Transcript (and links) after the jump.
A lot of people have been talking and writing about Erin Andrews, the ESPN reporter who had a video taken without her knowledge - of her walking around a hotel room naked.
Both FOX and CBS news have featured clips or pictures of the video and it's a top Google Search right now.
I've been really happy to see that a lot of male sports bloggers are writing about feeling badly and almost feeling complicit in the objectification of sexualization of Andrews because of past posts they wrote about how hot she is, or featuring pictures of her that were meant to somehow titillate their male audience.
I also think that it's awesome that our own Community bloggers - like Dangerfield and Marc - have taken on the broader questions surrounding sports culture and masculinity.
What I'm really interested in, however, is the non-consensual issue that comes up in this story. People aren't interested in this video, this isn't a big internet sensation, because Andrews is a hot celebrity who people might be able to see naked. You can see plenty of hot women naked online. Folks want to watch this - and people find it interesting - precisely because Erin Andrews didn't know she was being filmed. And that reveals something really fucked up about the way American culture views women.
That what we consider hot or sexy, is looking at naked pictures of women without their consent.
I just wanted to open this issue up in comments and see what people thought about how this story relates to violence against women and, really, to rape culture as well.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Erin Andrews and Consent.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15112
"Folks want to watch this - and people find it interesting - precisely because Erin Andrews didn't know she was being filmed. And that reveals something really fucked up about the way American culture views women. That what we consider hot or sexy, is looking at naked pictures of women without their consent. "
I agree, very well said. It's so fucked up and sad. I think it's about having control, having the pleasure knowing that you're watching them without their knowledge and they can't do anything about it, because they have NO idea it's happening!
I think it's also about people's stupid morbid curiousity and fascination, watching a "hot" naked woman walking around in her hotel room and wondering what kind of things she'll do. News flash: "hot" women are just as normal and boring like any other women or men.
Honestly I don't think it has anything to do with her not giving her consent, but rather it's a desire to see someone you KNOW and had previous lusted over. That and basic human curiosity.
If someone secretly had pics of Brad Pitt like this I would want to see those too, not because he didn't know they were taken but because well, he's a man I know and have lusted over before.
The fact that I can see countless people on the internet for free doesn't change anything. The desire for this sort of thing doesn't go away upon such viewings - most people always have that curiosity or desire to see more or someone different that you never saw before, etc.
I do really want to hear what others think though, this is just my take on it. I.e., it's not the fact that she didn't consent - if anything I think that dissuades people - it's the fact that they know her and lusted over her before and now have this chance to see her that draws the attention. That and basic human curiosity. While I never saw the video myself, I have to admit even I have a certain curiosity to see it (though I won't).
I have to STRONGLY agree with what you said. I honestly don't think the fuel here is because the pictures were taking without consent, the interest is just like every other celebrity sex tape scandal: Its someone you know.
I think consent enters the picture because it makes this really appalling. Someone deserves jail time, very possibly including the a-hole journalists & editors who published this in the paper.
Though you are in part correct, I think not giving consent is a huge part of this phenomenon. The male-gaze obsession over Erin Andrews is not because she is "hot"--it is because she is "hot" AND professional. Sure, if she had posed for playboy, it would have been popular, but not THIS popular, because, paradoxically, part of what men love so much about her is that she is not the type to pose for playboy--she is too "innocent," "modest" and professional. But this video allowed men to see her naked anyway, without her having to express that pesky sexual self-awareness and self-determination that does not an "innocent" woman make.
So yes, this terrible incident is worsened by the fact that her non-consent raises the appeal.
"But this video allowed men to see her naked anyway, without her having to express that pesky sexual self-awareness and self-determination that does not an "innocent" woman make."
Well said. I agree entirely. And I'll add to it; this has to go beyond the typical "naked hot celebrity" phenomenon, because really, how big a celebrity is she? Outside of the sports-fanatic industry, who knew who Erin Andrews was before a week ago? I didn't. I doubt my boyfriend did. And I would bet my life savings that this conversation is playing out in front of computers across the world right now:
Person A: "There's a naked video of Erin Andrews online!"
Person B: "Who's Erin Andrews?"
A: "Some hot sportscaster. And get this--she didn't even know the camera was on!"
B: "Oh, really? She's hot? Wild, let me see!"
This is thrilling because it was nonconsensual, because she's attractive, and because there's a real stereotypical-male-fantasy situation going on: she's hot AND she loves sports AND the situation puts her in an unintentionally submissive position.
I made a post below about why non-consent is not adding to the popularity of this, but you're absolutely right regarding people who don't know who she is. In that case, though, it makes this no different from any other non-consensual picture or video that sees the light of day. The reality of the situation as a whole- the celebrity of Andrews which makes this a Big Deal rather than just some thumbnail link on a porn site- is that she, naked, would be phenomenally more popular if she had consented to it.
Yeah; it's certainly the combination of the two. Of course I didn't mean to imply that celebrity has nothing to do with it.
I think it would be hard to say what is the bigger factor. Remember Paris Hilton's sex tape? People heard about some hot blond girl getting fucked on video and it was all over the internet, and this was before she was famous. I understand that many people consider the act a publicity stunt since it happened right before the first season of the show that made her a star, and there's some suggestion that she actually knew about the tape all along--but the point isn't whether it was a stunt or not. The point is that the video, when it was released online, was "promoted" like a nonconsensual act. The video was pretty amateur, and there are plenty of other sources of perfectly consensual porn shot in better quality all over the Net, so why was this video such a viral phenomenon? Because apparently, to the viewer who just found out about it, this girl got duped. It was naughtier to watch.
But again, the celebrity of Andrews has to have an effect too. There's no way that this video would have been as big if it were an unknown woman in the hotel room. And conversely, it would probably be interesting to see how Paris Hilton's video would have been perceived if it were released after she had achieved fame.
I'm not sure the Paris Hilton tape is much of a comparison. I actually don't think there is a good comparison that combines both the popularity of the victim and the nature of the misdeed, which is probably why we have people all over the map on this one.
Is it screwed up to make a sex tape with your famous girlfriend and then release it for all the world to see? Well, yeah. But obviously Paris was complicit in the making of the tape. The lack of her consent in the release of the tape was, as far as I saw, less of a draw as it was a simple non-factor. Sample conversation:
"Isn't it messed up that guy put out that tape?"
"Yeah, but she was dumb enough to trust him, so screw it."
The lack of sympathy comes from the fact she was ok with it up until it was released into the wild, and the premise that Paris' error in judgment of who to trust equals "too bad, so sad". There's a level of victim blaming, yes, but it's also very easy to rationalize for someone who wants new famous boobs to look at.
What happened to Andrews crosses a dozen more lines than Paris' situation. No one can make the most remote argument, save conspiracy theory, that she did anything wrong. That's obvious to just about everyone. And because of that, if the lack of consent affects someone's desire to see the video or pictures of it, it appears that effect is an all likelihood going to be negative.
Put another way: If Paris was most guys' sister, he'd go beat the hell out of the boyfriend and then come home and say, in effect, "Trusting guys with video cameras is a bad fucking idea. Smooth move." And they'd say that because they know they might be capable of the same thing with a different girl.
If Erin was most guys' sister, they'd go beat the hell out of the voyeur, drag him across the train tracks, whack him around with a 2x4, nail him to plasterboard, drop him off at the police station, then go home, give Erin a hug, and do whatever she needed from him until she started to recover. I don't know how similar the sense of violation would be for the women in the two scenarios, but to most guys it's just completely different.
Right. I'd never heard of either woman before, and I haven't watched either video, but I never felt any sympathy for Paris (mostly because I took it for granted that it was a publicity stunt) and I want to break this stalker creep's bones.
Human curiosity or American curiosity? Do you honestly think that this type of spectacle is universal?
I know for a fact that some cultures are much more relaxed about nudity for example, and there are some cultures where privacy is sacred. I'm having a hard time imagining these events as being anything other than a knee-jerk response to our American cultural landscape.
The voyeurism is a point of concern, but I think her celebrity status is also a contributing factor. Movie scenes including nude female actors draw a lot of attention.
The voyeurism is a point of concern, but I think her celebrity status is also a contributing factor. Movie scenes including nude female actors draw a lot of attention.
I think this is just another symptom of how boys are raised in this and many other nations to view women as sexual objects. The only chance we have to stop this ridiculous way of thinking is for fathers and mothers to "walk the walk" and be role models for their sons & daughters. Additionally, women who capitalize on their bodies and sexuality for money contribute to this massive problem. Women who use their bodies instead of their brains to make money (stripping, porn, prostitution, etc.) are equally at fault for the perpetuation of this world-wide issue. Don't get me wrong...I have NOTHING against sex...I love it. But it becomes wrong when you use it for financial gain. I wish I had the know-how to work with these kinds of women in my region to help them evolve into the thoughtful, responsible, intelligent beings they're meant to be instead of relying on their bodies & sexuality to make the rent.
I'm really glad you don't have the resources to force people to evolve into what you think they should be.
I know this is a derail but seriously what the fuck? How dare you imply that sex workers are not "thoughtful, responsible, intelligent beings."
I didn't imply it...I said it outright. Here's why: many of the equality problems (I should say inequality problems) women in America and other nations face today are a direct result of us being viewed as, considered to be & treated like property. That is, we have no more need to use our intellect than say an automobile or an appliance. This mindset has enabled men to control nearly every facet of our lives & well-being for centuries. Any behavior women involve themselves in that does not work to undo this notion is bad for all women because it reinforces the notion that we are not qualified to sustain ourselves based on intellect.
Just keep thinking about this, reading about the history of the world and observing our current condition and I promise it will start making sense to you and you will develop the same passion I have to see ALL women break that mold and flourish.
"I didn't imply it...I said it outright."
Oh, well in that case shut the fuck up. We have sex workers that visit and comment ON THIS SITE and as is detailed in the comments policy personal attacks (such as calling them all dumb and irresponsible) are not allowed.
So take your asinine derail somewhere else.
Bless your heart.
I have a really hard time appreciating that your message and your more-feminist-than-thou attitude are in earnest when you resort to paternalism like that. If you want other feminists to stop calling your derail a derail, please, please, redouble your efforts to illuminate the connection between sex work and the voyeurism of an ESPN sportscaster.
I'm simply questioning why this happens.
I don't even know what a "derail" is.
You are DERAILING THE THREAD. This is a discussion of a sports newscaster who had videos taken of her without her consent while she was naked in a hotel room. There are some really intelligent people saying some really intelligent things about the situation, and it's a damn shame that you decided to start talking about sex workers when there is absolutely nothing about sex workers in the article. This is why it is called a "derail" because now this great conversation has been disrupted by your insults and off-topic comments. I am half guilty for responding to some of your comments, and I'm done now so that people can get back to the discussion of Erin Andrews.
What do you think the reasons are that this sort of thing happens?
I can only lead a horse to water.
Mammal, there's a way to get your point across without resorting to personal attacks (a violation of the comments policy) - which I'd classify your comments re: sex workers to be. Please consider this before your next comment.
This is quite confusing to me. I am attacking an industry and pointing out the effects the industry has on women. While I have used some strong words to describe my opinion (irresponsible, thoughtless, etc.) I don't see where I've personally attacked anyone. On the contrary, I have been told to "shut the fuck up" "get the fuck off" have been called mean-spirited and a lot more. Is this warning a standard response you send when someone reports abuse or do you really find that I personally insulted someone?
You can attack the industry without attacking women who are in the industry - by making blanket statements (and insults) concerning sex workers, you are making personal attacks. In addition - you really are derailing the thread quite badly. Please keep it on point.
Sports reporting does not fall under the "sex work" category. You're wrong either way, though.
Huh? Who said sports reporting fell under sex work? I didn't.
For all those who disagree with me, give me one, just one, example of how using your body or sexuality instead of your brain for financial gain promotes the equality of women.
No, I'm not going to do that, because it has nothing to do with this post. Nor did your initial comment, which is why I challenged you in the first place. GTFO.
aww, what a nice way to promote safe space for feminists with different opinions, SarahMC.
It's not a safe space for sex workers or dancers, now is it? It's a derail; that's it.
Yeah, God forbid they're exposed to and stop to consider something other than their current point of view.
Oh yes, because people in sex work have NEVER EVER thought about it your way, and if only they listened to your insults, they'd come around to your way of thinking!! Before being exposed to you and your views, they were simply stupid, unthinking robots!
For as passionate about feminism as you say you are, you're awfully paternalistic about how you interact with other women.
SarahMC can't help being defensive. It may feel like a personal attack on her or her mom or her daughter or whomever she's defending. Hopefully, though, she'll take the time to consider the facts and will inevitably come to the correct conclusion: selling your body or the image of your body is not liberating personally or on a universal level. It's a big part of what's perpetuating violence against females as well as the objectification of all us girls to this day. Objectify: –verb -to present as an object, esp. of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize. To present or regard as an object: "Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally" (Barry Lopez).
You're really wasting your time writing up these paragraphs when you can simply put, "Let's play the victim blame game!"
Who's the victim?
READ your own words: "It's a big part of what's perpetuating violence against females"
Sounds an awful lot like when people say, "Oh, maybe if she wasn't wearing that dress, she wouldn't have been raped. She's perpetuating violence against herself, she's asking for it!"
I have yet to see you address educating men. I wouldn't be surprised if you're trolling, anyways.
darklit - the essence of everything I've written is about educating men...through behavior.
I don't know what "trolling" means. But I'm certain it's not a compliment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Oh, troll. You're wrong.
It's possible to disagree with someone without having a personal stake in the argument. Why resort to "Well, you're just disagreeing because you/your mom/your daughter is a sex worker"? Don't pretend to know what's in SarahMC's head. That adds nothing to the discussion.
Huh? Who said sports reporting fell under sex work? I didn't.
For all those who disagree with me, give me one, just one, example of how using your body or sexuality instead of your brain for financial gain promotes the equality of women.
Telling other women what to do in such a condescending way isn't really helpful. Let's not forget that some women have to make hard choices, and may not have as many options as you or I. Or that some women may enjoy sex work. It's not really up to me or you to talk down to them and try to make them feel shame about it. It seems like you're really indulging in some victim blaming and slut shaming here.
It is absolutely up to us to enlighten other women! If you're not going to even attempt to get to the root of the causes of women's inequality & other issues and work toward a solution then what is the point? It's not condescension you're sensing, it's passion. I am so fucking grateful for all the things our foremothers did to help us have the choices we enjoy today and I want to keep advancing. We OWE it to them! A lot of minds need to be changed about the status quo and I'm simply planting seeds for other women to consider. We're not victims! We have the power to change this world. But we have to work toward it...ALL OF US! We can't just accept the gifts that have been given to us by all the incredibly brave women who came before us...WE HAVE TO KEEP WORKING! And for me that includes trying to help other women see how damaging selling out (for whatever reasons) is. It's unacceptable.
Mammal, I agree with you. I really don't understand why it's not okay to make a judgment call about women in sex work. They're not victims, as the cries of "no victim blaming!" assert. They're making a choice, and it's a choice that helps promote the objectification and sexist stereotypes about girls and women. Would you be shouted down for being critical of a woman ad exec who was instrumental in the creation of a sexist television commercial? Doubtful. Sex work is sacred to many young feminists - because recognizing that engaging in sex work perpetuates sexism makes women seem uncool and prudish. As long as feminists concede that it's alright for women to cash in on being masturbatory objects for the same old tired male fantasies, men aren't as threatened by feminism. Because ultimately, even if we're agitating for equal pay, reproductive rights, or real debate about gendered violence, we know our place - tits out and smiling and available. Hence, recent articles bemoaning the fact that there are so many racist representations in porn, which are somehow damaging and may influence viewers' behavior or opinions, yet misogynist representations in porn are somehow neutral. And the frequency of posts here and on other feminist blogs about sexism in advertising - advertising influences people, but porn and stripping exist in a vacuum.
So, yeah, I do judge sex workers. It's not blaming the victim, since, by their own accounts, they're not victims. It's not slut-shaming, since I'm not judging their sex life, merely their career choice. Sex workers are in collusion to continue stereotyped images about female sexuality. They're helping to make sure that the world remains business as usual when it comes to men, women, and sex, so that our daughters will grow up knowing that their most important asset is youth and fuckability. And our sons will know that girls and women are ultimately objects who exist for their consumption.
Thanks a lot, feminist sex workers: you're pretty much the equivalent of women who play dumb for male approval, of women who insist that "boys will be boys", and of women who profit directly from sexism in mass media. You're the Uncle Toms of feminism. But, hey - the money is so good!
Beautifully stated. Thank you.
At a NOW conference a few years ago, I was having dinner with a group of young feminists, and the discussion came to sex and sex work, and one of them said something I'll always remember - and certainly something you summed up nicely:
"Being a feminist doesn't mean you can do whatever you want."
Sure, feminism is about giving women (and men) choices - but how those choices affect others also need to be critically examined.
Marc, you're a smart, thoughtful guy, but it's insulting to suggest that people who choose X only do it because they haven't examined it, and that if only they do that examining, they'll choose to stop doing it.
It's a discussion that's been had on this website more than once.
Guess what? Some people examine something and arrive at a different conclusion than you did.
well, said, Mammal. I agree 100% with what you said.
You 100% agree with calling ALL sex workers unintelligent, unthoughtful and irresponsible? Because that's exactly what Mammal said. When I questioned them about it they reiterated the point saying they weren't IMPLYING that, they were saying EXACTLY that. So you 100% agree with that statement as well? Really?
Thanks. Sounds like it's you, me and my husband who think this way. No one else.
I in now way tried to derail this thread. I thought trying to understand why this happened to the sports reporter was an important question. To me, selling sex is a part of the female plight. Agreeing is obviously optional and I didn't realize my opinion would be so controversial. I'm actually VERY surprised to find that so few feminist feel the way I do. At any rate, it will remain, in my mind, something to ponder.
I'd take a guess that more feminists on this site agree with you than are willing to write about it, since opinions along these lines are generally aggressively shut down straight away.
Thanks for voicing your opinion and taking a stance on a certainly controversial position with the majority of the posters on here.
It seems we can't really have this conversation, though, without examining the economic discrepancies between women and men, as well as patriarchy's constructions of women. That is, to say, blaming sex workers without blaming the patriarchy is unfair.
There is a difference, I think, between sex workers who choose to be such because of the economic incentives, all the while rejecting the notion that they aren't contributing to patriarchy's treatment of women, and a sex worker who was, for lack of a better word, economically forced into sex work.
Marc - thanks for the words of encouragement. It's hard to be so unpopular but I've always lacked the gift of eloquence so it was to be expected.
It's extrememly difficult for me, based on my personal history, to buy into the economic factor. I'm sure explaining my history will be wildly unpopular in this forum but, like every other human, it impacts my opinions so here goes:
I spent the first 17 years of my life living in abject poverty. I grew up in mobile homes, went hungry on many occassions, went without basic necessities on almost all occassions and remember my parents borrowing money toward the end of nearly every week just to get gas to go to work (mill work & construction work...when they worked). By puberty I had turned into a gorgeous, big-breasted, size 4 hard body who turned more than my share of male heads. It would have been a VERY easy transition for me to get involved in sex work. Luckily, around the same time I hit puberty, I was already beginning to develop a strong sense of the lack of balance between the sexes. During my tenure in several minimum wage restaurant & entry-level office jobs, I was continually subjected to sexist comments and overt sexual discrimination. I distinctly remember one occassion during which I attempted to get a well-deserved raise, I was actually told by my manager that I was "sitting on a gold mine" and "didn't need a raise if I'd use my assets". UGH! Even luckier, I guess, was my growing distain for that sort of unsolicited attention. I questioned myself constantly about what *I* was doing to bring this unprofessional bullshit on myself. Luckier still, I never gave into the poverty or the pressure. I somehow KNEW in my heart of hearts that no good could come of becoming involved in sex work...not for me or any of the women who would come after me. I wanted to be taken seriously for my mind and I want the same for all the daughters of this earth. But we (all women) have to make it crystal clear that being subjected to that sort of bullshit is 100% unacceptable in any situation and I don't think sex workers are helping our cause...just the opposite.
Hey Marc, I appreciate you trying to get the conversation to a point of progressive discussion and debate - but the thread has become really derailed with this sex work angle. That's not what the post is about. So pretty please bring the conversation elsewhere! Thanks y'all.
Marc it sounds like what Mammal is trying to say (in an extremely convoluted and rambling way) is thet sex workers may unintentionally be giving implied consent on behalf of all women. They may be saying "respect me, don't ogle me, treat me equally" all the while whispering "unless you pay me first".
Exactly! What is most disturbing to me about this is the fact that Erin Andrews constant professionalism surrounding the whole "sideline princess" phenomenon was turned by bloggers and "fans" into an innocence fetish, and this video is the natural extension of that obsession with her purity and defiling it. This is sadly illuminating about how our culture openly encourages men to try to possess women. This whole incident has made me embarrassed to be both male and a sports fan.
P.S. Will Leitch's disgusting non-apology at deadspin makes me never want to read anything by him again.
Hmm, now if I were the NY Post, who would I blame this situation on...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07232009/gossip/pagesix/espn_outed_erin_video_180781.htm
You'd think they were being run by some guy on a telephone from a prison law library.
Wow, I already posted on how appalling this is but if this self serving post by the Post is true, and these pictures really have been online since February without anyone knowing it was her, then ESPN's lawyers hould be fired for malpractice! Un-friggin-believable. How bone headed could they be? As gram' used to say, 'let a sleeping dog lie.' If they were going to send a cease & desist letter, at least use outside counsel! There's plenty of name brand lawyers who could've done this without sacrificing Erin's privacy.
Look at the comments; people are saying it was already reputed to be Andrews. Besides, this is the NY Post. Taking what they say at face value is about as recommended as sticking your finger in a buzzsaw.
SaltyLilKipper must be a stripper.
And so what if she is? Does someone being a sex worker make her opinion any less valid? Personally I wish we heard more from women who work in these professions rather than those of us who haven't done it talking about these women as if they're incapable of speaking for themselves.
It doesn't affect her opinion but it does negatively affect all women in terms of nullifying our equality.
What would sex workers say is the driving force behind the objectification of women?
WOW. Um, not cool at all.
I am not a stripper, but I am a member of a feminist burlesque troupe. (Yes, feminist burlesque exists; it encorporates no beauty standards [and I mean literally none at all, not like bullshit "suicide girls" beauty standards], challenges the idea of a default male gaze [and we really do pull it off], and allows women to embrace their sexuality in ways that are empowering and involved. I would even say our audience is more female than male.) I read erotica on stage in skimpy, stripperish outfits. And I share this stage with other women, brilliant and beautiful women in all shapes and sizes, some of whom do strip. They are talented, inspiring individuals I am honoured to have worked with.
So do these ladies I know "negatively affect all women in terms of nullifying our equality"? Let me answer for you, seeing as how you don't know them or me or the work we do: No, they do not. So please don't pigeon-hole or scapegoat them.
I would counter that YOU actually impact all women by nullifying our equality.
Even if we assume for a minute that stripping is not liberating, I think most people would agree that neither is intense poverty. Your degree of uppityness and assuredness that you are better that strippers is truly astounding on a feminist website.
I feel very lucky that based on my series of diplomas people are willing to pay a lot for my brain. But that does not make me any more feminist than people who don't have that option (or prefer other options).
If it is truly passion for equality that drives your comments, you should find a new way to present them. Because it comes off as a blatantly obvious attempt to feel smugly better about yourself by putting others down.
MM - Your series of diplomas isn't "luck"...they're a direct result of effort, time and thought plus the decisions you've made throughout your life. Winning the lottery is lucky. Being born in a nation like America where so many women before you sacrificed and worked their asses off to enable women like us to CHOOSE to get a series of diplomas is lucky. As far as who is a "better" feminst, to me, it's clearly women who choose to dissect the history of the genders, determine what got us here and work to rectify it.
