New Sport: Shooting Naked Women with Paintballs

Great Debates
101

I never said I found economic exploitation acceptable. It’s certainly not “completely fine” by me.

I’m certainly not asserting that anyone who goes out and buys these videos is himself going to do the same thing to women. All the film is doing is reinforcing the message that it’s OK to view women with this attitude. I note, however, that you didn’t say all horror movie watchers would go out and re-enact the horror movie scenes they saw on real people, but only “the vast majority”. I presume, therefore, that you admit of the possibility of someone actually doing that because there are some people who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, or more precisely wish to make those fantasies a reality. If you do indeed admit that possibility, why is it not similarly possible that someone watching “Hunting for Bambi” would organize their own naked woman hunt, possibly with nastier consequences?

That’s one problem I have with Hollywood in general - the bottom line takes precedence over the quality of the story and the filmmaking. I’d certainly love for filmmakers and actors to be able to decide on pursuing a project based on the quality of the story or the opportunities to push the envelope of cinematography without having the movie companies OK or reject it because of concerns over potential profit.

Again, exploitation can and does involve more than just wages. Economic exploitation is exploitation of people as workers, i.e. someone makes a profit off their ability to perform labor. The ‘prey’ in “Hunting for Bambi” are additionally exploted as women, i.e. their value to Burdick and his audience lies in their bodies as objects of fetishized sexual desire and subjects of humiliation.

I have a healthy sexual drive, and I freely admit pornography turns me on. But pornography (and I don’t own any now, though I used to) isn’t just people performing on camera or posing for photographs because it turns them on to do so. It’s the same sort of exploitation, both economic and ‘moral’ (for lack of a better term), as described above. A pornographic actor’s only value to the filmers and the audience in general is his or her ability to perform sexually, which turns sex from a highly pleasurable and emotionally intimate act into a more or less daily grind. In addition, pornography sends the message that sexual contact is a necessary component of interpersonal relations, and that sex immediately comes on the agenda any time two people interact. It also sends the message that only certain body types and appearances are sexually desirable in general, which doesn’t do a lot for the self-esteem of people who may not conform to that body type but have the same sex drives as the rest of the population.

102

You did, however, say that you were not upset at Hollywood for doing the same economic exploitation, or at least, not nearly as much as this video. Since the two do the same amount of economic exploitation, I think it’s perfectly fine to dismiss the comments on them as a negative aspect of these videos, unless you have a very good explanation as to why this is different…?

Yes. There are people who can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And you know what? Those are the kinds of people who would do sociopathic things… without any “influence” from a video. Showing them this video would not change their behavior any. In fact, I don’t recall any studies that show causation between media and violence. So, to that extent, yes, there are probably some people out there who would (already) act out such violent fantasies, who would like to watch bloody-gorey videos (One could also make an argument that this is a -good- thing. A nice “out” for such agressions). Same can be said about this video.

However, any way you cut it, this video isn’t going to make more people loose their grasp of reality-vs-fantasy.

What can I say? Welcome to the real world.

That’s why fast-food places boil cheep little hamburger patties and put it on a bun with a squirt of ketchup, instead of making a full restaraunt-style burger with a thick juicy patty and all the trimmings. It’s cheep, quick, and it makes profits. And what’s more, most people are just fine with that. Kind of like how a large number of people love the junk summer blockbuster movies. Cheep, disposable entertainment.

Kind of like how Hollywood likes actors that the audience finds appealing or sexy. Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Sean Connery, Russell Crowe, and a hoard of other actors are all helped out by the fact that many, many people find them sexy. Many movies have been made with poor acting but attractive women, on the bet that people will watch them simply because they’ve got a sexy lady in them. Their bodies quite often are one of the main reasons the movie gets sold. But, you say you don’t hate Hollywood for doing this…

And I should point out that it would be more accurate to say the characters are being humiliated, not the actors. There are plenty of movies where a character is humiliated, often in much worse ways than being chased naked through a field, but none of those actors feel upset about it.

For that matter… If those women don’t feel humiliated for doing it, how can you say they’re humiliated? I don’t think any of us can claim to dictate their emotions for them.

And Schindler’s List actors didn’t perform on camera because shooting “jews” turned them on. They did it because they were getting paid to.

And you know, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a good number of people in the sex-video industry that really enjoy their work. Certainly beats minimum-wage at the local burger joint.

A “regular” actors only value to the filmers is his or her ability to act. I’m not seeing a whole lot of difference here. What more should a film-maker want in their actors?

…And I don’t see how this follows. I generally thought pornography was supposed to show it as “highly pleasurable.” I don’t think it’d sell nearly as well if it did not…

As for emotionally intimate, sex isn’t always. For some people, it’s an intensely intimate act. For others, it’s a good way of having fun with some friends. To each his own.

Sends the message? The only people who would believe that message are the ones who already think it’s true (Think on it, we’re talking about people who buy obscure porno videos, after all), so I don’t see how it’s making things worse…

Not that Hollywood is much different. Watch a James Bond film or two… Or, hell, just about any commercial.

Hah. I think the popular media would have a MUCH greater effect on this than an obscure porno video.

103

Yes, you’re right - today’s society has the drive for profits as its motor. I disagree that “most people” are fine with it. It’s not like a $50 steak dinner at a restaurant is as readily available to a child in the slums of Bombay or Rio de Janeiro as it is to someone like Bill Gates. People eat what they can afford, and some people can afford better food than many others. Do you really think half the global population is “fine” with the fact that their total income is equal to that of the world’s 300 richest men and women?
My point, however, is that economic exploitation under capitalism is a given, and from my perspective is distasteful enough because it necessarily results in the situation I just described. My problem with “Hunting for Bambi” is that it’s sexual exploitation as well. Not that that doesn’t occur in Hollywood, either, and that’s just as disgusting. The point of this argument is why “Bambi” in particular is disgusting. There’s little difference between a movie like “Emanuelle” or “Devil in Miss Jones” or “Hunting for Bambi” or anything legally available starring Traci Lords. I don’t hate Hollywood because it’s not all schlock and junk - there are a mountain of truly great movies out there. I never said I didn’t hate Hollywood for doing the same thing, although generally milder, as pornographers or Burdick is doing.

Good point, but where do they get their ideas from? Is a sexist born thinking women are inferior? Is a racist born hating Blacks or Jews or Arabs? Is a homophobe born hating gays? Of course not - they’re exposed to the ideas throughout their lives. The mainstream media, as well as stuff like pornography, can have a reinforcing effect on those ideas. That’s why I find “Hunting for Bambi” disgusting - it’s produced by people who already hold sexist ideas for people who already hold sexist ideas. Now I don’t think having Congress or the LVPD step in and shut Burdick down is going to make those ideas go away - that’s going to require a much more fundamental social change. But that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t speak out against “Hunting for Bambi” and explain why they oppose it.

104

Oh, one other thing - humiliation is just as much an act as it is an emotion, if not more so. You’ve never seen the kid in the schoolyard who gets mercilessly picked on but takes it because he gets to hang out with the crowd? He may not feel humiliated - hey, they’re paying attention to him - but he’s being humiliated nonetheless. Same for the women playing targets in “Bambi”.

105

Big-ass nitpick: economic exploitation under any system is a given. Capitalism, socialism, communism, feudalism, hell, even pure anarchy. People are going to try and get the most in return for the least. You don’t pay more for a service than you feel it is worth to you.

I have to admit, this has me somewhat interested. Out of curiosity, then, what do you think should be done about this video?

On the contrary. From my experience, the kid knows quite well that he’s being humiliated, and feels it quite clearly, but it willing to put up with it to be part of that “crowd.” Usually, it’s only the “crowd” doing the humiliation that say he isn’t feeling humiliated for it. Or for another example, take all the people participating in some of those reality shows, like Fear Factor. They do a lot of scary and humiliating things, know quite clearly what’s going on (Many comment about being somewhat embarased), but are more than willing to be embarassed given an equal shot at a one million dollar pot.

106

I refer you back to my citation of the OED definition of “exploitation” in re: your nitpick. Trying to get the most return for the least amount of effort isn’t economic exploitation. Economic exploitation is the use of other people’s efforts to create profit for yourself.

