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)