The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Sex Sells

By on 1.13.09 @ 4:19PM

I’m sure you’ve read the story (via a link on Drudge) about the 22-year-old woman from California who is auctioning off her virginity to to pay for her Master’s in—get this—Family & Marriage therapy.  So far, the bidding is up to $3.7 million. I guess, she’s cute enough.

There’s also a mystique about virginity and an anonymous woman just trying to achieve her own version of the American Dream.  I’m sure that explains the price as well.

Despite the twisted-ness of it all, I bet there’s a modern-day Gloria Steinem out there saying, “Way to go! You’ve turned the glass ceiling on it’s head!”

Yet it’s so obvious, she hasn’t. She’s turning to the last resort, the one Steinem and others like her argued women should not lean on.  Instead of using their bodies to succeed, women should use their brains. Imagine!

For all her ingenuity, I think it’s a step back.

Plus, who wants to go to the marriage therapist who sold her virginity so she could charge you $80/hr to talk about your sexual relationship with your spouse?

View all comments (50) |

Alan Brooks| 1.13.09 @ 4:46PM

no, its a step forward, into the 21st century, the century wherein the only taboo is to want taboos.
(it has become so stylized, "what are doing, Ashley?"
"Sue, I'm going home to cook dinner, then we're watching a porn flick")

auctioning her body just makes her a whore, nothing more. in the past this would have been called degrading, but now its 'liberating', 'daring'.

"look at me! i'm a whore!" thats something to be proud of.
you've come a long way, baby.

Roy| 1.13.09 @ 4:52PM

I'd love to know who's paying it and why. That's a lot of money when you can have a professional for $100. Even Elliot Spitzer didn't pay $3.7 million. Sheesh.

Coming from LA, I have no idea why this is imagined to be a big deal. Except maybe they'll stop paying for ad space in the LA XXXPress and start using E-bay.

She's degrading herself all the way to the bank, but the guys are even more pathetic. Wow.

Alan Brooks| 1.13.09 @ 5:03PM

the sex itself doesn't bother me at all-- why should it?
it's like the old joke: a naked woman walks into a man's bedroom and startles him,
"are you afraid?" she asks.
"no" he replies. "I can see you aren't carrying concealed weapons"
what its like today, it's like being in a nudist camp; soon the very last thing you want to see, and in is a thing, is a human body.

Jillian Bandes | 1.13.09 @ 5:10PM

Alan is right — those of us who prefer a more conservative approach to womanhood represent a counterculture. Sign me up for the counterculture, I guess.

Alan Brooks| 1.13.09 @ 5:13PM

what the reviewer wrote when Last Exit To Brooklyn was published circa 1958,
"this book is so nauseating that even though it is terribly obscene miscreants should be encouraged to read it, so they will lose all interest in sex"

Alan Brooks| 1.13.09 @ 5:29PM

Jillian,
conservative? precious little left to conserve if taboos no longer exists.
thats why i dont hold it against Palin's daughter for getting pregnant. if taboos have become extinct, then what did Sarah's daughter do wrong? was she influenced by the recreational sex all around her? sure, she's v. impressionable at that age.

in 2009 you're a freak if you don't have sex, its just something taken for granted,
"what are you doing, Ash?"
"Sue, we're having a threesome tonight"
and the fact that Everyone knows what a threesome is means the game is over.
it's routine.

Real American| 1.13.09 @ 6:20PM

whore

Basil Plumley| 1.13.09 @ 8:38PM

Perhaps this all part of the Obama stimulus package. The bids are probably just as phony.

Andy Warhol was right about every person's 15 minutes of fame. Unfortunately for this wench, the "act" will not last as long. (pun not intended)

ruth| 1.13.09 @ 8:41PM

Yes, the young woman is a whore and I pity her. Where is her mother? She is selling her soul to the highest bidder, and in the process she has already lost her humanity. Fool. I won't even go into the dopes who are bidding for her services. My heart breaks for the ugliness of this transaction and for our culture which has spawned it. Can anyone say Sodom and Gomorrah?

