JAY carreon wrote:
Can a model in this day and age be successful while keeping her clothes on?

Sure.  But it's less likely.
Whenever those discussions come up people can only pluck a few names out who've never done it (stayed dresed).

Diana Moffitt wrote:
No.  There is no such thing as bad publicity.  Look at Paris Hilton....

I disagree - look at Dan Rather. It's just that good and bad publicity frequently have unpredictable results. Often, bad publicity will turn out a more desirable result, but not always.

Diana Moffitt wrote:
No.  There is no such thing as bad publicity.  Look at Paris Hilton....

Josh H wrote:
I disagree - look at Dan Rather. It's just that good and bad publicity frequently have unpredictable results. Often, bad publicity will turn out a more desirable result, but not always.

The comparison's a bit different.
Rather's a journalist whose image is based on his credibility.
His downfall was ravaging his own credibility for clearly partisan reasons.
Doing something "naughty" doesn't prevent you from looking good in Dolce & Gabana.

SLE Photography wrote:
On another topic entirely, I went & downloaded the Carolyn Murphy video just for kicks.
Aside from the fact that she can NOT dance, I noticed another issue that comes up in the forums all the time in her vid.
I knew she had some tattoos & had read where they have had to photoshop them in her appearances, but I didn't realize how EXTENSIVE they were.
She has a large back piece, and a full wrap on her right hip that starts on her buttock, goes around to the front, and extends 1/4-1/3 of the way down her thigh.
They must be doing a LOT of 'shopping 'cause you can only see bits of any of the tasts in her fashion & SI shoots.

(and before anyone says anything, no I wasn't watching some lookalike fake tape, her face is show extensively from multiple angles, plus she's done mainstream fashion nudes where her smaller tattoos like the one in her bikini line show & they all match)

Where's the link?!?

SLE Photography wrote:
On another topic entirely, I went & downloaded the Carolyn Murphy video just for kicks.
Aside from the fact that she can NOT dance, I noticed another issue that comes up in the forums all the time in her vid.
I knew she had some tattoos & had read where they have had to photoshop them in her appearances, but I didn't realize how EXTENSIVE they were.
She has a large back piece, and a full wrap on her right hip that starts on her buttock, goes around to the front, and extends 1/4-1/3 of the way down her thigh.
They must be doing a LOT of 'shopping 'cause you can only see bits of any of the tasts in her fashion & SI shoots.

(and before anyone says anything, no I wasn't watching some lookalike fake tape, her face is show extensively from multiple angles, plus she's done mainstream fashion nudes where her smaller tattoos like the one in her bikini line show & they all match)

Where's the link?!?

Teresa Marez-Tatsch wrote:
Where's the link?!?

I snagged it on BearShare.  Most of the copies wanted you to pay for a license and were probably loaded with spyware but I found one clean copy.
If you do a google image search you can find some stills, and I'm sure if you just google it you can find a paysite to see it for a few bucks.
It's pretty bad, basically her dancing around naked and then some truly uninspiring sex with her on top all clearly being done for the benefit of the camera.

What I don't get, since she obviously knew she was being taped, is why she let him DO it.
At this point, if you're a celebrity & you're in bed with someone & they say "Lemme whip out the camera, NO one will ever see it!" why would you say ANYTHING but "HELL no"?

JAY carreon wrote:
Really, which agency did Jenna Jameson sign with?

She signed with Elite in 2004.

Reported in Playboy and elsewhere.

(Celebrity division, not 'supermodel'. But you asked. )

Kevin Connery wrote:

She signed with Elite in 2004.

Reported in Playboy and elsewhere.

(Celebrity division, not 'supermodel'. But you asked. )

Aaahh - Kevin Connery, my friend with ALL the agency models in his portfolio!  Thanks for posting the above!  But tell me, precisely what does it prove?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER OF FASHION MODELS (mostly)

Brad Starks wrote:
Companys such as VS have made a market and billions of dollars off of "soft core" underwear shots of their products. VS knows that most of the country say one thing and do another especially when it comes to sex and related topics. The USA buying majority are prudes.

