<p>If it’s on the photographer’s website and she’s one of their models, she may have lost control of which pictures were posted. If the photo shows her twisted around, giving a kiss or come-hither look, they do this during a clothed shoot and the young women don’t always realize what’s occurring. The photographers believe they’re showing the range of what the girl might look like, making her look as appealing as possible for commercial shoots to sell clothing. That’s not identical with “soft porn.” I haven’t seen the photos, and you have, so that’s the limit of what I can say. </p>
<p>The modeling agencies send women to photographers to get a portfolio, and some photographers push the envelope further than others suggesting what the women can do during the excitement of multiple clicks of the camera. Then the photographer owns all the photos. That’s how I heard one story of a girl who models some jewelry and clothing, only. He asked her if she wanted to do bikini shots too, and she declined, limiting her commercial market. The subject of nude photos never even entered the room. They play music and so on, get the girls to move around and make little looks at the camera while clothed. They live in another world, I think, but that’s how a very conservative “shoot” was described to me by a girl who ended up modeling hand-designed clothing in a small artsy city. </p>
<p>Most young women don’t know this when they are flattered by a modeling company that wants to represent them. A reputable commercial modeling agency knows its photographers, and makes good judgment about who to send to whom. </p>
<p>I also feel over my head and would prefer if a real person in the modeling or photography industry could comment.</p>
<p>To me, if it’s posted by the photographer, even if it looks suggestive, give the girl the benefit of the doubt. I would say that’s different than her posting the pictures herself. Her name came up on Google because it’s in the photographer’s rolodex now, right? You see my logic. She might just be in over her head.</p>
<p>Can you possibly get an Art or fashion industry professor to look at the same set of photos for a different kind of outside opinion as to whether they are “suggestive” in today’s context of the modeling industry?</p>
<p>“What about the opportunity that could open up for another student with better judgment and about whom nothing is known that could cause embarasment to the organizations involved?”</p>
<p>are we talking about your kid getting left off? I’m a bit puzzled that this would generate such concern. I also am bothered that you are the judge of all things wholesome and right in this case. </p>
<p>I am also bothered by the above statement because sending someone else doesn’t guarantee wholesomeness. What if the other “qualified” person is a pedaphile and you just haven’t found it yet? What if they are an animal abuser? Lot’sa what if’s to consider. </p>
<p>I think in this case, you should mind your own business. Unless of course, you just want to be cruel to another person because you can…</p>
<p>“The volunteer also needs to be a person who is a good role model, mentor and can operate with good judgment since the professor would be there to work with the kids in the nonprofit,”</p>
<p>If all of these criteria were made clear during the application process, then your professor friend has justification for telling the student that she’s being removed from the group. But I get the impression that it was kind of just assumed that any student at this college would meet the “good role model” item just by being a student at this particular college. Might be an incorrect assumption on my part–wouldn’t be the first time, certainly won’t be the last.</p>
<p>And I still think that the school needs to figure out what they require of their students. Either tell students up front that they are expected to follow a certain code of behavior at all times, or just have strict conduct rules apply only on campus. Again, I might be assuming incorrectly, apologies if I am.</p>
<p>"are we talking about your kid getting left off? I’m a bit puzzled that this would generate such concern. I also am bothered that you are the judge of all things wholesome and right in this case. </p>
<p>I am also bothered by the above statement because sending someone else doesn’t guarantee wholesomeness. What if the other “qualified” person is a pedaphile and you just haven’t found it yet? What if they are an animal abuser? Lot’sa what if’s to consider. </p>
<p>I think in this case, you should mind your own business. Unless of course, you just want to be cruel to another person because you can…"</p>
<p>Wow, that was an unkind assumption. I posted because the professor involved, a friend, asked for my opinion on the situation because I have lots of experience working with secondary school students and high school students, including taking students on trips and involving them in service projects. This has nothing to do with my son, who doesn’t go to that college.</p>
<p>As for the idea that someone would drop the girl from the trip in order to be “mean” to her, that’s not the reason. The purpose of the trip is to do community service while building a bridge between the college and the nonprofit program. The individuals involved including the professor were offered the opportunity because it was believed they would be of benefit to the program, not because someone was trying to be nice to them.</p>
