Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
When is nude child pics...PORN!? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When is nude child pics...PORN!?

    I have recieved a very stern warning from admin and the moderator about so called photos of minors that was posted.and that brought to mind the question...when is a nude pic...porn?
    lets define in broad terms what pornography for the lay person envolves.
    My view of pornography,is when specific attention is placed onto the genitals as a singular unit in the ACT OF PERFORMING SEXUAL DEEDS.Pornography is when the camera focusses only on the avtion of the erect penis in the action of visible,erotic pene tration,of the vagina...the genitals being explicitely exposed in the action of purposfull sexual stimualation leading into the evidence of an orgasm expressing the ejaculatory moment of the penis as a sensual image to provoke lust in the viewer.
    The picture of only the genitals,.with the intention to produce lust,and not including the entire holistically pictured person in her or his natural state,in my book goes down as definate pornography.for the life of me,we see naked kids every day,in the bath,on the beach,in their back yards,yet that is not seen as provocative!What is the difference when you see a naked child in natural environments,or a naked child in a natural einvironment,but by means of a picture?If the nurse sees the naked child at hospital during examination,or you see the naked child in the african village,or Amazone environment....its not deemed as wrong or seductive or pornographic...but when one snaps your child in the nude,and show others that were not there to see the child her/him self ,now that is viewed as exhibiting minors.Seeing a naked child or person,teenager or aged person naturally,is not deemed as wrong,but taking a picture of the child and the others ...for a memory..is seen as illegal...something is not well with society and the establishment.
    I was asked recently why my picture and family pictures were removed,as these pictures were just plainly of me and my family...I and my son naked,and were beautifull family pictures...well...thats why , and as a result I was infracted with 2 points!....Now I ask you...what is the difference seeing us naked in real life,or the same us...on a picture...somehow,it makes no sense.Sorry to those folks that miss my pics..but the moderator removed it...not me...as it seemingly was wrong...yet my son is a teenager....
    Attached Files

  • #2
    The pictures themselves may not be porn, but in today's paedophile paranoid society any child photo can, and often are, considered potential porn to those whose minds are warped and twisted.

    Here in the Untied Kingdom we have the ridicules situation where parents can't take photographs of their children on stage in school productions, it hasn't always been like that, I recall being at some of my childrens school shows and proud parents videoing or photographing the occasion.

    It sickens me that ordinary decent people are the ones who suffer when the PC crowd cry foul, whilst the sicko's are getting off on anything that turns them on.

    Stop the world I want to get off!

    Pete Knight

    Comment


    • #3
      The motto for ClothesFree.com is "We believe the human form is neither immoral nor inappropriate and endorse the culture of positive body acceptance."

      Apparently the exception is anyone under 18.

      Did you read this story about a library in Australia which banned an innocent photo of children playing from an exhibition? http://nudiarist.blogspot.com/2009/0...ent-photo.html

      A mother herself the artists says "(...) if this keeps going in the same direction, it won't be long before our children will be required to wear concealing head scarves - whilst surfing obscene pornographic websites protected by the freedom of speech.

      "As an artist, photographer and protective mother of two children I believe in protecting all children, but the law is silencing the wrong people and we are heading back to the dark ages."
      The AANR web site shows photos of nude children, always with adults, and in loving situations.

      With all of this fear of predators we are heading down a path where we will wrap up our children in cocoons, or be like Michael Jackson who had his kids wear masks in public.

      We are also teaching our children that their bodies are dirty and dangerous. It's damaging to self-esteem, and body image, and unhealthy when it comes to normal sexual development. This newest generation is growing up to believe that all nudity is sexual.

      I understand that the last thing ClothesFree.com wants is to be charged with distributing child pornography, so they ban all images of children, as if they no longer exist in society. We live in a climate of fear where parents who take nude photos of their babies on the Oriental rug and take them to Walmart to be developed, are thrown in jail and have their kids taken away.

      I don't know what the answer is, but people really need to get a grip on exactly what is the definition of child pornography: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html

      All these teenagers being busted for sexting nude photos of themselves are not creating pornography, but parents, teachers, lawyers and public officials are not making this argument. When these kids get caught, they are read the riot act, filling everyone with fear, so they usually plead to a lesser charge and try and get on with their lives.

      As with most of these issues, it comes down to public perceptions. Since pornography is everywhere, then everything is perceived to be pornography. NBC bans a PETA ad from the Super Bowl because it shows a woman in a bikini getting a little hot and heavy with some vegetables, but rest assured there will still be plenty of ads for Viagra and booze. Somehow we think we are protecting children by shielding them from sex, which is normal and healthy, yet showing them a bunch of 300 pound men beating the crap out of each other.

