Terry Richardson’s Work is Degrading to Women

[mellowdrama]

Brilliant thoughts
I suppose that you're thinking that gettin 'paid' for any job allows the person in charge to ask you to strip down,pose for lewd pictures and allow them to be published to sell a product is not degrading....and if you don't you're fired.

Try doing that to a 16 year old working at a 'Dairy Queen" and your a** will end up in court so fast it will make your head spin.

The analogy doesn't hold.

Yeah, I would've done it, for what his models get paid, knowing full well who Richardson is and the work he does--whose release and consent form states 18+. I'd still pose, if my lumpy 37 year old **** would pass muster. Pay me, then fire me, just pay me--I am not the product, an object, and I am not so easily degraded. And dammit, make me look good!

.

*** Edited ****

If these models are abducted and forced to do work they don't consent to, that's degrading and illegal. If their jobs hang in the balance of doing a Richardson shoot they'd prefer not to do--then what the hell is wrong with their communication skills or with their agency? I can't believe a model is that naive, and if they are--it's their own greed getting ahead of their common sense. Oh, I did it and felt dirty--well, so? Cash the check, and avoid him in the future, or warn the other naive--but, really--how do they not know? He's completely transparent and upfront about his work.

The Casablancas and Anand Alexander stuff--that's wrong, that's an abuse of trust and power. But Terry Richardson, sorry, can't see it.

***Edited***

 

[mellowdrama]

There is an apocryphal anecdote often told of Winston Churchill and Lady Astor:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?


Lady Astor: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…

Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?

Lady Astor: Mr. Churchill, five pounds! What do you think I am some kind of wh*re?!

Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
​

Apocryphal, of course, but related.

 

[mellowdrama]

Oh and that makes it all ok to exploit models. So as long as I dont lie about being a creepy and perverted old geezer then I can ***Edited*** around with as many models as I want.



I dont see how this has to do with anything, what you do under your roof is your business.

It is not exploitation if you aware of and consent to the clearly defined terms of the model release you are signing.

***Edited***

You remove from a woman her power to choose her own experiences, and criminalize men who never attempted to deceive or exploit anyone. You aren't kinky, that's okay. Don't penalize the consensual kinky. They'd prefer to not play with you, either.

I bring up my own youthful, consensual exploits to explain how I had a choice, and it was not my scene. I had some odd experiences, but I wasn't "victimized" by them, because, as these models did, I clearly knew what I was getting into.

 

[jaben]

Anyone have the pics of Jaime that made it to Purple?

Perhaps at the time she considered Terry's "requirement" fair exchange for appearing in the magazine and has now changed her mind.

 

[iperlchen]

It is not exploitation if you aware of and consent to the clearly defined terms of the model release you are signing.
***Edited***

You remove from a woman her power to choose her own experiences, and criminalize men who never attempted to deceive or exploit anyone. You aren't kinky, that's okay. Don't penalize the consensual kinky. They'd prefer to not play with you, either.

I bring up my own youthful, consensual exploits to explain how I had a choice, and it was not my scene. I had some odd experiences, but I wasn't "victimized" by them, because, as these models did, I clearly knew what I was getting into.

Just because human beings always have a choice to say "no" doesn't justify the bad circumstances and mean they should continue happening. You can't decide for any model how to deal with it. It's a whole bunch of psychological factors, it's definitely not necessarily "greed" if someone says yes to a shoot with Terry Richardson. I also don't see how the personal ad story is relevant to this discussion about the modeling business...

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Well feminist theory has long preached against what they call implied child p*rn*gr*phy, so there's that. But yeah, soliciting and getting naked in front of women who are there for work is in fact illegal, it is absolutely not "allowed" by the law and yes, he could easily be sued for this.

How would you feel if your boss got naked and asked you to have sex with him, even if he did have a reputation. I'm sorry but what you're reinforcing is the old fashioned male argument that "the woman was asking for it" by showing up and dressing (or undressing) a certain way. That is archaic. We've all come much farther than that.

