Morgan Barbour wrote:
First off - shooting a minor in lingerie is not inherently illegal.

OP - while personally I understood what you meant by lingerie, I can see the confusion. Not the best choice of words; "bra and panties" or something along that lines may have worked better, and sending reference photos of exactly what you wanted probably would have been wise as well.


To those of you calling the OP a perv - have you seen his portfolio? It certainly doesn't seem to scream "creepy old man who just wants to see little girls in their underwear" to me.

Thaaank youuu!

Addressing the issue at hand with suggestions. Thank you.

You're the first to answer if "bra and panties" has a different reaction. Also sending a sample image would have definitely been wiser.

Morgan Barbour wrote:
First off - shooting a minor in lingerie is not inherently illegal.

OP - while personally I understood what you meant by lingerie, I can see the confusion. Not the best choice of words; "bra and panties" or something along that lines may have worked better, and sending reference photos of exactly what you wanted probably would have been wise as well.


To those of you calling the OP a perv - have you seen his portfolio? It certainly doesn't seem to scream "creepy old man who just wants to see little girls in their underwear" to me.

I fail to see the legitimate reason ANY photographer has a need for underage girls in lingerie for portfolio use.

Morgan Barbour wrote:
To those of you calling the OP a perv - have you seen his portfolio? It certainly doesn't seem to scream "creepy old man who just wants to see little girls in their underwear" to me.

let's not get into the tired ass argument of separating an artist's work from his/her personality!

hey roman polanski is a great director but a straight up creep. terry richardson is a great photographer but is a creep. creative people can be one thing and the other. that's not a difficult concept to get as the human psyche is complex!

while his work may not scream "creep", it is creepy to want to shoot a teenager in her underwear (despite passing over many willing women of age on this site who want to shoot in their underwear...for free).  HE may not see that it's creepy but your actions have an effect on others and others may perceive that his motives are mildly suspect.

even if her mom will be present, it's just a big ball of "why bother?!" she's not going to be of any use to his portfolio anyways unless she's liek brooke shields 2

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

I fail to see the legitimate reason ANY photographer has a need for underage girls in lingerie for portfolio use.

duhhh..advertisements?...

-jmp- wrote:

Thaaank youuu!

Addressing the issue at hand with suggestions. Thank you.

You're the first to answer if "bra and panties" has a different reaction. Also sending a sample image would have definitely been wiser.

You're welcome.
Out of curiosity - is this model on par with fashion stats?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

I fail to see the legitimate reason ANY photographer has a need for underage girls in lingerie for portfolio use.

While I can't speak for the OP, he mentions on his profile that he is interested in trying to build up his port to work with fashion agencies. Many, many fashion models are under the age of 18, and many have posed in their underwear. It depends on the context, the photographer, the genre, and the garments themselves.

Morgan Barbour wrote:



You're welcome.
Out of curiosity - is this model on par with fashion stats?

She's 5'8; 116 lbs. She could be a couple of inches taller for runwayyy, but [shrug].. she has the measurements and look to do fashion, yes. She's represented by a smaller agency here in the city.

tigerfist photography wrote:

let's not get into the tired ass argument of separating an artist's work from his/her personality!

hey roman polanski is a great director but a straight up creep. terry richardson is a great photographer but is a creep. creative people can be one thing and the other. that's not a difficult concept to get as the human psyche is complex!

while his work may not scream "creep", it is creepy to want to shoot a teenager in her underwear (despite passing over many willing women of age on this site who want to shoot in their underwear...for free).  HE may not see that it's creepy but your actions have an effect on others and others may perceive that his motives are mildly suspect.

even if her mom will be present, it's just a big ball of "why bother?!" she's not going to be of any use to his portfolio anyways unless she's liek brooke shields 2

But based off of his style, do you honestly believe that the images that would be produced would be "creepy"? I see very nice, fashion-esque photos when I look through his portfolio. I do not know him personally, so sure, he may be a creep; then again, he may not be.

The final product is what would determine the legalities and "creep" level of his request to photograph her in her underwear; if it was a photo of her with her legs spread or in a thong or anything overtly sexual, then I would agree with you on the creep matter. But if it turned out like the other photos in his portfolio? I see no problem.

It is the model's job - and her parents, considering her age - to reference check him on his personality. I am judging him on his final product only.

