Girl Implicitly Consented to Girls Gone Wild Assualt, Jury Finds

There is no doubt that the entire “Girls Gone Wild” enterprise is sleazy and panders to the lowest of common denominators. The films consist largely of drunk young women making out and flashing the camera. Occasionally the fall to the ground and the producers get a panty shot. They are inane and depraved. And as tacky and exploitive as the franchise is, actual informed consent is all the separates pathetic voyeurism from criminal assault. Or, at least that was the case until last week.

It took a Missouri jury only 90 minutes to decide that a woman, simply by being at a location where the producers of “Girls Gone Wild” were filming, implicitly consented to having her top pulled off and her breasts exposed on camera. The now-married mother of two sued the producers in 2008 after a friend of her husband’s told her she was in one of the videos.

In the video the girl, then 20, was dancing with a group of other women at a bar. On the tape she’s asked to show her breasts and says no. Shortly after another woman suddenly pulled her top down. Normally “Girls Gone Wild” has women sign consent forms or give verbal consent on camera. In this case neither happened.

But the jury foreman Patrick O’Brien and 10 other jurors disagreed, saying that the women in effect to consented to having her breasts displayed in the video by being in the bar and dancing when the cameras were present. In a trial like this in Missouri, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

Sadly, the verdict seems another logical extension of the “asking for it” meme that colors and underscores most sexually charged allegations for women. Some criminal rape trials may be the last place where the narrative is not about the actions of the defendant but rather those of the victim.

But this wasn’t even a criminal case, making the threshold for obtaining a verdict for the victim much lower than had the producers been accused of a crime. It doesn’t matter. Because this woman was at the same place where the show was filming she has relegated away her personal space and dignity for the sake of a cheap thrill. It’s no wonder violence against women shows no signs of abating when a woman’s physical presence alone in a public space is enough to create consent to her assault.

Read more: assault, consent, girls gone wild, womens rights

photo courtesy of Jessica Rabbit's Flickr via Flickr

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Emma S.

11:19AM PST on Feb 11, 2011

Extremely depressing...

send a green star

Caroline L.

8:36AM PDT on Aug 27, 2010

More outrageous treatment of women. I do not know why this is allowed in our "civilized" society. It seems the only place where it's ok to treat someone like an animal is when men are excited by women. It makes you want to hide in your house with a cage around your body... because they are likely to crawl through a window. Cameras or not, this is a horrible violation of our civil rights. None of these girls are paid for this and because they are young and gullible, men think it's ok to just take advantage. I am not for punishing people for consenting actions, I even think prostitution should be legal. But I do not approve of average women in ordinary situations being made into targets. If a woman signs a release, then it's her own foolish mistake but this is just plain outrageous. They need to appeal this decision and get a new trial.. and there should be more women on the jury.

Eurodance A.

12:15AM PDT on Aug 17, 2010

So if a woman is walking on a portion of a sidewalk that is a known prostitute hang out, is it ok to force that lady in a car and give her a $20?
I think not.
Venue has nothing to do with expectations and nobody is asking to be assaulted for just "being there".

Monique T.

10:30AM PDT on Aug 8, 2010

Simply BEING there is not consent! That's like saying that a date rape victim consented to it simply by being in the car or room with her rapist! These people need to be PUNISHED.

Jasmine W.

7:59AM PDT on Aug 6, 2010

Please tell me there's something we can do for this poor woman? A petition?

Elizabeth C.

4:42PM PDT on Aug 4, 2010

Definitely illegal.

monica r.

8:11PM PDT on Jul 29, 2010

Same to you, Charles Wallace, it's fun to debate issues with intelligent people who care about the world. Thanks for all the insights.

Charles W.

4:09PM PDT on Jul 29, 2010

Monica: "Based on the video containing footage of a crime, and I would want it subpoenaed for use in the criminal trial against the person who attacked me, since release of it could jeopardize the fairness of that trial."

That would only postpone the release of the film. Once the trial was over, GGW would be free to release the film then. In the long run, this tactic would not accomplish anything.

I'm glad that you agree with me that it should be illegal for GGW to release the footage. I still think it IS illegal, and that the jury made an erroneous ruling. But that's where we started, isn't it? Thanks for the spirited disussion, Monica.

3:50PM PDT on Jul 29, 2010

Charles Wallace:
"What you are claiming here is that one does not have the right to place conditions on one's consent. Any consent is TOTAL consent. By that logic, if you get into a taxi (thereby consenting to be driven by that taxi), then you cannot place the condition that the taxi drive you where you want to go."

The purpose of a taxi is to take me where I want to go, so I have a reasonable expectation that the taxi driver will do so. If they drive you anywhere, no one would take taxis, no profit for drivers.

Likewise, I would have a reasonable expectation that GGW would put my naked breasts in their video if the have such footage, since that is what their purpose is. If they don't show naked breasts, no video sales, no profits for GGW.

They have her implied consent to be filmed because she is posing and dancing for the camera. They ask her to show her breasts and she says "I can't". It was not "stop filming". She said no to being exposed. It's nit-picky, but understand the court can't consider the issue of consent to be assaulted because legally she can't give consent for that. All they could consider is if she wanted to be on video for GGW. She plays to the camera for most of her 24 seconds, I can't fault the jury over implied consent.

Using the assault portion is wrong morally, but not surprising from a business that profits from videos of women flashing their breasts. If Jane Doe was not aware that's what they do, she is too dumb to be out in public.

3:42PM PDT on Jul 29, 2010

@Monica: "Actually, Charles, the jury didn't come up with it."

It doesn't matter who came up with it, the "implied consent" was required, because consent was required.

"Nope. She explicitly stated she didn't want to BE topless."

No. They asked her to show them her breasts, effectively asking her for her consent to film her topless. When she said "No", she was saying "No, I will not consent to be filmed topless". It's an incredible stretch to claim that she was actually saying, "No, I'm too tired to take my top off, but if somebody else does, it's OK to film me."

"there is no legal requirement to stop filming or refrain from the original intended use of the film."

I would argue that the original intended use of the film was to show women WILLINGLY showing their breasts. Since it is obviously illegal to make a film showing women having their breasts exposed UNwillingly (that's why consent is necessary), that could not have been GGW's original intent.

"If you're taping me and I trip and fall and you get a panty shot"

You tripping yourself is quite different from some 3rd party tripping you. In either case, though, I'd think the vast majority of people would think that you probably don't want the footage used, whether you explicit say that or not.