There's nothing ironic about it.

As much as I hate this guy with the bottom most part of my heart-and brain-he does kinda have a point.

He doesn't have a point.

Video-taping underage girls is illegal.

There's nothing unfair about being punished for it...

Doesn't matter what else she's chosen to do. Sounds to me almost like people who bring up a victim's sexual history in rape trails...

Also, if she's suing him, possibly when he videotaped her she was under the influence, pressured into it, or else wasn't completely aware what the footage would be used for...

I mean, god knows that's the case with a lot of GGW girls.

I have absolutely no sympathy for this guy.

fucktard.

RoseColoredGlasses, I disagree. He's not just taking some naked pictures - he's selling the naked pictures and raking in a fortune. Besides, shouldn't she be the one to decide if, how and for how much her body is to be displayed?

I thought the exact same thing, Jessica, when I read his statement. If there was ever a man that deserved to be in jail, he'd be at the top of my list.

Is Joe Fuckface implying that he had permission to take those pictures of her and disseminate them in the same way Spitzer had her permission to have sex with her? She's not charging Francis anything! She's fucking suing him because what he did was a crime! That's like saying restitution is payment for services. "Oh, thank you for letting me violate you. Here's some money!" Unbelievable.

Well, Joe Francis practices restitution all the time, if you read articles written by reporters who've investigated his business...

You I'd say you're spot on, FEM

Well, Joe Francis practices restitution all the time, if you read articles written by reporters who've investigated his business...

So I'd say you're spot on, FEM

to everyone on this post...sorry that you took my comment the wrong way....I was speaking sarcastically...

There is no way that I condone illegal videotaping of minors or anything illegal in general..

If you've read this article you know that Joe Francis is a certifiable sex offender.

And now we know he doesn't know the proper use of irony.

So she wanted 1 million for new taping for Girls Gone Wild, they decided to use old material instead, and THEN she decided to sue, according to Joe Francis.

I think it is a commercial dispute without any morality or social justice elements.

Something is deeply suspicious about the setting when girls are getting drunken at a poolside and a filming crew distributes consent forms. Did she get semi-legally drunk with a faked ID, or they just plied girls with booze without checking? And do they ambush drunk young persons into signing contracts? I think, 10 million dollars is waaaaay excessive, but a class action suit for 100 million could be what they need.

That said, on what planets girls are not aware what GGW is?

This guy is a greedy scum bag. If he was sloppy with doing business, then I say milk his ass. Squeeze out every last drop, if you can.

Perhaps this will encourage more young women to come forward, and discourage others from following his business model.

"That said, on what planets girls are not aware what GGW is?"

Well, he didn't become big until after the first video or two.

"but a class action suit for 100 million could be what they need."

Yeah, I /totally/ think they need that.

"So she wanted 1 million for new taping for Girls Gone Wild, they decided to use old material instead, and THEN she decided to sue, according to Joe Francis.

I think it is a commercial dispute without any morality or social justice elements."

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if that's most of her motive, but I'm not sure you can entirely separate the two. After all, as someone else pointed out, isn't it a bit wrong that he's videotaping drunk girls in compromising positions and making millions, while all they get is a lousy t-shirt?

Pricks are supposed to get a raw deal. And since he is such a prick, he should get a super raw deal.

Note to Ashley,

If you don't want people seeing your boobs - try keeping your shirt on when in public.

Ooops, am I blaming the victim?

"He doesn't have a point.

Video-taping underage girls is illegal."

I believe prostitution is illegal, as well. Hmmm, I wonder if she paid taxes on that money. Oh, I forgot, she was given immunity for spilling the beans on Gov Spitzer.

BTW, I think GGW is an asshole. I also think Ashley is a slut.

Awesome posts everyone; he really does deserve all that is coming at him, what a jerk/idiot. I feel like he has being asking to get himself sued and thrown in jail for years now and am very surprised that it has taken this long.

Anyway, I have a question I have been thinking about for while now, and seeing that I think most posts on here will be rightly condemning him; I was wondering if people could let me know what they think about this question. You see, I have been wondering what exactly goes into making someone a misogynists/misandrist/sexist/racist/homophobe…? I mean, we keep saying that society does it; it is the commercials on television… And I partly agree, I think that these are a huge factor in telling men what they should be, but as a man, I rarely felt like these taught me to be as violent or hateful as a lot of people become (obviously some do, like the GTA article points out, but I feel that that is far from the average message), and they definitely don’t explain misandry. I believe that misandry comes out of a reaction to messages, i.e. reacting to how patriarchy/men tell women to behave/think, or reacting to GTA, not by accepting its message. I am curious about how experience influences men. Men are taught for so long to bottle up and deny their emotions, and are always being given the message to live up to that super masculinity, but I believe many men do not want to live up to that standard and feel alienated or shamed if they don’t; they are caught in a mess of conflicting desires and messages and emotions. I was wondering what you all out there think about the intersection of pent up emotions of inferiority/worthlessness, a unrealistic and ridiculous standards for what it is to be a men, and misogynistic or sexist attitudes and actions. I would also love to hear about similarities and differences in becoming sexists or racist.

Did someone on a feminist website seriously just call someone a "slut"? Impressive.

""He doesn't have a point.

Video-taping underage girls is illegal."

I believe prostitution is illegal, as well. Hmmm, I wonder if she paid taxes on that money. Oh, I forgot, she was given immunity for spilling the beans on Gov Spitzer."

Whether or not she should have been punished for prostitution, has no bearing on whether or not Joe Francis should have been punished for videotaping underage girls.

"I believe prostitution is illegal, as well. Hmmm, I wonder if she paid taxes on that money. Oh, I forgot, she was given immunity for spilling the beans on Gov Spitzer.

BTW, I think GGW is an asshole. I also think Ashley is a slut."

I think you will find that most people on a feminist website, believe that people should have a high degree of choice (/choice/ implying absence of coercion) to do what they choose with their body...

Yes, the same way that Lynne Cheney is a slut, minus the sex.

Zvebab Ghobar:

What part of "videotaping underage girls is illegal" don't you understand?

Seriously, the guy should be in jail for child pornography.

