Pharyngula

Posted by: James F | July 31, 2010 1:19 PM

Dastardly "implicit consent" know-nothings?

I'm sure there's a better basis for the acronym....

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 31, 2010 1:22 PM

Every defender the fucking JREF forum needs to be fucking pantsed for my new video "Dipshits Gone Nuts." I'll make a mint, and anybody who complains gets kicked in the groin.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2010 1:24 PM

I'd actually be pretty surprised to learn that the audiences for GGW and Pharyngula have much overlap.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | July 31, 2010 1:26 PM

I sure hope this is going to be reversed, somehow. There must have been a mistake somewhere. Either the judge failed to instruct the jury properly, or something.

As presented, this is just blatantly wrong.

Posted by: BobTheBuilder | July 31, 2010 1:28 PM

Although I'm with you on this post, your description of what happens in a typical GGW video is misleading and inaccurate. I have watched several of their videos, and the girls in them are 1) not drunk, completely sober, 2) they have a long conversation with the girls before they're asked to strip, in most cases, 3) the girls are completely consentual, they always remove their clothes themselves in front of a camera, i haven't seen any other examples of someone else removing their clothes.

Posted by: bgcamroux | July 31, 2010 1:33 PM

@PZ: I'm sure you meant "... that I don't want women to be discouraged ..."

I agree that this was a deplorable decision, and I hope the woman appeals the decision. Perhaps they could bring you in as a witness to explain some of the finer points of being human, and how to respect women.

Posted by: MrFire | July 31, 2010 1:37 PM

One of the things I love about having a comments section with a reputation as being a vicious piranha tank is that I can open up this subject and I know there will be a few True Dicks who will make an appearance, but I also know that the people here, the lower-case dicks who get accused of shrillness and discourtesty, will shred the flesh from their bones.

Moths to a candle springs to mind.

Though even our best piranhas can get depressed and exhausted from the vileness of some of the comments these threads can generate sometimes... so I'll be in the corner with gatorade and towels, if anyone needs them.

Posted by: AlisonS | July 31, 2010 1:39 PM

I guess this ridiculous ruling means we women can tear off guys' pants if they are dancing in public, videotape and post the pics. I am willing to bet the dumber than dumb jury and foreman would have come up with a totally different verdict if it were a man being violated like that by a woman.

Posted by: Dahan | July 31, 2010 1:41 PM

What a fucked up ruling. What a fucked up company.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 31, 2010 1:42 PM

I don't think I could ever be a separatist feminist, but damn, shit like this pushes me pretty close to the edge.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 1:43 PM

I've got nothing; the worst thing of course is that the jury was not some exceptional agglomeration of exceptionally misogynist fucknozzles, but rather the American Standard.

Women in this country still have virtually no rights to their own bodies. fucking depressing

Posted by: SaintStephen | July 31, 2010 1:48 PM

What happened to her was a form of sexual assault. If she had been wearing jewelry such as nipple rings, and one of them got caught up in her top as it was pulled down, serious injury could have resulted. I dare say she might then have gotten her 5 million, if not more.

I can oppose this decision for the purely selfish reason that I don't [missing word] women to be discouraged from dancing happily in public...

Freudian? Hmmm. Let's try a few possibilities:

"I can oppose this decision for the purely selfish reason that I don't want women to be discouraged from dancing happily in public..."

"I can oppose this decision for the purely selfish reason that I don't need women to be discouraged from dancing happily in public..."

"I can oppose this decision for the purely selfish reason that I don't think it's possible for women to be discouraged from dancing happily in public..."

"I can oppose this decision for the purely selfish reason that I don't care to spend even one Minnesota MINUTE considering how awful this world would be if some camera-wielding, money-grubbing dickheads succeeded in causing women to be discouraged from dancing happily in public..."

Oh well. Professor Myers makes so few mistakes it's hard to get enough editing practice.

Posted by: Standard Curve | July 31, 2010 1:49 PM

So "no" is the new yes, but yes is still yes.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 1:49 PM

I don't think I could ever be a separatist feminist, but damn, shit like this pushes me pretty close to the edge.

I'd be willing to let some men into "womanworld" after they pass a thorough examination of toxicity levels :-p

Posted by: itsumademootaku | July 31, 2010 1:51 PM

@#10: This is like equating men who go outside with their shirts off in hot weather to men who get a thrill out of exposing themselves to people in public.

Not. The. Same.

I have to admit that I've seen a couple of the GGW videos (because the commercials made me curious more than anything) and I found basically two different types: (1) girl-on-camera striptease where the director/filmer encourages them to do certain things and asks questions, and (2) giant alcohol-soaked party with lots of girls in skimpy clothes who are encouraged to expose themselves for the camera.

A small sample does not a comprehensive experience make.

Posted by: BrianX | July 31, 2010 1:56 PM

Bob #10:

You sure you don't have that confused with the GGW Uncensored series, which are actually what you describe? (Or at least that's what I've heard. Given the brand's reputation, I'm not going out of my way to find out.)

This is an incredibly wrong-headed verdict, especially given that GGW creator Joe Francis is a known scumbag who's been sued into the ground and sent to jail over his antics.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 31, 2010 1:58 PM

JREF is a cesspool of misogyny. I have seen a shitload worse out of that place, and that is why I took off (and countless other women over the years).

I never spent much time there. Most of them seem to equate rationalism with a lack of empathy.

Posted by: BrianX | July 31, 2010 2:00 PM

SaintStephen:

Selfish or no on PZ's part, isn't anything that prevents women from dancing happily in public a violation of the women's rights?

Posted by: rachel.wilmoth | July 31, 2010 2:01 PM

pcarini:

How could any self-respecting person spend 90 minutes thinking in deliberation only to come up with "she probably wanted them to pull her top down"?

Or, just as bad, "Well, she was drunk and dressed provocatively. She deserved it."

Posted by: Colormelovely | July 31, 2010 2:03 PM

Saying that women who dress provocatively are "asking" to be raped is pretty much the equivalent of saying that someone who lives in a nice house is "asking" to be robbed.

Ridiculous.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | July 31, 2010 2:05 PM

What came to mind as I read this post was a lovely daydream: the plaintiffs and their lawyers standing in front of a mass of media reporters giving a press release and some of their many victims asking them "so, if someone is knowingly in front of a working camera that means they want their clothes ripped off? OK then..." and pulling down the pants of the men as they stand there.

A girl can dream, right?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 2:06 PM

Minnesota won't be the place where it happens, though. We aren't exactly the epicenter of scantily clothed activity.

I'm willing to bet any protest of GGW is simply shrugged off as "oh, those prudes, they're just jealous", hence why we never hear of them

Posted by: realinterrobang | July 31, 2010 2:07 PM

I swear, I'm going to have a t-shirt made that has a huge PRIVATE PROPERTY sign across the front. Who's in?

Posted by: gregvalcourt | July 31, 2010 2:10 PM

#35, this was a civil suit, not a criminal case (yes, the act was criminal).

If she had charged the men involved (something she can still do), they would have likely been convicted, because laws are interpreted very strictly in criminal law. Civil matters are for recovering damages regardless of weather or not laws were broken. Civil suits can get quite "hairy".

That said, I think she should appeal and be awarded damages as well as press charges. If she can get charges to stick, that may well help her appeal.

IANAL, I just wanted to point how law works (weather we agree with it or not).

Posted by: Q.E.D | July 31, 2010 2:11 PM

how can she have lost this, other than by being afflicted with a misogynist jury still sold on the idea that women wouldn't get raped in the first place if they weren't slutty enough to walk around in skimpy clothing.

There are a number of ways for a wrong outcome at a jury trial. The judge could have given poor jury instructions. I have seen judges who want an outcome and use procedure and manner and jury communication to help one side. There is "jury nullification" where the jury hears correct instructions on the laws and disregards them to give the outcome they prefer. The better lawyer sometimes gets the jury to disregard evidence in preference for his/her story (often with an appeal to their emotions/prejudices).

Posted by: drunkenachura | July 31, 2010 2:14 PM

I saw a lot of comments about this somewhere earlier this week talking about the fact that there were signs all over the bar to the effect of "Filming in progress. You give consent to be filmed". People were arguing whether or not that extended consent to cover what happened to this woman.

The woman said "no" - why isn't that good enough? As someone further up mentioned, what happened to her is officially a crime. She didn't consent to that.

Regardless of the legal question though, the jury's foreman said on the record that "if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film."

These idiots on the jury didn't decide based on what they thought of the law. They decided based on "she was asking for it." Makes me sick.

Posted by: Love F | July 31, 2010 2:16 PM

Whoa! I thougtht it was criminal to film someone (up close, not a "crowd") for commercial use, without their consent, under any circumstance.

Posted by: BrianX | July 31, 2010 2:17 PM

#45:

I'm pretty sure that a WWII-style blackout is a very pathological example, not applicable to the vast majority of daily examples. Even then, there's nothing stopping anyone from having a wild blowout in a windowless bar or nightclub, which would still qualify as "in public".

austinfilm:

Even given a sign like that, that still doesn't justify someone else yanking her top off. If she wants to flash the crowd, that's fine, but as anyone who knows anything about the swinging scene can tell you, no still means no and you don't do anything without the target's permission.

Posted by: pcarini | July 31, 2010 2:17 PM

I wonder if the jury wasn't perhaps deliberating about whether their decision would crimp the business model of Those Enterprising Young Lads at GGW. Profiting from exploitation is, after all, as American as guns, god, and apple pie.

Their decision obviously wasn't based on the facts, which seem straightforward.

@Q.E.D: Thanks for doing the homework. If you don't mind, I'm a little shaky on why a case like this was decided by a jury when the facts seem to be so cut and dried; do you have any explanation? Could it be that GGW asked for a jury trial with the intention of sliming Mrs. Doe?

No hard feelings if you tell me to shove off and look it up myself. ;)

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 2:17 PM

Oh yeah, and for those of you shocked by the outcome of this case- you should check out the curvature. its thecurvature.com, and outside of weird random posts about the beatles it is a collection of the every single day unfair rulings against women for things like rape and domestic violence. These rulings come down every single day. This is for the tiny percentage of things that go to trial.

Posted by: rachel.wilmoth | July 31, 2010 2:20 PM

Might I recommend this blog on the subjects of feminism, rape, and sex? http://www.fugitivus.net/

Posted by: F | July 31, 2010 2:22 PM

Well, the way this is told by Jezebel, Skeptifem, and PZ, I would agree - the DICKwits have gotten away with their bullshit again.

Reading facts about this elsewhere, I'm not so sure, excepting that Jane Doe obviously did not want her breasts fully exposed. That should have been cut from the video, and she's damn right to be pissed. The other 18 seconds or whatever of her appearance sounds like fair game - she was playing to the camera. I don't understand exactly what argument the lawyers presented, so I can imagine that they lost due to overreaching. Still, Jane should have been awarded a judgement for at least the couple seconds of nipple exposure to which she did not consent. (Well, it never should have happened and should not have been left in the video in the first place.)

I understand that this bit was to be removed from the video by agreement, and that this has not been done, which makes these GGW idiots even bigger assholes in my opinion.

And since I can't imagine that Jane Doe had not considered the Streisand Effect here, it makes me wonder about the dynamic which brought her to file a $5 mill suit - could it be the pressure of dealing with her husband and male peers had anything to do with it? If so, I'd feel even more outraged by this. If she chose to file suit for her own reasons entirely, more power to her.

I hope she can appeal the judgement, I hope she wins, and I hope it really kicks the GGW guys in the balls. Hard.

Posted by: t3knomanser | July 31, 2010 2:24 PM

Remember: the case was over whether or not the GGW wankers could market a video featuring a woman getting her top pulled down. A crime was committed, and they caught it on film. They were not accused of committing the crime, or of encouraging it.

While what they did was clearly in poor taste, it was not something for which they would be liable, any more than Fox could be legally liable for their "Most Dangerous X" clip shows, where they use security footage, etc.

People seem to get distracted by the assault and think that the case was about the assault, and the decision was, "she had it coming." The case was about a recording of the assault, distributed for profit. The court found that there was implied consent to be filmed, since the girl was mugging for the camera, the shoot was announced, etc.. Whether she consented to being filmed getting her top pulled down is irrelevant, unless one of the GGW assheads is the one who pulled her top down.

This is a sane and reasonable decision.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 31, 2010 2:26 PM

ODS:

I've got nothin', other than how absolutely disgusted I am.

Women can't win. Either we're slut shammed for being to provocative or we're expected to be everyone's titillating entertainment.

^This. My ghast is flabbered over the whole thing.

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 2:27 PM

So, people who defends this, how would you feel when pissing in public at night when staggering home and someone took a picture of your dick? You can answer this is not same thing, and of course you are right because this is much worse.

Also, women who are defending GGW, how would you feel if this happened to you?

Posted by: No One | July 31, 2010 2:30 PM

This is the least of the offenses. Read on;

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/girls_gone_wild_02.html

Posted by: hkdharmon | July 31, 2010 2:30 PM

I would have to guess that there is some sort of implied consent here, such as "You must have seen the cameras, right? Therefore you have no expectation of privacy." That is the only shred of reason in this. If someone was assaulted at a concert and I was taping the concert (not being involved in the attack) and then sold the tape, would I have to get the consent of the assaulted party?
However, regarding GGW, if they get women drunk and then get them to consent, wtf? I thought intoxicated people could not sign contracts. Does the law not have consideration for someone consenting to being taped and then becoming mentally incompetent before the videotaped event? If consent forms were not required, why would they have consent forms?

Posted by: t3knomanser | July 31, 2010 2:31 PM

@cirev: Um… if I were so irresponsible to expose myself in public, I should certainly be prepared to face the consequences for my actions. And considering that public urination is a crime, and often one that can land one on the sex offender registry, having a picture of my naughty-bits circulating is pretty light penalty.

I'm not defending anything. I'm clarifying. The court case was whether or not an assault that was captured on camera could be distributed, and the fact is: yes, yes it can. It is not right that she was assaulted, and it is in poor taste to distribute the film. But it is not legally wrong.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 2:31 PM

If this post makes PZ call me a dick, I don't care. I'm simply acknowledging that the real world is nuanced, not a simplistic black and white issue.

Is "yes" vs "no" nuanced to you? sick.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 2:33 PM

Like Bob the Builder I also agree that she should have won at least based on the facts as presented in this blog post. And unlike Bob the Builder I have never watched, nor been interested in watching a GGW video.

However I have watched porn, and (GASP) even looked at pictures of women flashing at Mardi Gras (some of whom no doubt were drunk) and as such I would deeply appreciate it if PZ would publish some type of list that tells me what I am allowed to watch, and also what I am allowed to be turned on by, so that I too am not a "DICK".

Posted by: BrianX | July 31, 2010 2:34 PM

Darren:

Look up thread where I mentioned swinging. In the "lifestyle", you could be lying naked on a twin bed with six other people and no still means no. What's so hard to understand about that?

Posted by: irenedelse | July 31, 2010 2:35 PM

@ t8knomanser #80: You don't get it, do you?

You write:

@cirev: Um… if I were so irresponsible to expose myself in public, I should certainly be prepared to face the consequences for my actions.

But read the original post: this women never "exposed" herself, the GGW crew did that!

Posted by: csreid | July 31, 2010 2:36 PM

.... what the fuck, really? What if there had been no cameras, and ggw wasn't there? Is it ok to rip off a dancing strangers top then?

I'm flabbergasted. I don't understand how anyone could think it was ok.

OurDeadSelves said:

Either we're slut shammed for being to provocative or we're expected to be everyone's titillating entertainment.

It would appear that women are supposed to add or remove clothing on command, and never ever complain. Fuck that. Jesus fuck.

Posted by: piesquared88 | July 31, 2010 2:37 PM

Lets start with the apology: obviously this woman did not consent, and deserves her legal recourse.

That said... I'm in favor of major punishments for drunk drivers. If you drink and drive and hurt or kill someone, you should go to jail and lose your license. Imagine someone trying to argue that if they'd been sober they'd never have driven drunk. As a rational person, I know that by being in favor of punishments of any kind for drunk driving, I'm holding people accountable for decisions made while drunk.

I don't see how someone can hold the position that drunk driving should be punished and not also respect consent for flashing their bodies while drunk. (Actual consent, which was not the case in this incident.) If you disagree the solution is simple - don't get drunk, especially when there's a bunch of people with cameras around.

I just don't have much sympathy for people who intentionally get drunk, even if someone was giving away free booze.

Posted by: SaintStephen | July 31, 2010 2:38 PM

BrianX in #60:

I'm pretty sure that a WWII-style blackout is a very pathological example...

I'm pretty sure you've yet to make any kind of intelligent comment, (or explain why your earlier post was directed at me), and my reply was a perfectly valid counterexample to whatever...uh, "point" you utterly failed to convey.

And now you start sulking, in a most pathetic fashion. Please, do get back to me when you have something interesting to say.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 31, 2010 2:39 PM

Wow, the defenses of this ruling are ranging all the way from "they just filmed a public event" to "they have an ironclad contract allowing them to sell anything they record". Silly me for focusing on the part where Jane Doe explicitly, on tape, says "no" to being recorded topless, and then gets assaulted.

Posted by: t3knomanser | July 31, 2010 2:40 PM

@irenedelse: "the GGW crew did that!"

They did no such thing. The plaintiff did not accuse them of that, either. Someone at the bar did that, and as far as all the evidence available, it was not someone in the employ of GGW, nor is there any evidence that GGW enticed that individual to commit the assault.

They caught an assault on camera. They published the result of their taping, including the assault. They are not liable for anything.

Posted by: Ströh | July 31, 2010 2:41 PM

This is clearly very, very wrong. This is how I see it: there are two culprits at work here.

The first is the guy, assuming it is a guy (I'm certain it is) who pulled the top down. I'm sure there are some kind of law against this.

The other is clearly the corporation behind Girls Gone Wild, who have profited from the act without either compensating, or confirming consent to publish with, the victim.

The second is where I see it justified to ask for a bloated check. Anything less and the certainly multi-million GGW corp. won't feel the sting. Still, identifying the first culprit would be nice too - if it's possible.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | July 31, 2010 2:41 PM

@bubbabubba666

Best stick to written stuff. Honestly, a huge amount of the porn industry is built on objectification and often trafficking of women.

Stick to written porn if thou wouldst avoid DICKdom. No one's ever harmed in the making, except the author.

Posted by: irenedelse | July 31, 2010 2:42 PM

@ BrianX #93:

It appears there was implicit consent to be filmed topless

Where and when? I know that the jury decided to conflate "agreeing to be filmed" with "agreeing to whatever humiliation happened afterwards", but that's BS.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 2:46 PM

@nentuaby:

Could we maybe see somebody with moderation powers (I don't know if there are any mods here beside PZ) strip the link out of Darren's post?

Why on Earth would you want to do that? It's barely pornographic, and completely relevant to the discussion. How so many "skeptics" have the ability to know the decision was so outrageous without actually watching it is beyond me.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 2:47 PM

However I have watched porn, and (GASP) even looked at pictures of women flashing at Mardi Gras (some of whom no doubt were drunk) and as such I would deeply appreciate it if PZ would publish some type of list that tells me what I am allowed to watch, and also what I am allowed to be turned on by, so that I too am not a "DICK".

You act like you are soooo fucking oppressed by being told not to, you know, oppress women. I mean the real kind, not the 'boo hoo women won't suffer for my orgasm' kind.

You have no idea how much consent anyone in porn really gave. The economic disparity of women makes it impossible to rule out economic coercion as a source for porn. Trafficked women are in porn. Prostituted women are in porn. Drug addicted women are porn. Some are forced in by abusive partners or pimps. You have no clue when you are beating off to that because the raped women are made to smile in order to please you. If you have watched a lot of it I am sure you have seen at least one, masturbated to a rape. Deepthroat is one of the more famous cases, and yet I can still find light hearted mainstream media pieces about the anniversary edition of that movie.

