Skip

Girls Gone Wild producer is shadowed by a reporter, controversy ensues.
August 5, 2006 1:34 PM   Subscribe

Joe Francis Gone Wild: Claire Hoffman, L.A. Times adult entertainment correspondent, rides along with Girls Gone Wild (Slate, SFW) producer Joe Francis on an expedition to a Chicago nightclub. Hoffman claims that over the course of the night, Francis pinned her against the hood of a car. A woman who agreed to be filmed in the crew's bus claims that Fancis had non-consensual sex with her. Reposted with safer language.
posted by KirkJobSluder (57 comments total)

 
Completely unneeded chasing.

Kirk, I was working on another post myself. I'll throw some of the links here:

Photos from the article

The Hustler, the Heiress, and the Soft-Porn King

Joe Francis: Video After a fight

His company: Mantra Entertainment and a Rip Off Report on them.

Francis interviewed by Adam Corolla and Rolling Stone

His Mug Shot

The Onion's take: Girls Gone Wild Released Back Into Civilization

Don't be confused by these:

Joe Francis Hair Scholarship

Not That Joe Francis

Official Joe Francis Site
posted by ?! at 1:54 PM on August 5, 2006


I don't know from rapist. But that fucking asshole... er... that gentleman... needs to have his... er... he needs to have a stern talking to. He obviously has lacked sufficient guidance and discipline in his life.

Now speaking hypothetically. If a group of motivated concerned citizens collect the necessary travel funds and, hypothetically, the legal defense fund... maybe an individual member of that group of motivated concerned citizens could arrange said stern talking to.

Hypothetically.
posted by tkchrist at 1:56 PM on August 5, 2006


A lot of people don't realize that Mantra Entertainment also produces a "Guys Gone Wild" featuring college guys at
Spring Break and Mardi Gras. I bought one cause I get tired of only seeing women exploited. But "Guys Gone Wild" started getting gross - I mean they had guys jerking off and squirting their seed across the room. I wasn't expecting it to go that far.
posted by Michelle_hermosabeach at 2:23 PM on August 5, 2006


"Waaaaaaah. I hung out with the guy who became rich off of Girls Gone Wild and he wasn't a gentleman. Wahhhhhh. Tears are rolling down my face." - LA Times
posted by tsarfan at 2:25 PM on August 5, 2006


Oh wow. According to this Francis is actually a rape victim, in a case which is much more clear cut then this one. He was forced to perform homosexual acts at gunpoint. That's pretty fucked up.
posted by delmoi at 2:31 PM on August 5, 2006


I mean they had guys jerking off and squirting their seed across the room. I wasn't expecting it to go that far.

It's obviously targeted twoards gay men.
posted by delmoi at 2:36 PM on August 5, 2006


As I said in comments on the other FPP, this article is obviously out to get him. The rape charges, the references to the woman who was threatened by him and who it's casually mentioned miscarried - two weeks later, etc.

The guy's an asshole, but the article is of average quality and extremely negative towards its subject. And the reporter just comes across as whiny (and ignorant, like the qwerty thing).
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:43 PM on August 5, 2006


"Qwerty" is a technical and trivial geek term. Most people don't know it, and have no need to know it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:49 PM on August 5, 2006


Until the girls start taking notes from Lydia Lunch, I'd say they haven't gone wild enough. Perhaps by next spring break, we'll have raised up a crop of fierce, unvictimizable dirty whores to really kill Francis' buzz. Can't you see them with a spray-on tans and barely-disguised sneers at Daytona, blending in, waiting to pounce, playing innocent, then, going wild in ways unimaginable and not particularly arousing to these obviously weaned-too-late, tit-biting sorts? Wouldn't that be fun, tkchrist? I'm too old at 33 to take part, but I'm sure our girls are out there, just waiting to get Fingered.
posted by eegphalanges at 2:52 PM on August 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


I found most of the allegations in the article persuasive, considering the settled court cases and the police officer who vouches for the reporter being physically assaulted. The guy could sounds like a physically abusive misogynist.

