|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Am I wrong in taking the position that looking at naked children, be it either in real life or in photographs is wrong?
I am getting tired of being villified for sticking to my moral compass.
Would it be better if I just jump on the bandwagon with all the people that exhult in the things I feel are repulsive?
Please tell me what I should do as my moral stand so often is wrong.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
No, your 'morale' stance is ok it is a bit rigid. I don't go looking for naked pictures of kids, and I would hope most of the people in here agree. I remember when we took some of my kids (3-4 yrs old) running away from a bath or the swimming pool we thought it was 'cute'. I fail to see what the big deal is?
[Updated on: Fri, 11 July 2008 20:00] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Marc and Benji,
I just don't see what is wrong with naked children. We come into the world naked. While we are very young we can be seen naked (I mean my friends didn't think they should be all private last week when they stayed here and needed to change their daughter's nappy). They just did it and we watched and handed over the wipes and so on as needed.
When I was little my brother was embarrassed (I guess it was ten years later) by a photo taken when I was four and he was two. He was naked and I was wearing a knitted slip (as for swimming). It is quite ludicrous to worry about the difference.
But I have never been bothered about being naked in front of other people.
Have you?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Kids run neked in the privacy of their own home. It's a given. But to photograph them is to me abuse of the highest degree.
To photograph them on a public nude beach is beyond reproach to me.
In the European theater it is normal to swim on nude beaches... I have done it myself... and I will do it again... But i will leave the cameras in the car when I do it.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with naked people period! Taking a couple of pictures of your children who are around say 3-4 years of age in the buff does not have me concerned. It can be used to effectively blackmail them when they are teenagers later on. Seriously, I think I may have taken one or two pics of my kids when they decided to run around without their bathing suits or clothes, At a family picnic/get together no less. Changing a baby's diaper is no biggie either, although somtimes quite messy. Call me prudish, but anything beyond these 'baby' pics would make me uncomfortable. Maybe if I was brought up in 'enlightened' Europe I would take a different view, but I was raised differently.
But I have never been bothered about being naked in front of other people.
Have you?
It would highly depend on who I was naked in front of!
Although I think Marc is a bit extreme, I think he has good intentions at heart. There are evil people out there, but not everyone is evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
There is a distinction between "happenstance nudity" where there is no sexual interest and the child just is naked, and sexualising the child - a thing which one can do with a fully clothed child as easily as a naked one.
I think your stand is fine in the second case, and over the top in the first.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> Am I wrong in taking the position that looking at naked children, be it either in real life or in photographs is wrong?
A bit of a complicated one, I think. As far as I'm concerned, it would generally be wrong to take or look at pictures of naked children (where the emphasis is specifically on "naked"), but morally perfectly OK (although perhaps in the increasingly-puritan UK rather inadvisable) to take or look at kids who happen not to be wearing clothes - ie naked - where the emphasis is on them being kids, or what they are doing. Or - as in a number of pictures in the anthropology textbooks I still have from when I did my degree 25 years ago - where naked kids are part of a group activity scene (curious how in those 60s and 70s pictures, so many of the women are not naked, whereas men and kids are - how our sensibilities have changed!).
In rare cases, there are photos where being naked is part of the point of a photo, but it is a portrait rather than in any way erotic - Mapplethorpe took a number of these, which are certainly art not erotica, but rarely shown nowadays due to current sensibilities, even though they are not "full-frontals".
However, Marc, if your objection to pictures of naked kids is based on the premise that it must either degrade the child or arouse the viewer, I think you're very much mistakened. Perhaps there are other reasons for you to consider it wrong that you could expand on?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Benji,
I don't think I am at all bothered. Tonight we have old friends staying with us. Tomorrow morning I will probably take them each a cup of tea in bed and I'll probably do it completely naked. I sleep naked and so when I get up to make morning tea I'll only put clothes on if I get cold and it is quite warm in England in July.
Our shower is in a room at the end of the kitchen, downstairs, and when I take a shower I'll walk to it naked and back and I scarcely consider wearing a dressing gown. (But I have worn one when our guest is likely to be sensitive or offended and I do as my wife says in that case.)
But this family is very open. There is a lavatory opening out of the conservatory, where we eat and neither of my daughters nor their partners nor I nor my wife will bother to close the door when we go for a pee. All the grandchildren close the door! (Ages are 12, 11, 9, and 9!).
I think English society is getting more prudish.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not wrong at all, though you may want to lighten up a bit on the mother who takes pics of her 2 year old.
now if that same woman takes those pics and post them on certain web sites, THEN she could be considered a criminal...or maybe just REALLY stupid.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Here, there is no "happenstance nudity"... At least outside the gated walls of nudest colonies.... with which I have no practicle experience...
As for sexualizing an instance... It seems to me that running to get the camera out of the car to photograph a youth is what is over the top.
I've been to nude beaches in the past and I don't remember cameras being accepted as appropriate on them....
At the very best, i think it would be extreemily bad form....
