This will probably earn me the hatred of thousands of girls on this site, but I feel that a site that preaches freedom of expression for $10 a month needs to allow me to clamber up on my soap box for a few paragraphs.

Mr. Francis and his girls who have gone wild.

Ooh-hoo-hoo...

I've been debating this issue with friends for years, probably since I rented the original, original "Girls Gone Wild" on VHS at the local Movie Gallery.

That's right. The original, original" GGW... VHS... Movie Gallery... thus proving how long I've been engaged in this debate.

The major complaint about the GGW franchise is that you've got Mr. Guy With a Video Camera setting up shop in a nightclub and saying to drunk girls "Show me your tits and I'll give you <insert prize here>." The complainers (I don't use the word judgmentally, just as a word to describe people who are complaining) cry that this is wrong because the girls are drunk.

But last time I checked, if you get in a fight with someone when you're drunk, you're still at fault for fighting. If you drive when drunk and are caught, you're arrested and charged (ask Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, or Kiefer Sutherland).

So why aren't these "girls" responsible for what they do when they "go wild"? Because the drinks are supplied for them? Because men are charged admission to watch the ensuing boobage? I've spent my fair share of college drunk. And I made an ass of myself. But never, in all my nights of drunken partying, did I do something that deep, deep, deep down my sober self wouldn't have done. Yeah, I might have initiated a hook-up or two, but looking back, I'd have engaged in the same activity sober. I may have reamed someone out for being a douche, but reflecting on the words spoken and the person to whom they were spoken, it is nothing that I wouldn't have at least thought sober. Perhaps I am that rare "drunk with a conscience", I don't know.

Bottom line, I don't think that "Girls Gone Wild" is exploiting anyone. I'm not saying that that kind of entertainment is for everyone, but it does fill a niche for voyeuristic, amateur "porn". I can't buy that it's exploitation, though, just because the girls are intoxicated. They drank the booze themselves, went out to the clubs themselves, and signed the contracts themselves. If we have to hold people responsible for driving drunk, fighting wile drunk, and even having sex while drunk, then we must hold them responsible for being convinced -- yes, CONVINCED -- to take their shirts off while drunk. Otherwise, arrest Mr. Girls Gone Wild guy and let Lindsey, Britney, Kiefer Sutherland, and the thousands of Joe Americas off the hook who've been punished for making a mistake while intoxicated.

PS - Please appreciate that I have spell checked and kept an eye on proper paragraph formation, grammar, and punctuation. And unlike anyone I've ever seen on the internet before me, I've used the proper 2 spaces between sentences. null

...because there's such a thing as legal precedent for the invalidity of contracts signed while inebriated?

...because fighting while drunk or driving while drunk is definitely your fault, but that isn't at all comparable to a situation where somebody is trying to talk inebriated women into baring skin?

Do you really not get the difference there?

it's kinda funny, between this article and one from about a week ago it seems the general opinion of the people on this site is "naked pictures of small children are fine, naked pictures of drunk college girls who sign releases are bad"

I'm not pretending to know all the answers, but I'm pretty sure some of you might want to rethink this one.

(see "Kiddie Porn or Boundary Pushing Art?")

For one, congratulations on comparing everyone on the planet to yourself. I know in my early 20's i was drinking to the point of black out almost every night, it wasn't until about my mid -20's i realized i was an alcoholic. Guess everyone isn't the same huh?

Two. go to a GGW event. You will see that the women simply aren't asked "Hey show me teh bewbies" and left alone. They aren't left alone. They're basically given free alcohol and harassed in front of their peers until they give in, because they think unfortunately they're convinced it is the right thing to do, or they just want the harassment to stop.

Then there are some that are topless before they even get into the bar.

The ones i noticed doing it the most were young. No offense to people in their late teens or early 20's, but some of the people in that age group are afraid of rejection, it takes some time, and some rejection experience before you actually get like me and say "Fuck you i am going to do what i want to do when i want to".

Boobies are a beautiful thing, don't get me wrong. I like seeing them, but watching some intern go "let me see them, let me see them, let me see them, let me see them, I'll give you a teeeeee-shirt" and a large group of frat boys in the background screaming "Yea! show us your tits!" disgusted me on the whole situation.

You are trying to compare a thread where members were debating whether or not an image was art or child porn with a story of a guy who lures drunk girls to get naked for a t-shirt so he can make millions.

The only connection you could make between the two stories would be if you are claiming that Joe is an artist and is simply just "misunderstood" by the surrounding "art critics."

This is why I try not to huff paint whilst posting.

"I'm not saying that that kind of entertainment is for everyone, but it does fill a niche for voyeuristic, amateur "porn"."

yeah, but don't tell 'moonrabbit' that, he NEVER jerks off. he poses in pictures with puppies and melts hearts and snow while only reading articles and appreciating beauty, and paying an annual sum to do so.

I agree with almost all you have written. People make the decision, cerebral or not, to drink. Therefore you knowingly and willingly open yourself to the responsibilities that come with a chemically influenced mental state, etc. But you do a fair job on summarizing my argument. In addition, this case is concerning in the lack of unbiased judgment and treatment. Can you imagine if he was of color???

That is all I feel like typing OTHER THAN there really should be ONE space after a period. People use to use two spaces when using a typewriter back in the day because the leading of a type writer's "." was small and required an extra space to differentiate discontinuity between characters. The use of word processors has eliminated the need to do so (One or Two Spaces?). But we were all taught in school (incorrectly if you are not using a typewriter) to use two spaces after a period. Yes, people argue this to the end, but as a Typographer, like many, it is one.

