What is considered child pornograpy?

[R.M. Greenman]

As I am a subscriber to Internaturally, I have seen photos of naked children within in it's pages. I have also seen works by Jock Sturgis showing nude children and teenagers.

Everytime I hear on the news that a suspected child pornographer is arrested, they say that several photos of children, in various stages of undress, were found in the home.

Does this mean that if the police search my home for any reason, find photos of my girls not wearing much of anything, or a copy of this magazine, I'll get busted?

A while back I had a disposible camera that had some important photos on it. I had a few more exposures to use up before I sent it in for developing. My oldest daughter found the camera and started taking pictures of my youngest daughter. She was naked at the time. When I asked her what she was taking photos of she told me she was taking pictures of her sisters butt.

I thought I was going to have to destroy the whole camera. I didn't want police over here thinking I was a child pornographer.

As I said, I had some rather important pictures in the camera, and it took a couple of months before I gathered up the guts to have them developed. When I got them back, the photo of my daughter was no more pornographic than a Coppertone add.

But it made me quite paranoid for awhile. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[R.M. Greenman]

As I am a subscriber to Internaturally, I have seen photos of naked children within in it's pages. I have also seen works by Jock Sturgis showing nude children and teenagers.

Everytime I hear on the news that a suspected child pornographer is arrested, they say that several photos of children, in various stages of undress, were found in the home.

Does this mean that if the police search my home for any reason, find photos of my girls not wearing much of anything, or a copy of this magazine, I'll get busted?

A while back I had a disposible camera that had some important photos on it. I had a few more exposures to use up before I sent it in for developing. My oldest daughter found the camera and started taking pictures of my youngest daughter. She was naked at the time. When I asked her what she was taking photos of she told me she was taking pictures of her sisters butt.

I thought I was going to have to destroy the whole camera. I didn't want police over here thinking I was a child pornographer.

As I said, I had some rather important pictures in the camera, and it took a couple of months before I gathered up the guts to have them developed. When I got them back, the photo of my daughter was no more pornographic than a Coppertone add.

But it made me quite paranoid for awhile. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[florida-david]

i used to take my film to eckerds and no where else (i tend to stick with a business if they do something right). than we had our son and they started to put little nasty stickers over his baby butt if i ever took a nude picture of him. will this really annoyed me and made me question these people's right to do that and potentially get you in trouble with the law. well i stopped taking my pictures there and anywhere else since now everything is digital. why should i risk being called on by the police for an innocent picture of my child fishing naked?? big brother, again....

Florida -David ..tis a shame..I am very fond of the full frontal my parents took of me 60 years ago...Digitals do solve the problem... /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Outdoorbare

[Nude\'n\'happy]

Unfortunately, child pornography is in the eyes of the people with power. A woman in Texas loses her children because her husband took a picture of her child breastfeeding while everyday you see commercials on tv that show naked babies. There is no clear cut description of what will be considered pornographic. Of course anything depicting a sexual act is definitely porn, the problem comes with pictures of simple nudity. Every state and jurisdiction will be different in their definition. As will judges in the same jurisdiction differ in their oppinions. It all depends upon their views/fears about nudity and their experiences in life.

[Snoboy]

People, people, please wake up and smell the coffee! Any time a child is exploited it is WRONG. Innocent breastfeeding has never been considered pornography; in the eys of some, perhaps inappropriate in public places, but clearly NOT what this topic is about. STOP USING THAT ARGUMENT WHEN DISCUSSING PORNOGRAPHY..., EXPLOITATION OF INNOCENT CHILDREN IS WRONG AND NO AMOUNT OF DEBATE WILL CHANGE THAT. There is much more to do in life than talk about this filth...go to the beach, get naked and RELAX! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Jochanaan]

I agree with you, Snoboy, that exploiting children is wrong and nudity or breastfeeding is not. The trouble comes with politics. Some who believe that photos of breastfeeding and naked children are pornographic are "squeaky wheels" with loud voices and deep pockets. (I have long had a suspicion that these voices receive covert support from Penthouse and Madison Avenue. After all, if nudity becomes commonplace, how can advertisers use it to sell merchandise or pornographers to sell images?) And they're very good at taking the moral high ground. That's why our laws are so restrictive in so many places.

Somehow we've got to take back the high ground and point out that the filthiness isn't in the images of naked children, especially if they're suckling their mothers' breasts, but rather in the minds of those who would censor this naked beauty.

[Nude in the North]

Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

A fairly famous Psychiatrist in these parts confirms that many child molsesters and Pedophiles use things as common as the childrens sections of catalogs for Porn.
Now most of us would never get any sexual gratification from looking at a 4 year old in a swimming suit. We probably could never understand how someone possibly could get aroused at looking at something so innocent.

What we think of as porn isn't the problem. It's what the Pedophiles think of as porn that is troublesome.

Outlawing Catalogs isn't the answer.

Maybe there would be fewer Pedophiles if there was less shame taught to children.

It's called "The Forbidden Fruit" Syndrome.

Steve

I can't comment on the position in the US but here some people are getting totally paranoid about paedophiles and losing all sense of perspective. Do you know that here some primary schools have prohibited parents taking video cameras into school to film the children performing plays JUST IN CASE the films fall into the hands of paedophiles. This is madness!

People who sexually exploit children are scumbags and should be locked up, but we've now got to the stage whereby if you're caught with photographs of other peoples kids on your computer, dressed or undressed, you can be suspected and possibly prosecuted for child sex abuse!

I'm not a naturist and have no pictures of my kids nor anyone else naked at any age on my computer nor anywhere in my house. People are going to take pictures of their families enjoying holidays, and if they ARE naturists then there's a pretty good chance that some of the pictures will show nudity. I don't know how any film processor DARES to be so impertinent as to censor family holiday pictures in that way. That's outragious!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Stu

[R.M. Greenman]

So if pornography is in the eye of the beholder, should I burn my copies of Internaturally after I read them? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I'm not a naturist and have no pictures of my kids nor anyone else naked at any age on my computer nor anywhere in my house.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Stu, if you are on this site you have pictures of naked people on your computer, some have kids in them. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif If you click on the profile of some of the posters you will see some nude pictures. Unless you have a special filter on your computer. Just thought I'd point that out to you.
Have a great weekend. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[sawdust]

I saw the O'Riley Factor this evening (9-12-03) and he and a lawyer from Fl. were trying to define exactly what should be stated in another law to protect children from abuse. They fumbled around for a few moments throwing out numerious cliche expressions. It soon became very obvious that they had not a clue as to what should be said. That is the problem then! It is near impossable to come up with the right words without impacting the rights of the child, the childs parents, the art world and people in general. O'Riley's stand was that this new law was needed "for the children" and yet even he could not properly define what child abuse on film was. "I know it when I see it." will not stand up in a court of law because every one sees "IT" in a different way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Thanks, Jet

[Bob S.]

I also have Jock Sturges books as well as Sally Mann photo books. I bought most of them at Barnes and Noble locally. I will assume, therefore, that they are legal here. Otherwise, the local Barnes and Noble is peddling child porn.

I tend to think that if someone has a collection of nude girls, and they are also being investigated for child abuse, the pictures could be used as porn as the perv is using them as such, but then again, I am not sure.

Bob S.

[Jochanaan]

We're in a real dilemma. If we prohibit photos of nudist children, we fail to portray a vital aspect of naturism. If we allow them, we allow pedophiles potential access as long as the pictures are on a Web site that anyone can access just by registering.

Ideally, pictures of nudist children in their natural outfits would be available to friends, family, and sincere seekers, but not to pedophiles. But then, ideally there would be no pedophiles! (This is actually a highly inaccurate term since what such people do has next to nothing to do with loving children. Pederast is more precise.)

Of course, the problem isn't in the images, but in the minds of some who look at them.

Hi hw

"if you are on this site you have pictures of naked people on your computer, some have kids in them."

Ooh! I hope not! I only visit the forum here and don't generally explore the rest of the site for that reason. I'll have to look out for that.

Bob

"I tend to think that if someone has a collection of nude girls, and they are also being investigated for child abuse, the pictures could be used as porn as the perv is using them as such, but then again, I am not sure."

Now I have a real problem with this. Are we saying that if someone has nude pictures of girls (or boys) as part of a genuine interest in naturism then that's OK, but if they have the same pictures because they get sexual gratification from looking at them then they're criminals? It's certainly something that needs to be thought about very carefully. I think that's a dangerous path to follow and if we're not careful we're going to get into the area of "thought crimes".

Jochanaan

"Ideally, pictures of nudist children in their natural outfits would be available to friends, family, and sincere seekers, but not to pedophiles."

I agree, but that would be problematic to enforce.

"This is actually a highly inaccurate term since what such people do has next to nothing to do with loving children. Pederast is more precise."

I agree!! The widespread misuse of the word paedophile has irritated me for years, and now I do it myself!

"Of course, the problem isn't in the images, but in the minds of some who look at them."

You're right. But as I said to Bob, trying to deal with this is like trying to detect thought crimes. That's why we need arbitary guidelines about what pictures are and are not allowable in the public domain (e.g. the Internet etc). If the perverts get off on those that are allowed then let them - so long as nobody is getting hurt. Some guys are into looking at womens' feet, but wedon't restrict pictures of those, do we?

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, I was saying that to me, that is how it seems. You always hear reports about a man arrested for crimes against children having pictures of children in various states of dress. They never say if that is a part of the charges against him, however. Occasionally will you gear about a man who has pics of children emngaged in various sex acts, which is illegal.

Recently, the investigation of Walt Zadanoff, the former head of the ASA who is selling nudist videos of young girls wound up with no charges being filed. As it says in the article, "Law enforcement authorities told the governor because the videos show no sex, they are legal."

The investigation was done in Florida, and now, Rep. Foley is on the offensive, and I do mean offensive, "He has sponsored a bill called the "Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act" that would outlaw the videos Zadanoff sold." Because the video contained pictures of children naked, it must be about sex and therefore bad, bad, bad!!!

The URL for the article is below:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030911/APN/309110939

As for the term pedophile, it is not technically illegal to be a pedophile. All it requires to be a pedophile is having sexual fantasies of a child for more than six months (according to the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual, Vol. IV). Please define a pedarast. I'll try to find it in my dictionary.

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I think that's a dangerous path to follow and if we're not careful we're going to get into the area of "thought crimes". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Sexual Offences Bill in the UK is proposing just that in that it plans to introduce a new offence of "grooming" which could effectively see people arrested for what someone thought they were thinking about doing, not for anything they had actually done in terms of what we currently understand as sexual abuse of children.

I think there was also a similar case recently in th US where someone was set up by the police and ensnared into meeting up with a fictitious child for the purpose of sex. So this guy was effectively jailed (I think) for his thoughts.

I wouldn't suggest that the law should have loopholes to let paedophiles off the hook but I agree with you that the concept of "thought crimes" is a dangerous path to follow.

I was trying to find some info on this on the net and I found a site dealing with thought crimes. I liked this one: "The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions."

Rik

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Please define a pedarast. I'll try to find it in my dictionary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've never actually seen the definition of "pederast," but I've seen the word used enough that it's clear it refers to one who commits forced sexual intercourse with a child.

"'Ideally, pictures of nudist children in their natural outfits would be available to friends, family, and sincere seekers, but not to pedophiles.'

"I agree, but that would be problematic to enforce."

It certainly would, Stu! And your point about thoughtcrime is well taken. That's why this issue is so problematic.

Perhaps it would be a workable compromise to allow pictures of naked children only if the pictures also show adults, naked or otherwise. Children probably look less vulnerable, and therefore are less amenable to fantasizing, if there's a big naked man or a fierce naked woman in the picture.

[R.M. Greenman]

If thinking horid things could get you arrested, I'd be facing the death penalty. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Nude in the North]

Here's another thought to ponder.

When children are Missing, it is usually assumed that they were kidnaped by a Pedophile.
So what do we do?
We post their picture on Milk cartons, Posters, and Websites.
It isn't a big stretch to imagine that Pedophiles also go to these websites or drink milk.
Thus, by posting pictures of these missing children we are giving the pedophiles visual aid to enhance their Fantasies.

Should we continue to broadcast these pictures in hopes of finding the children and saving them from a horrid fate?
Or should we ban these pictures because some sicko might use them to fantasize about committing a similar crime.

We can't stop children from being molested or kidnaped by banning pictures.

Steve

Rik,

I completely agree with you about the proposed law on "grooming". I think the prosecution would have to PROVE sexual intent though before they could get a conviction. I certainly don't feel comfortable with the idea of setting up paedophiles in the "agent provocateur" way. That's the authorities creating a crime that would not otherwise have been committed.

I think that sooner or later we'll have to confront paediophilia in a radically different way and stop the demonising and witch-hunts. Perhaps one way of doing this would be to establish a special support framework for "sufferers" of this condition where they could be encouraged to volunteer themselves for help and then could be treated before they actually do any harm. Surely that's preferable to punishing them after the damage has been done. In other words - if you come forward BEFORE you commit any crimes against children then we'll treat you sympathetically as a patient with a psychosexual disorder. But if we get you AFTER you've committed these crimes then we'll lock you up and throw away the key.

What do you think?

Stu

[Trailscout]

Many of the "missing" children are not missing at all. They are often under the loving care of parents or other close relatives who are actually protecting a child from an abusive relative who does have legal custody. In other cases, the "kidnapper" is a loving parent who is a victim of a disfunctional court system that fails to allow a perfectly good parent even minimal access to his or her child.

I don't wish to minimize the need to search for children who truly are in harm's way, but the face on the milk carton is often a lot better off right where he or she is.

Very true, Trailscout. The mother almost always gets automatic custody of the children in a divorce. The dad is lucky if he gets to see his kids every other weekend. The really "generous" mother will actually let him see them every weekend. What loving dad would be happy with that? My vistation was at the whims of their mother. If she didn't have something "better" for them to do than spend time with their dad, then I would get them. Because of that situation, the closeness I had with my daughters disappeared, and we grew apart. I can't blame anyone who isn't allowed to see his children for more than a few hours a week for snatching them.

[Trailscout]

My post digressed a bit, but it was an attempt to criticize the media hysteria about missing children and sexual exploitation. If they stop crying "sex crime" everytime a child is photographed nude, it will make the public take the call to alarm more seriously when genuine pornography is created.

Our battle is on three fronts:
1. We must do aggressive self-policing. A former AANR leader recently published a photography book that many said went beyond promoting social nudity and was instead a book featuring children in poses that were mildly sexually suggestive.
AANR surely wanted to keep this thing quiet, but
it would have been better if they had issued strong statements condemning the book.
We must maintain our vigilence at resorts and organize nude beach patrols to stop gawkers and lewd behavior. We must insist that AANR dissociate itself from any member resort that is sexually-oriented.

2. There is still profound ignorance about social nudism. We simply must state our case in the media.

3. In addition to media exposure, we must offer more opportunities for families with children to enjoy nude recreation and see for themselves that it is not part of the porn problem. We need to reinvent commercial social nudism. Right now many resorts are not targeting young families with children. For many, a commercial resort is their only opportunity for social nudity. Climate and geography may bar them from ready access to places to be nude outdoors.
There must be a big push to promote family-oriented resorts. Summer nudist camp for kids is a very important part of the solution. We must do all we can to prevent them from being declared illegal. Promoting nudism on college campuses may not seem directly related, but these "kids" are just a few years away from marriage and having children. The time to reach them is now, not after their future kids have been indoctrinated into body shame. We need to foster a generation of new nudist families to fill receptive resorts with the laughter of children. In so doing, the general public will be more likely to view social nudism as family-oriented than as primarily a naughty adults-only resort.

