Kevin Connery wrote:

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
I understand it's a concept used to escape responsibility and maturity. There comes a point in one's life when they should grow and realize there is right and wrong and one has to take a stand.

In many countries, it's against the law, against custom, and against the general morality--that pretty much covers right vs wrong, correct?--for a man to appear in public without a shirt. How would you feel if you were forced to follow that law? How about 'never being alone with a person of the opposite sex', with severe legal and moral sanctions to any violation, no matter how necessary it might be for survival? Both of those are "right" to many people, and violating them is "wrong".

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
It is always wrong to exploit a minor and foster sexuality on them, even if their parents are holding the camera reflector.

A lack of clothing does not automatically equate to sexuality. You may believe that, but that doesn't make it true.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
You have no problem with men in their thirties viewing a minor in a sexual manner? That is disturbing.

What's more disturbing is that you equate who anyone looking at a nude minor as doing so in a sexual manner. Based on what you've posted, at least, context doesn't matter. God help the parents of those minors, or their doctors, or their friends, or fellow PE students, or...

Pick up your cell, it's Chris Hansen.

Is that the only show people watch? Anytime anything controversial comes up, a dozen Chris Hansen references get trotted out for display instead of any substantive information.


Again, you're projecting your unsubstantiated beliefs that anyone who looks at a minor is a pedophile. You're one of the very few here who has indicated that they're sexually attracted to nude minors.

For the rest of us, nudity doesn't automatically mean sexual.

As he posts a provocative image of a 16 year old as his avatar and poses a girl in her little cheerleading outfit. Who exactly has the issue with viewing females (of any age) as solely objects of sexual desire?

The fact that he can't see beyond "nudity = sex and there is no other way to view it" now terrifies me that he works with underage models.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

As he posts a provocative image of a 16 year old as his avatar and poses a girl in her little cheerleading outfit. Who exactly has the issue with viewing females (of any age) as solely objects of sexual desire?

The fact that he can't see beyond "nudity = sex and there is no other way to view it" now terrifies me that he works with underage models.

Michael, I looked at his portfolio and just shook my head ... thanks for pointing this out!

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Opps!   ... yes I forgot that it takes child models to put together a childrens clothing catalog!  So it goes back to being an individual choice.  There is no way around it, we're going to photograph minors!

Nuh uh! Let's all take Holopaw's advice to the logical conclusion and just find 18 year olds that look like they're minors. Oh sure it would change the entire look of the Toys R Us catalog but what the hell.

Besides, that way he doesn't have to feel guilty that he's a "pedophile" because he'll be rubbing one out to a model that is actually 18 but only appears younger.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
This is another interesting angle.  Retail portraiture (with clothes on) is acceptable at any age.  Why is "modeling" different?  I submit that it is because in commercial modeling, there is almost _always_ some level of sexual appeal in the images.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Interesting assertion. Can you provide any substance? I can bring up a lot of counter-examples which show that it's not even close to "almost _always_" true.

Mmm, I think we'd just be in a battle of counter-examples & differing interpretations here.  I probably overstated, but at the same time, the "sex sells" ethos in advertising is not just a myth, and is played out in very pervasive and sometimes subtle ways.  I suppose a really rigorous examination would look at posing styles, clothing styles, props & settings in fashion & other commercial photography, over some significant time period.  I'll stipulate that the distinction I'm drawing between straight portraiture and commercial work is simply MY conclusion based on (a) my 40+ years on the planet, (b) my substantial experience as a portrait photographer, and (c) my study of and dabbling in fashion photography.  To revise:  Commercial photography, and fashion photography in particular, is distinguished from traditional portraiture by, among other things, its substantially more pervasive and deliberate depiction of sexual ideal types and sexual appeal.  (Could we agree that successful models are on the average far more sexually attractive, based on prevailing norms, than the average person?  Is that coincidence?)

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
So, is it OK to exploit a 15-y.o.'s sexuality to SOME degree, so long as he/she isn't full nude?  Does that distinction make any MORAL sense, or is it just a convenient legal convention?

Kevin Connery wrote:
This is a legitimate question, albeit not based on your initial assertion. I don't think it's "OK to exploit a 15-y.o.'s sexuality to SOME degree"--but showing them nude doesn't automatically do so, and neither does showing them as models.

Agreed.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
As he posts a provocative image of a 16 year old as his avatar and poses a girl in her little cheerleading outfit. Who exactly has the issue with viewing females (of any age) as solely objects of sexual desire?

The fact that he can't see beyond "nudity = sex and there is no other way to view it" now terrifies me that he works with underage models.

Quite often - it is the people who cry "wolf!" who are themselves wolves.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It does run from one extreme to anther depending on the culture.

Yes.  But that doesn't mean that all cultures' values are morally equivalent.  (Who's to judge?  I am.  You are.  We all should be trying ... in _my_ opinion.   )

Patrick Walberg wrote:
We are just running in circle on this topic.  It's just another hot topic like "escorts" "TFP" MAC MU, Nikon vs Canon, and "flaking!"  So many things to fight over!

