Look, whatever this guy's motives were/are in his posting, it's his daughter and his family. He asked for C&C and he got it. 'Nuff said from my perspective. I think OP did a helluva nice job of posting a follow-up. I'm just surprised that somebody from the MA Child Welfare Gestapo hasn't shown up on his door step in the company of local police to threaten him with "child abuse." Some of you recall a case in NJ some months ago. Here's the link to that one: http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-21/news/37875821_1_evan-nappen-military-style-rifles-gun-violence-group
I have absolutely no problems with a proud Dad posting a picture of his son holding a rifle: his son, his family, perfectly legal (even in NJ), But in some jurisdictions, especially NJ, his Dad did not pay attention to the notion of "Unintended Consequences." Indeed his Dad was woefully ignorant of them. So, if the goal is to generate "x", ya gotta be careful what ya pray for
anthonysemone wrote:
Look, whatever this guy's motives were/are in his posting, it's his daughter and his family. He asked for C&C and he got it. 'Nuff said from my perspective. I think OP did a helluva nice job of posting a follow-up. I'm just surprised that somebody from the MA Child Welfare Gestapo hasn't shown up on his door step in the company of local police to threaten him with "child abuse." Some of you recall a case in NJ some months ago. Here's the link to that one: http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-21/news/37875821_1_evan-nappen-military-style-rifles-gun-violence-group
I have absolutely no problems with a proud Dad posting a picture of his son holding a rifle: his son, his family, perfectly legal (even in NJ), But in some jurisdictions, especially NJ, his Dad did not pay attention to the notion of "Unintended Consequences." Indeed his Dad was woefully ignorant of them. So, if the goal is to generate "x", ya gotta be careful what ya pray for
Wow, that story is just flat out absurd. If anyone showed up at my door requesting to see my guns in my safe I'd tell them to take a long walk off a short pier (and probably not that nicely). What complete and utter BS. My older children have all taken the hunter's safety course and are well versed in gun safety. I would be LIVID if anyone showed up at my door questioning our rights to own firearms.
You know what the sad thing is, looking at the top threads on page 1, this is it; as much as you guys praise Lisa's photos, her featured thread doesn't get as many hits as this one. And nowhere near as many replies; one reason that forum sites in general are dying off is that the troll threads with pointless manufactured 'discussion' float to top and stay there until canned by the admins.
While the OPs perspective might seem odd to some, I honestly don't really care. To me, a photographer is best described by the photos he makes, not his philosophy, not his 'public face', not his family, not his view of life, nothing like that. In the context of being a photographer, these things only matter in so much as how they effect the photos he makes. I'm not here to be anyone's buddy, best friend, personal psychologist or ethical advisor or anything like that. I'm just here to look at people's photos, post comments now and then, and post my own now and then. My family may have different views than his when it comes to privacy, but in this context, it just doesn't matter and shouldn't be a topic of debate. The only way it effects me as a photographer is that you won't see me posting photos of my family in a public forum like this; but, to each their own.
anthonysemone wrote:
Look, whatever this guy's motives were/are in his posting, it's his daughter and his family. He asked for C&C and he got it. 'Nuff said from my perspective.
He specifically said that he wasn't interested in critique on the pictures. He wanted to hear everyone talk about the 'controversy' of shooting his daughter in implied nudity. And we all bit.
Personally I'm glad Russ (and Lisa) have attractive children. I'm half kidding, but I do have to wonder if a less attractive girl in the OP's photos would have garnered as much interest.
Some observations:
Blaming the OP for other people's responses simply because he mentioned the word controversy in his post seems misguided to me. We're each responsible for own reactions to his post and these images.
Most importantly, I think people's comments on these photos say more about the people making those comments than the person who made the photos.There's term in psychology known as "projection". If these photos really bother someone, they may want to consider what it says about them and their intentions.
People seem to be really threatened that there may be some association between a 15 year old girl and sex. I remember being 15. Kids that age are interested and sometimes active. Seems pretty normal to me. That said, there is no sex being shown in these photos. There is no nudity. That exists only in the minds of those who see it.
