How can one "lose" one's virginity?
Does it fall off and disappear under the house or somewhere, get run over by a car, or eaten by the cat or dog.

Historically losing ones virginity has always been a business transaction and in many places and cultural groups still is. Dowries and family honor for instance. Blood on the sheets from a deflowered hymen the morning after the wedding night to prove that the bride was a good woman or not soiled/tainted.

It has always been surrounded with all kinds of restrictions and covenants all of which have been essentially driven by economic imperatives. The survival, consolidation and expansion of the economic power and influence of the family and clan.

So why not sell or auction "it" on the internet?

Providing sexual services no more strips people of their humanity than does providing other services. A prostitute is not selling “her body”. She is selling services, which she needs her body to provide. And so do dentists, waitresses, and parliamentarians, but no-one hyperbolically accuses them of selling “their bodies”.

The author’s argument depends on his premise that sex is intrinsically negative. But he makes no attempt to explain why.

It’s not, so he’s wrong.

“In stating that people give virginity away for free, these women show they assign no deeper value or understanding to virginity.”

No they don’t, they show that they understand that the wider society places a certain higher value on having sex with a virgin.

“Ultimately this has lead [sic] to their view that sex is devoid of intimacy and revolves around the exchange or trading of a good or service for material benefit.”

How would you know what their view is?

That’s like saying, because someone sells food for money, therefore she sees food as devoid of nutriment and enjoyment and revolves only around filthy lucre.

It’s like saying, because someone uses the services of a waitress, they are indulging a vicious desire to enslave someone else and carry out a master/slave fantasy, and why aren’t restaurants against the criminal law?

There is no valid comparison with slavery, which by definition is non-consensual, unlike all the transactions the author refers to.

And as for organ donation, the author fails to distinguish consensual from non-consensual transactions – a complete fail.

The author’s argument would apply equally to criminalizing all prostitution. (This was tried for centuries and only enriched the police and mafia.) But why stop there? The essence of a service is doing something that someone else values. Since this is so offensive, why not criminalise sex itself? The author’s argument cannot answer.

Other people’s private consensual sexual activities are precisely none of the author’s or the government’s business, and moral horror is not a proper ground of legislation. The author would rule society on the basis of the prejudices of long-dead sex-hating monks.

An interesting article.

I recall reading the piece in Mx on my way home, as, I am sure, did many thousand others.

For the few moments consideration that I felt it deserved, I found my my thoughts turned more to the potential purchaser, rather than the vendor. What is it, I thought, that causes the virginity of a total stranger to command such a high price? And it had to be a high price, as the article mentioned being "set up for life" on the proceeds.

This article concentrates on the girls' attitudes. Frankly, if they see this form of prostitution to be an acceptable career move, then good luck to them. The market is a broad one, with price differentiation occurring at many levels. They have chosen a lucrative once-off transaction that I am pretty sure makes other prostitutes green with envy, as they hadn't thought of it themselves. Any follow-on business they participate in will, of course, will not command the same premium.

But the purchaser's motives are far more complex. By definition, the level of experience he encounters will be low, which is unlikely to make the act itself particularly memorable. Added to which, the absence of even the remotest familiarity - let alone any form of affection - will ensure that it is the most mechanical and impersonal event.

So there must be another angle, that escapes me. Is it some form of power thing? Surely not - you can't buy power over another. Is it perhaps a deep psychological need of some kind - revenge against childhood neglect, or even worse, a form of channelled aggression against the entire female gender?

Whichever way you look at it, it is pretty tacky.

"... the absence of even the remotest familiarity - let alone any form of affection ..."

How do you know?

"So there must be another angle, that escapes me."

Perhaps they don't share the negative presumption and approach that you and the author share?

A sexually-discriminatory article.
Its perspective is wholly with female virginity - what price male virginity?
And what is loss of virginity?
For a female - does it necessitate coitus with a male; or is it applicable to some accidental byproduct of strenuous exercise, or accident while bike-riding, or summer-time child playing in the heat of day over hose-sprinklers on the lawn?
For a male - is virginity only lost with a female (or, heaven forbid, male perhaps) partner; or will a thirteen-year-old’s wet dream suffice, or (heaven forbid once more) masturbation?
It is long past time that this issue was relegated to the dustbin of unsavory history

Trying to find the source of the river of negative attitudes that Christians have towards sex, I have scrutinized the scriptures. Pretty much every mention of any kind of sexuality is negative all the way through, so you have to go back to the Book of Genesis to find the origin.

