Post from Amee Chew

male privilege personified.

every freaking college boy who is complicit supporting the show should
know about the below article. and women should think what we’re
licking the boots of.

also see analysis here, which relates the below to murder/rape in Iraq –

and a response to that analysis –

i’ve been thinking about the lack of colonized women’s / non-white
women’s voices in the feminist sex work debate — which usually
includes no class analysis, no analysis of racism in the sex / porn
industry, no recognition that for the vast majority of sex workers in
the world economic coercion & abuse fuel their situation, not free
“choice.” i’ve been thinking of our rape culture, how rape
accusations against men of power are treated even by our so-called
progressive male allies.

even accounts of andrew jackson’s record as a slaveholder omit how
this supposed “self-made man” bought a young woman as his first slave
– so he could rape and impregnate her to increase his ‘capital.’
funny how no one’s bothered to make a film or write a book about
american history from her point of view — how women’s experiences of
sexual violence are erased into oblivion (unless they’re porn), while
their assaulters are memorialized as our role models. how
counterpunch ran a dumbass piece about why the media should have
covered the mentally unstable woman accusing W. of rape, because,
haha, anyone can tell she’s crazy and it makes him feel sorry for
bush. and they can’t find feminist articles more worthy than that
piece of shit to include regularly?

i’ve been angry.

-amee


‘Baby, Give Me a Kiss’
The man behind the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ soft-porn empire lets Claire
Hoffman into his world, for better or worse

By Claire Hoffman, Times Staff Writer
August 6, 2006

Joe Francis, the founder of the “Girls Gone Wild” empire, is
humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my
arms twisted hard behind my back. He’s pushing himself against me,
shouting: “This is what they did to me in Panama City!”

It’s after 3 a.m. and we’re in a parking lot on the outskirts of
Chicago. Electronic music is buzzing from the nightclub across the
street, mixing easily with the laughter of the guys who are watching
this, this me-pinned-and-helpless thing.

Francis isn’t laughing.

He has turned on me, and I don’t know why. He’s going on and on about
Panama City Beach, the spring break spot in northern Florida where Bay
County sheriff’s deputies arrested him three years ago on charges of
racketeering, drug trafficking and promoting the sexual performance of
a child. As he yells, I wonder if this is a flashback, or if he’s
punishing me for being the only blond in sight who’s not wearing a
thong. This much is certain: He’s got at least 80 pounds on me and I’m
thinking he’s about to break my left arm. My eyes start to stream
tears.

This is not what I anticipated when I signed up for a tour of Joe
Francis’ world. I’ve been with him nonstop since early afternoon,
listening as he teases employees, flying on his private jet, eating
fast food and watching young women hurl themselves against his
6-foot-2-inch frame, declaring, “We want to go wild!”

Above the dance floor, the stage is full of girls who rotate, twist
and shimmy their way up and down three strip poles. One of them is
Jannel Szyszka, a petite 18-year-old who prances around the stage like
a star. At her feet, a crowd of hundreds is gyrating to the pounding
house music. Dozens of polo-shirted boys shout up to her, making
requests like “shake your titties” and “get crunk” (meaning
crazy-drunk).

Szyszka tells me later that as she was spinning around the strip pole
that night, Francis appeared, grabbed her arm and pulled her toward
him. “You are so going on the bus later,” she recalls Francis saying.
“I was like, ‘Um, OK.’ I was shocked. I was like, ‘Whoa—Joe’s, like,
trying to talk to me, like out of all the girls in here.’” Francis
invited her back to the VIP area to do shots with him, she says, and
she said yes.

Szyszka says the more shots she drank, the cloudier her judgment
became. She says she agreed to join Francis and his crew on the “Girls
Gone Wild” bus. “I thought ‘Girls Gone Wild’ was like flashing, and I
thought I would flash them and be done. And so when I’m walking to the
bus, that’s all I’m thinking is going to happen.”

At first she felt comfortable, she says. Inebriated and excited, she
says she was led to the back of the bus, to a small bedroom. The
double bed, with its neatly folded iridescent purple sheets, takes up
most of the room. A flat-screen TV faces the bed, and cabinets are
filled with remote controls, lubricants, condoms, sex toys in plastic
bags, baby oil, a DVD called “How to be a Player” and a clipboard full
of waivers for girls to sign. A small bathroom is off to the side,
with a half-sized shower with faux marble tiling, and on the floor of
the shower is a crate holding cheap and fruity-flavored rum, whiskey,
tequila and Kool-Aid.

