Friday, August 11, 2006

I absolutely have to post this

It appears that Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild may be a rapist.

This is not libel; there's an LA Times story that says as much. And frankly, this does not surprise me. It does not take a genius to see the extremely close link between rape and pornography, which far too frequently features, as stimulating, women opining how much the sex "hurts" and saying "no" when they mean yes. This is not a First Amendment issue, as much as creeps like Francis, who I am renaming Lucifer's Evil Twin, try to bastardize one of our Constitution's most beautiful pieces of work to their greedy, disgusting, oppressive ends. The First Amendment was not enacted so that creeps like Lucifer's Evil Twin could jerk off and make money by helping other men jerk off. (I read this sentence after writing it and realized it could be taken in a different way than I meant it -- and then realized that, frankly, I don't mind making comments that could be read to disparrage Lucifer's Evil Twin's sexual preference. Not because *I* have issues with people's sexual preferences, but because a cretin like Lucifer's Evil Twin almost certainly does, and any way I can insult that rat bastard of an offense to humanity, I'm down with). The First Amendment was enacted to protect people's right to their beliefs, their thoughts, their right to speak out against the government. It was enacted to ensure that people are not penalized for being different. It was not enacted to perpetuate the sexual slavery into which the lack of a Y chromosome is practically a sentence.

Men like Lucifer's Evil Twin talk about the First Amendment as though they're doing something noble, as if they're protecting some important right. I'm sorry; where in our history books does it talk about the bravery of George Washington crossing the Delaware with fresh pairs of boy shorts for all the sexy little sluts who awaited his men on the other side? Where on earth does this idiot get the idea that there's something inherently valuable about women being exploited for the titillation of national audiences? How on earth does this make him a champion for good?

There are very few people in this world whom I truly hate and despise. But Lucifer's Evil Twin is now chief among them. I am so angry that at this moment, if he appeared at my doorstep... I'd be calling one of you tomorrow and asking you to represent me at my murder trial.

Roonie had a post up about this earlier this week -- I thought I'd try to give the story whatever little boost I could.

People need to know this. Please read this story. Any money spent on Girls Gone Wild goes into the pocketbook of this sick, twisted, likely-rapist Fuck.

16 Comments:

At August 11, 2006 at 5:19 PM, Blogger annika said...

He is evil incarnate. I took a look at one of his videos and I couldn't finish it. It was so depressing to see so many young girls degrading themselves willingly. It wasn't so much the flashing, but things like the whipped cream contests which were really just public rape, in front of cheering crowds, all videotaped and distributed to the world. I was so depressed and filled with pity for the victims, who didn't even know they were victims, at least not that night. And Francis is a millionaire several times over for this?? its disgraceful.

 
At August 12, 2006 at 8:43 AM, Blogger Micah said...

I much prefer the Girls with Low Self-Esteem series, anyway.

 
At August 13, 2006 at 10:37 AM, Blogger NWsixer said...

What a good point. He is obviously wearing some kind of horns and froked tail disguising cream.

Now, iron my shirt.

In a bikini.

 
At August 13, 2006 at 9:10 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

annika -- seriously. They get underage girls drunk and actually call it "consent" when they sign these waivers? It's just so wrong, and that it makes them money is just sickening. Maybe Francis will get hit by a truck while he's drunk. That would not make me unhappy.

micah -- nothing like ugly fat chicks getting a chance to show their stuff!

nwsixer -- hmm. I don't think your shirt would fit in a bikini, but I will give it a try. Maybe one of those fat chicks' bikinis... ;)

 
At August 13, 2006 at 10:21 PM, Blogger lakhawk said...

Wow, he's like one of my bad ex-boyfriends...but on steroids. That's some scary stuff. When I was back home in Iowa a couple of weeks ago, the big news story was that a GGW bus had hit some pedestrians in Iowa City. Maybe they can get at him that way?

 
At August 14, 2006 at 7:36 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

lak -- however they can do it, I support it! Even if they just get him on tax evasion!

 
At August 14, 2006 at 3:28 PM, Anonymous Roonie said...

