Linda Khalil wrote:
In Canada child pornography: 

"...shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity"

highlight mine
I think the most important part is the AND.  It's not just under the age.

cite sources?

Billy Monday wrote:

Oh Laura, I wanna ::quiver:: tie you up and watch you bud!

Billy! That would be naughty!

Laura UnBound wrote:

Billy! That would be naughty!

Daeda1us wrote:
There are medically acceptable ways to determine APPROXIMATE age, but most of those are rather difficult to implement in the field.

One of the most popular is the Tanner Scale, which determines sexual maturity (on a scale of 1-5) based on secondary sexual characteristics.  In women, breasts and pubic hair development.

A quick Google will give you the low down.  And sorry Laura, but anyone describing you as a "budding teen" is unfamiliar with the term or attempting to flatter you.  You are a gorgeous model.  No doubt about that, but as to Tanner staging, your breasts put you firmly as Stage 5 (the top stage, ie "adult") and pubic hair can be trixy in models, but the pic I chose with a nice "landing strip" puts you firmly at stage 4 at least.  You would have to go without removing the hair long enough to see its true growth pattern to determine if you fit stage 5.

A couple of caveats regarding Tanner staging.  Some women NEVER progress to stage 5.  That is perfectly normal.
AND for this discussion MOST IMPORTANTLY Dr. Tanner himself is on record as stating using the Tanner Scale to determine chronological age, rather than sexual maturity IS A MISUSE of the classification system.

In short, You cant look at someone's body build and determine how old they actually are.

I've had pubic hair since I was six months old due to a hormone imbalance..

I know several young girls, under thirteen, with breasts the same size as Laura's.. When I was in middle school there were two girls in my sixth grade English class that we called the mountain girls because they both had d cups..

Fuck the Tanner scale.. It lies..

Also, I will personally vouch that Laura looks exactly like the little girl in the Kraft mac and cheese commercials..

*braces self*

Laura UnBound wrote:

Linda Khalil wrote:
In Canada child pornography: 

"...shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity"

highlight mine

I think the most important part is the AND.  It's not just under the age.

cite sources?

This is straight from Criminal Code: complete article

163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act..

MKPhoto wrote:
This is from Criminal Code.

Surely its on the internet somewhere. Im just curious.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Surely its on the internet somewhere. Im just curious.

Yes, it's probably on the internet somewhere. It's also true. In the USA, because of the first amendment, the law prohibiting child pornography is rooted in the actual use of a child. Portrayals that look like a child, but don't use a child, are legal. Not so in many other countries, including Canada.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts … ge-69.html

Miss Julie Ann wrote:
Also: was there a link to the model's MM profile or are you assuming based on appearance?  Remember that sometimes an 18 girl can look younger and some of us keep 'developing' into our 20s.

Too true, I've had people think I was 13 O_o

Thornton Harris wrote:

Yes, it's probably on the internet somewhere. It's also true. In the USA, because of the first amendment, the law prohibiting child pornography is rooted in the actual use of a child. Portrayals that look like a child, but don't use a child, are legal. Not so in many other countries, including Canada.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts … ge-69.html

relevant excerpt six posts above.

Nedah Oyin wrote:
I've had pubic hair since I was six months old due to a hormone imbalance..

I know several young girls, under thirteen, with breasts the same size as Laura's.. When I was in middle school there were two girls in my sixth grade English class that we called the mountain girls because they both had d cups..

Fuck the Tanner scale.. It lies..

Also, I will personally vouch that Laura looks exactly like the little girl in the Kraft mac and cheese commercials..

*braces self*

No need to "brace yourself"...   I am not the nasty sort.
You are the exception to the rule.  There are exceptions to every rule.  Ask a professional photographer about the "rule of thirds" (yes, I did.) and he may tell you it is "a good starting point"... (and yes he did)
Breast size is not the only issue, it is also the dimensions, shape of nipple ect.
And apparently you missed the most important part at the end of my post, which was Dr. Tanner himself stating his Tanner Scale is not intended to determine chronological age (ie how many years old you are) but rather SEXUAL MATURITY.
Lina Medina, age 5, is listed as the world's youngest mother... so she was definitely sexually mature.  But she is also definitely the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

Hope you are having a wonderful evening and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my statement.