Ultimately we must do all we can to desexualize public perception of nudity among nudist children and assure that that is the reality as well.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
What do you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I agree with you entirely.

I can't believe I just said that! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Bob S.]

"I think there was also a similar case recently in th US where someone was set up by the police and ensnared into meeting up with a fictitious child for the purpose of sex. So this guy was effectively jailed (I think) for his thoughts."

In these cases, a police officer usually enters a youth chat room looking for pervs. They let the perv make his move first to talk about sex. It is usually taken to a private chat room where the perv makes sexual advances toward the "youth." All of this is already illegal. It is illegal to proposition a child, or someone whom you believe is a child, for sexual purposes either in person or online. So the meeting is basically the place of arrest. They already committed the crime.

It is true that most of the time when there is a kidnapping, it is a parent or grandparent. Something else that needs to be reported constantly is that strangers are the least likely people to harm your children. The adults whom are the most likely to do the harm are the ones whom are closest to your children. Trust is an important issue in abuse and close family members and friends already have that trust built in as well as access.

And one more thing, for what stu was saying. I actually believe that pedophilia is in the wrong category. It is not, I believe, a paraphilia like bestiality, necrophilia, fetishism, flashing, and the like but rather a form of sexuality like homosexuality and heterosexuality. In fact, the psychologists were considering removing paraphilias as a psychological disorder for those who have no remorse over it. But I believe that is is a sexuality and people are born with a tendancy towards it or not. That would explain the high recidivism rates. Just my theory and if that is the case, there are no treatments for those who are fully pedosexual. Those who are "bi" (as in could go either way child or adult) could be persuaded to change.

Bob S.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
...I actually believe that pedophilia is in the wrong category. It is not, I believe, a paraphilia like bestiality, necrophilia, fetishism, flashing, and the like but rather a form of sexuality like homosexuality and heterosexuality. In fact, the psychologists were considering removing paraphilias as a psychological disorder for those who have no remorse over it. But I believe that is is a sexuality and people are born with a tendancy towards it or not. That would explain the high recidivism rates. Just my theory and if that is the case, there are no treatments for those who are fully pedosexual. Those who are "bi" (as in could go either way child or adult) could be persuaded to change.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I respectfully disagree. Heterosexual intercourse between consenting adults is part of the natural order and serves well-established purposes of intimacy and reproduction. (Ideally it should also involve a life commitment between partners, but that's another post.) Neither homosexual intercourse nor pederasty serves a reproductive purpose, and in pederasty, at least, the "intimacy" created is usually one-sided.

To those who argue that tendencies toward homosexuality or pederasty are determined by genetics or unusual chemical balances, I would merely ask for the raw data, and point out that any traumatic event can change a person's chemical balance and maybe even his/her genetic makeup.

All right, I'll get off the soapbox now. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Neither homosexual intercourse nor pederasty serves a reproductive purpose, and in pederasty, at least, the "intimacy" created is usually one-sided."

First of all sex is rarely about reproduction, and there are many cases of a pedophile getting his young victim pregnant. Since it has a "reproductive purpose" does that make it legit in your eyes?

"To those who argue that tendencies toward homosexuality or pederasty are determined by genetics or unusual chemical balances, I would merely ask for the raw data, and point out that any traumatic event can change a person's chemical balance and maybe even his/her genetic makeup.

How about I ask you how you determined your point of view? What raw data did you use?

" A former AANR leader recently published a photography book that many said went beyond promoting social nudity and was instead a book featuring children in poses that were mildly sexually suggestive.
AANR surely wanted to keep this thing quiet, but
it would have been better if they had issued strong statements condemning the book."

Who was this leader and what was the name of the book? I've not heard anything about this.

When my girls were little (late 70's), I bought what was supposed to be a sex education book for children. I think it was called "Show Me". There were photos of a teenage girl holding onto a pre-teen boy's penis. The captions said, (the girl) "I like holding onto your penis." (the boy) "Yeah, I think it's fun too." There was a photo of two boys holding each other's penis with the caption "Show me yours, and I'll show you mine." There was a photo of a man with an erection with his hand around it. One photo showed a girl about 14 with a boy about 13 and with an erection touching her nipple and saying, "I get excited when I see girl's breasts."

This book was meant for children? I gave it to one of my brothers. Even now, 25 years later, I wouldn't give that book to children. A lot of what was in it wasn't necessary for children's sex education.

[R.M. Greenman]

I would never let my girls even look at a book that showed that kind of stuff!

I am even libreral minded when it comes to censorship but that book is bad. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Trailscout]

Cyndian asked: "Who was this leader and what was the name of the book? I've not heard anything about this."

I reread the source documents and must retract almost all of what I said.

A former AANR president sells videos (not books) of young girls competing in European nudist beauty pageants.

AANR DID disassociate themselves from this man and asked him to remove his Web link to AANR. While it was NOT porn or even suggestive, it is clearly marketed toward men who would like to spend hours watching attractive nude girls parade on stage.

I am still opposed to what he is doing, but I don't need to distort the facts to make my case. It is bad enough as is. I apologize for quoting second-hand sources in my previous post.
Here is the original article from the Saint Petersburg Times:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/25/Tampabay/Nudist_selling_nude_k.shtml

[Bob S.]

Joachann, I am sure that most of the psycholical field would also disagree, but I am just trying to figure it out. I have no raw data. just my specuation. Most paraphilias can be cured with intensive therapy, but pedophilia cannot.

Nothing short of an extreme and unusual mutation can alter genes. As for chemicals, many things can cause imbalances. And until scientists can actually figure out exactly why we fall in love with whoever we fall in love with, all questions regarding heterosexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. can only be speculative.

And just as a question, if a 58-year-old couple decided to get married and have sex, doesn't that fall into your category of non-reproductive purposes?

Bob S.

[Caipora]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Many of the "missing" children are not missing at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some statistics from Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors", p24:
"According to police files, 95 percent of allegedly abducted children turn out to be "runaways and throwaways" from home or kids snatched by one of their own parents in divorce custody disputes. Studies commissioned under the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984 estimate that between 52 and 158 children will be abducted and murdered by nonfamily members each year. ... A child's risk of dying in a car accident is twenty-five to seventy-five times greater."

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
...I actually believe that pedophilia is in the wrong category. It is not, I believe, a paraphilia like bestiality, necrophilia, fetishism, flashing, and the like but rather a form of sexuality like homosexuality and heterosexuality. In fact, the psychologists were considering removing paraphilias as a psychological disorder for those who have no remorse over it. But I believe that is is a sexuality and people are born with a tendancy towards it or not. That would explain the high recidivism rates. Just my theory and if that is the case, there are no treatments for those who are fully pedosexual. Those who are "bi" (as in could go either way child or adult) could be persuaded to change.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I respectfully disagree. Heterosexual intercourse between consenting adults is part of the natural order and serves well-established purposes of intimacy and reproduction. (Ideally it should also involve a life commitment between partners, but that's another post.) Neither homosexual intercourse nor pederasty serves a reproductive purpose, and in pederasty, at least, the "intimacy" created is usually one-sided.

To those who argue that tendencies toward homosexuality or pederasty are determined by genetics or unusual chemical balances, I would merely ask for the raw data, and point out that any traumatic event can change a person's chemical balance and maybe even his/her genetic makeup.

All right, I'll get off the soapbox now. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So essentially you are saying that every time you have sex with your wife (or any man with his wife) that they are doing this for sake of having children? GIVE ME A BLOODY BREAK. So the once or twice a week you have sex with your wife is to try once or twice a week to have kids? Riiiiiight

Furthermore, homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics? So I guess gays choose to be gay and if they want to change they can. If that were true, majority of gays would change. I cannot fathom anyone choosing to be gay. Who chooses to live a life where you will be alienated, ostracized, and even killed? That doesn't make sense.

One cannot change his/her genetic makeup so the statement you made earlier is false. Speaking as a former biology major, genetics cannot be changed or altered. For genetics to be changed, a specie has to be in some extraneous environmental condition and it would take MILLION of years for genetics of one specie to change.

Lastly, the chemicals in brain cannot be changed. There can be an IMBALANCE in one's chemicals which is the cause of DEPRESSION. That has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual interest. A traumatic experiences again does not change brain chemical. Traumatic experiences can cause depression. In addition to manic depressive, there are two other forms of depression: chemical depression and clinical depression. Clinical is caused by some traumatic experience and can be treated with therapy and drugs (temporarily) or both. Once the person has the issue/experience under control or overcomes it, he/she is less likely to be depress. Chemical depression is caused by IMBALANCE in brain chemicals and most often has little to do w. a traumatic experience. Chemical depression is cured with drugs (temporarily or permanent depends on the severity). One can have a perfectly fine life and still be chemically depress.

Very good post Croydon! Thanks for saving me the trouble... I would have posted exactly the same if I'd had time.

[shãybare]

As a retired sociologist I must agree with Croydon. Though there are some men and women that "explore" the gay lifestyle by choice, a person that is gay is so due to genetics.

[Trailscout]

Shay,

My college biology professor insisted that only the lower animals have such genetically predetermined behavior patterns.

The human Cerebrum, he said is where such tendencies are coded. In other words, all the conscious behavior that humans express is either social conditioning (conscious or subsconcious) or volitional acts more or less independent of conditioning.

That does not mean that some people have a choice about homosexual orientation. It appears to be largely the result of social conditioning in early childhood.

Having said that, orientation does not mandate behavior. I have a heterosexual orientation, but dispite the fact that I observed several attractive young women today, I was not hopelessly compelled to demand sex from them.

[shãybare]

Trailscout,

How many men did you find attractive? If you saw a man that you thought attractive, would the thought of sex even come up? Do you believe your reaction to women is because of social conditioning? Another way to put it is to say that if you woke tomorrow morning and being gay was the accepted lifestyle, could you then start having sex with men? Would you find men attractive and women unattractive? Also, how do you explain all the men and women not raised in an homosexual environment that are homosexual?

PS: Homosexuals are able to see others they find attractive and refrain from having sex also.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:

My college biology professor insisted that only the lower animals have such genetically predetermined behavior patterns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your old biology professor is hopelessly out of date. Although still controversial, the 'new' science of sociobiology reveals myriad ways in which humans are influenced by instinct. It is very valid to point out that this is not the same as saying we are controlled by genetically predetermined behavior patterns - so far it appears that free will still exists.

No one really knows what causes homosexuality (or heterosexuality) but regardless of where on the nature/nurture balance responsibility resides it is clear that it is not volitional. The estimate that about 10 percent of every population is gay does suggest a strong genetic component - social differences between populations mainly seem to effect only the percentage who are 'out'.

(Note: I do know people who have gone from straight to gay and vice versa. Never has that been a decision on their part. I suspect it is just an aspect of bisexuality.)

You no more choose to be gay than you chose to be straight. There seems to be very little a person can do to voluntarily change their sexual attractions, but they can always control how they act. Even violent homophobes are capable of controlling their actions if they wish.

Frankly I don't see why sexual orientation matters so much to so many people. Despising homosexuals is an affront to God. Homophobia seems rooted in a fear of conversion, something that just doesn't seem to happen.

So is pedophilia just another sexual orientation? Well perhaps, but the victim of a pedophile cannot be considered capable of consent. A pedophile may not be able to control their sexual feelings, but they can control their actions just like anyone else. So even if you don't consider pedophilia to be a mental disorder, those with poor impulse control or who decide to act on those urges are at some level sociopathic.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Mark,

I understand what you mean by "influenced by instinct", but I think the clinical term when describing human predispositions is "drives" rather than instinct.
Our receptivity to conditioning is far superior to even a dog's abilities (think Pavlov) and even they can be trained to repress or ignore many of their fundamental instincts. And the reason is simple: we have far more convoluted and complex cerebral cortex than almost any other creature with the possible exception of dolphins (and I suspect much of theirs is dedicated to echolocation).

I studied a little psychology under a devoted pupil of B.F. Skinner, so I am also a bit of a disciple of operant conditioning.

I don't dispute that there might be a genetic component to homosexuality, but the evidence is clear from twin studies that there is not the clearcut inevitability to it that a rigid genetic component advocate would need to prove his point.

I also need to clarify my comment on volitional behavior. I contend that homosexuality is largely the result of early childhood conditioning in genetically receptive individuals. A given sexual act by anyone is volitional. (If not, every defense lawyer in the country would use "the devil made me do it" in the defense of all of his clients who were the defendants in sex crime trials)

I think that when people observe evidence of homosexual orientation, most find it highly offensive because it is contrary to the very core of most people's personality. The male/ female attraction and interaction is the foundation of our culture and society.

There is a passage in scripture in which Jesus referred to "eunuchs", but I think he wanted to include more than men who were castrated, but describe any individual who was not born with normal heterosexual orientation. His language, as was characteristic of him, went from literal to figurative through the course of his analogy.
Other scripture clearly condems as sinful all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage, but Jesus seemed to indicate that through a life of celibacy, those who are born with or acquire homosexual orientation should have no more shame for this condition than an albino or a bald man should for that condition. In fact, celibacy is held out to be the highest calling for people of either orientation.

Your point is well taken about sociopaths (specifically people with poor impulse control).
It really is a separate issue. I only made a remark about it to distinguish homosexual or heterosexual orientation from a deliberate choice to gratify that orientation with no regard for the needs of others, the will of God, or even one's own self-enlightened interest.

Institutionalization for life may well be the only option for such violent offenders.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:

A former AANR president sells videos (not books) of young girls competing in European nudist beauty pageants.

AANR DID disassociate themselves from this man and asked him to remove his Web link to AANR. While it was NOT porn or even suggestive, it is clearly marketed toward men who would like to spend hours watching attractive nude girls parade on stage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How was it "clearly marketed toward men who would like to spend hours watching" ?

[Bob S.]

OK, first of all, I am not advocating that sex with children be legalized just because I believe some people are born with that tendency. Maybe it has to do with how we perceive sexual beauty. It has been proven in multiple studies that beauty is universal. That symmetry is preferred by the majority of people in many cultues. This does not mean that body shapes are the same. Some people may like waifs, others may prefer those who have more meat on their bones, etc.

Some may just like those with child-like bodies. It could be something written in the code of our genes. Maybe there is a chemical that has something to do with beauty that is located in the frontal cortex. Maybe the gene for sexual attractiveness lies in the X chromosome and this is why more men are pedophiles than women, because women have two X chromosomes. I don't know. No one knows why we find one person pretty and not another person. We are all going on guesses. This is the theory that I have come up with. Please prove me wrong.

Croydon, I will take exception to just one of your statements, and please tell me if I am confusing certain issues. It really takes only a couple fo generations to alter certain characteristics. I recall hearing of the MOnarch(?) butterflies who underwent a change of coloring within a few generations because of more soot due to the industrial revolution. The white butterflies were being eaten more because they were spotted easier by their prey. So certain characteristics may take only a few generations due to Darwinian theory. Also, some reptiles can change genders in certain conditions.

