Forgiveness_Man wrote:

^^^^^What part of the quote was that for?

LOl I don't know, I just woke up and reading that kind of boggled my mind and shook up my brain.

Tony Marino wrote:

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

^^^^^What part of the quote was that for?

LOl I don't know, I just woke up and reading that kind of boggled my mind and shook up my brain.

Gosh, I wish all of the stuff I wrote could have such a powerful effect on people. My novels would sell millions!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Tony Marino wrote:

LOl I don't know, I just woke up and reading that kind of boggled my mind and shook up my brain.

Gosh, I wish all of the stuff I wrote could have such a powerful effect on people. My novels would sell millions!

Has nothing to do with your writings lil bro, its me trying to focus into the world

Tony Marino wrote:

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Gosh, I wish all of the stuff I wrote could have such a powerful effect on people. My novels would sell millions!

Has nothing to do with your writings lil bro, its me trying to focus into the world

Way to crush my confidence. :p

Sheesh, I cannot believe how immature, narrow-minded and paranoid so many people are about this topic!

Thank God there are Americans with a voice of reason like Shale and Captainbryce. :-)

I am a nudist myself with nearly 21 years experience of it, and I think it is necessary that kids be exposed to nudity of all kinds of human beings, be it their family, friends, relatives and people they've yet to know.

That way they will grow up with a better self esteem and a better concept of sex and sexuality instead of kow-towing to a fascist media that teaches girls that you are wortheless unless you look like a Barbie doll, and guys that unless they are like Hercules or Atlas no girl will go for them.

These stereotypes need to be elimated from our society and replaced with a new social order that teaches appreciation for ALL body types.

See this site for more info: http://stop-racist-human-skin-phobia.org

Interestingly enough the guy who founded it does not refer to himself as a 'nudist' or a 'naturist' or an 'exhibitionist' but rather as a human being.

Of course we need to be teaching kids there are times when clothes are necessary, like to protect them from the cold or from chafing. The same thing goes for sex - there is a time and a place for it.

Clothing optional recreation whether at nudist CLUBS (not coloniges), or at beaches is an all-ages activity. The laws do not restrict it for adults only, and it is a philosophy of life which is protected (though not endorsed), by most governments in the Western world.

Also, creeps and paedophiles have existed since day 1, not just from the 1980s on. Nudists understand this and that's why they are a very vigilant people who are just as much concerned with the safety of children as 'textiles' (people who wear clothes when not nedcessary) are.

I think it's high time that the majority of Americans grew up and looked at this from a much clearer perspective like the Europeans do.

^^^^IMO, it's much more narrowminded to call somebody narrowminded merely for disagreeing with you. Surprised this topic is back up.

It's hardly narrow-minded to feel kids should not be going to a nudist beach. But we all thing we got monopolies on open-mindedness, don't we?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^IMO, it's much more narrowminded to call somebody narrowminded merely for disagreeing with you. Surprised this topic is back up.

LOL, I find it hilarious how these newbies come in here and be bringing up old shit.

Quote :

It's hardly narrow-minded to feel kids should not be going to a nudist beach. But we all thing we got monopolies on open-mindedness, don't we?

Something must be about to happen because I agree. Not thinking it's appropiate for young children to congregate with naked ass adults is hardly narrow minded. CHILDREN and ADULTS are two different categories. CHILDREN and ADULTS have two different mentalities. And it's not for nothing. Sometimes 'being liberal' needs to have its boundaries. No one is saying that children shouldn't have esteem or feel bad or awkward about being naked.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^IMO, it's much more narrowminded to call somebody narrowminded merely for disagreeing with you.

Except that nobody is actually doing that! Nobody is saying that you're narrow-minded for disagreeing with anybody. What we are saying is that it's narrow-minded to be against something just on principle especially if you aren't going to justify that with REASON and simultaneously ignore legitimate arguments FOR it. That is the definition of narrow-minded, (to only see things from ONE perspective while ignoring everything else). It has nothing to do with someone "agreeing" with you or "disagreeing" with you. You can agree to disagree with someone, but if you can't acknowledge that they have expressed a legitimate point and at the same time you fail to back up your point any further yet continue to cling to the idea that you are right and the other person is wrong, THAT makes you narrow-minded.