      As the man once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". The reason you cannot post your nude family images here is because of fear.

      nudiarist
      Diary of a Nudist
      http://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pete Knight View Post
        The pictures themselves may not be porn, but in today's paedophile paranoid society any child photo can, and often are, considered potential porn to those whose minds are warped and twisted.

        Here in the Untied Kingdom we have the ridicules situation where parents can't take photographs of their children on stage in school productions, it hasn't always been like that, I recall being at some of my childrens school shows and proud parents videoing or photographing the occasion.

        It sickens me that ordinary decent people are the ones who suffer when the PC crowd cry foul, whilst the sicko's are getting off on anything that turns them on.

        Stop the world I want to get off!

        Pete Knight
        Anti-bacterial soap is a major "rage" nowadays. "Kill 99.9% of all bacteria!" Well, that sounds healthy, so people buy it and use it. After all, soap that kills bacteria is better than regular soap, right?

        Only in the short run. Regular soap generally works by breaking down the oils and such that bind dirt and bacteria to the skin; you're quite literally washing them down the drain. It's not 100% perfect though, and so you end up being exposed to small amouts of bacteria. That's usually okay, as your body builds up resistances to those bacteria, because the small amounts aren't big enough to really make you sick in most cases, but are enough to trigger defense mechanisms.

        So, the first casualty of anti-bacterial soap (aside from the bacteria) is your own immune system: you're actually more vulnerable because of it than you would be without it (in general; obviously there are specific cases where it is very useful).

        Secondly, you're not killing that last 0.1% of bacteria, which then has a free environment in which to reproduce to make *lots* of bacteria that are then resistant to your soap - and potentially other things. So you are, in effect, making it easy to breed super-bacteria.

        In the long run, anti-bacterial soap (and hand sanitizer, and other such things) aren't beneficial for the majority of the population most of the time (hospitals and such are probably an exception), and in fact are detrimental because they reduce the ability of the body to function in a non-sanitized environment as well as help create an environment where superbugs are more likely.

        Broad-spectrum "sanitizing" may seem like a good idea at the time, but really it's just making it worse.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think pictures/images become pornographic when someone uses it to pleasure themselves.

          I saw a show that had a self-proclaimed pedophile on it and he was talking about his website, they even showed one of the pictures he had posted on the website, they were of little girls marching in a parade in their majorettes outfits. I do not see it as porn, but you should have heard the gasps from the audiance, and the host asked, "How dare you!!!?". It was as if he used those as porn then they were porn for everyone else there.

          Comment


          • #6
            i think family pix shud be allowed.
            the many socalled naturist site that are just promotin or sellin pix of minor
            i have seen nothin like that here

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nudiarist View Post
              The motto for ClothesFree.com is "We believe the human form is neither immoral nor inappropriate and endorse the culture of positive body acceptance."

              Apparently the exception is anyone under 18.
              This issue as it pertains to CFI has been thoroughly hashed over and explained in other threads.

              If I may summarize the situation. (Keep in mind I am only explaining my understanding of it - I do not speak for CFI).

              CFI does not consider naturist photos that include families and children to be pornography or in any way offensive. The ONLY reason they are prohibited on this site is because of requirements from their merchant service providers. These companies do not understand naturism and will not be moved. Until a reasonable merchant services provider can be found, CFI has no choice but to censor those photos even though they are perfectly legal and CFI does not consider them to be objectionable.

              Period.
              Last edited by Naturist Mark; 01-28-2009, 04:35 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nimrod View Post
                I think pictures/images become pornographic when someone uses it to pleasure themselves.

                I saw a show that had a self-proclaimed pedophile on it and he was talking about his website, they even showed one of the pictures he had posted on the website, they were of little girls marching in a parade in their majorettes outfits. I do not see it as porn, but you should have heard the gasps from the audiance, and the host asked, "How dare you!!!?". It was as if he used those as porn then they were porn for everyone else there.
                That's the problem, if porn is defined in the mind of the viewer than anything can be child porn so long as it sexually excites some sick pervert looking at it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree with your definitions. Also, pictures of women's vagina and in suggestive poses could be porn.

                  Some people think that ANY naked pictures are porn, particularly of any young people under 18.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RalphVa View Post
                    Some people think that ANY naked pictures are porn, particularly of any young people under 18.
                    This would be the view of nearly the entire state of Utah... Notice I say nearly, since not everyone believes this way. I still have trouble, at times, not thinking of even the "picture of the day" here as pornographic. Simply because this exact idea was so prevalent when I was growing up, that it seeped into my subconscious that deeply.

                    I don't think it'll ever be completely removed, but I still look forward to that day when it doesn't even come to mind. Here's to hoping.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Mark is correct.

                      Bob S.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Speaking only for general Australian law, police start to act on child sex crimes should photo centre on the child's genitalia, are in an unnatural position such as sexual posing, are of a child in a sexual act. Just a naked child alone does not automatically equate to a child sex crime. Whether it is porn or not is dependent on the person in question viewing it.