VS is one of the biggest brands and I dont think they would use anyone that did any type of "hardcore" porn. Have you seen any top porn stars in Channel ads? I dont think so. Paris Hilton is a "super rich" personality and not a model. Kate Moss is a "little bad girl" supermodel that everyone knew she was a big drinker and party animal. She lost a few big clients but her PR went back up after she made a return vist to rehab.

The public love a come back story but if youre doing porn.....I dont know.
Kate Moss is doing fine and back out front but that's not a result of her durg use. She was popular and people wanted to see if she would go wild or blow it all and that was why she got so much attention. It seems that anyone that make the STAR, or ENQUIRER magazine are instant attention getters but they cant build careers on that.

Why would a supermodel like Giselle want to do hardcore porn? I dont think anyone is dumb enough at this point to get caught on tape anymore although I'm sure it will happen again soon.

Hey Kevin - perhaps you should listen to Brad in this case?  I really think he's someone you should listen to.  I KNOW that he's someone I SHOULD listen to.

Sincerely,
JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:
Really, which agency did Jenna Jameson sign with?

Kevin Connery wrote:
She signed with Elite in 2004.

Reported in Playboy and elsewhere.

(Celebrity division, not 'supermodel'. But you asked. )

JAY carreon wrote:
Aaahh - Kevin Connery, my friend with ALL the agency models in his portfolio!  Thanks for posting the above!  But tell me, precisely what does it prove?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER OF FASHION MODELS (mostly)

What does it prove?

It proves you weren't actually interested in the question you asked.

It proves you attack the messenger when a statement comes up that you don't like.

You asked who she signed with; I answered.  Why the hostility?

Kevin Connery wrote:

JAY carreon wrote:
Really, which agency did Jenna Jameson sign with?

What does it prove?

It proves you weren't actually interested in the question you asked.

It proves you attack the messenger when a statement comes up that you don't like.

You asked who she signed with; I answered.  Why the hostility?

Kevin Kevin Kevin!  But I AM interested in the question that was asked and thanks so much for providing the information that alleges that Jenna Jameson signed with the Celebrity Division of Elite.  Which proves precisely that: Jenna Jameson is a (minor) celebrity!  You see, the "Supermodels" I am talking about are the girls (and boys) who work fashion (whether editorial or commercial - usually both) - not some porn star who happened to get lucky by signing with the "Celebrity" division of this or that agency.

"Why the hostility?"

1)  My hostility is reserved for those who try to achieve their ends through falsehood.  In this instance, the falsehood I am addressing is: "If you do porn, don't worry - you can still become another Gisele Bundchen."

2)  My hostility is also reserved for people who offer me the not-so-kind suggestion: "piss down your leg" as you so eloquently posted on a different thread here on ModelMayhem.

3)  Kevin Kevin Kevin - you are coming into this argument and writing as if you and I have no prior history of "hostility".  Please refer to Item #1 above.

"It proves you attack the messenger when a statement comes up that you don't like."

You are obviously referring to my allusion to our respective profiles here on ModelMayhem and each of our achievements as photographers.  I don't feel the need to dance around the issue nor walk on egg shells for you - please refer to Item #2 above.  By referring to our respective profiles here on ModelMayhem and each of our achievements as photographers - my intention is to point the readers to said profiles.  That way they can decide for themselves which of us to listen to: the one with the pudgy "models" who couldn't get on the cover of Vogue even if they paid the Editor-In-Chief a million dollars or the one who has worked with agency girls (and yes, one girl who got a Vogue cover).  Should they listen to the one who obviously has more experience shooting fashion and has worked with models who have gone on to successful careers in fashion, or the one who really needs to learn how to walk before he can fly?

So those of you on the OTHER side of this argument may continue trolling for girls to do porn for you (and "damn the personal and professional consequences to these girls!") and I and the others on THIS side of the argument will continue to offer them the truth so that they can decide for themselves.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:
"It proves you attack the messenger when a statement comes up that you don't like."