Narrow-minded = Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy. Having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced.

Several people on here have expressed the fact that they seen nothing wrong with children being in nudist/naturist colonies and explained their rational for that. You failed to acknowledge that rationale and simply said that you disagree. In "debate", that would be considered to be a narrow-minded point of view. You are not narrow-minded because you "disagree" with us, you are narrow-minded because you refuse to acknowledge any validity in an any argument besides your own.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It's hardly narrow-minded to feel kids should not be going to a nudist beach. But we all thing we got monopolies on open-mindedness, don't we?

Again, that's not the reason you are narrow-minded and I hardly think that you are in a position to discuss "open-mindedness" considering some of the MANY positions you have taken on a variety of topics.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Not thinking it's appropiate for young children to congregate with naked ass adults is hardly narrow minded.

See my response to "Forgiveness Man".

Nystyle709 wrote:

CHILDREN and ADULTS are two different categories. CHILDREN and ADULTS have two different mentalities. And it's not for nothing.

How is that relevant? In other words, what is your point?

Nystyle709 wrote:

Sometimes 'being liberal' needs to have its boundaries. No one is saying that children shouldn't have esteem or feel bad or awkward about being naked.

The argument being made here is that by "sheilding" children from nudity and exposing them to societal norms, in many cases we ARE damaging their self esteem and making them feel awkward about nudity. In theory, there would be no such awkwardness if they were actually exposed to nudity (a normal, natural thing) at a younger age and if adults didn't make it such a "taboo" thing.

I posted the same message twice and I don't know how to delete this.

I'm just curious, those who think that kids should not go to nude beaches, how do you feel about family nudity? Is it the nudeness itself that you're uncomfortable with, or the strangers?

captainbryce wrote:

See my response to "Forgiveness Man".

Your response is bullshit. Because I disagree doesn't make me narrow minded. I agreed with his statement of saying that it's narrow minded to call someone else narrow minded simply because they disagree with you. It's the truth.

Quote :

How is that relevant? In other words, what is your point?

Not simple enough for you? You really think children and adults are on the same page mentally?

Quote :

The argument being made here is that by "sheilding" children from nudity and exposing them to societal norms, in many cases we ARE damaging their self esteem and making them feel awkward about nudity.

LOL, sheilding them from nudity? Exposing them to the societal norm of wearing clothes is damaging for their self-esteem? LMAO. My bad. Forgive me for not wanting my children to walk around with other adults with a boner or being on the rag. That's natural too.

Quote :

In theory, there would be no such awkwardness if they were actually exposed to nudity (a normal, natural thing) at a younger age and if adults didn't make it such a "taboo" thing.

Well, you can do that in your house. Your theory isn't absolute because I (and millions of other people) wasn't raised in a nudist household and I have no 'awkwardness' about being naked. If people are awkward about being naked, most of the time.....it's not because some conservative, stick in mud, narrow minded person like you prob. assume and try to portray made it taboo for them. It's because they don't like their bodies for their own personal reasons. I'm so sick of people on here grandstanding with this psuedo-intellectual babble simply because someone doesn't agree with what you do......esp with topics that goes against the grain of society. I simply have a difference in opinion. It's not appropiate. I'm not banning nudists camps/colonies or whatever the hell they and I'm saying you're wrong for doing it are but my children will not be participants.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

I'm just curious, those who think that kids should not go to nude beaches, how do you feel about family nudity? Is it the nudeness itself that you're uncomfortable with, or the strangers?

Ding ding ding ding. This assumption that people have that you must be uncomfortable with nudity in itself is a completely false one. If you're in your house, with your family and that's how you guys rock out, then keep it that way.

Shale wrote:

Spoken like someone who has never attended a nude beach on which lifelong nudist FAMILIES, including their children were having unselfconscious fun in the sun and surf.

Not interested. I can have fun in the sun and surf with my family with a bathing suit on.

Quote :

Yes they are nude, but we call ourselves naturists because we follow nature without all the acculturated body negative guilt and embarrassment of the mainstream society.

How nice.

Quote :

This is not just academic supposition. Ppl have actually been taking their kids to nude beaches since the early 20th Century in Germany and the 1920s in the US. And there have not been any harmful ramifications of that to those children.

How nice.

