login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Naked kids Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


So, I've got this nudes series that I've been working on. Really clean, simple stuff and so far it's been turning out awesome. I'm shooting it for a gallery show I have upcoming in May. I want it to kind of be about humanity, the human form, and blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, I just had the idea today that what would be awesome would be to get a family willing to do this. You know, mom, dad, and child. I'd say the child would have to be under 4 or it would be weird. I don't want some kid just getting their pubes in. But under 4 I think it could be really beautiful.

I'm also wanting to shoot a couple, and maybe even start prowling the old folks home for a frisky senior citizen.

What does everyone think of this. Weird or no? Would you be up for a portrait like this of your family? And is anyone aware of any legal implications I should be aware of considering I plan on using this portrait for a gallery show then potentially on my website? I'd be sure to get a model release from the parents, but would a model release trump any laws i don't know about. I mean, they do this kind of stuff all the time in Europe right?
Feb 26 12 04:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,342
Asheville, North Carolina, US


Perhaps practice framing the issue with a title other than "naked kids" would be advisable?
Feb 26 12 04:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Perhaps practice framing the issue with a title other than "naked kids" would be advisable?

Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?

I get the french version of "Photo" magazine and they constantly have naked kids in there. Sally Mann famously photographed her own.

Should I say "naked children"? "nude children"? Or just use the term "birthday suit"?

Feb 26 12 05:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Images by MR
Posts: 7,532
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Perhaps practice framing the issue with a title other than "naked kids" would be advisable?
ddtphoto wrote:
Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?

Yes...

Feb 26 12 05:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Shinobi
Posts: 5,445
Daytona Beach, Florida, US


First to grab the popcorn
Feb 26 12 05:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Blue Cube Imaging
Posts: 11,180
Ashland, Oregon, US


Is it legal? Probably. Will you open yourself up to a can of worms? Likely. Do you have the money to fight the battle, and the time, and the possibility of serious legal actions?

Both Jock Sturges and Sally Mann have included prepubescent subject matter in their photos. Jock Sturges faced the wrath of prosecutors and won (after an ugly and time consuming battle), Sally Mann has been named one of the most influential photographers of our time and is still controversial (her photos were of her children, see "Immediate Family").

Google the two of them and read of their legal battles and see if you are up to it.
Feb 26 12 05:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,342
Asheville, North Carolina, US


ddtphoto wrote:

Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?

I get the french version of "Photo" magazine and they constantly have naked kids in there. Sally Mann famously photographed her own.

Should I say "naked children"? "nude children"? Or just use the term "birthday suit"?

I don't recall Sally Mann titling her work "naked kids."

I'm being half humorous but I would stand by the advice that the use of the colloquial terms can, in some small way, contribute to focusing things in a low class direction that starts to strip some of the protections that you would rely on to safely publish work with images of nude minors.

Feb 26 12 05:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 4,603
Jacksonville, Florida, US


ddtphoto wrote:

Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?

I get the french version of "Photo" magazine and they constantly have naked kids in there. Sally Mann famously photographed her own.

Should I say "naked children"? "nude children"? Or just use the term "birthday suit"?

well this is not France unfortunately, "naked kids" is looked at strangely in the U.S.......I would check with an attorney on legal issue before I open those images in a gallery, I myself have no issues art is art.........but just mho

Feb 26 12 05:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ZingArts
Posts: 15,080
Westcliffe, Colorado, US


ddtphoto wrote:
So, I've got this nudes series that I've been working on. Really clean, simple stuff and so far it's been turning out awesome. I'm shooting it for a gallery show I have upcoming in May. I want it to kind of be about humanity, the human form, and blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, I just had the idea today that what would be awesome would be to get a family willing to do this. You know, mom, dad, and child. I'd say the child would have to be under 4 or it would be weird. I don't want some kid just getting their pubes in. But under 4 I think it could be really beautiful.

I'm also wanting to shoot a couple, and maybe even start prowling the old folks home for a frisky senior citizen.

What does everyone think of this. Weird or no? Would you be up for a portrait like this of your family? And is anyone aware of any legal implications I should be aware of considering I plan on using this portrait for a gallery show then potentially on my website? I'd be sure to get a model release from the parents, but would a model release trump any laws i don't know about. I mean, they do this kind of stuff all the time in Europe right?

Back in 1976 my Graphic Arts instructor showed me a photo of a nude American (and White) family that did a nude family portrait. He asked me what I thought of it and I replied "Beautiful" and he responded with "I think so too". Now, mind you, he was also a Christian Scientist.

