Should Nudist Sites be Banned?

[ku]

Child pornography is banned. However, a child molestor or pedophile can get around this by looking for nudist sites. Since many nudists beaches in Europe contain not only nude adults but also nude children, pedophiles can use these nudist pictures as a substitute for child porn. For this reason, should nudism be banned?

[insane_alien]

No. If the people who work there see someone acting sucpicious(staring at kids or anybody else) then they ask them to leave. if they refuse they are then escorted off the premisies.

[Phi for All]

No. If the people who work there see someone acting sucpicious(staring at kids or anybody else) then they ask them to leave. if they refuse they are then escorted off the premisies.

I'm pretty sure ku is talking about sites on the web. He even mentions pictures.

 

But I do find it confusing that he talks about sites and pictures and ends with a general question about banning all nudism.

 

I would say that you can only go so far in policing what is in people's minds. I personally find some pictures of women in lingerie to be more erotic than total nudity. Similarly, I'm sure many pedophiles prefer pictures of kids in their underwear. Should we ban all the department store ads for Underoos? I don't mean this as a strawman. The intent of the viewer is an important part of the issue here, as well as the law.

 

Sexually explicit pictures of kids are quite a bit different than pictures of kids playing on the beach who happen to be nude. I know it's a Slipperry Slope argument, but keep up this line of thought and parents will soon face jail for owning photos of their kids in the bath tub.

[Nevermore]

If a kid is a nudist, they obviosly have no problem with being seen naked. There will always be some sicko who watches from behind the hedges, but quoth Phi:

I would say that you can only go so far in policing what is in people's minds.

[Bluenoise]

Well probably the biggest problem with child porn is the exploitation of children that occurs in its creation. This isn't the case with nudist sites at all.

 

Now if the grounds for banning them would be to prevent some perverted freak from getting turned out. Well I think you have a loosing battle there.

[YT2095]

Absoloutley NOT!

 

the Cameras should be Banned and the pedos executed, but as for nudists/naturalists, why not, it`s their choice, it harms no one.

it`s not exactly MY idea of leisure activity, but each to his own live and let live

[Nezumi]

Having seen one of these sites before, I can say that they are not sexually explicit thus they are not pornography. If they were sexually explicit, then they would be considered so. I think the sites that are really messed up the are the child model websites with girls in very, very skimpy clothes showing thier body.

[Pangloss]

If we don't allow people to parade about naked in public (forcing them into "colonies"), then why would it be any different for public web sites or other public venues?

 

It happen to not agree with any of those restrictions myself (WTF do I care how people choose to clothe themselves), but if you're going to make a compromise like that, you might as well be consistent about it.

 

The compromise itself doesn't bother me, btw. Although I may not care about that issue myself, I have a problem with society being hypocritical with regard to asking parents to raise their children how they see fit, but then pulling the rug out from under them constantly by shoving all manner of things in their children's faces and then saying "well you're just being overprotective" when they complain. Not all children are approaching the end of puberty and ready to face the real world, but that's the way some people (like video game enthusiasts) talk about them.

[Phi for All]

It happen to not agree with any of those restrictions myself (WTF do I care how people choose to clothe themselves), but if you're going to make a compromise like that, you might as well be consistent about it.

I see where you're coming from on consistency, but does it stop with the web or do you ban ALL pictures of kids without their clothes?

[padren]

If we don't allow people to parade about naked in public (forcing them into "colonies")' date=' then why would it be any different for public web sites or other public venues?

[/quote']

 

I think the big difference is that there are no websites that are forced on anyone.

If MSN had a feature of "user pic of the day" then of course naked user pics would be as problematic as a naked person on a subway, but what you propose is like saying you can't have an art gallery with naked art behind closed doors that is accessed via a public street.

[Pangloss]

Nobody was forced to go to the grocery store this morning either.

 

I don't mean to sound intractible, though. It may not be possible to be 100% consistent about this at all times. I just think it's important to do our best to respect and empower parental boundaries for these critical times in child development. Aside from that, I do think parents have to understand that there are always going to be situations beyond their control, and raise their kids accordingly.

[silkworm]

I find it offensive when I see a child wearing white tennis shoes, because it puts the child's sexuality in question. If they bad the nudists/nudists sites they also need to ban all pictures of children wearing white tennis shoes because we all know what it means.

 

We're self-glorified apes people. Put it into perspective.

 

With that said, the reason that child pornography is illegal is not because the child is nude. How many pictures have you seen of a baby's butt? The pornography part is where the situation becomes illegal because participating in any part of the distribution of the child porn is akin to demanding more child rape. As long as these kids aren't getting raped (or participating in any sexual activity due to age of consent versus age of majority and whatnot) at their nudists camps, it's not illegal.

[Sayonara]

Let's ban children from ever being naked.

[YT2095]

they tried that back in the 60`s, it was a Diaster!

 

Turns out that by roughly 5 months of age, their nappies/diapers eventualy Explode, making an awefull mess and one or two rather rude sounds!

[JohnB]

Another example of the silly malaise going around.

 

Most of the restrictions that are being bandied about are because "a pedophile might use the pictures" That's a pretty broad argument.

 

We have a beach in the middle of Brisbane where families go on the weekend. It was found recently that pedophiles were using mobile phones to take photos of the kiddies playing and posting them on the web.

 

Because of this sort of thing, there is a move not to allow parents to take photos at soccer games and the like because "you don't know if the person taking the picture is a parent or a pedophile." At some fixtures, only professional photographers are now allowed and the parents must then pay for pictures of their children playing sport.

I know it's a Slipperry Slope argument, but keep up this line of thought and parents will soon face jail for owning photos of their kids in the bath tub.

It is a very slippery slope and I know parents who are afraid to take photos of their children because if the guy developing the film thinks there may be a pedophile connection he is required by law to report it. The parents may not be jailed, but they are investigated.