Quote :

So, this whole discussion is basically moot.

What discussion? What's the problem? I feel it's inappropiate. You don't. Big deal. Why are you mad?

Quote :

Argue your uninformed opinions all you want, but the FACT is, nudist children are not being harmed by actually going to nude beaches with their family.

FACT is I never said they were. You assumed it because I said I don't feel it's appropiate. Doesn't it fucking matter? Wanna know what I find hilarious? You mofos can grandstand and be as free as a bird....the minute someone says something that you feel passionate about, you throw a hissy fit. Let me rephrase that. The moment someone says something you don't like about things that goes against the grain of society, you throw a hissy fit. It's like you actually care that someone is in disagreeance with your lifestyle or whatever you're trying to defend. Is someoone trying to ban nudist camps or something? If you care that much what someone thinks about you, then perhaps whatever cause, crusade or whatever the hell you're on at the moment isn't all that. You're not informing of a damn thing dear. I understand your opinion just fine. And of course, that's exactly what it is.

Nystyle709 wrote:

...the minute someone says something that you feel passionate about, you throw a hissy fit. Let me rephrase that. The moment someone says something you don't like about things that goes against the grain of society, you throw a hissy fit. It's like you actually care that someone is in disagreeance with your lifestyle or whatever you're trying to defend. Is someoone trying to ban nudist camps or something? If you care that much what someone thinks about you, then perhaps whatever cause, crusade or whatever the hell you're on at the moment isn't all that. You're not informing of a damn thing dear. I understand your opinion just fine. And of course, that's exactly what it is.

The fact is we who go against the grain of mainstream society do get defensive when ppl start spouting off uninformed opinions about the evils of our ways. It took us decades to get our legal nude beach here, fighting the religious right who control the spineless politicians in this state, and those opposing voices that extrapolate all sorts of erroneous assumptions like "not wanting my children to walk around with other adults with a boner..." So try to understand why we don't even like to hear those lies repeated even in the somewhat inocuous realm of the Internet.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Your response is bullshit. Because I disagree doesn't make me narrow minded. I agreed with his statement of saying that it's narrow minded to call someone else narrow minded simply because they disagree with you. It's the truth.

Yes, it IS the truth but unfortunately you're still missing the point. The fact that you disagree isn't what makes you narrow-minded (as I explained to forgiveness man) and frankly I'm not really sure how to explain it any clearer than that. If you keep comming away with ^^this^^ then there must be some kind of disconnect there because I already said that this isn't the case.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Not simple enough for you? You really think children and adults are on the same page mentally?

I'm not confused about that at all. Of course they are different mentally. My question to you is "what does that have to do with NUDITY, or NUDISM/NATURISM?" and "how does this fact have any impact on what's already been said about how making nudity taboo can have a negative effect on their self esteem?"

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL, sheilding them from nudity? Exposing them to the societal norm of wearing clothes is damaging for their self-esteem? LMAO. My bad. Forgive me for not wanting my children to walk around with other adults with a boner or being on the rag. That's natural too.

"Exposing" them to wearing clothes isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not exposing them to NUDITY is harmful at all, and you've yet to demonstrate that. So if this answer is what you took away from the argument then you obviously aren't following where we are comming from. I think YOU might be on a "different page" than everyone else here except perhaps Forgiveness Man. You may want to re-evaluate what's actually been SAID and the arguments that are actually being made here and apply some critical thinking because "boners" and "being on the rag" really have NOTHING to do with this conversation.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Well, you can do that in your house. Your theory isn't absolute because I (and millions of other people) wasn't raised in a nudist household and I have no 'awkwardness' about being naked. If people are awkward about being naked, most of the time.....it's not because some conservative, stick in mud, narrow minded person like you prob. assume and try to portray made it taboo for them. It's because they don't like their bodies for their own personal reasons.