Trailscout, some homosexuals came from homes where homosexuality was frowned upon. How did they become homosexual? Surely not because of theri childhood. And sexuality is too ingrained in our species to change simply with conditioning, even if you raise them from birth to be a good little homosexual. If they are heterosexual, they will acknowledge that when they see an attractive female.

Study after study has shown that homosexuality cannot be "cured." So much for your conditioning theory. Aversion therapy does not work.

Bob S.

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
OK, first of all, I am not advocating that sex with children be legalized just because I believe some people are born with that tendency. Maybe it has to do with how we perceive sexual beauty. It has been proven in multiple studies that beauty is universal. That symmetry is preferred by the majority of people in many cultues. This does not mean that body shapes are the same. Some people may like waifs, others may prefer those who have more meat on their bones, etc.

Some may just like those with child-like bodies. It could be something written in the code of our genes. Maybe there is a chemical that has something to do with beauty that is located in the frontal cortex. Maybe the gene for sexual attractiveness lies in the X chromosome and this is why more men are pedophiles than women, because women have two X chromosomes. I don't know. No one knows why we find one person pretty and not another person. We are all going on guesses. This is the theory that I have come up with. Please prove me wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes you are wrong, so wrong. What pople are attractced to isn't determined by genetics. There have never been a scientific study that says that. What people find attractive, according to pyschologist and sociologist, is shaped by family and society. Example, why don't many white Americans (or any americans) date blacks or other races? Is that genetically determined that whites only whites? No, society ESPECIALLY family have taught whites that dating black people or any non white is wrong. Men often seek women that closely resembl their mother while women seen men that closeley resemble their father.

Croydon, I will take exception to just one of your statements, and please tell me if I am confusing certain issues. It really takes only a couple fo generations to alter certain characteristics. I recall hearing of the MOnarch(?) butterflies who underwent a change of coloring within a few generations because of more soot due to the industrial revolution. The white butterflies were being eaten more because they were spotted easier by their prey. So certain characteristics may take only a few generations due to Darwinian theory. Also, some reptiles can change genders in certain conditions.

Darwin's theory never discussed humans so to compare humans to reptiles and butterflies doesn't say much.

Trailscout, some homosexuals came from homes where homosexuality was frowned upon. How did they become homosexual? Surely not because of theri childhood. And sexuality is too ingrained in our species to change simply with conditioning, even if you raise them from birth to be a good little homosexual. If they are heterosexual, they will acknowledge that when they see an attractive female.

Study after study has shown that homosexuality cannot be "cured." So much for your conditioning theory. Aversion therapy does not work.

You are right there Bob. Many homosexuals come from "normal" homes and have no exposure to homosexuals and their only exposure is their parents telling them it is wrong. So how do u explain their homosexuality.

As for therapy that "cures" homosexuals, no such things. Psychologist and doctors have publicly come out to say that such therapies do a lot more harm than help. Bringham Young University for years practiced electrocutional therapy to cure homosexuality. Mormons think homosexuality is the worst of all sins. I met a young man (about 26) who attended BYU. He was in such hell over his homosexuality and thought to change. He went to BYU where he underweent electrocution therapy for almost a year. He showed me his burns and scars. I will not go into detail the process but the point is that it did a lot more harm than good

[Jochanaan]

I figured my post would draw some protests! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I bow to those who have more medical and scientific knowledge than I. And I admit that my views are colored by my lifelong love for the God of the Bible--just as others' views may be colored by their aversion to this God. Which of us is right? That question will only be answered when God chooses to reveal Himself to the world.

[Jochanaan]

BTW, please do not take anything I say as condemning homosexuals or even pederasts as persons. There's a big difference between condemning a person and condemning his/her actions. Only God can judge a person as a whole being.

[Action Nude]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:


I'm not a naturist and have no pictures of my kids nor anyone else naked at any age on my computer nor anywhere in my house.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I was wondering why you hang out here if your not in to this lifestyle? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
BTW, please do not take anything I say as condemning homosexuals or even pederasts as persons. There's a big difference between condemning a person and condemning his/her actions. Only God can judge a person as a whole being. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what you are saying is that a homosexual isn't a homosexual until he actually has homosexual sex (an action)which you feel is wrong.

Does that mean a heterosexual isn't heterosexual until or unless they have sex?

Action Nude

I found this site by accident and thought it would be good to say "hello". Since then I've enjoyed some good debates with my friends on here. I've learned quite a bit about naturism and it's been facinating - even though I'll never ever do it myself. I hope some people have learned some stuff from me, though I don't think I've changed anybody's mind any more than they've changed mine.

Stu

[R.M. Greenman]

Croydon, I have dated outside my race many times.
As a younger teenager (14 to 16) I was attracted to hispanic (latin) females. During that time I also dated an asian girl.
While living in Jacksonville,FLA I dated my one and only African American girl and got into trouble with some red necks because of it.
I ended up marrying an Italian girl from Chicago.

What every girl had in common is that they were all brunettes. I have found I am especially attracted to girls with darker hair.

Blonds, and redheads are attractive also 'cause as Will Rogers might have said," I never met a (wo)man I didn't like." But give me brunettes anytime.

Point is, I think I like darker hair because it is part of my genetics and also I have that choice.No one ever told me.

[Trailscout]

Bob,

Men may be innately attracted to very young women because their reproductive potential is greater. Perhaps some error in the genetic code leads the natural desire for a youthful mate to go to absurd extreme.

I agree that there is a universal attraction to people with nearly perfectly symmetrical facial features. Beyond that attraction to symmetry, which is universal, cultural conditioning tells us to seek attractive mates with straight hair or crisp, dark skin or pale, almond shaped eyes or round, and any one of several ethnic features that represent the ideal beauty of our own ethnic group. Sometimes we ignore our conditioning and find a mate from another ethnic group, but I am speaking about general tendencies.

Male hormones give men a much stronger sexual drive than women on the whole, these same hormones tend to make them more aggressive than women. These are the reasons they commit more sexual crimes.

Industrial melanism occured with the English peppered moth, not the Monarch butterfly.
It involved the creation of no new genetic information. Black and light colored moths have always existed. It was simply that as the industrial revolution took over England, new smokestacks blanketed urban trees with black soot. Light colored moths resting on soot darkened trees were then more visible to predators. As a result, this selected against light moths and in favor of dark moths. This was a population shift not an evolutionary leap.

You asked, "Trailscout, some homosexuals came from homes where homosexuality was frowned upon. How did they become homosexual"?
We must go back to my early assertion that conditioning is not destiny, it only gives fate a nudge in one direction or another.

I never claimed that homosexuality can be cured. I merely claim that no one, gay or straight is compelled to act on his/her orientation.

The reason for the difficulty in "going straight" is that sexual orientation is typically acquired during the formative years of one's life when we are more impressionable.

I think it might be very much like the imprinting that puppy dogs and ducklings develop for a foster mother. At a very sensitive age, and at no later time in their lives, these creatures bond with a parent figure. Beyond this age, the bond cannot occur. Humans are more flexible, but it is rare to change orientation.

[Bob S.]

Ouch Croydon, that almost hurt.

But if attractiveness "is shaped by family and society", then how do we get pedophiles? Society doesn't allow for it. Family could only if there were some severe familial disruptions when the person was younger, such as abuse, etc. But even then only a few of them go on to abuse when they get older.

And men and women don't necessarily seek partners who look like their parents, I believe what the saying says is that we seek partners that remind us of our parent. That could mean same belief system, same temperment, etc. This is why girls who were abused as children attract guys who are also abusive.

"Darwin's theory never discussed humans so to compare humans to reptiles and butterflies doesn't say much."

OK. So how did we get the different skin colors? Why are those from Eastern Asia smaller than Europeans? How did sickel cells gain hold in Africa? I know that the sickle cell gene protects people from malaria.

And hey, "two out of three ain't bad."

Bob S.

"The reason for the difficulty in "going straight" is that sexual orientation is typically acquired during the formative years of one's life when we are more impressionable."

What proof do you have of this?

"But if attractiveness "is shaped by family and society", then how do we get pedophiles?"

One theory is that a pedophile's sexual preference doesn't mature as he/she does. Their sexual attractions get stuck in time more or less. Most of us move past childdhood attractions and move on to more age appropriate ones such as developed breasts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
"But if attractiveness "is shaped by family and society", then how do we get pedophiles?"

One theory is that a pedophile's sexual preference doesn't mature as he/she does. Their sexual attractions get stuck in time more or less. Most of us move past childdhood attractions and move on to more age appropriate ones such as developed breasts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I strongly suspect it's a control thing with paedophiles. Many of them are quite inadequate in various aspects of their lives and the thought of having total sexual control over someone who is physically smaller than they are and has little assertiveness turns them on.

Second only to actually abusing children, many paedophiles love nothing more than talking about it to others - especially people who are disgusted by what they do.

If this isn't a serious and potentially dangerous psychiatric disorder then I don't know what is.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Second only to actually abusing children, many paedophiles love nothing more than talking about it to others - especially people who are disgusted by what they do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where does this theory come from? I thought it was common knowledge that paedohhiles will go to extraodinary lenghts to keep their activities absolutely secret and cover their tracks. This seems to conflict with your notion of paedophiles openly talking about it.

Rik

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R.M. Greenman:
Croydon, I have dated outside my race many times.
As a younger teenager (14 to 16) I was attracted to hispanic (latin) females. During that time I also dated an asian girl.
While living in Jacksonville,FLA I dated my one and only African American girl and got into trouble with some red necks because of it.
I ended up marrying an Italian girl from Chicago.

What every girl had in common is that they were all brunettes. I have found I am especially attracted to girls with darker hair.

Blonds, and redheads are attractive also 'cause as Will Rogers might have said," I never met a (wo)man I didn't like." But give me brunettes anytime.

Point is, I think I like darker hair because it is part of my genetics and also I have that choice.No one ever told me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>RM, I didn't say the rule applies to all. There's always exceptions

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Ouch Croydon, that almost hurt.

But if attractiveness "is shaped by family and society", then how do we get pedophiles? Society doesn't allow for it. Family could only if there were some severe familial disruptions when the person was younger, such as abuse, etc. But even then only a few of them go on to abuse when they get older.

And men and women don't necessarily seek partners who look like their parents, I believe what the saying says is that we seek partners that remind us of our parent. That could mean same belief system, same temperment, etc. This is why girls who were abused as children attract guys who are also abusive.

"Darwin's theory never discussed humans so to compare humans to reptiles and butterflies doesn't say much."

OK. So how did we get the different skin colors? Why are those from Eastern Asia smaller than Europeans? How did sickel cells gain hold in Africa? I know that the sickle cell gene protects people from malaria.

And hey, "two out of three ain't bad."

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pedophiles are NOT attracted to children. They do not wish to have relationships or with children. Pedophiles are interested in children because they wish to instill pain and control. In a large number of cases, pedophiles too were molested or hurt as a child and they never got over it. They are still hurt, angry and traumatize by the experience and wish to pass on that experience to other children. That is their way of coping, to pay back others.

I never said people seek out partners that look like their parents. My exact words were, people seek out partners that RESEMBLE their parents..That includes some characteristics of appearance and personaility

Rik,

"Where does this theory come from? I thought it was common knowledge that paedohhiles will go to extraodinary lenghts to keep their activities absolutely secret and cover their tracks. This seems to conflict with your notion of paedophiles openly talking about it."

It's not a theory - it's something I've picked up when I worked very closely with my local police SOCAU (Sexual Offences/Child Abuse Unit) a few years ago. The (mainly female) officers there related to me many instances of offenders going to extraordinary lengths to "cover their tracks" as you put it, for fear of the consequences of being caught. But when they are caught "bang to rights" they revel in telling what they do to kids and fantasise about doing to anybody who will listen, obviously getting a major buzz from that. They also like to boast to others with similar tendencies, and the Internet provides a forum for them to do that.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It's not a theory - it's something I've picked up when I worked very closely with my local police SOCAU (Sexual Offences/Child Abuse Unit) a few years ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, so it's anecdote but to present this as being evidence that "many paedophiles love nothing more than talking about it to others - especially people who are disgusted by what they do" is a bit off-beam especially as police officers are no more likely to be "disgusted" than those who paedophiles come into contact with before they're caught.

I'm not a psychologist but I suspect that, if what you say is right, it's more to do with the relief of being caught rather than a desire to shock or disgust other people.

Rik

[Boreas]

This has been some sort of thread! At times I have been annoyed, but mostly, I think it is excellent to discuss this. That is the only way to do something about the sex abuse of children and others.

There is a lot of research out there about sex offenders. I am more familiar with adolescent sex offenders, but they do grow up. Often the best time to "treat" these folks is around the age of fourteen. Fourteen year olds do not want to be attracted to children, they would like to be like "normal" teens and be attracted to kids their own age. Adolescent sex offenders tend to be kids who are well liked by adults. They are may be the ones who mow the lawn for you or who are so great with children. They usually have very poor peer relationships and chose more solitary activities such as computers and books etc. Often they are very manipulative and can talk or wiggle their way out of things. There will usually be some evidence of inappropriate behaviour with children, maybe not enough to raise big concerns. Usually adolescent sex offenders use tactics such as getting the child to "play a game" with them. They do not usually use power or control tactics, though I do know of one instance of an eighteen year old being declared a "dangerous offender" so he must have had a history.

Adult sex offenders are in different categories. I believe you will find around four "categories" of sex offenders. Some use power and control, some think they are showing the children love or how to love and some are pedophiles. I imagine there are both types, those who are very secretive and those who talk about it to gross people out. A "good" sex offender will put him/herself in a postion to be surrounded by children and children often like them. They may even have a childlike quality to them. Unfortunately they have no distinguishing features such as a green tongue dragging on the groun to identify them.

I think the bottom line about child pornography is if it is anyway sexual it is probably inappropriate. If a child is being exploited or hurt in any way that is wrong. Remember, sex offenders or people who photograph child porn probably have a distorted view of things. I met a man who had been convicted of sexually abusing a four year old child. He believed that the child gave consent, which of course is impossible. So, if a child pornographer says that s/he is helping the children don't believe it. Call me cynical.

Rik,

There was some work done on behalf of the Australian Government who were reviewing recent convictions following curbs on sex tourism to South East Asia. They discovered that most of the convictions came about as a result of the offenders either bragging to work colleagues (etc) about what they had done, or exchanging experiences with other paedophiles.

I'm reliably informed that HM Prison Service now train officers how to handle rapists and paedophiles who get a kick out of describing what they've done in graphic detail to them and also to other inmates, and the phenomenon is well known to prison psychiatrists.

I'd like to think you are right about "the relief of being caught" but I feel sure it's more to do with their desire to shock and disgust.

Hmm. Now who else do we know who likes to shock and disgust and is in prison? (RELAX! I'M JUST KIDDING!)

Stu

[nudist_in_Tn]

Most of the sick bastards are killed by other inmates who consider it a priveledge to rid the prison of them like that Priest who was killed in prison a few weeks ago. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Outlaw]

In reply to an earlier message in this thread, I found in my 1967 Random House Dictionary of the English Language a definition for 'pederast.'

pederast n. a person who engages in pederasty [Gk paiderast - lover of boys, equiv. to paid-(s. of pais boy, child+ erastes lover, deriv. of eran to love]

pederasty n. an unnatural sexual relations between two males, esp. when one is a young boy[<NL pederastia < Gk paiderastia love of boys

A reference to this was in "Gladiator." Oliver asked Russell Crowe if he wanted a woman or a young boy in a sexual context.