Zvebab Ghobar:

What part of "videotaping underage girls is illegal" don't you understand?

Seriously, the guy should be in jail for child pornography.

"Note to Ashley,

If you don't want people seeing your boobs - try keeping your shirt on when in public.

Ooops, am I blaming the victim?"

YES.

David, that is a really big question, probably deserving of a better forum than this particular comment thread.

I'm sorry, I believe the misogynistic insult you're looking for is "whore." Sluts do it for fun, whores do it for money, remember? *drowns in sarcasm*

It doesn't matter if she's slept with the entire Eastern seaboard for cash, credit, and Paypal. Video-taping underage girls topless is WRONG. That is what we're talking about, now Dupre's sex life or any job involved with her sex life. She's not getting all verklempt over something she did last week, she's doing it over something she did as a minor. And videotaping a teenage girl with an active sex life topless is just as wrong, skeevy, and illegal as videotaping a teenage virgin topless.

Also, a feminism that only protects/advocates for the sweet virginal girl next door who never gets into any trouble is incomplete at best, pretty much irrelevant at worst.

Zvebab Ghobar:

What part of "videotaping underage girls is illegal" don't you understand?

Seriously, the guy should be in jail for child pornography.

"I think you will find that most people on a feminist website, believe that people should have a high degree of choice (/choice/ implying absence of coercion) to do what they choose with their body..."

Yes, and I also detect a double standard. Ashley should be free to prostitute herself if she chooses. Prostitution is illegal. Ashley has immunity and has already probably made a million bucks (and is trying to milk another $10 million out of GGW).

Then Spitzer should also be free to purchase sex from a willing seller, yet he was forced to resign his position and may still face criminal charges.

I am not defending ANY of these people. I think they all epitomize SLEAZE.

Does anyone here really think Ashley is a victim? And of what?

dee,

To use a less sexist and loaded terminology, do you mean "driven largely by financial gain"? I would guess most people in this country are, women and especially men. Don't you know that's glorified, in a capitilist society?

"Does anyone here really think Ashley is a victim? And of what?"

Let me put it this way, do you think Ashley would rather be a high-paid sex worker, or a successful politician?

What do you think the chances are of a /female/ from a moderate background, like Ashley, ever being able to be in Spitzer's position?

The playing field wasn't level to begin with... doesn't matter whether Ashley wasn't the most unfortunate person in the world...

And it wasn't Ashley's fault that Spitzer had to resign. It was a political thing, b/c the general American populace doesn't accept prostitution and b/c it made Spitzer somewhat hypocritical...

Politicians resign for reasons separate from legality all the time. Like being /gay/ for chrissakes...

Nina, I can clearly see some people are offended by my use of the word slut. I use it when it applies and it isn't limited to females.

Would you believe it if I told you I'd rather have my daughter be an honest prostitute than the CEO of RJ Reynolds?

"Then Spitzer should also be free to purchase sex from a willing seller, yet he was forced to resign his position and may still face criminal charges."

Spitzer wasn't just some regular dude off the street.

Don't you think that elected officials, who have been involved with several branches of government, should be held at least to the standard that they set for everybody else?

If you want to be in positions of power where you create and enforce laws that affect everybody, you can't expect to be above the law.

He's an adult, there were clear consequences to his actions, of which he was well aware of beforehand.

And people get immunity in trials all the time. It's how the system works. She was just smart enough not to have been an elected official.

"Would you believe it if I told you I'd rather have my daughter be an honest prostitute than the CEO of RJ Reynolds?"

Well, as we all should know, prostitution doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Your average prostitute who has worked in the business for long show signs of severe trauma, b/c of having men (not all men, but plenty) ignore their comfort and actually physically abuse their bodies.

So I would hope that you wouldn't want your daughter to be any kind of a prostitute, unless that was really the best of her options... That doesn't mean she would be a /bad person/ of course, for deciding for herself that /was/ the best of her options...

"Your average prostitute who has worked in the business for long show signs of severe trauma, b/c of having men (not all men, but plenty) ignore their comfort and actually physically abuse their bodies."

That certainly can be true for many women, not just prostitutes.

And the prostitute thingy....it worked out pretty good for Heather Mills.

once again dee, What the fuck does her being eliot spitzer's call girl when she was 22 have to do with some sleazes getting her drunk, then getting her to show her boobs when she was 17?! They also got her to sign the release form when she was drunk. None of that was in anyway legal. True, she does not have a squeaky clean record herself, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what this asshole GETTING HER DRUNK AND SEXUALLY USING HER WHEN SHE WAS 17!

So STFU about who she consensually fucked, even if it was for money. You are as bad as asshole lawyers who blame the rape victim because she's not a virgin.

dee,

""Your average prostitute who has worked in the business for long show signs of severe trauma, b/c of having men (not all men, but plenty) ignore their comfort and actually physically abuse their bodies."

That certainly can be true for many women, not just prostitutes."

It's true for a lot of women in the general population, and a significantly higher percentage of prostitutes in particular. Did you also know that for some reason statistically 90% of women who choose to do sex work were raped before the age of 18?

And this:
"once again dee, What the fuck does her being eliot spitzer's call girl when she was 22 have to do with some sleazes getting her drunk, then getting her to show her boobs when she was 17?! They also got her to sign the release form when she was drunk. None of that was in anyway legal. True, she does not have a squeaky clean record herself, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what this asshole GETTING HER DRUNK AND SEXUALLY USING HER WHEN SHE WAS 17! "

dee-based: "I also think Ashley is a slut." Define "slut." Then consider your definition, and the understanding of the role of sex in culture that informs that definition. Then consider whether how well the meaning of "slut" relates to the meaning of "freedom." Then come back and we'll have a nice chat.

dee-ranged: "Yes, and I also detect a double standard. Ashley should be free to prostitute herself if she chooses. Prostitution is illegal." Not to burst your bubble, but a for something to be a double standard, each standard has to come from the same place. See, there's not a 'burger double standard' because the Big Mac comes with sesame seeds on the bun and the Whopper doesn't. Two different establishments, two different standards. Following? Feminists, unlike mainstream neo-Calvinists have complex views about prostitution and whether it should be legal. No one on this thread (except you, natch) was trashing Ashley for being a prostitute. So your big 'gotcha' falls to a KO in round 1 because no one here is advocating what you say is the first of the two 'double standards.' Oops!

dee-lerious: "Ashley has immunity and has already probably made a million bucks (and is trying to milk another $10 million out of GGW)." "Probably?" Wow, what a weighty argument. I can make up facts, too. Of course, that would make me look stupid. And she's trying to sue someone with deep pockets for big money. Gasp! What could be more un-American and immoral.