Womens bodies don't exist for your consumption, you aren't owed jack off material or sex from anyone. When a rape or assault becomes someone elses entertainment, countless other peoples fun, your humiliation is complete. It is hard to find a more concrete illustration of hatred for women as a class than that. It is an industry that thrives despite the obvious moral problems. I am surrounded by men who see no problem with this.

Here is what you are "allowed": whatever doesnt fucking hurt anyone, and porn hurts a shitload of people. It is a luxury item.

Posted by: SaintStephen | July 31, 2010 2:48 PM

melissa.b.elliott in #59:

Sprooiiing.

;-P

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 2:48 PM

Up there somewhere I answered to someone "I'm not racist, but...". I'd like to correct that and make a general response to all who defends this straight or saying stuff that twist this... stuff (english is not my first language so forgive me).

So, that correction is "I'm not sexist, but.."

Posted by: rachel.wilmoth | July 31, 2010 2:51 PM

Ugh. Typing fail @ 95. That should be

I hope you don't think that I was making the argument that Jane Doe "deserved what she got" because of how she was dressed or if she was drunk. Quit the opposite, in fact. But, sadly, it is an argument that seems to play out time and again when it comes to sexual assault and rape--"She was not being a proper, cloistered lady, therefore she richly deserved what she got."

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 2:51 PM

So what does the "skepti" in your handle mean, then?

It doesn't mean "I need to see a movie of something to know it is wrong", but if thats how you define it... thats your problem.

Posted by: johnlil#0a224 | July 31, 2010 2:52 PM

@10: I really don't care if the girls are sober or not. At the very least, the GGW people are taking advantage of the notoriously poor judgment of 18-year-olds who appreciate adult attention.
Now that the technology is available for home use, I'm waiting for the inevitable 3-D versions. Most new video technology is driven by porn.

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 2:53 PM

It seems clear that this woman was assaulted (was there a criminal case against the individual who pulled her top down? If not, why not?)

But... $5 million? FIVE MILLION DOLLARS? Sorry, excuse the pun, but that's naked greed. That's more money than many people in the USA earn in a lifetime.

Sorry PZ Myers, I don't agree with this post.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 2:54 PM

Darren, are you disputing that her boobs show up in the clip?

because anything short of that, it doesn't matter how, for how long, and whether "it wasn't so bad" and therefore watching someone else's assault is sick voyeurism, not skepticism.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 2:56 PM

But... $5 million? FIVE MILLION DOLLARS? Sorry, excuse the pun, but that's naked greed. That's more money than many people in the USA earn in a lifetime.

And I, too, would love to see what the price on sexual humiliation and assault is, in the opinion of the d00dz here

Posted by: jdhuey | July 31, 2010 2:57 PM

Several years ago I saw a news report where the news crew was filming the GGW film crew at a beach during spring break. The GGW film crew and about 15 male spectators essentially surrounded a couple of women who were just laying on the beach and started pressuring them to take their tops off. The women were harassed, badgered and bullied. According to the reporter that type of pressure was frequently used to get the 'participants' to disrobe. Given the amount of duress those women were subjected to the concept of willing consent goes out the window.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 31, 2010 2:58 PM

Hand&No Brain:

It seems clear that this woman was assaulted

But... $5 million? FIVE MILLION DOLLARS? Sorry, excuse the pun, but that's naked greed. That's more money than many people in the USA earn in a lifetime.

By golly, it's another idiot! Why don't you and Darren get together and provide us all with a list of what various types of assault are worth, eh?

After all, it's just women; who the fuck really cares, eh? Get busy and start assigning that dollar value now...is it going to go by parts?

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 2:59 PM

What evidence!?!?! You had a news report!

Well gee darren, I hope you never run up against a problem like "rape is bad" or you will have to find a tape of one to examine the "evidence". Somehow I doubt it would bother you too much anyway.

And anyway, that news report is of a COURT decision which includes the facts of the case. Unless you think everyone in the court fucked it up. You are a sick piece of shit to look this up and insist everyone else does. You are incapable of having a shred of empathy for jane doe. Imagine being her. Or hell, imagine she is reading this thread, and she sees some random douche going "pfft, so what?" at her pain and insisting that everyone watch it to judge her experience from the outside. Wouldn't you feel like an asshole?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 31, 2010 3:01 PM

gregvalcourt @ #70

No it's not a sane and rational decision, even if GGW did not pull her top down. The fact is they are using footage of a women being assaulted to arouse men. That's not acceptable.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 3:01 PM

The part where the sum is ludicrously disproportionate to what happened to the plaintiff?

so how much is having your sexual assault broadcast and sold for profit worth?

and again, what part of "hitting GGW where it hurts" to make them stop filming and selling sexual assault is beyond your comprehension?

Posted by: rachel.wilmoth | July 31, 2010 3:02 PM

@Jadehawk

or, you know, it's a way of attacking a corporation where it can actually hurt them.

I wonder how much money to fight both criminal and civil charges GGW covers as normal operating costs.

Posted by: ownzilla | July 31, 2010 3:02 PM

@#118

That is a fairly well-established myth. New moving image technology is driven by the film industry. e.g. Cinemascope, color, talkies, 3-D, IMax.

On the internet, bandwidth drives innovation - porn follows behind, they are not at the forefront of any new streaming or video technologies.

Posted by: Nentuaby | July 31, 2010 3:03 PM

Darren, you think I'm objecting to it for its fucking pornographic content? Here is some pornographic fucking content.

I want to see your link stripped because it's a video depiction of a fucking crime, distributed for fucking profit. That being the case, the victim could be in a godamn burqa and abaya for all it matters.

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 3:05 PM

And I, too, would love to see what the price on sexual humiliation and assault is, in the opinion of the d00dz here

Well if it is a woman she probably deserved it. But GOD HELP ME if it was a man with his dick hanging out it would be an outrage.

Damn you people, now I have to listen to Crass and Au Pairs.

Posted by: Bobber | July 31, 2010 3:07 PM

People focusing on the "outrageous" amount of money asked by the plaintiff are focusing on the wrong thing.

I don't care what amount is awarded to the plaintiff.

I care that the amount awarded should make the defendants suffer financially.

In short, award irrelevant; punishment totally relevant.

Anything that makes the scumbags at GGW suffer is not only morally defensible - it is a requirement of a socially advanced culture.

Posted by: SaintStephen | July 31, 2010 3:07 PM

Walking that wafer-thin blogging topic tightrope again, eh Professor Myers?

And well played, Sir. Well played on a Saturday morn. Not a hole-in-one, but a birdie certainly.

Time for me to go and exercise the body, however. And hopefully my sidelong glances (mere microseconds in duration, mind you -- yes, I've timed them, thanks for asking... and plus, there is no such thing as free will, just ask Jerry Coyne) at the prettier women at the health club won't cause undue consternation.

It's a risk I'm willing to take.

Posted by: Kagehi | July 31, 2010 3:08 PM

You know.. One has to wonder if, in the various countries where nudity is not seen as pariah to start with, if this crap would even sell. I mean, sure, some of it would, but the conditions it was made in would likely be different. Japan has some seriously freaky stuff, and some that goes even beyond freaky, for example, but most of it is on bloody game show style things, where you have to consent just to get in the damn door. You don't see them, unless its being staged, doing the equivalent of running around to bars to catch drunk people, and make them strip. This is likely even more the case in most of Europe.

As long as we limit nudity, of any kind, to sexual situations, in the first place, we will always have a sort of borderline burqa style thinking, where: less clothes = more sex. As well as, to be frank, some level of over reaction to what would otherwise mean jack shit (talking things like the pastie, not even nipple, but ***pastie*** incident that led to new FCC regs for TV a while back, that went *way* beyond how ridiculous the rules *already* where. Over a frakking pastie, for frak sake!) The reason these idiots have a business is because we live in a country full of idiots, who spent their entirely lives seeing clothing as an impediment to seeing bodies, and bodies as the *ultimate* thing to chase, even beyond the actual sex that is supposedly the main goal. The only thing stupider, is the number of morons, usually on the right, that imagine that the solution isn't to get rid of the source of the problem (hiding bodies like they are diseases), but covering them up, more and more, in hopes they will stop wanting to know what is under all the clothes. Yeah... that works...

Posted by: BrianX | July 31, 2010 3:09 PM

Ownzilla:

You sure about that? I know for a fact that a woman I went to college with was working for one of RealNetworks' early competitors, and porn was a huge part of their business, to the point where quite a large part of their office computing power was monitoring porn sites that were clients. This was also largely true for home video, and although not the only driving force behind the Internet, it was a big one.

Posted by: Q.E.D | July 31, 2010 3:10 PM

The question was: can tape from a taped event be used, even if the individual taped may not like what is portrayed in the tape, and even if a crime was committed and captured on the tape? The answer is: yes.

Arguendo, let's say you are right that GGW has not committed a crime or a tort.

It is still clear that filming a crime, that is humiliating to the victim, for profit is utterly wrong.

According to your "reasoning" if you are at a rock concert that is being filmed and some guy beats the crap out of you and humiliates you it's ok to launch "America's biggest losers" videos and sell it.

Really? That's the standard your defending?

Posted by: geoffmovies | July 31, 2010 3:11 PM

Revolting.

It's disturbing that the jerks who make these videos actually make a ton of money.

Posted by: Ströh | July 31, 2010 3:11 PM

OK, FWIW I took a look at Darrens vid just to shut him up (the sacrifices we have to make in our duty)

Quick word picture: Cute blonde girl dances in white top with straps (and bra). Teases the camera a bit by pulling the top without exposing anything. Hand belonging to a person in a pink baseball cap (identifiable as a woman dancing early in the clip) reaches forth, attempts to pull the top away. Girl grabs the top to keep it on, succeeds partially - right areola and nipple exposed briefly. Girl screams in (possibly amused) shock and moves away from the camera to get her clothes back in place.

What does this add? NOTHING! The girl did not want to expose herself to the camera but was forced to. And the GGW corp benefited financially for it.

The court should have penalized GGW and forced them to confirm consent (AFTER the party) in the future to prevent this from happening again.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | July 31, 2010 3:12 PM

There's usually nuance to legal decisions. I can even appreciate the people who try to rationalize what has happened in the courts here. (And I think it's plainly stupid for PZ to throw out a blanket rejection of any disagreement on this issue.) But I really don't see the justification here. The GGW douchebags violated this girl's rights without getting her consent, but worse, they violated common decency by including her in the video.

Posted by: Petzl | July 31, 2010 3:13 PM

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the jury's verdict, but we didn't see the tape.

I think the issue is also, its much harder for a jury to determine actual injury at a bar where everyone is drunk/stripping/posing for camera.

I think we'd have to see this tape to judge the level of the assault (not being prurient here).

Obviously, if the incident happened at a supermarket, there would be no ambiguity at all.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 31, 2010 3:14 PM

@ #100, I somewhat agree in that there are the two separate issues of whoever pulled her top down, and separately, the filming/marketing of it. The first should have been dealt with right away, eg anything from booting whoever out of the club, right up to calling the police. The second would be whether they are continuing the crime (non consentual nipple exposure), by not blurring out that part when they showed it to zillions of people.

@ Skeptifem, all or most of the problems with porn would be gone if it were both legal and without the nasty stigma. If legal, no one would be forced into it anymore than they are in other professions. And ask me about how an easy method to totally eliminate the stds that happen a lot still, cuz I have a lot I could say about that.

I am a woman who occassionally enjoys watching porn, by the way. And I'm not talking softcore or some mushy romance either! :) I am also very anti-sexist. That is not a contradiction. Reverse sexism takes things too far by deciding that any type of sex that some (or even many) men have ever made any women do, must be bad in itself, even when it's consentual and the woman is enjoying it.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | July 31, 2010 3:15 PM

There's usually nuance to legal decisions. I can even appreciate the people who try to rationalize what has happened in the courts here. (And I think it's plainly stupid for PZ to throw out a blanket rejection of any disagreement on this issue.) But I really don't see the justification here. The GGW douchebags violated this girl's rights without getting her consent, but worse, they violated common decency by including her in the video.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 31, 2010 3:16 PM

You people are beyond reason.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 3:17 PM

Hand&Mouse:
Ooooooh, a "you feminists" slur! Come on, you can do better than that!

To echo Caine: How much should someone be allowed to sue for public humiliation and sexual assault?

Or should she just get over it? She asked for it, right? Women are just objects to be controlled, after all....

*spits*

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 3:18 PM

Oh yes, someone who doesn't think a woman should be paid $5 million dollars for a few seconds of footage is a misogynist. Of course.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 3:20 PM

Oh yes, someone who doesn't think a woman should be paid $5 million dollars for a few seconds of footage is a misogynist.

Someone that doesn't understand the outrage over the verdict clearly is.

Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. You have nothing to contribute.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 31, 2010 3:23 PM

HandIdiot:

Oh FFS, if she asked for all the money in the world some of you feminists would still think it's proportionate. You people are beyond reason.

Oh FFS, you desperately need a working brain. "You people"? Tsk, tsk.

If you had a brain, you understand a bit more about the legal process when it comes to suing a large money entity. The sum asked for is generally very large, because it's rare a jury will actually award that amount. That's just one scenario, dipshit.

At any rate, you didn't get back to us (neither did dipshitDarren) with your price list for assault? How much are we wimmins worth these days?

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 3:24 PM

@bubbabubba666 and Darren
"The fact that you think it is ok to view a video of someone being exposed against their will, (this is not in dispute,) despite their desire to have this footage made unavailable pretty much guarantees that you don't understand our outrage."

As usual the comments are filled with arguments such as the one above which would rightly mocked if they were made in other circumstances.

A few months ago PZ posted one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen in which one of our helicopter crews murdered people in the streets of Iraq. I guess we should not have watched that either to judge for ourselves, after all the people were being murdered against their will and on top of that the footage was illegally leaked.

This is in the public domain. It's not going away. This is an article about it. It's not only reasonable to watch it to help form an opinion of the event, it's almost insane not to.

Posted by: Ströh | July 31, 2010 3:26 PM

Jadehawk, exactly. You know what this reminds me of? People trying to justify harassment or bullying among kids with the "boys will be boys" argument.

When I was in school we were taught a golden rule: if the other kid says it isn't okay, it isn't okay period. If he feels bullied you're bullying him. It doesn't matter what you think, you can call it joking all you want, the view of the victim is the only thing that matters.

How is that so hard to understand for some people? GGW are in their full rights film people with less than the usual amount of clothing and make money from it as long as they have consent.

IT'S NOT OK WHEN THEY ARE NOT!

Posted by: pcarini | July 31, 2010 3:26 PM

Oh yes, someone who doesn't think a woman should be paid $5 million dollars for a few seconds of footage is a misogynist. Of course.

I'm also interested to see your proposed rates for the fee for different types of sexual assault. Broken down on a per-second basis, of course.

If they had filmed a rape that same night in the bar, what would be a proper judgment for selling a video containing, say, five seconds?

Posted by: otrame | July 31, 2010 3:27 PM

Okay, all you fuckers who say "5 million for that":

How much money did GGW make on that video, hmm? And as for "it wasn't such a big deal", when someone does it to your daughter tell me how much of a big deal it isn't. She appears to have consented to dancing in a film. She did not consent to being stripped.

The fact that those stupid videos make so much money tells me that many, many men never attain sexual maturity. Supposed adults buying videos like that to see young women bare their breasts over and over... It's a sure sign that their sexuality stopped developing when they were about 14.

I'm not opposed to porn per se (though I prefer it written so there is no chance someone is being exploited--I have a perfectly serviceable imagination, thank you). I'm not saying that there is something wrong with appreciating the sight of beautiful body parts. I, for instance, am a connoisseur of men's butts. But a video of young guy after young guy mooning the camera would creep me out.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 31, 2010 3:28 PM

Darren:

And coveting your neighbours wife is just as bad as murder. Sin is sin, amirite?

No, you aren't right, dipshit. This is about assault and a lack of consent. You attempting to shift the goal posts isn't going to help your pathetic case.

The upshot is, you just don't think what happened was all that; you think her making a fuss is all kinds of silly. This would be why people aren't too impressed with you or your line of "reasoning".

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 3:29 PM

If you had a brain, you understand a bit more about the legal process when it comes to suing a large money entity. The sum asked for is generally very large, because it's rare a jury will actually award that amount. That's just one scenario, dipshit.

Oh, cool, for once someone I can agree with!

I honestly think that part of the reason she lost is because she asked for too much. Like it or not, that is going to affect the jury's verdict. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Ideally, the jury probably should have found in her favour, but with a greatly reduced (5 figure) settlement. Her lawyer just got too greedy.

I also find it very telling that those who have self-identified as having actually watched the clip seem to be coming down more on the jury's side than hers, whereas the outrage is coming from the "Fuck you, I'm not watching" camp.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 31, 2010 3:30 PM

Oh yes, someone who doesn't think a woman should be paid $5 million dollars for a few seconds of footage is a misogynist.

And coveting your neighbours wife is just as bad as murder. Sin is sin, amirite?

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 3:31 PM

@184

Where am I shifting the goalposts?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 3:32 PM

Really, H&M? That's your defense?

I'm sorry, I'll stop "patronizing" you right now! I can clearly see that you're a member of the oppressed class and my statements are out of line.

Should I go back to the kitchen? Maybe make you a sandwich?

Fuck you, asshat. I'm gonna call you and anyone else out for their misogyny, so get fucking used to it. And if you don't like it, tough fucking shit.

Oh noes! A scary scary feminist has asserted some authority! Cover your nuts, boys, 'cos I'm comin' for your manhood!

Posted by: gregvalcourt | July 31, 2010 3:34 PM

Darren @ #190

Maybe you weren't shifting the goal posts, but you were creating a diversion: Look! Something worse! Murder!

Pointing out something else worse does not make the present subject any better.

Posted by: unbound | July 31, 2010 3:35 PM

The woman needs to get a better lawyer. Sounds like the jury picking went strongly in favor of the defense...need a good lawyer to prevent that.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 3:36 PM

And BTW, after watching it my feelings/thoughts are as follows, though I don't know how they coincide with the law:

1. The footage should NOT have been included. There is simply no justification WHATSOEVER for GGW including footage where the willingness of the woman was even remotely in doubt.

2. She probably should have received some damages. I am not sure how much. On the one hand I don't feel as though it should have been 5 million dollars. On the other hand someone made a good argument earlier that the purposes can be punitive to so as to set a clear precedent.

3. I suspect that part of the jury's view was that she probably did not suffer the emotional damage she claimed and that this was a grab for money. In the video she is laughing and does not seem terribly perturbed. Certainly that does not mean she did not experience other feelings later, or even at that moment that she hid. Regardless, it seems to me point 3 does not mitigate point 1 & 2.

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 3:37 PM

Caine: Because I point out that calling people HandIdiot and dipshitDarren is a bit childish I'm a "Tone Troll" (whatever that is)?

Truly, utterly pathetic.

OurDeadSelves: Yep, anyone who disagrees with anything a feminist says is a misogynist. I fully agree.

Posted by: Ströh | July 31, 2010 3:40 PM

Jadehawk, do you know if there is a difference between filming in public for private use or filming with the intent of mass distribution for profit? In my opinion, there should be. That way you could protect both privacy and the ability to film freely.

This is a bit out of my territory. I know about the Swedish laws but not the American. Not to mention state laws.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 31, 2010 3:40 PM

Hand:

I'm a "Tone Troll" (whatever that is)?

Yes, you are, you idiot. Now, please go clutch your pearls elsewhere.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 3:42 PM

H&M:
Considering that you don't/refuse to understand that you're looking at this from a point of privilege and you're whining about women acting "patronizing" towards you, then yeah, you're a big fucking misogynist.

But, hey, I'm the only one that thinks you're full of women-hate, right? I mean, no one else here agrees with me at all.

