When it came to the recent controversy concerning the Hunting
for Bambi game, did conservatives and liberals not
have anything better to do than to demonize one of the newest
pleasurable pastimes that just hit Las Vegas, Nevada? This latest
sport has recently become a witting target by many leftists and
rightists who find themselves thoroughly disgusted and uncomfortable
with the thought of this increasingly popular activity, which has
already become the talk of the town all over the country.
The game has already caught the ire of leftist groups like The
National Organization for Women, The
Nevada Coalition Against Sexual Violence, and The
Young Women's Christian Agency and rightist groups
like Gun
Week and Free
Republic. It involves a group of men from all over the
world who spend exorbitant amounts of money -- anywhere from $5000 to
approximately $10,000 -- all for the purpose of chasing down and
shooting at naked women with a paintball gun. They arrive in the
desert outside Sin City where they dress up in a camouflage tunic,
arm themselves with a loaded CO2-powered rifle, and hunt down women --
a.k.a. Bambis -- and fire their weapons at them with explosive
paint-filled pellets for self-gratification.
It ought to be pointed out that the girls who participate in the
sexually arousing activity are not allowed to wear protective gear
except tennis shoes. In fact, the girls can get physically hurt if
they are shot. The paintballs fired from the guns can travel upwards
of 200 miles an hour, and if the pellets do hit bare flesh, they can
draw blood. In a recent interview
with Las Vegas' KLAS-TV, Gidget, one of the Bambis who was shot in
the rear by a hunter named George Evanthes
during a recent game, told the news channel, "It
hurt. It really hurt. I didn't think it was going to be that bad."
Another Bambi, who goes by the name of Nicole,
told the channel that the girls are remunerated well for their
services. "I mean it's $2,500 if you don't get hit," she said.
"You try desperately not to and it's $1000 if you do." That is
not bad for a day's work if one looks at it that way.
Michael Burdick, who is the creator of the game, has admitted that
the men are told not to shoot above the chest, although hunters do
not always adhere to the rules. "The main
goal is to be as true to nature as possible," said Burdick. "I
don't go deer hunting and see a deer with a football helmet on so I
don't want to see one on my girl either." But that is simply not
good enough in the eyes of the leftists and rightists who are
repulsed by this sport.
In fact, this has incensed many liberals and conservatives who
condemned the city's highly popular pleasure -- currently dubbed
as a new form of "adult entertainment." To a typical rightist,
this is a degrading entertainment because it is an affront to moral,
traditional values and constitutes an assault on traditional
community norms with regard to proper and moral conduct. To a typical
leftist, this is a degrading entertainment because it is chauvinistic
and sexist and transforms women into sexual objects for men who act
on their aggressive tendencies.
As soon as news of the ruckus leaked out to the press, the
reactions from many leftists -- particularly the politically correct
feminists -- and many rightists -- particularly the religious
conservatives -- were obvious. "I couldn't quite believe it,"
said feminist legal expert Susan Estrich on Fox News. "[The site]
advertised this as really hurting people. [They're] violating about
20 criminal laws, including assault."
Rita Hayley, the president of the New York City chapter of NOW,
was quoted in the New York Post as saying, "It's appalling,
and it's really frightening. It says something about the men who want
to play this game and something about the financial climate that
drives women to participate. The big fear is that somebody who plays
will eventually want to use real bullets."
Paintball and paint gun makers and gun rights activists objected
to the sport as well. Dan Workman, senior editor of Gun Week,
expressed his disgust with Sin City's newest hunt. "Gun owners I
hear from regard this as depraved and sick," he said.
Of course, all the public outcries against it may be fueled with
the most recent claim that the Bambi hunt is a hoax -- a claim which
was ignited by Snopes.com,
a website which claims to "debunk urban legends." According to
the site, Burdick's company Real Men Outdoor Productions, Inc. does
not list phone numbers, address, and other contact information and
that Burdick and his team have never conducted these naked women
hunts.
Even Patricia Ireland, the head of the feminist group YWCA, does
not buy into the company's claims that the chases are real.
"Frankly, I still have to believe it's a put-on," says Ireland.
"Who would be so stupid to pay up to ten thousand dollars to hunt a
naked woman?" You have to wonder what planet she has been living on
these days.
Even Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who has been disgusted with
the game, has stated that he has already commenced a criminal
investigation of Burdick and his group. What is the charge, you
probably ask? He's practicing a business without a license in the
city. "We're going to prosecute him to the full extent the city
can, and do everything we can to make sure he doesn't do any business
in the city from this point forward," said an incensed Goodman. "We
have plenty of jail space available in Las Vegas."