Big Mac

[Caipora]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boreas:

I think the bottom line about child pornography is if it is anyway sexual it is probably inappropriate. If a child is being exploited or hurt in any way that is wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are two difficulties faced by naturists: the lack of rationality in child pornography laws, which are currently seem to be governed by the principle "broader is better"; and the link beween child pornography and child abuse.

Years ago when Meese was Attorney General, he proposed that the limit for "children" in federal pornography law be not 16 but 18, the additional two years being not because 16- and 17-year-olds needed protection, but to protect old-looking under-16's.

Now the law prohibits not only under-18s, but pictures taken to *appear* under-18, and even requires the accused to provide proof that the subjects are over-18, rather than requiring the prosecution to actually find an under-18 victim.

In England, a recent push to change age-of-consent laws and mininum ages for pornography resulted in a situation where 16-year-olds could have sex, but not take pictures of themselves doing so. An MP proposed a loophole letting them take photos for private use. Something's absurd.

To hunt for logic and reason in this mishmash is to seek a will-o'-the-wisp.

All of this is pushed as "protecting the children". To insure that photos aren't porn, photo processors - and police - will sometimes take the position that nude photos of children, however innocent, are porn.

Even if the accused eventually gets off, and gets his children back, such a prosecution is punitive in and of itself.

The second difficult is the connection between child pornography and child abuse. The strength of this cause-effect link can be guessed by the frequency with which the readers of mystery novels end up committing homicides, to say nothing of the well-known tendency of readers of romance novels to elope with mustachioed Viscounts.

As to the poster who brought us the definition of "pederast", a related vocabulary addition is "catamite", the minor in the relationship.

Some people seem to think that ANY photo of a nude child is porn. I had a very dear female friend that I had known for 20 or more years. I showed her my photo album with a photo of my nude two-year-old daughter, and another one of her being bathed. We talked a bit about nudity, and she told me that I would make a good nudist. I didn't at that time have the nerve to tell her that I was one. All I said was that nudity didn't offend me since that seems to be what many people experience in seeing nudity. I have no idea why nudity would offend anyone.

She e-mailed me and said that we couldn't be friends any more, and she said she didn't like my "pornographic" photo of my daughter.

[ranul]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Some people seem to think that ANY photo of a nude child is porn. I had a very dear female friend that I had known for 20 or more years. I showed her my photo album with a photo of my nude two-year-old daughter, and another one of her being bathed. We talked a bit about nudity, and she told me that I would make a good nudist. I didn't at that time have the nerve to tell her that I was one. All I said was that nudity didn't offend me since that seems to be what many people experience in seeing nudity. I have no idea why nudity would offend anyone.

She e-mailed me and said that we couldn't be friends any more, and she said she didn't like my "pornographic" photo of my daughter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>why couldn't she have it to your face instead of waiting to e-mail you

Ranul,

Some people find it easier to tell people what they think of them in writing than to their face. There were quite a few years between showing her the photo and talking to her about nudity. The e-mail was right after talking to her. She had apparently been pretending to be my friend all those years, while thinking who knows what of me just because I had a nude photo of my two-year-old.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
...She e-mailed me and said that we couldn't be friends any more, and she said she didn't like my "pornographic" photo of my daughter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ouch! I wonder what happened to her in those twenty years? Or who twisted her arm?

Seriously, that's really sad. More even for her sake than for yours, although I know how such things hurt.

[rwyman]

There are a bunch of photos in the collection on-line here that could be considered "child-porn" by some of the more "up-tight" folks. There are photos in the archive section that show a young boy wrestling with a young girl, for example. Also, there are recent photos of underage teens that show full frontal views. Some of these photos are likely webcam views sent in by the teens themselves. How you decide what is pornographic and what is not, is the question.

One cartoon definition said, "It's pornography if you giggle."

Anybody got a better definition?

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
So what you are saying is that a homosexual isn't a homosexual until he actually has homosexual sex (an action)which you feel is wrong.

Does that mean a heterosexual isn't heterosexual until or unless they have sex? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm...I hadn't considered that wrinkle. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess I would not put it quite like that. As a Christian, I would say that homosexual leanings are in the nature of a temptation, while homosexual intercourse would be yielding to that temptation. Temptation is not sin, according to the Bible; actions and intentions are, if they contradict its teachings. In other words, the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as commonly understood today, that is, a fixed desire for sexual intercourse with members of one's own gender; but it condemns in the strongest terms the act of homosexual intercourse.

(I know, I'll probably draw protests with this post too! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I didn't write the Bible; I'm just stating how I read it.)

[Jochanaan]

The other day in one of the Denver parks I came across a sculpture on a fountain that dramatically illustrated how attitudes have changed. It was of two girls and a boy. The eldest girl in the center looked about ten, the boy was a toddler, while the other girl appeared to be five or six. All were naked, with their arms companionably around each other. They were sitting and leaning forward so that their genitals were not visible, but you could clearly see their buttocks and tell that the oldest girl's chest was just beginning to fill out.

Some, from my description, would insist that that sculpture was pornographic! But apparently nobody thought anything of it in 1913 when it was done, and a plaque said it had been restored in 1995. (It needs restoring again, but that's another story.) It's not pornographic at all. It's three children enjoying nature in natural dress.

I doubt that that sculpture would have been commissioned or completed today.

[Caipora]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rwyman:
There are a bunch of photos in the collection on-line here that could be considered "child-porn" by some of the more "up-tight" folks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Extreme viewpoints and easy answers can be more readlily pushed than moderate views.

Years ago a "Save the Whales" group wanted to push for reduced hunting of some species. Their professional fund-raisers argued that more money could be raised if they campaigned for a total ban on whale hunts.

There was a similar situation with elephants: letting poor African countries sell confiscated poached ivory would give them funds for their elephant-protection programs. But a ban on ivory sales was an easier agenda to push.

The view that "nude is ok; porn is not" requires making a distinction. Saying "all nude photos of children are porn and should be banned" excuses one from having to think, while meanwhile permitting a feeling of excessive virtue.

On this or any other matter where one side can be painted as "good", a more extreme position can be painted as "better". That's a tough position to argue with. Even if it's wrong.

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
So what you are saying is that a homosexual isn't a homosexual until he actually has homosexual sex (an action)which you feel is wrong.

Does that mean a heterosexual isn't heterosexual until or unless they have sex? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm...I hadn't considered that wrinkle. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess I would not put it quite like that. As a Christian, I would say that homosexual leanings are in the nature of a temptation, while homosexual intercourse would be yielding to that temptation. Temptation is not sin, according to the Bible; actions and intentions are, if they contradict its teachings. In other words, the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as commonly understood today, that is, a fixed desire for sexual intercourse with members of one's own gender; but it condemns in the strongest terms the act of homosexual intercourse.

(I know, I'll probably draw protests with this post too! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I didn't write the Bible; I'm just stating how I read it.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is the stupidest thing I have heard today. God you "Christians" never seem to make sense.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
As a Christian, I would say that homosexual leanings are in the nature of a temptation, while homosexual intercourse would be yielding to that temptation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please try not to speak for Christians. Everyone is entitled to their own views, but lets keep it clear that they do not represent all Christian's views.

You can find support in the Bible for anti-homosexual views. Also support for slavery, the subjugation of women, the killing of apostates and many other things any true Christian would consider anathema to the spirit of Christ.

If you as a Christian base rejection of homosexuality on the basis of scripture, you need to put forth convincing reasons why those passages should not be considered as much in opposition to Christ's purpose as these other passages.

-Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nudist_in_Tn:
Most of the sick bastards are killed by other inmates who consider it a priveledge to rid the prison of them like that Priest who was killed in prison a few weeks ago. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually most are not killed by other inmates at all. What gave you that idea? Just because one pedophile met his end that way?

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
As a Christian, I would say that homosexual leanings are in the nature of a temptation, while homosexual intercourse would be yielding to that temptation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please try not to speak for Christians. Everyone is entitled to their own views, but lets keep it clear that they do not represent all Christian's views.

You can find support in the Bible for anti-homosexual views. Also support for slavery, the subjugation of women, the killing of apostates and many other things any true Christian would consider anathema to the spirit of Christ.

If you as a Christian base rejection of homosexuality on the basis of scripture, you need to put forth convincing reasons why those passages should not be considered as much in opposition to Christ's purpose as these other passages.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Beautiful Mark, yoou couldn't have said it any better

[David77]

A Christian, by some definition, is one who follows the teaching of Jesus, but in the bible there is no word of Jesus even mentioning homosexuality. Some reason that, if the subject of homosexuality was so important, Jesus would have at least mentioned it!

David - the reason Jesus didn't mention homosexuality was that it didn't exist in those days. According to Foucault it was invented in about 1870 (see his book "The History of Sexuality" and he'll prove it to you!).

Stu

[nudist_in_Tn]

What gave me that idea ? the newspapers have been running these stories for years, this is just another case that has been reported recently where the other inmates consider it an honor to kill these predators. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
...If you as a Christian base rejection of homosexuality on the basis of scripture, you need to put forth convincing reasons why those passages should not be considered as much in opposition to Christ's purpose as these other passages.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which passages are you talking about?

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
David - the reason Jesus didn't mention homosexuality was that it didn't exist in those days. According to Foucault it was invented in about 1870 (see his book "The History of Sexuality" and he'll prove it to you!).

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I assume, then, that Foucault discounts the story of Sodom in the book of Genesis? And the Dialogues of Plato?

And even if Jesus didn't mention homosexual acts, the Apostle Paul certainly did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nudist_in_Tn:
What gave me that idea ? the newspapers have been running these stories for years, this is just another case that has been reported recently where the other inmates consider it an honor to kill these predators. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The newspapers report on a few isolated cases so where did you get the idea that most of them die that way?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
David - the reason Jesus didn't mention homosexuality was that it didn't exist in those days. According to Foucault it was invented in about 1870 (see his book "The History of Sexuality" and he'll prove it to you!).

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you really believe that or are you attempting another joke?

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nudist_in_Tn:
What gave me that idea ? the newspapers have been running these stories for years, this is just another case that has been reported recently where the other inmates consider it an honor to kill these predators. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because you "see" such stories in paper all the time, you somehow have concluded that these incidents happen all the time? The media reports things that they is newsworthy, it isn't an indicataion that it happens all the time. Hey, the media loves to portray black people as criminals and murderers but are blackc people such. Probably explains why so many fear blacks.

There's a term in psychology for this but i don't remember it.

Case in point: don't be so gullible to believe that if you see something reported all the time on news that it occurs often

"I assume, then, that Foucault discounts the story of Sodom in the book of Genesis? And the Dialogues of Plato?

And even if Jesus didn't mention homosexual acts, the Apostle Paul certainly did."

No, you have to read Foucault to see his reasoning. Of course sodomy happened, and men did sexual things with men - but what he was saying is that the concept of "homosexuality" as a condition in its own right was a Victorian invention.

cyndiann

"Do you really believe that or are you attempting another joke?"

It was said tongue-in-cheek, but yes I do see what Foucault was saying. In the very particular sense that he meant it he was quite right - even though we all know that what we today call "homosexual acts" have been happening since humans first walked the earth.

Stu

[Trailscout]

A Christian is one who is in loving relationship with God the Son, Jesus (Y'shua if you prefer the more literal Hebrew form of his name). There are people who "follow" his teachings and yet such people are no more Christians than is a mule in a pasture.

However, those who love HIM as Lord do keep his commandments. One of his commandments was to keep the entire body of commandments that preceeded his coming (the Torah) and to obey all commandments that follow (the New Testament as given by the apostles under the unction of the Holy Spirit).

Homosexual behavior is and has always been an abomination in the eyes of God. A lot of people don't want to obey the will of the Lord, so they pretend that any sin they enjoy committing, even one that the Bible clearly condemns, is subject to interpretation or is culturally specific. Not my culture! A typical ploy is to fail to distinguish the ceremonial precepts from moral law. Ultimately no one is fooled by this.

The apostle Paul explains that homosexual behavior is rebellion against God and nature. It is the mark of a seared conscience. Heterosexual fornication for example is evil, but it is sin that is still consistent with the natural desire of a man for a woman. Homosexual behavior is sin taken to unnatural levels. I suppose you could say the same for serial killers, bestiality practitioners and those who abuse children. In our society, homosexuality is a more respectable sin than child abuse, but secular trends should never be a safe way to evaluate the eternal will of the Holy One of Israel. Jesus did say of those who hurt children that "it would be better for them that a millstone be hung around their neck and they be cast into the sea".

And some of the hottest parts of hell await those who try to persuade others not to fear the wrath of God, calling good evil and evil good.

There is appalling ignorance these days of the holiness of God and the assured destruction of all that is in rebellion against his goodness and light. The only way to escape this assured destruction is to trust Jesus as God the Son, and we will be spared in the day when he purifies the world. There have been those who rail against the coming judgement, demanding the right to continue in their sins forever, but those who are redeemed look forward to the restoration of the universe to harmony with God, and with it the abolition of all evil and sin. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but all humanity is faced with the same choice that the children of Israel were given more than 3000 years ago, "I set before you a blessing and a curse, life and death. Choose life" the Lord urges us.
Baruch Hashem Adonai
Amen

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
A Christian is one who is in loving relationship with God the Son, Jesus (Y'shua if you prefer the more literal Hebrew form of his name). There are people who "follow" his teachings and yet such people are no more Christians than is a mule in a pasture.

However, those who love HIM as Lord do keep his commandments. One of his commandments was to keep the entire body of commandments that preceeded his coming (the Torah) and to obey all commandments that follow (the New Testament as given by the apostles under the unction of the Holy Spirit).

Homosexual behavior is and has always been an abomination in the eyes of God. A lot of people don't want to obey the will of the Lord, so they pretend that any sin they enjoy committing, even one that the Bible clearly condemns, is subject to interpretation or is culturally specific. Not my culture! A typical ploy is to fail to distinguish the ceremonial precepts from moral law. Ultimately no one is fooled by this.

The apostle Paul explains that homosexual behavior is rebellion against God and nature. It is the mark of a seared conscience. Heterosexual fornication for example is evil, but it is sin that is still consistent with the natural desire of a man for a woman. Homosexual behavior is sin taken to unnatural levels. I suppose you could say the same for serial killers, bestiality practitioners and those who abuse children. In our society, homosexuality is a more respectable sin than child abuse, but secular trends should never be a safe way to evaluate the eternal will of the Holy One of Israel. Jesus did say of those who hurt children that "it would be better for them that a millstone be hung around their neck and they be cast into the sea".

And some of the hottest parts of hell await those who try to persuade others not to fear the wrath of God, calling good evil and evil good.

