Indian loses online bid to buy Brazilian student’s virginity

Why do you think is the auction being seen as immoral by some? Is it because they believe Catarina Migliorini is selling something that doesn’t belong to her?

The young woman is an adult, and she is able to choose what to do with her body, without being seriously stigmatised and being assaulted (or Honor killed) by those who find her choice unacceptable.

Who does a woman’s virginity belong to?

Indian loses online bid to buy Brazilian student’s virginity

A Japanese man fended off strong competition from an Indian to secure a date with a 20-year-old Brazilian student, who sold her virginity for a $780,000 after putting it up for online auction for “charity”.

Catarina Migliorini, sold her virginity to Natsu who won against a big-spender from India, Rudra Chatterjee …

Migliorini’s move sparked outrage across the globe as she revealed that she would be followed every step of the way by an Australian crew for a documentary film called ‘Virgins Wanted’ .

The intercourse itself will not be filmed. Sex toys will be banned and a condom will be compulsory, with Migliorini saying she is ready to prove to any sceptic that she’s a virgin. Natsu will be tested for sexually transmitted diseases prior to the act.

Do you agree with this comment?

An insult to womanhood and a mockery on virgins!. Mr. Chatterjee should spend the saved bid amount on eradicating poverty in his state

Don’t you think this a mockery of the idea that sexual inexperience is something to be valued and bought?

Another comment. How do you think virgins benefit from preserving their virginity?

All the poverty stricken virgin girls in India (those who are willing) can try such stint. They will save themselves from rapes, prostitution, ill health or either sold off by parents for meagre amount or married to a drunkard for life. At least they can live life with better standards!

And another. How would you compare this auction to prostitution – from the young virgin’s point of view?

Not a bad deal for the girl. 15 minutes for $780,000. Prostitutes have to work a lifetime with all kinds of risk to earn that money. Seriously no woman is worth that kind of money, but in today’s world rich fools have a lot of money to waste….

Another reaction. Do you think this young woman’s mother or grand mother or great grand mother, who would not have dared to auction their virginity (at their own terms) were more empowered?

It is so sad to learn where the humans are moving to! … Your mother would [n]ever have dared to do it, so will you [ever] be [able] to think of tomorrow your daughter to do so. So, why you? It is a shame you Brazilian girl. You could have followed a Mother Teresa, Ann Franc, Malala, Dr. Annie Besant than going to this kind of stupidity in the name of charity. Those hapless people who will get your charity would be (may be) preferring to live life more harder way than accepting your malignly earned fund to curtail their hardship. And there are some shameless people around the world to dance according to this kind of monster’s music…

Another commenter feels spirituality could save young Indians from such shameless acts.

What (if at all) would you consider shamelessness/immoral in this auction?

Related Posts:

Here’s why I think the society should not obsess over a woman’s virginity.

“…if this thing comes out my husband will think my wife is after all not that ‘pure’ or is not that ‘untouched flower’”

98 thoughts on “Indian loses online bid to buy Brazilian student’s virginity

      • The Japanese guy probably does not realize that with that kind of money to spend, he could just go to Brazil and try and date some pretty women😉

        But eventually it’s his money and her body – so if she wants to sell it and he wants to buy it, then it’s their call. I read on a different article that she intends to donate most of it to charity, so it’s for a good cause.

        Some feminists may feel this is a disgrace to womanhood, but I disagree. She’s acting as an individual here and not as a woman.

        Like

        • Well, this online auction of her virginity has been in the news for quite a while now. What’s not very well known is the fact that the Australian documentary-maker(s) were also following the story of another virgin, a man, who likewise had put his virginity up for sale.

          While the girl has been alternately branded as a prostitute and a do-gooder(because she pledged her earnings to charity), the guy has been painted as loser who lives with his mother- which I found unfair. There weren’t too many takers for his virginity, and I guess he’s ended up with a paltry amount.

          The other point that irked me about this venture, is that the girl was required to provide medical proof of her virginity. The guy , for obvious reasons, couldn’t do this- but I feel the girl’s word should have sufficed, the way it did with the guy.

          In my opinion, this has just ended up proving that female virginity in 2012 is still a ‘valuable’ commodity, the loss of which ‘decreases’ the worth of a woman.
          To pretend that this is feminist or noble or anything other than an individual choice to do what one likes with one’s own body , is frankly laughable.

          Like

        • Oh, and also, I do feel that it is prostitution, but I believe prostitution is not immoral per se. The girl in question , however, has vehemently denied that it is, her excuse being that a one-off sale of sex cannot be termed prostitution.

          The authorities evidently disagree, because the ‘contract’ stipulates that the act needs to take place on a flight, to get around prostitution laws .

          Like

      • Ironic ! Even a comment on the ” ‘no comment’ comment ” gets a thumb down.
        Although seriously, I think the act of this girl is a personal matter. What does this has to do with Feminism. Agreed to Nish that “She’s acting as an individual here and not as a woman.” People should know that “Morality” has a personal definition. Its not something that could be imposed on an individual. Whether its the Guwahati attack or the Mysore Pub attack, people confuse personal and social moral definition as one. Its funny that there is so much rue about proper clothing of Indian girls. Most rich cultures in African Subs don’t see skimp clothing as taboo. Does that mean that all of them are immoral beings?