WOW. Um, not cool at all.
I am not a stripper, but I am a member of a feminist burlesque troupe. (Yes, feminist burlesque exists; it encorporates no beauty standards [and I mean literally none at all, not like bullshit "suicide girls" beauty standards], challenges the idea of a default male gaze [and we really do pull it off], and allows women to embrace their sexuality in ways that are empowering and involved. I would even say our audience is more female than male.) I read erotica on stage in skimpy, stripperish outfits. And I share this stage with other women, brilliant and beautiful women in all shapes and sizes, some of whom do strip. They are talented, inspiring individuals I am honoured to have worked with.
So do these ladies I know "negatively affect all women in terms of nullifying our equality"? Let me answer for you, seeing as how you don't know them or me or the work we do: No, they do not. So please don't pigeon-hole or scapegoat them.
I am not talking about art I am talking about fucking and stripping for money.
Look, there are a lot of negatives and nuances about sex work that deserve to be and are regularly examined from a feminist perspective, and this blog does that often. But the fact remains that most sex workers are consenting adults, and while their work may not be okay with all of our feminism, it is based on women making their own decisions on their sexuality. Women making decisions about their bodies is not the problem. The problem is demand. Demand for objectifying women comes from those who want to see women objectified, which is mainly men.
Blaming sex-workers is a mean-spirited derail.
I never inteded to be mean-spirited. I'm simply extremely passionate about women taking responsibility for their roles in keeping all of us in the dark ages. I do view sex work as one of the biggest contributors to women's inequality issues today. No one is more sexually-liberated that me. I had a fuck-load of sex with as many men as I wanted to before I got married, I've had my share of abortions, I still love sex with my husband, I love to strip for my husband (and others as the case may be at times), I love to masturbate, and I've never felt an ounce of guilt of any of it (despite being raised Southern Baptist ha ha) but I never did any of it for cash and I don't think any woman should. I don't see how the hell that could be liberating in any way. Quite the opposite.
It doesn't really mean if you intended to be mean-spirited or not if you were in fact mean-spirited.
And this comment seems like you're saying, "Look at MY sex life, I'M the standard of what's okay and what isn't."
Not at all. I was trying to illustrate the difference between actually BEING sexually liberated vs. the illusion of being sexually liberated. If you're doing something for money that's the opposite of liberation. I just can't wrap my head around how women taking money for sex or the image of sex sets them (or any of us) free from the chains of arcane ideas about women's worth. Someone please help me here. What am I missing?
I do sincerely apologize for my delivery and for offending anyone. I honestly don't mean to put anyone down. I just want ALL women to THINK about their contributions to the advancement of our gender.
It doesn't really matter if you intended to be mean-spirited or not if you were in fact mean-spirited.
And this comment seems like you're saying, "Look at MY sex life, I'M the standard of what's okay and what isn't."
(I apologize if this posts twice, caught a typo)
I am also talking about stripping for money. We get paid. It's a business that we are, technically, contractors for. There are no dollar bills stuffed into our panties, but it's still an economic relationship. The business makes a lot of money off these naked girls onstage, and the performers make money stripping and dancing suggestively.
You asked what you're missing here, so let me tell you: Sexuality does not fit nicely into a little ideological box. And it's very sad that women live in a sexist world where our sexuality is perceived as something for men to objectify, but that doesn't mean that every single time a woman does something publicly sexual and, yes, gets paid for it, she is contributing to her own oppression. I hope you realize that comments like "I was trying to illustrate the difference between actually BEING sexually liberated vs. the illusion of being sexually liberated," are incredibly self-righteous and judgmental. I'm not only talking about my shows either; I think it's fair to say that many full-time showgirl strippers are sexually liberated. It's not really up to you to decide whether they are.
Personally, I think there's a huge difference between being uninhibited and being liberated.
So, what, in your opinion, are the root causes behind this world being so sexist?
I hate to encourage you by replying - but I just can't help myself! Surely you realize that one person's "art" is another person's pornography or even obscenity? It is ridiculous to tell a group of people that their expression of sexuality is wrong (even if that expression is paid), because how long do you think it will be before someone comes back to tell you that your expression of sexuality is wrong? You think sex work is wrong? You think that using sexuality for "financial gain" is wrong? Lots of people think pre-marital sex (which you admit to having) is wrong. How would you feel about being criticized for the decisions you (a consenting adult) have made in your personal life? Perhaps your "promiscuity" (i.e. - having sex with more than one partner) is contributing to the image of women as constantly sexually available to men? Who are you to say what is a right and wrong reason for another adult to have sex? Money is wrong, but lust is okay? Don't you see that you are tripping down the path of all the closed minded anti-feminists who tell women that the only acceptable expression of sexuality is in the marriage bed?
Also, how do gay male sex workers fit into your world view? Can men be sexual to satisfy the male gaze? After all, men do not face the same worldwide "inequality problems" you mention.
Analog - Based on what I know about sex work from people (men & women) I know personally who have been involved in it in a multitude of ways, documentaries, books, etc. is that it rarely, if ever, has anything at all to do with sex. It's all theatrics aimed at titillating (men or women) for money. The difference in my promiscuity and performing a theatrical act for money is I did it for the pleasure, satisfaction, and intimacy. Something all humans are entitled to experience. The gist of my disclosure was that I didn't suffer any of the guilt that our culture tries to impose on women but not men. The reason I believe any of this ties in to the Erin Andrews story is that I believe trading money for one of the most pleasurable and primal acts humans can experience diminishes its value and along with that the value of women (or men in some cases) and it gives (mostly) men cart blanche to view women as objects that can be acquired. THAT, as history has taught us, is a slippery slope.
Seriously, where is the moderation here? "SaltyLilKipper must be a stripper" is a blatant, undisguised personal attack on another commenter here, given Mammal's clear negative attitude toward strippers and sex workers. Mammal's upthread comments might be construed as an argument that might or might not be relevant to the topic at hand, but the personal attack is unjustifiable, and pretty much invalidates Mammal's later (in time) upthread defense of simply "attacking the industry." If we're to take the moderation here seriously, please shut the door on unambiguoulsy personal attacks.
