Dave Krueger wrote:
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?

It was a metaphor for uptight.

What category would that be called, exactly?

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
And as I stated before:

If it were my daughter, at 14, I would not let her be photographed in that manner. But that is my decision, whether she hates me for it or not. I doubt she will. And if someone offered her a million dollars to show her ittie bitties in a film about a man obsessed with an underaged girl - sorry folks, money is not more important than my child.

However, it has been proven that underage girls are used for high fashion runway shows overseas and for ad campaigns. And it is sexual, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Sex sells and there are men obsessed with youth and innocence. Why older models (I'll say 17+) can't be used for these ads and shows, is beyond me.

The underage girls (again, I am talking 14-16) that are used for Maxim type images, is not something I agree with. Even if the parents consent to it. Even if it's non-see thru lingerie with legs spread or a V cut shirt with cleavage. No young girl who is serious about becoming a model needs that in her port and should never be told that. If she wants to pursue adult modeling, tell her to come back when she is an adult.

For fine art nudes, again, the photographer really needs to check the reasons for using a 14 year old instead of someone more legal who could look 14. It is a sexual thing here as well, I don;t care what the photographer says, even if he is a she. There is a certain sexual appeal when using minors as photography/art models.
You don't HAVE to use a 14-16 year old model for any nude work. There are legal models who can do the job just as well. Even in fashion and fine art. I do believe that unless it is a medical study being conducted where photos need to be taken of a minor, that any photographer who decides it's "art" to shoot a 14-16 year old to model nude has to question their sexual motives and preferences.

It's also a moral issue. If it was your child, what would you do. Maybe I need to start a thread entitled: Would you let your son/daughter be photographed nude at 14-17 if they were offered money/a lucrative contract deal? How about for fine art to be shown in a gallery? What would Jesus do?

I am not a religious person. I stopped going to church at 16, so my comment about Jesus was not a Jesus Freak jab. Just some food for thought..... for those of you who do not have children, this argument will probably fall on deaf ears. And if you can say that you would let your children do this, even push it at the young age of 14-17 now, I would love to keep in touch to speak with you when you do have children later on and see if you feel the same way. You won't. Why? Because you will understand what it is to love your child and not want them to be displayed that way. At all.

I don't have any children but I COMPLETELY agree with you!

Makura wrote:
A child has neither the ability nor the judgement to uderstand the potential consequences of posing provacatively/nude.

A teenager doesn't have the ability to understand consequences? Surely you're selling "children" in general a bit short.

Daniel Savage wrote:

A teenager doesn't have the ability to understand consequences? Surely you're selling "children" in general a bit short.

No! How many 14 year olds (or even 17 year olds) can really understand what they do at 14 or 17 may be severely regretted at 40?  Hell -- most 25 year olds can't figure that out...

Makura wrote:

No! How many 14 year olds (or even 17 year olds) can really understand what they do at 14 or 17 may be severely regretted at 40?  Hell -- most 25 year olds can't figure that out...

To say any person who has the ability to reason is not capable of understanding the outcome of their actions is... If they are raised to consider the possibilities... If they are in touch with reality in the slightest... Comprehension is is not a difficult thing to do. Also, if one is 14 - 17 and interested in posing in that manner, I would be inclined to think the parent's ability to weigh any consequences would be a greater factor.

Daniel Savage wrote:

To say any person who has the ability to reason is not capable of understanding the outcome of their actions is... If they are raised to consider the possibilities... If they are in touch with reality in the slightest... Comprehension is is not a difficult thing to do. Also, if one is 14 - 17 and interested in posing in that manner, I would be inclined to think the parent's ability to weigh any consequences would be a greater factor.

There are certainly some 'children' that have that ability to understand and reason.  However, there is a reason why children are considered "minors"!  And that is because -- Anyone?

Makura wrote:

There are certainly some 'children' that have that ability to understand and reason.  However, there is a reason why children are considered "minors"!  And that is because -- Anyone?

Because their parents are still legally responsible for them?

Daniel Savage wrote:

Because their parents are still legally responsible for them?

...and their parents are legally responsible for them because...?

Makura wrote:

...and their parents are legally responsible for them because...?

They're not yet majors in the eye of the government.

