JMerg  wrote:

Can we say

"Miley Cyrus"

From her iphone.  I don't see what point you are making here, she's never gone nude for a photographer. 

Not that Brooke Shields didn't, but even that I believe was for a French film, that in almost anyone's eyes would be considered art.

What I still question most is the lingerie photos under 18, how do you say it's not sexual?  At least nudity can be considered art, not sure what the debate is on lingerie.

Jac Knight wrote:
honestly i don't think this should be up.
It's not pornographic to me, like it doesn't turn me on..but it is wrong to photograph that.
There are people who are turned on by said images and that is exactly what i'm getting at.

There are people who are turned on by this, too.

And this

and a million other things.
Someone tells me this is "wrong" nearly every single day
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/19766357 18+

If we didnt take photos of everything that turned someone on...there would literally be no photos, ever.

So whats the problem again?

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
I know it may be a huge ass can of worms, but whatever.

So you have these 16-17 years olds here who, according to their profiles, "will pose nude". We all know that there are also creeps and pedos around here looking for that type of thing.

I'm wondering... if one of these models posted a nude pic in their port, how would anyone know and care to report it ? Does MM even have people who are keeping an eye on these kids ? I think it's nothing short of retarded to let anyone under 18 to have an option to mark their profiles "Yes" to nudes. I'm just saying...

Disgust... ahem, I mean discuss.

You sure are generalizing this question!  Not all nudes are pornographic, and some clothed pictures are obscene.   In general, nudes of a person at any age are not illegal.  If you see something that upsets you on this website, you can use the CAM feature and let the moderators take care of it if they deem it inappropriate.  Otherwise there is nothing to discuss here because we all differ in our judgment of what is pornographic nudes and what is not.

Playboy actually scouts the 17 year olds so that when they turn 18 they can get photos taken right away.  These 18 year olds were thinking about posing nude for Barely 18 when they were 17, 16 or even younger.  Another thing, just saying "Yes" to nudes does not mean that they are doing 'em.

Laura UnBound wrote:
This is pornographic to you? You find these two boys standing upright on a beach, naked, and simply smiling, to be sexually explicit? weird...

http://www.morehousegallery.com/images/ … 000021.jpg 18+

Jac Knight wrote:
honestly i don't think this should be up.
It's not pornographic to me, like it doesn't turn me on..but it is wrong to photograph that.
There are people who are turned on by said images and that is exactly what i'm getting at.

why is it wrong??? how do you not see the Innocence and youth...i see two kids at the beach...what is it you are seeing?

whats wrong about our society is the fact that we make things bad, that aren't...there is absolutely nothing wrong (or inherently sexual) with the nude human form of any age....

Laura UnBound wrote:
Its not automatically illegal if a minor poses nude, so they are more than allowed to do it and say they do it. They are not allowed to post it on MM however, so if you come across one, simply CAM it.

Its not MMs job to parent the kiddies running around taking their clothes off.

There are books of nudes of children you can buy legally at any major bookstore around here.  Just go to the Art or the Medical sections.

Tori Long wrote:

From her iphone.  I don't see what point you are making here, she's never gone nude for a photographer. 

Not that Brooke Shields didn't, but even that I believe was for a French film, that in almost anyone's eyes would be considered art.

What I still question most is the lingerie photos under 18, how do you say it's not sexual?  At least nudity can be considered art, not sure what the debate is on lingerie.

Annie Leibovitz did an implied topless shot of miley cyrus.

Sunni Tonitia Barbosa wrote:
YOU ARE A HERO FOR STANDING UP AND SPEAKING OUT. GOD BLESS!

Technically in some states you can be considered a pedophile (in court and on lists) and arrested for sleeping with someone 16 or 17.  Moral of the story just look into laws in every state or avoid people under 18.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Annie Leibovitz did an implied topless shot of miley cyrus.

Yeah, but that wasn't really sexual or offensive in my opinion.  She did go fully nude apparently, but it wasn't professional.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Age of consent has nothing to do with age allowed to be naked.

Age of consent is to legally enter into contracts, and to have sex. In america youre allowed to be non-explicitly naked your whole life if you want to be.

In Toronto (I believe Canada entirely), being nekkid under 18 and posing nekkid is NOT illegal. FOR PERSONAL USES. The moment said image is published and shared in any way - even sent via MMS - bingo, criminal act. Morally, anyone - in MY books - who gets off on seeing kid-tits and anoose has issues man, hardcore. From a LEGAL perspective - again, effective in Toronto, ON, CA alone - it's perfectly fine for a young girl or boy to have themselves photographed nekkid as the day they were born for personal uses. Why would a kid DO that, though? They would shoot it to share, so just presume - as the photographer - that if you shoot underage T&A here you're participating in criminal activities - as we KNOW those shots are getting spread fast as AIDS!!! Lol! I won't comment on WHY you might shoot it. I refuse to shoot underage newds, even bewbage, or even under-18 GLAM. Same reason: why objectify children???

Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
http://dbimagery.carbonmade.com

Tori Long wrote:

Technically in some states you can be considered a pedophile (in court and on lists) and arrested for sleeping with someone 16 or 17.  Moral of the story just look into laws in every state or avoid people under 18.

a sex offender, not a pedophile. She was responding to the person who pointed out that the term was being used improperly, as it often is.

Many people use "pedophile" to describe people who are attracted to everyone under the age of 18, however there are several different terms for infants/toddlers, pre-pubescent, and post-pubescent attractions.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

Laura UnBound wrote:
This is pornographic to you? You find these two boys standing upright on a beach, naked, and simply smiling, to be sexually explicit? weird...

http://www.morehousegallery.com/images/ … 000021.jpg 18+

why is it wrong??? how do you not see the Innocence and youth...i see two kids at the beach...what is it you are seeing?

I agree here.  I mean, some people will get turned on by going to a park with clothed children, doesn't make it any bit sexual.  I see her point, but those people always find a way.  The photo is cute, nothing sexual.

Jac Knight wrote:

honestly i don't think this should be up.
It's not pornographic to me, like it doesn't turn me on..but it is wrong to photograph that.
There are people who are turned on by said images and that is exactly what i'm getting at.

Why is it wrong for it to be up?
Just because there are people who are ill and are attracted to that does not make that photo wrong. That mindset is equal to someone saying that a woman who was raped shouldn't have been wearing a skirt that short, because obviously the rapist found it attractive. SMDH.

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
That will not prevent them to search for you however.

I do not,will not shoot with under 18 models,paid or not

Laura UnBound wrote:

a sex offender, not a pedophile. She was responding to the person who pointed out that the term was being used improperly, as it often is.

Many people use "pedophile" to describe people who are attracted to everyone under the age of 18, however there are several different terms for infants/toddlers, pre-pubescent, and post-pubescent attractions.

True, it's not what they actually are, but once you are on a child sex offender list you are typically considered one by the community.  In most states, if it's anyone under the age of consent you get on the child sex offender list, so you still get labeled with that.  They also don't usually say who raped a five year old, and who slept with a 17 year old who they had the consent of.  One of my main problems with those lists, because then the pedophiles on it can say it was a 17 year old, whether or not it was.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Suggest that in the Site Related forum. I dont think MM allows minors to check the "yes to nudes" box intentionally, just that nobody ever coded it in such a way that they couldnt.

But even is a minor aged model of 16 or 17 were to check the box "yes" on their profile, it does not the "go ahead" to the photographer or the model to shoot nudes.  That is a choice they make.  I do understand that concern, and it is possible to code the search feature and profile so that 17 and 16 year olds cannot use that feature of "nudes or not!"

If it bothers a member, they can CAM it too!

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
I know it may be a huge ass can of worms, but whatever.

So you have these 16-17 years olds here who, according to their profiles, "will pose nude". We all know that there are also creeps and pedos around here looking for that type of thing.

I'm wondering... if one of these models posted a nude pic in their port, how would anyone know and care to report it ? Does MM even have people who are keeping an eye on these kids ? I think it's nothing short of retarded to let anyone under 18 to have an option to mark their profiles "Yes" to nudes. I'm just saying...

Disgust... ahem, I mean discuss.

JMerg  wrote:
Can we say

"Miley Cyrus"

Not without gagging, no

Doug Lester wrote:
"So you have these 16-17 years olds here who, according to their profiles, "will pose nude"."

I wonder just how many are 17 - 17 year olds and how many are 40 year old Federal Agents or police officers?

40 year old Federal Agents or police officers are allowed to pose nude and post 18+ images.

Ok joking but I wouldn't be surprised. Ken said he only found one. When I searched I found 26 in the US and overall, 52 worldwide and out of the 26 in the US, 23 are male. I would bet a lot of them are sting profiles set up by law enforcement.

Jeff Fiore wrote:
40 year old Federal Agents or police officers are allowed to pose nude and post 18+ images.

Ok joking but I wouldn't be surprised. Ken said he only found one. When I searched I found 26 in the US and overall, 52 worldwide and out of the 26 in the US, 23 are male. I would bet a lot of them are sting profiles set up by law enforcement.

I've come across several profiles on OMP that I "suspect" were pedophile hunters.  I photograph minors and have done so for 30 years, so when I make a completely legal and legitimate offer to shoot with them, they never book with me.  Just ask them to bring their parents!  Could also be early training for learning how to flake!

Tori Long wrote:

From her iphone.  I don't see what point you are making here, she's never gone nude for a photographer. 

Not that Brooke Shields didn't, but even that I believe was for a French film, that in almost anyone's eyes would be considered art.

What I still question most is the lingerie photos under 18, how do you say it's not sexual?  At least nudity can be considered art, not sure what the debate is on lingerie.

lol! damn. chill mama. I was not really making a point. lol.

ForeverFotos wrote:

Not without gagging, no

LMAO

Tori Long wrote:

From her iphone.  I don't see what point you are making here, she's never gone nude for a photographer. 

Not that Brooke Shields didn't, but even that I believe was for a French film, that in almost anyone's eyes would be considered art.

What I still question most is the lingerie photos under 18, how do you say it's not sexual?  At least nudity can be considered art, not sure what the debate is on lingerie.

