By putting a price on her sexuality, you'll be harming her as much as any other rando who offers to pay her for the same.

EDIT: this has been on my mind, and perhaps it deserves more commentary.

By putting a price on her sexuality, it establishes the precedent that her body and her intimacy are commodities to be sold. That if someone comes along with the right price (a bag of candy, $1000, a promise of protection), it's OK - if not expected - that she takes the payment in exchange for her body.

How do you explain to a child that something is valuable but should not have a price? I am worried "love is free" is dangerously adjacent to "sex is cheap", the opposite of what I want to convey. Maybe the "price" in this analogy is time or commitment? Avoid the whole market comparison? Open to suggestions here.

That her sexuality is hers, and hers alone. It's hers to do with as she wishes.

That nobody - whether they be friends, family, or strangers - is entitled to her sexuality.

That it's priceless - it's not something that can be sold (or held for randsom), no matter the price.

Even in marriage, it's still hers. She can always say no, no matter how pretty the house, how rich the husband.

And just as importantly - though perhaps after puberty has started - that because it's her sexuality, she's also allowed to say yes. Because if she can't say yes, it's not hers.

Also, support her. No matter her choices, or what is forced upon her, support her through everything. Even if it was her choice, and she now regrets it, and it pisses you off to no end, support her.

That's my opinion, and what I do.

Thank you for your compassionate comment. It always helps me to think about these things in writing. I can see a lot of merit in your ideas.

You'd rather devalue? Then it doesn't matter if somebody else takes it by force. It's nothing of value.

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.

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.

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.

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?