Re: [Leica] Re: A REPLACEMENT TOPIC

["Michael E. Bérubé" <MEB@goodphotos.com>]

At 10:50 PM 3/10/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On 10 Mar 2001, at 16:00, Michael E. Bérubé wrote:
> >  ...ignoring this common sense rule ...
>
>It may be common, but it doesn't make much sense. Being as
>naked as the day one was born in rarely provocative.

As a Pagan, I understand this entirely. Nudity need not mean sexual 
promiscuity, but given the current climate and state of Law here in the 
States regarding photographs of persons uncloth-ed, any photographer 
attempting to shoot underage persons nude (with parental permission or not) 
is asking to have their life ruined. It makes more sense to just avoid the 
situation all together.

>Fully dress a child as one would perceive a prostitute of either sex, and 
>you'd
>provoke more.

Certainly, hence my comments regarding sexual provocative in my post. I 
routinely refuse portrait sessions where the parents wish me to photograph 
their preschool-junior high school girls as "little beauty queens" for 
modeling/competition portfolios. As a parent I find it as morally repugnant 
as more blatant child-porn. (maybe even worse because it is more prolific.)

>I'd champion anyone who is protraying nakedness as simply unclothed.

I also champion anyone promoting the idea that nakedness is not congruent 
to provocative sexuality and would like to see a general cultural shift 
toward a life less puritanical in that respect. Until the culture does 
change, however, so that the status quo is of the same mind as you and I, a 
professional photographer is foolish to push the envelope in this arena and 
not to expect problems. (Especially since the issue is extra charged with 
the protective second nature of most adults toward our children.)

Carpe Luminem,
Michael E. Bérubé

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"