Haleigh - my comment "SaltyLilKipper must be a stripper" is only a blatant, undisguised personal attack if you think being a stripper is a bad thing. Plus it just sounds funny.
OK, sorry Mammal - but you've disrespected the thread enough, even after warnings. I'm banning you.
So, you're still claiming to not be a troll?
I get where the whole "non-consent = more popular" thing is coming from. There is certainly an industry for that, and in any particular case, there are going to be some people who view that as a turn-on, regardless of how egregiously screwed up the situation is.
But if you think that, on the whole, this is more popular due to non-consent than a consenting, naked Erin Andrews would be, you are 100% wrong.
If you venture out into the sordid depths of the blogosphere, affection for Andrews ranges from the relatively sweet and innocent ("It's so awesome that a babe like that is so cool and good with sports") to the grimy ("The things I would do to that ass!"). But the dream of basically all these guys is that they meet Erin Andrews and, damn the miracles requires, she wants them.
Consider: SI.com has a Hot Clicks section which, while linking to a good amount of entertaining fare, also caters to untold numbers of requests for pictures of hot babes. Andrews is a star there. But not only has the guy who runs that struck up a professional relationship with her- precisely because, while he certainly pays homage to her hotness, he shows respect to her abilities as a broadcaster and her sense of humor about the whole thing- but according to him, the other day he got bombed with mails worse than ever before because he didn't take on the Andrews voyeurism thing immediately by people who were as pissed off about it as he is, and I assume everyone here is as well.
But if Andrews was in Playboy? Oh my god. That issue would fund the magazine for the next three years. The popularity of a consenting Erin Andrews, naked, on film, would dwarf even the anger over this episode, which itself dwarfs the actual popularity of this video. Basically everyone is denouncing this, and while, sure, there are going to be millions of searches for it anyway, it's not even close to the attention paid to what Andrews willingly allows people to see of her.
"Hot" sports reporters and "hot" athletes have posed for playboy before, which prompted a blip of coverage and enthusiasm from sports media, but on the whole, didn't amount to much. No three years of magazine funding there. Certainly not the level of enthusiasm for this video.
The assumption that non-consent doesn't have a relationship to the massive interest in this video ignores WHY Erin Andrews is so popular. Andrews is often called "America's Sideline Princess" (a sexist name, btw), as she is perceived as above Playboy, above promoting herself with her looks, etc. The assumption among men that they will never see her naked is part of the driving force behind this video. There are very few--VERY few--people in our culture (and certainly no others in our sports culture) for whom a voyeuristic video of walking in their hotel room nude would garner this kind of national attention.
Yes, hot reporters and athletes have posed for Playboy before. Name one who was as popular at that time as Erin Andrews is now. The only one I can think of who even approaches that level Katarina Witt, and although the issue came out a long time ago, it still gets noted from time to time in the oddest of places. From what I can tell, she was a huge seller as well. I understand your point, but I don't think a proper analogue exists.
Think of it like this: Take away the people Nicole mentioned above, who have no idea who Erin Andrews is. Split the rest into three groups. One is those who aren't going to look for this video or pics from it because it's completely screwed up that the thing exists in the first place. The second is those who, while knowing it's wrong, are curious and still look for it, but would be as or more likely to seek such items out if they believed they were done with her knowledge. This includes those who don't look, but only out of fear of computer viruses. The third actually think it's hotter that she doesn't know and would be less interested if she went into Playboy.
I would love to think highly enough of us that the first group is the biggest. It's not. I'm sure it's not, and it's probably not by a mile. The second is. But even if you take that whole group out and just compare the first and third, which is bigger? In this specific instance, judging by what I see around the interwebs, it's the first. Yes, this has become a situation where admitting you think it's totally hot is not going to be condoned anywhere, and thus those people aren't going to be real mouthy about it. That can make it hard to judge on an even pseudo-scientific basis. But those people who post on blogs and such have influence on their readers, and if they're all saying, "This is messed up," that itself will lead to a ton of people thinking, "Oh, geez, yeah, this is wrong."
Not only that, but a lot of those people in the second group are those who can't turn down any chance to see anyone with name recognition naked, but still would rather see this done consensually. If you take them into account, the group who thinks this is better because Andrews doesn't know gets dwarfed.
Look, none of this is supposed to defend the way Andrews is viewed that led to this, or the promotion of non-consensual video and pictures of anybody. But while you're absolutely right that very few people would gain this kind of attention off of a voyeur video, very few people would also gain the kind of attention a willing photo spread would bring to her. She has the porn-buying demographic wrapped around her finger. Take away any reason to feel guilty and the only reason it might not sell as well as I suggested is that 90% of them would look at the pictures for free online, not because it would be less interesting than this.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that she has demanded acceptance by men in a male dominated arena. She has forced unwilling male fans and athletes to acknowledge that she was skilled and had the right to be where they are.
By turning her into a sex object, it relieves some of that pressure to acknowledge her professionally. The men who don't like her now are able to say, "ok, fine, you can be where I don't want you, but I have seen you naked, and we both know it."
Now, anytime someone gives her a funny look, she will be thinking, are they thinking of the video? And that person will know that and use it against her.
A little off topic I know but - I downloaded an ad blocker because of all the gross ads I've been seeing on this site and now it's blocking videos, too. This and other posts with videos I cannot see. Can someone with Adblock Plus tell me how to fix this?
Sorry, off topic again - try using another filter subscription (I have only Easylist, and can see the videos). You can also search the list of blocked items in Tools - ABP preferences - Edit to see if youtube is blocked, and try out disabling filters to find which one blocks the video. Finally, you can write to the filter subscription manager (an email address should be in the comment part of the filter subscription).
If this still doesn't work, I saw that you can disable some filters for specific sites: http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#whitelist , but I'm not entirely sure how this one works.
For your reference, here's the address for the video in this post: "http://www.youtube.com/v/*"
I think this is symptomatic of our culture's commodification of sex with women as arbiters/gatekeepers. Within this meme, men must do anything they can to get it from them. It's like capture the flag. Whether through trickery, manipulation, voyeurism, or just plain rape, men must somehow circumvent the actual human woman in question and "score" sex from her. That's why consent is the foremost issue.