Daniel Savage wrote:

They're not yet majors in the eye of the government.

...and that is because...?

(and the correct term is 'adult' not 'major' -- unless you are attempting humor)

Makura wrote:

...and that is because...?

(and the correct term is 'adult' not 'major' -- unless you are attempting humor)

A poor attempt, yes. Obviously I see where you're going with this, but personally disagree.

Daniel Savage wrote:
A poor attempt, yes. Obviously I see where you're going with this, but personally disagree.

Your perogative.  I will continue to disagree with you until such time as someone can show how it is in a child's best interest to be photographed provacatively/nude.  I will also say that there are plenty of 'adults' who also lack the ability to make the kind of decisions we are talking about, but they legally have the right to do so...

Off to dinner!  Sayonara

Makura wrote:
Your perogative.  I will continue to disagree with you until such time as someone can show how it is in a child's best interest to be photographed provacatively/nude.  I will also say that there are plenty of 'adults' who also lack the ability to make the kind of decisions we are talking about, but they legally have the right to do so...

Off to dinner!  Sayonara

In line with what Beach just stated above, I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion on the matter even if someone were to come along and point out how it would be in the teenager's best interest.

Though I think the logic of "best interest" is flawed as it is. Is it truly in anyone's best interest to pose nude? (NOTE: I'm not referring to people who have chosen posing nude as a mean of having an income) It's a choice, an expression, a desire to be part of something artistic.

Makura wrote:
There are certainly some 'children' that have that ability to understand and reason.  However, there is a reason why children are considered "minors"!  And that is because -- Anyone?

Because it gives strangers an excuse to tell their parents how they have to behave.

Jonny Carroll wrote:
welcome to the jungle

Realize that this thread started in October 2005, 15 months ago, and others in this vein have popped up from time to time. Many of them are no longer accessible; they got 'zoned'--the step beyond locking--but some still remain. A search for 'underage' or 'minor' will show many of them, though few have any new information in them. Heat rather than light seems to be the rule: people shouting at each other rather than talking with each other.

Ty Simone wrote:

It is not legally wrong.
You can not show me any active law on the books in any jurisdiction that makes the act of shooting a minor nude (non-pornographic pose) illegal.
If there was, then you would see blockbuster pulling a ton of movies off of their shelf.
National Geographic would be banned in those areas, as would a ton of other things.

When is the last time you saw naked American children in National Geographic?  It's about moral ethics, age appropriate content and professionalism.  What purpose does a TFP photographer have for wanting to do images like you're referring to?  What would said photographer do with the images?  Just to have them?

There was a photographer who owned, in his words, a successful agency.  He shot the girls and he got them work, all promotional.  He had 16 year old girls on his site wearing vinyl nurses outfits with fishnet stockings like you'd buy at Frederick's of Hollywood.  That's not nude but is it age appropriate?  What kind of attention will that get the model?  By the way, I understand he's now out of business due to parents complaining about his lack of morality.

If you're going to photograph nude kids, you sure as hell better be somebody that is extremely well known for their quirky art and then you'll still have a battle on your hands.  Look at the shot of, correct me if I'm wrong, Cindy Crawford's daughter shot from behind in a bikini for a swim suit catalog.  She was topless, it was a back shot and still everybody went nuts.

I'm all for rights but I have to question why any TFP photographer would entertain the thought of shooting minors in sexy poses or nude, whether implied or not.

Marc Grant wrote:

When is the last time you saw naked American children in National Geographic?  It's about moral ethics, age appropriate content and professionalism.  What purpose does a TFP photographer have for wanting to do images like you're referring to?  What would said photographer do with the images?  Just to have them?

There was a photographer who owned, in his words, a successful agency.  He shot the girls and he got them work, all promotional.  He had 16 year old girls on his site wearing vinyl nurses outfits with fishnet stockings like you'd buy at Frederick's of Hollywood.  That's not nude but is it age appropriate?  What kind of attention will that get the model?  By the way, I understand he's now out of business due to parents complaining about his lack of morality.

If you're going to photograph nude kids, you sure as hell better be somebody that is extremely well known for their quirky art and then you'll still have a battle on your hands.  Look at the shot of, correct me if I'm wrong, Cindy Crawford's daughter shot from behind in a bikini for a swim suit catalog.  She was topless, it was a back shot and still everybody went nuts.

