole allure of the virgin is that you could be the one to go where no man has gone before (like, anywhere). So the fact that someone else's pee pee has been somewhere inside Natalie lowers the value of her virginity considerably.

Men who desire virgins want real virgins, and don't have the patience or money for lawyers to argue over what constitutes a technical virgin. In their minds they know what a "virgin" is quite perfectly, thankyouverymuch.

Generally I may agree, however the millions spent to purchase it suggest otherwise

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 17, 2009

Alex said:
Except that your "imposing" is causing unnecessary laws on an entire population of people...

Unnecessary according to whom? You? I certainly think it's necessary.

Alex said:
No one is trying to change your morals, you are trying to change other people's morals and abusing our legal system in the process.

Actually, quite a few people are trying to change my morals in this thread. Including you.

And yes, I am attempting to change other people's morals. But I object to your claim that I am "abusing" the legal system to do so; I am using it for its intended and proper purpose.

Alex said:
Our legal system is abused by people like this. That is the real decay of society, when people cannot live freely because others want their ego to be the deciding factor.

People cannot live freely when they live under laws which are incompatible with their moral beliefs. Nobody is oppressed by a law he agrees with.

Alex said:
How do you know that her virginity is something "personal and intimate about herself"?

Because it is, regardless of whether or not she, you, or anyone else cares to recognize it. Her virginity, her sexuality, is personal and intimate because of human biology, and trying to treat it as something else is harmful. Being so detached from your sexuality that it is not personal and intimate is not "enlightened", it is a sign of serious psychological damage.

Alex said:
You are making an assumption based on your own philosophies, without any respect for her own thoughts.

If I knew her, I might find that she has several thoughts that I respect. I certainly respect 1069 and RivrRat and yourself, despite the fact that you all share at least one opinion I find utterly repugnant. And note that it is only the practice which I would seek to outlaw, and not the repugnant opinion behind it.

1069 · Jan 17, 2009

If I knew her, I might find that she has several thoughts that I respect. I certainly respect 1069 and RivrRat and yourself, despite the fact that you all share at least one opinion I find utterly repugnant. And note that it is only the practice which I would seek to outlaw, and not the repugnant opinion behind it.

Well, I for one appreciate your acknowledgement of respect for people with differing opinions.
I also respect you for your keen if misguided (at least to my mind) intelligence, although you frequently make me astoundingly angry.
I want all the really smart people on my side, the side of logic and reason.
It baffles and infuriates me when they refuse to be.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 17, 2009

1069 said:
I want all the really smart people on my side, the side of logic and reason.
It baffles and infuriates me when they refuse to be.

I have learned to expect it. After all, most of the people disagree with me most of the time.

Cardinal · Jan 17, 2009

Zyphlin said:
Generally I may agree, however the millions spent to purchase it suggest otherwise

Did they know about the extras at the time?

Alex · Jan 17, 2009

Korimyr the Rat said:
Unnecessary according to whom? You? I certainly think it's necessary.

Not at all necessary because no one is being harmed when consenting people are involved.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Actually, quite a few people are trying to change my morals in this thread. Including you.

And yes, I am attempting to change other people's morals. But I object to your claim that I am "abusing" the legal system to do so; I am using it for its intended and proper purpose.

I am not trying to change your morals. How many times have I stated that your morals and belief are fine just as anyone else?

That sounds like a legal system in some other country, like China. Here in the United States we were founded on freedom of the people, restrictions on oppression.

Korimyr the Rat said:
People cannot live freely when they live under laws which are incompatible with their moral beliefs. Nobody is oppressed by a law he agrees with.

I disagree with prostitution being illegal, if I decide to become a prostitute and I am arrested for it, am I oppressed? Yes. No one is oppressed by a law they agree with, absolutely, but the people who disagree with that law, which has no objective basis, are oppressed. A prostitute cannot live freely because the laws are incompatible with their chosen lifestyle. Why is your right freedom so much more valuable then a prostitute?

Morality is far to diverse to create laws that hold down an entire population.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Because it is, regardless of whether or not she, you, or anyone else cares to recognize it. Her virginity, her sexuality, is personal and intimate because of human biology, and trying to treat it as something else is harmful. Being so detached from your sexuality that it is not personal and intimate is not "enlightened", it is a sign of serious psychological damage.

Statements like this demonstrate the ego of the person writing it. No two people think alike. You believe that this girl's behavior is damaging, but I do not and she obviously does not either. Each person defines their own sexuality. If a person thinks someone who is sexually uptight should be forced to be sexually active, should that be a law in your view? If a majority of people believe this, would you be good with a law that enforces it?

