Like everything else that David Farrier presents in this documentary, what is not told about Richard Ivey tells the story of the lies of Farrier. It is the contention of Farrier that I shoot gay fetish material. He uses as his point of proof Richard Ivey. He presents him as a man who runs a “fetish site.” He shows Ivey interacting with a shirtless man in a restraint chair. Let’s take a closer look at Ivey and his relationship with Farrier and “Tickled.”
Ivey is listed as an associate producer. When I saw of his involvement I did some research to see who he was and what he did. For the purposes of full disclosure, obviously a concept alien to Farrier, from 1995-2006 I directed a series of high end safe sex themed gay adult videos. I asked my old contacts about him and was told he was a nice guy. A mutual friend offered to put us on a three way call right then, and I told him that I would prefer if he asked Ivey first. I did not want to act like Farrier and sandbag someone into a conversation they did not want, or were not prepared to have. I had explained the lies and tactics of Farrier to my friend, and had hoped that Ivey was not aware of them. I thought he would be concerned that his name was connected to them (the lies and tactics). I fully expected a return call. Instead our mutual friend a couple of days later told me that Ivey would not talk to me. He told my friend his involvement was to pay Farrier $1,000 and appear in the documentary. He had no interest in talking to me. It did not take long to figure out why.
Before I get to why he would not talk to me, let’s talk about what Farrier did not tell you. Richard Ivey does indeed shoot people getting tickled. That is where the comparison ends. In the documentary you see Ivey tickle a shirtless man restrained in a chair. He then in a very sexual way plays with the man’s exposed nipples. Earlier I objected to the comparison and said the solution was easy. Show me anything I shot that as much as had a person’s shirt off, much less ant erotic contact. You could not because there is none. You will never see myself or anyone in the company touch anyone. It turns out that Richard Ivey is far more that a man who runs a tickle fetish company. He is an active participant in sexual activities of men who are restrained. Just a short trip to his twitter WARNING OFFENSIVE ADULT CONTENT: https://twitter.com/myfriendsfeet. You will see here countless example of Mr. Ivey among other things with a man’s foot in his mouth while the man masturbates. I am not trying to be crude or shocking here but this is what he compares what I have shot too. He makes Richard Ivey the good guy.
I certainly understand that in the adult business there are unscrupulous people. There are few however who are as brazen as Richard Ivey. Let’s look at the Dictionary.com definition of sexual harassment.
“unwelcome sexual advances made by an employer or superior, especially when compliance is made a condition of continued employment or advancement.”
Here you have the man who is the boss, doing the paying, engaging in sexual activities with his employees. I am not suggesting this is unique to Ivey. I am however saying that Farrier says what I shoot exploits the talent, what does sex acts with the boss as part of your employment do? Show me any footage of mine that shows any sexual contact at all? Show me touching any model?
The comparison between what I shoot and what Ivey shoots is a lie. For example; a licensed massage therapist, for therapeutic reasons often by prescription, gives a patient a massage. That does not mean you can lump him in with a sex worker who gives a massage with a “Happy Ending”. The same could be said with a physical therapist. You could take any porn scenario, football players in a locker room engaging in sex, or cheerleaders engaging sex does not mean football players and cheerleaders are sex performers. This is the lie Farrier is telling here. Again the solution is simple. Show me any footage that I have shot that compares to Richard Ivey with a man’s foot in his mouth during a sex scene. While Farrier paints him as St. Richard of Arc, he neglects to tell people what he is in reality. While at the same time he tells people a lie that this is what I do. Is making sexual activity with your employer a condition of being paid not exploitive? This behavior from your associate producer? Might you have told people this?
Now for the why Ivey would not talk to me. The simple one word answer that flows through all of this is money. Take a look at this press release from Ivey in late December to Ivey’s affiliates:
Ivey would not talk to me because he wanted nothing to get in the way with the windfall he expects being part of Farriers documentary. He could care less about the truth, all he cares about is the money. The money also is connected to his sex life. More money more men to put in his sex required for payment vice. That is the theme that runs throughout this sordid tale. Money and fame.
In the publicity for the documentary a picture of Farrier and Ivey and a shirtless man restrained in a chair figure prominently. In fact, this picture is featured in a NYTIMES article ironically about truth in documentaries. Nowhere does it say that Ivey is a pornographer who sexually exploits people who work for him.
Yet Farrier has the audacity to compare the men who have worked for me as being part of this gay fetish exploitation. Does he tell the audience any of this? NO. Does he tell the NYTIMES they are shilling for a pornographer who will use them to sexually exploit other men? NO. Did he tell any of this to Magnolia Pictures? Only they know the answer to that. Did he tell any of this to HBO? Only they know the answer to that.
This is not an isolated incident. You can follow the money trail throughout the tale of Richard Ivey. In documents used by Farrier to show something the subject of the documentary did over a decade ago they show the URL www.ticklishguys.com that the subject of the documentary owned. You go to it now and guess what you find? Does that tickle chair look familiar to anyone? “As seen in the NYTIMES” should be there. This of course leads any reasonable person to ask just what is the financial arrangement between Farrier and Ivey? As Ivey has already paid $1,000 to Farrier we know the financial motive is there. Does Farrier get a piece of the expected windfall? Only they know. In full disclosure however, ethically speaking, should Farrier have informed the audience, of the financial relationship between the two? Of course that is a meaningless point as in order to have ethical considerations you need to have ethics.