X

Fraud at The Heart of ‘Hot Girls Wanted’

One of the stars of the new Netflix documentary Hot Girls Wanted has a secret, and it’s what the French call ‘problématique’

It has been written that “ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked.” Never has this been more clear than in the case of the new “documentary” film Hot Girls Wanted, which was snapped up by Netflix after its premiere screening at the Sundance Film Festival in January.

The film looks at five young women who were recruited off of Craigslist by an “agent” in Miami, Florida named Riley from Hussie Models. It was directed by Jill Bauer and Ronna Gradus, whose previous documentary Sexy Baby, looked at an alleged cultural shift in the sexual landscape that, the women claim, was caused by adult entertainment.

The filmmakers claim their movie is the “first-ever look at the realities of the professional “amateur” porn world and the steady stream of 18-to-19-year old girls entering into it.”

Writing in Vice, Susan Elizabeth Shepard notes that the team’s new film is actually an exercise in offering “unexamined statements and vague intimations about how doing porn harms women and watching it warps men.” The agenda of the filmmakers is clear, says Shepard.

As Bauer and Gradus did in their previous film, Sexy Baby,they put forth the idea that porn has so thoroughly saturated popular culture that it’s not even necessary to watch actual pornography to absorb its influence…. Rather than explore how pornography might reflect society rather than shape it, they point to porn as the cause of societal ills. Bauer, for one, thinks that this leads to sexual assault. In an interview last week, she said, “All these [frat] boys are watching this porn… and it is no mistake that their behavior is aggressive, and that there are all these rapes on college campuses, because this is where it’s starting. This is what they’re watching.”

To reduce an epidemic of sexual assault to a problem instigated by pornography is problematic, at best. So, too, is [producer Rashida] Jones’s claim that “the trauma that it does on your body to have sex for a living is a real thing.”

These arguments (assertions, really) are right out of the playbook of radical feminist lecturer and academic fraud Gail Dines.

“Academic fraud” is a strong term — how could I substantiate that? Well, having previously claimed to have a “slew” of evidence on her side, Dines later admitted that, “there is no study, argument, or theory that will persuade us [i.e. radical feminists].” As writer Sarah Ditum noted in 2012, “Confronted with her own misuse of the research, she states that the research has never influenced her beliefs anyway.”

Lapdogs

As is usually the case when it comes to material critical of pornography or sex work, mainstream media have taken the movie at face value, regurgitating the filmmakers’ line that their “film attempts to pull back the covers on the amateur porn industry and its exploitive practices” (although Variety‘s glowing review did mention that the effect ‘pornified’ culture allegedly has on teen girls was “a point the film hits perhaps a bit too hard”).

Members of the adult film community, however — and in particular female adult performers (the group who would be natural allies of the filmmakers, were they honest and accurate in their presentation) — have mostly been outraged.

Adult star, and president of the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC), Chanel Preston wrote:

Overall, the documentary went like this: Here are these girls. They are being exploited. It is really sad. Then, after multiple scenes of tears and shame, the documentary ends with a vague message, leaving the viewer with a demonized view of the adult film industry.

I understand why Rashida Jones would want to make this documentary; she saw a group of young victims, and she wanted to raise awareness around the issue of female exploitation. Unfortunately, the documentary doesn’t have a view point about this subject beyond “this is bad” except that it alludes to pornography as being the problem.

Others in the adult biz took to Twitter to address the documentary:

 

Netflix and the filmmakers have gone on an aggressive media tour in support of the documentary. Last week, the directors and producer Rashida Jones convened a panel on AOL Build to discuss the merits of the film, and its subject matter. Panelists included, on the pro-adult side, AVN’s Mark Kernes and law professor Nadine Strossen. The remainder of the panel spoke in support of the film, and included Gail Dines, and one of the documentary’s subjects, ex-performer Ava Taylor (a.k.a. Rachel).

The deck was stacked, as they say.

