This thread was locked on 2014-06-04 15:45:21
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
The guy that shot my avatar is my really good friend... and he's an old horny man. One that is a great producer, has a lot of sex books, completely left of the grid. He's awesome. Is he turned on when I shoot with him? Who knows... maybe lol. If I ask him I'm sure I'll get a perverted response. We have great respect for each other and I usually don't joke around like that with anyone. Anyhoo, I have a photo of me holding a feather duster, dusting his books with my ass out; it's hilarious. He's all old Hollywood and shooting with him is awesome. and he never asks me for sex lol Just gives me great conversations, sage advice, we share ideas/concepts. 
Photographer
JustinWKing
Posts: 69
New York, New York, US
Jules NYC wrote:
True but I believe an evolved person (men included) can see what beauty is without wanting to slay or objectify it. I think there are several issues at hand. People forget that a photograph is an object. The second I snap a photograph, an object is created that represents the model. When I retouch this picture, it is just an object to me that I can change to be anything I want it to be, but the model wherever she may be is still a person. I believe that some photographers can sometimes subconsciously forget that the model in the room with them is not an image/object but a person. This might be because they are used to viewing the world through objects/ images.
The segregation between models and photographers, helps enforce photographers unhealthy views of models (I am only referring to the ones who have unhealthy views). One term that I don't like to use is the Model as a "Muse", or source of inspiration, because it often implies that the model is an object to draw inspiration from. Instead I see the model as a collaborator. Just like the makeup artist and the hairstylist the model brings their life experiences, skills, and looks to the table. He or she is a fellow employee just like people at a regular job.
Photographers who don't see models as collaborators are more likely to view their interaction in the same way that a guy might view a stripper, and there for they are probably more likely to ask for sex when they encounter an attractive model.
So I don't think it is a question of evolution.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
JustinWKing wrote:
I think there are several issues at hand. People forget that a photograph is an object. The second I snap a photograph, an object is created that represents the model. When I retouch this picture, it is just an object to me that I can change to be anything I want it to be, but the model wherever she may be is still a person. I believe that some photographers can sometimes subconsciously forget that the model in the room with them is not an image/object but a person. This might be because they are used to viewing the world through objects/ images.
The segregation between models and photographers, helps enforce photographers unhealthy views of models (I am only referring to the ones who have unhealthy views). One term that I don't like to use is the Model as a "Muse", or source of inspiration, because it often implies that the model is an object to draw inspiration from. Instead I see the model as a collaborator. Just like the makeup artist and the hairstylist the model brings their life experiences, skills, and looks to the table. He or she is a fellow employee just like people at a regular job.
Photographers who don't see models as collaborators are more likely to view their interaction in the same way that a guy might view a stripper, and there for they are probably more likely to ask for sex when they encounter an attractive model.
So I don't think it is a question of evolution. I see a very real person behind every image. Even a fantasy image.
For example, who is this man, etc.
Is he sexy?
Damn straight.
Would I disrespect him?
Hell no.
![https://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/1168735-bigthumbnail.jpg]()
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
Do you believe there is a difference between being objectified in the finished result (for instance, a photograph) and being objectified in person by your coworkers? Yes there's a difference. But if you're walking around the office in a thong and bending at the hips to pick up papers so everyone sees your ass (and everything else) then don't get mad when someone says "Hey Carol, you have a lovely round butt".
Photographer
Llobet Photography
Posts: 4915
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Anyone posing in front of a camera is being objectfied. Doesn't matter if nude, clothed or whTnot. You turn into a two dimensional static object
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
BlueMoonPics wrote:
Anyone posing in front of a camera is being objectfied. Doesn't matter if nude, clothed or whTnot. You turn into a two dimensional static object Interesting.
I see it completely differently.
Then again, I never do anything I feel is inappropriate either.
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
I make my living being objectified. Otherwise I'd go back to working retail.
Photographer
JustinWKing
Posts: 69
New York, New York, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I see a very real person behind every image. Even a fantasy image.
