SPRINGHEEL wrote:

Typical escort thread lasts 8 pages at the least

Hehe, so funny!

SPRINGHEEL wrote:

Typical escort thread lasts 8 pages at the least

Hey, where's the cool animated gif or pic to go with this thread?

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either. I dont blame her but the statement she said was childlish. That was her way slapping you in the face.

Really? what did you see off the news?

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either. I dont blame her but the statement she said was childlish. That was her way slapping you in the face.

What did you see on the news? This?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/16 … latestnews


If it said "Office Worker" would you never go to work without an escort too?

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either. I dont blame her but the statement she said was childlish. That was her way slapping you in the face.

John Jebbia wrote:
What did you see on the news? This?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/16 … latestnews


If it said "Office Worker" would you never go to work without an escort too?

There could be a million titles out there.

Model found dead from alcohol poisoning... so that must mean models shouldn't drink.
Model found dead at a dance club from abusive boyfriend... models shouldn't have boyfriends.
Model, model, model...

Just because you bring someone to a shoot doesn't mean you will be safe..

Hell.. a photographer could say the same thing "I used to allow escorts, but since I saw this on the news... I no longer do" http://www.flickr.com/groups/atlantagui … 161876318/
safety goes both ways

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either. I dont blame her but the statement she said was childlish. That was her way slapping you in the face.

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Really? what did you see off the news?

John Jebbia wrote:
What did you see on the news?

I'm with these guys!  Enquiring minds want to know!   What have I missed?

Shutterbug5269 wrote:

You really have no idea the hornet's nest you've opened with this thread, do you?

Since 2005 (when this site started up) there have been 404 forum threads with this topic.  No consensus is ever reached.




For the record, I'm on the fence on the whole issue, though the idea of having some guy I don't know and cannot get references OF ANY KIND for around while I'm working does not make me feel safe in the least.

Why is my sense of security and safety less important than a model's?  I spend the majority of a shoot looking into an eyepiece (with no peripheral vision) why would I want some neanderthal with a hero complex standing behind me?

I didn't start the thread, go back to the begining to see the OP.

Wolfstar Studio wrote:

I'm so stealing this. LMAO!!!

Glad to bring a smile to someones face in the midst of all this acrimony that accomplishes nothing.

SPRINGHEEL wrote:

Typical escort thread lasts 8 pages at the least

Average maintained.

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either. I dont blame her but the statement she said was childlish. That was her way slapping you in the face.

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Really? what did you see off the news?

John Jebbia wrote:
What did you see on the news?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I'm with these guys!  Inquiring minds want to know!   What have I missed?

Me too. What half baked, overblown excuse for reporting are you referring to? Sorry Renay, but you too are a victim of Mean World Syndrome. The only cure is to face it, deny it and get on with your life and stop clinging to useless safety blankets.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:

I just did the math.

With 404 escort threads since start up, there have been roughly 67 of them annually.

All of them seem to degenerate into this kinda bullshit.

Nothing is ever resolved.

So my once a week theory is correct? Nice to know, and thanks for doing the homework for me ;-)

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Recently a MM model came to a shoot with her mom.   I don't allow escorts but she had driven a long way and hadn't read my profile.   So we shot.   Mom was cool but would hop in the way to tug at her dress as we shot.   It was pretty short and would sometimes ride up.   The model was sweet but it was oblivious was a tad embarrassed by mom and her expressions showed it.   This is only a small part of why escorts are a issue.   Models need to focus only on the shot and not be distracted by what a parent may think or if their boy friend feels they are looking too sexy, etc.


Another problem is time.   I've had escorts look at their watch just as we are really getting going and the model has to go.   Several times I could see the model wanted to shoot more but that's her ride.   Part of being an adult   is being able to do things without friends and lovers to back you up.    Yes it can be scary.   Yes sometimes things happen good and bad.   If you feel your safety is at risk then escort or not you shouldn't shoot.

there you go..this is it, simple and sweet

Arun Phillips wrote:

Hey, where's the cool animated gif or pic to go with this thread?

Wish granted!

Arun Phillips wrote:

Hey, where's the cool animated gif or pic to go with this thread?

4th post of the thread

D Lutz wrote:
I wouldn't ask a big fashion guy if I could bring an escort. I don't use escorts. Just asking because I don't understand the whole "they stifle my creativity" point that photographers like to make. As far as "they distract the model," well... what about cell phones? And the whole "they steal" excuse? I've heard of models and MUA's stealing too. I just don't get the bitterness towards escorts, I think (even though, again, I DO NOT bring escorts) that it's silly.

