I caught this TED Radio Hour segment on NPR — supermodel Cameron Russell telling her truth about the “grotesque industry” that made her famous. She was scouted as a teenager swimming in Maine, sucked into the runway world before she even knew what S&M meant. She talks about the things she tolerated — the kiss from the grown photographer when she was sixteen, the “jailbait” comments, the c***-sucker lips painted on by a makeup artist.
She’s brave to say it out loud. Her memoir’s called How To Make Herself Agreeable to Everyone. And yeah — it’s an ugly, necessary confession: this machine eats up young women’s beauty, chews their innocence for profit, and leaves them to sort out the therapy bills later.
I believe every word. But the first thing I felt, honestly? Was pure protective rage.
What I Felt When I Heard It
Years ago, I dated a woman who was with Elite Petite in New York. She was tough as hell. Gorgeous. We’d be out all night, riding with a motorcycle club, crashing 12-step conferences, and I’d feel brotherly, fatherly, boyfriend all at once. Every instinct in me said: Protect her. Shut the door. Guard the gate. Burn the club to the ground if you have to.
Same feeling I get hearing Cameron Russell talk about predators with casting couches. My gut reaction: Shut it all down. Ban child modeling forever. Replace all that vulnerability with perfect AI babes — dolls that never get harassed, never starve themselves to death, never post a tell-all about the scumbag photographer in Paris.
It feels clean. But it’s bullshit.
The Joke and the Truth
The dark joke is that if a date goes bad for a man, he goes home alone with a bruised ego. If a date goes bad for a woman, she might end up dead in the ground.
That fear lives in me. I’m the guy who wants to stand outside every hotel room with a baseball bat. But that fear bumps right into the truth: she’s not my fing daughter. And even if she was, she’s not my fing property.
What We Forget
Here’s what we forget when we fixate on the worst-case: these girls — yeah, girls sometimes — have more agency than we like to admit.
They stand in a casting line 400 deep. They tolerate the creeps. They game the system. They’re not just prey — they’re predators in their own right. They’re early achievers, the same as gymnasts, chess prodigies, child actors, figure skaters. The ones who starve to make weight. Who wake up at 4 a.m. to skate the same jump 600 times.
And sometimes they outplay the wolves.
Sydney Sweeney’s PowerPoint
Look at Sydney Sweeney. Arguably one of the most objectified women in Hollywood today — big boobs, big gaze, big deal. Did she stumble into that? She sat her parents down — in Washington State or Oregon, I think — and gave them a PowerPoint presentation explaining exactly how she’d get where she is now.
Plan A. Plan B. Plan C. The same hustle people cheer for when it’s a teenage boy training for the NBA.
That’s not a helpless little lamb. That’s a grown-ass woman with a killer instinct.
Why AI Isn’t a Fix
So my first gut says: Fine. Burn the whole system down. If we hate what happens to real girls, replace them with perfect AI dolls. No more trauma. No more predators. Everybody wins.
Except we don’t. Because it’s never just the Cindy Crawfords on the catwalk in Paris. Modeling is a biosphere — showroom girls in Atlanta, department store shoots in Albuquerque, cruise ship performers, ring girls, teen beauty queens, pageant moms, child actors, TikTok influencers pushing shapewear.
When you “protect” the top by erasing the humans, you don’t protect the rest — you just push the exploitation sideways, deeper into cheaper corners where the same girls hustle for the same scraps.
And the same men still cash the checks.
What I Come Back To
Every time I run the loop — from Cameron’s grotesque truth, to my motorcycle club ex, to my fear for every brave girl I’ve ever known — I come back to the same place:
👉 Agency. Independence. They’re grown-ass women.
Even when they’re 15, sometimes.
Does that mean we shrug at predators? Hell no. Add the guardrails. Bring the chaperones, the stage moms, the aunties who sit in the corner and watch the door. Put some teeth in the contracts. Make it easier to walk away.
But don’t pretend you’re saving these women by deleting them.
The Final Word
Because when you swap them for perfect, invulnerable AI girls, you don’t just protect the vulnerable — you erase the brave.
And maybe, just maybe, that’s worse.
APPENDIX: Notes, FAQ, Counterarguments & Context
✅ FAQ
Q: Are you saying it’s fine to sexually exploit kids in modeling?
No. The whole piece acknowledges it’s grotesque and real. The point is, exploitation doesn’t disappear just because you shut down the top of the iceberg — the same exploitation pops up in sports, entertainment, dance, or influencers. If you want less exploitation, you need better systems, not illusions.
Q: So you think a 14-year-old has ‘agency’?
Sometimes — that’s the ugly truth. They can have agency and be exploited at the same time. Child athletes, child actors, figure skaters — they all make sacrifices adults applaud, but they’re also vulnerable to grooming. The tension is: do you protect them by banning the path entirely? Or do you fix the guardrails? This is a moral gray zone, not a black-and-white fix.
Q: Why not just regulate the industry more?
