There must be a mistake. The report on a pedophile charge (Pedophile Wants Out-of-town Lawyer, Court Told, The Daily News, Aug. 17) states that a person "has twice been convicted of possessing child pornography - pictures he clipped from nudist magazines."
Sorry, but nudist magazines aren't pornography. Their words and pictures are the exact opposite of pornography. They show the human body of any age, size, shape, or condition as a respected whole, not as fragments of obsessive parts, and not engaged in sexual activity.
Has a court made a serious error? People may be under the misimpression that all depicted child nudity is pornography. That harms children by sexualizing them and pushing adult fear and loathing onto them. It also may assume that photos of nudity cause crime, which 40 years of research have shown to be false.
Of course, not all magazines calling themselves "nudist" are that. Actual child pornography is no more "nudism" than pictures of murder are. We should use the term the way it has been used in many countries over the past 100 years at least: representing a healthy way of life for the whole family.
Dr. PAUL RAPOPORT
Co-Editor, Going Natural / Au naturel, 19972010
Federation of Canadian Naturists