Fight?  Aww, I thought we were just having an interesting discussion.  I know _I've_ thought about some new things in the process.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
AUSTRALIA'S literature classification has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models after backing down on an investigation into a fashion magazine.

More here

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 32,00.html

Fuck I love this country!

Just in case anyone forgot what this thread was about!!!

and here is a bit more background..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/sto … d=10510803

http://www.89.gen.tr/zippora-seven-russ … -2008.html

16 or not, she sure got a lot of free publicity

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Mmm, I think we'd just be in a battle of counter-examples & differing interpretations here.  I probably overstated, but at the same time, the "sex sells" ethos in advertising is not just a myth, and is played out in very pervasive and sometimes subtle ways.  I suppose a really rigorous examination would look at posing styles, clothing styles, props & settings in fashion & other commercial photography, over some significant time period.  I'll stipulate that the distinction I'm drawing between straight portraiture and commercial work is simply MY conclusion based on (a) my 40+ years on the planet, (b) my substantial experience as a portrait photographer, and (c) my study of and dabbling in fashion photography.  To revise:  Commercial photography, and fashion photography in particular, is distinguished from traditional portraiture by, among other things, its substantially more pervasive and deliberate depiction of sexual ideal types and sexual appeal.  (Could we agree that successful models are on the average far more sexually attractive, based on prevailing norms, than the average person?  Is that coincidence?)

Less iffy, but probably still overstated. The examples you appear to references are all adults, and largely fashion editorial; in that context, it's not unexpected that some 'sex sells' overtones (or large hammers!) are present. Yet very little catalog photography, fashion or otherwise, uses that approach. Ditto the majority of commercial photography in general--lifestyle is more common, and the enticement-direct approach is usually avoided. While they're less obvious, they're far more ubiquitous.

And that's just for adults in advertising or commercial work; the children's market uses even less.

In other words, while I agree it's common, I don't agree that it's as pervasive or almost universal as you indicate.

I ran across an interesting comment from a Norway agency last month, which ties into the point of 'nudity' vs 'sex', and which also ties into your statement about sexual ideals being pervasive in modeling by both supporting and rebutting it.

Sol Olving, head of Norway's Kreativt Forum wrote:
Naked people are wonderful, of course, but they have to be relevant to the product. You could have a naked person advertising shower gel or a cream, but not a woman in a bikini draped across a car.

Nudity, in some contexts, is perfectly acceptable there, but "a woman in a bikini draped across a car" is not. In the USA, the opposite appears to be true--no naked people in showers, but bikinis and cars are fine. That's independent of whether we include age in the equation or not. (I have no doubt that the naked person in a shower would be an idealized specimen there, just as the bikini model with the car would be here, though. )

v2lab wrote:

OMG!  I really need those yahoo audibles right bout now...


This is hilarious!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Uh-oh, I think it just got a little lonelier out here in right-center field. 

Perhaps because the arguments from your side of the debate have been completely and soundly debunked?:

Kevin Connery wrote:

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Mmm, I think we'd just be in a battle of counter-examples & differing interpretations here.  I probably overstated, but at the same time, the "sex sells" ethos in advertising is not just a myth, and is played out in very pervasive and sometimes subtle ways.  I suppose a really rigorous examination would look at posing styles, clothing styles, props & settings in fashion & other commercial photography, over some significant time period.  I'll stipulate that the distinction I'm drawing between straight portraiture and commercial work is simply MY conclusion based on (a) my 40+ years on the planet, (b) my substantial experience as a portrait photographer, and (c) my study of and dabbling in fashion photography.  To revise:  Commercial photography, and fashion photography in particular, is distinguished from traditional portraiture by, among other things, its substantially more pervasive and deliberate depiction of sexual ideal types and sexual appeal.  (Could we agree that successful models are on the average far more sexually attractive, based on prevailing norms, than the average person?  Is that coincidence?)

Less iffy, but probably still overstated. The examples you appear to references are all adults, and largely fashion editorial; in that context, it's not unexpected that some 'sex sells' overtones (or large hammers!) are present. Yet very little catalog photography, fashion or otherwise, uses that approach. Ditto the majority of commercial photography in general--lifestyle is more common, and the enticement-direct approach is usually avoided. While they're less obvious, they're far more ubiquitous.

And that's just for adults in advertising or commercial work; the children's market uses even less.

In other words, while I agree it's common, I don't agree that it's as pervasive or almost universal as you indicate.

I ran across an interesting comment from a Norway agency last month, which ties into the point of 'nudity' vs 'sex', and which also ties into your statement about sexual ideals being pervasive in modeling by both supporting and rebutting it.


Nudity, in some contexts, is perfectly acceptable there, but "a woman in a bikini draped across a car" is not. In the USA, the opposite appears to be true--no naked people in showers, but bikinis and cars are fine. That's independent of whether we include age in the equation or not. (I have no doubt that the naked person in a shower would be an idealized specimen there, just as the bikini model with the car would be here, though. )

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Uh-oh, I think it just got a little lonelier out here in right-center field. 

