Are you an aspiring rapist? Or do you just occasionally like to fap fap fap to non-consensual-ish videos of women being sexually assaulted? Maybe none of these describe you, but you just like the fact that we live in a society of patriarchal values that consistently undervalues women as sexual commodity. High five, bra!
If you fit any one of these descriptors, son, have I got some great news for you! But before you read any further, rapists, et. al. quickly pack all your belongings from that hole in your mother's basement wherever you live and arrange bus fare to St. Louis. Go ahead, I'll wait...
All set? Ok good. Here's the big news (and laydeez you should really listen up too because this craze is sure to start sweepin' the nation!)
It's called "implied consent," and we have a St. Louis jury to thank for setting it as a new precedent for dudes cravin' themselves a little sexual commodity ever now and then, with a 'lil profit exploitation on the side. Yes indeed, the rape culture enthusiasts of St. Louis have had a very vindicating week, which they enthusiastically celebrated with a Slut-Shame-A-Thon in online forums and the Riverfront Times blog section. Stay classy, Chad Garrison and friends!
Implied Consent is this new court-sanctioned sexual assault thingy that resulted from a recent court decision in which a St. Louis jury ruled against 'Jane Doe', a woman who sued the "Girls Gone Wild" video franchise after, in 2004, they put her in one of their videos despite the fact that she never actually consented to be in the videos. Oh, and there was this one other thing: she actually was sexually assaulted on camera by another woman who lifted up her shirt while the tape was rolling, despite Jane's verbal protestations and saying"no" when they were all "Show us yer bewbs!" But assault, schmault -- she was in the club, okay? And the GGW guys were there! And women who go to clubs where there are dudes filming like to be raped and assaulted on camera for monies. This is common knowledge in St. Louis. Ergo, implied consent.
STL.com breaks down the "completely not mysogynistic, no" rationale of the jury in this news article:
"But Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict."
"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."Now, sisters, you might be wondering at this point: How might I be seen implying my consent, when the words coming out of my mouth might be "No, no" like Jane Doe said? This is a very good and important question. According to the official logic of the Missouri court system (state motto: "Salus populi suprema lex esto" or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law" lolz) you may be seen implying your consent doing one or any combination of these things at any time, so be on alert (note: this list is by no means exhaustive):
- dancing
- standing
- chewing gum
- walking down the street
- eating out in public
- having a drink in a bar
- hoola-hooping
- grocery shopping
- walking your dog
- walking your hamster
- checking your mail
- going for a jog
- breathing passively in an open space
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Vyckie Garrison
Kim Brittingham
Cranky Cuss
Mary Ann Sorrentino
Adequate Parent
vanessa seijo
Salon.com
Comments
There is a difference between stupid and consent. But stupid often leads to negative results.
Bluish, that was a little tidbit I wasn't aware of, but am completely unsurprised in learning. If men can be stupid without fear of being assaulted women deserve the same.
Don't miss hear me. Implied consent is a dangerous concept. Even silence and inaction do not imply consent. However we do have some responsibility for our actions and their outcomes. Take Ben Rothesberger or other's as an example. Should he be able to go out when and where he pleases? Probably. Should he be surprised if others question his wisdom for placing himself in a potentially comprimising position-- fair or not-- I don't think so. The jury in the St. Louis case got it wrong! But the intent of GGW photographers should have been known and the expectations were understood by the other participant... Just a thought.
"Implied consent" has no place in a trial about real rape, but this lady was not raped. I hate it when the rape card is dealt for effect. If there was ever an actual rape case where a lawyer tried to use the implied consent argument, he/she would be lucky to make it out of the courthouse alive.
You are either assaulted or your not. Which one is it? And if you are wondering why I'm so agitated by your post, it's because my daughter was sexually assaulted and, believe me, there's no sort of about it.
Donna: I feel the same way about your post, but I would like to clear up the fact that my "sort of assaulted" remark was meant to be satirical (I know: it's not for everyone.) Sorry if that offended you, but it was meant to drive home exactly the point that you make. Considering how strongly your feelings toward sexual assault, it surprises me that you too sort of lecture on this subject of female responsibility. It's another way to shift blame onto the victim and I find it to be anti-feminist in it's point of view, you're right.
