Samantha,

My two cents on the difference between posing for underwear ads and auctioning off one's virginity boils down to the issue of consent.

In the example you've given of modeling underwear to make money for medical school, the model is able to provide her consent to the terms of a contract and to know beforehand with a reasonable degree of certainty, the extent of the nudity that will be expected of her and how the photoshoot will unfold.

Natalie Dylan's proposed social experiment does not seem to take into account that for sex to be legal and empowering, there must be express consent. I have trouble seeing how it is possible to consent to a sexual act with somebody whom you do not know. Being contractually bound to have sex with a person for predeterined consideration ignores the fact that sex is an a much more personal and, I suppose, "interactive" undertaking than having one's photo taken. I don't see how you can truly consent to have sex with somebody you have not met.

I can see, to a certain extent, that making a profit off of the notion of the value of virginity with all of its gendered baggage and often sexist and patriarchal assumptions is a radical and perhaps even empowering notion. However, to auction off her body in such an annonymous way robs Natalie of her ability to consent to engaging in this act.

To stretch this train of thought a bit further, if by contracting to have sex with a stranger you are not truly able to consent to the sexual act, and if sex without consent is a form of sexual assault, then Natalie's experiment could tragically become a traumatic experience as opposed to a liberating or empowering one.

I hope for her sake that this is not the case.

-MelissaG

First of all, she's giving her consent to a specific act or acts with a specific person - i.e., the person who bids highest. It's no more a question of someone "unknown" than it would be if she went home from a guy she'd danced with at a club.

I have to chuckle at the notion of sex as "empowering." It's a sex act, what's that got to do with "empowerment," and what does the latter even mean to someone not a feminist drone? Either you consent and it's your choice, or you don't, and it's rape.

Interesting that you alter slightly the nature of the auction from 'her virginity' to 'her body' in order to make the claim that this is "anonymous" and somehow "robs her of her consent." Again, that's absurd. It would not happen if she did not consent. You can't rob YOURSELF of your own power to consent.

Your last hilarious paragraph makes it seem as if Natalie is sexually assaulting HERSELF, perhaps the reductio ad absurdam of your feminist attack on this young woman's right to control her own body and express her own sexuality.

Funny stuff...

Samantha,

I don't think it's empowering. That's because I see "empowerment" for women as being fundamentally a rejection of the notion that women can't compete with men in business, law, medicine, politics, etc. because they aren't smart enough, strong enough, or good enough. Anything that supports the notion that women can't compete with men in a fair contest isn't empowering.

This person has put together a "great business deal" (supposedly -- the whole thing sounds fake to me). But she's closing the deal by flashing her cleavage, not because she's put together a good merger or developed a new product line or done a great job managing a company. She personally may be gaining monetary success, but she's doing it by supporting all the old stereotypes.

"Empowerment" is about challenging the premises. It's about changing attitudes, changing society. It's not about one person gettting theirs.

Goltotoo