Is the virginity auction real?
NZPA reports:
Going, going, gone – a New Zealand teenager has auctioned off her virginity to a stranger for over $45,000 to fund her university tuition fees.
The 19-year-old Northland student, who listed her virginity on the ineed.co.nz website under the name `Unigirl’, said the leading bid was “way beyond what I dreamed”.
“Thank you to the more than 30,000 people who viewed my ad and to the more than 1200 offers made,” she posted on the site.
I am a bit sceptical about this. The ineed website is very slow to load at the moment, so I can’t check but off memory it does not show you every bid made, and the winning bid like Trade Me does.
I am sceptical that an auction of sex with a 19 year old girl, even a virgin, would fetch $45,000. Maybe if they had photos up showing a super model, but this was an auction that gave almost no details of the seller.
And 1,200 bids makes me suspicious also. Is there proof of this?
Now maybe it did happen,but I would be less suspicious if it had occurred on Trade Me as you can see winning bids, and their commission structure means that the seller has to pay more money when bids are higher, so they only want genuine ones. Again the ineed site (off memory as it won’t load) charges a flat listing fee I think.
So have any media checked out the veracity of the claims, before reporting them?
UPDATE: Dave at Big News has done what the media did not do, and ring the site owners and as them some questions. He thinks it is a stunt as the offers are all made by e-mail so there is no way to verify the number of bids, or the winning bid.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:08 am
That’s the first thing I said to my wife this morning DPF, it’s a stunt designed to drive people to the site – after I’d paid her for sex first, of course.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 am
I went to the auction website the other day after your first piece David and did a keyword search and couldn’t find anything regarding ‘virgin’ or ‘virginity’ or ‘Unigirl’. I figured they’d taken it down after the publicity. Maybe it is made up.
Maybe it’s those design students again trying to get noticed, like those guys on CLose Up last year.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 am
I heard that a bloke named Trevor won it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:13 am
What was your bid?
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Mate, I wouldn’t pay $45K to fuck any woman on the planet, let alone a virgin. Except for perhaps Felicity Kendall.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:20 am
I never believed it – just a tacky publicity stunt.
The feminists should be outraged
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
I quite fancy Silvio Berlusconi’s ex. Very tidy for 53. I’ve already shagged Felicity about 5000 times in my mind.
Stig: Only went to $5, virgins are shit useless, give me experience any day.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Felicity = Rear of the year in 1981:
http://www.rearoftheyearcompetition.com/history.html
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
There is a distinct smell of fish here…but a very good point, DPF. I’d be interested to see if there is any evidence about this, beyond what iNeed has said. Seems like a great PR stunt, if you’re trying to generate traffic.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 am
Exactly.
There seems to be a yawning credibility gap opening up here.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:33 am
Johnboy you bastard – you are talking about the woman I love.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:35 am
No, it was real – saw it myself though it wasn’t the easiest thing to find.
[DPF: I am sure there was a listing. I am sceptical about the number of bids and claimed level of bids]
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
I’m not too sceptical about the price. $45,000 is clearly in response to the rarity value of a 19-year-old Northland virgin.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 am
regardless of whether or not its real its bloody appalling. At least in the middles ages they didn’t have reality TV.
I suspect we are devolving.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Sorry about that Brian but about a 100 million other guys have done the same as me. Forget her Brian. Lets face it she is just a slut and you are far too good for her.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:51 am
From what I saw on the site, it’s not a “bidding” site as such. You make offers, and the person decides if they want to accept them.
[DPF: Which confirms my suspicion. The fact the site is so slow to respond also makes me question how it could have possibly had 1,200 people actually make bids]
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Never understood the whole sleeping with a virgin turnon thing myself, count it as a negative personally. Slept with a couple and they both rate at the lower end of the spectrum so to speak, as would be expected.
However I could believe that some person would pay that, I just dont understand why!
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
1. I’d definitely not pay for sex (my other half reads this site…..)
2. If I were to pay for sex, I’d pay more for a good looking non-virgin than an ugly virgin
3. There’s no photos of this girl
4. So there’s no way I’d pay $45K to have sex with her, when she may be ugly.
5. If you were that much into sex with virgins, surely for $45K you could fly to somewhere in asia and buy a virgin to keep, instead of getting one for one night?
