This is topic Selling virgins on TV - a new reality show in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=057075

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Linky....work safe and not a joke.

I know I won't watch it, but it is an interesting concept.

I just hope none of them hurt themselves. [Smile]
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
...what.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Out of curiosity, how are they verifying virginity, particularly for the male?

Second of all, I'm not sure I actually get what the cameras are going to be showing. Some sort of elaborate bidding process and video journals of the people talking about it? Obviously they can't show the big event.

Third...oy. I wish I was surprised.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Obviously they can't show the big event.

quote:
According to the casting notice, the show entails "our camera follow[ing] the principal cast . . . as they shed their virginity to a complete stranger in front of a worldwide audience."
I'm sure it will be done tastefully?
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
lol
 
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure it will be done tastefully?
You're kidding right?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Stories like this make me think we're no more than a generation away from television programming as seen in Stephen King's The Running Man (book, not film).
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
meh... When drag queen wannabees are s'poseta represent American womanhood, selling virgins seems relatively lame.

[ May 12, 2010, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
“Technically, I’m selling my virginity for money,” a 21-year-old woman named Veronica told the paper.

“Technically, that would be classified as prostitution.

“But it’s not going to be a regular thing, so in my head I can justify that I’m not going to be a prostitute,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll regret it.”

In other words, because she expects to be a very well paid prostitute, it's not quite the same thing?

Wow. Really wow. I don't know what else to say.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The dichotomy between "My virginity is nothing special, so it's ok to sell it to a stranger" and "Virginity is precious, so I will pay lots of money for someone's" is bizarre.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:
“Technically, I’m selling my virginity for money,” a 21-year-old woman named Veronica told the paper.

“Technically, that would be classified as prostitution.

“But it’s not going to be a regular thing, so in my head I can justify that I’m not going to be a prostitute,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll regret it.”

In other words, because she expects to be a very well paid prostitute, it's not quite the same thing?

Wow. Really wow. I don't know what else to say.

Nu. It does seem to me that the concubine who extracts such a price for her services that she rises at noon from a mattress of silk and samite to dine upon fresh fruit and sweet wine, who chooses her own customers and perhaps takes some joy in them, is indeed in a somewhat different case from the streetwalker feeding a heroin habit against a back-alley wall. If she has sold something precious - a point on which there might be legitimate disagreement - then at least she ensured for herself a good price. It's one thing to bargain with the Devil - again I use language expressing a moral view with which I may not agree - and quite another to be cheated by the Devil.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:
“Technically, I’m selling my virginity for money,” a 21-year-old woman named Veronica told the paper.

“Technically, that would be classified as prostitution.

“But it’s not going to be a regular thing, so in my head I can justify that I’m not going to be a prostitute,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll regret it.”

In other words, because she expects to be a very well paid prostitute, it's not quite the same thing?

It sounds like her rationale isn't the amount of money, it's that since she's only going to do it once she won't be a prostitute.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Benny Hill: "Hello darling. Would you fancy coming up to my room for 200 pounds?"

Girl: "Well hello big spender. Sure. Sounds like a laugh."

Benny Hill: "Rats, all I got on me is a fiver. Well that will have to do."

Girl: "Hold on a minute, a fiver? What kind a girl do you take me for."

Benny Hill: "We've already shown what type a girl you are darling, now we're only haggling over the price."
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
It sounds like her rationale isn't the amount of money, it's that since she's only going to do it once she won't be a prostitute.
I think it's potentially a legitimate distinction: one act may define what a person "is" far less than a career.

I have installed drywall; I am not a drywaller. She will have engaged in an act of prostitution; she will not see herself as a prostitute.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Stories like this make me think we're no more than a generation away from television programming as seen in Stephen King's The Running Man (book, not film).

I actually think highly dangerous sports like motocross and "ultimate fighting" are a much closer analogue to The Running Man.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Hmmm.
quote:
It is perhaps for this reason that a 19 year-old woman from New Zealand sold her virgin status for a crisp $32K. And there are quite a few others following suit.

Virgin Sales-R-Us

In Germany, a Romanian teen decided that to pay for school, she would auction off her virginity. Interestingly enough, the young girl is now being required to pay taxes on her—(ahem)--income. Even Tyra Banks was able to rustle up another example: 22 year-old Natalie Dylan wanted to pay her college tuition by auctioning her naughty bits. The offers on her table even reached into the millions. To make things even juicier, said tryst was to take place at Nevada's infamous Bunny Ranch—a legal brothel featured on HBO.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2674607/selling_virginity_over_the_internet.html?cat=47
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Might be a lucrative market combined with this
quote:
Chinese naughty toys company Gigimo (motto: Let's play!) has advertised an artificual hymen kit throughout the Middle East that has sparked controversy in Egypt.

