Photographer
tigerfist photography
Posts: 2100
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have recently. But as seems to be typical of the S Florida contingency, you haven't explained the difference. It baffles me that you and many in this thread can't see that ANYTHING can be deemed sexual depending on a persons personality. I've seen swimwear that was more sensual/sexy than lingerie. Yet that seems to be perfectly ok. before i begin: i am assuming that by person's personality you meant the one wearing the item and not the male sexualizing said person? my reply below goes either way but my reply is based on this statement above and your statement below about children doing it to themselves.
this might be TL:DR for you but i broke it up for you.
- the reason why swimsuits are deemed ok to be "sexy" vs lingerie is GET THIS, swimsuits are seen as utilitarian while lingerie is not! while swimsuits can serve a dual purpose (you can swim...and be sexy!) while lingerie has only one purpose - to be sexy for men. most queer women (and a lot of men) do not even find some of the ridiculous lingerie as 'hot' but different strokes for different folks.
- ok, doods get a boner looking at swimsuits because they are "more sensual/sexy than lingerie". but realize that men get boners looking at LL bean catalogs. and get boners looking at women wearing t shirts and jeans. (straight) men are attracted to women no matter what they wear, and if they wear less of it, be a bikini, police tape, or body paint (see some of the ports here!), you (as a man) will see this as sexual because men (get this!) sexualize women no matter what they wear!
throughout history, the female form has been transformed a sexual "thing" because of stupid shit like imperialism, christian influence, and years of art depicting women as 'sexual things' (concept of the male gaze familiar to you? prior to victorian era, women could breastfeed in public without a dood salivating next to her. why do you think this has changed now (see: every news article and poster here flipping out about a mother feeding her kid)
years and years of this has transformed our perceptions on what female sexuality should and shouldn't be and it is kinda shitty that society tries to shift blame upon women by getting us to cover up/not be a "whore' when it's way more complicated than that.
- i really don't get what insulting my area of residence accomplishes as i've lived in orlando for years as well as south florida and out of the country. i live in one of the largest cities in the south east, i'm 5 minutes from the beach, i'm surrounded by some of the most beautiful people ever and i guess to you, this clearly this affects my ability to think. really?
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
I agree with the she said no part, but sexualizing minors is immoral, REALLY?? Perhaps to you. But not to all. Particularly to the minors themselves. I think they sexualize themselves more than any photographer.. i don't believe minors exist in a vacuum where they are not susceptible to what norms and conditions (male dominated) society places upon them. i don't get how a (female) child "sexualize themselves" when it's common knowledge that the collective "we" thrust gender roles upon young women and dictate how they should and shouldn't act through media and parenting.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
Warren Paul Harris wrote:
Don't you think it was just plain WRONG to ask an underage girl to bring lingerie to a shoot?
Seriously? Whatever you're smoking is not yielding the best results.
Rule of thumb:
Would it be OK if she wore lingerie (and nothing else) to the mall?
No? So what does that tell you.
This is not the same category as a swimsuit or anything else.
Lingerie is meant to be seductive. Period.
Google the word and see what you get. SEX. Period. That's the societal translation for lingerie.
If the very idea of lingerie and a 17 year old girl doesn't set off alarm bells for you, then there is something wrong with you (unless you're a 17 year old boy).
The fact that you had to ask is frankly unsettling. Your social compass should have told you this before you had time to type the post. TESTIFY BROTHER! I'M WITH YOU!!!
Photographer
Yan Tan Tethera
Posts: 4185
Biggleswade, England, United Kingdom
Martin Philippo wrote:
I've read this whole thread in amazement. The one question that comes to mind is:
what makes a photographer that considers to shoot a 17 year old girl in lingerie a pervert?
Aren't we all supposed to see our photography as a form of business or a form of art? Aren't we supposed just to look at the picture?
Many of you boast to be " a professional". I see "professionals" here in this thread being the first ones to call "pervert". I don't get it.