        Like

  1. Those who think it’s immoral should just ignore it and continue to live their lives,I mean come on it’s not your money the japanese man is using to pay the girl, he EARNED it and he has a RIGHT to spend it on any way he likes.

    And P.S. Indians have always bought virginity of young girls, its just a lot cheaper here and it’s named “DOWRY”.

    Like

    • I think I completely agree. Given a choice between the society attaching such a ‘social’ price tag to virginity (marrying them off early being one of the solutions), and a woman actually being paid for it – I think the latter is much less hypocritic; not to mention voluntary. This is not to say that the Japanese guy is a genuis, just to say that its her life, his money why should anyone have a problem?

      Like

  2. It is a type of prostitution, in my opinion. I wouldn’t condemn it though, it is her body and her choice. Although I couldn’t understand why anyone would pay that kind of money for virginity, even if they can otherwise afford it. Why put such a high value on something so intangible and pretty much worthless? If I had that kind of money, I’d rather partner up with a fellow adventurist and buy a RTW on a Piper Seneca, much more fun than ‘breaking a virgin’ (whatever that means).
     
    And Indian spirituality? Excuse me, this is the country where people might not auction virginity online, but sell thousands of women and children into child labour and sexual slavery. There are far more shameless things that are the norm in the country, because of the desi lack of ethical compass.

    Like

    • I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but AI is correct-
      One of the biggest exports here in Nepal is ‘virgins’.
      An estimated 10,000 young women & girls are sold into sexual slavery annually in Nepal- the primary ‘buyers’ are Indians.

      Like

    • “Why put such a high value on something so intangible and pretty much worthless?” Agree completely. If anything, I think this auction reinforces the artificial value society puts on sexual ‘purity’.

      Like

  3. The girl in this auction had her needs and decided to sell her virginity to save herself from a rainy day! It’s her virginity, her body, her choices and more so her life! The sanctity attached to morality has given birth to these comments! For starters this should not have been news! Let them be! There are so many women who are waiting to see the light of the day after being harassed. why cant this space be utilized for such kinda women!?

    Like

        • Well to be fair to Indians, it’s not just Indians who call her immoral and a prostitute. The reactions were pretty bad in western, christian circles too. It’s more about religious morality than anything else really.

          Like

      • Well this is because too much of stakes are associated with the virginity of a woman which the great Indian male psyche thinks is the gift a woman has to give to a man on the first sexual encounter after their marriage! I am amazed at the 80 percent of comments that shun her! Why is a womans virginity anybodys’ business?

        Like

        • Yes I am getting a little tired of the word Indian being used as a synonym for regressive on this blog’s comments! What would an American Republican say or an Afghan Taliban? Come on guys, there are bigots everywhere.

          Like

  4. I don’t find anything ‘immoral’ here. In fact, it’s none of MY business to judge whether something is immoral or not.

    As far as calling it prostitution is concerned, you may call it so. Going by the definition, in a way, it is so, I believe. But, does it matter?

    Most importantly, it’s HER choice. It’s none of anyone’s business what SHE ‘should’ do and what she shouldn’t.

    A bold, welcome step towards sexual liberalism, more so since it’s more of sexual liberalism of women🙂

    Like

    • Some how I don’t think it is sexual liberalism of women. She is commodifying her “virginity”, something as feminists, I think we should be moving away from… we never hear of a man selling his virginity, do we? Because nobody cares when or with whom a man has sex with for the first time (nor is there a way to prove his virginity).

      I know, I know her body, her “virginity” her choice and all, I get that, but why does virginity have to be something that a woman can sell? As long as we have people selling their virginity, the importance given to virginity and the halo around virgins will never go away.

      I wish I could be alive in a World when no one gives a damn if a woman is a virgin, has slept with 1 man or been promiscuous and slept with a 100.

      Like

      • Well, sex-workers are too selling their body, albeit not virginity per se. I don’t agree that feminists shouldn’t support such a cause. On the other hand, this incident reaffirms/establish the belief that a woman has right who she should sleep with (sleeping for the first time, in this particular case as it’s related to virginity)

        If this (if at all) would increase importance given to virginity. let be it🙂

        Like

        • I see this as cocking a snook at the idea that sexual inexperience (virginity) is something to be valued and bought or sold. I think this would make people see how stupid this obsession with virginity is.

          Like

        • Do you think she would enjoy this sexual experience? Do you think the guy will care if she feels pleasure or has fun? He will do whatever HE wants. This experience will not be a 2 way street – which is definitely not how you want to lose your virginity. (well, it will at least be memorable – that I will give)

          This is not similar to prostitution – it IS prostitution. It reminds of the part in the book ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ where the lead heroine (forgot her name) has HER virginity sold to the highest bidder and it’s a matter of pride to them that her virginity fetched the highest price ever!

          Secondly, she isn’t choosing who she sleeps with – they are. She, or her virginity is the “item” which has been bought by the highest bidder. She isn’t sleeping with him because she is attracted to him – only because he was the only one ready to pay enough for her (no surprise it was a Japanese guy).

          Like

      • Actually a man did just that (based on one of the articles). Of course he only got a paltry sum of 3000 dollars or so, and not 3/4 of a million. For some reason virgin women are more in demand than virgin men are!

        Like

        • Writing the comment again… previous one vanished.

          A guy did too? And no one is making an issue of that? It’s perfectly OK, *morally* for a man to sell his virginity and not a woman?

