I can understand when someone says that western society that idolizes the female body. I can understand when someone says that the judge is biased (probably traditional, letting their "values" on female sexuality cloud their judgement). But I don't really get how this one example without sufficient context proves that women are second-class citizens in our society. Is society biased? Yes of course, but I don't think it's indicative of malice or oppression. If Ron Jeremy had the same situation and went to the judge, I think I could safely assume that the case would be thrown out all the same. Then really sex would have nothing to do with it, and sexual behavior does, which goes against the author's thesis. I'm disappointed that the possibility is never explored...

The last paragraph is just, wow, a lot of emotional rambling and victimization mantra. And all this ire is directed at society: a faceless dehumanized monster. I find the explanations that "it's all society's fault" rather intellectually lacking.

The comments in the TMZ article are very upsetting.

The first comment here is also pretty depressing.

I agree that, based on facts in your post, the judge is saying that everyone else has the right to exploit her body. That is an interesting notion; however, I don't think this particular case is quite as clear.

Tila is notorious for releasing "risque" material herself, then claiming it was stolen, in order to get additional press. (She also reportedly lied about being pregnant and attempting suicide.) There are supposedly two tapes, and there is also supposedly a bidding war over the rights to those tapes in which Tila would have to sign off to allow them to be published, and hence receive quite a bit of money. The issue of them being stolen would increase interest and sales.

While rumors are never to be fully believed, I do think this issue isn't quite as black and white if she in fact is the one leaking the tapes. Her history of exploiting her sexuality directly relates to lying about stolen materials, which is of course very relevant to this particular court case.

This is only a few steps away from saying that once a woman voluntarily becomes sexually active, she no longer gets to decide when and how she has sex.

Sadly she may have had better luck if she had approached the sex tape issue from an 'intellectual property' argument.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.

Compare Tila Tequila with another woman who exploited her sex appeal for fame and money such as Pamela Anderson. Pamela Anderson is idolized and adored, but Tila Tequila is completely loathed and hated for a variety of reasons. She faked her pregnancy (I remember hearing something about that on Gawker), calling TMZ to cry about her lesbian lover's suicide, and was alleged to have made up bruises caused by her ex-boyfriend (I have no idea if the beatings were real or made up).

my theory... People hate Tila Tequila because they think she's a "liar" seeking attention.

This seems like a lot to read into one out-of-context quote provided by a celebrity gossip website. The actual grounds for the judge's ruling are not provided. Nor is the role, if any, that the statement about Tequila's sexuality played in the judge's reasoning given. Perhaps the theory was that she wouldn't suffer irreparable harm from additional disclosure of her sexuality because so much of her sexuality is already out there, so her only remedy is money damages rather than an injunction? Or maybe it played no role whatsoever and TMZ has taken it wildly out of context.

I'm confused by this myself; based on my uninformed opinion and five minutes of research this looks like an easy prior restraint case. I'm not aware of an exception to the prior restraint doctrine for privacy cases and it would be hard to justify one when there isn't one for illegally obtained classified military documents. So the irreparable harm issue (if that was the basis of the judge's decision) should never have been reached.

Any time I hear a sociologist use the phrase "capitulate to the male gaze," I am convinced all over again of the unfortunately pseudo-scientific, emotionally-based nature of sociology.

With metaphysics like that, who needs facts?

I don't really know who she is, so cannot offer much there. But what about in terms of simple intellectual property issues (bear with me, please). Could not copyright be stretched to cover this video, in that she has not authorized its distribution? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me there must be some legal grounds regarding unauthorized use of her image that could be deployed here. Or is the argument being made that those rights go out the window because these are sexy pictures?

Meh. We live in an age of fake outrage to generate publicity. A woman who goes to events and sucks on dildos and fake stimulates herself on camera, probably doesn't get hurt too much by a porn video. I think she's just sad that her 15-hours of fame are running out and wants to try to recharge it.
--Now, I couldn't care less about what Tila does, I'm just looking at this through neutral eyes.

In this case, it's the Judge who should be "disrobed".

I don't think the judge was wrong here.

According to the brief article, one of her two claims was for invasion of privacy. To prevail, you have to show that you tried to protect your privacy in the past. This is similar to the related claim of defamation; to win, you have to show that you had a good reputation that could be damaged in the first place.

Plus, the standard for an injunction is higher.

She might have a claim for misappropriation.

I'd be more impressed with this example if the release of sexually explicit content and subsequent legal repression weren't such a widely used tactic to gain free publicity. See: Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Tracy Lords, etc.

The judge's response sounds callous on it's face, but I expect it's taken out of context. If Ms. Tequila's argument for the injunction was that it would sully her public image to have explicit content released, it's not at all unreasonable for the judge to point out that her public image is already based on such content. This legal dispute sounds more like a negotiating ploy than legitimate outrage.

But I could be wrong. Could be the judge is a misogynistic jerk. Wish we had a link to the actual court docs to find out.

What is with all the douchey comments lately? Did someone light the cock and balls signal or what?

