Model
Aussiekylie
Posts: 743
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
AJP Photography wrote:
Swimsuits tend to cover moremthan lingerie. Theynare also made of thicker material that is opaque. And the fact that you asked her to bring lingerie and NOT a swimsuit means that even for you, or perhaps especially for you, there IS a difference. ????
I've shot plenty of models (all over 18, a couple over 40) in lingerie. Most of the time, the bras are WAY more substantial than swimsuits.''
Here's one of my shots; I'm pretty sure it would have been fully legal if she was 16, rather than 25
![https://modelmayhm-8.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090807/20/4a7cf3279cf39_m.jpg]()
Here's a swimsuit shot; not so sure about it being OK with a 16 year old. (That one's not mine . . .)
![https://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080302/03/47ca64d20573b_m.jpg]()
This model is 18, rather than mid 20's, and she's only wearing panties, but I'm pretty sure it would still be legal if she was 16. Not permitted on MM, but legal.
![https://modelmayhm-1.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/100617/09/4c1a4bfa51172_m.jpg]()
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
Post a minor in lingerie on the site and see how long the image lasts. will you sue MM? Do it or STFU! Why do some people want to be idiotic and test the paths of the criminal justice system is beyond me. A while back there was a 16 year old who I talked with whose avatar was her in a bra and necklaces, photographed from just below the bra up. She's still on the site, and the image is still in her port. Only now she's with an agency from LA. At the time, she was just a kid with a great look and the right stats; she took pictures for her port, and one happened to be lingerie.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Photographer
Darin Heinz
Posts: 109
Tampa, Florida, US
Simple solution = Just wait a few months.
The law is an idiot, because it says that someone is a fully capable adult on their 18th birthday, but is completely incompetent and unable to make his or her own decisions the day before.
Sure, there are all sorts of examples of legal precedent (remember Jock Sturges? Acquitted, of course...) which would likely keep you off the hook, but why wade through a sticky ocean of honey when it could easily be avoided by waiting until after her birthday?
Just figured I'd throw this in to the fray.
D.
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Something occurs to me here. First lets all understand that 17 isn't 14 or 15.
In some states girls can legally marry without a parents permission and
they can have a drivers license. A year up or down isn't the key in my view.
What is key is the often puritanical views we as Americans often have about
nudity and sexuality in general. Why is this a problem in this country and not
as much in most European countries.
Are Europeans less moral or educated or protective of their children?
Why is it that 18 means fine but 17 means trouble? I asked a poster why he felt
as he does about this issue. My point was that very often a 17 year old may
be more mature then a 20 year old. However in the eyes of the law she is
still a child. So on her birthday it becomes ok but the day before its vile and
those that shoot it perverts?
Somethings missing here. This isn't about what's appropriate or not.
Its about how we view ourselves and what we do.
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
But, it's also true that you can shoot perfectly legal images with a 14 year old in lingerie, and and completely illegal images of a 17 year old in a swimsuit. Not that I'm interested in doing either.  ei Total Productions wrote:
I have absolutely no problem shooting a minor in a swimsuit. I do it all the time, but not a bed, sucking her thumb. I'd shoot a minor in a swimsuit, at the beach, doing beach thing (other than tanning topless). My point was just that what matters is the tone, not the label given to the clothing, if any.
Photographer
alessandro2009
Posts: 8091
Florence, Toscana, Italy
Tony Lawrence wrote:
What is key is the often puritanical views we as Americans often have about nudity and sexuality in general. Why is this a problem in this country and not as much in most European countries. The problem Tony is even more worst, isn't only a matter of views, but often there are even gratuitous insults that demonstrating a total lack of respect for others.
So is a real big and annoying problem.
Photographer
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 1385
Arcata, California, US
What is really interesting is that you "might" be guilty of a felony for taking a minors nude image, but consider the law of consent in the US is mostly 16, with some really bizarre caveats:
Connecticut recognizes that minors who are at least 13 can consent to sexual activity if (and only if) there is less than a 3-year age difference. For example:
* A 13-year-old can consent to any 15-year-old.
* A 15-year-old can consent to any 17-year-old.
* A 15-year-old born on January 1st can consent to a 18-year-old born on February 1st. This is just under a 3-year age difference.
