I take it, you’ve seen the photos ? Can you link to them ?
In any case, I’ll assume an invisible IMHO before that quote.
Yeah, really, why didn’t he just photograph girls one year older? Not that I condone his behaviour (let me photograph you naked, and I’ll get you modelling jobs! Yeah, sure, jerk.)
And I remember being 17 years old. I made a lot of decisions I wouldn’t make even a few years down the road.
There are hundreds and hundreds of websits out there with sexual pictures of girls that are purported to be under 18, but they have clothes on (often sheer clothing, or wet clothing, with nipples and other parts barely covered by stickers or well placed arms). These are not illegal, apparently.
I would not judge until I had seen the pictures. American society is ill when it comes to things of this nature. I can walk into my local Tower, and pick up a car magazine that I KNOW often has pictures of girls that are 17 lifting their shirts. But it’s a European magazine, so it’s ok I guess.
Art is different to everyone. I’ve had some ideas of pictures of my daughter that would involve her being nude, or in fairy wings or some such (but I’m not a photographer, so I don’t bother). Her lines are great, but I wouldn’t do it even if I had the skills, because it’s the last thing I would need.
I have a friend who does body painting… he’s lech, and I have found him to try to lay any chick he can get his hands on.
But when he’s painting, it’s different… it’s art, and his whole demeanor changes. It’s all about trying to capture the vision in his head… I didn’t believe it till I saw it for myself.
These laws, IMHO, have to much leeway.
in the UK a girl can pose topless on page 3 from the age of 16.
they often do.
i do think it’s a bit odd to have the age of consent lower than the one regarding nude photography.
either raise one or lower the other, everything else seems hypocritical.
if a guy can’t be charged with statutory rape because one law says the girl can give consent, but he can be charged with child pornography because another says she can’t it’s a problem.
Here’s the part of the law that bothers me – “matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child less than eighteen (18) years of age” – especially the “depicts or describes” part. That could include printed text, right? So anyone possessing a copy of Lolita, for example, could be charged with a felony?
In the USA it has been pretty much resolved that text is safe in this context.
I get kind of irked that people hyperventilate and shout “child pronography” when it’s someone in their upper teens. Minors, yes. Shouldn’t be messing with them? Abosolutely. But don’t tar people with the pedo tag for relations with someone who is, physically speaking, not a child, but more or less in the form of an adult. I think sex with a minor and pedophilia are very different. Both wrong (and rightfully against the law), but very different.
According to (20/20, 48 Hours, Primetime, Dateline, don’t remember which), there are Congresspeople who are trying to make these websites illegal (i.e. erotic poses by clothed minors). I think they face an uphill battle though.
I think MisterThyristor’s talking about the Lolita movies.
Jane, do you also remember when you were 18 and you made decisions you wouldn’t have made when you were 20?
The age 17 seems pretty arbitrary to me. But that’s just IMHO, of course. I don’t think these sites are illegal unless it is the intention to sexually arouse anyone. A lot of the legalese isn’t defined. What about nude baby pictures? Are they illegal as well? That coppertone ad with the dog pulling down the pants of the toddler… is that child porn?
Ummmm, no, it doesn’t. In all the posts inthis thread, I’ve seen a lot of logic. There is a logic behind the laws, and a complete lack of logic by the photographer.
Wrong again. Re-read Robb’s fine post about the actual law. Or you can look it up here.
It is a touch odd.
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.
Hey, we agree.
Gyan9: No, I have not seen the photos. The guy was collecting nude photos of girls by telling them he would get them modelling jobs. Art can contain nudity, but nudity in-and-of-itself is not art. If he were making art, I think he would have identified it as such to the girls in question. Anyway, yeah, assume an invisible IMHO, seeing as we’re IN IMHO:)
i think its sad, cuz some girls will get fat by the time they’re 18 and we dont get to see their photos 
sorry, i just don’t care about the moral aspect of it
While I disagree with the laws in question, I’ve got to say it isn’t exactly a hard one to follow.
[ul]You gotta draw the[/ul]
________________________________________________
[ul] SOMEWHERE![/ul]
Like I said, this is a simple intelligence test. This works for the the “child” as well.
Hey, girlie, why dont you take off your clothes so I can sponsor you to model …clothes. :smack:
They may look adult, they may even be physically adult, but they are NOT adult. Wait the year. If you dont like labeling them Pedophiles why dont we label them something more accurate…
Dumbass
I’m going to disagree here. If it was so illegal, i wouldn’t be able to walk into the local Boarders and buy Jacques Sturges books. (or however his name is spelled. that dude who has books with nudist kids in it). Also, i have National Geographics with pictures of kids who are naked. The difference is the bodies are not being exploited sexually (although i have my doubts about Sturges motivations, if that lady who claims they had sex while she was 15 is telling the truth.) I’d try to get cites for this, but i am at work, and would probably get fired faster than Google could load the results page (deservedly so)
Well, if you’re speaking that they are not an adult according to the state law, then that is rather arbitrary, isn’t it? If you took them to different countries, they would be a legal adult.
The law is arbitrary and the only thing that truely defines an “adult” is being able to have children.
Jane, do you also remember when you were 18 and you made decisions you wouldn’t have made when you were 20?
**
[/QUOTE]
Definitely.
I suppose there are two things that bother me: he likely knew the girls were considered under-age where he lives; and the fact he promised them modelling jobs.
Since we’re in IMHO…
Skott- Again, the problem comes up in defining what is “Sexually alluring”? I’ve seen a lot of the photo’s that I’ve refered to above, and in most of them it’s just a big busted girl in a swimsuit or a wet shirt with well placed pockets grinning with her arms in the air. I didn’t consider them erotic, and after seeing that the majority of the pics were just variations on that theme, I got bored. Hell, if I didn’t think it would cause a problem with some of the mods, I would post a URL or two.
They are exceedingly tame, IMHO.
I have a lady friend who has been working up a modeling career (or is at least trying to). She has been told by more than one photographer that her unwillingness to do “glamour” shots is going to be a handicap. So maybe there is some basis for what he’s said… who knows.