PURE INSANITY...
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginYou are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginExploiting celebrities: Sexually-explicit fantasy by extreme celebrity worshippers
by Terry on July 23, 2010
Recently the members of a newsgroup devoted to a celebrity decided to hold an online “convention” at the same time that the celebrity was holding a brick and mortar fan convention at a hotel. One of the newsgroup members posted some screen shots from the celebrity’s official online community where fans can create group sections. The screen shots were of a sexually-explicit chat being conducted about the celebrity by several fans. Someone who visited the site saved the page and sent it to me, suggesting that it would make an interesting basis for a post on Blogilow.
First, here’s a link to the saved “convention” page that contains the screen caps of the sexually explicit chat originally posted on the celebrity’s website. You’ll notice that I’ve removed or painted over all references to the celebrity as I see no reason to submit him to further embarrassment. I spoke to quite a few people in the fandom after I received this and it’s hardly a secret within the fandom. Most of the people I spoke to had seen the sexually-explicit chat and some of them had the original screen caps. However, if you’re not part of this fandom, hopefully my alterations will keep you from guessing who the unfortunate celebrity is.
Second, here’s a link to a PDF of the journal article I read that this incident reminded me of: Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation: Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context. The authors are Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, and Ashe. The article was published in volume 40 of Personality and Individual Differences in 2006. These authors have written extensively on the subject of fan psychology and psychopathology.
The article, of course, was written by psychologists for psychologists. I’m not a psychologist, I’m a lawyer. The psychospeak and statistics are a bit over my head. However, I’ve read enough of these articles by now that I think I can at least summarize its conclusions.
The researchers administered several paper and pencil tests to a sample of British respondents. One of the scales administered was the Celebrity Attitude Scale. I’ve written about this scale before. Researchers have found that people tend to fall into one of three subscales. The lowest scoring (and therefore the least celebrity-obsessed) is referred to as celebrity worship for entertainment-social reasons. The middle scale is called celebrity worship for intense-personal reasons. The highest scoring, and therefore the most celebrity-obsessed, is called celebrity worship that demonstrates borderline-pathological tendencies.
The authors also administered three other instruments to this sample. One tested for obsessive-compulsive traits. Another tested for “dissociative experiences,” which, from what I’ve been able to find out refers to separation from reality. People with multiple personalities, for example, are dissociative. The final instrument tested for “fantasy proneness.”
The authors offer two possible interpretations for the results of this study:
1. “[A]s individual reach higher levels of celebrity worship, there is a change in their clinical profile, and they become more prone to fantasy, detached from reality, and eventually dissociated from every day experiences.”
2. “[T]hose individuals who are prone to fantasy and who have dissociative experiences approach celebrity worship in different ways from others and their fantasies and uncontrollable thoughts around the celebrity reflect their tendency for fantasy proneness and dissociation.”
The authors recommend additional research studies to test these interpretations.
Why did this sexually-explicit chat about a celebrity remind me of this article? The answer should be obvious. In one of the fandoms I’ve participated in I’ve met some fans who clearly fall into the “borderline-pathological” subscale of the Celebrity Attitude Scale. Fans who fall into this category, if nothing stops them, run the risk of getting deeper and deeper into fantasy and eventually losing touch with reality (dissociation). This sexually-explicit quasi-public chat about a celebrity is evidence of one such situation where this has occurred and a family intervention is called for.
Finally, just let me speak for a moment about the issue of “real person fic.”
I once wrote a piece of fan fiction that would qualify as “real person fic.” I assure you there was no sex involved! It was Hawaii Five-0 fan fiction involving a Star Trek convention in Honolulu in the 1970s. The entire original cast of Star Trek was present for the convention. An armed robbery took place at the convention and one of the Star Trek cast (DeForest Kelley) was kidnapped by the robbers and held for ransom. I treated my “real people” quite well. Although William Shatner came across as a little egotistical (which, by all accounts, he is) and Jimmy Doohan came across as not liking William Shatner (which, it is well known, he didn’t), I didn’t do anything to my “real people” characters that I’m ashamed of.