If I went to Terry's office to do the accounting, no i would not expect him to get naked and and show me **edtied** and ask to perform a sex act no matter his reputation or if i was wearing the shortest mini skirt Known to mankind , but on the other hand if i went there with no specific purpose than being photographed fooling around naked in suggestive sexual poses , not in some defined work as model sent from my agency or agreed in a contract or even in a conversation where the limits are set beforehand, yes i would not be surprised, shocked, repulsed, or offended if he asked me if i minded doing something hardcore, or even be photographed doing it. If you do not agree, you decline. Half of his work is p*rn*gr*ph*c. He has a magazine dedicated to p*rn*gr*ph*c work. He's not hiding under some veneer of respectability because she shoots for Vogue. Like mellow I did some things that on second thoughts made me feel dirty, that if i was a bit older and more savvy i would not have found myself in certain situations. Should men be criminalized or reviled by my choices? I could at any time, say no and take off. Unless you are dealing with a criminal and that is a matter for the police, if you see yourself in hairy situations and do not consent, everything stops. I just think The naivety and preachiness of this thread is staggering.

 

[LUXXX]

It's easy to say how easy it is to say "no." But in reality when you're 16 and someone tells you're going to be a supermodel if you work with all these famous photographers--it's hard to stand up for yourself. Especially if you're a poor 16 year old and a lot is at stake for you--you have agencies saying your career will be over if one photo session goes bust.

I mean look at Rie, Terry went right to her agency and complained. If she was younger and less successful, that could've really hurt her.

 

[yum_yum]

^ exactly, it's about the power imbalance.

 

[tigerrouge]

But a guy ***edtied*** and photographing, who you damn well knew was apt to do as such--and getting paid $$$--you're not degraded, you're just afraid what mommy and daddy might think, that you're dirty and tainted. Well, guess what, you aren't. They aren't. He isn't.

Ah, so they're really prudes who should take whatever's coming to them from the guy in charge, then count the cash, and shut up about what they thought. Up until now, that's what most of them have done.

The sexual acts are merely how the imbalance of power is being expressed - and then photographed for display. The sexual aspect isn't really the centre of the issue, although it can be difficult to see past the imagery.

When a model is working with a photographer, when does persuasion become coercion? How limited is a model's "choice" of working with someone, if the progression of her career depends on it? These are issues of power - any sexual content in the situation is window dressing. You could replace it with some other form of expression and the issue of power would remain entirely unchanged. And it's that issue which needs debated.

It's not about how sexually liberated someone is - although that concept is a useful way of shaming people into keeping quiet about things. There are so many distractions from the core dynamics of the situation, when the true heart of the issue doesn't involve anyone's dick.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

It's easy to say how easy it is to say "no." But in reality when you're 16 and someone tells you're going to be a supermodel if you work with all these famous photographers--it's hard to stand up for yourself. Especially if you're a poor 16 year old and a lot is at stake for you--you have agencies saying your career will be over if one photo session goes bust.

I mean look at Rie, Terry went right to her agency and complained. If she was younger and less successful, that could've really hurt her.

It's her prerogative to complain about him. I respect her opinion. She's in her right to look at her own case and take her own conclusions about him. It's also his prerogative to complain about her to the agency that sent her because he felt insulted by what she said.
If he's breaking any laws and being inappropriate with underage girls , they have to come forward and say so, there is simply no other way, so that he and their agencies that allowed the abuse, should be called to justice.
Other than that, regardless of why do you agree to do a job as an adult, it's really not his problem. He has is own idea of sexuality, magazines buy into that idea for their pages, send him the models and they agree to do what he says.
I say it again, if in any way he's breaking any laws woman should complain. Of course they are going to have problems , but it happens in EVERY job, if you point out failures or refuse to do certain jobs by principle, you will have trouble. I do not see in any way is this exclusive to people working with famous photographer. If no one comes forward and reports or refuses to do certain things, nothing will change. I just think it's wrong to accuse him of all sorts of crimes, yes crimes because he takes p*rn*gr*ph*c pics and some girls got second thoughts about giving him a hand job.

 

[Imaginara]

Isn't the entire question here, if he has coerced anyone being sent to him (by the agencies) into performing things they did not want to.

He has advertised for erotic models before and if you answer that type of ad it is "always" considered consentual like have been discussed previously.

But if he does the same with a young girl who have been told that shooting with him might be good for her career he is in a power situation and an entirely different set of rules apply. Especially if it could be shown that it was implied that her career would be damaged in any way if she did not do what he wanted.

Now.. having said that.. what he does ALSO makes him an easy target if someone wants to destroy his career. And there are a lot of people who do not like Mr. Richardson. So all you need to do is throw out a few bones that he is molesting innocent models and everyone goes into a frenzy.

