A philosophical question - celebrities, normal people, and stuff

[Phineas]

a while back we had a thread here asking people to relate folks from high school, or their earlier days, that they wished to, as it were, "get their hands on". it was blotted by the mods due to, among other things, the fact that people might be unnerved to find their names being thrown about in such a context on an adult fetish forum. the thread continued, but only with the understanding that the people not be mentioned except by initials.

and yet, not only have we recently been given Top Five lists (which haven't been censored yet, nor will they be if I am correct), but we also have a rather bustling community here dedicated to speculating and documenting our "desires" with regards to celebrities and other personalities.

now, I'm not here to say celebrity tickling discussion is wrong, regardless of what I've said on the topic in the past... but, I'm curious to hear why it's okay to mention one group of people by name, but another not... merely because more people are familiar with the latter group.

confused? I am. enlighten me. 😀

 

[amk714]

Good question, Phineas! I think it's because celebrities are in the public eye anyways, that's why it's OK to talk about them openly.

 

[Soda83pop]

Good question Phineas...

...I think you have a point. If I were a mod,I wouldnt have blotted the other thread. I may have requested poeple maybe use first name and last initials. But Compared to other forums, the mods here are incredible, so I dont tend to question their reasoning.

To expand on AMK's point, or possibly clarify, I dont think he was saying its okay to talk about celebrities because they are in the public eye, but rather it is senseless to type initials and or first name last initial combos for people who's names are already known. For example, had I responded to the shopping channel hostess' question with this answer:

1. L. R.
2. M. M.
3. J. B.

It would take someone all of a minute to go to the QVC site (if their lives were that sad) and match initials to names. However, if I had responded to the "high school lady I never got to but wanted to tickle" with Stacy B., no one knows Stacy B. Also, you dont know what state, county or city I live in. And if, by some slim chance, the fictitious Stacy B. found this post, she would have to not only know what the B. stood for, but also that dajerx=Keith from Chester VA who went to high school in Prince George County, and then deduce the precise 4 years I went to high school with her. Maybe thats why the initials were requested?? I dont know.

As for the "comfort level" of celebrities who find themselves on these web pages, or why they dont deserve the same "what if they found their names in a sexual fanatasy list" status, I cant answer. Me personally, if I found myself on a list of fantasy ticklees, I would like to think my life was too fulfilling to really care enough to be upset or feel infringed upon. Because, at the end of the day, its just a bunch of strangers who you wil never meet who wanna tickle you. And that feeling would be the same whether I was famous or not.

Insomnia sucks. Im tired and cant go to sleep.

Phineas, buddy, am I to assume you dont think too much of the "celebrity area" LOL!! Good thought provoking question though.

 

[Novus]

The whole point of being a celebrity is to have people fantasize about you. If noone drooled over you then you wouldn't really be a celebrity. Also most celebrities don't personally know who their fans are.

Someone from highschool would know who is fantasizing over them. They might think: 'John Doe what a pervert he is. So that is why he was always staring at me in English class. He was undressing me with his eyes and thinking about tickling me, oh I wish I didn't wear so many reveiling outfits in highschool...' It could really upset someone.

 

[execmail77]

I'm no attorney, but...

I believe there are a number of privacy laws which protect, to a certain extent, people who are not public figures. But even people who aren't "celebrities," and who never asked to be publicized, can be, and often are, subjected to public scrutiny.

For instance, if they happen to become part of a news story, a private individual might find themselves to be the legitimate focus of the media, whereas, in other circumstances, they wouldn't be.

One example that comes to mind would be the tragic murder case here in the San Diego area last year of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam (which was also a nation-wide news story, as I understand it). Under normal circumstances, her parents would never have been "outed" as having an "open marriage" by the media. Generally, if the media does a story on "swinging," they'd probably keep their subject's identities confidential, if asked to. But in this case, the van Dam's were fodder for the press, including talk radio around here, for months.

Don't know if this answers the questions above, or even furthers the conversation. But, yes, I believe there are at least ethical, if not legal, differences for how private versus "public" people are, and should be treated.

