Risquéness and 16 Year Old Models?

I have been shooting a model since she was 14. Even then she looked and acted like 19+. I couldn't make her look like a sweet little girl no matter what I tried. Her parents and the model herself are ok with being very liberal towards shooting saying "swimsuits show less" so don't care about what the clothing is but I have put stricter limits than legal limitations. Before and especially now that she is 16 they are ok with her expressing her feminimity more. I have been fairly conservative in my shooting to date and wonder what the appropriate line is in terms of clothing type, poses, expression, etc. She exudes a sexuality at a young age and seems to be best fitted for swimsuit, fitness, and Victoria Secrets type modeling in her adult future.

Any thoughts as to where to draw the line? I am looking for specific examples of shooting at this age for a modeling portfolio.

I think it's a great opportunity to exercise your creativity without relying to the usual "flesh for cash" approach.

No problem with creativity just where I should draw the line with model and parents trying to move it.

Keep in mind that the government may not be as liberal as the parents.

Ok. I. Am really looking for specific replies or even examples. The government allows almost anything and is not the limiting factor. Mainstream print adds have used 16 year olds in very suggestive ads in underwear. Lets assume I am being overly conservative and let me know the specifics of how far you think fashion professionals go.

In terms of... Clothing type, facial expression, and stretching or unzipped / unbuttoned clothing / implied

My wife and I run two businesses one that is family friendly and one that is not. We WILL NOT under any circumstances shoot anyone under 18 under the not so family friendly side. We do not shoot under 18 in swimwear or suggestive clothing there is no unbuttoned shorts. If you can not show the picture to family friends without wondering what they will say we don't shoot it.

We have had two gals turn 18 and shoot under our other name and we have a lot of fun.

We have a lot of 16-18 year Olds that tend to want to shoot on the Sexy side and we just keep it toned down a bit. Keep the poses classy and the wardrobe tame. Not saying don't show any skin we shoot a lot of mid drifts and shorts too. Our go to rule is if you can't wear it in school you can't wear it on a shoot with us.

The issue is one of interpretation. What you and the model (and her parents) might interpret/view as risque but not overtly so...the neighbors, local law enforcement, school district, etc might view as "soft-core porn". What you have to ask yourself is: Do you really want, no let me rephrase....do you really NEED to help this girl "explore her sexuality" at this time? If this is how she is at 16 (and you've already been shooting her for a couple years), then I sure she'll be the same at 18. Just play it safe and save yourself some potential headaches.

I do understand your point about the underwear ads, but then again those are jobs, and the sexuality isn't very overt, and the clear goal is to sell products, and make money. When you're just shooting for funsies, intent can be misinterpreted.

It's not really worth the potential trouble in my opinion. If you have to shoot some skin, then stick to swimwear..but I'd avoid any type of lingerie, or any skin more than you'd see in a bikini at the beach.

Edit: Speaking as a "Fashion professional" who's shot small jobs for clients (you'd be hardpressed to find any smaller client willing to risk the potential issues with hiring an minor for anything "sexy" including lingerie) and frequently shoots for the local agencies (models ranging from 14-30). Maybe in France they'd be more open to it, but locally (LA) many a career has been ruined by someone trying to go a little too far with younger models (by fairly conservative US standards).

I think I am being very misinterpreted already. Partially my fault. Please keep answers to what the line is not what you think the line I am trying to achieve or want is . You are all guessing or assuming and are wrong.

Also I think I got confirmation of my own beliefs on the subject by asking a fellow female friend and mother of daughters a few questions that I restricted to binary answers. My attempt here was to find specific guidelines but never really got that.

I also have 2 teen daughters and I am very conservative with the exception to the above that I will do swimwear. That is just silly. Its is not ths swimwear that would determine the appropriateness of a shot it is the many other subtleties.

So the answers would be...
Nothing other than swimsuit or fitness even if more coverage is provided
No unbuttoned or stretched clothing
Comercial facial looks only
No strong emphasis on any body parts
Everday life capture ok.. Such as dressed as sbe would be for prom or other normal life situations for that age in public
No dresses or shirts that show mid chest even if nothing is shown.

TooManyHobbies wrote in post #17675660
I think I am being very misinterpreted already. Partially my fault. Please keep answers to what the line is not what you think the line I am trying to achieve or want is . You are all guessing or assuming and are wrong. . . .

So the answers would be...
. . .

No dresses or shirts that show mid chest even if nothing is shown.

Now that you've given sample guidelines, we don't have to guess and assume so much--but that last one isn't clear to me. Do you mean dresses or shirts mustn't show midchest skin? Or they mustn't show the midchest area at all, even if covered by fabric?

Where I'd draw the line for a minor: chest covered by dress, blouse, or tank top is okay, as in a full-length portrait, but no visible nipple contours, no emphasis on breast curvature, and no bits of lingerie exposed.

They picked out a draped dress that had a vertical scope which I said no to.

As for breast curvature I am ok with appropriate amount for this reason. It is bullying to make girls with naturally larger breasts think they have to hide them. I know too many that were psychologically abused in high school from having to do so to an extreme. The case could also be made for showing too much. I would not show prior to 16 but after that I think what would normally show in a swimsuit or appropriate prom dress is a healthy body image.

The test after discussing with my friend is really what would be seen in the normal lifestyle of a girl of that age in public. Whether it be clothing or expression.

I do believe everyone who commented was just trying to help, I know I was. However it comes across that you have your mind made up with what you feel is ok so as long as a parent is in the room during the shoot go for it. We all draw our lines in the sand at different places and thats ok.

If it were my client, I'd avoid any overt suggestions of availability (i.e., no lingerie, no suggestively unbuttoned pants, etc.). You can't stop the client from flashing bedroom eyes, but you can control wardrobe.

I'm curious about where your concern dwells. Are you worried more about the reaction of other clients, or are you worried about legal risk. The latter is easy, the former is a locally determinative **** show.

Avoid nudity or exposing private parts including nipples. Some cleavage is ok but not too much flesh.

The subject matter is fashion and modeling. Avoid "pornography" style poses or anything too connotative.

If all else fails, try thinking that she was your daughter. How much would you allow to be photographed?

Littlejon Dsgn wrote in post #17675726
However it comes across that you have your mind made up with what you feel is ok so as long as a parent is in the room during the shoot go for it.

My impression was different. I thought the OP was asking to what extent he should give the parents and the girl what they want, given that he prefers a safer, less adult style for age 16 than they do.

Remember that under US (and most other countries) a minor does not have the legal capacity to decide certain things. if things go wrong it will be your skin not yours that is legally exposed.