jesse paulk wrote:
pretty sure the context was not missed, and you didn't have to respond, like at all.  the world would have continued on.

Well with your haphazard accusations I was assuming you were missing context... because your interpretations on my statements were so out of left field.  I'll just continue with the knowledge then that you are bad at reading comprehension and move on from that.

And yes, the world would have continued and yet another erroneous statement would have continued on in the world with no response... and yet somehow the world didn't stop just because I did respond to someone's idea in a polite and pleasant manner with an explanation of why I felt their assessment of the situation was not correct.

Kelleth wrote:

Good to know you support harassing models and disrespecting professional boundaries.

He said desire not that he was acting on his desire.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

He said desire not that he was acting on his desire.

It's ok... the chum's in the waters now.  Everything and anything that even *might* be perceived as permissive to the male ego or supportive of the status quo is verboten now... We must all be good little androgyny automatons.  We will *NOT* make statements with gender-specific pronouns.  WE WILL *NOT* allow the CIS-Male Domination to continue!  WE WILL *NOT* STAND IN THE PRESENCE OF BEAUTY!

*cough*

Oh... sorry... zoned out there for a second....

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
It's ok... the chum's in the waters now.  Everything and anything that even *might* be perceived as permissive to the male ego or supportive of the status quo is verboten now... We must all be good little androgyny automatons.  We will *NOT* make statements with gender-specific pronouns.  WE WILL *NOT* allow the CIS-Male Domination to continue!  WE WILL *NOT* STAND IN THE PRESENCE OF BEAUTY!

*cough*

Oh... sorry... zoned out there for a second....

so polite

many rationale

jesse paulk wrote:

so polite

Oh, so... much like assuming that a statement of personal working methods being interpreted in to being a gender biased, mouth breathing, cis-male was.


Look... When I say I have to find my models sexually attractive to make them look attractive in the composition, I said models, not girls, not women, models... so gender neutral.  Of course it helps that I have no problem with the fact that I find both men and women sexually attractive.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

Oh, so... much like assuming that a statement of personal working methods being interpreted in to being a gender biased, mouth breathing, cis-male was.


Look... When I say I have to find my models sexually attractive to make them look attractive in the composition, I said models, not girls, not women, models... so gender neutral.  Of course it helps that I have no problem with the fact that I find both men and women sexually attractive.

bisexual(?)s can be gender biased mouth breathing cis males?  all of which i never accused you of, never assumed anything other than your language/statement is supportive of photographers validating their unprofessional behavior in their professional ventures.   

and id love to say more to you, but i think it will deviate towards personal critique.

Kelleth wrote:
Good to know you support harassing models and disrespecting professional boundaries.

No-one is supporting anything, certainly not any kind of unprofessional behaviour. I'm just telling it like it is, but I guess some women just can't handle the truth!

Of course it would be just fine and dandy if the model was asked by a guy who looked like Ryan Reynolds or Mark Whalberg, then that would be ok?

...yes ladies?

jesse paulk wrote:
never assumed anything other than your language/statement is supportive of photographers validating their unprofessional behavior in their professional ventures.

And that is precisely what you were wrong about.  I don't support photographers being unprofessional and pressuring models about anything... particularly sex or dating...  I also don't support thought police.  Don't assume that because I think of a model as sexy I act on it or in some way act unprofessionally.  You're not in my head, you don't get to say what goes on in there.

Danielle Reid wrote:

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".

Oh, for fuck's sake.

I'm done. I'm disgusted and I'm done.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake.

I'm done. I'm disgusted and I'm done.

Glad we got that out of the way.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Oh, for fuck's sake.

I'm done. I'm disgusted and I'm done.

Why are you so angry?

You drop back in after several pages to drop this little F-bomb without adding anything about the subject.

I understand you are pissed off at lots of us and wound up about something, but I don't know what. Especially after taking a look at your portfolio to try to understand your meaning a little more.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
No amount of me speaking logically about statistics and facts will make you understand, I'm afraid. Have fun. Bye.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what it is you wanted to tell me.

Our only previous exchange was when you said this, which is ambiguous at best, and a little hard to parse:

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Rape culture is perpetuated by not making conclusions based on the women's story alone.

That's not exactly overflowing with logic, statistics and facts.

I can't read your mind all the way from Tucson.

Danielle Reid wrote:
No one can pressure anyone to have sex with them unless harm is being threatened. If a girl agrees to have sex with a guy just because he asked then that's her problem.

such a tragic ideology.  there are things such as extortion that can also be used.

Kelleth wrote:

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!

Good to know you support harassing models and disrespecting professional boundaries.

This is ridiculous.

A., He's stating a fact.
B., There's a HUGE difference between desires and actions.
C., Is there an expectation for me to shoot a playboy caliber model, nude, and not feel even the slightest sexual arousal, else be labeled a scumbag?