You are obviously referring to my allusion to our respective profiles here on ModelMayhem and each of our achievements as photographers.  I don't feel the need to dance around the issue nor walk on egg shells for you - please refer to Item #2 above.  By referring to our respective respondprofiles here on ModelMayhem and each of our achievements as photographers - my intention is to point the readers to said profiles.  That way they can decide for themselves which of us to listen to: the one with the pudgy "models" who couldn't get on the cover of Vogue even if they paid the Editor-In-Chief a million dollars or the one who has worked with agency girls (and yes, one girl who got a Vogue cover).  Should they listen to the one who obviously has more experience shooting fashion and has worked with models who have gone on to successful careers in fashion, or the one who really needs to learn how to walk before he can fly?

Jay, I'm sorry you feel that way.

You asked a straightforward question of fact. I responded with a reference to that fact. No interpretation. I didn't claim, "allege", or imply she was a 'supermodel'. I specifically noted she was signed to the celebrity division, which should have prevented anyone from making your mistake.

Your decision to comment on my portfolio--and your subsequent "defense" of it--shows exactly what I indicated: you care less about the accuracy of a statement than you do about whether you like it or who said it. Since there's plenty of evidence about Jameson's signing from Elite themselves, both when it happened and when they were bought and it was "discovered" by the new owners, as well as it being reported by various fashion-oriented newsletters/websites/etc., implying it's questionable by making a derogatory statement about the portfolio of the person who reported it just makes you look silly.

Whether my portfolio is the worst in the world, mere crap, so-so, wonderful, or the best in the world has no bearing on that. Neither does the quality or lack thereof in your portfolio have anything to do with it.

You can wrap it up in whatever fine trappings you want, claim a "prior history"; it doesn't particularly matter.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Jay, I'm sorry you feel that way.

You asked a straightforward question of fact. I responded with a reference to that fact. No interpretation. I didn't claim, "allege", or imply she was a 'supermodel'. I specifically noted she was signed to the celebrity division, which should have prevented anyone from making your mistake.

Your decision to comment on my portfolio--and your subsequent "defense" of it--shows exactly what I indicated: you care less about the accuracy of a statement than you do about whether you like it or who said it. Since there's plenty of evidence about Jameson's signing from Elite themselves, both when it happened and when they were bought and it was "discovered" by the new owners, as well as it being reported by various fashion-oriented newsletters/websites/etc., implying it's questionable by making a derogatory statement about the portfolio of the person who reported it just makes you look silly.

Whether my portfolio is the worst in the world, mere crap, so-so, wonderful, or the best in the world has no bearing on that. Neither does the quality or lack thereof in your portfolio have anything to do with it.

You can wrap it up in whatever fine trappings you want, claim a "prior history"; it doesn't particularly matter.

"Jay, I'm sorry you feel that way."

Conciliatory, are we?  And I thought you were going to tell me to piss down my leg like you did on that other MM thread.  How disappointing!

"No interpretation. I didn't claim, "allege", or imply she was a 'supermodel'. I specifically noted she was signed to the celebrity division, which should have prevented anyone from making your mistake."

Right - but by continuing to bandy Jenna Jameson's name about in this particular thread are you not then trying to associate her with "Supermodels"?  If not, then you are NOT debating the topic and you are merely trying to start another personal pissing contest with me in particular.

"Since there's plenty of evidence about Jameson's signing from Elite themselves, both when it happened and when they were bought and it was "discovered" by the new owners, as well as it being reported by various fashion-oriented newsletters/websites/etc., implying it's questionable by making a derogatory statement about the portfolio of the person who reported it just makes you look silly."

I say "alleged" because I haven't looked at your "evidence" myself, nor do I feel the need to - since it doesn't prove that Jenna Jameson is a "Supermodel".  I wasn't using your "worst in the world, mere crap, so-so" portfolio (your words, not mine) to cast doubt on whether Jenna Jameson had indeed signed with the "Celebrity" division of Elite.  I was using it to question your qualifications - in the first place - to join in this debate on the side that is asserting that "girls can do porn and still continue to be / become Supermodels".