But the date rape accusation hasn't been scrutinized by police. How can anyone conclude it's true before that happens?

There's big shakedown potential in a person as slimy and rich as Francis who engages in casual sex during the course of these "gone wild" events -- and has a history of pay-up if you shut-up settlements.
posted by rcade at 2:54 PM on August 5, 2006


I disagree tsarfan. I think the article is well-written, deliberately avoids self-pity and, as lodurr mentions, shows quite a bit of restraint, considering the nature of the acts described. I can only interpret your comment to mean that you consider the article "whiny". If this is a correct interpretation, can you excerpt the specific pieces of the article you consider whiny and then explain, at length, why you consider them whiny?
posted by gramschmidt at 3:04 PM on August 5, 2006


I prefer Girls with Low Self Esteem, anyway.
posted by darkripper at 3:05 PM on August 5, 2006


NYCinephile posted a fantastic interview in the other thread.
Bead exchange dates back to the 20s. Beads have always been associated with carnival as throws, and nudity has been part of the Storyville tradition. But the actual joining - that is, the ritual that's now expressed on the street as beads for tits - really didn't start until probably the late 1970s, as best we can trace back.
...
The videotaping of flashing for beads really didn't take off commercially until 1988, when the first tapes were distributed, either through the bars themselves or through catalogs.
...
There was a bar on Bourbon Street that made a kind of informal agreement with a commercial videographer to take pictures of women flashing, which, in the case of this videographer, were a lot of his friends and people he would hang out with on a regular basis at Mardi Gras. And then these were packaged and they were displayed in this bar all year long and sold over the counter - fifteen bucks, twenty bucks a tape - and ended up spreading the tradition. Year-round, people could see flashing. And there's great stories from people who worked in this bar that people would come into the bar and actually flash the television set that was playing this video!
I'm speechless..

But, that's nothing.
So when you're talking about beads-for-tits rituals with white men, it's kind of assumed that when white men touch white women, that there's a kind of an exchange of property: women might flash and a man might hug the woman, or kiss the woman, that's okay. But when black men hug, kiss, touch, a white woman who's flashing, sometimes that could be cause for a riot. I've seen fights break out over black men who attempt to in some ways handle the merchandise, you could say, on the street. Joseph Roach, who's written about carnival traditions, says that during Mardi Gras the law of the street really kicks into play. And the law of the street is that white men can exchange their women for beads, black men cannot.
posted by Chuckles at 3:06 PM on August 5, 2006


For what it's worth, everytime I've seen this guy on E! or an infomercial or whatnot he has pretty much broke my skeez-o-meter.
posted by Skwirl at 3:09 PM on August 5, 2006


Like, when does reporting someone's bad behavior become whining?

And maybe I'm crazy, but there seems to be a huge difference between someone not being a gentleman, and someone sexually assaulting a young girl and physically assaulting a the reporter.
posted by schroedinger at 3:16 PM on August 5, 2006


rcade: But the date rape accusation hasn't been scrutinized by police. How can anyone conclude it's true before that happens?

There are date rape accusations that I conclude are true because I know the people involved, and there was no motive for faleshood. These cases were never reported out of a desire to just make the whole thing go away.

I'll leave the possibilities open here. But I'm not seeing the whole shakedown motivation at play here. The only person who is using the word "rape" is Francis. Szyszka appears to be reluctant in talking about the issue, and the article does not report that charges or a cvil claim has been filed. If the reporting here is reasonable, Szyszka's story reminds me far too much of similar stories I know where the survivor just walked away and tried to bury what happened.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:19 PM on August 5, 2006


There are date rape accusations that I conclude are true because I know the people involved, and there was no motive for faleshood. These cases were never reported out of a desire to just make the whole thing go away.