          Societies double standards always amaze me.

          Btw, there are a million women out there, staying virgins, “saving” themselves for the “right” guy or the husband and yet men are willing to pay hundreds of thousands to have sex with one?

          I always knew women were the more intelligent sex😉 ;D

          Like

        • A guy did too? And no one is making an issue of that?

          Well, society looks down on virgin men, because it’s deemed as an indicator of their inability to get a woman to sleep with them. So virginity in men is often seen an undesirable and a lot of men get openly mocked at if they get to 20+ without having sex. Double standards of sorts I guess, but that’s how it is. I can’t believe he managed to get someone to pay him for sex!

          Like

      • “As long as we have people selling their virginity, the importance given to virginity and the halo around virgins will never go away.”

        I think it’s quite the opposite. No one would buy virginity if there was no importance given to it. The critical requirement is not a seller, but a market. She can sell because there is a market. It already is valuable, she is just cocking a snook at it, as IHM said.

        Everyone tries to leverage all the advantages they have. We have a mostly patriarchal society that considers virginity very important. Parents in India leverage this by controlling their daughter’s sexuality so she stays a virgin and finds a good match in marriage. Atleast in this case the woman herself is leveraging her advantage by choice. Good for her.

        It would certainly be good if the world stopped interfering with women’s sex lives. Perhaps more women making choices about their sex life (including this woman’s choice) is the way, instead of opposing certain choices and not others. That is a dodgy line. If we say it is ok to interfere in women’s sexual choices this one time, then we open the way for people to interfere whenever they see fit. It becomes subjective.

        The Geisha story was about her virginity being sold as part of a system where she didn’t have much choice, not much different to a 16 year old being married off. Both are wrong. But this woman is an adult exercising her sexual choice. As a feminist, I do not oppose that.

        Like

        • I’m not saying we should interfere in her sexual choices. It IS her body, her life, her choice. But, I don’t think it’s a positive step towards feminism. In my opinion, her actions are just as backward as the women who ask for dowry, saw we women belong in the kitchen, say men are better than women.

          The problem is, by leveraging what we have here, the “virginity”, we are contributing to the system that gives virginity so much importance. Both the seller and the buyer are important.

          If the seller decides that they wont sell, no matter what, then the buyers too will stop asking for it, eventually.

          Like

  5. In Norway, it is legal to be a prostitute, and to sell sexual services. It is however not legal to benefit from selling someone else. This distinction makes sense to me. Everyone owns their own bodies, so it’s up to them what to do with it.

    By the way: this auction sold the virginity of one woman, and one man. Why does nobody talk about the man ? His virginity was sold for a small fraction of the female price. What does this say about our valuation of male sexuality ?

    Like

  6. Are most of the commentators Indians.. probably men.. ismy first question.

    Next question how is this st all related to India.. just because one rich guy was bidding…

    In one place we say adults have the right to make their choice.. right or wrong.. again is how we see it.. the girl or people around her obviously don’t see it wrong…

    I had gone to USA there was a fair in it they had this kissing tent.. it was for charity ..you pay and you could kiss a girl.. so the kissing has gone ahead to this I guess..

    Moreover where and how do these people find such auctions I did not have a clue about this till I saw this post..

    I in all my whatever.. have nothing to say on this, I don’t have the right to say when in my own nation hundreds lose the so called virginity to lusts of a man.. who are we to talk about someone In another country..

    Like

  7. It’s her body and her choice. It is nobody’s business how she leads her sex life, as long as it is among consenting adults and doesn’t harm anyone. I read some comments about ‘what women will do for money’. That implies that she doesn’t want sex or won’t enjoy it, but is doing it ‘for money’. Maybe she wanted to have sex anyway, didn’t mind a casual hook-up and then realised some people will pay almost a million dollars for a casual hook-up because she has a hymen. Why is it to hard to imagine that a woman might be willing to give up her virginity and enjoy intimacy with a man? It’s probably not a big deal for her (clearly is for him). She has found a way to exploit the obsession with virginity for her benefit. Good for her.

    I think people are ‘outraged’ because they feel like we have the right to judge people’s sex lives according to our morality. The problem is that morality is very inconsistent. Some people think sex before marriage is bad, some think sex without love is bad, some think sex in exchange for money is bad. Some are taught that enjoying sex itself is bad. There are example of society’s going to great lengths (like female genital mutilation or circumcision) to ensure sex is not pleasurable for the woman. I’m sure the people who are ‘outraged’ don’t actually share the reason for being outraged. So, your morality is subjective and hence not universal and cannot be applied to anyone except yourself. As long what happens is between consenting adults and doesn’t harm anyone (otherwise it could be a criminal issue, not a moral one).

    Like

    • “There are example of society’s going to great lengths (like female genital mutilation or circumcision) to ensure sex is not pleasurable for the woman.”
      I thought circumcision is to reduce sexual pleasure for men. It is MEN who get their foreskin’s chopped off and their glans desensitised as a result; which incidentally is a worldwide practice while FGM is limited to a handful of primitive African cultures.

      Like

      • Are you objecting to my use of this example because it is not as common as male circumcision? Male circumcision is more common but that is no reason to trivialise FGM. It’s actually not limited to primitive Africa. It happens in places like Indonesia, Malaysia and even India http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2012/04/female-genital-mutilation-an-open-secret-in-india/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ .

        More importantly, this is NOT a competition and I thus find your response confusing. I actually gave the example of female circumcision and not male circumcision as the post is about reactions to the woman selling her virginity. Do 140 million living victims of FGM worldwide not matter (WHO estimate)? Are female sufferers of heart disease also not important just because more men get it?

        Let me demonstrate the reverse of your argument (I do not personally endorse this view as any violation of human rights is as bad as another):

        The female anatomy and bodily functions mean that the wound never really heals as their are frequent infections and it is often re-cut for sex and childbirth. FGM is more likely to cause severe damage than male circumcision as the majority of circumcised men recover fully with only some loss of sensitivity. Both can cause death in extreme cases, but you implied that fringe cases (like primitive Africa) don’t matter. FGM has no proven medical effects at all (WHO link above) while male circumcision has been shown to reduce STIs, even AIDS http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ . So should we now say involuntary male circumcision is a trivial problem compared to FGM?

        Like

        • When you talk about circumcision, male circumcision is usually implied. And since you already referred to FGM (female circumstances), I had no reason to expect a double entree, I presumed you meant male circumcision to be about reducing women’s sexual pleasure too.
           
          If you want to make it a competition that is. Personally, I don’t believe in the hierarchy of oppression. However, from some of your comments and the comment of another member, I sometimes wonder if the message you want to send is oppression of women >>>> all other forms of oppression. To give an illustration, it is one thing asking for gender equality in the treatment of heart diseases, but it is quite another thing to make the point by claiming that heart disease is somehow less of a suffering for men as compared to women.
           
          Whether you see it or not, involuntary male circumcision is seen as a trival issue compared to FGM. So I don’t really need a reveral argument to understand the point, I am already familiar with it, thanks to popular hypocrisy. Since you put up a research stat; I’d like to give you a little thought to ponder. Given that male circumcision is practiced in cultures where monogamy is celebrated and BOTH male and female sexuality is strictly regulated, perhaps regulation of sexuality might have a role to play with low prevalence of HIV rates, rather than circumcision itself. False cause-effect scenario? That is of course, assuming that that stats are true; anyone who is familiar with popular science knows how statistics can be fudged as ‘compelling evidence’ in popular media, to push some vested agenda.

          Like

        • My comment is unmoderated so you missed my reply. I checked the WHO page and the research methodology used has a high possibility of false cause-effect bias. We don’t really know if it is male circumcision that reduces AIDS OR the possibility that cultures which practice male cicumcision have sexual practices which are less likely to lead to a high prevalance of AID and HIV. In my experience, it is the latter. Also, the ‘facts’ here might not really be facts, but just targeted research trying to push a vested religious/commercial agenda. If you are familiar with popular science, you are probably familiar with vested research. It is not the first time and definitely not the last.
           
          I any case no one is condoning FGM. Yet, male circumcision, whether it is medically harmful or not; still violates a person’s bodily integrity AND its primary objective is to reduce or curb sexual pleasure in males. If I chop off your fingers in a surgically efficient way, without any medical complication it might not ‘harm’ you per se, but would you agree to such a mutiliation just because it is ‘not harmful’. Carvaka’s argument that only women’s sexual pleasure is controlled with circumcision falls flat in its face in the light of male circumcision. (And for the record, female circumcision is referred to as FGM while ‘circumcision’ in isolation refers to male circumcision which I thought Carvaka was talking about).

          Like

        • AI, first of all *I* have not ever said ‘oppression of women >>>> all other forms of oppression’, so please do not speak for me. You can ask me a question about what I mean, you cannot imply you know what I mean. As is clear from this very thread, you are picking something out of my comment that I did not mean at all. In my comment here, I never said female circumcision trumps male circumcision. I didn’t introduce any comparison at all, I was speaking only of female circumcision as an example or different moralities (because the post is about a woman’s sexual morality).

          To be clear, when I said ‘female genital mutilation or circumcision’, I meant ‘female genital mutilation or (female) circumcision’. You read that as ‘male circumcision’. So now I see what you meant in your comment but I wasn’t speaking of male circumcision so didn’t realise you had read it that way. I obviously do not think that male circumcision is to reduce pleasure for women.. that would be bizarre.

          You also said: ‘To give an illustration, it is one thing asking for gender equality in the treatment of heart diseases, but it is quite another thing to make the point by claiming that heart disease is somehow less of a suffering for men as compared to women.’

          I have not said or indicated that at all! Did I say that I think heart disease is less of a suffering for men? I in fact wrote that I believe any violation of human rights is as bad as another and that this is NOT a competition. You are implying something on me based on nothing in my comment. I was not speaking of male circumcision or any comparison at all. It’s clear to me that you misunderstood what I wrote, so please be aware that you may be bringing some biases to the table yourself too.

          Like

        • @ Carvaka
          Thanks for the clarification. In most normal discourse circumcision usually refers to male circumcision (and female ‘circumcision’ is referred to as FGM). I thought you were saying male circumcision has something to do with reducing women’s sexual pleasure, which I felt was a twist of logic and which is guess is where I misunderstood. Thanks again and apologies.
           
          And for the record, I never claimed that I am free of biases. I am as human anyone else and despite our best efforts, we can never be entirely free of our prejudices, biases or misconceptions. Which is why I always tell people they can disagree with my opinions if they want, which is a good way to see perspectives that I may not be familiar with. Unfortunately and no offence, but people from mainland India tend to be very dogmatic about their opinions – a disagreement is seen as a personal attack that has to be defended at all costs. It pays to have an open mind, but I guess it is too much to expect from some people around here.

