I don't know what you're seeing on your logon screen - I do see on the logging out screen a trio of people, two youngish looking gals and a guy between them, but in no way do they look preteen to me.Anyone else seeing what minimalist75 is seeing here?I hope you have fun at Haulover! We expect a full report when you get back from it.Yes I meant log out screen. I have posted my experiences elsewhere on the site.Forgot say the girls look about 12 to me.Now that I know what picture you are talking about, I can tell you both are over 18 and are regular contributors to the site. I know they look young, but they are just small.John aka cobeachbum
One of the girls is figuringoutsarah and she is 30.
What WildWilly said. If nudity is constantly seen as equivalent to sex, then pictures of people under eighteen will always be seen as pornography, despite the fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of children are being raised in nudist environments and are seen naked every day.
IIRC, there was a problem in the San Francisco Bay area some twenty or thirty years ago, where photographs of nude children in normal nudist contexts were circulated by a porn site. They were taken without permission from the children's parents, usually clandestinely. When the authorities took notice, it resulted in a number of changes in nudist communities: vetting of newcomers to screen out anybody with a history sexual crimes, bans on photography at naturist resorts, and so on. As a result, children have pretty much disappeared in the media except for the very, very young, which tends to reinforce the popular image of adult nudes being only interested in sex. If the public can't see ordinary families, with adults and children, in nudist settings, what else are they to think?
I put out a leaflet for my local non-landed club, which had a picture of two adults and a pre-teen child, in silhouette. (If there's a way to insert the picture from my computer instead of the internet, I don't know the method.) We handed them out at a local earth day fair, and the only complaint we got was from somebody who said that he wasn't comfortable with the concept of nude children. But he conceded that it was the parents' right to raise the kid in any way they saw fit.
Note: I did put the image I spoke of into my the "media" section of my page, which you can see if you like. I should add that it's copyrighted to me, although anybody else can use it in their own promotional material without charge, as long as it's credited to me.
And now the image has been taken down, possibly because of the "Under 18" rule, even though the child was seen in silhouette. I think that reinforces my point about the Great Taboo on pictures of children.
Question: does that taboo extend to links? If not, I can put the picture on my web site and link it.
To nkhiker:I completely agree. If this site were truly about naturism, age wouldnt be an issue because genuine nudist communities focus on body acceptance, not sexualisation. Unfortunately, its clear that the priorities here have shifted, and the integrity of the platform has been compromised.
Many of us joined expecting a real naturist community, only to see discussions overrun by off-topic content, bots, and questionable profiles. Its disappointing to see moderation fail to maintain a space that represents authentic naturism.
Thankfully, there are still real naturist platforms working to provide a genuine space for nudists and naturists. NRE (NaturismRE) www.naturismre.com is actively creating a truly authentic platform that prioritises real naturist values, ethical moderation, and meaningful discussions. The NRE forum has no bots, no fakesonly genuine conversations with real naturists. Hopefully, more of the naturist community will shift toward spaces that actually represent what nudism is about.
If this was a site that was truly about nudism for real nudist, then 18 would be irrelevant. But we all know what this site has become. There are many sites out there about nudism that show nudist of all ages.
That actually is beside the point. It's for legal reasons. Being accused of hosting a kiddie porn site (regardless of how ridiculous the charge is) would be very expensive to defend against, and could result in jail time and hefty fines. They also ran into an issue with the credit card company that processes memberships (which caused the great purge of "banned" words). The land of the free is no longer the land of the free. We are the land of lawyers and lawsuits now.
John aka cobeachbum
But its not beside the point. Many naturist sites show nudity of all ages. The difference may be that they do not generally allow people visiting the site to post their own pictures. They are informational and tightly controlled by the site owners. Nonetheless, a true naturist site should not be age restricted in showing people in a naturist setting. In the US is there a risk of doing so--perhaps. You are at risk of litigation if there is a crack in your sidewalk. Changing the topic slightly, it does seem that some of the scammers are now using photos of people under 18, or at least they look it. That is disturbing. That, or its part of a sting operation.
If this was a site that was truly about nudism for real nudist, then 18 would be irrelevant. But we all know what this site has become. There are many sites out there about nudism that show nudist of all ages.That actually is beside the point. It's for legal reasons. Being accused of hosting a kiddie porn site (regardless of how ridiculous the charge is) would be very expensive to defend against, and could result in jail time and hefty fines. They also ran into an issue with the credit card company that processes memberships (which caused the great purge of "banned" words). The land of the free is no longer the land of the free. We are the land of lawyers and lawsuits now.John aka cobeachbum
Yes, the US is very strict about underage nudity.
Two incidents come to mind.
Daniel Radcliffe has a leading role in a London production of Equus when he was 17. Since his role included full frontal nudity the production couldn't come to the US until he was 18.
Brooke Sheilds was under 18 when filming The Blue Lagoon so they had to use a body double for her in some scenes. Chris Atkins was older so they didn't for him.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!