It's an ironically delicate balance. The entertainment industry is in a big push to promote the self esteem of young women. You can put them out to the world to preternaturally defeat trained adversaries in lightsabre combat and slay Upsidedown demons with mind powers but as the author noted, the instinct to protect young women is still strong. Can we have both?

The entertainment industry is in a big push to appear like it is promoting body positivity, anyway.

I think we have an instinct to protect children and youths. The idea that only young women should be protected is p sexist against both men and women.

For instance - The Coreys in the 80s.

Didn't read the whole thing (just in case I missed something), but I can't help but think that adults writing to child stars hoping for a response is inductive of a mental issue in the "adult". Perhaps, mentally, those adults aren't as far off from the children they're writing to. At the very least I wouldn't think it fair to blame society in general for that.

Not reading the whole thing seems to be the prerequisite for commenting today.

Also fair.

I think any adult who writes to a celebrity of any age is mildly to moderately fucked in the head.

Fair.

Ok, but that autoplay video at the bottom was auditory terrorism.

If terrorism 1) is about creating fear to achieve a political/religious/financial/ideological aim, and considering 2) the things that happened to Natalie happen on a large scale (which they do, with just slight variations), and 3) female sexuality is a lynchpin of a lot of political, religious, and ideological issues, I think we can afford to give her a pass on the word choice.

Jesus, you're unironically doing "Well, actually, the horrible things you experienced were intimidating, not terrifying." rather than being appalled at what she experienced.

I appreciate the need to use grandiose terms for media attention and watercooler conversation, but when I hear the terms “sexual terrorism” I think of literal raping and pillaging with a dose of genocide/ethnic cleansing.

That doesn’t mean what she experienced wasn’t bad/horrible/traumatizing/life-changing.

And while part of me is like “at least she is rich and famous vs victims”, actually that probably does make her a great figure head to bring up the issue for other people whom can’t get that attention/headlines. Like Elle.com would GAF if it was just some “nobody”.

That said I dislike the terminology used but I can’t think of anything better. I suppose the issue is more that Elle.com needs click through or something and it’s easy “journalism”.

Exactly this. Yes.

Are you confusing the sources of the two articles?

I am. Although Elle May have more journalistic integrity. :/

You are calling someone an attention whore for complaining about being sexually harassed at 13. A child being in a movie doesn't suddenly make it okay to send them rape fantasies.

Natalie Portman also studied at Harvard and co-authored two published research papers. I'm not sure where you are drawing the 'vacuous puppets' from.

Honestly I think it’s the spin.

She really is in a position to speak out about this and raise awareness for victims that can’t.

Because she generates revenue for CNN. Because they frame it as a famous/rich person complaining.

I find that the fine print in these articles is that it’s usually victims who ask the celebrity to speak out- which is then highlighted as a celebrity only issue.

It’s dysfunctional, but then again I remember when the huff post was considered a journalistic crisis as opposed to a serious news organization.

I sincerely hope you don't watch movies, then. Since you disapprove of acting as a profession that requires knowledge and skill and seem to view it as a significant character flaw.

I love movies! I just think that the creeps who act in them are nothing more than a necessary evil, and that if they ever stop being necessary the craft of movie making will be enhanced by their absence.

Clarification: that -1 WTF was for separating stage and film actors into separate categories based on the criteria of "attention whore".

I'm not even getting into the rest of the comment.

Nah, I separate stage and film actors into separate categories based on skill. Portraying a believable character in front of a live audience for 90 minutes amid the obvious artificiality of a stage set is a genuinely impressive feat. Doing it in front of a camera for two minutes at a time with do-overs if you fuck up your lines and a small army of professional technicians on hand before, during, and after working hard to enhance the illusion? Not so impressive.

It's the difference between running a marathon and dressing up like a marathon runner to be filmed running a few steps at a time.

Curiosity: have you ever worked in theater or film?

Heh, not paid work. I used to run with that sort of crowd back in my clove-smoking artfag days and did a bit of random gruntwork on various friends' projects, but nothing that ever amounted to anything. I was more of a wannabe rock star than a wannabe filmmaker.

Fair enough.

I have seen firsthand the work that goes into both crafts.

I have worked in theater for just shy of 25 years. I also have worked on film sets, including acting, since I was in single digits. All of my work has been paid.

I've also worked on many events over the past 20 years that have involved me interacting with various performers and actors. Some were awful people; most were quite nice. My experiences were with people of varied celebrity status, age, gender, race, and genre.

On behalf of all of the people I have had the privilege to work with in these three areas: I disagree with your opinion and question how much of it is based on facts/experiences vs. blind opinion.