How Far Is Too Far and How Much Is Too Much? The Ethics of Mark Laita's "Soft White Underbelly" YouTube Channel

Does photographer Mark Laita's YouTube channel "Soft White Underbelly," which chronicles the lives of addicts and others at the fringes of society, itself have a seedy underside? Exploring issues of consent, crowdfunding ethics, and platforming.

In his Created Equal portrait series, Mark Laita juxtaposed polygamists and pimps (pictured here), janitors and CEOs, priests and KKK leaders, using posture, facial expression, and clothing to drive home unexpected parallels. This striking series emphasizes the shared humanity of its subjects, and it represents one of Laita's first forays into forbidden subcultures - an interest that he has devoted his YouTube series "Soft White Underbelly" to exploring.

Mark Laita has had a career that many photographers would kill for. His diptych series, called Created Equal, won him the esteem of respected critics and A-list celebrities like Elton John during the aughts. His depictions of Apple's iMac, iBook, and other products cemented his commercial success and helped to shape Apple's distinctive, full-saturation aesthetic. Mark has galleries in Los Angeles and New York City, a late-model BMW, and all of the expected accoutrements of top-tier success. He also possesses the opposite of a dad bod and a brand of wholesome, blonde good looks that befits his humble Midwestern origins.

During the past several years, Mark Laita's YouTube channel, "Soft White Underbelly," has accrued 5.46 million followers. In this series, Mark interviews addicts of all stripes, including alcoholics, gamblers, and nymphomaniacs. He poses probing questions to polygamists, porn stars, fetishists, and pedophiles. Each interview is accompanied by a black-and-white portrait of its subject(s), and Mark uses GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for the mental health treatment, living costs, and other needs of the people that he interviews.

Through this series, tens of millions of viewers have been exposed to the radiant charisma, heart-wrenching pathos, and thoroughly entrancing chaos of people at the edges of society, many of whom would otherwise have lived and died in the dark, so to speak. At their best, Mark's interviews challenge societal assumptions about certain roles and behaviors; some of his conversations with fetishists and Only Fans stars, for example, reveal self-assured, content, and intelligent women who are undamaged and at peace with their decisions.

Mark has a gentle way about him that works well for these sorts of interviews. His somewhat old-fashioned manners - he frequently compliments female interviewees on their beauty, for example - come across as authentic and charming rather than creepy.

I've followed the channel for years and viewed over a hundred of Mark's interviews. The more I watched, the more my concerns grew, which culminated in my decision to write this post (those of you who read my article on the ethics of commenting on public figures' recovery know that media portrayals of addiction are a subject that I find both intriguing and important). Here, I discuss some of my concerns with Mark's interview methods, transparency (or lack thereof) in crowdfunding, and involvement in the lives of his interviewees.

CONSENT

One of Mark's most popular subjects is Rebecca, a homeless transgender woman who is an illegal immigrant and a fashion savant with a penchant for quoting old movies. Rebecca's charisma is off the charts, and viewers' highly polarized responses to her have included offers to sponsor her addiction treatment, hire her for a fashion-adjacent job, and help her with her immigration issues. In certain videos, Rebecca is compos mentis after being released from a shelter, a hospital, or jail. In others, however, she is disheveled and manic after taking crystal meth and staying up for days; she is barefoot on the sidewalks of West Hollywood, with grime smudged across her face, arms, and legs, and is wearing stylish rags so skimpy that she risks being arrested for public nudity (again). In the latter sort of videos, Mark films Rebecca as she makes a spectacle of herself in public. In one video, for example, she is asked to leave hotel after hotel as Mark tries to find a room for her.

My goal here isn't to analyze the legalities of these interviews. While it would be interesting to hear a professional opinion on the subject, it is mostly beside the point, as most unethical behaviors are not illegal, and sometimes illegal actions aren't unethical. However, I would be very interested to know what type of paperwork Mark requires his interviewees to complete before they are filmed. What comes to mind is that, during the late '90s, I remember hearing that the boob-flashing series Girls Gone Wild had encountered legal challenges around the issue of filming girls when they were too drunk to consent to being filmed (some of them were also underage, I believe). I imagine that similar legal issues are potentially involved in Mark's interviews, as well.

These issues are by no means unique to Rebecca's interviews: There are dozens of interviews whose subjects are clearly and / or admittedly intoxicated on a variety of powerful mind-altering substances. In addition, in the case of the inbred family the Whittakers, which fittingly hails from a town called Odd in West Virginia, serious developmental disabilities call into question consent even though the participants are not intoxicated. Anyone who listens to the garbled, sometimes nonsensical speech of some of the family members will quickly realize that the subjects are affected by severe mental handicaps. Nevertheless, these videos are some of the channel's most popular (and it would be naive to fail to recognize that some people watch these videos to mock their subjects or to gratify their desire for schadenfreude). In the case of interviews with victims of severe trauma of a sexual or violent nature, some of whom have not had adequate time or therapy through which to process what happened to them, consent is similarly cloudy.

