Robert Perez wrote:
4. When it comes to porn offers on the net they do not care who it is as long as they are alive.

You read her email to know if she meant they are asking her to do porn or art nudes?If not, then you don`t know if they contacted her for porn shots,lol

Maggie Shirk wrote:
I hate to say it sweetie, but at 16 you are a child (ok, teenager)... My own dear daughter is that age.. and though you may be gaining in maturity you are still.... a child (teenager).  It is horrid that anyone would want to take advantage of you, but this is a sick world.  Just ignore those requests.

i agree with this 100% the low may be different in the uk but hear in the us it is 18 (ok in some states it could be lower BUT i would not push my luck and i feel it is unethical to photo some one under 18 nude)

nathan combs wrote:
lol sorry i did not meen you but the idea of photoing you nude as long as your under 18 the EWWWWW is for the sick sick people that would photo a child that way

So the day before she turns 18, it's sick, sick people who want to photograph her naked, but the day after, it's all good?

Am I the only one who finds this turn of thought utterly ridiculous?

I mean, fine, if the rule is no shooting

leila wrote:
if im a child its wrong that im allowed to move out, get married, have kids, join the army and get sent down

Not to mention pose in stretch-lace panties. And you wonder why you're getting offers like that?

You are very cute but your portfolio is basically saying, "I can be talked into posing inappropriately for my age." So people are trying to do that. Doesn't make them right, but it does explain a few things.

M

StMarc wrote:

So the day before she turns 18, it's sick, sick people who want to photograph her naked, but the day after, it's all good?

Am I the only one who finds this turn of thought utterly ridiculous?

I mean, fine, if the rule is no shooting

leila wrote:
glenn it used to be 16 in the UK to do topless and i think nude but the law changed a couple years back to 18

Well, in any case I'd reccomend you update your profile with your modeing interests and state "No Nudes!" or something like that (you may want to be more polite about it, I don't know). But I see your name has been changed, so that's a good start.

  -P-

leila wrote:
but to be honest i dont think that picture is sexual in the slightest..pose, facial expression..nothing

I am assuming you are replying to my comment on your pic with the panties.

It does not matter what you think about it.

All that matters is what other people think about it. And a moment's thought will tell you that what a great many people will think about it is, "She's posing in a bra and lace panties. Therefore, maybe she will pose in a bra and lace panties for me. And then maybe I can get her to lose *those.*"

While of course this chain of logic can be taken to extremes - "If she'll pose in a parka and snomobile suit, maybe she'll pose without them" - which rob it of much of its persuasiveness, I hope you'll agree that the leap is not a large one.

I personally disagree with your thought anyway - to me it's a somewhat tepid glamour picture. What else could it be?

M

StMarc wrote:

Not to mention pose in stretch-lace panties. And you wonder why you're getting offers like that?

You are very cute but your portfolio is basically saying, "I can be talked into posing inappropriately for my age." So people are trying to do that. Doesn't make them right, but it does explain a few things.

M

I don't agree with this; I don't think her port has that feel at all. It's all very casual and not at all provocative. But I do agree that just because a model may be dressed alluringly it doesn't make it right to expect them to do more, so to speak. No means no, and that should be enough.

  -P-

glenn usdin wrote:
people are confusing age of consent (sex) and age of shooting.

Finally someone points this out for the first time in a long time. I pointed it out months ago in a thread and it seemed no one got it,lol. And in Utah, as of a couple years ago or so, theyactually passed a law that there is no minimum age limit on nudity when it comes to art.Not sure if it has been overturned or not. This was covered once on CNN when it was passed.

leila wrote:
maybe not considered an adult but im not a child lol
had this conversation many times in ''sexy at sixteen''

You are right, of course, for the UK where you live It legal to have sex at 16 with anybody and any age you like and a lot of other things... you can leave school at 16; some parents are even known to let their 16 y.o. go off on holiday alone as well. Others when their offspring reach 16 just kick them out to live on the streets. Until just last year it was common to see topless pix of 16 and 17 y.o.'s in the newspaper on Page 3. The law allows that too.  Problem with photography, however, is not the nudity but that you can't sign contracts at 16 or 17 so you can't sign a release.