O, wait. Shit. I think I got that one wrong. Wait... thinking back to law school... Oh, yeah! One of the moral principles underpinning the common law is that when people breach a duty of care and harm someone through that breach, the harmed person is entitled to recompense.

ninapendamaishi & MLEmac... i agree. you dont even need to get into the argument over whether or not it was right for her to be a prostitute... thats a totally different issue. the fact remains that she was taken advantage of as a minor, and that is wrong and illegal. im not saying shes this awesome person who only wants justice... sure, the fame/money are probably really appealing to her.. but that doesnt change the fact that she was taken advantage of and GGW has to be held accountable for it.

Is anyone seriously attempting to call this "child pornography"?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=64874

That's hysterical, legalistic hairsplitting. Watch that video. She knows exactly what she's doing and is having a great time doing it.

Stop treating her like she's some goddamn baby.

And who says some sleaze got her drunk and made her sign a form? I saw the videotape and it sure didn't appear she was coerced. She was acting like many kids her age act when they've had a few drinks. It doesn't mean they're brain dead.

I have nothing against what she did with Spitzer or her dancing topless. That's her business. But she shouldn't run crying that she was exploited because she wasn't. She made conscious decisions that had consequences.

The laws are fucked up. If at seventeen she had a child, she would be emancipated and could make decisions for herself, as well as her child. But because she doesn't, she is treated like a little girl. She isn't.

No judge or jury in the world is going to give her $10 million. Nor should they.

If taking pics of her when she was a minor is a crime, and prostituting herself is a crime, then they both should be penalized.

I'm just not cutting her slack because she's a woman.

I haven't read the comments, so I don't know if this was covered, but first I have to say, "what an asshole."

Next, I seem to recall from law school too long ago that a minor's contract is voidable at the option of the minor, presumably because a minor is not legally competent to enter into a contract. Thus, regardless of whether we saw her on video consent, or show her (fake) ID, or even sign a consent form, if she cannot consent as a legal matter, than Francis is where he should be, and that's up shit's creek.

When your business model is predicated on taking advantage of very young women, then you assume the risk that one of them is not telling you the truth.

.She was acting like many kids her age act when they've had a few drinks. It doesn't mean they're brain dead.

I think you're just about the last person on earth to be chiming in on who is and who is not brain dead. And saying that someone cannot enter into a legal contract as a minor (and an INTOXICATED minor, mind you) has nothing to do with said person's intellect and everything to do with established law. Troll off elswhere, will ya.

Isn't having fake ID a crime?

Dee-bauched: Why are you on a feminist Web site? Did you come to learn or only to vent your anger? If the latter, we're not really interested, and you might find a more receptive audience at some of the MRA sites.

If the former, you might actually want to listen instead of regurgitating trite misogynist bullshit. In the naive spirit of hoping you're here for the former, here's some food for thought:

1. She says that Francis' reps plied her with alcohol. Who are you to say she's lying? That's a question of fact for a jury to decide on after hearing all the evidence, not for some sexist to decide because he thinks she's a slut.

2. Even if she weren't drunk, she was 17. The law says that is too young to enter into a contract. Period. You think that's wrong? Tell us why, and tell us where you would draw the line.

3. What is 'coerced' to you? Does it have to involve a gun? Can it involve intense social pressure? How about being isolated in someone's bus, a little drunk, not knowing anyone, unsure where you are, unsure how to get home, not really trusting the folks you're with, and all of them pressing drinks into your hand one after the other, screaming and whooping and telling you to take off your shirt just like the other girls see the other girls are doing it what the fuck are you some kind of prude christ you're gonna get paid for this plus the free booze so what's the big deal...

You have no idea what happend on that bus, and neither do I. One tiny video edited and produced by GGW is hardly evidence to hang your whole theory on. The difference is that I'm not rushing to judge. You are, and are bending the evidence to fit pre-determined conclusions.

4. Prostitution is a crime, and it is penalized. In fact, it is almost exclusively prostitutes who serve jail time. This is one of the rare cases where the authorities were more interested in the john. Hence Ashley got immunity. This happens all the time in all sorts of criminal cases so it's either disingenuous or stuipd to pretend that prostitutes aren't punished.

5. No one is saying that she should get special treatment because sh'e a woman. We're saying she should get a fair shake even though she is a woman, and a prostitute.

Tracy Lords had a fake ID too, hon. Seriously. Hang it up.

"Watch that video. She knows exactly what she's doing and is having a great time doing it. "

"And who says some sleaze got her drunk and made her sign a form? I saw the videotape and it sure didn't appear she was coerced. "

HELL-O? Have you ever heard of this little thing called video editing? Are you aware of how often someone says something like that when a video is present at /rape trials/?

I'm not saying a huge, life-threatening amount of coercion was used. Coercion occurs in different degrees...

A reporter who followed Joe Francis around found that often peer pressure was used to get a girl to take her top off (guys in the background chanting "do it! do it"... and /of course/ that bit was edited out, to make it look like the girl went wild of her own volition.

And there /is/ such a thing as being young and stupid. I did some things for some guys when I was about 18 b/c I thought it was what I was supposed to do, and what would make them happy... Didn't really help me, ultimately. And it was hard for me to completely blame them, b/c I'd gone along w/ what they wanted, but at the same time the older I get the more I realize they were out of line to begin with. But teenagers in our culture fall into that pattern all the time. But re: her expression in the video, if you're going to go through with doing something, it's not like you're going to act unhappy about it. She was projecting an image, for sure. Doesn't mean we /know/ everything going on in her head -jeez.