However, on the other hand, I have to agree with Bluish that surely she knew what was going to happen when their cameras were pointed at her. I mean, you stand in the middle of a racetrack, I would venture to say you have a reasonable expectation of getting hit by a racecar. Stand in front of GGW cameras, and there's a reasonable expectation you're going to appear on video, consent or not.
I agree that what GGW did is despicable, but I have to say Use Your Freaking Brains, People!!!
My problem with your post is that your title glibly suggests that what happened to this woman was tantamount to rape and you suggest that the implicit consent ruling would be used to get rapists off. I find that offensive.
Now, do I think Doe should be able to go out and dance with her friends and have a good time. Of course, I do. Do I think she saw an opportunity to get on camera when she saw GGW come in. Yes, I do. Should anyone have touched her? No. But unless the woman who lifted Doe's shirt was an employee of GGW, GGW wasn't responsible. Using her image without her consent - yes. Assault - no.
I still stand by my statement that women need to take responsibility for their actions. We've become a society of blamers: if you are fat, it's McDonald's fault, lung cancer -the cigarette industry's fault, drunk - the liquor companies, drug addict - the pushers. When are we going to assume the position and admit we are to blame for most of what happens to us.
I also believe it's naive to think that "implied consent" has never been used as a rationale for a rape case beforehand -- perhaps not as overtly as in this case, but to say someone has never been acquitted on charges of rape due to that exact type of reasoning is absurd. "She had it coming" is the oldest man-splanation in the book. The significance of this story is that it's directly upheld through court ruling, and it wasn't tossed out as it should have been. Furthermore, your last post confirms that you really do believe this woman deserved what happened to her, and this I find this to be essentially a more literate form of slut-shaming against a woman who was clearly the victim of a sexual assault.
Superb rant about a very disturbing slippery slope of a ruling.
Cahrist.
Part of the problem with rape cases, Kasey, is that women who have not been raped but claim they have been make it very difficult for women who have been raped to be taken seriously. Then again, women who have legitimately been raped often feel ashamed and don't want to reveal all the details in court. Unfortunately, when they refuse to take the stand and make their attackers pay, they look like they are lying. Women hurting women. That's the saddest story of all.
I do not consider what happened to Doe sexual assault. Assault - yes. Sexual assault - no. Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't think she deserved what happened, but I do think she should have been aware of the possibility for trouble at GGW events.
I don't know a lot about this case, but I am curious. Did Doe call the police and press charges against the woman and GWW while still at the club? If not, when did she contact the police? I'd like to know the sequence of events.
Furthermore, for all this talk about her responsibility, what about GGW and their responsibility? Oh that's right. Boys will be boys. I forgot.
neither was it socially acceptable.
was a crime committed? yes, I would say some kind of misdemeanor. was it assault? I dont think so. maybe.. "sexual harassment"?
So now the question becomes was her reputation really damaged as she claimed? The jury asked themselves just how traumatized she could have been not to think of the event for all these years. They saw it as a get rich quick scheme, which some savvy lawyer probably convinced them it was. Juries aren't buying it that so much anymore.
Kasey, this case was about greed not privacy rights. Had she asked for less than a $5 million settlement, had she shown some indication that she was harmed over the years by the trauma of the incident -- doctor visits for emotional distress (even if she had only gone to the doctor after learning about the video) -- she would have won. You can't just say you've been hurt, you've got to prove it.
But to extrapolate this into Missouri becoming a "safe haven" for rapists seems to be a rather large leap in logic....one which falls short.
Also, 'mansplanation' is a fun new feminist buzzword for me.
I mean, why don't you just dismiss us all right now as being incompetent, moronic beasts, unable to generate our own valuable thoughts? Calling men (and our opinions) names lowers you to the level of the chauvinist.
I know what it was you were trying to say, and I agree, but I think you could have said it in a less offensive way.
Then you will perhaps be doubly devastated to note that your expressed offense over the term "mansplaining" (which I wish I could take credit for but, alas, cannot) followed by your hilarious labeling of me as a "chauvinist" is a huge fat cup of mansplanation in itself. While not all males who comment on things are mansplainers, ones who lecture women on the topic of sexism -- to which they have no real claim -- certainly are. Sorry. Welcome to Feminism 2010. It's a brave new world.
To avoid future mansplain mishaps, I have provided this link as a guide for you:
http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska
/2010/01/you_may_be_a_mansplainer_if.php