Mikel Featherston wrote:

I'd go further than that... Why depend on provided references? Ask him for the names of some of the other models in his portfolio (if they are not already linked) and ask THEM, too. Ask some other models in the area that you know. You don't have to rely on cherry-picked references if you don't want to.

I agree. The models I work with are all referrences to me. I dont choose a few to be referrences and tell them to speak nice things about me. I give any model asking to work with me the option to contact anyone I have worked with and I make sure to ask everyone I work with if its okay for someone to contact them as a referrence for me. Models that dont want to put forth the effort to make contact with referrences if they need to question things probably are not worth my time shooting. Usually its new models that havent learned how things work yet and how to judge someones work, etc...

Pat Thielen wrote:

This is true -- "bad" photographers and models are known in the community. All it takes is a bit of research -- it's not that difficult.

You mean it takes work?

StudioMona wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more   That's why for me, if the model doesn't trust me enough not to bring an escort (assuming she's done her homework/research/questioning etcetera), then I'd pass No biggie (not that that has ever happened to me before lol )

I usually don't care, I've only had 1 escort that wasn't an MUA or stylist, and he spent most of the time talking to my wife in another room.  Most models I have worked with trust me.

LarryB wrote:
Escorts can come if they chip in for the beer.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

No that's it, I won't write anything else....ummmmmm, to the llama- I see your point, to the photog- I see your point.

Fotticelli wrote:
Models!

This is really simple, those models who don't want to come alone - bring someone.
Don't work with photographers who don't allow escorts. Don't buy into the bs that is not professional or whatever. It's your safety and your right. It's as simple as that. I wonder what the whole no escorts hoopla is really about and so should you.

Yet another who not only misses the point, but heads off far into the weeds behind the target. It's not about escorts. IT'S NOT ABOUT ESCORTS. Will a third time help?

It's about bullshit stereotypes. If you require escorts, work with photographers that allow them. If you as a photographer do not allow escorts, work with models who don't require them.

And STOP saying the photographers who don't allow escorts are fucking rapists or murderers waiting for a chance to pounce.

It's not about safety, it is about COMFORT. I won't make a judgement on why another person is needed for comfort, it's not my call, and not my life.

It's NOT a right, in that you have no right to impose your own work requirements on ANYONE else. YES, it works both ways! I can't make you show up without an escort if you want one! I can tell you to go home, but I can't force you to do something you don't want to do. YOU have to decide if you want to work with me under my rules. If you don't, we can save time and hassle by parting ways.

Ann Marie wrote:

This is why I post, though!  The IMPRESSION I get from photographers who don't allow escorts is that:

A. They want the model all to themselves in a personal way (ick!)
B. They are easily distracted by BOYFRIENDS.  Not girlfriends, not styists, not makeup artists...but ___BOYFRIENDS___.  Even if the MODEL isn't distracted by her BOYFRIEND, THEY are...what does that mean?

I'm not worried about getting raped.  I'm worried about being murdered.  I'm worried that somebody is leading me to believe they are doing something for mutual benefit and then jerking off like an acne-ridden 13-year-old boy to the photos afterwards.

I'm not going to be there - why should I care?

Well - It's CREEP FACTOR.  Pure-and-Simple.

I chose not to shoot with them.  So what?  It's STILL creepy.

Ironically, statistics show that you have a far greater chance of being murdered by your escort than a random photographer...

  I also wonder how many "models" realise the number of professional photographers who simply watch and read, and quietly scratch names from a list after reading statements such as these?

HungryEye wrote:
Ironically, statistics show that you have a far greater chance of being murdered by your llama herder than a random photographer...

  I also wonder how many "models" realise the number of professional photographers who simply watch and read, and quietly scratch names from a list after reading statements such as these?

Along with the "models" who simply watch and read and scratch MY name off lists after reading my posts? The forums are the best way to 'sell yourself' on this site... some are better salespeople than others.

HungryEye wrote:

Ironically, statistics show that you have a far greater chance of being murdered by your escort than a random photographer...

  I also wonder how many "models" realise the number of professional photographers who simply watch and read, and quietly scratch names from a list after reading statements such as these?

I know I do.

Fotticelli wrote:
Models!