If he has done something illegal then models needs to come forward and make complaints with the police department. Not webpages or blogs. Until the criminal charges are being brought forward, all the shouting of Rie and anyone else just sounds like a character assassination attempt in my book.

And.. wether or not you like his work or consider it p*rn*gr*ph*c, erotic or just outright crap has no impact on this discussion whatsoever. How he treats his models is the issue here, not if he's a good artist or not.

Just my opinion that no one cares about

 

[agee]

I am not an expert but aren't there even protocols on the sets of Playboy, Hustler and p*rn sets? Is it OK for in the middle of a shoot for the photographer or director of this type of stuff to say to the model or actress, "my best friend from junior high is standing over there and when we're done with this scene, you, me and him are going to have a threesome and my assistant is going to photograph it." I am not saying that it does not happen, nor that there have not been fashion and non-fashion models and p*rn and non-p*rn actresses who have not gladly complied and had a wonderful time, but it is not appropriate behavior for the workplace, whether it is an insurance company, a p*rn set or the set for a fashion shoot. Now if when the shoot is over, the photographer / director takes the model / actress out to dinner or they are at the wrap party and before the sun rises, the three of them are in bed three that is their prerogative. The problem is that what has been suspected has now been confirmed and that is that Terry has had violated accepted practices in the workplace.

I can kinda see the point about models not being held accountable for their behavior - should the models from the infamous Purple shoot and the Pirelli Calendar allowed themselves to be photographed bare breasted with Terry, should another top model have been photographed with her hand on Terry's crotch (although that may have been a cardboard cut out of Terry)? IMO, no they should not and yes they have contributed to creating an environment that is harmful for less established models. We can debate about the appropriateness and taste of pictures like these (not all of these photos are by Richardson, BTW
http://cyanatrendland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/terry_richardson_purple_3.jpg
http://cyanatrendland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/terry_richardson_purple_8.jpg
NO NUDE PICTURES CAN BE HOSTED ON IMAGESHACK
http://i.imagehost.org/view/0064/img-lara-stone-02_190823203361
http://www.interviewmagazine.com/files/2010/02/22/img-pin-up-1_132223952142.jpg

and even this awful thing
http://thelovemagazineblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/274.jpg

but in my mind, I think a line is crossed when Terry steps in front of the camera, at that point it goes from creative expression to exhibitionism and I would like to see established models to decline participation in these types of photos:
http://cyanatrendland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/terry_richardson_purple_15.jpg
http://cyanatrendland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/terry_richardson_purple_18.jpg
http://www.fashionisingpictures.net/photoshoots/PirelliCalendarPreview10.jpg
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00828/Pirelli_828504b.jpg

So Abbey, Eniko, Miranda, Daisy et. al. what you do off the set is your prerogative, but for the sake of younger and less established models who don't share your proclivities, when Terry jumps in front of the camera to get in on the action, please politely but firmly refuse to participate.

 

[Fontenrose]

Even non-model girls who pose nude for strangers have protocols. Take a look at modelmayhem forums. Terry Richardson goes way beyond that, as that non-model explained in her article.

It's funny that none of the modelmayhem photographers think that Terry Richardson knows how to take a picture. I read a thread where they are quite insulted that he thinks he's a photographer at all.

So it's more that he's a bit of performance 'art' on pressuring girls to do things they don't want to do. Some people think that's very amusing, like Men's Vogue commissioning! Polanski to photograph a drugged, nude 13-yr-old as his 'lover'.

Publicity like this gives models the confidence to say to their agents, "What are you doing sending me to a shoot with a perv?" *phones mother agent*
*mother agent pulls girl and sends her to another agency* *in your dreams*

It also gives girls information about non-famous photographers, that this behaviour is not accepted, and they have the right to walk off the set without their agency blaming them. If the photographer is trying to "groom" them for an assault, they have to follow their instincts and call leave, which is very hard for a young model who might be a bit confused about what he just said, because of language difficulties.

So don't blame the girls. Sickos know exactly what they're doing.