I'm all for rights but I have to question why any TFP photographer would entertain the thought of shooting minors in sexy poses or nude, whether implied or not.

Actually Marc, If you do some research you will see that National Geographic did in fact have a nude american minor female in one of their issues within the last year.
Also, People find offense with everything, and if we want to be non-offensive, then I suppose we should only shoot landscapes.
There may be several reasons for a TFP photographer to shoot a nude or topless minor.
Who are you to pass judgement on anyone?
If it is an illegal act, then by all means people should complain.
If it is a legal act, then people should really STFU about it.

People complained about the Movie Lolita, based on the book which is considered a classic)
People complained about Pappilion, based on the real life story of the man.
People complained about Brooke Shields and a few of her movies.
People complained about Calvin Kleins ads.
People complain about every freaking thing.

They really need to stop pushing their sick sense of moral values on everyone else in my opinion.

what my personal opinion on the subject is matters not, what does is the legality, and the fact that so many loud mouth conservatives want to make it like we live in Saudi arbia or something where female skin is considered taboo.

Hell, people complain about a woman breast feeding her baby on a plane to the point where she was booted off!
What the hell is wrong with people here?

Ty Simone wrote:
Who are you to pass judgement on anyone?
If it is an illegal act, then by all means people should complain.
If it is a legal act, then people should really STFU about it.

People complained about the Movie Lolita, based on the book which is considered a classic)
People complained about Pappilion, based on the real life story of the man.
People complained about Brooke Shields and a few of her movies.
People complained about Calvin Kleins ads.
People complain about every freaking thing.

They really need to stop pushing their sick sense of moral values on everyone else in my opinion.

what my personal opinion on the subject is matters not, what does is the legality, and the fact that so many loud mouth conservatives want to make it like we live in Saudi arbia or something where female skin is considered taboo.

Hell, people complain about a woman breast feeding her baby on a plane to the point where she was booted off!
What the hell is wrong with people here?

I'm the first to agree that people are too sensitive about everything and the whole PC thing is a crock but we're not talking about referring to a female mail carrier as a mailman.  You're talking about photographing underage kids in sexual ways for your own enjoyment. 

Judgement has not been passed.  An opinion has been offered.  Nobody said it's illegal; it's in poor taste.  Do you want to get arrested?  Go for it?  Will they be able  to prosecute you?  Maybe not but your life will be changed forever.  Since this is your thread, offer me one good reason for you to shoot a 14-17 year old model nude or in a sexy pose.

I know of a photographer who shot a 16 year old girl with just a hint of her nipple showing as she leaned forward in a low cut top.  Her parents took him to court.  He got jail time, 5 years probation and cannot work with models during that period.  That's some pretty amazing shit considering it's not illegal.

You're bring up all sorts of points that have zero to do with this thread so lets don't compare apples to oranges.  You're not talking about breast feeding babies in public, movies, songs, actors, national print publications, celebrities, books, etc.  You're talking about an amateur photographer wanting to know about photographing kids nude or in sexy poses/outfits.  Dude....  it's just in bad taste.


*****EDIT*****
Correction.  His parents didn't take him to court.  They called the police and the prosecuting attorney took him to court.

Marc Grant wrote:
I know of a photographer who shot a 16 year old girl with just a hint of her nipple showing as she leaned forward in a low cut top.  Her parents took him to court.  He got jail time, 5 years probation and cannot work with models during that period.  That's some pretty amazing shit considering it's not illegal.

There is something else to this story.  I am curious what it is.  Nobody gets jail and five years because a nipple accidentally slips out.  Besides, a parent can't take someone to criminal court, only the DA can.

What was this person charged with and what state was it in?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
There is something else to this story.  I am curious what it is.  Nobody gets jail and five years because a nipple accidentally slips out.  Besides, a parent can't take someone to criminal court, only the DA can.

What was this person charged with and what state was it in?

Johnson County, Kansas - Kevin Rew

Not the nipple slipping out.  Probably many nipples slipping out.  There is a pattern there and he used bad judgement in photographing a 16 year old girl in a sexy pose.