People seem disturbed that she looks sad or filled with despair. Maybe she's thinking about a math test in school the next day. How can you be sure what another person is experiencing just by looking at them. Again, we project our own issues on to a scene like this and then react with anger or disgust to our own thinking.
People seem to be really threatened that her father took and posted these photos. First I'd say better her father than someone else. But more importantly, I see these photos as a celebration of an attractive young woman. For me, there is artistic merit in how they are shot and in the posing and facial expressions of the subject. I see art and appreciate it; others seem to see sex and are threatened by it.
As I said, with photos like these, where a person's mind goes says much more about them than anything else.
Lurker here for awhile- just thought I'd add my opinion...
The question is if you will hurt your daughter in the future. She is 15, so is very likely to be of a mature mind. As long as she is one of those women who possesses that sort of maturity, -her-, judgement ultimately determines if she should be a participant. That's more important than what others say, IMHO. Just be careful that your position as a father might not have subtly intimidated her.
The precaution I'd recommend is that you just host the images on a personal account (where the images can be deleted,) should she change her mind later. It's an incomplete thing, but it seems to be a reasonable precaution, IMHO.
It's not p**n, but some of them are a bit suggestive. Make sure she knows that and is okay with it- that's the important thing. I wouldn't publish those sort of pictures with my (future) daughter, but that's the way I'd do things. She can make her own decision- it's not mine to make. Am I making any sense here?
Chromako wrote:
The precaution I'd recommend is that you just host the images on a personal account (where the images can be deleted,) should she change her mind later. It's an incomplete thing, but it seems to be a reasonable precaution, IMHO.
This rarely works in practice. At least, not when you need it to.
Once it's posted publicly, it can't be taken down. Sure you can remove it from the original site, but that doesn't make it go away. I always tell my friends, once you post something online, you should assume it's going to be out there for the rest of your life. You should only post it if you are okay with this.
Granted, many photos will fade away into obscurity if they are of little note. Or if absolutely no one has any possible reason to copy or archive it. But all sorts of people archive all sorts of things, then re-post them and such in the corners of the internet or undernet/darknet/others. And that's just people, you also have to worry about auto-archivers, search engines/crawlers that keep thumbnails or index things, etc. Essentially, once you post something online and in public, you have lost control of it.
Google reverse image and search popular images if you don't believe me. http://www.google.com/imghp
click on the camera icon, and then on 'upload an image'.
You never know what will become popular, or why, until after it happens.
Something I have always struggled with is how we are supposed to not be attracted to a 15 year old because she is under age, yet a year later (or 3 in Australia ) she is an adult 18 and free to be photographed in any provocative ways and it doesn't raise an eyebrow. I find the photos pleasant, artistic and showing the true character of the subject. Yes I find her very attractive. Do people know the story of Bill Henson ? Similar to the Sally Mann story but his subjects were not his own children. He put on an exhibition in Sydney and a couple of people complained because there was a 13 year old topless girl. The photos are dark, artistic and wonderful. I won't try to describe them further here. You can look them up. The police were called, they seized the photos and Henson was taken away. Such an over reaction ! I think some people are afraid of their own reaction/attraction to under age subjects and react accordingly. I am a high school photography teacher. This week a student submitted a lovely portrait similar to the op. An 18 year old was laying on a bed in a bikini. I had to speak with the student and try to explain how some people would look adversely upon the image as being too provocative in the school setting. The image was not overtly sexual. Mildly suggestive I suppose but how do you judge what other people may think? I had to play it safe and refuse the photo. I think our up tight western view of nudity/semi-nudity is very sad.
24Peter wrote:
Most importantly, I think people's comments on these photos say more about the people making those comments than the person who made the photos.There's term in psychology known as "projection". If these photos really bother someone, they may want to consider what it says about them and their intentions.
Ahh, Projection. My favorite pop psychology term. "I don't like what you are saying about me, you are projecting your feelings onto me."
Rather than accept that the OP trolled us, and that expressing an opinion about something is not projection.
