Natalie Dylan is proving Dahlberg right by combining the two of men’s desires along with a healthy dose of capitalism and good-old American work ethic.
The Sacramento State Hornet is treating Dylan as if it is a real story. It is fairly safe to assume it is a bogus story concocted by radio DJ Howard Stern and/or Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof. Still it is interesting to look at the story because of the tremendous amount of interest that it has generated.
Dylan is using the Internet to sell a service, her deflowering, to the highest bidder. According to Hof, the bids are about $250,000.
Good old supply and demand at work. Milton Friedman should be proud.
Much of the attention has been on the supply. How dare this young woman supply this as a service. The bigger question is the demand side.
Generally, when we want services, we look for experience. Nobody would spend more to get a plumber who is unclogging pipes for the first time. Better to get a plumber who has seen plenty of pipes in their career.
Services all seem to work that way, experience ranks higher than newness.
Yet when it comes to men (let’s assume it is all men bidding on Dylan’s sexual services) bidding for sex, newness matters. Can you imagine the bidding that would take place for a woman looking for her centennial partner, bogus or otherwise.
There is a reasonable chance the woman looking for that lucky 100th partner will be much better at sex than a virgin, but still she isn’t going to get nearly the demand generated by Ms. Dylan.
Men have fragile egos when it comes to sexual prowess. Women are always telling us we are the best they ever had, but we know in our hearts that’s bullshit.
With a virgin, at least for some period of time, you are the best she ever had. That period might only be fifteen minutes, until she figures out who is No. 2 (at a considerably discounted rate) but still during that time, you know you are the best she ever had.
But why don’t we feel that way with a plumber? Wouldn’t we be proud if we had the finest pipes the plumber has ever seen? Shouldn’t we be looking for that plumber ripe for deflowering?
Perhaps men just don’t see sexual relations with a woman as a service, but as a product.
It is much easier to understand a willingness to spend for a new product over a used one. We understand how products devalue as they are used.
It still doesn’t make sense. Paying for sex is more about a service than a product. You would think you are paying more for what she can do rather than what she is.
Perhaps it is just a prehistoric urge built into men. Regardless if it is sexual or companionship, we still want and need a specific type of woman.
Even though Dylan isn’t the woman you are going to take home to Mom, or showoff at the next company Christmas party, we still can’t get over looking for the woman who fits some ancient idea of womanhood.
The relationship only lasts until the Bunny Ranch buzzer goes off, but we still are more concerned with the woman rather than her skills.
Last week Cody K wrote a blog about robotic sexual partners. Will people want the new robot, fresh off the assembly line, or the one that has been broken in and lost some of the new robot sharp edges?
4 comments:
Haha thanks for the link. :)
i think this whole v-card debacle is a waste of space (not on your blog, but in general, the fact that it is receiving any coverage). however you bring up some interesting points, most notably how women are viewed as a product, not a service. definitely made me think a little bit harder about the whole situation. some good thought behind your column.
I only have an e-mote to describe my love of this article:
/applaud
~Dave
The column makes some clever points, but I think could have jumped into the major notion of supply and demand much earlier.
It's the strongest part of what's written.
The use of the analogy about a plumber is quite clever, whether intentional or not, considering that a plumber deals with, well, plumbing, after all, and in this case... Oh, never mind...
The writer does miss an opportunity for more humor
"Perhaps it is just a prehistoric urge built into men. Regardless if it is sexual or companionship, we still want and need a specific type of woman.'
Somehow working in the idea of a caveman seems almost irresistible.
Overall, a well-written column with a nice nod to a fellow columnists. I'm not sure it fits exactly with the preceding paragraphs, but it works well enough.
The beginning - calling the whole matter a hoax - also was courageous on the part of the writer. It remains to be seen where the tries may rest.
Post a Comment