ShivaKitty wrote:

People do not always look their biological ages, and unless you have absolute proof that the girls are actually underage, then why should you care?

A couple of years ago, I received a series of hateful emails about how women like me (small figured) who model nude were supposedly promoting child porn, due to appearing underage. I never started modeling until my early 20s, and the fact that some mature women do still have features associated with "nubile" bodies means absolutely nothing. Not every adult woman has large breasts, and some people have baby-faces throughout their middle years. Does that mean that our bodies and sexuality should be repressed, maligned and treated as something disgusting? No. Absolutely not.

Assuming someone is underage because they do not suit your tastes about what you feel a "mature" woman should look like is not only offensive, but also ignorant.

Thanks. Have a nice day.

Go you !



And not to beat a dead horse, but yes, the fact that they "look" like teenagers to YOU doesn't mean they are, and the fact that YOU find the pictures objectionable doesn't mean that the whole world does. Pictures of nude children are not illegal. Pictures of nude children in sexually suggestive poses and engaged in sexual acts of any sorts are huge no-no. In most European contries you'll find quite naked kids in editorials, or soap commercials - along with nude women with lathered breasts on billboards. The same kind of stuff here in the US would have some people up in arms and starting lawsuits, clutching their pearls in horror...

Daeda1us wrote:

No need to "brace yourself"...   I am not the nasty sort.
You are the exception to the rule.  There are exceptions to every rule.  Ask a professional photographer about the "rule of thirds" (yes, I did.) and he may tell you it is "a good starting point"... (and yes he did)
Breast size is not the only issue, it is also the dimensions, shape of nipple ect.
And apparently you missed the most important part at the end of my post, which was Dr. Tanner himself stating his Tanner Scale is not intended to determine chronological age (ie how many years old you are) but rather SEXUAL MATURITY.
Lina Medina, age 5, is listed as the world's youngest mother... so she was definitely sexually mature.  But she is also definitely the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

Hope you are having a wonderful evening and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my statement.

I was bracing myself against Laura..

Daeda1us wrote:
..."Breast size is not the only issue, it is also the dimensions, shape of nipple ect.
And apparently you missed the most important part at the end of my post, which was Dr. Tanner himself stating his Tanner Scale is not intended to determine chronological age (ie how many years old you are) but rather SEXUAL MATURITY.
Lina Medina, age 5, is listed as the world's youngest mother... so she was definitely sexually mature.  But she is also definitely the EXCEPTION, not the rule."...

But that's even more completely worthless in a modern photographic setting - it would have to be clinical, and without any kind of body modification... Lots of mature girls/women shave their pubic hair off, some of them all of it. And some women just have zero breasts, no volume or "dimensions", and with nipples that look... Just like kid/boy/whatever nipples. So if there are no breasts to judge from, and no pubic hair, how do you make this work ? You just can't. Take Ellen Page, shave all of her hair off, give her a super short boy haircut, and photograph her naked on a bed with teddy bears, with a caption that implies she's a 12yo girl, and I can tell you you'll get a giant firestorm from people assuming she's really 12.

Thornton Harris wrote:

Yes, it's probably on the internet somewhere. It's also true. In the USA, because of the first amendment, the law prohibiting child pornography is rooted in the actual use of a child. Portrayals that look like a child, but don't use a child, are legal. Not so in many other countries, including Canada.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts … ge-69.html

Although you are generally correct regarding both the first amendment and the reasoning behind the laws, I think you've offered an overly broad (and somewhat inaccurate) interpretation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washi … cotus.html

Note the language that specifically states that the first amendment does not offer a shield from prosecution for child pornography in many cases. Also note how "portrayals that look like a child, but don't use a child" are viewed legally.

I do agree with your reasoning for the basis of many of the laws you're discussing as being to prevent harm to a minor.

JSL wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks it strange that the OP started this, never offered any 'proof' of what he was claiming (never even said conclusively that he was referring to a MM member) and has seemed to have left the building...?

I think it's already been established that he's trolling..

