Food for Thought - Implied "Consent"

In a post today, friend of the blog "The Annoyed Feminist" mentioned an article on Jezebel. The article talks about a recent St. Louis court case that found the victim of a sexual assault in a Girls Gone Wild video didn't need to give consent (or somehow had actually given it) for her breasts to be distributed in videos nationwide.

"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."

(Jezebel)

I wouldn't be surprised if we end up hearing about this again. I certainly hope the victim (known only as "Jane Doe") will appeal the St. Louis court's decision.

This is exactly the sort of thing that has influenced my decision to pursue a law degree after I get my bachelor's. I want to work pro-bono and help people like "Jane" get the justice they deserve. If women can have their tops ripped off and their breasts filmed against their will, the sick logic of the jury implies that if any of those girls had been raped, their "consent" would have been "implied" by being involved in the filming.

There is certainly a fine line between an "entertainment" company and a company of sexual predators. This is not to say that the people at Girls Gone Wild all seek out women to assault. There are plenty of women (drunk and sober) who are more than willing to expose themselves for the camera. However, that just brings about the question of why the camera person at this shoot felt the need to remove this woman's top, when they were at a party full of dancing girls... It doesn't make sense.

Think about it.
Nostalgically Yours

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jury Decides Consent Is Not Required For Girls Gone Wild [Law And Order] (jezebel.com)

Eat Less

It seems a new Urban Outfitters [UO] t-shirt has the entire fashion community in a tither. In an article on her blog, Sophia Bush (star of the CW's One Tree Hill) has vowed to boycott UO and has demanded an apology and a recall of the controversial t-shirt. You see a picture of the actual thing on her blog. Above you can see my take on it.

I do agree with Ms. Bush. The idea it conveys, though hopefully ironic, can have impact with the impressionable teens UO caters to.

Do I think that UO has the right under the first amendment to distribute these t-shirts? Yes. Do I think that the people at UO meant it ironically? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea to market "ironic" t-shirts like these to impressionable teens who already have enough body image issues? No.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a firm believer in the fact that it is possible to find humor in any (and I literally mean any) situation. This is probably why I appreciate comedians such as Kathy Griffin or Joan Rivers. However, when dealing with humor, you have to tailor it to be effective towards your audience. Instead of using the words "eat less", which could be interpreted as promoting unsafe weight-loss practices, UO should have used a t-shirt with a more clearly satiric message.

UO messed up, and they will undoubtedly pay for it, but they are, after all, a company, and companies have to answer directly to their customers. UO has the right to put out these t-shirts, but if they don't want to lose the business of "One Tree Hill" fans, then they'll have to stop selling them. Effectively, it's democracy at work... Certainly more directly effective than with our government.


Nostalgically Yours

The Case for New Orleans

Those of you who read my blog know that I was in New Orleans last week checking out my family's new home down there. It was truly heartwarming to see the Crescent City still pretty much unaffected by BP's criminal oversights in the Gulf, and to see residents banding together in unified hatred:

T-shirt Captions, clockwise from top: "FUBP", "Plug the Oil Leak with BP Execs!", "I Want my Life Back" (under a sad, oil-covered pelican)

I still believe what BP did is criminal, and I'm glad people like Susan Spicer are standing up for themselves. This situation is really a case of big business against the regular joe. Think of it this way: had I personally gone to the Deepwater Horizon drill and made an irreparable hole in the piping, I would be the most hated man in America. I would have been sentenced to a lifetime in prison, maybe even extradited to Texas so they could gas me. However, since it was a corporation, blame is tossed around like a hot potato and no one suffers but the victims of BP's criminal negligence. Yes, some (like me) will boycott BP, but mark my words: they will survive to somehow profit from the worst coporation-caused Ecological disaster in our country's history.

"How could they possibly make money off of us now?" you may ask. Simple: the new safety legislation that will hopefully soon be put into place will mean a whole lot of expense in a very short amount of time. Guess who's going to be footing that bill? Tony Hayward? Nope, his yacht is wind-powered. Americans will pay the brunt of the oil companies' oversight in gas prices, which are only staying low right now to avoid any more trouble.

The worst part is that all of this was completely avoidable. Most every major conflict and human-based disaster is, but we simply don't learn. Time after time as a civilization we make the same mistakes, then wonder how we possibly end up in the same bad situations again.

1928: Laissez-Faire is the policy for our economy!
1929: Those damn commies ruined the economy!!!

2001: Laissez-Faire is still the policy for us!!!
2010: What did this hippie/nazi/commie Obama get us into!?!?

Are we really so short-cited?

Nostalgically Yours