Girls Gone Wild: No Sometimes Means Yes

Attention all ladies: Though many of us have never been present when Girls Gone Wild is filming at a bar, (this company tends not to be interested in BC Bar Reviews- who knew?) a recent lawsuit establishes it is not necessary to directly consent to ending up in one of their racy videos.

This would all be rather uncontroversial if the woman in question, referred to as Jane Doe at trial, was fully clothed in this movie. However, she ended up in an explicit video with her top pulled down, even though she can be heard saying “No” and never signed a consent form.

In May 2004, Doe, age 20, partied at the Rum Jungle, claiming that she did not know Girls Gone Wild filming crews would be there. Admittedly, Doe was wearing a low cut shirt, dancing provocatively, and playing to the camera. However, this is a far cry from actual nudity, which is what occurred. From off camera, a female hand came in and pulled Doe’s shirt down. This footage later wound up on the final version of the film, exposing Doe’s breasts.

Now 26, Doe lives in Missouri with her two children and husband. She was unaware she was even in the film, entitled “Sorority Orgy 2,” until her husband’s friend called to inform him that his wife was pretty famous- in a way that most husbands might object to. Her reaction? Sue Mantra Films, the makers of the Girls Gone Wild series.

Perhaps the most shocking part of this story is the jury verdict. The idea that Girls Gone Wild would film an attractive, partially nude woman without her direct consent is not that mind blowing. The idea that a jury would rule against this woman, claiming she had “implied consent” through her racy actions is, indeed, outrageous. Justifying the jury decision, foreman Patrick O’Brien stated, “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing.”

Apparently, through sexy dancing and “playing to the camera,” Doe consented to her top being pulled down, and this incident being marketed for commercial value. Through her actions, according to the jury, she consented to the public seeing her partially naked. Is this just? I think not.

Fox News has an interesting interview relating to this issue- full of many remarks that can only be construed as somewhat anti-feminist. One example occurs around the 4:35 mark: “If she really thought she was assaulted, she would have reported it to police 3 years ago.” This line brings images of larger issues at play, namely assaults on women not in the context of a Girls Gone Wild video. Undoubtedly, this lawsuit raises questions about a woman’s right to consent, and a verdict that basically states that no means yes when it comes to consent. Anti-feminist? Probably.

Stephen Evans, lawyer for Doe, states, “Other girls said it was OK. Not one other one said, ‘No, no.’ She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video.” Agreed, sir, agreed.