Sorry, sounds fake. And, DPF, once again you’re showing why the MSM are plonkers and blogs will take over the world.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Jeff83 – I have to agree. Give me a sexy experienced slut like Felicity Kendall any day, even if I am too good for her.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Talking about “virgins” and old ladies must be a slow new day?
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
You always pay.
One way or another you WILL pay.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@Brian
Forget Felicity Kendall
Think Catherine Zeta-Jones
She’s enough to melt a ‘He-landers Sporen’
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Most likely explanation is a reporting typo. $45 from 30 bids seems more plausible. Wouldn’t be the first “factor of 1000″ news error lately.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Yeah what does she see in that worn out old geriatric Michael Douglas anyway? (Apart from his bank balance of course).
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
>And 1,200 bids makes me suspicious also. Is there proof of this?
The United Nations certified the number. So it was actually two bids. The top bid was $6. The woman isn’t actually a virgin. Or a woman, technically speaking. She doesn’t live in Northland, but a virginity lobbying group said that they’d seen someone that looked sort of like her in Northland once, many years ago, and that’s enough evidence for the UN to go on.
Regardless of these errors, the UN will win a Nobel Prize and Nick Smith will dream up a $50billion virginity preservation scheme.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:02 pm
PaulL. “If you were that much into sex with virgins, surely for $45K you could fly to somewhere in asia and buy a virgin to keep, instead of getting one for one night?”
???? She would only be a virgin once. Excuse me while I throw a cup of cold water on this discussion. Thousands of men have paid this sort of money for, maybe not a virgin, but sex. Get a girl pregnant and the average child support bill is coincidentally around $45,000.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:19 pm
The fact that we don’t know the identity of this ‘virgin’, are we sure this isn’t perhaps a combined fundraiser and public profile raising effort in Lisa Lewis’s bid to gain the Hamilton Mayorilty?
Just a thought – the things some media/whores will do, eh?
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
” Thousands of men have paid this sort of money for, maybe not a virgin, but sex. Get a girl pregnant and the average child support bill is coincidentally around $45,000.”
So the news is NZ is a country full of whores. Got anything fresh??
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
of course its fake, theres no such thing as a 19 year old virgin in Northland.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Redbaiter 1:26 pm,
Pretty much; well whores and sluts.
I’ve heard it said that basically by the time a young girl reaches 13 she has already given away her virginity. And, of course, the boys are not much different in this respect. Sadly, most parents all but endorse this behaviour in their kids – “Make sure you use a condom; it’s important to practice ’safe’ sex.”
So if you want something ‘fresh’, you’ve really got to go to the 12 and under ‘market’.
Don’t we live in a wonderful society!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Kris, have you based that on any facts at all?
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Personally, I like sluts.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Kris, you’d prefer they sold their virginity than gave it away? I’m not following.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
” Kris, have you based that on any facts at all? ”
“facts” so you can tell us how you “feel” about them????
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
The good thing about sluts is they grow up to be scrubbers Brian.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Pete George 2:01 pm,
Malicious rumours, Pete, malicious rumours.
Perhaps something to include in the next census.
PaulL 2:18 pm,
If you gleaned that from my comment, Paul, then you don’t know me very well. I’m sure Red didn’t misconstrue my meaning, and I don’t really think you did, either.
Don’t play dumb, when I know you’re not.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Well shot Red.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
# Kris K (1421) Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Pretty much; well whores and sluts. I’ve heard it said that basically by the time a young girl reaches 13 she has already given away her virginity. And, of course, the boys are not much different in this respect. Sadly, most parents all but endorse this behaviour in their kids – “Make sure you use a condom; it’s important to practice ’safe’ sex.” So if you want something ‘fresh’, you’ve really got to go to the 12 and under ‘market’. Don’t we live in a wonderful society!!