There is appalling ignorance these days of the holiness of God and the assured destruction of all that is in rebellion against his goodness and light. The only way to escape this assured destruction is to trust Jesus as God the Son, and we will be spared in the day when he purifies the world. There have been those who rail against the coming judgement, demanding the right to continue in their sins forever, but those who are redeemed look forward to the restoration of the universe to harmony with God, and with it the abolition of all evil and sin. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but all humanity is faced with the same choice that the children of Israel were given more than 3000 years ago, "I set before you a blessing and a curse, life and death. Choose life" the Lord urges us.
Baruch Hashem Adonai
Amen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[florida-david]

how did this turn into yet another discussion of christianity?? can't we get off this "my religion is better than yours" kick?? its getting to be ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz

[Jochanaan]

You remind me of my faults of omission, florida-david. I had meant to start a new topic on the subject of homosexuality, but neglected to do it. My apologies to all concerned. (And even to those who aren't concerned. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I've said my piece. I'll say no more on that subject.

[aunaturelone]

Back to child pornography....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>nobody thought anything of it in 1913 when it was done <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Back in 1913 the child nude was symbolic of innocence. This was true thoughout most of the latter Victorian era and the Edwardian era. Examples of it abound. Lewis Carrol's photos of Alice, Peter Pan is nude (so are the mermaids), the casual nudity Tom Sawyer, Huck Fin & friends skinnydipping on the Mississpi, etc. The nude child was VERY popular as an object of art.

I don't think the availability of nude photos of children makes the slightest damn difference in the number and aggresiveness of pedophiles out there. I am pretty confident that sexual identity is strongly genetic. I suspect pedophila is likely the result of a combination of uncommon recessive genes.

[Bob S.]

Hey, someone somewhat agrees with with me. Thanks aunaturelone.

And isn't it funny that those same pics that were once praised for their innocence are now seen as pornographic? The only thing that legitimizes them are because of their historic value, and being taken by Lewis Carroll. Sally Mann was criticized for taking pics of her kids, sometimes nude. Jock Sturges had his studio raided by the FBI for creating child pornography many years ago, but all charges were dismissed.

What's the difference? We are living in the era of media; the era of evil men; the era of overprotectiveness; the era of government "protecting" the children; the era of lost community. People need to start realizing that nakedness is not something to get bent out of shape over. That sometimes, "a cigar is just a cigar" as Freud purportedly said.

Bob S.

I remember seeing a painting many years ago of a boy and girl outdoors on what seemed to be a porch. The girl was dressed and seemed to be in her teens. Her eyes were closed as she lay on her back, and she was smiling. A totally nude boy who seemed to be near puberty was standing bent over and looking at her.

It was a painting of pure innocence. I wish I could obtain that painting. Of course, the boy's genitals were discretely hidden due to him being bent over even though you could see him from the side.

Some people would call that child porn. My ex-friend who didn't like the nude photo of my daughter certainly would.

[Caipora]

Perhaps Maxwell Parrish's "Daybreak", with the sexes inverted? Take a look at it here:
http://www.drizzle.com/~fools/artwork/daybreak.html
If that's it, at one time it was the most-reproduced picture in the United States.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
I remember seeing a painting many years ago of a boy and girl outdoors on what seemed to be a porch. The girl was dressed and seemed to be in her teens. Her eyes were closed as she lay on her back, and she was smiling. A totally nude boy who seemed to be near puberty was standing bent over and looking at her.

It was a painting of pure innocence. I wish I could obtain that painting. Of course, the boy's genitals were discretely hidden due to him being bent over even though you could see him from the side.

Some people would call that child porn. My ex-friend who didn't like the nude photo of my daughter certainly would. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
A Christian is one who is in loving relationship with God the Son, Jesus (Y'shua if you prefer the more literal Hebrew form of his name). There are people who "follow" his teachings and yet such people are no more Christians than is a mule in a pasture.

However, those who love HIM as Lord do keep his commandments. One of his commandments was to keep the entire body of commandments that preceeded his coming (the Torah) and to obey all commandments that follow (the New Testament as given by the apostles under the unction of the Holy Spirit).

Homosexual behavior is and has always been an abomination in the eyes of God. A lot of people don't want to obey the will of the Lord, so they pretend that any sin they enjoy committing, even one that the Bible clearly condemns, is subject to interpretation or is culturally specific. Not my culture! A typical ploy is to fail to distinguish the ceremonial precepts from moral law. Ultimately no one is fooled by this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The bible clearly condemns it? You state mere opinions about interpretations as fact and try to get us all to swallow that? LOL!

If the bible really did condemn it why are there so many christians out there that don't have a problem with homosexuality and even make them Bishops?

And what ever made the bible something to dredge facts from to begin with? You can't take beliefs and use them to dictate everyone else's lives. If you want to believe that crap them be my guest but don't be silly enough to think the rest of us have to live by your own silly standards.

I snipped the rest for stupidity....

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss
yours."
-Stephen F Roberts

Caipora,

That's the one I remember. I guess I just didn't remember it exactly, but then it's been decades since I last saw it. I assume the one standing is a boy, and I thought he was seen from the side rather than the front, but then my memory never was all that great.

Anyway, I've always liked that painting and would like to have one.

Although my dad wasn't a nudist, he had some nudist magazines when I was a teen. When I was at home alone, I would look at the pictures of the women. One picture I remember though is one of three boys near puberty age. They were facing the camera, slightly bent over, with their genitals apparently tucked between their legs so that they couldn't be seen. They weren't blurred like they do on television; they were just hidden.

[Caipora]

Jon-Marc,
"Maxfield Parrish" Daybreak will find you about two dozen available on E-bay, many from the 20's in the original frames, ranging in size from a width of ten inches to three feet.

Modern posters are probably a better value than old prints, which aren't even antiques. They're clearly not rare, and you have to pay postage on the frame and glass.

One listing carries the information that both models are women: Maxfield Parrish's daughter and William Jennings Bryan's granddaughter, to be exact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:

Anyway, I've always liked that painting and would like to have one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[R.M. Greenman]

I started this thread and am still confused. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Is child pornography in the eye of the beholder?

Should I burn the pictures of my 3yr. old daughters' backside?

I am just going to assume that naked children being kids is fine and naked children impersonating Hustler Magazine is not. I've never seen a photo of child in what I would call pornographic and hope I never will.

I had a discussion with a man at a clothing optional Pagan event about porn.

He saw one of my art works that dipicted a female vampire with a cloak over her shoulders and open down the front, showing a full frontal nudity.

He told me that it was refreshing to see a piece of art that didn't shy away from full frontal nudity. I told him that I didn't have a problem with it but others like the assumed nudity better than actual nudity. I continued to say I would never do a piece that I considered porn.

He asked what I considered porn and I told him that to me, Hustler was porn and Playboy was not.(Well P.B. is getting bad these days)

He told me that he didn't consider Hustler as porn. For the life of me I can't remember what he considered porn.(Beastiality,Necrophillia?)

Point is I wonder if what the law considers to be pornagraphic? Is it a national view point?
Often they show naked babies/toddlers on comercials but not 6-adult backsides. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:

Anyway, I've always liked that painting and would like to have one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here's a good online view of the painting:



<center><img src=http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/mxp_Daybreak.jpg height=175 width=300 border=1> (http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/mxp_Daybreak.jpg)
<font size=-1>[i]Image has been scaled down. See full-size image. (http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/mxp_Daybreak.jpg)</center>

-Mark

[hw]

Jon-Marc, naturistmark....that is a beautiful painting! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, if the one standing is female, she is pre-puberty. There are no breasts or pubic hair. The head hair is relatively short, and although there are no male genitals showing, it COULD be a boy. However, if the official description is that of two females, I can live with that. I just like the painting and want one. As hw said, it's a beautiful painting.

NaturistMark,

Thanks for the enlargement. It showed much more detail.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
...facing the camera, slightly bent over, with their genitals apparently tucked between their legs so that they couldn't be seen. They weren't blurred like they do on television; they were just hidden. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apparently... but possibly not. In those days, genitals and pubic hair were "airbrushed" out, leaving only the image of unblurred, smooth skin.

Magazine photo editors in those days had to pretend that genitals didn't exist! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Missouriboy,

I didn't know that. I assumed they had their genitals tucked between their legs since they were standing with their arms over each other's shoulders and were bent over as though they couldn't stand up straight. If I put mine between my legs, I would find it difficult to stand up straight. In fact, I just did it to find out, and I COULDN'T stand up straight. I was bent over just as the boys were. Anyway, as you said, genitals of boys weren't allowed to be shown in nudist magazines.

[hw]

When I was in High School I had a very liberal science teacher. He was very disappointed with the school board decision to "edit" our sex education book. We were studying VD and there were pictures of what genitals looked like on a person with VD. The photos of the girls were left in tact so to speak, but they had actually cut the males out of the book completely! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
The teacher left after just one year of teaching at the school. I guess child pornography is in the eye of the beholder. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Elery]

I've been downloading some videos from a news group that is supposedly a naturist group that shows lots of shots of nudist goings on in Europe and Eastern Europe and occasionaly in the US. There is a heavy lean toward coverage (or I suppose uncoverage would be more accurate) of young women but the clips are truely nudist in origin and in no way salacious or pornographic. Children are present in many of them. However, I just downloaded one short clip that was entirely of a nine or ten year old girl playing catch. I immediately erased it from my hard drive....???? Am I so paranoid about "child porn" that I found myself totally frightened to have a perfectly innocent segment of a child playing on my computer because she alone was shown and she was nude...Now, I'm so reactionary that I feel that rapists and child molesters should be summarily shot, they are animals beyond the pale of common humanity. I'd pull the trigger myself. But this whole business like in Florida that nude children are intrinsically sexual and somehow evil is garbage. The perverts are the evil here not the objects of their perversions. Grrrr.

[Bob S.]

cyndiann, that is a brilliant quote from Stephen F Roberts.

R.M.
Ultimately, child pornography is in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, different jurisdictions may have different views on what constitutes it. Keep that pic of your daughter's cute butt. And be sure to show it to all of her boyfriends. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now one problem isn't even having porn, but just having people think that you have child porn. If the authorities decided to press charges of having child porn, your life is basically over.

Bob S.

[aunaturelone]

It is odd that the far right and left have found common ground on this issue of child pornography. I think it is because both extremes want to create a class of thought crime. They have different purposes to hand of course but discovered the same tool will serve for both.

The definition of child porn is kept as vague as possible to give enforcers maximum lattitude. It is also kept vague to intimidate people from engaging in protected and legal communications that the powers that be disapprove of.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal authority in this issue. Cases have been brought before them where photos of girls in cheerleader outfits were declared child porn by a prosecutor because the owner used them for titilation. Cases of cartoon art have been brought before them as child porn.

The court has consistantly ruled that images are only illegal child pornography if the images display real minors engaging in activities that are illegal for them to undertake. Nudity of itself cannot be enough to qualify as porn if the nudity is in a legal setting, engaged in legal activities and parental permission is obtained in the case of photos in setings where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The salacious purpose to which images are put by a pedophile is not a factor in whether the images theselves are pornographic. SCOTUS has accepted as fact through expert testimony that pedophiles get as much salacious content out of underwear ads in the Sears catalog.

Arttificial renderings of nude children are not pornography even if of illegal activities. The justification for the limits imposed on first amendment rights by child porn laws are justified by the inherently abusive and illegal behavior of inducing a real minor to engage in illegal activity. Posession of the resulting images makes you an accessory after the fact. If no real child has been abused in the creation of cartoon or computer generated material, it is protected.

It is NOT child porn if it uses models who look like minors but are legal adults. (However if you got it thinking they were minors you've still shown criminal intent and you're guilty.)

If an underage model looks like they are a legal adult and provided false ID to get the modeling work, the producer of the material may use this as an affirmative defense.

However this doesn't mean you can't be accused, harassed, arrested or even prosecuted for perfectly legal images. There are lots of unconstitutional laws out there and constitutional laws that are unfairly applied. Sure, you can appeal (and appeal and appeal) and eventually you'll be cleared - if you can afford the fight.
But even if you are eventualy absolved, just the accusation alone can cause permanent emotional and economic damage to you and your family.

All it takes is a DA with a yen to make a big reputation as a kiddie porn prosecutor. (That's what happened to Jock Sturgis) Fortunately such malicious prosecution is very rare and usually generates a lot of publicity followed by a loud public outcry.

[R.M. Greenman]

Thank you aunaturelone.

You made some comforting points. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, I checked EBay for the painting called "Daybreak" and couldn't find it, although I went through hundreds of paintings. I also typed in "Paintings for sale" and searched for it that way, and although I found a lot of Web sites selling paintings, I couldn't find that one.. If there are any for sale anywhere, I have no idea how to find them. It would be a lot easier if I could find a Web site where I could just type in the title of the painting and find it that way.

[Caipora]

This will give you two dozen results, most of which are the right picture:

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=%22maxfield+parrish%22+daybreak

Again, the painting was quite common - one listing says at one time it hung in one out of every five households in the U.S. - so an old print will never increase in value, and those offered are overpriced.

The seller offering a "detail" "on canvas" is twice tacky.

While the models were both women, I've always understood that the painting is intended to be a man and a woman. Michaelangelo sometimes used male models to paint women, even nudes, so it's not a new concept.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Well, I checked EBay for the painting called "Daybreak" and couldn't find it, although I went through hundreds of paintings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Caipora and Naturistmark1 ...Thank you for finding the answer for Jon-Marc ... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and the rest of us...the clue was Maxfield instead of Maxwell

[Caipora]

Whoops, my bad. Relying on memory for pictures is all right, but for odd first names it's less reliable.

On the actual thread topic, "what is child pornography" and specifically home photos, a fine essay from Salon is here:
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/index.html

Another bit of advice is to glue the nude photos together with the other childhood pictures in an old-fashioned photo album, the kind with bound-in nonremovable pages.

That prevents the picture from being seen out of context. It won't be misunderstood, and it makes a malicious prosecution more difficult.

Caipora...Great suggestion for the photo albums...that should help reduce the paranoia of anyone afraid of keeping nude pictures of their children...that 's where the nude pictures of me ha ve been for over 60 years...No worry /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Outdoorbare

[aunaturelone]

What is simply amazing about this is how the radical feminist left (Andrea Dwarkin, Cathrine McKinnon) and the extreme fundamentalist right (Dobson, Fallwell) agree completely on the question of child pornography. And there is neither refuge with Democrats nor Republicans in government. Reno was as evil and obnoxious as Ashcroft is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "Neither nudity or [sic] discernability of genitals through clothing is a required element of the offense [of child pornography]."

Janet Reno <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In fact the most recent decision protecting us against abusive use of child porn laws is (1999) Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/speech/bldec_FreeSpeechReno.htm) where "virtual porn" involving no models at all and sexually explicit material using young looking adults would have been banned under federal law.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with the challenge brought by the FSC, finding that: 1) the statue is not content-neutral and aims to curb specific expression; 2) the statute was not in line with Supreme Court decisions which have held that states can only criminalize child pornography when the laws "limit the offense to works that visually depict explicit sexual conduct by children below a specified age" - something the CPPA failed to do; 3) no demonstrated link to harm to real children has been demonstrated; and 4) the language is too vauge and overbroad, allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[R.M. Greenman]

Jon-marc, you will find a print of that painting at most metaphysical book stores, in poster form sometimes matted. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks, Greenman. Now, what is a METAPHYSICAL book store? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[R.M. Greenman]

It is one of those stores that sell alot of New Age books and metatation items. They sell alot of nature based music and insense.

You can also find books about every religion out there, not just Pagan. I've seen Christian interest books there,Jewish, even Muslim.

