Skip

Good Journalism?
May 28, 2014 4:21 PM   Subscribe

"Can you imagine that within six years of getting his MBA he was CFO of Disney?" Please appreciate the thorough reporting on a seedy topic.
posted by breadbox (53 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
Now he is alleged to have filmed sex scenes with porn actresses.

Just starting to RTFA, but that line jumped out - huh? Isn't that what porn actresses and actors do? I am assuming the scandal is that he filmed himself having sex with a porn actress, and again: so? isn't that the fantasy? Why do we scandalize sexual behaviour so much?

(making big assumptions here about consent, and so forth, and will now go on to RTFA).
posted by nubs at 4:28 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


A man had sex with a woman on film BFD.
posted by humanfont at 4:29 PM on May 28


Why is this relevant? Did he somehow swindle investors, or break securities laws? Isn't it enough to assume that those in power have kinks none of the rest of us could ever indulge?

Did he wiretap every phone in the world?
posted by MikeWarot at 4:32 PM on May 28


He seems to have had a problem with "sex addiction" that would have been distracting from his public-facing role at Disney and other corporate gigs. On top of that, there were charges of sexual harassment.

In regards to paying for sex, if you're going to do it, at least keep it private.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:34 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


Well and down at the bottom of the article the issue is that he was soliciting sex from porn actresses who were like "We're porn actresses, not prostitutes" and so then he said "OK film it" which is like a fig leaf of "Hey it's an acting gig" (because then it's legal?) but then the film of him getting a blow job was just placed online on a site that IDed him and then "Whoops it looks like maybe you are not over your sex addiction problem" and a thing that shouldn't be a big deal turns into a bigger deal.
posted by jessamyn at 4:38 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


Why is this relevant? Did he somehow swindle investors, or break securities laws?

He misrepresented himself as a professional porn actor in order to obtain the professional services of these women. Fortunately, the agent was looking out for his clients, requested a meeting, saw that this guy was a fraud, and canceled the jobs.

Fraud is fraud. Lying is lying. Porn actors and agents aren't inherently less worthy or honorable or deserving than 'investors'.
posted by grounded at 4:47 PM on May 28 [13 favorites]


Can I just say that I like jessamyn the user? Kinda neat.

Also, I'm about to rtfa, but just wanted to say that getting an MBA and then becoming CFO of Disney 6 years later is no big deal.

I'm assuming Donald Fuck over here didn't rise up from the streets of South Detroit. Prolly was already born with a silver spoon.

Now I will check out the article
posted by hal_c_on at 4:50 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


And there absolutely are consent issues here. The article makes it very clear that some of these women are absolutely consenting to be paid by a third party to have sex with another professional to create a public entertainment product but are absolutely not consenting to be paid by someone directly to have sex with that person for their own gratification, on camera or off.

That distinction may seem insignificant to you, but it doesn't to her.
posted by 256 at 4:53 PM on May 28 [14 favorites]


Adult film actress Sarah Shevon drove up the Pacific Coast Highway one spring evening last year to a job she said her talent agent had booked for her at a gated Malibu estate on Dume Drive.

Shevon said she came dressed as instructed in a plaid "schoolgirl" skirt and a white blouse knotted up at her midriff, expecting to make $300 to act in a sex scene on camera.


Ok. That is straight up prostitution. Total bs on that being any kind of legitimate acting gig. And despite protests from anybody who knows these details, they ALL know what it was.
posted by hal_c_on at 4:54 PM on May 28


That is straight up prostitution.

No, it's not. The whole deal is that it's legal to be a porn actress in many places where it is illegal to be a prostitute. This may be one of those things that people may disagree on whether it should be the case, for various reasons, but it's absolutely legally a distinction with a serious difference. I missed the part where he basically pretended that he was a porn actor as well, that's some skeevy shit.

also I still work here through tomorrow
posted by jessamyn at 4:57 PM on May 28 [19 favorites]


I'm struggling to identify the difference between porn actor and prostitute. There cannot be one, right? I suppose not all prostitutes are porn actors, but certainly all porn actors are prostitutes.
posted by xmutex at 4:57 PM on May 28


I'm assuming Donald Fuck over here didn't rise up from the streets of South Detroit. Prolly was already born with a silver spoon.