What’s wrong Kris K – jealous you’re not getting any pussy? What exactly do you have against teenagers having safe sex? Do you realise that back in Biblical times girls that reached the age of menstruation were bearing children? I suppose though you’d more than love to carry out some of your favourite commandments from your KJV:
Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 25:11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Judges 19:24-25 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Paul McCartney is the mystery winner, he is quoted as saying $45,000 for a shag is dirt cheap compared to what I paid for each one when I was married……
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Anna
Although Kris’s stats are a little warped, he did insinuate that all girls lose their virginity by 13. To which you replied “What exactly do you have against teenagers having safe sex?”
Just curious…… do you not have a problem with 13 year olds having sex?
also do you think that teenage sex is often safe? who should pay for the mistakes that teenagers make? the parents? you? me?
and no Im not religous
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Anna Sewell 3:37 pm,
Teenage ’safe’ sex is a myth, Anna. Although maybe not in the parallel universe you live in.
Ever checked out the STDs and unwanted pregnancies that result from the practice of your so called teenage ’safe’ sex?
I think you need to broaden your reading material.
Yes I do – and they usually had a husband as well – slight difference.
Some people estimate Mary’s age as about 14 when she conceived Christ.
Are you actually trying to make any sort of a point, or just obfuscate, as usual?
If you actually took the advice of the above verse you referenced, you may actually learn something. And yes, at my church we do practice this command (unlike many). The women in my church, as a consequence, are some of the most free and clear thinking Christian women I know. The truth shall set you free, Anna; you should try it sometime.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
$45k? Rediculous. If you’re that into virgins why not just scatter yourself into a thousand pieces in the name of Allah and get 72 of them.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Kris,
No, you’re right. I just took offense at the particularly loaded language you used. “Giving their virginity away” is so much more of a loaded statement than “having sex at a very young age.” Since you chose to use that language, I chose to interpret it literally. I find that allowing someone else to control the terms of the debate, the language, and the context, isn’t really a good idea – you end up arguing about something that is presupposed in the original statement. Red would be very familiar with that, he regularly rails about the “progressives” doing exactly that same thing.
Why am I not surprised.
Is your problem with 13 year olds having sex that:
a) they are 13 and that is too young to be having sex
b) it would be OK if they were married like in biblical times, but that damn gummint won’t let us any more
c) they’re women, and women should be subservient, not making choices for themselves
d) they might catch something
Each of those has very different philosophical underpinnings.
I would happily agree with point a), but also note that 13 year olds do all sorts of things that we’d rather they don’t do, and that it isn’t really possible to stop some of them. I’d rather we focused on the highest damage things they might do (drugs, crime, self harm, medical problems like anorexia and bulimia). If we manage to stop them doing those things, it would also be nice if we stopped them from having sex. And if we don’t stop them from having sex, it would be very good to encourage them to have safe sex. I’m afraid that when I was 13 nobody on earth could have convinced me it was a bad idea to have sex if I could have gotten an opportunity. Unluckily or luckily (depending on how you see things) I didn’t have a chance.
On b), not interested in 13 year olds being married, and I don’t personally see marriage as essential to having sex.
On c), don’t start me.
On d) definitely a risk, but that is a hell of a lot easier to manage than attempting to stop them having sex at all.
Interested in a discussion, or just interested in telling me what the bible says?
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Lets not judge too hastily chaps, perhaps the purchaser of the lady in question is hoping to create another “Virgin Birth”.
I am sure he has already done a due diligence operation on what this may mean for him in royalties and licensing fees using the last recorded virgin birth as a benchmark.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
PaulL 6:03 pm,
I guess I see it as a ‘loaded’ issue, and feel I get my point across more effectively if I use direct and forthright language.
I really do see it as them ‘giving away’ their innocence; not to mention the other risks/consequences.
We/I try to apply the WHOLE counsel of God (subject to right division 2 Tim 2:15) – many churches do not.
I’m primarily a) – but sex for teenagers outside marriage (at any age, but certainly under 16) is too young, and too risky; both healthwise, and also emotionally/spiritually. I believe generally sex outside marriage for anyone has much the same risks – just moreso for those extremely young.
Your c) is from another comment (to Anna) and so is out of context in that sense. It was more a general comment re Christian women regarding spiritual authority and their submission to authority structures God has put in place within the church.
