|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Admin |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 5:02:58 PM
Some organizations masquerade as legitimate nudist organizations, only to gain the opportunity to sell online photos of "nudists" of all ages. These operations make their money pandering to the voyeur, offering CDs, videos, and DVDs of "nudists". They are recognized by their upfront offer of a "huge nudist gallery" which features, naturally, nude children of all ages.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| balataf |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 3:27:10 PM
Actually, other than defending our own turf here, and deleting improper posts, there isn't much our Group can do. Even with innocent pics it is all a matter of personal intention and individual viewpoint. |
| go n nude |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 8:36:02 PM
Organizations/Persons, making big profits selling this Lifestyle is nothing new. During the 50's to the 70's it was magazines with many unsuspecting people's photo's in them without their permission or knowing they were in them.
There is a market out there with big bucks to spend, though they lack maturity and are looking for sexism . The problem persists with the www links to porn & Nudism on several sites /pages glorifing Nudism as sex for $$$,being classed with such sites doesn't help.
go n nude |
| Loki |
Posted - 08/12/2007 : 02:27:01 AM
What Potter Stewart actually wrote in JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) had nothing to do with standards for so-called child porn, but was focused on demands from an early predecessor of current RRR groups to legally define "pornography" and subject it to increased censorship. Justice Stewart in fact opined that in most cases criteria which resulted in the standing joke, "porn is whatever gives the judge a hard-on", were so subjective and arbitrary that in all but extreme cases, so much as defining "pornography" failed "void for vagueness" and other legal tests. This was not pleasing to "Citizens for Decent Literature", an Amicus party founded by a felon and self-proclaimed bastion of morality, whose organization relocated and morphed into National Family Legal Foundation, and later Alliance Defense Fund and Community Defense Counsel.
The core of Potter Stewart's actual words, which would have made a good basis for rejection of similar efforts to codify the religious notion of "indecency" as if neutral law had they been carried forward to "Pacifica", are thus:
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
"It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, 1 that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. 2 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
==
Additionally, references to MPAA rating criteria have zero valid place in law. MPAA is a private trade organization, which rates movies under subjective prejudices some pretend are neutral, but which are actually commercial marketing criteria catering to exactly the same kinds of bigotry used to pretend biased laws restricting nudity or oppressing topfree equality are somehow anything other than illegal discrimination they are. To so much as promote or use MPAA commercialized bigotry in depicting nudism standards is to in effect rail against the legality or legitimacy of family nudism existing.
If the standards cannot be clearly articulated in unambiguous form meeting all tests of religious neutrality, at the least surviving a "Lemon" review as well as enabling the affected parties to clearly determine what actions would be compliant or in violation, notions like "indecency" and "pornography" fail to be legitimately definable in valid US law. See Julie Hilden's legal commentaries on the defects in "Pacifica" and related "Miller" obscenity precedent on the Findlaw.com "Writ" site operated by Thomson's legal publishing division.
Beyond that, there are some difficult issues with legal minors who are under many cultural and religious traditions, and age of consent laws of some or many states, of legal age or Constitutionally entitled to be sexually active or adults to at least some extent. Based on those factors, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg seems to be the only present Justice who gets it about how Constitutionally defective Federal child porn and many state sexual consent or statutory rape laws are. She's suggested age 12 is the highest justifiable age of consent, which is the age by which 5% of us have become sexually active. It impresses me that age of consent or majority are primarily defective "bright line" legal system conveniences, which are highly detached from the differential rate of human development and maturity in different forms. Some people have more mature decision making skills b |
| solarg8r |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 10:15:51 PM
My wife & I spent 30 years raising all of our kids, and if I never see another naked kid, it will be way too soon! LOL
Gary
Follow the link & find me in the Photo Gallery - SolarG8r |
| The Bead Man |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 11:03:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
Do you have any comments on "organizations that prey on nudism"? We are talking about ones that pose as nudist sites in order to sell child and teen nude photography and videos.
Whatever Walt Zadanoff's intentions were, he fit into the "preying" category by his pricing. I would expect a true naturist organization to charge a price commensurate with the cost of production, handling and moderate profit, probably in the $10-20 range. A $99 price indicates it is for a "specialist" market, not something intended to spread the word to the general public.
Cheers!
David
"The Bead Man"
www.thebeadman.net
The Bead Artist formerly known as Revilo42 |
| paint4life |
Posted - 08/01/2003 : 11:45:45 AM
A new topic Are Nudism and Sin Related? has been created there, to continue any biblical discussion/arguements
http://www.nudist-resorts.org/talk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=471
Thanks for your patience. P4L |
| Admin |
Posted - 08/01/2003 : 08:35:48 AM
We have an excellent discussion on this topic already in progress in Religion and Nudism. Please continue this religious discussion there.
Do you have any comments on "organizations that prey on nudism"? We are talking about ones that pose as nudist sites in order to sell child and teen nude photography and videos. |
| paint4life |
Posted - 08/01/2003 : 12:12:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BlaxBeach
I know there are a lot of versions and some are intended for a clear/clearer understanding of the original text and others are sometimes used to "water down" the Word. I was just curious which version you used for that quote.
