Patrick Walberg wrote:
Yours is not a logical arguement because there are so many "exceptions" starting back to the early years of art.  Nude children are in painting and art work from as far back as there have been artists.

In those early years of art, the average life expectancy wasn't much beyond 40.  So a girl was considered a woman, and eligible, pretty much as soon as puberty hit.  As life expectancy increased, and as technology advanced, the space between childhood and adulthood increased.  Unless life suddenly becomes a lot simpler, I don't see that changing.

J Allen Gomez wrote:
I'm really beginning to get some perspective on what it's like to be a nude model given that 99% of those on this thread see them as sexual pieces of meat for no other reason than that they're naked.  Unless you're religious, seeing someone naked shouldn't ipso-facto cause an erection people!  Ergo, nudity(at any age) is not ipso-facto morally wrong.

It's ok. I got accused by Mr. Keeling of being a pedophile for simply defending the OP's right to be a proponent of a decision made in another country. Talk about a leap.

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!

I love Australia too.

Our laws are great.

J Allen Gomez wrote:
Unless you're religious, seeing someone naked shouldn't ipso-facto cause an erection people!  Ergo, nudity(at any age) is not ipso-facto morally wrong.

everyday i think i hear the stupidest thing ever said.  today i KNOW i have heard it.

Kenetic Industries wrote:

everyday i think i hear the stupidest thing ever said.  today i KNOW i have heard it.

It took 5 pages?

v2lab wrote:

This is just great.

All of the "perverts" I know don't buy high fashion magazines.

Kenetic Industries wrote:
everyday i think i hear the stupidest thing ever said.  today i KNOW i have heard it.

Care to explain, or do you just want to confirm Kevin's earlier statement that the only arguments coming from your side of the debate are all ad hominem?

J Allen Gomez wrote:
I'm really beginning to get some perspective on what it's like to be a nude model given that 99% of those on this thread see them as sexual pieces of meat for no other reason than that they're naked.  Unless you're religious, seeing someone naked shouldn't ipso-facto cause an erection people!  Ergo, nudity(at any age) is not ipso-facto morally wrong.

I think most people -- even church-goin', God-fearin' 'Murricans -- have seen plenty of nudity without getting aroused by it, or even thinking overtly sexual thoughts.  If 99% of people on this thread are _automatically_ aroused by nudity, they would make a very interesting pool to study, medically and psychologically!

What is your theory as to why religious people should be automatically aroused by nudity?

As for your final "ergo" statement, the logic gets so twisted I can't even restate it well.  If nudity DID cause automatic erections, would that make it immoral?  I don't think you mean to sound so sex-negative, but you do.

On the flip side, a lot of the posters here seem to believe that if an image is _not_ sexually arousing, it _can't_ be wrong.  That's not true either. 

For some of the other morally-relevant factors relating to images of young, nude humans (incl. dignity, predatory risks and unintended consequences), please see my post on p. 4.  I'd be interested in anybody's thoughts on them.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
For some of the other morally-relevant factors relating to images of young, nude humans (incl. dignity, predatory risks and unintended consequences), please see my post on p. 4.  I'd be interested in anybody's thoughts on them.

That is a conversation that cannot be conducted on these forums.   Matters of public policy may not be discussed without personal attacks.  It's impossible, because anyone who chooses to defend anything other than an extreme right wing position is immediately accused of being a pedophile.

As long as those unreasoning, emotion-driven statements infest the conversation, there will be no rational conversation.

TXPhotog wrote:

That is a conversation that cannot be conducted on these forums.   Matters of public policy may not be discussed without personal attacks.  It's impossible, because anyone who chooses to defend anything other than an extreme right wing position is immediately accused of being a pedophile.

As long as those unreasoning, emotion-driven statements infest the conversation, there will be no rational conversation.

Dag-nabit!  No wonder I've killed so many threads!! 

HAHA I LOVE IT!

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

I acknowledged above that parental guidance IS important -- and I'll add that it's certainly preferable to governmental coercion, provided the parents aren't complete idiots.

I never said that _I_ believe a 16-y.o. should be protected from their own judgment RE posing topless -- I was simply trying to clarify for you where GDS thought there is an issue.