Nevertheless, the question that no one seems to be asking right
now is -- is all of this really necessary? Another question that
seems to be left out of the debate is -- whose rights have been
seriously violated here -- the women or the city or both? How about
none of the above?
To the politically correct liberal feminist, the pastime is an
insult to women and their rights -- not to mention that it wreaks
sexual exploitation. To a religious conservative, it epitomizes the
moral and ethical degradation of family values and the odious assault
on traditional mores in our communities. However, aren't both sides
missing the point here? What if the women's rights are not being
violated? Has it ever occurred to the collectivists in both camps
that, because the game is legal, no one is calculatingly and fatally
harmed in the process?
And why is that? Because the women who partake in this sport are
doing so voluntarily. No one is coerced to do anything that they
don't want to do. These hunts may be morally repugnant to most
people, but how are they any more repulsive than, say, boxing,
football, or ice hockey? Aren't those sports violent? Don't they
draw blood as well? Yet no one is condemning those sports, nor are
they calling for their outlaw in the process.
Let's be mindful of the fact that many leftists and rightists
are often glad to take ideologically pure libertarians to task on
this issue or any issue that involves the non-violation of other
individual rights. After all, many of them condemn libertarians for
not morally and ethically objecting to these hunts or any other
questionable activity (such as pornography, gambling, drug use,
etc.). The reason they condemn these activities because, in their
eyes, these activities do "violate the rights of others,"
considering that the individuals who engage in said actions are said
to be "harming themselves."
Don't forget that the game is perfectly legal and that the women
who strip off their clothes to participate in this new form of
entertainment do so at their own volition. But if these women were
selling and/or using drugs or receiving money in exchange for sex
(that is, engaging in prostitution), they would be breaking the law
and receive a serious penalty.
We must also not ignore the fact that all participants involved
are gaining from the exchange; otherwise why else are they taking
part in the transactions? In addition, illegal activities (such as
drug prohibition, immigration prohibition, gun prohibition, etc.) are
performed in an arena of violence where there is no legal recourse,
all because the black market of said transactions are a free market
operating outside of the government-mandated prohibitions. Because
the activities are illegal, the prices of the transactions are
extremely high, thus providing an incentive for huge, profitable
returns. Ergo, the market does not work for the consumer and only in
favor of the illegal dealer.
However, when such prohibitions are removed, the activities become
legal, and the violence is quickly subsided and the market responds
to their customers' need, providing their products and/or services
at the lowest price. Ergo, that's when the market works for the
consumers and rightfully enriches the legal dealer.
Is the Hunting for Bambi game immoral? To many libertarians, yes.
Nevertheless, just because many libertarians don't agree with the
game doesn't mean that the game ought to be illegal. Just because
we rightfully condemn it from a personal and moral standpoint doesn't
mean that we believe that the game enthusiasts ought to be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law, when physical force and fraud have
never been a part of it.
Moreover, for those who believe that this game is hoax and the
players and the creators of the sinful pleasure ought to be
incarcerated for their actions, they need to mind their own business.
The game is real and no one has been harmed from doing it. Those who
are doing everything in their power to shut the company down are
doing it for political and legal reasons. They are not doing it for
the public interest.
Whether or not one concurs with the spirit of the game, the public
actions being taken against the proprietors of the business ought to
be not only condemned -- they ought to be brought to a complete
halt. The political and sexual correctness being imposed by the left
and the moral high ground taken by the right ought to be taken out of
the realm of politics, for they are the heart of the insanity of the
anti-Bambi Hunt agenda.
A society that allows such political, social, and legal
machinations to flourish is one that is not a free and civil one. But
a society that embraces the tenets of limited government, individual
liberty, tolerance, personal responsibility, private property rights,
private charity, free enterprise, federalism, and the rule of law is
one that is truly free and civil.
© 2003 by Todd Andrew Barnett.
All Rights Reserved. Permission to reprint any portion of or the
entire article is hereby granted, provided that the author's name and
credentials are included.
Todd Andrew Barnett is a contributing editor and columnist for
Liberty For All Online Magazine. He is also a staunch Libertarian
Party activist and is the co-founder of the pro-peace libertarian
organization Libertarians for Peace. A practicing Aridian Wiccan, he
resides in New Baltimore, Michigan.