* A 15-year-old born on February 1st cannot consent to an 18-year-old born on January 1st. This is just over, and illegal.
--Wikipedia
Photographer
PhotosbyAdrianRichards
Posts: 418
Crane, Saint Philip, Barbados
there is lingerie and there is lingerie.... there is provocative and there is provocative. There is consent and there is no consent... I think it all depends on the exact circumstance, country, county, consent,content, context and intended use of the image. And underage girl maybe shot fully clothed in an inappropriate provocative pose with the consent and presence of her mother and draw much more concern than an innocent unrevealing test shot.
Photographer
Tony J Dot
Posts: 64
Ajax, Ontario, Canada
As my dad would say, "there is a time and place for everything"
There is NO time or place to have a minor in lingerie.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Tony is a Photographer wrote:
As my dad would say, "there is a time and place for everything" There is NO time or place to have a minor in lingerie. WRONG WRONG WRONG well your dad was right.....but you, you are not so right...
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
For the record, absent real or simulated sex, there are very, very few images of a teen in lingerie that would actully cross the line to illegality. They tried to prosectue trueteenbabes.com on Colorado and the owner was acquitted.
There is one, controversial federal case where a court found that it was possible to have a lascivious display of the genitals even with the model wearing panties, but that remains a somewhat ambiguous case. The Supreme Court remanded it once and then declined, for technical reasons to hear it the second time around.
There is somethng called the "Dost" test which is more widely used, but it applies to actual nudity with a teen, not lingerie.
There are many, many circumstances when lingerie for a teen would be legal and appropriate. If you go through magazines like Cosmo, the models are often under eighteen. I remember a controversey some years back where a topless model, with exposed breasts, was only fifteen. There are teen models in catalogs like J C Penney in teen bras and panties.
People react badly in this thread, and most threads, for good reason. Legal doesn't necessarily mean appropriate. More importantly, if you take sexually suggestive images of teens, you open yourself up to scrutiny, scrutiny that you may not want to deal with.
What I don't like about these threads is the emotion, but I do agree with the message. The best policy is to always keep teens, teen appropriate. If you do, you never have to deal with any of these issues.
Photographer
stevenD_Photography
Posts: 90
Garden Grove, California, US
You are in New York, ask Lawrence Taylor...
Model
myrasegal
Posts: 868
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
seriously?? you really have to ask?
thats sick.
its not the amount of skin, its the intention of the picture.
lingerie is meant for sexual arrousal, minors are not.
you do the math. [/quote
Exactly!
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
For the record, absent real or simulated sex, there are very, very few images of a teen in lingerie that would actully cross the line to illegality. They tried to prosectue trueteenbabes.com on Colorado and the owner was acquitted.
There is one, controversial federal case where a court found that it was possible to have a lascivious display of the genitals even with the model wearing panties, but that remains a somewhat ambiguous case. The Supreme Court remanded it once and then declined, for technical reasons to hear it the second time around.
There is somethng called the "Dost" test which is more widely used, but it applies to actual nudity with a teen, not lingerie.
There are many, many circumstances when lingerie for a teen would be legal and appropriate. If you go through magazines like Cosmo, the models are often under eighteen. I remember a controversey some years back where a topless model, with exposed breasts, was only fifteen. There are teen models in catalogs like J C Penney in teen bras and panties.
People react badly in this thread, and most threads, for good reason. Legal doesn't necessarily mean appropriate. More importantly, if you take sexually suggestive images of teens, you open yourself up to scrutiny, scrutiny that you may not want to deal with.
What I don't like about these threads is the emotion, but I do agree with the message. The best policy is to always keep teens, teen appropriate. If you do, you never have to deal with any of these issues. ei Total Productions I totally agree with you and what's amazing to me is that the OP (and a few others) has no clue as to the difference between shooting a commercial image for JC Pennys and a private photographer shooting this for his portfolio.
Number one question I have to ask is WHY? Unless the 17 year old model is a wildly successful model and the photographer is subject to move himself into serious considerations in the fashion industry by shooting her, there are PLENTY of models of legal age to shoot that genre with without opening him up to a shitload of unneeded controversy.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
stevenD wrote:
You are in New York, ask Lawrence Taylor... what does masturbating in front of a 16yo prostitute have to do with a minor modeling lingerie?