You raise a really good question about where & how to draw the line.  Honestly I'm not sure where I come out on it, in every case.  To try to advance the conversation, I'll offer the following for consideration:

(1) Respect for the individual's dignity.  Nude photos (whether 'sexual' or not) may embarrass the subject later in life.  When the subject is an infant, we routinely ignore that concern.  Is it OK to ignore that at ALL ages & stages of development?

(2) Predatory concerns.  If you believe in the _possibility_ of harmful exploitation and/or the premature theft of innocence (i.e., not _everything_ is acceptable as 'art'), then people at SOME age need protection (whether parental, governmental or otherwise).

(3) Ignorance of consequences.  Some models live to regret posing nude, despite being enthusiastic about it at the time.  The reasons go well beyond the kind of embarrassment referred to above -- including career and relationship complications.  At some (young) age, too many people are too ignorant of these future issues to make anything close to a fully-informed decision for themselves.

Okay...I'll engage.  You're framing your points within the context of the floating abstractions of societal mores.  What many here are questioning are those very mores.

(1) For instance:  in your first point, you use the word "dignity."  There is nothing undignified about the nude human form.  This word wouldn't have even come to mind if you weren't working within the context of a certain moral system.

(2) People of all ages need protection from predators.  I'll grant you, protecting people from predators is a legitimate function of government.  However, said protection can't come at the price of restricting the freedom of the potential victims.  The nude and clothed models(even though they are over 18) on this site need protection from predators.  This is an argument along the lines of "we should get rid of banks in order to prevent bank-robbery."

(3) Why would models regret posing nude?  Probably because of SOCIETAL MORES!  Do you not see how circular these arguments are?  Why should a model regret posing nude?  Answer that question, and ground it all the way to an ethics grounded in a firm metaphysics and you'll start to answer many of the questions here.

J Allen Gomez wrote:
Okay...I'll engage.  You're framing your points within the context of the floating abstractions of societal mores.   

What many here are questioning are those very mores.

(1) For instance:  in your first point, you use the word "dignity."  There is nothing undignified about the nude human form.  This word wouldn't have even come to mind if you weren't working within the context of a certain moral system.

(2) People of all ages need protection from predators.  I'll grant you, protecting people from predators is a legitimate function of government.  However, said protection can't come at the price of restricting the freedom of the potential victims.  The nude and clothed models(even though they are over 18) on this site need protection from predators.  This is an argument along the lines of "we should get rid of banks in order to prevent bank-robbery."

(3) Why would models regret posing nude?  Probably because of SOCIETAL MORES!  Do you not see how circular these arguments are?  Why should a model regret posing nude?  Answer that question, and ground it all the way to an ethics grounded in a firm metaphysics and you'll start to answer many of the questions here.

Of course you're right -- some of these issues would be non-issues, if there were no stigmas in 'our' society (however broadly defined) in 2008.  I'm not much for stigmatizing nudity myself.  However, unless/until the mores shift, some young people WILL be embarrassed later by certain images, or find certain career opportunities closed off, or encounter friction in their personal lives.  If they're not sophisticated and mature enough to make an informed decision about these (possible) consequences, isn't it incumbent upon adults (however defined) to protect them?  As a parent, is it OK to decide FOR them that they _shouldn't_ be embarrassed in the future, and _shouldn't_ care if their careers or personal lives are negatively impacted by judgmental people?  Or is the more caring course of action to help _preserve_ options and opportunities, until such time as the maturing young person can reasonably decide for themselves?

As for protection from predators (setting aside for the moment the definition or type), are you arguing that because we can't protect everyone from cradle to grave, that we shouldn't try to protect _anyone_, no matter how young?  Maximum freedom is for rational, mature adults.  Any parent knows that it's not for infants, toddlers, children or teens.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

Is this not affirming that 18 is indeed your absolute? I've yet to see you answer the question rather than get defensive and hurl accusations.

"Feel free to dance along the line of what is morally correct" ? Are you talking about what is morally acceptable or legally acceptable? Or are they one and the same to you?

But thank you for showing your expressing your well versed judgement of others. Any photographer that photographs an underage model is a pedophile.

Your membership is the Moral Majority has been renewed.

It is disturbing how bad you desire to photograph nude children. Can't you find an adult who looks young. Pick up your cell, it's Chris Hansen.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Great post! Nudity is also viewed differently through out the World.  Who am I to impose my morals on others?   Some people don't understand this concept.

