Ty Simone wrote:

I hate to say this, but my first impression was that the baby was crapping out roses!!!

hahahaha lol you're right!

Ty Simone wrote:

Please read everything behind the story.
His images are a specific violation of current child porn law (and case law) in that at least three of his images show the genital region in a lacivious manner.

The Knox case showed that images that specific target the genital region (in his case video of a dance recital where he constantly focus on the genital region and zoomed in on those where the outline of the girl's genital was clearly visible through the leotards) is Child Pornography.

In the case above, he has at least three images that have the genital area predominately shown (her legs spread) of the the model in swimwear where you can clearly see the outline.

He violated the law.

Personally, I think cameltoe, regardless of age, should be illegal.

James Jackson wrote:
Whether there was a grey area to you or not, I will never agree with laws that try to draw some arbitrary line in the sand... particularly laws predicated on two completely arbitrary and non-objective concepts such as 18 years constituting the end of of being a "minor" and what is and is not lewd or pornographic.

The problem is that lawmakers have to draw arbitrary lines.  If legal adulthood doesn't start at 18, when should it?  Should it be different for every individual?  That would violate your desire for the rules to be objective.

How about speed limits?  55 MPH is pretty arbitrary.  Why not 50?  Or 57.8?  Or "Speed Limit: Use Your Best Judgment"?  Would any of those be better?

Should the arbitrary age of majority be removed altogether, along with the differentiation between minors and adults?  Should 7 year olds legally be permitted to engage in hardcore pornography?

I feel that, while it is not perfect for everyone, the age of 18 is a pretty good estimation of when adulthood begins for most people, and despite the arbitrary nature of the number, it should be upheld and supported.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
No.. this is why MM wants to keep tabs on what people of all ages post in their portfolio....

Your point is well taken. I think we actually mean the same thing, you just said it better.....

ebarb wrote:
Have any of you actually seen any of these pre-teen modeling sites?  Awhile ago a friend of a friend asked me to check out the work of some hack photographer here locally...his website was linked to a whole bunch of these types of sites and he shot for them...the stuff was absolutely eye candy for pedophiles, there was no grey area here, it was little girls in underwear, with there legs spread.....

It just kills me that the "I'm an artist crowd" here an MM immediately take a positive action by law enforcement and somehow try and change it to some insidious plot to take away there right to shoot what is in most cases crap anyways....

get a clue...

eric

I know that I'm probably being over cautious, but if you visit one of these sites.[on a professional level] images will get saved to you temp.internet pages, and if the feds come visiting. You will be open for prosecution yourself.  Be very careful out there.  Just stay well clear, I will not open any links in this type of forum, just in case.

Glamourpuss Make-UpHair wrote:
PS--I wish I could've seen the baby and roses pic.  The page is down.  But I can assure that it wasn't sexual...give me a break.  The baby was probably happy it's Mom was there cooing at it and babytalking to make it smile.  Jeezy creezy.

I love it.  You haven't seen the picture but you can assure us that it isn't sexual.  Um...what?

jayedwards wrote:
I love it.  You haven't seen the picture but you can assure us that it isn't sexual.  Um...what?

They posted the image on the thread, shortly after my first post...scroll back!

For the first couple years of a baby's life...they may explore their genitals...and that's perfectly normal.  But from the various things I've read, there is no sexual gratification.

DO you have kids, Jay?

Glamourpuss Make-UpHair wrote:

They posted the image on the thread, shortly after my first post...scroll back!

That's not my point.  You said you didn't see the picture but made a judgment about it anyway.  Isn't that what you said?  (Before you edited your post)

jayedwards wrote:
That's not my point.  You said you didn't see the picture but made a judgment about it anyway.  Isn't that what you said?  (Before you edited your post)

YES...BUT IN GENERAL, BABIES ARE NOT SEXUALLY GRATIFIED!   What mind thinks they are!?!?!  Diaper chaning time would get really creepy if that were the case!

Glamourpuss Make-UpHair wrote:

They posted the image on the thread, shortly after my first post...scroll back!

For the first couple years of a baby's life...they may explore their genitals...and that's perfectly normal.  But from the various things I've read, there is no sexual gratification.

DO you have kids, Jay?

I was not making a point about the picture -- I think it's a little strange but it's not pornographic.  I made a point about you judging the picture without seeing it.   Whether or not I have children has nothing to do with what you said.

Glamourpuss Make-UpHair wrote:

YES...BUT IN GENERAL, BABIES ARE NOT SEXUALLY GRATIFIED!   What mind thinks they are!?!?!

Unfortunately, some people do view babies as sexual.  That's why there are laws to protect kids.

jayedwards wrote:

I was not making a point about the picture -- I think it's a little strange but it's not pornographic.  I made a point about you judging the picture without seeing it.   Whether or not I have children has nothing to do with what you said.

Well, I'm a Mom and I know that when my daughter was a baby, there was no sexual gratification when I wiped her between diaper changes.  That is how I made a generalization about a picture I had not seen.  If you were a parent, you'd understand that.

Glamourpuss Make-UpHair wrote:

Well, I'm a Mom and I know that when my daughter was a baby, there was no sexual gratification when I wiped her between diaper changes.  That is how I made a generalization about a picture I had not seen.  If you were a parent, you'd understand that.

You assume I have no children.  Then you insinuate that only parents can understand how a child could not be a sexual being.  Wow.  Seems we've hijacked the thread so let's get back to our regularly scheduled program.  ;-)

jayedwards wrote:
I was not making a point about the picture -- I think it's a little strange but it's not pornographic.  I made a point about you judging the picture without seeing it.   Whether or not I have children has nothing to do with what you said.

If I had not been somewhat familiar with Anne Geddes work, then I wouldn't have made such a generalization about an unseen image.  If the picture had been describes as a baby with a dildo, then I would've had a different opinion.

**And this thread was hijacked long before I came along.**

Madcrow Studios wrote:
... the work posted on those sites has NO legitimate artistic value

And exactly what credentials do you have to back that statement up?  Are you an academic scholar of the arts?  Do you have years and years of art history and art appreciation under your belt?

Or are you just making judgment based on the fact that it was not you that photographed them?

Glamourpuss Make-UpHair wrote:
... I can assure that it wasn't sexual...give me a break.  The baby was probably happy it's Mom was there cooing at it and babytalking to make it smile.  Jeezy creezy.

People people please... read before you post.

I am just making a point through facetious carrying of an idea to an overblown conclusion.  It's called satire folks.

I don't really want to feed the irish their own children here... I just am saying that the lines are too blurry to accept this "law" or the enforcement of it because it logically opens *ALL* photography and art related imagery to being called pornography.

Brian Diaz wrote:
The problem is that lawmakers have to draw arbitrary lines.  If legal adulthood doesn't start at 18, when should it?  Should it be different for every individual?  That would violate your desire for the rules to be objective.

How about speed limits?  55 MPH is pretty arbitrary.  Why not 50?  Or 57.8?  Or "Speed Limit: Use Your Best Judgment"?  Would any of those be better?

Should the arbitrary age of majority be removed altogether, along with the differentiation between minors and adults?  Should 7 year olds legally be permitted to engage in hardcore pornography?

I feel that, while it is not perfect for everyone, the age of 18 is a pretty good estimation of when adulthood begins for most people, and despite the arbitrary nature of the number, it should be upheld and supported.

No they do not *have* to draw arbitrary lines.

Though it was sold as a safety measure, the 55 m.p.h. law was made to save fuel.  It was repealed and now states can make any speed limit they want... in fact several states *do* have a speed limit of "use your best judgment" on several major highways.

18 is *not* a good delineation or approximation of age of change to adulthood... in fact, most humans begin to be capable of sexual reproduction (only kind of delineation accepted in any other animal) at around age 12 for girls and 15 for boys, while mentally most sociologist say western cultures are maintaining a person in a state of extended adolescence well in to their 30's for both men and women.

"Should the arbitrary age of majority be removed altogether, along with the differentiation between minors and adults?"

Don't ask two questions and make them one in an attempt to have a yes/no become obtuse... bad form... very bad form.

"Should the arbitrary age of majority be removed altogether?" Yes.  Age of majority is a fallacy... if we were to establish a true age at which most individuals become mentally capable of adult rational thought it would be somewhere around 30.

"Should we remove the differentiation between minors and adults?" Obviously this is impossible.  There are children and there are adults in every species on the planet.  Perhaps we should come up with a better definition of what a child and an adult is.  Only in humans do we wrap up the ideas of sexual and mental adulthood in to one.

"Should 7 year olds legally be permitted to engage in hardcore pornography?"
Do you know any 7 year olds who are mentally adult?

Brian Diaz wrote:
So, James, who should be legally permitted to engage in hardcore pornography?  How do you decide this without either making an arbitrary age limit or using subjective qualifiers?

*I* don't decide it.  I'll leave it for others to decide since *I* don't photograph hardcore pornography.

James Jackson wrote:

*I* don't decide it.  I'll leave it for others to decide since *I* don't photograph hardcore pornography.

So the makers of pornography should decide who should be able to make pornography?

If you so adamantly oppose all arbitrary and subjective laws, surely you have an opinion as to what would be a more appropriate alternative to them.

1barbiedoll wrote:
i think that pic of the baby is wrong
but im under 18, so does that mean most of you are saying i shouldnt be a model? a lot of teen models are involved in fashion and modeling industry these days. i dont think theres anything wrong with it if the under 18s restrict to a certain thing like catwalk etc. only thing wrong is nudity which an under 18 cannot do. i think we should still be allowed to be models tho. does anyone agree?

Good lord I hope no one here is saying that < 18 year olds should not be models... that would just put the whole fashion industry out of business...

and you are incorrect about not being able to be nude... you can be nude all you want if you are under 18 you just can not be photographed for pornography.

Brian Diaz wrote:
So the makers of pornography should decide who should be able to make pornography?

If you so adamantly oppose all arbitrary and subjective laws, surely you have an opinion as to what would be a more appropriate alternative to them.

Nope... I have no idea.  The only idea I have at this point is that the law is way too arbitrary and established on concepts that are way too arbitrary and concepts which have no legal precedent anywhere else in our legal system.  They are established on religious and moral code concepts not on legal concepts.

The laws on this topic should be repealed.  If the community wishes to establish new laws, then let them be established by the community.

Personally I don't photograph "hard core" photography and I rarely view "hard core" pornography, so I really wouldn't be a good person to ask to write a law governing pornography since I don't partake of it as much as the average american.  If market indicators are any judge though, the average american has a much better idea of what is and is not porn than I do.

James Jackson wrote:

Good lord I hope no one here is saying that < 18 year olds should not be models... that would just put the whole fashion industry out of business...

and you are incorrect about not being able to be nude... you can be nude all you want if you are under 18 you just can not be photographed for pornography.

1barbiedoll wrote:
i think its fine for models to be under the age of 18 but a lot of people are saying its wrong.
and yea thats what i meant sorry: i meant that we cannot be photographed for pornography related purposes.

Mind you this is mostly a discussion of american politics.  I have no idea what the laws are in the UK re: modeling and photography of individuals under the age of 18.

James Jackson wrote:

Nope... I have no idea.  The only idea I have at this point is that the law is way too arbitrary and established on concepts that are way too arbitrary and concepts which have no legal precedent anywhere else in our legal system.  They are established on religious and moral code concepts not on legal concepts.

Arbitrary ages limiting who can do what and when are written into the Constitution.

Was it a religious or moral code that made the founding fathers decide that presidents should be at least 35 years old?

Arbitrary decisions such as making the age of majority 18 (or thereabout, as many countries and states have done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority) is not a perfect solution, but it is better than none.

Madcrow Studios wrote:
Well, I'm glad to see Web E Web shut down. I was into that stuff when I was the age of some of the girls on the site, but now that I'm older, I realize just how exploitative that stuff is. I've nothing against photographing teens (as you may know from my participation in various threads here), but to force ANYBODY to pose in a way that they're uncomfortable with is just wrong, especially when you get involved with minors. In addition, the work posted on those sites has NO legitimate artistic value. I've seen (much) better photography in catalogs. Why are there photographers who do stuff like this and give those of us who wish to work with minors (or anybody else) in a legitimate fashion such a horrible name?

Apparently you haven't worked a lot with teens. Believe me, they don't have to be forced to hit any of these poses. Your biggest problem is, often, that is what they do without being asked. You do have to be on guard -- even with mom in the room who often instigates the sexier poses.
They don't understand that you need to be very careful with glamour with a minor. They will sometimes just stop whatever you are doing and just peel off the t-shirt.

MS Figures n Physiques wrote:
An example of why MM needs to be Firm in it's 18+ Policy:

Florida firm’s owners face child porn charges for provocative photos of kids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010

   The operators of dozens of teen and preteen “modeling sites” that critics say are nothing more than eye candy for pedophiles have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Alabama for allegedly trafficking in “visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

   See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.......

It's old news being rehashed ...

Brian Diaz wrote:
Arbitrary decisions such as making the age of majority 18 (or thereabout, as many countries and states have done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority) is not a perfect solution, but it is better than none.

Some things are better left unsolved than solved.

James Jackson wrote:

Some things are better left unsolved than solved.

I think the problem of people exploiting children for pornographic purposes is something worth solving.