While nude celebrity photo leaks seem to occur on a weekly basis in our scandal-obsessed society, one woman poses as a figure who may be disclosing something that is more than an infringement on her privacy. Kate Middleton’s status as a duchess and part of the British Royal Family sets her apart from the out-of-work actresses and Twitter-blundering celebrities, for she is being asked to play a role of modesty in the throes of a sex-obsessed press. Her recent scandal raises questions regarding the balancing act women are forced to play, where expectations of classy reservations conflict with the media’s fixation on eroticism. These opposing presumptions contribute to a growing paradox when considering the portrayal of the female role in today’s world.
While on holiday with Prince William at a private chateau in France, an unknown photographer snapped topless photographs of Middleton sunbathing on the beach. About 70 of the 240 photographs taken have been circulating magazines, tabloids and the Internet, and “Kate Middleton Topless” yields 435 million search results online. The photos caused a riot that reached the courtroom, where the royal family won a case against Closer magazine, a French publication that printed the images. Their victory opens a discussion that extends beyond privacy and into the changing role of women in an atmosphere of constant scrutiny.
Middleton is an interesting celebrity figure. Being a part of the royal family, she automatically takes on an essence of traditional values that give her an air of demure modesty. And yet, with the media constantly infringing on celebrity lives and bringing them into the public domain, she inextricably suffers the addition of an erotic filter that is objectifying the female sex. We see it everywhere: Women are made to be sums of their parts — usually the parts that most fascinate the male sex — and it is either the suppression or exposure of these bodily features that captivates our attention.
In spite of the overly sexualized world of the media, certain societal restrictions continue to put women on an idealistic pedestal. This is especially obvious in the case of Middleton. As the Duchess of Cambridge, she is assumed to exude, if not innocence, at least an essence of conservative, respectable femininity. It can be argued that it is a result of the reserved role Middleton plays that made her all the more alluring to the slandering press; her virtuous position in society made her irresistible to the public’s taste for debauchery.
It appears then that what we see in the media is enforcing a kind of double-standard expectation for women in our society: They are expected to be both an innocent ideal and an infatuating vixen. If women are to fall into one camp, they are automatically categorized — prudish and chaste, wanton and trashy — take your pick. But most decide to balance dangerously between the stereotypes and walk the tightrope of societal expectations, checking their every move, every bit of their bare skin. Middleton, a role model whom the press continues to try to push off the pedestal of age-old values, opens eyes to the amorphous gender role expected of women in today’s world. Though the role has been modernized by an unashamed appetite for the sensuous, a freedom of sexuality does not equate to a freedom from expectations for women — in fact, it just makes the ensnaring role all the more difficult to fill.
A version of this article appeared in the Sept. 27 print edition. Sasha Leshner is a staff columnist. Email her at [email protected].
