A multi-layered inception of power, image, and object.

From the original article on Jennifer Lawrence via Vanity Fair

“…I started to write an apology, but I don’t have anything to say I’m sorry for. I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he’s going to look at you.”

Lawrence also addresses the legal ramifications of the hack. “It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime,” she tells Kashner. “It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change. That’s why these Web sites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody’s mind is to make a profit from it. It’s so beyond me. I just can’t imagine being that detached from humanity. I can’t imagine being that thoughtless and careless and so empty inside.”

From Megan Garber’s comments regarding Vanity Fair’s accompanying photo shoot at The Atlantic

A picture that carries the revealing headline "Both Huntress and Prey” and also, you cannot help but notice, the air of a nude selfie. (And also, you cannot help but notice, one extremely misplaced cockatoo.)

The picture itself—bird, baubles, breasts, “both"—carries its own telling tension.On the one hand, you have a story in which Lawrence, the smart, sassy celebrity, refers to the spread of images of her body as a "sex crime.” You have her arguing that the mere act of looking at those images, never mind stealing them, makes someone complicit in that crime.

And Ed Stetzer’s thoughts at Christianity Today

Yet, in addition, one of the most deflating parts about Lawrence’s interview with Vanity Fair was her explanation about why she was taking and sending nude photos in the first place:

“Either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he is going to look at you.”

That sentence hit me like a boulder to the gut. It’s weighty. It hurts.

Jennifer Lawrence was exploited by hackers who stole, posted, and distributed nude photos of her, but she, and so many other women, are exploited by a society that is convinced and comfortable that men should treat women as sexual commodities, online or in a relationship.

And that’s another reason that men need to act like men.

The power to control seems to be an underlying force whether I am the observed or the voyeur.

  1. My boyfriend objectifies.
  2. So to control his objectification, I consensually objectify myself for him to objectify me, thus maintaining control of the objectification by which I am objectified.
  3. The object in which I control the objectification of my object is violated to gain the power of control over the self-objectification of my object.
  4. I am violated because I no longer control the object by which I objectified myself.
  5. In response I consensually pose in a magazine by which I give media the power to objectify me for the masses to make those who would objectify my object know that they cannot fully have the object of my objectification, thus I have power over those who would objectify my object.

This is like some sort of multilevel inception. 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by randamir. Bookmark the permalink.

About randamir

I pastor Grace Presbyterian Church in Kernersville, North Carolina which locals fondly refer to as K-vegas -- the town not the church. As D.T. Niles once said, "I am not important except to God."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s