Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Is it just me . . . or can anyone else make sense of what this means ?

I am confused  . . . what are you talking about ? ?

KM

It's not just you

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
So I've just done implied nudes for a photographer and mum's good with it dad (being a dad doesn't like seeing me half naked... doing the dad thing) is fine with it and I'm 17 turning 18 in less than 5 months

Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

I don't think you are bad.  But I would suggest models wait until they are 18 to pose in lingerie, implied or nude even if it is legal.  The thing I have found in the few years I have been doing this is that some 17 year old will keep telling me they can't wait until they are 18 and want to do implied now.  I say no, wait until you are 18.  Then when they turn 18 I don't hear from them, they don't want to do the shots anymore.  The thrill of doing the style underage was the thing that appealed to them.

I just think it makes sense to wait until you are a legal adult to make what amounts to an adult decision.

Sophistocles wrote:
I'm confused.

The OP states that she's 17. Her profile says that she's 18. One of the two is incorrect.

Yesterday, her profile said she was 17...she must have changed it since then.

Sophistocles wrote:
I'm confused.

The OP states that she's 17. Her profile says that she's 18. One of the two is incorrect.

She's on the other side of the International Date Line.

Photostudio99 wrote:
may by good in Australia bud nono in USA :-)

Says who?

Phototaker1 wrote:
If she had posted this question, in general terms, rather than specifically about herself, I would say she is soliciting opinions from the membership. But since it was her, she has succeeded in having 4 pages of Forum posts about her.

She didn't care what anyone thought; just wanted everyone to look at her port.

I haven't read the 4 pages, but from what I did read, I think I'm safe to say, she got 4 pages of "all the matters is what you think about what you did".

Never occured to me to look at her portfolio lol

I was just answering the question, and then I move the the next thread... hehe

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:

I think Sturges is a great illustration of what's legal.

David Hamilton avoiding legal trouble, on the other hand, surprises me.

What's wrong with David Hamilton's photos?  They are nudes of young girls but they are not sexual photos.  I saw his photos in photography magazines years ago.