# Uncle Terry - anyone seen / read this article outside Australia / New Zealand?



## Menace (Nov 22, 2013)

Came across this article in the local online news website ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/fashion/9430606/Fashions-dirty-little-secret

Interesting...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 22, 2013)

Disgusting. Absolutely terrible that the industry continues to support such a sleaze. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GuyF (Nov 22, 2013)

I've been aware of Terry Richardson for a few years. I first saw his book Terryworld in a book shop and none of the images had any artistic merit as far as I could see. Lots of images taken from what appeared to be "behind the camera" on the set of porn shoots etc. A few images too of him showing, um, how _happy_ he was with himself (I'll let you work out what that might be a euphamisim for).

So if you like (mainly) crummy images that anyone could take with a mobile phone, then Terry's your man. Clearly we don't know the story behind each image but I did get the feeling he might have used the, 'do _this_ for me and it'll advance your career' trick. I wonder how many other famous (infamous?) photographers have exploited women. 

Ultimately, I doubt he cares what we think.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

I don't blame him. I blame the womens love of fame.
I have heard many of stories of him using his name to have sex with women(but how many famous people don't???)
I have NEVER heard of him FORCING himself on someone.


Terry - "Yes I'll shoot you, but can we sleep together"
Model - "Yes, why not, if it'll get me the in front of your camera"

I don't see what the problem is, if she chose to sleep with him based on his name in the business, she's just as bad as he is. They are BOTH the cause of the problem, I don't see either being a victim. Fair exchange is no robbery.

Do you think the ceo who hires the sexy blonde receptionist because she wears revealing outfits to work a sleaze as well???


One thing I DONT understand is why everyone supports his work when it isn't good in my opinion. 
My iphone with flash can create the same photos without me even looking. simply point and click


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

Thats odd, do they not have the ability to leave??
Fear of not being booked again?
If he was such a monster as these women claim, why would they care if he booked them again? Why would they WANT him to book them again?
I simply don't buy it. So many are always playing the victim, it's truly pathetic to me

If you have the ability to make a conscious decision of if you WANT to participate or not, how can you be a victim???


> "What happens is them feeling like they have no choice. They're vulnerable," Rena says of many young, inexperienced models who assume the nude shot is par for the course if they want a career in modelling. There's fear, Harvey says, "that if they don't do what he wants, he's not going to book them again."


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Nov 22, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> I don't blame him. I blame the womens love of fame.
> I have heard many of stories of him using his name to have sex with women(but how many famous people don't???)
> I have NEVER heard of him FORCING himself on someone.
> 
> ...


If there was no coercion, then yes the situation is "merely" unprofessional and inappropriate. The perception of coercion on the part of the recipient is all that matters.

However a person in a position of power to affect the career of another insinuating or outright stating that sex will further their career or the refusal will damage the career IS sexual harassment and coercion. The ability or inability of the victim to leave the situation is IRRELEVANT to the offense. The alleged activities in the article suggest that young models felt trapped by his advances because of the potential for career damage.

Lots of careers deal with people who can make or break those who work for them. The fact that someone can walk away doesn't mean the decision can't affect a career and doesn't make the situation not illegal.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

GmwDarkroom said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > I don't blame him. I blame the womens love of fame.
> ...


People kill me with that. Their ability to leave is irrelevant???
Theres many of photographers in this world who can make a career. Stop going to the one looking for sex. You walk by a dog that is biting everyone, you expect to get bitten. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. FOOLISHNESS! They need to stop whining and take their "talents" elsewhere.


----------



## ajperk (Nov 22, 2013)

What the photographer is doing is essentially a type of blackmail: "I possess the power/authority/influence to harm your career/reputation and thus harm your interests. If you don't do X (which you are unwilling to do without this threat), then I will harm your interests." One doesn't have to explicitly spell out their position of power, especially given that such power, authority, or influence is often informal (making it yet easier for the blackmailer to deny wrong doing). The threat to do harm can be vague or implicit, as well as the expectations for the blackmailee's behavior (once again, making it easier for the blackmailer to deny having done anything wrong).

It is coercion. Call me old fashioned, but it is extremely unethical (and may even be illegal, also). *The whole point of blackmail is that it gives the appearance that someone is doing something willingly, even though they are in fact not doing that willingly*. Additionally, it's not only a way to try to hide from legal responsibility, but it frequently is the blackmailer's attempt to hide from their own conscience (perhaps, again though, I'm just old fashioned). 

It is disgusting behavior, it does real harm to vulnerable people, and it should not be tolerated.



AAPhotog said:


> Thats odd, do they not have the ability to leave??
> Fear of not being booked again?
> If he was such a monster as these women claim, why would they care if he booked them again? Why would they WANT him to book them again?
> I simply don't buy it. So many are always playing the victim, it's truly pathetic to me
> ...


