Let's face it, Rihanna's body isn't much of a mystery to anyone who's seen the photos of her in the so-called 'naked dress' she wore to the CFDA awards. Briefly described, it's a gesture towards clothing with more rhinestones than fabric.
Similarly, Jennifer Lawrence's role in the X-Men films initially meant wearing nothing more than blue paint.
So, on hearing yesterday that naked or nearly-naked photos of Lawrence, along with about 100 other female stars, have been leaked, one response is to say "So what? We've seen it all before."
Isn't it a bit rich from women who spend a lot of time walking around with little on and getting paid for it to complain when this happens? Invasion of privacy is just one of the things that comes with fame – it's to balance out all the private jets and swimming pools, isn't it?
No.
The celebrities involved in the hacking this weekend join a long list of famous people who have experienced similar treatment. Rihanna, Mila Kunis and Scarlett Johansson – to name but a few – have allegedly had their phones hacked in recent years, also resulting in the publication of highly personal pictures.
The shock of the recent revelation is the scale – there are said to be photos of 101 women, and a hacker posting on 4Chan has threatened that there are more to come. While the authenticity of all of the photos has not been confirmed, Jennifer Lawrence's publicist responded to the leak saying it was a "flagrant violation of privacy", establishing at least that the photos of Lawrence are real.
The crucial difference between Lawrence getting naked on screen and these private photos is consent. We can assume that she consented to the photos being taken, but clearly didn't authorise their publication.
The fact that we've seen her up close and personal before doesn't act as any kind of precendent from which you can justify looking at, or making public, the images taken in the privacy of her home.
So it's theft, plain and simple, and the sexual nature of the photos adds another dimension to the moral maze.
In the context of our culture, it's not surprising that this happens. We have everything on demand. Images of naked women are available all the time – sometimes you have to pay for them, sometimes not. The prevalence blurs the lines of distinction between one naked body and another.
So what happens now?
Apart from a whole load of law suits and investigations into online security, part of what's needed is education – so that all those budding hackers out there recognise that women are more than boobs on a screen.
It highlights again the need to recognise the importance of sex education that talks about consent – something that's rarely discussed, especially in the Church.
We haven't drilled home the message that just because it's there, doesn't mean you take it. The rules that govern theft and privacy, also govern sexual behaviour. It's not an unimaginable leap from pictures to real people, and therefore, to rape.
But clearly the bigger issue here is that the hackers wouldn't do it if they didn't know they had an audience for it.
Some have launched (or re-launched) their careers off the back of such scandals – the sex tapes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian took their celebrity to new heights.
And before we pretend it's just pervy men who get a kick out it, let's remember that men, women, young and old, everyone loves a bit of kiss and tell. Women's magazines are full of it, they just put a different spin on it. Everyone's out to make money out of it.
We may not all watch the videos or hunt down those naked photos, but knowing that they're there has a bizarre power. And this is gossip of the worst kind – graphic and deeply personal. And like all gossip, we don't need to know, we just think we do.
