Site Meter Reflections on Playboy

April 13, 2007

Another Playboy model may be punished for her courage

24-year-old Adriana Dominguez, a third-year student at Brooklyn Law School, took her clothes off for the Playboy TV series Naked Happy Girls. (The Playboy Cyber Club has extra video footage of its own, but a paid subscription is required.) The New York Daily News reports:
“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.

“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.
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:
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.

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).
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?

Update, June 24, 2007, 4:25 p.m.: If you followed the former link to the free video clip very long after I published this post, you may have seen a woman other than Dominguez. Today, I discovered that the URL contained a video of somebody else and deleted the link.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 11:16 AM

March 13, 2007

An Australian blogger after my own heart

Hugh Hefner will reportedly marry Holly Madison, one of the “girls next door” on the reality television show of that name, before the end of the year. Researching the story at Technorati, I stumbled on another blogger who relies on evolutionary psychology to understand the Playboy phenomenon. In her blog for The Sydney Morning Herald, Sam and the City, Samantha Brett suggests that Hefner may be motivated by a male biological clock:
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...

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]
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.

Labels: , , , , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 3:12 PM