Banning children from a nudist resort is prudent

[AElf]

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20120411/OPINION01/204110302/Banning-children-from-nudist-resort-prudent?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Frontpage|p

Here's an article dated 12:54 AM, Apr. 11, 2012

The naturist movement is alive and healthy in the Coachella Valley. About a dozen hotels and spas welcome nudists.
What better place than this land of almost eternal sunshine?
But controversy is brewing in the Palm Springs Desert Sun resort (no relation to the newspaper). After several reports of pedophilia linked to nudism emerged around the world last year, the owners of the hotel and condo complex adopted a policy banning children.
Reducing the opportunities for potential sexual predators to commit intolerable acts is a prudent move.
However, Palm Springs attorney David Baron has threatened to sue the resort on behalf of anonymous guests who feel it discriminates against families. He contends the prohibition violates the 1959 Unruh Civil Rights Act.
In response, owners Elizabeth and John Young have filed suit in Orange County Superior Court, where they live, asking a judge to weigh in on the issue.
“We think we're doing the right thing,” said Elizabeth Young. “We just want to be sure.”
According to Baron, naturists are affronted by the ban.
“These are not sexually charged environments,” he said. Parents should be responsible for protecting their children.
In a perfect world, that's true. But three recent cases tell us this is not a perfect world:
The treasurer of a nudist club in Ottawa, Canada, was sentenced for possession of child pornography.
An English couple were convicted of setting up an online nudist forum as cover for their abuse of children younger than 13.
And a Texas man was sentenced to 50 years in prison for making videos of himself molesting girls at a nudist resort and his home.
These may be unusual or isolated cases, but according to Elizabeth Young most of her guests prefer not to have children for fear of legal ramifications.
We have age-appropriate movies, clubs where minors are not allowed and other age-related limitations.
The Desert Suns — the newspaper and the resort — believe that the exclusion of children at a nudist resort is justified.

So, they think that banning children is justified.  Well, if the banning of children from naturist resorts can be justified on such grounds they should also be banned from attending church and school, participating in sports and being left in their parents' care.

What are these people thinking?

[Leah]

I have read this five times and still don't understand what they are saying.

Paedophillia is a "condition" dependent on the availability of stimulation - I would have thought that somewhere like Desert Sun would be a very unlikely place for a paedo to optimise stimulation.  Given the easy access to beaches, pools, malls etc not to mention community, school and church gatherings.  I think they have created a perceived risk and jumped to a conclusion.

Possibly providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Westernyelp]

This is a strange one, coming from a so called naturist friendly resort. it flies in the face of what naturism is about, maybe they should be looking at the adults attending the resort rather than the children. I understand that the want to be cautious and want to prevent anything happening to children, but this is a wrong approach on so many levels.

[Stuart]

Lets stop the rapists as well by banning their potential victims, i.e. all men & women as well. Adults have a right to be safe as much as the kids.

Bunch of bloody arses, get a grip

[TheSeane]

Wow, just... wow

[Bobbert]

We should seal children in impenetrable boxes until they are 18.  That way no one can do anything bad to them.   

[Archaewok1]

lol, if it's their resort, let them do what they want with it. Whatever happened to people being able to do what they want with their own property? It's not like they are banning blacks, just people who would have to have adult supervision to begin with. And the quote from the article mentioned there being other places in the area for people to go. So unless there are customers with money already tied into those condos, who cares? Just go to a different resort and let that resort lose money.

[AElf]

This has been bothering me since I posted the original article and I've spent far too much time trying to figure out the owners' rationale.  So far I have three guesses: 

(1) they are idiots -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because they are idiots; 

(2) they know something about their members or regular guests that they'd rather not come right out and state -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because it is beset by perverts; or

(3) they're making a not-so-quiet switch to the adult entertainment market -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because it is for swingers not naturists.

Whatever their reason I hope they go tits up --     -- in the economic sense of course.

[Bobbert]

This has been bothering me since I posted the original article and I've spent far too much time trying to figure out the owners' rationale.  So far I have three guesses: 

(1) they are idiots -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because they are idiots; 

(2) they know something about their members or regular guests that they'd rather not come right out and state -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because it is beset by perverts; or

(3) they're making a not-so-quiet switch to the adult entertainment market -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because it is for swingers not naturists.

Whatever their reason I hope they go tits up --     -- in the economic sense of course.

Yeah, on option 2 - why else would they associate a few odd incidents around the world to their site and take this big step?  Protecting youngsters from a serious threat would be about the only reason to eliminate young families and trash the club's future.

