JCC Anne Hathaway is looking a bit bushy.

Someone should like this post. It is funny. I would do so myself except I don't believe in this new "Like" system we have. The old ways were good enough.

 

Her legs weren't spread open

 

They looked pretty open in the image I saw.

 

Only as much open as is necessary to exit a car, which is what she was doing.

 

Well...yeah. Legs open. Exiting car. This isn't something new to being a woman. I think I learned that lesson when I was 17, how to exit a car when wearing a dress. I just don't really have any sympathy for her, sorry. There are plenty of ways to exit a car that don't involve opening your legs that wide, especially when you *know* that there's a crapton of paparrazi around.

 

You seem to be implying that there is an issue of some importance at hand here.

 

I don't know... I think a woman's right to privacy is pretty important. Okay, she's a celebrity... fine--it still doesn't make it okay to post pictures of her crotch on the internet.

 

What is the point of this argument? Pubic hair is considered as sexually explicit as the frank genitals. What sort of argument is this? Exposing pubic hair would be unacceptable dress at any workplace that is not a strip club or part of the sex industry. You could be reliably charged with indecent exposure if you did this in front of the general public. Consequently, it is overwhelmingly clear that our society as a whole does not make the distinction you are making. People are responding as if someone has taken unwanted, revealing, sexually explicit photos because that is what happened. Period.

You may as well argue that no one should be upset about secret spy cams placed in dressing rooms because one time you saw a naked person on National Geographic once.

 

I saw the picture. I can understand that it's upsetting to have a picture like that posted on the internet of you. But, frankly, if that was the "best" picture any of those paparazzis could get, she did a pretty good job. Now her job is to just try to chill. We didn't really see anything at all, frankly. Even more frankly, anyone getting some sort of special sexual gratification out of that picture is really pathetic. I mean, you say it's a picture of her crotch, but it's really not. At least not the one I saw (I looked it up so I could comment on this thread; hand to God, that was the reason).

Yes, it was crude of them to try to get a "good" shot of her crotch. Yes, it might have been smart to wear some underwear. No, I guess she shouldn't have to wear underwear if she doesn't want to. But, honestly, I heard about the whole thing from her making a big deal about it. That's probably how most people heard about it, since most right-thinking people don't just google random celebrities and the phrase "crotch shot." Bottom line: it's not a very revealing shot; she's charming, talented and beautiful; no one cares about some shot of a little pubic hair except slimeballs. She can relax and probably shouldn't have made such a big deal out of it, just from a pragmatic, publicity standpoint.

EDIT: Pubic hair is considered as sexually explicit as the frank genitals.

IT'S HAIR

 

The issue isn't whether they got a good shot of her genitals or not, but that they were trying to get a shot at all.

 

Rogue, do you think Clarence Thomas's career would have been nearly derailed if he'd left a piece of moustache hair near a co-worker's beverage? Alright then.

You can have some broader argumetn about whether we should be so sensitive about pubic hair, but you can't argue that whether we actually are or not.

 

Messy eater.

 

Kinda hoping you never feel the touch of a woman, mainly because no halfway intelligent one would touch you based on these kind of comments.

 

I think one needs to differentiate a bit here. No one is defending or exculpating the photographers. They're scum. On the other hand, if I choose to go swimming in shark infested waters, I can't really act too surprised when I get bit. Especially if I had the opportunity to wear a shark-proof suit beforehand and turned it down.

EDIT: just to clarify, I don't mean to imply that she brought this on herself by choosing a life of celebrity. Not at all. Just that, given that she is in this life, it would make sense to take a few precautions.

 

Please don't insult sharks by comparing them to those scum. Sharks deserve better.

It's hard to blame Anne for walking into this, because no matter how much we say the paparazzi are scum, we still see them as human and some part of us will say 'don't worry they'll do the human thing if something goes wrong'. We expect humans to behave like humans.

Normal humans would've responded to the situation like this, they would've immediately turned around and stopped taking pictures once they saw Anne expose herself. And they would've also made sure to delete any photos they had that may have captured that moment.

 

They make money by selling photos. Websites and magazines make money by selling advertising, the rate improves the more visitors / readers a magazine or website has.

Every person posting here who has been to any of the websites displaying Anne Hathaway's crotch shots has contributed to the problem and validated what the paparazzi are doing.

 

Yeah but now we're splitting hairs on culpability here, jp. btw, how many slaves have you employed recently?

 

I'm always reminded of the death of Lady Diana, those shots of all the people lining up to put flowers outside Buckingham Palace, lining the parade route at her funeral. I always wanted to ask them how often they bought The Sun and other tabloids, especially when they they had juicy pictures of her. Nice that all turned out to shed a tear for her at her funeral, but a large percentage of them were fully complicit in her death.

 

A second historical reference that I find applicable: not sure how many here have heard of the Central Park Jogger. Well educated professional woman living in New York in the late 80s, when crime in New York was still at an all time high. Went jogging in Central Park after work, well after dark. She was attacked, robbed and raped, and beaten almost to death. Then-Mayor Ed Koch made a very good point, that kind of sums up how I feel about the Hathaway incident: on the one hand, you ask yourself what she was thinking going jogging in Central Park after dark. But then you have to ask yourself what kind of city/world we live in that you should have to think that way.

 

Supply and demand. Have you viewed any of the photos?

How many hairs, Billy?

fwiw, I have never employed slaves. Not really getting your point, but I know you've been up for 86 hours straight writing final papers and watching The Hobbit...

 

Actually you have employed slaves, as has everyone using high-end technology such as computers, mobile phones, etc, because those things are built in such horrible conditions that verge on, if not fully qualify as, slavery.

And let's not get started on clothing manufacture ...

But I digress. The real issue here is privilege. Male celebrities, regardless of wardrobe, don't often need to worry about "is someone going to try and get a picture of my junk?" every time they get out of a car. Female celebrities do. Similarly, men can have a great showbiz career while being conventionally unattractive physically (Seth Rogen, Kevin James, Drew Carey, Paul Giamatti, etc) while the vast majority of women cannot, and get criticised over stupid crap like weight, hairstyle, weight, wardrobe, weight, if they get a picture taken while eating something, and weight.

 

Everyone should have a fundamental right to privacy and dignity, regardless of celebrity status. If a person wishes to give up that right voluntarily by leaking nude shots or sex tapes or being a media whore then so be it, that is their choice. There is nothing voluntary or consensual about this. It is a form of sexual assault. This lack of consent completely offends against the right of the individual to set their own parameters of how much the public sees of them. I don't buy this idea that celebrities somehow forfeit these rights by the simple fact of celebrity. We seem to generally object to the media tapping a celebritie's phone so why is this any different?

 

You don't understand what "employ" means, obviously.

 

From bushy to rape. Incredible thread.