What fascinates me so far is how neither the blog's author or subsequent commentors have addressed Tila's ex-boyfriend (who, incidentally, remains unidentified in this blogpost.) *He's* the one that initiated this proceeding by threatening to release a private recording. The directing of anger towards the judge (and Ms. Tequila) is jaw-dropping.

In this drama, the character exploiting Ms. Tequila's sexuality is not Ms Tequila, which I believe to be exactly her case: it's her ex-boyfriend that's exploiting her sexuality by using it as a lever to get... money? Fame?

To those commentors directing ire towards Ms Tequila, I'd suggest the wrong target is in your sights.

This post is really ridiculous. Not because it criticizes the male gaze or because it asserts that the argument "she does it anyway" isn't very valid (I agree with both of those), but because it doesn't really contain any serious analysis whatsoever. It's becoming more and more shocking to me that Lisa has a PhD or a post-graduate degree of any sort (not to mention an assistant professorship) given the quality of her posts here. Here's why:

(1) There is no interrogation of the evidence here whatsoever. Perhaps the quotation sums up exactly the argument that the judge put forth, but, just perhaps, TMZ took an outrageous quotation from an otherwise well-reasoned ruling in order to create controversy and drive users to their site -- far-fetched that such a staid, respectable website as TMZ would do such a thing, I know. It seems rather unscholarly to just take an internet gossip site at its word and to cite absolutely no other sources whatsoever. It's certainly nothing you'd expect from a serious professor.

(2) The last paragraph really doesn't add much. It reads like an angry rant from a first-year student who's just hastily read a Laura Mulvey article for the first time rather than someone who has been studying sociology for years. It's not even so much that it's incorrect that there's a double-bind placed on women's sexuality/sexual appeal (there is), but it's that you'd think that someone who has been supposedly studying this for years might be able to throw out a bit more nuance than just saying that one side involves losing through sexual consumption and the other through being rejected as "feminazi cunts." Maybe there's something a little more complex to oppression than *just* that.

So, Lisa, a word of advice to a junior scholar: you really need to ramp up the quality of your posts here. I know it's just a blog, but it really doesn't reflect well on you as a scholar at all to make posts like this. If another scholar came into my office and mentioned Sociological Images, I can guarantee that my response wouldn't be positive and I'd explain that you are the reason why. You need to take into consideration the people that read your posts and don't comment in addition to the people (mostly amateurs) who do.

[Disclaimer: In the last thread, I got accused of being of some sort of misogynist male for criticizing Lisa, but I'm not. I am a queer, feminist woman of color in academia who just happens to care a lot about standards of scholarship and thought (yes, even on a blog) in addition to caring justice, equality, and so on.]

Simone: claiming that a blog authored by academically credentialed researchers *in their field* is somehow not a "scholarly work" is a bit silly. We all understand the blog is not to be held to publishable rigor; there's still plenty of room between that standard and the final paragraph of this post.

MGS, supposedly a woman of color, sure does have the mansplaining down pat. I'm' sure your patronizing attitude will shape Lisa right up. Oh, and rather than troll around a blog you so clearly are far, far above, why not go hang out with others of your caliber? It might be that they let you know that their estimation of your knowledge doesn't quite match yours. But don't let that dissuade you! People who aren't you couldn't possibly have a valid point of view and ways of expressing it.

typo: think you write pieces

I hate this keyboard.

I appreciate this fine, clear analysis and your willingness to use strong language when necessary, rather than dancing around this stuff. Thank you.

I'd think her "wife"'s horrible death would have affected her reputation far worse than a sex tape, but that's just me.

So, the comments here kind of went all over the place.

My observation of such comments:
Why are the people commenting [the people who made comments that referenced the judge] assuming the judge is MALE? No where in the post or the article was the judge's gender identified. I think that is an interesting statement about gender-generalizing and possibly an additional social problem that should be addressed/discussed.

All the feminist readers on here hate when "society" or our "culture" assumes roles and behaviors for women, but we (I include myself because I initially assumed the judge's gender to be male at first read also) are guilty of it too with male roles. That judge may have been a woman or a man. But the article never specifies, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to assume, because I think in doing so, we reduce ourselves to similar thought processing.

Oh my "[the people who made comments that referenced the judge]" was incomplete, I meant "[the people who made comments that referenced the judge as male, with the use of "he"]"

I was thinking faster than I was typing.

I find it hard to believe that MGS is "a queer, feminist woman of color in academia." Judging by her ridiculous, over-the-top use of mansplaining I'd be willing to bet that they are an MRA activist trying to attack Lisa's credibility. No true feminist would ever stoop so low.

So, ignoring the clusterfuck above...

I relly hate the phrase "exploiting her sexuality", or "using his/her sexuality". By posing provocatively in the nude, Tila Tequila has used her body and her knowledge of what is considered sexually desirable to exploit her mostly male audience's sexuality for money and fame. This is not to say that this exhibitionism/being an object of such attraction can't be part of Tequila's personal sexual identity, just that a woman playing up to the male gaze is not NECESSARILY revealing anything of her own sexuality. Instead, she reveals what is seen as sexually desirable in a society by performing that ideal, and in doing so exploits the sexual subjectivity of men (and women) who desire it. Note that by "exploit", I don't mean she is oppressing this audience, merely that the sexuality she is selling is theirs, not hers.

