It's 2021. Why are seasoned male photographers still treating female models like sex objects under the guise of education?
This all started when someone brought up a product page for a nude photography course with a focus on fetishes and BDSM. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but obviously, given the subject matter, a high degree of professionalism and respect should be established and followed by the photographer in regards to their interaction with the model, especially considering this is an educational course that will set the tone for other aspiring photographers.
And so, it was especially bothersome when I saw that product page, and it was enough to make me physically cringe. I clicked around to other tutorials on the site and was even more disgusted. Here's a sampling of the headlines for some of the products, always shown in large, bold fonts on the respective pages:
- "[Model name redacted] as you've never seen her!"
-
"Small Hotel Photoshoot Uncensored 18+"
-
"[Model name] is back!"
It was not until well down some of these pages that it was even clear who was actually teaching this course.
Pretend I haven't told you this was a photography tutorial site. If you just read that list of headlines, where would you think they came from? They sound like pornographic advertisements to me. Have you ever seen a photographic education course lead its sales pitch by naming the model? What a strange way to convince customers that your photographic and teaching skills are strong enough that they should buy your tutorial — unless that is not what you're trying to convince them of.
Clicking on the preview shows a video that opens with the sound of a heartbeat while a model's corset is laced and she draws her hand over fishnet tights. The same heartbeat sound effect returns throughout the video whenever nudity is shown, interrupted by talking head segments often preaching about professionalism. We only see evidence that this is an educational photoshoot during the multiple nudity segments for a few brief seconds; the rest of the time, the camera mostly pans over the model's body while that same heartbeat drones on. The two sides of the preview feel weirdly contradictory, with the way the nude segments are shot and edited making the appeals to professionalism feel disingenuous, as if to provide plausible deniability of the fact that the video is leading with sex, not photographic education.
The thing is, the photographer here is not some unknown who just picked up a camera. This is someone with follower/subscriber counts in the hundreds of thousands, with many years of experience. This is someone to whom people look to not just for education, but for how to behave around a model.
And to be clear, I am not accusing this photographer of being a predator or of doing anything improper while on set. However, the simple fact is that there are other people out there who are predators, and some of them carry cameras. And when we normalize this kind of treatment and representation of women, we enable those predators by creating an environment where warning signs of their behavior are less likely to be seen as crossing a boundary.
And then there are those who are not outright predators, but who are new to the trade and who look to those who are more experienced for guidance on how to behave. They know that a nude model is in a highly vulnerable position and that there are certainly boundaries that must be respected, but maybe they are unsure of what exactly those boundaries are. Can you ever touch the model just to fix their hair? Can you use words like "sexy"?
Vulnerability and trust extend beyond the set.
Vulnerability does not end when the shoot does, though; in fact, it is only just beginning. Because now, the photographer takes those images and presents them to an audience. And some take it one step further, becoming educators who teach others how to take similar images. And all the time, the way they show the model, the way they talk about the process, and the way they advertise their education all demand further respect of the model's vulnerability in both process and representation.
When an advertisement for education leads with a message that appeals to sexual thought instead of photographic creation, it attracts both the wrong kind of person and gives people the wrong motivation to study the genre. Because no one should ever be in a room with a nude model and a camera because of sexual desire under the pretenses of artistic photography.
There is true fine art nude photography out there, and it has its rightful place in the photography world and deserves as much respect as any other genre. This is not it, though. And yet, this is not something overtly inappropriate. It's more insidious, and in a sense, more dangerous. Because when something is overtly inappropriate, most of us will recognize that and reject it as an example of what's acceptable. Sure, there will always be predators, but this is about a different group of people.
But when something is subtler, more insidious, people are less likely to outright reject it, particularly if they are untrained and perhaps unsure of exactly what is acceptable — even if they have good intentions. And so, if people in positions of power continue to normalize behavior that is just a bit over the line or that cloaks inappropriateness in a veil of plausible deniability, up-and-comers will see that behavior and assume it is acceptable, and eventually, it is accepted by broader society. And then the boundary gets pushed just a little further, and the cycle repeats.
What saddens me is that I keep hearing the same refrain over and over: "it's [year]! Why is this still happening?" Only the year keeps changing:
"It's 2008! Why is this still happening?"
"It's 2016! Why is this still happening?"
"It's 2021! Why is this still happening?"
There are many reasons it keeps happening, unfortunately. But if those in high positions lead by example, perhaps it (and I leave the pronoun ambiguous to encompass all its ambiguity captures) will happen a bit less.
Hi Jaaq, I guess Matt read this article and changed his headlines... It was the first hit on that day on google... Anyways, it's Matt Matt Matt! GRANGER! :D Anyways, I love his videos. He is kind of funny even if he tries not to.