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

ajperk said:


> What the photographer is doing is essentially a type of blackmail: "I possess the power/authority/influence to harm your career/reputation and thus harm your interests. If you don't do X (which you are unwilling to do without this threat), then I will harm your interests." One doesn't have to explicitly spell out their position of power, especially given that such power, authority, or influence is often informal (making it yet easier for the blackmailer to deny wrong doing). The threat to do harm can be vague or implicit, as well as the expectations for the blackmailee's behavior (once again, making it easier for the blackmailer to deny having done anything wrong).
> 
> It is coercion. Call me old fashioned, but it is extremely unethical (and may even be illegal, also). *The whole point of blackmail is that it gives the appearance that someone is doing something willingly, even though they are in fact not doing that willingly*. Additionally, it's not only a way to try to hide from legal responsibility, but it frequently is the blackmailer's attempt to hide from their own conscience (perhaps, again though, I'm just old fashioned).
> 
> ...



Harm their career? How? most of the times these individuals are going to TR for photos. With that being said, it's not as though all of these individuals have a requirement to get a TR photo, or loose the contract. Just as much as he's using them. They're sitting back playing the victim using him.
"yes, if I ****** TR, I bet I can get a portfolio"
I just don't like how no matter who makes the decisions, or what they are, it somehow ALWAYS falls on the MALE!


----------



## ajperk (Nov 22, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> > I just don't like how no matter who makes the decisions, or what they are, it somehow ALWAYS falls on the MALE!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ajperk (Nov 22, 2013)

apparently I failed in making the quote thing work properly


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

Women use what they have many of times to get what they need. But since this is terry richardson, they all cry about it AFTER the fact, when they simply could have left?
But wait "I don't want to loose these wonderful photos that he would take of me" In that case, the dignity and self respect that were taken from them because of the non existent force he used, must of not be too highly valued if they chose the photos instead. I mean, your point would make sense if say, every aspiring model had to take photos with TR as a requirement, in order to be signed to a major agency, but that is simply not the case. STOP TAKING PHOTOS WITH HIM. LEAVE IF YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.


----------



## skullyspice (Nov 22, 2013)

not much different than the old casting couch that has been in Hollywood since the birth of film really. there will always be a percentage of women who will use what they have to get where they want. The difference is he makes no secret of it.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

skullyspice said:


> not much different than the old casting couch that has been in Hollywood since the birth of film really. there will always be a percentage of women who will use what they have to get where they want. The difference is he makes no secret of it.


RIGHT!


----------



## Jim O (Nov 22, 2013)

I _think_ I understand both sides of this situation. Here's how I see it:

This guy is a well known sleaze. It's like the dog who bites metaphor above. If you go to "Uncle Terry" as an unknown aspiring model, and want him to shoot your modeling portfolio, you should know what he is and should not be surprised when the treats you like a whore. His reputation precedes him. Sorry, but it's the truth. You should go elsewhere.

On the other hand, if it's a paid job, and he has "creative control" and can hire whomever he chooses, and he insists on a pound of flesh, so to speak, or else you won't get the job, then that is coercion. It's unprofessional and likely also illegal in many countries.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

Jim O said:


> I _think_ I understand both sides of this situation. Here's how I see it:
> 
> This guy is a well known sleaze. It's like the dog who bites metaphor above. If you go to "Uncle Terry" as an unknown aspiring model, and want him to shoot your modeling portfolio, you should know what he is and should not be surprised when the treats you like a whore. His reputation precedes him. Sorry, but it's the truth. You should go elsewhere.
> 
> On the other hand, if it's a paid job, and he has "creative control" and can hire whomever he chooses, and he insists on a pound of flesh, so to speak, or else you won't get the job, then that is coercion. It's unprofessional and likely also illegal in many countries.


illegal doesn't make things immoral. Although I wouldn't get women as such, I don't think it's wrong for him to work how he does(although many will disagree with me). Point is, YOU DONT HAVE TO DO THE JOB.
just like folks who want to take naked photos in the name of art. People who truly don't want to have sex with this man, won't do it under any circumstances. Forget who you are! It's like a woman wanting to kick it with the rock band, well chances are, you're going to have to give something up, do you still want to kick it with the rock band(because you liked them/ because their famous/ because they might put you in a song). If you don't want to have sex with this man, don't deal with him and blame it on him when he asked you to have sex, and you OBLIGED. whatever the reason may be. People that have principles, tend to not change them. Thats my just my 2,4,6,8 cent


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 22, 2013)

This is the last thing I'll say about it.
If someone offered a young lady 1,000 to sleep with them, and that young lady(who has the ability to turn down the offer) accepts it, do you call her a victim? No, many people would instead, call her a prostitute.
She used sex as a means of getting something she wanted. She wasn't FORCED, she simply accepted the offer.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 23, 2013)

Here is my take.

