Brian Diaz wrote:
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.

Yes, I understand all that...

I wasn't really referring to modeling, with regards to inappropriate clothing -- I meant more like other, more typical professional settings, such as offices.

I am not at all suggesting anyone should be harassed, alright?

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.

Don't wear a slut's uniform else be mistaken for one

aspergianLens wrote:

Yes, I understand all that...

I wasn't really referring to modeling, with regards to inappropriate clothing -- I meant more like other, more typical professional settings, such as offices.

I am not at all suggesting anyone should be harassed, alright?

All right.  I'm glad we're agreed.

When harassment happens, it is entirely the fault of the harasser.

jesse paulk wrote:

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

Make that some of what I said.  The only thing off-base I said was that the CRA wasn't involved.

The parts about responsibility are still valid.

Brian Diaz wrote:

All right.  I'm glad we're agreed.

When harassment happens, it is entirely the fault of the harasser.

Of course.  That's called free will.  We all have the choice to make good or bad decisions.

And we must all suffer the consequences as well...

Danielle Reid wrote:
Don't wear a slut's uniform else be mistaken for one

aspergianLens wrote:
Make that some of what I said.  The only thing off-base I said was that the CRA wasn't involved.

The parts about responsibility are still valid.

sadly its not.  though the time and energy for me to explain it in a way for you and some others to under stand i just dont have right now.

read up on slut shaming and the follies of dress codes, like in high schools.

aspergianLens wrote:

Of course.  That's called free will.  We all have the choice to make good or bad decisions.

And we must all suffer the consequences as well...

Yes, definitely.

These problems happen when one has to suffer the consequences of someone else's bad decisions.

MartaBrixton wrote:
Oh no, so sorry to hear that! I'm glad he asked via email so you didn't have to meet him.

Unfortunately, this is not very unusual, it has happened to me many times, especially when I get offered paid jobs.

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.

Once, I went to a different city for a calendar shoot and after the shoot I was told I had to say ''thank you'' (yes, a special thank you) to the photographer (and there were also a ''director''), when I refused I didn't get paid and they didn't use my pictures. After, the photographer send me an email saying I won't achieve anything, I don't know the industry etc. Not to mention that I was like 16 at that time and they were over 50.

Can't count how many times it was suggested to me on the phone or via email that I will have to have sex with someone, I just block them straight away.

Even for normal jobs it can happen, I was trying to get a job as a waitress in a restaurant and the owner asked me for a hand job... I was shocked and disgusted.

Unfortunately so many women are desperate to get modelling jobs or even TF pictures with good photographers that they will open their legs straight away. Because of that some photographers try their luck- it worked before so why not this time? That makes me appreciate genuine ones even more.

Anyway, his lost! And I don't understand why did he call you fat, he was trying to sleep with you so was it supposed to be an insult or what? Ridiculous, disgusting guy.

It makes me really, really, really sad to be male sometimes when I hear stories like this. At the same time, (and I know it's strange) I've also had models of both genders look for similar situations, sometimes in lieu of paying me, sometimes just because.

My take home story is this: there are some horny perverts out there, so be safe, be sensible, and be ready to kick someone where the sun doesn't shine.

jesse paulk wrote:

sadly its not.  though the time and energy for me to explain it in a way for you and some others to under stand i just dont have right now.

read up on slut shaming and the follies of dress codes, like in high schools.

I know about slut shaming.  I'm not talking about that.

Even if you explain it, as I think you would, I don't agree with it.  It's not that I don't understand it, it's that I have an opposing view!

Brian Diaz wrote:

Yes, definitely.

These problems happen when one has to suffer the consequences of someone else's bad decisions.

I also meant on a more esoteric level, though (read : karma).

Kelleth wrote:

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

So you think it's a crock of shit that a model would expect to not be sexually harassed at her place of work? Again, we're talking about actions not thoughts.

No.  Maybe I responded out-of-context, though.

I was just seeing this dialogue --

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.

And thought it was off-base.  Nothing more. 

If it was out-of-context, I apologize.

James Croft Photography wrote:
My take home story is this: there are some horny perverts out there, so be safe, be sensible, and be ready to kick someone where the sun doesn't shine.

This is where I disagree what this whole thing turns into. I don't think the asking makes the guy a pervert or makes him out to be a villain that needs shaming. It's inappropriate for sure. If no doesn't deter the guy then that is crossing the line.

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.

Sure, but Title VII doesn't apply to the typical photographer-model relationship unless there is an employer involved.

Let's use the strip club example where the typical work attire is little to no clothing. Stripper is not an employee. In fact she has to pay the club a portion of her earnings in order to keep dancing at the club. Every day, the customers, bouncer, bartender, manager, and even valet makes all sorts of lewd comments at her. What legal recourse does she have?

