Paolo Diavolo wrote:
seriously?? you really have to ask?

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.

I agree, it is more about the intent of the photo and lingerie is usually sexually suggestive. Shooting a minor is a sexually suggestive manner can get you into trouble.

-jmp- wrote:
I could ask a model to bring a swimsuit and have her sucking her thumb on a bed and it's okay,...

not if the model is a minor.
i think you need to study more, and rethink your goals as a photographer.

Barrett Graphics wrote:
Yeah dude. Really shouldn't need to ask this.

I'd hesitate to even shoot a minor in swimwear, let alone lingerie.

Yeah I'm feeling I shouldn't have asked the model this, but again, with the shots she has in a swim suit I can't help but wonder what the big deal is. Apparently everyone else replying to this is borderline offended by me even asking, but I'm still trying to understand why it's wrong. And if it is so wrong, why swimsuits aren't wrong.

Isn't shooting a model in a two-piece swimsuit up against a wall the same intent of showing her body as shooting her in bra and panties up against a wall? Or is the viewer somehow comforted in the thought that maybe the swimwear image was shot in a studio in Miami and maybe they were about to go to the beach after the photo shoot?

-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?

i think your attitude needs to be checked.  right from the start the model said "I dont do THIS' and you wanna question it?
I dont think it matters if she doesn't do lingerie or shoots with epileptic gerbils.  No should mean no, not running on here to justify your upset at being told no.
Really....
fuckit... everyone here is being too polite. Nobody should have to justify their reasons for saying no. You give photographers a bad name

Paolo Diavolo wrote:

not if the model is a minor.
i think you need to study more, and rethink your goals as a photographer.

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.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

i think your attitude needs to be checked.  right from the start the model said "I dont do THIS' and you wanna question it?
I dont think it matters if she doesn't do lingerie or shoots with epileptic gerbils.  No should mean no, not running on here to justify your upset at being told no.
Really....
fuckit... everyone here is being too polite. Nobody should have to justify their reasons for saying no. You give photographers a bad name

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.

-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.

well i didnt think your "cheesy" example was the plan for the shoot :p but the fact that you thought the outfit was what made the difference means you were missing the point.

the answers to your questions all in the replies above.
hopefully you got it now.
thats all!

good luck with the shoot.

Redd Dyver wrote:
again, it's the word "Intent" of the photo.... you pose a minor in jeans and a tshirt in a sexually suggestive pose, it's still hot water....

dealing with a minor there is all sorts of grey area.... and from the sounds of it, you want the photos you're taking to have at least a bit of sexual appeal to them... in that case, find an adult model... there's enough of them out there.

Thats a fact...  but we just have to live in the hypocrisy filled world on this one.  The fact is much of the worlds society just has a Pavlovian response to this type of thing, say the word "minor" and "sexual" and there could be reaction.

Hypocrisy about this is all around us, you see 16, 17yr old young women being shown very sexually on all kinds of tv shows, movies etc.. 

Just look at Australia trying to ban any a-cup women from doing porn because they look too much like young girls, this crap is getting worse, not better.

Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Oy vey...

Lingerie=Sexuality
Swimsuit= Non-sexual

Its really quite easy.....

Apparently. But last time I asked a girl to bring lingerie, we shot this:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/15233623

I have a hard time seeing this as sexually posed or driven.. and similarly have a hard time considering her in a swimsuit instead as changing the demeanor of the image.

If I had a lot of young girls doing provocative things in my portfolio, I could understand bashing me here, but I'm really surprised at how negatively it's taken for me to even propose the question and tell you all of the situation. My bad though. Lesson learned, lol.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
didn't we just have a thread about shooting a man in a wedding dress....

and now someone wants to shoot a miner in lingerie.

whatever floats your boat.

how about a construction worker in a tutu?

construction worker in wedding lingerie FTW.

-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.

Is it okay for a minor to walk around in pubic in a bathing suit: yes
Is it okay for her to walk around in public in lingerie: no
Same with photography.
Easy

-jmp- wrote:
Apparently. But last time I asked a girl to bring lingerie, we shot this:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/15233623

I have a hard time seeing this as sexually posed or driven.. and similarly have a hard time considering her in a swimsuit instead as changing the demeanor of the image.

thats a beautiful image, and in my opinion would still be tasteful if the model was a minor, provided the parents agreed.

-jmp- wrote:

Apparently. But last time I asked a girl to bring lingerie, we shot this:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/15233623

I have a hard time seeing this as sexually posed or driven.. and similarly have a hard time considering her in a swimsuit instead as changing the demeanor of the image.

