Talk:Girls Gone Wild (franchise)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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[edit]

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?

rofl, owned (Please sign your comments in the future btw) DurotarLord 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Claim[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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]

This section was poorly written and so I fixed some of it. Gingermint (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media Guru?[edit]

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

POV?[edit]

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]

And, you know, I almost forgot, but since you're quoting case law, let's not forget to mention that the statute still stands, and that the specifics of NY v. Santorelli [3]et al do not necessarily apply in all cases and circumstances, and that "appellants' conduct was obviously intended as a political statement" and that this being recognized by the court influenced the court's decision, and probably explains the suggestion that the case was not vigorously prosecuted, and that ultimately this case has nothing to do with drunken co-eds getting a little "wild" and a little "crazy" and exposing themselves lewdly in public for the benefit of a commercial enterprise. Cryptonymius 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that this kind of porn is allowed to advertise on regular TV. I'm not against people watching/making/etc porn but I do get tired of all the stupid commercials that don't seem to air only after dark now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On deletion[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Girls Gone Wild in pop culture[edit]

could we put that here somewhere, I mean there has been numerous references to GGW in popular culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.176.176 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Been there done that, this is everything I know, perhaps everyone who knows references could add them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.91.205.176 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Laws[edit]

Someone just edited the article to say that Oregon has no laws on public nudity or indecent exposure. After a little digging around, I found: "ORS 163.465: (1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs: [.....] (c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person. (2)(a) Public indecency is a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, public indecency is a Class C felony if the person has a prior conviction for public indecency or a crime described in ORS 163.355 to 163.445."

Since conviction under this statute makes one eligible for the chemical castration pilot program (oh, joy!), I thought I'd revert that last edit, lest any Oregonians go wild and live to regret it. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Shackelford[edit]

Who on earth is Lauren Shackelford, and why is she credited with founding the GGW franchise?! Her name has been added back to this article on more than one occasion (by otherwise responsible registered users) to replace Joe Francis's, but the only evidence that she is or was involved in GGW is this article. Beeeej 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toplessness and criminal liability[edit]

My apologies to the person who wrote this sentence but I saw a need to change it: "However, toplessness in itself is not protection against arrest; it is possible for women to be arrested for violating other criminal statues while topless, and many of the women featured in Girls Gone Wild commit other acts in public that could be cause for arrest."

I think I know what you meant but it was too vaguely written. Surely, one cannot expect immunity if one were to rob a bank while topless... ? And, by the way, it's statutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.20.2 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina => vulva?[edit]

Shouldn't it say vulva instead of vagina? To be fully correct. Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 06:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date error?[edit]

How come the first film was released in 1905 if the founder of the company is in his thirties in 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.47.86 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

forms[edit]

Are they episodic, series, movie or none of the aforementioned? --173.183.102.95 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha 3D Parody?[edit]

Wasn't there sort of a parody of Girls Gone Wild in the recent movie "Piranha 3D" called "Wild Wild Girls", Jerry O'Connell and whose character is based off of Joe Francis? --71.70.140.119 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porno statement[edit]

Under Content: "If they touch their breasts or genitals or another person's, it is considered pornography, under U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2257 and is regulated, as such." I've seen plenty of movies where breasts are touched and they're definitely not considered pornographic. I think this needs expanding to explain the difference between movies and these videos, for those who have the knowledge. I'm sure a lot of folks do not understand. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

filth[edit]

is this hard porn, borderline hard porn or soft porn?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.213.7.98 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dunham![edit]

Yeah there's clearly a mistake here: In Jeff Dunham: Spark of Insanity, Jeff mentions that (after his performance in Ft. Lauderdale Florida) that is where they tape the most of the Girls Gone Wild DVDs. His puppet Walter later comments on how that is only during spring break and that "the rest of the time it's Girls Gone Saggy, then Girls Gone Senile, and then it's just Girls Gone." You have two that's in this sentence "Jeff mentions that (after this performance) then another that. This is incorrect grammer. I would consider changing this.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.152.59 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Films[edit]

There are so many films from the GGW collection that it would take forever to cite them all. If there a a dozen or so that are cited and the rest are not, is there still cause to leave the "unsourced material" tag under that section? If so, any suggestions on an easier way to cite them all? Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions[edit]