An example of projection would be saying that the OP lusts after his daughter. When the person saying that is projecting to avoid the guilty feelings of being attracted to an underage girl. I didn't see anything like that, did you? Calling him creepy is not projecting.
marko1953 wrote:
Something I have always struggled with is how we are supposed to not be attracted to a 15 year old because she is under age, yet a year later (or 3 in Australia ) she is an adult 18 and free to be photographed in any provocative ways and it doesn't raise an eyebrow. I find the photos pleasant, artistic and showing the true character of the subject. Yes I find her very attractive. Do people know the story of Bill Henson ? Similar to the Sally Mann story but his subjects were not his own children. He put on an exhibition in Sydney and a couple of people complained because there was a 13 year old topless girl. The photos are dark, artistic and wonderful. I won't try to describe them further here. You can look them up. The police were called, they seized the photos and Henson was taken away. Such an over reaction ! I think some people are afraid of their own reaction/attraction to under age subjects and react accordingly. I am a high school photography teacher. This week a student submitted a lovely portrait similar to the op. An 18 year old was laying on a bed in a bikini. I had to speak with the student and try to explain how some people would look adversely upon the image as being too provocative in the school setting. The image was not overtly sexual. Mildly suggestive I suppose but how do you judge what other people may think? I had to play it safe and refuse the photo. I think our up tight western view of nudity/semi-nudity is very sad. ...Show more →
I know you meant no harm, but this skeeves me out. To say "yes, I find her very attractive" crosses a small line, I think. I don't doubt that lots of men have certain thoughts when they see under-aged females, but there's usually that filter that stops them from voicing it out loud.
She's 15. That you can LEGALLY find her desirable in 3 years or 1 year isn't the point... I'm not even sure I know what the point is really.. I just know that I wouldn't want a man looking at my 15 year old daughter the way you're probably looking at that little girl's pictures now... And that you're a high school teacher is even more disturbing.
That their bodies develop quicker than their minds isn't their faults. They're still kids... A LOT can happen in a year or three that'd make them better prepared to be looked at that way. And to the OP, I think its because of grown men like this who have no problem stating that they find your 15 year old child attractive that you might have gotten the reactions you got earlier. Why expose her to this?
Again.. I'm sorry if I mis-read your comment somehow... Maybe I'm overprotective of my kids.. but I do find it skeevy regardless.
monie2078 wrote:
I know you meant no harm, but this skeeves me out. To say "yes, I find her very attractive" crosses a small line, I think. I don't doubt that lots of men have certain thoughts when they see under-aged females, but there's usually that filter that stops them from voicing it out loud.
She's 15. That you can LEGALLY find her desirable in 3 years or 1 year isn't the point... I'm not even sure I know what the point is really.. I just know that I wouldn't want a man looking at my 15 year old daughter the way you're probably looking at that little girl's pictures now... And that you're a high school teacher is even more disturbing.
That their bodies develop quicker than their minds isn't their faults. They're still kids... A LOT can happen in a year or three that'd make them better prepared to be looked at that way. And to the OP, I think its because of grown men like this who have no problem stating that they find your 15 year old child attractive that you might have gotten the reactions you got earlier. Why expose her to this?
Again.. I'm sorry if I mis-read your comment somehow... Maybe I'm overprotective of my kids.. but I do find it skeevy regardless....Show more →
No offence taken but I didn't say I lusted after her or that I wanted to have sex with her. I am not looking at her "in that way" as you put it. I said that i found her attractive. I find flowers attractive too. I didn't say I found her desirable (those are your words). I find your attitude a little too conservative and close-minded. But that's Ok because we are all entitled to our own opinion and views. As for the Bill Henson topless 13 year old...have you even seen the photo in question? It was not designed to be sexually attractive in any way. I cannot imagine anyone finding it that way so any problems/issues must be in the mind of the viewer. I don't know what "skeevy" means? should I be offended? Have you had a good look at art down through the ages? You will find a lot of nudity and even child nudity. Paintings, sculptures, photos etc. What are you afraid of? I know there are lines that should not be crossed. But I don't think they have been crossed anywhere here. Just my opinion.
need to question the parenting ability of a father to
1. pose his daughter this way
2. take pictures of his daughter this way
3. post them on the internet
monie2078 wrote:
I know you meant no harm, but this skeeves me out. To say "yes, I find her very attractive" crosses a small line, I think. I don't doubt that lots of men have certain thoughts when they see under-aged females, but there's usually that filter that stops them from voicing it out loud.
