Headshot of a blonde Tila Tequila

Judge to Tila Tequila: You exploit your sexuality, so your ex can too

I’ll start by admitting that I don’t love Tila Tequila. She lost me when on that first dating show she was the star of (A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila), she passed over Dani Campbell. Remember Dani? She was so damn hot.

In case you need a reminder:

Dani Campbell, smiling

Now I might not agree with her romantic decisions, but she still deserves her basic right to privacy.

Not so, according to an LA County Superior Court Judge. Tila was trying to prevent an ex-boyfriend from releasing a sex-tape (why does it seem like every celeb made a sex tape? are they really that common?) against her wishes.

But the Judge said sorry, you already exploit your sexuality, so you’re out of luck.

Listen Judge. There is a difference between me making conscious choices to exploit my own sexuality (usually for my own benefit), and someone else doing it for me, against my will (and probably for their benefit).

This argument sounds familiar no?

Straight up sexist bs.

Join the Conversation

  • http://feministing.com/members/lalinoir/ Gigi

    I’m a fan of privacy as well, but it’s a well set precedence in court rulings that public figures’ amount of privacy is limited by how much of it they themselves have already given up. It’s also applied to both sexes, a notable example as when both Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson unsuccessfully sued to get their sex tape back. On the flip side, celebrities and public figures have been able to successfully defend their right to privacy because they haven’t forfeited their image (eg. Jennifer Aniston was able to sue Celebrity Skin for photographs of her sunbathing nude because at that point, she had not appeared nude or love scene).

    I don’t find it an issue about limiting a woman’s sexuality; I think it’s primarily an issue of public figures with limited privacy with their images. If this was just a private citizen, I would definitely take more issue with it.

  • http://feministing.com/members/samll/ Sam Lindsay-Levine

    You’re linking to a tertiary source (i.e., you are linking to a site that links to a site that provides one quote, presumably from a primary source, with no context).

    Maybe it would be more useful here for us to see an actual court transcript?

  • http://feministing.com/members/hubbit/ hubbit

    But the Judge said sorry, you already exploit your sexuality, so you’re out of luck.

    The operative word, I think, should have been YOUR. Her sexuality is HERS. Public or private person, that’s something a court should not arrogate to itself the right to control.

    Had the ex-boyfriend been exploiting her car, for example, the judge would have ruled differently.

  • http://feministing.com/members/shadowen/ Mike

    Perhaps I’m remembering the exact technicalities wrong, but another point that should be remembered is that regardless of celebrity, such images or recordings cannot by law be sold for profit without all involved parties signing a release. So her protests are meaningless. If he sold it, it would be illegal and she could proceed from there.

  • http://feministing.com/members/azure156/ Jenny Gonzalez-Blitz

    Complete and utter bullshit. What someone chooses to do of their own accord should NOT give anyone else carte blanche to exploit them without their consent.