If I had a lot of young girls doing provocative things in my portfolio, I could understand bashing me here, but I'm really surprised at how negatively it's taken for me to even propose the question and tell you all of the situation. My bad though. Lesson learned, lol.

the fact that you posted and got this reaction should tell you something.  maybe some or all of us have a point? instead of getting defensive about it...why not learn from this instead?  heres another scenario.  A 23 year old model answers the same way.  would you have thought to post on here questioning?

-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.

have her bring a parent..have fun

Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Oy vey...

Lingerie=Sexuality
Swimsuit= Non-sexual

Its really quite easy.....

lingerie=clothing
swimsuit=clothing

guess you weren't around in the 70's when Brooke Shields made Calvin Klein Jeans commercials

Paolo Diavolo wrote:

thats a beautiful image, and in my opinion would still be tasteful if the model was a minor, provided the parents agreed.

Exactly my point.

The concept or intend was assumed to be malicious.. but nothing in my portfolio supports that assumption.

The last few people have responded with examples of society and how it is hypocritical. Even the "swimsuit at the beach is ok, lingerie at the beach not ok" is a good answer. I don't mean to be overly defensive about it, I just feel some of the answers went beyond personal towards me as a photographer.

It's a simple question and I have some very good simple answers both for why it's unacceptable and how society is hypocritical. I don't know why some of them were smacking me arouuund, but it's whatevs.

-jmp- wrote:
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). 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.

Happen frequently that someone on forum twisting words without thinking much.
I don't think is a taboo is well realized with a model available at this type of shoot without sexual intent but if one day you decide to shoot a lingerie shoot with a minor as model be prepare yourself for similars comments, regardless of how the shoot are realized.
Strange if the same minor is shooting by some agencies, semi-nude, is ok while much photographers like attach others, on an harsh way, without posing the problem.
Seriously there is much paranoia.

Chris Baylor wrote:
17 on film will likely get you 5-10 in full lockdown with some very bad company. 
And for what.. proof in court?

Its all in how professionally and how its handled.. odds are doing it in a professional manner (such as the miley sheet infamous shot) will not cause any troubles.

While I agree with many points on here, I dont agree the line in the sand is in the same place, I've seen many many fashion images with "minors" in revealing underwear somewhat sexually posed and no issues at all.  It would have to be pretty blatantly sexual for someone to make an issue out of it.

Yes there is always a chance someone will try to make an issue out of it but I think that chance is a long shot, an extreme exception to the rule, much like the odds of a 20yr old claiming you raped her in a photoshoot, a cop planting heroin to bust you, or a over zealous DA saying your baby naked in the bath pic is porn.  All could happen, but likely, not so much.

pullins photography wrote:

have her bring a parent..have fun

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.

Barrett Graphics wrote:
Don't take it personal, JMP. We've all posted threads we wish we hadn't, and we all got smacked down for them.

Welcome to the interwebs.

Hahaha

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
What does this 17 year old have that 50,000,000 18 year olds DON'T have?

This is a no-brainer.

... and Josh, the next logical question would be: why is it so important to YOU to shoot a minor in lingerie?

If you really feel so intrigued about these things, you would be better off having sex with the mother.

-jmp- wrote:
lol. Her mom's coming either way.

oink-oink, .... snort

pullins photography wrote:

lingerie=clothing
swimsuit=clothing

guess you weren't around in the 70's when Brooke Shields made Calvin Klein Jeans commercials

how many HERE shoot for Calvin Klein? Unless this is a national ad campaign for a major label, an individual photographer doing such work just looks and smells pervy. Amazed that people don't use some basic common sense with stuff like this.

pullins photography wrote:
lingerie=clothing
swimsuit=clothing

guess you weren't around in the 70's when Brooke Shields made Calvin Klein Jeans commercials

WTF are you talking about?  This isnt what the thread is about and yes I was around in the 70's.  Where the crap were you when laws were enacted to protect minors from adults willing to take advatage of them?

Im not saying the OP is wanting to take advantage of the 17yr old model, but bejeezees man, cant you think about whaty your implying here.  ITS AGAINST THE LAW, plain and simple, whether you think its right or not, common sense vs. stupidity, it doesnt matter.  I dont like that I cant drive 100mph on the freeway, but I deal with it.

OP, that image is very nice, but the overall consensus is that Lingerie implies sexuality,.  If you REALLY have to question that, then you really do need to rethink your career.  Get an older model for crying out loud.

Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Oy vey...

Lingerie=Sexuality
Swimsuit= Non-sexual

Its really quite easy.....

I'd agree with that.

Swimsuits are meant to be worn in public. Lingerie is designed for the bedroom.