For example, who is this man, etc.
Is he sexy?
Damn straight.
Would I disrespect him?
Hell no.
![https://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/1168735-bigthumbnail.jpg]() You see a character behind the image, not a person. You may want to see them as person, but you can only see them as a character, because they are only showing one part of themselves a person is infinitely more complicated than what can be represented in a single image.
If someone has a difficult distinguishing between the two, then that can be a problem. If you see a hollywood movie with someone getting shot, or a cartoon of someone getting shot, I imagine your reaction would be somewhat different than a documentary footage of someone getting shot.
EDIT: And your reaction would probably different if you saw a person get shot in front of you, which would still be different if someone got shot, you you saw them after the fact.
Photographer
Llobet Photography
Posts: 4915
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Interesting.
I see it completely differently.
Then again, I never do anything I feel is inappropriate either. Being objectfied doesnt mean doing something bad. Its just that the model is creating an imge. It is not the whole person.
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
Is this still going, did the op ever return?
What a fucking joke thread!
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
Kelleth wrote:
I find this comment absolutely revolting.
There are PLENTY of photographers who are not shooting with the intentions of trying to have sex with models. A woman absolutely has the right to pose nude and as "provocatively" as she wishes without having to be harassed by "photographers" or clients who take advantage of their perceived positions of power by demanding sex from them afterwards. People with attitudes like you are why websites like this have such a negative reputation.
Models are showing up to shoots (whether it's fully clothed or nude) expecting professionalism, not harassment and sexual advances. What a crock! Every living breathing straight male looks at a beautiful woman with the same desire, it's who we are!
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
JustinWKing wrote:
You see a character behind the image, not a person. You may want to see them as person, but you can only see them as a character, because they are only showing one part of themselves a person is infinitely more complicated than what can be represented in a single image.
If someone has a difficult distinguishing between the two, then that can be a problem. If you see a hollywood movie with someone getting shot, or a cartoon of someone getting shot, I imagine your reaction would be somewhat different than a documentary footage of someone getting shot.
EDIT: And your reaction would probably different if you saw a person get shot in front of you, which would still be different if someone got shot, you you saw them after the fact. I will tell you what I see as they are my eyes. Yes a character but unless the image was painted from imagination (which is still a person), I still respect the image as a human being.
Unless you've got a blow-up doll (and ewww on that), every image is still a human being TO ME.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
BlueMoonPics wrote:
Being objectfied doesnt mean doing something bad. Its just that the model is creating an imge. It is not the whole person. I don't objectify anyone/anything...
Except actual objects.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Strange as it may sound, a "model" once asked to trade her favors in lieu of shoot payment to me.
And.. the images came out great!
(JK, I turned her down and we didn't end up shooting)
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
As for sex appeal, if an image spurs a reaction, i.e., desire of any kind, you're doing something right. ![https://24.media.tumblr.com/10c8eebcc8f31f53b804d5fc98f3cfa9/tumblr_miyq3lUrAe1qhwyx1o1_500.gif]()
Photographer
JustinWKing
Posts: 69
New York, New York, US
Jules NYC wrote:
As for sex appeal, if an image spurs a reaction, i.e., desire of any kind, you're doing something right. There is more to life than sex appeal.
Jules NYC wrote:
I love beautiful people and beautiful things.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/01/scien … -deep.html I like people, ugly, beautiful and in between, because people are more than just their facade. I choose the models I choose because that is what the market wants, not because I am sexually attracted to them, or find them particularly beautiful, even though my objective might be to make them look beautiful according to popular culture, which is different from sexy.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
JustinWKing wrote:
Jules NYC wrote:
As for sex appeal, if an image spurs a reaction, i.e., desire of any kind, you're doing something right. There is more to life than sex appeal.