<p>As for the what if other potential volunteers have embarrassing things in their closets, that’s not applicable since the issue here is that the individual we’re discussing has something embarrassing that’s now known and easily accessible to the public.</p>
<p>“If all of these criteria were made clear during the application process, then your professor friend has justification for telling the student that she’s being removed from the group.”</p>
<p>Students were told that being selected would be an honor that would depend on their skills and character as they would be “ambassadors” for the college and would have to be very responsible.</p>
<p>It sounds as if the school intends to derive a lot of PR benefit from this trip, and the volunteers will be spokespeople representing the school in the public eye. It therefore needs volunteers who are good PR subjects, whose squeaky-clean personal lives are in synch with the publicly stated values of the school. It’s a religious school that bans alcohol–even for adults–and extramarital sex. So it is very straight-laced. A girl with soft-core porn lingerie pictures posted on the internet and a job as a “hostess” at celebrity parties does not have a private life that is in synch with the values espoused by the school, therefore she is a poor representative, therefore they should not take her on the trip. If she did the pictures before having a “religious conversion” and deciding to live her life according to the school’s standards, then perhaps she would be acceptable. But it doesn’t sound like it.</p>
<p>Basically, she’s attending a place that bans extramarital sex, but according to northstarmom she’s selling herself as a sexual tease. Does not compute. (If these are in fact artsy high fashion modeling pics that’s another matter. But again, it doesn’t sound like it.)</p>
<p>I would add that I am not a Christian of any stripe, or religiously conservative in any way, I am not in sympathy with their values, and I personally wouldn’t touch a school like that with a 10-ft-pole. But SHE chose to go there, so SHE can reasonably be judged according to their standards when they are, in essence, selecting spokespeople.</p>
<p>Moral and legal are two different concepts.There’s a difference in the type of photo that would be shot for a JC Penney’s catalog for lingerie and the photos being described here. The idea that there is “nothing immoral” about such behavior is NOT universally accepted. For the record, unlike the writer of post #38, I do think that posting in lingerie for commercially sold soft-core porn is immoral. I’d hazard an educated guess that some of the people who support this conservative, religiously affiliated program would think that such behavior is immoral. </p>
<p>It’s not illegal, and I wouldn’t want it to be. But legal and moral are two VERY different concepts. For me of “good character” doesn’t mean “never convicted of a crime.” </p>
<p>In reply to post #37, I would also have a problem with the prof if he kept his mouth shut after finding pictures of another volunteer who was under 21 drinking booze on the internet (though that is illegal, of course.) I’d have a problem if the prof kept quiet about a blog in which a volunteer described his sexual experiences with many, many partners, all of them consenting adults, even though nothing illegal took place. I would consider that conduct immoral–and again I think it’s likely that my views are more in line with what those of a conservative, religiously-afiliated organization would be. What other people do with consenting adults should not be the subject of laws. But again, laws and morals are NOT one and the same. </p>
<p>IMO, the prof would ONLY have the right to ignore this information if the COLLEGE were the sole sponsor of the program–and even then, I’d suggest he run it by in-house counsel. But to ignore it when there is ANOTHER organization involved is an ENTIRELY different story. </p>
<p>I do agree with the idea that any requirements for personal behavior should have been disclosed uprfront. But I am wondering where the link broke down. Did the religiously affilated organization say “we’ll take anyone the college sends us?” If so, then there’s not a problem. But if it said something along the lines of “the young people who are chosen must be of good moral character” and the prof has good cause to think that the members of the organization would not see posing for soft core porn as consistent with “good moral character” then I think the prof is acting IMMORALLY if he just keeps his mouth shut.</p>
<p>Again, I think he should run it by in-house counsel, if for no other reason to find out definitively what the agreement was between the college and the other organization. Did the organization specify anything regarding character? Is there anything in writing? Will it cause any problems for the college if the religiously-affiliated organization finds out about these photos AND that the prof was aware of them before the trip began?</p>
<p>Just want to clarify: It’s the nonprofit that’s affiliated with a religious institution. The college isn’t affiliated with a church, but is a place that is conservatively administrated. </p>
<p>For instance, my friend told me that when the head of student affairs did an orientation for the faculty who are club advisors, the student affairs director described not ordering a drink at a restaurant because he saw that some students whom he knew were eating there!</p>
