Tim Hammond wrote:
If they mean "no" then there's nothing wrong with saying "no."  I do get amused sometimes at the defensive attitude conveyed when "so don't you dare ask" or "don't waste my time" gets tagged on to it.  But I also get amused at the weekly permutations of the "what's wrong with models who don't do nudes" thread.  So thanks for the amusement.

I agree.

TeddyRay wrote:
For example, take a look at nearly every major fashion model that is represented by all of the major agencys, ie: Ford, Wilhelmina, Elite ect...., The larger mainstream agencys say for the most part to their models "don't do nudity" yet there they are in all their slendor and represented by them at the same time. Again, someone set me straight here.

Fashion agencies in New York do not tell their models not to do nudes.  In fact, nude (topless) shots are quite common on fashion comp cards and in portfolios.

What they do say is not to do crap, particularly nude crap.

TXPhotog wrote:
What they do say is not to do crap, particularly nude crap.

What about drapy shit in front of wronkled up sheets?

DigitalCMH wrote:

What about drapy shit in front of wronkled up sheets?

That's a good working definition of "crap", although there are plenty of other kinds as well.

TeddyRay wrote:
I was merely suggesting that to stiputlate that one "will not" do so may set certain limitations on a "fashion" career and wanted input.

To get back to your point, I don't think it makes any difference at all to a NY fashion model's career what she says she won't do on an Internet model listing site.  Anyone who can do her career any real good will contact her through her agency.

Outside of the major fashion cities (NY, maybe Miami and Los Angeles) I don't see that nudes are all that common for fashion models, and it's still true that what she says she won't do on a model listing site has little or no influence over the course of her land-based modeling career.

TeddyRay wrote:
I was merely suggesting that to stiputlate that one "will not" do so may set certain limitations on a "fashion" career and wanted input.

You're assuming that most of the profiles where you see that are written by models who have a viable chance at fashion in a mainstream land based market.  Most don't, because they're too short or not slim enough or too old, etc.  There are a few working fashion models on here, like Diana and Elisaveta, but they're the exception, not the rule.

For an aspiring commercial model, which is what a considerable chunk of what the MM models are, nudity can be the death knell.  Many commercial agencies won't even consider hiring a model who has done nude work in the past. 

In the plus modeling arena where I usually operate, for example, most designers won't hire a model who has even done glamour-esque work, because the industry is so conservative.  Nudes?  No way, she won't be working again.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
For an aspiring commercial model, which is what a considerable chunk of what the MM models are, nudity can be the death knell.  Many commercial agencies won't even consider hiring a model who has done nude work in the past.

I've never known a commercial agency to ask a model the question.  Furthermore, in the thousands of commercial castings that I have seen, no client has ever so stipulated.

There are extreme cases (say, Vivid contract girl) where past work can influence a model's mainstream opportunities, but certainly not in the commercial fashion industry as a rule.  Any cases such as you describe are exceptions which are greatly outnumbered by the rule.  It's also true that there are certain areas of the country which are more conservative, but LA and NYC are certainly not among them.

Again, nudity (topless) is common in the fashion modeling industry, and there are occasional commercial jobs, even in the US, which call for it.  Blanket statements like you made seem to me to be quite misleading.

Edited to add:  When an agency objects to a model's past nude work, it is rarely-to-never because she has done good fashion nudes.  It's much more likely because she has done more extreme work, or nude crap - not nudes per se.

TeddyRay wrote:
Furthermore, there are many successful models that do not or have not done edgy material, yet the level of success seems to coincide with weather or not they have or will. Someone set me straight here.

Okay.
If you want professional ethics and guidelines, go to a reputable bricks and mortar agency. Otherwise, stay here.

spyro2122 wrote:
If a model says no she means it.

not always true

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
You're assuming that most of the profiles where you see that are written by models who have a viable chance at fashion in a mainstream land based market.  Most don't, because they're too short or not slim enough or too old, etc.  There are a few working fashion models on here, like Diana and Elisaveta, but they're the exception, not the rule.

For an aspiring commercial model, which is what a considerable chunk of what the MM models are, nudity can be the death knell. Many commercial agencies won't even consider hiring a model who has done nude work in the past.

in total agreement

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Maybe it's a locational thing, TX, but I hear all the time from girls who are talking to agencies that they not only ask, they require the model to guarantee that she hasn't done anything revealing/risque/fraught-with-nipples/nude/etc in the past.  I should have qualified my statement with, "In my experience..."  Thank you for pointing that out.

I have personal experience with the agencies in the San Francisco area, and know for a fact that none of the top three do any such thing.  Not sure what area you are talking about . . . I suppose there is such a place somewhere.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Where's Mollie when I need her?  She's waxed eloquent on this topic in the past.

I have worlds of respect for Mollie, but she comes from a very different place, both geographically and by discipline.  Atlanta isn't New York or Los Angeles (or San Francisco).  And Mollie, while a wonderful model, has perceptions colored by the fact that she is also a singer and dancer, and has worked with major corporations with the intent of being a major part of their corporate presence.  That's a very different thing from a run-of-the-mill commercial print job.  Mollie and I have had this conversation before, and we understand our different perceptions.

