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 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.
108 Comments
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.
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.
"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".
"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.
No, the article is written from a point of view that using soft porn to sell products is 1) manipulative, 2) a lazy appeal to base instincts, and 3) degrading to all women. Whether the model is being abused is an entirely separate matter.
Spot on. That’s the distinction here.
I call BS.
If that's your position, you didn't need to go outside of FStoppers for source material. You host more NSFW content than Playboy.
What, it's ok because "you" didn't shoot it? Do you really think that content doesn't generate a lot of traffic for this site? A site that markets to, and profits from, photographers? That pays you?
If you were on such a moral high ground, you'd have written this for a site that doesn't host the very type of content you're condemning.
Clickbait, plain and simple. Funny you agree so whole-heartedly with a comment that includes the word "lazy", because that's exactly what this article is. Whatever genuinely valid points you had were lost in a sea of thinly-veiled character assassination.
If you're going to write on a subject like this, you need to have the chops to do it properly. This doesn't read like an exposé (which it should, given the serious nature of the accusations), it reads like a rant that's better suited for a reddit thread or something.
"If that's your position, you didn't need to go outside of FStoppers for source material."
I gotta agree here. I've been calling out cheesecake on this site for a long time.
And yet, not a peep from you about the topic under discussion.
In this instance, the simplest answer to "It's 2021! Why is this still happening?" is that multiple consenting adults are engaging freely in a business venture, and sex, whether literal or implied, artistic or obscene, sells.
You're free to speculate about the photographer's motives, his models' subjective experiences, and the potentially nefarious cultural externalities of boudoir photography and titillating advertising. Perhaps he does, wittingly or not, encourage a particularly sleazy kind of photographic aspirations. But we're left with little more here than accusatory conjecture about a photographer and unfounded assumptions about various models' agency in every aspect of their mutual enterprise.
One thing is clear: there was no reason to include the specifics you did in this piece except to court controversy and clicks. Mission accomplished in that regard.
I don't really see what the issue is with this particular "prominent male photographer" and his website. Some of the content might be a bit tacky, but where exactly is the mistreatment of women in this instance? You might find it cringe inducing but that doesn't make him unprofessional. I mean what's so derogatory about the headline "[Model name] is back!"?
This comes across as another outrage merchant. Maybe you should ask the models in the course if they feel like they have been mistreated or objectified.
Unfortunately, the fact that someone is prominent as the professional in their sphere doesn't make them prominent as people. Some people are entitled to think they are somewhat superior and may treat others whatever they feel like, so nothing new here. You were right when saying the refrain never changes, it's only the year that differs.
I have worked with nude models for a few years, and I have learned the most outrageous stories; one of them told me she was recruited from a local modeling site, payed the trip to the location in advance, but when she got there, the photographer waited for her with two other male friends, whom he introduced as "assistants". She got undressed and in a matter of minutes, the three men were all over her, trying to - well, rape her. She literally ran out in the street, with nothing but the coat she managed to grab on the way to the door. I must add the said photographer is still working in Romania, the girl never pressed charges, because, I quote - nobody would believe me, since I willingly went there and took off my clothes. Another situation which I saw on Facebook the other day, was a rather popular photographer's post in a group - where he discussed the "attitude" of a model, who refused to pose in some BDSM sexual positions after she agreed to a "art nude photography" shoot. The photographer's comment: Whatever, stupid b**ch, your loss. Thank you, Alex Cooke, for bringing this subject to attention.
Such a misleading title....
"Even Some of the Most Prominent Male Photographers Still Don't Know How to Treat Women".
1. The article only talks about one photographer ("some" is understood to mean "more than one")
2. Brings no evidence that the photographer mistreats women (admits as much in the article)
Can you at least make the title of the article accurately reflect the nature of the content.
Two examples (free of charge)....
"I explored this well known photographers website, and I worry that it sends the wrong message"
or
"I explored this well known photographers website, and I believe it reinforces a negative stereotype of boudoir / nude photographers and their motivations"
You are welcome.
Well, I am one of those photographers that photograph women in sexy fashions thou I don't do full nudes. I also make money by being an expert in the subject. This article does not mention that most of the women being photographed want to do these types of photographs. I have never, even as a beginner, "begged," "tricked," or "demanded" for a woman to get half-naked in front of the camera. My photog friends have women flying across the US for them to photograph in the nude or sexy fashions or peek-a-boo bikinis, and they are not the greatest photogs. I even had to turn down women because their concepts were too extreme for my taste.
Are there male and female pervs out there? (wow, yes, it's not just males) Yes. I do not deny that fact. Is a camera used as a prop to get interact with beautiful women? Yes. Lots of male photographers do use it to meet women, but let's be honest here. You can see their work and see if they are a serious photographer or a prev with a lens. I'm sorry, but we can't control a person (model) if they want to work with a talentless person. The truth is there will always be a group that will take advantage of the media for their perversions. With that said, there's a billion-plus dollar market out there for that type of subject matter. So why not. If the photographer and model are on the same page, then who cares. Who am I to judge how a person makes a living.