With any accusation of rape against a wealthy person, there is a financial motive. A victim can settle with money or sue in civil court after a guilty verdict. Just look at the Kobe Bryant case.

It's ridiculous to say that you "know" these people.
posted by delmoi at 3:30 PM on August 5, 2006


It was a nicely written article, imo---quite coherent and well-developed. It culminates in a moment of creepy insight that aptly captures the particular dreadfulness of Mr. Francis.
posted by washburn at 3:36 PM on August 5, 2006


I mean they had guys jerking off and squirting their seed across the room. I wasn't expecting it to go that far.

You only expected it to go a couple feet?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:44 PM on August 5, 2006 [6 favorites]


With any accusation of rape against a wealthy person, there is a financial motive.

You should really give that a lot more thought. For all practical purposes, you are saying that rich people can't be guilty of rape.

Now understand, I'm not saying that you believe it - that rich men forcing girls to have sex is not rape. However, the condition you are imposing on the conversation, financial motive must be considered, can only lead to that conclusion.
posted by Chuckles at 3:49 PM on August 5, 2006


Rich men forcing girls to have sex is rape.

A girl saying that a rich man forced her to have sex might be rape. It also might be a lie.

To consider the financial motivation for people to lie does not imply that all accusations are therefore false.
posted by 23skidoo at 4:02 PM on August 5, 2006


With any accusation of rape against a wealthy person, there is a financial motive.

ANY? Give me a break.
posted by dhammond at 4:07 PM on August 5, 2006


"Qwerty" is a technical and trivial geek term. Most people don't know it, and have no need to know it.

Sure, technical term for a writer. Which is why it's so ludicrously funny that the author of this piece had absolutely no idea what it meant. Apparently, Joe thought it was pretty piss-in-your-pants funny as well. So he can't be all that bad.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:22 PM on August 5, 2006


Joe Francis consistently pleads the First Amendemnt. But people who want to discuss the impact of and harm done by the pornography industry (the pornified industrial complex) are always told by these "free speech advocates" to shut up or turn a blind eye. Anyone who dares question their profit equation is accused of being anti-sex and anti-freedom. Pornographers consistently deny the harm inflicted - on its users, on relationships, on society overall. Free speech? Hah! More than a form of speech, pornography is a commercial product. Pornography is, at its core, the commercialization of women, turning men into consumers and women into a product to be used, ridiculed and discarded.
posted by Michelle_hermosabeach at 4:42 PM on August 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


delmoi: With any accusation of rape against a wealthy person, there is a financial motive. A victim can settle with money or sue in civil court after a guilty verdict. Just look at the Kobe Bryant case.

Well certainly. However that requires someone to press charges and/or file a tort. I have seen no evidence that Szyszka has chosen to do so.

For that matter, I don't buy the shakedown motivation for the Bryant case either. (I find it highly interesting that it's more acceptable to accuse someone of extortion in regards to celebrity rape cases than to accuse the celebrity of rape.)

It's ridiculous to say that you "know" these people.

It's ridiculous to say that I know friends, lovers and family who were sexually assaulted and declined to file a police report out of a desire to make the entire incident just disappear? Because those are the only people that I claimed to know.

And please tell me, what part of 'I'll leave the possibilities open here."' do you fail to understand in this context? I have not said that Francis is innocent, not-guilty, or guilty. And it's possible that Szyszka is engaged in legal extortion, but I have my doubts. If the article is accurate, she has not filed a police report or tort. She told her dad but swore him to secrecy. She told her mom and a sister a week later. She told Hoffman more than a month after the event, after Hoffman caught an ominous line on the tape, "Great. You won't be (a virgin) after my cameraman gets done with you."

It is my opinion that she's telling the truth as she sees it, because I know other people who engaged in similar caution in telling friends and family.

23skidoo: To consider the financial motivation for people to lie does not imply that all accusations are therefore false.

Well, you don't need just motive, you need opportunity. There are much easier ways to make a buck even in an ideal case.