In an era of #metoo and an aggressive and systemic anti-male narrative (which this article contributes to), I no longer allow myself to be alone with women during a shoot and prefer to avoid shooting women altogether and would never employ a female assistant unless she was related to me. Although I'm a gay man the environment is so toxic now thanks to modern progressive victim culture that it's just too risky.
Yes, better stick to architecture and landscape. Just to be on the save side.
I think that "anti-male narrative" comes on an era of strong anti-female narrative which is in need of some strong correction.
Perhaps that sometimes overshoots to the other side -- but that doesn't invalidate the need for correction on the anti-female narrative.
Another objection I have to this article is that it attempts to remove agency from women. These women are being photographed voluntarily and are free to object or leave at any point during a shoot if they become uncomfortable. It's obnoxiously patronizing to treat women as perpetual victims.
I do agree with you on that. Removing the agency from people, being overly protective, is damaging to those people and in fact just makes them more vulnerable.
"an aggressive and systemic anti-male narrative"
LMFAO. Gimme a break, snowflake.
Name calling isn't an argument. Have you been paying attention to the systemic attacks on men and masculinity by almost all institutions? Perhaps you should spend some time researching this, it could save you a lot of trouble.
LOL. "Systemic attacks on men and masculinity". That's a good one. Whooo boy. You sure are funny.
Oh, wait, by "masculinity" you mean violence and discrimination against women. Well, yeah, I'm happy to attack that. But, you're a true gentleman who would never engage in that, so you got nothing to fear.
Right?
..."And to be clear, I am not accusing this photographer of being a predator or of doing anything improper while on set. However, the simple fact is that there are other people out there who are predators, and some of them carry cameras. And when we normalize this kind of treatment and representation of women, we enable those predators by creating an environment where warning signs of their behavior are less likely to be seen as crossing a boundary." This complete nonnensical argument reminds of the case Michael Moore makes in his "Bowling for Columbine" film, where one speaker (edited into the scene of an Interview with Marilyn Mansons) at a rally asks the audience "...[people might ask us] if we believe that all people who hear [Marilyn] Manson tomorrow night will go out and commit violent acts. The answer is no. But does everybody who watches Lexus-ad go and buy a Lexus? No -- but a few do!" Trying to make someone accountable because there is a chance that others might do likewise is wholly unethical. It´s the same we had with Rock or Metal in the 70s/80s, or violent computer games in the 90s and on and on it goes.
Straw-dog argument.
It amazes me how, when a contributor points out something as creepy, manipulative or unethical, so many who ought to understand how imagery works defend uses that are clearly anti-social. Mainly it's men who don't like their predilections and biases exposed to sunlight.
Did you check the content the writer is referring to? Nothing creepy , manipulative or unethical to find there. May I say that this is one of the big problems these days in media, journalists insinuating racist, sexist or other despicable behaviour and others, more then willing to fight another battle (and show the world how righteous they are) copying the opinion without verifying the claims. This has already resulted in numerous slandering and even cancelling of some 'suspects'. Coming to the defense of the accused equals being a creepy suspect as well apparantly. Keep up the 'good' work....
How would I "check the content" when the photographer is not named and there's no link to any content?
The name of the photographer has been mentioned several times in the comments (which you must have read since that's was what your comment was about). But thanks for proving me right
A good writer will not force his readers to "read between the lines", or seek information in the comments that others write. A good writer will provide solid information to his readership right in the article. Being vague and talking a ton about someone's work, and standing in harsh judgment of that work, without ever saying who that someone is ...... is quite inexcusable.
You have provided no additional information. Thanks for proving me right.
Exactly. This article is the very definition of a straw man argument.
By the author's own acknowledgement, the problematic behavior being argued against does not appear anywhere in the work of the photographer being referenced. He then takes this huge leap into the realm of creeps with cameras and tries to take the reader with him.
These dots don't connect.
This comes off as a rather cowardly critique. You’re challenging this man’s professionalism, but this is not how professional writers go about their work.
If you’re afraid of being sued, don’t throw stones and stick to posting other people’s videos like you normally do. Someone who generates as little original content as you do is really not in a position to critique someone who has put so much into educating people over a span of many years.
Don’t complain about someone else’s courses and marketing if you’re not going to show us your better way of doing it. The easiest thing in the world to do is throw darts at the work of others.
As a writer for fstoppers, you’re one of those “people in a high position” you reference who can lead by example. Think about that the next time you post somebody else’s video. What could you be doing in your high position if you created original content that actually does something to make “why is this still happening?” happen less? Complaining does not change things.