 

[charliehorse]

As skeeved out by the man as I am personally, I'm a bit torn on the issue as I'm not sure he's really done anything illegal... All of the really sexual pictures I've seen by him have been with adults, he has a lot of tamer work for editorials and campaigns that he uses underage agency models for, but nothing I'd consider inappropriately sexually charged. I definitely wouldn't put it past him (in fact I'd be surprised if he hadn't pulled something with an underage girl) but I haven't seen any evidence to that fact.
What Rie said and now this girl is saying is basically that the man is a creep, which isn't illegal. To those that say, "what if your boss asked for a hand job at work", well, yes, that would be inappropriate sexual harassment, but it would also be harassment if my boss asked to take naked pictures of me. Technically, as an adult, she has responsibility for herself and should have said no in that situation if it made her uncomfortable. I do have sympathy for her but I'm just not sure that it was illegal.
I'm not saying that I think the man is innocent or that I approve of what he does, but I also don't think it really matters what I approve of, in the eyes of the law I can't see a crime.

 

[noellejv]

I actually like Terry's work very much. Terry's photos are fine, p*rn is fine, he should be allowed to***Edtied*** he pleases. He just shouldn't lure them there on the guise of work. When you begin the equation that way, the power is imbalanced and that's what makes it exploitative. This is why Intention is in fact 9/10ths of the law. His intention is wrong.

I genuinely think it's great that so many people feel that it's not exploitative because they would fare well in the situation. If all women felt that way we'd rule the bloody world or at least close the pay gap. But many women don't and you have to take people who aren't perhaps as strong or clever as yourself into account. Those are the people that society and law strive to protect, and young women often fall into that category.

Bottom line is that consenting to pose for a naked picture is not consenting to be involved in a sex act.

 

[Over the Sea]

hahah that Winston Churchill and Lady Astor anecdote is so funny


"He takes girls who are young, manipulates them to take their clothes off and takes pictures of them they will be ashamed of. They are too afraid to say no because their agency booked them on the job and are too young to stand up for themselves"- Rie Rasmussen

I don't understand why anytime a woman is posed in a sexual way it is argued that she must have been manipulated or forced into doing it...
although, when you are talking about models under the age of 18, I do think they are more vulnerable to being pressured or feeling forced into doing something that they don't agree with then that is inappropriate. Other than those circumstances, I don't have a problem with it myself.

 

[michyed]

I'm not saying that I think the man is innocent or that I approve of what he does, but I also don't think it really matters what I approve of, in the eyes of the law I can't see a crime.

It could easily fall under the category of sexual harassment. I just showed this entire thread to a friend who received his PhD in Law a while ago.
If we are looking at this through the eyes of the law, then all workplace laws apply to Terry Richardson photoshoots as well - with or without clothes. Requesting that she take out her tampon for him was verbal harassment, and pulling his **** out of nowhere was a form of physical harassment... Even just requesting sexual favors alone is considered a form of harassment. Jamie's consent to performing the sexual acts doesn't automatically make it void of a sexual harassment case.

 

[Over the Sea]

You aren't kinky, that's okay. Don't penalize the consensual kinky. They'd prefer to not play with you, either.

 

[mellowdrama]

I can't debate about sexuality and power in a thread that edits any discussion of specific examples of sexuality and power.

Ciao, babies.

 

[mellowdrama]

Ah, so they're really prudes who should take whatever's coming to them from the guy in charge, then count the cash, and shut up about what they thought. Up until now, that's what most of them have done.

The sexual acts are merely how the imbalance of power is being expressed - and then photographed for display. The sexual aspect isn't really the centre of the issue, although it can be difficult to see past the imagery.

When a model is working with a photographer, when does persuasion become coercion? How limited is a model's "choice" of working with someone, if the progression of her career depends on it? These are issues of power - any sexual content in the situation is window dressing. You could replace it with some other form of expression and the issue of power would remain entirely unchanged. And it's that issue which needs debated.

It's not about how sexually liberated someone is - although that concept is a useful way of shaming people into keeping quiet about things. There are so many distractions from the core dynamics of the situation, when the true heart of the issue doesn't involve anyone's dick.

So, what about models forced to frolic in a bikini in freezing, off-season water, pretending that it's summertime?--that's more degrading and dangerous and unhealthy, in my POV. Or models asked to wear leather or fur who have personal ethical opinions about that topic? Or having to show up really early in the morning when you'd prefer to sleep in? That offends my internal clock, I'm a night-owl. How about the , or the cigarette smoke backstage at runway shows?


Fact is, in the course of any job, you are going to be asked to do things you'd really prefer not to do. That's why it's a job, not princess academy.

That's all, really. Something else is bound to get edited out.