The recent furore over Bill Henson and, now, Polixeni Papapetrou about art censorship versus child exploitation has made certainly captured my thoughts.

Is nude child photography legitimate? Are there circumstances under which it is deemed ok? Or are we completely missing the point and it's a matter of perspective?

If those same photos of Olympia Nelson had appeared on another website or in "another" magazine then you could be arrested for viewing them ... but because they were in Art Monthly magazine they are deemed artistic. Where are the boundaries?

The flip side is ... where do we draw the line of artistic censorship?

So, was the use of a 6 year old girl exploitative? Would it have been different if it were a 6 year old boy? A 14 year old?

Or has the government and policing community made a mountain out of a mole hill?

OLO has had this debate across many threads and articles.

There is nothing wrong with a naked person of any age. The only people with a problem have a specific agenda politically or are religious. Ironically, the religious commissioned naked art centuries ago. There is some sort of new puritanism going about like a disease.

The photographs were fully consented to and the models are more than happy and have defended the artist publicly. They have been greatly abused and harrassed by people like Hetty who damage people's lives with their vicious attacks on people who do not believe in their fascist views.

I was just about to submit a new general thread on this subject. But you beat me to it Corri. I’ll put it here, unaltered.

A photo of a nude six year-old girl appears on the cover of this month’s edition of Art Monthly Australia magazine. The editor says that this has been done “in the hope of restoring some dignity to the debate; to validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art” following the controversy over Bill Henson’s photos of a nude thirteen-year-old girl. See the photo and read the editorial here: http://www.artmonthly.org.au/

Ohmygoodness, how obscene!

Now wait a minute. What on earth could be in the slightest bit wrong with this innocent photo being presented in any magazine, or appearing on the cover?

It is harmless. Surely no one is going to view this as pornographic or fertile material for paedophiles.

Our illustrious prime minister condemns it. Shame on him. Measured criticism of it possibly being inappropriate might have been ok, but condemnation most definitely is not.

He has asked the Australia Council to develop a set of protocols to cover the portrayal of children in art.

Good! We need to know just what the go is. The boundaries need to be fixed.

But for as long as they are not fixed and a photo like this falls in a grey area (and in this case, a very light shade of grey), our PM surely is totally out of line in condemning it. Once the boundaries are fixed, and some magazine or artist infringes them, then and only then would our PM be in a position to condemn them.

So, there are three issues here;

the prospect of censorship or outright banning of photos of children that might have the slightest connotations of pornography or exploitation, in the public arena, or perhaps in any arena,

the inappropriate input of our PM (and NSW premier)

and the need for the boundaries of acceptability to be determined so that everyone knows where they stand with the law.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23979363-601,00.html, http://www.stillsgallery.com.au/artists/papapetrou/

There is absolutely nothing wrong with these images. They don't even show the "rude parts". This matter should have been settled with the recent Bill Henson episode, but some people don't understand nudiy does not equal sex.
Should I be thrown in jail because I've been at nudist venues where children were present? Of course not because this was not sexual. Likewise these pictures are not sexual.
Maybe I should be arrested for being in possession of encyclopedias showing Amazon girls walking through the Brazillian jungle naked.

Opinion on this matter shows that 60% think that child nudity is wrong, and 40% think it is acceptable. Those who think it's wrong maybe in the majority, but it's nowhere near high enough to ban such pictures. I think opinion would have to be close to 95% before a ban could even be considered.

It will be interesting to follow this particular topic. The little of it I've heard so far suggests that the pictures were taken and published as a statement about the Henson material. If so that does seem like this child has been used as a pawn for adults agenda's.

Child abusers may find the images sexual, I really don't think we should let society be driven by their views but I don't much like adults using children to make a statement if that is what has occurred. Are the photographer and publisher trying to provoke outrage and controversy using a child as the tool or is this just about the art?

R0bert

> but I don't much like adults using children to make a statement

This raises an interesting point. Children are used by socialists everywhere to make political statements. Our society 'exploits' them for all manner of policy and law-making.

Wouldn't it be better if parents, feminists and adults couldn't exploit children with their "Protect the Children" slogans? Politicians and NGOs would be prevented from exploiting children for things like the Catholic Church's tax-free fundraiser, World Youth Day.