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

Sinful Desires wrote:
Mr. Hansen will be paying you a visit soon.

HAHA I LOVE IT!

Sorry, but he wont be visiting a single one of us.

You would be perfect as a decoy!  The people they arrest are those who make contact with what they believe are underaged girls and boys then make arrangements to meet them for sex.  Not one single photographer has ever been captured on that show. Sadly they had to tone the show down after a Texas Distict Attorney blew his brains out rather than be captured.

J Allen Gomez wrote:

Okay...I'll engage.  You're framing your points within the context of the floating abstractions of societal mores.  What many here are questioning are those very mores.

(1) For instance:  in your first point, you use the word "dignity."  There is nothing undignified about the nude human form.  This word wouldn't have even come to mind if you weren't working within the context of a certain moral system.

(2) People of all ages need protection from predators.  I'll grant you, protecting people from predators is a legitimate function of government.  However, said protection can't come at the price of restricting the freedom of the potential victims.  The nude and clothed models(even though they are over 18) on this site need protection from predators.  This is an argument along the lines of "we should get rid of banks in order to prevent bank-robbery."

(3) Why would models regret posing nude?  Probably because of SOCIETAL MORES!  Do you not see how circular these arguments are?  Why should a model regret posing nude?  Answer that question, and ground it all the way to an ethics grounded in a firm metaphysics and you'll start to answer many of the questions here.

You've expressed my thoughts perfectly!  Thank you!

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

Of course you're right -- some of these issues would be non-issues, if there were no stigmas in 'our' society (however broadly defined) in 2008.  I'm not much for stigmatizing nudity myself.  However, unless/until the mores shift, some young people WILL be embarrassed later by certain images, or find certain career opportunities closed off, or encounter friction in their personal lives.  If they're not sophisticated and mature enough to make an informed decision about these (possible) consequences, isn't it incumbent upon adults (however defined) to protect them?  As a parent, is it OK to decide FOR them that they _shouldn't_ be embarrassed in the future, and _shouldn't_ care if their careers or personal lives are negatively impacted by judgmental people?  Or is the more caring course of action to help _preserve_ options and opportunities, until such time as the maturing young person can reasonably decide for themselves?

As for protection from predators (setting aside for the moment the definition or type), are you arguing that because we can't protect everyone from cradle to grave, that we shouldn't try to protect _anyone_, no matter how young?  Maximum freedom is for rational, mature adults.  Any parent knows that it's not for infants, toddlers, children or teens.

I know that you are sincerely trying to treat this seriously.  I like that.  Things get crazy in these forums, so I wanted to state to others that however much I disagree with you, I respect you and your arguments.  At least you are proferring arguments rather than insults.

What is mature enough?  I recently met a 20 year old here that is more mature intellectually than most my age.(which is 36)  That's a question to ponder.  Even if we have to cave in to the societal norms, how do we go about setting an absolute age of consent?

As for the second point-no!  I'm arguing that we should protect everyone.  We should prosecute those who violate the rights of others.  However, we should not restrict an individual's rights in order to protect them.  I'll agree with you, that when it comes to kids, the term "rights" becomes difficult to define, because the very definition of the term depends upon rational volition.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Great post! Nudity is also viewed differently through out the World.  Who am I to impose my morals on others?   Some people don't understand this concept.

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

Ah, this gets to something very interesting:  Can we make moral judgments without automatically being labeled as authoritarian?  Can we recognize and respect cultural (and micro-cultural) differences, without becoming complete moral relativists?

I submit that if you live your life by ANY rules which restrain your base impulses, then you have a moral code, which you would PREFER that others live by as well.  Is it ever OK to express/describe that code, or is that 'imposing one's morality on others'?  Can one go beyond expression of one's code, and ADVOCATE it?  Beyond that, when is a moral principle so important for a society that it should be incorporated into law?

These days, I find people SO reluctant to even DISCUSS morals, that I wonder how they make ANY decisions, or get through a real-world day.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

You've expressed my thoughts perfectly!  Thank you!

I was inspired by many of your posts, so thanks are not necessary!