This is the first I have heard of this guy. I read the article. I am old enough to be thinking of my legacy, and be clear on matters of character, values, ethics, etc. But, I wouldn't push them onto others.

That said, the problem is that he is in the position of power- he can make careers, he is older, he is "wiser" in the was of manipulation, etc. The girls are desperate to "make it" before they get too old, and they are trusting, and they are younger. Uncle Terry uses his professional position to prey upon these weak young victims. He is dumb enough to publish himself.

He disgraces photography, and whatever his work, his legacy will be marred-FOREVER!. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her near this POS, and I would never want his reputation-would any of you?

sek


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 23, 2013)

Everyone is chiming no, so why not me.

My take. What are the given here?

1. Some of you are claiming that he is an well known sleaze.
2. Apparently he "can make" careers, at least there is this perception among aspiring models and that is why they go to him, that is why he get the power to coerce.

I am not going to argue whether it is immoral/unethical/illegal to do what he is doing. Those are rather philosophical and legal questions. I would also not argue whether girls wanted/deserved/craved for what they got. and whether they could decide not to go to him or not. 

But my point derived from the above two givens is

"Why does the modelling industry support him (or him like other sleaze bags?)"

He derives the power to exploit because of the modelling industry. Clearly the modelling "industry" as a collective does not "disapprove" his behavior - the larger "society" may. That is why there are laws (which are creations of the society at large) against blackmailing like this, but there is no such disciplining mechanism created by the modelling "industry" (or film industry against casting couch) against such behavior. Clearly the evidence says that the modelling "industry" does not consider this behavior as troublesome or wrong by the codes of that industry - that is why he can flourish and stay in business. Individual acting independently inside the modelling industry can surely dislike or disapprove him, but as a collective the "industry" does not do so. 

By my moral standards he is "bad", but that is my personal opinion. As long as the industry he is in supports his behavior and does not explicitly take steps to correct it, he is just an opportunist from the perspective of that industry. The industry is equally to blame, not only Terry Richardson.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 23, 2013)

TR has had this sleazy reputation for years. In the age of Google, I can't believe that any model who shoots with him does not know exactly how he operates. It seems likely that many models and clients must seek him out for this very reason, since there is nothing special about his photography. Do you suppose some of us are secretly jealous? LOL

I would speculate that shooting with him, then complaining later could even be a part of the model career path these days. You know the old saying that any publicity is good publicity. I think it works both for TR and for his alleged "victims."

Another old saying I like is: "Follow the money." I think it applies here.

Call me cynical!


----------



## iam2nd (Nov 23, 2013)

This is why we have Age of Consent laws, and why we define at what age a person is considered to be an "Adult". It creates a clear delineation between those who are considered by society and it's laws to be accountable for their own decisions. For example, there's a reason we don't let children drive cars. It's not because they aren't cable of understanding the mechanics and techniques involved. They certainly are. Take the recent hit show "Masterchef Junior". 8-13 year old kids were creating mastering complex dishes and desserts that were among the toughest in the world to nail perfectly even by adults, and yet they were repeatedly capable. But where did these kids break down? When it came to working under stress in a real, live kitchen with real consequences. The emotional maturity simply wasn't there. Kids would love to drive cars, but we don't let them until they have reached an average age where we consider them capable of understanding the reality and consequences of what it means to drive a lethal weapon.

The article didn't mention the age of the "young, inexperienced models...". If they are underage according to the respective province/state's laws, then there is a clear illegal issue with some of the things alleged in the article. But if they are considered adults, then like it or not, they are assumed to be accountable for their decisions, unless of course true blackmale can be proven. And we are left to either be disgusted or to be indifferent of Terry's behavior, and act accordingly by either speaking out in protest, or in defense.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Nov 23, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> People kill me with that. Their ability to leave is irrelevant???
> Theres many of photographers in this world who can make a career. Stop going to the one looking for sex. You walk by a dog that is biting everyone, you expect to get bitten. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. FOOLISHNESS! They need to stop whining and take their "talents" elsewhere.


Yes, irrelevant. What you can't seem to grasp is the concept of "perception" and the implication that a career could be affected. And a career could be changed if the big-time photographer bad mouths the model or if the booking agency penalizes or dumps the model because she booked, but then bailed. It may even be in her contract that she can't bail without penalty.

And, as I've mentioned before, the perception and interpretation is based on the victim's perception -- at least in the United States.



AAPhotog said:


> This is the last thing I'll say about it.
> If someone offered a young lady 1,000 to sleep with them, and that young lady(who has the ability to turn down the offer) accepts it, do you call her a victim? No, many people would instead, call her a prostitute.
> She used sex as a means of getting something she wanted. She wasn't FORCED, she simply accepted the offer.


