September 5, 2017

Althouse annoyed by stock photograph.

Yesterday on Facebook, Glenn Reynolds linked to a College Fix article with a headline — "Judge overrules university that said drinking any alcohol negates sexual consent" — and a stock photograph that really annoyed me. I said:

82 comments:

Laslo Spatula said...

The woman on the right is SO ready.

In the Seventies that facial expression got you a ride in a Trans Am.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

The one on the left is the Girl who wants to be skeezy, but will bolt your apartment before any Good Stuff happens.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

As someone who occasionally visits a bar that can get college girls, I can say that photo is remarkably accurate.

That is how the girls WANT to present themselves.

Girls Just Want To Have Fun.

I am Laslo.

tcrosse said...

The one on the right, who seems to be drinking Windex, is about to puke on your shoes.

MadisonMan said...

Get off my lawn you stock photo sirens.

But I agree with Reynolds: Cheap available stock photos demeans Journalism. Ask yourself why the writer of this article (or the editor) didn't request a photo taken that relates directly to the case. It's because it wouldn't generate clicks like a bunch of availables.

Dave Hunter said...

I barely read this blog anymore because of the unseriousness. Perfect example right here. I'd be willing to bet that lots of readers of almost anything barely look at the accompanying photograph if there's only one at the beginning of the piece.

Etienne said...

Actually, the photo credit is at bottom of article. If you missed that, I'm thinking it would be hard to find otherwise.

The girls in the photo look like they are buying their own drinks. I bet it's a lesbian bar.

SGT Ted said...

People drink alcohol to lower inhibitions and hook up. College sexual consent policies assume that people who have had drinks cannot consent to sex, even though that was the intent, but only if the drinker is a woman.

The photo simply helps to illustrate and acknowledge the true purpose of the policies, which is to infantilize women in order to punish men.

Khesanh 0802 said...

There appear to be three components to the print "fake news" that need to be brought under control by their managements: the "news" itself - which is so obvious that many are actually trying to upgrade their current reckless performance; the headline writers - who seem, many times, to not have any idea what an article says, only what they wished it said; and the photo people who are off in a world of their own portraying people and events only in terms of their own biases.

Ann, you have a giant crusade in front of you to straighten out all three of these groups!

William said...

I don't think the one on the right looks especially repulsive.

Laslo Spatula said...

"I don't think the one on the right looks especially repulsive."

Some people might find the girl on the right repulsive because she looks like she wants to have raucous hair-pulling sex and won't feel ashamed in the morning.

Bad girl. Bad. Bad.

I am Laslo.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Althouse annoyed by stock photograph.

Has Althouse take up referring to Althouse in the third person?

Expat(ish) said...

I feel, weirdly, like you and Glenn have your own Journolist thing going on.

-XC

tim in vermont said...

That picture reminds me of a movie, maybe Billy Madison, where the rich kid rides his golf cart out to the mailbox to pick up his porno, and we see a quick shot of the cover of Drunk Girls Monthly magazine. It is pretty unserious. But I can't get into the whole "that's not funny" head.

Otto said...

Faux feminism.

MadisonMan said...

There is nothing more tedious that a comment that starts "I rarely ever do x anymore" and then has a but, either written or implied, as if the comment means more because a person has deigned to comment.

As if. As the Woman on the right in the picture might be thinking.

IgnatzEsq said...

I always read this blog because of it's seriousness. Defense against emotional manipulation in the media and elsewhere isn't really taught and has to be learned and there are few better places to learn than here. Sadly, many many people I know don't even try.

Otto said...

How about those stock photos showing only male rescuers in Houston last week- really annoying.

Fernandinande said...

I see the puppy!

tim in vermont said...

The one on the left is the one who will have to have her inhibitions overcome by some unexpected pleasures from unexpected sources, the one in the middle is the one that will turn it seriously lesbian, step by step, since she's. been hot for both of them for a while and can't believe her luck, and the one on the right is game for whatever is going on. I've seen it on pr@nh#b a thousand times, so it must be true.