Footage from that night shows a close-up of Szyszka’s driver’s
license, proving she’s not a minor. The camera then captures Szyszka
lying on the bed. Her nails are chipped, her eyes coated with makeup.
Following a camerman’s instructions, she shows her breasts and says,
“Girls Gone Wild.” She seems shy but willing. She smiles. The unseen
cameraman asks her to take off her shirt, her skirt, then her
underwear. She sprawls on the bed, her legs open. At his suggestion,
she masturbates with a dildo, saying repeatedly that it hurts but also
feels good. Francis enters the room at certain points and you hear his
voice, low and flirtatious, telling her, “You are so adorable.” When
she says she’s a virgin, he responds: “Great. You won’t be after my
cameraman gets done with you.”

When I talk to Szyszka seven days later, she says she “didn’t quite
realize” she was being filmed. “But I didn’t care because I was drunk
and who cares?” Then she adds: “It didn’t feel good to me at all, but
I was totally faking it because I was on ‘Girls Gone Wild.’”

Eventually, Szyszka says, Francis told the cameraman to leave and
pushed her back on the bed, undid his jeans and climbed on top of her.
“I told him it hurt, and he kept doing it. And I keep telling him it
hurts. I said, ‘No’ twice in the beginning, and during I started
saying, ‘Oh, my god, it hurts.’ I kept telling him it hurt, but he
kept going, and he said he was sorry but kissed me so I wouldn’t keep
talking.”

Afterward, she says, Francis cleaned them both off with a paper towel
and told her to get dressed. Then, she says, he opened the door and
told the cameraman to come back, saying, “She’s not a virgin anymore.”

Szyszka says Francis told her that what happened had to stay between
them. She says she agreed, and they walked to the front of the bus.
Szyszka remembers that one of the crew returned her driver’s license.
Another asked if she wanted to hang out on the bus. She declined, she
says, but asked for three pairs of “booty short” underwear that
Francis had promised her for appearing on camera. “They gave me a
weird look like that was too much,” Szyszka recalls. “They were, like,
‘Three of them?’ and I was, like, ‘Yeah, three.’”

Within days, Szyszka says, she told her father, who was angry about
what she said had happened but kept quiet at her request. A month
after the incident, she says, she told her sister and mother.

She’s confused, she admits, about what happened. She feels guilty, she
says, for getting herself into the situation in the first place. She
says she never would have undressed for the cameras if she hadn’t been
completely drunk. And she is adamant that she said “no” to Francis.
She says she’s haunted by that night.

“I feel like it was planned,” she says. “Sometimes I’m driving along,
and I think about it and all of a sudden feel weird.”

Six weeks after that night outside Chicago, when I call Francis on his
cellphone and ask him about the incident, he says he doesn’t remember
Szyszka and that he didn’t have sex with anyone that night. He seems
to lose control, repeatedly referring to me by a crude word for female
genitalia. “If you print that, I will [expletive] sue the [expletive]
out of you. If you print that, baby, you just put the nail in your own
coffin,” he tells me. “You are a [expletive expletive]. You decided to
blast me . . . You are a [expletive] bitch . . . I will get my last
laugh on you. I will get you.” He then refers me to Burke, his lawyer.

In an e-mail, Burke says Francis and Szyszka did have sex—consensual
sex—and that neither Francis nor anyone affiliated with “Girls Gone
Wild” gave her any alcohol. “Neither Mr. Francis nor any of the GGW
staff in or around the bus recall Ms. Szyszka making any complaint or
comment about Mr. Francis. In fact, Ms. Szyszka was in good spirits
after the encounter, and numerous witnesses have stated that she
danced with her friends outside the bus for nearly two hours
afterward,” Burke writes. He adds: “Though Mr. Francis cannot speak to
Ms. Szyszka’s discomfort during the encounter, other news stories have
commented that Mr. Francis is reputedly well-endowed.”

Francis sounds scared in the message he leaves on my office voicemail:
“I’ve seen some excerpts from your article that I guess you’ve sent to
the photographer and, um, I want to talk to you about it.”

No photographer has been assigned to the story, and no excerpts have
been sent to anyone.

I don’t call Francis back right away, so he calls my editor. He tells
her that I have a crush on him, that I have an ax to grind because I
am jealous and angry.