"Whether my portfolio is the worst in the world, mere crap, so-so, wonderful, or the best in the world has no bearing on that. Neither does the quality or lack thereof in your portfolio have anything to do with it."

But Kevin, it does have everything to do with it!  I can even quote participants in this thread whose credentials are even more impressive than mine to support the side of the argument that I am on.  You are EXACTLY like that guy in the "Top Models Pose Nude" thread who, arguing that all girls have to pose nude in order to become a "Top Model", finally admitted that he didn't read Vogue and knows next to nothing about the fashion industry.

JAY carreon
A BETTER, MORE EXPERIENCED FASHION PHOTOGRAPHER THAN KEVIN CONNERY

JAY carreon wrote:
Conciliatory, are we?  And I thought you were going to tell me to piss down my leg like you did on that other MM thread.  How disappointing!

Citation, please? You've claimed this twice; can you back it up?

JAY carreon wrote:
"No interpretation. I didn't claim, "allege", or imply she was a 'supermodel'. I specifically noted she was signed to the celebrity division, which should have prevented anyone from making your mistake."

]Right - but by continuing to bandy Jenna Jameson's name about in this particular thread are you not then trying to associate her with "Supermodels"?  If not, then you are NOT debating the topic and you are merely trying to start another personal pissing contest with me in particular.

No. I was answering a question you asked. If you feel that's bandying her name about in this particular thread, there's a disconnect. If you hadn't wanted to discuss her, you could have avoided asking about her.

JAY carreon wrote:
I say "alleged" because I haven't looked at your "evidence" myself, nor do I feel the need to

You deliberately chose to imply the statement is false rather than click on a link which would show it to be correct? That appears to be a self-defeating approach.

JAY carreon wrote:
"Whether my portfolio is the worst in the world, mere crap, so-so, wonderful, or the best in the world has no bearing on that. Neither does the quality or lack thereof in your portfolio have anything to do with it."

But Kevin, it does have everything to do with it!  I can even quote participants in this thread whose credentials are even more impressive than mine to support the side of the argument that I am on.  You are EXACTLY like that guy in the "Top Models Pose Nude" thread who, arguing that all girls have to pose nude in order to become a "Top Model", finally admitted that he didn't read Vogue and knows next to nothing about the fashion industry.

False premise.

At no time did I make any statement about what you're (falsely) claiming I'm opposing. I didn't say anything about the topic in question. I answered one question of fact, and you're trying to spin it into my disagreeing with you on this topic. That's nonsense.

Your other accusatory comparison is ridiculously false as well. It's not something I would say, nor is it akin to anything I have said.  It's a flat-out, bald-faced lie, in fact.

You have been responding to what you believe rather than what was said. That's not a good approach in business or any interpersonal matters.

JAY carreon wrote:
A BETTER, MORE EXPERIENCED FASHION PHOTOGRAPHER THAN KEVIN CONNERY

Yes, JAY, you're allegedly a "BETTER, MORE EXPERIENCED FASHION PHOTOGRAPHER". Even if it were true, it would have nothing to do with the statement I made--and which you mocked without even checking Elite's press release.

JAY carreon wrote:
Kevin Kevin Kevin!  But I AM interested in the question that was asked and thanks so much for providing the information that alleges that Jenna Jameson signed with the Celebrity Division of Elite.  Which proves precisely that: Jenna Jameson is a (minor) celebrity!  You see, the "Supermodels" I am talking about are the girls (and boys) who work fashion (whether editorial or commercial - usually both) - not some porn star who happened to get lucky by signing with the "Celebrity" division of this or that agency.

"Why the hostility?"

1)  My hostility is reserved for those who try to achieve their ends through falsehood.  In this instance, the falsehood I am addressing is: "If you do porn, don't worry - you can still become another Gisele Bundchen."

2)  My hostility is also reserved for people who offer me the not-so-kind suggestion: "piss down your leg" as you so eloquently posted on a different thread here on ModelMayhem.

3)  Kevin Kevin Kevin - you are coming into this argument and writing as if you and I have no prior history of "hostility".  Please refer to Item #1 above.

