@ muppet show
he shuldnt have done it at all
"even tough daddy forced them to strip and get naked some weirdos"...
Yeah, should have waited till she was farther in puberty, with jiggly breasts and hair to look at
@ antonpold and corvax
watever this is nudism even though daddy forced them to strip and get naked some weirdos use this as porn and these girls were forced so this isn't nudism
I also agree, that 14-year old girl (she seems approximately this age) dont usually know about meaning of whore. She feel free and happy, but nevertheless 95% of nudist girls dont take this pose, when they are photographed.
I wouldn't say she's a whore, she's a kid who seems to like showing off being in puberty.
"the one with short hair is ugly though"
Yeah, going naked is the only way a homely kid like this can really get attention. I mean you can at least see her tits and her hairy "private" parts.
[reply=5946]Corvax[/reply] In your dispute with Bob11 I also prefer your opinion. That’s true, that in many European countries law about children nudity is not so strict. Best example is former DDR (yes, it was Communist country, but very liberal about nudity). In DDR children up to 10 years old were largely naked at beach. This law was actually not restricting, but allowing, because normally children were naked only before schoolage. But in DDR there also many girls 11-13 were naked at beach, because nobody complained about that.
And there as been some moaning and complaining about children nudity films. In DDR film „Gritta von Rattenzuhausbeiuns“ young girl (13) going under shower and swimming naked and this was called best children (yes, children!) movie of the whole country. That means, nobody dont care about girls nudity in movie, what was mainly watched by children! And also other countries are more liberal than USA. This picture of gymnastic girl is not pornographic and should be allowed in nudist sites.
@bob11: That would be the case to which I was referring when I pointed out in my second post that some of these pictures were deemed illegal in the United States. And do you want to know why? Ultimately, their objection boils down to, "She has genitals and they are visible in the pictures." I wish I were making that up. The case summary you linked makes extensive mention of the visibility level of the girls' genital regions in each picture. They can't offer any other argument against the images. I think the Americans are more preoccupied with a little girl's vulva than I am!
What about you? Can you explain to me what relegates the above picture of a happy, naked little girl to the sinister realm of "disgusting child porn"? Because I for one don't see anything inherently sexual going on when I look at Ariel up there. Do you? Please, try to make more sense than the Americans (not hard I grant), and definitely do better than simply "you should be ashamed." Take care. :)