Los Angeles Times reporter Claire Hoffman has a must-read article this weekend in that paper’s West magazine on Joe Francis, who may be the most repulsive individual in America. He is the founder of the “Girls Gone Wild” soft-porn franchise, advertisements for which have been polluting cable television for nearly ten years. Those who, like me, believe that this sort of barely-legal exploitation is a lot more dangerous than is hard-core porn will find here a cornucopia of material to bolster their view. The way that Francis and his crew prey on drunken 18-year-olds and induce them to debase themselves on camera (there’s even a $1,000 bonus for recruiters who get a girl to bare herself right after midnight on her 18th birthday) is vile beyond belief. What goes on in the crew bus is even worse. Francis clearly hates women: whenever he has to deal with a woman on a professional basis he becomes vulgar and threatening, as the reporter learned when he pinned her to a car and nearly twisted her arm off, and later when he called her a c**t and threatened to kill her. This is the kind of article that a paper runs only after its lawyers have pored over every comma. Even Defamer, the LA Gawker franchise, calls the piece “jaw-dropping.”
So what’s the desi angle? Well, the farther I read the more I got riled up that Francis’s company is called Mantra Entertainment. Now I’m a writer and I believe in playing with words, and I don’t think any word is ever absolutely off-limits. But come on, this is disgusting. Mantra?
A mantra is a religious syllable or poem, typically from the Sanskrit language. … They are primarily used as spiritual conduits, words or vibrations that instill one-pointed concentration in the devotee. … They are intended to deliver the mind from illusion and material inclinations.
I’m sorry, calling your porn and degradation company Mantra just ain’t right. After searching a little for other business misuses of common Indian spiritual terms, I found that mantra is by far the most-abused. Sure, there’s a Karma Digital Corporation, at least one Karma Entertainment, a Nirvana Corporation that builds real estate in Costa Rica, a Nirvana memorial park in Malaysia, a Juggernaut Entertainment (oh no, not again) in Chicago, the Ashram Galactica Grand Hotel at the annual Burning Man festival, and of course the sinister Dharma Corporation of the TV series Lost. But mantra is on a whole ‘nother level:
- Mantra Restaurant (Boston)
- Mantra Lounge (Milwaukee)
- Mantra Lounge (Seattle)
- Mantra Brand Consulting
- Mantra Vibes
- Mantra Recordings
- Mantra Lingua bilingual children’s books
- Mantra Resort, Spa, Casino (Punta del Este, Uruguay)
What is it about this word that has spawned so much commercial use? Am I over-reacting when it makes me feel queasy? And what other egregious (or amusing) uses of desi cultural terminology have you run across in the business world?
I watched GGW again last night, for academic purposes. This one had Big Dogg Snoop hosting the festivities, no less. Of the hundreds of girls baring their privates in return for beads/tees, very few appreared “crunk”. Most of them seemed to be very happy to do it. Why can’t we bleeding-hearts just think that they are doing it out of their own free will? Is it becuse our sexually repressed desi brains find it easier to think that they’re being somehow tricked into baring themselves, rather than doing it because they dont mind doing it?
speak for yourself.
dude, nowhere does anyone say they are being tricked into baring themselves. read the article. it’s abundantly clear that everyone knows what GGW is and obviously the women know that they are going to expose their chests.
but they don’t know that they are going to get harrassed to reveal more, and to perform more pornographic acts.
they don’t know that they are liable to get molested and even raped.
they are egged on to drink heavily (in violation of the law i might add, since so many of them, including the one in the article whom francis plies with shots before taking her to the bus and raping her) so that their judgement is clouded when they sign the waiver form and do the things GGW asks them to do
etc etc etc
do you have kids? or nephews/nieces? what if your 18-year-old niece came to you and told you the story that the poor girl in illinois had to endure. would you say “tough shit, you did it of your free will?”
I fear the moralists and sermonizers far more than the producers of GGW. And to me Siddharta from his first posting to his latest seems to be getting very close to, if not already deep in, the camp of the Pat Robertsons and Khomeinis and Operation Rescues of the world.
Expecting society and laws to step into every aspect of human life (wherein the participants are there from choice, good or bad) because it offends someone is a race toward a society I don’t care much for.