[Outlaw]

Jon-Marc--

I've never been to Michigan but I think Battle Creek is big enough to have a few malls. Out here in the west we have a store in some of the malls called "Deck the Wall" where they sell a lot of art posters. If they don't have what you want, I'm sure thet can order it for you. Worth a try!

Big Mac

-----------------------------
Nudists are normal people---barely!

I'll have to look into it and see if anyone can order one of those paintings if I can't find one. We have only one of what I would call a mall. It has a lot of stores of different sizes indoors. I can look there. There used to be a fairly good sized book store downtown where I don't care to go. Parking is nearly impossible to find near anything. There are also a lot of drunks and strange VA patients hanging around there. The Rescue Mission is downtown, which is why there are so many drunks there.

[David77]

Jon-Marc,
Please view the "Google list" below, showing 46 references to Maxwell Parrish' painting, "Daybreak" and giving various purchase information.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=where+to+buy+Maxfield+Parrish%27+painting+called +Daybreak&spell=1

David,

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I went there and ordered a copy of "Daybreak". It was only $8.99 plus $4.99 for shipping. It may not be an original painting and only a copy, but I don't care. It's 24" by 36". It would have cost me $90 if I had let them frame it. I'm sure I can get something cheaper than $76. I should have it by this time next week if not sooner.

When I first went there, I thought I would save some time and typed in the title "Daybreak". It took me to the Website of a band with that name. So much for short cuts!

[mj]

check out maxfield parrish's other works too..many of his illustrations were magazine covers for one of the big weeklies, ie The Sautrady Evening Post or another of the genre. I think you could find more of his illustrations at allposters.com. he also did illustrations for childrens books. there was also a parrish calendar published at one time as well as a desk calendar. I think he also did a series of illustrations based on garden scenes. also check out the pre-raphaelites, esp edmund blair leighton...this is at allposters.com. enjoy browsing....lots of neat stuff there.

[yfenni]

Some years ago in a bookshop in the UK I came across a book that was devoted to the depicting of the life of a gipsy boy (I think in Spain)aged 16. The author, in his introduction, made the point that he had the parents' permission to use the boy as a model for his project. Most, if not all, of the photographs were of the boy on horseback, sometimes with a saddle, sometimes bareback. In some the horse was standing still, but in others it was galloping along. For the most part the boy was fully clothed or bare-chested, but there were also pictures of him completely naked astride the horse, again sometimes with a saddle and sometimes without. I thought the latter were particularly erotic, although certainly not pornographic. Curiously, the book was not around for long; I have often wondered if this was because it didn't sell well (although I cannot imagine why) or because it was later deemed pornographic. Does anyone recall the book?

Personally, I thought the pictures of the boy totally nude and bareback were beautiful; although he was only 16 and virtually hairless he had a lovely muscular body. Why should such images be offensive?

[Trailscout]

The caption "A Mid-summer Night's Dream" leads me to believe that the nude figure represents the male character, "Puck", a sort of Cupid matchmaker in the story. Gender is not critical when using a child to portray an elf-like character, so using a girl with short hair would capture the spirit of the story quite well.

[Action Nude]

I know we are getting off of the subject, but I love that kind of art. I have a few nudes painting in my house and everyone I know, knows that I am a nudist. I also bought that painting. Maybe we should start a new subject, but does anyone else know great painting like that at great prices?

[aunaturelone]

Unfortunately the male nude as a work of art lost a lot of popularity about 200 years ago.

There's a photographer you might be interested in, Will McBride. I have one book by him called I, Will McBride that is a kind of retrospective of his work. Did most of his best work in the 60/70s in Europe and in the US counterculture.

The books, LA Nude, New York Nude and Dallas Nude have lots of male figures; nude portraits done in studio. If you have the time and patience to peruse the clothesfree photo archives you'll find a number of male nudes that also happen to be good art.

Finding male nudes on-line done for aesthetics rather than for gay porn is difficult. Even when you go to figure photography sites that are not gender specific, you get 95% females. I am unaware of any figure photogrphy site that is male oriented. There may be an empty niche here waiting for an activist to fill.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gender is not critical when using a child to portray an elf-like character <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Set the same idea in an Edwardian child's bedroom and you'd have Peter Pan.

[Trailscout]

Au,

Funny you should say that. My first thought WAS Peter Pan until I later read the caption "A Midsummer Night's Dream".

I prefer to think that Peter Pan had no use for clothes in Neverland. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[johny]

I am shocked really. It seems Mr Murphy was deeply right saying ""summ of cleverness on the Planet Eart is a constant value, while number of people is growing, growing, growing...""


RE: Newspaper article /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Police dropped from topless tot complaint
Wednesday, September 24, 2003 Posted: 1:03 PM EDT (1703 GMT)

SALINA, Kansas (AP) -- Police officers and the city of Salina have been dismissed from a lawsuit filed by a woman interrogated last year about photos processed at a Wal-Mart store that included partially nude images of her 3-year-old daughter.

In the lawsuit, Tamie Dragone claims she was humiliated and her family's privacy was invaded when police called by store officials questioned her about the photos, which included a picture of her daughter playing topless in a swimming pool.

Dragone was approached by police as she waited for the photos to be developed and was questioned for about 45 minutes. She was eventually allowed to leave, but without the pictures.

Dragone is seeking damages of $262,473 for medical expenses and pain and suffering.

Attorneys for both sides agreed to dismiss the city defendants at a hearing last Friday. Dragone's attorney, Tom Boone, said Tuesday that the suit contends negligence by Wal-Mart caused the incident.

Salina Police Chief Jim Hill said in a statement the dismissal "reinforces our strong belief that her claims ... were entirely without legal merit."

Hill said officers had a statutory duty to look into the possibility that the photographs were evidence of child abuse.

Wal-Mart lawyers have moved for dismissal of claims against the retailer, saying the photos could have led a reasonable person to conclude the child was being sexually abused. District Judge Jerome Hellmer is to rule on that motion the week of October 13.

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The Peter Pan movie I remember seeing many years ago had Mary Martin playing him.

[Trailscout]

Did it take the police 45 minutes and they still haven't figured out that photographs of a nude toddler playing in a backyard wading pool is not evidence of a felonious crime?

There is plenty of stupidity to go around. The Walmart clerk should have known better than to report a nude baby picture and the Walmart lawyers should certainly know better too.

Normal family nudity subject to routine criminal investigation? What paranoia!

It is criminal that we have no option but take digital photos or send them to "safe" developers. As prudish as our parent's generation was in general, at least they did not freak over baby pictures.

Trailscout,

If that's the same story I read, there was a photo of the woman's 3-year-old topless in the backyard pool with her father, and one of her backside as she lay on the floor (oh the shame of it!" She has sued for $262,473 (odd amount) for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The police kept the pictures.

Walmart lawyers (ya gotta love those lawyers--NOT!)have moved to dismiss claims against the retailer. They said "the photos could have led a reasonable person to conclude the child was being sexually abused." Apparently I'm not reasonable, because I don't agree from the description of the photos.

[Bob S.]

Jon-Marc, I doubt that even stu would find those pictures proof that the child was being abused. And if that's true, then that would mean that WalMart lawyers and the workers are worse than stu in that regard. That would be scary!

Bob S.

What is there about the chest or even the butt of a 3-year-old for anyone to think the photos are pornographic, or to think the girl was being abused? That's why I destroyed the nude photo I had of my girl when she was 2-years-old. I lost a friend over that photo. In this world of hysterical, paranoid people who see child abuse everywhere they look, I'm not giving anyone any ammunition to use against me. Maybe I should get rid of the one of her in the bath as a baby of just over a year old? After all, it shows her bare chest. Horrors! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[nudemommy]

How sad this is! My husband and I would be in deep trouble if someone saw nude pics of our sons and reported us. We have tons of them. We even have one of son #1 laying naked on his tummy that we had taken at a Wal-Mart portrait studio. The rest are on our computer and/or digitial camera. It's a shame that parents have to be so paranoid about baby pictures. I guess this wasn't a big issue when I was a baby...28 years ago, because my parents have all kinds of naked pics of me (and little sister who is 14 now). My parents aren't even nudists. They just know babies are sooooo CUTE naked.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I prefer to think that Peter Pan had no use for clothes in Neverland. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The book even says so. Peter didn't have to wear clothes because he was the boss. The Lost Boys wore clothing as a sign of their subordination. When Peter goes off for the final battle against Hook, he isn't wearing anything except his sword and belt.

BTW, fairies come in male and female. They also come in 3 colors, blue, pink and purple. They don't always wear clothing. And the mermaids don't wear anything but hair.

[Caipora]

Today's NY Times Travel section has an article on Cambodia, with a picture of two naked kids on the beach. I think they're boys (short hair) but they're at an age where there's no practical difference between boys and girls.
The picture can be found online at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/travel/19cambodia.html You have to register (free).

The Times may be using the National Geographic rule of nudity ("If their skin is dark enough, it's OK") or may have taken the entirely reasonable position that if you can't tell from the picture what sex the kid is, it's not a sexual picture.

But nude kids are not illegal per se, or the Times would be in trouble.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
[QUOTE][Peter Pan] didn't have to wear clothes because he was the boss. The Lost Boys wore clothing as a sign of their subordination. When Peter goes off for the final battle against Hook, he isn't wearing anything except his sword and belt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I looked that up online, and found that he's wearing very little except his weapons.

The Lost Boys are described as wearing " bear skins ." I wonder if that was written with a thought that the book would be read aloud to children, and what they understood might not be what was written?

FYI, one of the boys on whom Barrie based the Darling family and who he photographed as Peter Pan (wearing more than just weapons) drowned in the Thames while at Oxford. Presumably he was skinny-dipping.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=22896&pt=Michael%20Llewellyn%20Davies

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the National Geographic rule of nudity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many many years ago, as a teenage high school student I recognized this as a kind of racial bigotry. They still haven't changed.

[Mazlinite]

I am so glad that I'm living in Australia where we do not take this issue so serious.

Research shows that children who grow up in a nudist setting tend to be more self-confident, more self-accepting, and more sexually well-adjusted. They feel better about their bodies, and more comfortable with their sexuality.

http://naturist.com/resources/205_069.htm

Maz

"Research shows that children who grow up in a nudist setting tend to be more self-confident, more self-accepting, and more sexually well-adjusted. They feel better about their bodies, and more comfortable with their sexuality."

I've seen that research but it tends to be conducted by researchers already predisposed or sympathetic to naturist thinking. It's hardly surprising then that they come up with such results.

Stu

[Jochanaan]

Stu, that's a good point. But how do we naturists correct the problem? Even if we asked a neutral organization such as Gallup to do the survey, it would still be suspect because of who commissioned it.

Someone out there who's not a naturist and has no ties with naturism needs to do a similar study. That would carry a lot more weight with the general public than anything we could do. At least it should.

[Jochanaan]

As for male nudes, they're coming back, as evidenced by the art and photography sections in major bookstores. Sure, some of them are homosexually oriented, but a lot of them aren't. I've even seen male nudes photographed by female photographers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Joe Nudist]

Stu2630 is right. Children who grow up in a nudist setting. They feel better about their bodies. I know 15 years old girl. Who was on T.V. News talking about Nudist Life.she member at Nudist Club were I'm member.

[Bob S.]

Joe, stu didn't say what you are giving him credit for. That was Mazlinite, our Australian friend.

stu, you have yet to come up with research that counters those pro-nudist findings. I am reading right now on a yahoo group, (Clothesfreechild) about research that has shown that children raised in nauturist households are more likely to talk to someone else about sexual abuse.

Bob S.

[Nude in the North]

Ah, but there's the quandary.

Any "research" Stu might find to support his position would surely be "tainted".
As Stu has said repeatedly. All Research is tainted by the beliefs of the researcher. There is no way on earth to take an unbiased poll, or study without having an ulterior motive.

Every study ever done, was only done to prove what the researcher wanted to prove.

I guess we will never know the truth.

Steve

Jochanaan

"Even if we asked a neutral organization such as Gallup to do the survey, it would still be suspect because of who commissioned it."

Indeed. You would need studies by entirely independent academics or researchers working for recognised institutes. The problem is that the only people likely to be sufficiently interested in pursuing this would be those with a pre-existing sympathy with naturist thinking.

Bob S.

"you have yet to come up with research that counters those pro-nudist findings."

As I said to Jochanaan above, there isn't likely to be any, Bob. But that doesn't mean to say we have to believe everything claimed by naturist-supporting researchers. It simply means that we don't yet know because there is no truly reliable evidence one way or the other. I am prepared to keep an ope mind on that, though.

Nude in the North

"There is no way on earth to take an unbiased poll, or study without having an ulterior motive".

It probably could be done, Steve, if for example it were to be conducted as just a small part of an otherwise wide-ranging social survey. The research methods would have to be overseen by a panel of very distinguished academics and all claimed results scrutinized for correct interpretation. Then this research might have some legitimacy and probative force.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The research methods would have to be overseen by a panel of very distinguished academics and all claimed results scrutinized for correct interpretation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why do you put so much faith in "very distinguised academics" - don't they have opinions of their own which would influence the result.

I've got an idea Stu: let's employ you to do the job!

Rik

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The problem is that the only people likely to be sufficiently interested in pursuing this would be those with a pre-existing sympathy with naturist thinking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or a pre-existing hostility.

Ultimately you have to get at the raw data of the study itself and see how the data was gathered and make your own judgement about whether it is biased or not.

Research goes to issues where grant money can be found and rarely anywhere else. When someone comes up with a conclusion that is counter to their vested interests or existing biases, then I sit up and take notice.

Rik,

"Why do you put so much faith in "very distinguised academics" - don't they have opinions of their own which would influence the result."

A GOOD academic is, like a judge, able to separate his own opinions from what he is examining. Where you have several academics from different disciplines working together, you usually get a pretty fair and impartial result because they act as checks and balances on each other's input.

"I've got an idea Stu: let's employ you to do the job!"

I've got four PhD theses to read so I think I've got enough on my plate at the moment - but I appreciate the offer!

aunaturelone

"Or a pre-existing hostility."

Possibly. But I must say that I don't personally know any academics who have such a degree of pre-existing hostility towards naturism. People - especially highly intelligent and educated people - are more often warm towards naturism than hostile.

"Research goes to issues where grant money can be found and rarely anywhere else. When someone comes up with a conclusion that is counter to their vested interests or existing biases, then I sit up and take notice."

I totally agree!

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I've got four PhD theses to read so I think I've got enough on my plate at the moment... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gosh! And you can still find time to come here? Perhaps you're using a body-double. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Bob S.]

"People - especially highly intelligent and educated people - are more often warm towards naturism than hostile."

So we can conclude from this statement that the uneducated are the ones who tend to be hostile towards naturism.

"The problem is that the only people likely to be sufficiently interested in pursuing this would be those with a pre-existing sympathy with naturist thinking."

Or those with an anti-nudist agenda.

"But that doesn't mean to say we have to believe everything claimed by naturist-supporting researchers."

Or the research of those who are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Ultimately, aunaturelone was correct in that you must "get at the raw data of the study itself and see how the data was gathered" before reaching any conclusions, including the conclusion the researcher reached and his own bias.

Bob S.

Too often people do research to "prove" their beliefs, theories or pre-conceived ideas rather than wanting to learn the truth.