Ah, it fired us both up! I was so angry, I didn't know WHAT to do. Although some of those girls might just be looking for a quick fuck with a grubby, pudge-bellied 30-something, I'm guessing most of those girls aren't aware of exactly what they're getting into. The article made me really afraid for them. And I hope girls in his target age range are reading and listening.

 
At August 14, 2006 at 4:49 PM, Blogger Mlle Smith said...

What's up with this reporter being assaulted by this guy?

The responsibility lies with both, Lucifer and the broads that enable Lucifer and set the women's rights movement back a few centuries.

 
At August 14, 2006 at 10:14 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Roonie, mad props to you for digging this up. I've got it here and myspace. I only wish this would make people actually *do* something about the creeps like this who actually get away with this shit and get to live on top of the world for it, to boot. Anyone who thinks we've reached equality already needs to read this article and get a sobering reminder that we've got a long way to go.

Noire, I agree 100%. We need to be educating (and beating up, intellectually-speaking) both men and women on this issue. I can't describe how much it irritates me when girls "play cool" about going to strip clubs or other things that objectify women. I get the "taking the scandal out of it" aspect -- but girls don't just go and giggle. They compete and want to outdo the strippers. They forget that most strippers don't do this because it's fun; they do it because they have no choice. We're raising a generation of spoiled idiot girls who don't understand the sacrifices our mothers and grandmothers made to get us here!!

::takes breath, steps off soapbox::

:)

 
At August 16, 2006 at 11:12 AM, Blogger Lazerlou said...

LF, if you are so concerned about the perpetuation of destructive gender norms, perhaps you should remove some of your hobbies from you profile:

"dancing in my underwear, dress shopping, shoe shopping, purse shopping, shopping for leather pants."

Not to mention your bare midriffed fairy logo.

Or do you not see how these play into the destructive gender construction of woman as nothing but superficial sex object? Listing shopping for leather pants as one of your favorite activities undermines any claims you might make to be opposed to the sexual commodification and objectification of women. (not to mention your apparent dismay at being called a teenibopper)

 
At August 16, 2006 at 11:59 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

lou, get a life.

 
At August 16, 2006 at 2:30 PM, Blogger Lazerlou said...

Too late for that, I'm a lawyer. But really though, don't you see some inconsitency in your practice if consumerism and commodity hunting for things that make you more valuable in the sexual marketplace are listed as you hobbies and interests? You don't have to make soft core porn of drunk girls to be complict in the perpertuation of destructive gender norms and the sexual objectification of women.

Or do you have no problem with the number of women like you who consider shopping for clothing and personal accessories as a major interest in their lives?

 
At August 16, 2006 at 7:13 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

lou, I see your point, but I'm also opposed to stereotypes of any sort -- meaning, I think women (and men!!) should have the choice to enjoy shopping if they want to.

That said, in fairness I probably need to update my profile (over a year and a half old and likely written while I was drunk), since I actually don't enjoy shopping very much.

But the fact that I am female and feminist should not itself preclude me from doing things that are stereotypically "girly." Imposing stereotyping classifications either way is wrong. Thus, telling a girl she "should" like to shop is equally bad as telling her she "shouldn't" like to shop. Where either is based on her sex/assigned gender, it's sexism. I understand the inclination to see a woman as anti-feminist because she has some aspects to her that are feminine, but I think this judgment itself is anti-feminist.

Anyway, much of the reason I say or do certain things is with the intent to shake people out of the small-minded boxes they put people in. That is to say, people think "you're a feminist so you think X" or "you're a Christian so you think X" or "you're a lawyer so you think X." This is lazy thinking and it irritates me. I'm a feminist and I also like pretty things. Since when are these two mutually exclusive? Focusing on some of my more stereotypically "girly" aspects makes it easy to ignore some of the extremely un-"girly" things about me.