I read a thread where a photographer was complaining about a model stealing a handgun out of the room he let her use for a changing room in his home. You make a valid point anyone is capable of stealing. Therefore it is so much easier to maintain a "control" (for lack of a better word), if the only other person capable of stealing from me is standing in front of me while I am looking through my viewfinder at her/him. A cellphone can always be shut off. I handle escorts on a case by case bases personally so I don't exactly say "no". At the meet and greet I conduct prior to any shoot, if the question comes up, I have the opportunity to ask why is that? Proceed with caution from that point on or the shoot is cancelled. I have shot plenty of models with no escort and we all made it home safe and sound, and for the record, most of my shoots are repeat models and therefore they can testify that I am creepy and they love every minute of our time together.

Bearz Images wrote:
What difference does it make as long as they (Escorts) don't get in the fucking way or think they're your art director? lol. If they're the driver, & that's the only way she /he can get there so what? If you're not shooting agency models, get used to it. Anyways if its someone you really want to work with, check your ego & get on to making art.

Very few experienced models require them. It's usually the inexperienced models that do, and the GWCs or inexperienced or white night photographers telling everyone to get used to it.

Bottom line – respect other’s business policies – do what works for you and stop telling others how they should run their business.

If we are going to begin a shoot on the basis we can’t trust each other I’ll pass every time.

You asked why, so I will enlighten you as to why I personally don’t allow escorts

- Because I don’t.  It’s my policy – respect it, just as I respect the model’s policy to require one.
- We understand some models require an escort and we recommend another photographers that allow them.
- Shoot begins on a basis that the photographer can’t be trusted (I am taking the same risk by trusting the model – further risk by trusting her to not bring an idiot)
- The truly experienced models I’ve worked with agree – if she needs an escort she look for another career
- Our set always has a Photographer, female MUA and female assistantt. I don’t need someone else on set that is not part of the shoot. I don’t need more distraction on set.
- Regardless of how unobtrusive you believe your escort to be, it changes the shoot. Many models look off camera for approval (especially when her ‘escort/manager’ is also her BF)
- An escort dramatically increases the likelihood of the model flaking. Escort decides he doesn’t want to go, she won’t show up
- My overall liability increases
- There is no way to check the escorts references
- Increased likelihood of Theft, assault, Robbery
- When the escort is her boyfriend or husband it typically means he doesn’t trust her. If they have issues I don’t need it in my studio
- In many cases escorts disrupt the shoot whether intentionally or unintentionally
- The ‘pair of hands’ that some claim helpful in moving equipment can also break equipment
- The shoot will always be at the mercy of the escort – Escort gets bored/wants to leave - the shoot ends early (come on let’s go)

John_Robert wrote:
1) The model doesn't know whether you're a creep or not.

2) You can't compare a model going to a staffed agency with a model coming to your house or private studio to shoot.  Seriously, I'm surprised at how many people use this retarded claim.

Seriously? And how exactly can I verify the escort isn’t a creep or axe murderer. Same logic the model uses.  And I have had agency models and non agency models in my private studio . Tell me what you believe the difference is? With the exception that the agency rep’d model comes with her big girl panties on and comes without escort.

Art of the nude wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:
Yep.  But the rest was in friendly conversation, not as any sort of threat.  Same as I talked with another model about her high school sports experience.

Honestly, I don't think about violence much at all.  Certainly not in relation to models.  I suspect that she'd be perfectly capable of fighting enough to get away.  But then, I'm not really very threatening anyway.

lol, translation: I'm not saying she'd beat me up, but i'm sure she might know a move or two that'll hopefully free her up fast enough in order to keep me from beating the crap out of her. Hell, all I did was tap her on the back as if to say "great job," next thing i know, she's assaulting me. What the hell?!?!?


lol

Image K wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that an anti-escort policy wouldn't be on a "professional and business footing", since that's exactly what the issue is about..

Because there are people out there who think if you talk in all that "profession business lingo mumbo jumbo," then you must mean serious business.

The Signature Image wrote:

Retarded? Whether agency or independent studio people are people. An agency photographer can put moves on a model, as can an independent photographer -- staffed or not.

It's a myth that it's noob GWCs who are the only creeps out there. Sometimes it's very successful photographers. Power corrupting and all.

La Zona Imagery  wrote:
Sometimes I feel as if some photographers take it as a personal insult when a new model insists on bringing an escort.  But there is no reason to be insulted. The photographer and model do not know each other, so why be insulted either way? They are both strangers to each other before actually meeting to shoot.