The titillation factor of seeing someone you've wanted to see naked before but haven't is such a superficial issue here. Someone mentioned up-thread that if this had been done (not happened) to Brad Pitt, then... But it wasn't done to Brad Pitt. It's not something that tends to be done to men. To compare the two situations is to ignore the reality of how differently men and women are treated in our media and culture. That said, I would hold the same view, if in a more basic way, if it were Brad--no consent=unethical.
I'm truly disgusted that the major news networks ran this and had the gall to use the images. As fellow journalists, you'd think there'd be some empathy there.
Oh, woops. Forgot, Erin Andrews is a women = not fully human.
Sadly, journalists who work for fox news and the NY Post = not fully journalists.
Touché. Good point.
P.S. Your first paragraph is probably the most illuminating analysis of this I've read.
Its like the collective force of the male gaze said "Erin Andrews, not going to give in to our demands or copious incentives to objectify your body? Well, we'll get what we want anyway!". Just a friendly reminder that we can't let any woman have any shred of power over her own body. Ugh.
Exactly! The only way she factors into the whole equation is through having the body of a female human, which society tells us = sex. Otherwise, whatever it is that makes Erin Andrews Erin Andrews has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Actually, it was done to Brad Pitt many years ago. He was secretly photographed nude in a private space (his or his gf's backyard or a private patio at a hotel, can't recall exactly). This was before the internet was in widespread use so there was no viral disbursement, but Playgirl published the photos in a feature spread against his wishes. Women who probably had never even thought about buying a Playgirl before were lining up for the thing. I remember a whole troupes of women from my work going out to the parking lot to ogle the pictures (someone had the magazine stashed in their car). I wholeheartedly agree that women are subjected to objectification to a much, much greater degree than men, and it affects women in a very different, often more negative way. But I thought it was only fair to point out that the up-thread commenter's point may not be as off-base as one might think.
Want to know something even more fucked up? Some people claim she leaked the video to receive publicity. If there is ever a clear-as-day case of victim-blaming ...
"Its like the collective force of the male gaze said "Erin Andrews, not going to give in to our demands or copious incentives to objectify your body? Well, we'll get what we want anyway!". Just a friendly reminder that we can't let any woman have any shred of power over her own body. Ugh."
Why is it necessary to assign collective blame for the actions of an anonymous voyeur?
There is no "we", or "our". It may be convenient to create an ominous monolith; where all men are assumed to be somehow guilty, but it is disingenuous to say that most men secretly wanted this, support this, or under the order of some eeeeevil collective consciousness, faciliatated it.
Qwerty, this was one Google's top searches - I think there is definitely some collective complicity going on here. You can talk about how a misogynist culture furthers nastiness like this story without assuming all men to be guilty, as you put it.
This individual anonymous voyeur - and the response to his assault on Andrews and her privacy - reveal a hell of a lot about about a TON of people, sports culture, masculinity, porn culture, Americans, etc. So ya - that's collective to me. (Note: I'm not just saying this is men; I think women are often complicit as well.)
The massive searching for the video says something, but I don't believe that something is, "This is totally hot because she didn't know about it."
Probable general mindset for the vast majority of those searches: "Wow, that's seriously fucked up. But... geez man... it's Erin Andrews." Unspoken/unthought consciously: We may never get this chance again.
Now, you can say that widespread state of mind is jacked up, and I won't argue that. But compare it to some big-time high school nerd who's cleaning himself off in the locker room after the bullies once again dumped him in a garbage can full of Jello. He's doing his thing when he hears voices and running water. Investigating this, he finds a hole that offers a very candid view of the girls' shower room, and judging by the number of voices, the entire cheerleading squad is inside.
Will he look? He knows he shouldn't. It's wrong by every possible moral standard. But, holy cow, it's, like, every cheerleader in the school, man! And the odds of him getting this chance again before the hole is patched are nil. Now take away any possibility of him getting caught, which would be the main concern of his by a mile, and tell me how many nerds out of a thousand, or a million, are going to refrain.
Now, are there issues revolving around the fact that such a situation is treated by the great majority of guys as a miracle from God? Yeah. But most guys wouldn't even pay a mind to the question of consent- another issue in itself. If they did, they'd probably have some second thoughts (not that they wouldn't look anyway). But the situation is one of looking for something one may never see again; the fact that basically the only reason one may never see it again is that it was non-consensual is a sidebar to that. The lack of consent itself is not what pushes those searches. You may argue that's semantics, and I can understand why; but I think there's an important difference there that needs to be recognized and understood.
Probable general mindset for the vast majority of those searches: "Wow, that's seriously fucked up. But... geez man... it's Erin Andrews." Unspoken/unthought consciously: We may never get this chance again.,
How about, it was never their chance to begin with? Seriously, where the fuck does all of this entitlement come from?
What's wrong with people?
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. It's not reasonable, but it's real. And when you give real people Webtron anonymity, you get massive Google searches for the latest offering of famed flesh.
I believe Penny Arcade rendered it best:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that comment to be harsh toward you, but toward folks in general...I thought that was clear by using "their" and "people", but I did curse so I apologize for the harshness.
I do think that the rationale you've presented including the example of the nerdy teenager reeks of male privilege, which I don't think is excusable under any circumstance when it comes to infringing on people's well being and privacy.
It's cool, I knew you weren't getting in my face about it. The shoot the messenger bit was a joke, but jokes and text, y'know, fail. My bad. And no, none of it is excusable. It just seems like some people don't know or understand the rationale. Maybe that's be a good thing, but it bothers me when people don't get why others do stupid stuff. It's like, if you think that's a problem and it needs to be fixed, you have to understand why it happens, right?
As for the actual effects of male privilege here... I don't know. I think a lot of it is basic desire, ie. "naked chix is good!" Woman-flesh may be so ubiquitous now that guys feel like they should be able to see it anywhere, which is a textbook sense of privilege, but they've always wanted that- the change is simply that it's available now. (That's part of why I used the nerdy kid as an example- he's someone that doesn't have that mindset yet.)
