Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:39 PM
Fri Nov 20
73 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/17/09
Women's psychological concerns are constantly ignored, dismissed, or considered "hysterical" or overreacting. Women's concerns about the invasion of sexual harassment or assault are also constantly dismissed. WTF is up with that happening on this site? Putting up half-naked photos of someone is a fucked up, sexual harassment thing to do. I'm not surprised that non-consensual scantily clad publicly posted photos are giving her PTSD. Who knows the rest of the story? Maybe she's already once been the victim of unwanted sexualized images of her getting posted publicly. Maybe there are people in her life who have seen these photos and now treat her differently, or printed up the pictures and hung them in their office cubicle next to hers, or snicker every time she walks into the room, or tell her that they masturbate to her underwear pictures every morning. Maybe her ex boyfriend raped her and has been emailing her since he saw the pictures online, harassing her and using these images as yet another way to intimidate her.
Half-naked pictures of women get used all the time to control them. Intimidate them, threaten them, make them uncomfortable. I'm shocked and disappointed at the Jezebel commenters' reactions to a story of what I see as essentially sexual harassment (at best). #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
I do not disagree that false charges of PTSD are offensive. But I don't see how anyone could really question that unwanted, sexualized, porny pictures of a woman posted on a website and then not removed upon request could legitimately end up with PTSD, especially given the horrifically high number of women who have, indeed, been victims of unwanted sexual contact or conduct. Given the high number of women who are victims of harassment, it is entirely legitimate, even (I would argue) logical to suppose that she might be a victim of sexual violence. So that plus this is an entirely logical formula for PTSD.
The problem is that most people are mocking her or saying she's overreacting or not believing her. How shocking--a woman is a victim of sexual violence and nobody believes her. Something new and unusual, since usually sexual violence victims are automatically trusted and believed. Oh wait, except this is a patriarchal society that hates women, so that is exactly the opposite of what is true.
Not believing this woman and questioning the severity of the trauma of this situation is the same thing as not believing a rape victim or saying "Oh it's not like he beat you up or anything what's the big deal?" Saying that she signed a contract saying the photographers could use the pictures, even if she asked the photographer not to take underwear pictures, is like saying "Oh you went on a date with him? You went back to his place? You took off your shirt? Well that's basically permission for sex, isn't it, so you should have expected it to happen."
It's incredibly disappointing to see that here (or anywhere). And masking antiwoman, victim-blaming slut-shaming comments as some noble defense of those actual, like legitimate, cases of people with PTSD (like soldiers) is disingenuous. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
When people file a lawsuit it is by nature one side of the story, their side.
Yes the article is biased, but so is the Most news posts and articles are biased in one way or another. I'd argue that most Jezebels are fairly adept at spotting anti-woman bias.
You obviously have really strong feelings on this issue and I'm sure we all respect that. Some people just don't have the same interpretation of events as you do. That will also come from their own personal history.
I do really strongly disagree that ..."Not believing this woman and questioning the severity of the trauma of this situation is the same thing as not believing a rape victim or saying "Oh it's not like he beat you up or anything what's the big deal?"...
It is not the same thing. The only thing that is the same thing is doing that exact same thing. Bringing logical leaps and fallacies into the matter isn't helping anyone's point. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
The other requirements that must be met: 1. re-experiencing of trauma; 2. avoiding reminders of trauma;
3. persistant indicators of arousal;
4. 1-3 must be for over 1 montht; and 5. impairment in important areas of functioning. ALL of these requirements must be met. Most people who have traumatic experiences don't develop PTSD. In fact, even among combat veterans returning from OEF or OIF (Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom), the highest percentage of PTSD in this population that I've heard of is 17%, which is REALLY high anyway.
Sounds to me like this woman is upset, wants her picture to be taken down, can't make it happen because of the contract she signed, so she is now claiming to have a serious mental illness. No doubt she is upset, and with good reason, but it is careless to say that just because she may or may not have suffered what can be diagnostically considered a traumatic event, she is now suffering from PTSD.