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

Of course you're right -- some of these issues would be non-issues, if there were no stigmas in 'our' society (however broadly defined) in 2008.  I'm not much for stigmatizing nudity myself.  However, unless/until the mores shift, some young people WILL be embarrassed later by certain images, or find certain career opportunities closed off, or encounter friction in their personal lives.  If they're not sophisticated and mature enough to make an informed decision about these (possible) consequences, isn't it incumbent upon adults (however defined) to protect them?  As a parent, is it OK to decide FOR them that they _shouldn't_ be embarrassed in the future, and _shouldn't_ care if their careers or personal lives are negatively impacted by judgmental people?  Or is the more caring course of action to help _preserve_ options and opportunities, until such time as the maturing young person can reasonably decide for themselves?

As for protection from predators (setting aside for the moment the definition or type), are you arguing that because we can't protect everyone from cradle to grave, that we shouldn't try to protect _anyone_, no matter how young?  Maximum freedom is for rational, mature adults.  Any parent knows that it's not for infants, toddlers, children or teens.

Being nude at any age for the camera is not nearly as dangerous to ones future as you imply.  I had a rather embarrassing moment in high school where I was forcefully stripped of my swimsuit, making me nude and I had to walk through a public pool to the dressing room in front of other students.  It is in my memory, but has not scarred me for life!  It's a funny story, if you'd like to hear it sometime?

Also I agree that ALL people should be educated about criminal predators, and that we ALL need legal protection to the extent that it not interfere with our civil and personal rights.  Not everyone is hung up on nudity being immoral ... not everyone believes in the same morals as you or even me.

Atris Everson wrote:

Why should it be allowed. Just the other day I saw a story on the news where this lady took some racy photos hanging off a fire truck. the lady happened to be the mayor of this small town. Low and behold shes unemployed..

Sooo you want to take pictures of a 16 year old so that the pictures can someday ruin her hopes and dreams as well. Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life. I agree nudity is not wrong but there are alot of people who will definitely judge you for taking nude shots. Look how they were ready to throw Hanna Montanna under the bus for showing her back.

So your solution is to cave because the titillation addicted society has to associate all nudity with sex. hmmm.

Under that definition of doing right, we might as well all agree that it's ok to censor everything we read, agree to searches without warrants and admit that the police are always right.

Oh, we already did that.  / end snark

Seriously, I understand what you are saying; I just refuse to accept that it's right, morally or legally.

io wrote:

Am I insane that I don't see how that beautiful photo was "provocative" in any way? Far less provocative than slapping makeup and heels on 5-years-olds and getting them to shake their non-existent asses on runways in pageants...

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.

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.

Oh no! He offended someone. You have no problem with men in their thirties viewing a minor in a sexual manner? That is disturbing.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:

It is disturbing how bad you desire to photograph nude children. Can't you find an adult who looks young. Pick up your cell, it's Chris Hansen.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=98928 has posted here, and although she says she is an adult, she certainly looks of minor age to me, yet she has nudes.   

The Chris Hansen show is one of the funniest "stupid criminal" shows out there!  It is a reality show that nothing to do with this thread what so ever!  He is trapping those who would go meet teenagers (under age of sexual consent) to have sex.  I don't recall one single photographer ever being arrested for wanting to photograph a minor nude on that show, do you?

Patrick Walberg wrote:

That is nice that she has the support of family. 

How dare we, the people of the United States, question the morals of people in other Nations while our leaders have started a war in Iraq that has killed thousands of Iraqi children?

??? I thought we were talking about the morality of shooting children nude. Why are you bringing up the Iraq War?

Holopaw Pictures wrote:

Oh no! He offended someone. You have no problem with men in their thirties viewing a minor in a sexual manner? That is disturbing.

Nudity does not equal sex.

J Allen Gomez wrote:
I know that you are sincerely trying to treat this seriously.  I like that.  Things get crazy in these forums, so I wanted to state to others that however much I disagree with you, I respect you and your arguments.  At least you are proferring arguments rather than insults.

Thanks, I appreciate your civility as well.

J Allen Gomez wrote:
What is mature enough?  I recently met a 20 year old here that is more mature intellectually than most my age.(which is 36)  That's a question to ponder.  Even if we have to cave in to the societal norms, how do we go about setting an absolute age of consent?

