Jennifer Lawrence's Hacked Pictures

Numerous female celebrities have had their pictures stolen from their cell phones and other devices over the last month or so. Jennifer Lawrence has had strong words about this. She calls it 'a sex crime', and says that anyone looking at them is perpetuating a sex crime. Lawrence's privacy has certainly been invaded, but this is not a sex crime. My reply is to what extent is privacy expected for a public figure, especially one who makes a living by being physically attractive in public?

There was a time when it was difficult to see a woman's body in public. the film and TV industry was regulated by the Motion Picture Production Code. This was created by the studios following numerous behavior scandals both on and off screen in the '20s. This was commonly called the Hays Commission after its first leader, and enforced standards of content for all films and TV shows released by the studios, and therefore in essence all visual broadcast material in the US. The actions of this group and state level censorship was based in a Supreme court decision that movies were not free speech, but rather commercial speech, intended as a business rather than the promulgation of social or political views. As a business they were subject to regulation. The vote was 9-0.

The MPPC reads like this-

Resolved, That those things which are included in the following list shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated 

-Pointed profanity – by either title or lip – this includes the words "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ" (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), "hell," "damn," "Gawd," and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;

-Any licentious or suggestive nudity – in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;

-The illegal traffic in drugs;

-Any inference of sex perversion;

-White slavery;

-Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races);

-Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;

-Scenes of actual childbirth – in fact or in silhouette;

-Children's sex organs;

-Ridicule of the clergy;

-Willful offense to any nation, race or creed;

-And be it further resolved, That special care be exercised in the manner in which the following subjects are treated, to the end that vulgarity and suggestiveness may be eliminated and that good taste may be emphasized:

-The use of the flag;

-International relations (avoiding picturizing in an unfavorable light another country's religion, history, institutions, prominent people, and citizenry);

-Arson;

-The use of firearms;

-Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron);

-Brutality and possible gruesomeness;

-Technique of committing murder by whatever method;

-Methods of smuggling;

-Third-degree methods;

-Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishment for crime;

-Sympathy for criminals;

-Attitude toward public characters and institutions;

-Sedition;

-Apparent cruelty to children and animals;

-Branding of people or animals;

-The sale of women, or of a woman selling her virtue;

-Rape or attempted rape;

-First-night scenes;

-Man and woman in bed together;

-Deliberate seduction of girls;

-The institution of marriage;

-Surgical operations;

-The use of drugs;

-Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;

-Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy".

Much of this code is simple politeness, and other parts are PC material today. These rules stayed in force until 1968, when a combination of foreign films not subject to these rules and court challenges ended them. Film was decided to be an exercise in free speech.

What followed was a proliferation of nudity, violence, misogyny, gore and denigration of government and virtually all other institutions. the propriety of film prior to 1968 is almost impossible to imagine in today's film environment. Married couples had twin beds, Star Trek could not show the belly button, etc. Contrast that to films that followed. Overt frontal nudity in Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice in 1970, scenes of shooting in The Godfather, the slasher movies of the late '70s (Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc) and innumerable scenes of violence, sex, drug use and murder. We don't even blink today to see these things, nor do we flinch at characters swearing, using gross vernacular and engaging in extra-marital, pre-marital and 'deviant' (ie homosexual) sex scenes.

An easy measure of these changes is the number of actresses whose bodies we have all seen. Jimmy Fallon joked about this in a song from the Academy Awards- 'We Saw Your Boobs'. Full frontal nudity is even acceptable from stars, such as the recent Scarlett Johanssen scenes.

These same stars, when clothed, have endless 'wardrobe malfunction' in which their breasts are revealed, or their panties, or pubic hair, or lack of pubic hair. Most of these women, and since the pictures involved are all of women that is what I am addressing here, go to some length to dress alluringly or revealingly, whether on screen or off. Plunging necklines, high hems, no underwear, pasties under transparent gowns. Every one of these things has been seen on TV or in print.

Here are pictures made by Jennifer Lawrence by her choice and for her own aggrandizement-


No sexual suggestion there, is there? Just a woman in a bikini with her legs spread and her labia bulging toward the camera. Hot stuff. Very nice. But not exactly modest.

How about this one. This dress caused an entirely predictable wardrobe malfunction which can be readily accessed on Reddit and many other sites-



In such conditions it seems remarkably disingenuous to complain about hacked pictures, or to equate them to a sex crime. While every man is responsible for his behavior and choices, it is also true that women who wear low-cut dresses have no right to complain when men stare at their breasts. It is not surprising there would be a lively trade in naked pictures when we have all seen stars partially naked or in exceptionally revealing clothing. These stars go to some length to participate in a system which exploits them physically and sexually.

If it is a sex crime to look at these pictures then why is it not prostitution to put your body on display in film and print? If we extend the term sex crime to looking at a picture then we should extend the term for sex selling in the same manner.

I think if you don't want people to masturbate to your pictures then don't make a living displaying your body. Make your living being an actress rather than a sex object. If you don't want nude pictures circulating then don't take them. If we assert the freedom to make salacious, violent, revealing movies then we can hardly complain when the stars are treated as eye candy, sex objects and human meat.

If stars don't want that treatment then act accordingly. Perhaps it is time to think about limiting movies again, and to stop selling movies through sex and nudity.

Ted