Pandagon: How to Shut Down "Girls Gone Wild"

http://pandagon.net/2007/01/29/in-our-troubled-times-a-shining-moment-of-victory/

In our troubled times, a shining moment of victory
Published by Amanda Marcotte January 29th, 2007 in Interblog, Culture

This is a tale of how the chatterings on the feminist blogosphere led to successful action and plans for more. Twisty received an email from a reader who had been following the outrage over Joe Francis and the “Girls Gone Wild” crew, who take their silly softcore porn partying way past the point of just partying and having fun and into the dark territory of violence towards women and even rape. Even in the best case scenario, “Girls Gone Wild” engages in some deeply unsavory labor practices, between having drunk people sign consent forms and not paying the women who actually make the money for them by performing on camera. When Liz Ladd and other activists found out that a taping of “Girls Gone Wild” was scheduled to happen in their town of Bloomington, Indiana, they decided to take action. From Liz’s email to Twisty:



Here’s the newspaper account of their success. The activists have started a MySpace page outlining how you can run “Girls Gone Wild” out if they plan to show up in your town. More information here and some how-tos here....

allegations...what happened?

(I didn't include all the links in the text)

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/15834528.htm

in which the female reporter was physically abused by Joe Francis himself. She was also present at an event in a suburb of Chicago where a minor was tricked into having sex with Francis. He's already racking up the rape charges. He tends to commit statutory and felony rape at the same time. Oh, uh, "allegedly." :eyes:

just wondering...:shrug:

Are you worried about the franchise, by any chance? You haven't "invested in it," have you?

and no, i'm not an investor, customer, or viewer, except for the seemingly endless commercials after 12 on the comedy channel.

People get tricked into doing things all the time.

at least where i come from.

and even if someone feels they were "tricked" into having sex- it was still a consensual act.

it's kind of like a woman saying that she didn't realize that she'd been raped until the check bounced.

Did you seriously write that? Do you think it's OK to get teenaged girls so drunk they can't say "no" and having sex with them is OK?

and if the girls are below the age of consent for the particular state they are in, it's statutory rape, anyway.

when i asked how someone gets tricked into having sex- you used the comparison of a con artist- but con artists don't rely on getting their mark drunk to willingly hand over their money.

the whole point of "tricking' someone into doing something, is that they are ultimately doing it willingly and of their own accord.

"Above the dance floor, the stage is full of girls who rotate, twist and shimmy their way up and down three strip poles. One of them is Jannel Szyszka, a petite 18-year-old who prances around the stage like a star. At her feet, a crowd of hundreds is gyrating to the pounding house music. Dozens of polo-shirted boys shout up to her, making requests like "shake your titties" and "get crunk" (meaning crazy-drunk).

Szyszka tells me later that as she was spinning around the strip pole that night, Francis appeared, grabbed her arm and pulled her toward him. "You are so going on the bus later," she recalls Francis saying. "I was like, 'Um, OK.' I was shocked. I was like, 'Whoa—Joe's, like, trying to talk to me, like out of all the girls in here.'" Francis invited her back to the VIP area to do shots with him, she says, and she said yes.

Szyszka says the more shots she drank, the cloudier her judgment became. She says she agreed to join Francis and his crew on the "Girls Gone Wild" bus. "I thought 'Girls Gone Wild' was like flashing, and I thought I would flash them and be done. And so when I'm walking to the bus, that's all I'm thinking is going to happen."

At first she felt comfortable, she says. Inebriated and excited, she says she was led to the back of the bus, to a small bedroom. The double bed, with its neatly folded iridescent purple sheets, takes up most of the room. A flat-screen TV faces the bed, and cabinets are filled with remote controls, lubricants, condoms, sex toys in plastic bags, baby oil, a DVD called "How to be a Player" and a clipboard full of waivers for girls to sign. A small bathroom is off to the side, with a half-sized shower with faux marble tiling, and on the floor of the shower is a crate holding cheap and fruity-flavored rum, whiskey, tequila and Kool-Aid.

Footage from that night shows a close-up of Szyszka's driver's license, proving she's not a minor. The camera then captures Szyszka lying on the bed. Her nails are chipped, her eyes coated with makeup. Following a camerman's instructions, she shows her breasts and says, "Girls Gone Wild." She seems shy but willing. She smiles. The unseen cameraman asks her to take off her shirt, her skirt, then her underwear. She sprawls on the bed, her legs open. At his suggestion, she masturbates with a dildo, saying repeatedly that it hurts but also feels good. Francis enters the room at certain points and you hear his voice, low and flirtatious, telling her, "You are so adorable." When she says she's a virgin, he responds: "Great. You won't be after my cameraman gets done with you."

When I talk to Szyszka seven days later, she says she "didn't quite realize" she was being filmed. "But I didn't care because I was drunk and who cares?" Then she adds: "It didn't feel good to me at all, but I was totally faking it because I was on 'Girls Gone Wild.'" "

****************

seems to me she got exactly what she set out for.

hate the game, not the players.

:hi: Further, con artists prey on the ignorant, these people do the same. And if you weren't ignorant at the beginning of the night, you will be by nights end.

which included- while she was sober- deciding to CHOOSE to participate in a GGW event, deciding to be EXCITED that the joe guy singled her out among all the other girls, and deciding to be EXCITED about being on a GGW tape, and CHOOSING to enter the bus, and CHOOSING to do the things the cameraman requested.

the people your anger should be directed at are the deficient morans that raised the girl and instilled her values or lack thereof.

