Dave Krueger wrote:

I'm with you on that one.  I don't think these forums give models enough credit for being able to think for themselves.

-Dave

Do you even read the posts in here? lol

MandyTequila wrote:
i did want to pose topless, i didnt mind because i felt comfortable with him, the only reason i said i dont want him to have those pics now is because of what hes been accused of, otherwise it wouldnt make a difference to me. and the stupid citytv didnt put the good things i said on tv.. they edited the whole interview and made it seem so more dramatic and bad than they should have.

I understand how the media can edit stuff down to make it seem like you said one thing when you really said another.

But hey, if he was good to you, why all of a sudden do you not like the guy based on what the TV says? Remember, it's the same TV that edited your words.

MandyTequila wrote:
i did want to pose topless, i didnt mind because i felt comfortable with him, the only reason i said i dont want him to have those pics now is because of what hes been accused of, otherwise it wouldnt make a difference to me. and the stupid citytv didnt put the good things i said on tv.. they edited the whole interview and made it seem so more dramatic and bad than they should have.

Mandy,

let me give you some words of wisdom here. In this world we have the guilty, the innocent, the innocent who get caughtup and the those who do this get caughtup. Clarify.

There are the perverts, there are those who are innocent, there are those who are innocent but get caughtup when there is an opportunity presented to them and then there are those who get caughtup doing this when it wasn't really apart of their original agenda.

I don't know the man, and I am a rare person on this Helter Skelter planet. Meaning I don't take what others or the media state as the gosple truth. I always question everything that I hear and see.

Reality, while we do have these tpyes of things taking place, many people have been branded for things. The branded comes from being accused, people being weak and buy into what finally turns into gossip. It makes me wonder at times, who is really the victim here, because there are so many people who claim to be victim or apprehensive, like to play the morbid games. It's as if they get off on this with the morbid judgements or game playing that I see out here in this sick pyshcotic society.

You as a model, always be wise to the world. While the photographer presents himself one way, doesn't always mean that he is that way 24-7. I have to put the other side of the coin out there for you because it is another part of reality. This reminds me of the actor Rob Lowe case. He was busted for sleeping with a 16 year during his heart throb days back in the mid late 80's. Caught on video. It wasn't the first time. A friend of mine mentioned about a girl who claim to have slept with him. this was discussed before he got exposed. So no, R. Kelly isn't the first nor the last.


What's strange to me is that decades ago it wasn't uncommon for a man to marry a minor and have children with her in the south. I wonder when and how all of that changed. Bubba better not do that now or he'll be crucifified.

Anyways, question everything from all angles. Not just the man, but what is being said in the media and on here. The Devil has workers in all areas, and you'll see some on here from forum to forum.

BCI Photo wrote:

I understand how the media can edit stuff down to make it seem like you said one thing when you really said another.

But hey, if he was good to you, why all of a sudden do you not like the guy based on what the TV says? Rememeber, it's the same TV that edited your words.

I call this one the Oprah case.. Oprah presented a guy who wrote this book that she highly recommended to the public. The guy becomes famous almost overnight. The media exposes him for his lies, Oprah cuts into the media and defends the guy, later to withdraw it and have the guy on the show to explain this big lie.

Point...Oprah defending him already knowing that the man was guilty, BUT, when you are a Messiah, so to speak, to many. Those occult Oprah followers will start backing away from her if they see that she has been easily diceived. This can and have killed many people's reputation. She was trying to save face and keep her fans. But after she realized that it was only making things worst when others didn't defend her because she realized that it wasn't about Oprah, but about all of those book buyers, in the end it did became about it was all about Oprah, because while the guy gets busted and exposed, people are going to look at her for defending a decietful person.

The example is the same with the model. She did what she did out of emotion reaction because she doesn't want to be indentified with this man because of the fear of  how society will view her and her reputation down the line. Society is weird and strange like that. They think the worst of you too, even when you are innocent. But she retracts her statement because of the exact same reason to why she wanted her pictrures back and the statement that she made in the media. She's trying to protect herself. This is understandbale.

MandyTequila wrote:
i did want to pose topless, i didnt mind because i felt comfortable with him, the only reason i said i dont want him to have those pics now is because of what hes been accused of, otherwise it wouldnt make a difference to me. and the stupid citytv didnt put the good things i said on tv.. they edited the whole interview and made it seem so more dramatic and bad than they should have.

the media selectively reported in order to fit their agenda and boost ad sales? omg ... say it isn't so.

