A few days ago, an anonymous 19-year-old New Zealand student offered her virginity to the highest bidder on the Web site www.ineed.co.nz under the name "Unigirl," saying she would use the money to pay for her tuition. According to Unigirl, more than 30,000 people have viewed her ad and over 1,200 made bids before she accepted a $32,000 offer. Story from NPR. (HT: Tonja Jacobi)
Though the story is creating a ruckus, including international press, the attention pales in comparison to that bestowed on the very similar story of “Natalie Dylan,” a pseudonym adopted by a 22-year old UC San Diego graduate who auctioned her virginity on the website of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, a Carson City brothel, in January of 2009 in order to foot the bill for graduate research in women’s studies. In contrast to Unigirl’s paltry returns, Dylan reportedly received over 10,000 bids, the highest of which was $3.8 million, receiving both condemnation and praise in the auction process. Critics have argued that she is degrading herself and women generally, risks exporting Nevada’s poor morals to the rest of the country, and is selling something (virginity) for profit that should be cherished and freely given.
In an article I posted to SSRN over the weekend, A Woman’s Worth, I consider the reactions to Dylan’s virginity auction plan and the possible motivations underlying those reactions. What drives the attention and controversy generated by the Dylan auction? What are the perceived harms associated with Dylan’s actions, and in what ways are they greater than the harms associated with similar common activities?
Dylan was trading sex for cash, but against the backdrop of a legal, thriving, and (absent the involvement of a celebrity or politician) largely ignored Nevada sex industry, it is unreasonable to believe that the sex-for-cash aspects of the transaction drove the enormous attention dedicated to the event. Dylan, of course, was selling more than sex. She was selling virginity – a “priceless and rare commodity” in the eyes of some, including, presumably, her numerous bidders. But, virginity-for-cash objections seem to rest, at best, on a highly romanticized view of most females’ first experience with sexual intercourse and reinforce a concept of virginal sanctity that many women reject. Moreover, to contend that the sale of virginity is more problematic than the sale of sex by a non-virgin is to contend that women should be free to commodify only that which is less valuable; that which will produce less income.
Finally, I argue that objections stemming from Dylan’s self-promotion, self-pimping, and aggressive marketing, while the source of much of the resistance to Dylan’s actions, should also give pause: is conduct undertaken with adept marketing really more problematic than the same product offered less effectively? Although the answer may be “yes” to some, such commodification objections, by their very nature, are an uncomfortable vehicle through which to package concerns about women’s economic and social well-being. If Dylan had charged less, promoted herself less effectively, or been less creative in marketing her value as a virgin, then her transaction would have passed into the millions of similar trades that occur each year, largely without notice.
The article is still in draft form, and comments, criticisms, feedback, praise, adulation (okay, I’ll stop there) are most welcome. For those who have not yet “met” Dylan, the video clip below provides a nice introduction: Tyra Banks (a surprisingly tough interviewer in some respects) quizzes Dylan on her motives, expected profits, auction strategy, and whether she risks unrequited love for her winning bidder. Because, even at $3.8 million, a sexual transaction must be primarily emotional, rather than economic, at least from the woman’s perspective, right?
(HT for the video: Kate Bartlett)
Comments