Naked kids on the beach - would you let them?

[ssd]

I mean would you let your say 6 year old play naked on the beach?

Today thanks to the sun at last we went to the beach, it was fairly busy. A family next to us let their approx. 6 year old boy play around the waters edge naked for a while before the cold got to him and he put on pants as in underpants. The other kids ages about 3 - 9 years old were playing in their underpants (all boys).

Now I'm not prudish but I don't think its acceptable to let a child play on a beach naked, nor would I want an older child playing in his pants. My ds1 would never play and run around in front of strangers in only his pants and he's 7, the other kids I mean were older than him.

I don't care what anyone does at home or in their garden, but I'd want them dressed more appropriately at a beach.

What do you think?

HEre's an interesting quote

"The early 1970's marked the heyday of commercial production of child pornography in the Western world. Denmark, Holland, and, to a lesser extent, Sweden, were the main centres of production in Europe. Most of the children depicted were Caucasian. Many who were featured in European child pornography magazines were photographed in the United States and the photos were published in magazines assembled abroad."

taken from here

So that was PRE computers as we know it (funnily enough 30yrs ago)

The Protection of Children Act was brought in in 1978. And even THEN covered 'indecent' pictures.

Message withdrawn

here is the West Midland Police Paedophile Unit page, makes interesting, if a little harrowing, reading.

"The early 1970s marked the heyday"???

It has declined since then, presumably.

I don't think so.

wordsmith - do it! We became interested about 3 years ago. Booked a villa which had a secluded garden with pool and spent the entire 2 weeks naked. Visited several naturist beaches, like I said the only thing I don't like is the sand getting into everthing. When we came back, we looked into joining a naturist club, visited one, loved it and now have a caravan site which we visit almost every weekend. It's a very family friendly place, loads of activities go on and on a hot sunny day when we are lazing round the pool, we could be anywhere in the world!

Paedophiles can be anywhere. A point to remember is this - the naked body is not sexy, wearing a skimpy bikini IS.

My older 3 kids are 13, 11 and 9 and all are quite comfortable being naked weather permitting. Since being naturist I have had a much more positive body image - before I was worried about stretchmarks and wobbly bits but now I am quite happy to get my kit off. I do however, believe there is a time and a place for it.

I do have my girls in swimsuits - the sun protection thing worries me more than anything. I hate the tarty culture re little girls in inappropriate clothes - the whole scenario is beyond comprehension, but you just don't buy the clothes.

Yes the heyday when you could go into a shop and buy a child porn magazine off the top shelf!!

It may not have 'declined' but it's certainly no HIGHER than it was back then (just look in the news and see how many teachers/priests/men are being charged NOW for sexual offences against children back in the 70/80's).

The photos which are generaly distributed by paedophiles will be the ones which they have taken of the child abuse, not of joe and josephine bloggs DS's and DD's running naked on the beach!

And I notice you've made no more comment about Telephoto lenses???

"The late 1970's and early 80's brought increased governmental regulation, first in the United States and later in Europe. As a result, commercial distribution is no longer a major means of circulating such material. The majority of child pornography disseminated internationally is, in fact, exchanged between paedophiles and child molesters without any commercial motive."

Taken from the same website the 'heyday' quote was from (next paragraph actually)

Back in the 1970's there was obviously a pretty big MARKET for it, people would actually PAY to get hold of the stuff, the fact that it's now no longer (thank god) commercial must surely have reduced 'general' circulation????

Imagine being able to walk into your local newsagents and see child pornography magazines on the top shelf, available for ANYONE (whether they have internet connection or not!) to buy!!

More food for thought, based on America but quite possibly true for here too

"Letter writing by paedophiles, extensive in the past, is now being replaced by much more rapidly transmitted computer conversations. Despite increasing use of computers by paedophiles, according to the U.S. Postal Service, pornographers still rely heavily on the mails to exchange video tapes and computer diskettes"

Well obviously I can't comment specifically on telephoto lenses between 1975 and now, but did you read the Guardian link?