Korimyr the Rat said:
If I knew her, I might find that she has several thoughts that I respect. I certainly respect 1069 and RivrRat and yourself, despite the fact that you all share at least one opinion I find utterly repugnant. And note that it is only the practice which I would seek to outlaw, and not the repugnant opinion behind it.

First, thank you. I am enjoying and learning a lot from this debate with you. I always felt that a person learns the most from someone they most disagree with. That is definitely true here.

The problem I have with the second part is that the prostitute is not forcing you to do or not to do anything. You do not have to be a part of prostitution. Enforcing a law against prostitution is forcing a person to not live their life. They have no choice but to stop their actions. If you are never going to use a prostitute, why worry about someone who does?

Prostitute: not imposing anything, everyone is free to do as they please
Anti-prostitute: imposing laws to stop, a portion of the population must adhere.

The need for order in a society is fine, but there is nothing about prostitution that is exclusively in disorder. If you want prostitution to be outlawed because you believe it causes things like infidelity and disease, then a whole shrew of things must be made illegal. What about bars and alcohol? What about beds where the disease and sex probably occurs? What about toilets where a person can contract crabs? Should all of these things be outlawed? You want prostitution to be outlawed because it could lead to damage, where does that end?

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 17, 2009

Alex said:
Not at all necessary because no one is being harmed when consenting people are involved.

Again, according to you. These laws are necessary because not only are the consenting adults harming themselves-- which I will happily overlook-- but they are helping to harm other people by harming their relationships and their ability to form honest relationships with others. They are harming the social fabric that holds us together.

Alex said:
I am not trying to change your morals. How many times have I stated that your morals and belief are fine just as anyone else?

Just fine, as long as I do not act upon them by seeking the passage and enforcement of laws that I believe are necessary.

That is similar to my belief that your morals are just fine as long as you do not prostitute yourself and do not indulge in the services of prostitutes.

Alex said:
No one is oppressed by a law they agree with, absolutely, but the people who disagree with that law, which has no objective basis, are oppressed.

As I said, nobody is oppressed by a law they can agree with.

And there is no objective basis for any law. Even the need for social order, which I am certain that we can agree upon-- if not the form of it-- is not objective, as objectively it does not matter whether society exists or not. It does not matter whether or species survives or not.

These things are important only because we believe them, and they are no more objective than any of our other moral beliefs. We might say that our definition of murder, and our sanctions against it, are more important than our laws and sanctions against prostitution... but they are not more objective, nor are they fundamentally any different.

Alex said:
Morality is far to diverse to create laws that hold down an entire population.

On the contrary, that is the exact reason why the law is necessary. If morality were uniform, we would have no need for law whatsoever. It is because of the diversity of human moral beliefs that laws governing morality are necessary.

Alex said:
Statements like this demonstrate the ego of the person writing it.

I have never made my ego a secret. But I'll note that you have only argued against the point, and not against the reasons leading up to it.

There are reasons for my position that I have stated clearly, and that have not been addressed in any substantive fashion.

Alex said:
If a person thinks someone who is sexually uptight should be forced to be sexually active, should that be a law in your view?

No, because forcing a person to become sexually active is rape, and I disapprove of rape. I will come out automatically against any law which attempts to mandate, encourage, or even condone rape.

If someone else believes it is necessary, they should by all means attempt to have this written into law. I am sure that it would prove enlightening for us to be on the same side of an argument for awhile.

Alex said:
If a majority of people believe this, would you be good with a law that enforces it?

No, because I do not give a damn about what the majority of people believe. I care about what I believe, and how I can convince other people to share my beliefs-- so that they will desire the same laws that I do, and we can work together to build the kind of society that we agree we want to live in.

If the majority disagrees with me, they are wrong and need to be changed-- just as I believe that in this case you, the minority, are wrong and need to be changed. I just recognize that there are practical limitations on my power to bring this about, and thus frame my arguments for the benefit of those who are not yet decided on the issue.

Alex said:
The problem I have with the second part is that the prostitute is not forcing you to do or not to do anything.

The prostitute would force me to tolerate her activities. She would have me not use the laws to discourage her profession. She would demand that the government-- which is my government as much as it is hers-- treat her profession in the same fashion as other professions that I consider honorable.

Alex said:
If you are never going to use a prostitute, why worry about someone who does?

Because that person might marry my daughter.

TheNextEra · Jan 17, 2009

Korimyr the Rat said:
Again, according to you. These laws are necessary because not only are the consenting adults harming themselves-- which I will happily overlook-- but they are helping to harm other people by harming their relationships and their ability to form honest relationships with others. They are harming the social fabric that holds us together.

Right because a woman losing her virginity for nothing is so much better than losing it for money. :roll:

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

Yes, we all would like to see a woman lose her virignity to the man she is going to marry and live the rest of her life with, but reality plays a part in that and proves that very improbable.