Finally, Joe Francis is /still/ being exploitative. Before she was a celebrity, he didn't care about this footage. Know that she is a celebritity in a way that, no doubt, comes with cons as well as pros, he wants to profit from it. Well guess what, so does she. Amazing. Should he be allowed to profit off her image but she shouldn't, or something? That's messed up...

I think $10 million is a bit excessive to sue for. I'd like to know how she picked that number. Is that what's he's made off pictures of her? If she lied about her age when she signed the release form, then he shouldn't be able to profit off her pictures but I don't think she she should be able to get money for that. If she falsely presented her age as 18, then neither party should be able to profit from the pictures.

If they knew she wasn't really 18, then stop using the pictures/videos/whatever, give her the money you made off them, end of story.

I hate those GGW commercials, and yes, most girls on there seem a bit drunk but, perhaps they should think about things before they drink that much. I don't care what sex or age you are, getting so drunk you make decisions you regret later is stupid.

yes, most girls on there seem a bit drunk but, perhaps they should think about things before they drink that much

Blah blah rape apology blah blah sexist frames blah blah.

taking advantage of drunk/underage girls that can't give consent and then whining about how YOU'RE the real victim later is stupid.

Fixed that for you, mjane.

the trolls are out from under the bridges on this one.

Zvebab -

I'm not even sure she has a problem with the public "seeing her boobs" (although she might, showing your breasts once while drunk does not mean you automatically want the public to have access to those images for the rest of your life)...

But I'm pretty sure that what she really has a big issue with is Joe Francis *illegally* making millions off her image. I would have a problem with that too, wouldn't you?

I would like for them to both just go away now, thanks.

"I think $10 million is a bit excessive to sue for. I'd like to know how she picked that number. Is that what's he's made off pictures of her?"

She asking for the maximum amount she thinks she could get. She may very well get less than that. That's what people generally do when they sue, I believe.

"If they knew she wasn't really 18, then stop using the pictures/videos/whatever, give her the money you made off them, end of story."

Okay. But I got the impression he hadn't used the footage yet, or else, he was planning to re-release it, now that everyone knows who she is. So he was still the one looking to further profit...

"I hate those GGW commercials, and yes, most girls on there seem a bit drunk but, perhaps they should think about things before they drink that much. I don't care what sex or age you are, getting so drunk you make decisions you regret later is stupid."

Oh good. Blame the victim. This keeps getting better and better.

You know, people around the world drink. Rich, white males drink.

If Joe Francis and his video crew /mob/ didn't exist, this wouldn't happen to these girls either. And for the record, Joe Francis /does/ try and talk some girls into doing things they weren't overly willing to do. He only wants to film "perfect 10s" which significantly narrows the number of women he could film...

But yeah, umm... drinking hasn't been illegal in this country for a long time, and the last time they tried, they failed. Your argument will start to at least be backable when we see all sorts of horrible things happening to rich, white males who are drinking, and then lots of people start saying "well, stupid men, they shouldn't have been drinking!"

rocket-

couldn't agree more. trolls are tough to get rid of, though. especially (cough cough; downcast eyes) if you feed them.

hey dee-linquent, mjane, and Zvebabble no more food from me. shoo!

I don't deny Ashley deserves her day in court. Good fucking luck with that.

BTW, I'm not a troll and I have been posting here for years, and I am somewhat surprised at the vicious comments directed toward me because I don't view this women as a victim.

I'll save my sympathies for girls and women who are truly exploited, like the FLDS females, who have NO choice over their actions.

Blah blah rape apology blah blah sexist frames blah blah.

Blah blah blah deliberately misconstrued statement blah blah blah strawman blah blah blah arguing in bad faith blah blah blah.

Ninapendamaishi - I did NOT blame the victim. Drink if you want, I drink, but I know my limit. I said don't drink to excess. Every time someone says something about the victim, everyone says they are blaming them. Well, in some cases, they have made decisions that put them in those situations. Does that excuse the actions of other people? By no means, but I don't think acting like Ashly is completley innocent is the right thing to do either.

And jfaustus Thanks so much. I am not a troll. I am so sorry I happened to express an opinion that differed from yours. *eye roll* Excuse me for daring to voice it.

I am not inclined to give someone with a business model built on coercion the benefit of the doubt (not to mention someone who physically attacks journalists who are profiling him. J linked to this article up-thread, but seriously, GO READ IT NOW.)

The Girls Gone Wild bus came to my (smallish) town once when I was in college, and it truly is a business built on exploitation. There's a certain segment of the populace that will do almost anything for the chance to be on TV, and curiosity about being on the bus definitely plays a role. Throw some alcohol into the deal and you're in a situation where bad decisions are almost inevitable.

Another big issue I take is that once you sign that consent form, their asses are covered to try to wheedle you into doing whatever they can get you to do. A couple of friends of mine offered to make out on camera, clothes on, just because they wanted to see the inside of the bus. Once they did that, the camera crew wasn't satisfied and kept asking them to please show their boobs (I don't think my friends relented).

Also, it goes to show how the patriarchy sees women, and minors in particular, as only having agency when it suits them. Some of the same people who say that a woman of any age who makes a thought-out decision to go to an abortion clinic, get counseling and an ultrasound, wait 24 hours and come back for an abortion is either being coerced or is too stupid to be held accountable, are the same people who would say that all the women on Girls Gone Wild made a rational, uncoerced choice to get naked on camera (I'm sure plenty of women are enthusiastic and willing participants, and I'm not judging them).

All of this, of course, is a moot point because GGW BROKE THE LAW. But if you hold drunk young women responsible for the ramifications of their actions it's only fair to hold GGW accountable for the legal ramifications of its business model.

Missed this one...

BabyPop "Blah blah rape apology blah blah sexist frames blah blah"

What???? What does that have to do with what I said? Where did I apologize for rape? I said that getting so drunk you regret your actions later is irresponsible. I don't care who you are, male or female, you need to think about it before you drink.

All of you who are calling people trolls who disagree with you seem to enjoy deliberately misinterpreting people's words.

So we've defined down "coercion" to be nothing more than "peer pressure?"

Some here even seem to think peer pressure should be an indictable offense...