 

[Phineas]

don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning the mods' decisions in any way. I'm just interested in the concept that people suddenly lose their right to privacy just because someone, somewhere, has decided they no longer deserve it. if a lot of people find out who you are, you suddenly lose your "rights" because everyone wants to know things. I think that's scary.

and Novus, I always thought being a celebrity was a side-effect of being in a visible profession, not a means to an end itself. heads of state are celebrities but you don't see any threads about Donald Rumsfeld around here, and I doubt he went into his field so people would think he was sexay. 😀

 

[TicklingDuo]

The whole point of being a celebrity is to have people fantasize about you. If noone drooled over you then you wouldn't really be a celebrity. Also most celebrities don't personally know who their fans are.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. If the person is in the public eye, we can do as we like because it's why they're there??? Care to debate a few points?

1. Who said that celebs are there solely for the purpose of the fantasy of others?

If I were an actress, it would be because I enjoy role-playing and can make a living at it. That doesn't mean that I want to be a part of every dirty little fantasy that others pleasure themselves to. I'd be there to entertain others and myself with my work. I doubt that any celeb contract (outside of those in fetish films) states that my purpose is the fantasy of others.

2. I know a lot of public figures whom I consider to have celeb status. That doesn't mean that I drool over them. Are there actors who I find to be attractive? Sure there are. But, that doesn't mean that I get to do whatever I like in relation to them.

3. The fact that the person is unknown is a moot point. If someone raped me, it would hurt me whether I knew them or not. The arguement that a personal knowledge of the person doesn't exist is invalid in my opinion. It sounds too much like an excuse to continue activity that is inconsiderate of the feelings of others.

If we asked ourselves before creating stuff like this what that person would think/feel if they knew about it, we may do a lot less of it.

Example... I love Robin William as an actor and think he's nutty enough to be a great LER. I've often thought that he'd be fun to play with. But, that play isn't sexual in nature and doesn't cross the lines of common decency and respect for other people. I'd have absolutely no problem seeing him on the street and telling him openly what I just stated here. I wonder how many here could say the same about their own fantasies.

I'm not trying to say that others are bad for fantasizing differently. I just think we need to look at the reality of what this means to those we choose to involve. Being a celeb doesn't make people devoid of feelings any more than it makes them acceptable targets for other abuses. So, to Phin's original query... I don't think it matters who the person is. Names shouldn't be posted without permission when it comes to sexual material.

Ann

 

[execmail77]

Ann, you make some interesting points, but I'll take up your debating challenge on a few of them! 🙂

You said, "If I were an actress... I doubt that any celeb contract (outside of those in fetish films) states that my purpose is the fantasy of others." Actually, as an "actress" specifically, your entire career would be built on creating fantasies for people, sexual or not. True?

Also in point #1, you argue that "that doesn't mean that I want to be a part of every dirty little fantasy that others pleasure themselves to."

Let's delineate between a couple of different concepts here. One's own personal fantasies belong to no one other than that individual, regardless of who the subject of those fantasies may be. No one has a right to play "Thought Police." And like it or not, movie stars and other celebrities are probably the focus of personal fantasies more than other people (any other males here recall puberty?)

I think the original intention of this thread was to specifically address fantasies that are SHARED with another person in a semi-public forum, such as this thread, and not "every dirty little fantasy."

In your point #2, you say just because you find an actor attractive, "...doesn't mean that I get to do whatever I like in relation to them." Whatever?

Of course you don't, and no one is arguing here that we can. And there is a HUGE difference between exercisizing ones "freedom of speech," and assault. Yet it sounds like you're trying to equate the two in some way by your additional comment in point #3 that, "If someone raped me, it would hurt me whether I knew them or not," as if both were equally just "inconsiderate of the feelings of others."

I know nothing of you personally, but I'm guessing most rape victims out there would take exception to this.

Finally, would you really "have absolutely no problem" walking up to Robin Williams on the street, and telling him "openly" that you've "often thought that he'd be fun to play with. But, that play isn't sexual in nature and doesn't cross the lines of common decency and respect for other people?" My guess is he would find your approaching him in this way patently offensive, and view you as some kind of deranged stalker. Yet, I'd bet he'd find this discussion of your personal fantasy about him him here to be harmless, if not also amusing.

Bottom line as I see it? This is a free speech issue-- whether it's a few people holding a verbal conversation, or doing it electronically as we are. For me to tell you that I'd love to tickle anyone else, is my own fantasy, and my own opinion, and I'm entitled to it, whether others overhear it or not.