Travis Feisthamel Photo wrote:
Looking over Mandy's portfolio, it didn't look like he was that bad of a photographer either. I was expecting his shots too look like something taken with a P&S camera. So he did have some good ideas and composition.

Yea  I said this when the thread was new. Thats the saddest thing,He does good work.

Travis Feisthamel Photo wrote:
Looking over Mandy's portfolio, it didn't look like he was that bad of a photographer either. I was expecting his shots too look like something taken with a P&S camera. So he did have some good ideas and composition.

Sad..because this is the reason why we have so many stereo types too. You must look a certian way or shoot a certain way if you are a pervert, a serial killer or whatever.

This is why the blonde hair 'attractive' women got off for sleeping with a 14 year old and the 'unattractive' didn't. But even the the other women got off to some degree. Double standards and how we view who is crazy..People judge more by visual appearances. Let that be an 'attractive' blonde man, his looks wouldn't get him anywhere but behind steel bars. SLAM!

Legacys 7 wrote:
Let that be an 'attractive' blonde man, his looks wouldn't get him anywhere but behind steel bars. SLAM!

And a new boyfriend.

Brewer35MM wrote:
Hear it comes!!!
The media has been all over “Myspaceâ€? for the past year. Now the media will be attacking model/photographer sites.
Any one on these sites will be branded in the eyes of others that watch the news and don’t understand anything about the sites or the people on the sites.

Yeap, and I said this either on this thread or a similar one. This is leading into nothing but Big Brother using this as a scapegoat to pry into your business. Bush is trying it now with Google and the other search engines. The government here tried to pass a law that got turned down some years ago. They're at it again. Give it some time and this will be like China. Your government will have the legal right to watch you. Right now they are just watching you without the legal rights. don't think that this site isn't watched. Everywhere you go online, you are being watched.

BCI Photo wrote:

Dave Krueger wrote:
I'm with you on that one.  I don't think these forums give models enough credit for being able to think for themselves.

-Dave

Do you even read the posts in here? lol

Yes, which is why I made the comment.  What part of what I said has you confused?  lol

Legacys 7 wrote:
Yeap, and I said this either on this thread or a similar one. This is leading into nothing but Big Brother using this as a scapegoat to pry into your business. Bush is trying it now with Google and the other search engines. The government here tried to pass a law that got turned down some years ago. They're at it again. Give it some time and this will be like China. Your government will have the legal right to watch you. Right now they are just watching you without the legal rights. don't think that this site isn't watched. Everywhere you go online, you are being watched.

Yep, and there's nothing like raising the spector of harm to children to get the entire population to, not only go along with it, but hysterically demand that those rights be abandoned for the good of future generations.

Tyler wrote:
Not good.  I may have to take us 18+.

PLEASE DO!!!

Nothing worse than teenagers with webcam/cell phone pics calling themselves models simply because they're on a modeling site, thus making it a breeding ground for the real sickos out there.

BCI Photo wrote:

I understand how the media can edit stuff down to make it seem like you said one thing when you really said another.

But hey, if he was good to you, why all of a sudden do you not like the guy based on what the TV says? Remember, it's the same TV that edited your words.

i dont all of a sudden not like him based on what the tv says. i am actually still confused on whether i should defend him or not, because i have no reason not to.. i am just being cautious because with these accusations IF they are true why would i want some sick pedaphile having my topless pictures in his possession.. if none of this stuff was true and he didnt do anything and was innocent it would make no difference to me. but now that hes been accused of all this shit i dont know what he could have done to my topless pictures do u know what i mean? he could have put them on like a kiddie porn site eventhough thats more of an under 14 thing, or sold my pictures to other sick people like him and made money off of it, u never know and thats why i was a lil scared and just trying to protect myself. i would actually like to speak to karim myself.. i heard he let out on bail so maybe ill be able to contact him and i just want to see what he will say about all this u know, i want to hear it from his side but im gonna talk to the police n stuff before i make any contact with him again just incase.

MandyTequila wrote:
...and the stupid citytv didnt put the good things i said on tv.. they edited the whole interview and made it seem so more dramatic and bad than they should have.

That's what the press does.  Precision is secondary to creating hype and drama.

MandyTequila wrote:

i dont all of a sudden not like him based on what the tv says. i am actually still confused on whether i should defend him or not, because i have no reason not to.. i am just being cautious because with these accusations IF they are true why would i want some sick pedaphile having my topless pictures in his possession.. if none of this stuff was true and he didnt do anything and was innocent it would make no difference to me. but now that hes been accused of all this shit i dont know what he could have done to my topless pictures do u know what i mean? he could have put them on like a kiddie porn site eventhough thats more of an under 14 thing, or sold my pictures to other sick people like him and made money off of it, u never know and thats why i was a lil scared and just trying to protect myself. i would actually like to speak to karim myself.. i heard he let out on bail so maybe ill be able to contact him and i just want to see what he will say about all this u know, i want to hear it from his side but im gonna talk to the police n stuff before i make any contact with him again just incase.

You know Mandy if he was cool with you then say just that.  You really don't know
anything about the current case and its not your concern.  He was cool with you
and thats it.  At this point its probably best not to have any contact with him
and wait untill the trial if there is one is over.  One thing I do think is important to
remember is.  Its easy to bash someone when their down.  He doesn't need any more bashing so unless you've got postive things to add just leave it alone and
hope justice is served and the total truth comes out.

MandyTequila wrote:
IF they are true why would i want some sick pedaphile having my topless pictures in his possession..

wait...

You're only 17...

He has topless pics of you???

MandyTequila wrote:
...but now that hes been accused of all this shit i dont know what he could have done to my topless pictures do u know what i mean? he could have put them on like a kiddie porn site eventhough thats more of an under 14 thing, or sold my pictures to other sick people like him...

If liking 17 year old boobs makes you "sick" and liking 18 year old boobs makes you healthy, then the sick folks have a lot of company.  In fact, it's interesting that female  physical development apparently happens at an earlier age even as laws acknowledging their maturity have been pushed out to later ages.

I think we're all going to have to wait and see what the real facts are.  Despite all the sentiments that the guy should fry, I don't think there's enough detail in the story (there almost never is)  for anyone to have a very clear picture of what the guy did.

You don't owe the guy anything but the truth.  Just the accusations will destroy his life, so his ass is already grass, but there's no need to jump on the bandwagon to hang him just because that's what everyone else is doing.

BCI Photo wrote:

PLEASE DO!!!

Nothing worse than teenagers with webcam/cell phone pics calling themselves models simply because they're on a modeling site, thus making it a breeding ground for the real sickos out there.

I bet for every real sicko out there, we identify 100 of them.

Stephen Dawson wrote:

I bet for every real sicko out there, we identify 100 of them.

How? When they post on MM? lol

BCI Photo wrote:

PLEASE DO!!!

Nothing worse than teenagers with webcam/cell phone pics calling themselves models simply because they're on a modeling site, thus making it a breeding ground for the real sickos out there.

I totally agree.
Sometimes I get so agitated with girls who assume that they're a model because they have a profile on some online website.
A model is more than a name, it's a passionate artistic drive.
The photographers that are sick people are making this no better.

Tyler wrote:
Not good.  I may have to take us 18+.

If not 18+, it would be a good idea to setup something to protect yourself from the sickos, prennies and lawyers.

Remember a few years back when Soldier of Fortune magazine got sued because a personal ad led to a woman being hunted by an avid reader?

AMPhotography wrote:

Same place yours were when you had your first drink or tried your first cigarette!

that don't cut it....  if these kids are in a studio with no escort, the parents failed somewhere.

Leprechaun wrote:
that don't cut it....  if these kids are in a studio with no escort, the parents failed somewhere.

Or maybe, just maybe the kid lied about their where-a-bouts?

*edit*

And still, that's no excuse on the photogs part. No way in hell i'm shooting a minor alone or without an adult present. That's just common sense 101

MandyTequila wrote:

i dont all of a sudden not like him based on what the tv says. i am actually still confused on whether i should defend him or not, because i have no reason not to.. i am just being cautious because with these accusations IF they are true why would i want some sick pedaphile having my topless pictures in his possession.. if none of this stuff was true and he didnt do anything and was innocent it would make no difference to me. but now that hes been accused of all this shit i dont know what he could have done to my topless pictures do u know what i mean? he could have put them on like a kiddie porn site eventhough thats more of an under 14 thing, or sold my pictures to other sick people like him and made money off of it, u never know and thats why i was a lil scared and just trying to protect myself. i would actually like to speak to karim myself.. i heard he let out on bail so maybe ill be able to contact him and i just want to see what he will say about all this u know, i want to hear it from his side but im gonna talk to the police n stuff before i make any contact with him again just incase.

Mandy,

Almost certainly, one of Karim's bail conditions is that he not have contact with people under 18 years of age. Contact his lawyer, not him, to make sure that you do no further harm.

As I see it, these points are important:

1) In Canada, people have a right to be presumed innocent unless and until found guilty in a court of law.

2) You had good experience(s) with Karim

3) If he is innocent, and people like you do not support him, what chance does he have?

4) You agreed to be interviewed on City-TV

5) City-TV selectively edited the interview to make him look as bad as possible.

6) There is only one person who can 'correct' (5)

Please contact his lawyer.

Christina Janeiro wrote:

I totally agree.
Sometimes I get so agitated with girls who assume that they're a model because they have a profile on some online website.
A model is more than a name, it's a passionate artistic drive.
The photographers that are sick people are making this no better.

I doubt if it does any good.
For every minor that uploads a few pics
so they can call themself a model, I am sure
we can find just as many over 18 that do the same.

Realistically, for aspiring models it's better to start
very young and I doubt if eliminating the minors
off a site will keep away the "sickos"


Robert

U240Robert wrote:
I doubt if it does any good.
For every minor that uploads a few pics
so they can call themself a model, I am sure
we can find just as many over 18 that do the same.

Realistically, for aspiring models it's better to start
very young and I doubt if eliminating the minors
off a site will keep away the "sickos"

Robert

But it would eliminate the child issues.

Leprechaun wrote:

that don't cut it....  if these kids are in a studio with no escort, the parents failed somewhere.

I disagree.

A few weeks ago I shot a 17 year old model. I picked her up at the subway, we came back to my place, she went through make up, and we worked for about 2 1/2 hours. The MUA and stylist were gone as soon as they packed up.

After the shoot we had a casual dinner at a local restaurant, and I returned her to the subway.

He parents knew where she was going, they had my address and telephone number, and had a chance to review my profile and check me out.

I believe that the day someone turns 18, is really just another day, **in the context of parental  responsibility**.

The point on the timeline when parents need no longer escort their daughters somewhere is not an arbitrary age, the same for everyone. It is something to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and depends on the maturity of the model.

Stephen Dawson wrote:

I disagree.

I believe that the day someone turns 18, is really just another day, **in the context of parental  responsibility**.

Let's disagree then... a "parent" letting a "model" run loose is about as smart as the "parent" who leaves their kid alone in the toy section of Walmart and then gets pissed when the kid pulls down a shelf and gets hurt.

Stephen Dawson wrote:

I disagree.

A few weeks ago I shot a 17 year old model. I picked her up at the subway, we came back to my place, she went through make up, and we worked for about 2 1/2 hours. The MUA and stylist were gone as soon as they packed up.

After the shoot we had a casual dinner at a local restaurant, and I returned her to the subway.

He parents knew where she was going, they had my address and telephone number, and had a chance to review my profile and check me out.

I believe that the day someone turns 18, is really just another day, **in the context of parental  responsibility**.

The point on the timeline when parents need no longer escort their daughters somewhere is not an arbitrary age, the same for everyone. It is something to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and depends on the maturity of the model.

but also keep in mind that is some states...
-If there is a model release being signed (which, in most cases their SHOULD be, to protect both model and photographer), they cannot legally sign it by themselves and make it VALID unless a guardian is there to sign with them.
-No model release, but the parents know where they are and keep in touch and the pictures are not published anywhere (hence the reason a release would be needed), I dont see a problem.

-Just keep a mind on local laws

Stephen Dawson wrote:

Mandy,

Almost certainly, one of Karim's bail conditions is that he not have contact with people under 18 years of age. Contact his lawyer, not him, to make sure that you do no further harm.

As I see it, these points are important:

1) In Canada, people have a right to be presumed innocent unless and until found guilty in a court of law.

2) You had good experience(s) with Karim

3) If he is innocent, and people like you do not support him, what chance does he have?

4) You agreed to be interviewed on City-TV

5) City-TV selectively edited the interview to make him look as bad as possible.

6) There is only one person who can 'correct' (5)

Please contact his lawyer.

how did u find out his bail conditions? and how would i contact his lawyer? id ont know how any of this stuff works so help me out please lol
and yes to whoever said im 17 and he has topless pics of me, he asked me with no force and i agreed because i felt comfortable with it, i told him absolutely no nude pics and he was fine with that, it makes no difference 17/18 i gave him my consent and thats all that matters..

U240Robert wrote:
I doubt if it does any good.
For every minor that uploads a few pics
so they can call themself a model, I am sure
we can find just as many over 18 that do the same.

Good point. I agree 100%.

MMDesign wrote:
Christ, when does common sense come into play!!?

That's what lawyers are for…
Never enough time to be sensible up front,
But always enough time for legal action when it’s too late