Should Girls Gone Wild get older?

In the Wall Street Journal, Garance Franke-Ruta proposes raising the age of consent for making pornography from 18 to 21. Her suggestions have not been particularly well-received by other progressive bloggers — Atrios writes that her argument denies agency to women, and Jon Swift suggests raising the minimum age to 65.

I’m also troubled by Garance’s argument. I hate Joe Francis and “Girls Gone Wild;” I’m also not a huge fan of the porn industry in general. I do think that porn is bad for women — for the women who participate in it, but even moreso for women everywhere, who have their identities shaped by porn. The vast majority of porn is misogynist and abusive, and sexualizes the humiliation and degradation of women. I don’t think that pictures of naked people or of people having sex is inherently bad or degrading; however, within our particular social context, porn operates in an incredibly poisonous way towards women as a class. I don’t like porn. I don’t think porn is feminist or empowering. I think porn is bad for women.

But I understand the fact that lots of people — men and women — do like porn. Lots of people like it even if they’re troubled by its broader social implications. And lots of people participate in it, either for money or for some other form of gratification (positive social attention, sexual gratification, whatever). I think we can talk about porn, include soft-core boobie-flashing like Girls Gone Wild, without shaming the people who participate in it and those who consume it. So my disclaimer: When I say that I dislike porn and that I think porn is exceptionally bad for women, that isn’t me saying that women who participate in the making of pornography are bad people who are hurting the feminist cause. It isn’t me saying that people who watch or look at pornography are horrible misogynists. It isn’t me attacking you for what you do in your personal life. There are lots of things that I think are really bad for women (beauty culture, for example) that I also engage in. We’re all doing the best we can within a pretty shitty system. So, to preempt any defensiveness, when I talk about my dislike of porn, I’m not talking about my dislike of you. I’m also not anti-nudity. I wish bared breasts weren’t such a big deal — then Girls Gone Wild probably wouldn’t exist. But pornography is not the way to promote the loosening of public nudity laws. Those laws are in place precisely because certain body parts are considered sexual and therefore must be kept under wraps. Porn re-emphasizes that point, it doesn’t undermine it.

But back to Garance. I do think she has a point that a 21-year-old is significantly more mature than an 18-year-old. But the fact remains that for most purposes, 18 is the point of legal adulthood. Yes, 21 is the drinking age (which I think is ridiculous, as an aside) and we have minimum ages for holding political office, but for the most part, 18 is it. I think it’s certainly debatable whether 18 is an appropriate age for things like military service and voting rights, but given that 18 is the general age of legal adulthood, it seems a little paternalistic to me to require that women be 21 before they can flash their boobs to a camera.

I also don’t think that laws can solve all of our social problems. They can do quite a lot to move things forward, especially when they give people greater rights, but the problem here isn’t that the “girls” on Girls Gone Wild are 18 — the problem is that they’re exploited by men like Joe Francis. Raising the age limit for porn is not going to do anything to address the actual problems with pornography.

As Ezra points out, there are ways to combat that exploitation without focusing on the age issue. He suggests implementing some sort of informed consent standard, so that if an 18-year-old wants to be in a GGW video, she can be — she just has to consent to it when she’s sober and not being pressured in the heat of the moment. Someone elsewhere suggested some sort of 24 or 48-hour consent window — anyone who participates in the making of pornography (male or female) would have to sign a consent form 48 hours before or after filming, in addition to the release that they sign at the time of filming. I don’t see anything problematic about requiring that consent be given while sober and without pressure, either by having what Ezra describes as a “no recruiting for same-day porn videos at bars” rule, or a waiting period for consent. Several states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Many states require some sort of waiting period for a birth mother to consent to adoption (generally three days, but as long as 15).