I guess I don't get the difference there.

Let's start with the legal...

Yes, a contract signed while drunk, just as one signed by a minor, is null and void and illegal. But you know what else is illegal? Being so drunk in public that you can sign a waiver and show your breasts, only to be revolted and disgusted by what you've done the next morning. While it's generally only enforced when fighting or excessive noise starts up, it is illegal to be drunk in public. Hence why your local sheriff's office has a "drunk tank".

As to the issue of driving drunk not being the same as getting naked when drunk. Why aren't they? Sure, except in climates of extreme cold, you can't die from being naked. But getting into a car wasted and taking your shirt off wasted are both decisions that you make. Sure, you were drunk when you made the decision, but you chose to convert your state of mind to a mode where your thoughts and inhibitions would be subdued. Otherwise, why get "shitfaced"? As for the "evil corruptors" luring these girls in and twisting their Snidley Whiplash mustaches... are these girls so wasted that they can be forced to do things against their will with the simple offer of free beads or drinks or T-shirts and internet notoriety? I would think that were I that succeptible to suggestion when I was wasted, I'd tend to refrain from getting drunk around people I don't trust.

If I, a middle-class almost 30-something, can offer some advice to the young women who may end up suing Francis or cats like him for being exploited because they're getting "tricked" into signing a release form and taking their shirts off for a video camera while drunk, it's this: ask yourself these four questions before getting drunk and going out clubbing or to a party:

a) When I get totally shitfaced tonight, to a point where
I can no longer make rational decisions and control
my actions, are there things that I might get
convinced to do while in such a state of inebriation
that I would never do sober?
b) When I get totally shitfaced tonight, to a point where
I can no longer make rational decisions and control
my actions, are there places that I might go where I
might be coerced into doing things while in such a
state of inebriation that I would never do sober?
c) When I get totally shitfaced tonight, to a point where
I can no longer make rational decisions and control
my actions, will my "friends" allow me to say and/or
do potentially embarassing things while in such a
state of inebriation that I would never do sober?
d) When I get totally shitfaced tonight, to a point where
I can no longer make rational decisions and control
my actions, are there people I may encounter who
might have a video camera, a release form, and a
stack of shirts with "Girls Gone Wild" printed on
them that might convince me to do things while in
such a state of inebriation that I would never do
sober?

If you can answer any of those questions with a "yes", then either stay in and get plastered, go out and stay sober or at least with a comfortable buzz on, or take responsibility for what you do when you willingly fill your body with intoxicants.

Christ, it's about responsibility. For far too long, people have gotten away with shit because they were "shitfaced". Allowing yourself to imbibe a chemical of any sort, of your own free will, then doing something while on said chemical, which you took of your own free will and by choice, should result in having to act like a --gasp -- responsible person and take responsibility for what you've done.

There... I still stand by my opinions and believe that, while it's not the nicest thing to do, getting a drunk girl naked on video, there's fault on both sides of the line here.

And they're just that, my opinions. I'm not even pretending to imagine thinking of speaking for everyone out there who is my age, color, race, sex, creed, weight, height, eye color or blood type. I'm speaking for myself, stating my opinions based on my life experience. I know everyone has lived a different life, in different cultures, with different impulses. But I still think that what I'm saying is common sense. Think before you act! That's a universal notion, after all!

Wow do I really fucking hate that guy...

were you ever young dude? I am taking that the experience you expressed in that long blurb, is learned from trial and error, maybe?

i am pretty happy that all my errs in judgment when i was drinking weren't exploited and sold on videotape or DVD format across the nation.

Wow, you should be so proud...carry that torch high my friend!

I think you are oblivious to the fact that there is a big difference between engaging in criminal acts and signing a legal contract.

Ummm, because legally speaking signing a contract while inebriated makes that contract null and void.

I'm sure that your anecdotal personal experiences generalize to the larger population...well maybe not.

Go right on ahead bro! Me, I'll stick with my opinion that getting girls drunk and filming their exploits later is well, exploitation.

Sort of how David Duke fills a niche for hillbilly racists...

Once again, that little difference between criminal acts while intoxicated and signing legal documents while intoxicated... Just out of curiosity; would you be okay with someone getting drunk to the point of blacking out (on his or her own volition) and later signing a will when asked by a opportunistic relative?

I love how this has become a debate about the morality of GGW, and that no one has taken the time to actually read the legalities of this case. Sure, it's fun to call Joe Francis a douchebag, and he is one, but that's not what this article is supposedly about. This man has been in jail for months, and do any of you have any idea why? did any of you even bother to read? or did you all just decide to jump on the douchebag band wagon?

If anyone in this thread had actually bothered to read the legal history of what's been happening, no one would be talking about drunk girls doing stupid shit, they'd be talking about the incredible misuse of power and authority and the unlawful mistreatment and incarceration of a human being. Not a good human being, but a human being none the less.

excellent. fucking. response.

No offense man. But if i am going to read about the legal history of Joe Francis i am not going to do it on Joe Francis' website.

Wow. You guys are spending entirely too much time discussing some seriously unimportant bullshit. There's no way I'm read that much at this hour.

This was a humorous opinion piece. Not scoop from the NY Times.

Here's a crazy idea. Maybe some girls on this site pose for empowerment and OTHERS do it because they're attention whores. I dunno. Maybe that's just too crazy. One thing I do know is that SG incorporates artistic expression which is a fucking rarity these days.

You certainly won't see anything like that that at least 50 yards within Joe Francis. Fuck that douchebag.