Fast forward 36 years later (I'm as old now as he was then) and I'd say society should be even more open to it. Since those coming to your gallery show know it is going to be nude they should not have any problem with it either.

Feb 26 12 05:18 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Koryn
Posts: 36,255
Boston, Massachusetts, US


ddtphoto wrote:
Would you be up for a portrait like this of your family?

I see nothing wrong with nude representations of children, as long as it is a nonsexual, or neutral, context. However, if it were my own family, I would fear negative response from other family members, and people in my community, who might somehow see the images, then make false accusations to child protective services.

It happens. It can become a big deal.

Even if you are a family of nudists, and nudity is just your lifestyle, that does not mean the community, or other family members will understand.

Social Services have been contacted for far less serious things; I used to work in human services, so I know. DSS and CPS typically don't like being bothered over nonsense, but with allegations, investigations get started and have to be seen through until the end, even after if becomes clear that no harm was done.

That's a pretty terrible situation for anyone to have to go through, just because they wanted some artful photos of their family.

Feb 26 12 05:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Sky Donohue
Posts: 265
Salt Lake City, Utah, US


I would recommend talking to people in nudist colonies.
Feb 26 12 05:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

I don't recall Sally Mann titling her work "naked kids."

I'm being half humorous but I would stand by the advice that the use of the colloquial terms can, in some small way, contribute to focusing things in a low class direction that starts to strip some of the protections that you would rely on to safely publish work with images of nude minors.

Well, I mean, I wouldn't call the show "naked kids". I agree I need to be tactful. I just posted an add on craigslist for this. I played it up as unique, pure, family portrait... no mention of "naked kids".

Maybe it's best to stick with a new born. But then it seems like the older the child the more interesting the image. I don't know. Let's see if I even get any takers. I'm actually considering trying to see if there are any nudist organizations in the Chicago area and put a flier at their workshop or whatever they do where they get together naked.

Feb 26 12 05:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 4,603
Jacksonville, Florida, US


ShivaKitty wrote:

I see nothing wrong with nude representations of children, as long as it is a nonsexual, or neutral, context. However, if it were my own family, I would fear negative response from other family members, and people in my community, who might somehow see the images, then make false accusations to child protective services.

It happens. It can become a big deal.

Even if you are a family of nudists, and nudity is just your lifestyle, that does not mean the community, or other family members will understand.

Social Services have been contacted for far less serious things; I used to work in human services, so I know. DSS and CPS typically don't like being bothered over nonsense, but with allegations, investigations get started and have to be seen through until the end, even after if becomes clear that no harm was done.

That's a pretty terrible situation for anyone to have to go through, just because they wanted some artful photos of their family.

I agree somewhat here, if a family wants a portrait in the nude and it's of course non-sexual, I say great, no issuses, but if child services goons get involved then the "(S)urgar, (H)oney,(I)ce,(T)ea hits the fan.

Feb 26 12 05:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


Sky Donohue wrote:
I would recommend talking to people in nudist colonies.

Bingo. I just posted something on craigslist but that's the other avenue I was thinking.

Feb 26 12 05:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 4,603
Jacksonville, Florida, US


Sky Donohue wrote:
I would recommend talking to people in nudist colonies.

Most family nudist camps will most likely turn this away !, they go to the resorts for PRIVACY.

Feb 26 12 05:28 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Koryn
Posts: 36,255
Boston, Massachusetts, US


PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

I agree somewhat here, if a family wants a portrait in the nude and it's of course non-sexual, I say great, no issuses, but if child services goons get involved then the "(S)urgar, (H)oney,(I)ce,(T)ea hits the fan.

The thing is, it's not the CPS that are the goons, it's the people that make the false allegations. The CPS just have to follow through and do their jobs, even if they personally think it's a bunch of crock, which happens a lot.  It's just too much risk for a lot of people to have to worry about dealing with.

Feb 26 12 05:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Bella la Bell
Posts: 4,451
Kansas City, Missouri, US


I think it would be fine if it was a baby... for some reason people think nude babies are cute.
Feb 26 12 05:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 7,698
Imperial, California, US


I was reticent to even look into this thread, shocking!!:-)))
Feb 26 12 05:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US


ddtphoto wrote:
What does everyone think of this. Weird or no?

Why are you asking us for permission?  It's your art.

ddtphoto wrote:
Would you be up for a portrait like this of your family?