Wow. Just wow.

at all.

it's amazing how some people like to twist words to fit their personal agenda...so Wow, just wow, yourself.

That is "yes" to sex according to those in the animal kingdom and some men apparently? I use the word "men" loosely.

She did not choose to have her friends banned from the bus, and she did not CHOOSE to have sex with the camera man - according to the article. A girl choosing to drink, and even expose herself is not choosing SEX. Also, the article claims the girl was not old enough to be in the bar that evening.

but she did choose to put herself in that position.

and she seemed genuinely excited to do so.

.

nt

At this point QuestionAll is talking about the incident in post #36. You're talking about the incident in post #2.

In #2 the girl says she was raped. And gives all the other details you mention here.

In #36 the woman says she did not know she was being filmed while having sex. There is no question nor accusation of non-consensuality in this case.


Even above #36 in the thread I see nowhere that QuestionAll comments on #2. His/her first reply is regarding another incident summarized in post #5 in which BurtWorm says a minor was "tricked" into having sex.

QA was initially responding to statements made in post #5. Where A MINOR was "tricked into having sex" etc. The conversation then turned in post 36 about a girl who was taken on a bus and raped. I have re-read the thread, and feel I'm following several conversations and responding accordingly?

That question was independant of any other fact.

Of course, you can be tricked into having sex. If you have sex with me because I promise something I have no intention of providing, then I have tricked you into having sex. That something could be marriage, money, fame ... whatever.

I understand that. And, I questioned his questioning of that word under the circumstances.

and when a person is "tricked" in such a manner- the person is completely consensual in having the sex- because to them, what they think that will recieve from having sex is more important to them than the sex they're having.

while "impaired"? I guess you would like to revoke drunk driving laws too, since it is not the state's decision to restrict the actions of drunken citizens.

before they become "impaired".

because they're oh-so-sober after binging all night before being "discovered" and then taken back to the van right? :sarcasm:

They sign a different contract before going on the bus for the actual sex acts. Read the article.

:hi:

you enter into a contract. Try telling your credit card company that "you were drunk" when you signed up for their 21% card and bought a big screen TV.

See how far that flies.

I think you'd have a court case? ;)

:hi:

:hi:

The three martini business lunch is now illegal!

Mongo Strawman #43.

OTOH, a woman should never be held responsible for any of her actions when she has been voluntarily drinking. Women obviously can't drink in moderation, or be held responsible for any of their own actions.

You've heard the term "never mix business and pleasure" no?

a woman should never be held responsible for any of her actions when she has been voluntarily drinking. Women obviously can't drink in moderation, or be held responsible for any of their own actions.

Enter Strawman #44.

Is it your assertion that one's judgment is NOT impaired after consuming large amounts of alcohol?

Having read a number of these posts.

you having read a number of them, after all...

maybe you haven't heard of rape, or date rape before. You really can't be that ignorant of sexual abuse of young people by adults can you?

when you "trick" someone into doing something- they are doing so willingly and of their own accord- that's how con artists work, and the poster i was debating with used con artists as a comparison.

gain compliance or render the victim unable to resist.

NOT date rapists.

:hi:

so what?

so what is right.

your point is...?

.

because i don't see it.

:)

thanks for the clarification... :hi:

where you go on & on about how it isn't really wrong to have sex with minors, about how girls only complain about rape after "the check bounces", about how if a woman was "tricked" into having sex against her will, it's just her own damn fault, how if a woman "consents" to going somewhere, she's consented to anything done to her later. And etc. Honestly, I'm not sure you've ever really posted on a political issue - but, like clockwork, here's QuestionAll on a rape thread.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nothing to back up your lies, huh...?

Wow, sensitive! Actually, I'd just put you on ignore, but then reconsidered because you might be posting something just like you did. I honestly don't know why you're still here. You've politely requested some documentation - here it is:

41. raping a 15-year old does not make someone a pedophile.

puh-lease.

86. and that's because the laws use age alone as a determining factor.
and not all 'girls' physically become 'women' at the same age.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1554973#1555417

And you're not even attempting to refute the other stuff I said, which you've repeated on thread after thread ad nauseum. CONSISTENTLY, you attempt to minimize and dismiss sexual assault, & it's pretty obvious. (And IMO, sort of disturbing).

Is Rape A Criminal Act? - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=972534

Kiss Sends Man To Prison -- For Life
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=451509#451598

Rape Is In Fact Sex!!!!! - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=971727

I'm done looking up stuff. You know what you say, however much you deny it later. I'm going to be putting you back on ignore now, so taunt away. But maybe you should re-consider some of your opinions, or at least think about why they seem to offend so many.

you said that i said that it's okay to have sex with a minor-

please post something where that is what i said.

otherwise quit your lying ways.

Just letting you know, you won't be hearing back from her.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

exactly?

.

please copy and paste that statement.

and even if someone feels they were "tricked" into having sex- it was still a consensual act.

it's kind of like a woman saying that she didn't realize that she'd been raped until the check bounced.

You can not consent to sex when you are unable to speak, sorry.

you really need to learn how to read a thread...

