Don't know what to make of this

I posted this in Glamour and Nude Talk yesterday becaues it seemed pertinent to that forum. So far, 32 views and not a single comment. Hmm.

I have cast aspersions on the GWC who is primarily interested in getting in a model's pants and uses the camera as an instrument toward that end. My perception is/was that a true professional would not be so characterized. From the article in the NY Times, and if the allegations are substantive, it seems that I was mistaken.

That no one in the other forum had anything to say is interesting. I would like to broaden the audience.

Here's my post from yesterday:

Here's a link to the NY Times piece: https://www.nytimes.co​m …eber-harassment.html?_r=0

Leaving my own moral comments out of the acts described in the article, I am confused about the recent shift where people are coming forward with what we conceive to be today's standards on yesterday's activities.

If back in the 1990s, those activities were considered by models to be the price for gaining notoriety, but now that wouldn't be, why raise those activities now in today's society for what was considered normal then? This is a rampant thing now, and there has to be some sort of statute of limitations for these things.

Would that be condoned now? Nope, but it was then. Just like comments and behavior of men toward women in the workplace. What happened in 1995 in some office somewhere should not be tried now in today's court of public opinion.

It is a very slippery slope. We are now headed toward a place where anything you have ever done in your life can be tried later in life once laws and public opinion has shifted against you. Think of the implications of that, it is quite scary. You could be the most moral person, NOW, and in 20 years, morals then could cause you to be tried in the courts of social media and civil suits, ruining your life. The acts here seemed deplorable now, but back then, was it?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415
If back in the 1990s, those activities were considered by models to be the price for gaining notoriety, but now that wouldn't be, why raise those activities now in today's society for what was considered normal then? . . . What happened in 1995 in some office somewhere should not be tried now in today's court of public opinion.

What happened in 1995 should be publicized because people who still regard forcing young men into what is essentially prostitution for the sake of their careers as normal need to be told that it was wrong then and it's wrong now. These abusers of power may not care that it's wrong, but they'll care if they become less likely to get by with it. The publicity will also encourage models to say no and refuse to keep the abusers' secrets.

It still happens. The son of a friend of mine was interested in modeling. He abandoned that pursuit when he learned what he'd be required to do to get work.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415
It is a very slippery slope. We are now headed toward a place where anything you have ever done in your life can be tried later in life once laws and public opinion has shifted against you. Think of the implications of that, it is quite scary. You could be the most moral person, NOW, and in 20 years, morals then could cause you to be tried in the courts of social media and civil suits, ruining your life. The acts here seemed deplorable now, but back then, was it?

Yes.

number six wrote in post #18541559
Yes.

If so, why weren't these raise up in news outlets to create a public outcry back then? I don't remember any such thing, yet it was a common expectation in the modeling and acting scene that there would be some sort of sexual advances or more. If it was so deplorable then, why didn't the public get into an uproar like they do now? Just a question, my intention isn't to invalidate your response. I agree with it, but again social values and limits to what behavior others expected of you was quite a bit different, and constantly changes. Not always in a good way, but a society's value system does constantly ebb and flow over time.

This is a huge philosophical discussion, one that is raised in classes, so I doubt we will get any answers that will please most people.

I certainly appreciate bringing current affairs to light, but it doesn't take 1995 events to do that. In this case, perhaps these gentlemen are only trying to raise awareness, however, many times, there are other ulterior motives involved. My comments are also a bit more generic than just this one case. Just be careful where the bar is set on these types of things.

This is an obvious egregious situation, but as we go down this slope, who knows where bottom is on what somebody can dredge up from any person's past to file litigation or to create a public stir to ruin a life. This is just my personal view however, but I am old enough to have seen, and are seeing, many of these types of slippery slopes of which there is no bottom, so many things in the past that were just accepted. We are trying things in the future for what happened in the past where there wouldn't have been any trials. This is like Minority Report, but in reverse.

Again, I am not condoning the actions of the photographers, nor the stress or pressure they put on their clients in order to satisfy their desires, but this was indeed status quo then in all of the modeling and acting arenas. It was a standard expectation that one would have to sleep with a director/producer just to get a part, even, which didn't happen here. It still is in fact, despite all the discriminatory laws and quid pro quo statutes we have in place now.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541574
If so, why weren't these raise up in news outlets to create a public outcry back then? I don't remember any such thing, yet it was a common expectation in the modeling and acting scene that there would be some sort of sexual advances or more. If it was so deplorable then, why didn't the public get into an uproar like they do now?

