Madcrow Studios wrote:

I brought that up pages ago and was summarily ignored. Maybe you can get a better response.

As did I. People don't like to listen to logic with issues like this.

TXPhotog wrote:
Ummm, Kaitlin . . . bone away.  In Pennsylvania the age of consent for sex is 16.  You just can't take pictures of it until they are 18.

And please note Tx said "of IT" meaning the sex act, not "of them" meaning the 16 y/o.

SLE Photography wrote:

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
So am I not hot because I'm 19? Because I can find you a shitpile of men way older than me who find me attractive. In fact...just go to my page and you'll see in my credits a list of 20-some men who found me attractive enough to shoot me. There's a reason Playboy and Maxim shoots young women. Because they're attractive.

*phew*  That's a relief, 'cause I'm old enough to be your daddy (just barely) and I think you're hot. 


Just as a point of reference, it's NOT illegal in many cases to photograph a 17 yr old nude OR to have sex with one (dependent on state statutes), it's just a bad IDEA since (eww factor aside) it can still create a world of trouble for you.

Hehe...I like daddy-age men Salt and pepper hair is my favorite thing ever.

TXPhotog wrote:

Ummm, Kaitlin . . . bone away.  In Pennsylvania the age of consent for sex is 16.  You just can't take pictures of it until they are 18.

Now TX...you know very well that I don't deal with men under the age of 30

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Now TX...you know very well that I don't deal with men under the age of 30

Damn!  I've got another year to go before I'm eligible.

-Major

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Now TX...you know very well that I don't deal with men under the age of 30

Yeah, but you like that Salt and Pepper hair - which I haven't had in over 20 years.  Sigh.

SLE Photography wrote:
Just as a point of reference, it's NOT illegal in many cases to photograph a 17 yr old nude OR to have sex with one (dependent on state statutes), it's just a bad IDEA since (eww factor aside) it can still create a world of trouble for you.

Eww factor?  LOL!  Thankfully the eww factor magically disappears on their 18th birthday.

TXPhotog wrote:

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
I wouldn't do a 17 year old because I don't want to get arrested. If it weren't illegal, I'd certainly bone a hot 17 year old. I'm only 19 after all.

Ummm, Kaitlin . . . bone away.  In Pennsylvania the age of consent for sex is 16.  You just can't take pictures of it until they are 18.

I'm confused. 

*runs off to review terminology in Big Book of Raunchy Slang"

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Hehe...I like daddy-age men Salt and pepper hair is my favorite thing ever.

Ahem!

215 Studios wrote:

Damn!  I've got another year to go before I'm eligible.

-Major

I'm willing to make exceptions for people with badass names

TXPhotog wrote:

Yeah, but you like that Salt and Pepper hair - which I haven't had in over 20 years.  Sigh.

Aw...well...salt is pretty good on its own

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
One third world place I worked, non-Muslim in that case, actually used a girl's weight as the deciding factor and which assumed, and pre-supposed but not completely irrationally, that once the/a girl reached the weight then she was also old enough.

Studio36

Oh dear sweet Jesus. I would never be able to have sex. I'd have to kill myself.

Not to worry... I think you would make the minimum 50#

But as you can see many girls would hit that weight at, say, between 12 and 13, so it is not without a rational basis and relationship to puberty. So, sure, you could have sex and maybe even earlier than you could in the US depending on which state you live in and the local law.

Studio36

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

Wait a few months until she's 18, duh.

Leo Howard wrote:
For SG, I'd say wait till she is 18

If its an SG stlye thing for her personal use, just wait out the few months till she is 18.  If she is wanting to actually shoot for SG... RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jessalyn wrote:

if that was your first thought, then go with it.

I agree 100% I have worked with an underage model before but only with an accompanied parent. Not sure her parents would agree with that style of image?

Visual Eden Studios wrote:
Unless mom comes along and co-signs the release, its a no no.

But, even cindy crawford was shot nude when she was 16 (with mom present).

Nope thats not a myth, its a fact.

Nude photographs of under-18 models happens more often than you think - especially in fashion. 

Why live your lives in fear, only ever alluding to what you really want???

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

If that's how you want to set your moral compass. Personally...I got awfully hot and bothered when Harry Potter had his shirtless little 16/17 year old body in that tub. I could care less whether the law says I can't do him...doesn't mean I'm going to stop fantasizing about it.

To me, the "eww" effect kicks in not when some stupid laws say someone's allowed to be sexually attractive, but when they're obviously not physically adult.

I wouldn't do a 17 year old because I don't want to get arrested. If it weren't illegal, I'd certainly bone a hot 17 year old. I'm only 19 after all.

+1.

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

See you in a 'few months' and a day

Sophie Darling wrote:

Wait a few months until she's 18, duh.

Why did you bump a year & a half old thread?

DMI wrote:

Keep in touch with the model and wait the few months.

Great advice right here!

SLE Photography wrote:

Why did you bump a year & a half old thread?

Because now she's 18! *wink wink nudge nudge*
Alice

Alice Nguyen wrote:

Because now she's 18! *wink wink nudge nudge*
Alice

I'm rolling around the office floor!!

Visual Eden Studios wrote:
Unless mom comes along and co-signs the release, its a no no.

But, even cindy crawford was shot nude when she was 16 (with mom present).

Nope thats not a myth, its a fact.

Shooting art nudes with a 16 year old is one thing.  Shooting a strip show / sexy series with full nudity is something else.  It would be REALLY easy to make the photographer's life hell over that.  Even if he weren't in the Capital city of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Sophie Darling wrote:

Wait a few months until she's 18, duh.

And make sure she's not lying about it.

SLE Photography wrote:
Why did you bump a year & a half old thread?

Ya, WTF, how many of these dam threads do we need a day about shooting pictures of children?  This was a long dead and should be locked.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
I don't want anyone thinking I'm advocating doing ANYTHING illegal. I'm not.

First off Amen sister, and it is just sex, big deal. 

And secondly, no ass is worth Jail time, but thats the law, that does NOT mean its not physically attractive even if its illegal to get with.

All these "holier than though" people are silly in my opinion, your 100% right, any "girlie" magazine tends to prefer younger females, and their readership is only in those models age range...whatever.....

Brian T Rickey wrote:

Ya, WTF, how many of these dam threads do we need a day about shooting pictures of children?  This was a long dead and should be locked.

Its a holloween "rise from the dead" left over, sometimes these can be very entertaining... and did I miss another "pictures of children" thread today??

Photon Mechanic wrote:
AND - shouldn't what is legal help serve as some kind of moral compass check?

Well, I think it was bush who made it legal for him to
* declare anyone an enemy combatant,
* have that person arrested and sent off to an off-shore prison,
* and be denied due process,
* while you wait, incarcerated, for months before you are formally charged (if at all),
* while you family may not even be informed of your whereabouts,
* and while the government may refuse to share with your defense lawyer the details of the allegations against you.

So, if it's legal it must automatically be morally OK then?


EDIT: Damn, ancient thread from over a year ago! Must get in the habit of checking the date of the OP.