lipby ([info]lipbylipby) wrote,
2006-03-19 19:35:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next

Teri Hatcher, abuse victim

I agree with [info]tdj, is this the best image to promote an article about Teri Hatcher's revelations that she was sexually abused as a child? Is it really a good idea to present a woman's child sexual assault with a picture that's undeniably... sexy?


  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 18 comments

[info]rrhexis

March 20 2006, 00:42:32 UTC 6 years ago

As far as I can tell, she's no longer a child. If they put a 12 year old in her underpants on that cover, that'd be a problem. This seems to me to be a similar argument to: if you dress "sexy" you are inviting cat calls and people to rape you---equivalent to blaming someone else for your lack of self-control/respect for other people (cat calls)/illegal act (rape) and no one in their right mind would buy it.

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 00:52:55 UTC 6 years ago

I think it's poor taste to depict stories about sexual abuse with images of benign sexuality and sensuousness. Sexual abuse, I imagine, is not a pleasant experience-- and to present imagery that is both alluring and anodyne, I think Vanity Fair is undercutting the seriousness of child sexual abuse. It is, of course, Teri Hatcher's right to be as sexy as she wants without be harrassed. Frankly, I'd like it if she were nude in my living room. I would stare at her with harmless reverence. But the theme of the article is not her sexuality (or even her right to be sexual) but rather the serious crime of pedophilia.

[info]rrhexis

March 20 2006, 01:08:21 UTC 6 years ago

You think people are going to take sexual abuse of children less seriously because of what she's wearing on that cover or Vanity Fair is making light of it?
It'd be more appropriate for her to be posing how and wearing what? A suit?
I think it means more for a successful, sensual woman to be able to be exactly who she is and able to to tell others that as a child, she was taken advantage of. She shouldn't be ashamed of who she is, or what happened to her and she most definitely shouldn't hide her sexuality because of it. That's the point. The perverts that commit the crime are the ones that want these women to feel ashamed/hide/blame themselves.
I think you are missing the point completely.

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 01:17:00 UTC 6 years ago

I'm not missing the point at all. I simply disagree. I think the photograph lacks taste. I don't blame Teri Hatcher, if that's how she wanted to present herself-- though I question Vanity Fair's judgment. I do think a teasing and sexual cover does detract from the gravity of the crime, like visiting Auschwitz in a bikini or testifying in court against a man who raped you wearing sweat pants with the word "juicy" printed across the ass. It's not about the right to be sexy, it's about treating serious matters seriously.

[info]crowyhead

March 20 2006, 01:44:13 UTC 6 years ago

Yeah, I tend to agree. There's just this disconnect, to have this sexy cover with a headline across it alluding to her childhood sexual abuse, and admitting that she has considered suicide. It doesn't really make me angry, per se, but it does kind of make me scratch my head and wonder what Vanity Fair was thinking. I'm a little curious about what kind of photos they have accompanying the article -- is it more of the same, or are they less random? It strikes me as being sort of editorially odd, not to pick a cover photo that relates in some way to the subject matter. It's like they planned some kind of, "Terri Hatcher is totally hot!" fluff piece and then changed their mind at the last minute.

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 02:17:55 UTC 6 years ago

Yoko just made a good point. She said this photograph brings attention to Teri Hatcher as a person rather than the story she has to tell. In that regard, I think it's a complete editorial failure.

[info]rrhexis

March 20 2006, 02:28:46 UTC 6 years ago

That doesn't even make sense.

Anonymous

March 20 2006, 14:52:01 UTC 6 years ago

What I had said was that I laud Teri Hatcher's bravery in coming out with her story, and it's one that should be told. I think the cover photo does imply adult sexual allure, which is incongruous with a childhood story of sexual abuse. Although I understand and agree with your point that women who dress in a provocative manner are not "asking" for sexual abuse, I think the cover's implied message is an odd choice to entice a reader to read an article about an innocent child who also was not asking for abuse.

Yoko

[info]rrhexis

March 20 2006, 16:13:29 UTC 6 years ago

I need to read the article. I like Vanity Fair in general, their pieces can be really good---some sensationalistic (that sells) and I haven't read this one yet. My guess is the piece was supposed to be about Terri Hatcher/career path/personal life/motherhood/comeback and the revelation of her abuse came out of the interview/discussion. i.e. the original purpose of the article wasn't to focus on her childhood sexual abuse. They got the exclusive, they put it on the cover.

[info]rrhexis

March 20 2006, 02:00:54 UTC 6 years ago

If it's any consolation for you, I'm sure she wore a suit when she testified against him. We disagree.

Anonymous

March 20 2006, 01:55:11 UTC 6 years ago

Well, there's two sides to this image. There's the obvious sexual side, then there's the 'covering up/hiding' aspect. I think both of them are out of line with the story. I am myself a survivor of sexual abuse, and I would have loved to have seen her in the obvious fashion cover pic with a sexy strapless dress, or possibly a classic looking suit, giving the impression that the story doesn't mean anything needs to change about the picture.

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 02:20:19 UTC 6 years ago

I agree. This story called for graceful and elegant beauty. It deserved dignity. This image does take away from Hatcher's dignity as she talks about how she was sexually assaulted, it seems, while wearing white panties.

[info]bardraven

March 20 2006, 02:12:29 UTC 6 years ago

While I wonder about the white panties, it's not like she's dressed up like Shirely Temple

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 02:18:29 UTC 6 years ago

It's really only the white panties that crosses the line. The rest of it is perfectly tasteful.

[info]bardraven

March 20 2006, 02:24:15 UTC 6 years ago

Well...you gotta keep it in perspective. If they were Hello Kitty underwear then it would be REALLY bad.

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 02:27:13 UTC 6 years ago

The other problem is that the article itself compromises my pleasure in looking at half naked women. It's like checking out a girl (or guy) walking down the street and realizing when her or she gets closer that-- oops-- he / she's only 16. Who needs that kind of mindfuck? I want my T&A to be free of guilt and anxiety!

Is it obvious that I am a profoundly selfish man?

[info]bardraven

March 20 2006, 02:38:51 UTC 6 years ago

Trust me, on the want for guiltless eye candy... I am right there with you.

Deleted comment

[info]lipbylipby

March 20 2006, 23:38:26 UTC 6 years ago

Even black panties would have been better, for some reason.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…