How to ask someone to model?

Chazzy said:

I'm afraid that they're not obvious to me. Do bank robbers do a photographic survey of their intended targets? Wouldn't that be a little obvious?

Click to expand...

They weren't obvious to me, either, until I got confronted by bank security once for trying to take a picture from inside the bank, looking out the front window. And this was well before -- by decades -- 9/11.

If you don't believe me, try it and report back to us.

I've just realized what has depressed me so much about this thread.

It's the same primitive, mullah-driven morality as George is complaining about in Athens in his 'Model recompense' thread.

Athens: Any girl that poses for nude shots = a whore.

Chicago: Any photographer who wants to take a picture of a colleague = sex maniac guilty of harrassment and in need of counseling (the modern version of going to confession).

While both equations may reflect the mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people, I find it interesting that so many apparently rational people are willing to support the mullahs in Chicago.

If I, my colleague and my bank can't tell the difference between sexual harrassment and a simple request to take a picture, there is something very wrong with all of us.

Cheers,

R.

copake_ham said:

I work in a big bank in New York City.

We have very detailed and strict rules regarding sexual harrassment. Your request, if taken the wrong way, could result in a complaint against which you will have little defense.

But heck, are you going to let a little thing like your "day job" get in the way of your photographic art?

Click to expand...

It is intersting how rules which have basically good intention, to prevent employees to be harrassed turn out into something stupid. I mean, you ask her to pose, she say no, you give up of future tryings. That to be reason for sexual harrassment complaint is unbeliveable.

So, you should be afraid to ask someone to have coffe, to ask her/him how was they day, are they feeling good, etc... I know those things will come here too, that is good way to get some money, but I am glad to live in place where I can ask female collegue to have coffe with me, or even to pose, and not to be afraid to loose job or got into court...

Regards

Roger Hicks said:

I've just realized what has depressed me so much about this thread.

It's the same primitive, mullah-driven morality as George is complaining about in Athens in his 'Model recompense' thread.

Athens: Any girl that poses for nude shots = a whore.

Chicago: Any photographer who wants to take a picture of a colleague = sex maniac guilty of harrassment and in need of counseling (the modern version of going to confession).

While both equations may reflect the mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people, I find it interesting that so many apparently rational people are willing to support the mullahs in Chicago.

If I, my colleague and my bank can't tell the difference between sexual harrassment and a simple request to take a picture, there is something very wrong with all of us.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with you Roger.

Then again, there is one saying here (I am sorry for language!): "Don't shit around the house, sooner or later you will step into it."

Regards

haris said:

Totally agree with you Roger.

Then again, there is one saying here (I am sorry for language!): "Don't shit around the house, sooner or later you will step into it."

Regards

Click to expand...

Dear Haris,

The English version is similar but more succinct:

"Don't shit on your own doorstep."

As for being crazy to live in Bosnia, what about Chicago?

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks said:

I've just realized what has depressed me so much about this thread.

It's the same primitive, mullah-driven morality as George is complaining about in Athens in his 'Model recompense' thread.

Athens: Any girl that poses for nude shots = a whore.

Chicago: Any photographer who wants to take a picture of a colleague = sex maniac guilty of harrassment and in need of counseling (the modern version of going to confession).

While both equations may reflect the mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people, I find it interesting that so many apparently rational people are willing to support the mullahs in Chicago.

If I, my colleague and my bank can't tell the difference between sexual harrassment and a simple request to take a picture, there is something very wrong with all of us.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Dear Roger, there's something wrong with the world indeed, but when wasn't there ? In the Ancient ages ? In the Middle ages ? During the Renaissance ? The 19th century ? Or maybe during the 1st WW, the 2nd WW or the cold war ?

Roger Hicks said:

I've just realized what has depressed me so much about this thread.

It's the same primitive, mullah-driven morality as George is complaining about in Athens in his 'Model recompense' thread.

Athens: Any girl that poses for nude shots = a whore.

Chicago: Any photographer who wants to take a picture of a colleague = sex maniac guilty of harrassment and in need of counseling (the modern version of going to confession).

While both equations may reflect the mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people, I find it interesting that so many apparently rational people are willing to support the mullahs in Chicago.