I'm not the only one who takes issue with your position.

the comment i made was not about any one particular person, and you tried to claim that it was...get a fucking clue sometime...sheesh :eyes:

Talk about needing a "fucking clue."

but you seem to have a monumental mental block impeding your comprehension.

That's part of the problem.

:hi:

from the issue at hand with all of your posts.

Bottom line: Do we condone, excuse or allow adults in our society to exploit younger/drunk/less experienced people? Or do we understand that this is probably not the best way to build a good society for everyone, and express our disgust when adults exploit others?

Your side-arguments seem habitual and almost involuntary; I imagine you are a nervous sort, but I have to say most of your posts just distract from the discussion at hand -in a monotonous, hampster-caught-in-the-wheel sort of way.

you have repeated variations of the same thing over and over in this thread. It isn't right.

Drunk people can't consent to sex. Period.

drunk and "tricked" are two completely different topics.

That's the idea, apparently.

Read the LA Times article if you don't know how someone can get tricked into being raped, in fact.

in which state is that a minor?

Allegedly.

and responsible for her own decisions.

I just quoted one part of the article showing how he raped one of the girls.

Why won't you read the article?

and the article linked by the OP has nothing about it either...

if there is a different article being used, please send me a link.

where is all the stuff about underage sex...?
there is a mention of one alleged incident in panama city involving one 16-year old and 4 17-year old, but it says that he pleaded not guilty to all charges, and that his lawyers fought the battle successfully...it was probably something that happened early on in the GGW process, when they probably weren't as careful about checking for fake i.d.s...but regardless, even the girls in that case were there willingly, and probably lying about their ages- after all, it says nothing about the GGW people being aware of their actual ages.

it seems to me the article is written by a woman with a chip on her shoulder- especially the stuff about her not knowing what a qwerty keyboard is- it is pretty bad for a 29 year-old supposedly professional journalist not to know what qwerty is.

01/25/2007

"A Los Angeles federal judge sentenced the "Girls Gone Wild" founder to 200 hours of community service for inadequately documenting video performers' ages.

The sentencing includes two years' probation and a $500,000 fine.

The punishment handed down to Joe Francis was similar to a sentence imposed in Florida last month on his production company, based in Santa Monica, Calif., the Los Angeles Times said

Under that agreement, struck with the Justice Department last year, Francis admitted to filming underage women -- often nude and intoxicated -- for his videos. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of violating federal record-keeping laws.

Francis built his $40 million-a-year business filming spring break partiers and selling the resulting soft-porn videos using late-night infomercials. The violations involved a failure to document the ages of women who performed in videos filmed during 2002 and part of 2003."

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/girls-gone-wild-foun...
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."

your point missed me on that one...

must everything be explained to you?

if he had been convicted of child pornography, it would be a whole different matter- it seems to me, from the facts of the case, that the "underage girls" were ightclaiming to be of proper age, and had fake i.d.s to that effect.

the fact that his sentence was for 200 hours of community service shows that it was not considered to be very serious.

on their shoulder after that.

If she feels she was raped, that's the only test that should matter for charges to be filed.

should she be able to file charges of rape?

But, I don't think they take checks. Next question.

i'm sorry, but that question was not directed at you.

but yes, i've heard of some that do.

Perhaps you have bounced a check or two? ;) I don't care if the question was directed at me. This is an open discussion.

but i do have one friend in particular who has.

i'm not a prostitute going kinda guy.

:hi:

What the fuck. :shrug:

so much for the credibilty of your arguments...

:rofl:

;)

at least one does, anyway...according to a friend of mine who uses them.

;)

he's single, and prefers it that way- he uses the charlie sheen mentality...he's not paying them for the sex, he's paying them to leave when it's done.

Oh good god. :eyes: I expect this "Sheen mentality" will keep him single, as he "prefers."

At this point, I'm banging my forehead into a nearby wall so you don't have to.

Sometimes ya gotta wonder about people, if you know what I mean...

:freak:

:P

;)

can. Edited to add > ;)

:spray:

you sure sound like him...

.

are not sufficiently experienced with heavy drinking to be safe around sociopathic predators. No, I don't think many of those girls know what they are getting themselves into when they choose to attend a party and start drinking. Many probably figure that they would go for kicks and maybe flash their boobs at the most, then end up going much further than they ever thought they would. They are still getting to know themselves and how they act under the influence of alcohol, and it is nothing less than puke-worthy for guys to take advantage of their naivete -- that goes for any guy, the GGW guys who do it for money, and regular guys who do it for kicks. It took me a couple times getting slobbered to learn that past a certain point, my personality was no longer my own. Luckily, I shared those early experiences with friends who respected me enough not to take advantage of me in that state, and who did not encourage me do something that might have seemed fun at the time, but which they knew was completely out of character for me and is likely to have left me feeling humiliated the morning after. I feel so bad for that 18 year old in that one article, who had sex with Joe. What a way to lose your virginity. :cry:

they encourage incoherent young girls to participate in their "movies," I think it's a question of - how does one consent under such circumstances?

by not going to a girls gone wild party in the first place.