I'm so sick of people on here grandstanding with this psuedo-intellectual babble simply because someone doesn't agree with what you do......esp with topics that goes against the grain of society. I simply have a difference in opinion. It's not appropiate. I'm not banning nudists camps/colonies or whatever the hell they and I'm saying you're wrong for doing it are but my children will not be participants.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here because your sentence construction really doesn't make any sense (but I'll do my best to intepret it). The fact that you see relatively simple arguments as "psudo-intellectual babble" in my opinion means that you aren't really capable of defending your argument on the same intellectual level as I am. With that in mind, I'm going to rest my case there because there is really no point in continuing an argument that involves two people who aren't on the same level. I'll simply state this in the simplest terms I can think of:

1) Nobody has accused anybody of being narrow-minded because you have a "difference of opinion". They did it because you displayed a NARROW-MINDED point of view (one that isn't capable of thinking outside your little box). TWO DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS! Also, nobody has asked your children to be participants in nudism and nobody said anything about "boners" because those things really have no place in the discussion. When you inject things into the conversation that never existed before, it's an indication that you really aren't following what's going on.

2) Your "opinion" is that nudism where children are concerned isn't appropriate. Fair enough! But you have failed to explain WHY that is your opinion, or offer any kind of rational, logical explaination for this opinion other than saying that children aren't on the same mental level as adults. As obvious as that fact is, it is also meaningless and pointless to bring up unless you can explain what one thing has to do with the other.

3) You are the first person to cuss somebody here and you are the first person to respond with a condescending attitude. I'm normally a "nice guy" but if you're going to act asinine in what otherwise could be a civil discussion then I'm going to in turn respond to you like a dick! And since you're obviously not on my intellectual level (at least as far as THIS conversation goes), then you're going to get embarrassed! And since it's completely your fault, I feel no remorse whatsoever about making you look like an idiot!

thepossiblepolice wrote:

I'm just curious, those who think that kids should not go to nude beaches, how do you feel about family nudity? Is it the nudeness itself that you're uncomfortable with, or the strangers?

I aint really for or against family nudity. Honestly would not want to pull to either of the extremes.

My position stands. All the cat fighting and allegations of puritanical rigidness in no way impress me. Nude beaches should be restricted to persons 18+. Children are not legally permitted to view skin magazines or participate in art drawing classes with nude models, so why in the name of Muhammad should they be allowed to go to a nude beach and frolic in the sand with adults who have no clothes on? No. Just no. It isn't at all necessary. They will be of age soon enough, that perk can wait.

captainbryce wrote:

Yes, it IS the truth but unfortunately you're still missing the point. The fact that you disagree isn't what makes you narrow-minded (as I explained to forgiveness man) and frankly I'm not really sure how to explain it any clearer than that. If you keep comming away with ^^this^^ then there must be some kind of disconnect there because I already said that this isn't the case.

Admittedly, I didn't read all of the post. You tend to talk a lot and it looks so convoluted so I skimmed through it. My bad. IYSS.

Quote :

I'm not confused about that at all. Of course they are different mentally. My question to you is "what does that have to do with NUDITY, or NUDISM/NATURISM?"

Uhhh, everything.

Quote :

and "how does this fact have any impact on what's already been said about how making nudity taboo can have a negative effect on their self esteem?"

Making nudity a taboo is hardly what has a negative effect on children's self-esteem. And quite frankly, I'm positive it's not one of the many reasons that does. Since you don't have a problem with children and nudity with adults, it seems to me like you're *trying* to project that fact like it's the sole reason children have self-esteem issues. All because mommy and daddy didn't let them join a nudist camp. Society doesn't make it a taboo in the traditional sense. I have plenty naked baby pictures. I've seen plenty of parents and grandparents coo and show off embarrassing naked pictures of their kids when they were babies. When they get old enough to understand their genitalia and their body parts, that's when parents decide that it's not cute anymore and they need to be responsible for their bodies. There is nothing wrong with not being comfortable with having your goods on display. And there are absolutely NO qualms with parents not wanting to subject their children to that. I don't think children should be naked with adults because they are impressionable and BECAUSE they are children, I don't feel they are mentally capable of handling it. I also don't think children should be naked around adults they DON'T KNOW for the sake of being naked.

Quote :

"Exposing" them to wearing clothes isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not exposing them to NUDITY is harmful at all, and you've yet to demonstrate that.

I don't need to demonstrate anything because I didn't say it did. You're ASSuming again. You could've at least asked why I thought it was inappropriate instead of running off at the fucking mouth and going on your little tirade like you have this tremendous penchant of doing. All I said it was inappropriate. Yes, I didn't give a reason as to why I said it. I don't have to.