If I, my colleague and my bank can't tell the difference between sexual harrassment and a simple request to take a picture, there is something very wrong with all of us.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

I think it is very unreasonable to characterize workplace rules designed to create an environment free of sexual harrassment as reflective of the "mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people..."

One of the hallmarks of a progressive society is to ensure an environment where all are free to achieve their professional capabilities without being subjected to a hostile workplace. Sexual harrassment prohibitions are gender-neutral and refer to both same and opposite-sex interactions. They are very much intended to protect an individual in the workplace from being subjected to unwanted "advances"; whether these advances be amongst "equals" or, more pervasively, when used by superiors toward lower-level employees. Many progressive people of both sexes in the US have worked long and hard over the past three decades to eliminate all manner of discriminatory and demeaning behaviors from the working environment here. To now characterize them as "old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people...." is to both turn history on its head and engage in one's own brand of stupidity.

In the case of the OP, he not only wanted to take his co-worker's photograph (a seemingly innocent endeavor that could be done at the office Christmas party). He wanted her to don clothing to enhance her body features so he could shoot sillohettes of her in various "poses". And all of this to take place in his workplace!

If the fellow wants a date; then he should simply ask the co-worker for one. If she accepts his invitation, then at that time he can explain his photographic interests and determine, outside the workplace, if she finds it interesting. There is nothing wrong or untoward about this - and it removes the work environment from the interpersonal equation - thus negating the sexual harrassment situation.

But to pursue this in the context of the shared working environment is unacceptable - at least under US laws and employment practices. There is a time and place for everything - but a bank office is certainly not the time and place to approach someone to engage in an activity unrelated to her work duties.

Finally, as any corporate employer here in the US knows, by permitting a hostile, harrassment-prone working environment - it runs afoul of the law and opens itself up to all kinds of legal claims. As such, the OP very much risks his employment to pursue this matter in the way proposed. Unless one is in a position to offer him alternative employment - one best not counsel him to pursue his proposed course of action.

I've had a completely different experience to most people here. In the office I'm known as the photography guy. I have prints of my work (mainly landscapes) hanging on my walls, and I do all the corporate photography for the website, calendar etc.

Knowing this, one of my coworkers approached me to take some photos of him, as he was thinking of getting into modeling and needed something for a portfolio. We arranged a time on the weekend and went out for a shoot, and I gave him some prints afterward. He was very happy with the results, and I got some expereince shooting people, which I didn't have before.

One of the results is in my gallery titled "Dave"

RobLewis said:

. . . no 'thing' for this one particular person- she just happens to be the only person in the office that can offer the shape I was looking for with a silhouette. . . .

Click to expand...

Attitude is more important than shape. As for discussing it over coffee or lunch with her, a museum might be a more hospitable choice. It will help if you can intelligently discuss the roll of models in art history and the relationship of model and artist, if the opportunity occurs.

I certainly wouldn't ask bank management permission to do any personal photography in the bank. It burdens the management with responsibility that they may not handle well.

Hi Roger - Just want to be sure that we aren't missing an important distinction. The reason for the horrified responses to the idea of asking a colleague to pose 'in some 'figure-exposing' clothing' is not that anybody thinks the original poster is a sex maniac. Rather, we see that he is exposing himself to mortal risk. The dire consequences of warnings, counseling and/or termination are not what we would wish upon him. They are merely what we see befalling him if he approaches the woman and she reacts negatively.

That such peril might befall him is not the result of 'primitive, mullah-driven morality' or the 'mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people.' Instead it derives from the chilling effect created by political ultraprogressiveness. The original goal of keeping women from being dry-humped in the copier closet by some sweating porker with two martinis on his breath has devolved into a climate of fear in which reputable companies run enormous financial risk if there is any possible appearance of toloerance for real or imagined sexual misconduct.

If it seems heresy that the legitimate goal of removing the workplace risk of harassment could have any ill effect, just consider a parallel situation within the automotive unions. The unions originally protected the workers from unsafe working conditions, overlong hours, favoritism etc. But now nobody would deny that they are dragging the domestic Big Three to their doom while the union-free transplants eat their lunch. Basically too much of a good thing is not healthy in any situation.