This is really simple, those models who don't want to come alone - bring someone.
Don't work with photographers who don't allow llama herders. Don't buy into the bs that is not professional or whatever. It's your safety and your right. It's as simple as that. I wonder what the whole no llama herders hoopla is really about and so should you.

In my opinion this is one of the more threatening and offensive takes on this topic.  It's one thing for a photographer to welcome llama herders. Fine, if that is your deal, more power to you. It's entirely different to imply that there is some dirty secret involved if you're a photographer that chooses not to allow them. Your statement of "I wonder what the whole no llama herders hoopla is really about and so should you." really crosses a line in my opinion. What exactly are you implying with that?

SLE Photography wrote:
Girlfriends, stylists, and MUAs don't typically make the model look to them for approval, give disaproving looks at certain poses or outfits, blow up in the middle of the shoot because the model is looking "too sexy" and haul her out of there, lose his cool when the photographer says "You look hot" and punch him 3 or 4 times in the face, or any of he other regular problems boyfriends & husbands cause.  Theese're all VERY good reasons why even most photographers who're OK with escorts and even PRO escort say no BFs or husbands.

Ann Marie wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, THOSE are the models who don't belong in the biz.

Maybe.  But they tarnish it for the rest of you & make you have to prove you're the serious professional whose boyfriend won't do that sort of thing...unlike all the other ones.  And there are MANY of them.

Ann Marie wrote:
I agree 100% with you.  It IS personal preference and should be set by each person's limits. 
My personal preference is to bring an escort.
And my OPINION is that the photographers who want to work with me shouldn't require I come alone.

Absolutely.  But when you come out in a public forum & declare that there's something "suspicious" about those of us who don't allow escorts you're attempting to inflict your views on me by frightening others away from working with me.

SLE Photography wrote:
Frightened little bunny rabbits will never make it in the rough, tough world of modeling.  So, if you are too scared to be alone with a photographer, you should cut your losses, quit while you're ahead.

Ann Marie wrote:
Please, call an agency or someone who provides REAL work for models.
I'm sure they'll agree 100% with you.

Please note I didn't say those words, that was a quoted repost from Ed Goodwin (used with his permission) and that segment was at the end of a description of the problems usually assosciated with escorts.
I do happen to pay models for both commercial shoots I do & for promo jobs I book for.  I'd say that's real work 
And strangely I have no trouble finding models who're perfectly happy to check my references & reputation in the business & community and then work with me without an escort. 

Ann Marie wrote:
And...BTW, on 4 seperate occassions I've been flat-out solicited for sex at shoots.  I don't want to be solicited at a professional shoot.  Shoots that were *supposed* to be PROFESSIONAL.  Would have an escort have stopped it?  ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, YES.

You know, I shouldn't have to say, "No." 
It just shouldn't happen.  I dealt with all cases evenly at the time, and moved on...with new rules.

Most photographers are dicks or pervs, but there are some.  And I'm willing to bet that anyone can find 2-3 models to give as references saying they aren't.

Was that "are" a Freudian slip?  Did you mean to say "are not"?
And we had a model post in another thread that a photographer hit on her in front of her husband.  So that's no real defense.
Do you take an escort to bars to stop guys from hitting on you there, too?
And are you evaluating these photographers & checking their references first?

Ann Marie wrote:
This is why I post, though!  The IMPRESSION I get from photographers who don't allow llama herders is that:

A. They want the model all to themselves in a personal way (ick!)
B. They are easily distracted by BOYFRIENDS.  Not girlfriends, not styists, not makeup artists...but ___BOYFRIENDS___.  Even if the MODEL isn't distracted by her BOYFRIEND, THEY are...what does that mean?

I'm not worried about getting raped.  I'm worried about being murdered.  I'm worried that somebody is leading me to believe they are doing something for mutual benefit and then jerking off like an acne-ridden 13-year-old boy to the photos afterwards.

Well - It's CREEP FACTOR.  Pure-and-Simple.

I chose not to shoot with them.  So what?  It's STILL creepy.

So how is an llama herder going to stop some photographer from wacking off on your pics once you leave? huh...

If your that freakin' paranoid about modeling....you are truely in the wrong line of work....The right line for you would be the line that leads to the nut house.

To say that all photographers who don't allow llama herders are perverts...then you ma'am are truely wacko!!! But hey...to each its own.