And if the model was given the fact that this guy might want sexual favors up front or the agency indicated that it is part of the deal, then I'd agree with this analogy. The difference is that the prostitute is aware of the nature of the relationship and expectations. However, even in that case, the pimp -- or "agency" -- might feel differently about her ability to walk.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 23, 2013)

GmwDarkroom said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > People kill me with that. Their ability to leave is irrelevant???
> ...



So, lets say you're a heterosexual male, the only way to keep your 100,000 dollar a year occupation is to sleep with your homosexual male boss. What takes precedence?
Like I said, you don't want to, you dont have to PERIOD!
Me being a straight male will tell you, that I won't have sex with another man, EVEN IF MY JOB WAS ON THE LINE. I stand by my principles. If you would be gay simply for that occupation, then don't go and cry about it later. Yes, he was in position of power. NO, he did NOT force you to make the decision you made though. It's that simple, no matter which way you TRY and spin it. These are all adults we're talking about here.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 23, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> So, lets say you're a heterosexual male, the only way to keep your 100,000 dollar a year occupation is to sleep with your homosexual male boss. What takes precedence?
> Like I said, you don't want to, you dont have to PERIOD!
> Me being a straight male will tell you, that I won't have sex with another man, EVEN IF MY JOB WAS ON THE LINE. I stand by my principles. If you would be gay simply for that occupation, then don't go and cry about it later. Yes, he was in position of power. NO, he did NOT force you to make the decision you made though. It's that simple, no matter which way you TRY and spin it. These are all adults we're talking about here.



Ok, so tell me this AAPhotog, if this is the same 100,000 dollar a year occupation on line, and you do not need to sleep with your male homosexual boss, rather you have to sleep with your heterosexual female boss who is just a bit older than you. What would you do? Would your "principles" remain the same, if not then the example that you game is misleading and not appropriate in the present case.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 23, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > So, lets say you're a heterosexual male, the only way to keep your 100,000 dollar a year occupation is to sleep with your homosexual male boss. What takes precedence?
> ...


If it is an older woman that I WANTED to sleep with, yes, I would. If it is someone that I would HATE to sleep with, someone who would HAVE to coerce me into sleeping with them, then no, I wouldn't. Like I said, my ideologies and principles would always remain the same. Some people CHOOSE to change them depending on the circumstance. I personally wouldn't, but I'm not going to say it's a bad thing. It's only a bad thing in my eyes, if someone CHOOSES to change them based on a situation, and then cries fowl play later on.


PS. if I were to sleep with someone for money, or position, who I normally wouldn't for no reason at all, can I really blame the individual I slept with??? I am the one who chose to oblige, based on the money or position offered. 

Anyone seen Terry put a gun to a womans head? Duct tape or hand cuff a woman? Knock a woman unconcious???
I haven't seen, nor heard of it. These are grown women. Don't blame the state of the business simply because these women are crying out after the fact. They could have stood on their principles when it mattered, maybe then the business wouldn't be as it is???

I'm not with picking up drunk women, as a matter of fact, I don't drink and dont like my women to either. But this sounds like the girls who has a girls night out, has a few shots, then goes and looks for a guy to take home and have sex with. Wakes up in the morning and calls foul play. But hey, when you're a woman, I guess most people don't care about the facts or circumstance, only that they were women "taken advantage of"


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> He gets away with it because people let him get away with it.
> 
> Unless there are guns held at heads, nobody _has_ to do anything.
> 
> ...



That sums it up!
But, as far as his work, not so good imo.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 24, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> He disgraces photography, and whatever his work, his legacy will be marred-FOREVER!. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her near this POS, and I would never want his reputation-would any of you?



Completely agree, especially the POS part.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

If anybody feels they have not consented their first port of call is the police. 

They can't help with careers right enough, only if a crime of non-consensual sex has taken place.

Being seduced by power or reputation or career prospects may not stand up, if you excuse the pun, in a court of law.

That said, in general -and drawing no inference from this discussion- if any person is actually proven to have raped anybody I hope they get 15 years in a really bad prison.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 24, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> GmwDarkroom said:
> 
> 
> > AAPhotog said:
> ...


If you ever get a daughter, I am pretty sure you will change your twisted view. Qhat he is doing ia a crime in many countries, even where it isn't, it is still abuse.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 24, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > GmwDarkroom said:
> ...


If I ever were to have a daughter, I would teach her to stand for what she believed in... at ALL times. 
She would also have the sense to either
A) Not deal with Terry
B) Walk out if uncomfortable
C) Do what she felt comfortable with, with Terry and NOT cry about it later as if she was taken advantage of 

Funny how all of these women involved, only think its wrong AFTER the shoot, and their photos were published ijs.
If it was wrong then, they would have stopped it.There is no BUT


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> If any of these women think a crime has been committed then the avenue to address that is via the police.
> 
> *This kind of thing goes on because folk tolerate it. Being a parent has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of this. Kids raised properly wouldn't have to think twice about this kind of 'dilemma'.*
> 
> Folk still work with Roman Polanski. It's not a nice industry. Not one I'd want any daughter of mine to aspire to be part of. But if she was over 16, she would have her own mind to make up.



