Playmate Dani Mathers charged with misdemeanor count for body shaming pic

FFN_STORM_MNC_SINGLE_MOM_AWARDS_562016_52046895

If you don’t know whom Dani Mathers is, consider yourself lucky. Dani is a Playboy Playmate who surreptitiously took a photo of a fellow L.A. Fitness gym member who was naked in their shared locker room. The gym member in question was a 70-year-old woman. Dani posted the photo to Snapchat with a side-by-side of her covering her mouth and giggling and the caption “If I can’t unsee this then neither can you.” You can see the original (censored) photo here. Charming, isn’t she?

Following a public outcry, Dani issued an absurd video apology to Snapchat, saying, “I just wanted to acknowledge a photo that I accidentally posted on Snapchat earlier today and let you guys know that that was absolutely wrong, and not what I meant to do. I have chosen to do what I do for a living because I love the female body, and I know that body-shaming is wrong and that’s not what I’m about, that’s not the type of person that I am.” Clearly Dani thinks the public is stupider than she is and I am not sure it’s possible for anyone to be stupider than she is. Nobody bought that her post was an accidental anything, including the Los Angeles Police Department. They got in contact with Dani’s victim, who fully cooperated with their investigation and now the Los Angeles City Attorney is formally charging her with a misdemeanor count of invasion of privacy, punishable up to six months in prison.

Prosecutors charged Dani Mathers, 29, with one misdemeanor count of invasion of privacy. Mathers is accused of posting an image of the woman on her Snapchat social media account in early July with a mocking caption about the woman’s appearance, sparking a widespread public outcry.

City Atty. Mike Feuer said Friday that it was important to send a message with the criminal charges filed against Mather.

“Body-shaming is humiliating, with often painful, long-term consequences,” he said. “It mocks and stigmatizes its victims, tearing down self-respect and perpetuating the harmful idea that our unique physical appearances should be compared to air-brushed notions of ‘perfect.’ What really matters is our character and humanity. While body-shaming, in itself, is not a crime, there are circumstances in which invading one’s privacy to accomplish it can be. And we shouldn’t tolerate that.”

Dr. Robyn Silverman, a body image expert, said body-shaming is kind of an act of bullying.

“While the body-shaming aspect of this case is inexcusable, the main issue here is not that Ms. Mathers denigrated another woman online with rude or unflattering remarks,” she said. “Rather, Ms. Mathers, with both forethought and intent to humiliate and compare, photographed a naked woman, without her knowledge or consent, and then distributed it online for everyone to see and evaluate.”

[From The LA Times]

Prior to the criminal charges, L.A. Fitness banned Dani from all their locations and the radio station KLOS fired her from her spot on their Heidi and Frank show. A barrage of criticism forced her to turn all but her Facebook social media to private.

As a civil case, this is a slamdunk with the victim likely being awarded a large settlement. However, from a criminal standpoint, the laws on social media posting without consent are still being molded so this is still a grey area. Cases of this sort are on a state-to-state basis and those that have been won in California all involved alleged voyeurs and not simply narcissist a-holes like Dani. They are going after her for bullying, not being a peeping Tom, and the outcome could affect the liability of sites like People of Walmart or She Has Had It. Dani’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, wants the charge dropped because, “(Dani) never tried to invade anyone’s privacy and never tried to violate any laws.” Although he and his client currently have a legal leg to stand on, this bs statement negates any objectivity I ever tried to muster. Dani is a bully who didn’t care if she invaded someone’s privacy, she just wanted to have her laugh. Well now it’s her victim’s and the County of Los Angeles’ time to laugh. I know she won’t see any jail time for this but being publicly shamed for this is her comeuppance. Hey Dani – Ha!

FFN_Mathers_Dani_BAC_120113_51276012

FFN_Mathers_Dani_BAC_120113_51275987

wenn22802688

Photo credit: Fame/Flynet and WENN Photos

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

52 Responses to “Playmate Dani Mathers charged with misdemeanor count for body shaming pic”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. kimbers says:

    Ew this woman is the definition of c u next Tuesday

    • Marlene says:

      It was a stupid thing to do, but come on..

      She didn’t rape anybody or skin a kitten alive, and you could not ID the woman from that picture.

      Khloe Kardashian posting (fake) nude pics of Chloe Grace Moretz was a much bigger crime, IMO.

  2. Size Does Matter says:

    Pretty is as pretty does.

    How horrific for that poor woman.