The flip side of the issue- the fact women are treated as if they don't have a "naked doods is good!" part to them- is the bigger problem. If we, as a society, were sincerely ok with women leaning out of car windows, screaming "Show us your cocks!" at construction workers, there would be a lot fewer problems like this.
I think I would prefer a world where sexual harassment and abuse was unacceptable for both genders, rather than a world where men and women abused each other equally.
I don't know what we can divine about motive from the large #s who search Erin Andrews on Google. Certainly we can't intuit motivation enough to distinguish those outraged by the news who want to learn more, from those with the a prurient interest in celebrity sex, from those with a much more troubling interest in wresting consent from Erin Andrews. I think the overall argument about consent made here is quite a stretch, trying to use the # of Google searches to make it is quite a bit more so. In some ways we're having a debate without data.
Delurking, and I apologize for the length. In the future, if I have something this long, I'll put it in the community. I think your point here is provocative and interesting, but I also think it may be wrong. It strikes me that there are actually two separate problems here, one sexual and one not.
On the one hand, there is the sexual desire to see Andrews naked from afar. That she is just a body, not flesh and blood and mind interacting with the observer, is certainly problematic and clearly objectifying. This is wrong on its own. But let's be clear: if Erin Andrews performed a striptease on a webcam with full knowledge that the camera was there, men would still find it sexy because she is a very attractive woman. This does not diminish the objectification inherent here, but does to me diminish the notion that it's her lack of consent that's sexy.
Nonetheless, I do think her lack of consent here matters as a motivator; I just don't think its importance is primarily sexual. People wonder what other people they know do when they're not around. Hidden cameras are the best way we've come up with to find out. How fascinating, to watch people's lives as they unfold! This non-sexual voyeurism is what The Truman Show was all about. And we wonder it all the time in situations where we can't find out! What do our kids do when we're not watching? Do our parents still have sex? What do our significant others or best friends or bosses or employees say about us when we're not there? Don't we want to know that?
And that's where Andrews' celebrity enters in, a factor other commenters have mentioned. The physiology of the human mind decidedly predates the concept of celebrity; millenia ago, the only people we "knew" were people we knew. Because we "know" her, we get an unconscious feeling that we know her. This is part of our fascination with celebrities; we feel closer to them than we have any rational reason to. Erin Andrews is famous for talking "to us" through the camera, smiling, being approachable; she seems like a person we actually know most of the time. And that's why Erin Andrews naked gets far more hits than an anonymous individual we've never seen does. My curiosity is piqued far more by my neighbor than it is by someone even more attractive than my neighbor whom I've never met. Celebrities can feel like our neighbors, and that makes us curious about them.
What would people think if they saw me on my own? Probably that I talk to myself a lot, spend too much time on the internet, and am generally boring. But what if there was the chance that something unusual might happen? Again: the plot of The Truman Show required the producer to manufacture "interesting." Isn't that why we would watch it? Isn't that part of why we ask "What's going on?" or "What are you doing?" when we first start a phone conversation? We want it to be interesting! That it's usually dull only serves to make those times that it isn't dull even more interesting. A person other than ourselves, our children, or our significant others walking around naked is not something we experience very often, which makes it interesting, even apart from the sexuality of it.
This is not to say our desire to see someone who doesn't know we're watching isn't itself objectifying. Of course it is, but it's not explicitly sexual objectification. As a counterexample, an unattractive celebrity probably gets more hits for face-planting on hidden camera than for being naked on one because unattractive celebrities are objectified as useless-unless-comic-relief-or-tragedy. But if the face plant is intentional, if playing to an audience, that's so much less worthy of attention, right? We want to see the person behave in that stereotyped way, but it's so much better to see it without them knowing!
So what I think we have is the intersection of the sexual objectification of an attractive woman with the broader fascination of watching someone who doesn't know we're watching. And the latter is completely wrong, because no matter how curious we are about what people are doing while no one is looking, we do not have the right to know without their consent. This would still be a coercive, abusive power dynamic, even if she were fully clothed. And that's why I think it's important not to tie it too closely to the sexual objectification. Because if we do, we risk losing sight of the fact that it would still be abusive without any nudity at all.
Holy shit, that's profound. I think you've hit the nail on the head!
Opie - that's really profound! I think you've hit the nail on the head!
I'm not sure how big the "nonconsent" part is for the appeal of it. I think that certainly contributes to its notoriety, but for those who decide to watch it (I am not among them) I can only imagine that it's more the allure of a famous and beautiful woman than that the pictures were taken without her consent.
Consider if she'd made a sex tape which had been leaked by an ex-boyfriend, or stolen by some papparazzi. I doubt there would have been as big a splash in the media, because yawn, just another celeb sex tape, and she's not even a particularly famous one.
But this has, as OpieCurious said, that voyeuristic touch of something we're not supposed to see. The feeling is doubtless present to some degree with regular home videos of famous people fucking, but in that case I doubt it would be separated much from regular porn--less even than in watching amateur pornography "normal" couples make. After all, the difference between a porn star and a regular celebrity, as far as most porn fans would probably be concerned, is profession. Watching two famous people have sex is watching two famous people have sex, regardless of what industry employ them.
If Ms. Andrews had made a sex tape, clearly she woudl have had the intent of watching it at some point, or of giving it to the partner she made it with to watch, or watching it with him or her. Even if she didn't want anyone else to watch it, the fact remains she made it, or what would be the point? (Or so the rationalization would go.)
This, on the other hand, is by design not supposed to be seen. She was indoors and in private and alone and didn't expect to be spied on. But if, for example, she'd been relaxing on a topless beach in France or Australia or something, I doubt there would have been near as much of a furor, even if "fans" of hers would desperately seek said pictures once they heard of them.
This is more than a nude-pic scandal of a minor celebrity. This carries the whiff of criminal activity. Celebrity + sex + crime + evidence = news coverage. That's why it's so big in the media
Yet, I doubt those who actually watch it, aside from those who are into voyeurism like most people are into orgasms, really care whether it was taken with her consent or not.
Which is in its own way a bit disturbing...