|
The next development: Both Montel Williams and Oprah Winfrey invited her onto their shows. Ms. James—I'll use her professional here until I learn her real one—turned down Oprah "because I felt that her conservatism may be detrimental to my reputation, I didn't know how she was going to spin it and I am not that much of a media-whore that I was willing to sellout for a few minutes of press . . . so I chose to go with Montel because his 'pitch' was much more 'sympathetic.'" (The appearance on the Williams show remains in the negotiation stage, according to one source.)
So this young woman with her less-than-firm grip on the conditional tense and on reality had gone on the air to complain about the injustice of losing her job, because this modeling experience had been one of the high points of her life and she didn't see any connection whatsoever between her accepting this assignment, with its requirement that she expose herself naked and recognizable in an internationally circulated magazine, and her work for an organization charged with putting responsible, intelligent adults into close one-on-one contact with children who, by definition, don't already have such figures in their lives.
People have many facets, Ms. James explained earnestly; they're not simply one-dimensional. What was wrong with her having this other aspect of her life? A second interviewee, her husband and business manager, reiterated this lament. These were two entirely different situations, he stated patiently, apples and oranges, and he just didn't see how one could conceivably affect the other. Dumb and dumber, in the flesh. (Wisely, the organization that canned her opted not to comment.)
By the way, Ms. James conveniently neglected to mention that she organized "Project Vixen," a model search/runway show at a nightclub in New Jersey featuring girls "onstage undressing each other, dancing together . . . making out"; that she's posed for a forthcoming feature in a major men's magazine; and that she collaborates in the publication of two adult-oriented sites devoted to photographs of herself, one of which has appeared online for some time (courtneynj.com) and one of which is still in the developmental stage: CourtneyUncovered.com, offering "Nude, glamour, fetish, amateur and even behind the scenes photos."
It's people like this who give psychology departments a bad name—graduates thereof (with honors, in her case) severely out of touch with reality and utterly clueless about how average people think and feel. Listening to this twit, I had the unnerving sensation that I'd stepped into some parallel universe in which the capacity for elementary reasoning had disappeared.
I don't object to exhibitionism per se. It so happens that Darling has a strong exhibitionistic streak, which I happily encourage and facilitate, as components of this journal make evident. But I don't believe that she and I (or anyone else, including Ms. James) have the right to impose those impulses on others who may find them objectionable. In my opinion, situational ethics—does anyone remember those?—determine right on wrong on that. And in this situation Ms. James, by my standards, clearly stepped way over the line.
Let's leave aside the heart-stopping prophecy that would instantly cross the mind of any halfway intelligent director of such a service organization as soon as he or she saw that spread in Marie Claire: a vision of some print tabloid -- the New York Post or Daily News -- or a scandal sheet like the National Enquirer putting this story on its front cover, as you know they would in a heartbeat. Or some sensationalistic TV tabloid show like—why, like Fox News itself!—running the same story, which the evidence proves they'd do just as eagerly as their print equivalents.
Let's also bypass what could happen if any of this organization's governmental or corporate funders or individual donors/sponsors found out about this employee's choice of second career. Or if any of the watchdog agencies that ride herd on such an organization should happen to get wind of it, in an era in which the presence of known child molesters, unconvicted pedophiles, and kiddie-porn producers in the clergy, the child-care system, the schools, and elsewhere has reached such proportions that everyone's on the lookout.
Let's just go with the possibility that the parents of one of the children served by this organization—or even one of the children themselves—might chance upon this photograph and recognize this young woman. Certainly, given that by her own admission her co-workers came across this photo and recognized her on their own, that's hardly far-fetched. How exactly does an organization charged with assisting in the emotional development of at-risk young people justify to its employees, its clients, its funding sources, and the city, state, and federal agencies with which it must register, the employing of a woman who sells her physical attractiveness and flaunts her sexuality for cash and fame?
Our culture permits her to do that, as a private individual and self-employed entrepreneur. I don't object to that permissiveness. Her behavior in accepting this modeling assignment doesn't make her a sex worker, and the photo for which she posed doesn't exactly qualify as porn. It's a form of titillating soft-core erotica commonplace now in fashion mags. Perfectly legitimate according to the predominant cultural norms.
But that doesn't mean those who star in it should expect parents and administrators of child-guidance projects to view that activity as a suitable sideline for someone in what's essentially a counseling position for the young. Even disregarding the potential for damaging publicity for their institution, or investigation by supervising agencies, the existence of this widely disseminated sexualized image of that staffer, the almost inevitable gossip, and the other repercussions within the organization would surely cause problems of all kinds.
After all, it's not as if a single copy of a snapshot made by her husband and intended strictly for their own use had gotten into the wrong hands, and could somehow be returned to the private sphere. This is a reproduction in a mass-audience periodical. It's out there permanently, on the public record. I find myself offended by Ms. James pretending to wide-eyed innocence and dismay over the consequences of participating in this image. What exactly did she expect?
The Fox News story ended with the information that this young woman intended now to go back to school for her master's degree in psychology. Whatever program she gets into, I hope she learns more than she did in the the last one about human psychology -- including her own.
However, a bit of online research informs me that she's using the publicity (did I mention that Montel Williams has a segment on her plight under consideration?) to promote her current and new adult-oriented websites. And it occurs to me—skeptic that I am—that conceivably she and hubby planned all of this, right down to her hiring on as a case manager, and have milked it for every drop of media juice. Keep in mind that without this brouhaha she's just another good-looking girl publishing her own soft-core website—hardly worthy of Oprah, or Montel, or Fox News. With it, she's headline material.
On the whole, I consider myself more open-minded than the next guy (or gal) when it comes to matters sexual, including public sexuality both real and simulated. Yet, as you know if you've read my commentaries on the Janet Jackson SuperBowl '04 nipple brouhaha, I also believe there's a time and place for everything. Ethically speaking, I believe Ms. James behaved very badly, even if she and her husband had no hidden agenda.
Her modeling and web-publishing activity is incompatible with social work in child advocacy. She should have chosen one or the other. Having elected to do the shoot for Marie Claire, she owed her employers advance notice of the story's appearance and an offer to resign quietly if they so chose. Her course of action was deceitful, manipulative, and unprofessional.
Fox News, by the way, presented this story without comment. It's the ideal story for them, because it's win-win. If the organization cans her, they get the story they showed tonight. If it lets her stay on, Fox News reports that as the ensuing outcry. Perfect.
|