For both photographers and models who are at an impasse, I would suggest either finding an alternative "security measure" such as a meet-and-greet prior to the shoot. Or simply do not shoot with that particular model that insists on bringing an escort.

IMHO, it is somewhat silly to be personally offended by the escort requirement to the extent of getting all riled up and agitated about it.  For example, when you rent an apartment, do you get personally offended when the landlord requires a security deposit, even when you have impeccable references? Of course not, that would be silly.

There's nothing "personal" about it.

It's strictly business. If a model can insist on an escort for safety reasons, and it's considered business-related, how is a photographer that refuses the same escort for the SAME business-related safety (and liability) reasons somehow "personal"?

What you are missing is the hypocritical notion that, when a model insists on an escort for safety reasons, she is somehow justified...while, when a photographer refuses said escort for the same safety concerns (among other legit concerns), he is somehow "afraid", "pervy", or has "something to hide".

James  wrote:
If I was with an agency and sent to a shoot I know I would be ok and if anything was wrong then I could call them up and get it sorted.  However this is freelance and we're all meeting new people on the internet, from a young age we're told not to talk to strangers, and while yes you might be the nicest person in the world I don't know that and If I wanted to bring an escort then I would.  If you said one wasn't allowed I would feel even more uncomfortable meeting up with someone I don't know.

Dude...you are 6'3", and MALE. Aside from your absurd reasoning, and lack of experience and perspective, it absolutely astounds me that YOU would feel the need for an escort.

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either.

Ahh...more fearmongering from a new model that has a bad case of Mean World Syndrome.

The media has this effect on most new people that try to enter this business. They watch too much Dateline NBC and CSI, and think that's the real world.

From 1990 to 1998, the murder rate went down 20 percent in America.

On TV news it went up 600 percent.

Turn off your television, and do some research on this topic.

Katrina Cantwell wrote:
With photographers it's hit or miss who is a pervert. You may offer references but for me and a TON of other models..that's not enough.

A TON of other models? I'm not sure where these TONS of models are hiding. The only models that TONS of US see that insist on escorts are new models on MM escort threads.

Katrina Cantwell wrote:
It's not worth getting murdered over a photoshoot.

Murdered at a photo shoot? WOW...extreme fearmongering at it's finest.

In the last 30 years in the US and Canada, less than half a dozen models were murdered at shoots by legit photographers (legit meaning having references, legit credentials).

Several more were murdered by men POSING as photographers. In these situations, a simple reference check would have saved these models lives.

More models were killed by their husbands/boyfriends/ex-boyfriends than were ever killed by photographers.

You literally stand a better chance of getting struck by lightning or getting killed in a car accident on the way to a shoot than being killed by a photographer if sensible safety precautions and due diligence is employed.

Katrina Cantwell wrote:
Just not worth the risk.

Speaking of risk, since your escort is a complete stranger to the photographer, why should he take THAT risk? Is your safety more important than his?
 

Katrina Cantwell wrote:
It's how I filter out the creepers.

And models that insist on escorts is how many of us filter out the models that aren't worth the time and trouble, when we can replace you with any number of the vast majority of models that can do their job without bodyguards.

Katrina Cantwell wrote:
I would NEVER work with a photographer who did not allow an escort unless it was a photographer for a huge and reputable company.

Photographers that do not allow escorts are often accused of having an "absolute" policy.

I hope they are reading this.

D Lutz wrote:
I wouldn't ask a big fashion guy if I could bring an escort. I don't use escorts. Just asking because I don't understand the whole "they stifle my creativity" point that photographers like to make. As far as "they distract the model," well... what about cell phones? And the whole "they steal" excuse? I've heard of models and MUA's stealing too. I just don't get the bitterness towards escorts, I think (even though, again, I DO NOT bring escorts) that it's silly.

The reasons that you give ARE silly. Photographers that do not allow escorts generally have much stronger safety and liability concerns.

A photographer will refuse an escort for many legit reasons that are not so silly:

1. Photographers that shoot in studios have insurance. Some of these policies do not cover people that are not directly involved in the shoot.
Therefore, if he/she trips over a lightstand, breaks something, or hurts himself, the photographer could be sued, or the equipment would not be covered. In the cases where studio insurancs DOES cover "bodyguards", many photographers feel that the less people hanging around the studio/shooting area that are not directly involved in the shoot, the less potential of injury/property damage incurred, and less claims they have to file.

