MartaBrixton wrote:

If some people can't shoot without having sex with models they should hire escorts only.

David Bailey but he didn't need to hire an escort.

Peter House wrote:
LOL. Let me guess, it helped you find the co-ordinates to my heart?

Well, ... honestly speaking, ... I generally prefer women.

But you have the right idea

Kelleth wrote:

Right? Honestly it's sickening how many models are reporting these occurrences and a lot of photographers on here continue to brush it off as either an exaggeration or the model's fault.

Given the climate of Model Mayhem is that really a surprise?

Kelleth wrote:

Right? Honestly it's sickening how many models are reporting these occurrences and a lot of photographers on here continue to brush it off as either an exaggeration or the model's fault.

Truth... there are three sides to every story. Models have been caught out telling porkies as have photographers.
But more often it's models who put up forum postings about photographers behaviour.

Let the powers above (mods) decide.

Jules NYC wrote:
I'm sure some do.

How many photographers buy a camera to simply talk to pretty women?

Then again, it depends on your aesthetic. 
I get turned on by landscapes.

+

Kelleth wrote:
A woman absolutely has the right to pose nude and as "provocatively" as she wishes without having to be harassed by "photographers"

In a perfect world, that is women should not subject to this.  But this will continue as long as human civilization continues, just like fashion, nudes, prostitute and masturbation. 

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Because you are no longer a card carrying wo-man I can no longer photograph you.   

So be it. But I still agree.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Well, ... honestly speaking, ... I generally prefer women.

But you have the right idea

Generally.....

Danielle Reid wrote:

So be it. But I still agree.

I don't know about your experience but that guy defamed all photographers.
I don't care for persons like that!

Click Hamilton wrote:
Haha 

I look pretty good in a tutu.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I don't know about your experience but that guy defamed all photographers.
I don't care for persons like that!

My experience comes from a lot of different sources and the twisted way I view the world that's different from most humans. If you'd like to ask questions, PM me. That goes for anyone. I don't want to thread jack

ARA Photo wrote:

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I kinda agree. If this was not though MM messaging, this is not an MM issue, and not MM's business.  If this person contacted you with that offer though your email that he got somehow (doesn't matter how) then just deal with him like any other creep who isn't a photographer.

Only when the person is using MM to do something like this should the admin here get involved.

I'm going to call bullshit on both of you!

If this guy is operating on here, then he's no doubt treating models he's meeting on here in the same way. What you're also saying is if this guy is smart enough to take his bad behavior to his personal email then he's good to go!

You can call bullshit until you're blue in the face but that doesn't change my opinion that MM and IB should stay the fuck out of my business with what I do outside of their site.

They have rules about adult networking and soliciting on their site.
Well, does that mean if I get the emails or facebook contacts of models on the site and solicit and network for adult through those channels, they should punish me or remove my profile here if one of the models reports that I'm doing it?

Look.  People are people.  I don't request, demand, or even otherwise ask a model to have sex with her before, during, or after a shoot.  But there have been many that I wouldn't have denied if they came on to me.  And even some where it's been a reality.  That's my personal life.  Model Mayhem has no right to police what I do in my personal life as long as it's legal and doesn't threaten the reputation of their site.

So, no....  He's not "good to go" with what he's doing.  He's being a louse.  But that's not MM's business if his actions took place outside of the site.  And as such, shouldn't get involved in it.

GER Photography wrote:
I am appalled by this thread.

Yep.

The Grand Artist wrote:
I think there are a lot of people with different sensibilities talking past each other.

#forumlife

Danielle Reid wrote:

My experience comes from a lot of different sources and the twisted way I view the world that's different from most humans. If you'd like to ask questions, PM me. That goes for anyone. I don't want to thread jack

Danielle, even if it happens to you 100% of the time, 100% of photographers don't act this way.

MDWM wrote:

Danielle, even if it happens to you 100% of the time, 100% of photographers don't act this way.

I'm not talking about photographers and I know 100% of photographers do not act this way. I agreed with naked chicks need to stop thinking that tits and ass will not attract unwanted attention.

Bobby C wrote:

+

That image is beautiful, what made you do it in black and white?

Danielle Reid wrote:

I'm not talking about photographers and I know 100% of photographers do not act this way. I agreed with naked chicks need to stop thinking that tits and ass will not attract unwanted attention.

Understood

MartaBrixton wrote:

Oh, so this is my fault that two 50+ men were trying to have sex with me when I was 16 because I pose provocatively for the camera Sure and when a woman wears a mini skirt it's her fault if she gets raped, isn't it? How can a woman be surprised if she gets raped or touched or molested or offered nasty things when she looks sexy, she is asking for it! We should all wear hijab and be completely covered otherwise whatever inappropriate happens we shouldn't be surprised. What kind of mentality is this?! I've worked with many, many photographers who were professional and didn't ask for sex so don't generalize, not every man who wants to become a photographer does it to get pussy.  If you do that's your problem but I think it might be offensive for some people what you wrote here.
And if I wanted to have sex for money or for job I'd become an escort. If some people can't shoot without having sex with models they should hire escorts only.