Again, regardless of the legalities involved, I believe that filming someone in an advanced state of intoxication is unethical. Such interviewees can't properly weigh the long-term consequences of their decisions because of substance-induced inhibition of the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) and other areas of the brain responsible for risk-weighing, planning, and executive decision-making. Moreover, the stakes of their decisions are raised because their intoxication makes them more likely to divulge sensitive information about themselves and their families and to use language that is less cautious than their typical language. Anyone who has ever drunk dialed can imagine the potential mortification involved in having a recording of their conversation broadcast to millions via the Internet.

Now, if all of Mark's subjects are properly apprised of the scope of their interviews and of how the footage of them will be used in advance of the interviews, under conditions in which they can make an unpressured decision with a clear mind, then the attendant problems with consent are largely obviated. It's hard to imagine that this is true, though, given their highly chaotic lives. It's tough to know exactly where things stand because - to my knowledge - Mark has never addressed the subject of consent.

He has mentioned that he will take down any interviews that interviewees request that he remove. As we all know, however, once the materials are published, they are online forever. Given how young some of his interviewees are and how negatively their discussions of trauma and mental illness are likely to be viewed by potential employers, landlords, and other people who might have power over them in the future, the lifelong ramifications of their decisions to participate in the project should not be discounted.

I suspect that Mark would respond to these concerns by emphasizing the importance of bringing what is in the dark into the light, so to speak. I agree that it is imperative to expose the grisly realities of addiction, prostitution, and other social problems. But the end cannot justify the means in these circumstances, when real, already pain-laden lives hang in the balance. It is frighteningly easy for me to imagine an interview subject, humiliated by his or her actions while intoxicated being viewed by millions of people, committing suicide in a moment of terrible clarity.

On paper, Rebecca sounds like a Republican fever dream - an illegal immigrant / transgender woman / addicted to meth / arrested for public indecency. In the course of several interviews with Mark, however, Rebecca emerges as stunningly charismatic, a beautiful, creative, comical person who quotes classic movies and spouts old-soul thoughts. If you want insight into what raw, unfettered mental illness looks like, I'd highly recommend checking out Mark's interviews with her.

THE MONEY, HONEY

Mark Laita has used GoFundMe to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the subjects of his videos. Some of these campaigns specify the recipients and intended use of the funds (e.g., this fundraiser for a house for the Whittakers). Others are general campaigns without specific intended recipients or uses, disbursements from which are not ever accounted for by Mark. In the description of one such GoFundMe, which has currently raised $48,684, Mark notes that the funds are used for:

"providing housing for the homeless, especially those caring for children, transportation to go visit their children, providing food, clothing and tents for those living on the streets as well as rehab and therapy when enough funds are specifically targeted for a certain individual*"

*Donors can specify which interviewee they intend to help, though no proof of how much money has been raised for or disbursed to a given interviewee is provided.

Contrary to some commentators' assertions, I don't believe that Mark is skimming funds or doing anything that he believes to be unethical; he just doesn't read as that kind of guy to me. Furthermore - unless he suffers from a hidden, high-stakes gambling addiction or favors ultra-high-end escorts of the type that he occasionally interviews - he's not under financial duress.

If anything, Mark strikes me as too ingenuous. This became apparent when a prostitute who he had interviewed extracted increasing sums of money from Mark, ostensibly to escape her dangerous situation; she later admitted that it was in fact her "boyfriend" (almost certainly her pimp, who was facing murder charges) requesting and using these funds. In this case, it became clear that Mark's "help" actually furthered human trafficking and trapped this young woman in a highly dangerous situation. (Several interviewees have passed away of overdose or other causes, and some have allegedly vanished, so the risks involved in these situations are very real).

There have been a few moments that made me question whether Mark has a Christ complex of sorts, which under the wrong stars can be as dangerous as malicious intentions. Mark unilaterally makes the decisions about how the raised funds are disbursed. If I were him, I would have long since put together a "Board of Directors" consisting of social workers, mental health clinicians, perhaps a lawyer and a venture capital consultant (to advise about microloans for small business startups). Two or three former interviewees to round the group out would probably be a good addition, as well.

As nonprofits that offer direct aid to vulnerable populations universally recognize, having one person control how charitable funds are used is a recipe for disaster. Personal biases, conscious or implicit, run rampant without feedback from other parties. Although Mark consults with doctors, lawyers, and other professionals whose services his interviewees are in need of, he vets these contacts himself and mediates the interactions between his interviewees and these third parties. At times, this comes across as an uncomfortable level of involvement.

The fact that Mark provides no public, consistent accounting of how the funds that he raises are used heightens my concerns about him being in a position of too much influence over vulnerable people. In the case of the Whittakers, for example, Mark announced that he would close their GoFundMe and stop filming videos with them after a member of the family made a comment to another YouTuber suggesting financial impropriety on Mark's part. The level of disruption caused by this abrupt withdrawal of Mark's aid, which cannot be overestimated in the case of such a poor and isolated family, didn't seem to occur to Mark (or if it did, to matter to him). This kind of knee-jerk, emotional reaction shows that Mark is too close to his subjects and too invested in his image to be objective in disbursing the substantial sums that his viewers contribute to improve his interviewees' lives.