The idea of a “waiting period” raises red flags for me primarily because I associate it with abortion — but a waiting period for a medical procedure, which places substantial burden on individuals, is a little different from a pornographic image waiting period. Waiting periods, as far as I can tell, serve two purposes: (1) to guard against spur-of-the-moment decisions which may have extremely negative consequences if binding, and (2) to allow people time to think about a decision when the circumstances surrounding that decision change. Waiting periods for a valid marriage license make sense to me — they still let you get married, don’t impose a huge burden, but put guards in place against people who want to get married because they’re drunk and/or stupid. Waiting periods for adoption allow a birth mother to reexamine her situation when the circumstances of that situation change — i.e., when she gives birth and is faced with the reality of handing over her real live baby to another person/s. Abortion doesn’t fall into either of those two categories — people don’t get wasted and decide to abort for fun; nor are abortion waiting periods contingent on some sort of situational change. A waiting period for consent to have your image used or captured for pornographic purposes seems to fall under the first model of waiting periods — to recognize that the decision is a significant one, and should be made with a clear mind and without situational pressure. So it makes more sense to me than simply upping the age of consent, when 18 is already widely established as the age of adulthood for practically everything.

The waiting period idea is just one way to deal with the issue of informed consent — to make sure that a person isn’t impaired when they’re signing away rights to these images. Garance responds to Ezra’s suggestion by writing:

As for Ezra Klein’s suggestion that we lower the drinking age to 18 and create a category of “impaired consent” under which no one could legally participate in anything, I really don’t think we want to go there.

Except Ezra isn’t suggesting that we can’t legally participate in anything. Plus we already do go there — lots of states have impaired consent laws for sex. You cannot legally have sex with a person who is incapable of giving consent, whether that incapability is because of age or mental impairment (permanent, as in a person with a severe mental disability, or temporary, like extreme inebriation). Where to draw the line differs from place to place, but the fact is that the law already curtails certain activities based on an inability to fully consent.

None of these laws are going to do much to change the culture we live in, where women’s bodies are routinely used as commodities and are physical representations of sex itself. But they could make life a little better for the individual women who make a decision while drunk or under pressure that could very well follow them for the rest of their lives (just look at the reactions to the Brooklyn Law student who made a naughty video). I think women deserve the right to consent to something like that when they’re sober and not under significant social pressure.

Of course, it would also help if we quit stigmatizing women who do flash their boobs at a camera or make a sex tape. I’m not sure how lifting up your shirt at Mardi Gras makes you unfit for a professional career, or means that you’re an idiot or that you shouldn’t be taken seriously. The argument seems to be that it reveals “poor decision-making” — but it’s only a poor decision because the activity is so stigmatized for, as far as I can tell, no good reason. And note that the men who are buying the videos, making money off of them, and screaming at the women to get naked aren’t considered poor decision-makers or people unfit for certain professions.

Long story short: Pornography is an extremely complicated feminist issue. Laws can help to a point, but they’re pretty limited in what they can do to improve the over-all situation. I’m not sure that if we decide we want to deal with this through the legal system — which I’m not even convinced is the best route — that jacking up the age of consent is the way to go.

I am happy that Joe Francis is in jail though. And that he’s being taunted by his cell-mate.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Business, Entertainment, Gender, Sex and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Should Girls Gone Wild get older?

  1. Melissa M. says:

    I agree with your analysis of the situtation and I think that sobriety requirements on making porn should be required. People are more likely to engage in risky behavior including unsafe sex when drunk. If porn producers had to prove that their stars were sober when they agreed to star in a porn movie and were sober while shooting it, the most explotive porn operations that travel from city to city and don’t maintain a relationship with the women (and men) who star in their movies would have a harder time existing.

  2. The waiting period strikes me as closer to the one in place for sterilization, which is one that is there to undermine coercion and not to promote it. Having heard from WOC feminists about the need for waiting periods for sterilization—precisely so doctors can’t ask you to sign a consent form to be sterilized while you’re drugged up in the hospital—I see that as fair, and can see extending that model to porn.