I know many many women that would have rather lost their virginity like this girl than for nothing like they did.

Dynamic · Jan 17, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Right because a woman losing her virginity for nothing is so much better than losing it for money. :roll:

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

Yes, we all would like to see a woman lose her virignity to the man she is going to marry and live the rest of her life with, but reality plays a part in that and proves that very improbable.

I know many many women that would have rather lost their virginity like this girl than for nothing like they did.

I don't think you should lose your virginity to the man you're going to marry. I definitely think it would be nice to lose it to someone who means a lot to you, but certainly not the person you're going to marry. Reason being it's nice to know what's on the other side before you get married. Because then you may be left wondering if the grass truly is greener. JMO.

rivrrat · Jan 18, 2009

Dynamic said:
I never said you couldn't think. Might I laugh at you for how you view life? Would it make me a bigger person?

You can laugh all you want, why would I care? As for it making you a "bigger person", I imagine laughing would burn calories rather than make you heavier, so probably not.

And I never said I liked that idea either did I? So what's your point?

My point was that you were saying the wrong people were taking it literally. Which is exactly what I stated in my post that you quoted. I'm not sure how you didn't manage to read it.

I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong. But I do not agree with you.

It's good that your agreement isn't necessary for facts to still be facts. What I posted wasn't an 'opinion', but rather a statement of FACT in the way prostitution sales are made.

That's nice you see it that way. But I do not. And you have failed to convince me. But that's okay. I don't need convincing.

Interesting though that you have no rebuttal. :mrgreen:

Kali · Jan 18, 2009

Korimyr the Rat said:
I wouldn't. It's dirty.

Good sex is dirty:rofl Really though it is not dirty unless you are doing like scat or something:shock:

Kali · Jan 18, 2009

Dynamic said:
The whore part I understand--because of what the definition is. But "slut" cannot apply to a virgin.

But I do wonder, if she has to work for the bunny ranch for this to be legal, then I'm sure she'd have to **** more than just one person unless she's smart enough to quit as soon as the deed is done. If she wasn't, then she'd be a slut.

She would just have to draw up a contract as an independent consultant or Ind. Contactor? And then in the paperwork state she is there for only one client and for so many hours or just one night. I am sure that all those at the Bunny Ranch probably have some form of contracts?

Kali · Jan 18, 2009

Maximus Zeebra said:
Whats wrong with that? Its not wrong to have sex.... Certainly not wrong to like experienced women rather than virgins.

There is nothing wrong with having sex and that would include anal sex. Just seems like you love to judge others based on their sexual choices when you have no right to judge at all because you are not perfect

1069 · Jan 18, 2009

The whore part I understand--because of what the definition is. But "slut" cannot apply to a virgin.

But I do wonder, if she has to work for the bunny ranch for this to be legal, then I'm sure she'd have to **** more than just one person unless she's smart enough to quit as soon as the deed is done. If she wasn't, then she'd be a slut.

:thinking

What a bizarre notion.
"has to work for the bunny ranch"?
Why would she "work for the bunny ranch"?
She's about to earn 3m$ for one ****.
I'm sure there are not too many multi-millionaires around working as prostitutes. :lol:
She could probably afford to buy the bunny ranch, if she wanted to.

She's only doing this at the bunny ranch because prostitution's legal there and she can advertise openly. They're getting a lot of publicity out of the deal; it's a win/win.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 18, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Right because a woman losing her virginity for nothing is so much better than losing it for money. :roll:

For nothing? Perhaps. But losing her virginity because she wants to experience sexual pleasure? Because she wants a more intimate relationship? Because she wants to do something nice for someone she cares about? Hell, even if she just thinks it's something she ought to do to mark a turning point in her life.

These are not "nothing." And they are certainly better than losing her virginity to a stranger for money. They are better than reducing herself to a mere sex toy.

TheNextEra said:
Yes, we all would like to see a woman lose her virignity to the man she is going to marry and live the rest of her life with, but reality plays a part in that and proves that very improbable.

I don't. Frankly, I find that notion both antiquated and misguided, and would not recommend it to anyone. I think both men and women should have several sexual partners before they marry, and that people should have healthy sex lives whether or not they are married.

On the other hand, I don't think "reality" needs to be accommodated via prostitution. I think that is a particularly cold and ugly reality, the sort of thing that I would rather not wish upon anyone.

Student auctions off virginity for offers of more than £2.5 million

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

MoG

Respected On All Sides

Active member

Respected On All Sides

Active member

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Respected On All Sides

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Active member

Goddess of Bacon

Stigmatized! End R Word!

Stigmatized! End R Word!

Stigmatized! End R Word!

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me