FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

again...answer MY question first...are you FROM the USA originally? Because REGARDLESS of whether you're from super liberal NY or LA or conservative Oklahoma, MOST people know the answer to a question like that. Your ignorance won't excuse the lawsuit that happens when a 17 year old makes an accusation against you, regardless of whether it's true or not.

...yes. I'm FROM that good ol' conservative state of TEXAS (which is in the USA), actually.

I appreciate your passion for this issue and for caps lock.

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.

REALLY???  Have you ever seen some store ad inserts? Minors in lingerie.. It's not sick.. Now, the way it's done, the intent, may be sick.. 

It's 2010, not 1610...

-jmp- wrote:
Hmm.. I agree, it's the intent of the picture, so again, why does the word lingerie mean it's sexually provocative moreso than a bathing suit? I mean is lingerie limited to lacey bras and thongs?? I could ask a model to bring a swimsuit and have her sucking her thumb on a bed and it's okay, but a model in [other word for lingerie here] standing in a window is in bad taste?

Sportsbra and boyshorts are ok.. swimsuits are ok.. bra and panties and all the alarms go off. I just find it inconsistent?

It's called paranoia in a puritanical society. In many respects we haven't really advanced past the pilgrims.

-jmp- wrote:

lol. Her mom's coming either way.

But after posting this, I wouldn't want to shoot it even if her mom said it was fine and everyone signed a contract and I had several witnesses present. It's just unacceptable to too many people. The why, I still have no idea. But I won't get that answered here. I just get that it's bad and not to do it. But alllllright.

you have no idea? seriously? wow...

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

again...answer MY question first...are you FROM the USA originally? Because REGARDLESS of whether you're from super liberal NY or LA or conservative Oklahoma, MOST people know the answer to a question like that. Your ignorance won't excuse the lawsuit that happens when a 17 year old makes an accusation against you, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Hey my fellow, Texan.  If a model accuses you of a crime age won't make all that
big a difference.  However the OP has indicated the models mom will be there.
As far as being falsely accused of something.  It may happen but likes pigs that fly
not that often.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself but again its not
that likely.

What can and has happened is that a under aged model says someone did some
sexual styled or explicit nudes of her.  The responsibility would be on the
photographer to prove her age.  There have been some recent high profile cases
where that happened.  What seems to happen is after a few weeks or months
the charges may be dropped.  However your neighbors, friends and employer may
not forget. 

Lingerie or swimwear isn't a problem.  Nude might be.

SIK Design wrote:
Very strong opinions on here.

Is it wrong because it's against the law?
Is it wrong if I shoot the model (17 yrs old) on Monday but ok if I shoot her (18 yrs old) on Friday?

the thing is, it's not against the law

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:

REALLY???  Have you ever seen some store ad inserts? Minors in lingerie.. It's not sick.. Now, the way it's done, the intent, may be sick.. 

It's 2010, not 1610...

I think you're mistaking lingerie for regular underwear - which is NOT the same.

DearestGrudge Studio wrote:
I think you're mistaking lingerie for regular underwear - which is NOT the same.

Do you think there's anything wrong with minors buying lingerie? Does Victoria Secret check ID's before selling those lacy thongs?

DearestGrudge Studio wrote:

I think you're mistaking lingerie for regular underwear - which is NOT the same.

Hwoaaaah. Hold the phone.

Another point (notice all of my main points are about the clothing)... I asked her to bring lingerie. Forget she is underage, because I will ask this to other models being 18+ and have the same question... do I ask them to just bring underwear to the shoot??? I don't want to shoot models in lacey bras and panties and thongs... just plain, basic, black or white ... under...garments?

One of my points is I don't know what to call it if not lingerie, because I feel lingerie limits it to just lacey sexy things. But I feel asking a model to just bring underwear to a shoot is weird.

So if regular underwear is "okay", is that what I should ask them to bring? "Regular underwear"? "Regular bra and panties"?

Barrett Graphics wrote:
It's ok to shoot an underage model in sexual poses... so long as they have a valid fake ID.

Is that anything like the "Genuine Imitation Rolex" the guy in Tijuana tried selling me?

John Jebbia wrote:

Is that anything like the "Genuine Imitation Rolex" the guy in Tijuana tried selling me?

I bought one of those. It worked literally until the minute I was back in the US. I think they poured sand into the mechanism to get it to work.

DearestGrudge Studio wrote:

I think you're mistaking lingerie for regular underwear - which is NOT the same.