2. Your escort is a complete stranger to the photographer. The photographer has no idea what type of temperament or disposition that your escort has. There have been photographers that have been assaulted/robbed/battered by escorts.

3. Who is watching your escort while I'm shooting with you? He could be helping himself to my expensive gear while I'm busy with you. Many photographers have had things "disappear" while shooting escorted models.

4. In many situations, the model is incapable of getting into "model mode" with an escort present, especially boyfriends or husbands. They tend to get distracted, and it shows up in the quality of the images.

5. If her escort gets sick/gets called into work/has car problems/is hungover/has family issues...etc...the shoot is OFF. When you shoot an escorted model, you have just DOUBLED the risk of the model flaking and/or canceling.

Those are just a few reasons. There are more.

D Lutz wrote:
I just don't get the bitterness towards escorts

Well, that's putting the cart before the horse.

What baffles ME is where the irrational fear of photographers comes from?

It certainly isn't based on history or evidence. In the past 30 years, there have been only a handful of relevant cases in the US and Canada where a model was murdered by a photographer.
(Relevant meaning that a standard criminal background check/reference check would not have exposed them as being dangerous). The other cases, a reference check would have exposed the perpetrators as men posing as photographers.

Sure, we have all heard unsubstantiated rape/molestation "stories" that, under closer scrutiny, are mostly fearmongering, second-hand and third-hand "he-said, she-said" accounts, with little or no credible sources to link to)

Unfortunately, Mean World Syndrome, which is the belief that the world is somehow much more dangerous than it actually is, and that extreme safety precautions are necessary, is very common these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_World_Syndrome

Could it be that models feel that, because they are "pretty", they are at a higher risk? I hope not, because that's a fallacy. Rape victims are tall, fat, skinny, short, elderly, and every other description that you can name. There is no evidence that "being pretty" makes you at a higher risk to be raped.

Could it be the seemingly inherent fear of "strangers"? Well, that really is kind of silly, when you consider that the vast majority of assaults/rapes of women are perpetrated by someone that she KNOWS, and seldom by a STRANGER.

And most sexual assaults occur at/near the victim's home.

http://www.RAINN.org/statistics/

Could it be the old over-used phrase "You just can't be too safe nowadays"? This is also kind of silly, since, despite what the media would have you believe, violent crime is not increasing, but actually going DOWN , and has been for some time. Although I would not make the case that, as a society, we are close to being completely safe, we are safer than we have been in the past. The world isn't going to "hell and a handbasket", as some would like to believe.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/just … s=PM:CRIME

It absolutely amazes me that for some absolutely inscrutable, unsubstantiated reason women assign a higher degree of danger to a photographer than a guy in a store parking lot (Ted Bundy's favorite hangout), or their dentist (many documented cases of sexual assaults on patients under anesthesia in the last decade or so), or guys at the club (date rape drugs), or the cop pulling them over on a dark road (not real cops but according to the Chicago Tribune tons of rapes a year by FAKE cops).

There is an infinitesimally low risk for models going to shoots off sites like MM.  There is practically NO verifiable real world cases of rapes, murders, or assaults.

Models literally have a better chance of dying in a car accident on the way to a shoot, or being struck by lightening on the way to said shoot, than being harmed by a photographer.

La Zona Imagery  wrote:
Sometimes I feel as if some photographers take it as a personal insult when a new model insists on bringing an escort.  But there is no reason to be insulted. The photographer and model do not know each other, so why be insulted either way? They are both strangers to each other before actually meeting to shoot.

For both photographers and models who are at an impasse, I would suggest either finding an alternative "security measure" such as a meet-and-greet prior to the shoot. Or simply do not shoot with that particular model that insists on bringing an escort.

IMHO, it is somewhat silly to be personally offended by the escort requirement to the extent of getting all riled up and agitated about it.  For example, when you rent an apartment, do you get personally offended when the landlord requires a security deposit, even when you have impeccable references? Of course not, that would be silly.

Image K wrote:
There's nothing "personal" about it.

It's strictly business. If a model can insist on an escort for safety reasons, and it's considered business-related, how is a photographer that refuses the same escort for the SAME business-related safety (and liability) reasons somehow "personal"?

What you are missing is the hypocritical notion that, when a model insists on an escort for safety reasons, she is somehow justified...while, when a photographer refuses said escort for the same safety concerns (among other legit concerns), he is somehow "afraid", "pervy", or has "something to hide".

That's why I said SOME photographers.

If you don't take this issue as a personal insult, then my post wasn't addressed to you.  It is addressed to those who are personally insulted when faced with a model who requires an escort.

