very very cute
ein unbeschwert nacktes mädel, sie ist wirklich süß und zeigt sich gern, man schaut gern hin
You go girl!
If here would have been some kind of voting, then my 10 points go to this amazing series and to little gymnastics girl, who is not only pretty, but also shows her great attitude to nudity! All best wishes to her!!
[reply=4717]antonpold[/reply] ur so lame
@ bob11: Why lame? I can explain: I try to find websites and pictures about Nudism Life, Nude Public and Winter Nudism. Some of them are very good, some simply trash. And now point: little gymnastics girl is representing Nudism Life in best possible way. These pictures are many-many times better than ordinary beach photos.
[reply=4736]antonpold[/reply] what sites have you found sorry i didn't know this ????
[reply=5220]bob11[/reply] I meant that photos have to be REAL NUDISM. I have found sites about Nude Flashing, which is not PUBLIC NUDITY, I have found some winter pictures, which are not REAL WINTER NUDITY. And also some Nudism Life pictures are boring. But not gymnastics, because this is something interesting.
[reply=5226]antonpold[/reply] hey do you want nude photos of me they are REAL NUDISM im a 15 year old boy btw its just pics of me running, doing homework, playing soccer, riding my bike, and playing video games
[reply=5245]bob11[/reply] i was just joking dont get too excited
[reply=5245]bob11[/reply] As you know, I am only interested of girls photos. And REAL WINTER NUDISM example is here: http://xhamster.com/photos/gallery/932270/nude_in_snow.html.
[reply=5248]antonpold[/reply] iam straight BUT i like all nudism photos i think you may be a pedophile
There are many, many pictures like these of Hannah and Ariel (their real names, though they're often called Kasey and October); this set is just a handful of them. All are very candid, natural, and beautiful shots.
[reply=5892]Corvax[/reply] these were illegal idiot this is the only site with these pictures anymore
@bob11: They were deemed illegal in the United States, and only a few of them at that. America, land of the prudes and home of the repressed, doesn't quite control the Internet just yet. Take care. :)
[reply=5924]Corvax[/reply] where r the other pics then lol weird usa might be right though
@bob11: If you believe that little girls strictly should be kept imprisoned in a cage of fabric at all times until their 18th birthday, after which they may undress only to sexually excite men, then yes, the USA is right. If like the rest of the civilized world, however, you believe that the nude human body is simply beautiful, and not in and of itself inherently sexual, then the American paranoia surrounding pictures of children who happen not to have any clothes on, starts to look a wee bit Orwellian. In other words, look at the picture above: If you see the wanton sexual exploitation of a happy, naked little girl smiling as she waves to the camera, you probably think the USA is right. If you can chill out enough to just see the happy, naked little girl, though, you might begin questioning American prudishness. :)
These pictures (and the entire, much larger set from which they originate) are readily available online via torrent. Back in those days (the pictures were taken in the mid to late part of the last decade, IIRC), Hannah and Ariel went by the names Kasey and October. A few minutes with Google ought to point you in the right direction. Take care.
[reply=5934]Corvax[/reply] this is disgusting child porn smh u shuld be ashamed http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1584950.html
@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. :)
[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.
@ 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
"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
@ muppet show
he shuldnt have done it at all
@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. :)
@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.
i read the article and the girls were sexually harrassed or touched by the dad and some sexual pics were taken he wasnt a nudist he was a some insstructor stop defending this pedo
@antonpold: Very true, though as you alluded to, the argument you make is a legal one. And it is only legally damning in this case if the pictures themselves are harmful in some way, which I continue to contend they are not. Otherwise they merely constitute Dale sharing his nudist lifestyle with his daughters, which I would argue is not only non-harmful, but even healthy. So "forcing" them to occasionally engage in nudism (which was done through no more coercive means than suggesting it) would be similar to "forcing" them to eat their vegetables at dinner. And most parents truly would force that particular issue, or at least ENforce it (ie, "Eat your vegetables or you're grounded.")
@bob11: I'm afraid your information is short on facts, and long on slander. First, there were NO sexual pictures taken of Hannah and Ariel. Not one. The only people who believe such images exist of the girls are yourself and the American authorities, and as I said, the Americans are merely citing a handful of shots no more explicit than the one above and calling them pornographic. I'm not exaggerating. The vast majority of the pictures Dale took were made in the gym we see in the series on this site, showing the girls performing gymnastics, while a relative few were done at home and showed them doing other things in the nude, such as sleeping, showering and picking out clothes from the closet. There is even one that shows them on a nude beach. In none of these pictures are either of the girls ever seen doing anything sexual. So I must ask you again to evaluate the above picture of Ariel. Do you see any sexual activity occurring in that image? Because if you don't, then you wouldn't be offended by any of the others Dale took. They are all in the same vein.