It probably takes one to know one. Martin, don't even try to reason with repressed Americans ( mainly ). There's some serious fear in this thread. Maybe we're just lucky in Europe that people are more well-adjusted.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
TESTIFY BROTHER! I'M WITH YOU!!! Why do you keep ignoring the information I'm giving you to prove your wrong? Cant you just accept the fact what you thought the law was is wrong?
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
CGI Images wrote:
This my friend is again, where your information is wrong, an image is not illegal simply because a minors nipples or crotch can be seen.
Did you even look at the legal images in the links I posted? I sure did. Those images in some places in the United States will get you arrested.
Photographer
Yan Tan Tethera
Posts: 4185
Biggleswade, England, United Kingdom
Swanson Studios wrote:
TESTIFY BROTHER! I'M WITH YOU!!! Sad country.
Photographer
tigerfist photography
Posts: 2100
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
also, i am lolling at the fact that so many doods are fighting so hard to photograph kids in lingerie because GUYS IT'S LEGAL AND WHATEVER, THEY HAD THEIR PERIODS AND SAY SEXY THINGS! THEY ARE SO ADULTS AND I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT BECAUSE THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE!
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
i live in the USA and i am familiar with the laws governing my business....
lascivious displays of genitalia (ie spread legs on a female)...thats illegal..
simple frontal nudity, nipples...not illegal
and i said i was out..sorry for getting dragged back in.... so you would seriously allow a 16 or 17 year old to pose nude in your studio and you would proudly display the images and and the models age on a website? What are you smoking?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
I sure did. Those images in some places in the United States will get you arrested. Selling a dildo in Alabama in some jurisdictions can get you arrested. Porn in some places might "get you arrested", but we arent discussing obscure, odd exception to the rule local ordinances, we are talking about the generally widely accepted laws. And those images are perfectly legal.
Photographer
Paul Brecht
Posts: 12232
Colton, California, US
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
so you would seriously allow a 16 or 17 year old to pose nude in your studio and you would proudly display the images and and the models age on a website? What are you smoking? Absolutely, there are two fairly large family nudist camps within an hour of where I live, if they hired me to come shoot the facilities for their brochures etc with nude activities going on involving people of all ages, I'd do it in a moment. If a nudist family hired me to come out there and take portraits of them on the front porch of their cabin nude, no problem.
If an agency hired me to shoot a 16, 17yr old (which happens daily) in little or virtually no clothing, lingerie, underwear, jacket and no bra etc. Yep, take that job in a moment. Just like the other thousands of photographers that take those images daily.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
tigerfist photography wrote:
also, i am lolling at the fact that so many doods are fighting so hard to photograph kids in lingerie because GUYS IT'S LEGAL AND WHATEVER, THEY HAD THEIR PERIODS AND SAY SEXY THINGS! THEY ARE SO ADULTS AND I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT BECAUSE THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE! I agree. I am no prude, hell i have nude images on my portfolio, but i would no more shoot a teen in lingerie (especially anything that showed nipples or crotch through the fabric) than i would stick my penis in a moving fan. its just, well, gross.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
I agree. I am no prude, hell i have nude images on my portfolio, but i would no more shoot a teen in lingerie (especially anything that showed nipples or crotch through the fabric) than i would stick my penis in a moving fan. its just, well, gross. I'll defend peoples rights to do things I dont agree with all day long. Especially when so much mis-information and flat out wrong information is being used to fearmonger.
Personally I dont like feet, I'd rather stick my penis in a moving fan than shoot toes.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
CGI Images wrote:
Absolutely, there are two fairly large family nudist camps within an hour of where I live, if they hired me to come shoot the facilities for their brochures etc with nude activities going on involving people of all ages, I'd do it in a moment. If a nudist family hired me to come out there and take portraits of them on the front porch of their cabin nude, no problem.
If an agency hired me to shoot a 16, 17yr old (which happens daily) in little or virtually no clothing, lingerie, underwear, jacket and no bra etc. Yep, take that job in a moment. Just like the other thousands of photographers that take those images daily. You tread very close to the line my friend. If you get in the wrong part of the country and a law enforcement official sees naked children in ANY photograph you are going to jail. I have read in the newspaper just in my area about men getting arrested for possessing photographs of "child nudists" just like you posted here.