Panties and bras are the same.  Here is a link to VS:
http://www2.victoriassecret.com/landing … SPTYZZZZZZ

I've seen young girls in the beach with less on.  Some with exactly what the
models in the shots are wearing no problem.  Some with thongs on.
Thongs! 

Some lace or somewhat see through still means lingerie or underwear and
its not illegal to shoot and images are done everyday of girls under 18 in them.
In fact many fashion agencies demand that models submit swimsuit or lingerie
shots to them.

I think that because many of us are fathers of young girls we see them
as children and don't want anyone else to see them in a adult fashion.
Girls wear underwear and lingerie.  The ideal is for advertisers to show their
products.  Target, Walmart, Sears or VS.

John Jebbia wrote:

Do you think there's anything wrong with minors buying lingerie? Does Victoria Secret check ID's before selling those lacy thongs?

Of course they do, John.  They also ask the peanut gallery on MM what
we think.  You need two pieces of ID.  No children are allowed to be in the store
and all the photos of models in lingerie or underwear can only be viewed by
adults.

Lee K wrote:
She's perceptive enough to realize it's wrong but you're not?  Weird.

Although if the law decided to make the legal age 16, no one would be having a problem with this, you should still be reasonable and realize how foolish it would be to do.

Just wait till she turns 18.

Just curious.  Exactly what law or statue would be broken?
I'm not aware of any.  Try this:  http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/lexisone/

It is NOT illegal to shoot models under 18 in lingerie or swimsuits or
gasp  NUDE.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Just curious.  Exactly what law or statue would be broken?
I'm not aware of any.  Try this:  http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/lexisone/

It is NOT illegal to shoot models under 18 in lingerie or swimsuits or
gasp  NUDE.

Although Jock Sturges spent years and eleventy jillion dollars defending his art... Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's wise or that it won't cost you money in court...

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
ignorance and misinformation.....gotta love the mayhem...

.... and personal choices

-jmp- wrote:

Ew. Paolo. I expected everyone, especially you, to catch my sarcasm. I would never want to shoot anyone, a minor included, in a sexually provocative and cheesy way like that. Gross.

So why ask a 17 year old to bring lingerie.
thats so disturbing.
makes you seem like a perve.
i dont think photography should be your thing unless ur doing just fashion.
makes me not want to shoot with ppl like you.

Joanna Peretyatko wrote:

So why ask a 17 year old to bring lingerie.
thats so disturbing.
makes you seem like a perve.
i dont think photography should be your thing unless ur doing just fashion.
makes me not want to shoot with ppl like you.

Because of the word lingerie?
What if I asked her to bring bra and panties?

Posters previously have said underwear is not the same as lingerie and everyone here agrees lingerie implies sexuality. Does underwear imply sexuality? Does bra and panties imply sexuality?

What type of re-wording needs to be done? The concept isn't the problem, the model isn't the problem, and the model's AGE is not the problem. This issue applies to models over 18.

Lingerie is taboo. Why? Is "bra and panties" socially acceptable? What about "underwear"?

Barrett Graphics wrote:

Although Jock Sturges spent years and eleventy jillion dollars defending his art... Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's wise or that it won't cost you money in court...

The OP is discussing shooting in lingerie not nude.  Not the level of
imagery a Sturges or Hamilton shoots.  Lingerie with her parent there even.
His work has a fashion feel to it.  Yet a model who should know better
is calling him a pervert.  I don't get MM.  One would think that artists would be
smarter and more open minded.  At least know that law.

To call a fellow artist a perv because he shoots lingerie when models under
18 do it EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK is frankly sad.  (general comment and not
meant for you.)

Joanna Peretyatko wrote:

So why ask a 17 year old to bring lingerie.
thats so disturbing.
makes you seem like a perve.
i dont think photography should be your thing unless ur doing just fashion.
makes me not want to shoot with ppl like you.

4 or 5mo older and she's 18, then he's not a perv, got it, makes sense.

-jmp- wrote:

Because of the word lingerie?
What if I asked her to bring bra and panties?

Posters previously have said underwear is not the same as lingerie and everyone here agrees lingerie implies sexuality. Does underwear imply sexuality? Does bra and panties imply sexuality?

What type of re-wording needs to be done? The concept isn't the problem, the model isn't the problem, and the model's AGE is not the problem. This issue applies to models over 18.

Lingerie is taboo. Why? Is "bra and panties" socially acceptable? What about "underwear"?

That's because people here are goofs.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Lingerie or swimwear isn't a problem.  Nude might be.