The starting point is that God created everything, and behold, it was very good.

Then, next thing you know, human perfidy is discovered (it was the female’s fault), and our progenitors became ashamed of their nakedness. But there is no explanation why. What was it about nakedness that is intrinsically shameful? What was the connection between sin and sex?

Well there’s never any answer. Sex is just bad, that’s all. It’s shameful, and sinful, and wicked, and degraded, and degrading, and repugnant, and loathsome, and generally negative. And on it continues for the rest of the Bible.

(The only exception is sex between heterosexual couples who marry as virgins, remain faithful to each other all their lives, and die as virgins. Everything else is a distortion of human sexuality, apparently. However in reality, this model describes only a small minority of actual human sexuality, is hopelessly lacking in explaining power, and hopelessly excessive in gratuitous sexual horror and hatred.)

And so, for centuries, we have attitudes like the author’s. He perceives sexuality which doesn’t comply with the Church’s nutty model, instantly condemns it, and would like the parties imprisoned. But still there is no sensible explanation why. All we get is the same blind sex-hating attitudes of St Jerome, that old misogynist.

This to me has to be the most unpleasant and offensive part of Christianity.

I prefer the view of the ancient Taoists. They regarded sex as normal and natural, an expression of the opposite yet complementary nature of the world. Learning about sex is categorized under learning about health. There is none of this vicious hating of females as immoral, and despising men as beasts, just because we have sexual interests. Sex is “the flowery battlefield” which harmonises the spirit of male and female. That’s better.

Something completely different and sort of interesting ...

I've always thought of the act of sexual coupling as one of ultimate intimacy. Not so many others and frankly, IMO what happens between consenting adults is their business. I am more concerned about the fate of girls and young women sold, kidnapped or tricked into sexual slavery - and it is happening here.

I have to concur with the comments of Daffy. For a huge number of women on this planet, the loss of virginity is little more than ritual rape, the culmination of negotiations between families - mainly men, and where an intact hymen (or worse, an intact 'circumcision' otherwise known as Female Genital Mutilation) seals the deal. In Australian society the issue of virginity is generally one more of health than morality, economics or any other consideration. We would wish our young people enter sexual relationships with a good understanding of STI prevention and contraception and aware of potential emotional impacts. This approach would vary depending on ones cultural background but the law is clear enough regarding consent and the rights of individuals.

Yes, I'm also with Pericles - tacky! However if everyone involved is participating willingly, who are we to judge?

'On vulnerability, we need to question why both these cases involve women who have limited incomes.

One case shows an international student, the other two are workers from the notoriously low paid hospitality sector.'

Oh, so it's an industrial relations argument! Hospitality workers are paid so poorly, they are left with 'no choice' but to auction off thier virginity. Highly amusing.

If you are of the bent to find such a notion offensive, I don't see why the purchaser gets the bad wrap, and the seller is excused because they work for a modest wage at an age group where modest wages are quite common.

Not that an excuse should be necessary. Why cant the author just appreciate that there are probably some people who aren't bovvered about their virginity and are happy to trade with those who are.

Also, by that reasoning, if a 22yo working for $100k offered their virginity, it is safe to believe it is not a function of so called 'disadvantage' or 'inequality'. What's next cab off the rank then, childhood abuse? Low self-esteme?

What is wrong with the notion that some people just aren't spiritual and romantic, rather pragmatic and soul-less. Why would that be an indication of a supposed 'sick' society. People are different.

I'm sick of this notion these days that anyone who partakes in an activity willingly is still somehow a victim if the deal isn't what another would be willing to make. How arrogant.

I can imagine if some kid at school trades a Niçoise salad for a Nutella sandwich the Nutella kid MUST be being explioted and it MUST be because they come from a life of hardship, and it's a symptom of this sick evil capitalist society....

What if they both just like the taste of the other's sandwich?

Sometimes life really is that simple.

I think these young women made a sensible decision. I am an 86 year old man whose virginity has long since disappeared. When I still had my virginity I did not have either the business sense, the realism or the opportunity (nor the knowledge to make the opportunity) to auction it off. Of course the pleasure I got in losing it was of worth in itself.

These women, and yes they are women in their twenties who are considering the age-old money-earner called prostitution, know exactly what they are doing.

They need money, and they know that saying they are virgins will up the price for sex with them.
Maybe they aren't even virgins?
Just the mere thought that a 'girl' may be a virgin is apparently enough to rock some men's boats.