Next, I seem to recall from law school too long ago that a minor's contract is voidable at the option of the minor, presumably because a minor is not legally competent to enter into a contract. Thus, regardless of whether we saw her on video consent, or show her (fake) ID, or even sign a consent form, if she cannot consent as a legal matter, than Francis is where he should be, and that's up shit's creek.

Jurisdictions are split on this one, letting minors void contracts normally, but holding minors liable for contracts they enter into fraudulently. The consent form wouldn't matter, but showing the fake ID may.

yes, most girls on there seem a bit drunk but, perhaps they should think about things before they drink that much

Mjane and Rocket, it's fucking Feminism 101 as far as victim blaming goes. Obv., no one is arguing that Dupree was raped, but it's a hook, line, and sinker argument that comes with the territory of rape apologists. "Well, yes, she was too drunk to give consent, but she should have considered the fact that she'd drink to much and _______ would happen to her." Seriously. Are we even having this conversation?

BabyPop -

Ok, so, because rape apologists use this line, we can't say anything about being for reposible drinking?

See also 1 and 2.

"What does that have to do with what I said? Where did I apologize for rape? I said that getting so drunk you regret your actions later is irresponsibl"

Joe Francis has raped some of the girls he's filmed for GGW. /That's/ how it's related. If you haven't done much research on the GGW enterprise, maybe you should stop talking out your a$$.

ZGhobar:

From the Random House Dictionary:

"COERCING: to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3. to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual."

If you have not experienced it, having a big group of guys chanting at you is usually pretty anxiety-inducing...

dee:

"I'll save my sympathies for girls and women who are truly exploited, like the FLDS females, who have NO choice over their actions."

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

"EXPLOITED: 1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote."

As you can see, being exploited has nothing to do whith whether or not said person never was able to make any choices in their life.
Do you deny Joe Francis is acting selfishly, in wishing to profit from previously taken footage of Ms. Dupre?

Will any of the moderators of Feministing please respond to me? I've asked this before and never get a response.

Why do you allow trolls and MRAs to basically run these comment sections? Why is there not better moderation for a site that is supposed to be a safe space for young women? I think the main complaint I see of this blog on other blogs is that the comments sections on this site are almost unreadable.

I know you don't want to stifle conversation, especially on someone who is working out the feminist kinks, but there is a huge difference between a young woman coming in and defending herself for wearing high heels, and a man coming in and calling a woman a slut. Really.

Ashley wasn't raped. And, I for one, question the 'victim' status.

Yes, GGW was wrong to enter into an agreement with her if she was a minor. But, if she showed fake ID, how would they ever know? I see girls at the middle school who could pass for eighteen.

If GGW was supplying alcohol to minors they should be in big trouble....are they?

At some point people (women included) are going to have to wise up and take responsibility for their actions.

I don't know much about Ashley, but I do know she chose to be a $2000/hr call girl and live in an outrageously over-priced flat in NYC, over getting a regular job like most people do. That's her choice, but with it comes consequences. And since prostitution is illegal and frowned upon in our society, her credibility is tarnished. I may not agree with it, but it's the way it is.

"Joe Francis has raped some of the girls he's filmed for GGW. /That's/ how it's related. If you haven't done much research on the GGW enterprise, maybe you should stop talking out your a$$."

Fine, thanks for the info but maybe you could do it more politely? Excuse me while I go back to not posting because I'm afraid to disagree with anyone here.

Ashley wasn't raped. And, I for one, question the 'victim' status.

Yes, GGW was wrong to enter into an agreement with her if she was a minor. But, if she showed fake ID, how would they ever know? I see girls at the middle school who could pass for eighteen.

If GGW was supplying alcohol to minors they should be in big trouble....are they?

At some point people (women included) are going to have to wise up and take responsibility for their actions.

I don't know much about Ashley, but I do know she chose to be a $2000/hr call girl and live in an outrageously over-priced flat in NYC, over getting a regular job like most people do. That's her choice, but with it comes consequences. And since prostitution is illegal and frowned upon in our society, her credibility is tarnished. I may not agree with it, but it's the way it is.

"Ashley wasn't raped."

No one has said Ashley was raped.

The original post on this thread, as you may have noticed, was on the assholery of Joe Francis, /not/ on the morality/lack thereof of Ms. Dupre. Once again, the former is pretty indisputable, so why do you feel a need to focus on the latter?

From the Random House Dictionary:
"VICTIM 1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites. "

I think the second one could very easily be applicable to most 17 yr-old who think they will be seen as sexy and popular by exposing herself for a mass-produced video.

"But, if she showed fake ID, how would they ever know? I see girls at the middle school who could pass for eighteen."

Doesn't matter. At all. If a bar serves a minor with a fake, the bar can lose it's liquor license. Our laws place the responsibility on the supplier/video-taper/whatever...

"At some point people (women included) are going to have to wise up and take responsibility for their actions. "

Yeah. Which is pretty much what Joe Francis is hopefully going to have to do here. I doubt Ms. Dupre will continue to work as a call girl, but again, that latter fact has /nothing to do/ with whether or not Joe Francis should be allowed to profit from her video footage, and she should not.

I mean I hate to continue assisting in your tirade to derail this thread, but all in all, Joe Francis is far richer than Ms. Dupre, and has done far more horrible things to far more many people than Ms. Dupre. /Why/ are you so intent on focusing on the transgressions of Ms. Dupre? And if you one (subjective) wrong can cancel out other, totally different and unrelated wrongs, then where do you draw the line??

longtime posters can be trolls too. i tried to look at previous comments you each may have made but the search function doesn't work here the way it does on other blogs.

so i just have to go by what you're saying.

Dee: Coercion is a continuum. On the zero end are bunny rabbits and rainbows. On the lots and lots end are guns and loony retreats like the FLDS. It is a tired anti-feminist meme to contrast social coercion with the guns end of the spectrum in order to deny the force of social coercion. We legally protect minors precisely because theyu are more vulnerable to the kind of pressure GGW specializes in (see EyeHeartNY above).

mjane: It is a tired anti-feminist meme that women who have been drinking are partly to blame when someone else chooses to violate their rights. That meme is most commonly deployed in defense of rapists. Hence, I think, BabyPop's jab at you. In this case, GGW chose to violate Ashley's right (as a minor) to be free from sexual exploitation. GGW's choice, and their culpability for it, is unrelated to Ashley's state of sobriety.

