Atris Everson wrote:

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

So how about a hypothetical? You have a topless image (let's use the one in question) and the model is 17 years and 364 days old. Today it's pornographic and outrageous but tomorrow it's A-OK and you find it beautiful and artistic?

Why is that?

J Allen Gomez wrote:

Before we go further, I'll have to ask you why 18 is your absolute.  In other words, let's say she turnes 18 on January 11th, but I shoot her on January 10th.  Here comes the aforementioned fucked -up logic.

Ok so you beat me to it lol.

Atris Everson wrote:
Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life.

In most states they can have sex at 14 to 16. They can drive at 16.  They can vote, sign binding contracts, get married without anyone else's permission, pose for pornography, and kill and die for their country at 18.  They can buy cigarettes at 19.  They can drink at 21.  It has much more to do with what lawmakers are willing to rationalize than it does with a connection between age and good decision making.

LeWhite wrote:
As long as he's not a priest

Of course he's not. It woulda been a little boy.

Jennifer Kristina wrote:
it's sick how some girls whom are 15 and 16 can pose topless but Miley gets her ass jumped all over because she did a "provocative" shot.. Makes me sick..


Where the hell are the mothers of these girls.. they remind me of Brooke Shields' momager.. Or how about Dina Lohan "It doesn't matter if you believe in it, It's money" just sing the song..


wth are with people these days ? no values sheesh..

brook shields was nude in pretty baby , that movie carry,s a R rating.    miley  has a TV show that 4-12  year olds watch.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I don't think applauding the decision necessarily would make him an activist. Perhaps not being outraged by a place that doesn't see nudity as evil is considered "activism" in Illinois?

Is there the remote possibility that his applauding the decision doesn't mean he is brushing the puppet to photos of underage girls?

What Michael said.  Amen.

isuckatphotography wrote:

brook shields was nude in pretty baby , that movie carry,s a R rating.    miley  has a TV show that 4-12  year olds watch.

Well ok then...what about provocative topless photos of Barney and Sponge Bob? Not together! That would just be disgusting.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

Well ok then...what about provocative topless photos of Barney and Sponge Bob? Not together! That would just be disgusting.

Hmmm...Sponge Bobbing Barney porn. Interesting idea.

Atris Everson wrote:

Why should it be allowed. Just the other day I saw a story on the news where this lady took some racy photos hanging off a fire truck. the lady happened to be the mayor of this small town. Low and behold shes unemployed..

Sooo you want to take pictures of a 16 year old so that the pictures can someday ruin her hopes and dreams as well. Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life. I agree nudity is not wrong but there are alot of people who will definitely judge you for taking nude shots. Look how they were ready to throw Hanna Montanna under the bus for showing her back.

The outrage should be that the mayor lost her job.

Ok you say nudes of a sixteen year old could ruin her life. Guess what I can have sex with her in most states and I could get her pregnant. What is worse?

SouthFLpix wrote:

You can legally photograph a person nude at any age, in every single state.

That is a fact.  Thank you!

Atris Everson wrote:

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

Yours is not a logical arguement because there are so many "exceptions" starting back to the early years of art.  Nude children are in painting and art work from as far back as there have been artists.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Nude children are in painting and art work from as far back as there have been artists.

That is true -- there are several depicted by Micalangelo in what one person here, a while ago, called "the Sixteenth Chapel" (  ).

.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Yours is not a logical arguement because there are so many "exceptions" starting back to the early years of art.  Nude children are in painting and art work from as far back as there have been artists.

Logic doesn't matter.  Circular arguments don't need logic.  They simply point to themselves.

A repressive society represses people.  It then points to what they were doing and claims it is wrong, and as evidence for that, they drag out the repression.  It's a perfect self-licking ice cream cone.

Jennifer Kristina wrote:
it's sick how some girls whom are 15 and 16 can pose topless but Miley gets her ass jumped all over because she did a "provocative" shot.. Makes me sick..


Where the hell are the mothers of these girls.. they remind me of Brooke Shields' momager.. Or how about Dina Lohan "It doesn't matter if you believe in it, It's money" just sing the song..


wth are with people these days ? no values sheesh..

There have been "stage mothers" for as long as there have been stages.  It's actually improved since laws have provided some restrictions after Natalie Woods and Judy Garland were exploited so badly. 

It's not so much the nudity, but the sex and drugs that went along with the casting couch.  Another survivor is Drew Barrymore.  She can tell you about what it's like!