  3. Purtek says:

    Damn, Jill, you’re rapidly becoming my very favourite feminist writer on the net. This is so ridiculously well thought-out and covers a really big range of relevant issues and possible objections. I agree that a shift in the age requirement doesn’t really solve the problem inherent in something like GGW, because, in addition to the sobriety issue being far more important, the maturity level of 18-year-olds vs. that of 21-year-olds is really something that has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, meaning we can’t uniformly say that 18 year olds don’t have an understanding of the implications of their decisions, while 21 year olds uniformly do. Imposing a different, even more arbitrary, age-based line doesn’t address the concern at its base, while an “informed consent” waiting period helps a lot more.

    Unfortunately, I’d be worried that the crowd of people who invoke the myth of the rape victim who changed her mind in retrospect, especially if she had been drinking, will bring that same crap to bear against the proposal of a waiting period for consent. While I think they’re categorically wrong in both circumstances, I’m not entirely sure how I’d argue against the equation of the two ideas, because I’m neither as smart nor as patient as Jill.

  4. Earl says:

    In Wisconsin, financial contracts have a 72 hour change your mind for free clause. It seems reasonable to do the same thing for pornography. Though given how much if it is, or could be, filmed outside of the USA, I dunno how much this will change.

    earl

  5. zuzu says:

    The waiting period strikes me as closer to the one in place for sterilization, which is one that is there to undermine coercion and not to promote it. Having heard from WOC feminists about the need for waiting periods for sterilization—precisely so doctors can’t ask you to sign a consent form to be sterilized while you’re drugged up in the hospital—I see that as fair, and can see extending that model to porn.

    Having been on the other end of that equation — as a white woman who had a hell of a time finding a doctor who’d perform the procedure even in bluest New York, and then have to wait an additional month by statute, all the while having my doctor try to talk me out of it — it has been somewhat of a revelation to me to read the stories of WOC (and disabled women) who’ve been pressured *into* it rather than *out of* it. Choice, if it’s meaningful, has to encompass *all* choices.

    But I don’t think that waiting periods for porn participation really falls under the same standard. Certainly, I think there’s room for requiring at least union scale for compensation — even extras get paid more than a cap or T-shirt. And given the fact that Francis collects contracts and releases from women under the influence, a sobering-up period is a good idea (professional porn performers under contract really wouldn’t have to worry about this, since their terms of employment are spelled out. But contracts can be voided if they were signed while impaired, and given the nature of the GGW recruiting, waiting periods might reel them in.

  6. mythago says:

    “Waiting periods” for sterilization were implemented because women were signing ‘consent forms’ they didn’t understand (e.g., not in their native language), or simply weren’t asked for consent in the first place. They’re about the only example of a “waiting period” that isn’t meant to treat the woman as a moral idiot who should be dissuaded.

    A sobriety requirement is far better than a waiting period. It’s not that hard to get around a waiting period–GGW takes videos of drunk girl and gets invalid consent form with contact info, waits 24-48 hours, then contacts girl (possibly when she is, again, drunk) and gives her a line of BS about how she’s a Special Star and they want to pay her more money for further filming. She agrees, they get a consent form that applies only to the first video and toss the second one.

  7. zuzu says:

    A sobriety requirement is far better than a waiting period.

    Probably true, but how would that be enforced? Monitors on the GGW bus?

  8. ACS says:

    Probably true, but how would that be enforced?

    It strikes me that Girls Gone Wild is in the business of providing videotaped documentation of women’s insobriety. Why not use that?

    — ACs

  9. mythago says:

    Put the burden on GGW to prove that that the model was sober, or at least they reasonably believed she was. It should be a laugh to see their lawyers argue that one. “Yes, it’s true that this was at a Margaritas by the Meter party, and Ms. Doe has a shot glass in her hand in that video, but we had no reason to think she was intoxicated! None at all!”

    Also, create a presumption that an underage drinker is, for purposes of a model release, automatically considered “intoxicated”. In other words, GGW can’t argue “She had a drink but wasn’t drunk” unless the woman was 21 or older. And they aren’t going to get quite as many people wanting to be filmed if everyone is sober.