Sure, here's all my original content for Fstoppers, all 293 articles: https://fstoppers.com/profile/14596/originals. I'd be happy to link plenty of articles from that list of hundreds of pieces of original work that attempt to lead by example and improve the industry if you don't feel like scrolling.
Since you're sharing stats, you wanna share how many of your articles are just reposts of someone's YouTube video? I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. 293 with no context is not meaningful data.
Part of my job is sharing good YouTube tutorials. You can reframe the argument all you want, but you originally claimed I have little original work and never try to lead by example, when in reality, I have a portfolio of literally hundreds of original articles that attempt to do just that. You also have no idea what I do behind the scenes in my managerial role to lead by example. You made some wholly incorrect assumptions and judgments about me with little to no information on which to base them.
You're quite sensitive about your work for someone who wrote a defamatory article where you lump a legitimate businessman who is guilty of nothing, by your own admission, into a pile with creeps who behave inappropriately.
And you're doing this on one of the leading websites for this man's industry.
This is just wrong and there's no reframing that.
If someone had done to you what you've done here, you would not be okay with it at all.
This is just wrong what you've done here. That's where much of the push back in the comments is coming from. It's not okay to defame someone by using them to make a point about behavior that they're not engaging in.
If you really have a problem with "wholly incorrect assumptions and judgments," I wonder how much time you spent speaking to the photographer you've written about before you trashed his business practices in this article?
Or is due diligence only necessary when someone is talking about you?
What, you can't talk about something if you can't do it better yourself? Really? Public health? Fiscal policy? Music? Food? Fashion? Cars? You can't complain about an unreliable car if you can't fix it or make one yourself?
Yeah, no.
Complaining, offering no solutions, and using a straw man argument to do it?
Yeah, no.
If the photographer being referenced was actually engaging in the creep behavior this article is about, that would be an entirely different matter.
The author did not reference the specific individual because the article was not about him but about use of titilation as a facile and socially harmful way of selling products. Ironically, I regularly see such click-bait on this site, as well.
In many human cultures, throughout tens of thousands of years, men have been valued for what they do; what they accomplish, and women are valued for their looks, and for how sexually desirable they are. Some people accept that this is the way humans view the different sexes. Other people think it is wrong to view the sexes this way, and that men and women should be judged and evaluated by the same criteria.
Why does this sexualization of women keep happening? Because it is human nature to judge females according to their sexual desirability. This mindset has, historically, been the way that humans view and evaluate other humans.
Just because many people in our culture today think this is wrong doesn't mean that human nature has changed. There are still many cultures and many hundreds of millions of people who think that men should be judged according to accomplishment, and women should still be judged according to sexual desirability.
That is why these these things still happen - because human nature is still human nature, even though this relatively new way of thinking is opposed to it.
What do you think? Do you think that we should continue to think about the genders the same way Homo sapiens have always thought about the genders, for tens of thousands of years? Or do you think that we should develop new ways of thinking about men and women, and the way they are judged, evaluated, and looked upon? Why do you think what you think?
"because human nature is still human nature". There is no such thing as human nature. There is only a cultural aspect. It is about behaviour and not nature.
Why are you denying human evolutionary history? The original poster was spot on. Men and women are different because of our biology and not some imagined “social construct”. You’re at war with nature.
I would like to have seen your retort.
For the record, I expressed no personal feelings or opinion on this issue. When I wrote my post, I did so in a way that did not support or find fault with either way of thinking. I am interested in this issue from a factual, scientific standpoint, and try to have no feelings one way or the other inasmuch as "right" or "wrong" are concerned. I like to study what "is", rather than what "should be" or "shouldn't be".
I try hard to not stand in judgment of anyone's behavior or viewpoints when it comes to these issues. Like a scientist or student of psychology, only wanting to observe what actually is, with no with subjective moral or ethical component to cloud my observation.
I say this to make sure that you realize that I did not take any side in this issue, and expressed no support for either way of thinking. I did not say that it was okay to feel any certain way about women and men, nor did I say that it is not okay to feel any certain way about women and men.
I try to be as objective, fact-based, and non-biased as possible when I discuss these topics.
The responses you have made to my comments seem unfriendly and dismissive. If you have a problem with what I have said, I would like you to explain what it is, specifically, that you take offense with.
Tim, thanks for the genuine response.
I do have judgments on this issue. By that, I mean that I do have feelings about what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to how people treat and view women. And I suspect that these feelings I have are quite similar to those that you have.
But I try to keep these feelings to myself, because they are subjective, and in my opinion, subjective things like this shouldn't be discussed publicly, because they are really no more than opinions. The only actual facts are how people DO view and treat women - that is open for discussion because those discussions are based on facts and not based on moral or ethical foundations, which are subjective by nature.