That's where the rubber meets the road, isn't it?  Law is a blunt instrument, the administration of which demands bright lines which are necessarily somewhat arbitrary, and WILL be unjust as applied to exceptional cases.  Personally I don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws.  If you accept that you have to draw a line somewhere, then we must agree to set aside the exceptional cases and the marginal, 'slippery slope' arguments.

So, when it comes to posing nude, what's the right age of consent?  I suppose we could survey the literature on developmental psychology, and try to discern the weight of scholarly opinion.  But pragmatically, I'm willing to say that for legal purposes, 18 is a good line to draw.  It's when people 'leave the nest' in almost every way, and begin to sink or swim on their own.

Personally, I prefer to work with nude models over 21 (and 25 is even better), because in my experience they're less likely to change their minds later. 

I don't see any compelling 'need' to sell clothing or other products using unclothed models who look less than fully mature.  But if you're going to do it, why NOT wait 'til they're at least presumptively old enough to make major life decisions for themselves?  Because like it or not, posing nude is such a decision.

Addendum:

I realize that adopting a legal age of consent for posing nude means that certain types of images which _I_ consider artistic and non-exploitative could not be made.  This is a real social cost.  But given the difficulties of defining and enforcing such distinctions as art vs. commerce and exploitation vs. non-exploitation, I _think_ I'd still prefer a 'bright line' at 18.

Now ... what about the YOUNG end?  I still think that taking (or having others take) nudies of your 6-month-old is perfectly acceptable.  But how old is too old for THIS kind of portraiture?  I don't know ...

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.

What you don't get is that you have to define "assault."  Not only that, but you have to logically prove why it is wrong.  How does it violate an individual's rights?  Only you(and many others here) view images of opposite sex children in a prurient manner.  We're not all pervs.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=98928 has posted here, and although she says she is an adult, she certainly looks of minor age to me, yet she has nudes.   

The Chris Hansen show is one of the funniest "stupid criminal" shows out there!  It is a reality show that nothing to do with this thread what so ever!  He is trapping those who would go meet teenagers (under age of sexual consent) to have sex.  I don't recall one single photographer ever being arrested for wanting to photograph a minor nude on that show, do you?

Chris Hansen snags pedophiles and apparently this forum is filled with them. I guess in our ever permissive society, we all want the next high. The world is filled with 18 year olds that look 17 or even younger. Photograph them nude, they at least have some understanding of the implication. A 15 year old should not have to figure out how the detrimental effects on her life when half her high school has seen her nude. Except the school students and faculty will say naked.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:

??? I thought we were talking about the morality of shooting children nude. Why are you bringing up the Iraq War?

I dunno ... maybe it's like how you bring up things that have nothing to do with this post.  Because a handful of soldiers in Iraq raped a young teenager girl of 15 or 16 then killed her and her family.  Because there are children suffering from much worse conditions than getting their picture taken while nude.  Because we have a President whose administration distracts us from the important priorities by using fear and morals to back their arguments.

I see this entire thread as trivial by comparison.

J Allen Gomez wrote:

What you don't get, is that you have to define "assault."  Not only that, but you have to logically prove why it is wrong.  How does it violate an individual's rights?  Only you(and many others here) view images of opposite sex children in a prurient manner.  We're not all pervs.

If you have such a strong desire to see children nude of either sex, that is sad. If you think I am wrong for not wanting to see pedophilic images, I accept it. I know, I know, it's art.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I dunno ... maybe it's like how you bring up things that have nothing to do with this post.  Because a handful of soldiers in Iraq raped a young teenager girl of 15 or 16 then killed her and her family.  Because there are children suffering from much worse conditions than getting their picture taken while nude.  Because we have a President whose administration distracts us from the important priorities by using fear and morals to back their arguments.

I see this entire thread as trivial by comparison.

It always comes to Bush with you liberals. I guess he caused global warming and my car window not to work. You guys are sad. Don't worry, 2012 is almost here.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Nudity does not equal sex.

Why else would a man want to view a pubescent girl nude? The whole topic is sick.
Insert Vomit Emoticon here.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:

If you have such a strong desire to see children nude of either sex, that is sad. If you think I am wrong for not wanting to see pedophilic images, I accept it. I know, I know, it's art.

Okay...STFU and define "pedophilic."  Define it!  God you're answer is going to be fun to fuck with.