BCG wrote:

coming from an intellectual giant, i am sure that she is hurt by your remark...george may be dumb, but he is in charge of the greatest nation that this earth has ever seen.

Now I'm not flaming you, just stating a fact, YOU ARE A MORON!  Take a friggin photography class or at the very least put down your cell phone camera.

VIS wrote:
Now I'm not flaming you, just stating a fact, YOU ARE A MORON!  Take a friggin photography class or at the very least put down your cell phone camera.

your mom likes my work!!!

BCG wrote:

does this mean i should not post the photos of your mom?!?

Wow, you must be a real intellectual giant.  What are you 15 years old?  This is the BEST comeback you can come up with?  During evolution, your ancestors must have been in the control group.

BCG wrote:
i just turned 14. do you always get into fights with children???

That's some serious quick wit you have there.  I guess it's the type of wit that got you all those editor's jobs and oh yeah that job for Kodak.  As the saying goes, "if I took your brain out and shoved it up a gnats ass, it would be like a BB inside a boxcar."

bencook2 wrote:
Your age is showing.

Get a life

William Kious wrote:

Comparing adult nudes to photos of nude minors is shaky at best.  Unfortunately, a link does exist between pedophilia and a preoccupation with looking at pictures of children.  Do all who look at pictures of nude children become pedophiles?  Of course not.  But some do.

I wasnt comparing photos of nudes to photos of adults.Read it again

Bill Tracy wrote:
If you really feel the need to take photos of nude kids for some reason, go to Europe.
Here in the USA it's wrong - period - end of debate.

Playing Devils Advocate here, as I love to do, what about having an ocean between there and here makes it wrong or right?

rp_photo wrote:

That's part of the point I was trying to make, although it may be more relevent when considering viability of older models.

The baby boomers have always managed to make whatever age they are the most attractive one.

Thus we had kid-oriented innocent 50's, rebellious teen 60's, apathethic twenty-something 70's, and money/success oriented thirty-somethings in the 80's.

This was supposed to have shifted the ages viewed as most attractive upwards. We have seen some evidence of this in the acceptability of people in their 40's and 50's as attractive, but perhaps it has not reduced obsession with youth.

I mean, the baby boomers aged and started looking old and realized it aint always how they thought it would be and their vanity started to show as well, especially where money is concerned, like the fashion and beauty industry.

Jeffrey Haas wrote:
Ok, here's a question...

Lingerie for the minor (14-17) is inappropriate?  What about swimwear?  I've photographed several under 18's in swimwear and that seems to be acceptable.  How is it different then if the same model is in the same pose wearing a non-see through bra and panty, or wearing a V-neck showing cleavage?

This is one thing I've not really ever understood.  I've had several models (all ages) say that they're happy to wear a bikini, but wearing lingerie (same exact coverage) is inappropriate.  Tell me how the two are different...

The explanation I get from models on this is basically that swimwear is for swimming, lingerie is usually meant for the girl to wear for naughy times with her significant other. This the feeling they have that lingerie implies something sexual.

Toria wrote:
Wow...this is truly creepy...*shudder*...

I heard about this on another forum that I am involved in and had to check it out for myself...

What kind of a sick person would even WANT to take photos of a child naked?  What is in any way erotic or sexual about a child naked?  What kind of person thinks that children naked are sexy?  Oh...wait a minute...I think they do have a word for people like that...they are called PEDOPHILES. 

Just for shits and giggles, I am going to invite the Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI)to check out your profile and see how well you stack up against others who like to have naked images of kids in sexual positions, etc.  ( IINA is a component of FBI's Cyber Crimes Program, is an intelligence driven, proactive, multi-agency investigative initiative to combat the proliferation of child pornography/child sexual exploitation (CP/CSE) facilitated by an online computer.)   Let us know how you come out...

YUCK!

The IINA and other groups like it are also the same groups who have admitting that provocative photographs of underage girls, even in lingerie and very revealing and sheer outfits its not in and of itself illegal. Again as stated by many in this thread it is what is shown and how it is shown. Provocative is not illegal no matter what age.

theda wrote:
Yeah, it's just you. It's not illegal to look at a naked child. That;s why no one has put a stop to it. It's fairly common in high fashion.