Well, he is "black" (in the same sense that Barack Obama is called "black"). Anyway, I personally do think it is remarkable that he ascended to the heights that he did. On the other hand, it's not unusual for these folks suffer "ethical lapses."
posted by KokuRyu at 4:59 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


also I still work here through tomorrow

please tell me you are getting a huge sendoff party. with cake. cake from a wal-mart bakery with "CENTERED GOODBUY GESSAMIN" in blue frosting.
posted by mrbill at 5:00 PM on May 28 [38 favorites]


No, it's not.

I agree that there is a total distinction between being a porn actress and a prostitute.

But that comes in the form of being able to legitimise the acting gig. $300 and an address by your agent is some bullshit. I don't know how much porn people are paid per act, but it had to be more than $300. I'm not even mentioning the lack of a vetting process to establish that the Malibu home was not just another john.

Everybody here knew what was up.
posted by hal_c_on at 5:03 PM on May 28


Yeah, upon reading, the guy was acting in a sleazy, skeezy, underhanded manner and I'm glad the agent was on the ball - transparency and full disclosure are needed, business deal or not. Informed consent isn't possible without those.

To be honest, though, I'm surprised he resigned - we have polticians who have horrible videos about them out there who are still in office.
posted by nubs at 5:03 PM on May 28


I agree that there is a total distinction between being a porn actress and a prostitute.

What is it?
posted by xmutex at 5:04 PM on May 28


Maybe ask the vice squads in every major city that aren't daily busting porn shoots.
posted by kmz at 5:06 PM on May 28


I think the point of this post is to look to the perhaps overdone nature of the LA Times report, including a sit-down video interview with one of the porn actresses who was duped. I do think it seems a bit overboard, given the relative obscurity of the man in question, and I wonder if someone more powerful than this powerful man wanted him taken down.
posted by cell divide at 5:07 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


What is it?

Is your googling finger broken?

- The Legal Line between Porn and Prostitution on Sexwork.com
- Why is it legal to pay someone for sex on camera? from Slate
- ELI5: Why is the filming and distribution of pornography legal, while prostitution is illegal? from Reddit

and no, no cake. I got some nice postcards that I'll read
posted by jessamyn at 5:10 PM on May 28 [14 favorites]


Cool, it's some empty legalistic distinction, got it.
posted by xmutex at 5:17 PM on May 28


Well they have different numbers of letters too.
posted by jessamyn at 5:21 PM on May 28 [13 favorites]


If we could, for a moment, ignore the salacious details and move past the neanderthal sex worker shaming, I would point out that part of the job description of a C-level executive is to not allow your personal life become a distraction or reflect poorly on the reputation of the company you lead. In other words, if you're getting paid 8- or 9-figures to be the public face of a company, it's a very rare person who gets to use the "what I do on my private time is my own business" dodge, no matter what your kink may be. And if you're the chairman of a movie company with a jealously guarded brand and you show up on video getting a blowjob from *anyone*, you're going to have a very, very unpleasant conversation with the rest of the board.
posted by kjs3 at 5:29 PM on May 28 [12 favorites]


No one shamed anyone .Want to re-read what was said?
posted by xmutex at 5:34 PM on May 28


xmutex: Why do you care?

I mean, really. That's not rhetorical; It's an important question.

Because according to at least one woman in this article the distinction between being paid to have sex with another professional on camera to produce a commercial product is different from being paid to have sex with a non-pro for that person's own pleasure.

I can see why she might care about this distinction. I can't imagine why you would. So personally, I'm going to go with her on this one.
posted by 256 at 5:37 PM on May 28 [4 favorites]


Can you imagine that within twenty years of getting his MBA he was President of the US?

Yeah, I'd rather have Harvard MBAs cavorting with porn stars.
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:40 PM on May 28


Ah, well, I'm not trying to turn this thread into a conversation about the distinction between the two acts, and I don't think either is shameful at all, but yeah, to my mind, it certainly seems that porn actors are being paid to provide sexual services and that certainly qualifies them as prostitutes, regardless of the details of legalistic maneuvering that might offer a distinction.

Also, maybe more importantly, it seems like a bit of shaming to me for someone who does porn to try and draw a distinction because it says to me that they feel engaging in the other would be shameful for them, otherwise why go to the effort of separating yourself?