 

As one sex worker told TRPWL, “putting anti-pornography ‘academic’ Gail Dines on the panel shows the motivation behind the documentary. This film is being used as an excuse for more regulation in sex work; save the poor little girls who don’t know any better! How insulting is that? There’s nothing ’empowering’ to women about that message.”

Indeed, dragging Dines out on the press tour is a clear a sign as anyone should need that the filmmakers intended their work to be a propaganda piece, not merely a documentary simply presenting a story.

Ava Taylor aka Rachel with Rashida Jones. “I’m trying to be famous, so you gotta do what you gotta do,” say Rachel in the film.

An impassive and rather lackluster adult performer, Ava/Rachel oozed a sense of entitlement in the documentary; she wanted to make money and get famous fast. On the AOL panel, the dressed down and bespectacled Ava/Rachel — who claims to be out of sex work — is angry and combative, hurling blame at producers, her agent, and even the testing system for adult performers.

On one of her Twitter accounts, she has repeated how glad she is to be out, and moving on with her life.

She also repeats the view that porn is exploitative of “girls” and retweets anti-porn accounts:

However, there are a couple of big problems with what Ava/Rachel is saying.

For one thing, in March of this year — two months after Hot Girls Wanted premiered, Ava was back in Los Angeles shooting brand new porn scenes. A few of them are already available online:

This despite the fact that the film claims she had left adult entertainment. And guess who Rachel/Ava had book those scenes for her? Riley from Hussie Models.

Shocked yet? Wait, it gets better.

Rachel/Ava currently offers escort sercvices online.

When I tweeted the above screen cap to Rachel/Ava, she replied that she had no control over who uses her pics online, and that her pics were also up on an adult agent’s website — implying quite clearly that she was not actually available and that her pics were being used without her permission. However, I can confirm beyond any question that she has in fact been taking escort appointments for some time.

Following a Twitter blow-up with myself and others on May 30 (after which she deleted several tweets), Rachel/Ava was moved to the escort site’s UTR (Under the Radar) section, but a post on TheEroticReview that advertised her services remained until it was deleted earlier today (May 31).

 

Notice the date. Rachel/Ava is escorting right now — at the same time she is telling the world that she has better things to do than make a living off of her body.

Did the filmmakers know that Rachel/Ava has been putting one over on the public? And do they even care as long as their agenda gets eyeballs.

Let’s take a look the people behind Hot Girls Wanted.

Above the line

Among the producers is feminist philanthropist Abigail Disney (granddaughter of Roy O. Disney, co-founder of The Walt Disney Company). Previously, Disney served as Executive Producer on Bauer and Ronnus’ Sexy Baby. More recently, Disney made the news as one of the team of feminists (including anti-porn / anti-sex work feminist icon Gloria Steinem) endorsed by dictator Kim Jong-Un to announce they would march across the DMZ and hold a “peace conference” in North Korea.

Abigail Disney

Human Rights Foundation founder Thor Halvorssen was flabbergasted, and told reporters that the marchers are playing the role of useful idiots. “How many female defectors have they spoken to? None,” says Halvorssen.

The march was organized by a woman named Christine Ahn, who, as Foreign Policy noted, has worked closely with Korea Policy Institute (KPI) “and the now-defunct Korea Solidarity Committee [which] take positions that support or refuse to criticize the Kim dictatorship. And Ahn has spent much of the last 15 years whitewashing a North Korean government that the U.N. Human Rights Commission has said is guilty of ‘appalling human rights abuses … on a scale unparalleled in the modern world’ and ‘crimes against humanity with strong resemblances to those committed by the Nazis.'”

“How can Steinem and Disney participate given the rapes, forced abortions and sex trafficking?” Halvorssen asks. “Kim Jong-Un is right now putting his pleasure group of concubines together. Do they even know that?”