This nudity=sex thing is what creeps me out.  Obviously, a lot of people simply do not know the difference. Pedophiles don't need to see nude photos of children to feed their desires. Any photos will do if they're really interested.

Again, for a rare instance I agree with Theda again and she beat me to the comment that pedophiles do not need to see a child naked to get their jollies. Just seeing the one that fits their fantasy look/shape is enough.

Kaori Night wrote:
There is a difference between child porn and nude pictures. Hell, everyone has nude pictures of them as a child. It's innocent.

Why is it innocent for a parent to do nude shots of their child but not for a photographer to do nude shots of a child? What if mommy or daddy are photographers?

Kaori Night wrote:
If you're 16, you won't change THAT MUCH from now until you're 18.

Not necessarily true at all.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

As far as the law and owner of this website are concerned, there are no pedophiles on this website. There are not any pictures of nude children ANYWHERE on this website. So why is this subject brought up again and again?

Actually I did at one time see a profile of a 16 year old who once contacted me here and she did have some self shot topless and partial nude shots that she did with a digital or webcam. They actually looked very well done. She was from Australia if I remember correctly. I do not think she is on here anymore. Probably got scared off. None of her shots were sleazy, which I can not say for some of the girls the same age on here who do sleazy photos of themselves or get them shot by a photographer and post them on their profiles here.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

As far as the law and owner of this website are concerned, there are no pedophiles on this website. There are not any pictures of nude children ANYWHERE on this website. So why is this subject brought up again and again?

Actually I did at one time see a profile of a 16 year old who once contacted me here and she did have some self shot topless and partial nude shots that she did with a digital or webcam. They actually looked very well done. She was from Australia if I remember correctly. I do not think she is on here anymore. Probably got scared off. None of her shots were sleazy, which I can not say for some of the girls the same age on here who do CLOTHED but sleazy photos of themselves or get them shot by a photographer and post them on their profiles here.

Kaori Night wrote:

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I don't feel children between the ages of 14-17 should pose nude, as it's too risqué for their age group. Younger, I could stomach easier as that IS innocent.

So, 13 is ok ?Tell me what difference a year makes when its that age range? Are you not the one who also said nothing changes between 16 and 17? What changes from 13 to 14 to suddenly make it impossible to me innocent?

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Why is it innocent for a parent to do nude shots of their child but not for a photographer to do nude shots of a child? What if mommy or daddy are photographers?

Because that is their child. That changes a lot of things. :\

Kaori Night wrote:

Yeah. I did. And it IS illegal in some places.

Where? You seem to know a lot more about the laws than we do.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Kaori Night wrote:

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I don't feel children between the ages of 14-17 should pose nude, as it's too risqué for their age group. Younger, I could stomach easier as that IS innocent.

So, 13 is ok ?Tell me what difference a year makes when its that age range? Are you not the one who also said nothing changes between 16 and 17? What changes from 13 to 14 to suddenly make it impossible to me innocent?

And younger as in maybe 5 and younger. We were using those ages as range.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

From what I've read, the true pedophile also goes for girls that are not filled out as the teens who are this website. There is another "Place" that we all know about that allows all ages. That is a website I would worry about "lurkers" and also why once I launch my model listing website, it will cost a small fee to "lurk" so I can keep tabs on the membership.  I don't shy away from a website just because it cost to be on it.

Believe it or not the lurk factor has dropped a lot on there. Sure it is cheap to get a free membership by paying 10 bucks to register it. But, then OMP has your name and info. Pedos don`t like that. Also, Pedos can get photographs of what they want for free outside of OMP and from other pedos. They don`t need to pay 10 bucks for the free membership.

Kaori Night wrote:
Like it was stated before, it also all depends on the content. Just like in some places its even illegal to look at illustrated child pornography. But in any case, I said I was done with this topic, so I'd suggest you find something else to do than argue with me that child nudity is ok. Because you're not changing my mind. Go think about how you're not going to have children or something. Jeezus...