  3. Melody says:

    Whether she meant to send it to one person or post it publicly, it reveals an ugliness of spirit that will not be overcome with anything she offers to distinguish herself from the other women in the industry. She blew it.

    • Crimson says:

      @Melody: Agreed. Let me add, for someone who works out at a gym she might pay more attention to her legs. They are skinny, lacking muscle tone (no offense meant here to others; Dani was subtley bragging “Look! I go to a gym!” in her post), and for all the time she must spend on them catering to men at the Playboy mansion, they won’t hold up.

  4. Jenns says:

    Vile is the kindest word I can think to describe her.

    And she may be a playmate, but because of her actions, she is an ugly human being in my eyes.

    • EyeRolling says:

      Not to mention, does she forget she has fake boobs? If she’s going to body shame someone, why not do it on herself? One day she will be 70 and we’ll see what she’ll look like then, probably like a saggy bag of implants, chicken cutlets, fillers, botox and everything else as fake as her sad soul. Does she not have a mother, a grandma? If someone did ths on her own mom or gran, how would she feel? It reminds me of donald trump, saying degrading things bout women while he himself has a mother, a wife, a daughter and possibly a granddaughter. Don’t they see that by insulting others that also insults their family members of the same gender and age? Class can’t be bought…

  5. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    Am very glad to hear this, this type of trolling is getting out of hand. And what kind of person body shames a 70 YEAR OLD!!! Plastic Dani clearly has no respect for her elders, I wonder how she would have felt if it was HER grandmother someone was posting naked photo’s of online.

  6. Swak says:

    Is she being sued by the woman? If not she should be.

    • Another Anna says:

      I imagine that the woman is waiting for the criminal prosecution to go forward. If the criminal prosecution proves major elements of the civil case then she has a much easier case against this Mathers woman.

  7. paolanqar says:

    She should be ashamed of herself. I cannot wait what she will look like at the age of that woman whom she took a picture of.
    She is the definition of stupid and brain dead.

  8. Christin says:

    I am glad this case is being pursued. The lady was photographed and humiliated by a plasticized bully.

  9. Izzy says:

    1. I don’t know anyone personally who has ever confused Snapchat or Instagram with private text function.

    2. Her back was to the woman, and her caption was “If I can’t unsee this, neither can you”; both those things indicate that at some point she had viewed the woman either in person or in her selfie, and decided to distribute it electronically in some form, whether to one other person or on mass media.

    3. The law discusses intent to distribute; unless the law specifies INTENT to distribute to more than one person, her caption alone would seem to indicate intent to distribute.

    4. Unless the law specifies that there has to be intent of voyeurism instead of it being accidental, she still took the picture, and instead of deleting it, distributed it. If the law does specify that, this means it needs to change to deal with the issue of selfies and privacy in places like gym locker rooms.

    5. I hope they succeed in throwing the book at her dumb ass.

    • Crimson says:

      This b*tch is missing brain cells or filters and it’s too bad for her. In one little post she has let the whole world see just how thoroughly ugly she truly is. No amount of apologizing can overcome this image destruction… much like the excuses we’ve heard from The Donald for exposing his real self.

    • ELX says:

      And, this was a locker room, the woman clearly had an expectation of privacy in the changing room, both by custom and by LAFitness’ explicit policy. Given the victim age and the denigrating caption, I wonder if there isn’t a civil rights violation here, i.e. discrimination based on age.

  10. QQ says:

    Welp! I’m not worried about her, she is gonna be a-ok

  11. Pedro45 says:

    Ugly on the inside.

  12. ShinyGrenade says:

    Good.
    What an horrific and mean thing to do.

  13. Alleycat says:

    It hurts my heart because on top of just being a really cruel thing, this women was at a GYM trying to better herself. I feel like this could be a huge setback to those who feel ashamed of their bodies because they feel like this could happen to them. A gym should be a safe place.

  14. Jess says:

    Good!!! Shame on her.

  15. Hfsni says:

    For the civil case to be won would the lady in the photo have to come forward? As far as i know she is beyond lucky that woman did not come forward.

  16. Penelope says:

    I can’t even look at the original picture again because it breaks my heart. What a horribly mean, unspeakably ill-bred woman.

  17. Rachel 2.0 says:

    And she actually thinks she looks better?
    Bitch have several seats…

    • doofus says:

      circus t*ts and giant gaping maw.

      she REALLY shouldn’t comment on anyone’s appearance.

