Empowering the Sexist Pig

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It seems that this thread has touched on a number of important issues.

Joe Francis – he really isn’t the problem. He is a problem, and one that should face all appropriate criminal prosecution. The sad reality is that once he is taken away, many others will seek to fill his void.

“Protecting Women” – do we need to protect women from GGW-like operations. I’d say the answer is Yes and No. It is “No” to the extent that women do not need protection because they are women. That is sexist in both thinking and application. But the answer is also “Yes” to the extent that as a society we create an atmosphere where women may see the only route to fame and fortune is down the road of sexual submission.

Are they victims? In a micro sense, I agree with Irvine that a large number of the women posing for GGW know exactly what they are doing. The can command the camera and the males around them through sexual suggestion and sexual acts. On a macro level, however, we run into the question of “do they really know what they are doing?” Trading permanent images of sexual conduct for a few fleeting moments of fame, a cheap pair of underwear, and the false promise that they may gain some sort of power over others? They may understand how they are behaving within the system, but not realize that the system is cheating them.

Another element to consider is the obvious influence of alcohol in all these videos. I doubt any of these women would be willing to perform for the camera on a Tuesday morning after class. On a Thursday night after some partying, where alcohol has modified the inhibitions (the basic self regulatory ability of any individual) the results are obviously different. And if alcohol plays a role in the majority of incidents, that suggests there is a diminished level of consent and control to the behavior in which they engage. This is by no means of level of patronizing, but a reality of the chemically altered lifestyle.
 
Irvine511 said:
what i had said was how bad is it if a woman essentially uses her "assets" to get a silly male to buy her drinks, and then she goes home by herself or with friends. she's essentially exploited the man in the example,

I know that's what you were saying which is why I had a bad initial reaction to the assumption that it's an exploitive move on the part of the woman to accept free drinks. She is no more obligated to reciprocate (as in the dinner example) than Francis is to give his GGWs more than a tshirt. Both the naked girl and the silly man know (or ought to know) the price they are paying for nothing more than the (remote) possibility of what they want.


i said that some women might find stripping or even being a prostitute empowering because they are using sexuality to earn income, and i would also argue that taboos against such activities are expressions of the good girl/bad girl, madonna/whore forced dichotomy that trap women. i also said that some women might choose these professions, in good faith, when other options might be available to them. i do not think this is common, but i do think it is certainly possible.

It's not the oldest profession for nothing lol, I agree. There will always be gold diggers who want easy money. The legit ones marry well with big money in the prenup.

so are you anti-pornography?

No, as long as it's not depicting humiliation or (suggestions of) violence.
 
Irvine511 said:
very good post, NBC.
:scratch: OK, well now I'm a bit confused, because the way I read it, nbc is making pretty much the same argument I was, especially concerning the distinction between "knowing what you're doing" and "really knowing what you're doing" (though per usual, with a lot more concise lawyerly directness and a lot less critical-theory cerebrobabble :D ).
 
nbcrusader said:
Are they victims? In a micro sense, I agree with Irvine that a large number of the women posing for GGW know exactly what they are doing.

On a Thursday night after some partying, where alcohol has modified the inhibitions (the basic self regulatory ability of any individual) the results are obviously different. And if alcohol plays a role in the majority of incidents, that suggests there is a diminished level of consent and control to the behavior in which they engage. This is by no means of level of patronizing, but a reality of the chemically altered lifestyle.

Do you see the contradiction?

You're basically saying if they drink, they aren't capable of taking responsibility for their actions thus making them victims.
 
yolland said:

:scratch: OK, well now I'm a bit confused, because the way I read it, nbc is making pretty much the same argument I was, especially concerning the distinction between "knowing what you're doing" and "really knowing what you're doing" (though per usual, with a lot more concise lawyerly directness and a lot less critical-theory cerebrobabble :D ).



well, i didn't say i agreed with all of it, i just thought it did a very nice job boiling down the issues being discussed.

and i haven't forgotten about your post, i promise, i just have been too busy today to really sit down and do some thinking and catch up on my Paglia.

i still have problems with the "do they really know what they are doing," because that assumes that there's something quite inarguably negative going on, which then sort of puts the blame for Francis' activities back on the girls themselves, or at least on the system that the girls and Francis are participating in, only with unequal power within the system (Francis having more, the girls having less, yet their mutual implication renders them both victims, which i don't think i accept).

my responses to AliEnvy, i think, buoyed my earlier points -- i think there are woman who are perfectly comfortable to use sex as a tool, even when they might have other tools available to them. i think it's a fallacy to think that all women who are strippers or prostitutes or porn stars are forced into the profession by their economically disadvantaged status, just like i think it's a fallacy to think that all girls in the "GGW" video suffer from low self-esteem. i think that all of these notions result, firstly, from socialized attitudes towards sex and what might be called "sex work" -- please note, i do not in any way mean to compare this to the illegal sex trade. i also think that, yes, we've assigned a victim status to women on the basis of their womanhood, which is often deserved, but not always.