Well, GTFO.  I'm a man.  I am attracted to women.  I am not able to put my brain into a state where the sexual parts of it aren't functioning.  But I'm also an adult and can control my eyes, mouth and actions to at least make it appear that I'm not feeling or thinking those things. 

Don't give me this professionalism bullshit when it comes to how *I* feel or think during a shoot.  Professionalism has 100% everything to do with how I conduct myself in these situations.  If you don't know what I'm thinking, then mission accomplished.  If I'm acting professional, then who cares what I'm ACTUALLY thinking?

Just TRY to not pass little crappy judgements on people that you see in your daily life.  It's impossible.  You have thoughts.  You can't control them.  But you can control saying them out loud, or altering your actions based on those thoughts.  You do it every day. 

So do I.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
This is ridiculous.....

no whats ridiculous is the number of people in here adding their 2cents to discredit the OPs offense to being propositioned by a photographer.  then themselves becoming offended when their opinions are questioned.

its like inception.

jesse paulk wrote:

no whats ridiculous is the number of people in here adding their 2cents to discredit the OPs offense to being propositioned by a photographer.  then themselves becoming offended when their opinions are questioned.

its like inception.

What's ridiculous is your jumping up and down like a man on fire... chill out Jesse.

Firstly, the OP wasn't "offended"... she was originally just kind of frightened by the fact that the guy even got her email address and didn't know how to deal with that or the fact that he wouldn't stop stalking her.  Stalking someone is vastly different than being propositioned for sex, which is again vastly different than a photographer internally thinking a model is sexy and feeling amorous towards the model during the course of a shoot.  She got what were arguably two good courses of action in the first five replies... mine and the mod's.

Every time this has escalated it's been some white knight or frightened "model" saying how bad us mean old man photographers are... which, firstly we're not all men, and secondly we're not all old... and saying some absolutist bullshit about how unprofessional it is for photographers to date models, or ask models on dates, or like models, all the way to the point at which I chimed in with the one who said we shouldn't even think about models sexually.  The reaction I think has been rather measured when compared with that.

jesse paulk wrote:

no whats ridiculous is the number of people in here adding their 2cents to discredit the OPs offense to being propositioned by a photographer.  then themselves becoming offended when their opinions are questioned.

its like inception.

I wouldn't agree that we're trying to discredit her offense.  But what we're doing is saying that it's not a systemic problem of photographers.  It's men.  Or rather, some men.  A percentage of men don't have that filter on their mouths or keyboards to not be a jackass.  A percentage of those men are also photographers.

If I seem like I take offense when people are making sweeping generalizations about me because I'm a man, or I'm a photographer, it's because I am offended.  Yes, there are scumbags that are on this site.  Sure, there are likely even predators here.  But it's not different on Facebook.  Or ChristianMingle.  Or at the grocery store or the gym.

We probably ALL need to put our big boy and girl panties on.

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?

tell him to go f**k himself

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
It's ok... the chum's in the waters now.  Everything and anything that even *might* be perceived as permissive to the male ego or supportive of the status quo is verboten now... We must all be good little androgyny automatons.  We will *NOT* make statements with gender-specific pronouns.  WE WILL *NOT* allow the CIS-Male Domination to continue!  WE WILL *NOT* STAND IN THE PRESENCE OF BEAUTY!

*cough*

Oh... sorry... zoned out there for a second....

so chill

jesse paulk wrote:

so chill

HAHAHA yeah... compared to the gnashing of teeth and rending of beard you're doing, yeah I'm pretty chill... which is saying a lot I'm sure just about anyone who's been around the model mayhem forums can vouch.

Danielle Reid wrote:
No one can pressure anyone to have sex with them unless harm is being threatened. If a girl agrees to have sex with a guy just because he asked then that's her problem.

I came into this thread late, and can't address it all, but this sorta makes sense.  Asking is fine, a 'no, thank you' is fine.  Persistence after a 'no, thank you' isn't fine.

(Acting immediately on a 'yes' may or may not be fine.)

Danielle Reid wrote:
No one can pressure anyone to have sex with them unless harm is being threatened. If a girl agrees to have sex with a guy just because he asked then that's her problem.

This just makes too much sense for these forums. I don't know if you have lost your woman card but you do keep the common sense card.

JonPhoto wrote:

This just makes too much sense for these forums. I don't know if you have lost your woman card but you do keep the common sense card.

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.

All these words, taken on their own, are innocuous. However, you have strung them together in a way that they come off as offensive, and just plain stupid.

Sincerely,

A 'real pro' photographer who doesn't allow escorts, who by some strange coincidence, doesn't attack models, either.