      • Christin says:

        No, she shouldn’t. The photos here are rather generous to her appearance. Aging likely won’t be kind to her.

  18. Sunnydaze says:

    I think it’s intetesting “People of Walmart” was mentioned (not familiar with the other site). I totally admit I’ve flipped through that site a few times or laughed at a pic posted on fb/insta, sometimes feeling guilty for doing so, sometime’s not. But this case is interesting. Where do we, as a society, draw the line on who is “deserving” of being shamed? Is it because the woman at the gym was naked? Would it be different if she were simply sporting a wicked camel toe in tiny yoga shorts with her belly hanging out (a la Walmart pics?). Are we mad because she was trying to better herself at the gym, but the morbidly obese woman in a scooter with junk food in the basket wearing too- tight juicy couture sweatpants is just “white trash” and therefor it’s open season on her body? I remember a former fb friend snapped a pic of a large woman reading on a stool at a bookstore and the “friend” captioned something to the effect of “some people need to get up and move so we can all fit through thd aisle” followed by laughing emojis. This person was in my masters program for mental health counseling.

    But truly, this is an honest question. Who/how do we decide who it’s ok to laugh at? Is it ever ok? And if not, think of all the times we do it. I caught America’s funniest home videos the other day and half the submissions are only funny because the “stars” are overweight people. then I see videos (viral and otherwise) people laugh at where a child is involved and I think, why are people laughing at something that’s clearly painful? Where are the parents and why is someone sitting by filming instead of helping? DID anyone ask this kid if they wanted this embarrassing moment out there for the world to see? I have the same issue with “kid shaming” where a parent films and posts punishment videos.

    I know it’s an incredibly complex issue, but this site often discusses the importance of consent, and this article really made me reevaluate my behavior. Where do we draw the line, and why are we drawing it here? Are we not sometimes mocking poverty and lack of education in the Walmart pictures?

    • Jennah says:

      My opinion is that as we wouldn’t mock someone who was extremely underweight (happened to my friend who had Celiac disease, as she couldn’t absorb any of her food), that hopefully we wouldn’t mock someone who has visibly gained weight, whatever the difference in either direction.

      And I was horrified by people of Walmart, I think it is racist and/or classist.

      Nb: had another friend who gained a lot of edema ( Water weight) towards the end of her life, and she had an unbelievable amount of rude comments about her nutrition. Her Edema came on unbelievably fast and looked puffy, and no amount of diet or exercise would have made her lose weight. Google lymphedema.

      Barring a mental illness, people who are underweight or of a higher weight than they would like for them, know they are different.

      They (smaller or bigger) would desperately like to be “just like everyone else” and shaming them for their perceived healthy or unhealthy habits does not help.

      Weight and food choice and exercise needs to be between people and their doctors in my opinion. And also Imo, just because someone dresses differently doesn’t make it ok to take pictures of them.. They , like kids who are being shamed by parents, are people after all.

    • Crimson says:

      @Sunnydaze- Thinking a mean thought that flies in and out of your brain for a split second is one thing. It happens to most people, right? Dwelling on that thought and describing it to others or photographing it for others to laugh at is another thing altogether.

      “The Golden Rule” explains how we SHOULD act (Treat others as you wish to be treated), and so does the old saying, “If you don’t have something nice to say about someone don’t say anything at all.” Some people have never been taught these morals. Do they not teach this in schools any longer? At a young age I remember these two principles of conduct being drilled in to us. Lol, we were even graded on our “conduct.”

    • Bridget says:

      I am not getting into who “deserves” any of this. But here’s a huge distinction:
      In a locker room, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Taking a photo of someone naked absolutely violates that. Walking around Wal-Mart doesn’t have that same expectation.

      • JaneFr says:

        Is there a limitated list of “safe place” ? Should people stay in house ? Blinds closed ?

        Of course, I do not have the same scale of values. Here, your image belongs to you, one does not have the right to take picture of other people, post/publish them without their consent (in most occasions) and privacy is expected to be respected, period.

      • Bridget says:

        Again, there’s the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. A Wal Mart (which a privately held company) is a public place. It isn’t polite, and certainly people can get into trouble for taking photos without consent, but the legal issue isn’t the same.

        And not to be rude, but I’d think hard before trying to make a comparison between scales of values in different countries. There may be things that I hold dear as an American that your nation may not (and if the “Fr” in JaneFr means that you’re French, that’s for certain). Different countries have different laws and different ways of making laws.