Yet when you say "I hate those GGW commercials, and yes, most girls on there seem a bit drunk but, perhaps they should think about things before they drink that much," (my emphasis) you do relate those two things.

If you don't want to be labelled a troll, don't traffic in anti-feminist memes.

"I don't know much about Ashley, but I do know she chose to be a $2000/hr call girl and live in an outrageously over-priced flat in NYC"

What if, just what /if/, you learned that she was among the 90% of sex workers who had been raped or otherwise significantly abused before the age of 18? Would that at all change your opinion towards her?

having a big group of guys chanting at you is usually pretty anxiety-inducing...

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=64874

That's got to be one of the most ,ahem, unique manifestation of anxiety I've ever seen.

Do any of you other ladies get naked and start craving a little girl-on-girl when you feel "anxiety" coming on?

nerdalert et al,

I am not a troll. And I'm sorry I hit such a nerve by calling her a slut. I apologize.

I am also a woman and a rape survivor. No, I did not ask for it but I was really stupid and put myself in a dangerous position. Looking back, I shouldn't have been surprised by the outcome and I'm lucky to be here to talk about it.

As for Joe Francis, if he is guilty of everything you are saying about him then I hope they nail him.

I also hope Ms. Dupre wises up.

Zvebab Ghobar is obv. a troll based on other threads I've seen him on. We can stop feeding that one.

Dee you seem to be a bit more open to what some of us are saying, so I apologize for being so harsh. I am sorry for what you went through, but even in talking about your own experiences, you seem to blame yourself for your own assault. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say the way you cope with what happened to you is unacceptable, but please realize that the ONLY PERSON deserving the blame for crimes committed are the criminals.

We can discuss societal factors (slut-shaming, misogyny, etc) of course, but ultimately the criminal is the one responsible for the crime. Not the victim. Dupree's hourly rate as a prostitute is beside the point. Dupree's over-priced rent is beside the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is ridiculous to attack HER credibility because of these matters and NOT consider the credibility of poor Mr. Francis, whose victimization of women/girls has been well documented.

And as someone said upthread:

Also, a feminism that only protects/advocates for the sweet virginal girl next door who never gets into any trouble is incomplete at best, pretty much irrelevant at worst.

"Coercion is a continuum."

What coercion? I keep hearing about it but see no evidence of it. Ashley was having a wonderful time during that video and it obviously wasn't the first time she danced bump and grind.

Some of you make it sound like she was drugged with a gun held to her head. I don't buy it.

And I agree with Zvebab Ghobar's comments.

I'm not blaming Dupre, just that she brought this on herself and her lawsuit for $10 million is pretty pathetic. Obviously the downloads from her mediocre song must have dried up.

I never pressed charges when I was gang raped. I knew what would have happened to me had I gone to court. But I was stupid. I know I was not to blame for what happened but I facilitated it.

The thing that gets me is when you engage in certain actions, don't be surprised if things go south. You hang with bad guys, they can turn on you. You hang with thieves, you just might get arrested too if they are caught stealing. You get drunk and dance with your clothes off, don't act surprised when the tape ends up on You Tube.

Uh, okay...that whole thing I said about you seeming to be more open to what some of us are saying and that you're not really a troll? I take it all back.

Some of you make it sound like she was drugged with a gun held to her head. I don't buy it.

You don't have to buy it. The courts do. And the courts have repeatedly "bought" the fact that giving a minor alcohol with the intent to coerce consent = illegal.

And since you're having trouble: coerce: to compel to an act or choice

And to follow up: compel: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure

No gun needed, Dee.

dee - "What coercion? I keep hearing about it but see no evidence of it. "

In the eyes of the law any minor, which Ashley was at 17, is not able to consent to legal contracts or sexual activity. In the eyes of the law, ANY sexual activity performed by a minor for an adult is ipso facto coercion. Likewise, ANY contract signed by someone drunk is ipso facto coercion. A minor cannot consent, nor can someone who is drunk, to sexual acts or contracts, making any sexual act or framed contract ipso facto coercion.

Well, we'll have to wait and see what the courts say. This should be interesting, to say the least.

dee-singenuous: Let's try that again, shall we?

I said: "Coercion is a continuum. On the zero end are bunny rabbits and rainbows. On the lots and lots end are guns and loony retreats like the FLDS. It is a tired anti-feminist meme to contrast social coercion with the guns end of the spectrum in order to deny the force of social coercion."

You said: "Some of you make it sound like she was drugged with a gun held to her head. I don't buy it."

Exactly what I described.

Thank you for playing.

I thought I had posted this earlier, but for some reason it didn't work....

The CNN article says that she was drunk. The drinks were bought by GGW cronies, and then she was brought back to the bus.

And just because she's smiling in the video does not mean she gave consent. I was once taken advantage of while I was drunk, and while I seemed to have "enjoyed it" I actually wanted to tear my hair out the next day.

No, she is not a baby, she is a girl who got taken advantage of while she was drunk, and the evidence of that is being distributed via late night commercials that open with the music of a steel drum.

No she's not a baby, but she was exploited, and she is a victim. If you think the laws are fucked up, then fine, but that doesn't change the fact that she wasn't emacipated at the time, and it was still against the law.

If you have nothing against the Spitzer thing, then why do you keep bringing it up? She got immunity, deal with it. It's too late for her to be prosecuted now, so stop whining. Just because she got off for that, doesn't mean this asshole shouldn't still get prosecuted for taking naked pictures of a minor.

Also, Child-pornography I believe involves pre-pubescent children, however, she was still a minor which makes it illegal.

jfaustus: "It is a tired anti-feminist meme that women who have been drinking are partly to blame when someone else chooses to violate their rights. That meme is most commonly deployed in defense of rapists. Hence, I think, BabyPop's jab at you. In this case, GGW chose to violate Ashley's right (as a minor) to be free from sexual exploitation. GGW's choice, and their culpability for it, is unrelated to Ashley's state of sobriety.

