I’m The ‘Scary’ Model In That Awful Ashley Madison Ad

I’m The ‘Scary’ Model In That Awful Ashley Madison Ad

My name is Jacqueline and I am the model seen on the Ashley Madison ad that was recently published in the New York Metro newspaper.

I am the owner and model of the BBW website www.juicyjackie.com. It is tailored to the tastes of those that love big women, their curves, rolls and all the plush softness that comes with being fat.

Years ago, before my modeling career began in earnest, a photographer friend of mine arranged an informal photo session. I was under the impression at the time that people purchasing these photos from the photographer would be doing so for their own personal use. I had no idea that the photographer would endeavor to sell the photos to corporations and/or stock photo companies, who would then go on, repeatedly, to use them in rude and mocking ways.

I am mortified that my image and likeness would be used as advertisement for two things I am so vehemently against: namely cheating and, to an even greater extent, body shaming.

http://jezebel.com/5857045/im-the-scary-model-in-that-awful-ashley-madison-ad

That was a very well thought out editorial. Thanks for posting it.

founder and CEO (of course, a guy) Noel Biderman:

"The best thing that could've happened to this woman is that we used her in our ad. Despite what she may want you to think, she is reaping the press for her own pornography website. She took these pictures and signed the release knowing that they were not just for 'personal use.' However, if she can get great publicity from this, all the power to her."

to mention her web address. :rofl:

"The best thing that could've happened to this woman is that we used her in our ad. Despite what she may want you to think, she is reaping the press for her own pornography website. She took these pictures and signed the release knowing that they were not just for 'personal use.' However, if she can get great publicity from this, all the power to her."

publicity and their bank account. I mean really, who gives a shit about anything but those things, right?

Gotta love the invisible hand of the market. It puts people exactly where they belong.

A reputable business wouldn't hold her to this old release, however. They'd find a model who would agree to use of their image for this specific use. To do otherwise may be within the web site's legal rights, but given the array of options available not really necessary. However, it seems both parties are most concerned with promoting their own interests, so I expect this story to continue until it proves no longer profitable for one party or the other (or probably both).

if it gets into the hands of kids: bad thing.

Here's the original article: http://jezebel.com/5855235/is-your-wife-fat-try-adultery

Here's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbfaHE_T4w">Fernando's New Beginnings.

satire of American society...One of the many reasons why it's my favorite

Rights, in the USA, have a specific meaning. In this case the right in question is número uno.

So she has every right to bitch about it, just as you had the right to misconstrue the word "right."

- and knew full well that the pictures would be used publicly. What she may not have known is HOW they would be used, which seems to be what she's upset about. Without reading the release we have no way to know if she has a legitimate complaint regarding how the photos were used.

I clicked on her website linked above and I'm afraid I can't find much sympathy for her. Her homepage has a rather explicit photo front and center that can be accessed by anyone. Frankly, it looks to me like she's using this situation to promote her internet business.

Best way I know of to get your computer trashed.

The subtext of the ad is that she's ugly and repulsive. That's what's objectionable. Not that she's scantily-clad.

The premise of her web site is that big women are attractive and sexy. It caters to people who are into that. She's the owner of the site, she's not being coerced in any way, this is her choice and she enjoys that kind of sexual attention.

The premise of the ad is that big women are repulsive and disgusting, and if you find yourself married to one that's the worst thing that could happen to you, so you're totally justified in cheating.


I can't believe some people think she doesn't have a right to be upset about this just because she's a porn model. I don't know if her legal rights were violated, I don't have enough info and don't know what she signed or what she didn't--but I can certainly see why she's humiliated and furious. I would be too.

Do people really believe that porn models give up all rights to care about how they're depicted? That they don't deserve sympathy over things that make them feel violated? Do people really not see the difference between her web site and that ad? If that's really true, that's very very worrying to me.

that means she doesn't deserve sympathy when her image is used in a mocking and cruel way?


Yes, she uses pics of herself in porn - porn that's aimed at a very specific audience, namely those who are attracted to and turned on by big women. That's her choice and there's nothing wrong with that choice. So she doesn't deserve to be upset to find herself the object of much more unpleasant attention?

An object does not get to choose how it is used. She agreed for her image to be an object, and for it to be used in media. Are public figures whose images wind up on dartboards or urinal cakes entitled to sympathy because that's not the use they intended of the object depicting them?

Arguably, fans of her genre of "porn" would find the image in the ad campaign titillating in precisely the sense she wished. So she is reaching a wider (no pun intended) audience. More power to her. I hope she gets some help before she eats herself to death.

That anyone who puts their picture out there for one purpose has no grounds to object if it's used for another purpose that person might find deeply offensive?


Do you also think it's OK that crowd pictures from an Obama rally were used on a homophobic hate group's web site?


I'm not even going to go into your hateful body-shaming and slut-shaming...seriously, what has this woman ever done to you to make you so nasty?

So yes, I truly believe that she has no right to complain. Well, she has the right, but her complaint is not legitimate.

as "all women". Know what I mean?

Yes. And they're entitled to complain about the situation, if they so desire. Just like this woman, who's complaining about a site based around cheating on your spouse that used her as an example of "repulsive".



Ah, there's where the issue is. The cheating web site isn't wrong, because you think she is repulsive. Got it.

An object the use of which was licensed by the person complaining. So where's the beef?

- and if that release stated how her image was to be used. If there were no constraints on how her image would be used publicly, then she can certainly be upset but it doesn't appear she has any legal case. Hopefully she will be wiser in the future.

From the article - in which she quickly references her website - it appears to me that she is using this "situation" as a no-fee way to promote her business. In that respect, I have no sympathy for her as she is knowingly and voluntarily promoting the negative ad of herself for her own financial gain.

but nary a peep about a site that advocates cheating on your partner.

What in the hell is an "adultery website"? How is it any different than the millions of well-known swinger sites out there?

Talk about competing in an over-saturated market...

huh?


why would random individuals purchase a picture of someone they did not know..for personal use?

anyone who has professional pictures done and signs a release form, is relinquishing control over what happens to those pictures..

I hope this motivates models to draw up their own very restrictive release forms.

You just can't trust anyone.

I wonder why the idiots who freak out about gay marriage never seem to say much about this kind of crap.

does your husband scare you. or projecting all men abuse, one out of control angry man?

and i dont know who ashley madison is and why they are runnig this ad