'Purity', in regards to a woman, is such an old-fashioned word with religious connotations that suggest that a girl is to be totally 'joined' to a man, and he can be sure no other man has been there before.

This author's ideas makes me cringe, even though I think these women are stupid to publicly put forward their plans for prostitution in such a way.
Who knows what sort of 'sicko's' would answer an advert like this one?

Pericles, good post.

The mystique? From a male point of view (at least hopefully from a balanced one) for a female/woman to offer her virginity freely as an act of deep affection should be seen as a massive compliment, and not to be taken lightly; a life-changing experience for both partners; a sacrifice by the female as an act of the highest expression of love.

Ok, these days, such deep emotional relevance would probably be laughed at by our 'sexually liberated' majority - at least that is my impression of 'modern' societal mores. A pity, in my view, that sex, and particularly its first experience, should now be no more than a right of passage, perhaps no more relevant than a first alcoholic drink or getting one's driving licence. Such is the fruit (or the price) of liberation, equality and an emancipated psyche.

As with so many 'dreams', the chance to experience virginal 'love' would be irresistable to some portion of the male population, albeit in reality a fiction, a pseudo contortion of the 'real thing'; mere fantasy fulfillment. Nonetheless, there will be those poor beasts who will be willing to pay highly for such dream fulfillment.

As to the female view of virginity, and the value placed upon its 'surrendering', that must be left to a response from that sector. I wonder if we've already had a partial response in this respect from Pericles? No matter, I would expect a variety of response ranging from the devout to the liberated.

These two 'volunteers' obviously place no real value on what they are offering, so I place no value in it either. As for our student? Pity? Or, condemn? Extenuation perhaps.

Modern Western sexual morality may not be universally bestial, but there seems to be a certain segment willing to drag it to the depths.

What kind of 'sicko's Suze? Men who like sex?

Or men who like sex with virgins? Or men who particularly like sex with virgins? Or men who exclusively want sex with virgins?

I really think you need to be more specific. What kind of sickos?

Maybe it's ugly, old men who want to have sex with young attractive woman? That feels sick to me too, but really it shouldn't. Why should desire for beauty only be acceptable from those that are beautiful or young themselves.

Ugly, old and fat, even sweaty and smelly people should have the right to have desires and not be considered 'sick'. Even people with weird kinks that aren't to my taste, I don't consider them sick.

Are the girls also sick because they are offereing their virginity?

It takes two to tango.

It seems to me the author is concerned about the women's financial or economic disadvantage, but hasn't mentioned the prospective customer's physical or asthetic disadvantage. Why cant the asthetically disadvantaged be the victim here. All I see is one disdvantage traded for another. Money for beauty. Why is the one with money 'sick', and the one with beauty the pure, the vitcim, the exploited.

Why is a begger in the hospitality industry more worthy than the beggar in the world of youth and beauty. If we're talking about purity, I think the girls have the purity granted to them on a platter. They are considered pure because they are young women. Ripe for being corrupted by the Fiiiilthy, Diiirty Old men. Such men have no right to access to sex and beauty with the pure woman! How dare they think above their station, and desire beauty! Sickos!

See, it's a two sided coin this purity business Suze.

But nobody is at all upset that poor moneyless hospitality workers are thinking above their station, wanting the riches of a mature established career minded adult, when they're a disgusting sicko inexpereinced cheap labour hospitality worker!

If I was going to hire a woman, I sure wouldn't be paying a top price for an apprentice, let alone a bl00dy novice.

I would want a fully experienced practitioner, capable of giving value for money, & nothing less.

On the so called morals here, I've always felt it was the confirmed addict here, the male who was the victim, if there is one. The women are equivalent to the drug dealer, making a killing supplying the addict with his fix.

Suse, good post.

"Just the mere thought that a 'girl' may be a virgin is apparently enough to rock some men's boats."

More than some, I would surmise, but rather the majority. But, it's not always necessarily a simple matter of rude and crude pride of conquest. Some men do still maintain moral values, though they may well be in the minority these days.

Of course, if a 'girl' places so little value on her virginity, it should be expected that a male suitor would (in the main) reciprocate, in also placing little value on taking it. The female sets the tone, and reaps the reward. How else can one view it? For we all know (crime and non-consentuality aside) it is the woman who is invariably in the driving seat in these matters?

I don't condone the demeaning of sex so evident in our liberated society, and consider it a corruption of morality and of dignity. And, I deplore the way sex has been reduced almost to the level of any other bodily function. Just slightly grotesque.