So his mistake was being honest?
I always find it rather amusing that people act like older men being attracted to teenaged girls is some sort of horror indicative of mental derangement or sexual perversion when only about a century ago it was considered routine, even expected, that a 15-year-old would be married and maybe even already a mother. Often to a man double her age or beyond.
I'm glad we don't live in that time any longer, but it's self-delusion to believe that the biology has magically changed in a few decades. That's exactly WHY we take steps to protect underaged teenagers, and exactly why people sometimes get oversensitive about images like these. Because it hasn't changed.
(Furthermore, physical differences among teenaged girls and women are highly variable after puberty. There are 15-year-olds who look like they are in their 20s, and women in their 20s who look like teenagers. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, she told me she used to get "teenaged mother" dirty looks on the subway -- she was 27.)
markperez wrote:
need to question the parenting ability of a father to
1. pose his daughter this way
2. take pictures of his daughter this way
3. post them on the internet
Well probably from the ways you guys love to post in threads like this (trying to be his ethicist / moralist / character judge or whatever) he will be posting a lot more of her.
When I was younger the parents did the same thing, at any of the family gatherings it was a constant and ongoing conversation whose son was the tallest/smartest/strongest/best-at-sports or whose daughter was the prettiest or most graceful or the best at ballet or such. The parents had pride and took great joy in 'showing off' their sons and daughters. They even compared them to others', in "mine is better than yours" fashion.
Now go forward in time a bit to this age where everything is sexualized and where people have access to a global network for showing off. This is the natural result, or more, the natural thing that follows the age that my parents generation brought about. Of course it won't last forever, nothing does. Times will change again, and again, as this generation and then the next leaves its mark on society. But this is where we are at now, he knows his audience and he knows he can get the reaction he wants here, so there is really no reason for him to stop. Modern society seems to have a love-hate relationship with itself, some people are fighting it, others embrace it, and yet others (like me) just stand on the sidelines and wonder what all the jabbering is about.
jfinite wrote:
Meh, I didn't find the images that compelling. 1 was pretty neat, I liked the pattern of the blinds, but 2 and 3 didn't work for me (mainly the hair and the lookaways). 4 was ok, but not really engaging.
Keeping it about photography. Good man. That's the way it should be.
I always find it rather amusing that people act like older men being attracted to teenaged girls is some sort of horror indicative of mental derangement or sexual perversion when only about a century ago it was considered routine, even expected, that a 15-year-old would be married and maybe even already a mother. Often to a man double her age or beyond.
I'm glad we don't live in that time any longer, but it's self-delusion to believe that the biology has magically changed in a few decades. That's exactly WHY we take steps to protect underaged teenagers, and exactly why people sometimes get oversensitive about images like these. Because it hasn't changed.
(Furthermore, physical differences among teenaged girls and women are highly variable after puberty. There are 15-year-olds who look like they are in their 20s, and women in their 20s who look like teenagers. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, she told me she used to get "teenaged mother" dirty looks on the subway -- she was 27.)...Show more →
Huh? Years ago, it was okay to smoke while pregnant, does that make it right? What kind of logic is that? Because something was fine some years back, its folly to shun it now? I'm currently in a group fighting to make marriage to teenage girls illegal in Nigeria, and we're having all kinds of problems getting past the senate because they're arguing its a right.
It WAS a right many years ago, are you saying it should still be one now? Isn't that what life is about? LEARNING from PAST mistakes? Your entire first paragraph is disturbing... When your 15 yr old daughter brings home a 35 year old man she "in love" with, you're saying you'd give them your blessing because that would have been okay a century ago?
PS: "looking" like something ISN'T actually being something. The second you realize that the girl you're checking out doesn't just look young for her age, you stop checking her out.. How is this even up for discussion?
Camera's are used for porn, yes keep it about photography
Let me take a pictures peeping in windows of women, as long as the comp and exposure is good it's a great photo, and we pretend subject focal point is absent, don't look, pretend its not there and it will disappear