Polls prove nothing many people aren't even polled. The poll can be made to come out any way you want according to the people you poll.

People who want to prove something according to the Bible use verses that "prove" them right, and they may be misquoting what they read. People who want to "prove" themselves right in anything will make sure they come up with "proof". Everyone can come up with "proof" and with other people who agree with them, but none of that proves anything.

Someone who is against nudity of any kind can "prove" that nudity is harmful. Those who agree with him will use his writings to "prove" that they're right.

Someone who believes nudity is natural can come up many people who agree with him, and I'm one of them. Many people who were once ashamed of their bodies and embarrassed to be seen nude have realized that nudity is natural, and there's no reason to be ashamed of their bodies or embarrassed by others'.

[Linguist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

A GOOD academic is, like a judge, able to separate his own opinions from what he is examining. Where you have several academics from different disciplines working together, you usually get a pretty fair and impartial result because they act as checks and balances on each other's input.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu is quite right.

I have read some academic work that bears on the topic of nudism - I have made my brief reviews available on my website at the following page:

Tim's readings (http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~timm/personal/n/research.html)

There are several things to consider when we talk about research bearing on nudism.

The first is noted by Stu above: that even if they have a predisposition one way or the other, good academics can exert themselves to make sure that bias does not mar their research. Many scientific journals use other scientists to judge the validity of research before they publish it, further enforcing the goal of objectivity.

Second, most research, including much that has implications for nudism, is not conducted by and for nudists. It is reasonable to suppose that these researchers do not have a vested interest in what their research implies about nudism. It also means that, as consumers of this research, we must interpret the results in terms of our own questions, to determine its relevance to nudism. We may introduce our own biases, but if we can the strategies of good scientists (noted by Stu above), we will minimize the effects of this subjective bias.

I acknowledge that scientific belief is sometimes distorted by the preconceptions of the researchers and the society they work in. However, I do not think that Stu's claims are so self-evident they they should go unchallenged. If it is your claim, Stu, that all research claiming to prove or support the nudist case does so only because of the bias introduced by the researchers, then show us examples. I have reviewed several articles and books in the link above. You seem to have others in mind besides. So please, describe how these researchers are polluting the scientific endeavour with their own biases. Or, if you cannot, please acknowledge that your claim is unsupported - that it is, in fact, a subjective impression that may owe more to your own preconceptions and biases than to your objective, scientific evaluation of the facts.

While it is fine for us as scientists to hold such opinions, our duty to the truth requires us to acknowledge which are our objective, empirically-tested beliefs and which are our untested predispositions.

Your friend in the pursuit of understanding,

Tim.

Tim,

"If it is your claim, Stu, that all research claiming to prove or support the nudist case does so only because of the bias introduced by the researchers, then show us examples".

I haven't stated that ALL research on this topic is conducted by those with a favourable disposition towards nudism. I don't know precisely how much is and how much isn't. But my own experience of research into areas of sociology and social anthropology combined with common sense tells me that naturism isn't exactly a major of interest of scientific study. This perception is confirmed by academic colleagues in those fields. Virtually all the research I have seen on this topic has been pointed out to me by my friends on this site. A closer investigation of the researchers credentials led me to believe that they were either individuals with a history of promoting the supposed "benefits" of naturism, or they were BA undergraduates or masters students researching for dissertations. I was also referred to the results of surveys from commercial polling agencies commissioned by naturist bodies. Moreover, even where the legitimacy of the research was evident, the interpretation placed upon it by naturists in furthering their cause was not.

Of course you can accuse me of subjectivity if you wish and there may well be some truth in that. My own academic interests lie in legal fields of study and consequently I don't have the time to explore this subject and report on it to the rigourous standards expected by the academic world.

All can say is that the research that has been drawn to my attention here regarding health, psychological or social benefits of naturism has not convinced me that the case is made out. There may be a few indicators at best, but no proof that I have seen.

Unless, of course, you know different???

Stu

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Someone who is against nudity of any kind can "prove" that nudity is harmful. Those who agree with him will use his writings to "prove" that they're right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is possible to separate good research from bad. Sometimes it is easy for a lay person to do so and sometimes it requires specialized knowledge of statistical techniques or arcane knowledge within a scientific discipline. There are standards by which research may be compared to that will objectively determine the likelihood that a given piece of work is accurate. This process takes place in the form of peer review in respected publications. Outside of publication it takes place in the general tumult of public debate between experts of differing opinions.

On rare occaisions, conclusions may be so controversial and emotional that objective peer review just doesn't happen. This took place a few years ago when a pair of researchers did a survey of adult men who'd had sexual relations with an adult as a child. It concluded that most of them did not consider the relations to be harmful, but rather beneficial. The study disappeared under a hail of bitter personal and professional attacks and being pro-pedophila. Can't even find the work any more. We do not have the opportunity to prove or disprove it's validity. It was just too politically incorrect to say such a thing.

The "truth" of any debate will out but it may take a few years (decades?) to become generally recognized.

As far as polls go, a poll is only as good as its questions. A properly done poll will give you a close approximation of public opinion and the best pollsters will almost always do it properly. Bias in polling comes often about from how the question is worded. Sometimes a slight change of wording or even punctuation in a poll will change the results completely. An example, a poll that askes if something should be illegal will give a different result than one which asks if it should be made illegal or kept illegal.

Ambiguity in words is also an issue. "Is exposure to nudity harmful?" is so vague as to almost useless. What do you mean by "exposure"? What do you mean by "harmful"? Who is being exposed, where and why? Same or different gender? Nude paintings? Stage nudity? Film? Social nudity? At home? At the beach? Downtown? The locker room? A strip club? An orgy? The answer to such a question tells us nothing.

The possible answers the target population has to choose from may also tell us if the question is unreliable or even biased. Yes-no? Yes-no-maybe? Never trust a question that lacks an undecided option. Also distrust the question that only provides one half the spectrum for possible answers. A question with answers ranging from "very harmful" to "not harmful" is inherently based against the question. A range of "very harmful" to "very beneficial" is more likely to be unbaised.

Bias can be introduced by bad sampling, either intentional or unintentional. In the recent CA gubernatorial recall election the LA Times deliberately skewed their poll results against recall and for the Democrat candidate by how they decided who would be a likely voter. Almost all the other pollsters came up with much different figures.

It can also come about when objective results are spun by whoever has an agenda. The underlying polling figures may be correct but the conclusions reached aren't borne out by them. Margins of error get ignored, undecided responses get lumped in with one side or the other, the significance of results are over or understated, and so on.

It is extraordinarily difficult to get good results on questions that are embarassing or potentially damaging. Everyone of any repute agrees that polls concerning things like sexual behavior, illicit drug use and so on massively underreport because of distrust by the target group and no promise of annonymity will overcome it. OTOH polls of men concerning their penis length consistantly give longer results than surveys of actual measurements, so with certain questions overreporting can also be a problem. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I never pay any attention to polls unless I can read the actual questions being asked and what resposes were possible, know how the population sample was selected, who sponsored it and how the poll was administered. Then I do my own interpretation.

[Linguist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I haven't stated that ALL research on this topic is conducted by those with a favourable disposition towards nudism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I appreciate your saying this, and your acknowledgement that your own bias may be swaying you.

I also have a bias, and I cannot deny that it influences my interpretation of the literature tha I have read.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> All can say is that the research that has been drawn to my attention here regarding health, psychological or social benefits of naturism has not convinced me that the case is made out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In general, I have to agree. My review of this research is a sideline, not related to my actual research in linguistics, and so progresses rather slowly. However, I suspect you are right - the research that exists is not an irrefutable confirmation of the claims of nudists.

However, I would like to point you to some of the researchers that I have come across. The papers of theirs that I have read can be found on my web page (http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~timm/personal/n/research.html). First, Martin Weinberg. The articles I have reviewed are mainly descriptive, presenting the nature of nudist camps from an observer's perspective. (His research was performed as a "participant observer" - he obtained permission to do his research, and interacted with camp members as one of them.) These I feel are valuable because, although they generally say things that a hundred nudist websites would tell you, they do so with the authority of an objective observer. So I invite you, Stu, when you have some time, to peruse some of these articles and let me know what your impressions are.

The second researcher is Marilyn Story. The two articles that I review in the link above present the results of surveys of children and adults. The main target of the study (dependent variable) is body self-concept, and the key factors observed (independent variables) are gender and involvement in nudism. Story finds that nudists have a higher self-concept than non-nudists, and males have a higher self-concept than females. This seems to me to be fairly strong and clear evidence supporting nudists' claims, and I would very much like to know if you agree, Stu.

Finally, Goldman and Goldman conduct interviews of children in various countries, to see what their attitudes are to nakedness and, importantly, what reasons they give for those attitudes. It has been some time since I read this article, so I won't say anything about it - just that I would love to hear your feedback about what you think the paper implies for nudism.

Cheers!

- Tim -

[Jochanaan]

I seem to recall that some scientists, when they have reached a hypothesis, set up the experiment to attempt to disprove their hypothesis. That seems to be a good way to increase objectivity.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
... a pair of researchers did a survey of adult men who'd had sexual relations with an adult as a child. It concluded that most of them did not consider the relations to be harmful, but rather beneficial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Assuming the research is valid, I still want to make two comments: Just because someone thinks something is beneficial doesn't mean that it is. And even if good came from such events, the events themselves may have been very bad. Some good things have happened in my life because of my divorce, but that doesn't make the divorce any less evil or painful.

[shãybare]

Every poll should be taken with a grain of salt unless it is a political poll--those should be disregarded all together. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Even polls done by independent observers will more than likely as not be biased.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
I seem to recall that some scientists, when they have reached a hypothesis, set up the experiment to attempt to disprove their hypothesis. That seems to be a good way to increase objectivity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is part of the Scientific Method, which is a methodology for experimental science that automatically accounts for bias. There are 4 steps to the Scientific Method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html) :

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
<LI>2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
<LI>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
<LI>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
[/list]

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in) of the hypothesis as tested by experiment.

Much social research is not amenable to experimentation, so it is imperative to satisfy step 3 by new observations -which is not always feasible. A hypothesis that is not predictive or falsifyable is not as much use. Thus social research must often enter the descriptive universe of statistical analysis and correlative deductions. This provides useful data but lacks the rigor of the experimental Scientific Method and the automatic accomodation of bias.

-Mark

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Story finds that nudists have a higher self-concept than non-nudists, and males have a higher self-concept than females. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And explains nicely one reason why there are so many more of males than females in social nudism. It doesn't tell us which came first and was causal; higher self concept, the particiaption in social nudity or some third factor that led to one or both of the above.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I seem to recall that some scientists, when they have reached a hypothesis, set up the experiment to attempt to disprove their hypothesis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In scientific terms that is called the "null hypothesis", the hypothesis that what I am looking for doesn't really exist, is not present, that there is no effect, or that there is no difference between treatment and control groups. If you try very hard to prove your idea is invaild and fail, it supports the notion that your idea is correct.

In good science, you can't ever prove something is absolutely true. The best you can say is that nobody has ever proven it false. (Withstand this kind of testing for long enough and your hypothesis will start getting refered to as a theory, as in the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution. But I digress.)

Here's an example: In testing new medications the "gold standard" is a "double blind" study which attempts to prove the "null hypothesis" that the medication does NOT work, is NOT safe, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>double blind - a technique used in modern scientific research to separate facts from the hopes and wishes of both scientists and experimental subjects. A treatment which is to be tested is administered by scientists who do not know whether they are using the active treatment or the inactive placebo. The experimental subjects don't know which is which, either. The test results are evaluated by scientists who also do not know which group received the active treatment and which the placebo. At the end of the experiment, the secret code is broken, and the responses of the subjects to the real experimental treatment are compared with their responses to the placebo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Shane Scott]

Well to tell you the truth child pornography is taking a picture of a child and putting it on the computer/internet without asking,telling or getting permission from the child or parents. The other type is a parent or guradian taking pictures of a child nnaked then selling it for that is child pornography.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Story finds that nudists have a higher self-concept than non-nudists, and males have a higher self-concept than females. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And explains nicely one reason why there are so many more of males than females in social nudism. It doesn't tell us which came first and was causal; higher self concept, the particiaption in social nudity or some third factor that led to one or both of the above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My first guess is that one has to have a pretty good self-concept to become a nudist in the first place, unless one was raised that way. So, those with poor self-concepts are less likely to become nudists.

As to why women and girls have lower self-concepts than men and boys, there are plenty of reasons--prevalence of advertising, lack of strong role models for women, and so forth. Even hormones may play a part. And in talking to women I have come to realize just how much fear of rape affects their character and behavior--even in those who have never been raped or molested. I don't understand it, but I know it's there. All these will likely have a direct effect on the decision to become a nudist.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shane Scott:
Well to tell you the truth child pornography is taking a picture of a child and putting it on the computer/internet without asking,telling or getting permission from the child or parents. The other type is a parent or guradian taking pictures of a child nnaked then selling it for that is child pornography. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me make sure I've got your message straight. Any time you take a picture of a child without permission, clothed, unclothed, or otherwise, and put it on the Web, it's child pornography?

Be specific here! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(I am also aware that added text may transform a non-pornographic picture into a pornographic one. Although, in that case, the text is the pornography, not the picture.)

[Bob S.]

Shane, sexual actrivity, sexual posing, or focusing on the genital, anal, or breast area is considered pornography. Not having permission is not illegal in public places (with clothing) and naked or in a private place, not having permission is illegal, but not child porn.

And simply selling a picture of a naked child is definitely not child porngraphy otherwise, I have child porn with my books "Immediate Family" by Sally Mann and "Radiant Identities" and The Last Days of Summer" by Jock Sturges.

Bob S.

[Atlantis Buff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:

Study after study has shown that homosexuality cannot be "cured."

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, it can. There has been people who have given up the Homosexual lifestyle, both men and women. Homosexuality is a behavior than a man or a woman can change from, if he or she wants to.

I have read of at least two cases were the people involved have chosen the heterosexual lifestyle. One I read about in depth. The man said he had kids but went gay later in life. He felt strongly attracted (love?) for another man and was willing to break his marriage commitments to persue a homosexual relationship. Finally, he came to the point where he had to make a decision and so he weighed what he'd be ultimately doing if he did persue this homosexual relationship.

The consequences of his pursuit would be:
1. Destruction of his family.
2. The possibility that his kids may never like him.
3. Giving up any sort of real, long lasting happiness for the pleasure of such a relationship.
4. Giving up his ticket for Exaltation and Eternal Life, and everything else of value, for a reward of nothing (this guy is a Mormon). Or in other words, he has a million dollars, but he was going to give it up for $10.

So he decided a Homosexual relationship wasn't worth it and just plain stopped. Of course his life went through other hard changes to get himself to stop, but he didn't want the consequences.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atlantis Buff:
Actually, it can. There has been people who have given up the Homosexual lifestyle, both men and women. Homosexuality is a behavior than a man or a woman can change from, if he or she wants to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not at all established.

I know several people who have apparently changed orientation. For them it was obviously not an immutable lifelong situation.

Part of the problem is that sexual orientation is not a simple bipolar status -gay or straight. There are gradations between. I don't know if the switchers have actually changed, or whether they were essentially bisexuals who can be happy either way with the right partner. Or unhappy.

