[falcolas]

It's not a commodity that can be bought or sold. It's hers, no matter how much (or how little) someone pays.

> Then it doesn't matter if somebody else takes it by force. It's nothing of value.

This is a rather chilling position to try and argue for.

[jtbayly]

Exactly. That’s why I’m flabbergasted that you are arguing for pretending as though it has no value.

If it’s hers...

and if it is valuable...

or even if just her ability to choose what to do with it is valuable (ie letting her choose how much to value it)...

then it is appropriate to teach her how to protect it.

If it is inappropriate to teach her how to protect it (because some feminist somewhere declared by fiat that it would be victim blaming to do so), then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it has no value. She must never be taught to value it. She must never be taught to protect it. And thus, her choice is made for her: it has no value, and as long as those exist who choose to take it by force, her desire is meaningless. Society has decided she may not value it out lest other people have their feelings hurt because they lost theirs.

[falcolas]

There's a difference between value and price. The parent was putting a price on her sexuality (marriage and a house). I'm saying that you shouldn't put any price on it.

A thing isn't valuable just because it has a price; and conversely something valuable doesn't need to have a price.

[jtbayly]

Then presumably you agree that girls should be taught to protect themselves and that one of the ways to protect yourself is to avoid places where known rapists hang out with nobody to hold them accountable?