Many here seem to not realize that. These are adults here. Everyone wants to be an adult and make their own choices, until it suits them to NOT be responsible for their own actions. You cant have the best of both worlds. Well, in this case, given many peoples opinions it seems as though you can smh.
Women fight for equality. Individuals 18-21 fight to have their rights as an adult. Yet in situations like this they were all too young to think for themselves, and since they were only women, they were taken advantage of??? Come on now.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 24, 2013)

Good god. I can't believe the level of stupidity being displayed here.

Let me make it simple. 

In virtually all civilized countries this behavior is sexual harassment. It is illegal and it may rise to the level of rape.

No debate. No discussion. That's simply the law.

If you think otherwise. You are wrong. 

If your testosterone-addled brains don't get it, let me explain it.

Sex between consenting adults is legal. Non-consensual sex is illegal. Regardless of age or gender. In order for sex to be consensual, both parties have to be capable of freely giving that consent, without intimidation or threats.

What is described in these articles is forced sex involving a party that cannot legally give consent. An individual who is in a position of authority over them is demanding sex. 

The victims are being threatened with the denial of their livelihood. If they do not consent to sex, they will suffer a career damaging loss that will translate directly into reduced earning power at a minimum and perhaps complete loss of ability to earn a living. 

Under those circumstances the law in most of the civilized world recognizes that "consent" is meaningless because it has been coerced out of the victim. As such, it doesn't matter if the victim ultimately yields without the threat of physical violence. It is still sexual harassment and quite probably rape.

It is a horrible indictment of the industry that they turn a blind eye to this kind of abuse. I'm not a big fan of trial lawyers, but I hope that someday soon someone files a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against one of the modeling agencies that is complacent in this behavior. I suspect they will only change when faced with significant financial loss.

Just to be clear – this is no different than the coach raping young, disadvantaged boys in the shower room at Penn State – person with all the power demands sex of the person who has no power. It's against the law and it is undeniably wrong. No debate.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 24, 2013)

If we think it isn't rape, we're wrong?
Interesting, you must know the law better than every DA in the country who has the opportunity to file charges then.



unfocused said:


> Just to be clear – this is no different than the coach raping young, disadvantaged boys in the shower room at Penn State – person with all the power demands sex of the person who has no power. It's against the law and it is undeniably wrong. No debate.


This is completely different. I don't recall him raping anyone???
He may have the power, and when asked for sex he gets it.
He doesn't say, "give me sex or you're fired" he doesnt knock anyone out and TAKE what he wants. I don't understand how you can possibly compare any rape, to consensual sex




unfocused said:


> What is described in these articles is forced sex involving a party that cannot legally give consent. An individual who is in a position of authority over them is demanding sex.


First time that I've heard sex was forced. You must have been on these shoots to know that. None of the models who have come forwards has stated that he FORCED them to have sex.






unfocused said:


> The victims are being threatened with the denial of their livelihood. If they do not consent to sex, they will suffer a career damaging loss that will translate directly into reduced earning power at a minimum and perhaps complete loss of ability to earn a living.


Do you recall him saying that, or is this just the assumption? Even then, do they have to oblige. It's funny that you can "stand up" for these individuals who were "taken advantage of", when they themselves didn't even think it was necessary to stand up at the time


----------



## Jim O (Nov 25, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> If I ever were to have a daughter ...


I'm glad that you don't. I'm guessing that you have no children, and if so, that's probably for the best.

Women and girls are put in this position way too often and always have been.

Saying you would "teach her [better]" may not be enough. The truth is she wouldn't be able feed *her* child with pride.


[quote author=AAPhotog]
He doesn't say, "give me sex or you're fired" 
[/quote]

You know this for a fact, or are you ASSuming this is the case?


BTW, didn't you say you were done with this thread many entries ago? :-X


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 25, 2013)

Jim O said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > If I ever were to have a daughter ...
> ...



You know this for a fact, or are you ASSuming this is the case?


BTW, didn't you say you were done with this thread many entries ago? :-X
[/quote]
Assuming, like what many are doing here, huh?


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 25, 2013)

My 2 cents:

1. That somebody published a story that claims Terry Richardson did something does not make the story true. Maybe he has a case for defamation.

2. To the best of my knowledge of Israeli law, if Richardson did this in Israel, and the models were over 18 (with exceptions that I don't think apply here), it would be legal. I think it would be immoral and unprofessional, but still legal.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 25, 2013)

Jim O said:


> The truth is she wouldn't be able feed *her* child with pride.



This is a horrific reflection on your parenting. There are many ways to earn a living and feed your kids. Becoming a prostitute, bartering sex for success needn't be one of them. Any daughter I have will value herself more.