Tequila is kind of a bad example because she has also made money by exploiting her own sexuality and sexual identity through being famous for being bi (I don't want to imply bi people in general are just out for attention, just that that was the main gimmick of A Shot At Love and what made it so popular). And for many/most women and men who become sex symbols, their experience as the object of lust may well make up part of their subjective sexuality.

But in general, the purpose of sex work of most kinds is to exploit and make money off other people's sexuality and desires, using your body, and the social role one performs as part of their job may have no relevancy to their own sense of private sexuality.

If I was a celebrated hyperfeminine sex symbol it would certainly irk me if people assumed my public performance reflected my personal sexuality, and perhaps this private tape reveals an aspect of Tequila's sexual identity she considers private, unlike the sexual acts, roles and positions she has publically embodied.

What I noticed about the sentence 'Tila exploits her sexuality', is that they do not specifically refer to exploit her sexually PUBLICLY. Apparently if you exploit your body in one way or another, someone else can without legal restrictions just use a private sex tape? I, as an occasional webcam model am highly appalled by this. What about other women who exploit their body on a smaller scale? What about prostitutes? So my boyfriend can tape me and just decide he is going to sell this tape, because I already exploit my body on some other way? I find this highly ridiculous.

And some people are pointing out that Tila has lied about a lot of things to get attention, and that that could be an underlying reason that the judge denied her right for privacy. But why didn't he just say so that he/she questioned her credibility? I think that would be a far less controversial instead of just blatantly saying that she exploits her sexuality anyway...so...that denies her right to have some privacy. I don't see that the judge would make any excuses about it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Tila never showed her genitals on pics or television? A sextape would obviously cross that boundary.

I think people assume that if you exploit your body in one way or another, you just lost the right to other boundaries regarding that matter. Tila might enjoy or tolerate the exploitation of her body on television, pics and musicvideo's, but that doesn't mean she automatically likes the idea of playing the porn actress. I personally like being a webcam model once in a while for various reasons, but that doesn't mean someone can sell my video's.

Greetings,

non native english speaker.

oh by the way...

The judge says: 'Tila exploits her body already' (or something in that direction.)

And yes, TILA exploits her body already. But please fill me in people why the assumption that other people can just exploit HER body too then? I do not understand that.

Whe

And another woman learns that just because you can get piles of money by conforming to patriarchal systems of sexual objectification, doesn't mean you have any claim to human rights.

I would suggest, maybe, that the simple fact Ms Tequila exists in the way she does professionally is an example of the systematic subjugation of women as the sex worker class, not quite so much the judge ruling (though that helps, too). If said system didn't exist, women like this wouldn't have to pose for photos like that, because photos like that would hold no cultural capital nor cognitive existence in society.

I really ought to read the comments more. They were far more interesting than the article itself.

I have to be honest and say that as a reader, it worries me when the only source cited happens to be TMZ, which isn't exactly known for its academic vigor.

That being said, I think that it's a more interesting to discuss just how websites/t.v shows/magazines like this use language to control and distract. Honestly, it's almost beautiful. There is something for everyone here: "slut shaming", the judge's words, the ambiguity of the context-all which make it easy for people to impose their own version of reality on the facts to paint whatever picture they like. If you think Tila Tequila is a "Slut who deserves it" you can derive pleasure here and argue that "it's not controversial because she totally deserved it." The tone definitely supports that. Or you can say "This is wrong for whatever reason" (slut shaming, women as second class citizens,etc.)

Either way,you're talking about Tila Tequila (and by extension TMZ) and that's what they want. There's not even an author listed. "TMZ staff" cannot be held accountable for the verifiability of their words because it doesn't exist as a single person. Anyone think that's unintentional?

It's a trap. It's like cold reading. Make everything vague enough and it can mean almost anything. The article never even pretends to be flirting with objectivity or facts. Deriving any analysis beyond the most basic is pretty much impossible unless you are willing to make a bunch of assumptions to fill in the blanks that may or may not be true. To arrive at Lisa's conclusion you have to assume that the quote is not out of context,that the TMZ staff can be trusted to give a quote that accurately depicts the judge's position and all it's nuances. Call me crazy but I can't exactly see myself believing that.

To make a point based off a source that's designed to be ambiguous is not academic scholarship at all. There are no two ways about that. If Lisa's position regarded the TONE these kinds of celebrity dish websites take towards woman and sexuality and included examples where the tone was different to describe males in similar situations, i'd see something in using TMZ as a source. Even then, i'd think that multiple sources are in order.

If the source of your information is not legit, then your conclusions can't be too stable either. This is not to say that because TMZ is bullshit to use as an academic source that the judge didn't claim what they are being accused of claiming or that Tila Tequila's case wasn't thrown out on bogus terms, just that this isn't proof of that.

oh i guess threading has broken entirely, that was in reply to simone upthread

i agree all the way..That how i feel about kim kardashian..