The only problem is that this article is too one-sided, in my opinion, and is a bit misinformed because they are not in that market to understand. Women are more in control of how their sexual adult content is used in these past five years than ever before in history, thanks to Instagram, YouTube, and onlyfans. Women are the ones that are posting this content mostly and seeking photographers to produce this content for them. So photographers are using these opportunities to increase their followers. I don't see the harm in that. The truth, SEX SELLS. Period. That will never change, and if you want it to change. Tell a 20 something woman in the UK that sold-out her bath water for 30 dollars a bottle and without trying to place new content in the past six months is still averaging 1MIL in American earnings a day that she needs to stop. Yeah, I don't think these women give three rat turds what anyone thinks about what they do.
My last point is if people take a boudoir session and believe it is a way to harm or take advantage of the opposite sex. That isn't the photographer's fault. That person was mess up in the head before they even saw that content.
There is nothing wrong if you run a professional bonafide business. Models want pix, photographers act with dignity
The issue is 95% of this sort of photography isnt like that, its done for the wrong reasons, and women are simply exploited and/or objectified
95%? How did you come up with that number? It's 2021 and some men are still acting like women are incapable of making their own decisions.
Richard, I agree with Black Z Eddie. What is your "95%" base on? Because in my experience and I do not want to say I'm an authority, but I am very knowable about the market. Most of these "models," especially the traveling models, have their price and are very open to sharing it with a photographer. I have hundreds of emails, FB, and text messages of traveling models providing their rates for photos and bonuses. I hate that these models are also very free to throw their photographer under the bus when they are not happy with their deal results. I see it all the time. They claim to be the victim when a deal goes south.
Now I am not saying that there are no victims. But in my experience, it's not the majority as you are claiming. I am sorry, but a photographer has a port full of raunchy nudes, and a model still decides to work with them. They know what they are walking into. Model Mayhem proves that point. But to the photographer in this article in question, he is not objectifying or using women if the women go to him to produce that type of sexual content and even pay him for it. He does it because it brings views and followers.
Photographers that are rude and pervs show their true colors before they even start working with a model. But this isn't because they just are disrespectful. It's because they already worked with many models that taught them it's okay to behave that way. The sad part is this is like the chicken and the egg. Who truly knows who started it all. But the model is always in control in the end. They are the ones that make the final choice to work with that photog or not.
I apologize for being so vocal about this. I am tired of people with no experience in the adult industry making claims without knowing how everything goes down. I promise you that many of the complaints and bad experiences you read about from models are primarily about compensation issues and have nothing to do with nudes or sex.
." in the past six months is still averaging 1MIL in American earnings a day" internet models making $180,000,000 in 6 months? WTF?
it is Delfin or what ever her character name is. There's an interview of her disclosing her analytics. The woman has a lot of businesses registered in the UK on top of her media channels and that number must be all of her combined earnings from all of her media outlets. She even owns a payout loan business.
The highest paid American Onlyfans model gets 800k a month I believe, which is still no Delfin, but no chump change either. These women who are showing off their bodies online for money while pervs wank themselves are looking down on these so call "champions of women" and laughing straight to the bank.
Again, for the readers. I am not saying there are no horror stories. But when I hear the terms taken advantage of and objectified in this market. I always ask who is the true victim. The person making the cash or the person blindly giving it away?
There is a deep irony in the contrast between what I feel is the author's correct identification of misogyny in the marketing and photo industries and the actual use of sexual images as click-bait for articles on this site.
When I read these articles I am amazed at how many photographers are ignorant of their own art history as represented by works collected and shown in MOMA, The Met, The National Gallery, Guggenheim and ICP. Many fine artists have worked with explicitly erotic subject matter and they have far more technique talent and critical acclaim than those clutching their pearls in the comments.
Nan Golden, Marilyn Minter, Mapllethorpe, Akari, Larry Clark, Picasso, Raphael, Klimt.
It was all art.
Photographers NOT shooting erotic art or nudes treat women poorly all the time by berating them, treating them like cattle, calling them fat and treating them like prostitutes. The genre is not the problem, it is misogynist men. Nothing in the description of the class suggests anything other than the model specialized in nude/ erotic or fetish modeling and she was fully consenting to model for the class. This we should applaud as this is NOT abuse. When someone wants to shoot nudes or fetish find a model who wants to do that rather than pressuring a model during the shoot who did not discuss doing nudes in advance. If anything the article shows the author does not get what #metoo was actually about and his shaming a genre many women choose to do fetish modeling is what is actually sexist in 2021.
"It was all art."
Sorry, but cheesecake used to sell products is almost NEVER the "art" of which you speak. It's cheap titilation that objectifies women and damages girls.
Wow... if I was Matt Granger... I would be flattered and pissed at the same time! I am a grown man and believe if a man has a problem with someone they should say it clearly and directly with conviction or keep quiet. Rumors and drama is not the way of integrity and strength. The premise that adult women are not capable of making decisions and need a white knight to protect them from their choices is a scary slope that targets all men. Please start creating your own content... or call out real illegal stuff that exists you are a skilled writer. This is simply just comes across as a hater hit piece with a boy who cried wolfe clickbait title. Disappointed. Do better!
"The premise that adult women are not capable of making decisions and need a white knight to protect them from their choices is a scary slope that targets all men."
It's not about the model. It's about the stereotype.