I also know several people who lived heterosexual lives for decades, who felt real love for their wives, but came to realize that they were in denial of their true selves. Or were they really hetero and changed?

I also know a couple of people who lived gay, but fell in love with people of the opposite sex, quite to their surprise. Did they change orientation?

The one thing I have never ever seen, is someone who changed sexual orientation by force of will. Always it was a matter of self-discovery, not determination.

-Mark

[Atlantis Buff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
David - the reason Jesus didn't mention homosexuality was that it didn't exist in those days. According to Foucault it was invented in about 1870 (see his book "The History of Sexuality" and he'll prove it to you!).

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, Homosexuality existed in all Ages. Ancient Jewish Law forbade Homosexuality, the ancient Greeks tolerated it, and the ancient Romans thought it wasn't a big deal. I don't know about other ancient cultures on their views, so those are the three I can think of.

[Atlantis Buff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atlantis Buff:
Actually, it can. There has been people who have given up the Homosexual lifestyle, both men and women. Homosexuality is a behavior than a man or a woman can change from, if he or she wants to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not at all established.

I know several people who have apparently changed orientation. For them it was obviously not an immutable lifelong situation.

Part of the problem is that sexual orientation is not a simple bipolar status -gay or straight. There are gradations between. I don't know if the switchers have actually changed, or whether they were essentially bisexuals who can be happy either way with the right partner. Or unhappy.

I also know several people who lived heterosexual lives for decades, who felt real love for their wives, but came to realize that they were in denial of their true selves. Or were they really hetero and changed?

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And it's not for us to judge since we don't have all the information at hand (i.e. we haven't experienced what they've experienced). But I know it's possible.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atlantis Buff:
Actually, it can. There has been people who have given up the Homosexual lifestyle, both men and women. Homosexuality is a behavior than a man or a woman can change from, if he or she wants to.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One should not confuse "behaviour" with "sexual orientation" or "affectational preference".

One can change their <u>behaviour</u>, but one can not change their innate sexual orientation.

One can suddenly stop having homosexual sex activity, for reasons listed by Atlantis Bluff, but one can not stop himself from having sexual feelings for his own sex.

To carry this thought further, therapists can help a person to change some <U>behaviours,</u> but no one can help him change his core personality.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atlantis Buff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
David - the reason Jesus didn't mention homosexuality was that it didn't exist in those days. According to Foucault it was invented in about 1870 (see his book "The History of Sexuality" and he'll prove it to you!).

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, Homosexuality existed in all Ages. Ancient Jewish Law forbade Homosexuality, the ancient Greeks tolerated it, and the ancient Romans thought it wasn't a big deal. I don't know about other ancient cultures on their views, so those are the three I can think of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Foucault wrote extensively about the Greeks and Romans in his book. He was perfectly aware of the fact of homosexual behavior from time immemorial. What he meant was that homosexuality was not recognized as 'homosexuality': a form of sexual orientation rather than just a behavior until the late 19th century.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jean Foucault argues, "...homosexuality became because we made it so" [11]. Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later. Foucault gives root to the social derivation of homosexuality believing that homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality, only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul" [10]. The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word. more (http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-Mark

[aunaturelone]

For anyone who is interested in studying the subtle ways polling can be slanted and statistics skewed, I suggest this book: How to Lie with Statistics (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=708KN4Y2KG&isbn=0393310728&itm=1). Very funny and incredbly clever, it is written as an actual practical guide on how to lie.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well to tell you the truth child pornography is taking a picture of a child and putting it on the computer/internet without asking,telling or getting permission from the child or parents. The other type is a parent or guradian taking pictures of a child naked then selling it for that is child pornography. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to disagree very strongly here.

Chid pornography is sexually suggestive imagery of actual minors. The reason child pornography is illegal is because it is illegal for an adult to ask a minor to do such things. We can discuss what "sexually suggestive" means all day long but simple nudity doesn't qualify. The photography of Jock Sturgis, for example, is not child pornography.

If the activity being photographed is something that it would be legal for an adult to ask a child to do and would be legal for the child to do on their own, then it could possibly be "sleazy" (or it could be "fine art") but it is not child pornography.

Whether the child gave permission is irrelevent to whether something is porn. Minors can't give "permission" for anything. It is legally impossible. (There is a kind of implied consent when engaging in day to day retail transactions and emergency medical procedures.) That authority is vested in their legal guardian pending adulthood.

Minors do have a fair amount of autonomy over their bodies and if a child simply refused to cooperate, forcing compliance might (or might not) amount to child abuse. Or a violation of the child labor laws if it were done for money. It wouldn't have any bearing on whether the resulting images were pornographic.

Pornography is entirely dependent on the illegality of what is being photographed. If an image is decided to be child porn, then whether or not it was done for profit, whether parental permission was acquired and whether it was distributed to others has a bearing on what charges are brought. But whether or not a photo was done for profit, whether parental permission was acquired and whether it was distributed to others has no bearing at all on whether it is pornographic.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That doesn't make a lot of sense as a statement.

Sexual orientation only makes sense if it is governed by several genes and then further modified by the environment. This produces a gradual transition in traits from exclusively gay to exclusively heterosexual.

An analogy might be skin color where people range from albino to nearly black and every shade in between. Likewise there is probably a hint of bisexuality in everyone. For various reasons it gets repressed.

Take the analogy a step further. Almost all heterosexuals have some homosexuality in our genetic background and without exception all gays have some hetersexuality in their background. In a culture where homosexuality has been frowned upon for hundreds of years, a gay's ability to pass as a straight was a matter of life and death. Just as in America, people with African genes who were light skinned enough frequently passed themselves off as white. (Ditto for American Indians.) This is obviously a trick almost all gays could pull off while only a few blacks could do so.

The result is that everyone who could function sexually as a straight, did so, even if they'd prefer to live as a gay. (Also because it was the only way they could have children.) In fact the social disapproval was so strong they would lie to themselves about their sexuality so they didn't feel like a pervert. (The gay closet can be both external and internal.)

There appear to be more gays today than ever before only because a greater degree of tolerance allows men and women to connect with their inner selves. And gay adoption, surrogate motherhood and artificial insemination allow them to have children without abandoning their hearts true desire.

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Actually, it can. There has been people who have given up the Homosexual lifestyle, both men and women. Homosexuality is a behavior than a man or a woman can change from, if he or she wants to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's not true. The situation you described wasn't becoming a heterosexual. What you described was simply stopping pursuing homosexual relations. There's a difference. For example, a celebate heterosexual doesn't stop being a heterosexual. He/she just doesn't have heterosexual acts. No difference.

And for those who say they have been "cured" of their homosexuality the word for that is brainwashing. Or a severe case of denial.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And it's not for us to judge since we don't have all the information at hand (i.e. we haven't experienced what they've experienced). But I know it's possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With all due respect you don't know it's possible. You just think it is. And you're wrong. There isn't a legitimate psychologist or psychiatrist that says it's possible to change one's own orientation.
NuTex

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
That doesn't make a lot of sense as a statement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wasn't advocating Foucault's views, only letting him explain them.

Foucault thinks society creates Homosexuality. Others think Nature does it. I don't know. All I do know is that it isn't by choice.

-Mark

[Atlantis Buff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NuTex:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Actually, it can. There has been people who have given up the Homosexual lifestyle, both men and women. Homosexuality is a behavior than a man or a woman can change from, if he or she wants to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's not true. The situation you described wasn't becoming a heterosexual. What you described was simply stopping pursuing homosexual relations. There's a difference. For example, a celebate heterosexual doesn't stop being a heterosexual. He/she just doesn't have heterosexual acts. No difference.

And for those who say they have been "cured" of their homosexuality the word for that is brainwashing. Or a severe case of denial.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And it's not for us to judge since we don't have all the information at hand (i.e. we haven't experienced what they've experienced). But I know it's possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With all due respect you don't know it's possible. You just think it is. And you're wrong. There isn't a legitimate psychologist or psychiatrist that says it's possible to change one's own orientation.
NuTex <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The legitimate psychologist or psychiatrist also do not have all the information available to them. They too, didn't experience a Homosexual's life like Jesus Christ did. Nor do they have the omniscient perspective that the Father has. Both are in agreement, a Homosexual can stop being a Homosexual if he or she wants to.

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They too, didn't experience a Homosexual's life like Jesus Christ did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? This statement didn't make any sense to me. What did you mean by "experience a Homosexual's life like Jesus Christ did"? How did Jesus experiance a homosexual life?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Both are in agreement, a Homosexual can stop being a Homosexual if he or she wants to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Both who? Jesus and the Father? Where does the bible record Jesus or God the Father saying anything about changing sexual orientation? Even if one believes the bible condemns the modern homosexual relationship (which I don't believe it does. We've covered this before in other threads) it sure doesn't talk about changing one's sexual orientation.
NuTex

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atlantis Buff:
The legitimate psychologist or psychiatrist also do not have all the information available to them. They too, didn't experience a Homosexual's life like Jesus Christ did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I missed that gospel story, Reference? I'm familiar with the 'Holy Blood' (http://www.magdalene.org/holygrail.htm) theorists who claim Jesus was married and became a father, which the early church fathers edited out of history for political reasons. I am unfamiliar with any 'Gay Christ' theories.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Nor do they have the omniscient perspective that the Father has. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nor you. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Both are in agreement, a Homosexual can stop being a Homosexual if he or she wants to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Reference? I can't find any Biblical basis for such a statement.

-Mark

[Rex]

Life can be difficult enough for a gay person, without people saying, in effect, it's your own fault, you can change [your wicked ways] if you want to.
It's easy for me, I'm hetero. If I want to meet a partner, for a short term, or long term relationship, I can just go to a dance, or beach, or whatever. If I want to hold my partner's hand, or show other signs of affection, then, in our society, that's fine.
I was raised Anglican, went on a scholarship to a very strongly Methodist school, and was encouraged to take an interest in other religions, but by the time I was 15, I was no longer prepared to sit in church, being told what I HAD to believe, and just accept it without questioning.
I do remember, however, being told that the second greatest commandment was, Love your neighbour as yourself.
Well, I am in a loving, sexual, heterosexual relationship, and no way would I begrudge my homosexual, or lesbian, "neighbour" the delight and fullfillment of the same with a partner of THEIR choice.

[NuTex]

Rex,
That was so great what you wrote. I couldn't dream of saying it any better than you. Bravo!
NuTex

[FLslimguy]

I AGREE with NuTex... Rex, that was cool. I wish the rest of the world was as tolerant and open-minded as you.

[aunaturelone]

Rex, that was indeed well written.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And for those who say they have been "cured" of their homosexuality the word for that is brainwashing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Am I the only one here who remembers A Clockwork Orange?

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for those who say they have been "cured" of their homosexuality the word for that is brainwashing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I the only one here who remembers A Clockwork Orange <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Aunaturelone,
Good point. I forgot about that book/ movie.
NuTex

Great post Rex!

[florida-david]

rex, i think i love you, what a great post!!!!

[Trailscout]

Human beings are not like geese that imprint on some mother figure at a critical point in our life cycle. Our cerebral cortex allows change, even radical change.

Having same-sex orientation is a deeply rooted preference, but there is no reason to believe that you can't correct this problem with operant conditioning.

Of course many of us find sex outside of heterosexual marriage to be immoral, so what do we do? Practice CELIBACY! Even if you can't muster up an attraction for someone of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean you are compelled to act on your proclivities.

And don't tell me that you have no self control.
Otherwise any time you saw a real goodlooking babe on the beach, you'd have to make love to her right then and there, even if her Professional Wrestling husband is hurrying back from the hotdog stand.

You can be celibate regardless of your orientation.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Having same-sex orientation is a deeply rooted preference, but there is no reason to believe that you can't correct this problem with operant conditioning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trying looking at that from the other direction. I assume you are not bisexual. I Assume you are hetero just as I am. Not by choice, but by whatever chance, nature and/or nurture that determines sexual orientation. It is not important WHY you are hetero, just that you are.

Now imagine that heterosexuality is considered either a perversion or an unfortunate developemental defect that isn't tolerated by a large portion of your community.

As a morally upstanding member of society your only choice is to deny yourself any chance of romance. Or worse, to somehow train yourself to find your fellow males sexually attractive and sex with them romantically fulfilling. Can you even imagine what it would take to 'turn' you? Can you imagine what kind of hell that would be to even attempt it?

How can you imagine a loving God who would want you to go through that?

Can you imagine a loving God?

-Mark

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can be celibate regardless of your orientation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes and a gay male can have sex with a woman. All it takes is a bit of stimulation and a man's genitals go on autopilot.

He'd still be gay despite this.

Why on earth would anyone (who didn't share that particular religious conviction) want to remain celibate? Or have a sex life with someone who wasn't what he really wanted?

The level of conditioning it would take to overcome such a fundamental trait as gender preferance would be pretty intensive. That is, assuming it's even possible. Just because somebody somewhere says it happened to them doesn't mean we can take it as a general rule.

My belief is that any attempt to change someone's gender preference needs to be completely voluntary. If we are not geese who imprint on a mother figure upon hatching, then we are also not pigeons to be conditioned in an advanced Skinner Box (http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Skinner%20Box).

[nudewheelchairTodd]

May I ask what happen to the main TOPIC?

[aunaturelone]

It drifted. It's common in threads that are interesting and potentally touch upon a broad number of related issues. People will tend to go off onto a tangent.

If you want to bring it back, post something germane to the original topic.

[Trailscout]

Mark and aunaturelone,

Many people who love God have practiced celibacy for generations and there are blessings that come with it to compensate for any perceived loss.

I admit that people who do not follow God may not be motivated to live righteous lives. Their first duty is to find salvation through Jesus, then he will help them overcome their perversion and take a wife or to live in celibate purity.

Now if you have no sexual self control, regardless of your orientation you will soon die, either at the hands of a jealous husband, an angry father or from social disease. And don't blame God for your poor choices.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Mark and aunaturelone,

Many people who love God have practiced celibacy for generations and there are blessings that come with it to compensate for any perceived loss.

I admit that people who do not follow God may not be motivated to live righteous lives. Their first duty is to find salvation through Jesus, then he will help them overcome their perversion and take a wife or to live in celibate purity.

Now if you have no sexual self control, regardless of your orientation you will soon die, either at the hands of a jealous husband, an angry father or from social disease. And don't blame God for your poor choices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How would they know if there was a loss or not? I'm very glad I'm not intentionally celebate. I may go a long time between but I feel totally open to decide to have sex whenever I feel like it.

Your words about having to "follow god" to have a righteous life is a slap in the face to all the good people out there that don't have your beliefs. I don't believe this website is the proper place for you to air those prejudice thoughts. From what I have personally seen on this planet there seem to be more people that live righteous lives that aren't christians than those that are.

Choosing not to be celebate is hardly "no sexual self control." A death from having sex is not common as you have posted. Please, stick with truths and not exagerated stories. (Is that how christians are supposed to be?)

All in all your post hurts a lot of really nice people and for what? To prove a point? All you've proven is that you don't know what you are talking about. Show me your figures where people who have sex die soon please.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atlantis Buff:
The legitimate psychologist or psychiatrist also do not have all the information available to them. They too, didn't experience a Homosexual's life like Jesus Christ did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure I understand that statement, Atlantis Buff. How did He "experience a homosexual's life"?