  10. Maureen says:

    How much does a Breathalyzer cost?

  11. Theodora says:

    mythago Says: They’re about the only example of a “waiting period” that isn’t meant to treat the woman as a moral idiot who should be dissuaded.

    The fact that the sterilazation waiting period for a man is 24 hours and for a woman is 30 days suggests to me that the waiting period is indeed meant to treat women as a moral idiot, relative to men.

  12. Jennifer says:

    I like the idea of the 24 hour consent form, if it is signed in an office with a girl who appears to be sober enough to sign a contract. It would probably be a nail in the coffin of GGW, though, because I imagine far fewer girls (though certainly still some) would like to be on those videos if they had time to think it over, and if they realized how much money is being made from their breasts.

    I think the form would be a pain for the legit, professional porn companies, but from what I have read, the people in the “industry” out in CA have all sorts of forms and contracts and STD testing and everything, so it probably wouldn’t be a big deal. They also have sobriety requirements, from what I understand, same as any job. Of course, because of all the requirements (as well as because the government is going after legal porn instead of just the kiddie porn, as previous administrations have done) I have heard that a lot of the idustry is getting moved abroad.

    I really hate the idea of raising the age limit, because hell, let’s raise it on joining the army, or getting married, or anything else that could affect your future. I don’t see those age limits getting raised any time soon (of course, marriage and joining the army are things good American boys do, so of course they can do that as young as they want).

  13. tigtog says:

    given how much if it is, or could be, filmed outside of the USA, I dunno how much this will change.

    But in most countries outside the US, how well would the GGW scenario work?

    In Australia, there are bare breasts all around on any ocean beach. It’s a while since I lived in a country town, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are bare breasts on the riverbanks of most large inland towns as well.

    Our legal drinking age is 18, and most kids start surreptitious drinking a few years before that, and have embarrassed themselves enough to have some “no way!” defences by age 18. We do have notoriously decadent “schoolies” parties for people who’ve just finished high school (most are 18 when they finish here). There’s lots of drinking and lots of hooking up, but I’ve never heard of a culture of boobflashing at schoolies events. (Other Aussies may well turn up to disabuse me of this notion)

    I don’t believe the GGW tapes are big sellers in Oz because hey, it’s just tits. Other American big-money porn sells well enough, but not just boobflashing jollies.

  14. mythago says:

    tigtog, the attraction of the GGW videos is not about nudity; it’s about the “gone wild” part, i.e. that ordinary, non-professional women are getting talked into showing off their bodies and doing things like necking with their girlfriends. It’s peddling the fantasy that if that you could get a couple of beers into that hot chick in your English Lit class, she’d totally show you her tits.

  15. mythago says:

    whoops, double post. Theodora, again, sterilization in many countries, including the US, has a long and ugly history of ‘undesirables’ being sterilized without their consent or, in many cases, without their knowledge. Naturally, this was done primarily to women. 30 days (which I’m not sure is the law in all states) is less about the woman seeking the operation, and more about preventing unethical doctors from making racist and classist decisions about who gets to have babies.

  16. zuzu says:

    tigtog, the attraction of the GGW videos is not about nudity; it’s about the “gone wild” part, i.e. that ordinary, non-professional women are getting talked into showing off their bodies and doing things like necking with their girlfriends. It’s peddling the fantasy that if that you could get a couple of beers into that hot chick in your English Lit class, she’d totally show you her tits.

    True. Remember that LA Times article on Francis? He complained that the girls weren’t all innocent anymore, that they knew what was going on and were doing some calculating themselves. His little fantasy that this was the girl next door was all ruined.

  17. Vanessa says:

    Our legal drinking age is 18, and most kids start surreptitious drinking a few years before that, and have embarrassed themselves enough to have some “no way!” defences by age 18.

    Maybe mildy off-topic, but in my experience instead of drinking, in high school we all smoked weed. Because, no one was going to card you before you bought pot, so age limits weren’t a problem.

