I recently watched Toxic (2024), a Lithuanian film which reminded me of the American-made Thirteen (2003) in how it dealt with the self-destructive existentialism of teen girls and the predatory and exploitative nature of the modelling industry. In Toxic, the two main characters attempt to leave their hometown through a modelling agency, before discovering that it wishes only to profit from them and trap them in debt, with no guarantee of work or income. It also reminded me, once again, of the similarities between the sex industry and modelling industry.
Historically, women who have stepped out of the private sphere of the home and into the public sphere of having a professional audience, such as actresses, dancers and artist’s models, were viewed as sex workers. Working in any of those professions branded you as classless and accessible, available to the public and hence sexually available to men. Women in these industries often supplemented their meagre incomes with sex work too: the first famous actresses in England, like Eleanor “Nell” Gwyn and Elizabeth Barry (who both trod the boards in the 17th century after Charles II made it legal for women to act in public), were equally as known for their rich lovers as their craft. Dancers of the Paris Opera Ballet in the 19th century were also expected to have patrons, and wealthy men used the ballet as a source for their mistresses throughout Europe; Tolstoy’s aristocratic characters often keep a “ballet girl” on the side.
Artist’s models, such as those used by Manet in the 19th century, were part of the demi-monde, and it is often hard to decipher whether or not they were also sex workers– though some such as Henriette Hauser certainly, and famously, were. While modelling as we know it is a modern profession that blossomed into a recognisable industry in the mid 20th century, it clearly crosses over with all those previous professions that had only recently shed the trappings of sin and become respectable. It also has a shared history with sex work when it comes to migration and state surveillance—in the 1960s, models were coerced to work illegally in Italy by agencies that withheld their pay and were often subject to raids from police. One could argue, too, that models are still seen as sexually available to men. It is interesting that Donald Trump was involved in the modelling industry, through founding Trump Model Management and judging Elite’s “Look of the Year” competition, which gave him access to young and desirable women who were in a position of subservience. And if we are to believe the constant rumours from tabloids (which also circulate among escorts) about models being taken to Dubai and paid handsomely for sex, then some models are simply glorified sex workers.
Perhaps this is why the modelling industry tries to distance itself so much from the sex industry. In Australia, until very recently, and maybe still today in some cases, modelling agencies would drop anyone they represented who was found to also be engaging in sex work, as it was damaging to the reputation of the agency. A girl I know was let go when her vindictive sugar daddy reported her to her agency. She had insisted that he pay money he owed her; she became even more reliant on him afterwards. I find this separation between modelling and sex work particularly silly when considering that some of the biggest consumers of high fashion are sex workers, who may have expendable income, use designer goods to store wealth outside of cash (or are sometimes even paid in luxury gifts) and use brands to signal certain desirable qualities to clients. This reality is not acknowledged by brands, as sex work is not perceived as aspirational.
As Toxic shows, models are often brought over from poorer countries to affluent ones, where they are immediately in debt to the agency that moved them. These girls rack up yet more debt as they are sent around to castings, paying for their accommodation, food, travel and anything else they need in this initial quest for work. They often live crammed together, a few to a room, are working to pay off growing loans, and are locked in with their original agency because the legal process of leaving would be protracted and expensive. They work long days, with women from poorer backgrounds having to say yes to more: in the early 2000s Eastern European models were famed for walking many runway shows in one season—in 2006, Russian model Vlada Roslyakova walked more than 80.
If these women were working as domestic labour or within the sex industry, their treatment would be considered trafficking, but young women are considered lucky to be in this scenario, not vulnerable and deprived of choice. Despite this exploitative and predatory system, women who make a success of the profession are often grateful for the opportunity, in the same way I feel grateful to sex work—I just hate the hypocrisy of those who think that one is acceptable and the other not. Sure, with modelling you have the potential to make more money and gain more social capital, but sex work allows for a much wider array of body types and looks!