Posted by: pcarini | July 31, 2010 3:43 PM

The impression I seem to be getting from a number of posters here is that selling video of sexual assault is obviously wrong unless the victim asks for too much money in damages. Does that sound about right?

Posted by: rachel.wilmoth | July 31, 2010 3:44 PM

"All that's she's left with is to serve as a cautionary tale to all women out there thinking about frequenting bars and clubs where GGW or anyone else is filming."

I have to disagree with that statement. It should be up to those who are doing the filming to respect those that do not want to be on camera--either in part or whole--to receive explicit consent from those filmed. It is NOT Jane Doe's job, or any other woman's job for that matter, to serve as a warning. That seems to imply they were the ones at fault, when it was GGW that was clearly in the wrong.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 3:45 PM

Working my way down the comment thread, but just wanted to post this in the meantime.

There is no such thing as implicit consent.

Period.

Someone has consented or they haven't. And someone can withdraw consent at any time of their choosing. There is no such thing as "implicit consent", a "I know you are asking for it".

In fact, that's what "implicit consent" is, a fancy bullshit term for "bitch was asking for it".

This is why there needs to be better sex education (focusing more on informed enthusiastic consent rather than strict disease prevention) and a general combatting of the rape culture.

Cause this was the rape culture, this woman was sexually assaulted, she was entered into a porno movie without compensation or her consent, and so forth.

And sadly, this sort of miscarriage of justice is common. Even women who are violently raped by strangers (the only kind, don't you know) who filmed it and sent it to the police themselves because they thought the police would get a laugh, get hugely sympathetic juries who believe any version of "bitch was asking for it" defense.

There is no justice for rape or sexual assault currently, which is why a lot of victims, myself included don't or didn't pursue charges or even help. What would it help to get the police involved if you're going to lose, but now with the added humiliation of making it public and getting smeared by rapists who now want to destroy you publicly as a "giant slut" and what not.

It's a sickening state of affairs. I don't really know how to address it other than continuing to educate the public on informed enthusiastic consent and trying to shut down all of these rape porn makers like GGW (Sorry guy @10, you're watching rapes disguised as porn, GGW is based on manipulating consent which is rape, I'm sorry you had to find out this way).

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 3:46 PM

@greg, 190

Maybe you weren't shifting the goal posts, but you were creating a diversion

Gee, now who's shifting the goalposts?

Look! Something worse! Murder!/blockquote>

My mention of murder was simply to highlight the similarity of fundies, who claim that all sins (ie: coveting & murder) are equally bad, and the poster who insinuated all assaults are equally bad.

Posted by: Galwayskeptic | July 31, 2010 3:48 PM

'The camera crews are normally young attractive men, in order to encourage the girls, and they receive a bonus for filming particularly attractive women, or girls who have just turned 18. [...] Nightclub promoters pay up to $10,000 a night to host GGW film crews, as they ensure large crowds.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_gone_wild

Horrible bastards.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 3:49 PM

@208

The impression I seem to be getting from a number of posters here is that selling video of sexual assault is obviously wrong unless the victim asks for too much money in damages. Does that sound about right?

No. It does sound like a good strawman, though.

Posted by: MadScientist | July 31, 2010 3:50 PM

WTF? Well, I hope they can appeal and win. After all they're meant to be entitled to a jury of peers, not a jury of fucking morons and assholes. Next question: what are the religious affiliations of the jurors?

Posted by: DagoRed | July 31, 2010 3:53 PM

of course you do (or more precisely, for distributing it/showing it), which is why people's faces are often blurred out in publicly filmed scenes on the news, in documentaries, etc.

it's a protection against getting sued for not having explicit consent to film a person.

That is not true. When people's faces are blurred the events are not considered public venue or the filmers failed to get rights to film at a private location (or the people running the film are simply doing it because any lawsuit, right or wrong, costs money). For example, when a public official or personality makes a gaffaw in public and it's caught on film, the filmer has full right to profit from sale of said footage to the media or, (as in this case) publishing themselves without the consent of the subject. FOr private citizens, if there is a reasonable expectation of public display going on (such as dancing for the crowd in a bar) the law tends to side with the argument that that person is giving implicit consent to other venues of documentation -- otherwise you are merely arguing what is the reasonable size of the audience the person expected. She could, alternatively, sue GGW for infringing upon her own ability to publish and profit from her image in this event (if she was, say, filming it herself), but that is not the angle of this lawsuit.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | July 31, 2010 3:54 PM

Darren @ #214

It was another poster who initially made the comments about the goal posts. I'll let them clarify their comment for them self. I was merely pointing out a flaw in your logic, to which you responded with "Gee, now who's shifting the goalposts?". I'm not moving any goal posts and you ignoring my criticism of your comment.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 3:55 PM

1. I am often reminded of this outstanding video from Qualia Soup on open mindedness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
At 4:15 he states "Ive watched a number of people work themselves into a froth only to realize when they start listening carefully that I don't actually hold the views they've actually attributed to me".

I find it fascinating how quickly many people here often do that. "He watched the video, he's a misogynist". Um no, I watched it and believe her suit was valid.

2. "How dare you ascribe value to her assault". Um, of course we have to ascribe some value to it. A jury is usually instructed how this is to be done and what factors are to be considered. One of the primary ones is usually how the *person in question* was affected emotionally, professionally and so on. In other words it does not matter if one woman would shrug it off and move on, what is relevant is how it affected the victim in question. And there are other factors to consider as well.

Posted by: rachel.wilmoth | July 31, 2010 3:56 PM

"...And out comes the patented feminist patronising sneer"

So what's next Hand&Mouse--are you going to start calling people feminazis and making comparisons to that oh-so horrible Andrea Dworkin? *eye-roll*

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 3:57 PM

H&M:
Seriously? You don't know what the privileged class is?

Here's a hint: I'm not talking about economic class. Whoa! Just blew you mind, didn't I?

So, even though Jane Doe was assaulted and (very likely) her reputation has been ruined, that counts for nothing?

How much is assault and continued humiliation worth? How much should she be awarded? You keep dodging this question, weasel.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 3:58 PM

@#227

I agree that the footage should not have been released. The two are comparably merely insofar as you watch the footage to help come to a conclusion and see what actually happened.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 4:00 PM

You mean indoctrinate yourself in feminist worldview?

besides, privilege is not a specifically feminist term.

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 4:03 PM

OurDeadSelves I'm aware of the feminist meaning of the word "privilege". IMO it's a highly distorted and usefully self-serving worldview.

"How much is assault and continued humiliation worth? How much should she be awarded?"
I have already answered this. Not more money than many people in the USA earn in a lifetime. Perhaps nothing, depending on the circumstances.

As I asked in my very first post in this thread, didn't she pursue criminal charges against the individual(s) who assaulted her?

Posted by: stan | July 31, 2010 4:05 PM

Hmm. I'm a little late here, so I'll just hit-and-run post, but exposing a woman's breasts when she explicitly says, "No," is clearly assault, and while filming the action is not necessarily illegal, the film in question should be submitted to identify the assaulter, not to profit off of that which was exposed.

This case (as described) is appalling.

That being said, I disagree completely with PZ and anyone else who says we cannot make jokes about [insert taboo subject here]. As I am a firm believer that nothing is sacred, I therefore accept that all things have humor potential.

Boob jokes are funny, too.

That being said, I note with some caution that it is plausible that consent of the sort described could be implied, but absent the facts surrounding this case, I refuse to speculate as to whether they apply here or not. As described by PZ -- and no, I haven't followed his link -- the issue seems to describe non-consent and assault, but again it seems plausible that there may be situations in which consent is implied, or even explicitly given, in spite of apparent on-camera protest.

Flame away.

--
Stan

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 4:05 PM

I guess you wouldn't expect anyone to give you CPR if you weren't breathing.

Wow! Worst analogy of the thread! Congrats.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 4:08 PM

IMO it's a highly distorted and usefully self-serving worldview.

LMAO. Why don't you define it then. Give me a working definition of privilege. I don't believe you know what it means at all. I'm calling your bluff.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 4:09 PM

greg @ 224

It was another poster who initially made the comments about the goal posts.

Sorry about that. It seems my position is not the popular one, and it's a bit hard to keep track of who I'm responding too, etc.

It is fun, though :P

Posted by: Robert H | July 31, 2010 4:11 PM

bubba Etc @176

It's not only reasonable to watch it to help form an opinion of the event, it's almost insane not to.

Work on your definition of insanity, dude.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 4:11 PM

H&M:

IMO it's a highly distorted and usefully self-serving worldview.

Oh yes, playing dumb. How cute.

So, since you're so damn dismissive of "privilege", no one has the right to ask for equal treatment? No woman can reasonably expect not to be assaulted and humiliated in public?

Still dodging the question. I'm asking for a dollar amount for her assault and suffering. Should she only earn the median lifetime income of a US resident? Or maybe the average? Less? More? How much is her assault and suffering worth?

One more reason to label you as a misogynist. Good job, jackass.

Posted by: Jordan | July 31, 2010 4:13 PM

Ol'Greg,

The law in the U.S. gives someone the right to assume implied consent when rendering aid to an unconscious person. I was responding to someone who stated that implied consent does not exist.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 4:15 PM

@238

the film in question should be submitted to identify the assaulter

You can not identify them from the video, you only see their hands.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 4:16 PM

Still working my way down, but just wanted to add:

And excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't profiting off of criminal enterprises illegal according to the "War on Drugs" bullshit. So how the fuck does making a porn video with "implied consent" actually legal if its filming various sexual assaults, manipulated consent rapes, and whatnot?

I mean, I already know it's immoral, I already know it should be illegal, and I already know that the GGW owner is a mother fucking rapist who often either "manipulates" consent, ignores consent, flat-out rapes women or otherwise prevents their escapes, violates previous consent conditions (he promises to pay them money and then refuses to afterwards).

All of these actions are rape and they comprise the majority of the videos he creates. Any pro-porn/anti-porn feminists arguments go out the window on the criminality of this particular porn empire.

He films and sells rapes and assaults, and none at their most obvious than this case.

And forgive me if I'm wrong, but leaving aside his myriad of crimes, isn't profiting off criminal acts actually prosecutable, usually by things like, you know, fines?

Also, to the earlier troll who was blathering about how 5 million was too much.

It's not about the money, it's about the principle. And because there is no way to serve justice to corporations (seeing as they don't have physical bodies), the only way to hurt them and stop their use of predatory practices is to hurt their bottom lines.

This means the financial damages need to be large enough to get the corporation's attention and make it financially necessary to change their practices.

Maybe it would help if they put up front they would donate it to charity, but because that would be "leading the witness", we instead get to deal with idiots like you who ensure injustices occur because "we're too litigous" and "they're too greedy" and other right-wing lies you sucked down wholesale.

And one last note before we leave.

My partner was raped over 6 years ago. She's not even half healed sexually or psychologically. She has lost her full enjoyment of her entire sexual youth, the whole of her 20s pretty much gone in terms of the level of sexuality she could enjoy, including the complete inability to be penetrated, nasty flashbacks while tired, and a whole set of other stuff.

That's just from private.

In public stuff, whether or not a woman was ever photographed naked can be used against them in employment chances, likelihood of sexual assault from bosses and co-workers, and the assumption of their availability (i.e. more public assaults) when they go out.

Not to mention they have permanent record of their assaults. If my partner's rape had been filmed, she probably would have killed herself.

Hell, better example, I was publicly sexually assaulted at a Con, where panels were being filmed. If the person who was filming the panels decided to sell commercially a video of my assault to the viewing public, I'd probably hunt him down, rip out his spine and shove it down his throat. There is no right for him to film my assault and sell it, especially not when I was filmed for ostensibly different reasons.

None.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 4:17 PM

The law in the U.S. gives someone the right to assume implied consent when rendering aid to an unconscious person. I was responding to someone who stated that implied consent does not exist.

Um... yeah. And it's kind of obvious that the person is talking specifically about sex. Which makes your argument sort of a ridiculous red herring especially fetid with the suggestion that being drunk in the right place, or standing around at the right party, gives some one just as much right to your body to use for whatever purpose one might use it as they would have if they were trying to save your life.

If you didn't get the context, and you don't see why your analogy is repulsive, I really don't have time to waste on you.

Posted by: KATHYxx | July 31, 2010 4:17 PM

H&M OK, now I "lack empathy" because I think a claim for $5 million dollars for some videoed breast exposure is highly disproportionate. Seriously, listen to yourself.

Try taking your own advice. A hundred posts have said by now that it's about not letting GGW get off with a wrist slap. How is this so difficult to understand?

@Jordan, this thread isn't about giving aid of any kind. Its about implied consent in the context of sex, which there is none. The analogy doesn't really hold.

Posted by: Isabeau | July 31, 2010 4:21 PM

I agree with some above posters --

I would really appreciate it if someone with mod privileges would remove the link in comment #69 by Darren. This is a link to a video of a woman being sexually assaulted. We are disrespecting her wishes by allowing people to view it.

Thank you very much.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 4:22 PM

The law in the U.S. gives someone the right to assume implied consent when rendering aid to an unconscious person. I was responding to someone who stated that implied consent does not exist.

Does implied consent extend to cases such as this?

I'm a bit conflicted over the whole "implied consent" side of this. On the one hand, when you watch the video (for those who actually did), she partially exposed herself before someone else tried (and largely failed to), after which she seemed to laugh and giggle about it, which seems to me that she didn't really give a shit about it. On the other hand, it is skirting dangerously close to the "no means yes" crap.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2010 4:22 PM

Aha. Straps?

I stand corrected.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 4:24 PM

And still working through, but just reiterating.

There is no such thing as implicit consent.

If a woman isn't consenting to your face, explicitly agreeing to sexualized act X? Then she isn't consenting.

If she's not asking to be stripped? You have no right to strip her.

If she's not asking to be filmed? You have no right to film her.

If she's not asking to be fucked? You have no right to fuck her.

And organizations like GGW exist solely to continue to perpetuate the rape culture notion that consent is unimportant or "pushable" and that it is hot to engage in rape acts on the borderline where it's highly unlikely you'll get any real consequences.

And that's well, rape.

Informed enthusiastic consent.

If she doesn't understand, if she's not literally asking you to do it or hasn't explicitly agreed, it's off limits.

And if later, she says, nope, that's now off limits? It's fucking off limits.

Implied consent is just another term for rape.

Don't be a rapist.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 31, 2010 4:28 PM

H&M:
It's nice to know you don't actually want to punish GGW for their behavior. Or hold them accountable for their actions.

Fuck, this is getting nowhere. I've got shit to do today that doesn't include arguing with a woman hating sack of shit.

(For what it's worth: The impression you're giving, H&M is that of an upper-middle class white teenager who's mommy won't buy him a Xbox, even though he's totally sick of his PS3-- ie privilaged and bratty. Get over yourself and try to put yourself in someone else's shoes for once.)

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 4:28 PM

Um... yeah. And it's kind of obvious that the person is talking specifically about sex.

I use implied consent at my work all the time, for blood draws. It doesn't mean "grab an arm and needle it", you still have to explain what you are doing and the implied consent is when they stick their arm out/otherwise cooperate with what I am doing (IF THEY SAY NO IT DOESNT COUNT!). What happened to jane doe has none of those elements.

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 4:29 PM

@Mel Dahl: I suspected as much, but not being entirely cognisant of US law (I am British, not American) I didn't want to weigh in on that aspect of the argument. I have asked repeatedly in this thread whether she filed criminal charges against the person who pulled down her top and not had an answer.

"Unlike the GGW people, he probably doesn't have enough money to be worth suing, but legally that doesn't change anything."

The crux of this debate. "...doesn't have enough money to be worth suing". Can anyone here spell 'money-grabbing plaintiff'?

Ol'Greg The feminist definition of privilege, as I understand it and put as briefly as possible because this is off-topic, is that men are privileged over women by virtue of being male.

Posted by: apostrophobia | July 31, 2010 4:30 PM

DagoRed,

I was in a store where PBS was filming a show called One hundred dollar taxi ride or something similar. The store owner had consented to the show filming there and the camera man was panning over everyone present.

Everyone present was asked to sign a release to allow PBS to use the footage with them in it, including me, where only the back of my head would have been on tape.

It sounds from comments above that GGW had permission to film at the bar, but no written release from this woman. How is the GGW situation different from the PBS one?

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 4:34 PM

They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form

I don't see any problem with a person being filmed without having signed a consent form, however nobody should be able to duplicate and SELL the film without obtaining a consent form from every person in the film who is identifiable. Nobody has a right to make money off other people without getting their permission. In this type of filming, personally I would require the moneymakers to SHOW THEM THE FILM THEY WANT TO INCLUDE after they've sobered up and THEN get written consent.

I thought intoxicated people could not sign contracts.

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | July 31, 2010 4:37 PM

I wish that I could find a way to ask if all of these fucking rape apologists were fucking stupid, trying to make themselves feel better for being (potential) rapists or just fucking awful people.

I mean - are you fucking assholes really so fucking entitled that you don't see where this is fucking problematic, or do you just not care because you cannot even be bothered to pretend to think that women are people?

Posted by: Dae | July 31, 2010 4:39 PM

Mel Dahl #265 said:

And as for PZ's (and other's) bullying tactic of calling nasty names people who disagree with them, bullying isn't an argument. I don't like it any better than anyone else here, but the jury's decision was legally sound.

If you haven't read the thread, read it. If you already have, go back and read it again. Cerberus' two posts so far illustrate the problem with what you have said nicely.

Whether or not there is some fucked-up, truly legal basis for why her suit did not win, the legal gymnastics are not the issue. The issue is that, straight from the jury foreman, she had given "implied consent" and that's why they aren't more concerned about her being assaulted. If the case had ended in "we can't legally award the money for X, Y, and Z loopholes these assholes are using, but we recognize that it's bullshit and you should pursue your case in a more ironclad manner," we wouldn't be raging on the jury, we'd be raging on the laws. But the rank misogyny of the jury and the culture the jury comes from is amply exposed in the explanation.

Ignoring that is why you, and others, are being called dicks.

Falling back on blaming the victim for her own assault and exploitation is why this is so fucked up. And the fact that this behavior is epidemic, even among people who consider themselves progressive and egalitarian, is why our society is so fucked up.

Posted by: blf | July 31, 2010 4:41 PM

$5 million because people saw her tits for a few seconds against her clearly stated will? AbsurdThe person who stripped here, the p0rn company the filmed it, and GGW have all assulted Ms Doe.

Fixed.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 4:42 PM

is that men are privileged over women by virtue of being male.

Not really, and it has everything to do with the topic actually so I think we have plenty of time for this little feminism 101 side bar here. Except that I have to be some where in 45 min and don't have much time to waste with you. So I'll be gone for as long as it takes to record drum tracks.

Men are privileged over women because men have the advantage in a patriarchal society by virtue of it being a patriarchal society. See how that's different? So do you not think this is a patriarchal society? Or do you not think that patriarchal societies rest more power and control in the hands of men? Which one?

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 4:43 PM

Q.E.D: I have put forward my personal opinion that $5 million is a disproportionate amount of money to claim for.

Are exarch (post #167) and Mel Dahl (#265), who have commented on the legal specifics of the case and concur with me that the outcome was not an incorrect one, also "utterly ignorant about how the law works"?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 31, 2010 4:45 PM

I don't have anything to add at this time other than to attempt to express how completely disheartened I am that that a jury full of people from this century could have such backward view. What happened to her was very wrong, and that jury is a bunch of fucksticks for not seeing it.

Posted by: Jordan | July 31, 2010 4:49 PM

"Implied consent and Implicit consent are two completely different terms."

Actually they mean the same damn thing.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 4:49 PM

@278

I wish that I could find a way to ask if all of these fucking rape apologists

Wow... Just. Fucking. Wow.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 4:50 PM

The person said "Implied consent doesn't exist. Period."