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Although you are generally correct regarding both the first amendment and the reasoning behind the laws, I think you've offered an overly broad (and somewhat inaccurate) interpretation.
...

The article you cited says exactly what I said. What do you think is different?

JSL wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks it strange that the OP started this, never offered any 'proof' of what he was claiming (never even said conclusively that he was referring to a MM member) and has seemed to have left the building...?

Linking to the photographers portfolio would be outing. Linking to the models involved would borderline unsolicited critiquing. Both would break the rules and get the thread locked and possibly the OP brigged.

No I dont find it strange theres no proof being linked to. I do find it strange my previous questions that get right to the point of whether or not the OP knows for a fact the girls are underaged is being ignored though.

Laura UnBound wrote:
...

No I dont find it strange theres no proof being linked to. I do find it strange my previous questions that get right to the point of whether or not the OP knows for a fact the girls are underaged is being ignored though.

Am I the only one who gets a wicked uncomfortable vibe from the OP being so adamant they're underrage, spending so much time scrutinizing their body parts and insisting about the whole thing so much ? The whole "budding" thing (and him saying he knows it when he sees it) only adds to the creepalicious factor, to me. Apologies, OP, just the way it all comes across from where I sit. I'm afraid to ask what he means by "budding", especially between quotations marks.

M-O Dubois wrote:

Am I the only one who gets a wicked uncomfortable vibe from the OP being so adamant they're underrage, spending so much time scrutinizing their body parts and insisting about the whole thing so much ? The whole "budding" (and him saying he knows it when he sees it) only adds to the creepalicious factor, to me. Apologies, OP, just the way it all comes across from where I sit. I'm afraid to ask what he means by "budding", especially between quotations marks.

It's not just you being weirded out.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Linking to the photographers portfolio would be outing. Linking to the models involved would borderline unsolicited critiquing. Both would break the rules and get the thread locked and possibly the OP brigged.

No I dont find it strange theres no proof being linked to. I do find it strange my previous questions that get right to the point of whether or not the OP knows for a fact the girls are underaged is being ignored though.

+1

Bizou Photography wrote:
Then he had another pic of a teen where the girl is naked top to bottom. I wonder how the rest of the photoshoot looked?

dont peddle that fear mongering shit.

jesse paulk wrote:

dont peddle that fear mongering shit.

Oof, I had managed to miss that reply. Way to make up elaborate scenarios and fill in the blanks with one's pervy mind, right there... Who's the perv, again ? The eye of the beholder - it strikes again...

M-O Dubois wrote:

But that's even more completely worthless in a modern photographic setting - it would have to be clinical, and without any kind of body modification... Lots of mature girls/women shave their pubic hair off, some of them all of it. And some women just have zero breasts, no volume or "dimensions", and with nipples that look... Just like kid/boy/whatever nipples. So if there are no breasts to judge from, and no pubic hair, how do you make this work ? You just can't. Take Ellen Page, shave all of her hair off, give her a super short boy haircut, and photograph her naked on a bed with teddy bears, with a caption that implies she's a 12yo girl, and I can tell you you'll get a giant firestorm from people assuming she's really 12.

Apparently I made my point rather poorly.
As Dr. Tanner said, Tanner stages DOES NOT equate to chronological age.
When applied statistically to large groups, it has more significance.
When applied (by laymen) to an individual, it has almost no value at all.

Sorry for the apparent confusion.

jesse paulk wrote:

dont peddle that fear mongering shit.

+58


I work with models under 18 for art projects.  Some REQUIRE models of whatever age.  And with that comes people who assume that since I shoot nudes, and some of those are sexual, and I shoot models under 18, I must shoot models under 18 being sexual.

Most of those who assume that are just pervs looking to get their rocks off.


[Jock Sturges wasn't actually ever charged for his work with kid models, most of whom were very naked, with everything exposed.  They simply investigated, took his stuff, and eventually declined to charge, probably because they knew that there is a pretty distinct line between "child porn" and photos of children nude]

Vector One Photography wrote:
How young ? David Hamilton did many books on what looked like under aged girls. Pastelly, grainy, soft focus.  Shot in Europe, usually France.  Thought they were great. But that was the seventies before everyone got paranoid.