Morgan Barbour wrote:

While I can't speak for the OP, he mentions on his profile that he is interested in trying to build up his port to work with fashion agencies. Many, many fashion models are under the age of 18, and many have posed in their underwear. It depends on the context, the photographer, the genre, and the garments themselves.

I looked at your profile and portfolio.. and I have to ask, is the top you're wearing in your default a bra? The series you have in the top row of your portfolio would be similar to the images I would shoot. Definitely not overly sexual, but fashion-oriented with the poses and attitude. And you're 17. Looking at those images, I doubt anyone here would have a problem with it, but if you copied and pasted the photographer's request for you to bring "lingerie" to the shoot here on the forums, I can understand why people would react negatively.

Again, more to my point is, is that top considered lingerie?

Is it okay for a minor to walk around in pubic in a bathing suit: yes
Is it okay for her to walk around in public in lingerie: no
Same with photography.
Easy

My thoughts exactly.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Just curious.  Exactly what law or statue would be broken?
I'm not aware of any.  Try this:  http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/lexisone/

It is NOT illegal to shoot models under 18 in lingerie or swimsuits or
gasp  NUDE.

I know it's not against the law, but the reality is, it still CAN be if the law decides to make it.  That's just the reality of it.  Not worth the risk when the law isn't fair and reasonable.

Rebel Photo wrote:

duhhh..advertisements?...

advertisements are NOT portfolio use.

Morgan Barbour wrote:

But based off of his style, do you honestly believe that the images that would be produced would be "creepy"? I see very nice, fashion-esque photos when I look through his portfolio. I do not know him personally, so sure, he may be a creep; then again, he may not be.

The final product is what would determine the legalities and "creep" level of his request to photograph her in her underwear; if it was a photo of her with her legs spread or in a thong or anything overtly sexual, then I would agree with you on the creep matter. But if it turned out like the other photos in his portfolio? I see no problem.

It is the model's job - and her parents, considering her age - to reference check him on his personality. I am judging him on his final product only.

based on what you just said...what stops him from shooting lingerie with a model who is 18 instead of opening himself up to a shitload of grief because he can't discern the difference between lingerie and swimwear?

Morgan Barbour wrote:

While I can't speak for the OP, he mentions on his profile that he is interested in trying to build up his port to work with fashion agencies. Many, many fashion models are under the age of 18, and many have posed in their underwear. It depends on the context, the photographer, the genre, and the garments themselves.

I guess you're right...OP, please don't come whining here if you get your ass in a bunch of trouble with a parent. Sorry but there are a million fashion models who are 18-19 who LOOK 17. I still fail to see a reason, to add lingerie photos of a minor in your portfolio unless you've shot her for a major ad campaign. (in those cases, companies have plenty of lawyers on hand and plenty of proper releases are signed)

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Jeepers...  I've never seen such a site with prudes.

Yes there are prudes everywhere...including the people that run the site. That is exactly why I cant ever post casting calls for my line of work....extremely well paying adult jobs....because that is taboo here.

However I do cringe when a girl that is underage expressed interest in modeling. I send them away.

Morgan Barbour wrote:
But based off of his style, do you honestly believe that the images that would be produced would be "creepy"? I see very nice, fashion-esque photos when I look through his portfolio. I do not know him personally, so sure, he may be a creep; then again, he may not be.

The final product is what would determine the legalities and "creep" level of his request to photograph her in her underwear; if it was a photo of her with her legs spread or in a thong or anything overtly sexual, then I would agree with you on the creep matter. But if it turned out like the other photos in his portfolio? I see no problem.

It is the model's job - and her parents, considering her age - to reference check him on his personality. I am judging him on his final product only.

his work is great but again, many photographers here despite legality, do see an issue with sexualizing children in photos.

my issue is that this type of shoot is pointless and others could see the guy as a creep (meaning he's going to scarlet letter himself). you go through the worry and stress of it all and for what? since he is trying to build her book and she's with a smaller agency and can work for print (90% of which is commercial work), why bother push high fashion when commercial would work a bit better for her and her agency that tries to book her for smaller gigs.

why not push a different idea that could be beneficial to both parties? i've worked with 14 year olds and it never entered my mind to entertain that type of shoot as i know most of the kids here get pushed into commercial work before doing 'high fashion'. even a simple beach shoot with a normal bathing suit and a girl having fun "works" for most books as it's safe and doesn't come off smutty.

and yes, i agree that it's the model's job and her parents to do their research but look at like 90% of the posts here. guys (even professionals) can be creeps to one girl and not a creep to others. the "he was always cool to me" defense doesn't apply to everyone.