i suppose i am willing to say that, on a micro level, some women in "GGW" might be victims and don't really know what they are doing, but i also think that the opposite is true -- some of them really do know what they are doing. to assume that because they are drunk they cannot consent makes about as much sense as the rape law in Massachusettes (at least when i was in college) that says that a woman is legally unable to give consent to sex if she has had even a single drink.

again, poor dear. must protect them from their vaginas and libidos.

or perhaps we're all thinking too much about it. perhaps these are just some 20 year olds drunk on spring break who did something stupid that they will laugh about 20 years from now. i think it's a fallacy to pin on their heads status of both the "poor dear" victim as well as the responsibility of someone who didn't really know what they were doing and unwittingly participated in what might be termed a "Rape Culture."

perhaps we think too much about all of this? perhaps we put thoughts in the head of girls on screen and boys who purchase the DVD that really aren't there? doesn't this really go back to whether or not things like pornography cause rape? or video games cause violence? or TV causes anti-social behavior?
 
I don't think I said that these "girls" always have poor self-esteem and that's why they get involved in GGW. I just don't think it's fair to call them sluts either, as was brought up much earlier in the thread. I don't think it's fair either to suggest that any sense of protectiveness equals wanting to protect women from their vaginas and libidos. I just don't see how something like GGW could possibly be sexually liberating for women, especially given the fact that it's operated by Francis. Sexual liberation for me doesn't mean just being free to display your breasts or vaginas, or to do whatever else they do in those videos. Something like Playboy would be more liberating in my eyes, given what I know about how it is operated. Unless anyone has any information about Hugh Hefner or his daughter that would be contrary.

My real issue with the whole thing is Joe Francis. My instincts tell me that the article doesn't even begin to skim the surface. To talk about all this in the abstract tends to take the focus and onus off of him, doesn't it?
 
^ ^ Insofar as he's been charged with a lot of crimes, yes--although more cases than not against him have fallen through, and I do think we need to be careful about making the alleged rape recounted at length in the article (not that I much doubt one occurred) into a catchall indictment of Francis' accountability for whatever (if anything) we can agree might be wrong with the enterprise in general. And unless you see all of this as a simple, black-and-white matter of women with self-esteem too weak to protest submitting to being forced on-camera by some predatorial thug (which I realize is not how you see it :) )...then you do have to get into some abstractions, because the original question nb asked, and the reporter asked it too, inevitably raises further questions about sexual objectification, personal freedom, sexual freedom, compensation, consent, and the influence of sexism on all the above, etc. etc.

----------------------------

I do think though, Irvine, that you may be reading way too much into what I and some others find problematic in all this. I said back in my first post in this thread that I don't doubt most of these girls see the whole thing as just a cheeky lark, and I would still say that. I do find there to be some assumptions worth questioning in that attitude, but certainly not to the extent of making it illegal or anything like that. And I'm not anti-porn or anti-sex-trade, either--though that doesn't mean I agree with Camille Paglia on why I shouldn't be, nor with Andrea Dworkin on why I should.
 
yolland said:
^I do think though, Irvine, that you may be reading way too much into what I and some others find problematic in all this. I said back in my first post in this thread that I don't doubt most of these girls see the whole thing as just a cheeky lark, and I would still say that. I do find there to be some assumptions worth questioning in that attitude, but certainly not to the extent of making it illegal or anything like that. And I'm not anti-porn or anti-sex-trade, either--though that doesn't mean I agree with Camille Paglia on why I shouldn't be, nor with Andrea Dworkin on why I should.


i'm sorry if you think my reaction is over-the-top, i assure you i think i take your, and other's, comments in the manner in which you attend to them. my broader point is about how sometimes the questioning of said attitudes are packed with infantalizing notions of what women's sexuality should and shouldn't be, and that leaves women without much control in the realm of sex and sexuality. i think that a flashing of the breasts, an unapologetic stripper, a happy hooker -- all of these things can be expressions of women claiming control over the dynamic we spoke of earlier. i think you are correct, often these actions are dictated by insecurities, expectations, and financial situations, but not always, and i think it's important to point out exceptions in order to broaden our understanding of female sexuality can and does do.
 
AliEnvy said:
You're basically saying if they drink, they aren't capable of taking responsibility for their actions thus making them victims.

You've got a couple big leaps there.


Drinking => incapable of taking responsibility for actions => victims


Is this really the form of empowering liberation women are seeking? Or do we just nod, enjoy the show, and say "you go, girl"?