Question: Is peer pressure really a driving vector, or just an excuse?

Houellebecq <"What kind of 'sicko's Suze? Men who like sex?"
I don't know any men who don't like sex, so that was never my point.

It is a well known fact that there are many men who slither through the world of prostitution to get their thrills in a 'sick'
(dangerous, painful) way that would otherwise not be easily available to them in the wider community, unless they commit a crime.

I don't feel I need to elaborate on that point to such a worldly man as yourself Houellebecq...

To most people these days, female virginity is thought to represent the very young girl. So I would imagine the men who are willing to pay for a virgin would be looking for a maybe underage girl?

These men are 'sicko's' in my mind anyway

You sound like you're confirming my synopsis Suze.

I mean, you say 'dangerous, painful' (Some people like those sort of games BTW, consentually), but then you get to the crux of the issue when you say, 'men who are willing to pay for a virgin would be looking for a maybe underage girl'.

Appart from the fact the girls age is known, so by definition a prospective client already knows the age (Even if not is highly unlikely a <13yo girl is advertising for clients), it's strange to me that a man, of any age, lusting after a sexually mature female, is considered sick. Lets not forget even legally underage 'girls' (I must admit anyone under 30 is a 'girl' to me these days, but that's beside the point) are physically mature women.

So a man who dares to be interested in even a 14yo with all physical signs of maturity is considered 'sick'. Corrupt I can handle, but only if the attraction is acted upon, as laws are in place to protect the emotional well being of girls in line with their role in modern society, but 'sick'? 'sick' when they are attracted to mature 'adult' bodies is a step too far. Nature programs men to be attracted to sexually mature women, how can that attraction, in and of itself, be sick.

I just cant comprehend that. For example, you can have the same, exact same body, with the exact same proportions, one owned by a 17yo girl, and one by a 15yo girl, and if you are attracted to one you are 'sick', and the other you are not? And if you happen to be over 30 you are a dirty old man!

I often see articles and such conflating 'underage' attraction as paedophilia. Now I thought paedophilia was an attraction to non-physically mature girls. Apparently any guy who dares to even so much as notice the D-size breast of a 15yo is a paedo the minute he identifies she is under 18? To be frank quite often it's too late by then:-)

It's a funny old world.

No need for me to trawl over ground already covered well by earlier posters… But a trip back to the social studies and history texts might be in order.

Have a look at the various concepts of "dowries", "bride prices" and "marriage contracts" throughout history and across cultural and religious traditions. Particularly constant is the expectation or demand of virginal status.

A noteworthy theme is that the woman involved almost never benefited directly – though fathers, fathers-in-law and husbands did – and in too many places in the world, they still do.

All of which are very fair points, Peter Hume.

>>"... the absence of even the remotest familiarity - let alone any form of affection ..." How do you know? "So there must be another angle, that escapes me." Perhaps they don't share the negative presumption and approach that you and the author share?<<

But I'm still puzzled.

Here, the ladies in question are selling their sexual favours, for the very first time. They get many bids, and eventually someone reaches the number that they think it is worth. Let's call that number somewhere north of a million dollars, given that "the intention of auctioning their virginity was to set themselves up for life, including investing in property and travelling."

I am sure that you are sufficiently worldly to know that, for the same amount of money, you could employ the services of a very attractive top-drawer hooker, who would use her skills - both social and sexual - to make you feel really, really good on a number of occasions, across an extended timeframe. For that sum, I am reliably informed, you'd get a memorable experience every Saturday night for a couple of years. You'd even be able to tip in a really good meal, or a show.

For the transaction under discussion, you are engaging a novice, with unknown social skills, coupled with a knowledge of the process that is limited to second-hand information (no, don't go there). Does this not sound to you to be a somewhat unbalanced transaction?

Given your libertarian views, of course you will tell me that he is perfectly entitled to spend his money any way he wishes, without the interference of government or society at large. I have no problem with that, by the way - the offer and acceptance are made of the free will of each.

And I also accept that neither party would hold "negative presumptions". One would be a million dollars richer, the other a million dollars lighter of pocket.

But perhaps you can fill in the gap in my comprehension: what does he get for the million?

I agree Pericles with your rational analysis.

But fantasies aren't rational, and some people have money coming out of their ears.

Perhaps the guy has already had 500 different high class hookers for the last 2 years, and is in search of something different he thinks will make him happier.

