Jiggling Boobs Equal Implied Consent


Wonder Woman:  Watch out if you go near Girls Gone Wild cameramen. Pam Anderson, you be careful too.

The way you shake it says a lot about you.  But Siouxsie isn’t so sure it says enough to constitute consent to an assault and battery.

A Missouri jury disagrees.

Last week, a woman lost her lawsuit against the producers of a Girls Gone Wild video for filming and selling a video of her tank-top being pulled down by a cameraman without her consent.  There was no dispute that the woman never signed a waiver.  Nor did she give permission orally to have her top pulled down and be filmed topless.  And, according to one article, the woman can be heard on the video saying “no” when asked to show her breasts shortly before the cameraman pulled the woman’s top down.

Nevertheless, after just 90 minutes of deliberation, the Missouri jury rejected the woman’s claims.  The jury foreman subsequently informed a reporter that the jury decided that the woman had consented to have her top pulled down by the cameraman because of the way she was dancing in front of him:

Through her actions, she gave implied consent. . . . She was really playing to the camera.  She knew what she was doing.

Missouri: The Show Me Your Boobs State.

Many people have reported on this case and expressed their outrage with the verdict.   [See, e.g., Jezebel; Salon; NYT]

Siouxsie understands these sentiments.  But let’s get real, without seeing the footage, any discussion as to whether the woman somehow gave implied consent is worthless.

This clip from Fox News is closest thing Siouxsie could find to the original video.

Now you can be outraged.

The way that the cameraman reaches in and grabs the woman’s top is disgusting.   Clearly, this is not his first time doing this.

Here’s the deal.  This woman looks and acts like a colossal tease.  And she clearly wanted to get attention at the bar.  But giant boobs, no matter how jiggly, do not create implied consent to be touched and have your top yanked down.  Nor does an orange tan, skimpy top, and/or overly peroxided hair.  This woman should have been able to bring her blonde hair, tiny tank top and milkshake to the yard, without fear of having her breasts forcibly exposed, recorded on video and sold over the television and internet.

Food for thought:  If there really was implied consent here, why would Girls Gone Wild, Inc. even bother with having girls sign waivers or give their permission on video?

Tiny top hat tip:  Sarah McC.

Photo Credit: copepodo

Advertisements

~ by siouxsielaw on July 26, 2010.

10 Responses to “Jiggling Boobs Equal Implied Consent”

  1. Aaaaaaaaarrrrrggggggh!

    Did you see the Scottish ad that I posted? “Which skirt should I wear to get raped?” http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/scots_make_it_clear_my_skirt_isnt_asking_you_to_rape_me

    The whole point about any form of consent is that it is freely and fully obtained. Going to a venue where a Girl’s Gone Wild video is being shot may well imply an understanding that filming is going to take place. It may even imply consent to being filmed (depending on the circumstances) it does not imply consent to being assaulted.

    I’ve been filmed a number of times both formally as an interviewee and informally for a segment on a reality TV show. On every single occasion I was asked to sign a consent/release clause. It is not just a matter of courtesy – it is a legal requirement.

    • Outrageous.
      Thanks for the link to the skirt ad. Difficult to believe such an ad is necessary.
      One would think that we would be long past the entire “she was asking for it” way of thinking. I guess not.
      And well said about consent. At most her presence at the bar where the film crew was created implied consent to be filmed, but not to have her top yanked down and be filmed topless. So absurd.

  2. One of the Fox News folks used the term “virtual consent.” I think she just made that term up. I haven’t ever heard of it before.

  3. In one analysis I read, there was a mention about a former MD (I think?) law that said you couldn’t revoke consent to sex once you’d given it. Sounded like it had only recently gone off the books. Do you know anything about that?

    • It used to be the law in Maryland. But in 2008, the highest court of Maryland held that a woman can change her mind after penetration, and that after consent is withdrawn, continuation of intercourse could constitute rape. The name of the case is Baby v. State.

  4. “The Privacy Act of 1974???” Did that bimbo Vikki Ziegler really say that?

    • It doesn’t seem like the “analysts” spent too much time reading the complaint or researching the issue. But their hair and makeup are awesome.

  5. […] and selling a video of her tank-top being pulled down by a GGW cameraman without her consent.  As  Siouxsie Law said, the jury got it wrong.  No matter how low cut the top or how jiggly the breasts, no one […]

  6. […] Restaurant” is the search term that brings in the most traffic to this blog, with “jiggling boobs” as a close runner up.  Goth, by the way, is the third most popular search […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: