The LA Times has a very revealing story about Joe Francis, the founder of Girls Gone Wild (GGW). Let’s just say that the only positive thing I can say about him is that he’s rich. You can read some good analysis at ObWi and at Pandagon.

Go read it and if you’re not disturbed by the time you come back, let me know what you think of this question:

Would requiring models in films like GGW to be sober destroy Girls Gone Wild?

If you answer yes, what does that say about the series?

I’m not sure you could actually craft an enforceable law, or how exactly you’d enforce it, but the commercials for this always make me uncomfortable.

My only experience with this sort of thing was a trip down to New Orleans with a bunch of coworkers. Two things stuck out to me. One was the presence of “professional” videographers down there with fairly sophisticated gear taping the “show your tits” craziness unfold. And the sheer number of disposable cameras flashing with every lifted shirt. I also felt that the women participating were often drunk or almost desperate for attention. There was also a lot of crowd coercion. It stretched the meaning of voluntary, at least to me, and the presence of people who were clearly out there to make money changed it from hedonistic pleasure to something a bit more creepy.

When I was last in Boston, I had dinner with Eric and his girlfriend at CPK at the Pru. As usual, we had the hour wait and spent time wandering around Barnes and Noble to pass the time. As we were walking around the various bookshelves talking about books and politics and such, we walked by the women’s studies section where I saw the most unexpected book: SuicideGirls. This is a book for the eponymous porn site.

I’ve never belonged to SuicideGirls, but because they advertise on some of the bigger blogs, I’ve heard of them. They get a lot of good press too because their models break the Playboy-style artificiality. These models are “real” and people geeks and hipsters might be interested in. Say, for example, BoingBoing’s crowd of users. Or Xeni Jardin fans (co-editor of BoingBoing). They also get credit for being a site that “empowers” their models and gives them some control over how they’re presented on the site. The models have blogs on the site, talk to users, etc. It sounds like what a non-exploitive porn site should be.

Anyway, my point is that it’s kind of odd to see them in the women’s studies section but at least it’s understandable. I got home and mentioned it to Heidi. I defended SG a little, saying that pretty much what I’ve said above (better than the rest, might even be a morally “good” porn site in their business dealings).

Well, based on a new article in Wired, it seems I may have to take back what I’ve said above. From the article:

Talk about piercing the veil.

A group of angry ex-models is bashing the SuicideGirls alt-porn empire, saying its embrace of the tattoo and nipple-ring set hides a world of exploitation and male domination.

The women are spreading their allegations through the blogosphere, raising the hackles of the SuicideGirls company, which has until now enjoyed a reputation as porn even feminists can love. It offers burlesque tours, clothes and DVDs in addition to a sprawling online library of naked punk and goth women.

…

Two of the ex-models say they were attracted by the empowerment message, too. “I liked that you had a journal and voice, you had the chance to make your own (photo) sets,” said “Dia,” a 30-year-old former model who doesn’t wish to be identified because she now works outside the porn business in Northern California.

“I looked forward to making great art,” added Dia, who has unsuccessfully tried to get her photos off the site.

She and other models say that contrary to its image as a women-run operation, SuicideGirls is actually controlled by a man — co-founder Sean Suhl. They accuse him of treating women poorly and failing to pay them enough. (According to the site’s FAQ, SuicideGirls models get paid $300 per photo set.)

As usual, Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon steps back and takes a look at the broad picture here.

I don’t think the fact that a man owns it really makes it any less of a female empowerment enterprise, but control over the images seems important to me as does ongoing revenue sharing. Promoting a band and all that… meh.