D.I.D.
I fundamentally object to D.I.D. pictures. (That’s “Damsel in Distress” for non-photography readers)
I looked at Moraxian’s fabulous photos, and I thought that I’d give it a whirl. But I found that I hated D.I.D. Not just the end result (the photograph), but the entire shoot too.
So if Rich wants to take a D.I.D. picture of another model, I will go out somewhere for a coffee. I don’t think I could be in the same building, let alone room. That’s a pretty bad reaction, no?
It’s not that I think Rich is getting a sexual kick out of this. I know he doesn’t. Plus I know the model is just acting, playing a game and telling a story. But it’s the story that really bothers me.
And yet I don’t object to bondage. Why?
Rich’s take is that bondage is about a woman voluntarily giving up control for sexual enjoyment. D.I.D. is about a persecuted maiden being captured, bound, gagged and subjugated, and needing a hero (man) to come along and rescue her.
I do get the fact that both bondage and D.I.D. are sexual fantasies. Models shoot bondage and D.I.D. for a) money b) art or c) because they want to explore the sexual fantasy of being bound in this way, without fear of repercussion, and without actually experiencing the act in "real life".
From my own personal point of view, I find bondage photography unthreatening. In most nude bondage imagery, the model is clearly enjoying herself. There’s no portrayal of fear or desperation, just sexual arousal.
But with D.I.D. the inner feminist in me is fighting back.
I object to D.I.D. images where the woman is clearly being subjugated. It’s all about power, specifically of the man.
Frankly I find the stereotype of a hero rescuing a beautiful maiden somewhat offensive on a taste level as well as a feminist level. Plus there’s something dark and predatory about the story of kidnapping. It’s about the subjugation of the victim and the power of the kidnapper, the glorification of the woman’s fear and desperation.
Which is the point of the image, I suppose.
But to me, it sends a message that my latent feminist rebels against. I’m a big believer in equality, and D.I.D. images are all about inequality. That’s why they make me really angry.
Clearly, I need to explore this further then……
I looked at Moraxian’s fabulous photos, and I thought that I’d give it a whirl. But I found that I hated D.I.D. Not just the end result (the photograph), but the entire shoot too.
So if Rich wants to take a D.I.D. picture of another model, I will go out somewhere for a coffee. I don’t think I could be in the same building, let alone room. That’s a pretty bad reaction, no?
It’s not that I think Rich is getting a sexual kick out of this. I know he doesn’t. Plus I know the model is just acting, playing a game and telling a story. But it’s the story that really bothers me.
And yet I don’t object to bondage. Why?
Rich’s take is that bondage is about a woman voluntarily giving up control for sexual enjoyment. D.I.D. is about a persecuted maiden being captured, bound, gagged and subjugated, and needing a hero (man) to come along and rescue her.
I do get the fact that both bondage and D.I.D. are sexual fantasies. Models shoot bondage and D.I.D. for a) money b) art or c) because they want to explore the sexual fantasy of being bound in this way, without fear of repercussion, and without actually experiencing the act in "real life".
From my own personal point of view, I find bondage photography unthreatening. In most nude bondage imagery, the model is clearly enjoying herself. There’s no portrayal of fear or desperation, just sexual arousal.
But with D.I.D. the inner feminist in me is fighting back.
I object to D.I.D. images where the woman is clearly being subjugated. It’s all about power, specifically of the man.
Frankly I find the stereotype of a hero rescuing a beautiful maiden somewhat offensive on a taste level as well as a feminist level. Plus there’s something dark and predatory about the story of kidnapping. It’s about the subjugation of the victim and the power of the kidnapper, the glorification of the woman’s fear and desperation.
Which is the point of the image, I suppose.
But to me, it sends a message that my latent feminist rebels against. I’m a big believer in equality, and D.I.D. images are all about inequality. That’s why they make me really angry.
Clearly, I need to explore this further then……
posted by Lin at 9:19 PM
11 Comments:
Of course you realize that as I write this, feminists are using arguments similar to yours to impeach the work of Don, Candy, Me, your husband, Iris, Eric Kroll, Helmut Newton, the Rolling Stones and an infinite number of artists that don't come to mind right now.
