Thecasting couch is aeuphemism for the practice of solicitingsexual favors from ajob applicant in exchange foremployment in theentertainment industry, primarilyacting roles.[1][2] The practice is illegal in the United States. Predominantly malecasting directors andfilm producers use the casting couch to extract sex from aspiring actors inHollywood,Bollywood,[3][4]Broadway, and other segments of the industry.[9] The termcasting couch originally referred to physicalcouches in thecasting office, but is now ametonym for the phenomenon as a whole. Depictions of casting couch sexual encounters have also become a genre ofpornography.
The casting couch is illegal underUnited States and especiallyCalifornian law. In the United States, the majority oflawsuits related to the practice aresettled, resulting in a lack ofcase law.[10]
InThe Atlantic, linguistBen Zimmer described the casting couch as "ametonym for the skewed sexual politics ofshow business", which has beennormalized into acliché due to the prevalence of sexually aggressive men with positions of authority inHollywood cinema andBroadway theatre.[11]
According to economistsThomas Borcherding and Darren Filson, the highrisk andreturns in Hollywood cinema encourage the casting couch phenomenon. The possibility of high returns incentivizes unestablished actors to accept minimalwages in exchange for roles. With the exception of a few extremely talented actors, producers are unable to evaluate theaptitude of the vast majority of qualified actors due touncertainty. As a result, some actors give sexual favors to producers to obtain a perceived advantage in thecasting; the casting couch functions as a counterpayment that effectively reduces their wages. This creates aconflict of interest in which corrupt producers substitute aptitude (an unquantifiable variable) with sexual activity in their decision-making.[10]
Actors who submit to the casting couch are not guaranteed roles, as there is an abundance of actors who participate in the practice. An actor's decision of whether to provide sex is comparable to theprisoner's dilemma, and results in atragedy of the commons in which sex is needed to obtain film roles from producers who demand it, but fails to provide an advantage relative to other actors who offer sexual favors. The practice is illegal in the United States and likely involves some degree ofsexual exploitation orsexual harassment. Actors who do not participate in the casting couch are subject toexternalities, including reducedemployability.[10]
Borcherding and Filson argue that the casting couch became less prominent after theHollywood studio system, which enforced long-termemployment contracts for actors, was eliminated onantitrust grounds inUnited States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948). Long-term contracts gave producers strongerbargaining power, which was used by corrupt producers to extract sex from actors more effectively.[10]
The Casting Couch (c. 1924), a classic title in thestag film genre,[12] was an early depiction of the casting couch as apornographictrope that later became mundane as it grew in popularity.[13] In the sixteen-minute film, acasting director tells a young actress to wear aswimsuit during anaudition, spies on her in avoyeuristic manner while she undresses in a different room, and enters the room to solicit sex from her. The actress initially rebuffs his advances with disgust, but returns to the director after taking advice from a book titledHow to Become a Movie Star. She performsfellatio andvaginal intercourse in exchange for a role in his film; the latter takes place on a couch.The Casting Couch concludes with anintertitle that states, "the only way to become astar is to get under a good director and work your way up".[12] Zimmer credited the film with popularizing the termcasting couch.[11]
The trend of casting couch scenarios used onpornography websites began with Backroom Casting Couch in 2007.[14]
The websiteGirlsDoPorn, which operated between 2009 and 2020, was described as a casting couch site.[15][16][17][18] The depicted women were manipulated, coerced, lied to, given marijuana or other drugs or physically forced to have sex, according to the accounts of victims and material from a lawsuit against the company.[19][16][18][20] Six people involved in the website were charged withsex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion in November 2019.[18]
| Pornography |
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opposition to pornography |
| ||||||||
| Views | |||||||||
| Media | |||||||||
| Possible effects | |||||||||
| People | |||||||||
| Events | |||||||||
| Miscellaneous | |||||||||
| See also |
| ||||||||
