Fotogene wrote:

I remember a recent local story about a dentist who druged his female patients and had his way with them as he filled their cavities. Also a story about a doctor who provided his sperm and fathered an untold number of children for women unable to do so with out the help. They just didn't know it was HIS sperm!

Last fall I was ripped off, perhaps because I was too casual about who I let into my studio area unsupervised. It was a $10,000 uninsured lesson learned the hard way. I began shooting models in 1965 and have dozens if not hundreds of examples of reasons why escorts have hurt the photo process. Nothing new, just read the miles of discussion. A few escorts have helped improve various aspects of the shoot but a very small minority. A few escorts were obviously there to intimidate me. Police men and women, tall, big "brothers, boyfriends or others" and I allowed none of them to be a part of the shoot unless they shot too. Correction - female escorts - must shoot too, male escorts - outside. If anything ever happened they are just outside to do whatever they would do inside after the fact.

My new rule is "you bring an escort - double fee and they must also be in your images." Amazing how the need quickly diminishes.

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences but i think you're being too harsh!
Just my opinion..

Sara Danielle Hines wrote:
So with all these NO ESCORT threads I thought I would post this forum.

My dad is watching CBS right now and called to say to turn the channel . A  special on how models have been Raped, Battered, and Murdered was on.  It was called ”Exposed”.

There were many cases of missing models most not found. Ect. I watched part of it and got the point.
Some are just stupid ass girls who get approached in the mall by guys and leave with them. To no surprise they are attacked. Others are working with well know photogs and some were rapped others are now dead.
They even have some of the photogs that are convicted on this special. They have nothing of  importance to say other than the fact that, YES they committed the crime.
These Photogs were well know some not. Some models had worked with them MANY times before being attacked (that is with the well known ones).

I am one to ALWAYS check references . Sometime double or quadruple. Since I injured my arm I have had my MOM drive me to all shoots and hang out with the photogs I work with. She is very cool and all my photog s have come to be her friend. 

When I asked each of them if it was okay for her to come along NONE of them have had a problem with it. Maybe I have just been lucky?

I just think this whole NO ESCORT deal needs to stop. I understand that no professional photog wants a nucience around while they are working . That can be made perfectly clear before the shoot happens and if it gets out of hand you have the choice to dismiss them!

I see no reason for a photog to completely dismiss a model because they want to bring an escort. With the way this world is today, I would think photogs would find respect in models who ask’s for references , gives all phone # and addresses to a friend or family member of where they will be and also brings someone along with them. I don’t understand how any photog could find annoyance in this!

Question~ Say a model was to shoot with you and you denied an escort and said it was not professional ect. That real models don’t do that, Yadda Yadda.  Say she shot with you and all was good. Then say she had another photog contact her to shoot. Taking your advice she went willing with no escort. Then you open the paper the next day to see the Beautiful model you just shot weeks before DEAD or RAPPED or Whatever. Do you want that laying on your shoulders?

I KNOW~ That was a VERY dramatic      I’m just trying to prove a point. Its not like it couldn’t happen ya know.

I am blessed to work with fantastic amazing photogs!

You know what, these kinds of events are extremely unfortunate.  However, you can't always believe the extremity of everything you hear on the news.  Media has a tendancy to blow things out of proportion in order to make their story sound better and reach more audiences.  I mean take a look at the way marijiuana used to be treated (and still is), it used to be believed that pot could (and did) cause death, cause you to go insane and kill people, cause you to become mentally disabled for life, etc.  But none of these things are remotely true.

Again, not saying that models don't get raped, abducted, murdered, abused, etc.  I am only trying to point out the fact that the media likes to embellish their stories in order for them to be more successful.  Consider the fact that rapings, abductions, murders, and abuse happens to all kinds of people every day.  Use your common sense and bring an escort (or two!). Do a reference check if you must.  Above all, be safe and think things through before you leave somewhere with someone you don't know or meet up with someone by yourself and keep these things in mind for everyday life whether you are a model, photographer, MUA, student, whatever.

Seramakeup wrote:
It's fair to label all ph's..

That's the problem.  Somewhere a photographer acted badly, now we're all scumbags.  Nowhere else is it OK to label a group due to the actions of a few, but if you're a photographer, it's "fair" to label you for some reason.