If the media had not published details of either incident, I would not have been aware of either of them.

By not knowing I would not have cared, because there was nothing I knew about it.

Now I will have to send all the national geographics, encyclopaedia's and any books that have photos in them to the local censor for removal of all photos that may possibly offend someone.

But then what is art or photography or literacy without controversy.

Yes most interesting.

Nudity is something which always has a social context.

But nude children.. it might be argued that only a perverted mind would find stimulation in such images, but then..it depends in the type of image I guess.

If a female child was posed so as to look 'sexy' in the ways that we all know, then.. ?

This leads to the issue of 'what' is a 'sexy' pose?

-legs apart, showing privates in a 'minime' alluring adult manner?
-various postures associated with adult or at least mature sexual activity?
-poses with other children?
-Poses with older people?
-what about a nude wrinkly old man with a 5 yr old girl.. the 'artistic' merit being 'showing the extremes of life' ? hmmmmm

I think that it is way too close to being the door of a pandora's box of social breakdown of incalculable dimensions.

Such things will always boil down to a subjective interpretation of what is or is not 'sexy' and or 'abusive' etc.. so.. I don't think we can ever escape from the fact that our community will be divided on such issues and will ultimately fight it out at the ballot box.

Inevitably, one group will be imposing it's view on another.

Sounds like life :)

More evidence that there is an elite class with more protection than Catholic Priests. Sick minds want to photograph kids nude in order for others to gaze at. No one has yet given one good reason why anyone would want to photograph these kids. They defend the right for sick artist to take photos but offer no good reason for these innocent kids to be exploited. These warped artists minds should not be allowed to be published to feed other sick minds.

Dear Robert,

I have an uncomfortable feeling that this child
is being "exploited," by adults - to stir up
the debate once again.

And of course, it will get media attention, and
the desired controversy.

The father will get his "5 minutes" of fame, and
the child may even possibly get a modellling
contract out of it.

Anyway, this will be "milked" for all its worth.

As for is it "Art" or "Pornography?"

It's neither in this case, but a grab for
media attention, and money.

Enough said.

cont'd

I forgot to add - it's to sell the
magazine as well.

I bet that this issue will outsell
the previous ones.

Clever ploy!

Likewise James. I hadn’t even heard of apparently long-time internationally renowned artist Bill Henson before the recent debacle. And I only heard of the Art Monthly Australia magazine and Polixeni Papapetrou for the first time today. I’m not an arty farty person, but I do have a deep level of concern about law and liberties.
.

Polycarp, your concerns would all be resolved by a comprehensive assessment of just what the parameters between acceptable artistic portrayal of children and pornographic or exploitative images are. Rudd has asked OzCo (Australia Council for the Arts) to do this. I endorse this resoundedly.

Concerns about this stuff being a door in pandora’s box or the thin edge of the wedge or tip of the iceberg should be quelled by the declaration of parameters, with thorough public consultation, which then become enshrined in law.

“Enough said”

And then…”cont’d”, followed by another load of porkchoppery!

Oh Foxy, that foxhole is looking like a good place to go hide one’s head right now!
.

O sheezuz, alright… I admit it…I’ve been drinkin too much… and probably offended one of the most highly respected posters on this forum. I do hang my head in shame.

Sorry Foxy. I I I just couldn’t resist! ( :>)

“I bet that this issue will outsell the previous ones.”

By a country mile! Yes….and good on the managerial team of Art Monthly for seeing the potential for promoting their product, and running with it!

Ho hum, here we go again.

Actually, I think that Art Monthly has fired a deliberate pre-emptive strike in the debate we supposedly had to have. The latterly controversial image that features on its latest cover has apparently been exhibited publicly for five years or so, and was undoubtedly selected quite deliberately to elicit some resolution to the 'debate' that was left hanging after the furore about Bill Henson's artworks.

The alternative would be for artists whose works involve children to be looking perpetually over their shoulders in case the child porn hysterics choose to subject them to the same kind of witch hunt that Henson endured. Indeed, the self-proclaimed art police have made it clear that this is their intention - so the arties got in first.