Oh and by the way I belong to the AANR and spend much of my summer at an AANR campground with my wife and children and I would NEVER let my kids be photographed nude. NEVER!
Photographer
Paul Brecht
Posts: 12232
Colton, California, US
CGI Images wrote:
I'll defend peoples rights to do things I dont agree with all day long. Especially when so much mis-information and flat out wrong information is being used to fearmonger.
Personally I dont like feet, I'd rather stick my penis in a moving fan than shoot toes. That's the point. This comes up every so often (actually IIRC, there's 3 threads currently). The point is not whether to argue the point of shooting young girls nude, but whether the fearmongers are lying or misinformed about the truth in what is law. When stating law, there is no room for forum opinions or moral conviction. The law is the law, whether someone agrees with it or not...
Paul
Retoucher
Baby Jaye Re-Creationz
Posts: 8
Coral Springs, Florida, US
First let me start with saying I'm a female 25 who when I was 17/18 had photographers want to shoot me and when I got there insist that I take a test shoot in my bra n panties. Of course I walked out. Not the point.
Now to get yo the point I understand what your asking. How can society say its okay to shoot a minor in a swimsuit bur not in lingerie. First off, photography is art and I feel good photography is the ability to capture photos in an artistic light. Everyone can shoot the same subject same pose same lighting and all photos look different based on your artistic mind. Unfortunately we live in a society where people automatically say oh she a minor n ur a perv. I see would love to know that answer too. How can we photograph minors in swimsuit n not lingerie. Its equally as wrong. Both should be off limits then. Idk.
Photographer
Warren Paul Harris
Posts: 950
Dallas, Texas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
You tread very close to the line my friend. If you get in the wrong part of the country and a law enforcement official sees naked children in ANY photograph you are going to jail. I have read in the newspaper just in my area about men getting arrested for possessing photographs of "child nudists" just like you posted here.
Oh and by the way I belong to the AANR and spend much of my summer at an AANR campground with my wife and children and I would NEVER let my kids be photographed nude. NEVER! And what about the girl's parents? Church group? (ewwwww) Classmates? Future employers? Etcetera ad infinitum.
You have to consider the ramifications if you photograph someone too young to sign an agreement, allowing you to take photos of them in lingerie. It's just opening up a huge can of toxic worms. In the U.S. of A. there are a LOT of prudes who are lawsuit happy. Doesn't that seem like reason enough to steer clear of nearly-nekkid-teens ?
Now if her parents come trotting in with her, sign a big fat contract and waiver which says "you bet, take lost of suggestive, scantily-clad photos of my little girl" - then knock yourself out.
Oh. And make sure you have witnesses...
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Our founding fathers had no idea what our world would be like in 2010. If you showed any of them Model Mayhem the site would be closed immediately. These were very modest people! Oh and there is taking risks to make a statement and there is taking risks for being stupid. Risk for a statement: an adult model posing nude in a public place to protest the wearing of fur. Stupid risk: shooting a minor in very skimpy or sheer garments just because you can. oh and... Stupid risk two: Seeing how close to a moving fan a person can put their penis before itgets whacked. There was a time the interval of the perfect 4th was deemed evil.. Thank god we got over that crap.. Now we need to get over this...
Photographer
Odins Eye
Posts: 1925
West Wendover, Nevada, US
I didn't read every page here, just picked a few. But what I keep seeing repeated is "Why in Swimsuit okay but Lingerie isn't?"
First, compare the levels here: The hobbyist or amateur photographer, even if their work is amazing, does not have the same reknown as a corporation that hires a photographer for images of EITHER article. With all of the perverts, idiots, and general malefactors in the world (not just photography/modeling), one really has to question what the purpose of an image is and if they are okay with it.
Yes, the image may be amazing. And it may be shot just for the person to jerk off to.
Second, perception of the garment.
