Terry Richardson’s Work is Degrading to Women

[HeatherAnne]

So disgusted, as if I wasn't enough with this ordeal, with how Terry is making himself out to be the victim now.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Yes, sexual harassment in the workplace laws. His job is a photographer, therefore he's on duty and can't behave like this while on duty.

And who is being sexually harassed?
Well he also takes taking p*rn*gr*ph*c pics, there is no law in the world that can stop you taking p*rn*gr*ph*c pics if both adults consent.
How do you think p*rn pictures and p*rn movies are made? You have someone that consents performing sexual acts in from of the camera, that's exactly what he does.

I said once and i say it again, one thing is an agency sending a model for a specific type of work, or he inviting a model for a specific type of work and that includes p*rn*gr*ph*c, he has clearly has his limit set, quite another is having a random woman fooling around in his house while he takes pics and then they consent to take some hardcore pics. This last group if they think they have a case or feel in any way abused, they should sue him. Clearly no one came forward to the police. So why are people being more papists than the pope.

 

[billabonggirl73]

And who is being sexually harassed?
Well he also takes taking p*rn*gr*ph*c pics, there is no law in the world that can stop you taking p*rn*gr*ph*c pics if both adults consent.
How do you think p*rn pictures and p*rn movies are made? You have someone that consents performing sexual acts in from of the camera, that's exactly what he does.

Getting undressed,having sexual acts performed on him are not infront of the camera. He's behind the camera. If he wants to have this type thing regulary then he should consider acting in p*rn.
Im sure that even in the seedy p*rn world, there are rules about this type of thing.You should watch a few episodes of girls of the playboy mansion when the girls get their photographs taken for playboy.The photographer is behind the camera and the girl infront. The only contact between them is either verbal, a handshake or a hug, when the girl has a robe on.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

This cuts both ways, where is Terry's lawsuit against Rie Rasmussen, Jamie Peck, the New York Post and Jezebel?


Again, I think your objection to Terry Richardson being accused of messing with under-aged models is fair, but the harassment claim has been pretty well substantiated including by Terry himself with his story about how to make the model comfortable he will take off his clothes and give the model the camera. His justification is that he is not doing anything wrong because he is not making the model do anything that he is not willing to do, but that does not make it any less harassment.

Well just because someone does not fight accusations in court does not make them true. Or celebs would be in court every single day, with the amount of lies newspaper and mags print . Plus no one accused him specifically of anything, besides being a dirty old man character.
By law the accuser is the one that has to prove the accusation, not the other way around.

But there we go again, unless this girls come forward and are prepared to give evidence in a court, this stories are nothing more than stories. We do not know the context in witch any of those things happened. Even his words can be distorted.

Until someone comes forward and goes to the police, what i think about Terry's work will not change one bit.

 

[GeniedeMelbourne]

And who is being sexually harassed?
Well he also takes taking p*rn*gr*ph*c pics, there is no law in the world that can stop you taking p*rn*gr*ph*c pics if both adults consent.
How do you think p*rn pictures and p*rn movies are made? You have someone that consents performing sexual acts in from of the camera, that's exactly what he does.

I said once and i say it again, one thing is an agency sending a model for a specific type of work, or he inviting a model for a specific type of work and that includes p*rn*gr*ph*c, he has clearly has his limit set, quite another is having a random woman fooling around in his house while he takes pics and then they consent to take some hardcore pics. This last group if they think they have a case or feel in any way abused, they should sue him. Clearly no one came forward to the police. So why are people being more papists than the pope.

A p*rn*gr*phy actor/actress knows what they will be doing, from what has been said, it seems as with some of Terry's shoots, he photographs them and then makes suggestions, his assistants psyche up the model, and it all leads to p*rn*gr*ph*c photos being taken with him in the frame when that wasn't the intention of the photoshoot in the first place. It is also apparent that he talks up the model into performing sexual acts on him, and this seems to be done through coercive means. This is what I'm saying is against the law to do.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Getting undressed,having sexual acts performed on him are not infront of the camera. He's behind the camera. If he wants to have this type thing regulary then he should consider acting in p*rn.
Im sure that even in the seedy p*rn world, there are rules about this type of thing.You should watch a few episodes of girls of the playboy mansion when the girls get their photographs taken for playboy.The photographer is behind the camera and the girl infront. The only contact between them is either verbal, a handshake or a hug, when the girl has a robe on.

Those girls of PLayboy are there to have their picture taken not to be p*rn models. And yes the photographer or the filmaker can participate in any p*rn shoot or film if that was agreed. Why wouldn't they? And they do it often.

He takes p*rn pics that he participates, that's what he does for his books. Why would he not be allowed to take p*rn pics the way he feels like it.? You just need adults to consent.