For me, lingerie or swimwear or nude isn't the problem.

Opinionated busybodies poking their nose into my personal business is what I try to avoid.

---

Free will. Personal choices.

My own policy is to steer clear of the arbitrary and emotionally laden 18 +/- controversy.

I have too much stuff on my plate to manage already. I don't want to deal with more nitwits telling me what they think I should or should not be doing, if I can avoid them.

This is my hobby. I do it for fun.

Therefore, I want it to remain fun.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

The OP is discussing shooting in lingerie not nude.  Not the level of
imagery a Sturges or Hamilton shoots.  Lingerie with her parent there even.
His work has a fashion feel to it.  Yet a model who should know better
is calling him a pervert.  I don't get MM.  One would think that artists would be
smarter and more open minded.  At least know that law.

To call a fellow artist a perv because he shoots lingerie when models under
18 do it EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK is frankly sad.  (general comment and not
meant for you.)

I don't disagree with you. I'd personally be very reluctant to shoot a minor in lingerie (or for that matter swimwear) but that's not a legal matter.

Click Hamilton wrote:

For me, lingerie or swimwear or nude isn't the problem.

Opinionated busybodies poking their nose into my personal business is what I try to avoid.

---

Free will. Personal choices.

My own policy is to steer clear of the arbitrary and emotionally laden 18 +/- controversy.

I have too much stuff on my plate to manage already. I don't want to deal with more nitwits telling me what they think I should or should not be doing, if I can avoid them.

This is my hobby. I do it for fun.

Therefore, I want it to remain fun.

Well, Click.  See your a bright and reasoned guy.  WTF are you doing here?
What's funny is if the model was a day away from 18 the OP is a perv but
18 and he's fine.  The lack of general logic is curious.  Oh, well....

Barrett Graphics wrote:

I don't disagree with you. I'd personally be very reluctant to shoot a minor in lingerie (or for that matter swimwear) but that's not a legal matter.

This is why I don't shoot minors also.

SIK Design wrote:
Is it wrong if I shoot the model (17 yrs old) on Monday but ok if I shoot her (18 yrs old) on Friday?

On Friday, she is an emancipated adult who can sign her own model release.

On Monday, she can not.

-jmp- wrote:

...yes. I'm FROM that good ol' conservative state of TEXAS (which is in the USA), actually.

I appreciate your passion for this issue and for caps lock.

do what you want. Regardless of the fact that it's common sense, it seems some people in here don't possess that. There's a clear difference between a company hiring a commerical photographer to shoot an ad campaign with an underage model and a private unknown photographer asking an underage model to shoot lingerie. Sorry if many of you can't see something so obvious. You're not going to change society with this stupid rant.

Click Hamilton wrote:

For me, lingerie or swimwear or nude isn't the problem.

Opinionated busybodies poking their nose into my personal business is what I try to avoid.

---

Free will. Personal choices.

My own policy is to steer clear of the arbitrary and emotionally laden 18 +/- controversy.

I have too much stuff on my plate to manage already. I don't want to deal with more nitwits telling me what they think I should or should not be doing, if I can avoid them.

This is my hobby. I do it for fun.

Therefore, I want it to remain fun.

Just think...this is the best answer and it comes from a man in a trench coat and no pants!

John Jebbia wrote:
What a weird society we live in.

A 16yr old can get a tattoo on her tits in many states with parental permission and no one bats an eye. Take a picture of said tattoo and people freak out.  Both are forever.

Take a picture of a clothed 16yr old in a mock bathtub suicide and people praise it.  Take the same mock suicide photo of her nude in the tub and people call it sick.

At the risk of opening up a completely unrelated and incendiary topic... a 13 year old girl can get an abortion in the US without the parent even being notified... Of course, she can't get her ears pierced till she's 18.

My point being, the laws and the interpretation of laws in the US are beyond moronic.

-jmp- wrote:
I understand the word "minor" is why you're all here participating, but please notice my responses. We've killed the minor "minor" issue. I shouldn't have mentioned her age because it doesn't matter to me.

My issue is society's response to shooting in lingerie, and how it is unacceptable to some, versus swimwear or bra and panties or underwear. They're all the same. The concept may change, but the clothing should not assume a concept or project.

I'm not interested in shooting anyone in overly lacey things, thongs, or overly sexual concepts. My work should show that.

My suggestion would be to start a new post then, as long as this is all under a title of minor and lingerie then this will all continue.

Age may not matter to you but it does to some and I recommend using better judgement when making your requests.