Swimsuits are designed and meant for public display. Yes, there are some that leave almost nothing to the imagination. There are some that are little more than a bit of dental floss dipped in some dye. But the point is, it is meant for public viewing (nevermind the fact that even though it is designated as a swimsuit, many would not consider the dental floss piece to be such).
Lingerie (not the general definition of the word as "undergarments", but the associated image of lacy/racy undergarments) is mean for private display. It is designed to be sexually provocative and arousing, even if it doesn't always accomplish this.
Now to the OP, you wish to know why it is okay to shoot a minor in a swimsuit and not lingerie?
The simple answer here is perception. Since one of the garments is designed to be sexually provocative, certain people will find this in bad taste. However, they will be okay with the other type, because it is not meant in and of itself to present a sex symbol.
Again, that doesn't change the reality that there are swimsuits that are sexier than some lingerie, or that lingerie applies to any type of undergarment. But neither does it change the point that a swimsuit is outerwear/public, and lingerie is underwear/private.
Is shooting a minor in lingerie in bad taste? Potentially.
Is shooting a minor in swimsuit in bad taste? Potentially.
Use your sense, shoot what you can within the scope of the law and the comfort and limits of those you work with. And if you have to wonder why people are okay with something and not other....
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", well so is ugly, and distasteful, and cliche. Everything is perception, not intent.
Photographer
David Arran Photography
Posts: 103
Miami, Florida, US
Then the Puritans broke away from the Calvinists, our ancestors, people so uptight the English kicked them out.
How anal do you have to be for the English to go: "Get the f**k out! Take your pimp shoes and go!"?
- Robin Williams Live on Broadway
Photographer
tigerfist photography
Posts: 2100
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
@odins eye, you make many excellent points but this has been explained here on this thread so many times. the dim ones who could benefit from reading (and comprehending) your argument aren't here to learn. they're here to argue and complain hahah..
Photographer
Odins Eye
Posts: 1925
West Wendover, Nevada, US
tigerfist photography wrote:
@odins eye, you make many excellent points but this has been explained here on this thread so many times. the dim ones who could benefit from reading (and comprehending) your argument aren't here to learn. they're here to argue and complain hahah.. Sometimes idiots must be idiots.
So, we'll put it the simplest way possible.
It's fine. You aren't famous enough to get away with it if someone wants to raise some noise.
Makeup Artist
KerraVisageMUA
Posts: 45
San Diego, California, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. Why'd you back off because she was bringing her mom? I'm a photographer & an MUA, and when I work with any minor...I NEED either a parent or their legal guardian to sign the Model Release agreement...no IF's, AND's or BUTS.
Besides, if you wanted to do a lingerie shoot....why not find a model that's 18+ yrs old to avoid the whole situation.
If the model isn't comfortable with your photo shoot idea...don't force it on them.
Photographer
Benjamen McGuire
Posts: 3991
Portland, Oregon, US
CGI Images wrote:
Although I'd argue there probably isnt much difference in maturity. (but then again I think many 18yr olds probably arent mature enough to make that decision either.) That should be decided person to person, situation to situation. Decided by who?
CGI Images wrote:
I hate to keep giving trash traffic but you guys should really check out that Trueteenbabes website before you start talking about pushing "legal" limits. Ah yes. In that case it was decided bu a jury of his peers.
Photographer
Benjamen McGuire
Posts: 3991
Portland, Oregon, US
AJP Photography wrote:
Yes but professionals tend to get leeway that a guy shooting out of his house will not. And I will gaurantee you WILL NOT find a nude art book with minirs in it at your local Borders. They CAN sell it, but with the public outcry were they to do so...again, why would they...notice a trend? They do here. Unfortunately, Borders has a few books on the shelf with snapshots of naked children.
Photographer
Memory of a Dream Photo
Posts: 1786
San Francisco, California, US
I don't think there's anything whatsoever wrong with shooting pictures of nude and/or partially dressed minors and would do it without hesitation for the right project.