But, if I stated as fact that that person "has a tckle fetish," or anything else that wasn't true, then you and I, and most other people, including the law, would view THAT very differently.

 

[Phineas]

Ann has brought up some interesting points, which jibe with my own views on the topic, but let's broaden it a bit. She focuses specifically on actresses. The posts which spurred my posting of this topic, however, are not about actresses - Mitchell's lists name television personalities whose roles are far from glamourous. Home shopping hostesses and weatherpeople. I am pretty sure those folks didn't wake up one day and say "hmmm, I want to be drooled over by lots and lots of people. I'll go into weather broadcasting!" 😕

Another example, a little more focused. Video game programmers can, if their games become well-known enough, gain minor celebrity status. Let's say I release a game (as I'm about to in the near future, and no, it's not TS). It's a hit, and I'm featured in the local newspaper as some "local boy done good". Lots of people find out who I am and are fans of my game, so I have become a celebrity (ask any gamer who John Carmack or Gary Gygax are). Does this mean I have just implicitly consented to having everyone come into the web chats I've set up to promote my game and ask me if I'm partial to boffing livestock?

If you're under investigation for a crime, that's a little different. But most of these folks aren't. My wife reads People magazine (ugh), and I really feel sorry for some of these folks; photographers camp out on the sidewalk outside their property just waiting for them to go out in a "just thrown on" outfit to buy a quart of milk down the corner so they can snap a picture of it for the "Worst Dressed of '92" issue.

 

[execmail77]

phineas...

I agree with your statement that, "[Home shopping hostesses and weatherpeople] didn't wake up one day and say 'hmmm, I want to be drooled over by lots and lots of people. I'll go into weather broadcasting!'" But they DID seek out jobs of a high-profile, public nature, which naturally come with greater "exposure"- of both the good and bad sort- than if they had gone into just meteorology. Not saying they consciously WANT to be "drooled over," any more than any of us would, just that they incurred that risk, knowingly, and by their own choice.

As for your Video game programmers anology, you're right, you've not "implicitly consented to having everyone come into the web chats I've set up to promote my game and ask me if I'm partial to boffing livestock?" However, that's not what's happening here, is it? No one (that we know of, anyway) is going onto the Weather Channel's website, and harrassing those people outside of the context for which their "chat site" was set up. Instead, these conversations are being held on a "tickling forum," designed for just such topics. Two completely different issues, I think. No one, minor celebrities, or just plain folk, deserve to be hassled in the way in which you describe.

And, I agree too about the intrusive media/papparazzi, etc. But, again, there's a huge difference between a--holes infringeing, often physically, upon people's personal lives, and two individuals merely expressing their opinions about another person to each other.

Until someone on these forums begins to make direct threats against celebrities, or conspires to actually attack someone and tickle torture them, then sharing "fantasies" is just a free speech issue, and nothing more. It doesn't even fall into the seedy realm of gossip.

 

[Phineas]

However, that's not what's happening here, is it? No one (that we know of, anyway) is going onto the Weather Channel's website, and harrassing those people outside of the context for which their "chat site" was set up. Instead, these conversations are being held on a "tickling forum," designed for just such topics.

well, this is kinda skirting outside the topic and back into my personal feelings on the topic, but reading over the Celebrity forums reveals many topics that run along the lines of "X has a web chat coming up this weekend, who's going to ask her THE QUESTION?"

and again, we're going back to who we're allowed to talk about, and why. "normal" people are censored because they may be skeeved to know we're talking about them, but celebrities are not afforded any such respect? why not? if I went to school with Tia Carrere, would I be "banned" from talking about wanting to tickle her because I knew her personally?

 

[Iggy pop]

Quite simply public figures have less protection of privacy under the law. Remember where Jerry Fallwell tried to sue Larry Flynt for libel. The Supreme Court ruled that the material was sytrical in nature and Jerry Fallwell could by satirized because he was indeed a PUBLIC FIGURE. In 1996 if Saturday Nite Live had skits about a slutty intern named Monica Lewinisky they could have been sued, but after the scandal broke Monica became a public figure and was fair game for such skits.