Ahh... I was hoping someone would ask me that.
I took it upon myself to omit the word sin.
Because so many Bible-thumpers have gone about pointing the finger at others and having the audacity to call them sinners (as if their sin is any different in effect), I chose to use what I believe the meaning of Christ's words was.
Sin is from an ancient archer's term to "miss the mark". Not miss the target, but the bullseye. Logically, if we are to "sin no more" we are to hit the bullseye every time.
I believe that God knows what is best for us. He wants but does not force us to do things His way. Hit the bullseye everytime. Sin no more. Don't miss. Don't err. Do what God says.
Impossible however.
In Matthew, in the famous "Sermon on the Mount" Jesus goes through a list of impossibles. "Don't even lust--it's the same as adultery. Never divorce. Don't call your brother "Empty head"--it's the same as murder. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." What is he doing? He's showing what the Law was all about. He makes the point: everyone sins; everyone is guilty. Everyone.
So why does he then go on and tell the woman, later, to "Go and sin no more."? Seems awfully cruel to me, if he already knows she can't do that.
So I think the intent must have been "Hit the mark more often" or "choose God's way as often as you can" or "go God's way."
See? Is that too loose a translation?
BTW, the Law served its purpose in revealing sin, as an MRI can reveal the presence of cancer. Neither can heal. Jesus was here to heal, not to condemn.
Lust will always be with you.
Shame is not from God. Grace is. |
| BlaxBeach |
Posted - 07/31/2003 : 11:49:41 PM
Paint4life, Hi, I didn't recognize your quote from the Bible
"Neither do I condemn you," Jesus said. "Go, and choose God's path for the rest of your life."
I would like to start by saying I respect and agree with at least most of what you said if not all.
I am a brand new member today and this is my first post, hope it's ok.
I to have had to deal with my struggles of lust. I am quite confident you know what Jesus said about that. I love being naked and being with naked people, but are my motives 100% pure, not likely. I have found that a nudist enviorment is not as sexual as I would have thought before. Like I said I do agree with your comments.
I know there are a lot of versions and some are intended for a clear/clearer understanding of the original text and others are sometimes used to "water down" the Word. I was just curious which version you used for that quote. I included several ""s from a few of the versions I have. They all include the word "sin". I know that word is not popular in todays culture but I think we should call things as they are. I am not saying that nudism is a sin, but as you said it is a springboard. Thats why Paul said to dress modestly, he knew how sinful man is. I am not telling anyone here they are sinning, I just want to help share the truth of the Word.
Dan
blaxbeach@yahoo.com
John 8:11
1 "No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
NIV
John 8:11
11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
NKJV
John 8:11
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
KJV
John 8:11
11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.)
ASV
John 8:11
11 And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more."]
NAS
Thanx |
| paint4life |
Posted - 07/31/2003 : 9:51:23 PM
At what point is a naturist/nudist video appealing more for the prurient interest?
When it is voyeuristic in effect.
When the only place you can buy or view such material is on sites created for titillation.
I can imagine that a promotional video for a location for nude recreation would be largely un-erotic. You might find that a documentary on a figure drawing class was equally un-erotic.
And, as an aside... why does the word titillation have that word in it? |
| Admin |
Posted - 07/31/2003 : 8:18:55 PM
paint4life, apology accepted. Especially since you so artfully (!) rescued the thread from a terrible derailment! 
(And, thanks for being gentle with Marked4life. Though "preachey" at times, we've come to accept him as part of our community, perhaps a needed part.)
You also allude to an interesting question: at what point is a naturist/nudist video appealing more for the prurient interest? This one has puzzled me for some time... |
| paint4life |
Posted - 07/31/2003 : 2:10:54 PM
I realize much of what I said was "Off Topic" in retrospect. I apologize.
Weighing In: I do believe that many nudists have wrong motives when taking pictures or videos. Others do not.
Knowing that there are preditors out there should make one very cautious. I would not want to be found on a video, or a website -- especially one that caters to some people's prurient nature. |
| paint4life |
Posted - 07/31/2003 : 2:00:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Marked4Life on 7/26/2002
...what do you consider to be a "legal" nude photo and an "illegal" nude photo... I group it all as pornography. I would really like to know what you classify as ok. In the Bible it clearly states that man should take up clothing. Adam was made aware of his nakedness and took up clothing. He was ashamed...
M4L -- You have made it clear over the year or so that you are a Christian by faith.
But you often say things in what I would consider a careless --even reckless-- way, sometimes in emphatic, authoritative statements. When someone else can either disprove you or raise a legitimate question as to the authority by which you speak, you end up losing credibilty as it appears you have slowly done here on this forum.
My challenge is this: Where (scripture reference) does the Bible clearly state that man should take up clothing?