But this is far from an ideal case. Szyszka waited a week before telling anyone, and then more time before telling someone else. So there is no physical evidence to put her on the scene, and no rape kit that could be used as evidence of actual sexual assault. She admits to being illegally inebriated at the time, which undermines her credibility in front of a jury. She apparently consented to being filmed undressed and masturbating, which also undermines her credibility in front of a jury. Remember that this is a state in which a group of young men were acquitted even though the alleged sexual assault against an inebriated woman was captured on video tape. Add to that the "financial motivation," and you have an unwinable case.

If anything, Szyszka stands to lose quite a bit here by going on the record with Hoffman. There is no way that she can prove rape, to either a criminal or civil standard of evidence. But multimillionare Francis can easily bankrupt her with a defamation suit. (I don't believe that he should be able to *win* said suit assuming that Szyszka is reporting her experiences in good faith, but the process would be necessary and expensive.)

Civil_disobedient: Sure, technical term for a writer.

Writers don't have a reason to care about "qwerty" either. A writer who writes in multiple languages might make the distinction between a "U.S." vs. a "French" layout. But the only people who care about "qwerty" are a few people who use radically different layouts such as Dvorak.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:44 PM on August 5, 2006


As a Canuck, I am utterly perplexed by the Spring Break phenomena in the US. I see The Daily Show clips and realize that Americans — or, at least, Americans in South — are a nation unto themselves. And side-by-side with that special brand of religiousity, too.

Weird.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:49 PM on August 5, 2006


You should really give that a lot more thought. For all practical purposes, you are saying that rich people can't be guilty of rape.

I'm certainly not saying that, I'm just saying that in cases like this it's not true to say that there is no motivation to lie about being raped. Certainly it's possible for a woman to make a false accusation of rape, just as it's possible for a man to rape a woman.


It's ridiculous to say that I know friends, lovers and family who were sexually assaulted and declined to file a police report out of a desire to make the entire incident just disappear? Because those are the only people that I claimed to know.

Hmm, it looks like I misread what you wrote. For some reason I only noticed "I know the people involved" and didn't notice the first sentence where you change the subject to people you knew.

Anyway, I'm a little confused here. I didn't read the article, but Szyszka didn't press charges? She didn't even use the word "rape" to describe what happened and didn't really seem all that upset about what happened. Weird. The only person who is saying the girl was raped was the reporter? Weird.
posted by delmoi at 4:53 PM on August 5, 2006


As a Canuck, I am utterly perplexed by the Spring Break phenomena in the US. I see The Daily Show clips and realize that Americans — or, at least, Americans in South — are a nation unto themselves. And side-by-side with that special brand of religiousity, too.

You mean people from a nation are a nation onto themselves? Spring-breakers come from all over the country, not just the south.
posted by delmoi at 4:54 PM on August 5, 2006


FFF: You really think all the cute white girls partying at Mardi Gras lived in New Orleans?
posted by hototogisu at 5:07 PM on August 5, 2006


Well, that and HCI geeks who use qwerty as a case example of design driven by the wrong motives. In almost all cases keyboards are referred to by nationality, and the number of keys. Rarely by "qwerty."

Hmm, it looks like I misread what you wrote. For some reason I only noticed "I know the people involved" and didn't notice the first sentence where you change the subject to people you knew.

Ok. We're cool on that.

Anyway, I'm a little confused here. I didn't read the article, but Szyszka didn't press charges? She didn't even use the word "rape" to describe what happened and didn't really seem all that upset about what happened. Weird. The only person who is saying the girl was raped was the reporter? Weird.