I like people, ugly, beautiful and in between, because people are more than just their facade. I choose the models I choose because that is what the market wants, not because I am sexually attracted to them, or find them particularly beautiful, even though my objective might be to make them look beautiful according to popular culture, which is different from sexy. Of course there is more to life than sex appeal. I didn't say there wasn't, ha.
Their is appeal in everything; it is subjective.
You like portrait photography then.
We like what we like and again, I do not believe every person that is attractive is a person I would want to be with in a romantic/sexual way.
I just see beauty how I see beauty.
Everyone's definition of beauty is different.
I certainly never cared about what the majority thinks/believes as it is ever changing and not my own.
From an advertising perspective, smart to approach what the industry calls for.
Wardrobe Stylist
Alannah The Stylist
Posts: 1550
Los Angeles, California, US
London Fog wrote:
Is this still going, did the op ever return?
What a fucking joke thread! Why is this thread a joke?
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Blaire_ wrote:
I have a very unpopular opinion on this. I think for a sexy shot, it only helps if there is some sort of chemistry between photographer and model. If I have the inclination, and I happen to get physically turned on during a shoot, all the better! It makes it so much easier to be convincing with those bedroom eyes!
I have been offered sex during/after a shoot. Did it offend me horribly? No, it's flattering. All I had to say was, 'thanks but no thanks.' Was I in danger at any moment? Not in the least. Would I shoot with that photographer again? Most definitely.
No need to be all uptight about this shit. A good rapport is an important part of any photo shoot.
Model
Kristine Kristine
Posts: 26
Napanee, Ontario, Canada
christiecreepydolls wrote:
I have edited this because admin is helping me but for the future.....
I am guessing this happens to models sometimes, how do you handle it? Make it clear on your profile, that this is not tolerated.
There are many outstanding photographers on MM, but you have to make it very clear that you are a model... and nothing less.
If this person continues to send you messages have a moderator handle it for you.
Be wise, as I always have an escort with me when I do model.
Some photographers would find this distracting.. but a real pro wouldn't see it that way.
Model
Elizabeta Rosandic
Posts: 953
Santa Fe, New Mexico, US
Kristine Kristine wrote:
Make it clear on your profile, that this is not tolerated.
There are many outstanding photographers on MM, but you have to make it very clear that you are a model... and nothing less.
If this person continues to send you messages have a moderator handle it for you.
Be wise, as I always have an escort with me when I do model.
Some photographers would find this distracting.. but a real pro wouldn't see it that way. This is actually pretty bad advice. And mildly slut-shaming with the "...and nothing less".
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Kristine Kristine wrote:
Make it clear on your profile, that this is not tolerated.
There are many outstanding photographers on MM, but you have to make it very clear that you are a model... and nothing less.
If this person continues to send you messages have a moderator handle it for you.
Be wise, as I always have an escort with me when I do model.
Some photographers would find this distracting.. but a real pro wouldn't see it that way. You are free to have any opinion you wish, and put any restrictions and caveats on the shoots you do, but I can't agree with you to give advice to the vast majority.
I would encourage any model to seek out the models who do this for a living, deal with the crap, and somehow still pay their mortgage from modeling alone. I've worked with many models who do it as a career. None of them charge as much as you do, need an escort, or feel the need to say anything about dating sites, sex or anything other than business on their profiles.
The people who treat this career like a job tend to be more successful at it than those who do it as a hobby that pays for their tanning package and manicures.
Photographer
theBeachStrober
Posts: 885
Robertsdale, Alabama, US
Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
This is actually pretty bad advice. And mildly slut-shaming with the "...and nothing less". I don't think it's good advice either. Would probably turn off the photographers you would want to work with and not do anything to discourage those with ulterior motives.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Kristine Kristine wrote:
Make it clear on your profile, that this is not tolerated.
There are many outstanding photographers on MM, but you have to make it very clear that you are a model... and nothing less.
If this person continues to send you messages have a moderator handle it for you.
Be wise, as I always have an escort with me when I do model.
Some photographers would find this distracting.. but a real pro wouldn't see it that way. Untrue!