Coincidentally, I watched an interview on ABC's 'Artscape' yesterday in which brilliant film director Peter Greenaway lamented the "visual illiteracy" of mass film audiences. I think that the current orgy of self-righteous philistinism with respect to artistic images of children feeds directly upon such ignorance - it's a naked child's body, ergo it's paedophilia (or at least potentially so).

This is just going to be a re-run of the previous stoush/es we've had here on the same topic. What a pity I'm going to the coast for a few days...

...not! :)

Dear Ludwig,

"Prosit!"

"Skoal!"

May it do good!

I think I'll now go and have a glass (or two)
myself :)

Cheers!

One day my daughter appeared dressed only in gumboots and a hat. I thought it would make a great photo, however I did not take a photo of her, considering the possible consequences of such a photo.

This arguement over child nudity is an expansion of the arguement in regards to the alleged commercial exploitation of children by the advertising industry.

So I think the arguement is going to get very heated and emotionally charged. However it despite the heat, it will be very boring time for the media.

I am sick of hearing about already.

Did you see Olympia on the news last night? She is happy with the photos, and they were taken 5 years ago (Almost half a lifetime for her). She is offended at Kevin Rudd's comments. Good on you, Olympia. You have settled the arguement.

Well a lively debate is being had by all ... fantastic.

Art has always been controversial - it borders on the edge of our rules and liberties, it pushes the boundaries and it attacks our comfort zones.

The recent images of Olympia were nude but not sexy - though my original question still applies ... could Olympia make a reasoned decision of acceptance. JamesH stated he didn't take a photo of his daughter in gum boots - which is a shame, they are great moments to capture. It is capturing nudity in its natural form - a child running around free of concern. However, the same child being instructed to place gum boots on her feet lie on a lounge in unnatural poses and becoming the muse is exploitative.

I am uncomfortable with child exploitation - whether in the commercal sense (TV advertising) or other forms. The fact the child is nude really just offers the sensationalism to add momentum to the debate.

The quandary is censorship vs exploitation ... What differentiates one nude picture of Olympia in Art Monthly and same picture on a pornographic website? Where are the boundaries? Who can govern?

A final thought ... the positive from this debate is that we are finally over the media coverage of Belinda Neal and John Della Bosca! (or are we?)

Corri: "A final thought ... the positive from this debate is that we are finally over the media coverage of Belinda Neal and John Della Bosca! (or are we?)"

You don't mean to tell us that the happy couple posed nude for New Idea?

I logged onto the Police website this morning to check out the news reports. I see that an 11 year old girl, Lily Herrera who had been missing for a week was found safe and well.
Lily could have been found 4 days ago if I had known (or for that matter anyone else on my train) that she was a missing person as she was on my train travelling to Mount Victoria. She came to my attention as she was inappropriately dressed for a Blue Mountain's Winter night. I was suspicious that she might have been a runaway, but didn't bother to contact Police as Lily looked a lot more than 11 years old.
Olympia Nelson is a well cared for 11 year old with loving parents. Could the government please show more concern for our children who don't have clothes rather than those who aren't wearing their clothes.

'What differentiates one nude picture of Olympia in Art Monthly and same picture on a pornographic website?'

Only the person who put it there. Once Catholic Priests seemed to have an exemption. Now or maybe always artist are judged purer and more sophisticated than anyone else.

Spikey ... I'm not sure that cover page would exactly sell more issues! But the thought certainly amused me.

Dear Corri,

I too have issues with nude portraits of children.

I stated my views quite clearly during the Henson
debate.

And as I stated then, I don't expect others to
agree with me.

Art is subjective and does reflect the society
in which it was created.

Today we have a society filled with child and
familial abuse - so yes, nude pictures of six to
12 year old children does disturb me (- regardless
of what the child or her father in this case,
says). Also, why bring up the photograph now?
Why was there no refence to it during the Henson
debate? I imagine Henson could have used the
support at that time.

Why cant art be exploitative?

Steel Mann makes a very good point which gets ignored in all this. Amid the outcry and demands for banning the photography of nude kids, there are thousands of kids suffering dreadful abuse of a very concrete kind, but you don't see endless forums carrying on about it. Why is that?

A few weeks ago when those 18 month old twins were left to die in their cots while the family went on with life as usual around them. Why weren't there dozens of posts and pages long comments threads about that?