Seramakeup wrote:

lol
What is that sposed to mean?
Why are you getting sooo personal?
Its funny!
Ive not said anything about yr work or personality and yr trying to make me feel crap..
Your making yrself look silly! lol

I know John personally. I know the attitudes he is trying to avoid with his idea of limiting his work to a select set of vetted models. Based on that knowledge, I can guarantee that you do not fit what he is looking for.

LarryB wrote:

That's the problem.  Somewhere a photographer acted badly, now we're all scumbags.  Nowhere else is it OK to label a group due to the actions of a few, but if you're a photographer, it's "fair" to label you for some reason.

lol
No sorry i meant to add NOT Fair... i hate labels..

I know John personally. I know the attitudes he is trying to avoid with his idea of limiting his work to a select set of vetted models. Based on that knowledge, I can guarantee that you do not fit what he is looking for.

Thats totally fine.. lol
im not looking to get a photographer here im just expressing my opinion..
Im not a model so no worries

Fotogene wrote:
My new rule is "you bring an escort - double fee and they must also be in your images." Amazing how the need quickly diminishes.

Seramakeup wrote:
Sounds like you've had some bad experiences but i think you're being too harsh!
Just my opinion..

Wait wait wait wait wait....

You advocate the idea that models should bring escorts because there's a small chance the photographer might "try something", even if the model hasn't actually had any negative experiences.

But now we have a post from a photographer who had thousands of dollars in equipment stolen from him, so now he limits how and when a model may bring an escort, but you say HE'S being too harsh?

John Jebbia wrote:
This is the kind of guy we don't want you to bring to our sets. And this is the guy that 9 out of 10 of you will bring. And of those 9 out of 10, every single one of you will tell us he is "professional and doesn't interfere."

My previous point exactly.   Apparently there's a presumption that photographers are rapists and models need protection.  Why is it the photographer is expected to trust the escort?  I say again:  There are more stories about escorts attacking photographers than there are about photographers attacking models.

LarryB wrote:

Fotogene wrote:
My new rule is "you bring an escort - double fee and they must also be in your images." Amazing how the need quickly diminishes.

Wait wait wait wait wait....

You advocate the idea that models should bring escorts because there's a small chance the photographer might "try something", even if the model hasn't actually had any negative experiences.

But now we have a post from a photographer who had thousands of dollars in equipment stolen from him, so now he limits how and when a model may bring an escort, but you say HE'S being too harsh?

its totally unfortunate he had so much stuff stolen im not stubbing that!
Im just saying not all models or escorts would do that..
Its his desicion who to let into his studio and he has a right to set a limit..
I think asking to pay double price to bring an escort is harsh!

John Jebbia wrote:
This is the kind of guy we don't want you to bring to our sets. And this is the guy that 9 out of 10 of you will bring. And of those 9 out of 10, every single one of you will tell us he is "professional and doesn't interfere."

Unfortunately for you, those of us who have heard and seen this song and dance have decided it's not worth the hassle and we've developed an across the board policy regarding the issue.

Let me put it even more bluntly.  There are models I LOVE to work with because of their professionalism and their intelligence and their skill in the craft of modeling.

BUT, except for the rare few models that have transcended and become commodities (branding) there is NO model that can't be replaced at a blink of an eye.   

And on MM, where a good percentage of the faces and bodies are such that they simply fade into the ether of cyberspace,  I have absolutely no problem passing on someone who represents potential drama. 

And models who feel the slightest amount of worry over working with a potential photographer, rather than subject others to possible danger (like bringing the girlfriend escort), should just not work with said photographer.  I asked it on another thread, but whose work is so damned special that it's worth your safety.  Just don't shoot.

stage4fotografik wrote:
From My point
  As a photographer for well over 30 years, I must say that every since photography and film we have had weirdos,and now with the market saturated with digital cameras and all the new toys it,s gotten worse, yes you do have some young women out here who will take chances as well as young men,and even sites like this make the game even more dangerous,to many people influenced by the T&A shots, that happened with the poloroid and video cams as well,I think the solution is that before you go on a shoot get as much information as you can,things like studio address,phone even license plates, if the shooter is serious meet in a public place for coffee get the details,then feed all of that to family members or friends,I don,t have a problem when people bring there mother or a girlfriend I put em to work,saves assistant fees and then some women will admit they can,t shoot in front of there boyfriends so I am comfortable as a shooter when I know all is quiet on the set and the thought process between model and photographer yield fantastic results,    JUST MY SAY.