"It proves you attack the messenger when a statement comes up that you don't like."

You are obviously referring to my allusion to our respective profiles here on ModelMayhem and each of our achievements as photographers.  I don't feel the need to dance around the issue nor walk on egg shells for you - please refer to Item #2 above.  By referring to our respective profiles here on ModelMayhem and each of our achievements as photographers - my intention is to point the readers to said profiles.  That way they can decide for themselves which of us to listen to: the one with the pudgy "models" who couldn't get on the cover of Vogue even if they paid the Editor-In-Chief a million dollars or the one who has worked with agency girls (and yes, one girl who got a Vogue cover).  Should they listen to the one who obviously has more experience shooting fashion and has worked with models who have gone on to successful careers in fashion, or the one who really needs to learn how to walk before he can fly?

So those of you on the OTHER side of this argument may continue trolling for girls to do porn for you (and "damn the personal and professional consequences to these girls!") and I and the others on THIS side of the argument will continue to offer them the truth so that they can decide for themselves.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Thank you Jay for an excellent contribution that for me  ( the OP ) rings true with respect to the reality of the Fashion World

Garry k wrote:
Thank you Jay for an excellent contribution that for me  ( the OP ) rings true with respect to the reality of the Fashion World

What was "contributed"?

In his introduction, he ignores the answer to a question he asked.

In his point #1, he asserts he's hostile about something that was neither said nor implied.

In his point #2, he asserts he's hostile in this thread about something he alleges was said elsewhere.

In his point #3, he asserts a "prior history", as if it rebutted a trivially verifiable factual statement. (Which he notes in a subsequent post that he did not bother to verify.)

He finishes up with a strawman argument against anyone who disagrees with his position, while accusing them of trolling for girls to do porn for them.

Or, to make it even easier for you to understand:  there was nothing in JAY carreon's post that discussed the original topic.

That's "an excellent contribution"?

Sorry I meant "Contributions"

Garry k wrote:
Would doing porn ( ie an explicit home video ) kill the FASHION  career of a Supermodel -( lets pick on Giselle for this  one )

easy... nope
(and honestly you all already knew the answer to this question)

oldguysrule wrote:
easy... nope
(and honestly you all already knew the answer to this question)

So I looked at your  portfolio and clearly you've got the  chops
But I think the consensus is against you on this question

Kevin Connery wrote:

What was "contributed"?

In his introduction, he ignores the answer to a question he asked.

In his point #1, he asserts he's hostile about something that was neither said nor implied.

In his point #2, he asserts he's hostile in this thread about something he alleges was said elsewhere.

In his point #3, he asserts a "prior history", as if it rebutted a trivially verifiable factual statement. (Which he notes in a subsequent post that he did not bother to verify.)

He finishes up with a strawman argument against anyone who disagrees with his position, while accusing them of trolling for girls to do porn for them.

Or, to make it even easier for you to understand:  there was nothing in JAY carreon's post that discussed the original topic.

That's "an excellent contribution"?

Kevin Kevin Kevin - hello there Kevin!  This thread is dead to all intents and purposes.  The people who could be swayed one way or the other have been swayed.  The hardliners continue to "stick to their guns".  You, Kevin, are trying to flog a long-dead horse.  You are like a vulture, come to feast on a rotting corpse!  I highly doubt you've even read through the entire thread.  This is merely the after-dinner show, not the main one.  You missed it!

TO EVERYONE: I AM ATTACKING KEVIN BECAUSE I AM TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF!  I have posted all my arguments and rebuttals earlier in the thread.

And Kevin, I doubt if you truly care about the core issue/s in this thread.  You're merely here to try to hold another "pissing contest".  Your motives are like your photography - mediocre, at best!  And over 1,800 posts here on ModelMayhem from you - don't you have some PhotoShop-ing to do?  Oh well then read the entire thread - you might actually learn something.  Enjoy!