Image K wrote:
In the past 30 years, there have been only a handful of relevant cases in the US and Canada where a model was murdered by a photographer.

Image K wrote:
There is practically NO verifiable real world cases of rapes, murders, or assaults.

yet you yourself indeed state that there have been such incidents. lol

and there certainly are many news reports of photographers being arrested for some of those things.

having said that, the chances of being murdered at a first time photoshoot ARE pretty damn small. but there are other concerns.

edit: and in the link you yourself posted, it says that 60% of assaults aren't even reported.

Bearz Images wrote:
What difference does it make as long as they (Escorts) don't get in the fucking way or think they're your art director? lol. If they're the driver, & that's the only way she /he can get there so what? If you're not shooting agency models, get used to it. Anyways if its someone you really want to work with, check your ego & get on to making art.

White Lace Studios wrote:
Very few experienced models require them. It's usually the inexperienced models that do, and the GWCs or inexperienced or white night photographers telling everyone to get used to it.

You're right, and here's the knight himself!

John Jebbia wrote:
I allowed an escort on a recent shoot (I didn't know she was bringing him - Or I wouldn't have booked.) Guy kept wandering around and I had to keep calling him back and telling him to sit. It was a quick shoot before I had enough.

Then you tell her at the door, "I don't allow escorts. He'll have to leave. You can call him to come pick you up after the shoot."

If she doesn't agree, shut the door and go for pizza.

Image K wrote:
There's nothing "personal" about it.

It's strictly business. If a model can insist on an escort for safety reasons, and it's considered business-related, how is a photographer that refuses the same escort for the SAME business-related safety (and liability) reasons somehow "personal"?

What you are missing is the hypocritical notion that, when a model insists on an escort for safety reasons, she is somehow justified...while, when a photographer refuses said escort for the same safety concerns (among other legit concerns), he is somehow "afraid", "pervy", or has "something to hide".

LA Renay wrote:
After what I saw off the news Im not going anywhere without an escort either.

Image K wrote:
Ahh...more fearmongering from a new model that has a bad case of Mean World Syndrome.

Katrina Cantwell wrote:
It's not worth getting murdered over a photoshoot.

Image K wrote:
Murdered at a photo shoot? WOW...extreme fearmongering at it's finest.

Ladies, this trophy's for you.

BeautybyGod wrote:

Image K wrote:
In the past 30 years, there have been only a handful of relevant cases in the US and Canada where a model was murdered by a photographer.

Image K wrote:
There is practically NO verifiable real world cases of rapes, murders, or assaults.

yet you yourself indeed state that there have been such incidents. lol

and there certainly are many news reports of photographers being arrested for some of those things.

having said that, the chances of being murdered at a first time photoshoot ARE pretty damn small. but there are other concerns.

edit: and in the link you yourself posted, it says that 60% of assaults aren't even reported.

And you obviously don't read very well. He said they have happened, extremely rarely. However, MM and the "news" (I use that term very loosely) would make everyone think that every day is Armageddon and that every woman who is foolish enough to leave her home alone is going to be assaulted, raped and murdered and every White Knight hack and GWC on this site just feeds that delusion by not smacking down this escort BS every time it rears it's ugly head.

Is that clear enough?

La Zona Imagery  wrote:
Oh lookee here...this thread's turned into a meme picture game...so I guess I'll just leave this here:



lol

I like it.. couple of dorks, but funny dorks. :-D

Wolfstar Studio wrote:
And you obviously don't read very well. He said they have happened, extremely rarely. However, MM and the "news" (I use that term very loosely) would make everyone think that every day is Armageddon and that every woman who is foolish enough to leave her home alone is going to be assaulted, raped and murdered and every White Knight hack and GWC on this site just feeds that delusion by not smacking down this escort BS every time it rears it's ugly head.

Is that clear enough?

if your point is so obvious then people should be able to make their case without making shit up, resorting to name-calling, and twisting the facts.

M Clements wrote:
Whilst I've never been asked to have an escort on site, I work in a team so it seems a little weird to me to have an extra body cluttering the studio, but I have no objection if I really want to shoot with the model and they insist.
I can see how someone may regard you as unprofessional based on a no escort stance.

The Signature Image wrote:
Being "professional" has nothing to do with it, sorry. Again, an escort adds nothing to a shoot. He is, as others have said, there just taking up space. If you are in my space and adding nothing to the shoot then you are just annoying me.

Hmmmm. Of course from the models perspective it does add something to the shoot, a sense of security.