And, BTW, I know one of the bookers at Elite in Atlanta, who tells me that what you suggest is not true there.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
**Edited to add my own P.S.  You're misreading me, TX.  I wasn't talking about fashion.  In fact, my whole point was letting the OP know that most of the profiles where he reads that "No nudity" statement are from models who are not now and never will be fashion models.  I was talking about commercial models - y'know, the Colgate girls, etc.

No, I didn't misread you - perhaps you misspoke.  I replied about "commercial agencies" and "commercial jobs", and meant exactly that.  I have also made the distinction between fashion and commercial print in the prevalence they have of nudity, so I also mentioned fashion.

But you spoke of "plus models" - which is not a commercial term.  It's use in mainstream modeling is restricted exclusively to fashion models, so you need to be clear what you are talking about.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Thank you for the clarifications.  Amateurs shouldn't be participating in this discussion anyway.  I hereby bow out.

I always find it interesting when people talk about what modeling agencies do and don't do as if they are all some part of a government agency.  Since modeling agencies supply talent for other independent business, each with it's own market focus, I would think that all the above is true? Agencies who specialize in providing corporate spokes models for conservative campaigns are going to be much more sensitive than agencies supplying talent for avant-garde fashion ads.  Agencies are just independent businesses making money from other independent businesses.

Regarding the issue presented by the OP: From a marketing communications and sales standpoint, the "no" word is generally regarded as a taboo.  When was the last time you had seen a product commercial stating what features a product does not have?  Ad makers and sales people don't waste the bandwidth talking about what's not available. So why should models? Discussions as far as what's not available usually occur at the point of inquiry (initial discussions about a project). 

I would think that models would use the tern "no nudes" only if they are so busy with paid jobs that they don't need to maximize their marketing efforts.

The problem with such a blanket term is that maybe the model is thinking "no porn" and the photog who passed he/she up is thinking that they are too prudish to even do subtly implied nudes or highly shielded nudes. - Big difference.

BTW. Sita Mae,  If I were half the amateur you are, I'd think I was a pro

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I always find it interesting when people talk about what modeling agencies do and don't do as if they are all some part of a government agency.  Since modeling agencies supply talent for other independent business, each with it's own market focus, I would think that all the above is true? Agencies who specialize in providing corporate spokes models for conservative campaigns are going to be much more sensitive than agencies supplying talent for avant-garde fashion ads.  Agencies are just independent businesses making money from other independent businesses.

Hey, how'd you get in here?  No common sense or rational thinking allowed on MM, OK?  Them's the rules!

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:

You're assuming that most of the profiles where you see that are written by models who have a viable chance at fashion in a mainstream land based market.  Most don't, because they're too short or not slim enough or too old, etc.  There are a few working fashion models on here, like Diana and Elisaveta, but they're the exception, not the rule.

For an aspiring commercial model, which is what a considerable chunk of what the MM models are, nudity can be the death knell.  Many commercial agencies won't even consider hiring a model who has done nude work in the past. 

In the plus modeling arena where I usually operate, for example, most designers won't hire a model who has even done glamour-esque work, because the industry is so conservative.  Nudes?  No way, she won't be working again.

This "industry" you guys keep talking about sounds like one dull, uptight place.  Good luck with that.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
This "industry" you guys keep talking about sounds like one dull, uptight place.  Good luck with that.

Well, don't quote me, we've established I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  And since neither I nor my work is dull or uptight, I'm just going to assume your slightly snarky comment wasn't aimed anywhere in my general direction. 

Tim Hammond wrote:

Hey, how'd you get in here?  No common sense or rational thinking allowed on MM, OK?  Them's the rules!

LOL   Oops. my bad.

DigitalCMH wrote:

What about drapy shit in front of wronkled up sheets?

Now that is a BLAST from the past!

LOL!

TeddyRay wrote:
I guess I have been somewhat misunderstood here. I do not care about shooting nudes one way or the other, look at my portfolio, there is none. I do Not ask models do shoot nudity either, nor have I been approached to do so. I may suggest that I may or may not be interested in doing so, but to solicit such is beyond me or how I work.

I was merely suggesting that to stiputlate that one "will not" do so may set certain limitations on a "fashion" career and wanted input. That one finds a question on the matter amusing is amusing in itself. And to say the discussion is "self serving", like I said, look at my portfolio. I am not arguing one way or the other here, I simply wanted to stimulate discussion on the matter instead of clouding the facts with material not relative or helpful.

A lot of models or photographers have a certain perception of how to get to the top, discussion on certain issues is not always the solution but it may clear up some misconceptions, even on my behalf for that matter.

I have learned from experience that a model who has a problem with nudity often isn't comfortable with themselves, or aware of how to show themselves to their best, which can cause problems when it comes to posing, etc.  I know this is a generalisation, and people will say that this doesn't apply to them, but I have seen lots of instances.

RED Photographic wrote:

I have learned from experience that a model who has a problem with nudity often isn't comfortable with themselves, or aware of how to show themselves to their best, which can cause problems when it comes to posing, etc.  I know this is a generalisation, and people will say that this doesn't apply to them, but I have seen lots of instances.

Everytime I read one of the "nudity" threads I am amazed at how people talk about not doing nudes yet they have the "Booty shot" on their page in a thong!  WTF!!!