Michael| 1.13.09 @ 10:31PM

Much ado about nothing. This is all about personal choice. Her choice to sell her virginity. The mans choice to spend (a ridiculous amount of) money. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't approve of such a transaction, DON'T PARTICIPATE in such transaction. This is a pefectly moral act, as long as all participants are consenual. The right to act as one chooses, as long as it does not harm me or my property, is the true conservative ideal. To impose your morality on another person is the antithesis of the conservative ideal.

ruth| 1.13.09 @ 10:41PM

I'm not imposing a damn thing on this tart except my point of view, and that is my right. Freedom of speech is not just for thee, it is also for me. This country is a toilet and nothing good will come of garbage like this.

Michael| 1.13.09 @ 10:54PM

Expressing your point of view is absolutely your right, and may God and the Goddess bless our founding fathers for that. My point is that what this woman is doing will not affect any of us in any way. People are condeming this woman for acting in what she percieves to be her best interests, which is her right. She has a commodity, which she is selling on the free market to the highest bidder. Capitalism at it's finest.

ruth| 1.13.09 @ 11:14PM

If I am within my rights, as you say, then why are you judging me for my post? Conservative ideals at their finest or just a snotty buttinski?

Michael| 1.13.09 @ 11:29PM

I took the time to review all of the posts in this thread, and mine is the least judgemental of the lot. I did not "judge" anybody for their post. I was just pointing out that a "True Conservative" let's another person live as they wish, without imposing their beliefs on that person.

ruth| 1.13.09 @ 11:38PM

Well, Michael, I say let us live and stop imposing your judgment on our Freedom of Speech. We judged an illegal act, you judged a basic right, obviously you are NOT a "True Conservative."

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 12:07AM

Now who is judging who? How do you know if I am conservative or liberal? Fascist or communist? Libertarian or apolitical? You don't know. The funny thing is, depending on who I am talking to, I have been called all of those things.

My question to you then, what are the tenents of conservatism? Does being a conservative mean you have to vote Republican? Be a Christian? Own a gun? Drive a truck? Fly the flag from your porch? Get married before you have sex?

To me being a conservative means being fiscally responsible (lower taxes, less national debt, a balanced budget). Strong on national defense. The defense of Civil Liberties. Freedom of, and freedom from, religion. Good stewardship of our natural resources. Free markets. The right to be left alone to do as I wish, as long as what I do does not harm my neighbor, or his property. A free and vigorous press. I could go on but I will close with a quote from one of my favorite authors. Robert A Heinlein: Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 12:16AM

I am not a hypocrite. Try it.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 12:19AM

I didn't call you a hypocrite. I just asked a simple question.
And try what? Non-sequiter much?

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 12:27AM

Try something new--try NOT being a hypocrite. Got it?

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 12:31AM

Oh, FYI, that's TENETS of Conservatism.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 12:32AM

If you can point out where I am being a hypocrite, I will 'try it' (ie: not being one).

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 12:38AM

You're right, I'm wrong, tenets not tenents. Mea Culpa.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 12:40AM

Good, we're getting somewhere. You posted that a "True Conservative" doesn't impose their beliefs on others, then you proceeded to impose your beliefs on me. You judged me for stating my opinion (which is my right) about the tart and the tart's future illegal transaction and by doing so you were trying to control me, which makes you a hypocrite.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 1:02AM

I went back and reviewed my initial post and I think I see the issue. Perhaps you assumed that because my post immediatly followed yours, and I used the word "you", that I was directly commenting on your post. I was not specifically commenting on your post. I was commenting on the general furor over this issue, as I have been tangentially following this story for a while, and stumbled upon this article in my nightly web surfing. That being said, I never tried to impose my beliefs on anybody. I stated my opinion, as did all who posted here. I did not judge you (or anyone) personally. I will admit to judging your (and others) opinion, but that is part of diologue and debate. I never tried to control you, or your ideas.
On a side note, I believe laws against prostitution are unconstitutional. It is NOT the governments job to regulate sexual congress between consenting adults. If a man or woman wants to perform sex acts for money, that is nobody's business but theirs as long as 1) all parties are consenting and 2) all parties are of age.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 1:12AM

No, I understand; you were judging all of our posts not just mine. I got that. I was just the only one who took umbrage. Don't pretend you didn't judge us, I could hear that supercilious, snotty air of yours from here. Admit it, I own you. Also, I'm shocked, shocked to find out that you are pro prostitution. Whatever, baby, but until you and many many of your fellow libertarians can change the law--it stands. What she's doing is illegal, like it or not. And I don't care what you say, it's big time immoral. Want your daughter's face there instead of hers? With your attitude, you can bet on it.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 1:59AM