If your point is that this is what men will think when they see the photo, well, it's a solid point!

Sebastian said...

Of course, the College Fix and similar outfits are "low," but they are not "unserious": they seriously push their proggy biases and they seriously reflect the feminist claim that women are special.

Ed Longshanks said...

Ann, I agree that - as a legal matter - the definition of rape cannot be different for men and women. But, I think that you are being overly legalistic and not realistic in complaining about the photo. As a matter of reality - men are more likely to want a meaningless hookup than a woman. Alcohol increases the probability of a meaningless hookup. So, showing hot women drinking is more likely to get attention than the other way around.

Let's not be like liberals and deny undeniable facts of life. Men like meaningless sex.

http://eroticchristian.com/christianity-masculinity-and-pornography/

tim in vermont said...

Defense against emotional manipulation in the media and elsewhere isn't really taught and has to be learned

You know who used to learn it? English Majors. Emotional manipulation is the essence of writing, and the better the writer, the less obvious it is. Bill Clinton was the first politician I ever saw that used the techniques of literature to push politics. That's. when English and literature were serious subjects.

Fernandinande said...

Here's a real photo of an actual cursed rosary:

"The chief exorcist of the Philippines has warned that 'Illuminati satanists' are distributing cursed rosaries to unsuspecting Catholics."

CJinPA said...

As someone who has to use stock photos often, you are right. I also understand how easy it is to make the wrong choice sometimes.

I'm always looking for the least cheesiest, least IN YOUR FACE, photo. Objects and hands, and no faces, are my favorites.

Mark O said...

Why can men drink to excess and still consent?

EDH said...

They do seem to span the sweet to skank spectrum, left to right.

And why is that nappy haired hipster lurking behind them?

Fernandinande said...

MadisonMan said...
Ask yourself why the writer of this article (or the editor) didn't request a photo taken that relates directly to the case.


The stock photo does relate directly to the case: "University that said drinking any alcohol negates sexual consent", but that only applies to women drinking, as Reynolds points out and the article reinforces.

I don't see any issue (but I *do* see the puppy!) unless someone wants to pretend that the "any drinking = can't consent" standard applies to men, which of course it doesn't.

Bruce Hayden said...

So, I click on the first link, and it requires that you are signed onto Facebook. Which I have mostly avoided since the election, knowing that anything that I say there will likely be taken against me by my liberal friends. Keep thinking of innocuous things to post about, like having the worst air quality in MT last night (thanks to all the fires - which is thanks primarily to all the big city environmentalists who destroyed the timber industry here, while controlling forest fires, until the fuel buildup was so bad that they couldn't control all the fires. But, they could, of course blame it on AGW/AGCC. Or building that new house last year. And, yes, my memory was right in my memory - FB had forced me to switch to a password that wasn't a variation on my normal rotation, because it recognized what I was trying to do. Another reason to hate it. And then, when I do sign on, I find the same anti-Trump rants I expected, but no access to the (first) linked content. Not part of the in-group, or some such.

And I realized that I was meant to click on the second link, which I had done yesterday, at which time, had likely recognized the photo as a stock image, and mentally just skipped over it. Why did I automatically discount it? Because the girls looked just a little too old, and most of the campus drinking is not done in bars simply because it would be illegal. The ones getting "raped" after getting drunk tend mostly to be underage - mostly, I think, because they mostly are experienced enough by their senior (or late junior) year when they turn 21 to know that they are looking for sex if they get that drunk in mixed company. More accurate, probably, would have been young women drinking boat drinks from plastic cups while the young men were playing beer pong in the background. Yes, there is often a bit of afternoon pre-party drinking among just the women, but that mostly isn't what guys get thrown out of college for participating in. Time after time, in incident after incident, mention is made of the "party" where the woman was drinking. And often where she first quasi-hooked up with the guy. Hence, the beer pong and plastic cups.

Birches said...

I learned today that instapundit and Althouse are fb friends. And that insta posts articles on fb. Is it like instapundit or less regular?

Matthew Sablan said...

