| Author |
 Topic  |
|
StuffedTiger
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 12:35:22 AM
|
According to published reports, the two movies of nudists were not pornographic. They were the only new material. All the rest were sex films from outside the USA. In the two movies, there were three boys whose images were personally identifiable. The FBI seems to have no idea where the movies were taken or who the boys were. I found no AANR facility in the Sunnyvale and Santa Clara areas. The FBI would like to know if Palmer has molested children. They would like to know if these boys could be among them. The FBI had these films for two years and has not charged Palmer with molestation. If we can identify possible locals they may be able to find the boys and check that out. We owe it to the children to help in any way we can.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 246 |
 |
|
|
Unknown 1
New Member
|
 Posted - 04/20/2007 : 02:19:50 AM
|
I post that because i think it has valid point, don't think so? tell me, i'll listen to all arguments about life and being able to freely live nude with nude children. I can even make it religious by bringing Wicca or Witchcraft into it. A religion that has exsisted for age. Being able to do a spell or rite with your children is a powerful experience, but if i film it i'm a bad human? No. I am a human, i am an animal, i am meant to be Nude.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 3 |
|
|
|
Unknown 1
New Member
|
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 02:25:51 AM
|
Also on another note of the first of my posts i wold like to say that the topic who calls that a vile piece of trash does not know what she/he is talking about. I find it to be a decent and well written piece. I have been, well "Perpetrated against" by these people. I have not let it affect my life or sexuality. I am an open caring Human, But alas we all as humans have our flaws, maybe mine is caring too much? maybe it's the fact that i think anyone who rashly speaks out against something before really understanding it is a fool, maybe i'm just i dunno, Stupid?
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 3 |
|
|
|
Chrome M Dragon
New Member
|
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 07:41:35 AM
|
Well, I read through this whole thing and have gained very useful knowledge. When I decide to have children I will be sure to recall this forum.
Hey, Life only sux MOST of the time.
Notice: This moderator, operating under username 'Moderator', has been terminated for repeatedly censoring or altering posts without providing a clear indication of which policy was being enforced. Her actions were not sanctioned by this organization.
|
Edited by - Moderator on 04/22/2007 11:46:26 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 6 |
|
|
|
StuffedTiger
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 9:01:50 PM
|
The found the two boys. They were not molested.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 246 |
|
|
|
Darmananda
New Member
|
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 01:22:42 AM
|
Bare with me on this one.
I have studied law dealing with the media as a college student.
The line is really blur when it comes to determining what is legal and what is not in regarding to "young nudists," their photos and their videos that appear on the internet, and if we should consider them as child pornography.
I had a membership with this nudist website called [deleted re: photos of minors].com and they have tons of pictures of preteen and young teen photos (10-16 -year) in addition to pictures of grown-ups. The young nudist pictures were mostly of young females. Maybe less than two percent of these pictures were of boys. Teen boys seldom appeared solo, whereas teen girls appeared alone most of the time (or with another one or two female teen friends).
This explained something to me. Even though the website claimed that the young nudist pictures were that of nature, and that of non-sexual manner, the big gab in female to male ratio reflects what the photographer is interested in photographing (and what they think they can make most money out of). The photographer definitely thinks female teens are worthier subject to photograph than the male teens.
The same website is affiliated with another website called [deleted re: photos of minors].net (Russian). I received a bonus video by mail (from Ohio) and it was also a lot of female teen (10 to 14-year) with grown-up guardians were spending time in a park. The cameraman mainly focused on the female teen throughout the video and totally ignored the boys of same age who were also present. we saw the female teens in close-up shots, medium shot of bodies, long shots, them eating, talking, laughing, and simply walking, changing clothes or just doing nothing. For the boys, we saw their elbows, their backs, and their cut-off heads. The cameraman treated them as though they were invisible and he didn't actually see them that they were there. I think I saw one boy in full when he was picking up his lunch. I think he survived because he happened to be standing next to the teen girl that the cameraman was busy photographing.
I don't know what conclusion we can come from this but I think if the videos claimed to be non-sexual, they should photograph both male and female if they are present in time of photography. If the cameraman focuses on one sex more than the other, he/she is doing it for his/her sexual tastes as supposed to photographing pure subjects context. In another word, if the photographer ignores one sex in favor of the other (where there are enough numbers of both sexes present), then he/she is doing it according to his/her sexual orientation. In this case the so called "non-sexual" context is purely a sexual context for the photographer even though the viewers might fail to realize if not paid a close attention.
The videos can be made in Europe or whatever (in terms of the one that I received, they spoke French so I assume it was made at a nudist camp somewhere in France) but media ethic is similar in Europe and the US even though what is considered "porn" might differ. When a photographer ignores male subjects and only photographs females, or vice versa, at a male+female nudist event (camp, colony, beach and so have you), I consider something being wrong. If it is a naturism website, a movie, or a book, it should not favor one sex over the other. If that is the case, we might as well visit gay and lesbian websites base on our sexual interests.
As you can see I did not come to a conclusion but gave you something to think about. Maybe you can come up with a better conclusion and let me know. Any replies will help because I believe in equal-gender nudism.
By the way, forget these so called "nudist spas" that don't allow single men but allow single women. If a nudist spa, a nudist camp, or a nudist resort doesn't allow single men but allow a single women, they are definitely being sexist and therefore are 100% not worth it.
