This is interesting:
A group of angry ex-models is bashing the SuicideGirls alt-porn empire, saying its embrace of the tattoo and nipple-ring set hides a world of exploitation and male domination.
The women are spreading their allegations through the blogosphere, raising the hackles of the SuicideGirls company, which has until now enjoyed a reputation as porn even feminists can love. It offers burlesque tours, clothes and DVDs in addition to a sprawling online library of naked punk and goth women.
“The recent accusations are a little upsetting,” said “Missy,” the co-founder of SuicideGirls. “We think they’re all pretty much unfounded.”
According to the site’s critics, about 30 SuicideGirls.com models have quit in disgust over the past few weeks. Despite their resignations, their photos remain on the site, minus their ubiquitous SuicideGirls online journals.
I wonder if the company is still making money off of the pictures and whether the models agreed to let the pictures stay. Or if, at some point, they signed away the rights to their images.
Still, the woman-friendly reputation of SuicideGirls is being battered. Since its creation in 2001, media outlets have lauded the company’s focus on goth, indie and punk models who aren’t necessarily big-busted and bikini-waxed. “It wasn’t the first alt-porn site to come along, but it was certainly the most widely promoted and probably the most influential,” said John d’Addario, editor of the porn blog Fleshbot.
The message of business-side female empowerment hasn’t hurt either. “The perception that women had an important/equal role in the administration of the site probably made it more attractive to some people who might not have visited a porn site otherwise,” d’Addario said.
SuicideGirls has always been billed as porn even feminists could love. Personally, I have always been skeptical. I’ve seen young women who are not models sign up as members — their profiles indicate that they are tittilated by the idea of male attraction by association with the site brand and models.
In any case, the idea that the majority of these models are in any way an alternative to the norm is disingenuous. Throwing a tattoo on a sexpot makes… a tattooed sexpot. Most of the women featured on the site are traditionally attractive. A labret does not alt.porn make.
Two of the ex-models say they were attracted by the empowerment message, too. “I liked that you had a journal and voice, you had the chance to make your own (photo) sets,” said “Dia,” a 30-year-old former model who doesn’t wish to be identified because she now works outside the porn business in Northern California.
“I looked forward to making great art,” added Dia, who has unsuccessfully tried to get her photos off the site.
She and other models say that contrary to its image as a women-run operation, SuicideGirls is actually controlled by a man — co-founder Sean Suhl. They accuse him of treating women poorly and failing to pay them enough. (According to the site’s FAQ, SuicideGirls models get paid $300 per photo set.)
“The only reasons I’m doing this and I’m sticking my neck out is that people, especially females who are 18 years old and want to be a SuicideGirl, need to understand who they’re representing,” said 28-year-old ex-model Jennifer Caravella of San Francisco, who said she goes by the name “Sicily.” “It’s certainly not a group of women who are working together for this.”
I already knew that it was run by a man, but really, his gender is beyond the point. What matters is a) whether the company is as female-friendly as they purport to be, and b) whether the models are treated ethically.
For more detailed accounts, see two anti-SG blogs here and here.
And for what it’s worth, I believe SG is also in partnership with Playboy, a corporation not exactly known for it’s woman-friendly atmosphere. *
I’m curious what their specific charges are, more specific than the ones above. If they have not been paid their full $300 per shoot, there’s a problem. If the company is raking in money off of their pictures and the women want more money per set, I think that’s fair game. If there is proof of sexual harassment or some other something that constitutes “treating women poorly,” there is certainly a reason to expose the site for what it (potentially) is.
I don’t get off on exploitation.
* I’m not necessarily in ideological cahoots with the thoughts in this article, but do note Hugh Hefner’s response to marketing his products to teen girls and his curfew for the bunnies. Classy shit, you smarmy old man.
via Varkentine
UPDATE Hugo has more:
…this is where I find the likes of Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler) to be less offensive than men like Sean Suhl of Suicide Girls. Flynt doesn’t pretend he’s empowering his models; he embraces raunch with a bracingly candid enthusiasm that even his detractors often find to be — almost — winsome. Fellas like Suhl are out to make money off women’s bodies in much the same way Flynt is, but in Suhl’s case, greed seems hidden behind the rhetoric of edginess, alternative culture, and a rather shallow feminism.
Word.