I wonder if there will ever be a male willing to test the law after a drunken hook up.

tim in vermont said...

He could sue her for "damage to reputation" I suppose.

Ann Althouse said...

"I barely read this blog anymore because of the unseriousness. Perfect example right here. I'd be willing to bet that lots of readers of almost anything barely look at the accompanying photograph if there's only one at the beginning of the piece."

You don't seem to understand the importance of Facebook. Click on the first link in the post, to Glenn Reynolds's Facebook post. By putting the URL for the article in his Facebook post, he caused a large version of the picture to be embedded in the post above the headline. It's very prominent, it causes the click, and it influences what we think we're going to be reading about long before we get into the article. In fact, it makes the article hard to read, because the actual legal issues are complicated. I think few people who were attracted by the photo will read enough even to figure out what happened. They're most likely to think the judge was helping college boys get better access to drunk girls.

If you really care about "seriousness," you should be eager to comprehend this issue, which is the degradation of journalism that is occurring because of the mechanisms of the web. In short, it is you who look unserious. But I will give you credit for honesty: you "barely read this blog." If you were to read a little more industriously, maybe you'd understand that serious issues are being raised.

Ann Althouse said...

"Actually, the photo credit is at bottom of article. If you missed that, I'm thinking it would be hard to find otherwise."

Obviously, I didn't miss it, since I quoted it. And it is hard to find... because it's at the bottom of the article and not under the photo where it would be if the picture were done by someone paid to document the story in the article. It's hidden away because it says: This is a stock photo and its connection to the story is basically nonexistent.

Gahrie said...

maybe you'd understand that serious issues are being raised.

Somebody made a woman or women look bad.

Birches said...

And I agree with Instapundit. Stock photos and headlines are ruining journalism.

cubanbob said...

Who pays attention to stock photos? They add nothing and to the extent they are noticed simply reduce the apparent seriousness of the piece.

Birches said...

Of course, the College Fix and similar outfits are "low," but they are not "unserious": they seriously push their proggy biases and they seriously reflect the feminist claim that women are special.

I thought The College Fix was right leaning?

Ann Althouse said...

"People drink alcohol to lower inhibitions and hook up. College sexual consent policies assume that people who have had drinks cannot consent to sex, even though that was the intent, but only if the drinker is a woman."

As I've said on this blog before, a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking. It would need to be applied without sex discrimination. Just have a clear rule and hold everyone responsible. I don't think many people would like that rule, but it's possible to conceive of a fair rule in that form.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Althouse: "I used to think the web was prioritiing writing (and reading)."

I'm gonna say hear its done to writing the same's was done for speaking by TV, it's slurred it and it's hard too understand what their saying, its like their talking on TV to fast and to many contractions, especially the news programs and their's to many ideas in the same sentence when they run them on.

And also they're is no poof reading in newspapers besides.

David said...

"alleged Title IX violations involving accused students are investigated in a prompt, fair and impartial manner by trained staff through Miami’s Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution.”--University Statement

The staff is trained alright, pretty much like barking seals, who only have one thing to say. (Guilty!)

Etienne said...

...because it's at the bottom of the article and not under the photo...

They probably edit a lot of Wikipedia articles, and are used to references at the bottom :-)

The whole article is in the 2010's style of anarchy, where a stupid article is surrounded by click-bait advertising revenue.

They will be talking about this ugly Internet phenomenon 20 years from now, like we talk about the ugly 80's Rock and Roll today.

Ann Althouse said...

@Hammond X. Gritzkofe

Yes, but I want people to realize that I didn't misspell "prioritizing."

rehajm said...

Shitty stock photos are a warning the journalism is probably just as shitty.

A public service, really...

Fernandinande said...

Dave Hunter said...
I'd be willing to bet that lots of readers of almost anything barely look at the accompanying photograph if there's only one at the beginning of the piece.


People are more likely to read an article (and see the advertising, which is the important part), or at least read part of an article, if there's a picture - of something.