It doesn't exist for sex, I agree with that. It doesn't exist for sexual interaction. The consequences are much too great to be in the same category as having a nurse give you a vaccine.

The medical system has several levels of consent based upon likely consequences and possible risks. Implied consent is for really small shit. Having your sexual autonomy violated is a big fucking deal. It should be subject to enthusiastic consent from all parties in order to avoid the horrible consequences.

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 4:51 PM

Ol' Greg This thread is full of people who think I look stupid and a lot else besides. I think I'll live.

Posted by: Jordan | July 31, 2010 4:52 PM

KOPD, the jury was not tasked with determining whether or not it was "wrong" but if the law was broken.

Why can people not seem to see that this verdict tells us nothing about the jury members' opinions of GGW or sexual assault.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 4:54 PM

No, no and no. It's a human society. End of.

LOL.

Are you kidding? I thought it was a society of chimpanzees! HOLY SHIT. Yeah, it is the end of though. You're kind of like talking to a sack of bricks.

Posted by: Jordan | July 31, 2010 4:56 PM

"@Jordan
No they don't mean the same thing. Buy a fucking dictionary!
Implied and implicit have distinctly differing connotations."

Dictionaries list connotaions now? Good to know.

Posted by: Jordan | July 31, 2010 5:00 PM

"not that any fucking asshole can decide that a woman has implied consent based on the fact that the woman dared to appear in public."

This is, of course, a strawman. No one in this thread has made this claim.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 5:01 PM

Jordan

Calling people rape apologists and (potential) rapists for having a legitimate discussion over the scope of implied consent and how to determine damages to award is pretty trivializing of the actual act of rape, don't you think? I think you are projecting evil motives where none exist.

I was raped when I was a young girl. I had a friend I told, and she told me a bunch of boys held her down and made her give them oral sex,adding "but it wasn't like rape or anything. It wasn't like what happened to you."

And when people hear about that they say stuff like "why didn't she fight back?" or that what makes something a real rape is when there is non sexual violence involved as well.

The violation of the sexual autonomy of women is a spectrum for sure, but it is painful and frightening and something that no woman (to my knowledge) has ever escaped. We all experience it in one way or another, and talking about one womans problem (a real problem) isn't doing jack crap to my problems. In fact, it makes me feel like people actually give a damn about this problem. It is a positive thing to me.

When women say "no" to something and men insist on ignoring it, I have no problem assuming that they continue the pattern in other parts of their lives. It is an outright denial of female humanity. Rapists aren't secret people who hide out and never say anything- they are normal guys with fucked up attitudes towards women, they are men we know. When men on here decide to treat an assault (even a "small" one) as no big deal they are at a minimum giving social approval to the rapists/potential rapists who read it. They support rape culture. It says both that rape victims do not matter and that rape is ok. There is not any acceptable level of sexual force that is used on women (social, physical, economic, etc). It needs to be widely recognized that this shit is very wrong, period.

Posted by: A. Nuran | July 31, 2010 5:03 PM

A more emphatic "No" could get through to even the most brain-dead fuckwit like Bob the Builder. As someone who taught this sort of thing for about ten years, might I suggest a dislocated thumb or severe testicular torsion?

One also wonders how the GGW crew would feel having their dicks forcibly exposed to the camera for, say, SBGG - Straight Boys Gone Gay.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 31, 2010 5:03 PM

Hand&Mouse: "Privilege" has a specific meaning in sociology (not only in feminist theory). Look it up.

Also, you need to read up on tort law. The law of many US states allows for an award of "punitive" or "exemplary" damages in certain tort cases, in addition to compensatory damages. Unlike compensatory damages, which are intended to compensate the plaintiff for the harm s/he has suffered, punitive damages are intended to penalise the defendant for particularly serious wrongdoing - and, thus, are often assessed with reference to the defendant's financial means, since they are specifically intended to "hit the defendant where it hurts".

Although I'm not certain (not being particularly familiar with the Missouri state legal system), I would assume that the plaintiff's figure of $5 million included a projected award of punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages. When viewed in that light - taking into account the fact that the wrong committed by GGW was deliberate and that they intended to profit from it - it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable figure.

(Disclaimer: Although I have a law degree, I'm English and don't have any specific familiarity with state tort law in Missouri, so I make no representation as to the accuracy of the above.)

Oh, and on another note: you're acting like a twit, and completely missing the point. Whether or not $5 million is an appropriate figure, the fact is that GGW got away without paying anything at all, after profiting from a deliberate assault and violation of a person's privacy. And the jury relied on an attenuated conception of "implied consent" which was totally wrongheaded, and potentially a very dangerous idea.

Posted by: NiVeKeR14 | July 31, 2010 5:05 PM

@Stan

That being said, I disagree completely with PZ and anyone else who says we cannot make jokes about [insert taboo subject here]. As I am a firm believer that nothing is sacred, I therefore accept that all things have humor potential. Boob jokes are funny, too.

I both agree and disagree with this statement. (And before I say what I'm about to say, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or make it appear like you're saying anything you didn't mean)

I also believe that nothing is sacred, and everything has humor potential, but you have to also look at the bigger picture as well. Why are you saying a certain joke?

Just to get a reaction? Not a very compelling reason.

Also, at who's expense is this joke? Are you making a joke at the expense of the assault victim? Well, I'm all for free speech, and I would never censor you from making a joke like that, but I would chastise and criticize you, because it clearly lacks tact, class, and indeed is a step backwards for all of humanity (perhaps a little hyperbolic, but little things can add up).

Or are you making a joke at GGW's expense? Is your joke used to raise awareness about the issue of our rape culture? Then I would actively encourage you to make your joke! Any joke that can get people to think, and perhaps see things from a different (and better) perspective can be used for the greater good of humanity.

From a "Free Speech" perspective, I'd agree that nothing is sacred, and any joke about rape (and sexual assault) is fine.

But from a "Bettering Humanity and Raising Awareness" standpoint, I'd have to take a more nuanced approach to what joke is appropriate and ok.

Thats why, while I agree with you, I also agree with Mr. Myers:

Don't make jokes about the inherent humor in assaulting women. Don't make it easier for women to be made uncomfortable in the presence of men.

If you make a joke at the expense of women being assaulted or raped you're a douchenozzle that is actively hurting our society.

Posted by: Dae | July 31, 2010 5:07 PM

JenniferA #301:

PZ, do you really believe that uncovered breasts equate to lack of modesty? Is modesty in your view about hiding certain taboo patches of quite ordinary skin? If so, you need to take your family to Avatan in East Bethel and get yourselves educated.

And please don't claim I'm misreading. You've said similar stupid stuff before.

If you have, in fact, read much of this blog at all, you would know that PZ actively opposes the imposition of whatever the public opinion of the hour says is modesty on women, either for reasons of taboo or "protection."

I personally (speaking for myself because I'm only comfy speaking for PZ insofar as paraphrasing his own words on the blog...) think any kind of cultural taboo centered on showing "certain patches of skin" is stupid, but the fact remains that these taboos exist - and as a result, women who are filmed displaying these "certain patches" are socially and economically penalized for it, often heavily. In this particular case, the woman's body was displayed and profited on without her consent. That is the issue. Don't hang all over his use of the word "modesty" and use that to accuse him of a position he does not hold.

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 5:09 PM

"Hey I'm a MAN and I think these WOMEN got what they deserve so DEAL WITH IT!"

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 5:10 PM

Darren- well, what the fuck do you think you were doing? No rape apologist (well, maybe a rare one) will say "yeah rapes great!", they mostly divide sexual assault into acceptable and non acceptable categories, when none of it should be acceptable at all. You said her assault was "perhaps" not worth anything. I remember another appalling JREF thread about a woman who pressed charges for rape because a guy wouldn't pull out when she repeatedly told him to, and the assault lasted like 10 seconds. It was the same bullshit as in this thread. The legal system wasn't on her side either. How much were her seconds of trauma worth to you? I don't give a damn what weird guidelines men want to make about what assaults are ok and what ones arent. Even if you don't intend it, look at the kind of attitudes you are contributing to. You are giving social support to rape culture.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | July 31, 2010 5:10 PM

Ströh @156, Thanks for taking one for the team.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 5:15 PM

And you think that you're not in a patriarchal society.

Why should he? He doesn't have to deal with it. And of course that couldn't possibly be because as a person with the privilege not to have to deal with it every day he just thinks that's what life is like for everyone.

Because... there is no privilege, and that is what life is like for everyone. And if you were like him you'd see that!!!!!!!

Dogs chase their tails. I don't have time for people who do.

Posted by: No One | July 31, 2010 5:16 PM

Mel Dahl #265

If you are in a public place, nobody needs your permission to film you and post the film; otherwise there would be no television evening news.

GGW videos are classed as adult films.

From the Cornell University Law School:

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

They are also required if I'm not mistaken, to have a model release form on file. If it is considered an explicit film. Also, whoever pulled her blouse down:

(3) the term “performer” includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct.

Just some food for thought.

Also, in the county I live there is an ordinance that makes illegal to photograph any woman without her consent even if she is in public.

Posted by: acrimonyastraea | July 31, 2010 5:18 PM

I'd hate to go into negotiations with some of the DICKs here, who don't seem to understand that you don't go in asking for what you think you'll actually get. Lawsuits work much the same way.

And since some of you were so insistent that watching the video was necessary (Fuck you), I assume you are privy to the calculations and analysis used to determine the $5m figure to determine whether it was reasonable?

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 5:21 PM

I think a lot of the hype about this story is misleading. You can read my full rebuttal here, if you're interested:

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/notes/alison-smith/girls-gone-wild-gone-wild/413116792195

Posted by: Alyss | July 31, 2010 5:21 PM

"Can anyone here spell 'money-grabbing plaintiff'?"

I LOVE this brand of objection, which is all over the Internets on this case. I fail to understand what your impression of her greed has to do with whether or not she should have won the case.

But since we are so very qualified to determine a fair and modest dollar amount ... what is appropriate? Twice the projected revenue from the video containing the assault? 75%? How about 50%? Wow, that's 5 million dollars. Or we could just go with an amount that "feels" modest and not-greedy, maybe something we "feel" non-consensual breast exposure is worth.

Posted by: loreleion | July 31, 2010 5:23 PM

So many DICK comments... ugh.

Most of the ones I'm seeing are claiming that the person who pulled her top down committed sexual assault, but GGW did nothing illegal. So what was the sexual assault here? Exposing her breasts without her consent is what justifies that phrase, right?

So how many people did GGW expose her breasts to, despite knowing that she explicitly refused to consent?

Not only was there not "implicit consent" for this, GGW is guilty of participating in sexual assault, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 5:26 PM

So then, come out and say it. Show the world what hate-filled misandrist you are:

another fucking idiot.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 31, 2010 5:30 PM

So then, come out and say it. Show the world what hate-filled misandrist you are: In your opinion, am I a rape apologist?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/LVaXzAc0jsBQMbkt1Ed4Mc8nbC1M#f4c0f | July 31, 2010 5:31 PM

@323

Bullshit!

Television news is protected due to journalistic value (debatable these days, however). Other shows on television that are not classified as journalistic MUST obtain consent. Why do you think many of the suspects on shows like "COPS" are blurred out? Because they didn't give consent, and shows that are for entertainment and not news or documentary purposes must obtain consent.

It is clear from her actions that she did not consent for her breasts to be shown, whether she consented to being filmed dancing or not. Distributing the video of that action for profit and entertainment purposes violates the law.

Posted by: Hand&Mouse | July 31, 2010 5:33 PM

#319, #322, #325: I'm used to coming across people spouting this feminist ideological stuff when debating on political blogs, but I'm experiencing some level of disbelief that I'm actually having this conversation on a science blog.

I'm off to re-read Steven Pinker's - 'The Blank Slate' - specifically, chapter 18.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 5:35 PM

"Also, in the county I live there is an ordinance that makes illegal to photograph any woman without her consent even if she is in public."

That ordinance would almost certainly be thrown out on First Amendment grounds if it were challenged.

That's a new one on me. Exactly which part of the First Amendment gives people the right to take and keep photographs of strangers? I don't remember anything about the right to stalk and harass.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 31, 2010 5:35 PM

Yeah, if you don't agree that we live in a patriarchal society, I don't give a shit what male apologist you name drop. Go to hell, and stay there.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 31, 2010 5:36 PM

"sweet nectar"

"Porn is legal, so I don't know what you are talking about. Here it is legal and the people who make the porn hate condoms. They don't give a fuck if the people in it get STDs, the monthly tests are damage control rather than using (EASY AFFORDABLE) prevention."

"Could it be clearer that the women in porn are exploited?"

"An no, those problems won't go away if the stigma is gone."

"Women don't have the same chance to make money in our society. That by itself is a huge problem for the consent of lower income women who are prostituted or in pornography."

"As far as the whole "it won't be in the criminal realm anymore" bs that you are trying to spread- it just isn't true. Places with legal prostitution draw more trafficked victims because there is an easy way to offload the product."

"It gives pimps legit incomes."

"It seems to benefit everyone except the women and children who get raped by johns and thrown away when they aren't sellable anymore."

Posted by: feralboy12 | July 31, 2010 5:36 PM

There are a lot of red herrings being thrown out in the comments here.
The question being decided in court was not whether the woman was assulted. She was, but the issue in court was whether or not GGW violated her legal rights by recording and distributing the video. And that is a legal question, not a moral or ethical question. And what is the law? It seems to vary from place to place. The laws in effect at that time and place are the basis upon which the jury makes its decision. Juries do not make laws, and they should not make decisions based on what they think the law should be.
Also, juries have to decide on the basic question of liability before they consider the damages. How much money the plaintiff requests is not germaine to the question of liability.
Had I been on that jury, I would have cast my vote based on what the law said. If the law said public events can be recorded and distributed without explicit consent even if the subjects' rights were violated by a third party, I would have voted with the majority here. Sorry.
Personally, I wouldn't like a law that allowed that, but my hands would be tied. Juries do not write laws.
As for watching the video, I chose not to. I'm not on the jury. Jane Doe obviously doesn't want me looking at her tits, and I will respect that.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 31, 2010 5:38 PM

I'm used to coming across people spouting this feminist ideological stuff when debating on political blogs, but I'm experiencing some level of disbelief that I'm actually having this conversation on a science blog.

LOL. Speaks volumes.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 31, 2010 5:39 PM

Hand&Mouse
If you read that book for comprehension as well as you've read this blog for comprehension, I can see why you would think bringing it up at all matters a fuckbit.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 5:40 PM

Goddamnitt, it's impossible to catch up. Okay, at around 272.

Jordan-

Fuck you.

No, that's not implicit consent.

It is a violation of consent for medical necessity. We have made a social decision that explicit consent can be waived for issues of medical necessity to the person affected where consent is impossible to acquire. This does not invent a new category of "implicit consent", it merely states that we view medical necessity as more important in that aspect.

And for a good illumination on why we have such an influx of "anti-feminist" trolls, it's because we're talking about GGW.

To the deeply sexist section of men in America, GGW is a personal God. One of the few porn services advertised on regular cable and otherwise almost mainstream.

Plus, it gives a segment of men assault, manipulated consent of real women, a fulfillment of college fantasies and an overall message of women are drunk, stupid, bitches you can trick into fulfilling any fantasy.

It's pretty obvious such a model is rape, manipulated consent, assault, profiting off assaults, and otherwise fast and loose with consent.

But to a certain segment of men, that's the point. The violation of consent is what turns them on, because it "gets back" at the "hot college women" who didn't do anything with them or who were "too good" for them.

Not to mention that another segment of men get suckered into masturbating to it as if it was porn, naked boobies, possibly even whacking it in their early days as accessible ads before they went "looking" for porn.

And they don't want to face the fact that they were masturbating or turned on by rape or exploitation, so they decide to handle the dissonance by simply refusing to listen and otherwise protect GGW from the accusations and minimalize their crimes. Because they feel guilty and want to excuse themselves from enjoying it.

That and a number of people have committed assaults and rapes on the level of GGW and minimizing these crimes is an important aspect of minimizing their own crimes.

That and women aren't shit in our society. So who cares what happens to them.

As with my personal con example. I gave consent to be filmed as an audience member at a Comic-Con panel. I did not give consent to be filmed being assaulted.

If someone did so and released it as a for-profit release for their company, I would never stop until I had murdered those responsible.

This woman was foolish enough to trust our broken and deeply sexist legal system.

And this is why most women don't even pursue trying to convict their assailants or rapists.

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 5:45 PM

And she did implicitly consent to being filmed.

I don't know what language you speak but No is Ei in finnish and Ei means No.

Also, perhaps you are lonely or autistic or something, but people when having otherwise fun time usually look happy. This woman apparently had good time and some pervert wanted to expose her breasts.

Ah, why I have to tell why it is wrong to expose someones breasts and other stuff? You would be outraged if I somehow sold video of you rubbing your sausage.

Posted by: attorney | July 31, 2010 5:46 PM

Cerberus,

I think what you mean to say is that you don't AGREE with the concept of implied consent. If you actually believe that implied consent does not exist, you should probably request your tuition back from whatever law school you attended.

And yes, it exists even in the context of sexual relations (both as a legal concept and as a social concept). In fact, the VAST majority of consensual sexual interactions occur based on implied consent. How many times does a man actually ask if he may insert his penis into a woman's vagina (or another man's anus)? And how many times does anyone actually say, "Please put your penis inside me"?

In the course of consensual sexual interaction, people read signals, which often IMPLY consent. Even when a person WANTS to have sex, anything short of a verbal request and verbal permission is IMPLIED consent.

And no, I am not saying that anything a woman does implies consent, that a woman can "accidentally" consent, that anything a man decides is consent should be treated as such, or that the woman in the video that prompted this discussion did anything to imply consent. If a woman walks down the street naked except for a smile, touching her against her will is still civil battery, criminal assault and/or rape, and should be prosecuted as such. The person who pulled Jane Doe's top down should be liable for civil battery and criminal assault under Missouri law.

But when a person WANTS to have sex, that person usually communicates that desire by means other than granting verbal or written permission. Virtually every consensual act is predicated on such implication. To say that such implied consent does not exist is simply wrong.

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | July 31, 2010 5:50 PM

Darren: A. You're reading a lot into her thoughts regarding someone violently not respecting her body.

b. Women are trained from very young ages to be polite, not make a fuss, etc.

c. Given what this lawsuit was regarding she WAS distraught about her assault being caught on film and distributed.

Why are you trying to make it ok that this happened to her? Why do you not believe her when she says no? Why do you not believe that she was distraught?

d. And overarchingly - why the FUCK are you watching a video of a woman being assaulted? What the fuck do you get out of that?

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 5:52 PM

"Oh that woman DARED to have good time so she deserved to have her breasts exposed without her consent! Damn women, only good for good ol' rapin' and beatin' and rapin'"

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | July 31, 2010 5:54 PM

http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/girls-gone-wild-lawsuit.html

According to the above link from the Hollywood Reporter Jane Doe responded to having her top pulled down by "playing to the camera." Presumably she shook her ta-tas and acted as if she were having a good time.

She may have said "no" at first. But, assuming that the HR is accurate when it describes her as "playing to the camera" instead of, say, pulling up her top and calling the person who pulled it down an asshole or turning her back clearly implies after-the-fact consent. Of course you'd never know about her reaction by reading Professor Myers. Like all good feminists he doesn't want to present certain inconvenient facts that might confuse his audience into not taking the appropriate attitude, being the free-thinking bastard he so self-avowedly is.

Undoubtedly some will say that I'm blaming the victim to which I reply, right on. Women are not children and, unlike feminists, I expect them to behave in an intellectually consistent manner that empowers them to avoid being taken advantage of. Apparently, expecting women to behave like intelligent adults who, if they don't want the tits shown in public, can be reasonably expected to pull their tops right back up constitutes some especially insidious form of covert misogyny.