Quote :

So if this answer is what you took away from the argument then you obviously aren't following where we are comming from. I think YOU might be on a "different page" than everyone else here except perhaps Forgiveness Man. You may want to re-evaluate what's actually been SAID and the arguments that are actually being made here and apply some critical thinking because "boners" and "being on the rag" really have NOTHING to do with this conversation.

Hmmm. Well, this is an old ass topic that some newbie decided to bring back up. Since it's not and was not that important to me, I don't remember what was said in the thread verbatim. And I don't need to remember and I don't need to re-evaluate anything because WHAT I RESPONDED TO was this statement from FM, in which I agreed with.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^IMO, it's much more narrowminded to call somebody narrowminded merely for disagreeing with you. Surprised this topic is back up.

It's hardly narrow-minded to feel kids should not be going to a nudist beach. But we all thing we got monopolies on open-mindedness, don't we?

Whatever banter you two or three or four seemed to have in that thread, I barely read. Whether FM himself ahered the statement that he made above or not, I don't care. This is the only statement I was concerned with and I that I co-signed.

Quote :

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here because your sentence construction really doesn't make any sense (but I'll do my best to intepret it).

LOL, and you wanna call me condescending? Taking shots at people is supposedly my job, lol. Perhaps you ought to focus strictly on the topic at hand. You damn sure didn't get anywhere with this one. My sentence construction is just fine. Let's see here:

Well, you can do that in your house.
Above sentence has a predicate and a noun. Above sentence has an interjection, above sentence has a comma, which joined said predicate and noun. Above sentence has a transitive verb. Above sentence used the correct pronoun "your" instead of "you're" I believe that makes it a complete sentence.

Your theory isn't absolute because I (and millions of other people) wasn't raised in a nudist household and I have no 'awkwardness' about being naked.
Above sentence has a subject. Above sentence had a transitive verb. Above sentence has a predicate. I added a statement inside the parentheses because I interrupted said sentence with a declaration. I also put the word awkwardness quotation marks to convey irony. Above sentence was not a run-on.

If people are awkward about being naked, most of the time.....it's not because some conservative, stick in mud, narrow minded person like you prob. assume and try to portray made it taboo for them.
Above sentence used commas to separate the lists in the sentence. Above sentence has an object, a verb and noun. Prob. was shortened for probably. It's just how I type. It's not that serious.


It's because they don't like their bodies for their own personal reasons.
Above sentence has a subject. Above sentence has a predicate. Above sentence has a transitive verb. Above sentence has the words "for their own personal reasons" italicized to place emphasis. It is a complete sentence.


I'm so sick of people on here grandstanding with this pseudo-intellectual babble simply because someone doesn't agree with what you do......esp with topics that goes against the grain of society.
Are you upset that I didn't use a comma?

"I'm so sick of people on here grandstanding with this pseudo-intellectual babble simple because someone doesn't agree with what you do, esp (short for especially by the way) with topics that goes against the grain of society.

Better?

Above sentence was not run-on. Above sentence had a verb. Above sentence had an object. Above sentence had an idea. I decided to use "....." instead of a ",". Again, it's just how I type.

I simply have a difference in opinion.
Above sentence has a subject. "I". Above sentence has an adverb "simply" that describe a noun "difference". Above sentence has a noun "opinion". I should've substituted "in" for "of" but in my haste of replying, I neglected to do so. Typo.

It's not appropiate.
Above sentence has an adjective. Above sentence has a subject. Above sentence has an adverb. I misspelled appropriate but it was a typo and I didn't bother going back to fix it.

I'm not banning nudists camps/colonies or whatever the hell they and I'm saying you're wrong for doing it are but my children will not be participants.
I should have injected the word "not" between the words "I'm" and "saying" and "are" in between the words "they" and "and" but again, it was a typo that I didn't bother to go back and fix.

I, like many others and yourself, make typos and have a few typos in the above paragraph....but the sentences were not improperly structured like you claim. Got some other innocuous bullshit to harp on?

Quote :

The fact that you see relatively simple arguments as "psudo-intellectual babble" in my opinion means that you aren't really capable of defending your argument on the same intellectual level as I am.

For the most part. An opinion isn't a fact. And for the record, I'm fully capable of defending my argument with someone I had to give a third grade English lesson to.