12 awaiting trial, from before there was a "crackdown". There may well be many more serious abuse images circulated, but it doesn't mean you don't need to worry about "mild" images from pervy blokes lurking in the background with their phones and digital cameras.

QE - sounds great. But no way would my DH even consider it. Do you think men are out off by the possibility of - ahem - inadvertent stiffies? My naked body certainly isn't sexy.

Anyway back to the issue in hand. I agree with several posters who have made the point about tarty clothes for little girls - It amazes me how a lot of parents imagine paedophiles crawling out of the woodwork in any situation yet allow children to go around wearing boob tubes and fcuk logos. Is it any wonder that kids grow up confused? They aren't allowed to be naked as nature intended but from an indecently eary age are encouraged to reveal just enough flesh to suggest burgeoning sexual awareness. It's just sick. Makes me glad I have boys not girls.

put off I mean

Yes I read it - more media scare mongering if you ask me.

Go and look through your family album/holiday photos............then come back and tell me how many pictures you have in YOUR posession that ALSO include other children in the background?? Did you ask for their permission to take those photographs?

Are they going to arrest everyone who's got photo's of other people's children skimpily dressed (not hard to miss these days).

As for you comment about photolenses

"30 years ago the equivalent telephoto lenses were about 2' long, hardly subtle, and the images taken would have to be laboriously developed and circulated by post, if at all.

Never mind. Obviously wasting my time. Dream on, Gwenick."

One minute you're telling me that 30yrs ago 'equivalent' lenses were 2' long - and tell me your wasting your time..........then the next you can't possibly be telling me about them????

Well my dad never lurked in the dunes with his

PMSL - I know you don't want to know the other places he lurked with it.................

He also used to develop most of his own photo's (only my mum's got sent of for processing at the labs) and used our MASSIVE bathroom..........meaning every weekend (and during the week to when he was working nights) we'd have to use the next door neighbours toilet!!!!

I have a 25-yr-old Canon SLR with a fixed 100mm lens, and a nearly new Minolta compact 35mm with a 150mm zoom lens, and I know which one people would notice and which one they wouldn't, and AFAIK digital cameras are even more subtle than compact ones.

OK gwenick, you've got me worried now. What did your dad take pics of?

I'm also glad ive got boys t-shirts and shorts to the knee sun tan lotion nothing indecent and theres less chance of them getting sun burnt but yes I would let them play naked at the beach on holiday. And say last year on holiday someone did get my little lad in the back of there picture bum flashing the lot I'm never going to know so why worry, there most probebly normal everyday people with kids thenselves I'm not going to worry about somthing that will more than likly never happen, kids need to be kids. I'm more worried about sunbathing parents that arnt watching there children at least I always know where mine are and there not going to get washed out into the sea, I'm sure lost children due to irresponsible parents is much more common than any weirdo taking pics

wordsmith - anything and everything (although has never like taking 'people' pictures ie portrates and stuff).

He recently 'indexed' his slide collection on the computer so he 'knew what he had'.............and had nearly 3,000 slides.

Not sure on the number of photo's but I 'believe' it's close to 10,000 - from all over the world.

The ones in the dunes were mainly of the sea and flowers (he's got hundreds of flower photos).

Gwenick, nearly 20 years ago I sent to a friend a photo of my DDs (aged 5 and 2) inside a sleeping bag with no visible clothes, and she said then that I should be careful who I sent an image like that to.

I hate the whole prudery thing, and I hate that small children can't be innocently naked, but it has to be faced that there are very dodgy people out there.

and she said then that I should be careful who I sent an image like that to.

Well there you go then - proves my point that child pornography was as much as a problem 'pre computers' as it is now

Jan H, there are dodgy people out there. And planes fly into buildings. And tsunamis hit coastal regions killing thousands of people. And earthquakes reduce villages in Turkey to rubble. But have you stopped going on planes of going up tall buildings, swimming in the sea or taking holidays? I doubt it. And talking of a danger to our kids - I hope you don't drive a car or let your kids go anywhere near a road, because more kids are killed or injured by cars than anything else.

How often do those happen?

not often - but the numbers of people affected is VERY high (10's and 100's of thousands)