I am absolutely furious at the ruling in a St. Louis courtroom regarding a Girls Gone Wild tape. A woman sued GGW after being featured on one of their tapes. However, she didn’t willingly flash the camera. She was dancing on a bar and someone pulled down her shirt, exposing her breasts. The jury ruled against her. After the trial, the jury foreman explained why.
Patrick O’Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming – though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying “no, no” when asked to show her breasts.
What the fucking fuck? Every member of the jury just slut-shamed and victim-blamed this woman? Every one? Where the fuck is the implicit consent at all? Does the word “no” mean nothing? Does the lack of consent form mean nothing? Does the fact that she did not willingly show her breasts, but instead was assaulted mean nothing? Not only was she assaulted, but she was assaulted ON TAPE. Apparently, according to these jurors, that’s exactly what all that means: nothing. The fact that she was dancing on a bar meant that she clearly must have been willing to flash a GGW video camera and allow someone to pull her top off. Unfortunately, I know they’re not the only people that feel this way.
You have to be fucking kidding me. I actually feel sick.
I'm Britni, a snarky bitch and generally awesome person. I write about sex, love, and bullshit. If sex-positivity, discussions about BDSM and kink, queer issues, and topics that are completely inappropriate by society's standards make you uncomfortable, then this blog is not for you.
Good Vibes 
7 Comments
“Does the word “no” mean nothing?”
I’d say that’s exactly it.
And it’s beyond claiming the woman “really wants” something to which she did not consent. To have this mindset, you have to think that women have no sexual agency at all. That we are all just objects, to be used however men please. That sexual assault against a woman is literally impossible, just as it would be impossible to sexually assault a blow-up doll.
Holy crap. That’s insane.
Wow. This infuriates me. What the fuck?
Ridiculous. I hate how a jury can just choose to “change” the definition of the word consent in order to say that the law was not being broken, when in fact by the letter of the law and the actual definition of consent the law was clearly and blatantly being broken. The jury’s job should be deciding whether it happened, not whether they think it should be legal. Not only am I upset that the CAN do that, I’m upset that they DID do that, as I am anytime a jury reaches a victim-blaming verdict. What the hell? What decent person would come up with a verdict like that? Yanking someone’s shirt down against their will doesn’t suddenly stop being assault (and illegal) when you cross the threshold of a bar.
WHAT. THE FUCK.
That is absolutely reprehensible, abominable, and fucking infuriating.
WTF! How far up their own arsehole are these guys? This jury should be arraigned for assault themselves; at the very least for being an accessory after the fact. I’m speechless!
God Bless Missouri, eh? I’m glad I got out of there.
I do not honestly understand why GGW continues to get away with this sort of behavior. If student filmmakers at my college have to fill out all sorts of paperwork, and get actor’s signatures on media releases, then why do these douchecaneoes get away with filming an assault? Bullshit.
One Trackback
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Britni TheVadgeWig, Hedone. Hedone said: RT @britisshameless The Act of Just Being in a Bar Means You Automatically Consent to Everything! http://bit.ly/aJOE6P [...]