The reporter never said that she was raped either. What article says is:
1: Video footage of what happened in the trailer includes the line, "Great. You won't be (a virgin) after my cameraman gets done with you."
2: Szyszka when asked about what happened said, "I told him it hurt, and he kept doing it. And I keep telling him it hurts. I said, 'No' twice in the beginning, and during I started saying, 'Oh, my god, it hurts.' I kept telling him it hurt, but he kept going, and he said he was sorry but kissed me so I wouldn't keep talking."
3: Francis "says he doesn't remember Szyszka and that he didn't have sex with anyone that night."
4: "In an e-mail, Burke (Francis' lawyer) says Francis and Szyszka did have sex—consensual sex—and that neither Francis nor anyone affiliated with "Girls Gone Wild" gave her any alcohol."

The only time "rape" is used in the entire article is in direct quotes from Francis. The conclusion as to whether it was sexual assault or not is left to the reader.

Hoffman doesn't even accuse Francis of assault and battery, she only reports the events from her point of view, and collaborating statements from witnesses.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:08 PM on August 5, 2006


delmoi, would you mind reading the article before making judgements about the motives of the alleged victim? It would save us all a lot of time explaining things to you.
posted by schroedinger at 5:14 PM on August 5, 2006


FFF: As a Canuck, I am utterly perplexed by the Spring Break phenomena in the US. I see The Daily Show clips and realize that Americans — or, at least, Americans in South — are a nation unto themselves. And side-by-side with that special brand of religiousity, too.

My goodness! Not all Americans object to sex standing up because it might lead to dancing! What shocking stereotype will be disproven next! (The paradox resolves its self nicely when you realize that the real religiosity of most Americans is worship of commercialism.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:21 PM on August 5, 2006


Or on a less snarky note, the U.S. has some complex and ambivalent attitudes towards recreational sex and alcohol use which Girls Gone Wild manipulates.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:37 PM on August 5, 2006


"As a Canuck, I am utterly perplexed by the Spring Break phenomena in the US. I see The Daily Show clips and realize that Americans — or, at least, Americans in South — are a nation unto themselves. And side-by-side with that special brand of religiousity, too.

Weird."
posted by five fresh fish at 4:49 PM PST on August 5 [+] [!]


Who cares about your pompous Canadian opinions anyway?
When the 2006 Canadian seal hunt ended in June, hunters had killed more than 336,000 seals -- almost all of them babies as young as 12 days old. It is an atrocity. The Humane Society of the United States is sponsoring a boycott of Canadian seafood and I support it. Canada is a feeble, self-righteous excuse for a country.
posted by Michelle_hermosabeach at 6:02 PM on August 5, 2006


Michelle_hermosabeach writes "Pornography is, at its core, the commercialization of women"

Yeah. A gay friend of mine has videotapes of gay men having sex with gay men. His commercialization of women really pissed me off.

Michelle_hermosabeach writes "Who cares about your pompous Canadian opinions anyway?
"When the 2006 Canadian seal hunt ended in June, hunters had killed more than 336,000 seals -- almost all of them babies as young as 12 days old. It is an atrocity. The Humane Society of the United States is sponsoring a boycott of Canadian seafood and I support it. Canada is a feeble, self-righteous excuse for a country."


Ah, whoops, looks like I was responding to a troll.
posted by Bugbread at 6:46 PM on August 5, 2006


Canada is a feeble, self-righteous excuse for a country.

Troll or no troll, I'll bite: take your OMG BABY SEALS bigotry and shove it.

You may find the seal hunt distasteful or even indefensible, but the FACT is that it has been a way of life for the people of Newfoundland & Labrador for generations.

I am SICK TO DEATH of my home province being held up as the poster child for animal cruelty by Greenpeace-fellating idiots.

Fuck Greenpeace, and fuck you.
posted by tantrumthecat at 6:51 PM on August 5, 2006


It is an atrocity.

It didn't go nearly far enough. It is only an atrocity in the eyes of the pig-ignorant.

You are a feeble, self-righteous excuse for whatever you are.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:57 PM on August 5, 2006


The itty bitty cock committee has arrived. You poor guys.
posted by Michelle_hermosabeach at 7:42 PM on August 5, 2006


The itty bitty cock committee has arrived. You poor guys.