JAY carreon
STILL A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER THAN KEVIN CONNERY

Tape Her Up wrote:
I see there's yet more of the "when I don't agree with someone I just attack them" tactic going on in this thread.  Again, I point out with amusement that a person who is complaining about another porn thread has not only started this one, he's participating in yet Another porn thread!

Aahh . . . another of that kind! 

All you need to do is read through the entire thread to see my arguments and rebuttals.  I am NOT going to repeat myself!  I am NOT going to repeat myself!  I am NOT going to repeat myself!  I am NOT going to repeat myself!  I am NOT going to repeat myself! 

Also, you're forgetting Mr. Tape Her Up (Why do these people never put their names on their work, hmmmm . . .?) - Kevin & I are BOTH photographers.  For that matter, so are you!  THEREFORE, WE ARE COMPETITORS!  SO OF COURSE I'M GOING TO SAY I'M BETTER THAN HIM!!!  And for that matter, I am better than you!

Hello - this is Reality knocking!

JAY carreon
WILL ALWAYS BE A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER THAN KEVIN CONNERY & MR. "TAPE HER UP"!

SLE Photography wrote:
On another topic entirely, I went & downloaded the Carolyn Murphy video just for kicks.
Aside from the fact that she can NOT dance, I noticed another issue that comes up in the forums all the time in her vid.
I knew she had some tattoos & had read where they have had to photoshop them in her appearances, but I didn't realize how EXTENSIVE they were.
She has a large back piece, and a full wrap on her right hip that starts on her buttock, goes around to the front, and extends 1/4-1/3 of the way down her thigh.
They must be doing a LOT of 'shopping 'cause you can only see bits of any of the tasts in her fashion & SI shoots.

(and before anyone says anything, no I wasn't watching some lookalike fake tape, her face is show extensively from multiple angles, plus she's done mainstream fashion nudes where her smaller tattoos like the one in her bikini line show & they all match)

Wow - you truly are a Gentleman!

JAY carreon
GENTLEMAN PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:
And didn't Jenna Jameson (Porn Star) sign with a major modelling agency a few years back?  The first pornstar to do so.
Dont think Ive seen Jenna walking the Paris Runways or in Vogue - but she could ahve been in on of those Heatherette shows with Amanda Lapore

I think that, despite all of Garry's protests to the contrary, we are basically in agreement.  I grabbed the following "Garry k quote" from another thread:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=59827

Garry k
Male
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 864

Trisha Lee wrote:
"
I've been contacted by an "agent" who says that I can make a lot of money doing artistic nudes and videos. Which, in my opinion, means sex on video. I'm trying to tell her that porn will get me further from advancing my career in modeling but her opinion is that 'porn is modeling'. Sure I can see that it is in a sense, but porn is more taboo and looked down upon, in my opinion. I've read in numerous modeling books that models should stay away from doing pornography.I would love to hear another opinion on the matter. The more the merrier.

Thanks so much for the Help.

~Trisha~"

TO WHICH GARRY REPLIES:

"There is a Saying in the Fashion World "Porn is Death for an Apiring Fashion Model " ( or a photographer )  - once you do porn you will never restore your image"

And Garry - it wouldn't be fair of you to edit your post above!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Kevlar Gal wrote:
Hardcore, yes.  Softcore, no.

I will bet that if a supermodel died from doing porn she would have a smile on her face.

JAY carreon wrote:
I think that, despite all of Garry's protests to the contrary, we are basically in agreement.  I grabbed the following "Garry k quote" from another thread:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=59827

Garry k
Male
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 864

I am not clear what your point is ........

So -In one thread I advise a brand new  model not to venture into Porn as is a dead end ( death to her career path  ) In another thread a pose a general question concerning a model at the top of her game - would  a home sex tape ruin her career ?

I see a couple of differences in what I am saying  between these two threads ....do you ?

Garry k wrote:

JAY carreon wrote:
I think that, despite all of Garry's protests to the contrary, we are basically in agreement.  I grabbed the following "Garry k quote" from another thread:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=59827

Garry k
Male
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 864

I am not clear what your point is ........