Good question. Many countries have tried age restrictions, BMI bans, chaperone rules, or working-hour limits. The problem is global: agencies and clients will just go to markets with laxer laws. There’s also the underground: unregistered “indie” photographers, content houses, or influencers. So yes — stronger, enforceable labor laws help. But they won’t erase the dynamic completely.
Q: Won’t AI bodies help?
They might reduce some direct harm. But they also erase human earning potential. Real people can choose to leverage their bodies and beauty — whether you approve or not. If you erase that path, the same people still have bills to pay — and they’ll find other ways to sell the same thing. Usually with less oversight and more risk.
Q: Are influencers the solution?
Influencers moved a lot of ‘modeling power’ back to individuals. They run their own shoots, set their own boundaries — in theory. In reality, they’re also open to direct harassment, blackmail, and algorithmic manipulation. It’s less gatekept, but not inherently safer.
✅ GLOSSARY
Agency: The ability to make choices and act independently. Central tension here: how much agency does a teen really have when they’re in a brutal industry?
The Male Gaze: Coined by Laura Mulvey in 1975. A way of seeing that frames women’s bodies as objects of heterosexual male desire.
Casting Couch: Slang for the historical (and still too common) practice of powerful industry figures demanding sexual favors in exchange for career advancement.
Emancipation: A legal process where a minor separates from parental control to make their own legal decisions. Common in child actors who move for work.
OnlyFans / Online Adult Work: A new version of the same dynamic — more autonomy, but the same risks. Also overlaps with the ‘influencer’ economy.
AI Avatars: Digitally created models that can be infinitely perfect, diverse, ageless, and risk-free for brands — and a threat to real humans’ ability to earn money.
✅ HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Twiggy Era (1960s): The original waif look that defined the modern super-skinny model standard. Teenage girls made millions but also normalized eating disorders.
Heroin Chic (1990s): Kate Moss and co. made emaciation aspirational. Pushback led to calls for BMI regulations in Europe.
BMI Bans: Countries like Israel and France tried setting minimum BMI for models. Brands just shifted to other markets.
#MeToo in Fashion (2017–): Hundreds of models — including Cameron Russell — exposed predators, leading to some blacklists but not structural changes.
Digital Influencers (2016–now): Brands began paying virtual influencers like Lil Miquela. No scandal, no weight changes, no “bad behavior.”
✅ COUNTERARGUMENTS & RESPONSES
“Just shut down child modeling.”
Would help some kids. But see above: these kids show up in dance schools, child acting, sports, or online. You’d need to rethink youth labor across the board.
“Parents are to blame!”
Sometimes true — stage parents can be pushy or oblivious. But some parents are just facilitating an ambitious kid’s dream. Agency and grooming often blur together.
“It’s the male gaze! Ban it!”
Good luck. Desire, beauty, and image consumption are older than Hollywood or Milan. You can shrink it, but you can’t abolish it. Also: women have agency to choose to capitalize on it — or not.
✅ LIBERAL SOLUTIONS
Stronger child labor protections — enforceable and global.
Age floors and chaperone laws for shoots.
Mandatory education on consent, body autonomy, and contracts.
Real legal consequences for predators.
Unionization for models (Model Alliance is a real example).
✅ CONSERVATIVE SOLUTIONS
Age-of-consent consistency — push minimum work ages higher.
Reinforce parental responsibility — sue parents who pimp out kids.
Promote “traditional modesty” (historically: chaperones, studio minders, housing for single working women).
Cultural pushback against hypersexualizing minors.
✅ WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENING NOW
AI avatars are getting work. Expect more.
Micro-influencers run the market — the old supermodel “gatekeeper” power is dying.
OnlyFans and DIY adult work: higher agency, but huge risk.
Luxury brands still want the human touch, but will “perfect” the imperfections digitally.
✅ THE REAL QUESTION
Can you protect real people without erasing them from the story?
Is perfection worth the price of losing human ambition — even messy, dangerous, or ugly ambition?
✅ FURTHER READING & LINKS
Cameron Russell’s TED Talk: Looks Aren’t Everything — Believe Me, I’m a Model
The Model Alliance (union push)
The Super Models (Apple TV+ docuseries)
Studies on BMI bans: Israel, France, Italy
On AI models: Look up Lil Miquela and Shudu
⚡ Your Takeaway
The question isn’t whether modeling is safe. It never has been. The question is whether we want to bubble-wrap risk by deleting real girls — or build guardrails so the brave ones can still choose to walk in.
tl;dr
The provided text explores the complex realities of the modeling industry and the agency of the women within it, challenging the simplistic notion of them as mere victims. The author uses Cameron Russell's experiences to highlight the "grotesque industry" but then pivots to a more nuanced perspective, referencing Sydney Sweeney's proactive career planning as evidence of personal initiative. The piece ultimately argues against replacing human models with AI dolls, contending that such a solution erases the "brave" and merely pushes exploitation into less visible areas, rather than genuinely protecting women. The author concludes by advocating for guardrails and support systems that empower women, rather than "deleting them" from the industry under the guise of protection.
Share this post