Daniel wrote:
In line with what Beach just stated above, I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion on the matter even if someone were to come along and point out how it would be in the teenager's best interest.

Though I think the logic of "best interest" is flawed as it is. Is it truly in anyone's best interest to pose nude? (NOTE: I'm not referring to people who have chosen posing nude as a mean of having an income) It's a choice, an expression, a desire to be part of something artistic.

It is so kind of you not to have a problem with my disagreeing with you.  *whew* I was losing sleep over that...

It is interesting that you acknowledged where I was leading, and copped-out by simply saying you disagreed with it -- without providing a reasoned, rational basis for it.  I was providing the logic and you didn't (or couldn't?) respond in kind.  Or is your opinion based soley on feelings?

If you cannot see the difference between an adult choosing to pose nude and a child being possibly exploited (how many children say, "I want to be photographed nude and have the images splashed all over the Internet -- but only as long as they are artistic."?)  Get real.  There is a reason that laws are written to protect children from others (and themselves).

Shandra wrote:
Sigh.

Bump.

Haha, back to this again!

Marc Grant wrote:
I'm the first to agree that people are too sensitive about everything and the whole PC thing is a crock but we're not talking about referring to a female mail carrier as a mailman.  You're talking about photographing underage kids in sexual ways for your own enjoyment. 

I doubt you'll even see this since this thread is sooo old, but please point me to where ever it is in this 5 page long thread dating back to 2005 where the OP stated anyone was photographing for his/her own enjoyment. IMO I see nothing wrong with underage nudity from an artistic b/w stand point, however i do not feel it is necessary from a glamour perspective. Since glamour CAN HAVE a great amount of sex appeal. But even still i would not knock a model if she had these types of images in her online or personal portfolio. Who are we to judge??

Ty Simone wrote:
Now, has been discussed before, in the industry, Minors (we will go with 14-17 year old) not only are required to be nude / topless around all sorts of adults (professional runway models during shows), but are also required to walk the runway in outfits that may show their breasts etc.. (such as the one image described above)Ad companies have used topless minors in major ads etc...
Hollywood as well has and continues to do movies and shows with topless / nude minors. (not to throw flames on the fire, but a recent show had a completely nude minor with a full frontal view)

Also it needs to be pointed out that often whats perfectly legal live or in person, is quite illegal once recorded to a media format. 

For example, there is nothing illegal for two 16yr olds to be engaged in a sex act in most states, however if they record it, then the recording of it becomes illegal.

Now of course speaking of the nudity infront of staff, audience or backstage at any event like a fashion show is common place.  But if people think about it there are dozens of situations in everday life that minors and adults are nude around each other.  Public swimming pool changing rooms, YMCA shower rooms, school locker rooms, some retail store dressing areas, not to mention any one of the 100's of perfectly legal family nudist camps and beaches in the country, or any home in the US that nudity around the house is allowed.

Kings Media wrote:

I doubt you'll even see this since this thread is sooo old, but please point me to where ever it is in this 5 page long thread dating back to 2005 where the OP stated anyone was photographing for his/her own enjoyment. IMO I see nothing wrong with underage nudity from an artistic b/w stand point, however i do not feel it is necessary from a glamour perspective. Since glamour CAN HAVE a great amount of sex appeal. But even still i would not knock a model if she had these types of images in her online or personal portfolio. Who are we to judge??

I agree with you completely king, its almost like an auto reaction from most that nudity, attractiveness and appreciation of the body is just wrong and dirty. 

Of course when you feel that way to start with any suggestion of it with minors is going to illicit that "wrong" feeling.

AlysiaPaige wrote:
I'm 17, and I had a shoot with a photographer where I had on a strapless green dress, and in one of my head shots you couldn't see the dress so the photographer got in trouble and I had to take down my best photo, I think that is taking it too far.

Got in trouble from whom? And someone suggesting he take it down isnt the same as being criminally charged with a crime.  Lots of times people are "preassured" to do things, even threatened when really they are not breaking the law, just rubbing someones personal oppinion the wrong way.

Frog516 wrote:



Oh you said Minors not Miners... sorry my bad

MM is never without inspiration for me...I sense a new erotic series here.