TXPhotog wrote:
This  has to be the 500th thread on this subject.  And it's just getting started.  Predictable things happen in each one of them:

1.  Someone will claim that it's illegal to shoot minors without a parent present, or without parental written permission.  When challenged to show us the law, they get aggressive about not needing no steekin' law, 'cause it's just obvious.

2.  Someone will opine that you should just wait until she is 18.

3.  Someone will claim that anyone who shoots minors for any reason is a perv.

4.  Someone will claim that if a parent signs a release, the shoot is legal, but it's not legal without a release.

5.  Someone will insist that the entire damned National Guard of their state has to be present to protect . . . uh . . . someone.

6.  Someone will invoke kiddie porn, even though the planned shoot is stated to be fully clothed and age-appropriate.

7.  Someone will simply say "Ewwwww!" as though that defined a law of nature.

And there will be much more.  All of the above are bullshit, all are passionately believed and brought forth as Obvious, Self-Evident Truth by the true believers, and the conversation will go to hell in a handbasket.

It simply is not possible to have a rational discussion of photography and minors on this forum.  There are too many strongly held views, too much paranoia, too much misinformation, and too many people determined to keep all of that in circulation.

To the OP:  your opening statement contained some false implications.  I would correct them for you, but the firestorm contained implied within this thread makes that kind of pointless.

v2lab wrote:

This thread is now all about Pedobear.

TXPhotog wrote:

Logic doesn't matter.  Circular arguments don't need logic.  They simply point to themselves.

A repressive society represses people.  It then points to what they were doing and claims it is wrong, and as evidence for that, they drag out the repression.  It's a perfect self-licking ice cream cone.

You need logic to define an argument as "circular."  Never say logic doesn't matter.

Atris Everson wrote:
Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16...

There is that pesky problem of what socially acceptable activity should we pursue while waiting for the 18th birthday of our putative model?  Can't be nekked photography, 'cause that would be yucky.  So what is is to be?  Here is a suggestion:

TXPhotog wrote:
Recall that society has spoken on what is "immoral" or "illegal" for "children" (while admitting that "children" doesn't mean the same thing anywhere).  What is being proposed in the OP IS NOT what society has defined as "immoral".  Does that mean that it's "moral", because, despite the attempt to blur the line and claim that an implied nude is across it, it's really not?

Is morality defined by the very restrictive laws of Ohio (which still would not prohibit an implied nude, but would put a burden of proof on the photographer if the shot was topless), or is morality defined by New York, where shots have to be "sexually explicit", not just nude, to be what society has taken up arms against?

And if we choose to derive "society deems it immoral" from the laws that society has passed, should we not be consistent about it?  In 39 of the 50 states, it's perfectly legal for photographers to have sex with these "children" that we are protecting from cameras. 

So to be consistent and moral, as defined by the laws that people seem to think are important in these issues, whenever some nubile 17 year old comes around, and announces that she is bored and would like to take implied nudes for fun, shouldn't we all just fuck her for a year or two until she reaches "legal" age, and then break out the cameras?  That would be perfectly legal, and, by the logic of deriving "morality" from legislation, entirely moral.

There, I feel so much better now.  Fucking for morality.  Has a nice ring to it.  And it keeps all these implied nudes which may come back to haunt the unwary teen from ever being taken.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

There have been "stage mothers" for as long as there have been stages.  It's actually improved since laws have provided some restrictions after Natalie Woods and Judy Garland were exploited so badly. 

It's not so much the nudity, but the sex and drugs that went along with the casting couch.  Another survivor is Drew Barrymore.  She can tell you about what it's like!

Actually it was Jackie Coogan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan

Peterz Photoz wrote:
So would this be too young to be photographed naked?

SHIT IT'S CP, HERE COMES THE PARTYVAN

TXPhotog wrote:

Logic doesn't matter.  Circular arguments don't need logic.  They simply point to themselves.

A repressive society represses people.  It then points to what they were doing and claims it is wrong, and as evidence for that, they drag out the repression.  It's a perfect self-licking ice cream cone.

Yes, it's true.  People will see what they want to see, and nothing ... not even logical thinking or use of facts can dissuade those who are so sure they know how the rest of us should live. 

Now I'm not going to start taking pictures of nude minors just because I'm aware of the laws.  If the need or purpose ever came about, I would plan it carefully as I would any "work" that I might do that could be labeled as controversial. 

What saddens me is the herd mentality when people gather together to stone someone to death because they've done something that the majority sees as vile, taboo, or against their own customs.  A 16 year old girl was stoned to death in Iraq by her tribe because she married outside her religious sect.  This happened last year! 