          Like

        • AI, no worries. I also didn’t get how you meant your comment initially because I wasn’t thinking of male circumcision at all. I get it now. Thanks for explaining.

          I am happy for people to disagree with me too. Discussion is good. 🙂

          Like

      • AI, male circumcision has been accepted by the WHO as not being harmful to men. Female circumcision, on the other hand … please just read these three posts on my blog. FGM is NOT limited to a handful of primitive African cultures.

        http://storyofwomen.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/female-genital-mutilation-13-types-of-fgmc/
        http://storyofwomen.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/female-genital-mutilation-23-reasons-origins-of-fgm/
        http://storyofwomen.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/female-genital-mutilation-33-current-statistics/

        Like

        • In addition to the discussion above :
          1. Male circumcision is curative in conditions like phimosis, balanitis, etc. whereas FGM is not known to be curative in any medical conditions.
          2. Male circumcision is proven to be preventive against cancer of the penis due to removal of the foreskin which harbors the human papilloma virus in the smegma which is a causative factor of cancer. FGM does not have any preventive role in any cancer.
          3. Many adult males voluntarily opt for circumcision whereas no female would opt for FGM.
          4. Whether or not male circumcision decreases sexual performance or pleasure is a subjective thing. Those who are more sensitive through the foreskin will complain of decreased pleasure whereas those who are more sensitive through the glans will have increased sensations.
          5. Since male circumcision has been mostly practiced involuntarily in the muslim and jew populations, it is strange why the researchers from the christian or western world would support it unless there was some proven benefit. If it is solely for the commercial interest then they should have included FGM in their researches and come out with its beneficial effects too. Unless all the researchers were sadistic feminists who wanted to get even with the male population.
          Fem, your posts about FGM were really informative.

          Like

        • Even homeopathy ( a quackery of worst kind) is accepted by WHO. Male circumcision is extremely harmful for males.

          Like

        • @ Kay I think it is rather heartless on your part to advocate male circumcision. I am a circumcised male and deeply resent it. My genitals were mutilated, without my will, out of the form evolution decided for our species.

          Like

        • “I am a circumcised male and deeply resent it.”
          Bingo. I think women, and men who haven’t been circumcised have no right to tell how ‘harmless’ it is. I also don’t think, women and uncircumcised men have the right to tell people not to make it an issue if someone tried to justify circumcision. To response to Kay’s justifications:
           
          1) It still doesn’t justify male cicumcision. Medical male circumcision is equivalent to amputation, it cannot be justified for normal healthy males.
          2) Smegma has been proposed as a causative factor for cancer after YEARS of accumulation. Amputation of the foreskin to solve a hygiene problem that could easily be solved by washing is akin to removing the teeth because sometimes, tooth decay could lead to TSS (and death).
          3) False. I have known women, who voluntarily got FGMed after they married Egyptian men. Wrong motivation and foolish, but it beats your argument.
          4) A load of crap. Circumcision actually hardens and desensitises the glans. Reduces pleasure even for ‘glans persons’. Those who have been circumcised at birth would probably not be able to tell the the difference, but those who have been circumcised because of religious reasons, when they were sexually active would feel the ‘difference’.
          5) There are political and historical reasons why 80% of Protestant American males are circumcised and why ‘researchers’ and pop-media vouches for circumstances. Reasons that would take too many pages to discuss here, and if you from the Dharmic religious framework, you will also need additional prologue (~more effort to explain).

          Like

        • I can’t understand why some people love to jump to conclusions about what other people are implying through their comments.
          B, I never advocated male circumcision or said that every male should go and get circumcised. I simply mentioned the medical indications and differences of male circumcision from FGM. It is a fact that male circumcision is the indicated treatment in conditions like phimosis. If not performed, a phimosis soon leads to paraphimosis which without circumsicion invariably leads to necrosis and loss of a penis.
          And I never advocated male circumcision without the person’s will or without any medical indications. It is evident that you were circumcised without your will and that was wrong. But there are conditions when circumcision is the option for treatment. That is what I pointed out.
          And just because the WHO recognizes homoeopathy which according to you is quackery, that doesn’t mean that all medical research and practice is quackery too. It is only thanks to the advances in medical research and techniques that even a circumcised part can be surgically reconstructed. Maybe you should find out if you can get it done since you are so distressed by being circumcised.

          Like

        • A I, as Carvaka rightly pointed out that you bring your own biases with your comments, and as you rightly pointed out that everyone has his or her biases, everyone is free to express them. But just like I pointed out in my reply to B, people seem to have their own judgments about what others are trying to imply through their comments. And so do you.
          In my comments I never ever said, or implied, that females or uncircumcised males have the right to shut up circumcised males when they complain. Neither have I said that involuntary circumcision is good or harmless. And nowhere have I stated that circumcision is better than FGM if done forcefully or involuntarily. All I did was to indicate the medical aspects of male circumcision. I’m always open to anyone’s disagreement and contradicting views on it. But why you took it as a personal attack and tried to conclude what I implied through my comment is what is not desirable.
          All I meant was that male circumcision is the mode of treatment in some medical conditions, a few of them emergencies. I didn’t suggest that getting circumcised is a sure shot way to prevent cancer of the penis and hence it is necessary. Comparing it with tooth decay was very childish. Anyways, male circumcision is not equal to amputation, but I won’t get into medical technicalities because it would be beyond the realms of your understanding.
          Searching for religious, political or commercial conspiracies behind medical practices is ghastly and disastrous. No wonder the Indian sub-continent is high up in the list of the few countries still dealing with the menace of Polio, as a few communities see the vaccination as a religious and political conspiracy to render their young ones sterile.