I totally agree and that is what i'd suggest all people do..
This is how i approach any photographer now..

KM von Seidl wrote:
..snip..
whose work is so damned special that it's worth your safety.  Just don't shoot.

Kim, I don't think it's the work that is so damned special here. I believe what most are talking about here is fee for service. Worlds collide.

The pretend internet model gets naked and some stranger pretends to be a photographer and pays her a sitting fee while stroking his camera. The model cares little to nothing about what one would call the work, ie photographs. She just wants the $200 from the episode (I can't bring myself to call it a photoshoot) and I would suggest she needs a chaperone.

dfstudios wrote:

Kim, I don't think it's the work that is so damned special here. I believe what most are talking about here is fee for service. Worlds collide.

The pretend internet model gets naked and some stranger pretends to be a photographer and pays her a sitting fee while stroking his camera. The model cares little to nothing about what one would call the work, ie photographs. She just wants the $200 from the episode (I can't bring myself to call it a photoshoot) and I would suggest she needs a chaperone.

That's not the kind of shoot Kim was talking about.

LarryB wrote:

That's not the kind of shoot Kim was talking about.

I know. Not mine either, that's why this topic keeps going on and on.

bang bang photo wrote:
http://www.granneman.com/blog/2006/07/06/media-induced-fear-its-effects/

http://www.asu.edu/feature/includes/spr … heide.html

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2 … ar-86.html

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/4/379

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … D67647.DTL

http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/ne … news.shtml

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog … 6170842493

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k … 2/00259784

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/03/media723.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/ … es?pg=full

Very interesting, thanks for the urls!  I have suspected this for a long time.

Christopher N. wrote:
....I didn't see the news report, but I'd be surprised if Anthony Frederick (may he ROT in Hell), William Fawley and Harvey Glatman were not mentioned. These f----wads and others like them (who have operated under the radar) make photographers  in general look bad and serve to be fuel for the media hype. Still,  the threat may be rare statistically, but it is real. And yes, this doesn't just apply to fetish/bondage work. Those names I mentioned claimed to be 'mainstream' photographers...

How about some links?  I hate it when people do not substantiate their claim. They're usually hiding something. Like the OP... turns out she's talking about the Bradford case again and he got girls out of bars for the most part. He even killed an escort - 2 for 1 special.  The model (she wasn't even a model, just a pretty girl in a bar) was basically responsible for her friend getting murdered.  The Bradford case, with any critical thinking, supports the no escort, but finding out about who you're working with, view.  None of his victims did any checking out. Most just left on the spot with him. 

So provide some links or you're just fearmongering.

Sara Danielle Hines wrote:
So with all these NO ESCORT threads I thought I would post this forum.

My dad is watching CBS right now and called to say to turn the channel . A  special on how models have been Raped, Battered, and Murdered was on.  It was called ”Exposed”.

There were many cases of missing models most not found. Ect. I watched part of it and got the point.
Some are just stupid ass girls who get approached in the mall by guys and leave with them. To no surprise they are attacked. Others are working with well know photogs and some were rapped others are now dead.
They even have some of the photogs that are convicted on this special. They have nothing of  importance to say other than the fact that, YES they committed the crime.
These Photogs were well know some not. Some models had worked with them MANY times before being attacked (that is with the well known ones).

I am one to ALWAYS check references . Sometime double or quadruple. Since I injured my arm I have had my MOM drive me to all shoots and hang out with the photogs I work with. She is very cool and all my photog s have come to be her friend. 

When I asked each of them if it was okay for her to come along NONE of them have had a problem with it. Maybe I have just been lucky?

I just think this whole NO ESCORT deal needs to stop. I understand that no professional photog wants a nucience around while they are working . That can be made perfectly clear before the shoot happens and if it gets out of hand you have the choice to dismiss them!

I see no reason for a photog to completely dismiss a model because they want to bring an escort. With the way this world is today, I would think photogs would find respect in models who ask’s for references , gives all phone # and addresses to a friend or family member of where they will be and also brings someone along with them. I don’t understand how any photog could find annoyance in this!