That's why news articles have generic pictures of police cars, stock market guys, judge's gavels, brain scans, etc., something that is somewhat related to the article.

In this case the stock picture was more appropriate than usual are because it illustrated the "consent" hypocrisy.

tcrosse said...

And yet some of us have had more fun sizing up the three women in the stock photo than in picking the nits out of works of Questionable Art from Indiana.

Ralph L said...

So let's see a photo of a guy getting booted out of an overpriced university.

a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking. It would need to be applied without sex discrimination
Throw out the sober one? Throw out both after one drink each?

Sex police!

Ann Althouse said...

"And I agree with Instapundit. Stock photos and headlines are ruining journalism."

Yes.

My "yes" in the excerpted conversation is intended as agreement with his hypothesis.

Ann Althouse said...

"Shitty stock photos are a warning the journalism is probably just as shitty."

But that was not the case with this College Fix piece, so I felt sorry for the writer. I felt sorry for the people who never clicked through to read because they assumed it would be shitty. But I don't feel sorry for the people who clicked through and were disappointed that the text didn't say what the picture seemed to say. Those people deserve a cold glass of water thrown in their face.

Big Mike said...

Yep. If you want a photo directly related to the actual "Nokes" case, you'd have a girl with a drink in one hand and her other hand on the guy's crotch.

As far as I'm concerned it's the woman who should be banned from campus.

richlb said...

I have to say it's a well written and thorough article (although definitely with a bias). This student journalist would never make it in the MSM.

tim in vermont said...

but it's possible to conceive of a fair rule in that form.

It's just not possible to conceive of actual human beings who could fairly enforce it.

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...

"You don't seem to understand the importance of Facebook."

I suspect, Althouse, that you are the one who does not understand the importance of FaceBook. Because it appears you actually post there. Are you mad?

Ralph L said...

What makes the photo lascivious to me is the swag of the middle woman's dress, which makes it look at first glance like her boobs are falling out.

The straw crossing the halter also caught my eye. Once I realized it was a straw and not part of her dress, it looks like the guy is poaching her drink.

tim in vermont said...

Incidentally, your headline was funny.

Ralph L said...

As far as I'm concerned it's the woman who should be banned from campus.

There should be some punishment for false or truly dubious accusations. The pendulum has swung too far.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ann Althouse said...

They're most likely to think the judge was helping college boys get better access to drunk girls.

I wonder when the next Supreme Court vacancy will open up...

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Althouse @9:49. Ouch.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ann,

As I've said on this blog before, a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking. It would need to be applied without sex discrimination. Just have a clear rule and hold everyone responsible. I don't think many people would like that rule, but it's possible to conceive of a fair rule in that form.

Well, let's just say that I would like that rule. IMO it's the only reasonable interpretation of the law -- er, no, of campus rules. If you are drunk, you can't consent to sex; ergo, it's rape. The only possible conclusion is that if two drunk people have sex, each has raped the other. I'm not even talking about the outrageous cases, like the girl who gave an unconscious, passed-out boy a blow job, and afterwards claimed she'd been raped; I'm talking ordinary drunk hookups. Whatever standard is applied to women can and should be applied to men.

But it won't be, b/c men can never be raped, except by other men. Because, shut up.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I should've added that by "drunk" I mean actually drunk. Having one beer is not drunk. If we set about to criminalize (or make "against campus regulations") sex after any alcohol consumption at all, we'd completely depopulate our campuses. But there are an awful lot of heavy drinkers out there -- of both sexes.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Ann You are partially correct to blame "the degradation of journalism that is occurring because of the mechanisms of the web". Smart and well educated people in the press should be able to figure out how to perform well in that environment, as they have adapted to changes in the press, radio and TV environment over the years. The larger problem -I have to agree with so many here -
is that the state of the education acquired by those who devote themselves to "journalism" is proving to be abysmal. They appear to have no sense of history and certainly no self-awareness ( and most of them don't write very well either!). Yes, the web fosters sloppy thinking, but so do other forms of communication.

I can't imagine that a student of yours, who successfully completed your course, would show the complete lack of critical thinking demonstrated by most writers and editors today.

