Kenetic Industries wrote:
Also, please just once look up the definition of a pedophile and STOP applying it to 15,16,17 year old people.

But it's such a lovely insult.  You wouldn't want to deny him the supreme pleasure of using it only when it's really true, would you?

J Allen Gomez wrote:

Before we go further, I'll have to ask you why 18 is your absolute.  In other words, let's say she turnes 18 on January 11th, but I shoot her on January 10th.  Here comes the aforementioned fucked -up logic.

Yes, she could still be a lawyer. No problem. Judge? Maybe at a nude art show.

Vixen Violet wrote:
I will never be ok with underage nudes even being a fine artist. That crosses any line of being ok and the fact that photographers are cool or excited about that it just sick. Let's create more online predators and rapists while we're at it.

Sure thing... But it's hardly the artistic and innocent pictures that are the recruitment for predators and rapists. It's more like the local playgrounds and everyday catalogs that get these people going. In fact, they'll find anyway to get themselves off. Unfortunatly, I met this guy who would stand on the stairway to the dance floors at night clubs so the girls would rub up against him while leaving.

By the way, can I ask if you you were a "fine artist" a hundred or even a thousand years ago, would you still beleive in not shooting/painting/drawing underage models?

J Allen Gomez wrote:
Before we go further, I'll have to ask you why 18 is your absolute.  In other words, let's say she turnes 18 on January 11th, but I shoot her on January 10th.  Here comes the aforementioned fucked -up logic.

they didnt serve me alcohol in the US when i was 2 days from my 21, while here in canada its legal from the age of 19

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!

See you on Dateline: To Catch A Predator.

Jennifer Kristina wrote:
it's sick how some girls whom are 15 and 16 can pose topless but Miley gets her ass jumped all over because she did a "provocative" shot.. Makes me sick..


Where the hell are the mothers of these girls.. they remind me of Brooke Shields' momager.. Or how about Dina Lohan "It doesn't matter if you believe in it, It's money" just sing the song..


wth are with people these days ? no values sheesh..

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...

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
See you on Dateline: To Catch A Predator.

Indeed, though I think it's perfectly acceptable to photograph the human body in a non-exploitive way at all ages, that came across as extremely lecherous.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:

See you on Dateline: To Catch A Predator.

News flash... The OP is an Aussie.

Kenetic Industries wrote:
I fully support the right to photograph people under 18 nude.  It is legal in America.  It doesnt make you a pedophile.  Does photographing a 11 yr old in a bikini make you a pedophile ? 
Also, please just once look up the definition of a pedophile and STOP applying it to 15,16,17 year old people.

That's right! They're hebophiles, which is pretty common/normal because their bodies scream "I'm at my prime breeding age!!!"

Still, there are other elements that make it shady for much older men to pursue those attractions like intellectual maturity, societal notions of extended childhood, so on.

But as for simply photographing people nude in a non-exploitive way without ulterior motives, nothing pervy about that to me.

io wrote:

Still, there are other elements that make it shady for much older men to pursue those attractions like intellectual maturity, societal notions of extended childhood, so on.

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.

v2lab wrote:

too funny!

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
See you on Dateline: To Catch A Predator.

io wrote:
Indeed, though I think it's perfectly acceptable to photograph the human body in a non-exploitive way at all ages, that came across as extremely lecherous.

I've watched that show from the start ... and I have not seen one single photographer arrested.  Not even one!  The fact is that photographing minors is legal, but soliciting them for sex is NOT.  Photographing minors in the "nude" may or may not be illegal depending on what they are doing while nude.  So go back and show me a photographer ... that was there for the sole purpose of shooting nude pictures of a minor on that show.  I might have missed it?

Since I started in high school, I've been a photographer for close to 25 years now. I've photographed people of all ages including teenagers.  Photographers used to be respected. I never heard of terms like "GWC" or "TFP" or heard that "models" need escorts.  Because the Internet is it's teenage years, and digital cameras are readily available, everyone can be a "net model" or a GWC ... being a "photographer" has lost it's reputation.

Ken Bufton wrote:
The 'model' actually comes from New Zealand (where I live) and in the Sunday paper today the mother of the aforementioned model said that she fully endorsed the topless image of her daughter...I'm not sure if it would happen in New Zealand as it's a bit more conservative than Australia (which is why she probably went to Australia for the shoot in the first place!)

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?

KGToops Photography wrote:
hi im chris hanson with Dateline NBC and we are doing a story on...........

lol... ummm...ummm....I thought she was 18?