A hypothetical properly raised daughter would have left the hypothetical room at the first hypothetical hint of anything untoward.

You are looking increasingly nutty and increasingly isolated.

KIDS. IF SOMEBODY EVER TRIES TO MAKE YOU DO SOMETHING YOU DO NOT WANT TO DO, KICK, PUNCH SHOUT FIRE. GET OUT THE ROOM AND CALL THE POLICE.

Don't think 'Oh my career' or 'How shall I feed my kids' and tolerate it.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 25, 2013)

I had hoped to be done with this. 

Each of us makes our choices in what we tolerate and don't tolerate. I find "Uncle Terry's" behavior reprehensible. 

If you share that opinion, there is a change.org petition that has been started which you can sign https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/big-brands-stop-using-alleged-sex-offender-pornographic-terry-richardson-as-your-photographer.

I am appalled at those who want to blame the victims. But, I know they have lots of company. For centuries, victims have been blamed when they have been abused. Even today, in some countries rape victims are considered somehow at fault. 

If you have never been subjected to workplace harassment you really have no idea what you are talking about. I know, because in the early 2000s I was targeted by a mentally unstable supervisor who systematically identified people and destroyed their careers. 

I was lucky, because I had a transferable skill set, a well-established work record, and the maturity that comes with more than 30 years of experience in the workforce. And, of course, I am a white man, which still comes with certain advantages in the workforce that women and persons of color have yet to be granted. 

Still, it was an experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone. It helped destroy a marriage, derailed my career at a major multinational corporation, impacted my lifetime earning power, had significant financial repercussions and forced me to leave a job I enjoyed and was good at. Not to mention the mental toll it takes on a person. It was, to say the least, an eye opening experience because I finally got a tiny, tiny taste of what many people go through their entire lives – targeted simply for who they are.

Whether it is blacks, Jews, gays, native Americans, Hispanics, immigrants or any of thousands of other classes of people throughout history, you can see the same basic patterns of denial and blame-the-victims that has been playing out in this thread. 

Certainly models, being young and often beautiful, may not generate much sympathy as victims. But, that is one of the things that makes it so easy for people like "Uncle Terry" to victimize them. 

For some to suggest that their daughters would not submit to such harassment...well...I hope you never have to find out. Unfortunately, your words show you are also teaching them that it is their fault if they find themselves in such a situation and are so trapped that they have no choice but to submit or abandon their career. 

That's not the kind of workplace I want for my daughters and that's why I will always stand against vermin like Mr. Richardson.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 25, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is she wouldn't be able feed *her* child with pride.
> ...



Yet, I would be the bad parent, for teaching my kids morals, self respect?
You hit it right on the head, sir!


----------



## docsmith (Nov 27, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Good god. I can't believe the level of stupidity being displayed here.
> 
> Let me make it simple.
> 
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Jim O (Nov 28, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jim O said:
> ...



Said by two non-parents with no clear sense of reality.

I'll take my *PROVEN* parenting skills over either of your "if" parenting skills any day. My three *adult* children have in fact been taught better. But several things you'll learn should you ever be privileged enough to have one or more:


You can't be there all the time.
Kids make bad choices. The ones who have been well parented make fewer of them and learn from them.
Virtually all children, especially adolescents and young adults, go through a period where anything a parent recommends is highly likely to have the opposite of the desired effect.


Now some things about every decent parent:


They love their kids unconditionally. This is a type of love that people who do not have kids might _think_ that they understand. They do not even if they think that they do. Think back to this when you are holding your first child in the delivery room and you will admit I was right about it.
A good parent will do anything to provide food, shelter, and safety for his or her child. That means anything. You _cannot_ understand this. Why? See the comment directly above this. I would kill for any of my children without hesitation or guilt.

Once again, I will state it:

One cannot feed his or her child with pride. Perhaps one of you non-parents would argue this but it is the case. Had I had to prostitute myself in order to feed and clothe and shelter them I would have done it gladly and without second thought. Happily for me, that never happened. For some there are few if any options. Go ahead and tell me that loving my children unconditionally makes me "nutty".

Anytime either of you ignoramuses want to compare parenting skills and experience, have three children and a combined nearly 70 years of parenting and you'll have some standing. Right now neither of you do. For the record, two of my children have college degrees and one is still an undergraduate. One is about to finish a masters in public health and then go to Senegal in the Peace Corps for two years. She plans a career in public health in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in the third world. What a terrible kid, huh? One is a highly successful computer engineer who could probably buy and sell either (perhaps both) of you for lunch. He lives in one of the most expensive zip codes in Manhattan and he's completely self made. He hasn't needed to ask for a penny since he finished college. Also a terrible kid I guess, and highly reflective of my terribly "nutty" parenting skills. None have an alcohol or drug problem. None have ever been arrested. There have been no unplanned pregnancies. Oh, and yes, I would know.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 28, 2013)

Jim O said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...