I think that they sign a form on the way in. If you get taken back to the bus, you may have to sign again, but just by going to the party you are consenting to be filmed. If you flash in there after YOU CHOSE TO GET DRUNK, you most certainly have consented.

hire adults in a "professional" setting and don't provide a gallon of free vodka before the "show." Further, there is controversy about WHEN girls signed X, or even IF they have done so. And, consenting to flashing is not consenting to having sex, which is what we're discussing in THIS case. Also, as Burtworm has noted the girl in question in this case is a MINOR.

since they can't be held responsible for the amount they consume or their actions afterward.

Women are soft like flowers you know...

oh yeah, that already is illegal.

not rape women? You know, not bar their friends from entering a bus and thrust your penis into someone who has not consented to sex? That kind of stuff.

But, then again, you know, drunk women are the property of men, and as such we do welcome any sloppy freak asshole who wants in. :eyes:

They should just stay home if they don't want men to rape them. :eyes:

a slight variation on a typical defense - "what was she doing there??" It totally puts the burden on the woman to prove why she didn't deserve to be assaulted. And even staying locked up at home isn't always enough. At my school, there were guys arguing that the woman was at fault because she opened the door to a rapist! Just ugh. Thanks for being such a strong advocate on this issue.

And that you are covered from your neck to your ankles, just in case someone is peering in. ;)

:toast:

who lend him an ounce of humanity in the eyes of young girls.

Paris Hilton is vile beyond words, and little girls are being exposed to her like she's a "real life barbie doll." Why that women has any media attention is beyond me?

Thanks so much for posting this info BW. Though I do feel nauseated after the read. UGH.

slimy.

What a despicable creature.

I'm picturing him at the end of his sad, shallow existence asking, "Is this all there was?"

What a total & complete slimeball! Just reading that article made my skin crawl.

<snip>

01/25/2007

"A Los Angeles federal judge sentenced the "Girls Gone Wild" founder to 200 hours of community service for inadequately documenting video performers' ages.

The sentencing includes two years' probation and a $500,000 fine.

The punishment handed down to Joe Francis was similar to a sentence imposed in Florida last month on his production company, based in Santa Monica, Calif., the Los Angeles Times said

Under that agreement, struck with the Justice Department last year, Francis admitted to filming underage women -- often nude and intoxicated -- for his videos. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of violating federal record-keeping laws.

Francis built his $40 million-a-year business filming spring break partiers and selling the resulting soft-porn videos using late-night infomercials. The violations involved a failure to document the ages of women who performed in videos filmed during 2002 and part of 2003."

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/girls-gone-wild-founder-joe-francis-sentenced-for-underage-filming-1011391.php

...had to settle for the Baby Einstein lady.

That's a joke of a sentence. Thanks for posting.

Francis admitted to filming underage women -- often nude and intoxicated -- for his videos. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of violating federal record-keeping laws.

Leaving aside for the moment the unsavory characteristics of the whole GGW deal, the real problem lies in our "instant celebrity" culture. "American Idol" has shown that even a few minutes of "bad" exposure can prove lucrative.

How many of the women who appear in GGW did so because of some misguided notion regarding celebrity?

and they said something to the effect that polls had showed that "being famous" is more important to the current generation of youth, than it ever has been to past generations.

When the folks in Bloomington began spreading the word about some of the less savory sequelae to a GGW taping, suddenly the taping was called off. Seems that even drunk young women (some of the dumbest people on the planet) don't voluntarily sign up for rape and sexual abuse when they are informed that that's what is coming.

Sad to say.

I was reading through the thread and wondering if anyone was going to try and look deeper into the issues underlying this GGW phenomena. I've always wondered what it is that appeals to women that they would even show up in the first place! Why would any self-respecting individual even go to these bar/parties for GGW? Don't they all know they're being USED. Ugh... only in America...

:(

To my understanding American Idol does not need to get the contestants drunk? ;)

don't do the tapings at a bar.

have a party or something at a bar, to get the girls liquored up- but then do the actual tapings elsewhere- taking them all there on a bus.

or-

have the party in a hotel bar, and do the tapings in one of the rooms/suites.

He's making money off of their "performances." They should all receive a portion of his take.

And the women who have been raped at these tapings need to make charges against him.

That'll shut him down.

i would guess that it's spelled out very explicitly in the contract that they sign.

and having them sign before the drinking starts would mean that they weren't drunk when entering into the contract.

From what I understand.

PS: Taking him to court is expensive to him anyway. Anytime he goes to court. Hopefully there will be lawyers who would be happy to take these cases pro bono.

then ply them with alcohol to 'loosen them up' and lower their already meek inhibitions before commencing with the filming.

as long as the guy has been in business, and as much money as he's made- i would think that for the most part- he's got the bases covered.

:eyes:

He's not a genius. He's a creep. He's apparently at the stage where he thinks he's immune from prosecution. He needs to find out he isn't.

when the went to the girls gone wild party in the first place.

They must have thought they were going there for interesting social discussion, or maybe a quilting circle.

I hate Francsis, and detest his business practices, but to pretend that the women who go to girls gone wild parties have no intention on getting naked or wild is ridculous.

No one said that.

I've also used this as a stepping block to conversations with my own daughter. I talk with her openly about the predators out there and I make sure she knows I will come get her anyplace, anytime she feels uncomfortable, without fear of being punished. If these girls knew they were going to a party hosted by GGW what did they think was going to happen? I don't mean the rape, I mean the general drunken lewdness in general.

