^Depends where you're living.
The phrase 'child porn' is a bit of an over exaggeration in this instance I think.
many models under the age of 18 have done topless shoots - which is a lot more than unbuttoned shorts.
Lorena Sandu
- Thread starter 71000
- Start date
The phrase 'child porn' is a bit of an over exaggeration in this instance I think.
many models under the age of 18 have done topless shoots - which is a lot more than unbuttoned shorts.
… really? That's kind of horrifying. Maybe I'm just too conservative (I never thought I'd say that about myself…) , but that seems bizarre to me.
people who equate nudity with porn confuse me.
and 14 is not a "child".
not sure where you're getting your info... because 14-16 is legal in most of US and europe
Ok, this has gotten somewhat out of hand. I'm sorry if my opinion offends any of you, but that's all it it: an opinion. You don't have to understand, or agree with it (and I can see why you wouldn't agree).
For most countries, 14 is considered a child in the sense of age of majority, though you might be referring to age of consent, in which case, you're right, in some european countries 14 is the age of consent. In the U.S., however, it's between 16 and 18 years old, depending on the state (here in Texas, it would be 17).
I agree with Natalie, her confused baby face and awkward sexy poses make it look like child porn... You could have another model doing the same type of shoot at 14 and it would look fine.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
I agree, too. It's evocative of Lolita or Pretty Baby, and intentionally so, based on the pose and clothing. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I don't think it's a stretch for some people to have such a reaction to it.
