BCG wrote:

you hit the nail on the head Dawn...when did the pre and early teens become "norm" or the set "standard" for women???

Please read my explanation to Terry!

Nahesha wrote:
im sorry can someone fill me in on whats going on ?

Some of the people in here like shooting kids "sexy", some people in here are defending those that choose too shoot kids "sexy", and some in here are opposed to portraying kids as "sexy"...  That's it in a nutshell...

The Art of CIP wrote:

Some of the people in here like shooting kids "sexy", some people in here are defending those that choose too shoot kids "sexy", and some in here are opposed to portraying kids as "sexy"...  That's it in a nutshell...

we are all nuts in an MM nutshell.

SLE Photography wrote:
I am kind of at a loss...is the OP refering to something/someone specific?

From what I gather, it means "original post."

This is a tough one for me, because I had more of a fashion (although too short) body at 16, and would've done better modeling then, but I don't think I had as much maturity then...

But if someone tried to sexualize my younger sister, in her early teens, I would probably destroy them...

BCG wrote:

we are all nuts in an MM nutshell.

Exactly...  In a nutshell (no pun intended!!)

Mandie wrote:
But if someone tried to sexualize my younger sister, in her early teens, I would probably destroy them...

Why? What is different?

BCG wrote:
when did the pre and early teens become "norm" or the set "standard" for women???

pardon me but since you did mentioned this
how about it with those norms standards for women, values for everyone and anyone, don't you find it bound to the time, culture and even individuality?
i just find it absurd thats all

and last but not least don't want it don't shoot it

Nahesha wrote:
im sorry can someone fill me in on whats going on ?

Read the thread

The Art of CIP wrote:

Some of the people in here like shooting kids "sexy", some people in here are defending those that choose too shoot kids "sexy", and some in here are opposed to portraying kids as "sexy"...  That's it in a nutshell...

Actually that's not true at all, I don't recall seeing where anyone said they liked to shoot kids.  It's a discussion of WHY photographers shoot teens and why some parents allow it and why the industry looks for these teen girls for ads, etc

UdoR wrote:

Sorry, you are wrong Terry!

Young fashionmodels are being chosen for their female attributes and usually have a height and body proportion that is the one of a slender, adult female.

A thirteen years old, with the proper makeup and lighting as well as clothing, looks like a 19/20 years old young woman, and that's who they are marketing to.

Because of the makeup artistry, that underaged teenager portraits a young adult until she is way over the age she's being portraying.

At age 29, they make her look like 22, and then the cut off is near.

To summarize, what they are looking for is to develop a model, and face recognition that caters to the looks of a 20 years old for (in this example) 15/16 years.

To develop a model like that, it's a lot of time and money and often, when they use a model of "her age", she doesn't have that long of a time in the industry, as opposed a very young model, that they can make look much older...

What part of the world do you live in that the everyday 20 year old female is 5'10' and has no hips ?

Terry Breedlove wrote:

What part of the world do you live in that the everyday 20 year old female is 5'10' and has no hips ?

He is a fashion photographer in NYC...so it's an everyday thing for him.....;-)

The Art of CIP wrote:

Hmmm...  Fictitious characters...  By the way how did that story end?  I would have no probelms if the age of consent in this country were 16 - but it isn't...  I don't accept shoots from minors - regardless of parental release or not...  Modeling is a very obbjective profession...  In order to acheive some success the models have to jump through all kinds of hoops - this isn't child's play...

age of consent in most US states is 16.  that doesn't mean they can legally enter a binding contract.   different issue.

Anthony Citrano wrote:
age of consent in most US states is 16.  that doesn't mean they can legally enter a binding contract.   different issue.

In California the AOC is 18...  I live in California...  Any transactions fall under California state law - unless I shoot in a state that has an AOC of 17 or under - parental consent is necesarry...  If the law in your state says you can shoot children under 18 in a sexually provocative manner - that's your choice to do it or not..  I choose not to shoot or portray minors under 18 in a sexually provocative manner...

Brian Diaz wrote:

Either that or overenlongated youth...

EXACTLY!!! In Western society we have an unnaturally extended childhood, even when kids are past sexual maturity, and I find it rather odd.  I looked the EXACT same at 16 as I do now, in EVERY way...and had a good grasp on my sexuality and sexiness, and to think, I wasn't even sexually abused!!! You CAN be "sexy" at 16, you're young, fertile, in most cases you're also sexually mature...there's nothing wrong with that PROVIDED you're not being exploited (happens to older girls too though!).  Seeing a 16-year-old flirting it up for a shoot doesn't really alarm me....sorry.  I shot some non-nude pinups w/my bf when I was 16 (we're still together and he dabbled in B/W photography), and I still look back on those fondly...I was happy, freshly in-love, and yes...sexy!

Brian Diaz wrote:

Either that or overenlongated youth...

EXACTLY!!! In Western society we have an unnaturally extended childhood, even when kids are past sexual maturity, and I find it rather odd.  I looked the EXACT same at 16 as I do now, in EVERY way...and had a good grasp on my sexuality and sexiness, and to think, I wasn't even sexually abused!!! You CAN be "sexy" at 16, you're young, fertile, in most cases you're also sexually mature...there's nothing wrong with that PROVIDED you're not being exploited (happens to older girls too though!).  Seeing a 16-year-old flirting it up for a shoot doesn't really alarm me....sorry.  I shot some non-nude pinups w/my bf when I was 16 (we're still together and he dabbled in B/W photography), and I still look back on those fondly...I was happy, freshly in-love, and yes...sexy!

io wrote:

EXACTLY!!! In Western society we have an unnaturally extended childhood, even when kids are past sexual maturity, and I find it rather odd.  I looked the EXACT same at 16 as I do now, in EVERY way...and had a good grasp on my sexuality and sexiness, and to think, I wasn't even sexually abused!!! You CAN be "sexy" at 16, you're young, fertile, in most cases you're also sexually mature...there's nothing wrong with that PROVIDED you're not being exploited (happens to older girls too though!).  Seeing a 16-year-old flirting it up for a shoot doesn't really alarm me....sorry.  I shot some non-nude pinups w/my bf when I was 16 (we're still together and he dabbled in B/W photography), and I still look back on those fondly...I was happy, freshly in-love, and yes...sexy!

io`s here, io`s here!!

I had a couple girls in their early to mid teens contact me about my pinup projects and I have absolutely no issue with that provided a parent is ok with it as well. Non nude vintage pinup style is basically like todays very tame swimwear modeling, imo.

Hartsoe wrote:
Exactly... and still most of our teens are no gun carrying maniacs or gangbangers. Cool - huh?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Back to work.

Eric S. wrote:
This model is under 18, in fact you'd be surprsed how young she is. But I sure as hell wouldn't shoot her "sexy"

Oh I don't know. The model is beautiful and I think she is a great subject, but ... how do I know from looking at that picture what she was wearing.  I only have to trust you on this one  (OK, Just Kidding).

There are plenty of talented models under 18.  I will say this, the definition of appropriateness in the New York fashion/editorial market is a lot different than what most of us would want to shoot here.

Ched wrote:
It's age discrimination, and just like bans on smoking and drinking and drugs, it isn't in the Constitution. It's a blatant violation of personal rights and amounts to government patronization which no American ever agreed to but most accept without reservation.

Of course. If they're 16, they can't vote, which means the people making the laws have no career-based reason to listen to them. (They may have many moral, ethical, or other reasons, but in terms of keeping their job, there's no up-side.)

Lapis wrote:
People in California are prissier than in NYC? *lapis cancels bargain flight she was booking to go to cali so she could beat up hippies* (rude thread reference)

Hippy beater!!!

Ched wrote:

Why? What is different?

My sister is 12.  And I am protective of her.  She leads a much more sheltered life than I did, and is thus much more innocent in mind.  It would be a bigger crime (in my eyes) for her to be sexualized at her age than me at her age.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Juliet (as in Romeo and...) was 13.

Come Brian, keep things in modern day context.  Nevermind that it was a fictional story, it takes place when?

Hartsoe wrote:

Exactly... and still most of our teens are no gun carrying maniacs or gangbangers. Cool - huh?

Most of our teens aren't either.

Eric S. wrote:
This model is under 18, in fact you'd be surprsed how young she is. But I sure as hell wouldn't shoot her "sexy"

age 14. Shot her last year. Her first real shoot. No direction from me for poses or expressions.

Ian Weintraub wrote:

Hippy beater!!!

Only if they ask me really nicely and hand me a few benjamins....

Synthetic Shadows wrote:

better yet, girls this age and younger are HAVING SEX.

they're not just looking sexy. they're SEXING.

One up on this they are Runway models  half nekked too

Synthetic Shadows wrote:

better yet, girls this age and younger are HAVING SEX.

they're not just looking sexy. they're SEXING.

One up on this they are Runway models  half nekked too

Lapis wrote:

Only if they ask me really nicely and hand me a few benjamins....

You so belong in San Fran!

Sara Beth wrote:
what Udo said was the most rational thing in the thread, in my opinion...you have the same kind of thing going on with plus sized models...does the standard american look like your average model? not in the least...i don't think there's anything average about being 5'10+ and weighing 100-120 pounds...and yet here we are.

america is a land of double standards...what we wish we could have vs. what we do have. we want to eat our mcdonalds daily and then have someone either suck the fat out or give us a pill...we want eternal beauty and youth.

that's what these girls represent, being eternally young. and since when isn't the age of consent in america 16?! it is. so whoever said that, was wrong. sorry. lol...anyways, yeah, i made my point. i'm good now

Can you point out an actual law that says this?  I do believe it is still 18 nationwide...at least it still is here in California.

Whether or not a DA will press charges for a 17y.o. with a 16 y.o. or a 19 with a 16 y.o. is a different story.  But I promise you, with me at 34, if I nail a 16 y.o., the DA in most states would probably be all too happy to get me nailed.