Question~ Say a model was to shoot with you and you denied an escort and said it was not professional ect. That real models don’t do that, Yadda Yadda.  Say she shot with you and all was good. Then say she had another photog contact her to shoot. Taking your advice she went willing with no escort. Then you open the paper the next day to see the Beautiful model you just shot weeks before DEAD or RAPPED or Whatever. Do you want that laying on your shoulders?

I KNOW~ That was a VERY dramatic      I’m just trying to prove a point. Its not like it couldn’t happen ya know.

I am blessed to work with fantastic amazing photogs!

Seriously! That shit pisses me off.. you took the words right out of my mouth..

John Jebbia wrote:
This is the kind of guy we don't want you to bring to our sets. And this is the guy that 9 out of 10 of you will bring. And of those 9 out of 10, every single one of you will tell us he is "professional and doesn't interfere."

Unfortunately for you, those of us who have heard and seen this song and dance have decided it's not worth the hassle and we've developed an across the board policy regarding the issue.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Let me put it even more bluntly.  There are models I LOVE to work with because of their professionalism and their intelligence and their skill in the craft of modeling.

BUT, except for the rare few models that have transcended and become commodities (branding) there is NO model that can't be replaced at a blink of an eye.   

And on MM, where a good percentage of the faces and bodies are such that they simply fade into the ether of cyberspace,  I have absolutely no problem passing on someone who represents potential drama. 

And models who feel the slightest amount of worry over working with a potential photographer, rather than subject others to possible danger (like bringing the girlfriend escort), should just not work with said photographer.  I asked it on another thread, but whose work is so damned special that it's worth your safety.  Just don't shoot.

Let me put it even more bluntly:  I have no interest in working with some fraidy-cat wanabe who thinks they need some idiot at my shoot to "feel safe" -- I have no trouble finding people to work with at this point in my career,  so i can cheerfully pass on the abovementioned "models" and their "escorts" -- you can both stay home and watch more Court TV for all I care.

RWPhoto wrote:
Very interesting, thanks for the urls!  I have suspected this for a long time.

bang bang photo wrote:
http://www.granneman.com/blog/2006/07/0 … s-effects/

http://www.asu.edu/feature/includes/spr … heide.html

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2 … ar-86.html

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/4/379

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … D67647.DTL

http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/ne … news.shtml

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog … 6170842493

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k … 2/00259784

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/03/media723.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/ … es?pg=full



This is the very reason I haven't owned a TV for four years...I'm sick of media manipulation and political propaganda. If I want to know about something, I'll do the research and find out the facts. If I want to see a movie I'll either go to the theatre or buy the DVD. After being free of the Tube for this time, when I occasionally do watch I am amazed at the substandard quality of programing that is in vogue at the moment...can't believe I used to waste so much time on such worthless entertainment...Thanks for the confirming url's...well done.

Sara Danielle Hines wrote:
I see no reason for a photog to completely dismiss a model because they want to bring an escort. With the way this world is today, I would think photogs would find respect in models who ask’s for references , gives all phone # and addresses to a friend or family member of where they will be and also brings someone along with them. I don’t understand how any photog could find annoyance in this!

Consider yourself dismissed.  If you're that afraid of something so totally unlikely happening, I don't want to work with you anyway.  Move along and find another photographer with the time to hold hands with your idiot escort.

Sara Danielle Hines wrote:
Question~ Say a model was to shoot with you and you denied an escort and said it was not professional ect. That real models don’t do that, Yadda Yadda.  Say she shot with you and all was good. Then say she had another photog contact her to shoot. Taking your advice she went willing with no escort. Then you open the paper the next day to see the Beautiful model you just shot weeks before DEAD or RAPPED or Whatever. Do you want that laying on your shoulders?

I KNOW~ That was a VERY dramatic      I’m just trying to prove a point. Its not like it couldn’t happen ya know.

Why should I even take you seriously when you admit the thrust of your agrument is bullsh*t?

Stop watching so much TV and get netflix or something.

Lady Atropos wrote:
There is the documented case of Ms King - who was raped and murdered by a photographer. This was only a few years agoa nd it made national headlines.