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
Alannah Jones Styling wrote:
Why is this thread a joke? Does this really need explaining, I'm sure you can work it out!
Wardrobe Stylist
Alannah The Stylist
Posts: 1550
Los Angeles, California, US
London Fog wrote:
Does this really need explaining, I'm sure you can work it out! I don't see anything funny about this thread.That is why I asked.
Photographer
jesse paulk
Posts: 3712
Phoenix, Arizona, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
Why exactly do models need a model only forum again? London Fog wrote:
What a crock! Every living breathing straight male looks at a beautiful woman with the same desire, it's who we are! BlueMoonPics wrote:
Anyone posing in front of a camera is being objectfied. Doesn't matter if nude, clothed or whTnot. You turn into a two dimensional static object James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind. If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing. just imagine this thread with out all the photographers' comments on how models should just take being solicited for sex through modeling, by their photographer with a grain of salt, its harmless and only natural, yet rarely ever happens.
could have been over in 1-2 pages. now its just people trying to prove some point. now its just guys saying you will be objectified so its okay for them to proposition you while you are basically working for them.
and now im here ranting away like the radical militant feminist i am. only a whiteknight constantly on a quest for sex because thats the only motivation you see for yourself and other people behaviors.
its not even like photographers needed to interject, a model eventually came along with their dream response, validating every GWC ever.
Blaire_ wrote:
I have a very unpopular opinion on this. I think for a sexy shot, it only helps if there is some sort of chemistry between photographer and model. If I have the inclination, and I happen to get physically turned on during a shoot, all the better! It makes it so much easier to be convincing with those bedroom eyes!
I have been offered sex during/after a shoot. Did it offend me horribly? No, it's flattering. All I had to say was, 'thanks but no thanks.' Was I in danger at any moment? Not in the least. Would I shoot with that photographer again? Most definitely.
No need to be all uptight about this shit.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Hot guy propositions model = flattering
Not so hot guy propositions model = offensive
lol
Hot guy doesn't need to get dates by photographing models
Not so hot guy needs to get dates by photographing models
lmao
Hot guy photographs plenty of models and dates freely
Not so hot guy photographs plenty of models and complains on MM forums how he has no dates
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Hot guy propositions model = flattering
Not so hot guy propositions model = offensive
lol
Hot guy doesn't need to get dates by photographing models
Not so hot guy needs to get dates by photographing models
lmao
Hot guy photographs plenty of models and dates freely
Not so hot guy photographs plenty of models and complains on MM forums how he has no dates I've never had dates with models but I don't complain. 
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I've never had dates with models but I don't complain. PS, physical beauty is just physical beauty. Being a model may 'seem' like a cool factor to guys not in the industry but it really doesn't mean anything...
and that's the truth.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Jules NYC wrote:
PS, physical beauty is just physical beauty. Being a model may 'seem' like a cool factor to guys not in the industry but it really doesn't mean anything...
and that's the truth. I know some models who have physical beauty and are also great persons. Some are also very intelligent.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Hot guy propositions model = flattering
Not so hot guy propositions model = offensive
lol
Hot guy doesn't need to get dates by photographing models
Not so hot guy needs to get dates by photographing models
lmao
correct ... hot guy creates a model account, instead
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
r T p wrote:
correct ... hot guy creates a model account, instead LMAO
Model
Blaire_
Posts: 343
Portland, Oregon, US
jesse paulk wrote:
The Grand Artist wrote:
Why exactly do models need a model only forum again? London Fog wrote:
What a crock! Every living breathing straight male looks at a beautiful woman with the same desire, it's who we are! BlueMoonPics wrote:
Anyone posing in front of a camera is being objectfied. Doesn't matter if nude, clothed or whTnot. You turn into a two dimensional static object James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind. If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing. just imagine this thread with out all the photographers' comments on how models should just take being solicited for sex through modeling, by their photographer with a grain of salt, its harmless and only natural, yet rarely ever happens.
could have been over in 1-2 pages. now its just people trying to prove some point. now its just guys saying you will be objectified so its okay for them to proposition you while you are basically working for them.
and now im here ranting away like the radical militant feminist i am. only a whiteknight constantly on a quest for sex because thats the only motivation you see for yourself and other people behaviors.
its not even like photographers needed to interject, a model eventually came along with their dream response, validating every GWC ever.