You are so right. I have been owned this entire dialogue. I bow before your superior intellect. I am so owned that I shall promptly go commit ritual seppuku forthwith........Actually trying to argue with selfrighteous prigs online is a lot like mental seppuku. How can we have a dialogue if you read the words, but don't actually understand the semantic content? None of your comments actually address the CONTENT of my initial post. You (and others) stated an opinion. I stated my opinion, then you took umbrage at my (imagined) "attack" on your freedom of speech, followed by a few semi-personal attacks.
It's late and I have to work in the morning. So go ahead, tell yourself you won. I concede. Once again logic falls before the power of righteous anger.

Jason Smee| 1.14.09 @ 2:03AM

While my initial response was somewhat of shock / appal, it was quickly replaced by the sense of disbelief (either she's being overpaid, or I've been getting a better deal than I though) and jealousy (despite an advanced degree and great skillset I wish I could produce anything valued at anywhere near that amount). In fact, for anyone that is still convinced markets are perfect, she is doing the most natural thing of a market participant and selling when the market price exceeds the intrinsic value (you could argue this is priceless, but since this amount is likely well in excess of what even the most successful adult entertainers earn over their entire career, it's expensive at least on a comparables or discounted cash flow basis). While I fully respect your right to find this offensive, as long as she is going to pay taxes on her services, a truly libertarian point of view is it's none of government's business (keep this in mind as we call St. Sarah a Libertarian). And think on the bright side, if a bunch of horny old men bid up the value of virginity (assuming an older virgin is worth more-scarcity, or at least she has to be 18 to call upon her services), this might be much more effective than all the abstinence pledges and other failed initiatives out there.

Jason Smee| 1.14.09 @ 2:20AM

Also, to add one thing, this thread provides a perfect example of where all this anti-intellectualism is killing any chance of republican success. The ability to sound intelligent in conversation (Obama/Ron Paul) vs a bumbling idiot (Bush/Palin) has all of a sudden meant you're this evil intellectual. For many of us that argue the party needs to adopt some level of intellectualism it simply means that they need to intelligent and educated enough to at least engage in intelligent discourse and able to support their arguements. This simple but basic example is found in anyone calling her activity illegal; if you spend no more than a minute or two googling the story you would find out she is attempting to sell her services through Nevada's Moonlight Bunny Ranch, a licensed Nevada Brothel, thus assuming she complies with all regulations, making her actions perfectly legal. I know this example is extreme and I don't mean an attack on anyone in this thread, simply I find it essential to point out at least some level of intelligence (Palin implied

Jason Smee| 1.14.09 @ 2:28AM

[sorry, above thread was cut off] I know this example is extreme and I don't mean an attack on anyone in this thread, simply I find it essential to point out at least some level of intelligence (Palin implied < Threshold Intelligence < Obama) is necessary to engage in intelligent discourse and not get owned in policy discussions, debates, by lobbyists, policy advisors, etc.... Everytime I hear / see emails of the Obama is a muslim, hates america, is a socialist, etc.... withouth so much as any supporting evidence or even a coherent basis, it makes me sick. It's downright ignorant and most importantly makes the individual putting forward such a claim that much less credible. Sorry for the tangent. I do appreciate all the posters who do their research and do keep of a level of intelligent and thought provoking conversation.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 2:55AM

"Self-righteous prigs," Exactly. I knew that's what you were inferring from the beginning, and not judgmental at all, right, Michael? You're just not used to being called on your own BS. I have the right to say what I want--as you do, but remember; when you tell me I'm judgmental--you are judging me, and if you don't acknowledge that, you are being a hypocrite. I understand your philosophy, I just disagree with it. Sorry if I'm just not 'intellectual' enough for you. The owning stuff was just a joke, I was just kidding. Sorry if I upset you.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 4:02AM

Jason, have you read that Obama is a muslim on this site? If not, why bring it up? Every time I hear the 'Intellectual Left' burble on about Trig's 'real' parentage-without supporting evidence-I get sick, too. So what's your point?