I hope you agree with me. If you don't, then let me hear your argument because I'm not stating I'm right. I like to learn from others in addition to my teachers and my textbooks.
***My English will seem a bit weird to you because it is my 5th language.
Best regards,
Darmananda
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 9 |
|
|
|
WillyNilly
New Member
|
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 9:35:16 PM
|
Nice stories about the kids in the bath.
But the serious aspect; is it illegal to take maturist pictures of children.
Well the truth, both happy and sad, is that in the USA and UK, it is not illegal to possess naked photos of children. Sad because I question why disassociated people would want them in the first place.
There are 5 grades of child pornography, the LOWEST of which is showing the (male) minor in a state of arousal. To us in the lifestyle this is perfectly accessible because the number of incidents of child abuse within naturism can be counted on the fingers of one foot! But this allows non-nudist adults to collect innocent pictures of kids and that is the first step on the path to hell in my opinion.
I am not condemning the right of naturists to record their full lifestyle, but if you think it would stop there you are naively mistaken. My program Southern Naturist Shorelines will when it is up and running have photos and footage bof naked beach fun events that will inevitable include kids, as it is a family project. But I think minors muddled into a general crowd (like in the attached picture) gives a different connotation to wanton photos of someone else's children alone in the frame. I again ask, what is the motive behind that?
I believe the grading neds to be fully reviewed and naturists should automatically want to be a part of this process. We have to see both sides.
Hugs Will
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 8 |
|
|
|
Teva
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 4:18:03 PM
|
Some of the US states do claim this is illegal and have prosecuted and won.
Teva
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 256 |
|
|
|
WillyNilly
New Member
|
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 08:18:42 AM
|
Only if the judge is bent, Teva
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 8 |
|
|
|
Teva
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 09:51:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by WillyNilly
Only if the judge is bent, Teva
I don't remember if it was IN or IL, but a good friend of ours was charged and found guilty via trial.
Teva
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 256 |
|
|
|
FlCpl4NewdFun
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 8:20:36 PM
|
What the heck does anyone need pictures of naked kids for? Seriously, are you people so rabid in your desire for your "right" to have pictures of naked children (who aren't your own) that you're willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that MOST people who take those pictures are for exploitive and deviant purposes. I'm quite comfortable forgoing my "right" to have such pictures knowing that most laws of that nature are designed to protect young victims who can't protect themselves. So step back from La La land and understand you live in the real world.
I would ask if you keep pictures of random kids in clothes? I can see it know, "Oh look Jane, here's that great shot of some kid we don't know walking down the street, what memories" The answer is likely no, so it is the nudity that is the compelling reason to have the photos.
No one is going to go to jail for having pictures of their kids in a bathtub. If you think that's the case you are totally delusional or have other pictures in your portfolio that would be more difficult to prosecute so law enforcement uses the innocent pictures in combination with the bad stuff. But all the sympathizers scream from the rooftops that the government in throwing people in jail for having pictures of their kids.
I've been to several nudist resorts that had children present and everyone somehow managed to have fun, behave in a civil manner, and somehow survive without their cameras.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 219 |
|
|
|
WillyNilly
New Member
|
Posted - 12/13/2008 : 04:56:41 AM
|
You endorsed what I said, Newdfun. I was just trying to be a bit more conciliatory. So let's knock that on the head and get tough.
quote:
No one is going to go to jail for having pictures of their kids in a bathtub.
Nobody is going to prison for a group beach activity involving adults and kids either. But portraits of solo children or just children have to be taboo!
Defamatory sites such as pure nudism.com that drool over pubescent girls should be abolished. Why are we blacklisting it from script yet hypocritically doing nothing about it, exactly as Europe did over Nazism in the 30s? I won't just go away! Surely it is OUR responsibility to stand up and close it down! You don't need the law to do that.
Sorry about varying the topic!
Hugs
Will
|
Edited by - WillyNilly on 12/13/2008 05:01:27 AM |
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 8 |
|
|
|
Admin
Forum Admin
|
Posted - 12/16/2008 : 12:50:19 AM
|
The best way we see it, is if enough well-informed people put the issue as eloquently as you gentlemen have, we'll have no need to take the law into our own hands. The courts will have access to our opinions right here for their research. In the meantime, more people can join us in expressing our distaste for sites that derive income from such practices as focusing exclusively on children simply because they are nude.
And yes, we do have certain sites blacklisted from here, to prevent the links being published on our site. The practice of blocking certain links, combined with your contributions of well thought out statements, can be a very visible and effective deterrent to these sites.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1888 |
|
|
|
RichNKaren
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/25/2009 : 1:49:47 PM
|
My only question is why? Why would anyone want to see a bunch of naked children? Maybe on a bearskin rug (or is that bareskin rug)
Nothing could interest me less
Rich&Karen
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 35 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/25/2009 : 6:02:38 PM
|
It is vague problem. Is the child being forced into a nude photo, without the parent's consent? Are there unnatural aspects to this videotaping? It the child being exploited? Does the photographer show enough interest in the child's well-being?
If the parents are taping their own children for their own keepsake type of thing, that would seem a better manner of doing so. Since a little child is not capable of judging what is going on, he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent. If the child is a teenager, wow, hold on!! LOL At least at that age, you are much more aware of what is happening with someone with a camera of some kind.
Common sense, and the welfare of a minor should rule this situation, in my opinion.
"'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
George Washington
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Are nudist or naturist videos of children legal?