      • Veronica says:

        Most gyms actually forbid cell phone usage in locker rooms for reasons like this case. My gym has multiple signs warning that they’ll suspend your membership if you pull this crap.

    • annaloo. says:

      Does anyone remember Glamour Magazine’s “Do & Don’ts” where they photographed unsuspecting women on the street to criticize their outfits, but put a black bar over their eyes to protect their privacy? Is it still around?

      • elle says:

        I came here to post the same thing… glamour dos and don’ts.. I just couldn’t remember which women’s mag it was in.

    • guilty pleasures says:

      sunnydaze, such nourishing food for thought. I, too, have looked at and chuckled at people of walmart. I’d never heard of the other site, but popped in for a moment just now. It’s horrible and I’ll never look at it again. I will not go to POWm again now either. It’s not ok. How can I hold this Dani person in disdain when it has become de rigour to mock people who are not beautiful? And what is beautiful? Certainly we don’t think the only people who are beautiful are underweight and have undergone surgery? The people we laugh at could be the most beautiful humans roaming earth, but we chuckle at their expense? I am ashamed. I will do better.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Great post. I don’t think the public body-shaming of either is ok, but the whole issue of public and clothed vs, private and not clothed does make what this lady did seem nastier and more violating. And her apology sounds like pure BS. She’s not sorry that she did it, she’s sorry she was caught and has to deal with the consequences.

  19. MinnFinn says:

    Dani says she “loves the female body”. That must be why she got herself a set of huge bolt-ons and why she publicly shamed a 70-year old’s body. What an idiot. Give her a penny for her thoughts and you would get change back.

  20. lizzie says:

    i don’t think a physically active 70 year old has anything to be embarrassed about in regards to her body. i do think that after the hundreds of thousands of dollars this girl has clearly had pumped into her face and body – she should be embarrassed she didn’t mold herself into something less generic looking b/c she’s about as basic as they come.

  21. RussianBlueCat says:

    It will be interesting to see if any gym allows her to become a member ? What is sad someone like Dani will never fully understand what she did is wrong and cruel until someone does the same to her. She is just a pathetic excuse for a human being

  22. Trixie says:

    This was never about body shaming. This was always about taking a nude photo of someone without their consent. You cannot and should not take photos of someone nude without their consent and blast them all over social media. You cannot and should not take photos of someone nude without their consent period.

  23. hogtowngooner says:

    “that’s not what I’m about, that’s not the type of person that I am.”

    Wrong. Ethics are what we’re about/who we are when we think no one is looking. This is EXACTLY who she is.

    She is a vapid, vile woman who thinks being pretty and thin make her a better person than someone who doesn’t meet her description of either. She is vile.

  24. poppy says:

    smh picking on an old lady. i guess dumb@ss doesn’t realize she too will be 70 one day.

    while I didn’t see any pictures, i already know this 70 yo woman is AWESOME. going to the gym to take care of herself -awesome. agreeing to assist with punishing this POS waste of humanity when she most likely wants to move on and forget about it -also awesome.
    this memaw is so much awesomeness.
    knowingly or not, she is helping make it crystal clear it is not ok to take pictures of people when they are due their privacy. and it is not ok to shame someone for living their life.

    as for that POS LOSER, there aren’t enough horrible things to be said about her. she is utterly disgusting. pure trash.
    what an absolute bully and as many here have already said, UGLY and astounding levels imbecile.

    while I’m not an @ss kicking kind of lady, zomg, this trash brings out the absolute worst feelings in me and the rage, the rage is crazy levels. so if amazingly awesome memaw wants to kick this trash’s @ss to the curb i am so down.

  25. Uh Huh says:

    It’s interesting that you’re shaming the twit and go on to provide a link to the picture of the victim. Welp, go you.

  26. Katey says:

    What everyone else said – no one has the right to photograph a person naked in a private setting and post it publicly, let alone the derogatory comment. What a disgusting thing to do. I guess it’s okay to be one of Hef’s toy girls though, she doesn’t seem to have any age discrimination when it comes to old dudes with money.

  27. elle says:

    I wonder what this Keebler-elf-looking butterface is going to look like at 70, when the rest of her body is hanging off of her implants.

  28. la fits u says:

    What a bitchy little dwarf this Dani person is. Nice implants and fake tan too, Dani !

    AND bleached hair, extensions, veneers, etc.