Darwin Sorts Us All Out Sooner or Later

I really can't look at that crack rash for one minute longer so here's a new post.

Let's talk stupid* for a minute.



This is a direct quote from the AP article titled "$5M Lawsuit: My Commercial Looks Lewd".

"The 37-year-old woman claims in her lawsuit that she did not "consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure."

"Indeed, the music to the commercial is bump-and-grind burlesque type music, which further provides the advertisement with a decidedly pornographic look, feel and sound," states the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court.

The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, says in court papers she won the role in the commercial for Szul Jewelry Inc. in November. She says the idea was that an average guy would get a woman excited by putting a necklace on her.

Three-fourths of the filming of the commercial, shot Nov. 9 by Q2 Entertainment in a studio in Queens, involved a comedic story line, but the woman later was told to sit and feign excitement for a few seconds while the young man put the necklace on her, the lawsuit says.

After that scene, the court papers say, the director told her to fake excitement while lying down, without smiling.
"He asked her to keep repeating the action until he thought he got the most authentic looking film piece," they say."

There's "excitement" and then there's "excitement". So the garden variety excitement I tend to think of is like kids at Christmas shouting for joy or the little victory dance that people do when something good happens.

So when was the last time that you sounded like this when you weren't naked? Ummm, how about never. So I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if someone asked you to act excited while lying down and not smiling, you might be a little suspicious about what they're going to do with footage of you moaning away like drunk sorority girl - no?

Here's item number two, again directly from the AP Article:

"The plaintiff, who is a married graduate student in elementary education, "has worked hard to project a wholesome image and has been extremely careful to avoid doing any work in the industry that would cheapen or tarnish her reputation," the lawsuit states."

This woman plans to educate children? I'm surprised she can walk out of the house without accidentally losing her clothes or getting pregnant. This woman should be kept far away from impressionable young people because clearly she is as smart as my left shoe. Perhaps her "lying down and showing excitement while not smiling" will prevent my future offspring from being exposed to such blatant stupidity.

See, occasionally fate steps in and saves us all from the weakest link.



*I recognize that perhaps she's just amoral and looking for a quick buck. That said, I probably would think less of her than if I she were just stupid.