To some people money is no object. People pay thousands of dollars for a wine before they have ever tasted it. People pay thousands for better HiFi gear that is almost imperceptably better. People look for happiness in all sorts of ways. Maybe he wants to take himslef back to his long lost youth.

I think mere mortals who don't have a lazy mil to throw around will never appreciate what it's like to have that kind of spare change.

It's a fantasy some guys seem to have, and when you have the dosh to make a fantasy real, why not? Personally I think he'd be disappointed as these grand ideas are never all they're cracked up to be.

You sound like an economist. People don't work in rational ways, always looking for value for money. Especially those who have endless money.

I don't think they're actually getting a million are they? That's just what they're hoping for.

I saw an article a while back about a woman who got $35,000 for selling her virginity. Anyway, the guy asked her if she would come back next night, i.e. for free, and seeing as she had had a nice time and thought he was a nice guy, she did. So this went on for some time and, whaddya know, they fell in love and became an item.

It's the naturallest thing in the world. We should not be surprised about it. The only reason people are mystified at the idea that either the woman or the man might actually enjoy themselves is because they only look at it negatively, through western society’s distorted Christian lens.

So looking on the positive side, there's no reason for such a thing to be emotionless, affectionless, and all that. There's no reason why they couldn't find harmony in agreement, and have a pleasant, interesting, relaxing, fun time. It just means instead of giving away her virginity to a young jerk who a) doesn't know how to please her in bed, and b) probably ends up leaving her anyway; she may realise both fun and profit from an older and richer guy who values her highly and probably knows what he's doing.

What would he get? Obviously she would be less skilled in giving and receiving pleasure than a more experienced woman. On the other hand, he has the pleasure and privilege of showing her the way to sexual pleasure, of watching her understanding unfold from tense cluelessness to knowledgeable enjoyment, and of knowing that her response in the throes of climax is a pure instinctual first, unlearnt.

Well you asked a sexual question, so it’s a sexual answer.

It only doesn’t make sense if you assume his interest is purely selfish, ignorant and bad-mannered. Maybe it is, maybe he isn't. But there is still plenty of room in curiosity and serving her pleasure to explain the high value that is put on this experience.

No Houlebecque, I wasn't suggesting all men who 'notice' D-size cups on 15 year olds are 'sick'. I had that problem myself from an even earlier age, and noticed that men of all ages definitely noticed, much to my embarrassment.

The fact remains that girls under the age of 16 are out of bounds to men of any age in our society, and most men will look, but won't touch.

Virgins are usually considered to be young, and some brothels and prostitute parlors can and do charge big money for men to access so-called virgins.
I find the whole thing very sordid.

Why these two women would want to have their first sexual penetration experience with a man who needs to pay money to make anyone have sex with him, is beyond me...

MH191211

Pier Paolo Pasolini (writer and film-maker) had the opinion that it is consumerism that causes the commoditizing of the human body as well as the body of every living organism.

In his opinion the ‘mercification’ (considering humans as goods for sale) is the consequence of Power (Power according to Primo Levi being the result of Privilege of man over man).

It is not only virginity at stake Mr. Holloway.
.
Kindly consider the fate of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange now one at the mercy of professional killers and the other at the mercy of professional lawyers who also can mandate death.

Would anyone you know have done what they have?

Do you feel that they have betrayed their homeland or that they tried to help humanity?

Sir, if you think that they are the criminals, you are the right man for the position you occupy.

Guess what?

Your taxes (and mine too!) are paying for this feminist-inspired drivel from the sort of person who deserves sand being kicked in his face! he (it/) doesn't deserve the eyeball time of intelligent citizens.

Every government job is created at the expence of three REAL jobs!

ptp, you are totally wrong in your assertions that this male author is 'feminist inspired'.

It is most certainly written from a male point of view, although I could entertain the view that there were some feminist conspirators behind the scene 'making' him write this drivel.

After all, we are all well aware that there are nasty feminists infiltrating every level of society.
It's all quite frightening really... all those women...

skeptic wrote: "Pier Paolo Pasolini (writer and film-maker) had the opinion that it is consumerism that causes the commoditizing of the human body as well as the body of every living organism."

Consumerism isn't the cause of anything. It is merely a name given to an attitude.

Here's the human race's dirty secret. The reality of commoditisation, of all things including both genders:

"Little miss Muffet

sat on her tuffet

eating her curds and whey

along came a spider

who sat down beside her

and did a long lasting mutually beneficial deal with Muffett that day."