Topless wouldn't be a problem at all. As for full nudes... not really a problem as long as they don't go to indecent. Nude on a beach or other suitable setting, or art nudes, might be OK in a UK context. I would have more problems shooting you in lingerie.

You have to understand that in the US where most of the folks on this board live they consider you a "child" and won't change that opinion either. Hell some parents there in the US think their sprogs are still children until they finish Uni at 22 or 23.

Studio36UK

leila wrote:
glenn it used to be 16 in the UK to do topless and i think nude but the law changed a couple years back to 18

Not exactly - contact me off list and I will tell you exactly what did change and what didn't. 18 is not an absolute age line in UK law for doing nudes.

If nothing else you will then know what is right, and wrong, with an offer that a photographer may make.

Studio36UK

Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
Get rid of the "x" bracketing your name. A lot of exotic dancers use them and the guys who work with them will key on that to request nude/erotic work from a model they don't know.

And get rid of the picture with you in the mini.....hum, skirt ?? That black thingy....and the pic where your g-string is showing. You invite people to want to shoot you that way if thats what your advertising. And remember that Brooke Shields did semi-nudes at 13 in Blue Lagoon, so all you "Police Squad" fanatics, ease up ! Because its nude DOES NOT MEAN ITS PORN !!! Sheeeesh !

leila wrote:
ive got rid of the x's lol but my g-string is sticking out in most pics..that was an accident

No one would have known it was a g string until you mentioned it, really. But, having the panty line out like that just seems to be in style these days. I wouldn`t worry about a simple thing like that attracting pervs.

Maggie Shirk wrote:
I find it sad that you are expected to be and treated like an adult at such a young age.  Very interesting the cultural differences.

So in modeling treating them like an adult is bad, but if they kill someone, vandalize someones home,etc, its perfectly fine to try them as an adult?

But on a lighter note. I saw your reply about your 16 year old daughter. I saw your avatar and have to say I honestly thought" why is her mom speakin for her?". Then I realized you are the one in the avatar. You have good genes I guess,lol.

nathan combs wrote:
people wont to photo you nude EEEEEWWWWW your 16 that is nasty

In the UK, I think it is legal to shoot a 16 y.o. topless.

But still...  I wouldn't.

Bob4friends wrote:
And remember that Brooke Shields did semi-nudes at 13 in Blue Lagoon,

as well as full nudes for a PB photographer, the prints were also sold in magazines.

VirtuaMike wrote:
It's because you have boobies and men like seeing them. If it bothers you then ignore the nude requests.

Not all men, I would rather shoot a clothed model any day of the week.

If she's getting request to do porn on a site like this, I would recommend she contact a mod.

Craig Thomson wrote:
Not all men, I would rather shoot a clothed model any day of the week.

This isn't quite relevant to the original topic, but - thank you, Craig - thank you! I know many others feel this way, but it's easily forgotten around here sometimes :-P There certainly is skill and art involved in shooting the human form with all its nooks and crevaces... but the challenge of evoking intrigue beyond simple "boobies" is also a worthy one.

Yep, thinking about how to get myself down to Seattle one of these weekends or so... in fact, I think I'll send you a message about it right now.

*

Legalities aside... an idea for getting more clothed offers in general, no matter what your age, include saying so with the bold letters (HTML really is eye-catching) at the top of your page - as discussed in another recent thread, many people don't read, rather, they judge based on what they see... or even on what they would like to see. Not everyone takes the time to read through all the information on a model's page, so you really gotta be clear, very quickly, about what you want ;-)

Sonntag

Pierre Jessop wrote:

In the UK, I think it is legal to shoot a 16 y.o. topless.

But still...  I wouldn't.

neither would i i would have a big problem photoing a 16 year old in a 2 peace bathing soot i know i know but i can not get my head around 16 year old kid naked or in sexy undies it just turns my stomake