I will be working on this article for the next several days. I notice there are some original research and citation needed issues, and the lead section is pretty undeveloped considering the length of this article. There's also some dead references, and some references are to IMDb or Amazon, so I'll work on that too. Overall, there's an underlying confusion to this article, hopefully my efforts bring some clarity. Blueskymorning (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - a comment on nom's rationale. WP:Notability guidelines do not provide for comparative notability between article topics. No article is more or less notable than another. Thus, the rationale has no standing in WP policy. Mike Cline (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– The 1929 film doesn't have a shred of notability in comparison to this. Unreal7 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the pageviews. The DAB's latest views are 2113. The film's? 544. This is definite proof the current setup is inconveniencing readers. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It is an order of magnitude more inconvenient to end up at a wrong article, which is big, than to get a disambig page, which is small. And the nom's rationale makes no sense; if the film is not notable, propose it for deletion and the problem can be resolved that way. But it is notable, so that won't work. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Misplaced template, again templates should be put on disambiguation page proposed to be moved. Putting the template on one of the pages listed, in this case the pornography article, tilts the alerts. Done like this WP Film editors won't see the proposed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • And, oppose no benefit to readers, although porn gets more pageviews, it is the 1929 film or other subjects more found in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really wish you'd just give up with that pointless fallacy already. Google Books does not take priority over page views. Unreal7 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The franchise has more pageviews, per Nohomersryan. GBooks is indirect metric compared to pageviews. Brother Twisted (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The porn franchise doesn't have a shred of notability in comparison to 1929 film. —  AjaxSmack  02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose porn gets more page views... surprise surprise. However I'm going to call on the long term encyclopaedic and educational value clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film has far more historical value than a porn franchise, regardless of how popular porn is (and the difference isn't large enough to want me to change my mind, if it was 10:1 I would accept the views for primary topic). Google Books shows that the difference in book hits is minimal 820 for the film compared to 1370 for the porn, meaning that it isn't 'far more likely'. In terms of convenience, think of how the reader feels in each case when they get sent to the wrong article: if you are searching for porn, you won't care, but if someone is researching the film, and gets sent to a page about porn, they are not going to be very pleased.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio here is way higher than 10:1. It's 22,724 views[4] for the franchise to 116 for the film.[5] "Not porn" is not the same thing as "educational." Brother Twisted (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the hits for the "film" they appear in books about stripping and "underage" girls, so I bet they are not referring to the 1929 film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After a look through Google Books the hits do seem to be mostly for the porn franchise. The franchise seems to be a key reference work for gender studies/sexual politics type texts, so apart from the higher number of page accesses it also seems to have more off-wiki encyclopedic coverage. It looks like the primary topic to me. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, far more google search results in books and web. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS obviously contributes to the perceived notability of the franchise, but it's still lightyears more notable than the film.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and per WP:NOTCENSORED. SSTflyer 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only evidence of this being the primary topic seems to be pageviews, and the proponents have said that no other evidence is required. It's not that simple. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A vote should evaluate the relative merits of the arguments, not complain about other editors. Brother Twisted (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a particularly valid point either. Page hits is a sufficient argument for moving an article provided there isn't a counter-argument that the other article(s) have more encylcopedic significance. For instance, if the 1929 film was as historically significant as Citizen Kane but had still had fewer page hits then that would be an effective counter-argument that page hits are not an effective discriminant in this particular case, but the onus is on Andrewa to formulate that counter-argument. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The onus is on the proponents of the move to provide a valid argument, which I don't think has been done. Disagree that page statistics, on their own, are a valid argument. But it's a very interesting point, and one which IMO is in need of discussion. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And at the risk of being accused again of discussing the contributor rather than the contribution, please read WP:thread, especially paragraph two ...Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed... (but please don't reformat the existing posts including mine, that will just risk making matters worse IMO, it's clear enough as is, just not as good as it should be). Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; Exactly. And what I am trying to do here is evaluate relative merits of the arguments. It's getting a bit involved, but my contention is that the onus is on proponents to provide a valid case, and that page views alone don't provide this (as someone else said recently, they show what people found, not what they were looking for). Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "onus" rule seems to be one that you just made up. I think it is clear that no amount of evidence could ever overcome the alleged onus, so the rule essentially negates the entire WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Brother Twisted (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean by the alleged onus. It's certainly not true that no amount of evidence could ever overcome any argument, that seems to me to be pure rhetoric. And to claim that my view essentially negates the entire WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline is over the top IMO. The guideline describes page statistics as one of the tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) (emphasis as per the guideline). Who is seeking to negate this? Not I! Andrewa (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant by "negating the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline," as I suspect you already know. The porn franchise gets 87 times the traffic of the 1929 film.[6] If primary topic is denied in a case as clear cut as this, it is hard to see the point of having a guideline of this type. Since the most important purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject, leaving off the parenthetical is obviously a step forward. Brother Twisted (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"101+ Films"[edit]

Seriously. What is "101+"? Is it 102? 103? I'm guessing at some point the company advertised that they had "over 101!!!" titles. At the moment, we list, by my count, 305. I don't know that this is correct (not that it matters), so I am using the round figure of 300 and "over". If we could determine that there are exactly 305, we could state 305. We would not state "304+".

Somewhere, in the bowels of the Internet, there is probably a tragic site set up by someone who imagines himself to be an "archivist" of this dreck. His site is not a reliable source. If the producer's site still exists, it is likely not a reliable source. Undocumented ages? Meh, pay the fine, delete the title. Threatened lawsuit? pay a small settlement and delete the title. Whatever. In any case, this extensive and mostly unsourced list of titles is simply trivial. We barely are able to compile a list of episodes of "The Tonight Show". We do not have a list of "Let's Make a Deal" episodes. The 10 year test applies. 10 years from now, someone could conceivably be researching something and want to know how many times Carrie Fisher was on "The Tonight Show" each year. I'm hard pressed to see someone wondering how many ways to imply their subjects are close to underage the producers could think of.

Oooo, "But the titles are listed on IMDb/Amazon/ebay/whatever." Yes, so are all of the Beanie Babies, issues of Entertainment Weekly, etc. There are not, however, independent reliable sources listing any of them. Why? Because the segment of society that cases is tiny. Lots of people bought Beanie Babies, read EW, watch porn, watch "Let's Make a Deal", etc. Virtually no one must know right now who was on the cover of EW in the first week of August 2004.

Comemnts? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last call before I dump the list. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Girls Gone Wild (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Bennett[edit]

Why did you remove the part about Beck Bennett liking Girls Gone Wild?

Because it's unsourced, irrelevant, and likely a joke. Trivialist (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's a joke, also did you think it was funny? Personally I think Beck Bennett liking Girls Gone Wild is hilarious --2600:8800:5E00:6A2:F97B:D537:FAFC:705 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided a source, him being a fan isn't important enough to note, and if this is something he said, it's very likely a joke, given that he's a comedian. Trivialist (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Girls_Gone_Wild_(franchise)&oldid=1202301334"