@bob 11: But seems, that girl is lucky.
But this girl knows about photo and dont hide anything.
But here, I think, is accidental pose, not deliberately legs spread. She is blowing ball and maybe dont know about photoshoot.
@Corvax: There is only one thing, which is unfortunately argument in court: children are not responsible for their action. Therefore court can deal any acton as pure fathers idea, because "poor" children didnt know, what they were doing.
But then any appearance of nude children at beach, like here: http://bat5.com/go/2/55923/0/http://imgsrc.ru/naked-girl/28141067.html?pwd=&lang=en# is breaking of law, because children were not coming to beach naked of his own will (they have not responsible). Arrest and convict all parents, who brought children naked at beach! But as I said, in Europe is widespread, that schoolage girls are naked in ordinary beach, but here nobody will complain.
@bob 11: Obviously I know, that girls are very early aware about sexual life, but 14-year old girl dont know, that posing in this way means something about whore. This is a point.
@antonpold: You make a lot of good points, and I think everything you've said (along with my own arguments toward bob11) boils down to one basic idea: The automatic connection between nudity and sex, which ought not exist and only does for cultural reasons within the United States. It is a little like saying that if you see someone with a towel, then he must be planning to take a shower. No thought is spared for the possibility that he may be on his way to go swimming, or wash his car, or even that maybe he just likes to carry a towel around. No, towels are needed to take a shower, so if you've got one then you must have a shower on your mind. In the same way, Americans tend to assume that if you're naked, you are planning to have sex; if you take a picture of someone who is naked, then you are looking at that person sexually and encouraging others to do the same. If the person you photographed naked is a child, then you have just produced child pornography! This is a paranoid, toxic mindset belonging to paranoid, toxic people. Just because sex usually involves nudity, does not mean that nudity must involve sex. It's worth noting that there was a video taken at (or around) the same time as the picture above, a video showing Ariel and her younger sister Hannah happily performing gymnastics while naked. As the girls themselves point out in the video, the word 'gymnastics' originally meant 'naked sport', and indeed the ancient Greeks used to be nude while playing most sports, many of which are just more practically done without the hindrance of clothing. There is nothing sexual contained within the video nor any of the pictures, but paranoid Americans insist on drawing a conclusion from but a single piece of 'evidence': The girls are naked, therefore their father must have been looking at them sexually. To me this line of reasoning is absurd, and as I mentioned, both paranoid and toxic.
@bob11: There are an awful lot of things 'some weirdos' use as porn. In fact, I would argue that if you can imagine something, there is someone who finds it arousing. For instance, it's conceivable that some paedophiles would get turned on by a picture of a little girl (whether she happens to be naked or not) eating a popsicle or a banana or any other vaguely phallic food. Should we therefore ban all images of children eating, for fear of someone somewhere deriving pleasure from it? Maybe we should just forbid photography of children altogether, just to be on the safe side? That certainly seems to be where the authorities are headed in the United States, where many parents literally are afraid of taking family photos of their children in the bathtub. And for good reason, as in that country people can (and have) gone to jail for producing and being in possession of such material. Where does it stop? And as to your contention that the girls' father 'forced' them to go naked for those pictures and the video, this is not born out by the facts. Actually, even the case report you yourself linked admits that Dale Russel (Hannah and Ariel's father) never forced his daughters into producing any of the material in question. Instead, Dale was a nudist who allowed his daughters to share that lifestyle with him, which they often did of their own free will at beaches and resorts. True, the pictures and video were Dale's idea, but his daughters chose to go along with it; they could have said no at any time, and there is no evidence to suggest Dale would have forced the issue. In fact, again in the case report you cited, we're informed of one of the girls testifying that she initially declined to have (clothed) pictures taken of her, and her father respected her wishes until she herself changed her mind when she saw her sister having so much fun doing it. So please, if you can explain to me how any of this equates to Dale 'forcing' his daughters into posing for him, I would like to hear it. Because to me, it sounds a lot more like a nudist man allowing his daughters to experience the nudist lifestyle. Take care. :)
cute nd sexy
@ muppet show thats a wore for ya
were u ever in school everyone knows everything by 12 shes a whore i guarantee look at her face
@ muppet show
he shuldnt have done it at all