Yet when you say "I hate those GGW commercials, and yes, most girls on there seem a bit drunk but, perhaps they should think about things before they drink that much," (my emphasis) you do relate those two things.

If you don't want to be labelled a troll, don't traffic in anti-feminist memes."

I don't think GGW is less culpable because Ashley was drinking, HOWEVER, I don't think the state of someone's sobriety makes them any less responsible for their actions at the time, either. That is the point I am trying to make but you keep twisting it into an anti-feminist one. Man or woman, you are still responsible for your actions while drinking. I am not excusing someone raping someone while the victim is drunk. If the rapist was drunk I would say they are just as responsible for their actions while drinking than as if they were sober, and I'm sure you would agree with that. I am trying to make the point that people need to think about how their actions will affect themselves and other people before they act, hence the thinking about things before you drink that much comment.

If I drank too much to drive, then I would have to find a way to get home. If I hadn't arranged a way to get home after being out drinking, then I probably should have thought about those drinks before I had them.

Flashing a camera while you are drinking, you are just responsible for that than as if you did it while you were sober.

Should GGW be held responsible if they gave her the drinks? Yes, and they shouldn't have let her sign the form if they did so because she was not legal drinking age where they were, even with the supposed fake ID.

wow dee,

"I never pressed charges when I was gang raped. I knew what would have happened to me had I gone to court. But I was stupid. I know I was not to blame for what happened but I facilitated it. "

Did you seek counseling for this, at least?

You, nor any woman, ever ever ever does anything to facilitate gang rape. You were not "stupid" if you had not expected to be gang-raped. There is /nothing/ "stupid" about expecting not to be gang-raped. Ever. No matter what. I'm not qualified as a counselor, of course, but if I was in a position to give advice I'd say this: Repeat that to yourself. Repeat that to yourself until you can believe it. There is nothing "stupid" about expecting not to be raped. Ever.

I'm so sorry for what happened.

"Ashley wasn't raped."

Oh wait -when you said this were you meaning that /never in her life/ has Ashley been raped? You don't know that. I don't know that. 1/3rd of women have been raped, and you can't know by listening to someone/looking at them/watching their actions who they are and are not.

"Ashley was having a wonderful time during that video"

How do you know? It's not hard to smile for a camera, you know. Ever hear of acting? She may not have been suffering per se, but again, you and I have no idea what complex thoughts (or lack thereof) she might have been having about the matter.

"and it obviously wasn't the first time she danced bump and grind. "

What does this have to do with /anything/?

"I'm not blaming Dupre, just that she brought this on herself "

Umm... What's that geometric optical illusion called, you know the one with the funky knot where you're following one side of a ribbon with your eye and then it turns into the other side of the ribbon, and you're not quite sure where it happened?

"her lawsuit for $10 million is pretty pathetic"

Not as pathetic as all the money Joe Francis makes off of his videos...

What coercion? I keep hearing about it but see no evidence of it. Ashley was having a wonderful time during that video and it obviously wasn't the first time she danced bump and grind.

As has been pointed out, there is a magical thing called postproduction. In postproduction, they can resequence footage and cut out the bits they don't want. For example, GGW probably wouldn't want footage of uneasy, uncomfortable facial expressions, so that would be cut out (this is called editing). Can you honestly say that you know how many takes it took to get a shot of her smiling?

And even if it took just one, that means precisely nothing about the issue of coercion.

Hell, I once smiled through an assault. I was scared shitless and trying to deny it was happening. Does that mean I wasn't coerced?

mjane: what you're saying is antifeminist because you insist on linking "think before you drink" with "violation".

In the abstract, "think before you drink" makes a lot of sense, of course. You don't want to fall down the stairs, or stick something pointy in your eyes, or eat really bad curry and spend the next day on the toilet.

But this isn't the abstract. You are continually juxtaposing Ashley's drinking with GGW violating her rights. You deny that you're saying they're less culpable, but you are. You are, by the constant juxtaposition and what it implies. You are, explicitly, when you use "but" to link a statement about GGW with a statement about her being drunk.

And here's where you're wrong: Planning for being violated should NEVER be part of "think before you drink" because people should NEVER NEVER NEVER violate each other the way GGW routinely does its 'models.' People don't need to adjust their calculus because there are asshole rapists out there, or asshole underage pornographers.

ASSHOLE RAPISTS AND ASSHOLE UNDERAGE PORNOGRAPHERS AND THEIR ILK NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CALCULUS. PERIOD.

You keep saying or implying the former rather than the latter, which is why I find your points objectionable.

(yikes to all the above comments...)

what i think is interesting in that statement Joe Francis made ("But I think it's ironic that she charged Gov. Spitzer $2,000 for sex and she wants to charge me 10 million for taking some naked pictures of her...I feel like I'm getting a raw deal.") is that it seems that he's implying he somehow deserves more, like all he got was some dirty pictures and he thinks he's entitled to more (either due to the profession she afterwards entered, or just simply because she's a woman and, hey, he's entitled to all that). Oh, Joe, are you just so sad that all you got was pictures of her topless? Poor you. Because all women are just here to make sure you never get the raw end of the deal.

Sheesh. Joe, if only you had thought this through, you wouldn't be getting the raw deal you are. Have fun at that pity party.

jfaustus: I am meaning the more abstract version of what you wrote up there on the think before you drink version. In my mind, I do not link what I said with violation, I'm sorry you take it that way. Perhaps we are not explaining our beliefs to each other in way the other one understands. I don't feel what I say is anti-feminist but some people apparently do feel like it is. I had not been aware before that this was anti-feminist. How about we just drop the argument now? Neither of us are changing the other one and we aren't getting any where with the argument. I don't feel I'm a troll because of my opinions, I said them because that's what I felt, not to provoke anyone. I am going to stop posting on this thread because we are just going in circles on this argument.

There's a posting from a few days ago over at Racialicious about how Joe Francis compared himself to civil rights leaders in an interview. Anyone else see that? He thinks he's being persecuted! Not only is this guy a complete, pompous, ass, he's also completely delusional!