Feel free to ask me personal questions about relatives etc. only after you have clearly, unambigously demonstrated you have spent several years teaching children, teens and college-age kids how to live responsibly in a world where there are many wrong turns to take, wrong choices to make, and invitations every day to do so. Come back after that, talk about your experience and challenges, and then moralize, sermonize, and probe others about their nieces and kids and such.
IF it is true that Francis is guilty of rape, evidence needs to be brought forth and he needs to be tried in a court of law and duly punished.
On the other hand, could Jannell have made it up?
As regards Kaitlyn, just check out her myspace homepage. And I hope her parents do too before they proceed with some type of legal action against Francis. It would help her case more if she took the giant condom wallpaper from the background and replaced it with someone more sexually nuetral.
If she feels victimized by Francis then her myspace venture could perhaps be used to garner sympathy for her case rather than garner what she appearantly seems to be seeking.
No, I’m not a repressed desi. I’m a liberated videsi. Even then, I think it’s high time that naive parents break out of their denial and stop seeing their little Katie or Suzy as these innocent lil angels who are bereft of any responsibility or guilt in matters sexual.
Kids grow up fast these days and that needs to be taken into account in cases like these.
Even if Francis offers them a stream of alcoholic drinks, do they not know how to say “no thanks, I already had enough”.
That does not mean I’m saying he is within his rights to take advantage of them in any way once they are drunk. HELL NO! However, we are responsible for knowing our own limits in regards to drinking and other substances that make us vulnerable. That’s called using common sense.
I don’t like Francis. Even before I knew who he was and what he did, I thought his face was annoying and trite. I think he deserves what he got from that guy who blackmailed him. But teenagers these days are more clever and tuned in then they were in say, the 1950s. That also should be taken into account.
The fact that most of the customer service people behind the phones in his call center are black but most of the women in his videos (including the one with Snoop Dogg) are white says alot.
Black girls would NOT be down with this white boy’s game.
I dont if this counts, but Deepak Chopra’s book about his take on the Kama Sutra is just plain wrong and when you think about him doing “research” on his wife it makes me want to take a oath of celibacy. Cant this guy go one damn month without writing a book exploiting himself being Indian. I am so tempted to get the audio version of this book just so I can here deepak say “penis” and “vagina”.
No, I’m not a repressed desi. I’m a liberated videsi.
Excuse me please but what’s a videsi?
Videsi is what desis in the Desh (India) call foreigners.
Shallowthinker, Deepak Chopra wrote a commentary on Kama Sutra? What didn’t you like about it?
I’m always interested in getting my hands on any new (or old) commentary on the Kama Shastras (of various cultures) that I can.
i am honored that you would place me in such exalted company. i do love a good sermon.
I’m curious as to what, if any, substantial legal action against Francis this article has resulted in. I mean, she even printed his statement telling her not to print it. Some shit must’ve hit the fan.
Siddartha, could you aid in getting me un-banned on SM. It’s been over one year!
I’ve googled but could not find any updated information regarding the cases mentioned in the woman’s article.
Videsi Gori —
Not sure if this is what you’re looking for but Maurice Reeves — who has linked above has a conversation with Joe Francis in response to the LA Times article. It’s pretty disgusting.
I’m pretty sure that was a satirical fake conversation, not a real one.
oh. i assumed it meant a desi who appears in “videos,” ergo the sexual liberation.
It was? Oops, sorry. I guess me and my oversensitive, feminazi radar overlooked the ‘humor’ tag on that one. My apologies to Maurice Reeves.
“The People Vs Larry Flynt” is a remarkable film about the Supreme Court unanimously finding in favor of Larry Flynt of The Hustler and a telling putdown on the administration, politicians, and moralists who demanded he be shut up. How is the GGW situation any different for this to even be a discussion now? Are people familiar with and disagreeing with the Court’s decision on the Flynt case?