Illustrated as in drawn, painted and other mediums depicting  minors in explicit situations? Actually, that, which is considered cyber child porn or simulated child porn was found not to be illegal by the supreme court a couple years or so ago. In a drawing or painting there is no  actual human therefor they found it not to be illegal.

Kaori Night wrote:

Because that is their child. That changes a lot of things. :\

How, Kaori? How does who does it change the act? The fact is the child is still nude regardless of if a photographer did the photograph, or the parent. I could show you a nude photograph of a child shot by a parent, and one shot by a photographer, are you so sure you could tell the difference, every single time?

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Illustrated as in drawn, painted and other mediums depicting  minors in explicit situations? Actually, that, which is considered cyber child porn or simulated child porn was found not to be illegal by the supreme court a couple years or so ago. In a drawing or painting there is no  actual human therefor they found it not to be illegal.

I know. It's not in this country.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
How, Kaori? How does who does it change the act? The fact is the child is still nude regardless of if a photographer did the photograph, or the parent. I could show you a nude photograph of a child shot by a parent, and one shot by a photographer, are you so sure you could tell the difference, every single time?

I never said I could or couldn't. The fact is that you could assume the parent would have the child's best interest at heart... Or at least hope. Like others have said before, once you have your own children, your minds will, more likely than not, change. I just don't think it's necessary for adolescents to be shot naked. In any way. And here I'm getting argued at. No one else who has disagreed with the rest of you has gotten this. Was this thread not shut down before? I'm beginning to see why. This should really end. Minors should not be shot without clothes on, but kudos to whoever want to try it. They're not doing it with me or when I have children.

Kaori Night wrote:

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Illustrated as in drawn, painted and other mediums depicting  minors in explicit situations? Actually, that, which is considered cyber child porn or simulated child porn was found not to be illegal by the supreme court a couple years or so ago. In a drawing or painting there is no  actual human therefor they found it not to be illegal.

I know. It's not in this country.


I never said I could or couldn't. The fact is that you could assume the parent would have the child's best interest at heart... Or at least hope. Like others have said before, once you have your own children, your minds will, more likely than not, change. I just don't think it's necessary for adolescence to be shot naked. In any way. And here I'm getting argued at. No one else who has disagreed with the rest of you has gotten this. Was this thread not shut down before? I'm beginning to see why. This should really end. Minors should not be shot without clothes on, but kudos to whoever want to try it. They're not doing it with me or when I have children.

Nice avoidance of the question" how does who took it change the act". You are assuming that the photographer can`t do it with the same purity in mind as the parent. Don`t assume like that.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Nice avoidance of the question" how does who took it change the act". You are assuming that the photographer can`t do it with the same purity in mind as the parent. Don`t assume like that.

I'm not. Just saying, parent's child, parents can do what they want with it. Whether it's right or not, I guess that's up to social services to decide.

Dredful Jaymz wrote:
There have been many reproductions of the nude form all throughout history. Children are a heated subject because of the fact there is depravity out there. I believe there are even people that can achieve sexual arousal just looking at some of our great masterpieces of the past, be it a bathing child or a cherub. I personaly have some Time/Life photography books that have nude children in them. I view the human form as a piece of art, but because of the thought of someone viewing a photo in the manner that they wish it to be, I will not photograph under age people, male or female, in a way that might give a pervert sexual delight.

I think the Led Zepplin album cover that has nude children, I'm guessing, of mixed sexes, climbing a stepped hillside is a piece of art in it self. Someone else may view it as something that arouses them. To me this is completely wrong and if this album cover were produced nowadays, would draw a huge amount of fire from many sources.

Because I own both the album and the Time/Life books am I a collector of child porn. I think not, but I prefer not to provide myself the trouble of drawing fire from anyone no matter how artful the subject. If you wish to photograph nude children, have at, but understand there's going to be some sick-o out there masterbating to it. Can you live with that? Would you want the child of such a photo to be the center of some sick son-of-a-bitches fantasies?

It's your call, and personally, I'm sick of this subject.

Weird thing about this post is right before I clicked it to read it Led Zep started playing on the radio(twilight zone theme here)

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

How, Kaori? How does who does it change the act? The fact is the child is still nude regardless of if a photographer did the photograph, or the parent. I could show you a nude photograph of a child shot by a parent, and one shot by a photographer, are you so sure you could tell the difference, every single time?

