July 29, 2010
-
Girls Gone Wild and Consent
A woman sued the producers of “Girls Gone Wild” after her top was pulled off and it was caught on tape. (I originally found this issue on this site: Link).
The woman was asked to show her boobs and she said, “No.” But then another person pulled off her top and it was caught on tape. It then showed up in a Girls Gone Wild video.
So she sued the producers of Girls Gone Wild. The defense claimed that she “silently approved by taking part in the party.”
The jury found that the woman gave “implied consent” because she was at the bar and was “really playing to the camera.” But video footage has her saying, “No” to showing her boobs. Here is the link: Link
Is being present at a Girls Gone Wild party “implied consent” to having your top pulled off and showing up in a video?
Comments (81)
I am not sure about any of that.
No, and it sounds kind of shady. I wonder if she said “no” on camera on purpose….hmmm. Plans to sue all along?
I’d say it’s implied consent to have your face on the camera, but if she clearly said no to pulling up her shirt, then “NO means NO!” to the boobies showing. I think she has a case. I also think she could sue whoever pulled off her top for sexual harassment.
@LauraG0929 - Oooh, that’d be stinky.
She could be there to have fun, but not necessarily show her boobs. Maybe she just drew the line at a different place then a lot of the other girls there.
But now that she made a big deal about things, a lot more people will see her boobs than they would have. Kind of like that story you posted about the guy who was made fun of for having a small penis, except less embarrassing, haha.
Ehh…I wouldn’t be at that sort of party (even though I’m far from the Catholic school girl) just because I have no desire to be in that situation. But if she said, “No.” doesn’t that still mean, “No.”?? If I show up at a porn shoot and hang out with a friend for a while, is that open permission for someone to rape me?
@joyouswind - I second this.
Unless she signed something or there were giant signs outside, there isn’t “implied consent” for anything but maybe her face in the videos. It wouldn’t have been *that* hard for them to avoid using clips of her, particularly if she blatantly said “no” to having her shirt taken off.
Implied consent after she said no? That is extremely stupid.
That’s a question for the lawyers, but I saw playing with fire…
Actually, I change my mind. A person’s limits ought to be respected, even if they’re being flirty. Just like a rape victim is never “asking for it,” no matter what she is wearing or doing. Sex is all about what lines you will personally cross…and no one should ever cross a line for you. Not to mention how awful, sleazy, and generally untrustworthy the Girls Gone Wild guys are. I’ll side on the girl’s side over them anytime, even if she’s the dumbest slut imaginable.
That being said, the woman in question probably should have exercised some more prudence.
Heck no…no means no, no matter where she is when she says it.
ridiculous. there are a reason consent laws exist! what a stupid jury!
Yes, maybe it was a bad idea to go to the party- but that isn’t consent. A bad idea is not consent.
It is a bad idea for a woman to walk alone at night, but this does not imply she wants to be raped. It’s not consent to anything other than walking by herself.
There’s nothing illegal about going to a party regardless of our personal thoughts about it. Our personal thoughts do not determine consent laws. And in all reality it could have been like
Friend 1: “Hey let’s go to this girls gone wild party, clarissa! I really want to go! C’mon you’ve been mopey all day let’s go.”
Friend 2, this girl: “I don’t know… i don’t want my boobs to be on camera.”
Friend 1: “No worries they have to ask your permission for that! Besides, I need a buddy to go with to be safe.”
Friend 2: “Well, okay.”
yknow?
People don’t understand no, ugh.
It’s like saying a girl implied consent to sex if she dresses sexy, even if she says no.
her lawyer failed. here comes an appeal.
that Girls Gone Wild guy is tough. he doesn’t usually lose.
Using that logic, then if a girl were to go to a boyfriend’s house and he ended up raping her, even though she said no, she can’t be blamed because she gave an “implied consent” by going to his house? No. That’s not cool. She should fight that. No is no is no. She could have been there to get a few free drinks and party it up. Maybe her friends were there and she didn’t want to lose sight of them. You can’t say that just because she was there, she “implied consent.” In fact, they aren’t allowed to show people who haven’t signed release forms, aren’t they? How could a judge rule AGAINST her in this case?.
Girls Gone Wild? But…..it’s not even October yet. Would have thought you used this one at the end of September as a segue way for all the boob lovin.
@CallMeQuell - A rape victim can never be asking for it but a mugging victim can be? Personal responsibility has a way of going right out of the window if and only if rape is being discussed. A gang member gets shot. He was asking for it. A person takes off their seat belt on a rollercoaster and flies off to their horrific death. They were asking for it. A person gets into a car with their inebriated friend behind the wheel. They collide head on with an 18 wheeler results in an explosion that sends blood and entrails onto every tree branch and bush leaf. They were asking for it. A girl has too much to drink at a party where she doesn’t have responsible friends to ensure that nothing happens to her and gets raped. Well, shit.
