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?