From Associated Press:

It is intended to help newly married women fool their husbands into believing they are virgins — culturally important in a conservative Middle East where sex before marriage is considered by many to be illicit. The product leaks a blood-like substance when inserted and broken.

In a country and a region where pre-marital sex is so taboo it can even lead to a woman's murder, the debate over the virginity-faking kit has revived Egypt's constant struggle to reconcile modern mores with more traditional beliefs — namely, that a woman is not a virgin unless she bleeds after the first time.

http://shanghaiist.com/2009/10/07/selling_sex_may_be_the.php
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
It sounds like her rationale isn't the amount of money, it's that since she's only going to do it once she won't be a prostitute.
I think it's potentially a legitimate distinction: one act may define what a person "is" far less than a career.

I have installed drywall; I am not a drywaller. She will have engaged in an act of prostitution; she will not see herself as a prostitute.

If someone pays you to hang drywall, then while they are paying you, you are a drywaller. After that, if you decide you don't want to hang drywall anymore, you can choose another career, but you would always at least be a former drywaller. (If your drywall experience was not for pay, then I'm not sure it relates.)

At the moment, she is selling herself for money, so she is a prostitute. After the deed is done, if she decides once is enough, she will no longer be one.

I don't know...my initial reaction was probably pure shock value, which is probably how this person is going to make money off of the idea, so I should probably withhold judgment until the shock passes. Still, there's not point rewriting the dictionary.
 
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
 
I agree with Christine, there's nothing in the definition of prostitution regarding a minimum number of encounters before you're a prostitute.

Imagine if we applied that kind of thinking to homicide: "But your honor, I only killed one person, and never plan to do it again. You can't label me a 'murderer'." [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
To clarify, I was not disputing whether she would be a prostitute, but rather the moral judgement usually attached to the label - the connotations rather than the denotation. It appeared to me that Christine felt "That makes her a prostitute" was, by itself, a sufficient fact to condemn her act; it was this condemnation by labeling I psoted against.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I have installed drywall; I am not a drywaller.

Maybe not a professional or paid one!
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Hmmm.
quote:
It is perhaps for this reason that a 19 year-old woman from New Zealand sold her virgin status for a crisp $32K. And there are quite a few others following suit.

Virgin Sales-R-Us

In Germany, a Romanian teen decided that to pay for school, she would auction off her virginity. Interestingly enough, the young girl is now being required to pay taxes on her—(ahem)--income. Even Tyra Banks was able to rustle up another example: 22 year-old Natalie Dylan wanted to pay her college tuition by auctioning her naughty bits. The offers on her table even reached into the millions. To make things even juicier, said tryst was to take place at Nevada's infamous Bunny Ranch—a legal brothel featured on HBO.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2674607/selling_virginity_over_the_internet.html?cat=47
I can't remember if it was Tom Davidson or my brother who pointed out that in the case of Natalie Dylan, at least, what was being sold was explicitly her virginity, not an opportunity to have sex with her. This, he argued, would mean that should be buyer choose to, he or she could decide to just hang onto it in perpetuity, suing her if she were to damage their property by having sex.


quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
It sounds like her rationale isn't the amount of money, it's that since she's only going to do it once she won't be a prostitute.
I think it's potentially a legitimate distinction: one act may define what a person "is" far less than a career.

I have installed drywall; I am not a drywaller. She will have engaged in an act of prostitution; she will not see herself as a prostitute.

If someone pays you to hang drywall, then while they are paying you, you are a drywaller. After that, if you decide you don't want to hang drywall anymore, you can choose another career, but you would always at least be a former drywaller. (If your drywall experience was not for pay, then I'm not sure it relates.)

At the moment, she is selling herself for money, so she is a prostitute. After the deed is done, if she decides once is enough, she will no longer be one.

I don't know...my initial reaction was probably pure shock value, which is probably how this person is going to make money off of the idea, so I should probably withhold judgment until the shock passes. Still, there's not point rewriting the dictionary.

Mmmm...I don't quite buy that line of reasoning. When I was in college, I hired a bunch of my friends to help me cut several cords of wood as a Christmas present for my parents. All of them spent a Saturday felling trees (a local farmer was wanting to get some hedge trees removed from part of his farm) and cutting them into 18 inch long chunks. Would you seriously argue that these guys could claim to be former lumberjacks?
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
To clarify, I was not disputing whether she would be a prostitute, but rather the moral judgement usually attached to the label - the connotations rather than the denotation. It appeared to me that Christine felt "That makes her a prostitute" was, by itself, a sufficient fact to condemn her act; it was this condemnation by labeling I psoted against.

