Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Rhizomorph13]

Apparently this thread is about coffee now.

[Minimalist]

Far less exciting than Girls Gone Wild, I know.

[Scented Nectar]

I've been on the Pharyngula comment page for this since yesterday evening. There are about 800 comments now. I think 20 are mine. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/...n_be_s.php

It turns out that she was only suing about the contractual filming consent. She did not bother to sue, charge or even get mad at the woman who pulled her top down (slightly more than she herself did for the camera). I saw the clip in question. On her own she danced and play-teased with the camera, showing of her own volition the circles of her nipples. At one point, a woman (not the ggw camera person) pulls it down exposing actual nipple. The woman is clearly not traumatised. She didn't even stop hamming it up for the camera. Now she is complaining that the nipple will ruin her reputation as though all the stuff she did willingly wouldn't be worse (in the eyes of people who think there is something wrong with exposure and 'sexy' dance stuff).

The original video for it is linked in comment number 67 I think, or at least sixty-something.

Any of you that got into the whole objectification thread might find it interesting. I started out on the woman's side, but once I actually saw the video and heard further details, my stance changed a lot.

I also got accused of victim blaming, for fuck's sake. I questioned someone's claim of a sex assault because there was so many holes and weird shit in her story. I met some of those old school feminazis over there, had people accuse me of being a male poe, and other stuff. It was fun though.

[Skeptisma]

I've been on the Pharyngula comment page for this since yesterday evening. There are about 800 comments now. I think 20 are mine. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/...n_be_s.php

It turns out that she was only suing about the contractual filming consent. She did not bother to sue, charge or even get mad at the woman who pulled her top down (slightly more than she herself did for the camera). I saw the clip in question. On her own she danced and play-teased with the camera, showing of her own volition the circles of her nipples. At one point, a woman (not the ggw camera person) pulls it down exposing actual nipple. The woman is clearly not traumatised. She didn't even stop hamming it up for the camera. Now she is complaining that the nipple will ruin her reputation as though all the stuff she did willingly wouldn't be worse (in the eyes of people who think there is something wrong with exposure and 'sexy' dance stuff).

The original video for it is linked in comment number 67 I think, or at least sixty-something.

Any of you that got into the whole objectification thread might find it interesting. I started out on the woman's side, but once I actually saw the video and heard further details, my stance changed a lot.

I also got accused of victim blaming, for fuck's sake. I questioned someone's claim of a sex assault because there was so many holes and weird shit in her story. I met some of those old school feminazis over there, had people accuse me of being a male poe, and other stuff. It was fun though.

I find it simply amazing how doing a little bit of research can make a world of difference. If this woman were truly traumatized, why not go after the bitch that pulled her top down? I don't know. If I am worried about possibly becoming victimized I'd remove myself from that situation... something she clearly did not even after the incident occurred. Sometimes it's not other people who victimize women, they can do it themselves you know!

[Scented Nectar]

I find it simply amazing how doing a little bit of research can make a world of difference. If this woman were truly traumatized, why not go after the bitch that pulled her top down? I don't know. If I am worried about possibly becoming victimized I'd remove myself from that situation... something she clearly did not even after the incident occurred. Sometimes it's not other people who victimize women, they can do it themselves you know!

She didn't even stop dancing to get mad at her.
Here's the videoclip: http://www.mediafire.com/?q3ok39j7pyfzd4h
She even laughs about it. A picture is worth a thousand words. There is a vague 'no'-like facial thing at one point that people seem to think means 'no, don't film this', but not only is it really vague, there is no way to tell what it's in response to. Maybe someone said "Hey lady, keep your shirt on" and she refused. Probably not, but legally she doesn't have a tit to stand on.

[Skeptisma]

I find it simply amazing how doing a little bit of research can make a world of difference. If this woman were truly traumatized, why not go after the bitch that pulled her top down? I don't know. If I am worried about possibly becoming victimized I'd remove myself from that situation... something she clearly did not even after the incident occurred. Sometimes it's not other people who victimize women, they can do it themselves you know!

She didn't even stop dancing to get mad at her.
Here's the videoclip: http://www.mediafire.com/?q3ok39j7pyfzd4h
She even laughs about it. A picture is worth a thousand words. There is a vague 'no'-like facial thing at one point that people seem to think means 'no, don't film this', but not only is it really vague, there is no way to tell what it's in response to. Maybe someone said "Hey lady, keep your shirt on" and she refused. Probably not, but legally she doesn't have a tit to stand on.