Have we come to the point where something is only real if we can see a photo of it in a newspaper or footage on tv? There are abused and neglected kids in every suburb in the country, yet we get all fired up and outraged over a photo a mother took of her daughter. What does that order of priority say about us?

I've said it before but a huge part of this is coming from activist, socialist feminists.

Exploiting the maternal instinct and misandry in our political system is a key factor and has been for the last couple of decades when it has come to censorship. Again as with the religious the moderates (feminists) have no influence, the core group are constantly barraging our politicians and media with complaints and well-disguised arguments as to why such-and-such should be banned and is abusing something or someone.

Even Foxy here has been fooled into thinking that an artwork with a naked child who volunteered and is happy with it SOMEHOW is connected with child abuse. When it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

No one here has mentioned that between the Henson and Olympia episodes, the exhibition by a female artist in Victoria of two naked 11 year old boys in support of Henson...yet now now we see a similar 'furore' to Henson. It's coming from somewhere and it's coming from socialist feminists (as well as the religious puritans like Rudd).

Steel, this goes back to my original question - would this have been as explosive had it been a boy? Even 11 year olds?

To ChainSmoker, I'd add that I also tried to raise the issue of child exploitation generally - but it is not as sensational as artistic nudity. Unfortunately it is the media that grabs our mindspace and, for a large part, feeds our intellectual diet. But this is also another form of censorship.

Steel, your comment that Olympia "volunteered and is happy with it" I think also goes to the question of whether a 6 year old encouraged by her mother to pose naked was able to make a reasoned decision. Of course she was happy with it ... it made her mum happy. But was it exploitation? I am not shying away for exploitation in other areas, but this is the one that has grabbed our headlines.

So you care aobut exploitation? Look at farmers across Australia who use their children as free labour.

You are dismissing the opinions of a child. It's completely disingenuous. People such as Rudd are treating children like mindless animals and zombies, who are unthinking beings who have no ability to reason. That is patently absurd and it's why children don't go around stabbing other children with knives.

The real disgrace and outrage is that KRudd is *daring* to question the child and her mother and calling them irresponsible and disgusting in public (as with the Henson model). Mentally what do you think that does to the child? Telling her that her mother should be locked up for something like this? One day she is happy and proud of the photograph. The next some vile politician starts using it for political purposes and calling her immoral. That is the outrage. Our PM should be apologising to the girl and her mother. It's a disgrace.

Agreed Steel. I think there are some quite serious connotations to Rudd’s stance and comments. In fact, every bit as serious as the whole issues of art vs pornography and exploitation vs free will.

^^^^

I think that Olympia Nelson’s comments about herself appearing naked in her mother’s photos were excellent. She clearly and independently thinks very highly of them and has no regrets whatsoever. She is rightly very critical of Rudd for his condemnatory stance.

What about the Hooker girl? You know; “thankyou Mr Hooker bear” and later on; just “thankyou Mr Hooker” - the key promotional tool for L J Hooker Real Estate for 20 years. Every time I have seen one of those ads, going back the whole 20 years, I have thought to myself that it is a little inappropriate. What did that child really know about the business at the time? I’ve thought that there is some degree of exploitation and dodginess in there, even though it seems so innocent.

But the use of kids for advertising and promotion is widespread. There IS an element of exploitation, but we couldn’t eliminate it. We have to accept it….and I reckon in a pretty liberal manner.

If people later regret their actions or the decisions of their parents to have them involved, well too bad. That’s life.

The same with children in art, be they nude or provocatively dressed and posed or whatever. They may later regret it or they may be very pleased they did it. It might cause some of them ongoing problems. But it might also open doors and bring success that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.

So no Usual Suspect, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with an element of exploitation of kids in art or advertising.

But I’d like parameters for exploitation to be worked out along with the parameters for nudity and overall presentation of children in art, that Rudd has asked the Australia Council for the Arts to look into.

Corri:

"I'd add that I also tried to raise the issue of child exploitation generally - but it is not as sensational as artistic nudity."

Considering the hysteria that goes on whenever people under 18 and anything remotely to do with sex is concerned, I'd say this is not so much about artistic nudity as about our discomfort with the idea that kids are anything but asexual dolls.