No.

Feb 26 12 05:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TrianglePhoto
Posts: 574
Chicago, Illinois, US


ddtphoto wrote:
I'm actually considering trying to see if there are any nudist organizations in the Chicago area and put a flier at their workshop or whatever they do where they get together naked.

There are a number a naturist groups in the Chicago area. Be aware, most are very camera shy - especially family groups.

Feb 26 12 05:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Sky Donohue
Posts: 265
Salt Lake City, Utah, US


PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Most family nudist camps will most likely turn this away !, they go to the resorts for PRIVACY.

Many go because it's a place where they can be naked without being sexualized.

Feb 26 12 05:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8,841
Delphos, Ohio, US


The idea is fine... your language on the subject is creepy as all hell, though.
Feb 26 12 05:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


Bella la Bell wrote:
I think it would be fine if it was a baby... for some reason people think nude babies are cute.

Right, but that's so easy and almost too cute. It would be awesome if I could find a family to do this with like a 3 year old or something. I want the viewer to feel a little uncomfortable.

May be a side note but I just went to a health club for the first time with my 13 yo son. We swam and all that stuff. Then in the locker room I'm changing into my clothes and, you know, you get naked. He goes over into another isle and changes out of his shorts then comes back. I wanted to say, "do you know how many times i've seen your wiener? In fact, I may have been the first to see it!" But I didn't because you know, he's self aware now and hasn't done high school yet so was uncomfortable.

I just think it would be interesting to have a family involved partially because of the taboo implications. So my preference, if I even get one, would probably be to have the child older and play on that.

Feb 26 12 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,342
Asheville, North Carolina, US


ddtphoto wrote:

Well, I mean, I wouldn't call the show "naked kids". I agree I need to be tactful. I just posted an add on craigslist for this. I played it up as unique, pure, family portrait... no mention of "naked kids".

Maybe it's best to stick with a new born. But then it seems like the older the child the more interesting the image. I don't know. Let's see if I even get any takers. I'm actually considering trying to see if there are any nudist organizations in the Chicago area and put a flier at their workshop or whatever they do where they get together naked.

I think it's a great idea and one that you should explore. I look at an image like the one you have described as being a positive social action and a good use of art.

but only if it can be done successfully.

I would urge you to explore the idea fully, contact both local and national nudist organizations, consult with and have on call a lawyer with knowledge of the specific laws and issues, keep good communication with both your gallery and your subjects.

and watch your language and presentation.

You're talking about creating and showing an image that is potentially controversial and even legally dangerous. If you proceed it should be with great care and thoroughness. Yes, this can be done as art, but you need to always have it framed in that way. That's why I brought up the terminology.

Good luck, it can be positive if you do it right and it can be a disaster if you do it wrong.

Feb 26 12 05:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Jenna Black
Posts: 197
Riverside, California, US


I've seen it done. Theoretically it could be super awesome. I say theoretically because every time I've seen it, one person is extremely uncomfortable and it makes the whole shot look awkward. If you had a legitimately nudist family, I don't think it would matter the ages of the children.

Also, kids don't get pubes at five. There's a huge window of prepubescence.
Feb 26 12 05:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


Jenna Black wrote:
Also, kids don't get pubes at five. There's a huge window of prepubescence.

Well, I was born with pubes so I don't know wink

Feb 26 12 05:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rebecca Christine
Posts: 7,068
Chester, England, United Kingdom


I'd be careful. A guy in Australia had an exhibition and one child was not wearing clothes, the exhibition got closed down and he was slapped with a Peado title for years.
Feb 26 12 06:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


RebeccaChristine wrote:
I'd be careful. A guy in Australia had an exhibition and one child was not wearing clothes, the exhibition got closed down and he was slapped with a Peado title for years.

Could you PM me who this was? I'd like to look into that. I kinda feel like having it within the context of the family should shield me from that though. And after all, I am in Chicago, not some small town in Arkansas or something. And this would be the only naked kid I plan on showing. Plus, if I can find a naked old man or woman then it obviously illustrates humanity.

Feb 26 12 06:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
allison mindy
Posts: 1,495
New York, New York, US


Maybe you go go to a location in the world with tribal nudity? No one seems to mind nude children in pictures that are taken in this setting.
Feb 26 12 06:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


allison mindy wrote:
Maybe you go go to a location in the world with tribal nudity? No one seems to mind nude children in pictures that are taken in this setting.

