|
Sunday, 29 October 2017
quote [ The industry let him do as he pleased because it believed it needed him ]
Debated about the category, but decided on the neutral "people" over "crime and punishment" or "politics". I posted what I felt was the most clear-eyed and neutral critique I could find and still agree with.
My personal take is that Terry Richardson was a creep and a bully, but he was enabled by an industry, and an audience, that feted the results he got from being a creep and a bully. He was good at exploiting his models, and successful as a result.
I thought I'd throw this out to SE, because, given our collective history in posting and consuming prOn and (quite possibly, be honest here) images of women pushed into uncomfortable and embarrassing acts, I wanted to see if we can thread the needle.
|
Kama-Kiri said @ 4:04am GMT on 30th October
I read that while casual sex between shoots is pretty common with the performers, the director and crew on a porn shoot are held to professional standards, give or take an occasional 'thank you' hand job. That unwritten rule is there for the same reason it's wrong anywhere else: there's inherently a power imbalance that makes it exploitative.
Would we be reading about in the Guardian if Terry had worked exclusively in porn and not for Vogue... of course not. So the double standard here is visibility.
Kama-Kiri said @ 5:21am GMT on 30th October
I read that while casual sex between shoots is pretty common with the performers, the director and crew on a porn shoot are held to professional standards, give or take an occasional 'thank you' hand job. That unwritten rule is there for the same reason it's wrong anywhere else: there's inherently a power imbalance that makes it exploitative.
Would we be reading about it in the Guardian if Richardson had worked exclusively in porn and not for Vogue? Nope. The double standard here is more visibility than actual differences.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Kama-Kiri said @ 4:04am GMT on 30th October
I read that while casual sex between shoots is pretty common with the performers, the director and crew on a porn shoot are held to professional standards, give or take an occasional 'thank you' hand job. That unwritten rule is there for the same reason it's wrong anywhere else: there's inherently a power imbalance that makes it exploitative.
Would we be reading about it in the Guardian if Richardson had worked exclusively in porn and not for Vogue? Nope. The double standard here is more visibility than actual differences.