ALL of these things are symptomatic of the spiritual state of society – including young teenages being sexually active. They are all moral/value driven choices where they, teenagers, are only imitating the values which society in general holds to.
Disagree – ’safe’ sex is a myth. The Bible encourages people to wait till marriage. The fact that society rejects biblical values in this regard is the reason for so many unwanted pregnancies, STDs, AIDS, and, I believe, much of the mental illness we observe in moderday society compared to a generation or so ago.
While we can debate/discuss this, I think we come from, largely, diametrically opposed values/views, and so we are never likely to agree – but I’m happy to discuss it further – I just don’t know what I am likely to add more than I’ve already said. But let’s see were it goes.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Johnboy 6:07 pm,
I know you think you’re being funny, but to many of us you’re not.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
But you have to admit Kris that the first virgin birth has been a great little earner for many over a fairly long period of time.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I was amused.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Johnboy 6:56 pm,
I’ve certainly benefitted.
As a direct result of the ONLY virgin birth, I have had my eternal salvation ‘purchased’ by the blood of Christ.
So yes, in that sense it’s been a great little ‘earner’, and has paid out some pretty impressive ‘dividends’, as many here will attest.
(But I do understand what you mean – there have been, and are, many ripoffs in the name of religion/Christianity)
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Oh, and Johnboy,
Speaking of ‘dividends’ – have you accrued any more demerits courtesy of DPF; especially since your last impressive effort.
Quite apt given the title of this topic, and that when you ‘popped your cherry’ it was one hell of a bang.
Demerit virgin no more – heh.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
If you get sick from doing something to much it is obviously not good for you. NZers are notoriously bad at the mating game and getting seriously worse. You can all mock and ridicule the Christians but at the end of the day what the hell are you doing to help fix all NZs sex related problems?
People like to make this a religious or prudish issue when it is actually a logic issue, it is not good for people to screw around, it just isn’t!!
So many people that are screwed in the head have been screwed everywhere else first!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
As far as I know Kris I have been one of the bestest little boys in nice Mr. Farrars class since my naughty little tantrum and am looking forward to a very good report from him, Dean Tolley and Headmaster Key when the year ends and national standards are introduced.
Do you ever get pissed and loosen up a bit or do you wear your hair shirt 24/7 and flagellate yourself every day and twice on sundays?
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Shunda barunda 7:19 pm,
You put that so much better than I did, Shunda.
But be careful, PaulL may accuse you of using “loaded language” – it’s important to ’soften the blow’.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Johnboy 7:43 pm,
We can compare notes and see who gets the gold star.
Your surname isn’t the opposite of ‘Day’, by any chance?
I had a boss, once, that accused me of not “getting pissed and being one of the boys” enough, even though he knew I was a Christian.
It would be quite humourous if you’re one and the same person.
You are a John and live in Wellington, afterall.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Kris K
Dragging up the dirt is very unchristian.
Perhaps Johnboy is getting the better of you.
More Bible study from you is required!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Which one of your strange personality traits led Mr Oppositetoday to suspect that you were not “one of the boys” so to speak Kris?
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:22 pm
pentwig 8:08 pm,
This was a joke a couple of months ago between Johnboy and myself. Johnboy kept pushing the boundaries and yet not getting pinged by DPF. I labelled him the ‘Demerit Virgin’ because he had no demerits to date. Shortly after this he pushed a little too hard and DPF ‘awarded’ him with 50 demerits. I then renamed him ‘Demerit Virgin No More’. I guess you had to be there.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Johnboy 8:13 pm,
As far as I can gather it was for no other reason than that I was a Christian.
I was pretty mild in my expressions of my faith at work, but most people knew I was a Christian. We’re going backa few years, though. I guess I’m more forthright here in DPF land. But then your at work to work – whereas we’re here to share our views and opinions.
So you’re not ‘Mr Oppositetoday’, Johnboy?
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Thats true pentwig it was sort of like a virginity auction and I lost my cherry by being too precocious. I’m still worried about Kris’s attempts to out me as Mr. Oppositetoday though! (as if I would ever have hired a Xtian to start with
).
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
No Kris but I do feel that he and I could get on well together and be very good friends if we ever met.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
“Your surname isn’t the opposite of ‘Day’, by any chance?”