All of this is not really the point of the article, though.
posted by xmutex at 5:42 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


Just $300?
posted by signal at 5:49 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


mrbill: please tell me you are getting a huge sendoff party. with cake. cake from a wal-mart bakery with "CENTERED GOODBUY GESSAMIN" in blue frosting.

I imagine that the Mefi break room has snazzy fluorescent lighting and a poster of a kitten hanging from a tree branch with the caption "hang in there, it's almost Friday!"
posted by dr_dank at 5:54 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


I hear they're big on Kant out in the San Fernando valley. They all discuss the Kategorischer Imperativ and Ends and Means between the scenes.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 5:56 PM on May 28


So what if the difference between porn and prostitution is an "empty legalistic distinction"? At least one of these women was OK acting in porn and not OK doing prostitution, and this guy seems to have been trying to blur the line at a minimum, and so there is a problem with consent if nothing else.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:57 PM on May 28 [3 favorites]


I always wonder about the PR firms that get these hatchet jobs published.
posted by OldReliable at 5:58 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


I wasn't aware that the LA Times was such a yellow rag!
posted by KokuRyu at 6:08 PM on May 28


I don't get the tone in the FPP. The reporting seems reasonable to me. Am I missing something? Is there a reason for the title?
posted by maryr at 6:09 PM on May 28


It's not "sex positive", perhaps?
posted by KokuRyu at 6:28 PM on May 28


If the agent and of actress knew this wasn't a legitimate shoot they wouldn't be telling any different story than the one they gave to the LA Times. It isn't like the agent is going to say that he has his actresses turning tricks in Malibu for high end clients looking for the porn star experience. That would be a felony. The woman is in the same position. At least for once the john is the one taking the bulk of the heat. There are many tales in the tell all exposes of the porn industry of this kind of thing happening, particularly now that revenues have fallen on DVD and pay per view.
posted by humanfont at 6:31 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


If I were letting someone into my hooha for cash, I would hope I would get more than $300 for it. Ten movies a month sounds like a crazy high number of people in my mamajamma and, still, only making about what I would at a low-level office job. And that's without benefits. I think THAT'S the shocking part of this whole article.
posted by Foam Pants at 6:56 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


I don't know how much porn people are paid per act, but it had to be more than $300.

I've read that the average porn actress gets ~$600 per scene (I presume that's a "full" scene that includes intercourse). So I guess $300 for just oral doesn't seem odd.
posted by MikeMc at 7:09 PM on May 28


Sigh, because this is devolving into a conversation about porn vs. prostitution, in porn, at least professional mainstream porn, there are plenty of starts and stops where the man is expected to maintain his erection while the position the camera equipment and redo the lighting for a different angle. He is expected to be able to keep going for truly staggering periods of time. The women are expected to be able to perform these actions comfortably for equal periods of time and look pretty the entire time. The point of the shoot is not for the gratification of the actors (although they can and should have fun) but for it to look good on film. Mainstream porn sex is completely different than actual sex.

As to this guys actions, he's a schmuck, he shouldn't have been trying to get porn actresses to engage in prostitution, prostitution should be legal and as much as I like to crow at the super-rich being brought down, who cares? The only thing in the piece that bothered me, that I wish there had been more about is that there is a harassment claim against him that is going into arbitration. Fucking arbitration, as if that isn't going to be a complete shit-show for the poor woman. But no, the outrage is that he possibly paid someone for sex, not that a company has a way of squashing any claims of sexual harassment.
posted by Hactar at 7:42 PM on May 28 [4 favorites]


Right or wrong, the general idea is....Someone in porn, in this country the US, is considered a professional who engages in sex acts for film with other professionals. They aren't doing it because they got horny. A prostitute is generally considered to be someone who is performing sex acts with non professionals for cash where said non professional is looking to get off.

That's the difference, at least to me. I'm sure there are many prostitutes who enjoy sex with their clients, but I'm not sure how many of them are in the US where it's illegal. None of what I've said is meant as any kind of shaming of sex workers.
posted by sio42 at 7:47 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


On preview what Hactar said.
posted by sio42 at 7:48 PM on May 28


I hear they're big on Kant out in the San Fernando valley. They all discuss the Kategorischer Imperativ and Ends and Means between the scenes.

As Valley Girls Age, Many Find Work as Philosophers

posted by euphorb at 7:55 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


Just $300?

