Woman Sues VH1 For Showing Her Naked on Show About Being Naked

Ian-Fortey by Ian-Fortey on Aug. 22, 2014

Imagine you’re a contestant on a show called “Dating Naked.”  What two things do you think might be asked of you?  If you guessed “dating” and “being clothed” you’re not just incorrect, you might also be Jessie Nizewitz. 

Mud ain't nudity!

Nizewitz, a model from New York, was on the show in July and was somewhat aghast to notice upon viewing that the blur all contestants on the show are usually afforded, a little smudgey effect that makes your naughty bits invisible to the home audience, went missing during a very crucial scene.  Seems that while Nizewitz was wrestling her would be suitor, on the beach, on her knees, legs slightly bent, facing away from the camera, some editor dropped the blur ball.  So effectively she was on all fours in a partial lunge with her ass agape and offering a fairly detailed viewing of her plumbing.

Is Nizewitz being silly in her lawsuit?  On the one hand, the show is called Dating Naked.  She knew nudity would be involved, she’s a model and is obviously comfortable with her body and using it to gain attention via this TV show.  On the other hand, none of that says “please post my lady parts all over the internet and national television.”  She did expect to be blurred out and probably if she intended for any nudity to actually be shown it literally would have been in any other position as the one they got was about as unflattering as trying to open an industrial-sized jar of pickles between your thighs while you’re naked and suffering some muscle spasms.

Thanks to VH1’s slip up, Nizewitz is suing them for $10 million, the cost of one’s pride these days, or at least the price of a momentary dip in dignity.  Because let’s be honest, have you ever heard of this girl before?  No.  No one watches VH1.  If she wins this suit she’s getting upwards of a thousand dollars per VH1 viewer who saw her bits.

So if $10 million is the cost for fully bent over rear view exposure, we could assume frontal would be, what, maybe half that?  Breasts are good for a million?  And that’s for a woman.  As a man, what are you charging the world to see your junk?  If I’m being honest, I’d sign up for a show where I was naked all year long if I got $10 million out of it, what about you?  What’s the price of your shame?

Thanks to the Superficial for that edited nasty shot!

215 comments
BigredC
BigredC User

I hope she wins and it bankrupts the show, just so there's one less piece of crap reality show.

it_will_be_alright
it_will_be_alright User

Who cares? It's not like her vagina was worth much anyway. She's on a nude dating show, she doesn't seem embarrassed by her parts. She's an opportunist (aspiring model that wanted to be on TV) so this is a PR boost for her.

Will Weinz
Will Weinz

You always start high and settle for less. If they had a contract to blurr private bits and missed that one, she'll win easily.

Jenny Hover Simmons
Jenny Hover Simmons

They are naked almost the entire show. Editing screwed up but not to the tune of 10 mil. If she wins it will so piss me off. Stupid people don't deserve to have that kind of money for nothing.

Jenny-Hover-Simmons-680
Jenny-Hover-Simmons-680 User

EWW.She knew the risk it is Naked Dating. What I really see is a woman that should really put on a few pounds. Very unattractive view there. But a frivolous law suit and should be thrown out of court.

Brenda C Al
Brenda C Al

Its called dating naked for a reason lol I mean they should have blurred it but still 10 million

Paul Ridley
Paul Ridley

She was on about being naked its gonna happen

Amanda Levesque
Amanda Levesque

She has totally missed the point lol.... She should of been blond... But looks like she is having fun big smile on her face

Sharon Dermott
Sharon Dermott

Who actually gives a shit and no I didn't even look .. idiotic drama ... real life matters

Carrie Hogue
Carrie Hogue

File this one under frivolous lawsuits please.

mrsilly
mrsilly User

Just another Viacom publicity stunt. Everything is going as planned.

straybeat
straybeat User

Yep, the wife and I backed this up and played it frame-by-frame to be sure we saw what we did? We did... and loved it. Okay, so call us voyeurs? LOL


What about the new show coming out where people actually have sex inside a box off camera while therapists discuss it? (I'm guessing you'll be able to hear it?) I think this is all a prelude to actually showing everything on cam and if you sign up for a show like this you get what you get?

Danny Austrian
Danny Austrian

I saw it and it wasn't anything special. plus your on the show you know it can happen so get over it.

Wade Nix
Wade Nix

More people are going to see the image/video now than if she would have just kept her mouth shut, or should I say legs.

Susan Haessly
Susan Haessly

Then. U shouldn't have gone on the show naked!

Mccarthy Donald
Mccarthy Donald

She lost the man shes claiming to have dated because she went on a dating show....couldnt have been that serious as for the shot of her vagina.... once u seen one u seen them alll...lol. accept I heard hers was nasty so that doesnt help either but im sure theres someone out there for her too just no dough for her people need to work for theirs

Derek Osenbach
Derek Osenbach

hmmm did she or did she not "read the fine print?" If not she's an idiot to sue for she really doesn't have a case at all.

Jim Prucey
Jim Prucey

Maybe she thought the show was called "Blurred And Dating"

Stephen Wanhella
Stephen Wanhella

She agreed to go on the show if it was blurred. They showed a scene uncensored when they shouldn't have, so she's suing them. I don't know why this is confusing for people.

BJ Hines
BJ Hines

Did i miss something here its about being naked wth

Roxanne Frank
Roxanne Frank

The bitch went on the show so what the hell does she expect. So the viewers who do watch the show saw a vagina whoops. She doesn't have anything that unique that she has to sue for. She is just a greedy bitch who deserves all she showed to the viewers

Casey DeBruge
Casey DeBruge

I hope she loses the case. It's ridiculous that she could even think of suing let alone actually doing it.

Jose-Canseco-636
Jose-Canseco-636 User

did you read the fine print? how do you know the exact terms of her contract. her lawyers have obviously decided there IS a case, or do you think she's representing herself?