In case you haven’t heard, a Sacramento State alumna is selling her virginity to pay off her debts and most importantly to go to grad school and get her masters degree.
Natalie Dylan needs to go back to school, but not for the reason she is giving.
She wants to go to grad school to get her masters degree in family therapy but she NEEDS to go back to school because she her views of empowerment are all wrong!
She thinks that by selling her virginity she is gaining power but, any prostitute can tell you, they are usually not the ones who’ve lost power.
Dylan claims, “I think empowerment of women is picking yourself up and doing something on your own to better yourself.”
That’s funny, because I think she needs a guy to make this awful idea work.
She basically needs a knight in shining armor to come and save her from her debt and in the process he will be taking advantage of her for God knows how long.
That doesn’t sound like “doing something on your own” to me.
The women’s studies department at Sacramento State University probably didn’t teach her that empowering women means sell your body to fix your financial problems.
In fact, her fellow classmates from Sac State do not really agree with her at all.
They are saying that she should loose her virginity to someone she loves instead of giving it to a stranger.
But in Dylans own defense, she claims that she is not giving up her virginity to the highest bidder. (We’ll have to see it to believe it.)
She wants the winner to be intelligent and nice.
Huh?! This isn’t Match.com so why does it matter what kind of personality this guy has?
When Dylan was asked why she is doing this, she says, “ I think this is empowering.”
What is empowering about selling sex?
It’s more demeaning than empowering.
And what do her friends think about all this?
Oh yeah, no one seems to have found any friends of hers, at least none that have commented.
Her mother, a teacher of the forth grade, does not approve. Gee, I wonder why?
I wonder how she is going to explain her daughters actions to her students parents or even to friends and strangers who think she is the worst mom on the planet for not helping her daughter find a darn scholarship!
So many women would kill for the opportunity to go to school period, let alone get their masters degree.
This decision will ruin her life.
She will probably have a really hard time getting clients, making new friends and even dating because she will always be known as, “that whore that sold her virginity.”
Dylan is not empowering herself or women.
She is a bad example of women in general and what women represent.
Women are not sex objects and that is what she is demonstrating, that if you want something bad enough then it is okay to have sex with a guy and they’ll make everything better.
If anything this is empowering the man because he has the control.
Money=control.
He pays the money and he gets to have his way with her.
Sure, she walks away with the money but he will always have that part of her that she cannot get back, her innocence, freedom and her dignity.
She will be considered tampered with.
None of the articles stated whether or not there would be a screening process for the guys bidding but she expects us to believe that she is picking, out of the thousands of guys, that he will be nice and intelligent and that makes it okay.
I find it hard to believe that she is going to go through and interview each and every guy or at least read their profile and expect them not to lie.
I hear sociopaths are very charming, intelligent and nice so good luck with that Nat!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

1 comment:
This writer starts off well with a twist about the use of empowerment on the part of Natalie Dylan.
Very clever.
Unfortunately, the writer then goes on to use the word empowerment (or derivative) seven more times.
That's a lot of empowerment (or attempts at it) and a new word would make the column read more smoothly.
I don't think the use of the word 'whore' in this case follows Associated Press style, nor, technically, is it true just yet, if I understand the case completely.
A bank robber is not a bank robber until they, well, rob a bank, right?
Best lines in the column:
"She wants the winner to be intelligent and nice.
Huh?! This isn’t Match.com so why does it matter what kind of personality this guy has?"
Worst:
"So many women would kill for the opportunity to go to school period, let alone get their masters degree."
Doubtful that they would kill - and yes I know it's just an expression - but cliches need to be kept out for the most part.
Lot of powerful invective that needs harnessing to make a case. It could be that this column should be trimmed back to say, 500 words. By tightening, it would read smoother.
Post a Comment