Fenn for herself

Sherilyn Fenn doesn’t do that sexpot thing anymore, she’d like you to know:

[I]n the process … I lost a lot of myself. Or maybe, it’s not that I lost myself, it’s that it did not allow me discover myself in an organic way as all of these “stories” were put onto me to tell. My choice … no pity party … I am grateful and thankful for my opportunities and memories but this is a look back at it all with different eyes.

I can share that even now I have moments of losing it after having been a “working woman” for SO many years, feel lost, listen to the dogma… But those moments are far outweighed by deep joy in the seeming mundane.

Since “the seeming mundane” often seems to be the very theme of this site, I couldn’t pass that by.

Or this:

Sherilyn Fenn at 46

Biographical note: Sherilyn’s mom was keyboardist Arlene Quatro. If the name “Quatro” rings a bell, well, it should.



  1. Tatyana »

    7 July 2012 · 10:43 am

    Pretending -to-be-literary porn is much worse than primitive XXX movie-kind.
    “This statement I uttered to myself a few years ago after making love with my man when he went to the bathroom”. The 1st sentence would be enough to know who she is even w/o that disgusting “too-old-for-prostitute, too-stupid-for-madam” photo.
    The pig-sow rolls of fat reminded me of the sadly missed series Karnavale…except the carrier in the TV drama was frank, had no pretensions and told no lies…

  2. CGHill »

    7 July 2012 · 11:18 am

    How many actors do you know who can write worth a flip?

    And I’m persuaded that it’s better to look 47 than to head into your fifties trying desperately to hold on to your thirties. (The gossip books each week are awash in that kind of stuff.)

  3. Tatyana »

    7 July 2012 · 11:51 am

    …head into your fifties trying desperately to hold on to your thirties. Like certain notorious sister of Emily Deschanel? (if you keep same delta, but between 35 and 15)

    and then is that business about being able to write…are you sure? Do you think the sentence I quoted is written in correct English? was she confessing of making love to her man while he was taking a piss?

    I am not even touching on content of that post or the rambling verbosity of what could have been expressed in a few sentences. [Do you want to know? something like this: “I have no inclination for creative work with origins in myself. I can only see my worth if I am reflected in others – like an actor (who is essentially a monkey repeating the words and emotions of others) – or in a child, a creature of naturally incapable of intelligent conversation, a child who respects me by default w/o my needing to prove my worth every single day. Besides, I have no discipline, I gave in to my hormones – there is no difference between me and a cave woman, as if no civilizing centuries have passed: I call it “making love to my man”. Aint’ I great? Love me, oh, please praise me. Pretty please?]

  4. CGHill »

    7 July 2012 · 12:16 pm

    ZD is thirty-two. Not too far out of range, but it’s obvious she’s not twenty-one anymore.

    And I really didn’t think I’d have to point out that the presenting of a hundred-word excerpt does not necessarily imply agreement with the other 9900. (For that matter, there’s stuff I write with which I may not agree. I’m flexible — or unfocused: choose one — that way.)

  5. Tatyana »

    7 July 2012 · 12:45 pm

    No, you don’t have to point that out – but I am surprised that you, with your excellent economical writing style and good taste in everything would pay attention to helpless incoherent scribbling like exampled above – and approve…

  6. CGHill »

    7 July 2012 · 1:06 pm

    It’s an effort to distinguish myself from all those other guys who post girlie pix once or twice (or more) a week in a desperate search for traffic, by supplying some possibly useful background information. It’s a smidgen harder to do with an actor who no longer acts, and given the sheer number of sexploitation films she did — not to mention Twin Peaks, in which she played the Schoolgirl from Hell — I thought the contrast was noteworthy. (As always, your mileage may vary.)

  7. Tatyana »

    7 July 2012 · 1:29 pm

    ah, so that’s what it is: I simply haven’t seen her movies nor do I know what twin peaks is

  8. Kim »

    7 July 2012 · 10:00 pm

    I take offense at her eyebrows.

    I mean. Talk about your twin peaks.


  9. Tatyana »

    8 July 2012 · 8:03 am

    I have to disagree, Kim. I can give her credit for a reflective symmetry concept – if supposed horizontal axes somewhere on shoulder level and reflected zigzag is her bra-less bust line…

  10. Sam »

    10 July 2012 · 1:19 am

    The text you have quoted is taken from her blog so of course it isn’t going to be formal or win any literary awards. You are also choosing to select and post random quotes from her blog which now is completely out of context and resembles nothing she was even talking about. I personally find her blog insightful and a good honest read.