So as an artist, and humane person, I would rather wait and see what these pictures are before condemning those who think it evil based on hearsay. Maybe the pictures are pornographic by some others opinion, but the opinion of the judge is the one that counts. Let's not get the lynching mob after anyone, and also Chris Hanson should stay home!

RGK Photography wrote:
Actually it was Jackie Coogan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan

OMG!  Thanks for that one! 

This poor Jackie Coogan .... "As a child star, Coogan earned as much as $4 million, but the money was taken by his mother Lilian and stepfather Arthur Bernstein for cocaine and heroin. He sued them in 1935, but only received $126,000. When Coogan fell on hard times, Chaplin gave him some financial support." 

My point about the girls is that they were brought to the casting couch much younger than age 18 .... and the studio executive of those days were "powerful" enough to get away with it!  Horrible! 

Times have changed for the better, and it's not because nudity of minors is illegal.

Atris Everson wrote:
Next we'll asking grandma to pose au natural to show off her "I like IKE" tattoo!

It's been done.

Atris Everson wrote:
Although the image may not be pornographic in your eyes, theres probably someone out there getting their rocks off to those photos.

And in someone's eyes, a shoe catalog is pornographic. How would you feel if your neighbor had a large collection of these show catalogs in his possession. Is one book okay but once they have 20 there might that be a problem?

Atris Everson wrote:
Once again I state Nudity is okay its when you start publishing & photographing the underage nudity is where the problem lies.

You're commingling ethics and legality together to the benefit of neither.

Less than 10 years ago, it was perfectly normal for Page 3 girls to be 16 or 17; that's no longer acceptable. Did people suddenly change, did the law change, or did people's morality change?

Atris Everson wrote:
Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16.

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns 21? Or 25? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 18 next year its 19, then 20...

That non-argument works both ways.

Chris Keeling wrote:

Do you mean to tell me you are an activist for the right to shoot underage girls nude?

Mr. Hansen will be paying you a visit soon.

The OP is in Australia.

TXPhotog wrote:
Back to recycling old posts.  As always, we get the perfect lead-in in this thread to post something from the past.
There is that pesky problem of what socially acceptable activity should we pursue while waiting for the 18th birthday of our putative model?  Can't be nekked photography, 'cause that would be yucky.  So what is is to be?  Here is a suggestion:

TXPhotog wrote:
Recall that society has spoken on what is "immoral" or "illegal" for "children" (while admitting that "children" doesn't mean the same thing anywhere).  What is being proposed in the OP IS NOT what society has defined as "immoral".  Does that mean that it's "moral", because, despite the attempt to blur the line and claim that an implied nude is across it, it's really not?

Is morality defined by the very restrictive laws of Ohio (which still would not prohibit an implied nude, but would put a burden of proof on the photographer if the shot was topless), or is morality defined by New York, where shots have to be "sexually explicit", not just nude, to be what society has taken up arms against?

And if we choose to derive "society deems it immoral" from the laws that society has passed, should we not be consistent about it?  In 39 of the 50 states, it's perfectly legal for photographers to have sex with these "children" that we are protecting from cameras. 

So to be consistent and moral, as defined by the laws that people seem to think are important in these issues, whenever some nubile 17 year old comes around, and announces that she is bored and would like to take implied nudes for fun, shouldn't we all just fuck her for a year or two until she reaches "legal" age, and then break out the cameras?  That would be perfectly legal, and, by the logic of deriving "morality" from legislation, entirely moral.

There, I feel so much better now.  Fucking for morality.  Has a nice ring to it.  And it keeps all these implied nudes which may come back to haunt the unwary teen from ever being taken.

This is excellent!!!

J Allen Gomez wrote:
Before we go further, I'll have to ask you why 18 is your absolute.  In other words, let's say she turnes 18 on January 11th, but I shoot her on January 10th.  Here comes the aforementioned fucked -up logic.

Who said 18 is my absolute? Dude if you feel the need to shoot nudes of people who are 17.99 years of age dont let me stop you. Feel free to dance along that line of what is morally correct. I myself stopped trolling highschools once I graduated and went to college. If your art involves shooting little girls and boys then have at it. I mean if you're going to do it post a couple in your profile so we all can see your inner pedofile I mean "creative artistry" at work. Its your right to do so correct?

Atris Everson wrote:

Who said 18 is my absolute? Dude if you feel the need to shoot nudes of people who are 17.99 years of age dont let me stop you. Feel free to dance along that line of what is morally correct. I myself stopped trolling highschools once I graduated and went to college. If your art involves shooting little girls and boys then have at it. I mean if you're going to do it post a couple in your profile so we all can see your inner pedofile I mean "creative artistry" at work. Its your right to do so correct?

