With the recent revelation that Nevada resident “Natalie Dylan” is selling her virginity, we’re learning a lot about how some in our culture view purity and sexuality.
Here’s a sample story.
We learn a few important things from this situation that I want to highlight.
1. Purity and Sex/Sexuality/Abstinence Are Not One and the Same.
Note that sexuality and purity are two separate things.
In the case of this “Natalie Dylan” (surely, certainly, not her true name), one sees that her abstinence to this point– i.e., not previously engaging in illicit sexuality-– in no wise should be interpreted as “purity.”
Purity is not something garnered from the outside in, but the inside out. In fact, a person could have illegitimately given up their virginity at an earlier point in life (or it may have even been illicitly or illegally taken), and the compromised body would not necessarily imply that such a person is not “pure” today. Someone could have made a mistake in that way, violated themselves and/or another– or been violated, but now be of pure mind and, in a very real sense, of restored conscience and purity or integrity.
But the irony is this: a person (in this case “Natalie Dylan”) may be sexually abstinent and completely impure. This woman is no longer a virgin due to ethical considerations (though she may have been that way at one time), but simply happens to be a virgin. Meaning, her virginity is more of a biological fact than any statement about her purity, as such. Doubtless, since she is prepared to sell her virginity, it is entirely possible that a person who is and has been illicitly sexually active for some time could, theoretically I suppose, have more of a sense of sexual integrity than she does– despite her biological virginity. That’s because her act of selling sex is a greater offense of purity than merely using the body illicitly ‘for free.’ In this act, she will cheapen herself and render her own virginity worthless in the process– or, at least, worth only a few pieces of silver for the self-betrayal.
Of course, the ideal state would be to be pure and to fully embrace one’s sexuality at the same time– virgin or not. This may sound odd for some people, but the point is this: Sexuality does not violate purity, nor does “sex,” if it is legitimate sexuality. Every human is a sexual being. People are sexual, whether or not they happen to be “having” sex. So being a person familiar with his or her gender and its uniqueness and celebrating who it is they are as a man or woman can be healthy. Moreover, if a person is legitimately sexually active and celebrates sexuality in that context, then he or she is (or may be) as pure as a virgin. So we must separate virginity and purity.
Because of the growing length of this post, I’ll just make one other note…
2. Virginity can be both priceless and/or cheap.
The irony of virginity is its absolute worth, and its relative worth at the same time. At once, it is priceless– because it is a gift that can only be opened once. Even if a non-virgin woman underwent the medical refurbishing of the female hymen, this does not restore “virginity” as such– it simply re-creates the appearance of it. Nothing is actually “undone.” My guess is that this medical procedure may even re-iterate and more potently remind the woman of the absence of her virginity– in spite of her restored hymen.
We see through this pathetic situation with “Natalie Dylan” that, at once, Virginity is priceless… which is why people are willing to pay MILLIONS of dollars to take it from her, but at the same time, her virginity is cheap. NOT THAT “virginity” is cheap, but that HERS is. Ironically, she will be the richer and the poorer for selling it… and the one who buys her (or “it”) will be enriched and impoverished at the same time. It will probably be exhilarating and defeating for both of them.