Vindictive Images wrote:
Let's use the strip club example where the typical work attire is little to no clothing. Stripper is not an employee. In fact she has to pay the club a portion of her earnings in order to keep dancing at the club. Every day, the customers, bouncer, bartender, manager, and even valet makes all sorts of lewd comments at her. What legal recourse does she have?

Harassment and verbal abuse are both against the law as well... not just employment law, but also everyday law.

If the stripper has a lewd comment made to her, and she doesn't like it she can tell the person it's over the line. If the comments continue they become abuse and harassment

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Harassment and verbal abuse are both against the law as well... not just employment law, but also everyday law.

So what's the specific "everyday law" she uses to find recourse?

Vindictive Images wrote:
Sure, but Title VII doesn't apply to the typical photographer-model relationship unless there is an employer involved.

Let's use the strip club example where the typical work attire is little to no clothing. Stripper is not an employee. In fact she has to pay the club a portion of her earnings in order to keep dancing at the club. Every day, the customers, bouncer, bartender, manager, and even valet makes all sorts of lewd comments at her. What legal recourse does she have?

It sure seems like strippers have legal recourse.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/str … e-1.165503
http://www.exoticdancerrights.com/strip … sment.html
http://www.stephenslawfirm.com/index.php/124/

But even in situations where Title VII doesn't apply, there may be state laws that do.

There's also, you know, a moral obligation not to sexually harass anyone.  Because it's wrong.

Vindictive Images wrote:

So what's the specific "everyday law" she uses to find recourse?

Depends on the state.

Brian Diaz wrote:
It sure seems like strippers have legal recourse.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/str … e-1.165503
http://www.exoticdancerrights.com/strip … sment.html
http://www.stephenslawfirm.com/index.php/124/

But even in situations where Title VII doesn't apply, there may be state laws that do.

Sure, there's laws against assault (groping), stealing (not paying the girl her earned money if she doesn't sleep with you), pandering (forcing the girl to sleep with a customer). In the more liberal states like California, they may even be liberal in considering you an employee for the harassment laws to apply.

But harassment of merely a verbal nature in a non-employment context?

Vindictive Images wrote:

Sure, there's laws against assault (groping), stealing (not paying the girl her earned money if she doesn't sleep with you), pandering (forcing the girl to sleep with a customer). In the more liberal states like California, they may even be liberal in considering you an employee for the harassment laws to apply.

But harassment of merely a verbal nature in a non-employment context?

Yes, that's a major problem that many states haven't covered.  Independent contractors are often afforded fewer rights than full employees.

You're right about California.  The Fair Employment and Housing Act appears to protect all workers in a way that is broader than federal law.

Vindictive Images wrote:
But harassment of merely a verbal nature in a non-employment context?

That is called *drumroll please*

Assault
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

Vindictive Images wrote:
Sure, there's laws against assault (groping)

Common misconception... Assault is the threat of harm (words, gestures, actions, or situational setup) Battery is the harm (groping, punching, kicking, licking, spitting on)

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Any cases that support applying assault charges to the typical run of the mill verbal harassment? The "Damn your ass looks good" or "Hey if you sleep with me, you'll get a better shift" or "He's a high roller, sleep with him or you no longer will dance here".

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Common misconception... Assault is the threat of harm (words, gestures, actions, or situational setup) Battery is the harm (groping, punching, kicking, licking, spitting on)

No, I understand the distinction. I'm using the term "assault" to cover all physical attacks without regard to whether there's contact.

Vindictive Images wrote:

Any cases that support applying assault charges to the typical run of the mill verbal harassment?

There's thousands upon thousands... it's a common law concept from the English legal system that we carried over in to US Common law.  People being verbally assaulted have sued many times and won.  I'll stipulate that for much of recent history claims of assault in public have been often downplayed or even outright dismissed by the courts, when those claims happen in a "work place" even if it's a non-traditional one the full effects of Title VII have usually been applied.

Additionally there are some states with statutes that cover this area such as New York:

New York State Statute
PENAL LAW
PART THREE. SPECIFIC OFFENSES
TITLE N. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER, PUBLIC SENSIBILITIES AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
ARTICLE 240. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
NY CLS Penal ß 240
ß 240.26. Harassment in the second degree
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.
ß 240.30. Aggravated harassment in the second degree
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
1. [fig 1] Either
(a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
(b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or
4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.
Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.


Article 120. Assault and Related Offenses
S 120.45 Stalking in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct:
1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person`s immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; or
2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person`s immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct; or
3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person`s place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct.
Stalking in te fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor.

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.