Let me put it to you this way: If somebody pulled my shorts down and I really didn't want people to see my ass, I'd pull my shorts back up. I wouldn't shake it for the benefit of the camera, wait for someone to make a profit and then sue them for more than my share of the money. I'm quite peculiar that way.

And, of course, it is utterly out of the question that the victim really didn't mind having people see her tits all that much and just decided to become outraged when she saw the possibility of a big payday dancing before her eyes. No one would ever do a thing like that.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 31, 2010 5:54 PM

RemieV
It's so neat that you live in a special world where if something isn't addressed legally, then it didn't happen.

Ladies, if you don't want to be raped, just remember to never press charges. That way, it'll magically disappear.

"Did you get a conviction?"
"No."
"Congratulations. You were never raped."
*instant revocation of repercussions for sexual assault; everyone goes home happy*

And here I thought morality actually existed.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 5:59 PM

@Jules:

I am speaking in a legal sense. And yes, that would be true with rape as well. You cannot say, with any assurance whatsoever, that she was assaulted because there was never a trial. For all you know, that was her best girlfriend and they agreed together in the bathroom that she'd pull down her shirt in front of the camera.

You just don't know. So in a legal sense, no. No assault. It isn't wise to make the kinds of assumptions you are making.

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 6:03 PM

Remiev what the fuck I cant even beging. "IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO RAPE CHILDREN IN SOME COUNTRY SO I FLY THERE AND RAPE CHILDREN" fuckin legalism oh fuck too mad to make a coherent response

go hug a train

Posted by: skeptical_hippo | July 31, 2010 6:04 PM

I was appalled when I first read this, but found some details after googling the case. Apparently Jane Doe pulled down her own shirt enough to reveal the areola and repeatedly grabbed and jiggled her "girls" for the camera. No, it's not consent to show the nipple. But at the same time, I'm having trouble working up a lot of sympathy if she was happily showing areola but then sued for $5 million over two seconds of nipple exposure.

From http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/07/an_ass_clowns_rebuttal_girls_gone_wild_jane_doe_and_jezebel.php

1. Did Jane Doe appear dancing in a nightclub at approximately the 17:49 minute mark of Girls Gone Wild: Sorority Girl Orgy? Yes.

2. When confronted by the camera, did Jane Doe playfully lower her chest (revealing her cleavage), grab hold of her boobs and jiggle her bosom in the direction of the camera? Yes.

3. Did she then mouth the words: "I can't." Yes.

​4. Did Jane Doe then turn to the camera again, grab her breasts once more and again jiggle them? Yes.

5. Did Jane Doe then turn a third time to the camera and pull down her tank top, revealing more of her breasts? Yes.

6. Did at around that same moment another woman appear in the video and place her hands near the top of Jane Doe's tank-top? Yes.

7. Did the hands pull the tank top down revealing Jane Doe's nipples for approximately two seconds? Yes.

8. Did Jane Doe then turn to her friends and laugh following the incident? Yes.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 6:05 PM

How am I discounting it? I was speculating on whether she discounted it until discovering it can been caught on film and distributed.

I find it problematic that soft-porn pornographers and the alcohol industry cooperate to intoxicate and exploit drunken women, including minors, without compensation or explicit written consent, and then make big money by validating and promoting the 'forced sexual contact is exciting/no means yes' kink which underlies rape. Especially when they're selling this drek to minor boys.

Posted by: Dae | July 31, 2010 6:06 PM

@Hieronymous The Foolish Troll, #364 - "No means yes if she does anything after her refusal is completely ignored that might give me the slightest inkling that she might not have meant it." That's what you're saying. Go fuck yourself. And then read up on rape culture, because you're contributing to it amply.

Posted by: BoxNDox | July 31, 2010 6:07 PM

A few years ago I ended up as foreperson on a case where a guy shot at some people in a car.

The prosecution's case wasn't weak, it was nonexistent: Some testimony that suggested the defendant might have had access to the gun and some weak eyewitness testimony that he was nearby at the time of the shooting.

When the time case for the defense to present their case, had the attorney said, "The prosecution has presented nothing that deserves rebuttal" and rested without argument, we would almost certainly have had to return a verdict of "not guilty" on all counts. But instead, the defense lawyer decided to put his client on the stand, where the he proceeded to admit everything in order to claim "self defense".

The guy is probably still in jail. And the reason he got sent there is primarily because his defense strategy sucked, not because he was actually, you know, guilty.

I tell this story to make a point: The details of the law, the actions we take (or don't take), and the strategies our legal representatives use *matter*. We may wish otherwise, and further wish for justice to served in cases like this, but really, believing this is how things are going to work out is almost as silly as believing all those wafers turn into flesh.

In the present case, the incident took place in 2004 and the statute of limitations on criminal battery is rarely more than 5 years (and appears to be less in Missouri). So filing criminal charges doesn't appear to be possible. And since the person who committed battery is apparently a female friend of the victim, there may well have been additional issues that make a civil case against her problematic.

But without such a case, what happened is not battery (criminal or civil) in the eyes of the law. So the whole "profiting from a crime" concept cannot be sustained. That appears to have left lack of consent as the sole legal basis for the suit.

Now, not having heard the case or read a transcript, I really cannot say whether or not the jury's verdict makes any sense. (I've also done some expert witness work, which taught me the devil is always in the details.) Nor can I tell if the plaintiff's apparent choice to argue this solely on the basis of lack of consent was poor strategy or simply unavoidable - indeed, for all we know, they may have tried some other approach and gotten shot down by the judge.

So what's the bottom line here? Frankly, aside from the obvious point that we are all, whether we like it or not, the "sport of circumstances", I'm not sure there is one. While I would have loved to see these loathsome GGW creeps hung out to dry, I'm unwilling to create bad law or apply existing law badly to get that result. Since their continued abuse of women seems certain, I can only hope that they mess up and do something that is actionable in a big way.

Posted by: NiVeKeR14 | July 31, 2010 6:07 PM

#364 Undoubtedly some will say that I'm blaming the victim to which I reply, right on.

Why the fuck would you ever blame a victim? A victim is a fucking victim!

"Well, its your own fault you got robbed, you didn't lock the door!" No! Its the robbers fault he got robbed.

"Well, its your own fault you were punched in the face, you called his mother fat!" No! Its the guy who punched you in the face's fault you were punched in the face.

"Well, its your own fault you were raped, you were walking around outside topless! (Hell, even naked)" No! Its the person who raped you's fault.

I suppose this is just a philosophical difference between us, and I doubt I'll be able to change your mind, but I find your argument fundamentally flawed.

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | July 31, 2010 6:11 PM

@RemieV I don't care if you're a man or a woman - that kind of legalistic fuckery deserves nothing but public shaming. I am not the one that is totally supporting a fucking revolting perception of women's rights to their own body. You are the one who said that SANS CONVICTION THERE IS NO RAPE. That is a megafuckton more offensive that me observing that you clearly do not think that women have the right to bodily integrity and that you clearly don't know what the fucking fuck you are talking about.

Did she say yes?

Having pulled on her shirt once, does that require that she implicitly consents to pulling it down again.

If you fuck someone once, does that mean that you cannot be raped by that person?

How are you not understanding this?

Posted by: cirev | July 31, 2010 6:12 PM

@HG: I am a female, in case that wasn't clear. You're also being kind of offensive. I believe that when a woman says 'no', she means 'no'. You also have to take into account who she is saying 'no' TO. The cameraperson asked her to take off her shirt. She did about halfway, so that you could see her areola, and said 'no'. She did not, however, say 'no' to the person who actually pulled down her shirt.

I don't know, this sort of reads like "I support the genocide of palestinian people and you are an antisemitist for being against the genocide. Did you know that Hitler used to genocide jews? That makes it okay to genoside the browns."

Posted by: No One | July 31, 2010 6:15 PM

Just a bit of a side bar here...

To those who have daughters, sisters, nieces or any young women and girls to which they may have influence. Take a moment to explain that they should never allow themselves to be photographed or videotaped in such a way that would embarrass, humiliate, or cause them anguish of any sort. The boyfriend who says "This is just for us baby" is the DICK who will post them on the net the next day. To brag to his friends, or for revenge etc.

Put the little voice in their heads:

"Pictures? Me? Naked? FUCK YOU!!!"

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 31, 2010 6:19 PM

Darren
She was ok with being filmed doing what she was doing. She was not ok being filmed having something done to her. Fuck, man. Can you really not see that playing up the camera should not be an invitation to and then excuse for violating consent? She consented to dancing, flirting, whatever. She did not consent to having her breasts exposed. These are not equivalent acts.

I tried. I did. But you are a fucking asshole. And, yes, your "she had it coming because she walked up to the line before someone else crossed it for her" attitude makes you an apologist for sexual assault.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | July 31, 2010 6:21 PM

If a woman can withdraw consent after she gives it, she can also change her mind after she says no. Shaking your tits for the camera is giving consent for them to be filmed. It's really quite simple. If you genuinely don't want your tits to be filmed, re-cover, don't flaunt, them.

And, BTW, I could care less if people find me offensive. In fact, I sort of like it when people who can't make coherent arguments on their own get pissed off. Nothing amuses me more than an ineffectual, sputtering would-be bully.

Remember: If we want to empower women, it's vitally important that we treat them like children. Otherwise, feminism means nothing.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 6:23 PM

Also, a primer on rape culture for the idiots.

Is rape pretty much de facto legal in America? Yup. When this case had to go to trial 3 fucking times before more than one person would declare the assailants guilty, it's pretty much impossible to get a rape conviction in this country no matter the circumstances.

Is it rape to do to someone something they are doing to themselves?

Yes, you fucking idiot. Someone doing something with themselves or another partner doesn't give you carte blanche to jump in and "join in" or add your own touch. They didn't consent to that. Also, they can control what they do to themselves, how much they reveal, how much they engage in, they don't have direct control over what others do and furthermore they haven't agreed to do anything with the other person.

Is it a violation of consent to film someone or a certain act without their consent or present a consented to scene outside the bounds or expectations of the consent?

Yes, what are you a fucking moron? What they consented to is what they consented to. Using what they haven't consented to or using it in a way that hasn't been consented to is a violation. One can exploit cultural sexism to get away with it (see the business model of GGW), but it's still a violation of consent.

Can someone withdraw consent in the middle of an act?

Yes, duh. Just because someone wanted to explore Act A at one point doesn't mean they have to see it through to completion. They can decide its not working at any time and withdraw their consent to an act or project. And furthermore, for the remedial class dropouts. A person consenting to Act A with Person A, does not consent to a perpetual stream of Act A with Person A, nor Act A with Person B, nor Acts B-Z with Person A or others.

I hope this will help all of you deeply sexist morons who have difficulty viewing women as full people.

Please learn quickly, because the women you casually rape or the businesses you support that casually rape women or the rape trials you ensure end in injustice really shouldn't be the way they are. Women should be free from rape, businesses that exploit women in this violation of consent sort of way should see their owners in jail, and rape trials should actually mean something other than a guaranteed failure of justice and a deepening of the scars from the rape.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 31, 2010 6:26 PM

Nothing amuses me more than an ineffectual, sputtering would-be bully.

The self-love is strong with this one.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 6:28 PM

And, BTW, I could care less if people find me offensive. In fact, I sort of like it ...

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 6:30 PM

She giggled at the discomfort and humilation of the incident because that's how women are SUPPOSED to behave.

To quote Harriet J:

People wonder why women don’t “fight back,” but they don’t wonder about it when women back down in arguments, are interrupted, purposefully lower and modulate their voices to express less emotion, make obvious signals that they are uninterested in conversation or being in closer physical proximity and are ignored. They don’t wonder about all those daily social interactions in which women are quieter, ignored, or invisible, because those social interactions seem normal. They seem normal to women, and they seem normal to men, because we were all raised in the same cultural pond, drinking the same Kool-Aid.

And then, all of a sudden, when women are raped, all these natural and invisible social interactions become evidence that the woman wasn’t truly raped. Because she didn’t fight back, or yell loudly, or run, or kick, or punch. She let him into her room when it was obvious what he wanted. She flirted with him, she kissed him. She stopped saying no, after a while.

These rules for social interactions that women are taught to obey are more than grease for the patriarchy wheel. Women are taught both that these rules will protect them, and that disobeying these rules results in punishment.

She expressly DENIED consent. Why isn't one "No" enough?

And yes, I did watch the video. Even if she DID (unknowingly, I'd argue, since she was looking into the camera and not at her breasts) expose a part of her areola herself earlier, and so-doing gave consent FOR THAT INSTANCE to be included in the video, it doesn't negate her REVOKE of said consent and was subsequently assaulted by having SOMEONE ELSE disregard her "no" and expose her, regardless of degree of success of said exposure or time of actual exposure. Her personal boundries were violated, and then sold-for-profit and THAT'S where the damage lies.

The fact that GGW profited off her assault makes them as liable for the assault itself as the actual agent who perpetrated that assault.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 6:36 PM

Sweet Nectar-

There are also factory workers in China being exploited. Should we ban factories? No, instead let's get rid of the exploitation part. If though you consider all porn work to be a bad type of exploitation by default, then you should examine whether it's really like that for consenting workers, or if it's just your own personal ickyness factor coming into play

yeah, you have no idea where I am coming from on this at all. I too was a Huge Fan once (I can't unsee it). I can't believe how blind I was. I also used to not think about things like where my shoes came from (like factories in china). It was wrong. I am not some easily squicked out prude like you assume, quite the opposite. I simply drew a different conclusion than you, in the end.

I have a really hard time comparing sex work to normal work because generally when you have your labor/product stolen in any other jobs its not, you know, rape. Not to mention factories make things people need. No one needs pornography.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 6:39 PM

She was ok with being filmed doing what she was doing. She was not ok being filmed having something done to her.

Which is the point I was alluding to earlier. Morally, I agree with you. I am just not sure about the legal side.

Fuck, man. Can you really not see that playing up the camera should not be an invitation to and then excuse for violating consent?

...and here we go again with the fucking strawmen! Geez, those guys are easy to knock down, aren't they?

She consented to dancing, flirting, whatever. She did not consent to having her breasts exposed. These are not equivalent acts.

FFS, I agree! But, with regard to the legality of filming, you're arguing black & white, and I'm arguing grey.

I tried. I did.

Nevermind, so did I. I thought we were actually having a constructive discussion. Until this:

But you are a fucking asshole. And, yes, your "she had it coming because she walked up to the line before someone else crossed it for her" attitude makes you an apologist for sexual assault.

So what are the quotes for? Did I say that? Did I say anything even approaching that? Are you that intellectually bankrupt?

Gotta love those strawmen, though! You just give them a little tap, and they fall right over!

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 6:40 PM

Not to mention factories make things people need.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 6:42 PM

RemieV-

You are probably the woman treated worst by men at JREF from what I have seen (and by a bunch of other ones outside of JREF). When I read you minimizing what this woman went through it is shocking to me. Is this the mental dance you have to do in order to accept the stuff you put up with or something? I don't understand why you defend sexist behavior when you are the victim of it all the time.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 6:43 PM

Darren @402: Your "arguing grey" in an area where the law, if that is indeed the law, is CLEARLY wrong and harmful, is contributing to the culture that allows such a law (if that is indeed the law) to stay on the books. This is why you get called a rape apologist.

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | July 31, 2010 6:45 PM

@Cerberus - I love you.

@Jordan - it's precisely that you are arguing that there is gray that is problematic. She said no. That is enough that whatever was happening to her shouldn't have happened, shouldn't have been filmed and shouldn't have been distributed.

"No" should never be treated as gray.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 6:47 PM

Jadehawk- I agree. Chinese factories make stupid crap often times. Sweet Nectar was saying that factory exploitation doesn't mean we should get rid of factories (in general) though, so I was speaking of them in a general sense. Factories that churn out mcdonalds toys and flowbees shouldn't exist. Just like the hunger for the luxury item of pornography, our hunger for stupid plastic crap causes all kinds of pain. I try not to buy things I don't need as a result.

Posted by: blf | July 31, 2010 6:50 PM

i think it's somewhat debatable whether all the crap coming out of chinese factories can reasonably be described as something people need

Fixed.

Also, most emit pollutants and GHGs whether or not the products are in any sense needed. Those emissions are not needed.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 6:53 PM

Darren @402

Yeah, see, that's the problem.

See, you were having a dispassionate conversation about something that will never affect you personally.

You have that privilege. You didn't ask for that privilege, but you have gotten it by luck, including the luck of what sex you were born into.

You were talking about strict legalities, ignoring the possibility that the laws and their enforcements have the decks strongly stacked against women. For instance, non-sexual film media and photograph media need to obtain written consent of all those who appear in camera for the work or depictions that occur, if not they can be sued and usually lose. Especially for works that are produced and distributed for-profit. This is the letter of the law.

But now, make that person a woman, make her sexualized, make her being exploited for a popular porn brand. Suddenly, people don't care as much. People want to see her "punished", people see the fact that she was assaulted as well on camera as one big joke, something she "implicitly consented" to by "being a big slut".

Suddenly, fuck the law.

And beyond that, as I mentioned, this is dispassionate to you, as illusory as a dream.

Me?

Right now, I'm flashbacking something fierce. My hands are shaking, my mouth is dry and my body feels alien, unclean, and violated.

I'm suddenly 2 years younger, being violated by a sexual assaulter at a convention, my friends staring at me and not helping me. Me thinking this must be normal, enduring this uncomfortable feeling, shaking his fucking hand and smiling at the end like an idiot, because it hasn't fully sunk in what has happened to me. Because how could have that happened to me? In front of so many uncaring people.

Just being triggered back into that land is bad enough, the haunting of bad memories (oh by the way, I never prosecuted my assailant, I wouldn't even have known how to find him again if I had wanted to).

If the person filming the panel had sold my assault for profit, I would have killed them.

Not politely sued. The warehouse the company was based in would be a burning wreckage and I would strive to find the person who operated the camera to institute injustice. And I would go to prison for life.

See, for you, its just an argument.

For many of us, it's something akin to something that actually happened to us or to a close friend we couldn't protect. It's a deep and bitter memory or an implicit threat hanging over our heads every time we go out and interact with the world. A blanket terrorist threat given by a suite of assholes.

It's not just a fun "debate club" "argument" for us. It's our goddamn lives.

And having you grossly misstate the legal realities surrounding this case, remind us that when we are assaulted, injustice will be served because of jury bias, and you excuse that, treat that as right, and otherwise try and minimize the rage we feel at this case?

Yeah, you're being a bit of a privileged asshole.

Just thought you should know.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 6:55 PM

TO add to my previous post: Of course the BASIC argument, that should go without saying but sadly still needs saying, is that the assault shouldn't have happened in the first place - and I agree with crowepps about the assault being encouraged, but even IF it wasn't, my point still stands.

Posted by: RichVR | July 31, 2010 6:57 PM

As an aside, I've been very disappointed with the JREF main site for quite a while now. I haven't checked out the forums for even longer. It's gone downhill since Randi hasn't had as much of a guiding hand. I understand that his health is an issue and don't in any way blame him. The rest of the crew just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

A lot of the front page is fluff and adverts for the TAMs.

Sad.

Posted by: KATHYxx | July 31, 2010 6:59 PM

thank you Cerberus for putting in words something I am too angry to write coherently about.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 7:01 PM

@skeptifem

There's no sense in speculating on what goes on in my personal life. I am discussing the facts of a case, not my experience, whatever it may be.

As for the ones yelling loudly that I'm saying she "deserved it" or something like that, and bringing up their own experiences - what I said was that she was not assaulted in the eyes of the law. That means that GGW is not making a profit off of a crime, because there was no crime. In fact, the lawsuit wasn't about the 'assault' at all - it was about consent to appear on film. And that's it. I don't understand the focus of these comments in the least.

