Talk:Girls Gone Wild (franchise)

Deleted comment from talk page because it was a personal comment about the product not the article. Onthost 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of phrase

what does it mean when it has Limited in pharentheses by the word sex? just curious..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.173.94.209 (talk • contribs) .

I figured it meant not hardcore sex type of things. To my understanding, their videos only go as far as touching and girl-girl licking/fingering/etc and all that. I think "limited" is probably the wrong word, but the message they were trying to say is that there's sexual stuff going on, but (as far as I know) there are not penii into vagina type of stuff... just things that Bill Clinton would not necessarily refer to as sex. If I understand it right, the boyfriends are not involved in-video except for feeling 'em up and stuff, so I disagree with "Sometimes the crew will follow a group of girls back to a hotel or other location and tape them engaging in a sexual act in with each other or a boyfriend." unless you've seen one of the videos and saw them doing sexual stuff with their boyfriend. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:: I'm a subscriber. The boyfriends are never involved, except in the extremly rare case they're not entirely off frame while a girl is being filmed for the flashing filler sections of the videos. The hotel/tour bus scene are entirely girl/girl with a polcy of no non-employee men allowed on the bus. Just thought i'd clear that up. On a related note, this article is horrible, someone should really do a full overhaul, a job which I don't have time for, i'll do what i can but i'd appreciate a hand.CodyM 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"i'd appreciate a hand." Why are your's too busy whatching the tapes?

Legal Claim

Can anyone provide a reference on the 'minors exposing their breasts in public isn't child porn' idea? 69.154.177.104 02:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's in reference to "In 2004 in Panama City, Florida, a judge ruled that video footage of females under the age of 18 exposing their breasts, without physical or sexual contact, is not child pornography." I found [1] on Google which sounds like it's probably the case they're talking about. It sounds like there wasn't any sexual activity involved (like it says in that quote) for at least the tapes they checked out. It sounds like in this case the worst thing on the tapes was just some nudity and not any pornographic stuff. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Case

It seems to me there's something moderately important missing from this page, a reference to a (I believe) federal case regarding a young woman (but of age) who sign a release for her images to be in a Girls Gone Wild video (who later sought to block release and distribution). The judge (herself a woman, I believe) issued a lengthy and not terribly sympathetic written opinion, dismissing the claim. Blondlieut 04:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knockoffs?

This whole section looks like somebody's paranoid delusion. Where is the evidence, aside from the variable quality of the videos?

The section is true, oh nameless inquisitor. They're not necessarily the same type of deal as Girls Gone Wild, i.e., they're not for sale anywhere that I know of, unless maybe as a bootleg in New York or something. They're downloaded, and feature the Girls Gone Wild 3D logo and T-shirts sometimes, but rarely have any real format, similiar to Girls Gone Wild or otherwise. There's also a franchise known as Wild Party Girls which has been advertised in 30 minute segments late at night on some networks such as Comedy Central and TBS, which is very obviously fake, in that girls are on camera saying how they didn't know they were going to be filmed, although they don't object to it. The whole idea of that is that there's a sorority, and a cameraman who is there sometimes, and films these girls doing things they wouldn't expect themselves to do. The videos don't try to conceal the fact that it's all fake, really. They also have to display a disclaimer stating that they're not associated at all with Girls Gone Wild, a subsidiary of Mantra Entertainment. That's all I know about that. Let's pretend that isn't much. 75.2.11.89 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up, but the Knockoffs section names GGW: On Campus and GGW: College Girls Exposed as fakes, but I own DVDs of both of those, they are obviously legitimate, you can even buy them on Amazon. I'd edit that part myself, but whenever I change anything on this page somebody else just changes it back again...

He's right, they're both legit, i'm changing the section to reflect it. (I'm grumbling because whoever wrote this article seems so uninformed as to what they're writing about it disgusts me.) CodyM 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media Guru?

How objective is the title Media Guru? I would hardly call this guy a media guru.

> I would tend to agree. A Guru is different 'animal' (for want of a better word). This guy just uses DRTV (Direct Response TV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.239.164 (talk • contribs) 12:36, February 8, 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Legally, exposing oneself in a public area constitutes no expectation of privacy... I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in New York exposing yourself in public is a violation of the Penal Law [2] section 245 Public Lewdness and it's a B misdemeanor, and frankly I'm a little offended by the indulgent, apologetic tone of some of the writing in this article. And I don't think Wikipedia should be celebrating the success of an outfit that's been compelled to pay million dollar fines for scamming people and violating federal law. Cryptonymius 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you are allowed to go topless in New York (both men and women). "In summary, the People have offered nothing to justify a law that discriminates against women by prohibiting them from removing their tops and exposing their bare chests in public as men are routinely permitted to do. The mere fact that the statute's aim is the protection of ``public sensibilities is not sufficient to satisfy the state's burden of showing an ``exceedingly persuasive justification for a classification that expressly discriminates on the basis of sex (see, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 461, 101 S.Ct. 1195, 1998, 67 L.Ed.2d 428). Accordingly, the gender-based classification established by Penal Law § 245.01 violates appellants' equal protection rights and, for that reason, I concur in the majority's result and vote to reverse the order below." (from NY v. Santorelli, 1992). Choke on it. ChairmanSac 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choke on it? Oh, right. Nicely put. Cryptonymius 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way:

 § 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
   A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when,
 with  intent  to  harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
 she:
   1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by
 telephone,  or  by  telegraph,  mail  or  any  other  form  of   written
 communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
   (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic
 means   or  otherwise  with  a  person,  anonymously  or  otherwise,  by
 telephone,  or  by  telegraph,  mail  or  any  other  form  of   written
 communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm...
    Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
 Cryptonymius 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On deletion

Get over it! Why delete it? -Rage1138

Because it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, a non-bias source of information, not a place for users to put their personal opinions on the subject in question -- btg2290

Criticism and Legal Action

this area had a bit that said joe francis' recent legal actions inspired a Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode. While it seems logical it is in fact wrong it was actually the original series of the franchise Law & Order that had the episode inspired by those incidences. so i changed it Stellrmn 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]