Few things: what were you doing posing provocatively at 16, and why were men, regardless of their ages, doing photographing you doing that?
Leaving that aside, it's this kind of mad conflation of different issues that prevents rational discussion of this one point.
Because I say it is naive to think a woman can pose naked, and provocatively, and have those images plastered all over the net, and not attract male attention, I am somehow an apologist for rapists.

1. For the last five and a bit years I have been reading forum posts about creepy photographers. I have met about two or three models who haven't had issues, or haven't told me about them, whereas the rest have had them - even the ones who just shoot clothed.

Despite this...

2. It is a source of astonishment to models when photographers try it on. Or that is what I am asked to believe.


3. For whatever reasons they may have for it, models seem to want to act out a variety of male fantasies for the camera and not have photographers express a sexual interest in them.

Why?

Why on earth do you think a photographer is going to pay you money for getting your kit off and posing for him? You seriously think it is not connected to his balls in any way?

HOWEVER, and because it is nearly always necessary to spell it out for the hard of reading:

A photographer can have a PERFECTLY HEALTHY sexual interest as part of his motivation for photographing a woman, and still be absolutely relaxed, charming, and altogether unthreatening.

BUT SOME WILL LOSE IT.

Why will they lose it?

Because their teenage years were spent wanking themselves into a state of near obliteration to just the kind of images you are helping to create, and lo and behold, Sweet Mother of Jesus, there be grade A tits 'n' ass right there in front of he. Right there in the room! And at my age, too. Who'd have thunk it? And all I had to do was buy a shiny gadget to make it happen.

So if you are really that pure and noble, and it never crosses your mind, and the lady is a fucking PRINCESS you dirty minded scumbag, then I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about me and the other guys. The ones with dicks that get hard at the drop of a hat, let alone a pair of knickers.

Tim Griffiths wrote:

Few things: what were you doing posing provocatively at 16, and why were men, regardless of their ages, doing photographing you doing that?
Leaving that aside, it's this kind of mad conflation of different issues that prevents rational discussion of this one point.
Because I say it is naive to think a woman can pose naked, and provocatively, and have those images plastered all over the net, and not attract male attention, I am somehow an apologist for rapists.

1. For the last five and a bit years I have been reading forum posts about creepy photographers. I have met about two or three models who haven't had issues, or haven't told me about them, whereas the rest have had them - even the ones who just shoot clothed.

Despite this...

2. It is a source of astonishment to models when photographers try it on. Or that is what I am asked to believe.


3. For whatever reasons they may have for it, models seem to want to act out a variety of male fantasies for the camera and not have photographers express a sexual interest in them.

Why?

Why on earth do you think a photographer is going to pay you money for getting your kit off and posing for him? You seriously think it is not connected to his balls in any way?

HOWEVER, and because it is nearly always necessary to spell it out for the hard of reading:

A photographer can have a PERFECTLY HEALTHY sexual interest as part of his motivation for photographing a woman, and still be absolutely relaxed, charming, and altogether unthreatening.

BUT SOME WILL LOSE IT.

Why will they lose it?

Because their teenage years were spent wanking themselves into a state of near obliteration to just the kind of images you are helping to create, and lo and behold, Sweet Mother of Jesus, there be grade A tits 'n' ass right there in front of he. Right there in the room! And at my age, too. Who'd have thunk it? And all I had to do was buy a shiny gadget to make it happen.

So if you are really that pure and noble, and it never crosses your mind, and the lady is a fucking PRINCESS you dirty minded scumbag, then I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about me and the other guys. The ones with dicks that get hard at the drop of a hat, let alone a pair of knickers.

I've had a look at your port Tim and I like it and deem you to be an accomplished photographer so please do nto take offence when i say.....you make a lot of sense.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
{snippet}

3. For whatever reasons they may have for it, models seem to want to act out a variety of male fantasies for the camera and not have photographers express a sexual interest in them.

No.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
{snippet}

Why on earth do you think a photographer is going to pay you money for getting your kit off and posing for him? You seriously think it is not connected to his balls in any way?

Nudity is not always connected to desire.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
{snippet}

A photographer can have a PERFECTLY HEALTHY sexual interest as part of his motivation for photographing a woman, and still be absolutely relaxed, charming, and altogether unthreatening.

Yes.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
Of course, I may well be projecting. It may just be me with that motivation, and if so it makes me a pervert. It must be a perversion because it is the mind set of someone in a tiny minority, maybe even a minority of one.

I mean, fuck knows why there is so much fanny flashed, arses heaved and tits thrust forward all over the damn place, but I expect that's an accident and it just happened and no one wanted it to but it just did because that's the way the shoot went and and and it was only meant to be a nice ickle shoot in a raincoat and some wellingtons.

Not an accident. Sex sells. But blanket statements should stay on the shelf with the blankets

Tim Griffiths wrote:
3. For whatever reasons they may have for it, models seem to want to act out a variety of male fantasies for the camera and not have photographers express a sexual interest in them.

Why?

1. Not all models are there to heave tits and ass in your face. Assuming any model is there to simply fulfill "male fantasies" is a bit chauvinistic.