Rasheedat J wrote:

Is it okay for a minor to walk around in pubic in a bathing suit: yes
Is it okay for her to walk around in public in lingerie: no
Same with photography.
Easy

My thoughts exactly.

That makes NO sense. Proper attire for a particular venue is a sime manners issue.

I saw dozens of "minors" walking around completely naked last weekend c it was acceptable for the venue.

Tim Foster wrote:
See OP, in this country, when a girl turns 18 a tiny fairy comes and sprinkles her with magical pixie dust that turns her into a sexual being. It's not an arbitrary number or anything. *rolls eyes*  C'mon, people, if she's past puberty she's not a child anymore. She might act like one, but I could say the same for plenty of 30 year-olds.

Yes, so.. that 11 year old who just got her period... Yes, she is such the adult.

PAST PUBERTY! IT SHOULD BE OKAY.

Jenn Whitten-Hancock wrote:
Yes, so.. that 11 year old who just got her period... Yes, she is such the adult.

PAST PUBERTY! IT SHOULD BE OKAY.

I'd argue that a twelve year old who has a sexual experience will only be damaged by society telling her she should be. We have no problem exposing kids to wanton violence, but sexuality is taboo? Doesn't that seem backwards to anyone else?

Tim Foster wrote:
See OP, in this country, when a girl turns 18 a tiny fairy comes and sprinkles her with magical pixie dust that turns her into a sexual being. It's not an arbitrary number or anything. *rolls eyes*  C'mon, people, if she's past puberty she's not a child anymore. She might act like one, but I could say the same for plenty of 30 year-olds.

actually, adolescence was "invented" so kids could  have a childhood and had time to transition into adults (vs like working in factories at 8, getting married and treated like property at 12, and birthing 10 kids at like 14)

puberty is ONE marker of adolescence but you realize that your brain goes through an intense amount of 'growth' during those years too. yeah it is an arbitrary number but consider teenagers are going to make "better" decisions at 18 than at 11.

i seriously hope you're not of the "if there's grass on the field, play ball" camp. not a good look!

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

based on what you just said...what stops him from shooting lingerie with a model who is 18 instead of opening himself up to a shitload of grief because he can't discern the difference between lingerie and swimwear?

And WHAT EXACTLY is the difference? Other than some prudish label that "lingerie" is sexual and swimwear is not? Are bra and panties sexual? Reality is, lingerie is just a marketing tool to add to the price. It's still bra and panties..

Seriously, you think someone who gets their rocks off to a woman in lingerie isn't going to do the same seeing them in swim wear or "bra and panties"?  If you think that, you're rather naive...  And shit, I've seen some swimwear that reveals a HELLUVA lot more than lingerie!!!

DearestGrudge Studio wrote:

I think you're mistaking lingerie for regular underwear - which is NOT the same.

By virtue of a marketing label.

Tim Foster wrote:

I'd argue that a twelve year old who has a sexual experience will only be damaged by society telling her she should be. We have no problem exposing kids to wanton violence, but sexuality is taboo? Doesn't that seem backwards to anyone else?

huh?

are you mad at society for being misogynist (forcing the male construct of what female sexuality should be onto female adolescents yet telling them to remain chaste) or that violence is worse than sex? children can parse concepts such as life and death at 12 (sometimes earlier) but it'll take them years to "get" more complicated things as sex and all the bs that surrounds it.

some 12 year old having sex may be physically able to but do you think that they should? like, i remember myself at 12 and sex was the last thing on my mind!

tigerfist photography wrote:

huh?

are you mad at society for being misogynist (forcing the male construct of what female sexuality should be onto female adolescents yet telling them to remain chaste) or that violence is worse than sex? children can parse concepts such as life and death at 12 (sometimes earlier) but it'll take them years to "get" more complicated things as sex and all the bs that surrounds it.

some 12 year old having sex may be physically able to but do you think that they should? like, i remember myself at 12 and sex was the last thing on my mind!

+1 (PS, Tiger, I like you. :] )

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:

And WHAT EXACTLY is the difference? Other than some prudish label that "lingerie" is sexual and swimwear is not? Are bra and panties sexual? Reality is, lingerie is just a marketing tool to add to the price. It's still bra and panties..