<p>As a person who remembers the resident faculty member at my dorm at Harvard offering students of all ages sherry at his weekly sherry sips, I have to admit, that I was surprised that any college that wasn’t affiliated with some very strict religion would expect that kind of behavior from faculty.</p>
<p>“The purpose of the trip is to do community service while building a bridge between the college and the nonprofit program. The individuals involved including the professor were offered the opportunity because it was believed they would be of benefit to the program, not because someone was trying to be nice to them”</p>
<p>So this person is now unworthy? Will she be “ever” worthy? once a w hore always a w hore? She can’t be a benefit to others because of some pictures? I don’t mean to be harsh but can’t you see you’re basically stoning this girl in the public square? </p>
<p>You are assuming an awful lot about her character with your own ideas. What if you’re wrong? is that ok to do to somebody else? I thought you were a W hore, turns out you aren’t… gee sorry about that? </p>
<p>That’s what makes me uncomfortable about the situation, you’ve filled in the blanks with your own estimations about her character and you’re thinking about tossing her under the bus… but what if you’re wrong?</p>
<p>Well, Opie, I don’t like the idea of a girl posing for soft core porn pictures, but for completely non-religious reasons. I think she’s demeaning herself. I also think that pole-dancing in a strip club is demeaning, despite the fact that some people claim it’s just good clean healthy fun.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have any problem at all with her choosing, as a consenting adult, to have sex with her boyfriend. I do have a problem with her selling herself as an object for masturbatory fantasies. But those are my values. She didn’t sign on to be a student at a school with my values.</p>
<p>I don’t think the girl is “immoral” for posing for such pictures. I think she’s presenting herself as a bimbo. So now you can stone me.</p>
<p>BTW, Jesus is not the only choice of religious figure out there. For all you know, the charity could be Orthodox Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or something else.</p>
<p>Oh, and I still think that the first thing the professor should do is talk to the girl and find out what’s going on with her and these pictures.</p>
<p>“For the record, unlike the writer of post #38, I do think that posting in lingerie for commercially sold soft-core porn is immoral.”</p>
<p>I’m poster #38 and I didn’t say anything about posing in lingerie for “commercially sold soft-corn porn” being moral. I said posing for photographs clad in lingerie was moral. I don’t think it has been established that “commercially sold soft-core porn” is involved. It is the professor, and his personal views and biases, questioning the young woman’s morality, and just because he has a PhD does not mean he’s fit to judge the young woman’s morality.</p>
<p>so, guess we all need to toss our victoria secret catalogs…</p>
<p>and better cover up all them girls and guys at the beach, or say, what about volley ball players or hey, chearleaders in them little skirts!!!</p>
<p>no one ever looks at those and thinks naughty thoughts…sure…</p>
<p>so, to those people who think this girl is not a good role model, well, do your Ds wear swim suits, show their ankles, show some cleavage, ever…do they go to the beach and frolic i the waves in front of maies</p>
<p>lets just cover em all up in burkas, cause those swimsuits give people bad ideas tsk tsk tsk</p>
<p>Since “Students were told that being selected would be an honor that would depend on their skills and character as they would be “ambassadors” for the college and would have to be very responsible”, I think the professor is within his rights to rescind the offer to the student. Agree he should run it by higher-ups with the assurance of no other fallout to the student in question.</p>
<p>FWIW, it’s not what I’d do. But it’s a private college, a private program, they get to make their own subjective judgements about who they want to represent them. </p>
<p>I’d love to see this submitted to the NYT Ethicist to see his take on it.</p>
<p>it his “right” i suppose, but what message is he sending, oh you better be perfect or else</p>
<p>and she could very well represent them, while some one else can go wild…</p>
<p>I find the whole thing pathetic to be honest, dismissing a girl whom by all accounts in her public persona is wonderful, without really even talking to her</p>
<p>sad sad indeed</p>
<p>guess tyra banks wouldn’t be allowed to help out either, or nor heidi klum, and we can forget about brad pitt or angelina jolie</p>
<p>hey, even carter coulnd’t cause he lusted</p>
<p>oh don’t let any one who works for hotters or tropicana…or gosh, who was the soccer player who showed us her sports bra…</p>
<p>and guess the school should google all its alumni to make sure they are all on the up and up, all covered and such, and as for the program they are “helping” better be sure all their donors have no skeletens either- you know drinking, and cheatin’ and parading around on the beach…do they do that, check the backgrounds of all the people who donate? cause until they do, and reject the money of any with “morals” that aren’t strickly in line with all they stand for, and same for the college, put and up or shut up, then how can this prof luck himself in the mirror</p>