I agree with many of your points, BUT, my problem doesn't lie with a parent doing anything for their child. It lies with a parent WILLINGLY doing anything for their child, and then blaming someone else for something that BOTH parties agreed to do. Sure, she can have sex with that photographer for that cover(or she can do what MOST parents do which is get a job where sex wasn't expected nor required). I don't care about the choices one makes to support their family, but why cry about it and blame someone else later? So, if your daughter was offered that magazine cover as a trade for sex, would she then go and be an actual prostitute instead??? In that case, Terry did her a greater justice by offering a higher paying gig, right? C'mon now, you've got to be kidding me

You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own. I can tell you one thing, MOST mothers will do whatever it takes to provide for their kids, but they don't place the blame of their decisions on someone else later, and MOST of them, actually do WHATEVER for the well being of their children, like, get a job where sex isn't required. IJS

PS... All of these models that he's "raping", are mothers? Every one of them?


----------



## Northstar (Nov 28, 2013)

> You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own.


. Not sure what this means? ???

AAphotog...wow, after reading all of your posts, where do I begin. Let me get this straight, your main point is that the girls consented to the sex and so it's ok? Let's start there:

1. We all know that the girl/model should just say "no" and leave...we also all know that we shouldn't smoke, drink excessively, overeat, abuse drugs, have unprotected sex, drive drunk, cheat on your spouse.....etc..etc. My point is that the girl knows she should say "no" and leave, but it's not that simple. 

2. Here is the definition of rape in the civilized world. You seem to not fully understand the definition...especially the part about coercion and deception.

Definition of Rape. The exact definition of "rape" differs from state-to-state within the U.S. and by country internationally. Generally, rape is defined as sexual contact or penetration achieved:

without consent, or
with use of physical force, *coercion, deception*, threat, and/or
when the victim is:
mentally incapacitated or impaired,
physically impaired (due to voluntary or involuntary alcohol or drug consumption)

3. *So with the definition clearly laid out.....how about the young 18-20 girls (I use the word "girls" with purpose) that are being sent to him under contract from their employer, the modeling agency, to work for a high profile photographer. And when this young girl is faced with his alleged Quid Pro Quo advances...read this part carefully.... then that is sexual harassment. And, if his alleged words, actions, and suggestions are powerful enough to manipulate/persuade her to make a mistake and consent, then that is a form of rape*.

4. Most people understand that "kids" at 18 to 20 years old often times make some terrible decisions. Faced with a quid pro quo situation when tempted by money, career advancement, fame...etc...some "kids" will make a mistake for which they'll later regret. The situation shouldn't be brushed aside or dismissed with "don't whine about it" as you wrote. These people should speak up so maybe it won't happen to the next victim /girl....AND, maybe a DA will take notice. 

5. My last point, why the heck are you arguing so strongly about this subject on this post? Think about it, you are arguing a point that most here disagree with you on, that take your character and morals into question because of the very sensitive subject at hand (protecting the interests of young/vulnerable women)and you're doing it for absolutely nothing to gain....nothing to gain at all. Not that bright. IMO. 

Sorry to be a jerk, but when it comes to people brushing aside and justifying the acts of alleged sexual predators, it really rubs me the wrong way...and many others as you can see.

One last thing.... these are all allegations, and that should be kept in mind.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 28, 2013)

Northstar said:


> > You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own.
> 
> 
> . Not sure what this means? ???
> ...


I havent read this rest, but if you opinion differs from mine, this analogy doesnt work. We know we shouldn't drink nor smoke(which I do neither),but the problem is PEOPLE LIKE TO. I'm sure that you're making a case that these young ladies did NOT want to have sex though.

Ok, I'm reading through your post. Coercion or deception, huh?
I guess MANY men rape women then. How many men are out there claiming to love their women, simply to sleep with them??? Are they all being honest, or simply decieving that woman? So, by your definition, that's rape as well

Here I am with nothing to gain, yet argue my opinion which is against many others, yet its not bright? Simply because its not following everyone elses beliefs? hahaha I guess I should just be a follower then? With that being said, all of the other models slept with him, why should everyone else? You've got to do better, sir.

Key word, ALLEGED.
No one alleged he was a sexual predator with all of these facts BEFORE these women shot with him.
No one said he was a sexual predator WHILE shooting with him
Its only AFTER the fact that these individuals want to jump on this band wagon and state these things to the public.
IM NOT BUYING IT!

You said, maybe they should speak up so a DA can take notice. Why go to the news outlets about it, as opposed to the police then?
It simply doesn't add up


----------



## scarbo (Nov 28, 2013)

From what I can see there seems to be a smear campaign going on against Terry Richardson, in all probability spearheaded by the powerful radical feminist lobby and their supporters, who are rife in journalism, very vociferous and extremely sensitive to anything they believe sexually objectifies women.