Look back over the hundreds of comments on this and the Henson thing and you'll find art and artistic merit have very little to do with it. Art just doesn't figure in the nudity=sex mindset.

It's reminiscent of Victorian times when the obsession with denying sex produced a society obsessed with it.

JAMES H.. I've got a photo of my son in gumboots and nothing else.. his little pecker fully visible.. I think he was about 2 at the time.. he just looked so funny with a huge cheezy grin :)

This is the thing.. PARENTS don't, under normal circumstances find anything but humor in the antics of their children, clothed or unclothed.. and presumably of other peoples... but tragically, we have an element among us who do find some kind of prurient interest in such things.

I guess there is an invisible "line" where 'children' become something nearer to the point where they can be sexually interesting to the opposite sex (and sadly..to their own in some cases).. the point where that 'line' resides is something each person must answer to their own heart..but the law is there to clarify it for all of us.

It would not be hard to simply say "NO" nude portrayals of children in anything other than family photo albums.

If "Art" undermines morality. or seeks to establish it's own.. as far as I'm concerned "Art" and "Artists" can take the legal consequences.

Polycarp, pedophiles are attracted to children who are fully clothed. Is it then to be determined that any images of children clothed or otherwise? This stupidity is because the entire argument these people are using is spurious, irrational and emotional.

Steel, that's what I reckon.
In nearly all cases of child sexual assault, (or for that matter any sexual assault) the victim was clothed at the time. As far as child nudity turning on paedophiles, please provide some evidence, and even then, should everything be banned because some people may be harmed?
What about all the children killed on the roads? Should we ban cars & bikes?
In the nudist movement, I am only aware of one instance of a child being assaulted, and that occured outside inside the child's home. Children raised in nudist environments are unashamed of their bodies, and would have no problems reporting any attempted abuse. Other children when abused tend to keep the matter secret, which in turn creates more problems.
Acceptance of nudity actually reduces sex crime as we become conditioned to seeing the naked body.
By the way, you registered on this forum first, so you got to use my usual user name.

Steel Mann

AS someone demanding evidence from others how can you come up with something as ridiculous as 'Acceptance of nudity actually reduces sex crime as we become conditioned to seeing the naked body.'
You, the porn industry and only a few earth worshipers would agree. In case you have not noticed lust produces lust. Almost without exception child molesters and sex offenders feed on porn. The porn does not make them less susceptible to lust but more. You must live in the dreamworld of an artist if you think we can reduce abuse by accepting nudity.

runner, "The porn does not make them less susceptible to lust but more."

You have been presented with viable evidence previously showing that increased access to porn does reduce rates of sexual assaults. I'm assume that you have chosen to ignore the evidence because it does not fit your preconceptions.

While the evidence is not absolutely conclusive it is far better than anything you have produced to support your chain of reasoning. I guess you are running true to form with your ability to review your beliefs based on new evidence.

For a quick summary start here http://www.reason.com/news/show/123330.html

The paper is included in lecture notes at http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

Col I think also has previously supplied details on Scandanavian research with similar findings.

R0bert

Robert

It might make you and others feel a little more comfortable about viewing pornography by quoting misleading and false conclusions. Try reading
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/09/pornographys_li.html

I know the facts do not confirm your 'preconceptions.' And if you are not convinced read this article

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/09/post_8.html

runner you disgust me with your ignorance. If what below is true, you have quoted some strange, crackpot homophobe (not really surprising since you are such a hateful person)

-=-=-=-
Writer Max Blumenthal does a good job encapsulating some of Reisman's Greatest Hits:

On the international gay conspiracy:
"I would suggest to you that while the homosexual population may right now be one to two percent," Reisman reportedly told a Christian Right conference in 1994, "hold your breath, people, because the recruitment is loud; it is clear; it is everywhere. You'll be seeing, I would say, 20 percent or more, probably 30 percent, or even more than that, of the young population will be moving into homosexual activity."