“I just felt that Claire may have had a little affinity for me,” he
says as she takes notes. “It may have come out when she had a few
drinks.” He describes my behavior as aggressively romantic.
“Originally she hit on me. That’s how I met her. I took her to a
lunch. She called me all the time and it wasn’t about work. It was
about me. I know when a girl has a crush on me.”

He tells her I was drinking heavily—”we all were”—and offers to send
photographs to prove it. When my editor asks if he put his hands on me
that night, he doesn’t hesitate.

“I did absolutely get physical with her—but not romantically,” he
says. “We were outside standing by a police car. The officer told her
to quit taking notes on what he was saying. I said, ‘There’s no
freedom of the press here.’ I took her arms behind her back and said,
‘Let’s take her to jail.’ I said she should go to jail and the officer
agreed with me. She didn’t get the sarcasm. She listened to him. She
stopped writing. Can you believe that? That’s the 1st Amendment. She’s
not a journalist. I stand up for the 1st Amendment. But she didn’t.”
My problem, he tells my editor, is that I “wasn’t smart enough” to
“get” what he was saying.

When I start to pull police and court records, I find that I’m not the
only woman who’s made Francis mad.

In 2000, the property manager of his Santa Monica apartment, Stephanie
Van de Motter, obtained a restraining order requiring that he stay at
least 100 yards away from her. According to court documents, she said
that Francis, upset about the noise garbage collectors made in the
mornings, had harassed and threatened her, twice climbing up to her
bedroom window and pounding violently on the glass and screaming
obscenities at her whenever he saw her. He appeared in her office
several times, she said, asking for her by using the crude word for
female genitalia, and left messages with a co-worker: “Tell the bitch
this is war.” Francis’ lawyer says he can’t comment on the case.

In 2003, Darian Mathias-Patterson, who scouted locations and arranged
for the rental of a space for a Halloween party Francis threw, filed a
police report, saying he had threatened to kill her when she told him
she couldn’t return his $25,000 deposit because the 2,000 guests had
trashed the place. He hurled profanities at her, she told police,
saying, “I’m going to [expletive] get you, you [expletive] whore” and
repeatedly used the same crude word. Two weeks later,
Mathias-Patterson, who was pregnant, miscarried. She later sued
Francis and his company in Los Angeles County Superior Court for
emotional distress, and the case was settled for an undisclosed
amount. Francis’ lawyer says he can’t comment on the case.

In 2004, a woman filed a police report accusing Francis of drugging
her. She told police that after she met Francis in a bar in South
Beach, Fla., where they argued over the morality of “Girls Gone Wild”
videos, she went to his room at the Ritz-Carlton for a drink and awoke
the next morning in bed next to him. Police dropped their
investigation, citing a lack of evidence, and Francis sued the woman
for defamation in state court in Miami, where the case is pending. He
is seeking $25,000,036—a figure that includes $36 in room-service
hamburgers he said he bought the plaintiff and her girlfriend the
morning after they had consensual sex.

In a news release, Francis said at the time: “I won’t sit back and be
called a rapist. Rape is a very serious crime that I personally find
disgusting. As a son, and as the brother to three sisters I love very
much, I would NEVER have sex with a woman without her consent.”

I have two more calls to make, this time about me.

I phone Ementi Coary, a Melrose Park, Ill., police officer who
witnessed Francis roughing me up. He says he didn’t intervene at the
time because he had been told by “Girls Gone Wild” crew members that
Francis and I had “hooked up” and that we “had a thing going” and that
I was “just jealous.”

“I was under the impression that you guys knew each other, that
something was going on between you and that you guys were playing
around,” Coary says. “I changed my mind when he was grabbing your arm.

That didn’t look like playing around anymore.” That’s when Francis’
bodyguard physically separated us, escorting me to the edge of the
parking lot, and when Coary called for backup; a patrol car arrived
moments later. “He’s one of those guys who has money and does whatever he wants to,” Coary continues. “I would’ve been happy to put the guy in jail.” He had advised me to press charges that night, but I
declined.

Then I phone Leland Zaitz, who was working for Francis in Melrose Park
as a producer and was in the parking lot during the episode. Zaitz
says he interpreted the whole thing as Francis being affectionate
toward me, despite the fact that the pressure he applied was so
intense that hours later, my arms were covered in red hand marks.

“He starts having fun and he realizes that most people can’t keep up
with him and he gets a little rough. I think it was just Joe’s version
of being playful and goofy,” Zaitz says. “I think he was trying to
bring you in closer.”