Also I talk to my daughter about drinking. Yes if she is extremely drunk that doesn't give a boy/man a right to have sex with her. BUT, by getting extremely drunk she is putting herself in a position where she could end up hurt (rape, car addident, overdose, etc) and she needs to be more caring about her own body then that.

As much as we try to educate our youth about rape we also need to, as parents, teach our children how to avoid situations that could cause irreversable harm.

I lectured the hell out of my kids on Myspace and other internet sites where they can put themselves at risk by trusting strangers. A couple weeks ago a girl,17, from thier school met a young man from Myspace and was gangraped by he and 3 of his friends. NOW, they understand.

You cannot simply teach your daughters that rape is wrong and should be prosecuted, you also need to teach her ways to try and lessen the likelyhood of it happening.

let alone BEFORE drinking.

hypothetically how someone *like* Joe Francis would legally cover his ass when town-hopping in search of women to exploit.

:eyes:

:hi:

:hi:

(Long time no see!)

In a way, that is. ;) At times like these, I wonder if I should take another "break."

I love to watch a thread being highjacked. :crazy:

:puke:

I am so thankful for men like you BW. So, thanks. :hug:

:wtf:

It's a kind of Libertarian, but one informed by some kind of twisted issue with sexual politics.

Progressives, it seems to me, are first and foremost defenders of the powerless against the powerful. How can anyone think Joe Francis is worthy of being defended against the women he exploits and rapes ("allegedly") for his video franchise? How can anyone see defending him as "progressive?"

As for me, I am the way I am because of the women in my life. They're good people!

Indeed, it is kind of an "everyone for himself/herself" mentality. *sigh*

the court cases where no consent forms were signed, all have to do with filming on the street, the beach or other outdoor public property.

.

Is this not 2007?

dismiss being raped if they are drunk and in a bar with a GGW bus outside. You are so, like yesterday!

*

*

This whole thread so far (most of your posts made after this one), you've consistently held the position that a "girl" is responsible for her actions after she's drunk -- all of them, no matter what.

And now you're proposing a way around the Bloomington strategy, but it specifically still includes "getting the girls liquored up" -- a clear admission that you realize that getting the girls liquored up loosens their inhibitions, undermines their judgment, renders their capacity to even consent to ANYthing moot. You know it.

You basically women who've had too much to drink to be taken advantage of (tho in your mind it's not -- just what they deserve, that's all), and it matteres not whether they're under age or not. You think they deserve what they get if they're drunk, AND you are more than willing to see that they get to the point that, in your mind, they deserve what they get.

I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. I'm thoroughly repulsed, but at the same time utterly fascinated to stumble over such an inadvertent confession of one's basic misogynist "blame the victim" (the little whore) attitude right here, for all to see.

"I was drunk so I wasn't capable of making a decision" line either, it has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with the blatantly obvious flip side to that argument.

If an adult (this is talking about the general issue of alcohol effecting ability to judge not the specifics of the GGW stuff) is deemed incapable of making a decision when drunk then every rapist has an almost fool proof defence. If they were drunk when the rape took place then they weren't in control of their actions and decisions - meaning a demonstration of mens rea is impossible.

NB making no comment on the GGW stuff as I havn't read the details of the complaints

between holding responsibility for one's illegal activities whilst inebriated and someone deliberately taking advantage of you in that same state. If you drink and drive, you have a reasonable expectation of either gettting pulled over and ticketed or getting into a wreck where you will be legally deemed liable even if the accident technically wasn't "your fault"...however if you get drunk at a bar I would think it ridiculous and sick to think that women (and men! they get raped too!) should have a reasonable expectation of getting raped, or pressured into entering a contract where much money will be made off of her image, which is then ironically denigrated in the eyes of her parents, teachers, etc. Of course, if you go to a GGW event, you may expect to be on camera, sure, but I think if many of these girls were not plied with booze they might actually READ the contract. My sister told me that when she wastaking Contracts in law school that they were told that 80% of the US population entered into contracts without understanding or reading the "fine print" (think credit cards, secondary loans, software license agreements, etc. YOU have done it, admit it!) These contracts are worded in such a way that they can be deemed "predatory" and there is a big movement to restrict the usage of legalese in public contracts....

as I said I was making no comment whatsoever about this case. Just pointing out that it is dangerous to want being drunk to constitute a lack of consent because an offender can use the same excuse.

By the way I NEVER made anything like the suggestion that someone who is drunk should expect to be raped, that is utterly offensive for you to imply that I did.

videos thumbs down.

more than any of it. i just fantasize about all those men watching a commercial of girls gone wild to see their drunk daughters lifting their tops, kissing on another girl, or humping the ground, a log or anything else around to hump.

it is all crap

and it wont allow me NOT to watch the crap becuase of their fuckin two minute commercial on my tv

Funny, but in the past 6 years, we have been bombarded with
this sort of morality crushing television and commercials,

- all under the control of the GOP dominated Federal
Communications Commission.

Anyone with kids has to be concerned, and if you have
daughters - well, it really stinks.

How good is today's tv for girls who are taught that
to pull your shirt up is empowering?

That Paris Hilton is a great role model, too, eh?

IIRC, it disappeared during the GWB Apocolyptic nightmare. Am I mistaken on this?