          Like

      • @B, yeah I think the human rights violation is in the fact that it is don’t to babies or children who are not of consenting age. The kiddos have no choice really. I think apart from injections, which are a medical necessity, I wouldn’t mess with my baby’s body at all. If male circumcision even has some potential medical benefits, the kid can choose to get it when he’s grown up.

        I have recently been thinking about the practice of piercing earlobes when kids are young.. most girls and some boys too. I don’t think I personally would do that either. The kid can choose to get their ears pierced when they’re older. People say it’s better to do it on babies so they won’t remember the pain, but I feel uncomfortable doing something painful to the child that it may not want anyway.

        Like

  8. It is far far better than what Indians do. We buy a woman’s virginity for free and make her parents pay for it as well.
    At least this money will go into charity and not to a family who has stuffed their son like a pig to be sold off to the highest bidder.
    Also, she is an adult. We really do not have the right to question her as long as she isn’t doing anything against the law.

    Like

  9. At the best I find it amusing and am glad they are not filming the act and also that it will be a safe act .
    people sell what they can , people buy what they can
    why virginity be on sale ? because it is valued by some . Good or bad ,..but it is .specially if its on TV .
    Is it prostitution ? yes by definition but for me all the arranged marriages san love and respect are legally accepted prostitution . you provide me home and food , i take care of your family and provide you sex – sound familiar ??

    i have heard of some girls in Pune selling body to one guy every week – 2 hours and few thousand bucks .they pick their guys ? some are regular customers – once a week and they can afford their college and lifestyle . I dnt judge them , I just hope that they stay safe . we make choices based on what we can sell and what we get in return.

    She did what she could , she thought she should .. None of my business .

    P.s : If I had all the money , i would have has a male harem .. go ahead judge me

    Like

    • I also feel that arranged marriages are akin to prostitution. And this is especially so in places where the bride and groom don’t even get to spend time together before marriage. I don’t see what else it is.

      Like

  10. She just decided to capitalize the high premium attached (by others) to her virginity. That’s it.
    I don’t think she can be accused of commoditizing her virginity. Sellers can sell only if there are buyers. Buyers create the demand. Sellers see an opportunity to cash in. Don’t you think the buyers are the ones who are commoditizing it, in that case?
    Who evaluates virginity anyways? Who assigned a price tag? It’s a bid, for God’s sake! The buyers do the evaluation. So why is this woman called names?
    If she gets raped, she is blamed. If she sells her virginity, but of course, she is blamed. Beats me!

    Like

  11. Its immoral for the following reasons
    1 why should so much importance be given to being a virgin and selling virginity ??
    2 If its not important then why even talk about selling it ??
    3 glamorizing something that is of no consequence and getting money out of it even if for charity
    cant she do something else
    4 the seller is selling something on pretext of “forbidden” hence immoral and illegal as well its like selling / exporting negative list items
    5 such issues need to be ignored altogether

    Like

    • Morality is a relative concept. When you deem this as immoral, remember that others may deem you as immoral for things you consider quite normal.

      And finally, people are missing the fact that this whole thing was very well marketed and hyped by the company making the documentary. I wouldn’t be surprised if the buyer and seller are all paid actors.

      Like

    • Immoral by your standards, I guess? What is moral for you might be immoral for me or for Barack Obama. Should you change your life to satisfy Barack and I?

      1 why should so much importance be given to being a virgin and selling virginity ??
      – She is not giving it importance, the men who bid hundreds of thousands of dollars gave it importance. So this moral judgement does not apply to her.

      2 If its not important then why even talk about selling it ??
      – It’s hers to sell, whether important or not. Morals don’t come into this. I might want to sell my broken cup, even if you don’t think it’s important. Nothing immoral about that.

      3 glamorizing something that is of no consequence and getting money out of it even if for charity
      cant she do something else
      – Sporting abilities and good looks are of no more consequence to the world than virginity. Both are highly glamourised. Who decides what should and shouldn’t be glamourised? Also, you cannot ask her to do ‘something else’. She is an adult and you cannot interfere with her decision, as long she is not committing a crime.

      4 the seller is selling something on pretext of “forbidden” hence immoral and illegal as well its like selling / exporting negative list items
      – Where does it say that? She is just selling something, the adjectives are applied by you.

      5 such issues need to be ignored altogether
      – And you are free to ignore them. You obviously have no way to control whether other independent adults ignore it or not. What does that have to do with morality?

      Like

      • I used the word immoral because IHM has used the term , why she has used should be questioned as well . why even ask such questions and is ask such questions , why not accept the answers in the same terms

        seller is glorifying virginity concept and so are others who feel she is justified
        forbidden is in inverted commas to show why people are bidding .

        why should glorification’s of a normal medical condition be glorified .