Ms. Disney also had a hand in the film, The Mask You Live In. The organization behind that movie, The Representation Project, claims that their film asks:

as a society, how are we failing our boys? The film will examine how gender stereotypes are interconnected with race, class, and circumstance, and how kids are further influenced by the education system, sports culture, and mass media- video games and pornography in particular. The film also highlights the importance of placing emphasis on the social and emotional needs of boys through healthy family communication, alternative teaching strategies, conscious media consumption, positive role modeling and innovative mentorship programs. The goal of this film is to spark a national conversation around masculinity and ultimately create a more balanced, equitable society for all.

As one commentator noted, masculinity is mentioned “only in the context that there is something wrong with masculinity that needs to be fixed – by feminist filmmakers and organizations dedicated to the ’empowerment’ of women and girls.” This is the Gloria Steinem – Gail Dines school of feminism.

Mary Anne Franks, an avowed feminist, is the film’s Co-Producer. She is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She’s also a Catherine MacKinnon protégé who claims that the ruling in the Freeman case (which held that pornography is not prostitution and constitutes protected speech) “doesn’t hold up to legal analysis”.

Franks brags that she has worked with legislators to draft legislation against the non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit images. What she doesn’t mention is, as Mike Masnick notes at TechDirt, “her goal is to undermine Section 230 protections for websites (protecting them from liability of actions by third parties) to make them liable for others’ actions.” In other words, she would criminalize websites, ISPs and other third parties such as Google — punishing them with criminal penalties for material created and posted by others; material they likely never knew had been posted in the first place. The chilling effect this would have on speech cannot be overstated — and it is precisely the intention. (More on Mary Anne Franks and her pet revenge porn legislation.)

Jill Bauer, Rashida Jones, Ronna Gradus – AP

Add to this mix, the ‘face’ of the project, actress and producer Rashida Jones. The daughter of mega-rich musician and music producer Quincy Jones, and actress Peggy Lipton, Rashida grew up in a world of rare privilege. She attended the Buckley School in Sherman Oaks, California, whose other notable alumni include Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. A clip of Kardashian appears in Hot Girls Wanted, yet Jones appears oblivious to the fact that far more young women seek to emulate pseudo-celebrities such as her schoolmates than they do porn stars. Then again, those elite born into privilege — the winners of life’s lottery — never see their own corner of the world as the problem.

(As a side note, if you want to read something truly revolting, try Jones and Franks slobbering all over each other in this piece in Glamour.) 

Jones too comes from the Gail Dines school of feminism — she clutches her pearls close to her chest and frets over the Pornification of Everything. Women are “not considering the real cost, the psychological cost, the emotional cost, the physical cost,” Jones opines, while claiming that modern porn is defined by degrading and violent imagery.

Director/author Ernest Greene notes the connection between ‘Hot Girls Wanted’ and an earlier anti-porn documentary, ‘The Price of Pleasure’

Jones’ fellow producer is Debby Herbenick, an associate professor at Indiana University School of Public Health. As Mark Kernes reports at AVN:

“Human sexuality is broad, diverse, rich, nuanced and allows for so many possibilities about how a person can experience their sexuality,” Herbenick told Mic.com. “The kinds of sexualization and objectification we see in most mainstream porn tends to be pretty narrow… As my students often point out, porn sex often focuses on people’s genitals—as if that’s all that matters—and often features titles that describe women as ‘dirty whores’ or ‘sluts’.”

I don’t know what kind of porn Dines, Jones and Herbenickis are watching, but it doesn’t seem to align with the top selling and award-winning titles compiled by adult industry trade publication AVN, as Mark Kernes notes here.

Then again, as commentator and author Jordan Owen points out, Dines still tells “crowded lecture halls that Gag Me Then Fuck Me is one of the most popular porn sites on the web when the readily available empirical evidence of internet stats like those on Alexa show that it’s actually extremely unpopular.”