Hi Ray,
(This is PEGGY NOT JESS)
Maybe the issue isn't so much as to who takes the photo but rather who will see the photo. If  a parent takes a photo of their child playing in the bathtub or as a baby, the proverbial baby on it's tummy, smiling at the camera with their little bare baby bottom showing and puts it in the family album...that's one thing. I actually have one of each of my children that they cringe at when they see!LOL
I think (and I hope I'm right) that this is the type of nude photo taken by a parent that Kaori is referring to.
I don't know any average parents (that are family or friends of ours) whom just randomly take naked photos of their kids once they reach a certain age, say the age where they want privacy or say "Get out of here with that camera!!!!". I honestly don't and since the average American family do not go to nude beaches and have all these nudity hang ups that Theda always refers to, that makes perfect sense to me.

I must admit that I am also confused about the laws and may look them up if I choose to get into a discussion about it...which I probably won't...except for the fact that although it isn't illegal (according to some here) it must however be illegal to possess it or look at it since I see all of the time in the news about people being arrested for possessing it either in photograph form or on their home PC's as digital.
Therefor, if you aren't breaking the law by actually TAKING the photographs, you can however be arrested for having them in your possession. Either way, in my opinion, arguing whether or not it's legal or not is ridiculous.

Jessica L wrote:
Hi Ray,
(This is PEGGY NOT JESS)
Maybe the issue isn't so much as to who takes the photo but rather who will see the photo. If  a parent takes a photo of their child playing in the bathtub or as a baby, the proverbial baby on it's tummy, smiling at the camera with their little bare baby bottom showing and puts it in the family album...that's one thing. I actually have one of each of my children that they cringe at when they see!LOL
I think (and I hope I'm right) that this is the type of nude photo taken by a parent that Kaori is referring to.
I don't know any average parents (that are family or friends of ours) whom just randomly take naked photos of their kids once they reach a certain age, say the age where they want privacy or say "Get out of here with that camera!!!!". I honestly don't and since the average American family do not go to nude beaches and have all these nudity hang ups that Theda always refers to, that makes perfect sense to me.

I must admit that I am also confused about the laws and may look them up if I choose to get into a discussion about it...which I probably won't...except for the fact that although it isn't illegal (according to some here) it must however be illegal to possess it or look at it since I see all of the time in the news about people being arrested for possessing it either in photograph form or on their home PC's as digital.
Therefor, if you aren't breaking the law by actually TAKING the photographs, you can however be arrested for having them in your possession. Either way, in my opinion, arguing whether or not it's legal or not is ridiculous.

Peggy! Hows things? I love Jessicas new stuff, as usual.
As for what Kaori is trying to say, I will let her say what she is trying to say. If she wants to get involved in conversations with us she needs to articulate what she means. She can not let it just be implied. As for the laws, they are fairly simple and have been stated correctly over and over here and in other threads. As for being illegal to posess nudes of children, no it is not. It is illegal to posess *pornographic* photographs of children, in some places anyway. I have actually seen some cases where someone found to posess child pornography on their computer were let go and it was mentioned that whereever they were located it was not illegal to posess it or was at best a misdemeanor.
As for being arrested, people get arrested for non illegal acts all the time because of things like suspicion that it may be illegal because of how the cop, local DA interprets the law. And in those cases when someone is arrested for something that is not illegal, the judge lets them go.

Tell Jessica I said Hi

Tell Jessica I said Hi

Will do. She's at Homecoming tonight. I'm telling you she looked absolutely gorgeous! I'm so mad at my husband right now because he took the damn digital camera with him to a wedding he was doing tonight and when Jess' date arrived, I went running for the camera and IT WASN'T THERE!!!
The good news though is she had a shoot today and the photographer took some shots of her in the dress and oh lordy, can't wait to see them.
It may be a while though but it'll be worth the wait.
Poor baby. As usual her date was about 4 inches shorter than her (in her heels) and although us older gals don't worry about the height thing so much, teenagers worry about EVERYTHING it seems.lol
He was adorable. My Mom was a little turned off by his hair...long and blond....but I thought he was adorable. Jess loves long haired boys, doesn't matter the color and I don't care as long as their nice kids.
Glad you like the new shots. She won't have any for a while because of the musical. I see she posted in this thread last night. I just love that kid I swear!LOL
Take care...