Just as there's nothing wrong with a female acting in an unfeminine manner, there's nothing wrong with a female acting in a feminine manner -- and there's certainly nothing wrong with a female taking mannerisms from both sides of the gender divide. It is the pathological need to attribute to someone an overarching sense of gender that leads to the confusion and perceived incongruity you're describing. I don't fault you for this (this is America after all, and each one of us, myself included, can only do so much to overcome upbringing); but it ought to be noted.

 
At August 17, 2006 at 7:35 AM, Blogger Lazerlou said...

No I agree with you. I'm not out to destroy gender, just transform it. I'm all for femininity. However I do think some aspects of gender and "femininity" and patricularly destructive while others aren't. That's the hard part, sorting out what is and isn't a destructive gender norm. For me crass consumerism is generally problematic, but especially with regard to women and shopping for their own appearance and status in the sexual marketplace. You would agree, I'm sure, that the sexual objectification of women is a serious problem, along with the fact that women are valued for how they appear far more that their character, intelligence and accomplishments. This is pretty uncontroversial. So I don't think it is much of stretch to also criticize how women have internalized the false value structures of the marketplace and their sexual commodification and how shopping, fashion and concern for having the right accessories and appearance seem to be bloated concerns for most women and girls. The pressure women eel about their appearance is awful, especialy teenaged girls, and I believe the whole shopping thing both stems from and plays into that destructive aspect of gender.

 
At August 18, 2006 at 9:29 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

lou, again, I see your point, but I'm not clear on how enjoying shopping equals "crass consumerism." As I said, I really don't particularly enjoy shopping -- but on the occasion I do enjoy it (which, interesting enough, is pretty much only when I'm shopping either for electronics or for formalwear; almost as opposite-end as you can go on one spectrum), I am not sure how that demonstrates crass consumerism. To me, crass consumerism signifies over-valuation of goods as a good in themselves. Enjoying things does not equal exalting them -- if it did, then any person who owns a computer and uses it for pleasure (e.g., reading and writing blogs) is guilty of crass consumerism.

I think it's fine line, true, between contributing to objectification and simply enjoying doing things that are stereotypically gendered. In this respect, I think the communicator can have an influence on the perception of the listener/observer. For example, I don't think that wearing a low-cut shirt makes you guilty of contributing to women's objectification. A woman can wear a low-cut shirt and still insist upon respect. There is, and there ought to be, no "rule" of interpersonal interaction that says that women must *dress* a certain way in order to deserve respect. I understand the more pragmatic point that you'd have to work a lot harder at it, but I think that simply being a woman, you have to work harder at it. I don't think it should be this way -- if a person is capable and good at what she does, she merits the same respect as someone of equal capability and skill, regardless of her gender or her clothing. It is *society* that puts a spin on certain forms of dress. I think it is important for women to be *aware* of this, but I'm of the school of thought that we ought to do as we please and work at changing people's perceptions through our intelligence and skill. When you create something that doesn't fit into an easily-accessible "box" in people's minds, they have to think harder and work harder to understand you. I'd say it is probably a pretty good way of understanding me to "get" that I think this is the best way to help people slowly change over time. Give them something they don't understand, and they have to exercise their minds a little harder. And that's a good thing.

I don't know if I have addressed all of your points or not, and I have not proofread this, but I have another crazy day of work to worry about...

 
At August 18, 2006 at 1:33 PM, Blogger Lazerlou said...

Me too so I'll respond quiikly. Agreed on shoping/ crass consuemrism. Not all enjoyment of shopping or enjoyment of materialism is crass. You know that we are living in a material world, and I am a material girl. However, when it comes to women and appearance, even if one is has identified those social influences and transcended, and engages in the appearance game in an empowered and self conscious manner, there are still the broader signaling concerns about precisely those societal norms. You may not value yourself merely because you look sexy in a cropped top with a flat tummy, but the 14 year old girl doesn't know that when she watches you strut down the street with a swagger, and not because you're looking good but because you're a U of C Law graduate who just settled for millions... I guess the quick point is that one's own individual relationship with destructive social norms is only part of the ethical considerations one must put into the decisions they make. The value society at large places on a practice is also significant in any ethical consideration, no matter what one's individual relationship to the practice is.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home