The Escort Debate
I mentioned in the FAQ that I don’t allow male escorts to my shoots. This is sometimes contentious. Over the years much has been written, usually backed up with stories, outlining the perils of the male escort. Everyone’s experience is different but I have seen how the male escort can destroy a shoot, I don’t think they mean to but they do. I find that the alternatives are much preferred. My compromise is to allow only female escorts. I have never had an issue with female escorts but have had many issues with male escorts. The reality is any escort is a potential destroyer of a shoot. The main advantage to a female escort is she will probably sign up to shoot next week.
A stranger in my house.
My studio is in my house. Why would I want a stranger potentially rummaging around while I’m concentrating on the model? This applies to any escort and always makes me uncomfortable. Somehow it seems less threatening when it’s a female escort.
The shoot is twice as likely to fail due to no-show.
It’s bad enough when relying on the model to show up but relying on a model and her thug doubles the chance that my effort will be for nothing. Assuming they show up, the thug often ends up sitting in the corner sighing that the shoot is going on too long of holding up their phone making a video which is something else I don’t allow.
My thug won't be a distraction...
The model is always checking for approval from the thug. It’s easy to see. Her eyes constantly flit back and forth as I ask for pose changes. If there is friction between the model and her thug, that comes through in the pictures. My observation has been that the presence of the thug has nothing to do with safety. That’s simply what the photographer is told to guilt the photographer into allowing the thug in the first place. In reality, the thug’s presence is all about jealousy and control over the model.
Sometimes, when thug thug isn’t sighing in the corner, they start to take over the shoot. They stand over the shoulder issuing instructions and misguided encouragement with little or no regard for how much harm they’re doing.
My thug brings an extra pair of hands.
Nope. All my lights stand up on their own. If I needed help I would get another photographer who knows how all the gear works and how delicate it is.
My thug is for my safety
What a croc. Photography in public places or as part of a group shoot is not a dangerous activity; how can it be? There are already lots of people around. The biggest threat to ME while shooting is the thug that you bring with you. I don’t know you and I don’t know your thug. How do I know
that while I’m peering into the viewfinder, your thug isn’t coming up behind me with a big rock.
Here’s how the argument goes.
I don’t know or trust you so I need to bring a thug… for my safety.
Well I don’t know or trust you or your thug so I need to bring someone to the shoot to keep an eye on your thug.
This continues.
I hear the argument that it’s your thug and I should trust him. Even better that the thug is there to protect both of us. Well, no. As mentioned, I don’t know or trust you or your thug and I’m a professional photographer so you should trust me. It goes both ways. Just remember that, statistically speaking, the thug you bring with you is a bigger threat to your safety than I am.
If you claim that your thug is there for your safety and I agree to allow your thug to the shoot, I would be passively agreeing that I am a threat. I am not.
If you’re really concerned about safety, only work with professional photographers instead of GWCs. It’s easy to tell the difference. Check references. How many models have shot multiple times? Do research. I know, that’s effort but what is the value of your safety?
Or just bring a female escort.
I'm not stupid...
I know nobody is going to change their mind on escorts based on these notes. Just remember, neither am I.
Extra price and extra contract clauses.
The bottom line is I don’t allow male escorts. I already know the pictures will be inferior so, for trade shoots, it just isn’t worth my time.
For occasions where a paying client absolutely insists, there is an upward price adjustment and a clause in the contract pointing out the potential for negative impact on the shoot and that they agree this is not grounds for non-payment.