There are fan writers, however, who prefer to write stories about the actual celebrities than about the characters they portray on TV or in movies. I know of someone who wrote boy band fiction (whichever one Justin Timberlake was in) heavily involving gay sex between Justin and one of the other boy band members. I knew another who wrote stories about David Duchovny in all manner of situations, sexual and not. (Given what we know about DD now, maybe she wasn’t really writing fiction!)
Anyway, I have never understood writing this kind of real person fic. It is widely condemned in mainstream fandoms. It is considered manipulative of the celebrities involved and highly invasive. I can’t help but wonder what it must be like for the celebrities. I suppose they might feel like they’ve been raped. Imagine if the celebrity involved in the sexual fantasy mentioned earlier were to read what was posted on his own website. If it were me, I’d be sure to get a restraining order (or its British equivalent) against those fans as soon as possible. I certainly wouldn’t listen to any complaints they might have about other fans as their own behavior was far more reprehensible.
One of the writers of the pornographic chat is well known in the fandom as a fan bully who has worked hard to drive out any fan who would dare express an opinion that differed from her own, either by sending nasty emails, making public attacks, or by reporting the fan to the celebrity’s manager for daring to say something she thought was critical of the celebrity. The fact that she would then do something as stupid as engage in a pornographic chat about the celebrity on a site controlled by the celebrity is interesting. (Given how paranoid and controlling this particular celebrity and his management are, it’s highly likely that they keep an eye on what goes on in the supposedly “private” group rooms.) It smells of the type of thing that she would try to bully another fan about, but I’ll leave it to Suzanne to address that hypocrisy.
I believe Suzanne is going to address the issues of fan bullies and fan gangs. Watch for her post in a few days.
:shock:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginCelebrity Stalking–The nuts vs The psychos
by Suzanne on May 25, 2010
I found this post (The 15 Nuttiest Celebrity Stalkers of All Time) on PopCrunch.com and started thinking about the differences between the nuts and the psychos. The stalkers highlighted in this post would definitely fall into the “psycho” category. But when did their behavior move from simple celebrity adoration (or nuts as I call them) to psychotic behavior? And are the psychotic personalities the only ones capable of committing illegal stalking? Or is it possible for a “nut fan” to cross that line into the realm of prosecution?
A recent study: Stalking: The Relevance of Intent in Common Sense Reasoning, attempts to define stalking and evaluate the legal consequences based on the intent to harm. According to the study:
One method of distinguishing stalking from law-abiding behavior is to determine whether the accused intended to cause fear or harm to the target. However, this distinction may not capture community concerns regarding intrusive or harassing behavior. The present research examines the effect of intent, persistence, relationship, and consequences on community perceptions of stalking. Responses of 1,080 members of the community to a series of scenarios indicated that the presence of explicit evidence of intent was not the only way stalking behavior was identified. Behavior was also identified as stalking as a greater degree of persistence was depicted.
The results show that what was considered illegal behavior corresponded well with classifications of stalking. Of the 883 participants who said that the behavior was stalking, 82.7% said it should be illegal, 14.2% were unsure, and 3.2% said that it should not be illegal. Of the 176 participants who did not perceive the behavior as stalking, 5.1% said it should be illegal, 22.2% said they were unsure, and 72.7% said that it should not be illegal. The results for the group not seeing the behavior as stalking are intriguing. While a small percentage said that the behavior should be illegal, almost one quarter was unsure, even though they did not identify the behavior as stalking. Perhaps participants were unclear as to what behavior constituted stalking, but nevertheless perceived the behavior as unacceptable and possibly warranting legal intervention.
It appears that defining stalking to facilitate prosecution has become a difficult task, leaving celebrities with little recourse until the psycho snaps and does something clearly illegal. And even then, will a judge and juror perceive it to be the type of stalking that requires prosecution?
:?
WoW... More Money More Problems and More Billie Jeans...
Peace
:ugeek:
