Poor Scarlett Johansson. I understand this is not a sentiment that most people are expressing at this time. If you search 'Scarlett Johansson' on Twitter or Google right now, you receive a flood of comments ranging from the inciteful 'phwooooarrrrrrrr' to the philosophical 'mmmmmmmmmmmm' or even the thought-provoking 'grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr'. Basically, the humiliation of another human being is getting people so excited they can only communicate in grunts. Surely, if any extreme Christians need any further proof that we descend from primates, they should send a nude celebrity photo in an e-mail and watch the recipient descend into a baboon.
I'm just left wondering what it is that is so enjoyable about this. Surely, it can't just be the image of a naked woman. From what I can read, in between the unnecessary amount of perverted consonants, most people seem to be describing these photos as quite blurry images taken from a camera phone. Surely, given the vast quantities of pornography on the internet, this itself does not make it into a mass salivation festival.
This leads me to suspect one of two reasons for the excitement; that it's because she is a celebrity or because they were meant to be private. Or both.
Firstly, the 'celebrity factor'. This seems to be highly plausible. In the various articles I have read, there seems to be currently private images of Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake and Vanessa Hudgens circulating at the moment. Our obsession with celebrity has already got out of hand. Currently, and I urge you to go on YouTube and search for this, there is a man called Mr.Papparazi whose job it is to annoy celebrities and film them as they go about their daily life. His job is to follow Lily Allen to the supermarket so we know whether she eats wholemeal or white bread. Now, I know that certain people desire the 'lifestyle of the famous' and thrive that people notice them 24/7. But what has Lily Allen done to deserve this? Be a succesful music artist? I can't vouch for Scarlett Johansson or any celebrities because I know none, but I'm guessing many of them would quite like to be left alone some of the time.
Which brings me onto possible excitement point number two. Privacy. Celebrity website founder Jamie East claimed that "if celebrities don't want naked pictures of themselves plastered all over the internet then either don't take them at all or don't have them on your mobile phone." But whether she has private photos on her phone or e-mail or not is irrelevent, we have no right to see these photos because she has not given us consent. In the same way, that if a celebrity wears no underwear in a nightclub, a tabloid photographer has no right to shove a camera up her skirt. Or a pervert next door has no right to get a telescope out because someone next door has left a slight gap in the curtains.
Scarlett Johansson should have the freedom to do whatever she likes in her private life, in the same way that you and I should be able to, no matter how attractive or famous she is. Gossip magazines and the tabloid press fuel a natural human desire for scandal and gossip, however, that makes this unrealistic. We could perhaps draw a line though at hacked intimate photos couldn't we? Maybe we could all pretend to be intelligent and sensitive humans for a second and not sex-craved primates. Even if it is Scarlett Johansson.
I'm just left wondering what it is that is so enjoyable about this. Surely, it can't just be the image of a naked woman. From what I can read, in between the unnecessary amount of perverted consonants, most people seem to be describing these photos as quite blurry images taken from a camera phone. Surely, given the vast quantities of pornography on the internet, this itself does not make it into a mass salivation festival.
This leads me to suspect one of two reasons for the excitement; that it's because she is a celebrity or because they were meant to be private. Or both.
Firstly, the 'celebrity factor'. This seems to be highly plausible. In the various articles I have read, there seems to be currently private images of Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake and Vanessa Hudgens circulating at the moment. Our obsession with celebrity has already got out of hand. Currently, and I urge you to go on YouTube and search for this, there is a man called Mr.Papparazi whose job it is to annoy celebrities and film them as they go about their daily life. His job is to follow Lily Allen to the supermarket so we know whether she eats wholemeal or white bread. Now, I know that certain people desire the 'lifestyle of the famous' and thrive that people notice them 24/7. But what has Lily Allen done to deserve this? Be a succesful music artist? I can't vouch for Scarlett Johansson or any celebrities because I know none, but I'm guessing many of them would quite like to be left alone some of the time.
Which brings me onto possible excitement point number two. Privacy. Celebrity website founder Jamie East claimed that "if celebrities don't want naked pictures of themselves plastered all over the internet then either don't take them at all or don't have them on your mobile phone." But whether she has private photos on her phone or e-mail or not is irrelevent, we have no right to see these photos because she has not given us consent. In the same way, that if a celebrity wears no underwear in a nightclub, a tabloid photographer has no right to shove a camera up her skirt. Or a pervert next door has no right to get a telescope out because someone next door has left a slight gap in the curtains.
Scarlett Johansson should have the freedom to do whatever she likes in her private life, in the same way that you and I should be able to, no matter how attractive or famous she is. Gossip magazines and the tabloid press fuel a natural human desire for scandal and gossip, however, that makes this unrealistic. We could perhaps draw a line though at hacked intimate photos couldn't we? Maybe we could all pretend to be intelligent and sensitive humans for a second and not sex-craved primates. Even if it is Scarlett Johansson.
