A Nudist Child's Fifteen Minutes of Fame:
Why All the Nude Photos of Kids?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Davglenn)
(A Usenet pedophile group for trading photos of nude children, mostly nudist children)
Subject: An essay on Nudity
Date: 16 Feb 1995 08:09:46 -0500
Free Speech, the Government, Pedophilia, and Nudity
An Essay by David Glenn
I wanted to take up some bandwidth to state the postion that I and a lot of people who frequent the Usenet Newsgroups devoted to nudes under the age of eighteen. I'm not trying to justify having sex with children,in fact that does not turn me on at all (well kids under 14 that is, I will explain my thinking on that later), nut to let the air out of the current furor that has beset those trying to regulate the 'net.
First of all I'm am calling for the a.b.p.n and a.b.p.e.t. community to come up with a term or phrase to better describe our activities. Pedophilia is defined as a sexual desire in an adult for children. This is a recent term, that is according to my virtual Random House dictionary, coined around the turn of the century. Before the 20 th century and currently in some parts of the world, once a child reaches the onset of puberty they are considered adults and are married off. Only white, upper middle class, westerners(namely Americans) can afford the luxury of rearing offspring well into their 20's. Most of the newsgroup posters and lurkers I know, are just enamored by the non-adult and near adult body. I know psychologists will say that we have the potential to become full blown child abusers( and there are some who say people could not see colors before the advent of color TV), but I disagree strongly! Ninetynine percent of the material posted is of a nonsexual nature. The only sex that might be going on is in the minds of the viewers and when people can be arrested for "wrong thoughts" we get into the area of Orwell's thought police. That's why I think we need someway to separate ourselves from those who would truly harm those who are at a physical disadvantage from adults.
Just because I happen to like to jerk off to pictures of 14 year old girls with no pubic hair, doesn't mean I'm prowling shopping malls for children to rape and kill, and I should not be lumped into the same group as those who would consider doing so. It just amazes me that the so called religious right, is spending so much time in the newsgroups that they would like to see outlawed. And the language they use is anything but Godly. I think these are the same people who use religion to mask the overwhelming desires they have to fornicate with their own kids. In fact, isn't it usually the church alderman/corporate exec. that gets busted for incestuous behaviour with their own kids.
Sexual repression does weird things to people. And if these people would read their Bibles once and awhile they would find that relations between older men and women barely past the onset of menses was the rule of the day in past history. These are the same people who want to protect the unborn, but wouldn't piss on a 5 yr. old minority kid if they were on fire. These are the same people who clamor for more "nanny" laws to protect themselves from themselves. I guess they have a hard time controlling urges and thinking for themselves.
And just what is the Post Office doing with all that true child pornography? As my friend Brother John tells me, most true child porn is over 18 yrs. old. That's how Richard Thomas of Amature Action BBS got raided, the Postmaster sent a package loaded with the stuff, so they could get their foot in the door to seize his data. I don't mean to make sweeping blanket statements about any group of people, but let us look at a couple of issues they are wanting addressed.
First of all they want the whole Internet regulated so to make it safe for little Johnny (nanny law). If they were actually parenting their children there would be no need for such laws. Also if little Johnny is old enough to be jerking off to sexually explicit photos then I doubt that laws designed for adults will be much of a deterant.
Second, they claim that children are being victimized by the trade of photos showing nude kids. Bullshit! Example: A nudist family goes to a nudist camp/colony(no law broken here) on vacation. And like most families on vacation they take a carload of pictures to document their trip. Being proud parents they also take photos of their kids (still no laws have been broken).
Whatever channels are taken, these photos are made public, scanned, and posted to some BBS or newsgroup where they make the circuit around the globe. The mostly male internet community downloads these images for whatever reason and sales of hand lotion & Kleenex go thru the roof. I still can't see how the naked kid on the beach is going to be traumatized for life by all this?m Even if they DL'ed it off the net themselves, a child with a good self image should not be screwed up by this. Most people like knowing they have had fifteen minutes of fame, especially on a global nature.
I know there are BBS's that carry the real thing, five yr old girls and boys being pummled by men with no regard to the childs feelings. But we're talking about kids that run around nude in front of strangers all weekend long without feelings of shame or modesty. Most nudists don't equate nudity with sex.
And what about National Geographic magazine? By the standards being imposed on the cyber-community, they are the largest distributer of child porn. Why is it OK to look at non-white children sans clothing? Well I have ranted long enough! I'll keep a copy of this at my Web site so anyone can retreive it. Flames and any other comments can be addressed to email@example.com. Thanks
BACK TO NUDIST/NATURIST HALL OF SHAME