My initial thought was that the Harvard MBA is a very very shrewd businessman and Charlie Sheen is a very very bad businessman.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:01 PM on May 28


Did anyone see a signed contract here, even a casual one? Nobody films anything without a contract, right? Right? Bueller?
posted by halfbuckaroo at 8:56 PM on May 28


...to my mind, it certainly seems that porn actors are being paid to provide sexual services and that certainly qualifies them as prostitutes...

So I take it you consider Monica Belluchi, Heath Ledger and Jennifer Tilly to be prostitutes?

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you think real Nazis were killed in "Saving Private Ryan". After all, they had real Guns and uniforms.
posted by happyroach at 9:48 PM on May 28 [2 favorites]


$300? Why don't they just get interns to do it for nothing, like every other business?
posted by colie at 2:36 AM on May 29


It's good to be the king.
I don't have a moral problem with porn or prostitution, and I doubt that the actresses involved object to it either, except that one is legal and the other is not. Until that changes, they are obligated to pretend to be shocked that the "shoots" were not legitimate. As TFA said, they call it a "private", and it sounds like Trinity St Clair is the person you should contact to arrange one (assuming she is able to stay out of jail after this).
I was interested to see that he had been at Starwood, because one of their later CEOs also was forced out by a sex scandal (and briefly ended up at the company that I work for).
posted by Tool of the Conspiracy at 10:45 AM on May 29


Just $300?

My initial thought was that the Harvard MBA is a very very shrewd businessman and Charlie Sheen is a very very bad businessman.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:01 PM on May 28 [+] [!]


Why not both?
posted by Carillon at 11:16 AM on May 29 [1 favorite]


If you don't see any emotional difference between sexually engaging a person in front of you, versus being filmed to hypothetically sexually satisfy untold numbers of strangers you'll likely never see on TVs and computer screens, then, no, getting punched in the face by another boxer is exactly like spilling fake theater blood in an action flick.
posted by IAmBroom at 3:26 PM on May 29


charlie don't surf: "My initial thought was that the Harvard MBA is a very very shrewd businessman and Charlie Sheen is a very very bad businessman."

Carillon: "Why not both?"

That's what "and" means.
posted by Bugbread at 6:28 PM on May 29 [2 favorites]


IAmBroom: "If you don't see any emotional difference between sexually engaging a person in front of you, versus being filmed to hypothetically sexually satisfy untold numbers of strangers you'll likely never see on TVs and computer screens, then, no, getting punched in the face by another boxer is exactly like spilling fake theater blood in an action flick."

If you don't see that there's a qualitative difference between "doing act A for reason X vs. doing act A for reason Y" and "doing act B for reason X vs. pretending to do act B for reason Y", then you should probably stay away from analogies.

I'm not saying prostitution and porn-production are identical. Just that your analogy (and happyroach's "You probably think people actually get killed in war movies" snark) are not actually analogous. A more analogous situation would be, say, punching a guy in a boxing match versus some guy in a parking lot paying you to punch him.
posted by Bugbread at 6:35 PM on May 29 [1 favorite]


That analogy totally didn't make sense, broom.

Also, it's a business transaction, not a relationship. I don't understand where the emotional stuff comes in.

If you hired some artist and told him to make a gargantuan sculpture so that thousands of people could see it, but you took it and kept it in your basement, would he be able to claim some type of wrongdoing on your part?

But seriously, if it was a real artist, they wouldnt be paid a measly $300 to do their art.
posted by hal_c_on at 11:06 PM on May 29


I've read that the average porn actress gets ~$600 per scene (I presume that's a "full" scene that includes intercourse). So I guess $300 for just oral doesn't seem odd.

Sure. This situation doesn't seem odd at all if you just pull numbers out of thin air.

Business Insider says that $1000 is the norm. Don't forget that this is Malibu. You won't be able to use the 'things cost more in New York' excuse.

Also how come you think $600/scene would translate to $300 blojay? They aren't prostitutes. There is a distinction.
posted by hal_c_on at 11:18 PM on May 29


Okay, here's one of the differences: you're working with the other person in one situation, and for the other person in the other situation. Big power-balance difference in those two situations.

If your coworker and your boss each invite you to play golf, who do you feel safer, career-wise, turning down?
posted by tllaya at 9:56 AM on May 30 [3 favorites]


« Older Waiting for Exile   |   Cogito Ergo Publish Openly Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post