I don't even feel comfortable linking to it, but it's out there, and it's legal, and it gives me the creeps.
Why? Because RussianBare.com deals primarily in nude photos of prepubescent children.
In 1987, Lee Baxandall wrote a letter to Ed Lange expressing concern about one of his publications.
Peenhill's other publication, Jeunes et naturelles, appeals primarily to pedophiles, and encourages them to feel welcome in nudist/naturist circles. Its appeal to legitimate, family-oriented naturists is nil, as it rarely shows family activities or parents. The whole point consists of posed full-frontal photo sequences of pubescents. Young and Naked is your own title with strong appeal to the pedophiles.RussianBare.com is not child pornography in the strictest definition, but it comes close. It is clearly exploitation, throwing in enough photos of adults in true naturists engaging in various activities to give some cover of credibility.
I don't see how full-frontal photos of nude children engaging in body painting, dressing up in costumes, or getting a massage can appeal to anyone other than a pedophile. These people are selling perversion.
AANR uses photos of nude children in promoting nudism as a family activity, but the context is completely different, usually showing a child with grandparents, or in a mother's arms, always lovingly. Nudism and naturism must remain socially safe for people of all ages, that's the heart of the philosophy, that all bodies are good, and that being without clothes is natural and healthy. Children are natural nudists, and their right to remain free and innocent is the responsibility of adults to make sure they are safe.
Once you take that family activity and turn it into a money-making venture selling photos, books and DVDs of nude children running around strictly for the photo opportunities, you have a perversion of naturism.
It's a very difficult subject for nudists and naturists, and oftentimes it is simply avoided. I don't know how you shut down a site like RussianBare.com, perhaps you cannot. The false indignation over artistic photos by artists like Bill Henson or Jock Sturges, the furor over Annie Leibovitz's photo of Miley Cyrus, and the legal suspicions leveled against parents who take nude photos of their own children are misdirected, distracting attention from the true exploiters who continue to thrive.
ABC News recently aired a program showing how a child could be bought in ten hours, flying from New York City to Haiti, for only $150. The seller didn't care if the child was to be sexually abused, or placed into slavery, or whatever. Where is the outcry over this? Show Miley Cyrus with tousled hair and a bare back, and the country comes to a standstill. Sell a little boy or little girl in Haiti for the price of an iPod, and nobody cares.
Compared to child trafficking in the world, the RussianBare.com site seems tame. After all, the children are all shown having fun, playing games, eating sweets, getting gifts. But these kids are still being used as props and products to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and, as Lee Baxandall said, it encourages pedophiles to feel welcome in the naturist world.
Naturists and nudists need to be emphatic - there is no place in our world for child exploiters like RussianBare.com.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
No comments:
Post a Comment