She says..."this is a capitalist society and I definitely want to capitalize on this..."

I think this may be a performance art piece. But I can't tell for sure. I don't know if it's just a scam to get her some money (in which case, it's still a good opportunity to talk about how stupid it is to treat virginity as a commodity; a subset of how we treat sex as a commodity IMO), or if this is a self-conscious mockery of the moral panic that ensues. If the latter, I wish it were more over-the-top; but then it might not suck as many people in. I really hope she's just punking CNN, and has a deal to write a book about the ensuing fiasco.

It's interesting that those girls said it was noble if she was doing it for herself and her own reasons. Would it still be noble if virginity wasn't involved and she were just selling sex, what about virginity makes it noble. Or was it because she's doing it for education?

What was so disappointing to me was the fact that she knows how to parrot feminist phrases but hasn't absorbed what they mean.

This was my take

http://bitchkittie.blogspot.com/2008/09/value-of-virginity.html

The fact that she's a women's studies major (as mentioned in another report) leads me to believe that this is some sort of school project being aided by her sister who works at the Bunny Ranch.

Also, what about the hundreds of men who are lined up to pay for her? I wonder if the media will question them at all?

Not only is virginity valuable monetarily, but she's stereotypically young-looking, pretty in that very, very mainstream way...

Every non-progressive guy's dream.

Ugh.

The cynicism and slut shaming displayed in this thread is disturbing. It is quite contrary to the approach that I take.

Next month when her solo album comes out or her Playboy centerfold, we will know we have been duped!

Samhita that is classic slut shaming commentary. What about questioning the cult of virginity and what means to womens bodies? What about the class element at play here? Poverty is feminized and what does it say that education the key to the eradication of poverty is being paid for this way. Finally what about validating her right as a woman to do as she please with her body? This was the perfect opportunity to engage on some really important issues.

Samhita that is classic slut shaming commentary.

Or it might a parody of slut shamming commentary. Given Samhita's body of work, I think it's the latter.

CNN asks, "so if it is true and she has held on to it for so many years, why does we want to part with it now in such a public ways?"

You know, some people hold onto belongings for years and then auction them off. We don't question their motives.

I tend to agree with Renee's take on the issue. It's a complicated situation that raises questions about class, race, and education. At the heart of the matter, I believe, is Dylan's comment about our capitalistic society, and her desire to benefit from 1) our cultural beliefs surrounding virginity, and 2) our contradictory messages to women about sex and the body. These are the elements that have caused such a stir, and make Dylan's story newsworthy to CNN.

While a few of Samita's comments border on slut-shaming and even seem disparaging, I appreciate that most of her commentary was about CNN's coverage, and other's comments about Dylan, instead of narrowly focusing on Dylan's decision.

Renee, for my part, my use of the word "scam" was inappropriate and ill-considered. As I said, I expect that this is some sort of critical project where she wants to raise the issue. But if it's on the level and she's simply promoting an offer of sex work, then I'm not going to criticize her for doing sex work. I do, however, question the whole concept of someone paying for the "value" of virginity, above and beyond the value of the sex work. In fact, I'm pretty offended that there would be a premium for a sex worker's first foray into sex work -- almost all skilled work is worth more as the worker has a proven track record. So if this is her way of getting what this fucked up society offers, I'm not going to wag my finger at her. But I will wag my finger at any asshole who is willing to pay more to be her first client than her second, as I think that's absurd and indefensible.

But like I say, I think this is some sort of performance art or critical project.

"Not only is virginity valuable monetarily, but she's stereotypically young-looking, pretty in that very, very mainstream way...

Every non-progressive guy's dream.

Ugh."

I think she wouldn't be very attractive to any type of guy other than a predatory male. She would be every non-progressive guy's dream WIFE. She would be horrible under the given circumstance. Why pay for an amateur when you can get a professional? Having sex with a virgin is no fun at all. You have to stop and resume like 50 times which leads you to just stop completely and not enjoy it. :P

What a dumbass

Strip for your tuition and you won't have to rely on a one shot deal. Teach a man to fish, right?

If this is real, she's probably getting offers up the wazzoo to get this transaction on tape. How else could she be hoping to get $1 million? Does she really think that 1 fool, er I mean man, is going to pay her a million dollars to fuck? Even without Lehman going under, and a 500 point drop in the Dow, it's absurd!

This is either a hoax or she's a pro and this is a publicity stunt for the bunny ranch.

If this is real, she's probably getting offers up the wazzoo to get this transaction on tape. How else could she be hoping to get $1 million? Does she really think that 1 fool, er I mean man, is going to pay her a million dollars to fuck? Even without Lehman going under, and a 500 point drop in the Dow, it's absurd!

This is either a hoax or she's a pro and this is a publicity stunt for the bunny ranch.

Thomas commented at September 16, 2008 4:48 PM: "In fact, I'm pretty offended that there would be a premium for a sex worker's first foray into sex work -- almost all skilled work is worth more as the worker has a proven track record."