Based on the comments of the participants contained in the article, it seems that the women knew what they were doing in the instant case (they knew a camera was rolling, etc.). But they likely did not see how they are playing into someone else's business model.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
My real issue with the whole thing is Joe Francis. My instincts tell me that the article doesn't even begin to skim the surface. To talk about all this in the abstract tends to take the focus and onus off of him, doesn't it?

I don't see anyone giving Joe Francis the green light to continue illegal behavior. To the contrary, by focusing on him, we miss the larger problem that will allow others to do the same, or who already operate in a less sanitized fashion.
 
Are they victims? In a micro sense, I agree with Irvine that a large number of the women posing for GGW know exactly what they are doing. The can command the camera and the males around them through sexual suggestion and sexual acts. On a macro level, however, we run into the question of “do they really know what they are doing?” Trading permanent images of sexual conduct for a few fleeting moments of fame, a cheap pair of underwear, and the false promise that they may gain some sort of power over others? They may understand how they are behaving within the system, but not realize that the system is cheating them.
Then why not outlaw gambling? or carny games? Or reality TV?

People ar swindled by all these things on promises of money, prizes or fame. I think that singling out something as harmless as amateur exhibitionist porn for criticism (and I think implied regulation) is wrong.
 
nbcrusader said:


I don't see anyone giving Joe Francis the green light to continue illegal behavior. To the contrary, by focusing on him, we miss the larger problem that will allow others to do the same, or who already operate in a less sanitized fashion.
There is a distinction between rape and taking pictures of girls flashing with their consent, I don't see it as a problem.
 
nbcrusader said:
Drinking => incapable of taking responsibility for actions => victims

Not such big leaps at all when you see laws like the one in MA that Irvine mentioned where any alcohol consumed by a women deems her subsequent consent to sex as null and void in the eyes of the law leaving her the potential victim of rape. With the ability to label an otherwise good guy as a rapist...

Is this really the form of empowering liberation women are seeking? Or do we just nod, enjoy the show, and say "you go, girl"?

Girls just wanna have fun, and not get raped or scorned as sluts. How does female sexuality get legitimately acknowledged culturally without some level of flaunting? I don't have any answers for that lol.
 
AliEnvy said:


Not such big leaps at all when you see laws like the one in MA that Irvine mentioned where any alcohol consumed by a women deems her subsequent consent to sex as null and void in the eyes of the law leaving her the potential victim of rape. With the ability to label an otherwise good guy as a rapist...
.
I was amazed to read this. Does it work the other way round then that men who've had a drink in MA can later claim they were seduced and sexually abused by a woman against their will?
I don't see how people can make excuses for womens' behaviour and claim they were victims because they had too much to drink unless say their drinks were being spiked without their knowledge. Isn't the legal drinking age in the USA 21? In most other countries it's 18 if not 16. I think there's more of an argument for saying that a 16 year old girl might be considered a victim by being plied with drink and then taken advantage of but by the age of 21 most women should have reached a level of maturity to cope with such situations.
People don't normally make excuses for mens' behaviour when they get drunk. There's an increasing problem certainly in England of yobbish behaviour where groups of young men get drunk and then go out looking for fights or start vandalising property. Noone would say they were victims in such circumstances because they weren't fully in control of their faculties.
 
Greenlight said:

I was amazed to read this. Does it work the other way round then that men who've had a drink in MA can later claim they were seduced and sexually abused by a woman against their will?



i think most people agree that it is an insane law.



People don't normally make excuses for mens' behaviour when they get drunk. There's an increasing problem certainly in England of yobbish behaviour where groups of young men get drunk and then go out looking for fights or start vandalising property. Noone would say they were victims in such circumstances because they weren't fully in control of their faculties.


exactly -- hence, the infantilization of women that i was speaking about earlier,
 
AliEnvy said:
Not such big leaps at all when you see laws like the one in MA that Irvine mentioned where any alcohol consumed by a women deems her subsequent consent to sex as null and void in the eyes of the law leaving her the potential victim of rape. With the ability to label an otherwise good guy as a rapist...

Fortunately, we don’t use one state’s laws as the guiding principle in all cases. In all likelihood, the MA law was a political/emotional response to a tragic situation, not the result of reasoned application of personal responsibilities. Our statutes are filled with “reactionary” laws.
 
According to Drudge..

GIRLS GONE WILD' GUILTY IN SEXUAL EXPLOITATION CASE... Company pleads guilty for failing to 'create and maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films'... Under agreements, founder Joseph Francis agrees to plead guilty to offenses and pay fines and restitution totaling $2.1 million... DEVELOPING

At least it's something, but if that's all he's doing is paying 2 million- that's nothing to him. I'm sure his lovely behavior will continue.
 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...3sep13,0,2690714.story?coll=la-home-headlines

In the court papers distributed by the Justice Department, " 'Girls Gone Wild' admitted filming performers and producing and distributing sexually explicit video materials during all of 2002 and part of 2003 while violating the record keeping and labeling laws."