That's hot. Take off your top.
posted by tantrumthecat at 7:58 PM on August 5, 2006


The itty bitty cock committee has arrived.

Of course, that explains everything to someone like yourself. Keep telling yourself that.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:06 PM on August 5, 2006


Michelle_hermosabeach writes "Pornography is, at its core, the commercialization of women"

Yeah. A gay friend of mine has videotapes of gay men having sex with gay men. His commercialization of women really pissed me off.


Michelle_hermosabeach, I'd love to see you address this point. In your view, is there ever pornography - of any kind - that *isn't* about the commercialization of women?
posted by mediareport at 8:10 PM on August 5, 2006


I am a staunch supporter of Francis' right to create and market these videos (as long as he does so legally and ethically, which it appears he most certainly has not and I wish more was done about it) but I am disgusted by him and everything he stands for. I have to turn off the commercials when they come on the TV. Just the sound of that nauseating fakey-fake "Carribbean" music is enough to put me off my dinner. I weep for these girls, who actually think that flashing their tits for a couple of T-Shirts while skeevy guys stand around and laugh at them is going to net them any real positive attention.

One of the girls in the article thought that appearing in one of the GGW vids would lead to fame. She's "hot" and wants everyone to notice her and thinks that Francis could help make her famous. It's revolting and sad.

The idea that he wants to take the Girls Gone Wild brand mainstream just floors me. GGW restaurants? So...what. You take the wife and the kids down to the local Girls Gone Wild family feed bag and stuff yourself with mozarella sticks underneath a framed pair of some 17 year old's dirty panties?

Why do these girls line up for this jerk? The fact that so many of them think that it's a perfectly fun and OK thing makes me even sadder.

I'm really not a prude. This isn't about sex or nudity or anything like that. It's the aggressive marketing of this idea that allowing yourself to be manipulated by douchebags is empowering. Yuck.
posted by LeeJay at 8:27 PM on August 5, 2006


The itty bitty cock committee has arrived.

True, but it wasn't like I was trying to satisfy you anyway.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:07 PM on August 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


I thought the concept of expanding the Girls Gone Wild brand was preposterous, but think about Hooters ... a breast-themed restaurant where waitresses shove their breasts in your face and their butt-cheeks peek out of short-shorts, and yet grandmas eat there with their grandchildren now.

Joe Francis embodies the old adage, (I thought it was a PT Barnum saying but it seems to have been Mencken), to the effect that nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
posted by jayder at 9:20 PM on August 5, 2006


LeeJay: So you're saying it's more about this young generation and general moral decay? Because young women flashing their boobs is so very wrong? I know you say you're not a prude, but then quit acting like it in all of your previous words.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:53 PM on August 5, 2006


I think sociologists have referred to it as the "Girls Gone Wild Paradox". While a man has a flaccid (small) penis, he supports Girls Gone Wild. However, as his penis becomes erect (large), he starts to oppose Girls Gone Wild. This results in him becoming flaccid again, returning to the start of the cycle. Release is impossible, resulting in frustration and what is commonly "Guys Gone Double Dipping", where a person buys a Girls Gone Wild video, pops it in the video deck, becomes erect and therefore disgusted with the video, takes the video out and tosses it in the garbage, only to go searching through the trash again after he becomes flaccid.
posted by Bugbread at 10:05 PM on August 5, 2006 [3 favorites]


Leejay: It's the aggressive marketing of this idea that allowing yourself to be manipulated by douchebags is empowering. Yuck

kickstart: So you're saying it's more about this young generation and general moral decay? Because young women flashing their boobs is so very wrong? I know you say you're not a prude, but then quit acting like it in all of your previous words.

Kickstart, it's intriguing to me that you could read what leejay said and then state it back in such a clearly incorrect way, with an apparently straight face.

Or is there something I'm not understanding, here? Do I need more classes in English -- or are you speaking some other language? One where "the aggressive marketing of this idea that allowing yourself to be manipulated by douchebags is empowering" can be translated as "young women flashing their boobs is so very wrong"?