Christina Parreira also had a few choice words for the filmmakers:

I watched Hot Girls Wanted, and as a sex worker (and as a human being with agency) I was disgusted. This is nothing more than a propaganda piece from start to finish, infantilizing the adult women that chose to participate in pornography. Suddenly, they’re painted as helpless exploited victims with no agency, when in reality, they were adult women who signed contracts. Did they do their research into the unlicensed/unbonded agency they signed with? Perhaps not, but whose fault is that? This “documentary” takes a small slice of amateur pornography and makes it seem representative of ALL pornography. It does not reflect the realities and work lives of women who were savvy enough to do their research and to work with respected agencies and companies.

Outspoken adult star Mercedes Carrera offered this perspective on the affluent self-appointed saviors who dominate the documentary’s credits:

We’ll give the last word to Susan Elizabeth Shepard, who closed her Vice op/ed with the following:

While porn performer may be the only legal occupation where sexual boundaries are so blatantly up for negotiation, it’s not the only place where workers can get treated unfairly. It’s just the only place where the industry itself, rather than its practices, is subject to condemnation. Porn performers need the space to talk about bad experiences, however they describe them, without having them used as evidence against their entire business. Hot Girls Wanted reinforces tired sexual stereotypes that harm all women, while ignoring the real work concerns specific to porn performers. In its moral simplicity and willingness to exploit its subjects, it ends up resembling the genre it aims to expose.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Spread the love
Mikey South:

View Comments (41)

  • For as long as there's a buck to be turned off moral panic over porn, these charlatans will be out there telling lies and exploiting sex workers in order to get their grubby, sweaty paws on them. My real anger is at Chris Hayes, who I usually regard with some respect as a journalist, lobbing soft-ball questions at the producer of this latest hunk of tripe on his MSNBC show. Normally a tough interviewer, he did not challenge a single cooked statistic or ginned up pseudo-fact this graduate of The Josef Goebbels School of Journalism puked up.

    Hayes also failed to present a single speaker in opposition to what was clearly a pandering promo for a sensationalized commercial product built on lies - the sort of thing he's customarily inclined to rebut.

    I hope this piece of trash dies at the box office like so many of its vile predecessors and I expect that hope to be fulfilled because most moviegoers simply aren't as stupid as the creators of this craptastic extravaganza assume.

  • Can that escort site really be trusted? Do you know the people behind them personally, so that you can be sure you trust them as witnesses?

    And just because this forum post on TheEroticReview.com was changed, does that really prove anything?

  • It never ceases to amaze me that the gall these abolitionists have in trying to overturn our Constitutional rights by making absurd claims about porn and prostitution. I've been fighting these despicable fraudulent 'feminists' for 33 years now and instead of making progress, we are going backwards. What happened to "my body, my choice"? Or are we only allowed to make choices of which THEY approve?

    Given the talent in the sex worker community to write articulate and well documented articles, it is heartbreaking to see the liars and frauds winning the day with their propaganda pieces. An excellent article, Deep Throat.

  • So by associating w/ all them man h8n feminist loons, we should be able to safely say that Rashida is probably more into eating pie than strudel, huh?

    • Her sexual orientation isn't relevant to the issue anyway, but for what it's worth, she comes across as very much het. She's also conventionally attractive and presents as femme. I doubt that's any less calculated than anything else about this whole disingenuous project. Dines is a veritable radfem poster girl who instantly triggers every suspicion you might hold about her motives. Rashida is far less threatening to the ordinary viewer, which helps disguise the fact that they're clones under the skin.

  • What strikes me most about this scam of a "documentary" is the funding by the Disney and (indirectly) the Hunt foundations. For someone who claims to be a "critic" of capitalism, Dines sure depends on multimillionaires for her screeds, doesn't she?