Now where were we?(Sorry if I hijacked!)

Peggy

Jessica L wrote:
My Mom was a little turned off by his hair...long and blond....but I thought he was adorable. Jess loves long haired boys, doesn't matter the color and I don't care as long as their nice kids.

DON'T TRUST LONG-HAIRED GUYS WITH YOUR DAUGHTER!

I should know. I had long hair for about 14 years.

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
DON'T TRUST LONG-HAIRED GUYS WITH YOUR DAUGHTER!

I should know. I had long hair for about 14 years.

Awww...look how cute they are! This was taken at Chuck-E-Cheese the first time they met. No, he's not a boyfriend he's a boy-friend. Jess took the Chuck-E-Cheese photo booth version and "artsied" it up.

http://peggyspics.photosite.com/~photos … 115593.jpg

Jessica L wrote:
Hi Ray,
(This is PEGGY NOT JESS)
Maybe the issue isn't so much as to who takes the photo but rather who will see the photo. If  a parent takes a photo of their child playing in the bathtub or as a baby, the proverbial baby on it's tummy, smiling at the camera with their little bare baby bottom showing and puts it in the family album...that's one thing. I actually have one of each of my children that they cringe at when they see!LOL
I think (and I hope I'm right) that this is the type of nude photo taken by a parent that Kaori is referring to.
I don't know any average parents (that are family or friends of ours) whom just randomly take naked photos of their kids once they reach a certain age, say the age where they want privacy or say "Get out of here with that camera!!!!". I honestly don't and since the average American family do not go to nude beaches and have all these nudity hang ups that Theda always refers to, that makes perfect sense to me.

I must admit that I am also confused about the laws and may look them up if I choose to get into a discussion about it...which I probably won't...except for the fact that although it isn't illegal (according to some here) it must however be illegal to possess it or look at it since I see all of the time in the news about people being arrested for possessing it either in photograph form or on their home PC's as digital.
Therefor, if you aren't breaking the law by actually TAKING the photographs, you can however be arrested for having them in your possession. Either way, in my opinion, arguing whether or not it's legal or not is ridiculous.

Although I don't photograph minors nude and don't advocate doing so, however, I work in Federal Law Enforcement and most people, including, alot of law enforcement officials do not understand the law in regards to minors nude.

If it doesn't fit the definition of sexually explicit conduct (18 USC 2256) it is not illegal for someone to photograph or look at a photo of a minor nude. If it were illegal then Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and other book retailers would be shut down and their employees would be arrested for distribution of child porn since they sell David Hamiltons, jock Sturges, and others books featuring nude underage minors. The people buying the books would be arrested for buying the book and looking at it's content.

To me it's not a question of whether we can do it but a question of whether we should do it. I chose not to do it..Photographing minors nude does not interest me.


§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now since there is alot of confusion as to what is or is not legal, my thought is why would you want to put yourself into that position.

For sake of argument let say a photographer takes a photo of a minor nude. Someone sees it and calls the cops. The cops don't understand the federal law (as evident of the parents who have been arrested for photographing their 2 year old nude in the tub) and arrests photographer. Photographer goes to court and after a lengthy court battle, which, could include appeals wins his case and is aquitted. Photographer now has to sell his/her home and/or business to pay his legal fees. Although, the photographer has been aquitted people will still look at that photographer as a pedophile and the photographer is also financially devastated. Why would the photographer want to place themselves into that position?

D.

Daniel Savage wrote:
Having posed nude at the ripe old age of 15, where many of the final images were were displayed in a gallery and open to the public after the initial viewing, I don't see a problem with it. Granted, that was thirteen years ago. Clearly people have had poles wedged up their asses a little further since then.

I think merely saying something like "poles wedged up their asses" could probably get you on the registered sex offenders list these days.  How would you like to be categorized along side people who pee in doorways, skinny dip, streak at college sports events, and have sex in the back of a car on a public road?