When I think back on that night, our very public scuffle isn’t what
seems the most revealing. Instead, the moment I saw Francis most
clearly—his charm, his rage, his cunning and even his regret—came
later, when no one was looking. I was waiting, still shaken, outside
the club for a cab to take me back to my hotel. Francis, who had
disappeared inside the bus, returned.

Ignoring the two policemen who hovered a few yards away, he tiptoed
past them to stand over me. He rubbed my shoulder. His gestures were
oddly gentle—even fond. I felt sick.

“I’m sorry,” he said, reaching over to tousle my hair. “We love our
little reporter. Don’t we guys? We love our little reporter.”

I stared down at the dirt as he whispered in my ear, “I’m sorry, baby,
give me a kiss. Give me a kiss.”

full article

compadre,
if i injected my flesh with silicone
did hundreds of situps a day
wore lacey push up bras
got surgery to correct my Asian single-eyelid
wore subtle lipstick, concealer, & gloss
made my gaze bruised with shadow & mascara
wore dainty stilleto heels & flippy skirts
got some hips
would you buy me then?

hermano,
does market follow demand, or demand follow market?
i want to be the white girls of your wet dreams with million-dollar
prosthetic bodies, $40,000 makeovers, features imprinted on your cock
by billion-dollar industries

I am beautiful in my mind
until you choose them instead
slap my ugliness to my face

and you tell me you don’t understand this kind of competition!
i didn’t write the rules
of this game you don’t recognize
you just follow the market, the ads, the art, the enterprize…
shaping the sadness of my sickness

Sisters, come together & incite
refugees of false dreams to unite.

http://inciteboston.blogspot.com

12 Comments

  1. Yolanda Carrington:

    That Francis prick should be in jail. He’s a rapist and a pimp. But he’s rich enough to avoid jail time, so he won’t go. It’s like Dworkin said about the convicted rapist—he’s must be scratching his head at why he’s in jail for what damn near every man does.

  2. Stan:

    This brings up a good point; and I’m sure Yolanda will be rewarded by protestations about the Dworkin reference… for the same reason Dworkin got into trouble for saying such. Hits a bit too close to the bone.

    The kneejerk from most men, if we anticipate it and think about what the reaction means, provides a hint about the assumptions under the reaction.

    Dworkin talks about rape from the point of view of women (as Marx talked about work from the point of view of workers, and Fanon talked about colonization from the point of view of the colonized,etc.).

    Dworkin sees rape as men’s eroticization of power over women, as the sexual objectification of women, and as an attack on women’s sovereignty, their personhood.

    The law sees rape from the man’s point of view (beginning as a property crime), and as an issue of self-control. That’s why rape is so strictly defined; so men can know at what point the law forbids them to carry the eroticization of power over women, as the sexual objectification of women, and as an attack on women’s sovereignty, their personhood.

    But if the culture is one of eroticization of power over women, as the sexual objectification of women, and as an attack on women’s sovereignty, their personhood… then it is — defining rape from the woman’s point of view — a rape culture. These are the general behaviors of men; and rape by the women’s definition is “regulated” (to use MacKinnon’s term).

    Men see the issue of self-control as “we are on this road, and there is the sign — the law — that says ‘here, and no further,” and if we fail, it is a failure of self-control; and we are not ‘rapists’ until we cross that line.”

    Dworkin is saying in the starkest terms, the bodies of women are littering the whole road.

  3. DeAnander:

    The law defines the point at which rape becomes a crime against the property of another man. That’s its tradition. Thanks to decades of feminist effort we are *almost* at the point where the law recognises rape as a crime against a woman, but not quite.

    I’m AWOL — out in slow dialup land. Back in a couple of days…

    That this Francis guy is walking around loose is an indictment of the culture. When I return I’ll have some more to say about “crunk” and the use of alcohol to enable/excuse rape and other violence against women.

  4. James M:

    One irony of this “crunk” business: There are presently 3 frat boys who are suing the producers of the “Borat” film for allegedly getting them drunk, talking them into signing release forms, and then filming them while they spewed a string of shockingly misogynistic (even for frat boys), Cro-Magnon-esque statements that have to be heard to be believed.

    So let’s see … the producers got some frat boys drunk and took advantage of them. All I can say to those frat boys is, “Now ya know how it feels.”

  5. Lya Kahlo:

    “Hits a bit too close to the bone.”