 

[Phineas]

satire

Quite simply public figures have less protection of privacy under the law. Remember where Jerry Fallwell tried to sue Larry Flynt for libel. The Supreme Court ruled that the material was sytrical in nature and Jerry Fallwell could by satirized because he was indeed a PUBLIC FIGURE. In 1996 if Saturday Nite Live had skits about a slutty intern named Monica Lewinisky they could have been sued, but after the scandal broke Monica became a public figure and was fair game for such skits.

the right to parody is protected regardless of who the target of the satire is, public figure or not. otherwise artists like "Weird Al" Yankovic could not make a living. (Al secures permission to do all of his music from the original artists, which is not relevant here anyway.)

what we are talking about, however, is not satirical in nature. Public figures can still sue for libel, same as anyone else. If they couldn't, there wouldn't be libel laws to begin with, would there?

again, not relevent to my original question, which was, why should we afford some people less respect and consideration because they're actors or television hosts?

 

[TicklingDuo]

Actually, as an "actress" specifically, your entire career would be built on creating fantasies for people, sexual or not. True?

There's a very big difference between a story acted out in a movie (call it fantasy if you like) and sexual fantasies about a person. We both know that the latter is what is being refered to in most celeb tickling threads/stories/sites.

No one has a right to play "Thought Police."

I absolutely agree and have no intention of censoring anyone in what I stated. I simply express MY OPINION that I feel it is not appropriate to take that to a public level and have any chance of it getting back to the person that fantasy is about...because we owe a certain amount of respect to the feelings of other people no matter who they are.

there is a HUGE difference between exercisizing ones "freedom of speech," and assault. Yet it sounds like you're trying to equate the two in some way by your additional comment in point #3 that, "If someone raped me, it would hurt me whether I knew them or not," as if both were equally just "inconsiderate of the feelings of others."

I know nothing of you personally, but I'm guessing most rape victims out there would take exception to this.

First, I am not equating the two. So, no exception need be taken. I'm simply stating (obviously not clearly enough) that it doesn't have to go as far as physical contact and rape to be hurtful to the person who is the object of that type of attention. (And, as a survivor of repeated sexual abuse and a gang rape myself, I feel that I have a bit of insight in the matter.)

Finally, would you really "have absolutely no problem" walking up to Robin Williams on the street, and telling him "openly" that you've "often thought that he'd be fun to play with. But, that play isn't sexual in nature and doesn't cross the lines of common decency and respect for other people?" My guess is he would find your approaching him in this way patently offensive, and view you as some kind of deranged stalker. Yet, I'd bet he'd find this discussion of your personal fantasy about him him here to be harmless, if not also amusing.

LOL I never said that I'd run up, fall at his feet and yell, "Play with me!" 😉 But, if given the opportunity for a real conversation with the man and discussing character and personality, I don't see it as being offensive or out of order in any way. It would simply be a part of a larger conversation of things he's done in public performances.

Bottom line as I see it? This is a free speech issue-- whether it's a few people holding a verbal conversation, or doing it electronically as we are. For me to tell you that I'd love to tickle anyone else, is my own fantasy, and my own opinion, and I'm entitled to it, whether others overhear it or not.

But, if I stated as fact that that person "has a tckle fetish," or anything else that wasn't true, then you and I, and most other people, including the law, would view THAT very differently.

Once again, I don't question your right to your personal fantasy or your stating of that fantasy. I'm simply trying to point out that the object(s) of those fantasies are human beings with feelings. Phineas mentioned former classmates of individuals having been named in another thread. If these people are deserving of a little respect and consideration, I don't see why that shouldn't extend to celebs (of whatever level) as well. A lot of harm is done under the guise of freedom of speech. The fact that something is legal doesn't make it right.

I've been in the online community for quite a while now. After starting my site, there were some who considered me something of a celeb. (Go figure! 🙄 ) A few of those people stated things to me, or to others about me, that I found offensive and totally inappropriate. Yes. We have a right to our opinions and fantasies. But, when they are put out there for all to see, people can and often do get hurt. THAT is where I have a problem. We also have a responsibility to respect the feelings of other people...like it or not.

Pick a celeb who's been mentioned in conversation or stories on here. Now, picture that individual deciding (just for kicks) to do a web search on their own name to see what folks are saying about them. This forum would come up in that search. Those things would be there for them to see. Still don't see there being a problem and no possibility of offense being taken?

OK, I'm done. You may agree and you may not. That's fine. This is just my own opinion on the matter.

Ann

 

[Mimi]

Consider this point. We are all here for the same reason. Our love of tickling. Whether that be playful or sexual is a moot point. We are here WILLINGLY, out of our OWN interest.

