Ed Team

Hetero model sues Genre over pics

Filed By Ed Team | October 03, 2008 7:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Quote of the Day
Tags: Ben Massing, gay magazine, homophobic behavior, male models

"The publication appeals to homosexual men, advocates homosexuality, deals with homosexual themes and features sexually-oriented material, including, but not limited to, sexually explicit photographs of men."

-- From a lawsuit brought by model Ben Hassing against gay mag Genre. Massing insists he's not homophobic, of course.


Recent Entries Filed under Quote of the Day:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


There is no doubt that the language of the lawsuit is indeed homophobic, however that does not reduce his right to be able to control where images of his body are displayed. We cannot preface one right over another. I am not supporting the tone of the lawsuit but the idea that ultimately as individuals we should have some control over our bodies and the ways in which they are treated.

I don't think he has that right anymore, Renee. He signed a standard model's release form. The photographer sold the photos. That's how the whole model/photog relationship works... The model was paid for his time in posing and the photog gets paid when he/she sells the pictures.

Why should it be any different just because the photos were sold to a gay magazine? Everyone knows all the models featured in Genre (or Playgirl, for that matter) aren't guaranteed to be straight or gay anymore than Playboy bunnies, Sports Illustrated models or the man and woman pretending to be married for a TV commercial.

If a model doesn't agree with the sale, they do like the young girl in the Clinton ad did during the Primary. She announced that the clip they used for her was from 5 years before and she was supporting Obama. She sure as hell didn't sue Clinton for using standard for-sale footage the subject had signed a release for.

The double standard here is overwhelming. I'm guessing this lawsuit gets thrown out quick.

He is making money from his body, not his mind, and is now squeamish because some gay guys may be jerking off to his photo? Well, too bad! This all comes down to the release he signed. If it's a good one (if the photographer was sensible), then the suit should be done on summary judgment motions. If not, there may be some kind of settlement in the offing. The type of magazine that published the photos, unless they were accompanied by clearly untrue and defamatory statements about the model, will have little bearing on the outcome.

The more sensible, less legalistic, question is, what the hell is this guy thinking? Was he planning on having a modeling career after this lawsuit? If so, he's got a surprise coming! Next, he'll try to ingratiate himself to Sarah Palin by selling body armor for moose! What a moron!