Seriously, you think someone who gets their rocks off to a woman in lingerie isn't going to do the same seeing them in swim wear or "bra and panties"?  If you think that, you're rather naive...  And shit, I've seen some swimwear that reveals a HELLUVA lot more than lingerie!!!

regardless...YOU'RE not going to change a mindset in America because of your view on MM. For those of you who can't see the difference from a societal standpoint between shooting an image like this commerically and from shooting it for private use...PLEASE wake up.

Tim Foster wrote:

I'd argue that a twelve year old who has a sexual experience will only be damaged by society telling her she should be. We have no problem exposing kids to wanton violence, but sexuality is taboo? Doesn't that seem backwards to anyone else?

It is our society, the hypocrisy is worse. Like I said earlier we sexualize young women all the time and it's fine as long as no one mentions the proverbial elephant in the room.

CGI Images wrote:

It is our society, the hypocrisy is worse. Like I said earlier we sexualize young women all the time and it's fine as long as no one mentions the proverbial elephant in the room.

ok fine...but how the fuck are YOU going to change that? Swimming upstream may be fine for salmon but they die in the end. Going with the flow when there's no reason to swim upstream is much less painful and in THIS case, much smarter.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

regardless...YOU'RE not going to change a mindset in America because of your view on MM. For those of you who can't see the difference from a societal standpoint between shooting an image like this commerically and from shooting it for private use...PLEASE wake up.

Thank you!  I feel like the answer not so obvious to some.
Call it art fashion whatevr you want if thats what you choose to shoot then the opions of society shouldnt concern you.

-jmp- wrote:

She's 5'8; 116 lbs. She could be a couple of inches taller for runwayyy, but [shrug].. she has the measurements and look to do fashion, yes. She's represented by a smaller agency here in the city.

Ask her agency. In the time since this thread started I'm quite sure several NY agency models, under 18, have been sent by their agencies to shoot lingerie or underwear.

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:

By virtue of a marketing label.

when's the last time you held a bra, dood?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

ok fine...but how the fuck are YOU going to change that? Swimming upstream may be fine for salmon but they die in the end. Going with the flow when there's no reason to swim upstream is much less painful and in THIS case, much smarter.

You start by standing up and pointing out the lack of logic and lack of any facts behind what the fearmongering masses are spouting.

Rebel Photo wrote:
Just think...this is the best answer and it comes from a man in a trench coat and no pants!

Thank you.

.... and another question that lawyers are fond of asking as they dig in to build a nuisance lawsuit ....


"Mr. Hamilton, was there alcohol involved?"

CGI Images wrote:
I wish I could remember the link to that teen girls website that was such a topic of debate on here quite awhile back.  It was teen girls, even posted ages down to 13 or so in obviously sexual lingerie, obviously sexual poses, but guess what, also perfectly legal despite many thinking it shouldn't be so.  Perhaps someone will have a link to that thread. 

Not that I agree with the obvious explotation on sites like that but it will give you fearmongering types a little clearer idea of where the line in the sand really is.

trueteenbabes.com I believe...

ERNIE CHAN wrote:
Should not do Lingerie photography with a MINOR-even though her mother will be present during the shoot-you can get in trouble if the photos are shown to the wrong people even if her mother gives permission and is present during the actual show and signs a model release.

Trouble from who?  I haven't seen one link from the fear monger
crowd.  No laws against shooting lingerie or swimsuits of minors.
Why because there are NO laws.  There is only the court of
public opinion.

However that court can be a problem.  It can ruin your life. 
It may have neighbors shun you and cost you jobs.  It can depend on
the community.  NY isn't Texas.  What's fine for a faux fashion shoot
may not fly in Texas.  What saddens me is that people have such rigid
moral views.  If that same 17 year old robbed or killed someone they
would want her punished as a adult.  She should have known better
but photos in lingerie or a swimsuit, shocking.

Jon in KC wrote:

Yes there are prudes everywhere...including the people that run the site. That is exactly why I cant ever post casting calls for my line of work....extremely well paying adult jobs....because that is taboo here.

However I do cringe when a girl that is underage expressed interest in modeling. I send them away.

Banning adult networking here has nothing to do with being prudes and everything to do with the VAST majority of members not wanting to do adult work and not wanting to be bothered by constant solicitations for it. Take that shit to OMP and 2Kmodels, thanks.