I work in the media, and to the best of my knowledge Miley Cyrus never did any nudes.  If she did, it would be big news!  We'd all know about it!

Brooks Shields has done nude scenes in major movies along with many other actresses and actors who were also under 18 years old at the time.  Blue Lagoon was one ...

As for lingerie, it depends. We were talking about "nudes" so this does become a different topic!  Someone has to pose in underwear for catalogs!

Nick Parry Photography wrote:
Quite an interesting addition to the law in the UK that I mentioned previously is that, in fact, the term “indecent” isn't defined in the law beyond that which any “ordinary right thinking member of the public” would consider so. This would mean the jury if taken to court.

Exactly!

Every time this subject comes up in the forums, it's the same people posting the same stuff because we have no hard facts, images or otherwise to judge.  We can't go "outting" people either so this just becomes another thread that goes nuts!

Chris E Photo wrote:
I did a browse here on MM and found three 17 yr olds in the United States who have yes to nudes checked.  This seems like a huge post over a minut number.

That's 3 out of a half million members?

Much to do about nothing. 

Rebel Photo wrote:
I think some people would like to re-implement the Spanish Inquisition...

GCobb Photography wrote:
I saw one 17 year old who had some implieds up for a few days or so.  Then they were gone.  All of a sudden she's 18 and has nudes up.  Go figure...there's probably more of an issue with that than there is the other.

Maybe she turned 18 years old for real?  It does happen!

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Maybe she turned 18 years old for real?  It does happen!

It's possible!

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I work in the media, and to the best of my knowledge Miley Cyrus never did any nudes.  If she did, it would be big news!  We'd all know about it!

Brooks Shields has done nude scenes in major movies along with many other actresses and actors who were also under 18 years old at the time.  Blue Lagoon was one ...

As for lingerie, it depends. We were talking about "nudes" so this does become a different topic!  Someone has to pose in underwear for catalogs!

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= … =&aql=&oq=

Just a basic google search.  She claims they are fake, other people claim they are real.  I'm not making it up, and I heard a bit about it a while back. 

I wasn't arguing against Brooke Shields, not sure what your point was. 

Not too many catalogs use lingerie models under 18.  My point was, why are we saying MM nudes under 18 are bad whether or not they are artistic, but not lingerie?  Isn't posing in a teddy and heels usually pretty sexual?

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Maybe she turned 18 years old for real?  It does happen!

PSH!!! You expect people to believe that a 17 yr old would become an 18 yr old simply overnight?!?! wwwuuuuuuttttttttt ever!!

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
I know it may be a huge ass can of worms, but whatever.

So you have these 16-17 years olds here who, according to their profiles, "will pose nude". We all know that there are also creeps and pedos around here looking for that type of thing.

I'm wondering... if one of these models posted a nude pic in their port, how would anyone know and care to report it ? Does MM even have people who are keeping an eye on these kids ? I think it's nothing short of retarded to let anyone under 18 to have an option to mark their profiles "Yes" to nudes. I'm just saying...

Disgust... ahem, I mean discuss.

Couple things....

1. "16-17 years olds" and "creeps and pedo's"......   I wish MM had a pop up everytime someone typed "pedo" or "pedophile" that popped up with the accurate definition of those words.  Similar to the S-cat..

Chris E Photo wrote:
I did a browse here on MM and found three 17 yr olds in the United States who have yes to nudes checked.  This seems like a huge post over a minut number.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
That's 3 out of a half million members?

2.  I wonder more about people who automatically assume its "pedo or creep" when someone does any similar type work... almost as much as I wonder about people who go out of their way to make issues out of it... kinda reminds me of Fred Phelps in Topeka who cant get "gay" out of his mind...

Scottsworld71 wrote:
PSH!!! You expect people to believe that a 17 yr old would become an 18 yr old simply overnight?!?! wwwuuuuuuttttttttt ever!!

Hehe.. only when the magic pixie dust fairy shows up at midnight and sprinkles them with that magic elixir that all of a sudden makes it all moral, decent and wholesome.

I'll buy into this "age purely over context and people" argument when someone can line up a hundred 17 1/2yr olds and a hundred 18 and a day-yr olds, then the righteous can stand 20 yards away looking at them all in swim wear and point out all the "under 18's" with impunity.

Sophistocles wrote:

It's my question and is parallel to the issue.

Not at all parallel.

In fact, you are raising a different issue that cannot be addressed by software alone.   Where his question has a simple and logical software fix, yours addresses issues that would require extensive effort and a change of operating strategy.   And wasn't the question he raised.

Luminos wrote:
Not at all parallel.

In fact, you are raising a different issue that cannot be addressed by software alone.   Where his question has a simple and logical software fix, yours addresses issues that would require extensive effort and a change of operating strategy.   And wasn't the question he raised.

So?

It's a question within the scope of the issue.

Furthermore, from the original post:

if one of these models posted a nude pic in their port, how would anyone know and care to report it ? Does MM even have people who are keeping an eye on these kids ?

My question goes to this, precisely. Stop being pedantic, the issue is broader than that.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

ditto..

OP..myofb

Yup. x2