Photographer
Jean Pierre Billard
Posts: 184
New York, New York, US
Have you ever seen a woman of any age wearing lingerie on a beach?
Photographer
Hugo Lopez Photography
Posts: 240
Miami, Florida, US
Jean Pierre Billard wrote:
Have you ever seen a woman of any age wearing lingerie on a beach? Yes.
Photographer
MacLeod Designs
Posts: 3309
Mooresville, North Carolina, US
-jmp- wrote:
Whaaat?? What are you guys talking about? lol. I'm giving photographers a bad name and I need to rethink why I want to be a photographer?? I'm not hounding the poor girl or bothering her with why she won't shoot it. She said no and I said that's fine. My question is to you, why you can shoot a fashion image in a studio in a two piece swimsuit and it's fine, but the exact same image, pose, lighting, etc. in bra and panties is seen as taboo and makes other photographers question your intent?
lol. Wow. I feel everyone is twisting my words, intent, or the situation. I'm not upset at the girl. I'm not bothering her. And I'm sure not scouting the MM world for underage girls to shoot in my bed. This just came up and hit me as really silly that it's socially unacceptable (regardless of legal/illegal).. and this post only encourages my intrigue. Why are other photographers ready to question my intent and turn me into a pedophile because I ask this question? I've simply never been here before and was curious if anyone else has been. because no matter what when people see lingerie on someone they think oh ya i would take her to the bedroom, where unless in a seductive pose if they are wearing a bathing suit people just say eh shes hot etc
Photographer
Magic Image Photography
Posts: 3606
Temple City, California, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. How Fu*ken Confused can you get. Lingerie is see thru material lace shear see thru as in you can see nipples and other private areas. I hope you have a 17 year old daughter that I can ask hey do you shoot lingerie Oh but Im confused because you have swim wear on your port. Confused or not and I am not saying your a Perv but come on Dont you know the differance in Swim wear and Lingerie.
Photographer
MacLeod Designs
Posts: 3309
Mooresville, North Carolina, US
Magic Image Photography wrote:
How Fu*ken Confused can you get. Lingerie is see thru material lace shear see thru as in you can see nipples and other private areas. I hope you have a 17 year old daughter that I can ask hey do you shoot lingerie Oh but Im confused because you have swim wear on your port. Confused or not and I am not saying your a Perv but come on Dont you know the differance in Swim wear and Lingerie. lingerie does not mean see through but there is still a difference
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45205
San Juan Bautista, California, US
It's amazing to me how much fear mongering happens on these forums! First of all, to the OP; If a model of ANY AGE says "No!" then that means "No!" and don't push it or question it! This is not so much about legalities, but more so about individual boundaries and respecting them. Do not force or insist models do things outside their own personal boundaries. It's not respectful, and they may come back to make you may regret it later.
That said, I'm on your side about shooting minors in lingerie. There are no laws against it, as long as the images are not of a pornographic nature. In the past, I have photographed minor aged models in bikini swimwear, lingerie, and even implied nudes all within the confines of good taste and parental approval. I know that it is necessary to shoot some of these images for catalogs that sell juniors clothing. Models of minor age working on their zed cards have asked for it.
There is nothing illegal about photographing minor aged models in the nude either. Look up Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, and Sally Mann ... photographers who have done so many times. Their books sell at most major book sellers! Of those here who say it's illegal, I would ask you to name at least one case where a photographer was arrested and sent to prison for photographing a minor aged model in the nude (Not images of pornographic nature!) or lingerie for that matter! Please post the links for our education?
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45205
San Juan Bautista, California, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
For the record, absent real or simulated sex, there are very, very few images of a teen in lingerie that would actully cross the line to illegality. They tried to prosectue trueteenbabes.com on Colorado and the owner was acquitted.
There is one, controversial federal case where a court found that it was possible to have a lascivious display of the genitals even with the model wearing panties, but that remains a somewhat ambiguous case. The Supreme Court remanded it once and then declined, for technical reasons to hear it the second time around.
There is somethng called the "Dost" test which is more widely used, but it applies to actual nudity with a teen, not lingerie.