The distinction between Costing and commoditising virginity and male and male & female gender bullying is negligable. They are just standard business practice: Tools for creating wealth.

This will NEVER be stopped but it can be shielded far more successfully by examining the root of gender bullying.

So Where does all gender bullying begin?

Here:

"Sugar and spice and all things nice

that's what girls are made of

Snips and snails and puppy dogs tails

that's what boys are made of"

This is widespread, traditional refuge mentality for insecure people: beaten wives and sexually frustrated fathers. It passes a world of damage to the psyches of both sexes.

An advanced and fairer rhyme would be:

"Sugar and spice and all things nice

that's what girls & boys are made of

Snips and snails and puppy dogs tails

that's what boys and girls trade with"

Shock, Horror,

Women sell their bodies for money!

Where's the news in this?

You've been reading 'way too many chick-lit novellas, Peter Hume.

>>What would he get? Obviously she would be less skilled in giving and receiving pleasure than a more experienced woman. On the other hand, he has the pleasure and privilege of showing her the way to sexual pleasure, of watching her understanding unfold from tense cluelessness to knowledgeable enjoyment, and of knowing that her response in the throes of climax is a pure instinctual first, unlearnt.<<

Pure fantasy.

We are talking about someone who is paying for sex. Presumably (and this is equally as presumptious as your scenario, only far more probable) he is unable to attract women in the normal course of his life, for whatever reason. Be that as it may, what interests me is the motivation behind being the first. I strongly doubt that it is to "watch her understanding unfold", which is why I posed the question in the first place.

>>I don't think they're actually getting a million are they? That's just what they're hoping for. I saw an article a while back about a woman who got $35,000 for selling her virginity.<<

I don't know where you live, but $35,000 hereabouts will not stretch to "set[ting] themselves up for life, including investing in property and travelling."

And this is also straight out of those paperbacks:

>>Anyway, the guy asked her if she would come back next night, i.e. for free, and seeing as she had had a nice time and thought he was a nice guy, she did. So this went on for some time and, whaddya know, they fell in love and became an item.<<

Yeah, right.

Dear Pericles,

You are injecting an unpleasant sense of reality into this discussion.

LOL Pericles - the film "Pretty Woman" came to mind ...

Re: " ..talking about someone who is paying for sex. Presumably (and this is equally as presumptious as your scenario, only far more probable) he is unable to attract women in the normal course of his life, for whatever reason. Be that as it may, what interests me is the motivation behind being the first."

I suggest men with enough change to buy the one off services of a virgin are unlikely to have problems attracting women "in the normal course of life". Wealthy men, even old, ugly and obnoxious types, attract more than their share of the female populace. Who knows the motivation? I'd guess it's either fantasy or superstition. There are certain beliefs still rife in some cultures that sex with a virgin can bring about cure or relief of various ailments or rejuvenation, usually sexual, at very least.
Otherwise it would likely be an individuals little fetish - to go where no man has gone before ....

Dear Suzeonline: Females under age 16 are out of bounds - legally - as you say. That doesn't stop some under 16s engaging in enthusiastic consensual sexual activity. Unfortunately Nature is to blame. Not being aware of man-made law, she/he/it causes many human females to be sexually mature by early teens. Sexually mature males are attracted to such females and often vice versa. It is therefore inevitable that men will 'ogle' an attractive nubile female and unless "Underage" is written across her forehead in Nikko marker, he often has little idea. My own daughter was very well developed by age 14 which brought her unwelcome (especially to her parents) attention. However while I resented the obvious 'admiration' of her abundant chest from virtually every male over the age of 10, I did have enough good sense to know that none were likely paedophiles or even dirty old men - just normal males. Just don't touch!
A decent male would not go beyond looking if the girl was underage and a sensible one would find out asap.

"Pure fantasy."

Are you speaking from experience? Or cluelessness?

You can't imagine anyone would be otherwise than as selfish and bad mannered as you presume they would be on the basis of ....? What? Introspection? Not a bit of projection going on there, is there? ;-)

"We are talking about someone who is paying for sex. Presumably (and this is equally as presumptious as your scenario, only far more probable) he is unable to attract women in the normal course of his life, for whatever reason."

And you would know ... how?

Your 'presumably' is only presumable by your all-presumptions-negative technique that I have criticised for the reasons above.

Just because someone does pay for sex, doesn't mean he's "unable to attract women" otherwise, any more than paying to eat at a restaurant, means you're unable to cook or eat at home.