<p>if he rejects this girl, then every single person at that school is open to scrutiny for everything, as well as all the staff and all the donors, to do otherwise, because gee money is involved…well…</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, you know what? I think that Victoria’s Secret catalogs are garbage that are selling a ridiculous consumer fantasy through cheap sexploitation. I think that “cheerleaders” prancing around in skimpy costumes are also selling cheap sexploitation.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I don’t think that athletes such as swimmers and gymnasts and runners are selling themselves that way, although their clothing may be equally vestigial.</p>
<p>Personally, I think there’s a difference between someone who is wearing attire that is appropriate for an activity and simply going about their business, and someone who is deliberately displaying themselves in a provocative manner as an object for money.</p>
<p>“I don’t like the idea of a girl posing for soft core porn pictures, but for completely non-religious reasons. I think she’s demeaning herself. I also think that pole-dancing in a strip club is demeaning, despite the fact that some people claim it’s just good clean healthy fun.”</p>
<p>and you’ve seen these pictures? Or are you letting someone else dictate your ideas? Just cause someone says soft core, doesn’t mean it really is. It might mean it is to them, but are you certain it is to you…without seeing them? </p>
<p>“I think she’s presenting herself as a bimbo. So now you can stone me.”</p>
<p>Once a bimbo always a bimbo? She isn’t capable of change? She couldn’t wake up one day and decide I want a different life? </p>
<p>Isn’t part of the ideal of college is you can recreate yourself? Or is that just a lie we tell our children? You can be anything you want to be, but if you’re a bimbo dear, you’ll always be one? </p>
<p>No need to stone you. but I would like you to think… you’ve decided this girl is dispicable without knowing or seeing her… Would you want people to think that way about you? No?</p>
<p>you know, you can swim in something more akin to a wet suit…do polo players really need to wear speedos? so…its not the CLOTHES…it what someone DOES in them that you find offensive? so…your D can frolic on the beach, in front of dozens of leering men, but she can’t pose for a picture…got it</p>
<p>“…I think that Victoria’s Secret catalogs are garbage that are selling a ridiculous consumer fantasy through cheap sexploitation. I think that “cheerleaders” prancing around in skimpy costumes are also selling cheap sexploitation…I don’t think that athletes such as swimmers and gymnasts and runners are selling themselves that way, although their clothing may be equally vestigial…I think there’s a difference between someone who is wearing attire that is appropriate for an activity and simply going about their business, and someone who is deliberately displaying themselves in a provocative manner as an object for money.”</p>
<p>Cheerleaders for professional sports teams are considered athletes and wear work uniforms while working. Lingerie models are highly paid professionals who wear work-specific attire when at work. You are making a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p><em>I</em> have said several times that I think the professor should talk to the girl and find out what the circumstances surrounding these photos are. </p>
<p><em>I</em> also introduced the possibility that she may have done these and then changed her mind and/or lifestyle. (Although it seems unlikely by reasons of timing that she did them before choosing to attend this very strict school, which is puzzling to say the least. The original post indicated that she is currently working as a lingerie model and hostess, which would mean that she would have had to undergo this transformation awfully recently, wouldn’t it?)</p>
<p>I don’t claim to have seen the photos. Nor have YOU. Northstarmom has. It seems obvious to me that we are having this conversation in a shared context in which we are all fully aware that the only one amongst us who has actually SEEN the damned photos is Northstarmom. Her assessment sounds like a reasoned one to me. She is not “dictating my ideas.” (What a ridiculous overstatement!) Judging by her description, I doubt that this photography is what you’d expect to see in a Sears catalog OR in Vogue. It sounds more like Maxim. But I certainly would reserve my personal judgement until I’ve seen them. It goes without saying, frankly.</p>
<p>Where did I say"once a bimbo, always a bimbo"? Presumably she is fully capable of changing her mind about the tastefulness of her activities at some point in the future, if she has not done so already.</p>
<p>Lastly, I have not decided that this girl is despicable. Get a grip.</p>
<p>Yes, citygirlsmom, it IS more important what you do than what you wear. A girl going to the beach in an appropriate swimsuit to swim or play frisbee or sunbathe is not posing provocatively for money. </p>
<p>I gather from your posts that you would be perfectly happy if YOUR child took up a career as a stripper? You see no difference?</p>