No means no, but then again, I don’t give a crap about these hos. They’re already slutty by even participating in Girls Gone Wild. I hope she does not win her case.
Girls Gone Modest and then Stripped For Profit
@CallMeQuell - Agree completely. If she says “no” AND it’s caught on camera, that should be her final decision and should overrule any sort of circumstances. This type of thing sets a VERY dangerous precedent (e.g. an activist group performs a terrorist act and a member of that group chooses not to participate but he’s “part of the group” so his personal intentions/decisions don’t matter).
@LauraG0929 - now that is a thought.
Slut.
No, it is not. Being at the party did not give others license to do whatever they want.
I wonder if the lawyer’s going to try to argue that when a woman says “No”, she really means “Yes”… That could turn seriously ugly.
@filtered_sunlight@momaroo - she was at a girl gone wild party….
No means no.
@phoenixdragon576 - No mean “Yes, I really really want you too, but not right now.” That was declared official one day while eating lunch with a few friends. Haha
On a more serious note, I say since she was asked, and declined, she has every right to sue. Especially if it was caught on tape. Id they have any respect for this girl, then they’re gonna let her win. =|
either way she said no and he still put up the footage of her topless, he put himself in that situation, rather than avoid it and delete probably some small 5-10 min or even less footage of a girl topless.
She could have been ‘Wild’ drinking and going crazy but since she verbally said ‘No’ then its a no!!!
If she had said nothing, then that would be debateable. But she said no.
@splinter1591 - Yes. I got that. What part of my comment did you not understand this time? LOL
No. No, no, no.
Think about rape. You feel the girl up, you guys start fooling around, you THINK you’re gonna get lucky… but she says “no.” That doesn’t mean you go ahead and do whatever the hell you want with her. The woman deserves every penny she gets from suing the production.
All I can say is that it’s a fucking sad day for the legal system.
If the defense is going to convince the jury that being at a party and “playing to the camera” constitutes “silently implied consent”, then I can see a whole lot of shady dudes pleading this “silent consent” in cases of sexual harrassment and abuse because the chick was kissing/flirting/dancing suggestively/accepted a drink/”knew what she was doing”. Sad.
No.
No.
I think that if she was moronic enough to attend a girls gone wild party, she should accept the consquences of her attendance.
Not at all.
Well that’s messed up. She should be sueing the person that lifted her shirt up. That’s just wrong.
where’s the link to the video?
Even if she was at the party and being flirty (which is still questionable judgment on her part), “No” still means NO!
No means yes!
Verbal non-consent trumps implied consent. And whoever pulled off her top committed assault.
bullshit.
I believe she has the right to sue the producers, but I also believe that she should have had the perp who pulled off her top arrested and charged with assault and battery.
I say that’s fucked up… even unconstitutional.
@filtered_sunlight@momaroo - well, who doesn’t know what happens at a girl gone wild party. And who makes a point to dance for the camera at a girl gone wild party when they don’t want to be fillmed?
she kinda made REALLY bad choices
@MidwesternShenanigansIN - yup
if that ever happened to one of my daughters id tell them the same thing
don’t dance for the girls-gone-wild cameradont flirt with the girls gone wild caemeradont act sugestive infron of the girls gone wild camera
and u wont end up in it. the end
A lot of people here say that they hope she doesn’t win and that its her own loss but.. What if it was them in that position? I wouldn’t go to get naked but I would go to see how crazy they are IF I went at all. But If someone ripped my shirt off, I’d ripppp their balls or if a girl..their titties off!
If no means no when talking about sex, when asked “do you want fries with that”, and when answering “will you marry me?” why does the meaning of “no” change when talking about whether or not you want your goodies shown in a dirty video?
@MidwesternShenanigansIN - @splinter1591 - So, you are saying that she deserved to have her top pulled down because she was there? Despite the fact that, when asked, she said No? I don’t see how that’s much different than blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt or being in a dark alley. No means no. Period. End of story.
To answer the question… ABSOLUTELY NOT. No means no. Anyone who doesn’t understand that concept is a moron, if you ask me. Grow some brain cells, seriously. You’d be doing yourself a favor.
That’s like saying it’s implied consent that a girl will have sex with you if she’s drinking at a party and flirting. In other words complete BS. There is no implied consent when a person says “no”. No matter what they may have implied before that point.