It’s no secret that Richardson’s work can be provocative and even offensive to some, due to its sexual explicitness. However, this is not a crime and accusations of sexual coercion and rape are worthless unless they are pursued through the courts. Someone feeling uncomfortable in Richardson’s studio is not sexual coercion. Given the nature and style of his work, you would imagine not everyone is going to be comfortable with his suggestions, but it would be unfair to accuse him of coercion unless he is forcing or threatening you in some way. It’s a difficult area because a young and naive person may enter this situation with all sorts of assumptions in their head which bear no relation to reality or what is expressed. They may not think they can express an opinion or may fear their future career is in the balance, without anything Richardson may say. The question is can he really be held responsible for these projections? I think the agents and agencies charged with managing the careers of these aspiring models bear a greater responsibility in ensuring models are mentally equipped with the confidence to negotiate their scenes and extract themselves if necessary. 

At the moment, all we have are aspersions and accusations towards someone who is a very easy target, given the nature of his work. There also appears to be an orchestrated attempt to cast a shadow over his work and methods, by a powerful lobby that has very strong opinions about the sexualisation of women. Naturally, if he is guilty of coercion in any way, then he should have to face the consequences, but as far as I am concerned, unless he is brought before a court and convicted of something related, the accusations are weak.


----------



## Jim O (Nov 28, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own.



Many? Wow, what a magnanimous guy you are!

How many times have you held them while they puked at three in the morning? How many have you held while they cried after some boyfriend or girlfriend broke their heart? How many have you taught to throw a curveball and been out there beyond dark doing it? How many have you driven five hours *each way* to get when they're sick at college? How many have you spent your hard earned cash on for cars (and insurance) and college tuition and scouting and dance and gymnastics and team sports and trips abroad? How many times have you changed an infant and brought him or her to his or her mother to breast feed? How many two year olds have you held while they had a temp of 105º and were having a spinal tap (and were you also crying?)? How many of your sons and daughters have you had "the talk" with? How many have you taken to get birth control? How many soccer and baseball and lacrosse games have you attended when it's cold (and/or raining) outside? How many dance recitals have you been to and sat through two hours of crap waiting for your daughter's five minute performance? How many late nights have you waited until the last one came in before you finally got some rest? How many times have you bitten your tongue and NOT said "I told you so" even though it might feel so satisfying to do just that at the moment? These are but a few of my parenting experiences.

You and Mr. Walnut can speak in platitudes about what you believe parenting to be. In parenting "love" is spelled "T-I-M-E". It's being there. You teach them by modeling the behaviors you wish for them to emulate. That's how they learn. Talking the talk means zilch. It's all about walking the walk. And then you hope that they've taken in at least some of it, and that their mistakes will not be huge and that they will indeed learn something so as not to repeat them.

As I said, you have no standing to talk about parenting, your "takes care of their children as his own" notwithstanding. You have *ZERO* clue how you would take care of your own. You do not and can not understand that. The more you say it, the more ludicrous it sounds.

Anyway, my turkey is stuffed and in the roaster and my home made gravy is simmering. I'm going to enjoy Thanksgiving with *my* children, two of whom came from different states not because they had to be here but because they wanted to be here and enjoy the meal that Dad has been making since my oldest was about two. Terrible parenting, I know.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 28, 2013)

Oh yeah Thanksgiving, the day where the very bad native americans have finally been slaughtered enough to steal their country. R


----------



## Northstar (Nov 28, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > > You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own.
> ...



Yes, you should be a follower....you should be a follower of others when you don't know right from wrong and they clearly do.

TR is innocent, these are just allegations....BUT, if the allegations are true, and he is doing what I've described above in point #3, (which is what was written in the online petition and various news articles) and you still don't get how wrong it is....then I don't know what else to say.

Also...if you're just a troll,trying to elicit a reaction on a sensitive subject, then that isn't too bright either. Because you have and continue to put in writing, on the internet for anyone to see now and in the future, your immoral and very insensitive views on the subject of woman being sexually victimized. That's just a splendid idea...as I said, real bright, just like your points.


----------



## AAPhotog (Nov 28, 2013)

Jim O said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > You're talking to someone who has no biological children, yet deals with many women and takes care of their children as his own.
> ...


Just like Terry, you are assuming many of things that you have no proof of smh.
How about this... You're right! I've done none of those things. Terry is a horrible person who sexually abuses women.

Feel better?
Have you ever driven from New Jersey to California and back, to pick up a young ladies children after setting her up with a place to live? I'm far from a saint, but I'm no demon either! You don't know me, and just because I do NOT agree with your opinion based on accusations that were never pursued by anything other than the media, does NOT make me a monster.
By the way, I'm currently sitting here with a young lady in my house with her 2 children while I cook a huge feast for this evening. Happy thanksgiving to you, good luck with your assumptions


----------

