Woman's studies major offered 3.8 mil for cherry

That's a headline that basically wrote itself.

So this college student, an undergrad in women’s studies at Sacramento State, wants to continue her career by becoming a family and marriage counsellor. Unfortunately she does not have the funds, so through a nevada bunny ranch (no I have no idea) she is auctioning off her virginity.

In this day and age 20-something virginity is a rare commodity but still, 3.8 million dollars? Go out and clone that babysitter you had a crush on when you were 8 years old lads, it'll be less expensive.

Like a Virgin paid for the very first time is Sasha's take on the issue.

In the article Natalie Dylan (a pseudonym) comes across as a slightly naive, (well duh isn't that the point Miriam) clearly idealistic young woman, who is convinced that her decision is a strategic feminist choice. A strategy that uses the patriarchy's desperate lust against itself, because the money is going to fund a feminist marriage counselor. Oh snap! Take that patriarchy.

Sasha's take on it (and I tend to agree) is this:

Natalie hits all the theoretical notes perfectly: our puritanical society, social constructs, idealized fantasies. But is she going to live up to the astronomical bids or is it going to be a “common, mundane act,” as she herself describes it, for the chosen man? She confirms that the rumours she’s been offered up to $3.8 million are true. That’s a lot of money. I mean, fuck, you wouldn’t catch me slogging away at a hackneyed dissertation with several million in the bank, that’s for sure.

I’m left with one question and it’s this: why must we bring feminism into it at all? Do we feel so guilty being acquisitive that we need the women’s movement behind our desire to make money? In a way, and despite her capitalist claims, Natalie is simply pandering to the image of an apologetic woman unable to accept what has traditionally been reserved for men: the making of craploads of cash under contentious circumstances. Whatever the case, I would certainly have rather gotten $3 million than HPV my first go round.

What bothers me is that Natalie is using an assumed name. I find it hard to take seriously the political convictions of someone who knows already that her decision to auction off her virginity is going to be a difficult move to justify later in a public context, since counseling is her chosen future profession. So she does it under a pseudonym. But if, as she states, in the Eye article, “It’s (virginity) a socially constructed abstract thing of importance we preach to women to save and men to take. Having said that, that is why I think some men are so willing to pay huge money. In my psyche, I don’t subscribe to this idealized fantasy, which really boils down to a common, mundane act, hence the reason I have no problem with it whatsoever. I know this is a controversial move in our puritanical society, but what I hope everyone can agree on is that what is good for some is not for others. Everyone should have the common courtesy to live and let live.” Everyone should, but even Natalie apparently knows that everyone doesn't, so she is using an assumed name. So much for her convictions, given that were her identity known those same convictions could cost her a vocation.

If the "feminist" strategic decision you make is a career-killer, and you choose to do it anyway, but under an assumed name, are you being a political iconoclast or just someone who is willing to take a quick buck?