I don't know if you're making a joke or not.
Anyway, I'm doing these all the same way in studio. Blown out white background and fabric on the floor. Very consistent so then it's all about the variation of subjects. But that tribal nudity bit sounds like a good write-off wink

Feb 26 12 06:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,082
Catskill, New York, US


ddtphoto wrote:
Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?

I get the french version of "Photo" magazine and they constantly have naked kids in there. Sally Mann famously photographed her own.

Should I say "naked children"? "nude children"? Or just use the term "birthday suit"?

It's really a shame the way Americans view nudity in general. Every little thing is taboo weather it involves kids or not. Utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

Personally I think your language is fine. You're telling it the way it is calling it what it is not trying to be politically correct about it or sugar coat it. Maybe the title "naked Kids" is a little weird but whatever.

Look folks, it is what it is, we're all born that way, it's human nature, there's no reason why any nudity should be offensive.

Feb 26 12 06:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Miller Photoworks
Posts: 2,350
Phoenix, Arizona, US


ddtphoto wrote:
Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?

I get the french version of "Photo" magazine and they constantly have naked kids in there. Sally Mann famously photographed her own.

Should I say "naked children"? "nude children"? Or just use the term "birthday suit"?

Okay, 3 things

1. yes this country is so prudish that the term "naked kids" is unsavory.

I had a 7 second video of my 3 year old son riding a razor scooter around the house before his bath, clearly undressed but no genitals showing.  This is a common sight for anyone who has kids.  Anyways, I had this on youtube and I noticed for some reason it had 2000 views... and then I realized that even this itty bitty 7 second video of my son goofing off ends up as pedophile fodder.

2. Jock Sturges gave a lecture I attended where he described his home being raided, everything confiscated, the FBI tracking him.  That's the kind of stuff you may end up dealing with.

3. Jock's work focuses on a lifestyle chosen by these families he's known for 40 years in France.  Sally photographed her own children.  Those personal/ cultural factors are what sets their work as art and if another photographer can't offer the same level of authenticity I don't think they should try it.

Feb 26 12 06:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
It's really a shame the way Americans view nudity in general. Every little thing is taboo weather it involves kids or not. Utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

I always tell people that in many ways society has become LESS tolerant of that commercially. I mean, horror films used to always have naked chicks, not any more. There used to be other sorts of nudity in main stream cinema too and you really just don't see it anymore in western cinema. Seems like less in European cinema too though.

So, like with SAW. You can show people getting cut up and disfigured, but just don't show any boobies!

Even in terms of subject matter. Some of the stuff you heard on All In The Family, you know with Archie Bunker... you could never get away with that now.

Feb 26 12 07:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TRENT FETFAN
Posts: 1,026
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, US


ddtphoto wrote:
So, I've got this nudes series that I've been working on. Really clean, simple stuff and so far it's been turning out awesome. I'm shooting it for a gallery show I have upcoming in May. I want it to kind of be about humanity, the human form, and blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, I just had the idea today that what would be awesome would be to get a family willing to do this. You know, mom, dad, and child. I'd say the child would have to be under 4 or it would be weird. I don't want some kid just getting their pubes in. But under 4 I think it could be really beautiful.

I'm also wanting to shoot a couple, and maybe even start prowling the old folks home for a frisky senior citizen.

What does everyone think of this. Weird or no? Would you be up for a portrait like this of your family? And is anyone aware of any legal implications I should be aware of considering I plan on using this portrait for a gallery show then potentially on my website? I'd be sure to get a model release from the parents, but would a model release trump any laws i don't know about. I mean, they do this kind of stuff all the time in Europe right?

I dont know if anyone has said this yet but you might want to check out some of Sally man's stuff
http://sallymann.com/selected-works/family-pictures

Feb 26 12 07:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Bella la Bell
Posts: 4,451
Kansas City, Missouri, US


I don't know why but I don't find nude kids to be taboo... maybe because I see so many of them around my family... we got tons of babies and toddlers always stripping their clothing off. So I am pretty used to it. Also changing infront of people never bothered me in high school... but that was because I had to chance infront of my sister in the same bedroom for yearssss. I think I was a sophmore when I finally got my own room.
To me being nude isn't taboo. But sadly my profession thinks it is, so in the end it effects the fact that I don't shoot nudes. sad not ashamed but societyyyyy says other wise.

I get your point about the idea behind the image. I like it. smile

ddtphoto wrote:

Right, but that's so easy and almost too cute. It would be awesome if I could find a family to do this with like a 3 year old or something. I want the viewer to feel a little uncomfortable.