Or is it just that you're a knee-jerk apologist for hedonism for its own sake?*

--
*Get the point, now?

posted by lodurr at 6:08 AM on August 6, 2006


I am a staunch supporter of Francis' right to create and market these videos (as long as he does so legally and ethically ...

Is it possible to talk inebriated young women with limited life experience out of their clothes for entertainment purposes in an ethical manner?
posted by rcade at 6:41 AM on August 6, 2006


Michelle_hermosabeach, I'd love to see you address this point.

Yeah, good luck with that.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:02 AM on August 6, 2006


lodurr: You really have no idea who I am, if you make those accusations (knee jerk apologist for hedonism). In any case, that's how I read it, and unless you want to clearly note where that's wrong, it's what I'll stand by.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:29 AM on August 6, 2006


Francis seems like a likely candidate for a massive drug overdose. Not that the article hints at hard drug use, but that it'd take an unusual sort of fellow to avoid it in that context.

His death would, imo, be an exceedingly small loss to humanity.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 AM on August 6, 2006


Kickstart: Then I guess you didn't get my point, did you? Try again.
posted by lodurr at 11:48 AM on August 6, 2006


posted by Michelle_hermosabeach I mean they had guys jerking off and squirting their seed across the room. I wasn't expecting it to go that far.

You'd be surprised at the distance and amount a stunt dick can ejaculate.

Also, Joe Francis isn't a rapist like O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:09 PM on August 6, 2006


LeeJay: So you're saying it's more about this young generation and general moral decay? Because young women flashing their boobs is so very wrong? I know you say you're not a prude, but then quit acting like it in all of your previous words.

Sorry to get back to you so late but I had to work today.

No, not at all. I don't believe that women flashing their boobs is wrong. Boobs are great! I love mine! I've even been known to flash them on occasion among my nearest and dearest (and drunkest). What bothers me about Girls Gone Wild and the enormous marketing machine behind it is that this isn't really about boobs or fun at all. There's something unseemly and desperate behind it all. These women (or at least some of these women) aren't doing this because it's fun. They're doing it because they're desperate for some attention, any attention, and they've bought into the idea that this is the way to go about it. That flashing their tits for a jerk like Francis is going to make them famous and rich. And Francis and his crew turn around and praise these women for being so free and empowered and "adorable" and then kick them off the bus with a few T-Shirts. These women are not using their bodies to make themselves wealthy and famous and epowered. They're allowing a bunch of frat boys with cameras to get rich off of their desperate attention-whoring.

And this isn't about the moral decay of an entire generation. It's very specifically about Joe Francis and Girls Gone Wild. The issues underneath it all are bigger, of course, but I'm too tired to get into all that.

But whatever. Think me a prude if you must. I'm telling you flat out that it isn't the boobs that make me sad and disgusted. It's the very empty and soulless and desperate business of marketing the boobs.
posted by LeeJay at 8:01 PM on August 6, 2006


MetaFilter: The empty, soulless, and desperate business of marketing boobs.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:25 AM on August 7, 2006


delmoi: He was forced to perform homosexual acts at gunpoint.

How on earth is putting a vibrator up one's own ass a "homosexual act" by any stretch of the imagination? It's autoerotic, not homoerotic. Plenty of straight guys like to take things up the butt. For that matter, lots of guys do their girlfriends up the butt - is that a "homosexual act" too? Or are you saying that because his attacker (who apparently stayed behind the camera) was male, that means it was homosexual? Where on earth did you come up with this?
posted by etoile at 1:28 PM on August 7, 2006


etoile, I don't know what delmoi was thinking, but I know that there are a lot of guys who would consider everything that you list to be "homosexual acts." Including doing their girlfriends up the butt.
posted by lodurr at 1:49 PM on August 7, 2006


« Older Big Things in America   |   You'll be the first grey MC! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post