    I am actually offended by your comment: “The 1st sentence would be enough to know who she is even w/o that disgusting “too-old-for-prostitute, too-stupid-for-madam” photo. The pig-sow rolls of fat reminded me of the sadly missed series Karnavale…except the carrier in the TV drama was frank, had no pretensions and told no lies…”

    You have judged Sherilyn on something she has written in her personal blog, one could judge you and your character based on the vile dribble you have chosen to purge on this page. And fat? Have you seen her lately? She looks fantastic! Most women would WANT to look like her at 47 years of age!

    My question is – do you know this woman? If you bothered to look deeper than a blog entry and photo you would find that she is one of the most authentic and real people in the world.

    Its easy to see only what you want to see and not understand a comment. How can you know exactly who she is based on a body of film work which someone has pointed out already as complete “sexploitations”. It’s easy to take aim and fire at someone who is (or has been) in the public eye. People forget these are real people with real emotions, real families, friends and lives.

    Before judging someone how about getting to know them first? Doesn’t everyone deserve this basic right? Do you feel she doesn’t because she has been conned into playing certain rolls that you think taint her ability to function as an intelligent and strong human being?

    I do not know if this is your blog or just comments on someone elses – but I find it offensive that in this day and age people can take the most cheap and hurtful shots at a truly amazing person simply “because you can”.

  11. CGHill »

    10 July 2012 · 7:06 am

    Well, actually it’s my blog, and I think rather highly of Sherilyn. I do not, however, dictate the opinions of commenters.

  12. Sam »

    10 July 2012 · 10:34 am

    Hello CGHill,

    I have absolutely nothing against your blog or comments. I actually find this blog very cool and interesting to read. I also have no problem hearing other people’s opinions and respect them if they contain strong cases & arguments rather than lame personal attacks.

    I defend people I respect and care about and Sherilyn is one of those people.

    Thank you for allowing me to share my opinion also.

  13. Tatyana »

    11 July 2012 · 6:22 am

    Sam, you address the wrong person (shows how good you are at reading comprehension)..
    This is blogosphere, baby: we are all entitled to our opinions. It is EXACTLY because I do not know that woman that my opinion counts: I can look at her without bias. If you calm down, drink some cold water and read my comments again you might notice there is no mention of her character. Only a) impressions from the photo presented b) impression from the post linked.

    No, dear Sam, that woman doe not appear intelligent. She does not appear strong. She appears…well, I already described it perfectly.

  14. Tatyana »

    11 July 2012 · 6:50 am

    [Chaz, could you please delete duplicate comment? I pressed “post” too soon]

    Also, it just occurred to me, after a cup of coffee: what is all this talk about her being exploited in the movie industry? Did she receive paychecks for her “exploiters”? Did she enjoy perks of being in the public (or, rather, Playboy audience’) eye? Did she pose for all those pages and pages of suggestive photos in public domain willingly?

    Then face it, Sam (or should I say, Sherilyn?) – she was a professional selling sex. She was successful in her occupation and she was compensated for her efforts. End of story.

  15. Sam »

    12 July 2012 · 2:50 am

    Tatyana, I was directly addressing your comments – my reading comprehension is just fine.

    Regarding the “sexploitation” comments brought up by myself and CGHill – it is well documented in the press that on many occasions she was forced into doing many things that were not in the original scripts that she signed on for. This included full nudity, sex scenes, etc. Perhaps a sign of inexperience within the industry? Sherilyn herself has publicly talked of a “near rape” and physical assault (leaving her physically battered & bruised & emotionally abused) by a co-star who was ordered by a director for a scene – simply because she rejected the director’s sexual advances toward her. Its also well documented that it was events like this that she insisted a “no nudity” clause be written in to future contracts. These sexploitations were all prior to her becoming a big star (via Twin Peaks) so I’m guessing after she hit the big time she could negotiate better contracts.

    As you brought up – I’m sure she was paid to act in these films but I’m guessing it would be hard to be proud of something which reminds you of such a horrific time in your life? You mention she was “a professional selling sex”. But my question is how much of it was against her free will? Honestly, I think the whole Playboy thing was more about getting back her power which was taken from her by the exploiters. Kind of like sticking the middle finger up. You also bring up her enjoying the perks of being in the public eye – if you had read that full blog entry you are quoting from – you would have read about how uncomfortable she was/is being in the public eye.

    It is sad that the world is not seeing the real side of this great human being and unfortunately being perceived as what you described from your observations. Unfortunately people don’t want the real Sherilyn. They just want sex siren Sherilyn. I am not here to convince you otherwise, just offer an alternative view on this discussion.

    And just for the record, I am not Sherilyn. That’s kind of funny though.

  16. Rule 5 Fuel »

    15 July 2012 · 10:02 am

    […] Kn   That Sexpot Thing   Hayden […]

RSS feed for comments on this post