There are many, many circumstances when lingerie for a teen would be legal and appropriate. If you go through magazines like Cosmo, the models are often under eighteen. I remember a controversey some years back where a topless model, with exposed breasts, was only fifteen. There are teen models in catalogs like J C Penney in teen bras and panties.
People react badly in this thread, and most threads, for good reason. Legal doesn't necessarily mean appropriate. More importantly, if you take sexually suggestive images of teens, you open yourself up to scrutiny, scrutiny that you may not want to deal with.
What I don't like about these threads is the emotion, but I do agree with the message. The best policy is to always keep teens, teen appropriate. If you do, you never have to deal with any of these issues. 
If I understood the OP correctly, he was asking why a 17 year old model with a bikini swimwear shot in her portfolio would not be willing to do lingerie shots? There are adult aged models (as well as minors) who will shoot bikini swimwear but NOT lingerie. There are adult aged models who will not shoot nudes. I take notice of what a models limits are and I respect it.
Now if I want to shoot a model in lingerie, then I will go searching for models who do such ... I would not go trying to talk models who don't into it for whatever reason. When I wish to shoot lingerie, I consider the available models. Keeping it age appropriate is also a factor in what a models limits are, but I bet you'd find more adult aged models willing to pose in lingerie.
Photographer
Jean Pierre Billard
Posts: 184
New York, New York, US
Hugo Lopez Photography wrote:
Yes. Location, location!!.."yes" is a little vague don't you think?
Photographer
Benjamen McGuire
Posts: 3991
Portland, Oregon, US
..... and it continues. Want to know what my personal rule is? If I need to shoot lingerie for a store and Sally Sixteen is the best model for the job, I'll use her. If I really want to shoot Sally Sixteen for my portfolio, no lingerie. Why? Because I want it that way. Are there exceptions? Not often.
So, enough with the fearmonger crap. Some of us just don't give a shit.
Photographer
Nicely Disturbed
Posts: 1765
New York, New York, US
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
seriously?? you really have to ask? +1
Photographer
Brian Baybo
Posts: 1417
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
For the record, absent real or simulated sex, there are very, very few images of a teen in lingerie that would actully cross the line to illegality. They tried to prosectue trueteenbabes.com on Colorado and the owner was acquitted.
There is one, controversial federal case where a court found that it was possible to have a lascivious display of the genitals even with the model wearing panties, but that remains a somewhat ambiguous case. The Supreme Court remanded it once and then declined, for technical reasons to hear it the second time around.
There is somethng called the "Dost" test which is more widely used, but it applies to actual nudity with a teen, not lingerie.
There are many, many circumstances when lingerie for a teen would be legal and appropriate. If you go through magazines like Cosmo, the models are often under eighteen. I remember a controversey some years back where a topless model, with exposed breasts, was only fifteen. There are teen models in catalogs like J C Penney in teen bras and panties.
People react badly in this thread, and most threads, for good reason. Legal doesn't necessarily mean appropriate. More importantly, if you take sexually suggestive images of teens, you open yourself up to scrutiny, scrutiny that you may not want to deal with.
What I don't like about these threads is the emotion, but I do agree with the message. The best policy is to always keep teens, teen appropriate. If you do, you never have to deal with any of these issues. Excellent ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
alessandro2009 wrote:
The problem Tony is even more worst, isn't only a matter of views, but often there are even gratuitous insults that demonstrating a total lack of respect for others.
So is a real big and annoying problem. Several people have taken real swipes at the OP. He simply asked the model
to bring some lingerie and she refused. No harm done but people then went on
to insult him. This girls mom will be at the shoot and she decided not to
shoot in her lingerie anyway. However this is why, I don't start threads anymore.
Instead of honest debate. Its time to attack. Instead of reason we get anger and
what should be honest cases if any becomes the usual, a guy I know got twenty
years for some lingerie shots of a under aged model.
Yep, we all know that guy. Some unknown innocent dupe. Who did some
shots of a young Becky at 17 and landed in jail. Expect no one knows
where or a case number or the state or a real name. Its, just that guy. Many of
us are parents. I have adult children and if one of my girls was posing at 17
in her panties with some dude I might not like it. I'm sure I would
object. I understand how people feel but I'd feel the same if they were 20.