Kris K, very shrewd to put that in code so others dont guess the name. You should apply for a job at the GCSB.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Johnboy 8:33 pm,
He’d be in his late 70s by now.
He used to get the DTs something terrible at work – pretty sure he was an alcoholic. His hands shook so much that if he came into the design office and used a pencil he would continually break the lead because he had to press so hard to write clearly. I used to feel sorry for him. Often wonder what happened to him; whether he’s still alive – whether he found the Lord or not.
I like to think I had a good Christian testimony at work, and that I may have influenced him in this regard. Just like I might influence you and others here. I guess I’ll only find out how effective I was/am when I reach eternity.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
black paul 8:40 pm,
I’m sure if Johnboy had been Mr OppositeOfDay he would have mentioned any number of things that only he and I would have known from working together for over five years – such as the first name of the office lady – “No, I’m not him, but I used to work in a place where the office lady was named ‘Julie’. But more subtle, obviously.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
And yes, at my church we do practice this command (unlike many).
Interesting, what Church do you go to? I might pay it a visit.
Also, care to tell us whether this Church lives by the earlier pieces of scripture I posted, rather than your selective choice of only addressing the passage in 1 Timothy?
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I bloody am not an alcoholic Kris. I never drink more than one bottle of gin a day!!
And the bloody pencils are tax-deductible you know!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Kris K,
I don’t believe that children from non-religious backgrounds have a monopoly on sex too young, or on any of the other ills I suggested. It may be a sign of moral weakness, but so far as I can recall the church doesn’t expect that everyone will be righteous at all times – Jesus Christ died for our sins, right? At least some of the churches I’m familiar with have quite clear expectations around repentance, and clearly that means that people frequently have things to repent.
I suspect those who are young are prone to make more mistakes than those older, and therefore probably have more to repent.
In other words, whilst I can agree with you that it would be nice if children didn’t engage in sexual activity, it would seem a little naive to expect that for everyone, and at all times, that they would in fact abstain. A significant proportion of kids, from good homes and not so good homes, will go and have sex anyway. That is what kids do. If your world view is that “it just shouldn’t happen” then I’m afraid you will often be disappointed. If your world view accepts that it sometimes will happen, and that we need to be there to pick up the pieces sometimes, then you are probably being more realistic.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:54 am
PaulL [February 3rd, 2010 at 9:25 pm],
While I agree with much of what you say, I guess I believe it’s better to ‘prevent’ than ‘cure’.
By teaching our kids strong values/morals we are more likely to enable them to make informed moral choices. Of course they will get it wrong some of the time, just as adults do – none of us (Christian or not) are perfect, after all.
And in the case of Christians; while Christ DOES, and the church SHOULD, “expect that everyone will be righteous at all times”, both Christ and the church/Christians realise that we all stumble and sin from time to time. And yes, in such instances when we repent our sins we are indeed forgiven.
Heck, I still sin – but my intention is not to.
Sometimes, as I mentioned earlier, we set our kids up to fail – “Make sure you use a condom; it’s important to practice ’safe’ sex.”
So, with the above qualifications, I think we essentially agree.
And I really do think that ‘prevention is better than cure’.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Anna Sewell [February 3rd, 2010 at 8:59 pm],
You may have noticed, Anna, that all of your other scripture references were from the Old Testament.
And so while these may have been commands, etc., for the Jews, they are not necessarily for the church – and certainly not the references you quoted. We live under NT Grace and not OT Law. Of course some of the OT is relevant to the church, but, on the whole, where this is the case, these teachings/values/commands have been restated in the NT.
And regarding me telling you which church I attend (in Wellington), and you paying a visit, I would have to sense a serious change in your attitudes as expressed here, and that you are genuinely seeking the Lord, or at least you are moving down that path.
As others have said; you come across as having already made up your mind.
But the Lord does indeed move in mysterious ways – the Apostle Paul is a good example of someone who was an arch enemy of the church, but who became her main advocate and, perhaps, her greatest teacher.
I guess time will tell.
If you truly seek the Lord, Anna, you will indeed find Him.