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 Maxfiel