On Jews as babykillers:
"Everyone knows Jews do lead the abortion industry, and I'll thank B'nai B'rith from the bottom of my heart if they can prove otherwise," Reisman, a Jew, said in 1995.

http://chasecuts.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-on-kinsey-who-is-judith-reisman.html
-=-=-

Also apparently about some of her work:

http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=kinsey

-=-=- The PORN STUDY
Avedon Carol writes:

..... 'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn'. (Carol, 1994, p.116) [ 6 ]

Dr Loretta Haroian, the cochair of the plenary session of Child and Adolescent Sexuality at the 1984 World Congress of Sexology, an expert on childhood sexuality, commented on Reisman's work,

This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn't help children at all. ... [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children." (Carol, 1994, p.116). [ 7 ]
-=-=-

I think that last paragraph there is a rather apt description that applies to the likes of Hetty Johnson and others in this debate. Very intersting as it was made in 1994. The source is christianity and/or feminism...I couldn't be any more certain about this now that I have seen this. I guess in a way i should thank the bigot runner

"simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children." (Carol, 1994, p.116). [ 7 ]"

Thanks for you input Steel. Runner, I strongly disagree. As far as sex offenders feeding on porn - this is the same as alcoholics drinking a lot of alcohol, drug addicts buying a lot of drugs, and compulsive gamblers buying a lot of lottery tickets.
Runner, it may interest you to know, I am a Committed Christian and a member of a nudist club, so I speak from a point of authority. It might also interest you to know that in Australia, about 7 per cent of nudists are Born Again Christians, from all denonimations. That is in line with the national average. As far as lust is concerned, nudity is not needed for that.

runner, thanks I needed the laugh. You found an author capable of the same kind of extreme leaps of illogic that you so cherish. Well done.

"As proof, Reynolds quotes a U.S. Department of Justice claim that in 2004 rape of "people" over age 12 radically decreased with an "85 percent decline in the per-capita rape rate since 1979" (DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survey of "thousands of respondents 12 and older"). "

"Since the DOJ data excludes rape of children under age 12, child rape may be up 85 percent, for all we know."

Eg since she does not want to believe the evidence she postulates that the rate of sexual assault of female children may have gone up by a massive factor dispite clear evidence that the rates of sexual assaults have decreased.

If you can't tell the difference between a serious study using verifiable data and drawing reasonable (and guarded) conclusions and a article put together by someone determined to defend an existing postion making gigantic assumptions unsupported by evidence then that pretty much confirms my views of your capabilities.

R0bert

Steel Mann,

You obviously totally disregards the apostles Paul's teachings to dress modestly? I can just see a teenage youth camp where the 13 year old girls can't wait to strip off and the pure 13 year old boys (obviously related to Henson) not being affected by it.

Runner,

Paul's instructions to dress modestly were not in regard to sexual lust, but he wanted all Christians to fit into the Church. Wealthly people were wearing a lot of expensive unnessary clothing and jewellrey while the poor had nothing fancy to wear. God created Adam & Eve nude. When they sinned it was not God who required them to be clothed but Adam & Eve wanted clothing (To cover their sin). My sin is covered by the blood of Christ. God instructed the prophet Isaiah to walk naked for 2 years. Jesus Christ allows himself to be crucified naked, and most Bible translations suggested the man fleeing naked in the book of Luke was Luke himself. Most early Christians were baptised nude, and many stained glass windows in old European Churches show this.

What is modest in clothing depends on the culture of the people. In some African cultures, young girls going nude is a sign of sexual purity. If Christian missionaries told them they had to dress, this would be insulting and suggesting they are sexually immoral or a prostitute.

Runner,

What are you suggesting by this:

"I can just see a teenage youth camp where the 13 year old girls can't wait to strip off and the pure 13 year old boys (obviously related to Henson) not being affected by it."

Have you seen it? Where? (It's very hard for a male to hide impure thoughts in a nudist environment). I'm not aware of any teenage nudist youth camps. Not in Australia anyway. I've probably never seen more than about 8 children in a nudist venue at the same time, and they would have varied in age from toddlers to teenagers. Children in these environments are well protected, and many parents feel that it is a very safe environment for children to be in. (My club does not require children to be nude and about half of them would wear a swimming costume).

I note a tone of sarcasm in you post and I might suggest that you are the person that has the problem with lust. I doubt you have ever been to a nudist club or nude beach and therefore you are not qualified to make judgements on such matters.