If you're not interested in understanding the phenomenon you have asked about, then why bother to speculate in invincibly negative circles?

If you are interested, then why not try *imagining* a positive reason? The fact you don't or can't, only reflects poorly on your manners, not other people's.

I agree with all you wrote divine_msn.
I did say that of course men and boys will still ogle mature girls of any age... as that is just human nature!

I would go further and say that women and girls do the same.
I have been known to appreciate the physique of a nice young male, only to be told he is just 15 years old or whatever.
I immediately looked away of course :)

One thing is for sure though, if I was offered a virgin male I would run a mile...

Peter Hume, do you imagine that you alone are the only one on this site with any life experience?

You profess to be the most 'experienced' on this subject, so why not enlighten all us 'bad-mannered','clueless' people and answer all your own questions posed above?

I apologise if I have touched a nerve, Peter Hume. This is clearly a topic close to your heart, and I will have to accept your authority in the matter, an authority surely born of far greater experience.

But I remain fundamentally puzzled by the man's motivation in all this. And frankly, despite all your huffing and puffing, your attempts at explanation leave me no wiser.

>>Just because someone does pay for sex, doesn't mean he's "unable to attract women" otherwise, any more than paying to eat at a restaurant, means you're unable to cook or eat at home.<<

Interesting analogy. The close linkage you determine between sex and eating must cause you a great deal of trouble, if one of your friends were to ask you around to join them at a dinner party. What are you to think? Is dining on another woman's cooking a form of betrayal in your eyes? Imagine, too - you'd be surrounded by other couples... eating!

It also occurs to me that if I am indeed going to pay for a meal at a restaurant, I would most certainly require the chef to be competent. Furthermore, the more I pay, the more experience - and talent - I would expect.

Which leads me - thanks to your analogy - back to the same point.

What is it about having sex with an inexperienced stranger that commands such a high price? And I don't buy all that self-indulgent wishful-thinking twaddle about "watching her understanding unfold from tense cluelessness to knowledgeable enjoyment". Sounds too much like a male fantasy to me.

Perhaps that is it. Just another fantasy-fulfillment exercise, indulged in by someone able to hand over sufficient money, that the lady whose "response in the throes of climax is a pure instinctual first, unlearnt" would be convincingly grateful.

Secularism inevitably leads to humans being reduced to sex objects to be used and abused. Posters here confirm that. Not content to see massives of young girls on drugs, alcholol and suicidal they pretend that the using of each others body is harmless.

"why not ... answer all your own questions posed above?"

I did.

My point is that the commonest view point of most people in this thread is nothing but sneering hostility based apparently on sheer blind prejudice with a good dose of malice thrown in, and that if you use the same intellectual technique as the Christians - i.e. gratuitously and totally negative to the whole topic - you will get a result that, like the Christians', is intellectually and ethically wrong and doesn't care that it is.

Runner, using and abusing women by men, in the form of prostitution, has been around since the beginning of time...long before there were Christians and secularists.

Are you sure there are no drug-takers, prostitutes, alcoholics and suicides in predominantly Christian countries?

Sex crimes have been rife within many religions throughout the history of mankind, so don't preach such rubbish...

Using and abusing women & men, in the form of slavery, including prostitution, has been around since the beginning of time.

Its NOT about gender. Its about POWER. Who has the power?

In today's world women openly boast about having THE power. The girls-night-out epitome is "Find someone you hate and get them to buy you a house!"

Certain people on this thread clearly live under a rock OR assume everyone else does. The STUPIDITY of saying one gender or the other is intrinsically EVIL is such a FRAUD"

Whether female or male: Power corrupts and ABSOLUTE POWER corrupts absolutely. Look at Gillard, her back stab morality and her big PAY-RISE!.

The divisions between rich and poor are NOW reaching levels not seen since the Napoleonic wars, WWI and WWII. The real problem both genders face is the consequent consolidation of power, the erosion of real democratic value and the proximity of global WAR.

The funny thing about WAR though is that when the winners march in the streets, women change sides in a flash and let themselves out to a whole new and exciting market. How delicate and helpless is that. Erstwhile all their menfolk are deceased in battles protecting those same women.

If anyone here really wants to do anything other than express their own vanity, then VOTE against current political pay rises and for CEO remunerations in this country to be pegged to no more than twice that of politicians.

If fat-cats decide to work for other countries, it would be like a planet consuming alien race, stopping mid-meal and finding another planet to consume. ITS THE BEST THAT COULD HAPPEN to us!