If it’s the giving, don’t worry for you do a good job. If it’s the getting, I suggest you listen to yourself. If you want more tamasha just toss a few shots in before you begin. Have a camera record the action. Just don’t blame someone else later 🙂
A more original name,
No, m’dear, I meant ‘psychopath’. Based on the reading I’ve done, sociopath is more of a popular term than an academic one. There are plenty of psychopaths who fit the definition (ie Hare’s checklist) and who do not commit violent crimes (which, btw, Francis does apparently commit). Hence book titles like ‘the psychopath in the corner office’ and documentaries like the Corporation, which used Hare’s checklist to measure the psychopathy of corporations. There are also subclinical psychopaths among us who will never commit a crime, but wreak havoc through the lives of those around them due to their manipulativeness and lack of empathy.
That said, I’m not a psych major – any of you out there who can elaborate?
What!? No Hitler analogy. Thanks for the moderation.
Putting aside any issues of criminal conduct which were raised, my college professor in women’s studies would find some of this discussion interesting. First, a male is commenting how women should be more protected from voluntarily exposing themselves. She would see this an example of male paternalism. Siddartha is not making parallel criticisms of the Guys Gone Wild videos, for example.
Second, radical feminism would view this as being potentially positive to women because women are collecting the money and it could be argued this demonstrates their power. New feminist groups like CAKE fit under this umbrella.
BTW – Someone asked if a desi girl was ever on one of the videos. My hunch is that if one was, everybody and their mom would have heard about it by now.
Thanks for catching what I missed. While you are at it, perhaps you want to play his Himmler in building up dossiers on those that disagree? His message suggests an operating framework for interrogations that start with: do you have kids? or nephews/nieces? what if your 18-year old niece came to you….? Makes it easy for you, Manju.
Sure, compared to all that I’ll happily wallow in the moderation you thank me for 🙂
except that i am not commenting that at all. nowhere am i advocating any particular measure that would “protect” the GGW subjects/models from exposing themselves. go ahead, re-read the post and all my subsequent comments. i never advocated any such thing. you will find that i made observations about actions on the part of joe francis that appear to be illegal, based on the los angeles times article. that is all.
indeed, the responsibility of the young women is not my point. my point is the responsibility of joe francis. not just his legal responsibility, but his ethical responsibility. i cannot stop him from doing what he does, and frankly, i would not like to use the law to do so. there are consent and free speech issues here and i have no interest in censoring him if what he portrays is legal and legally collected.
ok? am i being clear enough?
so, you ask, what is my point then? well, my point is that i have long been vaguely nauseated by these GGW commercials and by prior articles about it, and now this article helps me fully understand why. i am nauseated because it is the story of an adult male using every trick in the book, whether legal or not, to get young women in a vulnerable situation where they will do things that there is a substantial chance they will regret having done, either in the morning or sometime in the future. and he knows it, and he uses his male (and white) privilege, and his financial resources, to achieve his end and to make big money out of it while the women get nothing.
whether it’s legal or not is not my point. whether women should be “protected” or not is not my point either. as a matter of fact, i agree with the commenter above who suggested that there is often a failure of parenting here, not a failure of the law.
my point is that it’s disgusting, and it’s sexist, and it’s classist, and — forget all those fancy words — it’s just plain ugly. and, god don’t like ugly.
peace
natural, i direct you to my comment above. whether upon reading it you still think i’m like khomeini, hitler, or operation rescue, is entirely on you.
Siddharta’s posting (#70) makes no sense at all. It only evokes in me memories of 1989 and 1990. Back then many postulated–on grounds of ethical responsibilities, offended moralities and religious feelings, etc.–that the fatwa against Rushdie was entirely legit for The Satanic Verses. Publishers died or were wounded seriously, books burnt, a lot of damage, and a creative mind never was the same again.
GGW goes beyond a failure of parenting. It highlights society and its priorities and most importantly, human nature. There will always be a demand for porn and the more you suppress it, the more it will leak elsewhere (perhaps causing more damage). Homo economicus, incentives, the need to be a starlet (for their 15 seconds of fame), supply/demand, the dynamics of human sexuality,…all mean you can’t bottle this up. Your nausea and disgust is understandable. I worry however about your reaction as I fear it is a path toward a bleaker tomorrow.
I’m afraid #70 only confirms the moralizing vein I pointed out earlier. If you can’t see it already, Siddharta, I don’t know if someone else can help you see it.
I’d like this to be my last posting on this subject.