    Also....the "documentary" also goes to the usual libel of how all porn girls have to go through "hate sex" sites like FacialAbuse.com in order to get paid. That's funny, since all the performers I know and follow have been able to reject offers to shoot for that site for whatever reasons, and they managed to survive. If anything, FA was more trying to ride Belle Knox's coattails to revive their third-rate site, because she originally shot under another pseudonym which they used, before changing it when they found out who she was. I really don't think that Brazzers or Bang Bros. or Reality Kings need Craiglist ads to search for talent.

    Also...everything Ira/Ernest, Michael, Merc, Christina, and everyone else here said.

  • Great article

    I was amused when Jill Bauer & Ronna Gradus claimed that they're neither "pro-porn or anti-porn" as I watched panel on AOL.

  • Uhhh, there were a couple of points in here that were valid, but the vomit spewing from the author's mouth pretty much obscured them. For example:

    "Rashida grew up in a world of rare privilege. She attended the Buckley School in Sherman Oaks, California, whose other notable alumni include Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. A clip of Kardashian appears in Hot Girls Wanted, yet Jones appears oblivious to the fact that far more young women seek to emulate pseudo-celebrities such as her schoolmates than they do porn stars."

    The film plainly insinuates, if not outright states, that sex videos of celebrities, e.g. Paris Hillon and Kim Kardashian, play a large role in how young women "feel" about the acceptance of being a porn star. Yet, the author is somehow critical of the producer for not believing this? I don't understand.

    Finally, if one of the author's points in this article is to suggest that the "elite" are unfairly picking on working class young women trying to make a living, then why would the author feel the urge (or even the need) to go after one of the young actresses in the film? I might believe the author that the actress was being used by the producers and directors unfairly, both in the film and now in promoting it, but to include information concerning how this young woman currently earns a living seems less about contradiction and more about shaming. Shame on you Mr. Author.

    • You have it precisely backwards. "[T]o include information concerning how this young woman currently earns a living seems less about contradiction and more about shaming" -- No, the fact of the matter is that she is a liar. Either she was put up to it by the producers, or she chose to lie to meet their needs, but the filmmakers have put a liar before the public to speak in support of the film and its underlying anti-porn message. However, to state that she is a liar one needs to provide corroboration.

      I'd like to know where anyone who reads this site would get the idea that we shame sex workers. We out liars. And we support the decriminalization of all sex work between consenting adult parties, and try to fight sex work stigma in our own way.

      Here's the heart of it, Johnny: the film goes out of its way to portray Riley, the "agent", as a sleazy opportunistic character. The film also claims that Ava/Rachel left sex work to become a photographer. The press tour in support of the film has been dominated by anti-porn messaging. (As i note in the article, this is easy to understand since every single member of the team believes the core tenets of anti-porn feminism.) On this press tour, they have trotted out Ava/Rachel to parrot those same views of the porn business, to attack her agent, and to claim that she has "better things" to do with herself than use her body to make money.

      So, if in reality Ava/Rachel is still booking porn shoots, AND using Riley to do it, what does that mean? It means that either Riley isn't as bad as they are making out, or Ava/Rachel is an idiot.

      Alternatively, if Ava/Rachel is an idiot, then why should we care about what she has to say?

      Add to this that we now know Ava/Rachel is a liar, whose lies support the propaganda of her new benefactors.

      ALL of this undermines both the message of the film and the credibility of all concerned.

      Finally, you write: "the film plainly insinuates, if not outright states, that sex videos of celebrities, e.g. Paris Hillon and Kim Kardashian, play a large role in how young women 'feel' about the acceptance of being a porn star"

      Not quite. The film insinuates that the pornography and a resultant "pornified" culture is to blame. They don't blame Paris and Kim, they portray the actions and the resultant fame of these female "celebrities" as a result of the pornified culture (note Jones' tweet about celebrities "acting like whores"), continuing the Dinesian themes laid out in 'Sexy Baby'. They lay all blame at the feet of adult entertainment.

      In closing, may I also note the irony of a commenter taking me to task for alleged "shaming" then closing his missive with "Shame on you Mr Author"?