It probably did come across that way, but actually, my comment was in reaction to her statement that this didn't make her a prostitute at all, which made me think that SHE attributed the condemnation to the label and was therefore trying to avoid condemnation by redefining the term. Whether or not the term merits condemnation is a good question (one that I have a complicated opinion about), but I don't think that we help answer the question by denying its applicability.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
Mmmm...I don't quite buy that line of reasoning. When I was in college, I hired a bunch of my friends to help me cut several cords of wood as a Christmas present for my parents. All of them spent a Saturday felling trees (a local farmer was wanting to get some hedge trees removed from part of his farm) and cutting them into 18 inch long chunks. Would you seriously argue that these guys could claim to be former lumberjacks?

I think the term lumberjack applies to people involved in logging, not to people who just chop wood. This would make you a former wood chopper or, depending upon the situation, odd jobs man? If you get the right term, it does make a lot more sense.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
Well, there is another show that premiers on Friday night by Joe Francis. (Of Girls Gone Wile fame)

The show will be on basic cable on HDNET. IF you have HD channels you more than likely have the channel.

The show is on late at night, but contains full frontal nudity. It is a reality show to try find the "Hottest Girl in America." Big uproar right now due to the content of the show on basic cable.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Christine, I can see what you mean. And if prostitution has some kind of moral significance, "only the once" is not a legitimate exemption from judgment for that act.

I can't tell whether the quoted girl intends to distance herself from the moral failure of being a prostitute, or simply means to say "this will not define me as a person". The latter seems more legitimate [Edit after some reflection: or maybe just pointlessly vague] to me.

[ May 12, 2010, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ok, fair enough. The exact words were "in my head I can justify", which does rather suggest that she is not entirely comfortable with her own actions.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
At least it's their own virginity they are arranging to do away with as opposed to, say, a male or older relative. See: Other sales of virginity.
 
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Virginity-for-Sale.

Bringing people with all different worldviews together in dubiety since 2010.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
On a completely different subject, the sex ratio seems weird to me. Can they really believe that the number of men who'll bid for a female virginity is only twice the number of women wholl bid for a man's? Surely not. Or perhaps the male is gay? But even so, straights outnumber gays by more than two to one.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I actually think highly dangerous sports like motocross and "ultimate fighting" are a much closer analogue to The Running Man.
I definitely don't agree in the case of motocross. Sure, racing is dangerous, but the danger isn't the point, nor is there some big, giant taboo that is being stepped over which is the point either. I think there's a bit of a case to be made for ultimate fighting, but...

I was approaching the matter from a question of taboos. It's taboo to be a prostitute, and given the social weight lent to the 'first time', that adds, well, naughtiness or profanity depending on which way you look at it.

There isn't a taboo against racing, nor is there a taboo against fighting in controlled environments against a nearly-matched opponent.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Well, the latter is still illegal in Ontario at least. The idea is fuzzy though, that martial arts and things like boxing are to be distinguished from ultimate fighting based on things like talent or more restrictive rules.

Not nearly as taboo as selling virginity, but definitely a step up from racing.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
"See, I'm not a bank robber. Sure, I robbed the one bank, but that doesn't make me a dangerous bank robber so I shouldn't go to jail."

Nah. Its simple rationalization.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
I disagree, Dan. I actually had most of a post about this written in response to Christine's last post, but it got eaten and I didn't have time to retype it.

I think that we have two different standards, one for activities that are seen by society as morally positive or neutral and another for activities that are seen as morally reprehensible. Morally reprehensible acts only have to be performed once to indellibly stain the person who performed them. Murder someone and you're a murderer, period. Rob a bank and you're a bank robber.

[Edit - Whether or not a person who has performed a morally reprehensible act can ever be considered a "former" whatever-it-is-they-did" depends entirely on the severity of what they did. A person who had robbed a bank but had since seen the light and started walking the straight and narrow could be described as a "former bank robber". There is no way, though, for a person who has murdered to be a "former murderer", regardless of what they do with the rest of their lives.]

With a morally neutral act--say, helping a friend move in exchange for pizza and a beer afterward--the actor isn't marked by the act. They aren't "a mover" or "a former mover" or anything of the sort.

[ May 14, 2010, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Jake ]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2