How about a URL for it then?

Curt Burgess wrote:
How about some links?  I hate it when people do not substantiate their claim. They're usually hiding something. Like the OP... turns out she's talking about the Bradford case again and he got girls out of bars for the most part. He even killed an escort - 2 for 1 special.  The model (she wasn't even a model, just a pretty girl in a bar) was basically responsible for her friend getting murdered.  The Bradford case, with any critical thinking, supports the no escort, but finding out about who you're working with, view.  None of his victims did any checking out. Most just left on the spot with him. 

So provide some links or you're just fearmongering.

Ok.....

Anthony Frederick
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/24/body.found/

William Fawley
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi … ehl/3.html

Harvey Glatman
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill … red_1.html


And pardon me if I take this personally, but Natel King was a model who worked with me. I had a conversation with her on our second shoot regarding bringing an escort on shoots where she was not familiar with the photographer AND checking references. A couple weeks after she worked with me the last time she was killed by Frederick. Believe me....if you've never had someone you had a working relationship with to be taken away in such a senseless and inhumane manner you don't want to. And NO I don't have Natel's pics up anywhere.

Bottom line if a photographer doesn't want to put up with escorts, pass on the model. If a model doesn't want to put up with a photographer who doesn't want escorts, pass on the photographer.  You can't get any simpler than that.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Every day we read about something we have to fear.  Bird flu, terrorists, cancer.
If your kids go on-line they could be targets for sex offenders.  Offers on-line
are always scams.  The message is  nothings safe and most people and things
are wrong.  So where are all the honest and trustworthy people?  If everyone
is up to something who do you trust?  The media and many of the posters here
would say no one.  I for one choose to trust people until they prove they can't be
trusted.  I don't assume people are criminals and I won't let a media willing to
spread often baseless fears for ratings scare me.

I find it sad that so many people who work in this industry and respond to these
threads are so negative in them.  MUA'S and photographers telling models that photographers are scum and that they should never go to shoots without a escort
a gun and guard dog.  Heck if photographers are saying their fellow shooters are
criminals what are models to think.

The motivations of photographers who paint fellow shooters as criminals are probably varied.

Some I'm sure are motivated out of concern.. other's perhaps really sluggos in making, are using fear to co-opt a naive internet model into joining his online harem.  White knights are photographers who often lack photographic skills and make up for them by being fatherly mentors or figures (which gets really icky when they start schtupping the model) warning the girls they think of just like their daughter, about all those other evil male photographers.

Curt Burgess wrote:
On the escort thread, it has been observed that there is a tendency for people with low post counts to be more pro-escort. That is clearly here as well.

On this thread there were 48 people for whom  their view was clear. 16 pro-escort, 32 anti-escort. The correlation between posting-experience is .30, which is pretty strong for behavioral data like this where there are many other factors that go into the escort decision.

# of posts serves as a proxy for experience in the field. Now don't tell me there's problems with that because that's obvious. Dealing with the data I have, not the data I would wish for. The fact that post-count is a problematic variable only strenghtens the argument however that with more experience your view moves towards a anti-escort position. There were twice as many anti-escort types here then pro-escort types and there were two pro-escort types with very high post counts. Were there a more representative sample of pro-escort types this correlation would likely hit the .45 - .50 range.

There certainly is variability here, ie, there are people with high post counts who are pro-escort and those with low post counts who are anti-escort. But the relationship is clear - people with less experience feel the need for the escort (whether a photographer or a model).

Geez....I really shouldn't be doing this.

Ok....despite the available data I think you have a valid point for both photographers and models. Myself I've only been shooting for five years. I had a MM account for some time before I started posting and then I decided to go away from it for....well, that's another story.

As for being pro-escort....admittedly the last few new 'new' models I've worked with didn't bring one. They checked my references. And the number of models I've worked in total can be verified elsewhere (not really hard to figure out.....three letters starts with an 'O' :-) )

Again, I'm a bit influenced by the senseless murder of Natel. At the same time it's still as much of a models preference as it is a photographer's. Take the available information and decide for yourself. Either way.

Curt Burgess wrote:
How about some links?  I hate it when people do not substantiate their claim. They're usually hiding something. Like the OP... turns out she's talking about the Bradford case again and he got girls out of bars for the most part. He even killed an escort - 2 for 1 special.......So provide some links or you're just fearmongering.