So -In one thread I advise a brand new  model not to venture into Porn as is a dead end ( death to her career path  ) In another thread a pose a general question concerning a model at the top of her game - would  a home sex tape ruin her career ?

I see a couple of differences in what I am saying  between these two threads ....do you ?

Oh Garry - I wish I could adopt you!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:
Would doing porn ( ie an explicit home video ) kill the FASHION  career of a Supermodel -( lets pick on Giselle for this  one )

Up until a couple of years ago the  conventional thinking was that a foray into porn would kill the fame ( and commercial opportunities ) available to a celebrity - but then along came both Pammy and  Paris's sextapes ..After the shock waves died down both ladies seem to have become more popular than ever. adn in the mainstream market ( whats the latest - they are thinking of casting Paris as Mother THeresa ?)

SO my question is - If a hardcore home video sex tape of  Giselle were released - would Victorias Secret ( or any other fashion house ) still feature her .......

( I am not asking how many male photogs would add the Giselle sex tape to their collection )

I`m sorry, but I do beleive that porn would kill any fashion models carreer. Pamela is not a fashion model and I don`t think she ever will be!
I do not think that Victorias secret would ever hire anyone thats done porn.
Giselle is a grate model, but I still think that she would not do any high fashion if she did one..

Sorry some one else did - you will have to waitn til the next lifetime .But I am glad you are interested

Peter Dattolo wrote:
Srtictly speaking of supermodels.........unless they were supurb specimens of the female anatomy and have the facial features to launch TV series, clothing lines ect (baywatch for instance), they would never make it to supermodel status, it would be over before it started.

Why?

Because if they were not in the same league as who they would be compared to in the business already, they would not be around too long.

People get fired everyday for doing porn stuff at one time or another, or posting this or that online. Companies have images to uphold and most companies do not associate themselves with porn at all, in fact avoid it at all costs. Teachers lose thier jobs all the time over non-porn type stuff posted on the web years before and the same happens with alot of other women's careers and it was way before they got the job (like in early teen or twenty-somethings age).

Who was the last teacher who lost her job because of photos and they were not even porn?

If by chance a supermodel is already a supermodel, the most she can do is playboy type stuff and not have it hurt her career, it will enhance it if it works. It is still a chance though.

Pamela Anderson for instance - discovered at a baseball game, in commercials, posed for playboy countless times, launched a successful career as a actor and was involved in a number One TV series.............All on her body and looks.
If she let her body go, her career as she knows it would be over tomorrow. Look what happened to that other "supermodel" career when she married that billionair, got really heavy, bad attitude, several tv failures....her career was in the toilet until sh ewent on slimspa or trimspa and lost the weight and she is back in the limelight despite her drawbacks with her attitude ect.........but she "Looks" good again.......thats the "Money" maker for her.

One thing to remember about a Supermodel.....Your "BODY" is your Business, Career, Moneymaker. A supermodel career needs to go in several directions, millions of directions to advance to the next level of success.....in Porn there is only one direction and it is not the same direction as the rest.

As i mentioned before, once you do porn it is branded into your career. It can come up years later when you have a different career in another field, a family and it will ruin all that in a heartbeat, just because people are not understanding of the issue and the why, when you did it. They see it as unacceptable and thats it, you have no say in it. Same goes for your career, you would not have a choice in it, you will simply be gone, non associasion.

Get "Porn" branded to your forehead unless you can survive the sharks already waiting for that "Wannabe" to show up and compete with the ones who already made it work for them (Only two that i know of and thats pamela anderson and jenny mccarthey) so if you can compete with either of them, then go for it.

Remember this is a question posed re a Supermodel at her peak ( not just a new or aspiring model)
Regarding "specimens of female anatomy " supermodels may have great faces and the height - but outside of those Brasilians and a few others - they are not nearly as curvy as the Pam ANdersons of the wrold ( who have had a little artificial help in this dept )
RE Pammy - she was "discovered "at a BC Lions Football game here in Vancouver way back when ... A roving in house video cam picked up her smiling face and broadcast it on the Stadium big screen ( or so they say )