"As much of David Hamilton's work depicts early-teen girls, often nude, he has been the subject of some controversy and even child pornography allegations, mostly from North America and Britain, similar to that which the work of Sally Mann and Jock Sturges have attracted. In the late 1990s, some American Christian conservatives protested bookstores that stocked Hamilton's photography books but their efforts came to nothing. Because of differing attitudes regarding age and nudity, Hamilton has not received this negative attention in his adopted home of France, nor in the rest of the world."

digital Artform wrote:
Is David Hamilton's work illegal?

David Hamilton Wikipedia

looks like not

Atris Everson wrote:

Who said 18 is my absolute? Dude if you feel the need to shoot nudes of people who are 17.99 years of age dont let me stop you. Feel free to dance along that line of what is morally correct. I myself stopped trolling highschools once I graduated and went to college. If your art involves shooting little girls and boys then have at it. I mean if you're going to do it post a couple in your profile so we all can see your inner pedofile I mean "creative artistry" at work. Its your right to do so correct?

Morality is a very subjective term.  A man wanting to marry a 13 or 14 year old girl in the U.S. may be thought of as a pedophile or perv.  However, in another country where this is the norm that is not thought at all.  Which is moral???  Hmmm.  Even in biblical times, in the Eastern world and at that time in history, men would routinely marry 13 or 14 year old girls.  Immoral?  Moral?? 

Seems it is more of a societal norm either way, doesn't it?

Kevin Connery wrote:
Less than 10 years ago, it was perfectly normal for Page 3 girls to be 16 or 17; that's no longer acceptable. Did people suddenly change, did the law change, or did people's morality change?

And at some point people realized it wasnt a good idea to sleep with relatives! Whats your point?

Atris Everson wrote:

Who said 18 is my absolute? Dude if you feel the need to shoot nudes of people who are 17.99 years of age dont let me stop you. Feel free to dance along that line of what is morally correct. I myself stopped trolling highschools once I graduated and went to college. If your art involves shooting little girls and boys then have at it. I mean if you're going to do it post a couple in your profile so we all can see your inner pedofile I mean "creative artistry" at work. Its your right to do so correct?

Is this not affirming that 18 is indeed your absolute? I've yet to see you answer the question rather than get defensive and hurl accusations.

"Feel free to dance along the line of what is morally correct" ? Are you talking about what is morally acceptable or legally acceptable? Or are they one and the same to you?

But thank you for showing your expressing your well versed judgement of others. Any photographer that photographs an underage model is a pedophile.

Your membership is the Moral Majority has been renewed.

Rich Meade wrote:
ghghmmm   just to add a little flame to the fire... 

this may be comparing apples and oranges... but it is similar...


Brooke Shields...age 12...  the movie "Pretty Baby (1978)"

Your point is well taken, but let's not forget that Brooke was first published nude in print, not when she was twelve, but when she was nine!

Atris Everson wrote:

And at some point people realized it wasnt a good idea to sleep with relatives! Whats your point?

You got me. I thought you had an actual position on the topic. I didn't realize you'd resort to trolling when your arguments ran out of steam and you were asked to comment on hypothetical situations so a clearer understanding of your opinion could be ascertained.

Go back to hiding in the bathroom with your Sears Catalog. Just make sure to lock the door. There are eyes everywhere.

Atris Everson wrote:

Who said 18 is my absolute? Dude if you feel the need to shoot nudes of people who are 17.99 years of age dont let me stop you. Feel free to dance along that line of what is morally correct. I myself stopped trolling highschools once I graduated and went to college. If your art involves shooting little girls and boys then have at it. I mean if you're going to do it post a couple in your profile so we all can see your inner pedofile I mean "creative artistry" at work. Its your right to do so correct?

You are talking about "morals" NOT the law. Your morals are not my morals. 

The Constitution of the United States was written with the purpose of keeping Religion and Government separate.  This country is a mess already, but I can't imagine how bad it would be if our federal courts allow moral opinion to over rule Constitutional law, and Civil Rights are slowly abolished.  It's happened to an extent!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

You got me. I thought you had an actual position on the topic. I didn't realize you'd resort to trolling when your arguments ran out of steam and you were asked to comment on hypothetical situations so a clearer understanding of your opinion could be ascertained.

Go back to hiding in the bathroom with your Sears Catalog. Just make sure to lock the door. There are eyes everywhere.

My response to this was lost during that 15 minute server outtage. Was too lazy to respond back to previous paragraph of hot air. Trolling? Since when is stating your opinion trolling.