Mark's hubris in the case of the Whittakers is evident when he declares that "The Whittakers' lives have gotten so much better since I came into them...I'm kind and generous and helpful... " and so on as he decries their perceived betrayal. This is a dangerous attitude for someone in his position to have, and again, the extent to which he took Betty's comments personally is highly worrying.

Screenshot from Mark Laita's "I'm Done With the Whittakers" video, which does appear to show him sending tens of thousands of dollars to Betty Whittaker. Mark states that he sent this money to Betty because she said that the family needed it for living expenses (even though the funds had been raised to buy the Whittakers a house). He also says that he withheld the taxes from the 100K+ that had been raised because he didn't necessarily trust the Whittakers to do that for themselves.

CARNIVAL OF CRINGE

Look, anyone who has conducted 7,000+ interviews is going to put his foot in his mouth a few times (for obvious reasons, your boy is particularly empathetic around this issue). There are times when Mark is indelicate, such as when he tells a young woman who is anorexic that "he has seen way skinnier girls than her" (when she gently chides him for this later on in the interview, he responds with "Seems like anything I say, you're going to take the wrong way" [paraphrase]). In one of his interviews with Rebecca, who identifies as a transgender woman and cross-dresses, he says, "Come on, you're not a woman."

While Mark's candor is forgivable on account of his close relationships with some of his interviewees and his authenticity, there are moments in his interviews - particularly when he's discussing childhood sexual trauma and issues of comparable gravity - when it seems to me that it would be an asset to have a female co-interviewer who is a mental health professional. There are real concerns around re-traumatization of interviewees and how these depictions might lead young audience members to conceptualize their own trauma.

In another worrying case, Mark platforms Kenny Red, a pimp, and his faithful "bottom b*tch" prostitute Martina. Though the two are immensely personable and even seem wise regarding some facets of human nature, their glorification of the despicable, dangerous, and deeply dehumanizing institution of street-level prostitution could put young viewers at risk. Mark gives them airtime without, for example, providing a warning that highlights the un-glamorous realities of sex trafficking - such as the facts that the average age of a prostitute in New York City and other areas is well under 18; that prostitutes are often beaten, branded, and forcibly addicted to drugs by their pimps; that pimps often initially present themselves as boyfriends, then later on coerce their victims into selling sex; and on and on.

Likewise, the deeply likable and effervescently philosophical high-end escort Frenchie paints a picture of her profession that is dramatically at odds with the grim experiences of the vast majority of women who engage in prostitution. In such instances, Mark's interviewees elevate the deplorable, and he bears some responsibility for not providing grounding context for their stories.

I have caught wind of a couple of other troubling accusations related to how Mark conducts Soft White Underbelly business. The YouTuber Tyler Oliveira, upon requesting the Whittakers' contact info from Mark, was allegedly told that Mark had contractual exclusivity in representing the family on social media. When Oliveira posted a video raising questions about what happened to the GoFundMe money raised for the family, Mark's response (detailed above) was very defensive. The YouTuber BJ Investigates allegedly faces legal action for concerns that she raised about Mark's interactions with interviewees on Soft White Underbelly.

Finally and most concerningly, Mark has interviewed underage women, including a 13-year-old runaway named Nova. During her interview, Nova discussed her involvement in illegal activities such as prostitution; this caused me particular worry given that the approximate area in which she operates was mentioned in the video, as it often is on Soft White Underbelly. Interviewing a young woman in such dire straits without connecting her with a shelter, police officer, social worker, or someone else who could help to keep her safe seems downright irresponsible to me. The ability to consent to the lifelong consequences of publicizing her troubles at such a young age pops up again in this situation, as well. My immediate reaction to Nova's video was that no minor in such a situation should have their troubles broadcast to millions of potential predators over the Internet.

FINAL THOUGHTS

My views on religious groups that live apart from mainstream society, BDSM, nudism, and other subcultures have been enriched by viewing Mark's interviews. His beautiful, powerful portraits of the subjects of his videos bear witness to his commitment to respectfully documenting the lives of people who would otherwise be ignored, ridiculed, or forgotten.

My gut feeling is that Mark Laita is sincere in his desire to help and responsible with the money that he raises. However, I also believe that his Soft White Underbelly project has taken off to such an extent that he now needs to implement infrastructure such as a Board of Directors to ensure safe and fair disbursement of funds and to help manage ethical issues such as consent.

This is a "watch this space" topic for me, but I am hopeful that no further scandal or controversy will arise. I'm interested to hear what you all think about the ethics of interviewing addicts who are in active addiction, and I'd like to hear if anyone who follows the channel knows of additional examples of worrying content from Soft White Underbelly (please drop a comment below or message me).

Though we're still in the early days, our community is growing faster than I had anticipated! Please remember to connect with me on Instagram, which will be ramping up in the next several weeks. Also, you're invited to subscribe to the Concrete Confessional mailing list, which you can join from our homepage, for access to our soon-to-launch Discord community and to receive a free copy of my Glossary of Opioid Addiction for Patients and Their Loved Ones later this year.

As always, thanks for reading; it means the world to me. B.