    So I think a lot of high school kids in the US have experience with intoxication, just not maybe with alcohol.

  18. Hugo says:

    As with so many other things, I think the way to fight GGW and the rest of it is through a focus on reducing demand, rather than stigmatizing the “product” (though it can be satisfying to go after the producers like Francis).

    Men can help by holding other men accountable. Women can help by reacting with suitable wrath when they discover the “Barely Legal” and Girls Gone Wild DVD in their boyfriend’s stash. Saying “oh, it doesn’t bother me, it’s just what guys do” compounds and exacerbates the problem. No, women are not responsible for changing men, but sometimes, women enable the abuse of other women, and that’s unacceptable.

  19. kate says:

    The concept of some sort of regulation over the porn industry via waiting periods or requirements for sobriety prior to signing consent smack to me of idealizing the porn industry a bit too much.

    Most women who participate in the sex industry have a skewed idea of what ‘consent’ is and most men whether viewing or making the films I doubt think much about issues of consent either.

    Economic, familial and social oppression are the larger factors in the development of porn than the porn industry wishes anyone to realize. Until women have full agency socially, to suggest that a set of arbitrary laws, the enforcement of which falls most often to those on the opposite end of the power spectrum, will somehow move the porn industry seems ridiculous.

    I also would be very troubled with women feeling they must sign consent forms and having these brandished before the world as justification that “the girls like the porn”. Worse, I could see situations where a consent form is used to pressure women to stay in the industry or as a form of blackmail “Leave us and we’ll show the world how much you wanted to do this.” As if they don’t have enough ability to do this already.

    I’d rather see more regulation of porn producers and purveyors, focusing solely on those who profit most from the industry rather than the constant obsession with the actors, as if they own the studios, manage and finance the operations and even hold the cameras themselves.

  20. kate says:

    And Joe Francis would get no mileage if older women taught younger women that ‘teh sex’ ain’t the key to empowerment.

  21. idk says:

    idk, i think there is a degree of manipulation and vioent behavior behind a lot of porn. 18 to me – you have just moved out of your parents house for the first time, not necess an experienced independent woman. now 21-25, you have some life experience, not as easily manipulated by older men and alcohol. . ggw is a violation. most of the girls are underage and/or impaired, or surrounded by screaming drunk men, or isolated in a van with two older men. idk, i would ask porn stars and go with what they say – they’ve lived it. and from what i understand, most would agree with a higher age limit. i know at 18 i could have been talked into things that at 21 or 22 – no way. idk, there is so little regulation as it is. the latest trend which just makes me want to vomit is ATM. and this is a health risk – it’s something that could actually make yuo sick and it is now common place in a lot of porn. not to mention degrading. horrible. a serious talk about regulation and health safety is really needed. they obviously don’t regulate from within. profit dominates.

  22. Frumious B says:

    sometimes, women enable the abuse of other women, and that’s unacceptable.

    I would be more comfortable if you used the word “unfortunate” rather than “unacceptable.” “Unacceptable” smacks of the kind of criticism Jill is going out of her way to avoid.

    Could we have a separate thread to discuss the sterilization issue?

  23. Lee says:

    Joe Francis is a repellant pig and I hope he gets his just desserts in prison. but I have a hard time squaring your words “given that 18 is the general age of legal adulthood, it seems a little paternalistic to me to require that women be 21 before they can flash their boobs to a camera,” with “but the problem here isn’t that the ‘girls’ on Girls Gone Wild are 18 — the problem is that they’re exploited by men like Joe Francis.” How so? the idea that adult women are easily “exploited” when drunk is the very same insulting rationale used Anthony Kennedy in his awful abortion opinion: that women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that adults – men or women – are responsible for their own actions, like getting drunk and then getting naked. To say that the women who do this are somehow victims is pretty paternalistic. And not a little patronizing. As you correctly point out they’re not “girls” so why treat them as such?

  24. Mnemosyne says:

    I don’t believe the GGW tapes are big sellers in Oz because hey, it’s just tits. Other American big-money porn sells well enough, but not just boobflashing jollies.