Weird, I know...

g2-new photographics wrote:
I came into this thread late, and can't address it all, but this sorta makes sense.  Asking is fine, a 'no, thank you' is fine.  Persistence after a 'no, thank you' isn't fine.

(Acting immediately on a 'yes' may or may not be fine.)

Come on in, the water's fine.

Better late than never.

Kelleth wrote:

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!

Good to know you support harassing models and disrespecting professional boundaries.

Having desires doesn't mean I'm harassing a model, or disrespecting her.   I freely admit that I have found most of my models attractive -- sometimes very much so.  That doesn't mean I get inappropriate, though.

Kelleth wrote:
THAT is what he said was a crock of shit. So if it's bullshit to expect to not be harassed at your place of work, then call me full of shit. I could give two fucks what you think or what you feel about a model. That is not even what we're discussing here. We are discussing inappropriate ACTIONS.

Then I stand corrected. 

Inappropriate actions are inappropriate at best, illegal at worst.  If you can't keep your mouth from saying what your brain is thinking or keep you hands from doing what your dick is telling you to do, then you have no business willfully entering these situations where you're 3 feet from a naked, largely defenseless woman.

I think we can agree on that.

Danielle Reid wrote:
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".

Sexual harassment is illegal per the Civil Rights Act.  What one is wearing shouldn't give anyone permission to violate that law.

MartaBrixton wrote:
Just recently I had a shoot with photographer (none of the ones in my portfolio), he seemed to be very happy with the results and offered another one, this time in France. During the first shoot he was trying to kiss me and he was begging me to let him touch my boobs. I told him I don't wish to have psychical contact with him and I thought he understood, after that he was acting professional.

The day before our scheduled 2 days shoot in France I asked about accommodation and he said we will be sharing bed, like it was the most obvious thing ever (from what he was saying apparently all his previous models had no problem at all with sleeping in the same bed with him). I told him this is not an option and I will pay for my own room. Then he got pissed off and cancelled everything because he can't work with someone who's got trust issues.

First I want to be absolutely clear in saying that I don't think that any of what he did is OK. Second, I want to clearly state that I am not trying to attack you.

That said, why in the world would you agree to shoot a second time with a photographer who tried to kiss you and "feel you up?" Similarly, why would you continue talking to a guy who suggested that you sleep with him while on a location shoot?

I am sometimes amazed at the situations that models put themselves in. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Can you imagine anyone doing that to Big A? LOL, she would have ripped his baws off!

Brian Diaz wrote:

Sexual harassment is illegal per the Civil Rights Act.  What one is wearing shouldn't give anyone permission to violate that law.

This is a bit much.  Women need to take responsibility, to an extent, when they wear certain outfits.

They know damn well that skimpy clothing will attract attention, and in certain situations, it would be rather inappropriate, at best.

I don't see what the CRA has to do with this.

Kelleth wrote:
Again, I will repost exactly what I posted to someone else who also took my quote out of context.

Maybe you didn't see my original statement that he quoted. Which was this:

"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."

THAT is what he said was a crock of shit. So if it's bullshit to expect to not be harassed at your place of work, then call me full of shit. I could give two fucks what you think or what you feel about a model. That is not even what we're discussing here. We are discussing inappropriate ACTIONS.

I saw it, thank you.  I still by stand my comment.

aspergianLens wrote:

This is a bit much.  Women need to take responsibility, to an extent, when they wear certain outfits.

They know damn well that skimpy clothing will attract attention, and in certain situations, it would be rather inappropriate, at best.

I don't see what the CRA has to do with this.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of The Civil Rights Act.  The act also forms the basis for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace discrimination laws.

If the clothing is appropriate for the workplace, the person wearing it should not be harassed.

If the clothing is inappropriate for the workplace, the person wearing it should not be harassed.  In that case, the employee's manager or HR rep should discuss the company's dress code with the employee.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of The Civil Rights Act.  The act also forms the basis for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace discrimination laws.

If the clothing is appropriate for the workplace, the person wearing it should not be harassed.

If the clothing is inappropriate for the workplace, the person wearing it should not be harassed.  In that case, the employee's manager or HR rep should discuss the company's dress code with the employee.

Never said they should be harassed; but even so there needs to be responsibility to what they are wearing, as to whether or not it's appropriate.

Maybe I should of re-thought what I said though.

aspergianLens wrote:

Never said they should be harassed; but even so there needs to be responsibility to what they are wearing, as to whether or not it's appropriate.

Maybe I should of re-thought what I said though.

In a professional modeling setting, one doesn't always have the choice of clothing, and often the prescribed clothing is skimpy or non-existent.  A fully nude model may be wearing an appropriate outfit in the workplace.

Regardless of the clothing, sexual harassment is illegal.  No one should have to put up with it.

aspergianLens wrote:
Maybe I should of re-thought what I said though.