Yet, would you post your real name here? First and last name?

How do you think someone who is not into tickling, and does not come here based on their own interest in the subject would feel about seeing their real full name posted here.

Mimi

 

[execmail77]

ANN: No truer statement exists than "The fact that something is legal doesn't make it right." Nicely said.

I do understand that you weren't literally equating rape with just "hurt feelings." But these two seemed to be presented as opposite ends on a continuum here, which seemed to suppose that ANYTHING could cause harm. I beg to differ with any spectrum that doesn't also include the possibility that some people inappropriately "feel" hurt, when there is no harm. Could we not agree that not all feelings are rational, and that therefore hypersensitive people and situations exist, for which reasonable people are not responsible?

Yes, we all "owe a CERTAIN AMOUNT [emphasis mine] of respect to the feelings of other people no matter who they are." The key, though, is to discern where the line is for what "amount" of respect we "owe" to others, and what level we don't. And I think that's what we're all trying to establish here.

To borrow another example from our friend Phineas: Forget a celebrity, let's say I typed my own name into a search engine, and found that two former male grade-school classmates, who had become openly gay as adults, were found to be talking about me, and one said that he'd had a real "crush" on me back then. How does HIS fantasy back then, harm, embarrass, offend or hurt me now, when it has nothing to do with the reality of me as a happily-married, heterosexual male today? As I see it, this is what differentiates the innocuous posts we've been talking about, from the truly harmful ones.

PHINEAS: I think the distinguishing feature of satire, that protects it from libel, is that it is understood by reasonable people to be an untrue charcterization, in other words... literally a fantasy, and is clearly presented as such. So although the posts, stories, etc. here may not be satire per se, if they are clearly depicted as fantasies only, where is the genuine harm done to anyone?

I think some keep confusing the difference between fantasies, clearly depicted as fictional, and any discussions of third parties, celebrities or not, which are false but presented as true, or are true, but which would be damaging to that individual if divulged.

MIMI: Outstanding question: "would you post your real name here? First and last name?"

Me? probably not. But that has to do with who I REALLY am, that I have a REAL interest in tickling, and that I alone reserve the right to share this information with whom I choose. In the same way, I would never think of "outing" someone publicly, who I'd met at a tickle Gathering. That confidentiality is THEIR privilege alone, not mine. But then again, that's not what's being discussed here. I'm still struggling to make the connection between my reality, and someone else's fantasy about me.

And "How do think someone who is not into tickling, and does not come here based on their own interest in the subject would feel about seeing their real full name posted here?"

Most likely would depend on the content of the post, I believe. So it's hard to debate that point without a more specific example of what you mean. Can you elaborate to illustrate your point more clearly for me?






p.s. Thanks all for this frank discussion. I think we're hitting on some useful topics, and I'm finding it fascinationg to learn from you all. I hope everyone is taking my responses in the positive way I'm intending them! 🙂

 

[TicklingDuo]

ANN: No truer statement exists than "The fact that something is legal doesn't make it right." Nicely said.

Gee thanks! 😉

Could we not agree that not all feelings are rational, and that therefore hypersensitive people and situations exist, for which reasonable people are not responsible?

Yes, we all "owe a CERTAIN AMOUNT [emphasis mine] of respect to the feelings of other people no matter who they are." The key, though, is to discern where the line is for what "amount" of respect we "owe" to others, and what level we don't. And I think that's what we're all trying to establish here.

We agree that not all feelings are rational. However, I believe that all feelings are valid and should be given respect and consideration.

For example, I currently very much enjoy playing with tickling. I absolutely love it and see no harm in it as long as the boundaries of those involved are honored. But, that wasn't always the case. Tickling was used against me in some of the cases of past abuse. So there was a time (and not that long ago) when I was absolutely terrified of it and couldn't even stand to hear the word. I took even the slightest mention to be a threat to my well-being...because it had played into threatening situations in the past.

In this example, my fear and avoidance wasn't rational. But, it was VERY real...to the point of being crippling in some incidents. Since it wasn't rational, would that mean that someone should be able to come up to me and do or mention it all the time? It seems harmless enough. But, unseen and unintended harm can and does take place. That is my concern. Unless we know a person inside out and know for sure that they couldn't possibly take offense, we have a responsibility to give some consideration to what we say before we say it. Perhaps that seems a bit scrupulous. But, I'd rather keep my big mouth shut than risk hurting someone I don't know if there's a question there.