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 4:13AM

Jason, if you read my posts, you'd realize that my argument was not based on the legality of this girl's actions. Re-read my posts before you write me off. My point is legitimate: Michael was judging us for our indictment of this girl's behavior. I merely pointed out that he was also guilty of being judgmental--toward us, and if he didn't see that he was a hypocrite. His comback 'self-righteous prigs' made my point for me.

Deborah | 1.14.09 @ 5:28AM

I think the whole thing is truly shocking, but that's how people get noticed these days...personal shock and awe. The young woman won't need a career in Family Therapy after this if she invests her money well. That said, there is something damaging to this woman and to society in this whole public debasement of herself. But, perhaps she doesn't see it as debasement. I don't know. I taught my daughter to save herself for the one she loves. Perhaps that's old fashioned, but I think she's very well adjusted for her age in more ways than one. And, I think the guidance I provided her as she was blooming into adolescence was needed. Not sure what kind of guidance this young woman received, and maybe that's the thing that bothers me the most in this story.

Basil Plumley| 1.14.09 @ 9:38AM

To Michael:
What about standards? I understand the "I'm okay, you're okay" mentality but don't you think this public behaviour will influence copycats?
At what point does Moral Relativism devolve into Sodom and Gomorrah/Chaos? Just asking.
Perhaps, you can pray to your goddess for a "logical" answer. Your "I'm smarter than the rest of you" is quite tiring.

To Jason:

Before you start throwing bombs, I suggest you look back and find out where some of this anti-Obama screed began.
Obama a Moslem? Camp Clinton first raised the issue according to an article from Insight Magazine. Of course, Camp Clinton denied the story when "bad press" ensued. Nonetheless, it stuck. I doubt the charge and agree that much more evidence is necessary before rehashing that canard.
Obama hates America? Hmmm, perhaps the inference came from America watching his preacher Rev. Wright spew his "Threshold Intelligence" on many viewpoints. Notice, I said inference.
Obama is a Socialist? Maybe, maybe not, but I suggest you investigate whether Obama was once a member of the New Party and what exactly was/is the New Party.

Perhaps then you can engage in some meaningful "Threshold Intelligence" and stop blaming Sarah Palin for your own shortcomings; which is quite ironic, considering the thread.

Perhaps you can even enlighten us as to the genius of Joe Biden.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 1:38PM

If you have moral values you are stupid, so proclaim the Libertarians.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 9:38PM

A few quick points before I sit down to dinner and a dvd (Charlie Wilson's War).

Basil: Nowhere in my posts do I advocate Moral Relativism. I do posit a baseline sexual morality.
1) All participants in any sexual act must be consenting.
2) All participants in any sexual act must be of age (ie: NOT CHILDREN).
Almost all other rules regarding sexual activity tend to be based on religious beliefs, which often vary from society to society, and individual to individual. And as we all know, basing laws on religious beliefs is a bad idea. Regarding copycats, so what? If a woman can get some fool to pay an inordinate amount of money for her virginity, all I can say is "You go girl". What any person does sexually is none of my business as long as they follow the two base tenets of morality I stated earlier, and they don't do it in the streets, where they might startle the horses and children. Notice that nowhere do I say that you, or any other person, may not hold themselves to a "higher" moral standard. I am mearly positing a baseline morality that allows maximum personal freedom to all individuals.

Now a question for you Basil. Does the fact that I am not a Christian somehow make my opinion less valid? If you are not willing to respect my spiritual choices, as I respect yours, how can we have a reasonable exchange of ideas?

As to "I'm smarter than the rest of you". Nowhere do I make that statement, nor do I make that implication. All I ask is that the words from my initial post be taken at face value, without being viewed through a personal filter.

Michael| 1.14.09 @ 9:51PM

Ruth: Nowhere do I state that "having moral values is stupid". I did say that "To impose your morality on another person is the antithesis of the conservative ideal", and I continue to stand by that statement.

As to being judgmental, calling you a self-rightous prig was perhaps the only judgemental thing that I said in the entire thread. And for that I do apologize. Just a bit of frustration on my part, as I felt my comments were being interpreted incorrectly.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 11:29PM

Enjoy your evening, Michael. I didn't credit you with that moral values quote: I've just ascertained that from various other posts. My point to you was that you were also imposing your values on me , you just didn't realize it or cop to it, whatever. That's it, and I also stand by my statement. The other stuff was a joke, I also apologize. "Self-righteous prig?" Nah, if you knew me you'd know that's not true.

