Why Do So Many People Want To Watch The Erin Andrews Video?

Posted by: Jessica Wakeman Filed in: news
2:10PM, Wednesday July 22nd 2009

A hot, naked, blonde woman caught on tape. A lot of straight men don’t need to hear anything more. Sold.

But what if we find out the video was filmed without the knowledge of the unwitting star? What if it’s a super creepy invasion of privacy?

Same reaction, apparently. Yeah, the grossest part of this whole Erin Andrews story—the pretty, blonde ESPN sports reporter who was recorded naked in her hotel room through a peephole—isn’t that some creep made a peeping Tom video. It’s how so many people, knowing Andrews didn’t consent to being filmed, still wanted to watch it.

In the past few days, I’ve read a bunch of comments on blog posts justifying the pervy cameraman because Andrews has a reputation for being sexy. (Or maybe it’s just themselves—the viewers—they are justifying.) She used her sexuality, they say. She flaunted it, even!

It’s 2009. How can people still be blaming the victim? Do they really believe different standards of privacy, respect and decency apply to Andrews just because she’s a beautiful, sexy woman on TV? How can people who viewed the tape (before supposed links to the tape blasted them with a computer virus instead) not feel like they’re violating her?

Maybe the problem is that they don’t feel like they’re violating Andrews. Jennie Yabroff, a blogger at Newsweek.com, asked why, with so much free porn available online, would people get excited over a grainy video of a naked woman whose identity wasn’t 100% known until ESPN lawyers confirmed it recently. Her answer is especially prescient: violating privacy just isn’t taboo anymore.

“...It’s doubtful Andrews would have caused such a stir had she posed for the magazine. What’s really provocative about the Andrews tape, what makes it good copy for Fox et al., is not that she’s naked, but that she thinks she’s alone.

Privacy, it seems, is the new nudity. This is why, when Jennifer Aniston poses topless for the cover of GQ magazine no one does more than shrug, but when paparazzi catch her sunbathing topless, its tabloid fodder for weeks…It’s not so much a desire to see nudity as it is to see candor, to see what the person looks like when she’s unaware she’s being watched. It’s the impulse behind “Stars: They’re Just Like Us,” and Gawker Stalker. It’s voyeurism, pure and simple.”

Or maybe Anna N. at Jezebel summed it up best when she wrote, “Internet viewers may be more excited about objectifying women [like Andrews] they haven’t already objectified.”

In Andrews’ case, voyeurism meets sexism for a far creepier hybrid of awful than we could have imagined: She puts her hot body on TV like a slut, so it’s fine if I treat her like one! Maybe ESPN will catch and punish the perv (rumored by Radaronline.com to be from their own ranks) who actually believed that nonsense enough to videotape the sportscaster without her knowledge. But I’m more worried about everybody else who was watching.

comments

justme
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 02:08 pm: [report]

I don’t understand why these people searching for the pics don’t feel like they are victimizing her even further.

_jsw_
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 02:17 pm: [report]

I think you overestimate most of us. As you mentioned, it’s pretty much an impulse.

“Ooh… she’s hot. Let’s go see if I can see her naked!! Oooh… the Google image link makes her look like she’s really hot… let’s find that video!!! Oh, wait… what’s this?? A virus???”

There isn’t a whole lot of thought involved. Seriously, does that surprise you women? The fact that she was taped unwittingly, even when it matters to us, is something we need time to consciously process, which is typically after we’re gone looking for the links - because we pretty much didn’t see anything besides “hot woman in video” when we first saw the article.

I don’t defend the behavior, and it isn’t like we’d say “oh, yes, it’s fine to exploit her because she’s attractive.” Well, at least the decent ones amongst us wouldn’t think that. Clearly, some idiots do.

But to think that most men process the whole article and then try to determine the ethics of viewing a woman who had the expectation of privacy but who left the curtains or a door or something open (I’m not sure of the details, as I haven’t seen the video) before proceeding to look for it… we’re not really wired that way. We either don’t care to look at it to begin with (for any number of reasons, most likely because we’re happy with who we’re with, or we’re over 100 years old), or we’re off on the hunt before we read anything other than it exists.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 02:28 pm: [report]

Hey! She’s been objectified for a while now, and that’s with her clothes on.

And I didn’t get a virus, I downloaded it in torrent form.

Humble Bee
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 03:06 pm: [report]

thanks CheeeEEse I secretly wanted to see it.
I felt bad for a second, then I was like, I wanna seee!!...
Its like reality TV, its more fun than the scripted stuff.
I should feel guilty…

tigerstripe
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 03:56 pm: [report]

This story is really horrifying. I was going to bring it up to my boyfriend, but part of me is afraid that he already looked at it XP

karenakarson
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 05:29 pm: [report]

I finally found the thing, most of the sites I’ve seen are scams but they’re streaming the video over at http://408passion.com/watch282.html (it’s free but I have no idea how long it’ll stay up obviously)

hellosunrise
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 06:39 pm: [report]

i actually feel really sorry for her and i’d be mortified if something like this happened to me. just because she portrays herself as a sexy woman on tv doesn’t mean pervs have the right to violate her privacy, no matter how much she ‘flaunted it’. it’s so disturbing to me how someone could do such a thing, to completely disrespect someone’s personal space. taping her through a peephole? come on! so disgusting.

but of course you can’t quite blame the viewers. of course when a guy hears about a sexy naked blonde video, he’s going to want to look at it.

40yrolddad
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 07:30 pm: [report]

I’ll take “DUH!” for $800, Alex…

A: an internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized.

Q: what is the Streisand effect?

CORRECT!

FWIW, I haven’t seen it (not interested - I already see a naked woman @ least 2x/day… :D )

MichelleS1017
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 12:31 am: [report]

shes probably more upset about the fact that she did not get paid for her naked debut

william.paul
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:00 am: [report]

Having seen it, I can say I was unimpressed. If you’ve ever watched your gf get ready in the morning, you’ve had a better show.

That being said, where do you want to draw the line on things like this? Photographers are constantly taking pictures of the private moments of celebrities, and we’re supporting it. Is there a huge ethical difference between taking pictures of Jennifer Aniston through a telephoto lens while she is on vacation and this peephole video of Erin?

GilbertV
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 03:12 am: [report]

The New York Post on Thursday defended its publication of photos from an illicitly filmed Internet video showing ESPN reporter Erin Andrews naked in a hotel room by accusing the sports network of having outed her. The NY Post Erin Andrews photos are creating controversy. The publication of the NY Post Erin Andrews photos looks like a cynical move to sell papers, as they have published blurred images from the Erin Andrews peephole tape – so they must be looking for a cash advance to make up for revenue lost by most journals. The publication constitutes a major invasion of privacy, and likely Ms. Andrews would like the whole thing to disappear. She has been tightlipped since the drama unfolded.

Username:
Password:
	Auto-login on future visits Show my name in the online users list
	register \| forgotten password