I see a glaring contradiction in your argument about humiliation:

But then you say

You admit that a schoolyard target does feel humiliation when getting picked on by others, but assert that women don’t feel humiliated by being taped running around naked while men shoot paintballs at them? Are you saying that being a naked target is less humiliating than schoolyard bullying, or indeed not humiliating at all? How are you so sure that they don’t admit to feeling somewhat (if not very) embarrassed by what they’re doing if the participants in reality TV readily admit to it?
My point is that although the subject may not feel humiliated through whatever rationalization he comes up with, he is nonetheless still being subjected to humiliation, since humiliation is an action independent of the emotional results it may cause. (I’m reminded of the final showdown sequence in “Eight Mile” in this particular case.) Being a naked paintball target is humiliation, as are schoolyard bullying and some reality TV stunts.

107

** Olentzero**, if I were young and beautiful, and if this whole thing weren’t a silly hoax, I’d hire on as one of those “bambis” in a heartbeat (assuming the goggle issue out of the way), and I’m neither immature (I’m 47) nor stupid. What I am is able to recognize comparatively easy money when I see it.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that I can only be humiliated by one person in the world: me. How could the idea that some idiot was willing to pay a huge amount of money to shoot my naked body with paint balls be humiliating to me? It would say something about him perhaps (although I suspect that the others are right, and the appeal is far more innocent than you seem to assume), but not about me.

It is incredibly arrogant for anyone to say “I am a better judge of what is good for you than you are” to a competent adult. And it sounds a lot like that’s what you’re saying about these women. In any case, if you want to be disgusted, fine. But I surely hope you don’t think that something like this should be outlawed. Whether you approve or not, people should have the right to make their own choices, as long as they are in full possession of the facts (which covers stuff like the potential eye damage without goggles).

My two cents.

108

About the video specifically, very little that’s lasting and effective can be done. People could picket Burdick’s house and office, boycott video distributors who carry the video, and so on and so forth, and if they’re lucky they’ll drive him out of business - only to be replaced by someone else with a brassier set of balls and more startup capital.

What’s needed is a strong, militant grass roots movement consisting of men and women that challenges the current attacks on abortion, fights for equal pay, for state-sponsored childcare, for universal healthcare, welfare, and so on. These goals, once achieved, will help to raise the position of women in society and will both remove the need for women to accept such awful employment in order to pay for food, education, provide for their children and such like, and at the same time challenge the sexist ideas in society that give root to videos like “Hunting for Bambi”. Raising women above their current position as second class citizens (and the existence of videos like “Bambi” underscore the fact that they still are) must happen before ending sexist ideas that view women as second class citizens.

AvhHines, your perspective is a little backward. It’s not the idea that someone would pay to shoot you with paintballs, it’s the idea that this is an acceptable way to treat women and a suitable way to make a profit.

I’ve said before that I am not castigating or condemning these women for being the targets - nor, for that matter, am I calling them immature or stupid. In fact my sympathies are entirely with them and not with the producer of the videos, as I’ve stated quite clearly earlier in this thread. I understand people gotta earn money in today’s world in order to even get by. Voicing my disgust with “Hunting for Bambi” and saying this ought to be no way for a woman to earn wages is in no way placing myself above them in moral judgement.

Finally, remember that it was only the organized hunts for pay that were a hoax - the videos weren’t. There are aspects to this little scheme that are very real.

109

Olentzero, my point is that perhaps you should allow the women involved to determine whether or not they feel that they have been treated in an acceptable way. If they have no problem with it (and they, after all, are the ones involved), maybe you should lighten up a little. There are too many important things, may of which you mentioned above, to get excited about - pick your battles! This one just isn’t worth it.

110

NO, it is not for you to decide for others, it is up to the prospective target to decide whether it is humiliating or not, and, even if it is humiliating whether it is a better alternative than digging ditches or working for a cranky boss. Let people decide what is best for them.

111

You’re forgetting that the men who produced the videos and the men who buy the videos are likely to hold the idea that all women should be treated in similar degrading manners whether women find it acceptable or not. There’s more than just the women’s feelings involved here, and holding that up as the sole criteria for ethical judgement is so one-sided as to be useless.