Oh, I saw it. And, while I might agree with the other posters that sometimes you react with laughter as a defense mechanism, I still find it fucking mind-boggling that she didn't have the balls to make sure that shit never saw the light of dvd. You are right, no means no - but what the hell was she saying no to? It's really disturbing that when a woman is a victim, and I'm not saying she wasn't a victim here, immediately we should pick one side or the other. Either you're a misogynist or a feminist - why not look at all of the goddamn facts first?

[Minimalist]

I find it simply amazing how doing a little bit of research can make a world of difference. If this woman were truly traumatized, why not go after the bitch that pulled her top down? I don't know. If I am worried about possibly becoming victimized I'd remove myself from that situation... something she clearly did not even after the incident occurred. Sometimes it's not other people who victimize women, they can do it themselves you know!

She didn't even stop dancing to get mad at her.
Here's the videoclip: http://www.mediafire.com/?q3ok39j7pyfzd4h
She even laughs about it. A picture is worth a thousand words. There is a vague 'no'-like facial thing at one point that people seem to think means 'no, don't film this', but not only is it really vague, there is no way to tell what it's in response to. Maybe someone said "Hey lady, keep your shirt on" and she refused. Probably not, but legally she doesn't have a tit to stand on.

Nice tits, though.

[Tiberius]

I still find it fucking mind-boggling that she didn't have the balls to make sure that shit never saw the light of dvd.

She was drunk, she'd already said "no". I don't think she expected it to be on a DVD, since by her own testimony she wasn't there for the filming; she knew nothing about it.

As for not having the balls...once she found out her rights had been violated, she sued the filmmakers. Erm...that's a pretty ballsy move.

Oh, and for everyone saying "why didn't she sue the woman". Yeah, think for a moment; she's drunk, everyone around her is drunk; the woman isn't on camera. At the time she didn't think it would cause any harm, and years later she realizes it did. Good luck finding that woman again.

[Skeptisma]

I still find it fucking mind-boggling that she didn't have the balls to make sure that shit never saw the light of dvd.

She was drunk, she'd already said "no". I don't think she expected it to be on a DVD, since by her own testimony she wasn't there for the filming; she knew nothing about it.

As for not having the balls...once she found out her rights had been violated, she sued the filmmakers. Erm...that's a pretty ballsy move.

Oh, and for everyone saying "why didn't she sue the woman". Yeah, think for a moment; she's drunk, everyone around her is drunk; the woman isn't on camera. At the time she didn't think it would cause any harm, and years later she realizes it did. Good luck finding that woman again.

Again, it's not exactly clear what she said "no" to. Sure, we can speculate it may have been in regards to her taking her top off - but do we know conclusively? No.

If she weren't there for the filming, having a big camera in your face would certainly inform an individual that filming was taking place, yes? If you aren't interested in participating, remove yourself from the situation.

Her "rights" were not violated in one movie, but several. Yet, this is the one she objects to because someone other than GGW pulled her shirt down? She has every right to sue, but they were not the ones that yanked her top off, nor directed her to engage the camera. Maybe they won't find that woman who actually did it, but does that give the plaintiff the right to sue whomever she wants? No.

"At the time she didn't think it would cause any harm..." Well, if it wasn't harmful back then, why is it harmful now? Because she has children that she'll have to explain this to?

The fact that she had her top pulled off is not right - don't get me wrong here. However, when you are dealing with a legal matter it is a completely different story. She decided to sue GGW for the filming of such act and since they were not responsible for her top coming off, they shouldn't be held liable. Another commenter on the Pharyngula blog had an interesting point that basically says: The murder of civilians in Iraq was recently filmed yet no one cried foul on the part of the filmographer in that case. Is this really any different?

[Scented Nectar]

Oh, I saw it. And, while I might agree with the other posters that sometimes you react with laughter as a defense mechanism, I still find it fucking mind-boggling that she didn't have the balls to make sure that shit never saw the light of dvd. You are right, no means no - but what the hell was she saying no to? It's really disturbing that when a woman is a victim, and I'm not saying she wasn't a victim here, immediately we should pick one side or the other. Either you're a misogynist or a feminist - why not look at all of the goddamn facts first?

There were some male commenters at Pharyngula who made it quite clear that they were against nonconsentual sex stuff. Despite that, when they dared to discuss legal filming consent issues, a bunch of feminists started calling them actual rapists! Some were only called rape apologists.

Off I go now to see if there are any new comments over there. I think, if the article's comments aren't slowing down/stopping, people are going to freak over something else I wrote...or not. Heheheh