Great, thank you very much for providing the links.  Let's take a look at what lessons can be learned from these before drawing the conclusion that escorts are helpful.

Christopher N. wrote:
Anthony Frederick
Ok.....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/24/body.found/

This is clearly a model who was murdered by a photographer. Unlike the OPs case.

"King spoke by phone with one of her friends in Canada and sounded distressed....The friend told police that King said Frederick "was kind of weird, and that she was worried. I asked if she was worried about not getting paid or getting killed, and she said, 'I don't know. Both,'" according to police records."

Let's analyze the incredible errors of judgment on the part of this model. First of all, she talked to a friend during that day with the photographer and sounded distressed. I'm assuming she could have left, but didn't. Here's what slays me ... note that she was VERY troubled about this guy from the beginning actually admitting that she was AFRAID HE WOULD KILL HER! I'm stunned by this.  There are so many things that are part of the due diligence that a model and a photographer should do. Utmost is if there remain feelings like this don't go. This model made a series of very stupid decisions. No doubt about it, stupidity kills.

Christopher N. wrote:
William Fawley
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi … ehl/3.html

Yes, the photographer killed the model. But get this!
"Fawley and Behl had a romantic relationship, and Ben Fawley had a history of instability, petty crime, and violence.."... which she knew about.

Furthermore, "one of Fawley's Web sites claims he is an ex-con. Using the name "skulz" and "skulz67".  He has on his site that he's an ex-con.

Later in your article ... "...Young Taylor did do a few things that put her at risk. High on that list is her relationship with Ben Fawley, a man more than twice her age with a criminal past who is now in jail on child pornography charges. Also, she was walking around in an urban area, presumably unescorted, at 10:30 at night. Finally, at least some of her new friends in Richmond were people who were very much involved in the local drug scene."

Romantically involved with a  violent ex-con and a history of making one bad call afer another.

From her blog "... I know that he is a wonderful person. But there is another side, that scares (...) me. I cannot tolerate an object being thrown at me, then it hits me in the arm...." and goes on about this violence.

Another model making outrageously bad decisions, one after the other, and this was a romantic relationship as well.

Christopher N. wrote:
Harvey Glatman
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill … red_1.html

Your third example is a 1958 case where a photographer called up an agency who connected these two. He came over to her apartment, raped her there and then took her out to the desert and killed her. She had this guy come to her apartment to shoot erotic photos and had never met him and knew nothing of him.

Christopher N. wrote:
Bottom line if a photographer doesn't want to put up with escorts, pass on the model. If a model doesn't want to put up with a photographer who doesn't want escorts, pass on the photographer.  You can't get any simpler than that.

Nobody is disagreeing with this.

However, I don't find these cases compelling for your argument that an escort is a good idea. You have to ask, given these circumstances, would it have been wise for the model to have done this gig with an escort?  No. So the escort is irrelevant.

Each of these cases, particularly the most recent two illustrate absolutely shocking multiple bad decisions on the part of the model. One even expressed to her friend that she was worried he might kill her!!! 

In each of these cases, it is due diligence that would have prevented the murder. Not an escort. Given the circumstances, the model should not have done these even with an escort! I like these three cases. They provide very strong evidence that the way to avoid getting raped and murdered is by the due diligence process. AND they provide strong evidence that even if an escort were present, it would have still been a bad idea.

Stupidity kills. No doubt about it. And with this kind of stupidity, no escort will make a difference. To just put these cases out there without some critical analysis, to scare models because "OH LOOK!! OMG!!! HERE'S SOME REAL LIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO RAPED AND KILLED THE MODELS!!! OMG!!!" is pure fearmongering of the worst kind.

John Jebbia wrote:
Hey Curt..
The ironic thing about Mr. Frederick is that he ran a website dedicated to model safety tips. I'm not arguing, cause you know my stance on the issue. Just wanted to point out the irony of that situation.

yow!  It's perversely ironic and reminds me of when the White Knight types take such a strong position, I really wonder what it is they are trying to protect themselves from.  If I were a model I would be most concerned about the White Knight. I find them creepy.

What an interesting twist.