It's not what I do, but I'm a big fan of Sally Mann, for instance, and her work is perfectly legal and is sold in reputable book stores without incident.
I do think it's wrong (and illegal) to shoot or possess child pornography.
If you can't see the difference between nudity and pornography I'm not sure there's anything for us to talk about.
Photographer
Sentimental-SINtimental
Posts: 1314
Longview, Washington, US
Can I hold your cameras and lenses while you argue your point in court? Send them to me now before they kick in your doors and take everything for evidence. Try convencing that the semi nude minor on the bed in lingerie is not porn to the jury trying to hang you out to dry as a sex offender.
That swimsuit could save you a$$... suit the swimwear till she's legal and then shoot her in whatever she wants from there on.
Even if they decided it wasn't pornographic... by the time they got finish searching everything and you waiting for you computer and camera equipment to be released... she'll be 18+
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Oy vey...
Lingerie=Sexuality
Swimsuit= Non-sexual
Its really quite easy..... Leroy Dickson wrote:
I'd agree with that.
Swimsuits are meant to be worn in public. Lingerie is designed for the bedroom. True.
But, it's also true that you can shoot perfectly legal images with a 14 year old in lingerie, and and completely illegal images of a 17 year old in a swimsuit. Not that I'm interested in doing either. 
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
I agree. I am no prude, hell i have nude images on my portfolio, but i would no more shoot a teen in lingerie (especially anything that showed nipples or crotch through the fabric) than i would stick my penis in a moving fan. its just, well, gross. I'm curious. Is it just the age that troubles you. Lets say the model was
a immature 18 year old. I say, immature because many 15 and up models are
more mature then adults. If a model looks very young. Is that a problem for
you. I know models 20 or older who look like kids.
Recently, I worked with a 19 year old model. Old enough to do nudes or
whatever she wanted. I didn't shoot nudes of her even though she was
willing. I didn't because her conversation was one of a child. Her age wasn't
a problem but her level of maturity was. This isn't to suggest that photographers
should or shouldn't shoot models in lingerie or not but is to say that
we should respect people limits and also understand that not all models are
the same. Age doesn't always equal maturity and wisdom. Nor does what
a models figure looks like.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
-jmp- wrote:
Yeah I'm feeling I shouldn't have asked the model this, but again, with the shots she has in a swim suit I can't help but wonder what the big deal is. Apparently everyone else replying to this is borderline offended by me even asking, but I'm still trying to understand why it's wrong. And if it is so wrong, why swimsuits aren't wrong.
Isn't shooting a model in a two-piece swimsuit up against a wall the same intent of showing her body as shooting her in bra and panties up against a wall? Or is the viewer somehow comforted in the thought that maybe the swimwear image was shot in a studio in Miami and maybe they were about to go to the beach after the photo shoot? jmp...the mere fact that you are stating here that you wanted to shoot a minor in lingerie and you got confused by it all...then even suggest for the model to wear a bathing suit while sucking on her thumb...amongst other things in your responses that raise red flags to me here.
Bottom line when it is a MINOR you my sir need to cool your jets p.d.q (that is pretty damn quick).
You want to shoot a model in lingerie? Go find a legal age model and shoot your ass off.
You go messing around with minors especially with the ideas of poses and outfits you seem to desire right now and your happy ass could be answering some heavy questions with the authorities.
Besides let me ask you something here (and I know some of my fellow photogs will probably want to lynch me but get over it)...what the hell is up with you even wanting to shoot a minor in lingerie or even have her in a bathing suit, while on a bed, sucking her thumb?!
Do you even remotely have a fucking clue as to how this reads to some people?