Molly said...

"...a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking..."

A college could experiment with a rule that forbade any sex outside of marriage. Make it clear to all that marriage implies consent for sex; unless that consent is explicitly and in writing withdrawn. Then (what?) suspend or expel students who have sex without being married. See how many problems on campus this solves?

Fred Drinkwater said...

Any pilot knows it's 8 hours bottle to throttle.
Though my personal rule was 12 hours.
And there's a nice big federal agency to enforce it...

Hey, folks, I just got an idea!

Gahrie said...

But it won't be, b/c men can never be raped, except by other men. Because, shut up.

And when men are actually raped, no one gives a fuck because they're just splooge stooges after all.

Gahrie said...

There should be some punishment for false or truly dubious accusations

That would require making women responsible for their choices and behavior...which of course must never happen.

Gahrie said...

As I've said on this blog before, a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking. It would need to be applied without sex discrimination. Just have a clear rule and hold everyone responsible. I don't think many people would like that rule, but it's possible to conceive of a fair rule in that form.

This would require that women be held responsible for their choices and behavior...which must not, cannot, ever be allowed to happen.

Rae said...

I doubt there are any stock photos of a disheveled coed on her walk of shame.
.
.
.
.
But I'll check anyway. Just to be sure.

Mary Beth said...

Do the bars in college towns stop having Ladies' Nights? Or, if they have them, do they just give discount drinks to the women while the men stay home and have fun with their friends in an MMORPG?

Does the women who wants to keep the possibility of a hookup open just not drink? "You can tell Pam is a slut, she never drinks when we go out."

It's not as if there aren't plenty of other intoxicants available on campus. I predict Molly (MDMA/Ecstasy) becomes a lot more popular.

Bruce Hayden said...

"As I've said on this blog before, a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking. It would need to be applied without sex discrimination. Just have a clear rule and hold everyone responsible. I don't think many people would like that rule, but it's possible to conceive of a fair rule in that form."

I see the allure here - that if the alcohol standard were applied uniformly, college women couldn't use their self-induced drunkenness to bludgeon the guys who didn't reciprocate their feelings after having sex with them through threats of (and actual) expulsion from college.

But I don't see it working. It would, essentially, be addressing some of the symptoms, and not the underlying problem, or, really, problems. The first of which is that young women (and, of course, maybe even more, young men) are wired and hormonally driven to mate. Physically, they are ready about the time they become teenagers, or thereabouts. At their peak in sexual marketability. And in the place where they have the most chances to score their mate. Most of a decade later, they find themselves in college, high on hormones, and with brains not yet fully mature. No more parental oversight. There has long been a lot of mate shopping in college (going back to my 45th reunion this fall, and surprising how many couples are still together). The next part of the equation is that, at least in college, the women have lost their traditional control over sex. More eligible women than men there (made worse because the women want the alphas, will settle for betas, for mates, but not the omegas). So, a race to the bottom, with women who in a previous day would have been able to sit back and have the guys come to them, now having to almost openly compete for the better quality guys, and required for that is most typically sex. The alcohol of course makes this all easier, by lowering everyone's inhibitions and providing women a moral justification for sleeping around (somehow, it is seen as less slutty to get drunk first).

So, with that in mind, I think that it is fairly clear why Ann's suggestion probably wouldn't work. The college guys are still going to be obsessing about sex, and the gals about falling in love with them, trying to trade sexual access to their bodies for that. The college guys are still going to be in the driver's seat, due to the numbers. I should add that there are colleges where alcohol and sex are banned. They aren't very popular. And it often doesn't work except in very small, often Bible based schools. Heck, there is a decent amount of drinking, and a surprising amount of premarital sex, at BYU, in the heart of Mormondom.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry - need to clarify a bit. Comes from editing and inserting text later, in the wrong place. What I was trying to say was that even though humans tend to be physically capable of procreation about the time they become teenagers, or maybe even earlier these days, thanks to hormones in our food, college students are most of a decade beyond that. They are at their peak, really, in sex drive, mating drive, and sexual attractiveness. And peak sexual and mating availability of the opposite sex. They are driven to date and mate. For most of them, probably more than at any other time in their lives. The clock is ticking.