Seems to me that TV both broadcast and other has become way MORE raunchy in the past few years and I'm a librarian--not at all easily offended.

But, how?

Many if not MOST Americans feel this way. My husband, who loves naked women by the way ;) feels invaded by the commercials for GGW and the mentality that is prevailing on our televisions today. What is a further shame, is that "liberals" are being scapegoated for this degeneration in society and people vote for conservatives BECAUSE of it.

I don't care who watches porn, but I don't want this crap trust upon me while watching the daily show, for example. I don't want to have to watch the soft core commercials, nor do I want my child exposed to them.

Exactly! And, I'm inspired to do "something" as progressives, but what?

Geez, from about 2am to 6 in the morning, there are probably at least 3 channels running hour long informercials for this crap! Just zapping around looking for something interesting by which to fall back to sleep, it's almost impossible not to stumble on these informercials. Everytime i see one of these, all i can think is "gee, they'll be so proud when they're mothers of teenagers."
The Professor

activities for a t-shirt? How would we view this as a society if that were the case? Would we tolerate the constant barrage of television advertisements promoting the "boys gone wild" series?

:(

It is intended for a gay male audience.

Now why is that? Why not promote this sort of "porn" in the vigorous manner that the half naked barely legal "girlie" porn is promoted?

I'd rather move on to other discussions, however as I think this one has been exhausted? Let me know if you can explain why the BGW series is not advertised on the daily show as the GGW series is.

I think the attitude of society would change quickly/dramatically. Perhaps that's what it will take?

oh yeah, if they survive at least they get college paid for...

What do you think of my question, however?

of drunk college age boys. I agree with your sentiment in the whole thread - that the whole damn thing is exploitive and gross. I also agree with what was said about people seeking their 15 minutes of fame. Which is a sad way to go about it.

a "film" would be nearly impossible.

Thanks for the reply. :hi:

more. damn straight a man isn't gonna embrace his woman laying in bed 11 at night seeing these 19 yr olds in little bikini thongs gyrating their crotch.

When I was a young girl living at the nunnery that my mother ran...she did not keep me in the dark about the predatory practices of some men. Now she never taught me to distrust men, but she did tell me that there were some really "special" ones that would try to use all kinds of tricks to get a chance at sleeping with me and that I should have respect for myself and choose men who respected me.

She also taught me that signing papers and drinking should not mix.

Also taking your clothes off for someone to film is a bad idea.

While I applaud the efforts of groups to shut down this slimeball's operation, I also wonder about how some folks seem to have never been taught some general common sense.

But, only if you have a vagina. I think that bears questioning as well.

I don't care if those girls want to show off their tits, kiss each other, or fuck a guy. (Though I do cringe a lot when I think of that the women who came before us endured jail, forced feedings and harrassment so a woman can show off her tits public. :eyes:)

What I do mind is that they are stupid enough to do it for free.

Joe Francis has made $40+ milllion off of his work, and all these gals have gotten a stupid "Girls Gone Wild" tee-shirt or pair of panties.

Ladies, screw The Man -- make your own damn videos and put yourselves through college a couple of times over!

three pairs of undies: "Szyszka says Francis told her that what happened had to stay between them. She says she agreed, and they walked to the front of the bus. Szyszka remembers that one of the crew returned her driver's license. Another asked if she wanted to hang out on the bus. She declined, she says, but asked for three pairs of "booty short" underwear that Francis had promised her for appearing on camera. "They gave me a weird look like that was too much," Szyszka recalls. "They were, like, 'Three of them?' and I was, like, 'Yeah, three.'"


He's a cheap bastard. He'd never pay them.

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

There's a difference between a drunken, caught in the moment flash of the boobies, and actively setting out purposefully to do what you suggest. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women taking it upon themselves and making such videos of themselves for profit, cutting out the sleazeballs like the GGW guy, if that's what they want to do. More power to them, I say. But I'm pretty sure at least some of the women who end up on these tapes aren't thrilled about it. I'm not saying they have no responsibility themselves for ending up there. But I think the GGW's culpability is at least equal to theirs, and IMO more so. Because there are drunken women out there who's inhibitions are lessened at the moment doesn't mean it's not sleazy to exploit that. I've never flashed any of my bits, but I have been drunk, so I'm not going to wag my finger at anyone else unless they've done something to harm others.

for what a drunken woman does voluntarily is basically saying that women need to be protected from themselves.

does that apply. Only if I'm stating that I think women are sleazy for getting drunk and losing control of themselves and need to be prevented from doing so can you accuse me of advocating protecting women from themselves. I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying that on the sleazeball factor, GGW guy ranks way up higher than the girls who dared to go out and drink and have a rowdy, raunchy time. What makes what GGW especially worthy of being judged is that it's not like there's a shortage of women who are willing to be naked on videos. The difference between them and the women out on the town is that they actually get paid for it. Well, that eats up into the profits, doesn't it? Never mind that, unlike the professionals, women caught in that scenario are more likely to feel shame and embarrassment after the fact. Go out and exploit the fact that women, like most people, go out and get drunk and lose their inhibitions, and slap THEM on a tape for free! Who cares that they likely wouldn't have wanted to be on a tape like that when sober? They're free! Now, why can't he be judged for the sleaziness of that?