      • Like all successful sex workers, Ava/Rachel is an actress, among other things. It's far more likely that the liars are the editors and producers who presented her paid performance as real.

  • It seems to be a reoccurring theme from the anti-porn feminists, every five or eight years or so they prop up someone who had allegedly a terrible experience in the adult industry, in the hopes of social outcry, looking for a tipping point where more industry performers would come forward and justify their crusade. But it never happens that way. There's always a Lubben who claim that many current and former stars and starlets have come to them with their stories of heartache and abuse, only to have said performer make their own statement to clear the air. If the details of the article are correct (a point I'm not disputing), and Ava/Rachel is still heavily engaged as a sex worker on and off film, than it would appear that Ava is getting her fame and quick cash, and the likes of Jones and Company get their agenda across, facts be damned.

    No one should be taken seriously if they need to lie to push their agenda.

  • This is a great article. They portrayed porn as not giving these girls any choices but they had plenty of choices. With a better agent and not getting gigs off of craiglist things would have been much better.

    • Obviously they were looking for those who make bad choices to buttress their case. Lots of cam girls are doing very well, living the lives they want and speaking articulately about the issues that concern them. Clearly, their mere existence is a threat to the prohibitionist cause and they'll never get a minute to have their say as long as the Dines crowd has a death grip on the brainstems of mainstream news producers.

  • "This film is being used as an excuse for more regulation in sex work; save the poor little girls who don’t know any better!" uhm... what's wrong with more regulation? Later on you quote Elizabeth Shepard who suggests that the film "ignore[s] the real work concerns specific to porn performers."

    So, like any industry there are real labour issues and there are clearly regulation issues that lead to concerns (do you leave room that these concerns can include exploitation? perhaps not to every performer or by every company). Where is the room to be critical of labour issues in pro-amateur porn? Nadine Strossen, pro-adult side (as you said), even seeks regulation over prohibition. Pro-sex work and pro-pornography seeks re-dress labour issues through regulation not indicting every criticism of its labour issues as anti-sex work. And the film-makers are very clear that this is a slice of the porn industry and specifically pro-am porn. Rashida even asks the question, what then is the solution to the experiences of young women turning to the quick money of craigslist pro-am agents and even licensed agents in Miami or Las Vegas who then go on to exploit some young women (and i am not asking assuming the answer is prohibition, because i don't think prohibition is an effective option). I think Strossen is getting somewhere with education and opening opportunities to women and stronger requirements for women to understand their rights when it comes to adult entertainment. less stigma as well. but it starts with a willingness to be open to reform and to accept some regulation.

    Did you even watch the panel above? Rachel/Ava clearly states she is in a contract with L.A. Direct that she can't get out of meaning she still has to work for them and/or they are allowed to use her name and image unless she pays them 3,000$ to get out of it. So she doesn't deny anything and isn't really a liar... If any of it later disappeared isn't it at all possible that subsequent to the panel, Strossen and others helped her out of her contract?

    That being said the panel is a shit-show especially on the part of Gail and Kourtney wow.

    • "[W]hat's wrong with more regulation?" LOL A lot.

      "[S]tronger requirements for women to understand their rights when it comes to adult entertainment" Are you shittiing me?

      "Rachel/Ava clearly states she is in a contract with L.A. Direct that she can’t get out of meaning she still has to work for them…" No, the contract does not mean that; it means that IF she works she has to pay them a commission. No contract is enforceable that would require someone to do porn against their will. And in any event, Ava/Rachel HAS BEEN shooting porn voluntarily, using Riley to book the scenes, not LA Direct.

      "If any of it later disappeared isn’t it at all possible that subsequent to the panel, Strossen and others helped her out of her contract?" LMAO No. Nothing was removed from the LA Direct site, and the escort agency moved her to UTR -- they did not remove her.

Related Post
Leave a Comment