- Messages
- 956
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and please use their services
Shooting under 18 in underwear....
- Thread starter rgrebby
- Start date
- Status
The point to consider with taking images of any minor is are they indecent? This is normally if the themes imply the young person is having or about to engage in sexual activity.
As for the age of consent, it is ridiculously grey. If partners are of a similar or close age, but one is between 13 and 16, the police do not normally seek prosecution (normally using Fraser Guidelines to determine if the party could consent). If the child is 12 or under, it is considered statutory rape because it is deemed that the child has learnt that behaviour from someone, not thought it up themselves. The law is there to protect the innocent, not criminalise young people who want to experiment.
As for the age of consent, it is ridiculously grey. If partners are of a similar or close age, but one is between 13 and 16, the police do not normally seek prosecution (normally using Fraser Guidelines to determine if the party could consent). If the child is 12 or under, it is considered statutory rape because it is deemed that the child has learnt that behaviour from someone, not thought it up themselves. The law is there to protect the innocent, not criminalise young people who want to experiment.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
no the point to consider is could other people (police, judges etc.......) consider them indecent and the damage just the accusation would do to your reputation
That's true. One may consider the image indecent, another may consider it perfectly acceptable.
- Messages
- 1,118
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I've just had a very similar situation, a 16 year old, says she's done a bit of modelling in the past but wanted to do some 'sexy schoolgirl' type photos. I've declined that but offered to do her a couple of headshots with signed parental release forms and at least one parent present etc, I've also tried to tell her the position she could be putting a photographer in with this but I suspect it's fallen on deaf ears and she'll just get someone else to do it for her.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,521
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure why u need to even ask this question for "your friend" when you seem to know its against the law anyway.
Seems to me too many togs Like to push their luck photographing minors which makes me wonder if they are in this game for the wrong reasons. I know most on here are in it for the love of photography.
Also why are people asking for the law to be changed, why are you so interested in photographing young girls???
Its easy No Under 18's, No Excuses!!
Rant over
Seems to me too many togs Like to push their luck photographing minors which makes me wonder if they are in this game for the wrong reasons. I know most on here are in it for the love of photography.
Also why are people asking for the law to be changed, why are you so interested in photographing young girls???
Its easy No Under 18's, No Excuses!!
Rant over
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,982
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
if you think the reason why people do it is to see a bit of flesh and thats pervy...then whats the difference between a day before a girls 18th... and the day after 18th.. you dont think its equally as disturbing? your argument is somewhat flawed..
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
It's okay no need to be disturbed!
... So why does it seem pervy? and what's the difference between 17 year old flesh and 18 year old flesh? ...... other than it's a year younger or older? :shrug:
- Messages
- 1,521
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- No
Splog said:It's okay no need to be disturbed!
It's the Law!!! So it would make you a Sex offender most likely.
Staff Edit: Removed provocative and unnecessary comments
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Rubbish! It's not the law and if you were capable of understanding a simple point then you wouldn't be such an offensive ****!
Last edited by a moderator:
the difference between a day under and a day over 18 is the same as the day before and the day after you pass your driving test. One day its illegal, the next it isn't.
The way I see it, if you're a 16 year old, taking sexy pics of your 16 year old GF then fine... if you're over 18 the law becomes more of an issue as you are now and adult and she is a child.
The way I see it, if you're a 16 year old, taking sexy pics of your 16 year old GF then fine... if you're over 18 the law becomes more of an issue as you are now and adult and she is a child.
- Messages
- 1,521
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- No
On the Huh
Little Ball of Fur
- Messages
- 4,404
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I admit I have only read the last page and not all posts. There is a RTM button if it is really a damn site more out of order.
I do remember looking at page 3 of The Sun of Sam Fox when I was 16/17. She's about the same age as me. I don't agree that Splog is halfway to being a sex offender. The point being made though is the law and it's different today than the Sam Fox's days.
It may not be illegal if you are not sexulising them, but I'd consider it a risk with the PC mob potentially jumping on your back.
Anyway, I am not here to fall out with people, but to just express my thoughts. Agree or dis-agree with them it's up to you guys. And no big deal to me at least.
I do remember looking at page 3 of The Sun of Sam Fox when I was 16/17. She's about the same age as me. I don't agree that Splog is halfway to being a sex offender. The point being made though is the law and it's different today than the Sam Fox's days.
It may not be illegal if you are not sexulising them, but I'd consider it a risk with the PC mob potentially jumping on your back.
Anyway, I am not here to fall out with people, but to just express my thoughts. Agree or dis-agree with them it's up to you guys. And no big deal to me at least.
Last edited:
- Status