 

[t-rex]

Well just because someone does not fight accusations in court does not make them true. Or celebs would be in court every single day, with the amount of lies newspaper and mags print . Plus no one accused him specifically of anything, besides being a dirty old man character.
By law the accuser is the one that has to prove the accusation, not the other way around.

But there we go again, unless this girls come forward and are prepared to give evidence in a court, this stories are nothing more than stories. We do not know the context in witch any of those things happened. Even his words can be distorted.

Until someone comes forward and goes to the police, what i think about Terry's work will not change one bit.

This statement says a lot about your position here - you are unable, or unwilling, to differentiate his work from his behavior. You like his work, so you'll keep spewing sexist, victim-blaming sputter. Polanski fan, too?

 

[billabonggirl73]

Those girls of PLayboy are there to have their picture taken not to be p*rn models. And yes the photographer or the filmaker can participate in any p*rn shoot or film if that was agreed. Why wouldn't they? And they do it often.

He takes p*rn pics that he participates, that's what he does for his books. Why would he not be allowed to take p*rn pics the way he feels like it.? You just need adults to consent.

I guess most people are able to seperate their personal life and behaviour from their business one. This would explain why most people who work, are not performing sex acts on one another during their work time.
And actually generally in p*rn, the crew aren't really too interested in getting themselves off, it is their job and they have to concentrate on getting the best result.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

A p*rn*gr*phy actor/actress knows what they will be doing, from what has been said, it seems as with some of Terry's shoots, he photographs them and then makes suggestions, his assistants psyche up the model, and it all leads to p*rn*gr*ph*c photos being taken with him in the frame when that wasn't the intention of the photoshoot in the first place. It is also apparent that he talks up the model into performing sexual acts on him, and this seems to be done through coercive means. This is what I'm saying is against the law to do.

Who can guarantee what the intention of the photo shoot was? You need the court to establish that. Who says if it was a real photoshoot? Is a woman coming to his studio and having her picture taken a photoshot? why can't he make suggestions to someone that his there for no specific purpose?
What if she felt it was a good idea to perform a sexual act on him? Why do people presume that women would never want to have sex in any shape or form?

One thing is sending girls to him to shoot something specific fashion related or any other job with clear limitations. Even if it's a p*rn start that only gives blow jobs. That's a specific job and it has particular rules. Rules that will always be different from other jobs, so there is no use generalizing because he is allowed to go much further than other bosses. It's not in my normal work routine to be asked to strip.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

This statement says a lot about your position here - you are unable, or unwilling, to differentiate his work from his behavior. You like his work, so you'll keep spewing sexist, victim-blaming sputter. Polanski fan, too?

There we go again, comparing a convicted criminal with someone that was never accused of anything. In what way or form is Terry connected with Polanski? This is starting to sound like Bush and the connection between 9/11 and Sadam, if you repeated it enough times they eventually will be related.

PLus, more than anyone his work is directly connected with his behaviour.

 

[t-rex]

I was comparing the two's supporters, and I think it was quite clear my intention...

PLus, more than anyone his work is directly connected with his behaviour.

So why are you supporting him, then?

 

[GeniedeMelbourne]

Who can guarantee what the intention of the photo shoot was? You need the court to establish that. Who says if it was a real photoshoot? Is a woman coming to his studio and having her picture taken a photoshot? why can't he make suggestions to someone that his there for no specific purpose?
What if she felt it was a good idea to perform a sexual act on him?

a)It doesn't matter the intentions, workplace law says that it is illegal to sexually harass colleagues/clients in the workplace.
b)yes, because he's a photographer and she's having her photo taken in his photographic studio. That is his workplace and he is doing his job, therefore workplace laws come into effect.
c)It's still inappropriate behaviour in the workplace

Why do people presume that women would never want to have sex in any shape or form?

Not sure about you, but I personally don't think it's a stretch to say that no woman would ever want to have sex with Terry Richardson.

One thing is sending girls to him to shoot something specific fashion related or any other job with clear limitations. Even if it's a p*rn start that only gives blow jobs. That's a specific job and it has particular rules. Rules that will always be different from other jobs, so there is no use generalizing because he is allowed to go much further than other bosses. It's not in my normal work routine to be asked to strip.

This makes no sense at all.

 

[GeniedeMelbourne]

There we go again, comparing a convicted criminal with someone that was never accused of anything. In what way or form is Terry connected with Polanski?

Terry has been accused, he just hasn't been reported to the police or had charges filed against him.

 

[irulan]

A beautiful woman sits in front of a video camera. Her name is Sena Cech and she is a fashion model. Her tone is matter-of-fact, as though what she's about to describe is commonplace in the industry in which she works. The scene: a casting with a photographer, one of the top names in his profession. Halfway through the meeting Cech is asked to strip. She does as instructed and takes off her clothes. Then the photographer starts undressing as well. "Baby - can you do something a little sexy," he tells her. The photographer's assistant, who is watching, eggs her on. What's supposed to be the casting for a high-end fashion shoot turns into something more like an audition for a top-shelf magazine. The famous photographer demands to be touched sexually. "Sena - can you grab his **** and twist it real hard," his assistant tells her. "He likes it when you squeeze it real hard and twist it."