    Stan – I have had the sneaking suspiscion for a very long time that when in debates about rape with men – even so-called progressive dudes – they seem to get defensive and dismissive quite quickly specifically because the topic treads to close to some things they (and/or someone close to them) have done and they don’t want to have to admit they are guilty of the crime as well. Because, apparently to them, rapists are only dirty brown men in alleys – not your best friend, your boss, your brother or yourself.

    There is a rapist checklist that floats around the feminist blogs – and I can’t tell you how many times I have seen the list posted and then seen a load of male posters show up to explain to the women why #x and #y aren’t rape. As if only they have a right to decide, and only they have the clear and logical minds to decide. While symotaneously telling women what they can and can’t do so as to avoid “inviting” rape. Because while only men have a clear enough mind to decide what is rape, they can’t be expected to not do it (it’s apparently up to us to stop it). Boys will be boys, after all.

    It is reassuring then, to see a man be candid about it.

  6. Elaina:

    Lya, you are correct but I think it’s important not to forget that these men don’t simply “feel guilty.”
    These men enjoy the male privilege that comes from participating in a rape culture.

    They don’t just shy away from admitting that they have done “bad deeds.” They want the deeds to not be bad, which is historically and materially the case as we know it, and so they do not want change to happen on this front.

  7. Yolanda Carrington:

    Would anyone like to take a shot (no pun intended) at what is wrong with today’s Featured ArticleHistory of Erotic Depictions” on Wikipedia? Here’s the opening passage:

    “Erotic depictions include paintings, sculpture, photographs, music and writings that show scenes of a sexual nature. They have been created by nearly every civilisation, ancient and modern. Early cultures often associated the sexual act with supernatural forces and thus their religion is intertwined with such depictions. In Asian countries such as India, Japan and China, representations of sex and erotic art have specific spiritual meanings within the native religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and Taoism. The Greeks and Romans produced much art and decoration of an erotic nature, much of it integrated with their religious beliefs and cultural practices.[1][2]

    In more recent times, erotic depictions have gone from being a luxury item for the few to a propaganda tool and then an everyday commodity, and even a livelihood for some. As the technology of communication has changed, each new technique, such as printing, photography, motion pictures and computers, has been adapted to display and disseminate these depictions.[3]“

    Right now I can point out about five glaring shits jumping out at me from this passage, but I would rather throw the question out there for other folks to tackle with first. Basically, this situation rakes up nearly every assumption we’ve ever shot down about gender here at FS. De, help me out here. ;)

    Oh…to be a radical feminist and a Wiki editor…

  8. Andrew:

    I am a man, Ok. But Dworkin is right. She only overestimated slightly. But of those of us who aren’t rapists, we still excuse too much of them that are.

  9. DeAnander:

    ya know, it’s a pity in a way about that word ‘rapist’. see, we use it (like “contortionist,” “illusionist,” “artist”) to mean “someone who does acts of rape”. why it ended up with an “ist” ending instead of a “er” ending is etymology at work, with (I suspect) the -ere Latin verb family getting anglicised…

    but anyway. when we say someone is a ‘racist’ there is an ambiguity at work: we may mean that this person actually commits acts of racist violence, or that they merely cherish ideas which support or justify acts of racist violence… police who beat and shoot dead young Black men without cause, or racists like Mel Gibson and Mike Richards who — we think, we don’t know for sure — don’t actually batter or murder Jews or people of colour, but spout the language of those who do. we admit there is an ideology called “racism” and that “racists” are those who subscribe to that ideology whether they act it out or not. and we admit a continuum and a cultural pervasiveness of this ideology.

    despite the shallow similarity of the two words however, even folk-etymology does not back-form an ideology called “rapism” [but isn't that what we mean when we say "a rape culture"?] and allow the ambiguity that a man may have “rapist” (as an adjective, here) ideas, without personally acting on them in his own flesh? or at least, not in someone else’s flesh? (for of course he may act on his own flesh while masturbating to rapist fantasies, many of which are also racist fantasies as we well know).

    “for those of us who aren’t rapists” was the phrase that elicited this little thought-detour for me: I thought, “but it’s a rapist [adjective] culture, how can any of us not be acculturated as [ideological] rapists, that is, believers in a mythos justifying rape by positing the inferiority of women?”

    and is American racism really an ideology in its own right, springing from some “natural” xenophobia? or an ideology which evolved to justify the confiscation of land from indigenes and the enslavement of Africans in the Americas etc? for there is some evidence that in cases of peaceable first contact, vile racist ideologies about indigenous people did not get traction in euro/anglo popular thought until after colonisation and expropriation were well under way. privilege and exploitation require an ideology/mythos to salve the conscience; men who rape require a rapist ideology to salve their collective conscience.

    rapism. I doubt it will ever catch on but it is another way to look at the actual, physical rapist that does not make him a ‘special kind of criminal male who is strangely unlike the rest of us.’ it makes the rapist — like any other terrorist — the operative arm of an ideology — a hegemonic ideology. and allows us to include those who subscribe to the ideology under the general term “rapists” — believers in the cult of rape.