Pinandpuller said...

At my age the only thing I drink before sex is Gatorade.

Rick said...

As I've said on this blog before, a college COULD experiment with a behavior rule that forbade any sex after drinking. It would need to be applied without sex discrimination.

I question this supposed "need". It "needs" this feature to satisfy Althouse's requirements for support. But we see from the court's support for race preferences there is no actual need.

Kirk Parker said...

Regarding the woman in the middle: she's holding what is obviously a Fruity Girl Drink™. Therefore the possibility that she is offering it to some guy approaches zero.

Kirk Parker said...

I guess I should elaborate: *successfully* offering it to a guy...

Char Char Binks said...

Stock photos get my dander up!

walter said...

Applying dumb rules equally is not much of an achievement..though it might underscore the need to get rid of the dumb rule.
A college COULD just get the hell out of trying to create their own laws.
It might just help to encourage "adulting".
I guess the lure of power is just too much for these institutions.
The picture is no big deal. Calling it a male vision is sexist.
If it helps you, just think of them being at a lesbian bar...Jonathan Richman not in attendance.

walter said...

BTW, get a load of this headline: Cleared 'Mattress Girl' rapist settles his suit with Columbia U

Fernandinande said...

Rae said...
I doubt there are any stock photos of a disheveled coed on her walk of shame.


shutterstock search: disheveled coed --> a rabbit raping another rabbit, and a cartoon kid with a crossbow.

bigstockphoto search: disheveled coed --> just about every stock image but no disheveled coeds.

brylun said...

First: "A picture is worth a thousand words." = Click bait.

Second: Men are visual creatures.

Third: Anyone want to venture a guess as to whether the judge is a Dem or a Republican?
(Spoiler: Michael Ryan Barrett was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006.)

Biff said...

Ann Althouse wrote: You don't seem to understand the importance of Facebook. Click on the first link in the post, to Glenn Reynolds's Facebook post. By putting the URL for the article in his Facebook post, he caused a large version of the picture to be embedded in the post above the headline. It's very prominent, it causes the click, and it influences what we think we're going to be reading about long before we get into the article. In fact, it makes the article hard to read, because the actual legal issues are complicated. I think few people who were attracted by the photo will read enough even to figure out what happened. They're most likely to think the judge was helping college boys get better access to drunk girls.

I'm not sure that people attracted to the article by the photo are "most likely to think the judge was helping college boys get better access to drunk girls." People are very well tuned to what is merely stock photography and what is "real" photography. It'd be interesting to run a study to determine whether there really is any expectation on the part of "readers" that clickbait stock photos have anything to do with a particular story. After the lizard brain stimulation, my bet is that most people completely ignore stock photos in the same way that people have learned to ignore banner ads.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that the "importance of Facebook" must not be underestimated. I suppose FB (or something like it) was inevitable, but I don't think anything has done more to accelerate tribalism, ignorance, and discontent in today's society more than Facebook and its incessant drive to categorize and capitalize on clicks.

Andrew Pardue said...

By putting the URL for the article in his Facebook post, he caused a large version of the picture to be embedded in the post above the headline.

I recently posted a link on Facebook about changes made to the uniforms used by the 4th degree of the Knights of Columbus. The article had photographs of uniforms used by similar organizations for comparison. So when Facebook was done processing the post it had place prominently a picture of the Knight of the Holy Sepulcher from near the bottom of the article. So posting a link in Facebook is "like a box of chocolates, you don't know what your going to get".

Anonymous said...

"That is how the girls WANT to present themselves."

Score another one for Laslo.

After the endless stream of duck-lipped, big-butted, tight-bikinied, devil-horn-sign-throwing, over-made-up bimbos that comprises Facebook -- all with comments like, "Wow babe your soooo beautiful" -- the women in stock photography appear Amish to me.