:::Drew makes note of one model he will never work with:::

Serevende Photography wrote:
In my opinion this is one of the more threatening and offensive takes on this topic.  It's one thing for a photographer to welcome escorts. Fine, if that is your deal, more power to you. It's entirely different to imply that there is some dirty secret involved if you're a photographer that chooses not to allow them. Your statement of "I wonder what the whole no escorts hoopla is really about and so should you." really crosses a line in my opinion. What exactly are you implying with that?

Hence my comments that I don't CARE how other people work, I respect their rights to do so
I just get sick of them coming out & interfering with how *I* do business by trumpeting that I must be some sort of dangerous pervert because of how *I* do business

Ann Marie wrote:
This is why I post, though!  The IMPRESSION I get from photographers who don't allow llama herders is that:

A. They want the model all to themselves in a personal way (ick!)
B. They are easily distracted by BOYFRIENDS.  Not girlfriends, not styists, not makeup artists...but ___BOYFRIENDS___.  Even if the MODEL isn't distracted by her BOYFRIEND, THEY are...what does that mean?

I'm not worried about getting raped.  I'm worried about being murdered.  I'm worried that somebody is leading me to believe they are doing something for mutual benefit and then jerking off like an acne-ridden 13-year-old boy to the photos afterwards.

Well - It's CREEP FACTOR.  Pure-and-Simple.

I chose not to shoot with them.  So what?  It's STILL creepy.

Icecold Images wrote:
So how is an llama herder going to stop some photographer from wacking off on your pics once you leave? huh...

If your that freakin' paranoid about modeling....you are truely in the wrong line of work....The right line for you would be the line that leads to the nut house.

To say that all photographers who don't allow llama herders are perverts...then you ma'am are truely wacko!!! But hey...to each its own.

:::Drew makes note of one model he will never work with:::

I don't think you're alone there!  whew!

Ann Marie wrote:
.....And my OPINION is that the photographers who want to work with me shouldn't require I come alone.

get over yourself, sweetie!

Lamonica wrote:
Everytime a new escort thread gets posted, God kills a Kitten....



I hope you feel good about yourself!

That's G. Bush our President, not God. 

Serevende Photography wrote:
Sweet Baby Jesus... you would have served yourself so much better if you would have just ended this with your apology for starting it in the first place on page one.

Curt Burgess wrote:

That's G. Bush our President, not God. 

Curt, I'd just hate like hell for him to be right!

SLE Photography wrote:

Hence my comments that I don't CARE how other people work, I respect their rights to do so
I just get sick of them coming out & interfering with how *I* do business by trumpeting that I must be some sort of dangerous pervert because of how *I* do business

Yup. I'd really like to see a post from Mr. Fotticelli explaining what he's up to with this nonsense. It's so ridiculous, I sense it's just a troll looking for trouble. But, again, I'd really like to see an explanation for why someone would try to put such a dark and false spin on something.

Jordan May wrote:
I just realized something hilarious...

But you were laughing too hard to type any further?

Serevende Photography wrote:
Yup. I'd really like to see a post from Mr. Fotticelli explaining what he's up to with this nonsense. It's so ridiculous, I sense it's just a troll looking for trouble. But, again, I'd really like to see an explanation for why someone would try to put such a dark and false spin on something.

Well, over in the other thread he specifically stated that ALL men, himself included, are threats.
See the 18th post down on this page: https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?t … 1&page=446

Fotticelli wrote:
I am likely to be a threat too. That's my whole point.

Lamonica wrote:
Everytime a new escort thread gets posted, God kills a Kitten....



I hope you feel good about yourself!

Curt Burgess wrote:
That's G. Bush our President, not God. 

True, but it is hilarious! 

Curt Burgess wrote:
That's G. Bush our President, not God. 

Habenero Photography wrote:
Curt, I'd just hate like hell for him to be right!

uh oh. You mean that Bush IS God?

* checks and selects the correct icon for this .... *

SLE Photography wrote:

Serevende Photography wrote:
Yup. I'd really like to see a post from Mr. Fotticelli explaining what he's up to with this nonsense. It's so ridiculous, I sense it's just a troll looking for trouble. But, again, I'd really like to see an explanation for why someone would try to put such a dark and false spin on something.