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Perhaps because the arguments from your side of the debate have been completely and soundly debunked?:

Not at all, IMO.  And I don't see how your wholesale quoting of Kevin's contribution adds anything.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Not at all, IMO.  And I don't see how your wholesale quoting of Kevin's contribution adds anything.

Could it be - and I am speaking theoretically here - that your dis-ease with the ruling in Australia regarding the topless shot of the underaged fashion model that appeared in Russh Magazine could be the result of some subconscious or near-conscious feeling of exclusion since (judging by the excellent nude images in your portfolio) you would be less likely to be given the greenlight to photograph an underaged model even if it were in a fashion context?

Let me explain: in an earlier post (or perhaps it was on your profile?) you claim to have dabbled in "fashion photography" and yet I see no evidence of such work there.  This is not a critique, by the way - but rather a presentation of fact that if you approached an agency that represents fashion models with the work you currently have in your profile, it would be very unlikely they would allow you to shoot any of their underaged models either clothed or nude - even if it were in an editorial context such as in Russh Magazine.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Not at all, IMO.  And I don't see how your wholesale quoting of Kevin's contribution adds anything.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Could it be - and I am speaking theoretically here - that your dis-ease with the ruling in Australia regarding the topless shot of the underaged fashion model that appeared in Russh Magazine could be the result of some subconscious or near-conscious feeling of exclusion since (judging by the excellent nude images in your portfolio) you would be less likely to be given the greenlight to photograph an underaged model even if it were in a fashion context?

Let me explain: in an earlier post (or perhaps it was on your profile?) you claim to have dabbled in "fashion photography" and yet I see no evidence of such work there.  This is not a critique, by the way - but rather a presentation of fact that if you approached an agency that represents fashion models with the work you currently have in your profile, it would be very unlikely they would allow you to shoot any of their underaged models either clothed or nude - even if it were in an editorial context such as in Russh Magazine.

You're 100% wrong about my motivations, but 100% correct about my port.  My MM port is about glamour and art nudes, not fashion.  I wouldn't call ANY of the images I've posted here proper "fashion" images.  But I have shot some.

Thank you for the compliment. 

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
Not at all, IMO.  And I don't see how your wholesale quoting of Kevin's contribution adds anything.

You're 100% wrong about my motivations, but 100% correct about my port.  My MM port is about glamour and art nudes, not fashion.  I wouldn't call ANY of the images I've posted here proper "fashion" images.  But I have shot some.

Thank you for the compliment. 

So you are reasserting that it is "righteous indignation" that solely motivates you?

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
So you are reasserting that it is "righteous indignation" that solely motivates you?

I never asserted that to begin with.  You might choose to call it that.  I'm interested in morals and laws, and believe in the utility of both (though I much prefer the former to the latter, in general).

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

I never asserted that to begin with.  You might choose to call it that.  I'm interested in morals and laws, and believe in the utility of both (though I much prefer the former to the latter, in general).

But in certain countries/cultures both your photography and my photography would land us BOTH in some very HOT water indeed if we are to be judged by their "morals and laws".

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

But in certain countries/cultures both your photography and my photography would land us BOTH in some very HOT water indeed if we are to be judged by their "morals and laws".

Yup.  So I'm glad I don't live there. 

We're both up too late. 

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

Yup.  So I'm glad I don't live there. 

We're both up too late. 

Night owl city!

Perhaps this will help (and I'm surprised no one has brought it up in this thread as of yet):

Glamour model = Fuc% me!

Fashion model = Fuc% you!

Kenetic Industries wrote:
that is so far from the truth its offensive.  that is feminist physco babble that just gets repeated over and over and people actually think its the truth.

Excuse me? What are you talking about exactly that's so offensively "far from the truth"?

Sorry, but in this society, it IS shady if a 40-year-old man wants to actually be with a 15-year-old. They live not only in completely different social arenas (high school VS long career), but also that girl has been raised and coddled like a child and because of that, the vast majority of 15-year-olds have enormous maturity/life experience discrepancies with far older men. I think it's creepy to want to be with someone who is not intellectually (or at least emotionally) on your level AT ALL.

Mind you, I started dating my husband when I was 16 and he was 25, 9 years later we are happily married. I see a lot of gray areas, and I don't think older men being attracted to teens is a perversion, but pursuing that when, again, there are VAST differences in age/experience, is shady, sorry.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
The "fill-in-the-blank" is much worse is a irrelevant argument. Rape is a worse crime than assault. Doesn't make assaulting someone ok. i have no interest in seeing the image, but I did. I don't think adults should be viewing pubescent children of the opposite sex bathing. If it's innocent, let's webcam middle school locker rooms.

Well they weren't of Miley Cirus (SP) bathing, it's just a tasteful shot by an extraordinary photographer (are we talking about the same photos? Mine was a direct response to a comment someone made of the Miley shots). And I just can't call someone her a age a "child," a "youth," a "teen"...but she's past puberty at this point. Most normally developing teen girls are by 15.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am surprised this thread is still going on.  I kinda thought the whole thing was a big yawn.

Some people are capable of apoplexy while yawning.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am surprised this thread is still going on.  I kinda thought the whole thing was a big yawn.

So you decided to bump it?