May be a side note but I just went to a health club for the first time with my 13 yo son. We swam and all that stuff. Then in the locker room I'm changing into my clothes and, you know, you get naked. He goes over into another isle and changes out of his shorts then comes back. I wanted to say, "do you know how many times i've seen your wiener? In fact, I may have been the first to see it!" But I didn't because you know, he's self aware now and hasn't done high school yet so was uncomfortable.

I just think it would be interesting to have a family involved partially because of the taboo implications. So my preference, if I even get one, would probably be to have the child older and play on that.

Feb 26 12 07:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TRENT FETFAN
Posts: 1,026
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, US


Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
Is it legal? Probably. Will you open yourself up to a can of worms? Likely. Do you have the money to fight the battle, and the time, and the possibility of serious legal actions?

Both Jock Sturges and Sally Mann have included prepubescent subject matter in their photos. Jock Sturges faced the wrath of prosecutors and won (after an ugly and time consuming battle), Sally Mann has been named one of the most influential photographers of our time and is still controversial (her photos were of her children, see "Immediate Family").

Google the two of them and read of their legal battles and see if you are up to it.

yes I see it was mentioned:) But Sally had more than just prepubescent. She shot her daughters well into puberty naked. I saw a video a while back of her and it showed many pics of I think her oldest well into the teen years and developing. I am not sure about her son though. She isnt shooting lifestyle documentary style images. She shoots on school plates photography, mixes her own chemicals and spends days on a single shot of her nekkie little ones. Well they arent little anymore but in the documentary her son talks about how they would spend days at the river  just to get one shot.

Feb 26 12 07:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Justin Suyama
Posts: 113
Seattle, Washington, US


Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
Is it legal? Probably. Will you open yourself up to a can of worms? Likely. Do you have the money to fight the battle, and the time, and the possibility of serious legal actions?

Both Jock Sturges and Sally Mann have included prepubescent subject matter in their photos. Jock Sturges faced the wrath of prosecutors and won (after an ugly and time consuming battle), Sally Mann has been named one of the most influential photographers of our time and is still controversial (her photos were of her children, see "Immediate Family").

Google the two of them and read of their legal battles and see if you are up to it.

It's because what these two have done and won the legal battles they did that you COULD do this type of photography in the United States so long as you have a very well worded legal contract (and I'd likely get it notarized or at least witnessed). And your photos don't (of course) even come near being "sexual" in nature.

Doesn't mean your neighbor won't think you are freaky, doesn't mean your local minister won't call burning brimstone down on you. I'd think the more important thing to consider is, is this the type of photography you want to be known for and by? Because of it's controversial nature, it may overshadow who you are as a photographer which is kinda like shooting your own foot.

Feb 26 12 07:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Rougeou
Posts: 82
Boyce, Louisiana, US


I think your title would be a good title because there are children of all ages.  Just because a person is nude does not make it child porn.  Unfortunately in the bible belt if someone is topless, even for a shoot to promote breast cancer awareness, they think it is pornography.  I would love to do a shoot with 202 people 101 males and 101 females. A new born both male & female and one male & female  from 1 until 100.  Yes that includes  teenagers.  Not for a sexual purposes but for a timeline purpose.
Feb 26 12 07:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ddtphoto
Posts: 2,408
Chicago, Illinois, US


SMASSH STUDIO wrote:
Sally had more than just prepubescent. She shot her daughters well into puberty naked. I saw a video a while back of her and it showed many pics of I think her oldest well into the teen years and developing. I am not sure about her son though.

Legendary work.

Feb 26 12 08:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6,057
Columbia, Maryland, US


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Perhaps practice framing the issue with a title other than "naked kids" would be advisable?
ddtphoto wrote:
Are we really that prudish now that even the term "naked kids" is somehow unsavory?
Images by MR wrote:
Yes...

And getting worse every day.   Some 30% of the population want to take us back to the 1950s.   And drag the other 70% with it.

Ah, the 1950s.   When bigotry was fashionable, women stayed at home, kids were property, inter-racial anything was forbidden, society was properly cast, and hats, coats and ties are required.

OP:  unless you have deep pockets, don't bother.   As long as you are careful and observe the law, you can win the legal fights, but you will lose your shirt and your pants to the lawyers.   Better you and the kids all keep your clothes on.

Feb 26 12 08:09 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers