• The "Exploitation" of Naturists and Nudists, and the Legal Distribution of Child "Pornography"
    37 replies, posted
There has been some discussion as to the social construct of nudity in other threads already, and that is not the focus of this thread. This thread is dealing with an unrelated phenomenon that only loosely pertains to it. In 1958, the US Supreme Court ruled that "Naturist" or "Nudist" (that is, those people who hold a set of beliefs, ideals, or preferences that cause them to value nudity as a natural act, rather than a sexual one) photography and presentations were not to be considered obscene or pornographic, so long as the content of the photographs did not depict explicitly sexual content. As a result of this, nudism is protected across most of the United States (subject to specific state laws), and is also fully protected by many European nations. Since then, nudist colonies and camps are not nearly as rare as you might think. In these camps, fully nude families, including children, go about normal recreational activities, sans clothes. The activities themselves are court-protected and non-sexual in nature, as is much of the imagery that comes out of these, however there is a disturbing trend of people exploiting the legal gray area of nudist children. Online galleries, which I will not link to for obvious reasons, host and [I]sell[/I] images and videos of these children for what is clearly pornographic intent. Galleries boasting "young nude teens and children" and "Miss Child Nudist Beauty Pageants" are legally protected to be shown and sold in much of the so-called civilized world. These children are not themselves necessarily being exploited by simply being nude in a family setting, as they are being raised and supervised by parents who are teaching them clear distinctions between "nudity" and "sexuality," but what of those who are blatantly trading this material online, for what we can reasonably surmise is pornographic intent? Should this be considered an inappropriate and unfortunate by-product of what was already ruled "a basic human right" by the Supreme Court, or a predatory subculture of sexual deviancy that is truly exploiting these children, and in which action needs to be taken to limit this material? It's somewhat difficult to come down on one side of the fence or the other for me. While it goes without saying that these "young nude beauty pageant" videos available for sale on "nudist" galleries, though technically legal, are morally reprehensible, is cracking down on this sort of deviance worth squashing what I truly do consider a basic human right; the right to an "au natural" life style of private nudity, or of public nudity in clothing-optional locations. These nudist families are not teaching their children sexual behavior, nor are they in any way exploiting or abusing them; they are simply raising them under moral codes that submit that their nudity, and indeed all nudity, is a natural thing. However, there are undeniably those who are exploiting this for personal sexual gratification, and even [I]profiting[/I] off of it. Where do we draw the line when it comes to imagery of nude children and young teenagers? Is it only considered "pornographic" if they are committing sexual acts, or if they are victims of subversion, or is it to simply be labeled all nude imagery of children above or below a certain age? Is there anybody who truly has the right to make that distinction? The infamous quote of the Supreme Court Judge, "I cannot define obscenity, but I know it when I see it," is something to consider, here. Again, under absolutely no circumstances will any images, or links to images, containing nude children be posted in this thread. The forum rules are extremely specific in this regard, and for good reason. Though I haven't confirmed this final notice with the mod-team, I feel pretty damn comfortable in stating that any violations of this rule are likely to be met with no warnings.
I find this quite relative to be honest. If there are explicitly pictures and only pictures of the children I would raise a red flag warning, but otherwise I do not find it strictly pornographic, some sick fucks may get off to it but it is a lifestyle, sorry If I'm not making sense.
I fail to see how it's harming the children.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;33381436]I fail to see how it's harming the children.[/QUOTE]
Not to say that I agree with the cause, but I always thought that the main problem, (apart from the WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THAT factor), of child pornography was that it mentally/emotionally/physically hurt the kids. If these are just pictures of them living their lives, why is it a problem? If anything, there's the direct benefit of the pervs getting off without any children being directly harmed. Overall, it's still fucked up.
Usually since CP is illegal people just slap child faces on midget bodies with photoshop and it's considered child porn anyway. I don't really like it, but I'm mainly neutral on the subject.
As much as it churns my gut to say so, I suppose you're right. There is no victim, except decency, and crimes against decency are no real crimes at all. It would be another story entirely if these children were being tricked into this sort of behavior with the sole purpose of sexual exploitation, but if these photos are truly being taken in natural environments with innocent intentions, then does their later misuse and repackaging at the hands of cretins constitute an actual crime? I suppose it's too hard to truly define what constitutes sexually explicit imagery vs. innocent nudity to make any sort of blanket statement or law in regards to this. Unfortunately, the most convincing argument I can come up with essentially boils down to that very quote in the OP, "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." Yes, some of the ways these photos are being used and marketed is absolutely obscene to me, but without the ability to properly define exactly which elements are frustrating me, there is naught to do but grit my teeth.
I don't know. This is a very interesting question. I suppose it comes down to whether or not the child has been harmed in any way while doing it. I think this PBF comic is relevant. [img]http://i.imgur.com/hk2ED.jpg[/img] That said, I think it's impossible to know whether or not the child is going to regret having those photographs circulating later in life, so for now those selling pictures should be shut down (child is incapable of giving consent.)
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33387586]That said, I think it's impossible to know whether or not the child is going to regret having those photographs circulating later in life, so for now those selling pictures should be shut down (child is incapable of giving consent.)[/QUOTE] But there are all sorts of things that a child could regret doing later that they have to consent to and could say they shouldn't be allowed to. You're thinking about this as though it's a sexual issue when it's not. If the child is doing non-sexual naturist activities, why would they regret it later in life? It all comes down to a difference of opinion concerning shame and comfort with the nude body.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33387753]But there are all sorts of things that a child could regret doing later that they have to consent to and could say they shouldn't be allowed to. You're thinking about this as though it's a sexual issue when it's not. If the child is doing non-sexual naturist activities, why would they regret it later in life? It all comes down to a difference of opinion concerning shame and comfort with the nude body.[/QUOTE] Well for one, as a child you're dumb and don't know what's good or bad for you in the future. You do what parents tell you. If your parents tell you to go to nudist camp, you will because you have no idea what is going on.
If nudity is not sexual per se, and naturists don't believe it is, than some guy getting off to nude images of naturist children is not any more wrong than him jerking it to a picture of a clothed child. If the nudity is not sexual, and the child is not being harmed, I don't think there's anything that should be illegal concerning what is done with an image after the fact. [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33387848]Well for one, as a child you're dumb and don't know what's good or bad for you in the future. You do what parents tell you. If your parents tell you to go to nudist camp, you will because you have no idea what is going on.[/QUOTE] So the child is being exploited by being nude? Again, right back to difference of opinion on nudity and shame.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33387753]But there are all sorts of things that a child could regret doing later that they have to consent to and could say they shouldn't be allowed to. You're thinking about this as though it's a sexual issue when it's not. If the child is doing non-sexual naturist activities, why would they regret it later in life? It all comes down to a difference of opinion concerning shame and comfort with the nude body.[/QUOTE] Do you know anyone who sells their family albums? I'd be fine with it if it were just families taking pictures (I mean, it'd be fucked if I didn't), but these are actually being sold to make a profit. It seems too much like legal exploitation of children to me. [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] To clarify, I'm completely fine with naturist families taking pics of their kids in the nude [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] Even if the child is doing non-sexual activities, the pics are being taken with the express intent to be used for sexual gratification. I'd say we needed to see some of the pictures to determine whether they're at all sexually motivated, but we won't, so that point is moot.
I think that it's the parent's responsibility to make sure these images aren't distributed. I think it's a child protection issue if a parent is selling the imagery for money, as it shows neglect and a non-relative is selling them then it is a copyright issue.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33388124]Do you know anyone who sells their family albums? I'd be fine with it if it were just families taking pictures (I mean, it'd be fucked if I didn't), but these are actually being sold to make a profit. It seems too much like legal exploitation of children to me. [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] To clarify, I'm completely fine with naturist families taking pics of their kids in the nude [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] Even if the child is doing non-sexual activities, the pics are being taken with the express intent to be used for sexual gratification. I'd say we needed to see some of the pictures to determine whether they're at all sexually motivated, but we won't, so that point is moot.[/QUOTE] I don't understand the point of determining whether something is to be used for sexual gratification. I think it's irrelevant, however I do agree that if others are taking pictures of naturists without consent and selling the images that could easily constitute an invasion of privacy regardless of the actual content of the images. Either way, I don't see how the exploitation of children really enters into this like people seem to think it does apart from the unlawful use of their image.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33388124]Do you know anyone who sells their family albums? I'd be fine with it if it were just families taking pictures (I mean, it'd be fucked if I didn't), but these are actually being sold to make a profit. It seems too much like legal exploitation of children to me. [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] To clarify, I'm completely fine with naturist families taking pics of their kids in the nude[/QUOTE] This is essentially where I stand on the subject. When we start breaking into the "Miss child nudist beauty pageants" is when shit takes a real turn towards the unsettling, in my opinion. Even fully clothed childrens' pageants pull at my unease, but when you suddenly strip the kids naked, you're pretty much tipping the cup. -Snipped the Google bit; didn't contribute much to the argument and could direct people to some places they'd be better off not visiting- This shit is most definitely not on-the-level. My concern isn't so much that actual nudist material is simply falling into dishonest hands, but that people are actively exploiting children (in a [I]"let's make a funny movie"[/I] type of way), and then simply slapping "naturist" in the title in order to protect themselves.
Put it this way - would you rather paedos wank off to pictures of abducted kids being forced to strip, or pictures of kids who happen to be in an environment where it's okay to be naked? They're going to jack off to (what they consider to be) CP anyway, so at least by making the actual process by which it came to be made harmless to the child you can mitigate it. Related: [url]http://youtu.be/8APlx9btTn8?t=7m57s[/url]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33387864] So the child is being exploited by being nude? Again, right back to difference of opinion on nudity and shame.[/QUOTE] Depends on what you consider exploitation. Is teaching kids to be hardcore religious or being racist exploitation? If not, then I guess being nude isn't either. Really can't tell, this is a very gray area.
How is being nude exploitation in itself? That's going to be a very difficult position to justify. The idea that nudity is wrong is entirely a social construct. A child is not in any way being physically affected by it like they would by something like sex.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33389977]How is being nude exploitation in itself? That's going to be a very difficult position to justify. The idea that nudity is wrong is entirely a social construct. A child is not in any way being physically affected by it like they would by something like sex.[/QUOTE] They could be mentally affected if the parents force them to do it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33389977]How is being nude exploitation in itself? That's going to be a very difficult position to justify. The idea that nudity is wrong is entirely a social construct. A child is not in any way being physically affected by it like they would by something like sex.[/QUOTE] Well I know if my nude childhood photos were floating around the net I'd feel quite shitty tbh. And while I was a child I would not understand the consequences really. While a child is not being directly exploited, he can't really make a logical decision. If underage nudists are legal, then softcore cp is too?
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33390552]If underage nudists are legal, then softcore cp is too?[/QUOTE] That's not a sensible comparison because it's in a deliberately sexual context. [editline]22nd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;33390446]They could be mentally affected if the parents force them to do it.[/QUOTE] Everything you do affects you mentally. Parents can and do force their kids to do all sorts of perfectly legal things that I would wager could be more mentally damaging than making their children be naked, particularly since our aversion to nakedness is generally taught to us by our parents anyway.
I'm not saying I like nude children or anything, but if this is the sort of thing that people want, and the children are not harmed or exposed to any form of perversion directly, I don't see why it should be illegal. Making money off of selling pictures though is a little sketchy...