GDS Photos wrote:
Oh no Patrick is turning this into a tfp debate!!!!

But seriously.  The photo wasn't sexual.  The moral question surely remains; is the model old enough to decide what is best for her?  She can do all sorts of things at 16 but the issue here is having a topless photo taken and published not what she eats drinks smokes or gets up to in the privacy of her bedroom.

It is a moral debate, but not a legal one. 

Since not one of you has brought up a single "law" supporting it being illegal to photograph a minor to this argument.  You say that the photo "wasn't sexual" well then where is the moral argument?  What "moral" question "surely" remains?

Jennifer Kristina wrote:
it's sick how some girls whom are 15 and 16 can pose topless but Miley gets her ass jumped all over because she did a "provocative" shot.. Makes me sick..


Where the hell are the mothers of these girls.. they remind me of Brooke Shields' momager.. Or how about Dina Lohan "It doesn't matter if you believe in it, It's money" just sing the song..


wth are with people these days ? no values sheesh..

And just who sets these values??  The ministers committing adultery or sodomy on alter boys? Politicians who are committing adultery or selling out the country for profit? Those who hire illegals and pay them shit wages because it's still better then back home all the while breaking Labor laws?

Values are an individual thing. Granted there need to be some guidelines, but lets no be hypocritical in making those guidelines.

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
And just who sets these values??  The ministers committing adultery or sodomy on alter boys? Politicians who are committing adultery or selling out the country for profit? Those who hire illegals and pay them shit wages because it's still better then back home all the while breaking Labor laws?

Values are an individual thing. Granted there need to be some guidelines, but lets no be hypocritical in making those guidelines.

Oh, but being a hypocritical fearmonger is the American Way, doncha know?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It is a moral debate, but not a legal one. 

Since not one of you has brought up a single "law" supporting it being illegal to photograph a minor to this argument.  You say that the photo "wasn't sexual" well then where is the moral argument?  What "moral" question "surely" remains?

Substitute a colon for a semicolon in GDS's statement.  The moral question he poses, I believe, is whether a 16-y.o. should be protected from his/her own judgment (or lack thereof), when it comes to posing for topless photos.

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?

Good point... a long with a lot of other ones people in this thread have brought up.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

Substitute a colon for a semicolon in GDS's statement.  The moral question he poses, I believe, is whether a 16-y.o. should be protected from his/her own judgment (or lack thereof), when it comes to posing for topless photos.

Ummm... It wasn't just her decision, the model had the endorsment of her parents.

Special Ed wrote:

Ummm... It wasn't just her decision, the model had the endorsment of her parents.

Quite right, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  If protection is needed, I'd certainly look to the parents first.

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
And just who sets these values??  The ministers committing adultery or sodomy on alter boys? Politicians who are committing adultery or selling out the country for profit? Those who hire illegals and pay them shit wages because it's still better then back home all the while breaking Labor laws?

Values are an individual thing. Granted there need to be some guidelines, but lets no be hypocritical in making those guidelines.

I just though this should be repeated

Holopaw Pictures wrote:

See you on Dateline: To Catch A Predator.

Have you watched it?  This is not the point of the show at all.

Kat Torgashev wrote:

they didnt serve me alcohol in the US when i was 2 days from my 21, while here in canada its legal from the age of 19

Again, this goes to show the whole "underage" thing is not an issue of morality at all, but a legal one in different countries and societies.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:

Substitute a colon for a semicolon in GDS's statement.  The moral question he poses, I believe, is whether a 16-y.o. should be protected from his/her own judgment (or lack thereof), when it comes to posing for topless photos.

Is posing nude more dangerous than driving a car?  I think not!  It's a moral issue, NOT a matter of judgement.  If it were about judgement in being able to safely pose nude, then we'd have classes, and licenses for it.  The judgement is what is being made when people push their own morals on others.

So by saying that you believe that "a 16-y.o. should be protected from his/her own judgment (or lack thereof), when it comes to posing for topless photos." ... you are assuming that they have no parental guidance in this matter.  Wrong.  In reality, you are allowing the government to take over parental control in order to push your own morals on those whose morals are not like yours. 

So if I want to shoot some nude pictures of my wife with our new born baby, you'd like that to be against the law?  If I shoot some pictures of my 5 year old in the bathtub playing in the water while naked, then you think that should be against the law?  I know you'll say " ... well there is nothing sexual about those" but then what makes nudes of a teenager "sexual?"  Your morals or your dirty thoughts?

DJantz wrote:

Again, this goes to show the whole "underage" thing is not an issue of morality at all, but a legal one in different countries and societies.

