Letters to Domai
Now in our late 50's, my wife and I are nudists, and even lived for a year at the magnificent Caliente Resort in Florida. Neither of us are "beautiful people" and therefore not the object of appreciative looks, but we both find the same appreciation of all nude bodies that we have of God's creations of pretty flowers, magnificent trees, panoramic vistas of natural landscapes, and also of classic art in galleries and museums. We have lost several friends, and close relationships with some family members, because of our open acceptance of (and residence in) a public nudist environment. My brother-in-law could not understand how my wife could accept men "walking around with constant errections" (his perception of a nudist environment) and my sister-in-law and most of our friends could not understand why we were not "ashamed" of our, and others' nudity, and why we had "such strange sexual attitudes". I contended to my brother-in-law that he must harbor some dark and perverse sexual repression to even consider that instant and constant errections are a natural result of seeing members of the opposite (and same) sex nude in a poolside and beach environment. He is a devout member of and leader in a worldwide and very powerful Christian denomination, but it is true, however, that every time his wife goes for a shower he frantically scurries around to find a video (Christian, of course) for their four kids to watch, threatens them not to move until he returns, and then goes into the bathroom to leer at his wife in her shower. Now his 7-year old son gets the same furtive leer on his face, giggles and winks, and goes to extraordinary lengths to see his younger sisters nude, lifting their skirts and peering down their t-shirts. Strange behaviour for a family who condemn others for their open acceptance of nudity, - certainly more perverse than appreciating the beauty of the nude body for its sheer beauty alone. It is because of that widely prevalent attitude of perverse repression that your site, and other lesser 'tasteful' nude photography sites, are lumped in with some frankly grossly obscene sex sites. I believe that those who dedicate themselves to the virtual jihad against any form of nudity do so because of a fear of their own uncontrollable and perverted sexual urges, - there can be no other rationale. In the US, female toplessness on beaches is a criminal offense [I am told that this is no longer true in many states, though many are not aware of this. -ed], private nudist resorts are under constant attack, and even discreet public breastfeeding has been prosecuted. The only reason I can come up with for these attacks on individual freedoms is that of fear. Those who seek to control such passive and benign behaviour of others see those behaviours as being a 'danger to society'. The only danger I can think they mean is from attacks and violence by those with uncontrolled urges and perverted intentions, created from their own repressed upbringing and closet sexuality. I find the photographs you publish magnificent. Keep it up, - you provide a true service for society by displaying such magnificent God-created beauty, not a danger to it. Howard B I had to comment on your editorial about the new 25% tax on the sale of porn. Of all the definitions of pornography, let us consider the one that defines porn as anything that offends the sensibilities of our society. Then, let us ask why the act of "making love" fits into that definition. Take some time to consider this question before you read on. Now, let's talk about this obscene excuse that we are trying to protect our children. I find that when we consider only those things which cause no real physical or psychological damage, children are traumatized mainly by what we teach them to be traumatized by. Freud talked about being traumatized when he accidentally saw his mother nude. Today, that doesn't happen anymore. Now, we are just offended, especially if the "package" is too small. Sex falls into the same category. If our children are told to be traumatized because they viewed it, they will be traumatized. However, if they are brought up with a good healthy respect for sex, then viewing the act should have no illicit effect at all. It would seem that by "protecting our children" we are doing them a disservice. Yes, children do get into pornographic sites, and they will. That is, they will until the luster of "something forbidden" wears off. In my nation, children got to extreme effort to obtain alcohol before they are of illegal age. My bishop told me that while he was serving as a youth director in Germany, both beer and wine were made freely available during the youth meetings and were consumed less than the teen population in my country consumes Pepsi. The children there didn't have to be taught to respect alcohol any more than the children here need to be taught to respect corn-on-the-cob! Do you want to keep children out of pornographic web sites? Make it legal for children to be given and to possess pornography and then give our society a few years to get used to the change in status. Yes, there will still be a few children who will go overboard, but that few will be significantly lower than the present. The way to keep children out of pornographic websites is to remove the luster of illegality from them. E. Arthur S I live in Canada and through my efforts I opened the Ontario market to XXX videos by the method of myself being charged with obscenity three times. I was able to operate the business without having anyone else involved with the store. You see, the store was fully automated with Video Vending machines that operated 24/7. In Canada, the Province of Quebec had legalized the sale and rental of XXX Videos before 1985. Ontario, through it's well paid police force, kept Ontario, the last Province in Canada, free of adult videos. I started renting used XXX videos that I obtained from Quebec, and six months later the business were raided with guns drawn, I and the business were charged with obscenity. I was found NOT guilty and my main defence was based on information produced by the Federal Government offices of Stats-Canada. Every incident where the police are involved is reported to them. Stats-Canada follow it to the conclusion of the case. Stats-Canada reported that the highest incident of sexual assault was in the Province of Ontario where no XXX videos were available and Quebec, that had XXX videos for 14 years, at that time had the lowest incident of sexual assault in all of Canada. I asked the Court, "If XXX videos caused sexual assaults, then the Province with the most XXX videos MUST have the highest incidents and the Province with NO XXX videos must have the lowest. The fact is however the exact opposite exists. The Crown attorney responded by stating that the residents of Quebec "Do Not Complain". David C
|
|