I suggest you look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself wtf is going in that mind of yours.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
But, it's also true that you can shoot perfectly legal images with a 14 year old in lingerie, and and completely illegal images of a 17 year old in a swimsuit. Not that I'm interested in doing either. I have absolutely no problem shooting a minor in a swimsuit. I do it all the time, but not a bed, sucking her thumb.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Tony Lawrence wrote:
I didn't shoot nudes of her even though she was
willing. I didn't because her conversation was one of a child. Her age wasn't
a problem but her level of maturity was. Interesting, that isn't something I ever worry about. Nobody has ever been arrested for shooting a 19 year old because she is immature for her age. I see your point, but I don't concern myself with doing a psychological analysis of the model.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
I have absolutely no problem shooting a minor in a swimsuit. I do it all the time, but not a bed, sucking her thumb. Exactly. I've worked with minors before (in bathing suits as well) and have never had them posing on a bed while sucking their thumb.
THAT right there is sexual enticement for any perv.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm curious. Is it just the age that troubles you. Lets say the model was
a immature 18 year old. I say, immature because many 15 and up models are
more mature then adults. If a model looks very young. Is that a problem for
you. I know models 20 or older who look like kids.
Recently, I worked with a 19 year old model. Old enough to do nudes or
whatever she wanted. I didn't shoot nudes of her even though she was
willing. I didn't because her conversation was one of a child. Her age wasn't
a problem but her level of maturity was. This isn't to suggest that photographers
should or shouldn't shoot models in lingerie or not but is to say that
we should respect people limits and also understand that not all models are
the same. Age doesn't always equal maturity and wisdom. Nor does what
a models figure looks like. Tony I don't care if the model is 14 years old and can quote the book of War and Peace from cover to cover, while intellectually debating Roe Vs. Wade.
A minor is a minor.
Point blank period.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Swank Photography wrote:
Exactly. I've worked with minors before (in bathing suits as well) and have never had them posing on a bed while sucking their thumb.
THAT right there is sexual enticement for any perv. Seriously? I don't see the connection. Personally, I think the people running around crying "perv" are the ones with the issue.
I don't shoot minors in glamour style but that's simply a practical decision. Morally I think itâs a non-issue.
Photographer
Kollisions Studio
Posts: 1897
Los Angeles, California, US
jeez...this is still going on? we're not going to get anywhere people- lets agree to disagree. 
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Seriously? I don't see the connection. Personally, I think the people running around crying "perv" are the ones with the issue.
I don't shoot minors in glamour style but that's simply a practical decision. Morally I think itâs a non-issue. Lum I respect you alot but seriously here? Dude I won't even begin to break this down to you right now.
Photographer
RJ Ohrstedt
Posts: 546
Columbus, Ohio, US
-jmp- wrote:
lol. Her mom's coming either way.
But after posting this, I wouldn't want to shoot it even if her mom said it was fine and everyone signed a contract and I had several witnesses present. It's just unacceptable to too many people. The why, I still have no idea. But I won't get that answered here. I just get that it's bad and not to do it. But alllllright. I think the reaction (dare I say over-reaction) here is just a taste of what society has in store on these issues. I've worked with a number of under-age models, always with parents there. Handled professionally, and producing tasteful photos is the ticket out of this quagmire. In case anyone hasn't noticed, underage models pose for catalogs all the time. Yes, it's the intent of usage of a photo that is the bottom line, and unfortunately a lot of people here didn't bother to read the whole post before they reacted to "17" and "lingerie" in the same sentence.
I often find the parents are more persmissive than where I start; but then I go with the flow. I have hard limits, but haven't gotten anywhere near them.
The op's problem is that he asked an honest question here; but having got trounced, perhaps he now knows just how explosive this whole subject is, and how it needs to be approached with great caution. I'm not sure when this hysteria will end, but at some point some DA somewhere is going to arrest a parent for letting their 12 year old wear makeup, and people will see the silliness of the paranoia.
I wouldn't ask a youngster to bring lingerie to a shoot, but one did, and I shot her in age-appropriate poses with her mother standing there. It's all in how it's handled.
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
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. Somehow, to me, if I asked you to model "lingerie" it seems to me more like a we're doing something like a catalog / magazine shoot. If I asked you to "bring a bra and panties" it seems more like I want to see what you would wear everyday. Of course, in spite of your remarkable intelligence and wisdom, since you're 17, you're a helpless child to much of society. So I wouldn't do either . . . .
|