Secondly, addressing your contention that "the girls were sexually harassed or touched by the dad", again I fear you are exaggerating. While it is true that one of the girls stated well into the criminal trial that Dale molested her, this claim came after months of vigorously, fervently denying such allegations. In other words, the moment Dale was put on trial, his prosecutors began contacting the girls every day, demanding to know whether their father had ever touched them inappropriately, and refusing to take their consistent "absolutely not" for an answer. You try doing that to a little girl for months on end, and see how long it takes before she starts "remembering" what the adult wants her to remember. But in any event, that point is moot. While I don't believe Dale molested either of his daughters, if he did then I make no defense of those actions. It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the pictures he took of the girls, which is what we're discussing here. Those pictures are not sexual, they are not pornographic. They are merely nude. So either Dale never molested either of them and didn't feel the desire to take sexual pictures of them, or he did molest one or both yet wasn't stupid enough to take sexual pictures of them. Either way, the pictures we have in question are perfectly innocent. Take care. :)
do u have the link to the other pictures ill see for myself
I promise that this will be my last comment on gymnastic girl series. Bob11 is right, that father did some ugly things and has to be condemned. But... NEVERTHELESS these pictures are beautiful. Dont set any age limit for non-pornographic pictures!
exactly the father did sexually abuse them and do you realy think the girls wanted their pictures on their internet ? i dont think the mum did either i think both u and corvax are not parents and dont have any family tbh.........
@antonpold: There is no evidence that their father ever molested them, aside from a single statement from one of the girls that came only after months of swearing the exact opposite. Even the American justice system requires that a criminal suspect must be found innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and indeed, Dale was never tried for touching his daughters inappropriately on such flimsy evidence. He was convicted and sentenced for the "crime" of taking nude pictures of Hannah and Ariel, which I continue to maintain is absurd. But even the Americans apparently couldn't make a molestation charge stick, nor did they even try.
@bob11: I feel that you are continuing to confuse the issue with irrelevant arguments. Whether antonpold or myself have children has nothing to do with the matter under discussion, which is whether the pictures taken of Hannah and Ariel are sexual or not. Nor, really, does the question of whether the girls would want those pictures posted online, though if it sets your mind at ease, the girls' own testimony (given from the beginning, not after months of denying it) stated that Dale told them the nude pictures would be given to certain members of their online modeling websites. Yes, Hannah and Ariel were child models at the time these pictures were taken. True, the images on their sites were clothed, not nude, but they were no strangers to having their likenesses published on the Internet for all to see. If you should care to look at their modeling photos (along with the rest of the nude images and the video), simply search Google for Kasey and October, the alises they went by as models. Their torrents are readily available. Take care. :)
very pretty nude girl
add mr email@example.com
She looks like a Little Goddess. I'm 15, and I wish I had boobs like her when I was her age. Mine were really tiny.
Das fällt erst da auf das sie schon bisschen Brust hat
Que hermosa chica!!!
Leider will Deutschland solche Bilder ganz verbieten.Nacktheit, auch bei Kindern, ist was ganz normales und hat nichts anstößiges.
Natalie, du hast Recht, das ist meine Meinung. Wenn man heute am FKK-Strand spielende Kinder sieht, man traut sich ja kaum noch hinzuschauen ohne angefeindet zu werden. Der alte FKK-Geist wie er in der DDR gelebt wurde, Jung und Alt ob Männlein oder Weiblein zusammen, den gibt es einfach nicht mehr. Man freute sich im Sommer immer auf den nächsten Sommer.
Very cute and beautiful smile :)
We live in a society where nudity, especially of youths is demonized, but violence is accepted. Looking at someone in a legal photograph shouldn't even be thought of as weird. When I went completely nude at Black's Beach, I never said to myself that someone merely looking at me has to be pervert. People can't help but look at other people, it's in our nature to do so. When will our society use intelligence, not mob mentality for it's decision making.
Why any one would think a photo of a beautiful girl is ugly is any one's guess!!!