112

Dare I ask for a cite?

113

So we should ban all movies which depict anything illegal because the viewers are likely to hold the view that they should do illegal things they see in movies. And while we are at it, cartoons should be banned because the viewers are likely to think animals can talk. :rolleyes: You know, most of us can differentiate between fiction and reality.

114

Olentzero, you appear to be the kind of liberal who makes me, a life-long liberal, understand why conservatives and libertarians have so many problems with us. You seem so certain of your own moral superiority, and of your own ability to distinguish between that which must not be acted out in real life and that which can, and so certain that other people can’t. I’m with Dewey here; cite?

While I’m busy infuriating you, I’ll try and get one more point across. Don’t you see how you weaken your own position? By making a big deal of trivial stupidity like this, you distract attention from the stuff that is truly important, and lose credibility with those who it is most important for us (the liberals) to convince - the centrists. We have no chance with the hard core right wing, the left wing is the choir and doesn’t need preaching. Only the center is up for grabs. Fortunately, most people fall into that center. They can be convinced. But the more extreme you are, the bigger deal you make of something that is this silly, the less likely, IMHO, you are to have any chance of convincing them on the important stuff.

115

sailor, the only one having any apparent difficulty distinguishing between fiction and reality is you. Would you please point me to the post in which I advocated banning “Hunting for Bambi” or any other movie?

Sure you dare. Do I have one? No. Do you have a cite that says otherwise?

Let’s look at this for a moment. Is a man who holds the idea that women should be treated equally, with equal pay, and so on and so forth, likely to say “Hey, I should make a video of some guys shooting paintballs at naked women”? Is a man who supports equality between the sexes likely to think such a video is worth purchasing? Speaking as such a man, and speaking for men I know personally who agree with my position, the answer to both questions is a categorical “no”. Yes, it’s anecdotal, but it’s hard to deny that ideas guide actions, and it’s a pretty safe bet that ideas on equality of the sexes would guide one’s actions in this regard.

AvhHines, having a strong feeling about something is nowhere close to assuming a mantle of moral superiority. At the risk of sending this debate off onto completely wild tangents, what exactly are the politics of “the center”? Who provides the political platform, the leadership, and the guidance? If the answer is in any way close in resemblance to the Democrats or their organized supporters, you can keep 'em. They’ve been nothing but a disappointment for several decades.

116

On second thought, forget that whole paragraph about “the center”. It’s completely off topic and only serves to muddle the current debate.

Here are two statements, AvhHines.

A: Women who act as targets in “Hunting for Bambi” are immature, stupid, or both, and they should be at the very least chastised for doing what they did.

B: Acting as targets in “Hunting for Bambi” is a lousy way for any woman to make a grand or more in a day, and women who want to make that kind of money deserve better opportunities than that.

Now, go back and read all my arguments before you answer these two questions.

  1. Which statement clearly shows an assumption of moral superiority?
  2. Which statement more accurately reflects the position I’ve taken throughout?
117

You should know better. You are the one making the assertion; it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for that assertion. Debate 101. **

The answer is “yes,” or at least “not enough data to answer the question.” The fact that the guy thinks he can make money selling these videos doesn’t tell us one thing about his views on women’s lib. Hell, Hugh Hefner makes his money off of naked boobies and from what I’ve seen he’s a committed equal pay for equal work kind of guy. **

Can a man have a Playboy subscription and still support sexual equality? Sure. I don’t see why this is any different.

118

Cite?

119

Well, yay for Hugh Hefner. As long as he’s making his money off the exploitation of women as women, i.e. sexual exploitation, he’s only paying lip service to the idea of sexual equality.

It’s the same thing. A guy who says he supports sexual equality but purchases material that is sexually exploitative, whatever the degree, is nothing but talk.

120

So, the situation is that Olentzero proposes that “Hunting for Bambi” is disgusting based on his assertion that “Being a naked paintball target is humiliation”, but he has no proof for that assertion, and also that " the men who produced the videos and the men who buy the videos are likely to hold the idea that all women should be treated in similar degrading manners whether women find it acceptable or not" but, here again, he has no proof for that either. In other words, it is bad because he said it is bad.