        Like

  12. Its immoral for the following reasons
    1 why should so much importance be given to being a virgin and selling virginity ??
    2 If its not important then why even talk about selling it ??
    3 glamorizing something that is of no consequence and getting money out of it even if for charity
    cant she do something else
    4 the seller is selling something on pretext of “forbidden” hence immoral and illegal as well its like selling / exporting negative list items
    5 such issues need to be ignored altogether

    Like

  13. Not immoral inmy view at all.
    her body, her choice. likewise his earnings , his choice.
    I personally don’t think virginity has that much value. and i thnk he’s getting the short end of the stick. why would you pay sooooo much money for something you may or may not get pleasure from. but it’s his money and he should spend it as he pleases.
    She’s taking a chance too, he could be pathetic.

    But since it’s the men who put virginity on a pedestal, let them pay for it….🙂

    As for the indian guy, better luck next time sir .

    Like

      • I am not comfortable with the use of that logic. I have heard far too many men and their families say “well, the girls family wanted to pay us dowry, so who are we to say no?” It sounds very similar to that to me.

        Like

        • It’s not at all the same.
          Here he is paying the price for something he wants, it’s a simple sale, she has it, he wants it andhenc epaying up. like buying a dress, you have it, it’s worthless to you but i want it hence you claim it’s 20,000 rs and if i’m an idiot who thinks it’s priceless or a novelty then i will buy it and you will sell it🙂

          dowry is actually the parents selling their child ( not the child selling herself ot the higgest bidder) and the buyer getting the goods and money !!!! never see anythng like it in the marketplace. a win-winf or the groom, of cours ethey’ll take it , who wouldn’t , if you choose to give me your faboulous house and pay me to keep it, think I’d refuse???

          parents and the girl itself have to start the refusal to give dowry trend,,,not the groom. of course some men are there who are averse to buying brides but there are the opposite too … meh we make all kinds in this world.

          Like

      • its woman who is glorifying her virginity and selling it
        man are mere buyers for a product that the woman has made premium

        why should we blame man always , lets put some blame on the woman as well who glorify a simple medical condition of being virgin

        lets take them to task as well
        fine with me its their body , but they are setting a wrong trend and luring other girls to come forward and sell a product called virginity
        today it may be for charity , tommorrow it will be for pocket money

        its like college students selling sperm on pretext of sperm donation for funding a plush life style

        how can we you justify it ?? i fail to understand

        Like

        • whats wrong with selling sperms or own body for money ?? is it harming anyone ??

          Prostitution by own will is not wrong at all . but associated things like trafficking , forced psros , kidnapping , rapping minors are ?? lying to someone of love and having consensual sex is worse.

          prostitution is a good option for people who don’t want to invest time an effort in relationships . its just about sex . I as a woman may never have to buy a guy because i know I can get sex easily ..but for some men its not that easy . but sometimes if I am only in a relationship for sex , there are chances of other guy get emotional. wouldn’t paid sex be a better option for me as well ?? As long as its safe .

          If selling virginity is the question here , then why people in many states of india still celebrate their daughters first period ? virgin brides are a matter of pride all over the world . some women cut their thumb to put blood on the bed , so that their husbands and MILs can boost of chaste bride ??

          there is no step backward or forward for feminism here . And why blame man or woman here , they are just selling an idea , charity or no charity ..does it matter ??

          Like

        • The seller cannot glorify a product if there is no demand. Someone will only pay for it if they want it, not because it’s on sale.

          I can put a broken cup on sale, but it will only fetch the price that a buyer is willing to pay. I cannot sell it for $700,000 if it’s not worth that to anyone. I cannot sell it at all if no one wants to buy it.

          In countries where prostitution is legal, there is nothing wrong with a woman or man choosing to sell their body for charity or pocket money. I wouldn’t blame the prostitute or client for anything here. In this case, it is only wrong if it forced, like in trafficking situations.

          Students selling/donating sperm to make money.. what’s wrong with that at? All that sperm would have been produced anyway. This way someone gets to have babies with it (demand) and maybe the producer gets to earn some money. Also, the students are not glorifying their sperm.. it is being sold because someone wants it enough to pay for it.

          Like

    • What’s ironic is that sex with a virgin is always likely to be dodgy. Why would you not want to have sex with someone who’s experienced and good at it, specially if you are paying 3/4 of a million?

      Like

  14. This just confirms how many cultures put a price on virginity. Several years ago, a young woman in the United States also placed her virginity up for auction. The typical reaction in that case and this one as well is that many are willing to condemn the woman, but not the men who are bidding on her virginity. But I also wanted to add how I feel virginity has turned into something of a fetish. These days, women can get surgery to “become virgins” again. It’s really quite disturbing.

    Like

  15. This is most likely a marketing campaign for everybody involved. I can’t believe people fall for it again and again and get worked up over it.

    Like

    • “This is most likely a marketing campaign for everybody involved. I can’t believe people fall for it again and again and get worked up over it.”
      That is my first thought as well, when I read it in Times of India. I actually find it difficult to believe that an Indian man who can afford to pay more than $700,000 for something as trival as virginity wouldn’t be able to find a virgin woman in the country, at a much lower expense. Or for that matter, someone making that kind of money be stupid enough to put such a premium on the virginity of a random stranger in a distant land.
       
      I suspect it to be some publicity stunt involving this woman and a few of the ‘bidders’, something that uncritical people would be goats to fall for.