I think selling pictures of anyone where the person is identifiable, and the person is a primary part of the composition, is shaky ground on its own, nudity or not. However, in the case of naturists, I can't see how being pictured nude is any different from most people being pictured clothed, except in how the people who view the pictures react.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33381939]As much as it churns my gut to say so, I suppose you're right. There is no victim, except decency, and crimes against decency are no real crimes at all. It would be another story entirely if these children were being tricked into this sort of behavior with the sole purpose of sexual exploitation, but if these photos are truly being taken in natural environments with innocent intentions, then does their later misuse and repackaging at the hands of cretins constitute an actual crime? I suppose it's too hard to truly define what constitutes sexually explicit imagery vs. innocent nudity to make any sort of blanket statement or law in regards to this. Unfortunately, the most convincing argument I can come up with essentially boils down to that very quote in the OP, "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." Yes, some of the ways these photos are being used and marketed is absolutely obscene to me, but without the ability to properly define exactly which elements are frustrating me, there is naught to do but grit my teeth.[/QUOTE] I suppose you could argue that it should be illegal because the parents receive none of the proceeds. Forcing parental consentwould also add more protection
Nudist children photos aren't pornography unless there's sexual acts being committed. They're perfectly legal and morally acceptable.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33392654]That's not a sensible comparison because it's in a deliberately sexual context. [/QUOTE] But can you prove that in court? You could just tell your kid was walking around naked for all you care.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33397291]But can you prove that in court? You could just tell your kid was walking around naked for all you care.[/QUOTE] It's pretty easy to tell if images are deliberately suggestive, and in fact it's part of determining what constitutes obscenity.
Child porn is banned because the creation of it frequently involves abuse of children. There is no abuse taking place here, therefore I don't really care. Being attracted to children isn't against the law (yet), raping them is.
What would you do if you knew someone was paying money to jerk it to your cousin in a nudist colony? What would you do that cousin didn't know and he/she ended up finding it on the internet? What the hell are they doing with their pictures and selling them? What are they doing turning it into something sexual? No matter what, if some dude is paying for some family's nude pictures it's sexual, and wrong. I don't care if anyone says, "a hurr durr there is no victim," if it were me I'd feel that is an invasion of privacy and it turns my image into something some dude jerks to, and I don't want that. Now, if the family themselves put the pictures on the internet with absolutely no sexual connatations and it's not being re-uploaded to a site by someone else, then I can't say anything and it's all on them. HOWEVER, if someone re-uploads another kid's nude picture it's wrong. [b]EDIT:[/b] Re-thinking about it, I would say that someone could put an artistic spin on it and it could be totally acceptable in my opinion, but it would have to be done right. The way it's being described right now just makes it sound very bad, however.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;33398522]What would you do if you knew someone was paying money to jerk it to your cousin in a nudist colony? What would you do that cousin didn't know and he/she ended up finding it on the internet? What the hell are they doing with their pictures and selling them? What are they doing turning it into something sexual? No matter what, if some dude is paying for some family's nude pictures it's sexual, and wrong. I don't care if anyone says, "a hurr durr there is no victim," if it were me I'd feel that is an invasion of privacy and it turns my image into something some dude jerks to, and I don't want that. Now, if the family themselves put the pictures on the internet with absolutely no sexual connatations and it's not being re-uploaded to a site by someone else, then I can't say anything and it's all on them. HOWEVER, if someone re-uploads another kid's nude picture it's wrong. [b]EDIT:[/b] Re-thinking about it, I would say that someone could put an artistic spin on it and it could be totally acceptable in my opinion, but it would have to be done right. The way it's being described right now just makes it sound very bad, however.[/QUOTE] You can jerk off to anything and make it sexual, nudist pictures are no exception. Just because it's of children doesn't mean it should be a double standard. The whole "HOWEVER, if someone re-uploads another kid's nude picture it's wrong." is bullshit. I can reupload any picture for any purpose, at least one of them is valid. Maybe I owned a nudist colony and had the parents' permission? Broad statements like that are wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.