Well, over in the other thread he specifically stated that ALL men, himself included, are threats.
See the 18th post down on this page: https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?t … 1&page=446

Well, that's all I need to know. That just ain't a healthy minded person. Now *that* is something to be concerned about if you are a model. I wouldn't feel safe around somebody like that with platoon of Marines as my escort!

"I am likely to be a threat too". Damaged goods baby. Damaged goods.

Lamonica wrote:
Everytime a new escort thread gets posted, God kills a Kitten....



I hope you feel good about yourself!

Curt Burgess wrote:
That's G. Bush our President, not God. 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
True, but it is hilarious! 

Absolutely! 

Oh shit, it's Patrick!

I hope you're not telling any stories about us being in the Brig together....

Serevende Photography wrote:
Well, that's all I need to know. That just ain't a healthy minded person. Now *that* is something to be concerned about if you are a model. I wouldn't feel safe around somebody like that with platoon of Marines as my escort!

"I am likely to be a threat too". Damaged goods baby. Damaged goods.

This is why I like escort threads ... there is so much opportunity for laughs! 

Funny AND right on target!

Lamonica wrote:
Everytime a new escort thread gets posted, God kills a Kitten....



I hope you feel good about yourself!

Curt Burgess wrote:
That's G. Bush our President, not God. 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
True, but it is hilarious! 

Curt Burgess wrote:
Absolutely! 

Oh shit, it's Patrick!

I hope you're not telling any stories about us being in the Brig together....

George W is the biggest reason why we must be escorted every where we go.  He is the Big Brother and no telling what Weapons we might be packing in our camera and make up bags! 

There has not been a sense of fear like this since the "cold war" in which producers of military weapons made a fortune while Ronnie Reagun was President.

Ann Marie wrote:
This is why I post, though!  The IMPRESSION I get from photographers who don't allow escorts is that:

A. They want the model all to themselves in a personal way (ick!)
B. They are easily distracted by BOYFRIENDS.  Not girlfriends, not styists, not makeup artists...but ___BOYFRIENDS___.  Even if the MODEL isn't distracted by her BOYFRIEND, THEY are...what does that mean?

I'm not worried about getting raped.  I'm worried about being murdered.  I'm worried that somebody is leading me to believe they are doing something for mutual benefit and then jerking off like an acne-ridden 13-year-old boy to the photos afterwards.

I'm not going to be there - why should I care?

Well - It's CREEP FACTOR.  Pure-and-Simple.

I chose not to shoot with them.  So what?  It's STILL creepy.

A number of people have offered their opinions on her statements. 

I think a more objective approach would be preferred and frankly a little more adult.

Just a sec ....

Ok, about ready .... takes a moment to get the instrumentation read..... here we go.



Yup. Just as I thought.

Curt Burgess wrote:

A number of people have offered their opinions on her statements. 

I think a more objective approach would be preferred and frankly a little more adult.

Just a sec ....

Ok, about ready .... here we go.



Yup. Just as I thought.

You get the feeling that Ann is trolling?  There are so many other threads on this subject.  Let's lock this baby away!

Patrick Walberg wrote:

You get the feeling that Ann is trolling?  There are so many other threads on this subject.  Let's lock this baby away!

Yeah, I was sort of wondering this myself. I notice the OP has been MIA on a lot of the discussion. I suspect that if we quit posting this thread will have the death it truly deserves.

Curt Burgess wrote:
A number of people have offered their opinions on her statements. 

I think a more objective approach would be preferred and frankly a little more adult.

Just a sec ....

Ok, about ready .... here we go.



Yup. Just as I thought.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You get the feeling that Ann is trolling?  There are so many other threads on this subject.  Let's lock this baby away!

Interesting hypothesis ... I don't know. Do troll statements have such an element of stupidity in addition to provocativeness and hatefulness?  Any troll linguists on this thread?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You get the feeling that Ann is trolling?  There are so many other threads on this subject.  Let's lock this baby away!

Pat Thielen wrote:
Yeah, I was sort of wondering this myself. I notice the OP has been MIA on a lot of the discussion. I suspect that if we quit posting this thread will have the death it truly deserves.

I was about to give her a cluepon, but I'll hold off. Let's see if this thread drops out of site. The "death it truly deserves."