Many of them were under-age...why do you think he relocated to the South of France in the first place? Back then the age of consent was five years lower than in the UK.
Even though many of those images were shot with parental consent, it didn't sit eaily with British public opinion at the time and as trends changed he was forced to reassess his priorities.

I love the man's photography, but at best he was naive to suppose there wouldn't be a backlash at some point.

Incidentally, he married one of those models from the early Scandinavian series.

M-O Dubois wrote:

Am I the only one who gets a wicked uncomfortable vibe from the OP being so adamant they're underrage, spending so much time scrutinizing their body parts and insisting about the whole thing so much ? The whole "budding" thing (and him saying he knows it when he sees it) only adds to the creepalicious factor, to me. Apologies, OP, just the way it all comes across from where I sit. I'm afraid to ask what he means by "budding", especially between quotations marks.

No, your not the only one!

Daeda1us wrote:
As I am given to understand, there are valid exceptions to the 18+ rule for nudity.

However, as a personal choice I will not shoot nudes or even implied nudes or lingerie under 18.

Easier to avoid "Imperial entanglements" by never crossing that line, even for legitimate art.

My $0.02.  YMMV.

'may the force be with you"
CAM that profile...

ShivaKitty wrote:

People do not always look their biological ages, and unless you have absolute proof that the girls are actually underage, then why should you care?

A couple of years ago, I received a series of hateful emails about how women like me (small figured) who model nude were supposedly promoting child porn, due to appearing underage. I never started modeling until my early 20s, and the fact that some mature women do still have features associated with "nubile" bodies means absolutely nothing. Not every adult woman has large breasts, and some people have baby-faces throughout their middle years. Does that mean that our bodies and sexuality should be repressed, maligned and treated as something disgusting? No. Absolutely not.

Assuming someone is underage because they do not suit your tastes about what you feel a "mature" woman should look like is not only offensive, but also ignorant.

Thanks. Have a nice day.

Not long ago, I did some nudes of a very young-looking model. She was actually a 28 mother of three and grandmother of 3 (or 4).  I found it hard to believe, but she had valid ID.  So you can't always judge a book by its cover.

NC Art Photos wrote:

Not long ago, I did some nudes of a very young-looking model. She was actually a 28 mother of three and grandmother of 3 (or 4).  I found it hard to believe, but she had valid ID.  So you can't always judge a book by its cover.

A grandmother at 28..?

Nedah Oyin wrote:
A grandmother at 28..?

Psssst.......NC.

Nedah Oyin wrote:

A grandmother at 28..?

My grandmother was a grandmother at 35... pretty young! But she was married before she got knocked up. 28 though, assuming the parent and the grandparent were both 14... I could see it happening, in the south. (Hey, no haters, stereotypes exist for a reason)

Bizou Photography wrote:
Hi!

I was clicking around and I found a photographers profile who only does TFP work and I noticed he has mostly teenagers in his profiles. Younger teens from the look of it.. and a LOT of them. It's pretty much his whole profile. He also has some nude shots where the girls look to be as young as 13-14. Seriously one of the girls looked like she was 'budding'.

I'm curious as to what is appropriate in the 'model world' as to what is appropriate as far as nudity and age goes because I have to say I'm not a prude or anything.. but there's eventually always a line that determines x from y.

I need someone to tell me what is acceptable and what is not as far as younger models go and nudity. Please define some rules of what is appropriate.

Listen, I could be wrong about you, but you come across sounding like a troll.  What you've written in your profile makes you seem extremely defensive and skittish about even being on here!  There are plenty of "white knights" riding around through the forum trying to protect imagined damsels in danger of falling prey to "creepy, pervy" GWC's ... and there is NO REASON for it. 

I know for a fact that there are models who are 18, but look much younger.  I know for a fact that simply shooting nudes of a person of any age does not mean the images are illegal or obscene.  I do agree with you that shooting nudes does some what limit where you can post them, but then it's the nudes that get the most "looks" on this site.  If you are "clicking around" looking for child porn, I doubt you'll find it here.  If you do, then CAM it for the gatekeepers to decide if it is indeed kiddie porn.  Good luck!