                        A police officer whose job was search through computers for deleted files, informed me that many times the photos they find are taken off the internet, scanned from magazines, etc. This includes images where the children are fully clothed. This is the issue I raise with him where if we were going to dress so not to cause arousal in any way, we would all be dressed up in Muslim woman, completely covered from head to toe and even then, there is always somebody who is attracted to a bed sheet laden body. Just ask the KKK.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by nudiarist View Post
                          All these teenagers being busted for sexting nude photos of themselves are not creating pornography, but parents, teachers, lawyers and public officials are not making this argument. When these kids get caught, they are read the riot act, filling everyone with fear, so they usually plead to a lesser charge and try and get on with their lives.
                          You know, I was up late one night a few weeks ago when I saw this commercial for downloading videos for your phone. The videos were of lesbians making out, strip dancing, pole dancing, etc. The minimum age to purchage by law is 14 years old yet, if I were to show them the centrefold picture of any porn magazine, I would be charged for committing a child sex crime.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lord Drakkus View Post
                            This would be the view of nearly the entire state of Utah... Notice I say nearly, since not everyone believes this way. I still have trouble, at times, not thinking of even the "picture of the day" here as pornographic. Simply because this exact idea was so prevalent when I was growing up, that it seeped into my subconscious that deeply.

                            I don't think it'll ever be completely removed, but I still look forward to that day when it doesn't even come to mind. Here's to hoping.
                            On the opposite side of the spectrum. I grew up in France, both in big city and rural environments. And nudity was everywhere. T.V, movies, commercials; and wherever there was a body of water, you were inevitably going to run into some nude people. Not to mention topfreedom on all beaches, public pools and even the local parks. Child nudity was not a concern at all; nude toddlers on commercials, in movies. I remember one movie, I think "Menthe a l'eau", which featured two completely nude 10-12 year old sisters bathing; and another "Tartuffe", which featured a skinny-dipping scene with a bunch of kids, from ages maybe 5 to 14. And at the beach, a lot of parents didn't bother putting a bathing suit on their kids until they were 4 or 5. Many friends had nude pictures of themselves or their kids on display at their homes. A lot of teen girls didn't even own a bathing suit top. That was the norm, and I grew up not questionning it.

                            Then I came to America, and my whole perception of child/teen nudity was challenged. Suddenly, notions of evil and pornography were attached to child nudity. If you looked at them, then you potentially had the makings of a pedophile. What I grew up thinking was non-eventful suddenly became controversial.

                            I'll never get used to it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Quote:
                              Originally Posted by bernardc
                              I have recieved a very stern warning from admin and the moderator about so called photos of minors that was posted.and that brought to mind the question...when is a nude pic...porn?
                              ....


                              Let us get all the facts in the open..

                              First, this warning was not even recent, it was given to you in November. Secondly, there was nothing "stern" about the warning at all. (I can post the exact words if you like)

                              Here is the way CFF feels about photos similar to yours

                              Quote:
                              CFI believes that naturism is a wholesome family way of life, and is great for people of all ages. Unfortunately the internet can be a dangerous place. Therefore for the safety of minors and respect to their parents you must be 18 to be a member and post messages and images on this board.

                              Your pictures were never labeled as porn, however your posts and attached images of young children were excessive. The fact that you felt it necessary to attach pictures of random children under te age of consent is a "red flag"on the internet. While your intentions may have been above board, we need to be vigilent that the perception of CFF is not percieved as anything other.

                              CFF has no idea where your images originated from, nor do we know who these children are.

                              From CFI' Terms of Service
                              Uploading photos:
                              You DO NOT have to be nude in your photos. Send photos of resorts, beaches, friends (with their permission, of course), etc. Photos of someone staring at the camera with a worried look on their face are getting old. Find a photo of yourself smiling! Sexually suggestive or other inappropriate photos will be deleted without notice. Artistic nude photos are fine. We will determine what is artistic as opposed to sexy or sexual on an individual basis. Redundant photos of just your body in different poses may be deleted. Not allowed are unnatural, spread leg shots, photos that look like the genitals are the focal point of the photo, blurred faces or any other body part, sexual poses, heads cut off, photos that for any reason gets complaints from other users, anything else we determine is not good for the naturist cause. Photos of yourself should preferably show you at your favorite clubs, resorts, beaches, etc. Try Smiling! By uploading your photos, you are giving us permission to use your photo for promotion of the nudist lifestyle.

                              Important note: Make sure you have the copyrights to the photos you send and you have permission from the person(s) who are recognizable in the photo(s). Use this photo release form: http://www.clothesfree.com/photorelease.doc. Photos of anyone under 18 are not allowed
                              __________________

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X