Why am I advocating for protecting women from themselves because I point out that he's a sleaze for doing that? Why is it so bad to suggest that women who go out and drink don't necessarily always deserve everything that happens to them, just as with anyone? I have to state that it's open season on drunks for anyone to do with as they please, or I'm advocating protecting people from themselves? I think that's ludicrous. Anyone, male or female, who is exploited during times when they aren't completely with it, is a victim, even if they willingly put themselves in that state. Some contracts can't even be enforced in that state. You honestly aren't saying that people who let loose and party get whatever they've got coming to them, and no one should hold the perpetrators responsible?

Francis is a slimebag who exploits drunk women.

But when you use words like culpibility, that invokes a legal/punishment frameset -- that the system should step in and do something.

And when Francis has stepped over the line with underage women, women he's raped -- he DESERVES to be punished for that.

But, the concept that somehow a legal-aged woman has to be protected from her consentual actions for GGW, because she voluntarily got drunk and later regrets it says to me that you are saying that women can't be held responsible for their actions, and need "special" protection.

God I hate "defending" GGW. I went home banging my head against the wall yesterday. I hate Francis.

and possibly not to being filmed naked.

Just because a woman gets drunk voluntarily does not give anyone the right to take advantage of her.

I'm saying that no one has a right to take advantage of that state to get them to do something they wouldn't otherwise. That isn't special protection. That applies to anyone. Don't take advantage of drunk people when you don't know if they would consent to whatever it is you want them to do when sober. If you aren't certain, err on the side of caution. Don't get them to sign contracts that adversely affect them. Don't rape them. Don't beat them up. Don't slap them on videos that you may have otherwise had to get consent on and pay them for. It is true that people are responsible for their actions even when drunk. But so are the sober people who interact with them for their own actions as well, and if the actions adversely affect the drunk person, they shouldn't be allowed to do it or get away with it if they do. Don't use a person's drunken state as an excuse to do things you might not get away with otherwise. If someone were targeting bars and getting falling down drunk people to sign away their life savings, do you honestly think that would fly? And would you think the law were out of bounds to punish such predators? Or if not criminally, that the victims couldn't successfully sue to at least get that money back?

I was using confusing terminology, because I actually wasn't speaking legally prior to this post. I see how it looked like I was speaking legally. But per the arguments I just laid out above, I'm not so sure these women shouldn't have civil legal recourse after the fact to at least sue the pants on him and get a piece of that pie that they helped him get. Aside from rape charges, I'm not sure there's anything criminally negligent.

:applause:

see how people feel about it when they experience remorse for - making out with their buddies, fondling one another's noodles, and/or flinging the ol' jewels around a public place drunk off their asses. What would young men do for a hat and free booze I ask? Perhaps we should find out? "BGW," anyone?

/sarcasm

But they don't sell. Big surprise there.

- as

I haven't seen one commercial.

Scumboy seems to know exactly which side his bread is buttered on, so to speak.

- as

There's not a whole helluva lot I wouldn't have done for free booze.

A hat... maybe not so much.

This was before video cameras were everwhere, of course. Nevertheless, there's enough evidence of my debauchery as it is. I think the crux here isn't that young men wouldn't flash themselves for a free drink; the issue is, pretty much all of them would, and big deal too. From what I remember of college, a fair amount of it included drunk guys not knowing where their pants were.

I woke up one hungover morning after some notable basketball game win to discover two surprising facts:

One, my roommate that year was on the front page of the college newspaper, stark naked, throwing his shorts onto a burning dumpster.

Two, oh, wait- those aren't his shorts, those are mine. Shithead stole my shorts and burned them!

If young college females want to find a drunk guy willing to drop trou, I'd imagine it's not all that challenging.

Which probably makes video of the same redundant and not terribly marketable.

;) Imagine if your "drunken nude college days" were on film, for eternity in homes across America?

Let me ask you this, would hetero guys French kiss one another, and perform sex acts with each other for a beer and a t-shirt? To my understanding the GGW collection features this sort of "thing" on video as well?

Also, would you be comfortable if a company enlisted attractive girls to encourage 17/18 year old "boys" to do this on film across the country?

As for "comfortable"- well, AFAIC, the age of consent is 18. So your question about 17/18 year old "boys" is actually two questions. Once someone is 18, they are technically an adult in most parts of this country regarding consent and sex.

I'm not familiar with what is on the GGW tapes beyond what I've seen on late night cable ads for the same. My understanding is, it involves an awful lot of boob flashing, the sort of thing that would only be considered 'risque' or 'erotic' in horribly repressed corners of this and other countries. Like I said, those folks should invest in actual porn, and get over it.

I also agree with the poster upthread who said those women (presuming they're 18. If they're underage, that's a whole other kettle of fish) should make their own sex tapes and get paid, and bypass the idiot trying to get them to do shit for free beer and hats.

Would most hetero guys french kiss each other? Probably not. Because, among other things, there's a much different societal take on male-male sexuality than there is on female-female sexuality. I didn't make that rule. I think, more to the point, would young women really like to see college age men making out with each other? Judging from my experiences both in college and working for a chain of indie video stores that dealt also with erotica (including gay porn) I would say a few might, but the vast majority most expressly would NOT. So where's the market? Probably gay men, but most gay men are sexually comfortable enough to purchase or rent real erotica, and not pay twenty bucks for some soft core cheese-n-tease thing like Girls (or Boys) GW.