So, when the author, or others, ask questions like,
"It's 2021 - why is this still happening?"
I respond by trying to answer the question literally, by explaining why people still treat women this way. There are reasons why this still happens, and those reasons are primarily based upon instinctive mindsets, which produce instinctive behaviors.
If someone asked why some humans murder other humans in cold blood, I would attempt to explain the answer in the same factual way. That doesn't mean that I think murder is okay. It simply means that I am attempting to answer the question that was asked, in the most accurate way that I can.
As soon as I allow my feelings on the issue to enter into my response, then I am not being completely accurate, because I am allowing a bias to shade the words that I respond with.
Tim,
I do intend to continue to photograph wild animals, and pretty much only wild animals. I have no interest in photographing humans, nor any manmade objects.
However, from time to time I enjoy engaging in online discussions about other photographic endeavors, even though I do not have any desire or intentions to photograph these types of subjects. If someone asks a question, and I do not see that an accurate, literal answer has been given yet, I will sometimes pop in to the discussion and try to provide a good, solid, factual answer.
But as far as my actual photography goes, yes, I will follow your advice and primarily stick to wild animals, with the occasional shot of a mountain range or an autumn leaf or sunset or the moon from time to time. But I promise you, I currently have no desire or inclination to photograph humans.
"Other people think it is wrong to view the sexes this way"
You may VIEW them this way. But, in a civilized society that purports to value equality, it is not acceptable to ENACT this view in public activities and speech. You are free to go live in a jungle where the basest instincts rule behavior. But don't try to drag down civilization just because parts of humans' lizard brains protest, like screaming toddlers, against restraint. Some of us have frontal cortexes.
Why presume that “equality” is achievable or desirable? Read “Harrison Bergeron”.
I have seen a trend in which people seem to think that things such as morality, ethics, equality, etc., are absolutes ...... as though one way is more "advanced" or "civilized" or "enlightened" than another way.
But in reality, these things are subjective.
No way of viewing another human is inherently right, or wrong. Right and wrong are attributes that we subjectively apply to behaviors and attitudes. What one person thinks of as "right" may be something that other humans see as being "wrong". And just because a great majority of people in any given culture at any give time see things one way, does not make that way any less subjective, or more accurate.
The culture that we live in attempts to get us to be likeminded on these issues, and because so many people see these things the same way, because of cultural and societal pressure to do so, we often make the mistake of thinking that there actually is a "right" way to see others, and a "wrong" way to see others.
The culture that we live in also attempts get us to not murder each other.
Yes, Jacques, almost all of the cultures in the world today frown upon murder, and punish/prosecute those who do it. I believe there may still be a few exceptions, but they are quite small and rare nowadays.
But, not all of them frown upon misogyny, so that's cool.
Not in my book.
No, they don't all frown upon misogyny, and that is not cool in my book, either. I wonder why you used the phrase, "so that's cool". It doesn't seem to make sense in the context in which you used it, based on what your feelings on this issue seem to be. Are you saying that in sarcasm? If so, why the sarcasm? That type of sarcasm doesn't seem fitting for this discussion, and can lead to confusion on the part of those reading your comments and trying to make sense of them.
Tom, it's called ironic sarcasm. Why are you willing to accept a cultural prohibition against murder but not one against discrimination? You are against murder, right?
The gist of your argument is that everything is relative - which, philosophically, I agree with - and so any effort to create a moral order amounts to insufferable oppression of the individual. Well, you may see it that way when the victims of widespread discrimination don't look like you. But, I bet you'll sing a different toon when you become the target. Then you'll be all "But, this isn't FAIR!" Society and culture are collective enterprises. We all participate in setting norms for acceptable behavior. Are you not willing to stand for a norm that objectifying and denigrating women as playthings is unacceptably antisocial?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
--- Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller's post-war reflection on his own failure to speak against nascent Nazism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Jaques Cornell asked,
"Why are you willing to accept a cultural prohibition against murder but not one against discrimination? You are against murder, right?"
Jaques,
I am not sure what makes you think that I do not accept a cultural prohibition against discrimination. Did I actually say that, or are you taking the things that I did say, and then adding onto them, to arrive at that conclusion about me? If so, that would be called "jumping to conclusions", or making an assumption.
I do believe that you are reading some things in to my comments that I did not actually say. Just because I explain a certain behavior does not mean that I agree with it or accept it. Just because I explain why men objectify women in no way means that I accept such objectification. Nor does it mean that I am against prohibitions of such discrimination.