I'm not sure the public is in an uproar now. The casting-couch issue is in the news, but most people don't write the news, they read it.

If you're asking why these specific offenses didn't make the news at the time, with the perpetrators' names, plausible reasons exist. Models who could have reported the incidents had little bargaining power and remained dependent on the men they would have accused. They may also have feared losing other gigs if they showed themselves willing to "tell on" photographers and agents. Some may have felt they'd done something wrong that brought trouble on themselves: unknowingly acted flirtatious or seductive, let themselves be drawn into a sexual situation, or just been naive. In addition, many people consider their sexuality private and dislike drawing strangers' attention to it. Haven't you ever seen that women say testifying in court was like getting raped all over again?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415
Leaving my own moral comments out of the acts described in the article, I am confused about the recent shift where people are coming forward with what we conceive to be today's standards on yesterday's activities.

If back in the 1990s, those activities were considered by models to be the price for gaining notoriety, but now that wouldn't be, why raise those activities now in today's society for what was considered normal then? This is a rampant thing now, and there has to be some sort of statute of limitations for these things.

Except it wasn't normal then, or legal, or morally acceptable. It never has been acceptable to abuse others, to use your perceived power over them to force them to do things they are not ok with.
It wasn't ok in the 80s, the 90s and it isn't ok now, it was never ok, and it never will be ok.

The abuse wasn't condoned by society, the perpetrators simply got away with it. The reasons are complex, wrapped up in attitudes towards the victims (homophobia, misogyny, bigotry etc) and the power relationships that existed at the time. If you think the victims accepted the abuse and condoned it, your greatly mistaken, and have a warped and broken idea of what happened, and what it is like for the victims of abuse.

Fortunately society is slowly moving on from old attitudes and people are able to talk about what happened, they are able to seek some form of justice and hopefully, the victims can finally begin to heal.

I think one of the limitations of the '80s & '90s (and earlier) was the lack of mass communication in that, if someone wanted to get it known that there was inappropriate behavior going on, there was generally a limited audience to tell. With the introduction of the Internet, it's very easy to reach a vast amount of people.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415
Leaving my own moral comments out of the acts described in the article, I am confused about the recent shift where people are coming forward with what we conceive to be today's standards on yesterday's activities.

yeah, like getting rid of the statue of Christopher Columbus because he was merely behaving in the manner of the rest of the world, with regard to indigenous people they encountered.

• Have folks bothered to consider all the early fathers of our country who were slave owners? The fact that George Washington was an active slave owner for 56 years, and the Mount Vernon estate’s enslaved population consisted of 317 people. Like Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves.
  
• How about the fact that recent news reports have publicized the fact that John McCain's family owned slaves in the pre-Civil War South?
  
• How about the now sainted Junipero Serra, the subject of allegations that Serra was involved in the murder and torture of indigenous people who did not willingly submit to the Spanish Crown's program of conquest and religious conversion. During his tenure, the preferred methods of abuse included floggings with heavy leather straps ("Cat o' Nine Tails") or metal-tipped straps; staking out "bad Indians" in the sun for days; putting them in stocks; forcing them to attend Catholic services on pain of beating; and imprisoning them in fetid, disease-riddled rooms.
  

The fight is about money; don't kid yourself that it is SJW, PC, or whatever it is dressed-up as.

We need to bring in more broad social issues and a much longer time frame into this thread without focusing on the article or why op needs validation by number of responses.

scokar wrote in post #18582658
why op needs validation by number of responses.

You think I need validation by the number of responses? This is too funny. I don't do social networking. I do have a little-used Instagram account that has one "like" and that was me because I accidentally clicked on it one day.

Perhaps I was too subtle when I listed as zero the number of answers to my question in the Glamour and Nude section. Note that it was a question that I had thought would be answered by those whose interest was in this area. The absence of answers didn't offend my sense of self-importance at all. Trust me. It was troubling on a deeper level. I meant to imply that perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that the exploitation and abuse of models was universally perceived as an egregious activity.

In any endeavor where you have more people who want to participate than there are spots for them there is the opportunity for abuse. Sure the subject of the abusive behavior could complain, but doing so pretty much shuts the door for advancement within that field.

Casting directors, modeling agents, fashion photographers and similar positions, even if they are above reproach still look at the subjects work history and a track record of complaints is just one more thing to consider. Especially when those complaints are difficult to prove. The whole "me too" movement only gained critical mass when enough actresses who were secure in their careers to move on Weinstein and his ilk.