I have not read to the end of this thread - got about three pages in and am so disgusted.  Kelleth sums it up nicely.  I am absolutely sick to the stomach someone could possibly think that a girl taking her clothes off is inviting someone to be inappropriate to her.  In nude modelling.  We are professionals, no?  Act like it

Amber West wrote:

I have not read to the end of this thread - got about three pages in and am so disgusted.  Kelleth sums it up nicely.  I am absolutely sick to the stomach someone could possibly think that a girl taking her clothes off is inviting someone to be inappropriate to her.  In nude modelling.  We are professionals, no?  Act like it

And I'm sick to the stomach of all this politically correct bullshit that exists today, soon it will be illegal for men to talk to women, let alone lust after them!

Why not just take full control of our minds too!

London Fog wrote:
And I'm sick to the stomach of all this politically correct bullshit that exists today, soon it will be illegal for men to talk to women, let alone lust after them!

Why not just take full control of our minds too!

yeah cause thats not creepy

its not that they want control of your mind, its that they want you to exercise control over what you say and how you behave.

jesse paulk wrote:

yeah cause thats not creepy

its not that they want control of your mind, its that they want you to exercise control over what you say and how you behave.

What's creepy about it? There's been millions of years of evolution (sorry Americans) gone into making sure that males are attracted to females. It's how you behave that is important. There are probably as many models who don't care about photography and only want money in exchange for taking their clothes off or putting on a show for a photographer as there are photographers who believe that a model taking off their clothes and posing in a sexually explicit way means that they want to have sex with that photographer. If someone misreads the situation then it is clumsy of them and unfortunate, perhaps even offensive to the victim, but it's not the end of the world. It happens in all walks of life. I don't get offended when a model pms me asking me for money to photograph her doing soft G/G, when I know she is not interested in what the photographs will look like. It's those who manipulate or force models into doing something they regret that should be condemned.

The Sweaty Sock wrote:

There are probably as many models who don't care about photography and only want money in exchange for taking their clothes off or putting on a show for a photographer

Exactly.

The Sweaty Sock wrote:
What's creepy about it? There's been millions of years of evolution (sorry Americans) gone into making sure that males are attracted to females. It's how you behave that is important. There are probably as many models who don't care about photography and only want money in exchange for taking their clothes off or putting on a show for a photographer as there are photographers who believe that a model taking off their clothes and posing in a sexually explicit way means that they want to have sex with that photographer. If someone misreads the situation then it is clumsy of them and unfortunate, perhaps even offensive to the victim, but it's not the end of the world. It happens in all walks of life. I don't get offended when a model pms me asking me for money to photograph her doing soft G/G, when I know she is not interested in what the photographs will look like. It's those who manipulate or force models into doing something they regret that should be condemned.

jesse paulk wrote:
yeah cause thats not creepy

its not that they want control of your mind, its that they want you to exercise control over what you say and how you behave.

im glad we agree, well up until you prattle on about your self and how "its no big deal"  "how clumsy of them" like their offense is the butt of some awkward british humour.  at least you do see how coercion is also a factor.  thats too much for some people to accept.

London Fog wrote:
And I'm sick to the stomach of all this politically correct bullshit that exists today, soon it will be illegal for men to talk to women, let alone lust after them!

Why not just take full control of our minds too!

+1 Tell me about it.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

+1 Tell me about it.

i know its terrible being told how to behave.

how to dress

how not to feel about things people say and do to you

yet here we are

jesse paulk wrote:
im glad we agree, well up until you prattle on about your self and how "its no big deal"  "how clumsy of them" like their offense is the butt of some awkward british humour.  at least you do see how coercion is also a factor.  thats too much for some people to accept.

I don't believe that female models aren't aware that they are attractive to the majority of male photographers. I don't believe that the majority of male photographers believe that they are attractive to most female models. However there is a percentage of models out there who will have sex with photographers, perhaps even for money. There is a percentage of photographers out there who will even pay to have sex with models. It can be hard to read signs and determine which models will and which models won't so sometimes a model who won't gets asked if she will. It's regrettable, awkward, embarrassing even offensive but there you are. If I could I would ban all such models and photographers but I can't because it's hard to pick them out from the majority of normal, right-thinking people on here. However those photographers who ty to force themselves upon models or manipulate them or models who try to blackmail photographers they have encouraged into paying for sex are the ones we should be guarded against.

Danielle Reid wrote:
Don't wear a slut's uniform else be mistaken for one

So if a nude model is sexually assaulted on a shoot it's her fault for looking like a "slut"?

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

So if a nude model is sexually assaulted on a shoot it's her fault for looking like a "slut"?

She's just mimicking Chappelle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-1kHxsavI

Jules NYC wrote:

She's just mimicking Chappelle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-1kHxsavI

Oh I know. Chappelle is also full of shit, IMO.

Jules NYC wrote:

She's just mimicking Chappelle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-1kHxsavI

I did not realize she was doing that.