I think they should calculate the total amount Joe Francis has made off of his videos, divide that by the number of boobs in there, and twice that amount could go to her.

I just read the LA Times article (here) that a couple commenters have linked to, and it's really horrifying that Joe Francis gets away with so much. It seems clear that his business is based on exploitation.

Ninapendamaishi, where did you find the statistic that 90% of sex workers have been raped or otherwise abused before the age of 18? I'm just curious since I don't know much about violence against sex workers, and that's really scary.

If Ashley was "acting" in the video, she should get a goddamn Academy Award.

The bottom line is: Ashley is a $2K/hr call girl and now she is suing GGW because they "exploited" her and are making money (that she wants) off her video.

If someone can convince me why I should feel sorry for this woman, have at 'er.

I think Ashley gets it, at least as far as what men want.

Do any of you think Ashley is a feminist? Do feminists use their bodies (ample breasts) to pad their bank account and keep from having to work the 9-5 jobs that many of us have?

I am asking this in all honesty. Is Ashley helping or hurting the cause of feminism?

Dee -

Whether Ashley is helping or hurting the cause of feminism doesn't matter when it comes to defending her against some of the slut-shaming comments you and others have been making in this thread. Are we only supposed to stand up for women who meet all of our feminist credentials now? Any other woman is fair game for the patriarchy?

I am asking this in all honesty. Is Ashley helping or hurting the cause of feminism?

Let's try a little reframe here:

Is engaging in a discourse that is dangerously close to rape apologetics and condoning the sexual exploitation of a minor (which she was at the time) helping or hurting the cause of feminism?

"Do feminists use their bodies (ample breasts) to pad their bank account and keep from having to work the 9-5 jobs that many of us have?"

yay, it's the tired old "sex workers are selfish, greedy, lazy, money-grubbing dumb drunk bitches who should just shut-the-fuck-up" routine! Straight outta the Patriarchy handbook, I might add.

None of us know if Ashley considers herself a feminist. And it's irrelevant anyway.

What's certainly ANTI-feminist is to decide how much money IMAGES OF AN UNDERAGE GIRL'S BODY are worth if THAT BODY IS NOT YOURS.

This seems to be something you and Joe Francis have in common.

"If Ashley was "acting" in the video, she should get a goddamn Academy Award."

Someone can have complex thoughts about an issue, you know. Maybe you can't. But I can assure you some of us can. Like maybe she thought it would be fun, but maybe she had reservations. Maybe she was at first shy, but after enough yelling from the crowd plus the intoxication she got into it more. The facts remain that A) she was underage, B) she was intoxicated, C) there was peer pressure (you can /hear/ the guys hollering and whistling in the back in that video) D) the whole debacle wouldn't exist if Joe Francis didn't exist and profit off of the images of others who are often harassed and who are certainly not compensated

"The bottom line is: Ashley is a $2K/hr call girl and now she is suing GGW because they "exploited" her and are making money (that she wants) off her video. "

So /what/? She deserves the money more than /he/ does.

And even if she has made "$1 million" as some claim, there are many people in our country that have made far more money than that in ways that involved screwing over other people far more. In fact, I don't believe we've learned of anyone outside herself Ms. Dupre /has/ hurt -Spitzer hurt himself, basically. This is a witch hunt. Because she's a woman, and a sexually deviant one at that, and one with some degree of self-interest, at that.

"Do feminists use their bodies (ample breasts) to pad their bank account and keep from having to work the 9-5 jobs that many of us have? "

Are you jealous of Ashley, or something? Would you rather have had her jobs? If not, then /why so much anger at her for what she does/?

Wow!!!The commenters that have totally crapped all over dee et al. Good for you dee and others for holding to your unpopular opinions.
Is this site supposed to be a place where all should feel that they can post opinions no matter how unpopular...or is this a site that has to be an echo chamber for the 'correct' feminist opinion?? Unbelievable....

Some statistics, for whoever asked (You know statistics are always imperfect, and vary from study to study, but here are some different ones I found that should give you a general idea):

"A 1995 study by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) found that people who were sexually abused as children are a whopping 27.7 times as likely as others to be arrested for prostitution. "

"The CIR study showed that 21.4 percent of women working as escorts had been raped 10 times or more, with comparable rates for other types of sex work. "

http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/sexworkerscivilrights.htm

"Eighty-two percent of these respondents reported having been physically assaulted since entering prostitution. Of those who had been physically assaulted, 55% had been assaulted by customers. Eighty-eight percent had been physically threatened while in prostitution, and 83% had been physically threatened with a weapon....Sixty-eight percent...reported having been raped since entering prostitution. Forty-eight percent had been raped more than five times. Forty-six percent of those who reported rapes stated that they had been raped by customers. "

"Fifty-seven percent reported a history of childhood sexual abuse, by an average of 3 perpetrators. Forty-nine percent of those who responded reported that as children, they had been hit or beaten by a caregiver until they had bruises or were injured in some way...Many seemed profoundly uncertain as to just what "abuse" is. When asked why she answered "no" to the question regarding childhood sexual abuse, one woman whose history was known to one of the interviewers said: "Because there was no force, and, besides, I didn't even know what it was then - I didn't know it was sex." "

http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

For an example of a previous call girl (not a street walker) who writes about the sexual abuse she experienced while working in the industry for a very short period of time, you can check out this book I read just out of interest awhile back:

" Callgirl: Confessions of an Ivy League Lady of Pleasure "

I can't believe there's even an argument to be had from a feminist perspective. Now; here's the thing. Drunk girls taking off their clothes to impress you is indeed a desert island fantasy, realigning that to your frequency as required. Mardi Gras! St. Patrick's Day! Carnival! But you can't market it. Making money off drunken, nude women is inherently disruptive to the time-honored institutiton of drunken, nude women--don't get me started on Steel Drums: RUINED for life.

Ninapendamaishi, thanks for the statistics and the book suggestion.

Joe Francis is a misogynist pig who is exploiting girls for profit. He belongs in jail. Of course the justification is girls choosing to participate. These girls are pressured by camera crews and their peers to participate. Add alcohol to the mix, and its all done. Just degrading and sad.