I wouldn't say I'm validating anybody. If the question is for sex, the answer is no. But there's no reason to get all upset about being asked.
Let me see if I get this straight. In your eyes, women should make their own minds and choices about things, but just as long as they align with your ideals of how a woman should thing. I mean, they would HAVE to! You're their white knight!!
I am most definitely NOT a feminist in the sense of the word. I love being a woman. I love being soft, and feminine, and demure, and gentle. I am not offended when men appreciate looking at me. I think it's a pretty natural thing!
But... like I said. It's an unpopular way of thinking.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I know some models who have physical beauty and are also great persons. Some are also very intelligent. Of course... models are just people. It's funny how people are mystified that an attractive person can have a kickass personality, be talented, intelligent... as if those qualities are only available to people who don't/can't model.
It wouldn't be a movie if there wasn't this stereotype/dynamic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBvwueGobMk
What's the first thing most (not all!) women ask when they get dumped for someone else?
"What does she look like?"
WTF
Who cares lol
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind. If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing. jesse paulk wrote:
just imagine this thread with out all the photographers' comments on how models should just take being solicited for sex through modeling, by their photographer with a grain of salt, its harmless and only natural, yet rarely ever happens.
could have been over in 1-2 pages. now its just people trying to prove some point. now its just guys saying you will be objectified so its okay for them to proposition you while you are basically working for them. Gee... I sure don't remember saying any of those things you say I'm saying... and I don't think a logical or sane person could even parse the words I'm saying in to what you're saying.
If you look at my words in context it was only in response to a model who indicated she'd feel more comfortable if photographers were like gynecologists... Which in fairness deserves a response from a photographer. I am a photographer, and I know for a fact I couldn't work if I was as detached from my subject. I'm not a scientist I'm an artist.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Of course... models are just people. It's funny how people are mystified that an attractive person can have a kickass personality, be talented, intelligent... as if those qualities are only available to people who don't/can't model.
It wouldn't be a movie if there wasn't this stereotype/dynamic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBvwueGobMk
What's the first thing most (not all!) women ask when they get dumped for someone else?
"What does she look like?"
WTF
Who cares lol Good point! 
Photographer
jesse paulk
Posts: 3712
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Blaire_ wrote:
I wouldn't say I'm validating anybody. If the question is for sex, the answer is no. But there's no reason to get all upset about being asked.
Let me see if I get this straight. In your eyes, women should make their own minds and choices about things, but just as long as they align with your ideals of how a woman should thing. I mean, they would HAVE to! You're their white knight!!
I am most definitely NOT a feminist in the sense of the word. I love being a woman. I love being soft, and feminine, and demure, and gentle. I am not offended when men appreciate looking at me. I think it's a pretty natural thing!
But... like I said. It's an unpopular way of thinking. you are not the OP and your post is basically saying shes over reacting and shaming her, thank you for contributing.
yes you are not a feminist. a lot of women aren't. nothing to be ashamed of.
Photographer
jesse paulk
Posts: 3712
Phoenix, Arizona, US
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind. If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing. Gee... I sure don't remember saying any of those things you say I'm saying... and I don't think a logical or sane person could even parse the words I'm saying in to what you're saying.
If you look at my words in context it was only in response to a model who indicated she'd feel more comfortable if photographers were like gynecologists... Which in fairness deserves a response from a photographer. I am a photographer, and I know for a fact I couldn't work if I was as detached from my subject. I'm not a scientist I'm an artist. pretty sure the context was not missed, and you didn't have to respond, like at all. the world would have continued on.
|