    One of the biggest reasons the videos are so successful is that they are just boob-flashing, so they can be advertised on late-night TV, whereas actual soft- or hard-core porn cannot be advertised that way.

    They’re porn infomercials.

  25. Mnemosyne says:

    Isn’t it reasonable to assume that adults – men or women – are responsible for their own actions, like getting drunk and then getting naked.

    It’s not the getting drunk and getting naked part that’s problematic — it’s having people sign legal documents while they’re drunk. I’m kind of surprised it took the lawsuits this long to catch up with Francis since no state recognizes a contract that was signed while the signer was drunk or high.

  26. justicewalks says:

    the idea that adult women are easily “exploited” when drunk is the very same insulting rationale used Anthony Kennedy in his awful abortion opinion

    Yes, it’s exactly the same because abortion providers are driving their mobile clinics (if only!) from club to club and bar to bar looking for obviously intoxicated women onto which to inflict unwanted abortions. It’s not at all like women are making careful and painstaking arrangements to get themselves to an abortion clinic (which may be hours away) and back again, having already thought through the ramifications and possibly having discussed it over with friends and family.

    /sarcasm

  27. zuzu says:

    How so? the idea that adult women are easily “exploited” when drunk is the very same insulting rationale used Anthony Kennedy in his awful abortion opinion: that women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that adults – men or women – are responsible for their own actions, like getting drunk and then getting naked. To say that the women who do this are somehow victims is pretty paternalistic. And not a little patronizing. As you correctly point out they’re not “girls” so why treat them as such?

    As Mnemosyne says, we protect adults from decisions made while they’re impaired all the time — though she’s a little off on the consequences. Legal forms signed while impaired aren’t automatically void, but they are voidable — so if, in the cold light of day, you decide that that signing away rights to profit from your image in exchange for a T-shirt wasn’t really a good deal, you can sue Francis to have the release declared void.

  28. Jill says:

    Joe Francis is a repellant pig and I hope he gets his just desserts in prison. but I have a hard time squaring your words “given that 18 is the general age of legal adulthood, it seems a little paternalistic to me to require that women be 21 before they can flash their boobs to a camera,” with “but the problem here isn’t that the ‘girls’ on Girls Gone Wild are 18 — the problem is that they’re exploited by men like Joe Francis.” How so? the idea that adult women are easily “exploited” when drunk is the very same insulting rationale used Anthony Kennedy in his awful abortion opinion: that women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that adults – men or women – are responsible for their own actions, like getting drunk and then getting naked. To say that the women who do this are somehow victims is pretty paternalistic. And not a little patronizing. As you correctly point out they’re not “girls” so why treat them as such?

    I don’t think we’re treating them as “girls” by requiring consent be given while sober and unpressured. There’s a HUGE difference between outlawing an often necessary medical procedure because women might regret it, and taking steps to insure consent when women chose to participate in an industry that has been proven exploitative. I’m not arguing that porn be shut down, or that the Supreme Court step in and end GGW because the ladies might regret it. I just want to make sure that women have the most agency possible when making decisions to be in pornographic films and pictures — and being intoxicated or under severe peer pressure removes that agency, it doesn’t add to it. There’s a world of difference.

  29. Rose says:

    If this goes through, it will open the door the the legal age of consent for women being 21. Does anyone think that’s a good idea?

  30. Thomas says:

    I think we already live in a world where the age of adult responsibility is all over the map. A person in most places can drive at 16 (but not in some cities until 18). A person can have sex with a similar-aged partner in New York at 14, and with any partner at 17, but any image of the act occurring is child pornography under federal law unless the participants are all 18 or older at the time. Folks need to be accompanied into R-rated movies at 16 but can go alone at 17. Alcohol and gun ownership are reserved by law to those over 21, as was voting within living memory. The Constitution reserves some offices for even older ages, while increasingly children in their teens and even early teens are charged with crimes as adults — and those are just those that are enshrined in law. Private companies all have their own policies, such as minimum ages for rental cars.