Basil Plumley| 1.15.09 @ 12:52AM

@ Michael
You ask: "Does the fact that I am not a Christian somehow make my opinion less valid?"

Not at all. Proseltyzing is not a forté of mine. I was just a little taken aback at your flippancy when you posted god or goddess. You are having a difficult time understanding Moral Relativism. You are making your own baseline for what constitutes sexual morality. When it comes under criticism from others, you doggedly pursue your premise. When your premise becomes untenable, you resort to the goddess bit and other snarks and sarcasms. I think Ruth was posting in good faith but instead of agreeing to disagree you went in a different direction.

I actually thought you were handling yourself in a very civil manner until you diverged.

I am sure that this topic will be revisited in the future and I hope will be in a better position (timewise) to add to the debate. The concept of morality is quite intriguing especially as it relates to everyday life and theories of government. Like it or not, it is inescapable.

Michael| 1.15.09 @ 2:06AM

Basil: I was not being flip when I said God AND Goddess, because I revere both aspects of the Divine. That is actually how I speak, and write, as a matter of personal style.

Re: Moral Relativism. Because it has been many years since PHIL 101, I took the liberty of reviewing the concept before responding to your initial post, and I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of the idea. After reviewing my earlier post from this evening, I see now that I could have been clearer in stating that my two statements of baseline sexual morality are my opinion of what constitutes the ideal. I also understand that many people will reject this baseline as being far too permissive. However, that being said, I reject the argument that they relativistic. In my mind these two rules 1)all sex must be consensual 2) DO NOT have sex with children, are indeed absolutes. I have just removed all of the dross which is based on religion, culture and social custom, which (in my mind) interfere with an individuals right act as they will, while still creating a baseline morality which protects the larger society as a whole.

As to my position being untenable, I just don't see it. Not a single post in this thread has disproved my position that 1) Natalie Dylan's actions will have no affect on us in any way. 2) This transaction is a moral act. 3) Most people who disapprove of this transaction are imposing their personal moral standards on a person who does not share those standards. 4) If a person thinks that this type of transaction is immoral, then don't participate in this type of transaction.

As to accusations of sarcasim and snarkiness, I will submit an Alford Plea. (Here in the State of Washington, an Alford Plea, is where the defendent, while not pleading guilty, admits that a jury would most likely find him guilty, and submits to the courts judgement.)

Fredo | 1.15.09 @ 1:03PM

Michael,

"2) This transaction is a moral act. 3) Most people who disapprove of this transaction are imposing their personal moral standards on a person who does not share those standards."

You adjudicating the act as "moral" in #2 is imposing YOUR moral framework on the nation. Most of us, who hold a traditional judeo-christian understanding, would disagree with you.

Of course, in the great land of your ego, I guess your moral framework matters while those who disagree with you do not. And I guess, for you, that holds true regardless of which view is actually held by the majority, or more importantly, proven to help foster a stable and prosperous society over the past two and a half centuries.

ruth| 1.15.09 @ 3:45PM

Thank you, Fredo, I thought I was going crazy. You made my point in a clear and concise manner. It's funny, but I guess Mike doesn't understand that his original post was judgmental, dogmatic really. He set the premise, and if you disagreed with it you were not a 'true conservative', you were a 'controller'. He has an opinion, which is fine, but it is no more legitimate than mine.

sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 11:50AM

jack wills
ugg new arrivals

moncleronsale | 11.11.10 @ 9:55PM

Thanks for your sharing."I HAVE BEEN SHOPPING ALL DAY AND MY FINGERS ARE KILLING ME!..." i have foget how many stores i have bought,but i remeber i bought
discount moncler jacket

lilyloveedwards | 12.27.11 @ 6:33AM

Escort Agencies frequently offer virgins to their high ranking clientele. It's a silent auction.
Truth be told everyone's a winner. The young beauty spends the night with all bidders with a day in between for the plastic surgeon to replace her hyman. So gentlemen beware.
Find the best Singapore escorts at the Society of Asian Escorts Groups on www.GlobalLovebook.com - there are no hyman guarantees!

More Blog Posts by Nicole Russell

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/01/13/sex-sells

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 11:14AM

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

What Does Consequence-Free Sex Cost Us?

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|84 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|113 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|50 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|92 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|49 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|14 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.