[Stuart]

(3) they're making a not-so-quiet switch to the adult entertainment market -- in which case I wouldn't want to go to their place because it is for swingers not naturists.

Whatever their reason I hope they go tits up --     -- in the economic sense of course.

If they are targeting swingers and calling themselves naturists, lets hope they go tits up in every way but the good ways. We don't need more people thinking the two are the same.

[Dan]

If they are targeting swingers and calling themselves naturists, lets hope they go tits up in every way but the good ways. We don't need more people thinking the two are the same.

It's more common in places where the legal status of swinging is a grey area.

In Canada swinging is unambiguously legal so swingers clubs claim to be swingers club. It's less confusing for everyone which I think can only lead more people to attend the event of their choice.

[jackAZ]

I think it would have been more prudent for them to come out and say, we are becoming an adult only resort where people can escape from their own and anybody else's children. Much more like a Sandals Resort, these are not 'swingers' places, heck most of them are not even nudist, let alone topfree friendly. Never saw anything like that at the one's I've been too.

Never been to Deseret Sun, but a friend and his wife frequent there, and he mentioned they go there specifically because their is no "hanky panky" (is that still even a word), not exactly their scene. No young kids is just a bonus in their minds, of course they said they never saw any there in all their times before the policy change.

[Dan]

I think it would have been more prudent for them to come out and say, we are becoming an adult only resort where people can escape from their own and anybody else's children. Much more like a Sandals Resort, these are not 'swingers' places, heck most of them are not even nudist, let alone topfree friendly. Never saw anything like that at the one's I've been too.

Either they are dishonest about their motives (in that case, we don't enough information to be sure of what the motive is) or they are idiots.

Either way, it's bad.

[NaturalInNY]

If they cared about naturism as a philosophy or body freedom in the slightest, they would not have made this decision. Hopefully their current clientele leaves in droves.

[mcibear]

Desert Sun and the "Kiddie Porn" Defense - Why it Matters
In case you are unaware, the Desert Sun Nudist Resort in Palm Springs, California, received a letter on February 17 from attorney David Baron threatening legal action against the resort's no children and couples-only day pass policies, alleging that such practices violate California's Unruh Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination by businesses based on age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

Desert Sun owners John and Elizabeth young purchased the resort three years ago, but only last year instituted a "no children allowed" policy. The reasons for this are unclear, especially since Ms. Young stated online on February 4, 2012, that in the "first three years that we allowed kids, we had less than 15 kids during that entire three year period, visit our resort." With only about 1 child average every other month, it does not appear that there were enough youngsters attending to have made a noticeable difference to anybody.

In the same online response, Ms. Young also states that their "business has greatly increased since we imposed the no kids policy. You see, naturism in 2012 is much different than it was in 1970. Most naturist simply wish to vacation without kids around, not because they have a hidden agenda, they simply wish to relax and get away from the kids for a vacation". So that's two reasons for not admitting kids - 1) that kids don't come anyway, and 2) that there is more money to be made without kids.

An anonymous comment placed on this article alleges that the Youngs instituted the "no children" policy "because they had added a couple of fire rings and didn't want the kids to get hurt or burned and feared legal trouble with parents and insurance companies." So now we have three reasons.

Because of the threatened legal action, John and Elizabeth Young filed a lawsuit March 16 in Orange County Superior Court "asking a judge to rule that the clothing-optional resort's policy against children does not violate state law." (source). But now the reason has changed to something far more sinister:

"We changed the rule last year after seeing all the news stories ... of child porn," she said.
She said the resort, which has 32 hotel rooms and 59 condominiums on six acres, gets more than 10,000 visitors a year from around the world, and 40 percent of them are first-time visitors. She said she cannot guarantee that every guest has good intentions toward children.
The resort prohibits public sexual behavior and the use of cameras, but "violations do occur," Young said.
"(We) do not want to be responsible, legally or morally, for pictures taken at the resort that could be posted on websites that exploit pictures of nudist children in order to serve pedophiles," according to a statement issued by the Youngs. (source)
This statement is in direct and clear contradiction with Elizabeth Young's online response to a review of Desert Sun on February 4, 13 days before she and her husband received the letter from attorney Baron:

You speculated that “some of the people are there because they want to do things they are uncomfortable doing around kids”. This opinion on your part could not be farther from the truth. We maintain very strict rules that include immediate termination of club membership for any person that may wish to challenge our non-sexual environment (outside of their rooms). Desert Sun Resort is a female owned business and it has always been a nudist ONLY resort. Those rules are strictly enforced and we believe that is why nudists that are new to the industry feel more comfortable at our resort than any other.
Now we have a fourth reason for banning kids from the resort. It has apparently been decided that the only way to win the case is to scare the judge into making a decision based upon potential child endangerment, rather than the truth, which is that children are safe, and always have been, at Desert Sun Resort. It also needs to be pointed out that a photo of a nude child is NOT pornography.