Nobody is passing judgement on the OP, we are just trying to keep him off the dole!

J

Roger Hicks said:

I've just realized what has depressed me so much about this thread...
Chicago: Any photographer who wants to take a picture of a colleague = sex maniac guilty of harrassment and in need of counseling (the modern version of going to confession).

While both equations may reflect the mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people, I find it interesting that so many apparently rational people are willing to support the mullahs in Chicago...
R.

Click to expand...

jon koss said:

Hi Roger - Just want to be sure that we aren't missing an important distinction. The reason for the horrified responses to the idea of asking a colleague to pose 'in some 'figure-exposing' clothing' is not that anybody thinks the original poster is a sex maniac. Rather, we see that he is exposing himself to mortal risk. The dire consequences of warnings, counseling and/or termination are not what we would wish upon him. They are merely what we see befalling him if he approaches the woman and she reacts negatively.

That such peril might befall him is not the result of 'primitive, mullah-driven morality' or the 'mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people.' Instead it derives from the chilling effect created by political ultraprogressiveness. The original goal of keeping women from being dry-humped in the copier closet by some sweating porker with two martinis on his breath has devolved into a climate of fear in which reputable companies run enormous financial risk if there is any possible appearance of toloerance for real or imagined sexual misconduct.

If it seems heresy that the legitimate goal of removing the workplace risk of harassment could have any ill effect, just consider a parallel situation within the automotive unions. The unions originally protected the workers from unsafe working conditions, overlong hours, favoritism etc. But now nobody would deny that they are dragging the domestic Big Three to their doom while the union-free transplants eat their lunch. Basically too much of a good thing is not healthy in any situation.

Nobody is passing judgement on the OP, we are just trying to keep him off the dole!

J

Click to expand...

Jon,

I am shocked to the point of apoplexy. Regardless of your ideological justifications you have failed to understand the basic dilemma!

Under R's prescription "to be the man he wants to be" the OP's banking career is "dead meat" So he is indeed better off becoming unemployed and emigrating to Europe!

There, he could be lauded as an escapee from the exploitative capitalist system which requires acceptance of employment as a means to enrichment. With the consequent obligations that continued employment require him to abide by the expectations of conducting himself as an adult professional working with similarly situated adults.

Rather, under R's regime, he can continue to act as an irresponsible horney adolescent, secure in the knowledge that the great socialist system will protect and nuture him into old age.

Which is a wise course for him to pursue - because he won't last long here if he thinks he can "sweat hog" himself into dates with co-workers!

Game is over - if you want to work in corporate America- them's the rules - and they aren't going away!

jon koss said:

Hi Roger - Just want to be sure that we aren't missing an important distinction.
That such peril might befall him is not the result of 'primitive, mullah-driven morality' or the 'mores of old-fashioned, narrow-minded, stupid people.' Instead it derives from the chilling effect created by political ultraprogressiveness.
J

Click to expand...

Dear Jon,

First point fully taken.

Second point -- I don't see a vast difference. Both are hysterical, narrow-minded world-pictures.

What depresses me is that few if any have remarked on what a bloody stupid system we have when it is impossible to approach one another as human beings. They just take it for granted.

Cheers,

R.

Copake_ham, I don't getting you.

Me too can not understand why asking for photographing needs to be so dangerous. If OP ask, she say no and he do not continue, why that is sexual harrasment?

I do understand that in corporate world (in USA, because we speak now about USA, maybe in Europe is same, but Europe is not on agenda in this discussion) that is situation now. And OP would be better not even to ask. But, Roger and I simply said we think that is really gone to far. To be afraid to ask simple question. That is not reason for you to "attack" Roger.

Yes, from what I have read, OP is better not to go with it. But, rules which had good intention, to protect emploees, especially female, from theire aggressive colleagues or bosses, over the years turned to something very ugly. And put fear into people. Surely such statement can be said without being attacked?

Regards.

sex maniac guilty of harrassment and in need of counseling

It seems to me harrassment is only if she says no and you persist to badger her. That is harrassment, not the act of initially asking, otherwise how do single people meet if just the act of asking is concidered harrassment?