(Although I guess there is a guys gone wild, pretty much aimed at gay men- so what do I know. I suspect the customer base is the Log Cabin crowd)

Again, I didn't make the rules or the way things are.

As for would I want my college debauchery preserved forever in millions of American homes? There wouldn't be a helluva lot I could do about it if it was, but I can think of worse fates. My roommate who had his naked, drunken ass eight inches tall on the cover of our newspaper (with a circulation of about 20,000, if I remember right) managed to survive the shame.

I think he's got the front page framed & hanging up his house, as a matter of fact. :party:

I would think if a woman enjoys porn, the answer would be yes.

Also, there are accusations of underage girls partaking in the GGW phenom. Parents of some girls have sued to my understanding? As for the real porn vs. timid attempt by the GGW folks, I'd say it's risque/erotic to many, and that's why it sells? I don't consider myself repressed because I'd prefer that my daughter not be exposed to the GGW commercials in the early evening, KWIM?

Thanks for the discussion, I'm off to the Boston bomb "threat."

And if underage people have been involved, to my understanding, that's against the law.

You want me to defend GGW, and I'm not at all interested in doing that. It sounds to me like the dude is a sleazeball who may have broken numerous laws- so throw the book at him. Likewise, I'm not averse to regulating what kinds of idiotic ads can be shown and when. The only principle I'm defending is the right of consenting adults (meaning 18 & over) to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

As far as what you say about young women wanting to watch men make out with each other; you may be right, but the years of experience I had working for a chain of indie video stores, that did have a decent sized smut selection and customer base -men and women-, didn't bear that out. There were certainly some women who liked to watch that sort of thing; but it didn't seem to draw anything like the interest level many men have in watching women get together with each other. I'm not putting a value judgment on any of it; I could care less- that's just my observation. And if women DO want to watch men with each other, there is a lot of gay male porn out nowadays. I don't know about most of the country, but it's not terribly hard to find in the Bay Area-- go figure.

Peace.

I would guess that's because women have not been marketed to on the same level in this regard? It's not yet socially acceptable on a mass level, for women to watch men engage in homo-erotic situations. Also, the films featuring man on man lovin' are targeted toward gay men.

I want to clarify a couple things, however. 1. I don't want you to defend anyone and 2. I agree with the consenting adults principle you noted. I won't mention the specific issues I have with GGW because this thread has beat them to death.

Peace to you as well. :hi:

than woman on woman. That's the truth.

But there were certainly hetero women I came across at my old place of work that liked gay male porn for exactly the reasons you describe; at least where I was living at the time, I don't think it was a question of it being under-marketed. If there is indeed more of a market for it, someone should take advantage of it; I'm fairly certain there is no shortage of attractive gay men who would be willing to appear in that kind of targeted-towards-women erotica.

If you want my honest, physiological "structure of the brain" analysis, I do think men -gay or straight- tend to be wired more for visual arousal than women. That's just my observation, and there are logical evolutionary reasons why this might be the case.

I think this is a cultural issue that dates back thousands of years. The science on the visual matter appears to be conflicting, however.

On a personal note, my husband can't find the salt if it's sitting in front of him, there is no way he's more "visual" than I. ;)

Hardly!

But as far as being more visually wired for arousal, I'll stand my ground on that one. At least, it seems to be the case in all my experience.

I would ask this; if it's a conditioned cultural issue, why are gay men also seemingly much more interested in visual depictions of sex than lesbians, on the average? I mean, it'd be tough to argue that the culture is conditioning men to get turned on by looking at other men.

Where do you get that lesbians don't like naked women?

I'm comparing what's out there in terms of lesbian porn for lesbians, versus porn for gay men.

again is a matter of what the attitudes of those making porn believe. And, given many people assume women are not "visual" they are going to do less in terms of investing.

Peace, I'm off to other discussions. :hi: Thanks for the respectful discussion.

:hi:

I already miss the woman in yours. :cry:

I'd like to single out your post to say a big AMEN!

I have to add that I never thought of myself as a prude until the GGW commercials started airing on cable, but ack, they are just icky and I can't change the channel fast enough when they start up. I keep wondering when the porn industry is going to want equal time, because half of what the commercial shows looks like porn to me.

Here is the Girls Gone Wild tour schedule:

Upcoming Events
January 25 - College Park, MD
January 26 - Bloomington, IN
January 27 - Chicago, IL
January 27 - White Plains, NY

January 31 - Denton, TX
January 31 - Dover, DE
February 1 - Waterbury, CT
February 2 - New Haven, CT
February 3 - Hot Springs, AR
February 7 - Ontario, OH
February 8 - Elyria, OH
February 10 - Nanuet, NY
February 16 - New Orleans, LA
February 17 - New Orleans, LA
February 20 - Mobile, AL

http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/2807595.html

Liquid Ice Nightclub
250 West Rt. 59
Nanuet, New York 10956
Tel: 845.623.1111

:hi:

except for the Law & Order take-off on this fellow, whose fictional counterpart wound up being found guilty. Reading the articles at the links make me physically ill. I hope more education about this operation is put out there, so that by public disgust he winds up with less and less work.