    Since I don’t think we have a single age of consent now as a practical matter, I don’t think making an age limit for the making (or, my preference, commercial distribution) of sexually explicit images necessarily implies changing it for anything else.

    I’m not saying that an age limit is a better idea than voiding contracts procured from a party under the influence or than imposing a waiting or recission period (the latter especially has a sound history in real estate) — both are fine ideas and all three would probably end GGW as the enterprise currently exists.

  31. Mnemosyne says:

    Folks need to be accompanied into R-rated movies at 16 but can go alone at 17.

    I have to say, this has always struck me as one of the stupidest age-related restrictions. I was responsible enough to be licensed to drive a potentially deadly vehicle, but I was too delicate to hear the F-word in a movie?

    I realize I’m revealing my age with this, but what we did was buy tickets to the PG-rated The Sure Thing and sneak into the R-rated The Breakfast Club. Ironically, the content of the two movies, in retrospect, is almost identical, except for that nasty, nasty swearing.

  32. Mnemosyne says:

    As Mnemosyne says, we protect adults from decisions made while they’re impaired all the time — though she’s a little off on the consequences. Legal forms signed while impaired aren’t automatically void, but they are voidable — so if, in the cold light of day, you decide that that signing away rights to profit from your image in exchange for a T-shirt wasn’t really a good deal, you can sue Francis to have the release declared void.

    Not only am I not a lawyer, I don’t even play one on TV. :-)

  33. mythago says:

    I don’t think we’re treating them as “girls” by requiring consent be given while sober and unpressured.

    Since 18-year-olds can’t legally drink in the US in the first place, raising the ‘porn age’ to 21 seems beside the point–18-year-olds can’t be “legally drunk”, so why presume they can give consent after a beer?

  34. Sniper says:

    How so? the idea that adult women are easily “exploited” when drunk is the very same insulting rationale used Anthony Kennedy in his awful abortion opinion: that women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.

    I’m double the legal drinking age, but if I walk into an abortion clinic wasted, I’m not going to get served. Hell, if I walk into a respectable tattoo parlor wasted, I’m not going to get served. I

  35. Bloix says:

    You don’t need a “waiting period” and this isn’t anything like abortion. What you want is a period during which the contractual consent can be rescinded. This is standard (mandated by federal law) in home mortgages – you can back out of the deal up to three days after you sign. So all you need is a law that says (1) Francis has to provide a copy of the contract that the woman signs to her (2) the contract has to clearly state that consent can be retracted for up to 3 business days after signing (4) the contract must permit retraction by email and must give an email address (5) if the consent is retracted the video footage must be destroyed (6) unless a proper contract has been signed and has not been rescinded, use of the footage in a video for sale or distribution is a crime and subjects Francis to a penalty and to liquidated damages of $1000 per video sold.

    This is easy and follows the home mortgage model closely. No need to limit it to women of a specific age- it can apply to everyone.

  36. Jill says:

    To be clear, I don’t think that contractual waiting periods parallel abortion either. I just automatically think “abortion” when I hear the term “waiting period,” and so I wanted to get that argument out of the way.

  37. zuzu says:

    Think “recission period.”

    I actually like Bloix’s idea — let Francis do the work of ensuring that the release wasn’t obtained while impaired, was in exchange for some base amount constituting a fair wage (such as union scale), and have him reaffirm consent before he can use, and profit from, the footage.

    He’ll still get plenty of footage for use, but people with second thoughts would have some protection and be able to call the deal off.

    Plus, fair compensation. A string of beads is plenty to get me to flash my tits out on the street (what? they were the pearly kind thrown from balconies), but if someone wanted to sell that image, I’d want a hell of a lot more.

  38. BStu says:

    I think the waiting period idea has a lot of potential. It can be crafted so its not an undue burden on “professional pornography” and only focus on spontanious subjects. Given his practices, I think putting the burden on the subjects of GGW to recind consent is unlikely to work effectively. I see a lot of potential for coersion no matter what the rules, but if the burden is on him to get consent it puts the women in a more powerful position.