The woman is upset because her boobs being on film damaged her reputation. Why are you upset about her 'assault'? The case and the ruling have nothing to do with that.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2010 7:02 PM

*sigh*
What a trainwreck.

Judge GGW all you want--I agree it's disturbing sleazy least-common-denominator exploitative crap marketed to mental 13 year-olds.

But nobody has any call here to judge the jury. Nobody commenting on this case was privy to all of the facts in evidence; nor to the judge's instructions as to the relevant law. It really was not the jury's job to "punish GGW for their behavior," nor for being an exceedingly sewergutter sleazebag outfit from top to bottom. It was not their job to assuage the plaintiff's embarrassment. It was their job to decide a specific case in light of specific laws.

Why can people not seem to see that this verdict tells us nothing about the jury members' opinions of GGW or sexual assault.

my point

"They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming" That tells me a lot about the jury's views on sexual assault.

This is dumb. What "they" said (in the only actual quote I can find from a jury member) was that "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing." Important point is, it wasn’t just any bar in this case.
A fratboy student once told me what these events are like. The bar had been rented by the sleazoids from GGW. There were signs; advertisements. Fratboy scene and lots of young women who presumably want to hang around with fratboys at a sexually charged alcohol party. Nobody was there against their will and nobody had any illusions about what was going on. I don’t know this for a fact, but my strong hunch is that signs were posted to the effect that entering the premises constituted consent to be filmed for possible distribution. In any case there were film crews and loud dance music and good-looking amoral young people and cuhrazy partying and young women exposing their breasts all over the place. Jane Doe herself was there with her friends specifically to party with sex-&-alcohol-fueled fratboys at the GGW party; there was no other reason to be present. She was dancing for the camera, bending over to expose her cleavage and jiggling her breasts around for the camera. One of her female friends pulled her bra the rest of the way down for a couple of seconds, committing the assault. Nobody cared at the time because it's what was going on at the time and place by common consent. In other words this:

If you don't want to be on a GGW tape, then I'd stay clear of the GGW crew while they are filming, and not dancing in front of their cameras and partially exposing myself.

Is a pretty good point, and it’s not ‘blaming the victim,” in this specific case, to say so.
*shrug*

I do feel bad for her now that her night of youthful indiscretion has caused her embarrassment--I really do--but it’s far from a clearcut case of “exploited without consent,” and there is plenty of culpability to be shared. Therefore the jury was almost certainly correct IMO, even though I do not condone sexual assault of even the mild playful partying variety and I think that GGW comprises the scum of the earth.

manipulating consent which is rape…All of these actions are rape...all of these fucking rape apologists

Bullshit hyperbole. Pulling somebody's shirt off is not 'rape.' It may be similar to rape in various aspects, but it's a cheap rhetorical trick to claim equivalence and it doesn’t help your reasonable argument..

you do not know what the word "privilege" means…You are utterly ignorant as to what privilege means; it has nothing to do with money.

This is just silly. "I am not so privileged as to have $5G" is a perfectly appropriate use of the English word "privilege." It's simply not being used in the approved Identity-Politics-Studies sensu lato.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 7:04 PM

For many of us, it's something akin to something that actually happened to us or to a close friend we couldn't protect. It's a deep and bitter memory or an implicit threat hanging over our heads every time we go out and interact with the world. A blanket terrorist threat given by a suite of assholes.

It's not just a fun "debate club" "argument" for us. It's our goddamn lives.

And having you grossly misstate the legal realities surrounding this case, remind us that when we are assaulted, injustice will be served because of jury bias, and you excuse that, treat that as right, and otherwise try and minimize the rage we feel at this case?

Yeah, you're being a bit of a privileged asshole. one huge fucking douche neither I nor my family/friends would ever want to have anything to do with in meatspace

QFT, with a slight modification and with tears in my eyes. Cerberus, what happened to you was heinous.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 31, 2010 7:08 PM

This is just silly. "I am not so privileged as to have $5G" is a perfectly appropriate use of the English word "privilege."

erasing context like that by blurring meanings from different domains is not a valid use of the language, if communication is the goal.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 7:12 PM

Deviant One @428

What happened to me was normal, that's the problem.

The rape culture is normal.

Many women have worse, my partner was raped multiple times by men she loved deeply.

Many asexuals have worse. I've developed the term "consenting to their own rapes" to describe the way many asexuals end up "giving in" to incessant demands they put out in order to "prove their love" in their relationships. And yeah, that shit can leave nice scars like vaginismus and the like, not to mention the rape and all.

Many transpeople have it worse. Many transpeople have been violently assaulted by those they "dared turn on" by walking past them or looking sexy or even flirting. A large number have been killed or killed by partners who consented to have sexual relationships with them but started to fear what others might think of them if it was found out and decide, hey, murder is the right answer.

Many people from the same groups to which I belong have gone through much much worse. What happened to me was practically forgettable by public consideration. Some groping of my body and a guy rubbing one out with my body as I sat there shell-shocked and retreating into my mind?

Ha, by public consideration.

The rape culture is so pervasive that what happened to me was practically "normal" in consideration.

And that's what's so fucking wrong and why I so firmly believe in promoting and standing up for the simple goddamn concept of informed enthusiastic consent.

It should be a given.

It isn't.

And that needs to change.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 7:20 PM

@SC OM

It can't be an assault on film if there was never an assault charge. It is not universally illegal to take off someone's clothes, and without an accusation or a trial there is no way to determine whether or not it qualified as an assault.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 7:21 PM

Sven @426

I'm deeply sorry I ever gave you the credit you never deserved. A while ago I wore kid's gloves and you responded with fire in your eyes at the mistaken impression that I was calling you an asshole.

Sven, today, you have earned from me that appellation.

You are a rape-apologizing asshole of insulting proportions. You are not a feminist and frankly, I'm surprised that you ever thought of yourself as such seeing as how you are willing to nakedly defend the violation of consent.

I'm deeply sorry I ever thought well of you.

Take that as you will. I no longer care about your ill will, because you have well earned my ill will towards you.

Manipulation of consent is not consent is rape. If you don't get that, then I weep for any woman who gets with you in sexual contexts.

Posted by: alassek.myopenid.com | July 31, 2010 7:24 PM

@SC OM

She never filed charges against the woman who pulled her top down, and the woman in question was not working in the employ of GGW. Plus, the statute of limitations on criminal assault have long past.

So it is most likely that the jury were completely unable to treat this as an assault at all. The question is purely regarding the consent to be filmed and its subsequent distribution.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 7:29 PM

@SC OM

Yes. But we don't know whether or not she gave the individual who pulled down her shirt consent since there was never an accusation or a trial.

This also wasn't public. It was a Girls Gone Wild event.

What we do know that she said the words "No" and "I can't", but they appear to be directed at the cameraperson, not at the woman who pulled down her shirt.

So again - it is impossible to tell whether or not an assault was committed. More information is required.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 7:31 PM

Cerberus, I am sad to say that you are quite correct, unfortunately; and what I see as one of the horrors of this rape culture is that when something as devastating as what happened to you happens, there's always the "worse things have happened to better people" crowd, ready to minimalize the very real trauma and after-effects of such a "minor" (and I say this with as much contempt as possible) violation.

Also, than you once again for sharing your experiences - that "silent socialization" of women and the cue-giving in dangerous situations is something I never really considered before reading that post I linked to earlier, and your post made it so painfully clear, and I'm wording this like an idiot right now because it's almost 2 a.m.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 31, 2010 7:31 PM

400 comments on something that should have just been everyone saying "Yeah, that's fucked up" with maybe one mildly annoying troll.

I am ashamed that this is something we actually need to talk about.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 7:35 PM

But we don't know whether or not she gave the individual who pulled down her shirt consent

Yes, we do. On the video, she clearly says "no" when asked to expose her breasts, and then someone exposes her breasts for her.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 7:38 PM

@Deviant One

People are not guilty until proven innocent. It's the other way around. We don't know who the 'no' was directed at. We don't know if that was her bestest friend in the universe, and they swore up and down right before arriving that they'd both show their breasts. This is why there are trials.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 7:40 PM

@SC OM

Yes.

Then GGW could be charged with that regardless of the case against the person who pulled her shirt. That person was only exposing her to the other people in the immediate vicinity who could see.

But we don't know whether or not she gave the individual who pulled down her shirt consent since there was never an accusation or a trial.

I don't see how that's relevant. She didn't give GGW consent to make video of her breast public, and they have no reason to say she did.

This also wasn't public. It was a Girls Gone Wild event.

That's worse for GGW. The video was made public.

What we do know that she said the words "No" and "I can't", but they appear to be directed at the cameraperson, not at the woman who pulled down her shirt.

So much the worse for GGW, since that clearly suggests non-consent to their exposing it.

So again - it is impossible to tell whether or not an assault was committed. More information is required.

If it is a crime to do what I asked about above, then it seems like GGW could be held criminally liable (leaving aside SOL issues).

Posted by: Freak | July 31, 2010 7:41 PM

@SCOM: It was illegal for the person to pull down her shirt. It was legal for an unconnected person to film that.

(Was there any sort of lawsuit by the Kennedys regarding the Zapruder film? That would be relevant.)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."

So, I think that the GGW guys are absolute scumbags, but they're legal.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 7:47 PM

*sigh* For the nine zillionth time, it is impossible to determine whether or not it was legal for that person to pull down her shirt. We have no idea who it was, what conversations they had before that, or what conversations, if any, they had afterward.

If she isn't crying "Assault!" why are you?

Sure, it's possible that she's so terrified she never came forward. It's also possible that it was her friend, that they talked about it beforehand, and that it wasn't assault at all. The point is that it's impossible to determine with the present information.

Posted by: Mel Dahl | July 31, 2010 7:54 PM

"Say a news organization filmed the event. Even then she might have had a case. A quick Google search revealed a citation to a case where a newspaper in Alabama published a photograph of a woman whose dress was lifted by jets of air, showing her underwear. The court ruled that the photograph had no "legitimate news interest to the public" and on appeal upheld an award of $ 4166 to plaintiff, for invasion of her privacy. Daily Times Democrat v. Graham, 162 So.2d 474 (Ala. 1964)."

And that case has been bad law for about thirty years, ever since the US Supreme Court held (around 1970, IIRC) that the First Amendment forbids the courts to tell us what is and is not legitimate news. You really want the government deciding what is legitimate news?

There's a whole line of Supreme Court decisions, starting with NY Times v. Sullivan in around 1965, that essentially say that if it remotely fits under the heading of "press", its beyond the reach of the courts. The reason some shows blank out faces is that just because you'd win (as did GGW) doesn't mean you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees in the process.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 7:56 PM

sigh*

Sigh yourself.

For the nine zillionth time, it is impossible to determine whether or not it was legal for that person to pull down her shirt. We have no idea who it was, what conversations they had before that, or what conversations, if any, they had afterward.

And I don't think it's relevant to what I'm asking.

If she isn't crying "Assault!" why are you?

What the hell are you talking about?

Sure, it's possible that she's so terrified she never came forward. It's also possible that it was her friend, that they talked about it beforehand, and that it wasn't assault at all. The point is that it's impossible to determine with the present information.

You're confused.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 7:59 PM

It can't be an assault on film if there was never an assault charge.

If a person says they were burglarized and robbed, the police take the report and look for a perpetrator. Even if the police never find the person who committed the crime, the victims were still robbed and their insurance company still compensates them based on their report to the police.

If a person is attacked on the street, beaten and hospitalized, the police look for a perpetrator. Even if the police never find the perpetrator, the person was still beaten and hurt and an assault still occurred.

In the case of sexual assault and rape, however, you seem to see a special case, in which the purpose of a trial is to judge whether or not the VICTIM is guilty of lying rather than to determine whether a particular perpetrator committed the crime. Your assumption that all sex should be ASSUMED to be consensual unless there is judicial validation of the victim's statements seems to indicate that you believe that the woman's own perception of what happened to her is totally irrelevant.

Personally, I find that pretty appalling since it's possible that the rape occurred and there simply isn't enough evidence to convict that particular defendant. 'Not enough evidence? is an entirely different thing than 'she's lying and it never happened at all'.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 8:03 PM

So you have nothing to say remie? Fine. I hope you get yourself sorted out someday. I don't mean it in the "I want to dismiss you" way that people sometimes do when they are trying to be mean. I mean it in a "you genuinely deserve better" kind of way. Good luck.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 8:05 PM

[meta]

SC,

No, people still aren't getting what I'm asking.

Par for the course. Happens to me a lot, too.

I know it's irritating.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 8:08 PM

And I'm so glad to hear my partner's repeated rapes and the way her abusers victimized her after the fact and gave her grave social consequences to try and defend themselves from accurate rape accusations means she wasn't raped at all.

I'll just tell her the 6+ years of a completely broken sexuality, a hard-fought road between the both of us to try and get her reacquainted and comfortable with her sexuality, the efforts of current side boyfriends to deal with specific issues I can't help with and the various therapy bills, vaginismus, mental triggers, and whatever is the anal equivalent of vaginismus were all figments of her imagination because we didn't nail the bastard because the system is broken.

I'm sure that will in no way reinforce cultural messages, in-grown shame, and all the other stuff we've spent about 5 years fighting inside her every day.

Also, apparently I wasn't assaulted, so that twitch when someone sits close to me or the anxiety I feel then or the flashbacks and the shame that I didn't live up to my own values in escaping or punching the bastard means it never happened.

Also, all of the murder of trans people before Angie Zapata must never have happened and they lived to long old age, happy and alive in their gender presentation because the trans panic defense didn't get their attackers off the hook.

And...

No wait, why am I pretending this argument is anything less than bullshit patriarchal garbage?

Thanks for playing trolls, may you all be partnerless until the end of your days, for their personal safety.

Posted by: alassek.myopenid.com | July 31, 2010 8:10 PM

@Rutee #461

This lawsuit has nothing to do with what occurs in the video, merely her presence in it. The statute of limitions have long since run out on criminal assault.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 31, 2010 8:13 PM

The subject of the lawsuit is not an assault.

Implicit Non-Consent:
Well despite clearly despising at least a large number of the results, and attempting to prevent them at the time, it's a safe assumption that she allowed it to happen at the time.

10-4.

Posted by: llewelly | July 31, 2010 8:15 PM

RemieV | July 31, 2010 7:01 PM:

In fact, the lawsuit wasn't about the 'assault' at all - it was about consent to appear on film.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 8:17 PM

By all appearances, she never even claimed it was assault.

It does not depend on whether or not she claimed it was assault.
It does not depend on whether or not she reported it as assault.
It does not depend on whether or not the perpetrator of the assault was convicted of having committed an assault.
Whether or not it was 'assault' depends on the statutory definition of assault.

I agree with you that neither I nor you have enough information to make a determination of whether or not there was an assault from the articles referenced and in ignorance of the law in question, particularly when that was not the point of the trial which was held.

Which is why I find it very, very puzzling that you keep saying there wasn't any assault.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 8:21 PM

I'll try again: If what I'm asking about is a crime of some sort, it doesn't matter what the motives of the person who pulled her shirt or that person's relationship with this woman were or whether that pulling was assault or was found to be assault. It would only matter what was said to the GGW people - what they explicitly knew concerning her consent to have her breast publicly exposed on video. If what I'm asking about is a crime, exposing someone's nipple publicly on video would have to require explicit consent. From the information available, it appears that not only did she not give explicit consent for this, she clearly expressed to the GGW people that she wasn't consenting to public exposure of her breast in video form.

Now, the answer to my key question may be no, in which case the rest - of what I'm talking about, not of her case against them - is moot. That's why I'll wait for the lawyers.

:)

Posted by: alassek.myopenid.com | July 31, 2010 8:26 PM

@SC OM #476

If it is a crime, it has to be tried under criminal law. This is a civil suit regarding GGW's right to distribute the video.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 8:28 PM

Everyone should read this, because the current diseased understanding of consent is probably one of our biggest social diseases.

Everyone's trying to rule lawyer their way out of being convicted for rape, not giving a damn about valuing consent and viewing it as some sort of imposition in front of sexy times.

It shouldn't be this way. One is perfectly capable of having a very explicit sexual encounter or even long-term sexual relationship. It heightens the experience, it builds trust, not destroys it. And it's you know sex rather than rape.

The resistance is hard to believe to be other than those who suspect they may have crossed the line in violating consent trying to whitewash themselves and friends or media they enjoy.

I would have more sympathy to that quest if I wasn't still flashbacking my rather public sexual assault right now, which happened because I didn't say "no" hard enough and thus must have really wanted it, hurr hurr.

In short, fuck you all.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 8:30 PM

@SCOM: I think it is illegal to expose another person's genitals without their consent. And the person who pulled it down is guilty.

However, in the absence of a claim that it was a GGW employee who did that, they are in the clear.

Gah, this is frustrating. Please read my posts and try to understand what I'm asking.

And I think the arguments against GGW sound like "Mr. Kennedy consented to be filmed riding in his automobile. He did not consent to be filmed being murdered. Therefore, Mr. Zapruder should not be allowed to profit by selling his film."

That's because you're not getting what people are saying.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 31, 2010 8:35 PM

Skeptifem wrote:

yeah, you have no idea where I am coming from on this at all. I too was a Huge Fan once (I can't unsee it). I can't believe how blind I was.

I also used to not think about things like where my shoes came from (like factories in china). It was wrong. I am not some easily squicked out prude like you assume, quite the opposite. I simply drew a different conclusion than you, in the end.

I have a really hard time comparing sex work to normal work because generally when you have your labor/product stolen in any other jobs its not, you know, rape.

Not to mention factories make things people need. No one needs pornography.

Factories that churn out mcdonalds toys and flowbees shouldn't exist. Just like the hunger for the luxury item of pornography, our hunger for stupid plastic crap causes all kinds of pain. I try not to buy things I don't need as a result.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 8:39 PM

@SC OM #476

If it is a crime, it has to be tried under criminal law. This is a civil suit regarding GGW's right to distribute the video.

Stop being an asshole. I'm responding to the dozens of posts above claiming that GGW are legally in the clear on all counts. And this statute-of-limitations business is stupid. If they're only in the clear due to that (and I'm not sure how it works in cases in which people can learn of the crime much later), then that isn't saying anything of value in their defense.

I'm really not sure there's a legal distinction between "consenting to be filmed" and "consenting to be filmed without clothes on"

I'm fairly certain you're wrong if we're talking about people who haven't removed their clothes or had them removed consensually for public filming.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 8:41 PM

I'm really not sure there's a legal distinction between "consenting to be filmed" and "consenting to be filmed without clothes on"

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not certain, but I think that once consent to be filmed has been given that it doesn't need to be reaffirmed if X event happens (X being her breast being exposed against her will in this case).

Are you fucking kidding me? EVEN IF that is indeed how the law works (which I believe has been refuted a few times already in this thread), that is CLEARLY fucked up and that law then needs to be reviewed.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 8:47 PM

Oh, Scented Nectar, I see. So feminists should be focusing on the important stuff, stuff that actively HURTS people. Like... rape? Consent, and how fucked up our society's views are on that, as evidenced in this thread? Like... given said fucked-upness, how porn is suspect?

Not seeing a connection there at all. I completely agree, we should clearly rather be focused on people who got their fee-fees hurt for being called rape apologists than on people who actually get hurt and killed physically AND emotionally.

Oh, but wait. Silly me, women aren't "people", now are they?

Posted by: sophia b | July 31, 2010 8:49 PM

Ok, for the people saying 'she laughed and went off camera, therefore she didn't really mind what happened that much': i used to laugh sometimes when i was worried/scared about something. Like when someone got hurt and i was trying to check they were ok. I actually wasn't amused at all, my body just responded that way. After a few incidents i trained myself out of this, cause i knew it really upset people. But when you're confronted with something you haven't experienced before you sometimes respond in the 'wrong' way.