      Like

      • You have a point. Why not just get married? Many Indian girls are brought up to be virgins until their marriage. He can even RECEIVE money for it instead of having to pay. That’s one real shoddy businessman, if you ask me!

        Like

        • he wanted to be on TV ..and known for something different .its not just abt having sex with virgin .:) its more like talling someone why are you going to a star hotel and spend thousands when you can get better food in a dhaba for 100 bucks ..Its much more than food even when all that you want to do is eat🙂

          Like

    • The girl is not being exploited nor is the Japanese man being suckered. She and her publicity people are exploiting and suckering all the folks who are busy defending and attacking her.

      Like

  16. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Ofcouse, I wouldn’t’ want to do anything like this but stil its her choice. She probably doesn’t see virginity as anything special. but she is smart and knows that some people do. so she is using that to her advantage to get money. its like if you have something which is no value to u and some idiot wants to buy it for a lottttt of money , ofcouse you will sell it. But if you have something which is of extreme value to u, ofcouse you wont’ sell it. So it all depends on, what virginity matters to her. She didn’t lose anything or did anything wrong, if it was worthless to her anyways.

    Like

  17. Is her body…and his money…they can do whatever they want with it…but the sad part is that its putting virginity on a pedestal….would he pay the same amount if she was not a virgin? i doubt it…

    Like

  18. Nothing to be ashamed of. Its her life and for her to decide. She is an adult and no one is forcing her. As for the guy who won the bid, the same rules…its his money and what he does with it is his business.

    Like

  19. A bit off-topic here….but a lot of comments on this post and some previous posts too suggest that its only the women’s virginity that has been put on a pedestal. Here in a traditional arranged marriage set up(at least) – say if the guy wasn’t a virgin and the girl was – and if she found out – in all probability the guy would be rejected outright.

    Like

  20. Interesting incident. As some one pointed out this is making Women’s virginity a pure commodity. In Indian Patriarchal society women`s virginity is a treasured wealth of the family concerned. But it is not given any monetary value. Instead it is given away along with money (dowry). Women has no role in decision making about this..
    Here the woman gets money for selling her virginity. But she do not have any role in decision making about whom to sell. The market decides that. Here the high value Patriarchy gives to woman’s virginity is being directly converted into money instead of converting into honor. In a way this girl is pointing out that patriarchal honor is a pseudo honor and is tremendously over valued.

    Like

  21. before i get into what i think about it, i had a question.. assuming that is wrong or immoral or whatever, why are fingers being pointed only at the girl for selling her virginity and not at the guys who are bidding/buying it? if prostitution is wrong, aren’t these guys being equally immoral?? And why is everybody using virgins as a collective noun like that is separate tribe or country??

    So, anyway, coming to the questions raised here,
    This is prostitution imo. That is not necessarily wrong or right. It involves 2 adults and they are free to make their own decisions. I wouldn’t judge people based on that. I mean, if this girl or the guys were my co-workers or something I would feel/behave the same way with them as I would with anybody else. But, personally, I would never date a guy who feels the need to rent a woman’s body. In this particular case, I feel there is nothing shameless. I feel people who go to prostitutes and hide it and come back and preach morals to others are much worse than people who are open about what they are doing.

    Like

    • I always thought so , that I would never date a guy who rents a girls body . but just to think abt it . you just want sex ..what options you have , trick a girl into believing you love her , or just approach random girls and see if someone else is looking for casual sex .or just go to a prostitute . I find it least offending now.

      Like

      • yeah.. that true… maybe i feel that way because i can’t completely isolate the physical and emotional needs.. i mean, i cant have a purely physical relation with someone without any emotional strings attached.. others might be able to.. and while i don’t think any less of them for that reason, they are just not my type..

        oh btw, i always comment anonymously because i am unable to find a nice username on the gravatar thing.. every single username i can think of is already taken.. so you guys suggest something please..

        Like

  22. Seriously??? A hymen can go for that much money? Damn, to think of how one wasted the opportunity to make so many dollars! Sheesh! In any case it’s just a tissue. Hers to sell or do whatever with, his to buy. I do not spend hours worrying about the morality of it all – to me virginity is a non-issue, commerce for sex is something that I have issues with – because of the health issues as well as the fact that those in this trade are unbelievably cheap and crass

    Like

  23. Ah. I am completely neutral about the acts of the Brazilian girl and the Chatterjee fellow. Well, on second thought, this Chatterjee does come out as quite a bit vain. But its all great for the Brazilian girl. really not a bad deal. More power to her. On a personal level, I am a bit jealous of both of them, since I can’t make that kind of money in 15 minutes nor can I afford to blow it on a 15 minute act ( or any act, for that matter😦 )

    Like

  24. Actually, I’m surprised nobody’s pointed out this – that the girl is conventionally pretty with a good figure. If she was overweight, “ugly”, and advertising her virginity for sale, do you think she’d have had any bidders? In fact, I’m certain that people would be mocking her for her weight and (lack of) looks, Pretty much like people would mock a virgin male for being a virgin and advertising the fact.

    Like

  25. Pingback: Girls morally bound not to have sex before marriage, says fast track court judge | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  26. Pingback: ‘I’m now thoroughly convinced that the entire concept of virginity is used to control female sexuality.’ | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  27. Pingback: If pre-marital sex if here to stay, then so are HPVs and other STDs. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  28. Pingback: Does it hurt the first time you have sex? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s