
“I wanted to do something a little crazy before I graduate and do become a lawyer...do something kind of out of character,” Dominguez said with a grin as she posed for photographer Andrew Einhorn inside his friend’s DUMBO [“Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass”] apartment.This blog takes the admittedly romantic view that the sheer boldness of this woman’s Playboy gig is cause for celebration in itself. Fortunately, her career in law may still have a fighting chance, as libertarian blogger Eugene Volokh explains:
“Lawyers can be boring,” [she] later added.
But no one will ever call Dominguez buttoned-up.
....
When she made the erotic video, Dominguez, a California native, seemed unfazed by the idea that it could wreck her future.
“I’m not that shy, so it wouldn’t bother me if, say, the opposing counsel has seen these pictures of me. I wouldn’t care,” she told Einhorn after he asked her if she had any concerns.
“When we shot, she knew what might happen down the road if these pictures might get shown to people in her field,” Einhorn told The News.
“But she had this self-confidence to not let that bother her. I don’t think that she felt that this would be negative in any way to her career,” he said.
The sexy stunt could have dire consequences for the would-be lawyer.
If she applies for the New York State Bar this year, Dominguez could face tough questions from the Committee on Character and Fitness, which examines the personal character of future lawyers.
“It may have an effect. It’s a possibility in the worst-case scenario that the person does not get admitted,” a committee representative said.
And potential employers are sure to discover Dominguez’s striptease with a quick Internet search.
Except for her naughty past, Dominguez has plenty to recommend her: she had a fall internship with the domestic violence unit of the Brooklyn district attorney’s office and served as treasurer of her law school’s Legal Association of Activist Women.
I would surely not advise would-be lawyers—or almost anyone who doesn’t really really need the money—to pose naked in Playboy TV series. Rightly or wrongly, such behavior may make employers and clients think the less of you.As usual, the most disappointing angle of the story is some feminists’ sloppy cause-and-effect reasoning about pornography and violence against women, as when they question Dominguez’ integrity as a feminist. (Does that kind of feminist ever get embarrassed about being arguably more uptight than The Wall Street Journal?) The trick to preventing violence is consistently punishing it. Will the New York legal establishment punish Dominguez for her nonviolent peccadillo, or will it recognize her intelligence, ambition, and self-confidence as powerful weapons against violence?
This having been said, it seems to me that it would be a clear First Amendment violation for a state bar to consider this in the character and fitness evaluation. The government, even in its capacity as licensor, generally may not penalize you for exercise of your First Amendment rights; and making sexually themed videos is part of your First Amendment rights just as is making other videos (at least unless the videos are child pornography or are such hard-core porn that they fit within the category of obscenity).
Labels: CC, Femi, Lib, MorPa, NaBr, OnVi, Ptv
Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 11:16 AM
![]()
Now before you snort on your cornflakes at the thought of a men’s version of the internal timebomb (which forces single gals way into their 30s and 40s to become a little more desperate than their younger counterparts), let’s take a moment to look at the male side of the commitment coin...The Playboy Blog has recently implied some other questions for EP. The magazine’s staffers in Santa Monica, just down the hall from studios where Playmates and celebrities pose naked, spend most of their free time gathered around a high-tech ant farm. Is the sort of man who reads Playboy usually a dork posing as a smooth operator? Or will female beauty always tend to scare men a little, like a bigger-than-expected bong hit? Maybe it’s a question for economics instead: did the same Hayekian spontaneous order that created Playboy also build a firewall around the hotties? Enquiring minds like mine want to know.
Scientifically speaking, research has proven that men do in fact suffer from a ticking clock. According to Dr. Harry Fisch, director of the Male Reproductive Center at Columbia University in New York City and author of The Male Biological Clock, after men turn thirty, their testosterone levels decline at a rate of around 1 per cent per year. Fisch also reckons that men older than 35 are twice as likely to be infertile as men 25 and younger!
While other experts surmise that a more accurate age is around 40-50 years old, either way, confirmed bachelors with birthdays around the corner should start scouting around.
Yet despite the warnings, many men still prefer to continue on with a lifestyle of barhopping, bedhopping and boozing over leaving it all behind for a life of potty training and nappy changing. (Who wouldn’t?)
So what makes men change?
I still wasn’t sure. Yet I was almost knocked off my seat when my phone snorted the arrival of a text message the other day from a girlfriend telling me that her 30-something ex-commitment-phobic-boyfriend had finally gotten engaged. [ellipsis in the original]
Labels: BlaSla, Celeb, He, OthBlo, Ptv, Sc
Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 3:12 PM
![]()