  10. Randy Morris:

    arson-IST
    rap-IST
    rac-IST

    One of the abominable things that struck me while doing this exercise was how the -IST always seems to indicate the application of some kind of skill or artistic affinity (though not so much with “racist”)

    murder-ER
    molest-ER
    embezzl-ER

    The -ER has more of a “just does it” ambiance, dont’chya think? It feels unconscious, where -IST denotes premeditation and practice.

    “Rapism” is definitely a good way to pin the tail on our culture rather than making each act of rape some kind of isolated and aberrant individual act.

    Sorry…just random, De inspired musings.

    Randy

  11. DeAnander:

    the slight status marker on the -ist ending is pretty weak I think… probably has something to do with the cachet at one time attached to French words, which in turn derives from the high status of the occupying Norman lords in colonised Britain after the defeat at Hastings. most words of French derivation ended up being more “couth” or “polite” than the Anglo-Saxon equivalent — we eat “pork” (porc) rather than “hog” or “pig”, and so on. I fancy that most of the -ist family made it into English as Norman imports (-iste — and the Normans were certainly arrivistes in a big way)… but oddly “rapist” is not one of these as the French term for a rapist iirc is “violeur,” a violator — which seems a more womancentric term.

    I’ll grant you pianist, cellist, violinist, flautist, watercolourist, dentist, etc, with their artsy/professional whiff; but we still have to account for composer, banker, lawyer, writer (isn’t “writer” higher-status than “journalist”? and is “novelist” swankier than “author”?) so I call it a somewhat weak status marker.

    I figure most folks know that ‘rape’ in its Latinate origin (rapere) is ‘to seize (by force), to carry off’, which is why the raptors are so called (they swoop down on their prey, seize it violently, and carry it off), and the crime of rape was originally modelled under law as the carrying off (willing or unwilling) of a woman from her father’s or husband’s household. or indeed of any kind of theft (rapine), although it seems to me it leans slightly towards the theft of “living property” (chattel) as in “reiving and raiding”.

    thus old Pope’s long poem “The Rape of the Lock” over which generations of schoolboys have sniggered only to be disappointed, is not about some bizarre antics with a door lock but the theft of a lock of hair, and the Rape of the Sabine Women (Roman nationalist mythology) was the theme for more than one famous painting which depict the wailing and struggling women being seized and carried off, not (as we would say today) literally raped. the meaning of the word has shifted over the centuries to focus particularly on penetration rather than kidnapping (though this more modern sense of rape was I think always implicit in the “theft” of women).

    but we digress… making me a digressionist, I suppose, or just a plain proletarian digresser. apologies for the momentary trivia fit. it’s been a depressing few days and my brain needed to play for a few minutes in the sandbox of etymology where words do not suffer and bleed.

  12. AMY:

    Exactly where do you draw the line with this
    “Girls Gone Wild” ? When does it stop?

    The porn industry now wants to follow in this jokers footsteps by having their own version of Hustler “Live”/”onsite” – following the exact same model. Lure immature/mindless/drunk girls into sex-ploitation via reward system. Our public streets and pubs are not porn houses. Whats next? The Church?

    THE US GOVERNMENT NEEDS TAKE ITS RESPONSIBILITY
    TO ITS OWN POPULATION FAR MORE SERIOUSLY THAN THIS

    It enforces seat belt laws for consumers own protection. But it wont put the lid on jokers who take essentially children who are jumping into adulthood in an assenine way.

    This portable porn van
    is a new model that can be exploited without end.

    I AM SHOCKED THAT THE US GOVERNMENT
    IS SO SILENT WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING
    ITS WEAKEST MEMBERS OF ITS OWN POPULATION.

    THis is a grave insult.

    A lot of jerkoffs like this GGW guy exist out there who have yet to make their debut. It is positively shocking how club owners are willing to exploit the mindless for a profit. THERE ARE RULES.

    AND THE US GOVERNMENT IS NEGLECTING
    ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES.
    THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE ITS OWN.

Leave a comment