You may not think there is a moral issue about drinking at 19 vs. 21 (and I happen to agree with you), but don't you agree that at SOME tender age(s), young people need protection (whether governmental, parental, or otherwise) on SOME issues -- such as being photographed nude (or partially nude)?  Sure, standards/boundaries will vary from society to society, but that doesn't mean there's no moral issue.

BlueVisionStudio wrote:
You may not think there is a moral issue about drinking at 19 vs. 21 (and I happen to agree with you), but don't you agree that at SOME tender age(s), young people need protection (whether governmental, parental, or otherwise) on SOME issues -- such as being photographed nude (or partially nude)?  Sure, standards/boundaries will vary from society to society, but that doesn't mean there's no moral issue.

Protection from poor judgment?  Yet there are many States that allow 15 year olds to marry and 16 year olds to drive cars.  Nudity is only a bad thing in religious context.  Posing nude is not dangerous to anyone but those who associate nudity with sexuality.  The first images drawn were of the naked human body. It was done by and for physicians so that we can understand our bodies and find ways to heal.

I guess I'm going to burn in hell because I don't see all nudity as sexual.  I don't look at a naked child as being sexual.  Sorry I don't fit with those who cling to religious morals, but I do follow the law.  So far, nudity of minors or any age is not completely illegal.  If the moral majority had it's way, it would be.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Is posing nude more dangerous than driving a car?  I think not!  It's a moral issue, NOT a matter of judgement.  If it were about judgement in being able to safely pose nude, then we'd have classes, and licenses for it.  The judgement is what is being made when people push their own morals on others.

So by saying that you believe that "a 16-y.o. should be protected from his/her own judgment (or lack thereof), when it comes to posing for topless photos." ... you are assuming that they have no parental guidance in this matter.  Wrong.  In reality, you are allowing the government to take over parental control in order to push your own morals on those whose morals are not like yours. 

So if I want to shoot some nude pictures of my wife with our new born baby, you'd like that to be against the law?  If I shoot some pictures of my 5 year old in the bathtub playing in the water while naked, then you think that should be against the law?  I know you'll say " ... well there is nothing sexual about those" but then what makes nudes of a teenager "sexual?"  Your morals or your dirty thoughts?

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.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Protection from poor judgment?  Yet there are many States that allow 15 year olds to marry and 16 year olds to drive cars.  Nudity is only a bad thing in religious context.  Posing nude is not dangerous to anyone but those who associate nudity with sexuality.  The first images drawn were of the naked human body. It was done by and for physicians so that we can understand our bodies and find ways to heal.

I guess I'm going to burn in hell because I don't see all nudity as sexual.  I don't look at a naked child as being sexual.  Sorry I don't fit with those who cling to religious morals, but I do follow the law.  So far, nudity of minors or any age is not completely illegal.  If the moral majority had it's way, it would be.

You've put a lot of words in my mouth -- or at least, set up a lot of straw men to rail against.

Holopaw Pictures wrote:
See you on Dateline: To Catch A Predator.

What I wrote earlier on in the thread if you had of been paying attention. Alas it's the internet. Oh and yeah I'm an Aussie. We have a fucked up sense of humor.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
From our classification board

What is a "submittable" publication?

The only publications that need to be classified in Australia are "submittable" publications.

A submittable publication is one that is likely to be restricted to adults because it:

    * contains depictions or descriptions likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, or
    * is unsuitable for a minor to see or read, or
    * is likely to be refused classification.

Just to clarify I don't in anyway advocate photographing minors in the nude ok. It was sarcasm at work/Australian humor.

Atris Everson wrote:

If it walks like a duck....... well you know the rest!

Is this more of your opinion that you consider not trolling? Perhaps you're as confused about the definition of a troll as you are of a pedophile.

Chris Keeling wrote:

Remote.

And before you start that "Illinois" crap, I'll be glad to point you to my nude port.  Not a single one of the girls there are under 18 though, so you might be dissapointed.

I don't shoot nudes. And why would I be disappointed? You were making a sweeping statement that the OP must be a pedophile for defending the decision to allow a topless photo of an underage model to be published in Australia.

Now you're claiming that I would have some perverted interest in viewing your nude photos only if there were models under 18?

Why is your lack of logic and Bill O' Reilly humor not surprising? You're right though. I shouldn't  have claimed it's an Illinois thing, regardless of the fact that the two main finger pointers are you and Atris (both from Illinois).

I shouldn't have claimed your comments were geography driven. Your ignorance and inane accusations would not change regardless of your residence.