A few more shots from recent.

[Buckster]

Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs. They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts. Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.

 

[sashbar]

Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs. They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts. Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.

Sorry Buckster, but you completely missed the point.

 

[Geaux]

I think my weirdness stems from his prior thread saying his daughter had friends sleeping over and they wanted a "photoshoot" done. Where and how does a young friend or your daughter end up in a bikini during a harmless "photoshoot"

its the the sleepover friend part of the photoshoot that irks me the most I think, being that this was not stemmed from any parental interaction wanting these shots done.

 

[kathyt]

Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs. They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts. Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.

Those catalogs have a purpose. What is the purpose of this image?

 

[Buckster]

Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs. They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts. Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.

Those catalogs have a purpose. What is the purpose of this image?

That is a question for the participants to answer.

Perhaps it is the simple and innocent depiction of a young person wearing beach wear, commonly seen on any beach or at any pool in most of the civilized world without jumping to the conclusion that it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is useful material for the portfolio of a young model who could be in one of those catalogs.

The leap to finger-pointing, veiled accusations of perversion and so forth however are without merit, IMHO. If the thoughts that enter one's head upon viewing this or other photos of young girls in beach wear or underwear, in catalogs or photography venues such as this forum, turn to sexuality, it's the person who sees it that way that has the problem, in my opinion.

 

[Granddad]

...#3 I don't like - Maybe I'm paranoid but a preteen in a bikini in a studio sets off far too many alarms in my head. If she was my daughter that one would be pulled from the 'net before you could say paedophile.

Keep what I said in perspective and don't read accusations into it. I gave my opinion which was putting my personal perspective as a parent. If that was my daughter I wouldn't want that photo online. OP hasn't returned to say whether or not he had parental consent to post. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the lack of consent with regard to a minor could get you in trouble in the States, whether she's wearing a bikini or a snow suit.

As for experience of dealing with paedophiles, yes I do have some. Detective inspector, Royal Hong Kong Police and also UK probation service. Maybe that's what makes me a mite paranoid?

 

[sashbar]

Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs. They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts. Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.

Those catalogs have a purpose. What is the purpose of this image?

That is a question for the participants to answer.

Perhaps it is the simple and innocent depiction of a young person wearing beach wear, commonly seen on any beach or at any pool in most of the civilized world without jumping to the conclusion that it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is useful material for the portfolio of a young model who could be in one of those catalogs.

The leap to finger-pointing, veiled accusations of perversion and so forth however are without merit, IMHO. If the thoughts that enter one's head upon viewing this or other photos of young girls in beach wear or underwear, in catalogs or photography venues such as this forum, turn to sexuality, it's the person who sees it that way that has the problem, in my opinion.

O well, Buckster, with due respect I can not understand why you do not see the difference between a utilitarian shot in a catalogue which shows a bikini on a girl, a beach photo where any underage girl can be in a bikini or topless - and it would be natural - and a studio portrait that is created to project a specific elaborate image. A studio portrait is a very intimate image, it goes well beyond nakedness so to speak, it touches some inner traits of a human being and when it goes wrong it can be seriously wrong on an emotional level. Yes there are probably lots of reasons for this girl to appear in a bikini - maybe she is the most famous bikini collector in the world. But it does not change anything here. Because the message is not clear and we are guessing. We are not talking about perversion and anything like it. This is not a question of morality, it is a question of artistic expression. But the very fact that several commentators feel it is disturbing and not quite right is very telling. I hope I am explaining it clear enough. My English is severely limited.

 

[sashbar]

Detective inspector, Royal Hong Kong Police and also UK probation service. Maybe that's what makes me a mite paranoid?

Wow.

 

[Buckster]

So, if it was shot specifically for inclusion in a catalog, it would be okay, but since it wasn't, it's not okay.

If she wears it on the beach, it's okay. But if she wears it in a studio, it's not okay.

If thousands of people see her wearing it in person, it's okay. But if they see a photo of her wearing it, it's not okay.

If it has the potential to titillate a pedophile, it's not okay, but none of you are mounting a campaign against such images in catalogs, which certainly titillate a pedophile just as much.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me to have such double-standards, nor to bandy about what looks to me like made-up excuses and pseudo-justifications for holding to and making a stand for such double-standards.

And to revisit the "purpose"; What is the "purpose" of any art? What is the "purpose" of the statue of David or the works of Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso? What "utilitarian purpose" do they serve to justify their being made and displayed?

 

[rexbobcat]

A studio portrait is a very intimate image, it goes well beyond nakedness so to speak, it touches some inner traits of a human being and when it goes wrong it can be seriously wrong on an emotional level.

Are you...Are you serious with this statement?

 

[pixmedic]

Thousands upon thousands of portraits of young girls (and boys) in all manner of outfits are shot every day in professional studios around the world in the hopes of that child getting an acting or modeling job. I would imagine that all manner of posing is used.

Maybe this is a portfolio piece. Maybe it is strictly for the parents. Maybe the girls mother is a swimsuit model for sports illustrated and her daughter just wants to be like her.

Funny enough, i dont hear anyone complaining about the rapists being incensed by all the boudoir shots being posted on the forum... forget about the animal photos, i wont even go there.

 

[DanOstergren]

So, if it was shot specifically for inclusion in a catalog, it would be okay, but since it wasn't, it's not okay.

If she wears it on the beach, it's okay. But if she wears it in a studio, it's not okay.

If thousands of people see her wearing it in person, it's okay. But if they see a photo of her wearing it, it's not okay.

If it has the potential to titillate a pedophile, it's not okay, but none of you are mounting a campaign against such images in catalogs, which certainly titillate a pedophile just as much.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me to have such double-standards, nor to bandy about what looks to me like made-up excuses and pseudo-justifications for holding to and making a stand for such double-standards.

And to revisit the "purpose"; What is the "purpose" of any art? What is the "purpose" of the statue of David or the works of Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso? What "utilitarian purpose" do they serve to justify their being made and displayed?

Well said brother! I agree completely. As well, this is a forum for photographers to post photos they take. Not for people to get their rocks off. It's absurd that people are acting as if it shouldn't be here of all places because pedophiles might like it.

 

[sashbar]

Buckster -

Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms. Just think about it.
Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.

Context makes a woman or a man more or less sexy, and quite dramatically, - not just his/ her appearance. Just think why a bikini girl on a beach is not sexy or disturbing at all. But if you see the same girl in a bikini at a secretary desk in an office you would feel quite differently. Double standards? Why? The answer does not lie on a surface.

Stature of David has no utilitarian purpose. Statue of David in a bikini would have.
(Actually David had some sort of a bikini at one point. There is a copy in a London museum. When Queen Victoria saw it she was shocked by the nudity, and a fig leaf was cast to cover his genitalia for royal visits.)
And strictly speaking David was made with a utilitarian purpose - to decorate Florence's Duomo. But upon completion it was decided that it was a masterpiece on it's own and too good to put on the roof.

PS You may ask me why on Earth am I writing about it? Probably because I believe it is important for a photographer.

 

[DanOstergren]

Buckster -

Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms. Just think about it.
Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.

Context makes a woman or a man more or less sexy, and quite dramatically, - not just his/ her appearance. Just think why a bikini girl on a beach is not sexy or disturbing at all. But if you see the same girl in a bikini at a secretary desk in an office you would feel quite differently. Double standards? Why? The answer does not lie on a surface.

Stature of David has no utilitarian purpose. Statue of David in a bikini would have.
(Actually David had some sort of a bikini at one point. There is a copy in a London museum. When Queen Victoria saw it she was shocked by the nudity, and a fig leaf was cast to cover his genitalia for royal visits.)
And strictly speaking David was made with a utilitarian purpose - to decorate Florence's Duomo. But upon completion it was decided that it was a masterpiece on it's own and too good to put on the roof.

PS You may ask me why on Earth am I writing about it? Probably because I believe it is important for a photographer.

Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo. If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini.

Perhaps this forum is a little too conservative for my tastes...

 

[sashbar]

A studio portrait is a very intimate image, it goes well beyond nakedness so to speak, it touches some inner traits of a human being and when it goes wrong it can be seriously wrong on an emotional level.

Are you...Are you serious with this statement?

Of course. But I am talking about real portraits by great photographers that catch imagination of people, not those run of the mill shots in a neighbouring studio that no one would care to look twice at apart from yourself. A great portrait is probably one of the most powerful messages in photography. No? You do not agree?