2. Even if they want to act out male fantasies, you are there to record that, as a professional in a professional way. Those fantasies are not necessarily for your consumption.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
Sweet Mother of Jesus, there be grade A tits 'n' ass right there in front of he. Right there in the room! And at my age, too. Who'd have thunk it? And all I had to do was buy a shiny gadget to make it happen.

That's not a piece of meat in front of your lens....its a human being. Treat it with some respect regardless of gender.

That's just my opinion though.

Peter House wrote:
That's They are not a piece of meat in front of your lens....its he or she is a human being. Treat it them with some respect regardless of gender.

Humanized them a bit for you


(just some lighthearted jest)

CHAD ALAN wrote:

Humanized them a bit for you


(just some lighthearted jest)

Haha, well played!

Peter House wrote:
2. Even if they want to act out male fantasies, you are there to record that, as a professional in a professional way. Those fantasies are not necessarily for your consumption.

.

So for who's consumption are they if there is no client ?
Art ! pfffttt.

The Something Guy wrote:
So for who's consumption are they if there is no client ?
Art ! pfffttt.

I thought we all had really large erotica prints of ourselves hung up by the fireplace? No?

Jules NYC wrote:
I get turned on by landscapes.

Be careful who asks you to go hiking

Peter House wrote:

Tim Griffiths wrote:
3. For whatever reasons they may have for it, models seem to want to act out a variety of male fantasies for the camera and not have photographers express a sexual interest in them.

Why?

1. Not all models are there to heave tits and ass in your face. Assuming any model is there to simply fulfill "male fantasies" is a bit chauvinistic.

2. Even if they want to act out male fantasies, you are there to record that, as a professional in a professional way. Those fantasies are not necessarily for your consumption.


That's not a piece of meat in front of your lens....its a human being. Treat it with some respect regardless of gender.

That's just my opinion though.

+1

Jules NYC wrote:

I'm sure some do.

How many photographers buy a camera to simply talk to pretty women?

Then again, it depends on your aesthetic. 
I get turned on by landscapes.

I have wooded land in northern Michigan.  I have even had a nude shoot there.   

CHAD ALAN wrote:

Tim Griffiths wrote:
{snippet}

3. For whatever reasons they may have for it, models seem to want to act out a variety of male fantasies for the camera and not have photographers express a sexual interest in them.

No.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
{snippet}

Why on earth do you think a photographer is going to pay you money for getting your kit off and posing for him? You seriously think it is not connected to his balls in any way?

Nudity is not always connected to desire.


Yes.

Really? You mean they do want to act out male fantasies and have the photographers express an interest in them? Or they don;t want to act out male fantasies?
It's just a matter of opinion, of course, but from where I sit all of glamour and porn, and the cross-over into 'art' nude (before it becomes antiseptic or altogether different), is dedicated to pandering to what I have been reliably informed is the male gaze (whatever that actually is). At the more no nonsense end it is geared solely towards emptying a man's tanks as effectively as possible.

So when I get criticised for having a gross, neanderthal mentality I ask simply who the audience is?
Who are you doing all this for, and why, just out of curiosity, don't you wear any clothes when you are doing it?

I don't mean to go on, but this is something that has caused me a lot of head scratching over time.
I have no problem with people doing whatever floats their boat, within reason. I am sometimes of the opinion that men the world over just ought to hand over the reigns of power to women, so oftentimes sickening is our gender's treatment of them, and so incapable we seem to be at avoiding brutal conflict whenever we fall out.
But I am deeply confused by what I see as a 'wanting it every way possible' attitude at work here. You want men to photograph you, you want them to pay you. You work to higher levels because you know that is what will part men from their money. You want to be admired. You want to be desired. And you want to exert such control over the responses of your male audience that hitting on you is to be regarded as practically a criminal act.

Maybe it is wholly unacceptable to hit on a model, but how many of you can honestly say you aren't using  men's sexual attraction to women to get paid work?
It wouldn't be that surprising. Most of the women I've known have used that to get all sorts of things done for them, and bought for them. For some it is so habitual they scarcely know they are doing it.

I was going to delete this, because my train of thought is leading me to think that asking for sex really is unacceptable if only because it makes an assumption that the kind of work being done for the camera automatically means someone is promiscuous enough to accept a request for sex from a total stranger. That's an insult. I think I see that. But I still wonder about a couple of the other questions I raised, so I may as well leave it.

Click Hamilton wrote:

Lucky you.


There is a natural tendency between men and women to sometimes do this sort of thing. It's called perpetuation of the species. It's because of this natural motivation that most of us are here.

It's also possible that these invitations come from people of the same sex, or other permutations.

When presented with an invitation such as this, you basically have two choices:

1. No, thank you.
2. Yes, please.

For extra bonus points, answer me this:

1. What if he was not a photographer? Would that change your interpretation of the situation?

2. If you meet someone you want to date, and you invite them to do something personal with you, should you be CAM'd and talked about in a public forum for doing so?

This is really disappointing. You think it's appropriate to ask for sex in a professional setting? What about at an office job?