WebModels Forum is a message board for models, photographers, agents, managers, and others associated with the modeling industry.

Posted by: Craig (65.33.80.240) on December 31, 2002 at 14:50:28

Location: Orlando

In Reply to: Quacks like a Duck... posted by Christian B. on December 31, 2002 at 02:04:22:

I would certainly never condone this type of photography, or classify it as "art" in any way, shape, or form. However, if this is how one chooses to make a living, and there are certainly those willing to "model" for such images, who are we to judge? Let everyone be who they wish to be, and let your diety sort it out in the end. Best to all for a prosperous New Year!

: It looks as though the shoe fits perfectly. The entire intention of your shoots is to draw notice to the exposed genitals - you've even got a camera in case someone can't figure it out. You're a rotten shyte. It's how YOU get off.

: christian

: : They have to prove sexual intent to have indecent exposure re the california supreme court. So get a clue and know more about what you speak.

: : California Supreme Court
: : decision "In re Smith"
: : In re Smith (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807 (excerpts):
: : "A person does not expose his private parts 'lewdly' within the meaning of Penal Code Section 314, condemning indecent exposure, unless his conduct is sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.

: :

: : : Does that mean you'll cover the lawyer bills, fines, bail,

in the event that the police don't react the way you "expect" them to?

: : : You're an arrogant idiot. Any model who chooses to work with you... deserves what she gets.

: : : christian

• GrayRainbows Photography

Follow Ups:

Do Not Reply to Archived Messages

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Password:  A password is required to post messages. If you do not have one, pleaseregister now!
Subject : 

Location: 

Comments:
: I would certainly never condone this type of photography, or classify it as "art" in any way, shape, or form.  However, if this is how one chooses to make a living, and there are certainly those willing to "model" for such images, who are we to judge?  Let everyone be who they wish to be, and let your diety sort it out in the end.  Best to all for a prosperous New Year!

: 
: : It looks as though the shoe fits perfectly.  The entire intention of your shoots is to draw notice to the exposed genitals - you've even got a camera in case someone can't figure it out.  You're a rotten shyte.  It's how YOU get off.

: : christian

: 
: : : They have to prove sexual intent to have indecent exposure re the california supreme court. So get a clue and know more about what you speak. 

: : : California Supreme Court 
: : : decision "In re Smith"
: : : In re Smith (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807 (excerpts): 
: : : "A person does not expose his private parts 'lewdly' within the meaning of Penal Code Section 314, condemning indecent exposure, unless his conduct is sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. 

: : :  

: : : : Does that mean you'll cover the lawyer bills, fines, bail, 


: 
: in the event that the police don't react the way you "expect" them to?

: : : : You're an arrogant idiot.  Any model who chooses to work with you... deserves what she gets.

: : : : christian



Optional Link URL:  
Example: http://www.webmodels.com
Link Title:         
Example: WebModels - Information and Resources
Optional Image URL: 
Example: http://www.webmodels.com/images/webmodels.jpg

Do Not Reply to Archived Messages