Specifically, Mantra Films pleaded guilty to three counts of failing to keep the required records and seven labeling violations.

MRA Holding entered into deferred prosecution agreement concerning the information filed in court charging the company with 10 labeling violations. As part of that agreement, the government will dismiss the charges at the end of three years if MRA Holding abides by all of its obligations, the Justice Department said.

MRA Holding also agreed to employ an independent outside monitor selected by the government and provide the monitor complete access to the books and records, production facilities and other locations required to ensure the company's compliance with federal law, the federal agency said.
 
It would do him some good to serve some jail time, but you can't learn humility in jail unfortunately


latimes.com

A federal judge in Panama City, Fla., on Thursday ordered "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis jailed for contempt of court in a civil suit brought by seven young women who claimed the entrepreneur's film crews had placed them in sexually explicit situations.

Francis, the Santa Monica-based multimillionaire who has made a fortune selling risque videos of scantily clad coeds, was ordered by U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak to surrender to court by noon Thursday, but hadn't done so by mid-evening.

Francis told the Associated Press late Thursday that Smoak "had lost his mind."

"This judge has gone as far as to call me the devil and an evildoer," he said. "It is a case of a judge gone wild."

The court order followed a last-minute collapse in settlement talks between Francis' legal team and lawyers for the women, who were filmed on a Florida beach in 2003. The plaintiffs allege that they were "victimized" by Francis' crew by being put in explicit scenes.

"It is not the judge's role to compel a settlement with the threat of putting one of the parties in jail," said Francis lawyer Jan L. Handzlik, who is appealing the judge's order.

Plaintiffs' attorney Larry Selander declined to comment.

Smoak originally found Francis, 34, in contempt last week after plaintiffs' lawyers complained that Francis had shouted obscenities at their clients in a March 21 outburst during the settlement negotiations.

Smoak ordered Francis jailed if an accord had not been reached in the case by Saturday, but he suspended that order when it appeared that a deal had been struck.

At an emergency hearing Wednesday, a lawyer for the plaintiffs told the judge that he thought the case was resolved but then learned Francis had altered the offer, making it unacceptable to his clients.

A mediator said Francis insisted on a payment plan that would stretch several years.

"He may have snookered us and gotten out Saturday, but he's coming back," Smoak said.

The judge reinstated his civil contempt order, which means Francis could be jailed until a formal mediation session is set up and he participates in a "meaningful" way.
 
'Girls Gone Wild' founder sent to jail crying

Associated Press

PANAMA CITY, Fla. -- Blowing his nose and wiping away tears, the multimillionaire founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" video empire pleaded guilty to contempt of court Monday and was sentenced to 35 days in jail.

Joe Francis, who was sued by seven women who were minors when filmed, apologized to the judge for yelling at the plaintiffs during settlement talks.

"I am sorry for my behaviour. It was wrong. I had heard about appeals and things and I was confused. I am sorry, I really am," said Francis, 34.

Francis drew the contempt charge during negotiations to settle the federal lawsuit brought after his production company filmed the women at Panama City Beach in 2003.

Attorneys for the women said Francis, who makes a reported US$29 million a year taping topless women for his videos, lost his temper in negotiations and yelled obscenities at them.

U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak ordered Francis to settle the case or go to jail for contempt of court. When talks fell through, Francis lashed out at Smoak in the media, calling him a "judge gone wild" and questioning the judge's authority to order a settlement.

Smoak had ordered Francis to surrender to U.S. marshals by April 5 and begin serving time on the contempt charge. He did not return to Panama City from his California home until April 10, when authorities met him at the airport.

Francis has since reached an undisclosed settlement with the seven women. Francis had told The Associated Press that they wanted $70 million to settle the case.

Francis has said the women lied about their ages.

His attorney, Jan Handzlik, said being in jail had changed his client.

"He is a different man. Undoubtedly he is a different man," he said.
 
TMZ has learned that "Girls Gone Wild" mogul Joe Francis has just been charged with one count of misdemeanor sexual battery. The charge was filed by the L.A. City Attorney.

L.A. City Attorney spokesperson Frank Mateljan tells TMZ that Francis was at a birthday party in Los Angeles this past January when he allegedly touched an 18-year-old girl on the breast, buttocks and inner thigh. The woman allegedly repeatedly asked Francis to stop.

Francis will be arraigned May 22. If convicted, he faces a maximum six months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Francis has a world of legal woes. He's currently in a Florida jail serving 35 days for contempt of court. He faces other charges as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom