Lisa_Holloway wrote:
My 14 1/2 year old daughter has been my muse (for lack of a better term) my entire photography career. I shoot her a lot. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with that.
Lisa, I love pictures of Calista! I love, love, love the pictures you put up of her..!
I think your pictures are different from OP's pictures though.. I do. I've never looked at any of your posts and wondered about them.. they're just loving portraits of your children.
.. I mean.. you must see that nothing in the portraits posted on here scream "dad".. I don't even think they whisper "dad".. You see the differences, don't you though?
russdenney01 wrote:
This is absurd! The age of majority in Canada is 16 and 15 in much of Europe and even less in much of South America...not that these pics would event warrant her being the age of majority...
Another example of double-standards...there is life outside your little bubble...
You are confusing age of consent and age of majority. The age of majority is 18, everywhere in the US. The age of consent varies by state.
Lisa, your photos are absolutely beautiful and presented in a classy manner, don't ever think there is anything wrong with what you've promoted. The photos Russ took are not the issue, the way in which he chose to present them most certainly IS the issue, and he knows it.
russdenney01 wrote:
This is absurd! The age of majority in Canada is 16 and 15 in much of Europe and even less in much of South America...not that these pics would event warrant her being the age of majority...
Another example of double-standards...there is life outside your little bubble...
Absurd and double-standard? Maybe, but it's the law in my "bubble". People in some countries think it's okay to sell their 12 year old daughters to the highest bidder, and I'm guessing (and hoping) that you would find that reprehensible even though it implies a "double standard" in your way of thinking. Generally speaking, teenagers tend to be pretty clueless when it comes to making good decisions. Would you want a 15 or 16 year old piloting the plane on your next flight? It's not because they don't have the technical ability to fly a plane, but rather because their level of maturity and decision making hasn't had time to develop. The bottom line is that being a parent comes with responsibilities, and some of us obviously have a different view of what that entails.
Tyler2106 wrote:
I think you're missing the point here. Dad, mom, Uncle, friend, stranger it doesn't matter whose taken the pictures. She's too young to be posing in photos like this.
Tyler, I think you are missing the point I was making.
Some responses here seemed to think it was a bad thing that Dad was the photographer. I say - best choice.
A lot of people here who are concerned about the girls state of being undressed must have missed the OP's note that his daughter had a top and a bottom of clothing on under the sheet!
Everyone is allowed their own opinion, but I do not feel that they are very suggestive.
monie2078 wrote:
Lisa, I love pictures of Calista! I love, love, love the pictures you put up of her..!
I think your pictures are different from OP's pictures though.. I do. I've never looked at any of your posts and wondered about them.. they're just loving portraits of your children.
.. I mean.. you must see that nothing in the portraits posted on here scream "dad".. I don't even think they whisper "dad".. You see the differences, don't you though?
Lisa's photos are superbly well done with great sensitivity and with a signature processing style that is very suitable indeed.
Other photographic styles follow different artistic / stylistic / emotional directions. Does that make it wrong?? It is only a viewer who makes a "judgment" on the overall quality of the images. I cannot see why there is any necessity that images should "scream 'dad'" (or "mom" for that matter)
Heck, there are FM members who would outlaw the NSFW images for their personal value reasons. There are others who wish there were more of these. IMHO, this just reflects the nature and spectrum of human art appreciation and values. On FM, I would rather remove banality and am less concerned about morality.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
My 14 1/2 year old daughter has been my muse (for lack of a better term) my entire photography career. I shoot her a lot. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with that.
And have you ever posted a picture of her like the ones in the OP? Not that I've seen.
It's not the subject that's the point, it's how she's presented. The images in this thread are sexually suggestive; yours are not.
russdenney01 wrote:
This is absurd! The age of majority in Canada is 16 and 15 in much of Europe and even less in much of South America...not that these pics would event warrant her being the age of majority...
Another example of double-standards...there is life outside your little bubble...
Sorry, but in most of South American the age majority is 17 or above, so YOU better get informed before looking for an excuse for what you posted.
There is a mixed definition - the age of majority is the age at which a person becomes an "adult". The age of consent is age at which sexual activity is legal.
In South America, the age of majority is typically 17 or above. However the age of consent is variable between 13 yrs old and 17 depending upon country. See:
STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET ARE DISCUSSING THE TECHNICALITIES ON WHETHER OR NOT IT IS/SHOULD BE LEGAL TO HAVE SEX WITH A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD BECAUSE A FATHER POSTED SEXUALIZED IMAGES OF HIS FIFTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
I'll go back to my initial response on this thread (5th response in the thread): "For the life of me, I cannot figure out any benefit to posting photos of your fifteen year old daughter, in a sexualized fashion, on a public internet forum."
canerino wrote:
I'll go back to my initial response on this thread (5th response in the thread): "For the life of me, I cannot figure out any benefit to posting photos of your fifteen year old daughter, in a sexualized fashion, on a public internet forum."
Just my open & honest rundown of my thoughts when I saw these pictures.
1. Wow, that's a pretty girl.
2. Very nice shots, good choice of B&W.
3. Is she longing for something/somebody, is she sad, what's behind her gaze?
At no point did or do I find these sexualized, suggestive, or in any way inappropriate.
I can see why somebody may find these sexually suggestive, but to me that says more about the viewer's thoughts than it does the photographer's. Any part of the body can be interpreted sexually by anybody and we have no control over that.
My question for those who would object to these is how do you define what is appropriate and non-sexualized versus what is inappropriate? One could equally argue that any picture of a "beautiful" person is sexualized. Quite frankly beauty is sexy. Should we stop posting all pictures of beautiful kids because they could be sexualized?
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
I can see why somebody may find these sexually suggestive, but to me that says more about the viewer's thoughts than it does the photographer's. Any part of the body can be interpreted sexually by anybody and we have no control over that.
You may not have read through the whole thread, but the above is not a fair depiction of what happened here.
The first time he posted one of these images by itself, nobody said boo about them being inappropriate. Then he posted this thread, which he prefaced up front as follows:
russdenney01 wrote:
Now, I will be the first to admit that these are a little provocative given her age AND the fact that I am her father. I understand the "creep" conclusion one could come to...
... and then goes on to talk about a famous portrayal of a teenaged girl as a whore in a movie.
When the photographer flatly says that HE finds the images sexually suggestive, how is it a knock on the viewers to come to the same conclusion -- especially when they so obviously are?
SAllem wrote:
This is why trolls should not be fed...
I take great pride in my ability to read trolls and I considered that as an possibility for this thread...but it would be beyond my wildest imagination that anyone would deliberately take and post sexualized images of their minor daughter just to troll an internet forum!
canerino wrote:
I take great pride in my ability to read trolls and I considered that as an possibility for this thread...but it would be beyond my wildest imagination that anyone would deliberately take and post sexualized images of their minor daughter just to troll an internet forum!
There is the possibility that these are not pics of this guys daughter, and she may not even be 15. A person craving this kind of attention will do all sorts of things to get attention.