You have every right to think what you think, but remember the sword has a double-edge.
Yup! That's right.
I realise the problem is with my personal hangups. Now the question is : how do I get past them ?
I find Moraxian's work and similar images to be so clearly staged and "campy" that I have a hard time objecting to them as realistic depictions of actual "distress." I find the depictions of torture of random victims in movies such as "Saw" and "Hostel" to be far more disturbing, and I also find it distressing how those films have gained wide mainstream acceptance. "It's only a movie" I suppose, but I guess everyone has things that don't sit right with them.
Unlike Melvin, I agree with you completely. I don't have a problem with consenting adults doing anything they want, but I simply don't like "D.I.D." stuff. I want it clear that the girl is exactly where she wants to be, and don't much like photographs that imply power was used without consent.
But this isn't the first time I've disagreed with Melvin. We've got history...
-Don
As Gary said, the whole DID context is so obviously staged that it's impossible for any open-minded person to see it as anything other than consensual. I mean, it's pretty much playacting on a "cowboys and indians" level, isn't it?
Actually, that's what I dislike about DID -- the fact that it's not REAL enough for me...The models don't look like they're experiencing anything at all, much less any kind of power transfer...DID is just a model doing a job to me. I realize it's a big turn-on for a lot of people, but for me...it just looks like business.
I'm actually a little surprised that Don or Lin [or anyone really] would give such a lightweight form as DID so much socio-political currency.
All I can say is that, having tried D.I.D. on a shoot, it sure felt real. It certainly didn't feel lightweight to me.
But I appreciate that the experience varies depending on the individual photographer.
You felt endangered? You felt powerless? How so and why so [assuming you had reasonable communication with the photographer in question]?
I assume you DID consent to making the images in question, so they are, by definition consensual. If you had misgivings during the shoot and conveyed them to the photographer, he should have released you immediately. If you said nothing to the photographer, than the issue isn't with the style of the images at all.
Without more details about this experience, nobody can really say anything intelligent about the issue. I can only go by the input I've gotten from the various models I know who have done DID -- and their experiences are markedly different than yours. Your response is, in fact conspicuous by how negatively you seem to be recting to it.
This post has been removed by the author.
Hi Lin,
As the photographer mentioned at the beginning of your posting, let me say that I find your writing here thought provoking and interesting.
I have worked with a number of models to be sure, and most of them enjoy the concept and ideas of doing a DID shoot because it gives them a chance to do more than pose, in that they get to do a little acting (yes, most every shoot involves some acting, but DID involves more than most).
The concept of DID goes back to ancient days, it predates Christianity to be sure (Anromeda was the original...). While the theme of the lady being imperiled and rescued is much more pervasive than the opposite, I imagine there are any number of people who enjoy a reveral of those roles as well, or even where the roles have both damsel and rescuer of the same sex (Xena and Gabrielle come to mind immediately here...)
What I am shooting, or trying to shoot is part "Perils of Pauline" part "Detective Magazine Cover" and part Andromeda, all in the 21st century with some ladies who enjoy doing this work. I've had models not want to do the shoots for any number of reasons, and indeed, DID modeling isn't something everyone wants to do.
For every model I've worked with (it's over 100), I probably have two "No thank you" responses. I don't mind at all if a model isn't interested in working with me, in fact, if they have some ideas of what type of shoots they want to do, and I know someone who does that, I will point the model in the direction of that photographer.
Anyway, thank you for your essay and thoughts. :)
HI Moraxian
Thanks everso for taking the time to post, and for presenting the more balanced view!
From a modelling point of view, I appreciate that equality is not always possible in a scene, and if you are telling a story, then the equality isn't always desirable either.
I think that I'm much more the Xena type of person, so I would probably enjoy the role reversal or same sex version of D.I.D. a bit more than the conventional version :-)
Lin
I don't know if it's an issue of equality more than it is an issue of conflict in a scene. A DID scene involves drama, to which conflict is essential. In my photos, there is conflict of many sorts:
- The lady struggles against the ropes
- The lady is in conflict with the villain in the piece, whomever he or she (or they) are.
Again, it isn't something anyone/everyone will want to shoot/pose for. And it will always be that way...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home