I don't believe that statement exists. I do believe that the Apostle Paul's admonition to dress modestly might be twisted into such a belief, but modesty, by definition, is relative to a culture. What is modest in Tahiti is not in New York. What is modest at a public beach is not modest at the restaurant one block away. Each venue has it's own "culture."
That Adam and Eve chose to fashion for themselves coverings made from large leaves is less an instruction for all of humanity, and more a sad symbol of what all of humanity does when confronted with loss at our own hand: we try to cover up; we shift blame; we try to hide from God. God Himself asked them "Who told you that you were naked?"
They felt "naked" because of the spiritual death that occurred when they disobeyed God's ONE request which was not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
They becamse suddenly aware that their communion and fellowship with the God of the Universe had been damaged as a result of their choice -- their freedom to choose had enabled for them the worst possible results, and they made that choice. Once they chose poorly (to put it mildly), they experienced for the first time Spiritual Death. They brought on themselves the condition the rest of us are born with.
What could possibly make you feel more "naked" than to suddenly realize that "man looketh upon the outward appearance, but God looketh upon the heart?" And what would you have done to cover up, under the same circumstances? Anything you'd have chosen would have been "Man's way" and what the Bible does clearly state is that "God's ways are higher than man's."
God didn't ask them to cover up. That was their "solution" to the problem of realizing God could see "everything." It was a cosmetic band-aid applied the spiritual gash.
I cannot find anywhere that being without clothing is inherently a sin. For certain, nudity is an excellent springboard into behaviors that are "not God's way." Much like "the love of money (not the money itself) is the root of all evil.
One must guard his heart.
Now, I realize you wrote your comment just barely over one year ago -- and you have demonstrated a change of heart about nudists. But I hope you have also made a few changes in your attitudes, and in what I consider your over-zealous need to make authoritative statements "backed" by the Bible. Some are misleading, and others are flat-out dishonest.
As a painter, I consider painting the human form to be an homage to the Creator. That is not to say in any way that all artwork depicting the nude human form honors God -- I think only a small percentage of it does. But to call all nudity pornographic is to expose an imbalance within oneself... I could live the rest of my days in peace if pornography disappeared, but not nudity. There is a difference, and you w |
| calmnude |
Posted - 07/31/2003 : 12:43:08 PM
dont really trust a lot of so-called nudist videos. need endorsement or review in N or Bulletin or a like publication to ascertain whether or not it is nudist or "poseur". have to be careful because some of these films use models as primary characters rather than the regular nudist people. |
| Admin |
Posted - 07/27/2003 : 9:08:27 PM
Reprinted from TampaBay.com
Bush calls for inquiry into nude kid videos
By JAMES THORNER, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published July 26, 2003
The governor wants to know whether nudist Walt Zadanoff broke the law by selling videos of young girls.
LAND O'LAKES - Gov. Jeb Bush has called for an investigation of Pasco County resident Walt Zadanoff, a prominent nudist who has sold videos of elementary-school-age girls participating in naked beauty pageants.
In a letter Friday to Daryl McLaughlin, interim commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Bush's office sought answers to whether Zadanoff broke the law when he sold the videos, produced in Europe.
Bush's general counsel, Raquel A. Rodriguez, asked law enforcement to report its preliminary findings within 30 days.
"Obviously, we're dealing with underage children, and the governor is concerned and wants to get as much information as soon as possible," Bush press secretary Alia Faraj said.
Zadanoff's case came to the governor's attention after U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's office called the St. Petersburg Times on Thursday to complain about the videos.
The tapes, produced in countries such as Russia where child protection laws differ from those in the United States, feature girls under such categories as "teens," "junior teens" and "junior miss."
Zadanoff defended his right to market videos portraying what he called social family nudism, but admitted that he buckled under pressure from Foley and other critics.
On Thursday, the day the story broke in the Times, Zadanoff pulled the pageant videos from his Web site.
"I wasn't going to out of principle," Zadanoff said Friday, after fielding requests from news outlets around the country. "But this is getting out of hand."
He complained that the videos have been misconstrued as morally wrong when they show nothing more than nonsexual nudism. "There is nothing illegal. Nevertheless the investigation taints you. People only remember the negative. They don't remember the positive," Zadanoff told the Times.
Foley's office said it went after Zadanoff because he's the former president of the American Sunbathing Association, later renamed the American Association for Nude Recreation.
The association sponsored a nude summer camp for 11- to 17-year-olds in June at the Lake Como nudist resort in Pasco. Last month, Foley denounced the camp as a threat to children, citing reports that a potential pedophile was ejected for spying on campers.
Association officials took pains to point out that Zadanoff finished his term as their president in 1992, a year before the nude youth camps even began.
Zadanoff argued that his case is being politically sensationalized, despite the fact that he's only one distributor among many of such nudist videos.
"It's just so ludicrous," he said. "I'm being hung out to dry, and I can't help it."
[One of the central aims of the Society for Understanding Nudism is to expose and discredit this type of organization. We should credit Rep. Foley's office with picking the correct target this time. -Admin] |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