@Brilliant_Innocence - oooh some flaming going on…. but she was dancing for the girls gone wild camera, and was friends with the kind of people who would pull down her top infront of said camera
shes suing for being inthe video for 4 times more then the video ever made
im sure the doesnt expect to win
Absolutely not.
She said “No” and it was filmed. Enough said.
Obviously GGW has better lawyers than the girl. It’s a form of sexual assault if she didn’t want that done to her. It’s not her fault they misread the nonverbal messages.
No, not at all.
@splinter1591 - It doesn’t matter where she was or who she was with. If the word “no” is uttered from her mouth, it means freaking no. It’s sad that the idiot, who pulled her top down, can’t even comprehend what the word “no” means. For pete sake. They had no right putting that in the video. I don’t care if she was simply at the party, she said no to her showing her chest and some dumb idiot forced the issue. That’s not right on any level, nor is blaming her for it.
@Brilliant_Innocence - Im pretty sure she was suing for being in the video
she danced infornt of the camera, I say she get her big girl pants on and deal with it.
she could sue for assult, but she didn’t. She sued for being in a video she danced infront of the camera for
No!
Sluts aren’t people.
’nuff said.
Geez they never ask me to take off my shirt and show my boobs:)
@CallMeQuell - wow, way to pick a side – your response basically says not sure, well probably no, but kinda yes.
@LauraG0929 - only in America
@filtered_sunlight@momaroo - awful analogy
@Momo_Wakahisa - see above comment about bad analogy
@petrocan - Way to win friends and influence people.
No. Although, she shouldn’t have been there in the first place if she wasn’t intending to show her breasts.
@LauraG0929 - i’d like grannyinboxers to take off her shirt. does that count for making friends?
for once, i’d like to see a coherent argument for or against something.
saying this is situation is akin to rape is just silly. somebody please put forth a better argument on why being present at this party was implied consent (or not)
@petrocan - Probably, but I think it still conveys a point… What if I went to any party where people were hooking up? If I say, “No, thanks.” when someone tries to pick me up, I still expect them to respect that. Not rip my shirt off and video tape it for everyone to see or the like.
@filtered_sunlight@momaroo - still not buying the analogy. i get where you’re going with it, but i don’t think it’s strong enough on it’s own merit. not looking to pick a fight and in the end, i agree that the ruling was not right — i just wanted someone to make a sound argument that could back up my gut feeling as to why it was wrong for them to use the tape without her permission.
Growing up, my grandmother said you’ll be judged by the company you keep. If you hang around in a place or with people who are doing these things, you’re asking for it.
It’s like going to a Fred Phelps rally and getting upset when people call you a bigot.
@petrocan - Okay, it sucks. *shrug* At least I tried rather than waiting for someone else to do it for me…? She said, “No.”…really, that, on it’s own, should be proof enough that it wasn’t right for them to do that to her.
she said no.
@MangoWOW - Exactly. This is BS in my opinion, no means no. Period. There is no such thing as ‘implied consent’.
Girls Gone Wild went to a club that I partied at one night and of course, throughout the night I was wary that cameras might have been recording because… Well? It’s Girls Gone Wild.
Yup.
The question of implied consent is not even a consideration where she has clearly and vocally expressed her intention not to consent.
The jury must have had a collective delusion. =S
No means no. There is no such thing as implied consent, as that is basically stating that a person can just do whatever they want to you if they THINK you wanted it. That’s bullshit and gives lawyers a bad name. What if they raped that girl? Would they really argue that a woman gives implied consent to being raped for being at a party? That is bullshit. The definition of consent is: accept: give an affirmative reply to; respond favorably to if you do not explicitly say, “sure I want this” “yeah lets go for it” then you did not give consent. It doesn’t matter what kind of party you were at, I don’t care if she was at a Girls Gone Wild Party, a tea party with a bunch of old ladies, or a porn industry party – if you say no…or don’t say yes then no consent has been given!
@mrcolorful - basically everything i want to say (yell) about this summed up in a short statement. thank you.
Um… No means no! Why don’t some people understand that!? That poor girl! You really have to worry about our justice system sometimes!
No.
Shouldn’t they have made her sign a waiver in the first place, if they used her footage, or, boobage? How did she not know that she was in the video after six years? That’s the real question.
haha and people look at me like I am nuts when I talk about rape culture. NO she did not give implied consent. Enthusiastic consent is the only real, ethical consent.
uhmmmmm how can you say there was implied consent when there is footage of her refusing to consent? i think if you’re going to even try to say that someone implied consent to something, it should really be in a case where the person had not specifically REFUSED TO CONSENT. i mean, really.
Buy Generic Viagra online
Online pharmacy no prescription
Online pharmacy sites
Buy Anti Allergy pills
Buy Anti Depressant pills