Posted by: sophia b | July 31, 2010 8:52 PM

Ok, for the people saying 'she laughed and went off camera, therefore she didn't really mind what happened that much': i used to laugh sometimes when i was worried/scared about something. Like when someone got hurt and i was trying to check they were ok. I actually wasn't amused at all, my body just responded that way. After a few incidents i trained myself out of this, cause i knew it really upset people. But when you're confronted with something you haven't experienced before you sometimes respond in the 'wrong' way.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 31, 2010 8:53 PM

Wow. Pissedpat @ 493, let's take it from the top.

IF it is true that it is illegal to expose someone's privates without her consent and IF it is true that she did not give consent to have her naked breasts exposed and if it is true that GGW still included for sale and profit the full clip, including her bare breasts, thereby exposing her bare breasts without her consent on their video (regardless of who did the actual pulling down)

then it follows that they are indeed doing something illegal and are not "in the clear" AT ALL.

I hate quoting myself, but I'm not typing it out again just because you're too lazy to read past post 100. Also, what SC OM said:

Even shorter: If - again, if - what I'm asking about is a crime, GGW wouldn't be charged with filming a crime (nor would it matter in terms of the case against them if what the other person did was a crime). The public display of the film of her breast, however obtained as long as it's without her explicit consent given to GGW, would itself be the crime.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | July 31, 2010 8:54 PM

No,no,no,no,no! This sort of foolishness will never do. I am sure that all of us have done things that we would sooner not remember, including divesting partners of their garments, or being divested of our own, even under protest.

There are occasions however when a gentle(wo)man thinks s/he might or, on the other hand, knows perfrctly well that s/he may. The evening may end happily or sadly; but that is up or down to us.

The circumstances described are nothing less than public sexual abuse. Infantilising, as well. If a girl doesn't want to get her tits out, why should anybody physically try to change her mind.

If s/he fancies it with an inuit, two huskies and a walrus, it is his or her concern. Every person has the right to do with their body as they will, subject to law which may well exclude the possibility of the husklies and the walrus, of course!

Also, we must lose the double standard. But beavers are fish, of course, also capybaras.

Cheers, f.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 31, 2010 8:58 PM

You're not addressing anything I've said.

Posted by: Jessa | July 31, 2010 9:02 PM

Apologies if this has already been mentioned somewhere upthread, but an additional infuriating aspect is that people are citing the fact that she laughed/giggled after the incident as evidence that she thought that the whole thing was no big deal.

A few years ago, I was enjoying an after-work drink at a bar, and the man with whom I was chatting decided to stick his hand up my shirt and grope my breast. While I was experiencing an inward whirlwind of shock, fear, and flashbacks to an earlier sexual assault, my brain decided that the best physical course of action, after removing his hand from me, was to start laughing. Any outside observer would have concluded from my reaction that the incident was trivial, but I can assure you that it was not.

Human brains are tricky; one's outward reaction to an incident is not necessarily a true indication of their inward feelings.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 9:06 PM

It still happened - but in an abstract way that no one's ever going to know about. What I mean when I say it didn't happen is that it EFFECTIVELY didn't happen - as in no one's going to be brought up on charges, and it will never be on file.

Not to say that there wouldn't be emotional effects if she had indeed been assaulted. I'm talking strictly from the viewpoint of GGW, not from hers. And from the viewpoint of GGW, there was *effectively* no assault, and therefore when they put together their video, they were not adding a clip of an assault.

I am kind of appalled that you continue to defend these creeps. They set up situations in which women are given free drinks, without taking reasonable care to exclude those under age, until the women's judgment is impaired, then encourage them to commit the crime of indecent exposure, and make films of them because there's money in providing soft-core porn to men and profits increase with 'free' performers. I mean, if I can hold down my gag reflex I can sort of see the porn industry as valid, supply and demand, employees voluntarily there, 'don't be a stuffy prude', but this setup is really exploitive and I think alcohol control boards ought to step in and see to it that bars don't participate in it.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 9:08 PM

Sigh. Wish people would pay attention to SC.

Isn't is bleedingly obvious Jane Doe's issue is that prurient images¹ of her are "kinda famous"?

--

¹ No, I haven't watched the vid, nor shall I.
But clearly it was more than she intended to consent to; and clearly it's affected her life.

Nips no biggie? I remind people of the hoo-haw over the Jackson "wardrobe malfunction".

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 9:13 PM

pissedpat @493

I believe you are referencing Kink.com, who because they aren't rapists and also because they are a bondage site, where consent may not be externally visible during the sex act itself, they take great care to emphasize how consensual the acts depicted in each video are.

The beginning of the video features the participant consenting to what follows and describing some of the acts or fantasies they are most interested in exploring during the video. The then follow them up with post-interviews done after the event where they reiterate their consent, describe how much fun they had and what their favorite parts were in detail.

My partner is in to bondage so I went looking for a good porn site for it for her.

Kink.com is my idea of a porn company that tries and do it right. Abbywinters.com and a lot of the by women for women stuff is really strict not only in getting consent but on presenting it on the videos themselves so there is no question about their practices.

It is a sad mark on humanity that that has to be common practice for "good porn sites" because of the consent manipulating evil organizations like GGW and a number of "mainstream porn" companies.

There is also a lot of organization in porn by pro-porn feminists to eliminate things like the manipulation of consent. There's already a few porn star boycotts of companies that don't require condoms and a number of feminist groups pressuring "good porn" that focuses on consensual sex and the reaffirmation of that in the videos themselves.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 31, 2010 9:20 PM

Isn't that a Federal requirement?

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | July 31, 2010 9:21 PM

No means no. Nothing implied. It means no.

I could care less at what part either party was playing before "No" was said.

No means no.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 9:24 PM

cerberus- I dunno, seems like her. Like I said, she just puts up with all the crap that dudes at JREF fling at her constantly. These all sound like excuses for the oppressor. Maybe she internalized it.

Posted by: MaxH | July 31, 2010 9:34 PM

Yeah, that's incredibly ridiculous for that to happen to her.

Now, I buy the "Guys Gone Wild" videos - does that count? It shouldn't, they're the most obviously staged things in the world... I often see 'adult film/website' "actors" on there.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 9:38 PM

Raskolnikov35:

This is the last time I'll be posting on this site or even reading it.

Good riddance.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 31, 2010 9:47 PM

Darren
Something not being a big deal to you≠straw man. You are coming from a privileged perspective, and you don't understand what we're saying. Try to understand what we're upset about, and then move from there. Consent is a major issue for women because we are constantly faced with having shit done to us against our will, and there is virtually no recourse for it.* This is a real thing, and it happens all the time. Try exploring some of the other threads relating to women if this one has become too fraught for you. I don't think you're intentionally being an asshole. I honestly think you don't get it because it is too far outside your experience. But please recognize that, and try to remedy it (if you care).

*If I tried to press charges every time I've been groped, I'd be perpetually buried in legal battles. The best I've got is a "fuck you" and a wicked look. It's a weak punishment, and there's no deterrent. I'm not atypical. We all just have to live with it. And it sucks.

Raskolnikov35
Don't let the door hit you.

Posted by: Wolfman | July 31, 2010 9:57 PM

Personally, I think that the judge's decision was deplorable. And I think that some of the comments made in the JREF thread linked above were deplorable.

That said, I find PZ's comments about this rather mystifying. He notes that there are sexist comments in the JREF thread, and expresses his disgust at that. He then goes on to state that he fully expects people in this discussion to make sexist comments. Oh, but that's okay...cuz other people here are going to object, and show how wrong they are.

Oh...but wait...the same exact thing happens in the JREF thread. Except that instead of making a personal attack (attacking the person), they point out the many errors and problems with their arguments (attacking the argument). Whereas here, a lot of the responses are more of the "you're an asshole" variety.

In regards to people leaving the JREF forums over sexism, here's a copy of my comment there:

To build on what a few others here have said -- since sexism isn't against the rules, of course there are going to be some posters who not only engage in it, but are allowed to do so. And I suspect that, more than anything else, is what gets some peoples' panties in a bunch (is that sexist?).

Someone makes a sexist comment. They complain about it. The mods tell them that no rules have been broken, and no action will be taken. They, in their feminist furor, declare the forums to be sexist, and leave in a huff.

They ignore the fact that the exact same kind of sexist comments can be made about men; the rules don't single out women. They ignore the fact that racist comments are allowed also. They ignore the fact that this is because the JREF forums are a place where, as much as possible, we want to encourage people to express points of view that the majority of us find objectionable or reprehensible, specifically so that we can address those arguments, and demonstrate how wrong they are.

If they want to run away and cry foul, they are welcome to do so; if they want to play the wounded martyr, that's their decision. But meanwhile, the real feminists are here, standing their ground, and confronting those who've expressed sexist viewpoints directly (Fiona being one of the more obvious examples of the latter).

And if we were to count the number of people who'd left because they felt the forums were sexist, and the number of real sexists who've left because they felt they were unwelcome here, I rather suspect that the latter number would be significantly higher.

My summary -- I personally prefer a place where A) unpopular/disgusting viewpoints can be expressed, specifically so that we can address them, and B) those viewpoints are addressed in a clinical manner, rather than resorting to petty personal attacks that a five-year old would be more than able to put together.

There are others who don't like that. Which is fine. There is no place on the internet where everyone will be happy. And its not the JREF's job to try to make everyone happy. Obviously, the JREF appeals to a great number of people. Many of the JREF's members are very respected critical thinkers. Many of the JREF's members, in fact, are both female and feminist...and not at all shy in defending themselves, and attacking the sexist comments of others.

But PZ -- for all that I tend to like most of what you write, in this case, I find the "JREF has sexist comments, so they're wrong" and "We'll have sexist comments too, so we're right" thing rather mystifying. Both discussions -- here, and in the JREF -- have had sexist comments. And both discussions -- here, and in the JREF -- have had people denouncing those arguments, and showing why they're wrong.

The only difference I can see is that the JREF doesn't allow some of the petty name-calling and personal attacks that are allowed here. And if THAT is the standard used to judge an 'appropriate' response, I definitely prefer the JREF.

Posted by: feralboy12 | July 31, 2010 10:00 PM

The idea of "implied consent" gives me the heebie jeebies, but apparently it has some legal standing. And if that is the case, I wouldn't blame the jury for this outcome; as I said before, juries do not write the laws.
And I think PZ's headline overreaches--this decision does not mean that it's legal to strip a woman if she's dancing at a bar. The verdict is narrower than that; the jury was only deciding whether GGW violated Jane Doe's rights by distributing a video that she agreed to appear in, albeit not in the manner that happened.
And I think legalese is the proper language for legal cases.
Ultimately, the problem here is the law regarding consent in such a case. Too many gray areas and holes to fall in. Perhaps those who want to make and sell such videos should be required to have signed consent forms, spelling out explicitly what they are consenting to. Why leave it up to juries to analyze the motives and intents of strangers based on a few seconds of video? If a company is producting for-profit DVDs of women with their clothes off, and claiming that all subjects are over 18 and are willing participants, what burden of proof do they have when that claim is challenged? As the defendant in this case, none. That's how the system works, and that's how it should work. If GGW did everything they are legally required to do regarding consent, they are not legally culpable. The jury cannot find otherwise. It's the law. And that, I think, is what's wrong here; GGW is allowed to make claims regarding their product but not required to show much of anything to back up those claims.

Posted by: Raskolnikov35 | July 31, 2010 10:03 PM

The worst thing about atheism is that it attracts all the belleding-heart liberals. I find myself agreeing with conservatives these days more than liberals because of things like this. If a snake handler gets bitten we call that justice. This is no different. Any reasonable person could decide not to get involved with GGW based on mountains of data that show then to be completely unethical. Now, you turn around and say, "Oh my, I can't believe what they've done to me!"
See, in the real world, there are bad guys and bad girls out there. If you go up and shake hands with the bad guy (who is not hiding the fact that he's a bad guy) and something bad happens, are we supposed to divert our attention from the tragedies on the front page of every major newspaper in the land, to scream bloody injustice?
You must all live in fantasyland. The real world punishes stupidity almost EVERY TIME.
There are a million good causes to get behind, this isn't one of them.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 10:04 PM

Posted by: Jules Author Profile Page | July 31, 2010 9:47 PM

Darren
Something not being a big deal to you≠straw man. You are coming from a privileged perspective, and you don't understand what we're saying. Try to understand what we're upset about, and then move from there. Consent is a major issue for women because we are constantly faced with having shit done to us against our will, and there is virtually no recourse for it.* This is a real thing, and it happens all the time. Try exploring some of the other threads relating to women if this one has become too fraught for you. I don't think you're intentionally being an asshole. I honestly think you don't get it because it is too far outside your experience.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 10:07 PM

BTW, after further consideration on this issue i believe that the victim should have been awarded 1 billion dollars so as to send a message. And I also believe they her female friend, in indeed it was a female friend, who pulled her bra down should be imprisoned for at least 5 years.

Anyhow who disagrees with me hates women and is a rape apologist.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 31, 2010 10:09 PM

Why many of you are disgusting assholes and why your comments disgust women and "mystifyingly" seem to cause women to flee spaces where they have to continue to fight for common decency.

Rape Culture 101.

Wolfman @522

This thread is particularly bad with troll infestations and women get tired of fighting an unending tide of this shit.

This thread personally caused me to flashback to my own sexual assault, painfully reliving it for hours. How often do you think I want to do that? Or fight a losing battle against assholes basically telling me why rape isn't rape or why my assault didn't actually happen because they want to minimize the rape culture?

Or the seeming giant flood of men who seem to cheer on the rape culture rather than put one single foot into stopping the most obvious abuses of it?

Has nothing to do with the "strength" of women. Women don't stick around where they are openly hated.

Not a big surprise.

And your anti-feminist "sexism on both sides" ignorance kind of betrays the sort of attitude you and all the other trolls who have been jumping over and ruining this thread have and why many women abandon JREF as unable to grow up and where their presence will mainly be a sort of Tartarus-esque punishment.

I'm pretty SIWOTI, but this is even reaching my limits, given this thread, I have little interest in ever exploring the hell hole that must be JREF.

Posted by: crowepps | July 31, 2010 10:12 PM

Oh, geez, did I miss ANOTHER message from my feminist overlords? I have got to remember to check my e-mail more often.

I do get really sick of hearing 'if you didn't complain then it wasn't really assault' tightly yoked with 'if you do complain then it's obviously because you're a whining feminist and hate sex and/or men'.

Posted by: RemieV | July 31, 2010 10:16 PM

Did everyone miss the quote?

"When the someone at Mantra decided to put her in the DVD, that's when the violation of privacy occurred," says Evans. "Our client's position is she was having fun dancing at a club, and someone pulled her top off. Even though something like that doesn't happen on regular basis, it didn't cause her alarm to call police. What caused alarm was finding it on DVD later."

And then:

This morning I talked to GGW's attorney, David Dalton of St. Peters, who pretty much confirmed the line of questioning above. He added that Jane Doe never contacted police about her alleged assault or never prosecuted the woman (whose identity she knows) who pulled down her top.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/07/an_ass_clowns_rebuttal_girls_gone_wild_jane_doe_and_jezebel.php

It didn't cause her alarm. The shirt being pulled down *did not cause her alarm*. What causes her alarm is having her boobs on film.

One alarming thing in there, though, is the statement that the cameraman was not identifiable as an employee of GGW. Previous reports I'd read said that this was a GGW hosted event. I'm unsure who to believe.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 31, 2010 10:22 PM

Cerberus wrote:

Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he humped my leg?

Why didn't I run away?

sweet nectar

Once that I saw that rape is a humans rights violation I didn't want anymore. I didn't want to contribute to the rape of other people and the appeal was lost.

What was shameful about it was the pain it caused other people.

You don't know much about feminist critique of pornography if you think that a whole school of thought can be dismissed in this fashion. Adrea Dworkin was a prostitute, you know. You should read a bit of it sometime to see what it is really about.

Posted by: Wolfman | July 31, 2010 10:27 PM

@ Cerberus & Skeptifem,

I appreciate your comments, and can see why comments made in that thread would affect you more personally than others. This is reasonable. Yes, a woman who's been subject to rape or sexual abuse is going to be more sensitive to such discussions, and comments made there, than other people are.

This does not mean that every forum on the internet must cater to the potential sensitivities of every individual. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can go to discuss those things in a supportive environment -- or you can create your own forum, as Skeptifem has done.

Personally, I fully support the idea that members at the JREF are allowed to express sexist, racist, or other such reprehensible viewpoints. Allowing people to express such views does NOT mean that we are encouraging or supporting such views; rather, it gives us the opportunity to express such views directly, and show why they are wrong.

Which, in my opinion, is far preferable to simply driving such views underground.

There is a place on the internet for sites that allow blatant sexism -- so that it can be confronted directly. And there is a place on the internet for sites that provide a safe, protective environment for those who may be sensitive to or offended by the former.

What gets me is the arrogance of those who think that "I don't like it" or "It offends me", and therefore conclude, "It is wrong."

No. It is wrong FOR YOU. But the presence of many other females -- many of them quite strong feminists -- at the JREF more than adequately demonstrates that it is not wrong for everyone.

There are lots of forums on the internet that are not suitable for me. I don't enjoy them, I don't like the way they're run. That doesn't mean I tell them they're wrong, or that they have to change. It means simply that I don't participate there -- I find a place that IS suitable for me.

I am in no way seeking to diminish or dismiss your own perspectives, or your personal responses to comments made in the JREF. They are completely valid...FOR YOU. And perfectly legitimate reasons for you not to participate there.

But that doesn't mean that the JREF is wrong, or that the forums are run in the wrong way.

I would personally recommend that those who are easily offended by sexism, or racism, or homophobia, or other such things most definitely should not participate in the JREF forums. They'll find people there expressing views that will cause them a great deal of emotional distress, and NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT OR STOP SUCH COMMENTS. Which means that the JREF is not a suitable forum for them.

But for those who don't have such a reaction, and are able to engage such hatred, misogyny, and ignorance rationally and directly, it is a good opportunity to do just that. Not by banning viewpoints and perspectives that we find offensive, but by allowing them, and then demonstrating all the many reasons why they are wrong.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 10:36 PM

Crowepps → Wolfman.

Crowepps, you have my sincere apology for that misattribution.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 31, 2010 10:40 PM

I think "implied consent" is a phrase that should never be used, ever, because of the misinterpretations and overbroad interpretations it lends itself to, but a useful heuristic that more or less matches that description works as long as 1) the actions for which consent is assumed to be implied are comparable to the level of implication and 2) it is understood and accepted that explicit statements of wishes always supersede it. As a series of examples (you can imagine alternative ones for any pairing you like if you want), if a woman is wearing a low-cut shirt that exposes her cleavage in public, it's reasonable to assume that she's amenable to having her breasts *looked at* appreciatively (but not that she's comfortable with you staring persistently, leering, staring while she's trying to talk to you, being whistled at or subject to other exclamations of appreciation, OR to any kind of physical contact) - unless she tells you to stop, for pretty much any reason whatsoever. If (big if) she notices you looking, grasps them in her hands through her shirt, wiggles them a bit, and grins at you, it's safe to assume she's amenable to a bit more overt visual and perhaps discrete verbal appreciation (but not to any kind of physical contact) - unless she tells you to stop. If she walks up to you, presses herself against you, grabs your crotch, and sorta purrs, THEN it's generally safe to assume she's looking for physical contact, at least to the point of a comparable level of fondling, unless she asks you to stop. Etc - all other things being equal (all of that "it's okay to" pretty much goes out the window if she's, say, 13, for instance, unless you're about 13 too).

I mean, this is common sense, granted, but maybe putting it explicitly will deflate a few of the people who (given that the thread had 540 comments last time I checked) are probably trying to argue that the reasonableness of the formulation above is a vindication of the concept of "implict consent."

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 10:40 PM

Posted by: skeptifem

bubba- are you saying that rape never happens in porn?