GGW goes beyond a failure of parenting. It highlights society and its priorities and most importantly, human nature. There will always be a demand for porn
Interstingly, I agree with you on this, though I find your stand against sexual moralizing too, er, moralistic.
you’re making absolutely no sense, “natural.” for you to assimilate my position as explicated in #70 with the fatwa against satanic verses, when i specifically say i oppose censorship or invasive legal action against GGW, is absurd. oh, and insulting too. but you’ve already insulted me in this thread, so i’m getting used to it. perhaps as you suggest someone else can make your point in a way that makes sense. i won’t be holding my breath though.
natural accuses me of sexual moralizing, while manju accuses me of being moralistic in my stance against sexual moralizing. i conclude that i am in the right place. i also note that manju is cordial and courteous, while natural is not. that’s all. ta-ta!
You’re not the only one, Natural. All you’ve done is make me hungry for NZ Naturals ice cream! Nice one when a girl’s trying to count her points. That’s more aligned with the evil powers of the Khomeinis of this world to moi.
Just give it a rest and stop being self-righteous. If someone wants to comment on the exploitation of women and happens to be male that does not mean his points are paternalistic and invalid. In fact the most paternalistic tone on this thread came from you
Siddhartha:
I think it’s this. natural sees the relativity of morals to be a condition of a free society. It’s not an uncommon framework in western philosophy.
the relativity of morality is not just a philosophical insight, but (ironically) a moral postulate upon which a free society depends; and the distinction you make–that you have morals but do not wish to impose them on others–is just not good enough b/c by accepting the concept of objective morality itself (which has no basis in truth) you are accepting the foudations of tyranny that has led to fatwa’s or for that matter, colonialism.
if we could only accept that morals are relative we would not have to worry about people imposing their hegemony on others.
Siddhartha
no, #73 was meant for natural. i forgot to put her(?) words in quotes.
Manju,
I am going to have to partially but strongly disagree with you here. I certainly agree that there are many aspects of human behaviour which do not fall into moral absolutes (they depend on the location & environment, intentions/motivations, the specific circumstances of the people involved etc), but in my view there are some “core” ethics which are universal.
Any situation where there is a significant imbalance of power — in this case, where one party is drunk and/or significantly younger than the other and, in both cases, not necessarily in a position to make an informed decision about her actions — and results in the stronger party exploiting and manipulating the weaker party for their own agenda and overriding the wishes of the latter is immoral, regardless of which part of the world one is from. Not everything in life is “relative”.
Jai:
My post #77 did not reflect my own opinion. it was an attempt to explain, at Siddhartha’s request, how (the commenter) Natural could equate Siddhartha with Nazis, Islamists, etc; when he clearly states he does not wish to legislate his morality. This is the best I could come up with since natural doesnÂ’t really make the connection other than to point out how judgmental Siddhartha is–so I figured it must be the judgmentalism itself that makes him a Fascist ;-)…and presented a theoretical argument.
Anyway, as far as your argument goes, I think the emphasis on power dynamics is misplaced. In this case, w/ the exception of rape, I can barely see any “coercion” that could not be easily overcome by free will. I agree however that there is an objective morality. Take racism for example, it can be proved objectively wrong b/c its foundation–that certain individual are superior by virtue of their race—has no scientific basis.
But this thesis is a universal and does not rely on power differences. In fact even the “powerless” must be held to it since even the weakest among us has the power to kill, and therefore one’s alleged powerlessness is not an excuse to have judgment withheld. so as you see, i reject the “blacks can’t be racist argument” or the “terrorism is caused by poverty” or any argument that the “powerless” can be excused from objective morality.
Having said that, I think Siddhartha rightly puts the emphasis on Francis’ behavior; the powerful canÂ’t be excused either.
I actually like the videos, I am a gay man and I own several of the Guys Gone Wild, the people in these videos are not doey eyed innocents. These are people who are capable of making decisions for themselves. ALCOHOL is NOT an excuse Alcohol may dis-inhibit a person but it doesn’t make people do things they wouldn’t, these people are not vicitms. I work as a drug and alcohol abuse counselor and I get so sick of people using the excuse “I was drunk” a person who gets drunk and drives drunk and kills someone MADE A CHOICE, people are capable of getting drunk and choosing not to drink. I work as a drug and alcohol abuse counselor and we can’t help our clients until they ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for their choices and not blame the substance