The Reel Thing

In the comments on my post on Amanda Long, Dougie makes this pertinent remark: “Sometimes makes we wonder if we are the indirect exploiters of these lovely girls.” This has been the heart of a question that has rumbled around for many years. The feminist argument has been that girls featuring in girlie magazines, etc are being exploited by males for other males’ remote pleasure. In my opinion, this misses the point that those girls do have a choice as to whether they wish to model in such a way or not — and get paid accordingly. However, I accept the view that it is the male that objectifies the girl in a certain way for his own gain, but the girls I’ve worked with all leave their “work clothes” off when the shoot is over and the side they are presenting of themselves does not necessarily seep into their everyday life. Of course, though, the viewer only sees that aspect of the girl projected by the magazine and would probably get quite a shock if he ever got to meet her in person. The other side of exploitation is getting ripped off, which shamefully has and still does happen. Then, it is where it tips into downright abuse and the “me too” factor, which I think is the crux of Dougie’s comment. I recall I have mentioned in one of my old blog posts a certain top-shelf magazine boss, still with us, who was known as “Blow Job Or No Job” (“So you want to be in my magazine, how would you like to do something with this?” was what he said to one girl I worked with, dropping his pants). Then there is the despicable Phil Sutcliffe of Fiona Cooper notoriety, a paedophile who did more than one prison stretch and who between sentences had to hand over his video camera to a third party as he was barred from any contact with potential models for his operation (much too late in most cases). There was quite a prevalent thought that any girl who flashed her smalls for the camera was up for it. One prolific amateur photographer I knew thought he could be “hands on” and when the model objected he came out with the classic “must be her time of the month” followed by a big guffaw. That the model, who was on her way to her boyfriend afterwards, did not find a small balding 60-something man with a scruffy moustache irresistable was lost on him. They are still out there as any girl on the glamour circuit will tell you. But what has occurred is a slight tilt in the exploitation argument. As I said in my Fast Forward post in this blog, social media and platforms like OnlyFans have meant girls can now take control of their own output and cut out the middle man. Indeed, the right connection with Instagram will lead you to an infinite stream of reels of provocatively-attired ladies of all ages beckoning you to follow them (and subscribe to their personal pages). But then I might not be telling you something you don’t know. The lady in this screenshot has more than 450,000 followers and interacts with them in her uploads. This was taken from a scenario where she gives you, a colleague or boss in the office, an extra creamy coffee to get her in your good books, then poses provocatively suggesting they could have lunch that day. There are a number of drooling responses, none of which she replies to. The inference is this drop-dead doll is really into you and can’t wait, whereas of course in reality you ain’t got a snowball’s chance in hell. The point is while she (like all the others) rightly has complete control over her pictures and films without any third-party “must be her time of the month” paying her, it is not difficult to suggest it is the literally thousands of males drawn to her that are now being exploited. The boot is on the other foot.