I believe that porn between consenting adults should be legal. Just as I believe that prostitution should be. Government has no place telling *consenting* adults what they should do sexually. Rather I would prefer to see a situation where women (and for that matter men) engaged in prostitution are able to operate in a safe environment and with the full force of the law protecting them. In other words, the rape of a prostitute should be pursued just as vigorously as the rape of a virginal Sunday school teacher.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 10:41 PM

[meta]

Wolfman @540, again with your implication that JRef is somehow more open or less censored than Pharyngula.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 10:44 PM

crowepps,

Oh, the misattribution doesn't bother me, I just found it confusing.

Ctrl-F is your friend.

--

PS You might find it ironic; but to do so implies you consider an error the same as a lack of precision.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 10:48 PM

Scented Nectar:

Yeah, why didn't you? Sorry, but unless you arrived at the con so totally traumatized and broken from some previous whatever, that you were unable to respond to any and all stimuli around you in appropriate ways, wtf? Why didn't you at least move away from the leg humper?

I hate to break it to ya, but that is an extremely common response. Freezing up. Complying. Especially for younger people, it is an extremely typical response. You think you would do sooo much better, but I doubt that you are so much more special than anyone else. It is a scary experience, it is an experience that threatens the safety of the victims. This causes compliance fairly often in similar situations (like robberies). I know, its not like how it is on the tv (where ladies scream and run and try to hit the guy who violently attacks em), but thats because it happens much differently irl. look into it.

I hate that you asked those questions. You don't understand that every victim blames themselves, it is nearly universal. You are rubbing salt in a wound you don't understand. It is disgusting. It takes a lot of work to realize that assault is the fault of the assaulter.

What is she supposed to do anyway? Travel back in time? Feel shame at not responding to a surreal experience in the way *you* deem appropriate? screw that. How she reacts is irrelevant to how wrong it was for someone to do that to her, and it was very very wrong.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 10:51 PM

No, it is not, on its own, illegal to show someone else's genitals without their consent. IANAL, but there was an article about this (see here for commentary and a link to the original) involving teenage girls who clearly did not give consent. IANAL, IJRAL. (I Just Read A Lot)

Thanks for the link, Miki Z. That finding in that one case (involving a parent and his children) doesn't really justify your first sentence.

***

I think I'm done on this thread. I haven't done the hard work here, but the endless onslaught of horrid sexist scumbags is tedious, and I'm fighting several other battles at the moment.

PZ says:

One of the things I love about having a comments section with a reputation as being a vicious piranha tank is that I can open up this subject and I know there will be a few True Dicks who will make an appearance, but I also know that the people here, the lower-case dicks who get accused of shrillness and discourtesty, will shred the flesh from their bones. And that makes me feel a little better.

It is awesome, and one of the reasons I love it here. But you know, it's exhausting. Even if I'm not participating (and I thank those who have), it's wearying to read. And I don't have the history that others do that makes it traumatic, which is far worse than anything I experience. You banned the Stormfuck creeps pretty quickly, but their sexist equivalent just keeps coming, month after month. (Not your fault, I know.)

So I'm not commenting anymore on this thread. The miserable misogynists have said nothing valid or insightful. They never do. They just keep droning, and droning, and droning, and at some point I guess you have to leave them, like the racists and the homophobes, to feed on the threadxcrement.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 31, 2010 11:01 PM

Whatever bubba. it happens all the time, and you have *no way* of telling the difference. That is the point.

Wolfman- you are putting words in my mouth. No one said that those people shouldn't be able to say what they did, or that it should be erased. That isn't what I want at all. What I want is to be in a group of skeptics who use skepticism to examine sexism, and who don't dismiss me with privileged bs that would NEVER fly in a thread about say, creationism. That was my EXACT point when I left, I had a million examples. When most posters agree with the sexism and are resistant to even hearing what I have to say, it makes me unwelcome. It makes me tired. It makes me feel like the skeptics there are hypocrites.

As far as facing them "head on", thats a bunch of crap. Slimey dudes like Claus got by on knowing *exactly* where the rules were and dancing right on the edge. He knew that he could speak with derision about a class of people in a way that wasn't *technically* personal, but obviously was to anyone familiar with the people involved. He would push em until they cracked and said something personal, and then people would get banned.

It isn't equal anyway because like I said before, there is not equivalent words and insults for dominant groups. There isn't anything I can call a man that matches the gendered insults that can be hurled at me (via hurling it at my entire gender) on JREF. Somehow "you are totally stupid and a jerk" is worse than "jews are evil murderous scum" at jref, it says that the latter is kosher (even when said directly in response to a jewish poster for whatever reason) and the former isn't. That is the opposite of being direct. It is tilting the playing field towards tone trolls and "civil" sexists and racists. Oh, but you can't say the n word because bidlack banned it back in the day. Nor can you reference the goat fistgate of 2000something, for kid friendliness. The guidelines *never* made sense there and I protested loudly over that, too. Pharyngula is a lot better in the directness respect, because people can say whatever they want to.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 11:05 PM

Wolfman @533, here are two quotes:

PZ: I was left feeling rather queasy about the discussion on the JREF forums. A good number of people did respond appropriately, deploring the decision, but quite a few others react by either making jokes about breasts (way to make women welcome, guys), or by legalistic analyses that justify it in various ways, which all boil down to the "she was asking for it" defense, with a bit of the "she was too greedy to ask for so much compensation" argument.
[...]
One of the things I love about having a comments section with a reputation as being a vicious piranha tank is that I can open up this subject and I know there will be a few True Dicks who will make an appearance, but I also know that the people here, the lower-case dicks who get accused of shrillness and discourtesty, will shred the flesh from their bones. And that makes me feel a little better.

You: But PZ -- for all that I tend to like most of what you write, in this case, I find the "JREF has sexist comments, so they're wrong" and "We'll have sexist comments too, so we're right" thing rather mystifying.

Please explain how (my emphasis) "I was left feeling rather queasy about the discussion on the JREF forums" implies "JREF has sexist comments, so they're wrong" and "We'll have sexist comments too, so we're right".

--

PS You used quotation marks in your paraphrase of what you perceived PZ to have written.

I consider that unethical, when you give no indication of such.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | July 31, 2010 11:10 PM

Miki @ #531:

The case you linked to broke my heart. I can't even imagine what life has been like for those daughters.

Art...commerce...everything seems to be considered more important and more valid than the right of bodily integrity for women and girls.

Posted by: Darren | July 31, 2010 11:21 PM

I've been gone for a couple of hours and only just caught up and, having had a chance to let the heat of the debate to cool off, I would just like to make one last comment on this matter.

First, I apologise if anyone took offence to the points of view I expressed. This was not my intention, and perhaps Jules is correct in asserting that I lack the first-hand experience in this issue to understand where some people are coming from.

I like to make a big deal about intellectual honesty and admitting when you are wrong about something, so here's mine: I'm pretty sure I made a comment at some point (I've made so many comments, I can't be bothered searching them) that her reaction to the incident indicated that she thought it was no big deal. I have been convinced by several posters (namely, Cerberus and Jessa) that I can't draw that conclusion. After putting more thought into it, I'm even pretty sure that I have reacted in counter-intuitive ways in awkward (sorry - that's the best word I could think of) situations.

Although I still hold my general position - that the jury probably made the correct decision - the two major aspects of this discussion (the invasion of privacy trial and assault) have become so entangled with each other that I feel it would be counter-productive for me to continue to engage in it. Besides, I think we have pretty much covered everything there is to say. No point repeating ourselves.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | July 31, 2010 11:25 PM

Posted by: skeptifem

Whatever bubba. it happens all the time, and you have *no way* of telling the difference. That is the point.

You are every bit as much of a nutcase as the crazy fundamentalists. And just like them you just make shit up either because you are so delusional that you have convinced yourself that it's true, or you believe you are doing some greater good by lying for a cause. They lie for Jesus and you lie for whatever the hell it is you are lying for.

Posted by: SC OM | July 31, 2010 11:35 PM

Jane Doe admited [sic] that notices were posted, that she knew it was a GGW filming event, and that she was "flirting with the camera."

Fuck but that's poetically despicable. Isn't the essence of the problem right there?

Um, Linda Sobek.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 31, 2010 11:37 PM

Skeptifem wrote:

I hate that you asked those questions. You don't understand that every victim blames themselves, it is nearly universal. You are rubbing salt in a wound you don't understand. It is disgusting. It takes a lot of work to realize that assault is the fault of the assaulter.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2010 11:48 PM

Tainted Nectar:

One I remember though was, her saying that no one was there to help her, but in another sentence saying that a bunch of her friends were there and saw it.

FFS!

Let me Google for one moment, and take the top hit.

Police: As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance

Investigators say as many as 20 people were involved in or stood and watched the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl outside a California high school homecoming dance Saturday night.

No-one was there to help her.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 31, 2010 11:59 PM

Skeptifem wrote:

Scented Nectar, if you were against victim blaming you wouldn't do it. You did. It is wrong.

You should say you are sorry. That was some toxic crap you posted. Jeez

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2010 12:07 AM

Again:

There are a ton of other things off, or maybe exaggerated, with her story. I'd go back and copy/paste/list a bunch, but the comments are too numerous to go through. One I remember though was, her saying that no one was there to help her, but in another sentence saying that a bunch of her friends were there and saw it.

I've already effortlessly posted an example of a situation where "no one was there to help her", a situation which Nectar so blithely dismisses.

I'm pretty sure I could do the same for the claimed "bunch" of "things off".

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | August 1, 2010 12:17 AM

John Morales bubbabubba666: Really? So women in porn are being raped all the time?

"It happens all the time" ≠ "It always happens"; it's an idiom that expresses "It's not uncommon".

Regardless of whether the latter is accurate, your (almost-certainly) deliberate mischaracterisation constitutes transparent rhetorical sophistry.

Let me ask you what skeptifem actually asked you, and which you've evaded:
Can you tell whether realistic rape imagery in porn is real or simulated?

1. I don't watch women being raped in porn, I am not turned on by violence or degradation of women, it has the opposite effect of being a turn-on (some fun games where two people are clearly playing is a different matter). Nor does the vast majority of porn depict rape though sadly a fair amount of it seems to employ degradation.

2. If I did like to watch simulated rape I'd have no more way of knowing if it was real than I would of knowing whether violence in many Hollywood movies is real. What's your point?

Posted by: skeptifem | August 1, 2010 12:27 AM

bubba- you have no idea if you've watched it or not. The women are made to smile for you most of the time, even the raped ones. Threat of violence can exist off camera. There are tons of cases of this. Deepthroat is one. Linda Lovelaces husband was sadistic and violent towards her and forced her into pornography. Other people confirmed her stories about her husband and the beatings/threats. Some of the women in pornography are just raped full time as trafficked women or prostituted women, and you can't tell from watching it either. You don't know.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 1, 2010 12:31 AM

@426

"She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2010 12:34 AM

bubbabubba666,

My use of the word "all" was not meant to connote "always happens".

Well, it fooled me. If you're being honest.

Can you tell whether realistic rape imagery in porn is real or simulated?

Would you please quote where she asked me that?

The question was implicit, perhaps that's why you missed it.
I grant that it was, technically, not a question, but an assertion which constituted a challenge to your contention, and was in turn the basis of skeptifem's own.

Quote (my emphasis): "Whatever bubba. it happens all the time, and you have *no way* of telling the difference. That is the point."
Your reply: "Really? So women in porn are being raped all the time?"

If I did like to watch simulated rape I'd have no more way of knowing if it was real than I would of knowing whether violence in many Hollywood movies is real. What's your point?

Wow you're disingenuous.

But at least you've answered the question, and admit you have no way to know whether realistic depictions of rape are real or not.

My point? My point was that you were being sophistic and evasive.

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2010 12:47 AM

bubbabubba666, you're going around in circles.

Well again, I don't watch women being raped in porn so it's not a problem for me at all.

OK. You can tell the difference between coerced (in whatever manner) and consensual pr0n, how?

(cf. the Lovelace reference @578)

Because, if it's coerced, it's rape by any other name.

Posted by: bubbabubba666 | August 1, 2010 12:51 AM

Posted by: John Morales Author

bubbabubba666 said: My use of the word "all" was not meant to connote "always happens".

John said: Well, it fooled me. If you're being honest.

Wow you're disingenuous.

But at least you've answered the question, and admit you have no way to know whether realistic depictions of rape are real or not.

My point? My point was that you were being sophistic and evasive.

John, if you hear the lady next door in the throws of passion, do you have any way of knowing for sure if she's being hurt or not? See, I can ask an imbecilic question too. And don't worry, no matter what you answer, I'll accuse you of being disingenuous. I think I'm getting the hang of this.

Posted by: legistech | August 1, 2010 12:56 AM

I think she does have a legal argument, but it's not quite as straightforward as suing GGW for assault.

There have been cases where corporations have been sued for creating situations in which is would be likely that third parties would commit battery. One airline or airport was sued, for instance, because it set up the baggage claim in such a way that it was basically a free-for-all to get baggage from the whirli-round thing, and some woman got hurt when she got pushed. The suit was successful.

GGW intentionally creates situations which encourage third parties to commit battery, and in which such battery becomes likely. Moreover, they may do this intentionally and they certainly profit from the situation.

I won't condemn the court for this result. I don't know enough, and don't know what the lawyers on each side actually argued or what instructions were given to the jury. Second guessing courts is dangerous business, as judges are not typically flippant (though sometimes they are wrong.)

And of course implied consent exists. I don't think, given what I've seen of the description, it really exists in this case. But it does exist.

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2010 12:59 AM

PS Bubba,

I explicitly answered your question, acknowledged that of course I have no way of knowing (it is even a serious question?), you acknowledge that I acknowledged it, but still accuse me of being disingenuous sophistic and evasive.

You might note I've first established (by your own admission) that you can't tell the difference between depictions of simulated rape and the real thing; now I'm broadening the scope to determine if you consider you can tell the difference between consensual and coerced sex.

Please, explain to me what is the difference between rape and coerced sexual congress for the prurient attention of others.

John, if you hear the lady next door in the throws [sic] of passion, do you have any way of knowing for sure if she's being hurt or not?

No, I don't. Hence, I don't make an assumption.

(If, however, I hear cries for help, I'm not in much doubt.)

More relevantly (yeah, I know, tricky, that), I don't seek to hear the sounds of someone in the throes of passion — so comparing that to watching porn is (ahem) disingenuous.

See, I can ask an imbecilic question too.

"Too"? Heh.

No quibble you can ask imbecilic questions, though. I grant you that.

Posted by: Wise Bass | August 1, 2010 1:04 AM

I'm annoyed, but not entirely surprised that the Jury came back with that - local juries can be pretty idiotic at times. My guess is that the whole thing will get overturned in about five seconds once it gets to appeal.

Unless . . . did she ask them to not include the footage of her tits after someone yanked her top down? That might be a bit of a gray area in terms of "implied consent". Or maybe not - if I took something off your lawn and walked away with it while you were there, it would still be considered theft even if I didn't shout out, "Stop, bring that back!"

And most of all, do not ever purchase any of those execrable "Girls Gone Wild" videos. They are one of the clearest examples of violations of the dignity of women. I understand that as porn goes, they are fairly soft-core, but their main appeal seems to be that they celebrate the humiliation and manipulation of women under conditions of diminished capacity and judgment.

How is it "humiliating" for someone to flash their tits? That's more or less 90% of what "Girls Gone Wild" is. I suppose you could question whether the girls shown are actually capable of giving consent after consuming alcohol, but it's not as though all of them are so shit-faced that they can't say "no" to the guy with the camera.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 1, 2010 1:26 AM

PZ: You missed a verb in the line, 'I can oppose this decision for the purely selfish reason that I don't ______ women to be discouraged from dancing happily in public.' No biggie, just the cranial editor red light going off.

As for the woman in question in the story, all I can say is if she needs a donation to fund legal fees to take this to a higher court and needs assistance from whatever civil liberties organizations are available, I will gladly send her money, no flash of unmentionables required.

A woman is participating in a video or she is not. No release was signed, therefore she was not. They assaulted her and used her image and nudity for profit. They are vile assholes, pure and simple, and at the my most lenient of what I would give as a penalty, should have spent at least some time in prison. The judge in this case is what's wrong with society...defending corporate 'mericka regardless of how unctuous and reptilian, while the individual gets royally fucked over.

Posted by: No One | August 1, 2010 1:57 AM

Bob the Builder

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.face-and-emotion.com/dataface/facs/description.jsp

Posted by: Kaderie | August 1, 2010 2:13 AM

SaintStephen

extremely young, shrill, ultra-militant-feminist

Yes, truly, this is a calm, reasonable and rational description. Not only is skeptifem militant, no, she is ULTRA militant. Top that, Richard Dawkins! Yeah, you thought you were so militant writing books and giving speeches, but skeptifem out-militanted you with mere blog comments! And to think that theists need to actually blow up something to earn that title :D

Bonus points for working in a sexist dogwhistle. Love the dig at her age, too, slyly implying she has no experience and thus no expertise in the matter even though she speaks from lived experience while SweetNectar argued from no experience at all.

Congratulations on your recent mastery of basic HTML. Show off those colors!

Wow, what a thread... glad I missed most of it, merely reading it makes me capslock!RAEG

Cerberus, I want to thank you for each and every comment, not only in this thread, but in all others as well. They are always of high quality and little isles of sanity in massive amounts of privilege!fail. Your frank discussion of your experiences must take tremendous mental fortitude and I commend you for it.

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2010 2:28 AM

Kaderie, you might wish to re-read SaintStephen's comment, because I'm pretty sure you've engaged in friendly fire.

Posted by: SaintStephen | August 1, 2010 2:52 AM

Kaderie in #598:

...while SweetNectar argued from no experience at all.

Oh my my! You really don't know who you are talking to, do you. For almost the entire 1980s, I was a radical, lesbian, feminist, separatist of the most militant rabid kind. Andrea Dworkin was a goddess to me. I even had a copy of that manifesto by Valerie Solanos (sp?). I got pulled into the cult core of the movement at the time with what was initially a mix of sexual interest in women (became the only politically correct type of sex I allowed myself for that decade - fucking self oppression!) and a strong anti-sexism. Initially drawn in by that, I bought into the whole conclusion that my 'sisters' were telling me, that all men were deep inside out to rape us all, oppress us all, and that a deep patriarchal super-conspiracy exists. Like jumping to conclusions on acid! Any woman who thought that she was enjoying consentual sex with a man was really a poor deluded victim, brainwashed into whatever. All porn was evil and caused rape. All porn actresses were really being filmed while being raped, since she of course would never do that willingly. Yeah, yeah, I really have heard it all before. I used to be the one saying it, sister!

Clearly you're a moron. Or illiterate. Or both.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 1, 2010 3:08 AM

Too bad she doesn't have relevant experience, because 'she's' talking about the TV Feminists, not what we're saying in this thread.

And frankly, i don't believe a damn word she has to say for it. I just don't have reason to believe she was actually a radical feminist because her recounting of the time sounds like a TV Feminist.

Posted by: attorney | August 1, 2010 3:17 AM

Aesclepias @ 587

Close, but not quite. You're right that because it was a civil suit, the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not come into play. However, in a civil suit, the standard is that the plaintiff must establish the elements of the offense by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e., anything over 50%).

"Clear and convincing evidence" is a much higher standard, and is essentially the civil equivalent of "beyond a reasonable doubt." It comes into play only in specialized circumstances in civil cases (e.g., some offenses requiring a showing of malice, lack of good faith, oppression, etc.).

The defendant never has the burden of proof--the burden is on the plaintiff to show evidence rising to the applicable standard. In this case, as the civil case involved claims of violation of the right of publicity (legal term for using someone's image without their consent), and violation of privacy, the plaintiff (Jane Doe) had the burden to establish her case only by a preponderance of the evidence.

Posted by: Kaderie | August 1, 2010 3:25 AM