It sounds like bad behavior on both sides to me. Even if she has had past trauma, by the way, it wouldn't be correct to say that this event led to her PTSD. At most, it could lead to her coming out of remission from PTSD.
11/17/09
Mrs Bostwick is such a hypocrite. Look at how she celebrated her engagement. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
...and if you have given away free stuff, I can so rob you.
11/17/09
11/17/09
*Guests WE didn't invite, btw. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
exactly thank you. the trivialization of real disorders such as PTSD is so selfish and irresponsible when people like this woman appropriate them. honestly what is she hoping? a hefty lawsuit to help pay off the wedding expenses? #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
I'm totally shocked that people think that she's trivializing PTSD. I think that assumption trivializes the invasion of privacy and person that comes with someone 1. taking unwanted photographs of you in your underwear and 2. putting them on the internet. And then 3. not actually removing them when requested.
When someone was taking photos of that ESPN reporter in her hotel room and the images got out, everyone here was outraged. How is this different? #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
There are as many ways to be traumatized as there are people on the planet. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
I was just taking issue with the idea that the only people who get PTSD are the ones who go through war or terrorist attacks. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
I can understand maybe wanting those photos privately but not wanting them shared, in which case that should have been clarified IN WRITING. If she didn't want them at all, she shouldn't have had the photog in the room while she was dressing, or told her not to take them.
Having photographed weddings, moral of the story is: Write a list of EXACTLY what you do and do not want photos of. With bullet points. Well before the wedding day. Both of you sign it.
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Generally I find other pictures to take while they're at that stage (since they're not really photos you'd share with your parents, friends, children). #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
BUT I would have made sure that it was in the contract that had permission to do so, and that the clients acknowledged that they'd read it and understood it. One of those two things clearly did not happen in this case. If the contract wasn't clear or didn't allow the photog permission to use the photos, she should sue the photographer. If she didn't read or understand the contract and signed it anyway, that's her own dumb fault.
I suspect the photographer reserved rights to post the photos, and that's why the client is suing on medical grounds rather than legal ones.
11/17/09
You can't sue on medical grounds. Any lawsuit is a lawsuit on legal grounds. The PTSD is the damage she is claiming was caused by the actions, likely because it is very difficult to bring a claim for emotional distress if there is no economic or physical damage. But the posting of the photographs would still have to have had a legal issue for her to win. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
*CurtCole is not a psychologist nor is he treating this individual. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
If something as minor as this did in fact damage her psychological integrity enough to cause actual PTSD she'd be in so serious trouble that it would be surprising for her to have the resemblance of a functioning life.
I hope that is not the case. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
REALLY?? #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
ETA: How she managed to not notice the photographer taking the pictures and tell her to stop, though, I don't get.
11/17/09
To be honest though I'd imagine there's more going on (unless the photographer was being very sneaky) since it's easy enough to tell someone you're paying to stop and go take pictures of shoes or something. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
It sucks that the photographer displayed pictures that she didn't want to be shown, but I hate hate hate when people claim PTSD for silly things like this.
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
The current definition is problematic because it's so narrow. For example, persistent child abuse does not currently fit into the diagnosis of PTSD (complex PTSD is being introduced in DSM V I think, though)
I bolded some things that I'm not sure she's experiencing...
A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which BOTH of the following were present:
1. the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others.
2. the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror.
B. The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced
C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma)
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma)
E. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C, and D) is more than 1 month.
F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(full criteria here: [pn.psychiatryonline.org])
That being said, I have a feeling she doesn't have PTSD, and/or her doctors didn't apply the DSM IV criteria exactly.
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
FWIW - found the photographer's shots online and they're stunning. She does great work so I can't see her posting a horribly unflattering shot to her portfolio. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
For example, if someone took pictures of me in my underwear without my permission and then put them on the internet, I'd be pissed even if the shots made me look like Grace Kelley. #bridesuesunderwearpictures
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/09/09
I hope my brother is as cool as Rob when I decide to get married. #keepingupwiththekardashiansthe...
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09