These blogs tell me that we have talent and committment in Australia that won't charge us our sovereignty, freedom or dignity to lead & improve our lives.

The moral: YOU CANNOT PAY AVERAGE AUSSIES $40k pa, Com Bank execs $8Mil in BONUSES and expect your children, boys or girls, to be SAFE!

KAEP, "The STUPIDITY of saying one gender or the other is intrinsically EVIL is such a FRAUD"

I am not sure where anyone said that KAEP?

This thread is about the 'wisdom' of women trying to sell their virginity, not men trying to sell theirs.

To me, that means it is about female prostitution, so of course the comments are going to address that issue.

Whether you like it or not, there are far more female prostitutes in the world than male. And most of the male prostitutes service other males.

That's a fact of life.
It does NOT mean all men are evil at all!

You are forgetting that most women have male relatives or friends that they love, even if they 'hate' one male somewhere in their life.

Your sweeping statement ignores that fact.

Suse,

Perhaps what Runner is getting at is that Lust, like Gluttony, is one of the seven deadly sins - with both denegrating the object of their Greed for Excess, and both leading to an abhorrent Obesity of the body and a corruptive starvation of the spirit (or the soul).

Fortunately, we are more than the sum of our bodily functions - for the story of human achievement would be far different otherwise.

In the end result, the physical and sensory experience of 'having' a top-priced (and suitably expert) 'hooker' (or Gigolo) could not compare with the satisfaction and fulfillment derived from a loving and responsive family life. The substitute is a veiled corruption; and those who are without other options are indeed to be pitied.

But, we live in a world of reality, where these days there is often not much difference between casual sex and paying for it, as far as emotional reward is concerned. Chastity is probably now something of a rarity, and quite possibly attracting derision rather than praise. How times and expectations change.

In my view, a commited partnership will always beat a horde of casual intimacy hands down every time.

As for our two 'virgins', they exemplify our laissez-faire society, but I fear they are bound for many disappointments.

Breaking-in a virgin my well be a bit of a buzz, but I doubt it would be all that memorable or satisfying - unless accompanied by a sincere pre-existing loving commitment by both parties.

The best experiences are probably those new found experiences, after a significant 'drought', and especially with a 'born again' virgin. Best of all if there is a bond of genuine affection and caring, and a willingness for a long term commitment.

Suse,

You miss the whole point of my post and egg-on a triviality which you got wrong anyway.

You SAID "using and abusing WOMEN BY MEN, in the form of prostitution, has been around since the beginning of time...long before there were Christians and secularists.

..>

Sex crimes have been rife within many religions .."

Abuse of women by men --- sex crimes?

Only a man who has not considered a female prostitute misses your "evil" scythe.

As any male who has not at least considered using a prostitute has NO testosterone flows and is technically not a man anyway, you are saying One gender (males) are intrinsically Evil(criminal).
What's more I am certain from the ditsiness of your posts, you believe that.

So why do you deflect the gravitas of my post?

To ignore the reality that YOUR ideal Prince Charming, the man with all the money and cool stuff, is the corporate Bad guy. The one that will debase your gender sideways in the final analysis because they have the POWER.

Some women NEVER get past those Fairy Tales!

When women realise that THEIR OVERPOPULATING our planet to avoiid copulating on it has caused climate change, war, poverty and an unsustainable divide between RICH and poor, will they start using contraception en masse to stabilise world tensions and create sustainability?

I can hear Suse now: "Where's the FUN in that? Eh?.And BTW you mispelled avoid so your argument is rubbish."

"And most of the male prostitutes service other males.

That's a fact of life."

What?! You mean to tell me that 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo' does not provide an accurate portrayal of male sex workers?

Way to shatter my illusions :(

KAEP, I am sorry, but I am way too 'ditsy' to converse intelligently with you...
I think this subject has strayed way off course, so I have nothing more to add.

Susieonline "using and abusing women by men, in the form of prostitution, has been around since the beginning of time...long before there were Christians and secularists."

The same argument can be used in reverse. That women have been using and abusing men since the beginning of time in prostitution. Women use men's bodies for money; hence sexual objectification. Women lure men through their sexuality; hence they exploit men vulnerabilities.

But this doesn't sit with today's feminized morality does it?

Oh yes indeed Aristocrat, I certainly feel for the men who use prostitutes.
The worst they can get are STD's.
The prostitutes seem to suffer far worse fates than this...