To borrow another example from our friend Phineas: Forget a celebrity, let's say I typed my own name into a search engine, and found that two former male grade-school classmates, who had become openly gay as adults, were found to be talking about me, and one said that he'd had a real "crush" on me back then. How does HIS fantasy back then, harm, embarrass, offend or hurt me now, when it has nothing to do with the reality of me as a happily-married, heterosexual male today? As I see it, this is what differentiates the innocuous posts we've been talking about, from the truly harmful ones.

You personally may have no problem with it. But, remember the case of the guy who murdered a fella after admitting a crush to him on television? There ARE people who would be very much bothered by that...or other mention of them without their consent. It's a matter of perspective.

p.s. Thanks all for this frank discussion. I think we're hitting on some useful topics, and I'm finding it fascinationg to learn from you all. I hope everyone is taking my responses in the positive way I'm intending them! 🙂

Thank-you as well! It's refreshing to have a frank debate and be able to disagree on points without getting nasty about it. I appreciate that. 😀

Ann

 

[execmail77]

Ann, we're so close to agreeing I can taste it! 🙂

I think your examples may actually prove my point. While you perceived "even the slightest mention" of tickling to be a threat to your well-being, did you ever directly hold those who just "mentioned it" RESPONSIBLE for your feelings? Or did your hearing those words raise your anger again towards your past abusers?

Now obviously I'm equating the casual fantasies about tickling we see in this forum with what you describe here as just "the slightest mentions." If, instead, you were being faced with a situation where someone repeatedly raised tickling as an issue to you because they saw they could get an emotional reaction out of you (for reasons pehaps unknown to them), then I think we're into a different issue that, in and of itself, is at least harrassment, if not bordering on further abuse.

Additionally, regarding your other analogy (from the Jenny Jones Show)... We know one was hurt in that situation (shot dead, in fact), the one with the fantasy! The opposite situation from what we've been discussing. But how was the shooter actually harmed? Not because his victim passively expressed an opinion on a website, but because he chose to ambush the other man with his desires, live and in person, in front of a national television audience, and then pursued the man afterward for a short time. Not to justify his death at the hands of an irrational human being, but he did go beyond just expressing a fantasy, which has been our focus here.

Perhaps I misstated something earlier too. Feelings, in and of themselves, are not vaild or invalid, they simply exist. So, to that point, you are right, and they need to be respected to the extent that they provide us information about ourselves. It is the underlying beliefs, from which our emotions spring, that are either rational or irrational.

Your feelings of fear from hearing tickling mentioned were real, although "not rational" (your words) based upon your "irrational" belief that this experience was somehow actually connected to your past abuse. My guess is that since you are now able to incorporate tickling as a positive experience, you've been able to develop a new, more rational belief system, that has cognitively disconnected that past abuse for you, from your current experiences.

Having said all that, there's nothing wrong with being "scrupulous!" I'm guessing that's why people probably trust having you tickle them! That "unseen and unintended harm can and does take place" is unquestionable, but also absolutely unavoidable, regardless of whether we "know a person inside out." So the best that I can do is to keep my big mouth shut enough to keep from being shot! 🙂

Have a great weekend!

 

[Daumantas]

Phineas, you're oversimplifying the laws of libel, which are indeed relevant to this topic, if only by analogy. Public figures can sue for libel, but the standards are much more rigorous than they are for private individuals. A "public figure," by legal definition (though there are no hard and fast rules) is defined as someone who has chosen a profession that they can reasonably expect will bring them public attention. To win a libel case, a private figure need only prove simple negligence. A public figure must prove that the defendant was either publishing/broadcasting the libelous material with malice (defined as knowing specifically that it was incorrect but publishing it anyway) or gross negligence (publishing the malicious material without making a good faith effort to determine its truth). These are much tougher standards.

I understand your point - which really revolves not around the law but around people's behavior - but keep in mind that, like the libel laws, people's sexual fantasies about celebrities are inevitable in part because that person has chosen a career which can reasonably be expected to bring them notoriety. It's not always a great thing, of course - the cemeteries are filled with celebrities who died trying to live up to their public image and their fans' fantasies. But it is most likely inescapable.