Attorney David Baron responded to the Young's kiddie porn defense:

Baron said the policy is a "clear case of discrimination."
"It's about money. It's not about protecting kids (from) pedophiles," he told CNS.
The attorney said there has never been a complaint relating to pedophilia in the resort's 20-year history, and such resorts are family oriented.
Businesses can't "discriminate against children because they're children," he said.
I agree with Mr. Baron that, as the California law is written, this is discrimination, but the law is far too broad. Of course businesses discriminate against children all the time - minors cannot purchase cigarettes or alchohol. They cannot get a driver's licence, they cannot vote, or walk into an R rated movie without a parent. Violent video games, and even tanning beds, are regulated to prevent minors from having access. And many of California's bed and breakfast inns are for adults 18 and older.

Certainly I'm not an attorney, but it would seem perfectly reasonable and acceptable under the Unruh act to refuse admission to unaccompanied minors, but in the case of the Desert Sun Resort, I'm certain that they've never allowed minors in without their parents. Without a clear and reasonable basis for their "no children allowed" policy, the Youngs have been put in the position of fabricating an incendiary reason of child endangerment for keeping their resort "adults only" as a means to try and persuade a judge.

While I do agree that businesses have the right to operate in a manner they see fit, within the law, this particular case appears to have no grounds to succeed. First, there are no instances of child abuse or pornography at Desert Sun. The resort's owner has already proclaimed its "non-sexual environment", and as a club affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) and The Naturist Society (TNS), they have agreed to uphold the wholesome standards of those organizations.

If the contention that "potential" child pornography could result from the presence of children, then any business in the state of California where children are present could claim the same right to discriminate. For example, the Catholic Church could say that it will no longer allow children to attend services because of the potential (and historically real) threat of pederast priests. The Boy Scouts could prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from their activities because during swims or shower times there could potentially be a hidden camera, or a voyeuristic pedophile lurking. Shopping malls could prohibit children claiming the potential threat of abduction, or child rape. The fact is that there is a certain amount of danger for children whether they are walking down the street, going to a movie, or even going to school. It's the responsibility of parents, and society in general, to keep children safe. This does not mean that judges or legislators need to overreact when presented with irrational fear-mongering over "stranger danger".

So it's vital that The Desert Sun fail in their ill-conceived and deliberately deceitful lawsuit. Both AANR and TNS should sever ties with the resort, and work to see that they fail in court.

Should the Desert Sun lawsuit succeed, it could set a precedent in the courts that all nudist and naturist resorts will be looked at as potential fodder for pedophiles and child pornographers. A legal decision in their favor could provide ammunition for anyone opposing nude beaches (present and future), and threaten the development of any future nudist/naturist resorts.

Should the Desert Sun lawsuit fail, it will be somewhat vindicative of family nudism in general, that nudist resorts are not unsafe for children, thus separating nudism from swingers clubs and other sexually oriented businesses.

Either way, Desert Sun should never be allowed back in the AANR or TNS networks as long as the Youngs are the owners. What they have done with their lawsuit is so clearly in violation of long-accepted naturist principles, and so potentially damaging to the public relations battles that nudists have been working on for so long, that they simply can no longer be trusted.

If resorts like Desert Sun want to restrict their clientele to adults and couples only, then make a reasonable and coherent argument as to why adults sometimes like to vacation without children around, and work to get an amendment to the Unruh act. But don't demonize nudists as all being potential pedophiles, and label resorts as magnets for child pornography.

Let's hope the judge in this case sees the Young's lawsuit for the transparent lie that it is, a desperate attempt to discriminate against children by playing the "child endangerment" card. It's vitally important that nudist and naturist leaders speak out about this. Silence is not the answer.

UPDATE: Listen to Tim Kowal, attorney representing the Desert Sun Resort, yuk it up with Tim Conway, Jr. over pedophiles and pubes. What a fucking mess

http://nudiarist.blogspot.ca/?zx=5c9a3f543f9e5344

I have a lot of respect for this blogger, and think he makes a very good argument.