International Young Naturists Organisation
Naturist Resources => Naturist Links to Interesting and Informative resources => Topic started by: randomer909 on December 06, 2009, 01:28:55 am
-
http://www.startribune.com/local/78235642.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUT (http://www.startribune.com/local/78235642.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUT)
An interesting article about people coming to their senses that all nudity isn't sexual
-
As I have said before, I am all for nailing pedophiles
I suggest we start by those people who instantly think of sex or making laws about sex or stuff like that as an instant reaction to child nudity. :786
-
Glad to hear.
Sad thing is these laws havent reduced the numbers of actual child petifiles. They do what they do no matter the law. Granted such has become a witchhunt. We all have heard stories of some high school girl sending nude picture to her high school bf. Both get in trouble, bf for possesion of child porn, and gf for trafficing child porn. Now for such they are registered sex offenders for life. Is what they do always advisable, no, but its sad when laws used to protect children are actualy being used against them.
-
Sadly there are still many people out there who think that videos featuring innocent child and teenage nudity such as the enature ones and the FKK ones are child pornography. The Nudist-resorts.org forum even claimed that they've been treated as such just because of some f.ucked-up people who have bought them as well as genuine child porn stuff.
There have been sites dedicated to u-18 fashion models who posed in very sexually provocative positions and fully dressed at the same time. I think that the webmasters/mistresses thought they could get away with it because the subjects were not naked. Regardless, I'm glad to know that they were eventually closed down.
Basically if it looks like CP, sounds like CP and smells like CP then it likely is - in spite of whether the subject is nude or not. It all comes down to one single word: *INTENT*.
If you ever come across anything on the internet that has no right to be on it, report it to Interpol and the Report Child Porn webpage immediately.
-
A friend of mine once joked that he had a bunch of naked pictures of him as a young child - in the bathtub, playing in the garden in summer, etc and suggested that he could be sitting on a fortune if he sold them online. We did have something of a debate as to whether or not they would be guilty of selling child pornography if it was yourself in the pictures.
I guess we were just talking nonce-sense. Just like the celebs who jumped on this bandwagon without stopping to think about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NesjvRihbEg
-
Sadly there are still many people out there who think that videos featuring innocent child and teenage nudity such as the enature ones and the FKK ones are child pornography.
Er, while they might not be in the strictest sense, I point to what you go on to say:
It all comes down to one single word: *INTENT*.
If their web site is a fair sampling, then they produce videos that predominantly follow around naked pubescent and pre-pubescent children, and mostly girls at that.
Why would a genuine nudist want one of these videos, let alone be willing to shell out a fairly large sum of money for one? It's nothing that we don't see at a typical resort, and we also know that the average nudist is a lot older and male-er than the average nudist in those videos. They have all the appeal of flipping through a stranger's family's photo albums. At best, only a voyeur could be interested.
Why would someone interested in the lifestyle want one? They're not particularly informational. They don't offer an honest representation of nudist what a nudist resort is like - which, again, aren't dominated by young naked girls. They don't answer any questions that the curious might have. And why would anyone merely curious about the lifestyle opt to buy rather expensive DVD's from Russia as their main information source?
Simply, I cannot fathom any potential audience for this material save for pedophiles, and the intent of both producers and consumers is fairly clear - they're using nudism to get as close as they can to child pornography and stay legal. So yeah, while I don't think that we should concede the argument that they're not pornographic, I don't think we should endorse the stuff either.
Personally, I'm loathe to prosecute anyone for thoughtcrime. The only images outside the bounds of free speech ought to be those that depict actual molestation - and we should prosecute those vigorously. Everything else we should just acknowledge are legal and not try to read other people's minds as to their intent.
Though let me also say this - I don't believe in witch hunts. I think it must absolutely suck to be a pedophile. You're left with urges you know are morally wrong to pursue, you're completely demonized and painted as the worst thing ever by society, and you have virtually no resources or community to reach out to for support. If we as a society managed to actually make the distinction between molesters and pedophiles, and showed a little more sympathy and support towards the latter, maybe fewer of them would wind up becoming the former.