However, I also understand my feelings aren't always mature. Girls and
women are at the beach in very sexy and reveling things. Its the nature of those
items. Underwear isn't to be seen. Swimwear is. That's not quite a logical
view. That when they often look the same and cover the same. As a parent
I can relate to this way of thinking. Even if it doesn't quite make sense.
Photographer
alessandro2009
Posts: 8091
Florence, Toscana, Italy
Tony i understand your decision about don't start certain threads anymore given a certain audience but you can avoid it because you have experience, so you known how deal with different situations, a newbie instead can't learn without make questions.
Also about the rest, for a moment, instead of thinking about the lingerie thing, why the many people that insult the OP or give harsh reply don't think that if someone make a question on a pubblic forum where everyone could read it (and so nothing is hide), unless is totally stupid, means only that want known how deal with this situations and haven't bad intentions?
Why many users like throw more gasoline on the fire rather than mitigate the tones and see things in a more mature and detached way?
Why all want a good attitude from the models and after that the same photographers are a bad attitude towards newbie? Demonstrating only their lack of maturity?
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2214
San Jose, California, US
The ambiguity might be because in New York where the OP is, the age of sexual consent is 17, yet the age of maturity (ability to enter contracts, etc.) is 18.
So, a 17-year-old modeling lingerie in New York, with a parent present to sign the release might actually be totally appropriate.
I think I'd consult an attorney.
Photographer
DC PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 199
Los Angeles, California, US
Do the guardians have to be AT the location when signing the release? Or can the model bring the signed release form?
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Funny how the strongest attacks to the OP of this thread come from the photographers with the photos that come closest to porn.
They probably also lurk around waiting for models to turn 18 and a day so they can feel .... "correct" and ethical.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
if you shoot for Vogue or another fashion magazine, you could get away with it. Otherwise, you just come off as some perv with a camera. What does this 17 year old have that 50,000,000 18 year olds DON'T have? Wait a year to shoot her in lingerie or get another model. Your attitude here suggests some serious problems if you don't know the reasons why you'd not shoot a minor in something traditionally considered sexually suggestive. So for you is it OK morally and ethically to shoot the pictures in your portfolio provided the model is 18 and a day old and not if they ae 17 and 364 days old?
Photographer
NYC Budoir Photography
Posts: 68
HOWARD BEACH, New York, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. THIS IS A JOKE RIGHT?
OR THIS THIS SOME REALLY BAD WAY FOR YOU TO BRING ATTENTION WHETHER BAD OR NOT TO YOUR PROFILE RIGHT..
YOU WONT EVEN GET AN ANSWER FROM ME>...
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Magic Image Photography wrote:
How Fu*ken Confused can you get. Lingerie is see thru material lace shear see thru as in you can see nipples and other private areas. I hope you have a 17 year old daughter that I can ask hey do you shoot lingerie Oh but Im confused because you have swim wear on your port. Confused or not and I am not saying your a Perv but come on Dont you know the differance in Swim wear and Lingerie. before you throw around the insults maybe you should get a dictionary.
Lingerie comes from two words Linge (french ) and Linus (latin).
It simply means female undergarments. No dictionary specifies that it is see through.
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 3351
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US
Sadly I fought this war just two days ago in this very forum. I even had someone call me "SICK". Not because I started the thread but had said I had indeed shot a 15 year old model on lingerie.
I was truly surprised at the response that I got from saying that I had. Even though I have and would do it again I think there was a great deal of difference in the situation.
1) The young lady I shot the set with was a "real" working model.
2) She and her parents came to me for the photos to be added to her portfolio.
3) It wasn't a casual hey lets do lingerie kind of thing.
Things like that do make a difference and I still caught hell. Keep in mind that though she was 15 she was a working fashion model. (local small catalog work ect.) Though a great deal of fashion models are between the ages of 14-19 the members of this forum just didn't take that into account and flipped out. I was shocked.
At the same time I would never suggest the set myself. I will however shoot it if asked and the reason is need to better than "I need sexy photos of my 15 year old self for MySpace." That just don't cut it.
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US
Photographer
Conceptually Black
Posts: 8320
Columbus, Ohio, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
what does masturbating in front of a 16yo prostitute have to do with a minor modeling lingerie? Maybe he likes Terry Richardson "style" shoots.
|