"I did it," she shrugs, looking into the video camera. "But later I didn't feel good about it." The following day she hears that the job is hers if she wants it. She turns it down. "I didn't like the way the casting had gone. If the casting was that sexual I was sure the job would be really sexual and gross." The photographer never offered her work again.

from the Guardian about Sara Ziff's documentary "Picture Me"

I don't know about other countries but if I would take a stroll through the park next door and a grown-up man would jump out behind a bush and would get naked in front of me, that be sexual harassment and I could sue him for that. I'm sure nobody would point at me and would say "But you went to the park, you should have known this could happen."

Same applies to Terry Richardson. Don't start on "But Terry isn't mentioned in that article", please. This was a casting for a high fashion job, not one of his nude extravangazas. And yes, the girl did it, ladida, consent, I'm just trying to point out that a photographer getting naked during a casting is sexual harassment. Nobody asked him to get naked and just because he got naked before doesn't mean he has permission to get naked ever again. End of story.

Each and every one of the girls who have been through such a casting situation with him should do themselves a favour and speak about it, give their names and give his name and nobody ever would have to work with him again, at least not in high fashion.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Not sure about you, but I personally don't think it's a stretch to say that no woman would ever want to have sex with Terry Richardson.

With that argument I'm sold of course he's guilty. Yes, no one ever want to have sex with Terry Richardson. Only squeaky clean man have sex. And everyone that deals with him and agree to do p*rn or anything remotely sexual is being exploited and never consented.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Terry has been accused, he just hasn't been reported to the police or had charges filed against him.

So he was not accused of anything. He's as innocent as any other photographer.

 

[agee]

why can't he make suggestions to someone that his there for no specific purpose? What if she felt it was a good idea to perform a sexual act on him? Why do people presume that women would never want to have sex in any shape or form?

You're right that plenty of people have had consensual sex in the workplace, but to proposition someone in the workplace in a work situation is risky, especially if the proposition is for a hard core sex act. Some will comply, some won't comply and will keep it to themselves, but others will complain. Just because someone complied and others didn't comply and didn't complain does not mean that there is something wrong with those who do complain. In many of these articles it does sound like there have been complaints and dissent about Terry's behavior for quite some time. The fact that there was low level rumblings about him and this did not prompt him to curtail his activities and instead become more blatant about showing what a " playa playa" he was was foolish on his part, he has been playing Russian Roulette for years and eventually the spin was not in his favor.

That's a specific job and it has particular rules. Rules that will always be different from other jobs, so there is no use generalizing because he is allowed to go much further than other bosses. It's not in my normal work routine to be asked to strip.

I totally don't understand this, why is he allowed to go further than other bosses?

Those girls of PLayboy are there to have their picture taken not to be p*rn models. And yes the photographer or the filmaker can participate in any p*rn shoot or film if that was agreed. Why wouldn't they? And they do it often.

He takes p*rn pics that he participates, that's what he does for his books. Why would he not be allowed to take p*rn pics the way he feels like it.? You just need adults to consent.

Has he put an advertisement on his website or elsewhere where he openly states that he is expecting the models he shoots to have sex with him or do p*rn? Does he or his assistants make it clear to the model when they are scheduling the appointment? As you said about Playboy, they go to a Playboy set to have their picture taken and not to do p*rn, why should it be any different on a Terry Richardson set? Most of the stories about his misconduct are dealing with fashion shoots or when he advertised for topless and nude models.

 

[Fontenrose]

Blackbookmag.com

While Richardson has as of yet to speak out with regard to all of the allegations, they’re surfacing so fast there’s little chance he can deny each one. But, as Jezebel points out, given the fact that Richardson shoots for nearly every major fashion publication and slews of big name fashion brands, at a certain point one has to ask who else is to blame? Specifically, I’m speaking of modeling agencies, editors and those handpicking photographers for ad campaigns. Richardson is surely to blame and fully responsible for his actions, but so is every person who has continued to work with him after being well aware of his condemnable antics. What kind of backlash all of this bad press and uncovering of unflattering behavior will mean for Richardson remains to be seen. But I’d imagine it won’t be taken lightly.

 

[jemappelleamy]

Hello , if you are male or female and interested in posing nude for Terry Richardson please contact us by Email.

Modeling nude, doesn't mention anything about giving him head or touching his dick...

source: terryrichardson.com

 

[iperlchen]

This is going round and round in circles. Les Sucettes, you would not listen to a colleague or friend when they speak out about an issue like this to you? You don't listen just because the official police reports are not there? This is common sense...