Quote :

With that in mind, I'm going to rest my case there because there is really no point in continuing an argument that involves two people who aren't on the same level.

My sentiments exactly.

Quote :

I'll simply state this in the simplest terms I can think of:

1) Nobody has accused anybody of being narrow-minded because you have a "difference of opinion". They did it because you displayed a NARROW-MINDED point of view (one that isn't capable of thinking outside your little box).

By saying it's inappropriate? LOL!

Quote :

TWO DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS! Also, nobody has asked your children to be participants in nudism and nobody said anything about "boners" because those things really have no place in the discussion. When you inject things into the conversation that never existed before, it's an indication that you really aren't following what's going on.

I injected "boners" into the conversation because that's one of the reasons why I don't feel it's appropriate for children and adults to be naked together. You asked for a reason, there it is. Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt (damn, I'm 0-2 with this already) but hey, you didn't even ask. I believe that since it's entirely possible for a grown man to have a hard on (that's an erection in lay terms by the way) at any given moment, my young, impressionable child, male or female, doesn't need to be a witness to that. I injected "rags" because if being nude 24/7 is what a "nudist" typical does, then a woman who is menstruating must be dripping red all day long in the name of being a 'purist'. That was my own little tongue in cheek moment and sly attempt at humor.

Quote :

2) Your "opinion" is that nudism where children are concerned isn't appropriate. Fair enough! But you have failed to explain WHY that is your opinion, or offer any kind of rational, logical explaination for this opinion other than saying that children aren't on the same mental level as adults. As obvious as that fact is, it is also meaningless and pointless to bring up unless you can explain what one thing has to do with the other.

Who told you an opinion required an explanation?

Quote :

3) You are the first person to cuss somebody here

Cuss? You remind of me of Granny. Bless her heart, lol. How many times I gotta tell you people? I like cursing. It's apart of my everyday vernacular. Adds charm and quite a bit of emphasis and effect. Which will grab your attention the most? "I'm going to knock you out" or "I'm going to knock you the FUCK out"?

Quote :

and you are the first person to respond with a condescending attitude.

Not always. You do a good job of it yourself. Since you think you know every fucking thing.

Quote :

I'm normally a "nice guy" but if you're going to act asinine in what otherwise could be a civil discussion then I'm going to in turn respond to you like a dick!

LOL, I don't give a shit how you respond dear. Be a dick. You know I can do the same.

Quote :

And since you're obviously not on my intellectual level (at least as far as THIS conversation goes),

I sure am not. Ms. Wnrowski was quite competent in her approach at teaching me the structure of a sentence. Sorry I can't say the same for your third grade teacher.

Quote :

then you're going to get embarrassed! And since it's completely your fault, I feel no remorse whatsoever about making you look like an idiot!

LMAO! You are fucking hilarious. You will never feel remorse because you will never make me look like an "idiot". You can TRY though dear.

^^^^I agree for the most part. lol At least in theory. I'm willing to hear all sides but I still don't think it's a good idea.

RiteDiva wrote:

My position stands. All the cat fighting and allegations of puritanical rigidness in no way impress me. Nude beaches should be restricted to persons 18+. Children are not legally permitted to view skin magazines or participate in art drawing classes with nude models, so why in the name of Muhammad should they be allowed to go to a nude beach and frolic in the sand with adults who have no clothes on? No. Just no. It isn't at all necessary. They will be of age soon enough, that perk can wait.

So you're answer is in fact "because children aren't legally allowed to do ONE thing, this automatically necessitates that they shouldn't be legally allowed to do something else?" Forget the reasons behind it or any rational arguments, we should basically make decisions soley based on what the law has already determined and not vice versa? Sorry, but that makes no since whatsoever! Laws exist for reasons that are usually justified (or the law is changed). Sex magazines that feature nudity are considered PORNOGRAPHY and that's why they can't be sold to children. "Nudity" isn't always considered pornography. There is sometimes nudity in G rated movies!

^^^^^I think in the past, that may have been true. I'd be curious to see an example of a G-rated movie in the modern market that is rated G. (Most movies aren't even rated that anymore. lol) It's ironic but we seem to have gotten less tolerant of nudity that isn't sexual than we used to.