I thought the idea was that there's additional demand for access to vaginas that haven't had penises in them before (demanding "extra tightness" more than skilled brains), and a lower supply of those. Higher demand + lower suppy = higher price. So, any prostitutes/pimps/parents/matchmakers/etc. selling that (whether offering access to one's own vagina or to one's prisoner's vagina) can charge more for it...

I'll echo what has already been said: Samhita, your words on this issue feel like slut-shaming, and that's really disappointing. It sounds like because you disagree with her choice and her definition of empowerment that you've dismissed her perspective as invalid by saying that she 'doesn't get it'. I think it's entirely possible to be a feminist sex-worker, and I think her perspective and espousal of what constitutes empowerment is valid, regardless of whether you or I agree with it.

I don't think Samhita's comments are slut shaming or disparaging at all, actually.

And some cynicism is warranted for someone who actually thinks their crotch is worth 1 million bucks (per the article linked from Renee's site). I mean talk about some fucking elitism and privilege.

And if this were a piece on a woman being paid to KEEP her virginity while at the same time proclaiming it to be empowerment and choice, people would be all over this. This is no different.

People are trying to use an old tactic to shut down conversation here.

i was going to write a bit about how i still don't see the slut-shaming, about how privileged this woman is in terms of being able to so thoroughly capitalize on her virginity without being immediately cast in terribly negative terms and how savvy this young woman is for knowing exactly how to work this system for her benefit...

but then, i fell into some sickness sleep and woke up to see sami and spike make those points more clearly than my cold-addled brain was capable.

cheers!

"someone who actually thinks their crotch is worth 1 million bucks"

You know, it's not the supply side I take issue with. To the extent that some asshole in patriarchy will pay her an outrageous premium for some status that I think is meaningless and should not get any premium (virginity), I can't blame her for taking advantage of it.

I blame the buyer. He's the one willing to put a crazy premium on virginity.

I would like to request that people stop commenting on whose dream she is and whether she is any good in bed. These comments are really not so different from slut shaming.

While many in this thread seem to agree that virginity is meaningless unless you're a patriarchal asshole, to paraphrase Thomas, I haven't seen much discussion of the real, concrete, economic significance of virginity, as demonstrated by this stunt, and several similar ones in the past (I can think of two instances: one involving an e-Bay auction, the proceeds from which were also supposed to pay for higher education (ha), and the other in which Britney Spears, then at the peak of her sexiness/career, was propositioned by some old business mogul for the privilege of her first time - and he set the price). In that respect, I think it's important to ask ourselves how and why virginity can even have the potential to be a commodity, one that has value independent of its seller, her body, the experience being offered, etc. Despite the anatomical reasons brought up by Mina, that value is, we all know, quite symbolic, for a whole slew of social/cultural/political/personal reasons, too many to go into here. But, unlike any other symbolically significant 'right of passage' I can think of, virginity is widely discussed and considered, even outside the context of economic exchange, as property - something to be 'lost', or 'given away' to that special someone, or, according to Dylan, something to "capitalize on". So... let's get this straight: Even though generations have passed since the days when women, along with cows and guns and real estate, were upon saying "I do" made legal possessions of their husbands, a woman's body and sexuality is still an asset (oh, that word) to have, use and/or lose, still something that can ultimately be traded in return for something else. Oh but, because, in Dylan's case, it's HER asset, and SHE decides to sell it to a buyer SHE likes and trusts, she comes out empowered by this transaction? She may think so, but, in the actual world beyond her MySpace page, it doesn't work like that - a commodity is a commodity, and its value is determined not by its seller, but by the market as a whole. Letting a system like that determine the value of your first sexual experience means relinquishing your own, sovereign ability to place value on that experience, as you would any part of your personal history, or personhood, for that matter. It's an incredible failure on the part of feminism, or at least the uncritical, individualistic "Girl Power" brand/offshoot of feminism, that such a stunt could be even vaguely associated with - or worse, defended by its perpetrator as - feminism or female empowerment.

"It's an incredible failure on the part of feminism, or at least the uncritical, individualistic "Girl Power" brand/offshoot of feminism, that such a stunt could be even vaguely associated with - or worse, defended by its perpetrator as - feminism or female empowerment."

I tend to agree. Yes, Dylan's not the one who set up the system, so in this way she's merely capitalizing on it (as she says.) But she's necessarily perpetuating the idea that virginity is a mystical, magical, superawesome gift - which to me, sustains that split between girls who've done it (tainted) and those who haven't (pure), which is so old, outdated, lame, annoying, useless, harmful...you get the picture. But I read Samhita's comments as more about the CNN/media response than the 'decision' itself.

PS - if she's so savvy and capitalistic, why does she care if the guy's "nice" or not? I'm assuming this is a one-time deal...her wanting a "nice", "intelligent" guy makes her sound like Miss June. There's so many confusing messages at work here I think she MUST be punking us!