  39. bmc90 says:

    I have a better idea! Anyone who is depicted nude in a commercially distributed video is entitled to a split of the profits unless that right is waived sober, 24 hours in advance, by someone 18 and older, male or female – liability extends to everyone from Netflix to Walmart, to the videographer, everyone who gets a cut. The person depicted can sue to enforce. State does not even have to get involved. If the proper consents are not signed (sober, over 18, waiting period), then the person can enjoin distribution, profits to date have to be disgorged. When you jeopardize the profits, the distributors etc. will be careful, believe me.

  40. CBrachyrhynchos says:

    Ok, granted I have some issues with the BDSM community, but I think they know how to throw a public party at a bar with plenty of equal opportunity eye-candy, access to drinks, and a much more respectful that empowers people to tell creeps to fuck off.

    I think putting the focus on the filming is rather missing the point. Joe Francis isn’t doing anything that doesn’t happen every week at a party down the street from where you live. He just makes money putting it on film. The big problem is how do you change the culture of alcohol abuse endemic in the U.S. that sees no problems with pushing consent? I won’t mind seeing GGW go out of business, but it’s a business that depends on a deeply dysfunctional environment of alcohol abuse and mob behavior.

    And then there is the deeper problem of pushing passive consent (“she didn’t say no”) vs. getting active consent (“she asked me to do it.”) This is where I think that radical queers, old-style sex positives, and fetish folk have it right, and mundanes and have it wrong.

  41. mythago says:

    it’s a business that depends on a deeply dysfunctional environment of alcohol abuse and mob behavior

    The problem is that Joe Francis isn’t simply wandering around with a camera, passively capturing imagines of what’s going on around him.

  42. Pingback: Perverted News Roundup #3 at Literate Perversions

  43. CBrachyrhynchos says:

    mythago: The problem is that Joe Francis isn’t simply wandering around with a camera, passively capturing imagines of what’s going on around him.

    Of course not, but would what he does automatically become acceptable if he didn’t have a cameraman in tow?

    Joe Francis’s operation is simply the visible tip of the iceberg.

  44. Atalantah says:

    On the voluntary sterilization issue, when my mom decided to get such a procedure done after just having me, she had to my dad’s signiture (her husband). She couldn’t believe such crap, but apparently the hospital was afraid of litigation. Since this was 20 yrs ago maybe thinks have changed, but I doubt it. Anyway, she ended up checking the single box on the form (though my dad was fine with her decision). She could have had me aborted (not that I believe in spousal consent laws) without him knowing but she couldn’t decide to prevent future pregnacies, with his or anyone else’s DNA. Had he elected to underdo serilization, no consent would have been needed from his wife. This definately speaks of the double standard of control of one’s body. Just like with abortion, women can’t be trusted to make sound decisions with their bodies. Anti-choice people seem to believe if a woman inhibits her reprodution facalties in one manner or another (which of course is woman’s main purpose) she will regret it later. I have heard several times that the reason women have been so universally oppressed is the dependency on men that being pregnate and then having to nurse has caused. Most recently, my history prof stated that women made the most financial and social gains once oral contraceptive was invented and used widely. Previously, I had considered the cause and effect reversed. While both views may be valid, what is important is how this all underscores how the xian right controls a womans reproductive rights in order to control the whole woman. they don’t just want to supress women’s bodies directly but hope that by doing such we ended up back in the cave too pregnant or overwhelmed by children to join the hunt. Maybe then we will be to weary and helpless to demand such “frivolities” as equal pay and protection from sexual harrassment and assault.

  45. Danyell says:

    I totally agree that all-too-often people look around and say “Damn our kids are doing a lot of dumb crap. Therefore, we should increase the legal age when they can [do said dumb crap]!” But no one says “Maybe we should teach our kids NOT to BE dumb.”

    Oi.

Comments are closed.