Yes this is a stupid disscussion. I live in NYC and have taken hundreds of pictures of people, dressed and nude, and have never been accused of harrassment since no one has said NO. And if they did say no, I'd move on and find another.

It's been said that if you stand on any corner in NYC long enough, you'd meet everyone in the world.

paul ron said:

... otherwise how do single people meet if just the act of asking is concidered harrassment?

Click to expand...

Dating within the workplace carries a certain amount of risk but the approach mentioned in the OP does not appear to be an attempt to procure a date. I think saying to someone you work with "Hi, my name is Paul... would you like to go out to dinner with me tonight?" is a bit different from "Hi, my name is Paul... would you let me take some pictures of you in figure-revealing clothing?" Out on the street, you should feel free to ask whatever you please... but at work I'd think common courtesy should prevail (even in Sarajevo).

copake_ham said:

I am shocked to the point of apoplexy.

Click to expand...

Are you okay George?

BrianShaw said:

...but at work I'd think common courtesy should prevail (even in Sarajevo).

Click to expand...

Even in Sarajevo you can politely ask someone at work to reveal hers clothing for photo and make that asking with high degree of curtesy

Seriously, if you work with someone you probably know can you ask that kind of question or not.

I did that. And had no problems. But, then, I knew if I ask her I would have no problems. But, then, we here have physical contacts with colleagues, hugs, kisses (in cheeks, not mouth), using language with sexual suggestions (or direct words) if you are in good relations with colleague in talks, that is just part of our culture (or lack of it if you want, but I like that more than alternative I read in this post). That doesn't mean sexuall harrasment here is "normal" but one can say something like "You have beautifull body, would you pose nude for me to make photographs" or just "You have beautifull body" without being afraid to lose its job. Cultural differencies I would say.

Again, as I said, from everything I read here, if I was at OP place I would not take that risk. Weather I like it or not if "rules of the game" are like that, better not to risk.

Regards

Dear Haris,

Despite the closure of the last camera store in Sarajevo, I was just looking at the map today to see if we could possibly have a drink together next time I drive to Eastern Europe (I want to go to Bulgaria if I can afford it, perhaps next month).

There is, I believe, a common European culture which will one day prevail over the mullahs (including the Christian ones in America).

Cheers,

R.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I've asked a co-worker to model for me to work on portraits, and she has accepted. Aside from minor scheduling problems from time to time (no show yesterday afternoon, but did call first), it seems to work pretty well. There is no problem with work, as this arrangement happens at my house, so it isn't a work environment where the pictures are taken. At our first session on a saturday, my wife took my model aside to ask her if it was ok if she (my wife) went to work for a problem, while we continued working and taking pictures. All went well and we got some shots which could be printed.

I'm fortunate to have a decent employer, co-worker and a very decent wife. Not sure if this is the exception or the rule here, but it seems a bit of candor by all parties is all that is needed for a working relationship. It is unfortunate that an atmosphere exists in which there are so many liabilities in just living and enjoying life.

There are a few people at work who would never place themselves in this situation, due to the male-female thing and their religious views (the appearance of possible wrong), but I am not one of them. A curious aside to this one was two years ago, when a fire occurred in the down-town area at night. One of these families called on a saturday night, because their unmarried daughter was stranded by this situation and they live out of town. I received the call and went to pick her up from a not so good neighborhood. They thanked me for helping and there was no problem. My wife was glad I went. My friends were glad their daughter was safe and I was glad they were willing to call me out of a sense of trust. tim

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Haris,

Despite the closure of the last camera store in Sarajevo, I was just looking at the map today to see if we could possibly have a drink together next time I drive to Eastern Europe (I want to go to Bulgaria if I can afford it, perhaps next month).

There is, I believe, a common European culture which will one day prevail over the mullahs (including the Christian ones in America).

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Dear Roger,

PM sent to you. One thing, it is not last camera store closed. It is last film/paper/chemistry store closed, unfortunatelly. Here are digi camera stores working well...

Regards

How about: ask your colleague to take a picture of you in that setting. Show the results later. Let your colleague ask for reciprocity.

As far as workplace rules go, you should already have guidelines on appropriate conduct and use of employer facilitities, and in a bank, maybe even an ethics officer designated to help you figure our what is appropriate.