Please read my comments as they are, and then not read anything at all into them. Just go by the words that I actually typed, and what they mean, literally, and do not think that there is any other meaning behind those words than what they actually mean according to their standard definitions. I am an extremely literal person. I try to say everything in an extremely factual way, so that nothing ever needs to be read into my words, and that no one ever has to "read between the lines" to know what I mean.
I think that you and I feel the same way about murder and about discrimination against women. Yet, it seems that you think that I think differently than you on this issue, because you have made some assumptions about me instead of just going by exactly what I typed.
Thank you for the clarification. I interpreted your post as an indirect defense of the practices under critique.
Hey, Jaques
I try to write my posts in a way that doesn't require any interpretation. I write exactly what I mean, so that no one has to interpret anything or assume anything or "read between the lines".
"The culture that we live in attempts to get us to be likeminded..."
The woke left which holds societal power now is authoritarian and collectivist and doesn't tolerate diversity of thought.
If by "diversity of thought" you mean the idea that women should all make themselves sexually available to any man who sees them, then yeah, I'm against it.
Jeez, you anarchists think no rules and do anything you want is great...until you're on the receiving end of someone else's greater power. But then, you probably don't have the courage to accept the consequences of real anarchy. You just want a set of rules that benefit you at the expense of others, including women. Tell you what, when you come to a job interview with me, I'll insist you dress in a way I find sexually provocative. I'm sure you'll be fine with it.
P.S.: I wrote the above before you indicated you were gay. Now that I know, I'm frankly dumbfounded that you're so threatened by the prospect of tearing down discriminatory and demeaning stereotypes. Is it really so hard to see that minorities of various sorts - racial, religious, gender-identity, and many others - share a common interest in erasing negative stereotypes? Really? I mean, REALLY???
Well, even if you're not willing to do the work, all is not lost for you, because there are plenty of folks, including people NOT in the targeted classes, who are willing to stand up for YOUR rights to equal treatment. YOU are the beneficiary of those efforts, and if you're not willing to pass it forward for others who aren't in your group, well, that's just sad.
As for your "anti-men" schtick, I heard the same kind of arguments not long ago about "attacks on the institution of marriage". Yeah, when the majority dominates, it's "traditional values", but when that dominance is questioned, it's "defense of institutions" and the minorities are "uppity" and "hysterical".
Huh?
Tim Ericsson said,
"Dude bro hates America, I see."
I do not understand what you mean with this comment. I have read it over and over again, and also read the preceding comments again and again, in an effort to understand what it is that you are referring to, and who it is that you think hates America, and yet I still cannot figure out what you mean.
Any well-articulated clarification would be welcome. Your comments are important to me, and I want to know what thoughts you meant to express with that particular comment. I also really want to know who it is that hates America.
"Why presume that “equality” is achievable or desirable?"
I don't "presume" it, I ASSERT it. Since you seem indifferent, are we to assume that you'd be happy to go back to the days of closeted living, gay-bashing in public forums, and violence and job discrimination against gays? Or, is equality desirable only for YOUR group?
Yeah, I'm a white heterosexual male, but I spent a large chunk of my adult life abroad in places where I was in the racial minority and treated by individuals and institutions as "other", shunned in public and denied access even to banking services, and I AM SICK OF THAT SHIT! IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR ME, IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR YOU, IT'S NOT RIGHT, PERIOD!
So f&^k your dystopic "survival of the fittest" jungle where minorities and disfavored groups can suffer and die. Even APES have moral rules. Surely, we can do better. If you can't be bothered to whisper even a peep of protest over the stereotyping of others, that's pathetic, but when YOU are the target of negative stereotypes, I will STILL come to your defense because, you know what? I have gay friends who have been assaulted by gangs, had teeth knocked out, just walking alone through a park in broad daylight, and I AM NOT GOING TO STAND FOR THAT SHIT! I am not going to stand silently by while the public leering of a drooling mob spurred on by cynical and manipulative marketers makes my niece feel unsafe in public and worry whether she'll get a job if she's not sexually provocative enough. Speak up or suffer Martin Niemoller's fate - a lifetime of regret after silence and complicity bring the fruits of scapegoating, derision and hostility to your door.
The photographer in question and the model in question are making videos with obvious erotic elements in them for years. Quite obviously they BOTH want that and benefit from that. The article is written from a point of view that the woman/model is some kind of helpless creature taken advantage of. And if one actually watches their videos will see something completely different. She knows what she is doing and she is free to do it for as long as she wants. This is THEIR business model, not his alone. And the argument of the author "but I'm talking in principle" is weak. Because the chosen example is obviously wrong and borderline slanderous.