Oh, and we have a whole lot of clothed kids over here.... to me they are just kids.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
No Marc, your position is not wrong. It is your personal opinion and you have a right to it. And no, you would not be better off just jumping on the bandwagon of others with whom you do not agree; that would be betraying yourself.
I suggest that if you feel vilified, that it is not because of your positions but because of how you present them. You continue on and on as if you must have the last word. Present you feelings, beliefs, opinions or position and leave it at that. There are those who will disagree with you but it is not necessary for you to try to convince them otherwise. I believe that the feelings of vilification will lessen or even disappear if you do this as I believe it is the ongoing back and forth exchanges that result in those feelings.
Accept that some people disagree with you, they have as much right to their beliefs as you have to your own. It is not necessary that one is right and the other is wrong; both can be right, and sometimes both wrong.
In regards to nude pictures of babies and children, parents have been taking such pictures as long as there have been affordable cameras. To consider this "abuse to the highest degree" is, as Benji said, a bit extreme. He is also right when he says, "There are evil people out there, but not everyone is evil." Also consider nudists, they take pictures of each other, both young and old, frequently. To them, such pictures are just like you taking pictures of your friends at a vacation site. Is it taking the picture that is wrong, or publicizing that picture?
I hope this helps you with our dilemma.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I am really not sure where the camera came from. I have not been discussing photography. not at all.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Just look at the origonal post.... it reads
Am I wrong in taking the position that looking at naked children, be it either in real life or in photographs is wrong?
I am getting tired of being villified for sticking to my moral compass.
Would it be better if I just jump on the bandwagon with all the people that exhult in the things I feel are repulsive?
Please tell me what I should do as my moral stand so often is wrong.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I don't think your stance is wrong, Marc.
But I don't think mine is either.
Your stance is founded on emotion, mine is founded on rationality.
I try and evaluate things from a utilitarian perspective. And I seldom think a voluntary action can be harmful (hurtful, yes).
I also don't think thoughts are capable of harm unless they stop being thoughts.
So as long as the children aren't hurt by being forced into being naked, or having their pictures taken then I find it hard to say that someone enjoying them naked is wrong.
Covertly taking photos or spying is another matter. That doesn't sit well with me.
I can understand your stance, though. I hope you can understand mine, even if we don't agree.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
My stand on this matter is based on law...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
"Here, there is no 'happenstance nudity'". Marc, if you feel vilified it is because of absurd statements like that. Of course there is happenstance nudity here; it likely takes place multiple times a day, everyday. Once again you have pushed your point beyond reason.
You also say, "Oh, and we have a whole lot of clothed kids over here....to me they are just kids." What is the point of such a statement if not to antagonize the reader? Kids wearing clothing is the norm throughout most of the world, certainly all of the developed countries. Come on Marc, such a statement only invites people to challenge you.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
What is "happenstance" nidity?
Nudity in the home? No......
The home is the place to disrobe, change, shower, in effect, to be at home.
I have never seen a naked kid at the mall, or on the street, or at the supermarket.
Just where does this happenstance nudity occur?
If it does, then I guess thats the reason for the laws to protect children...
If it doesnt, then it must be the clothing that as you say, must invite people to challenge me...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
Taking your argument that something is wrong because it is against the law to its logical conclusion, you'd presumably be perfectly fine with people photographing kids in the nude* in another (hypothetical) country where it's not?
If that's not the case, why not? Is there something special about United States law as it currently stands which makes it unquestionable?
If the law really should be unquestionable, then it might be a good idea to let all those people in Congress and the Senate know, so they can pack their bags and go home...
David
*by which I mean family photographs, babies in the bath, that sort of thing: NOT kiddie porn, in case you need clarification
[Updated on: Sun, 13 July 2008 00:56] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Taking your argument that something is wrong because it is against the law to its logical conclusion, you'd presumably be perfectly fine with people photographing kids in the nude* in another (hypothetical) country where it's not?
>
> If that's not the case, why not? Is there something special about United States law as it currently stands which makes it unquestionable?
>
> If the law really should be unquestionable, then it might be a good idea to let all those people in Congress and the Senate know, so they can pack their bags and go home...
The law should always... i repeat, ALWAYS be questioned.... but to break the law is not to change the law...
There are processes to change a law... as you should be aware.... but the process has to be followed in order for change to occur.
As I am MOT a politician... and therefore have no inclination to change law... I follow it... If the law of the land is different in other places... well, thats THEIR choice and i feel no obligation to live HERE occording to THEIR law...
Once upon a time, baby bath pics were the thing to do here.... No however, they are not...
Personally, I see no value in a picture of a naked infant other than to present it to the youth later in life with the intent to embarass him/her... It might be considered funny in some circles... I guess I am not a part of that circle... My choice...
>
> David
>
> *by which I mean family photographs, babies in the bath, that sort of thing: NOT kiddie porn, in case you need clarification
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Happenstance: chance occurrence; accidental happening.
A toddler is having its diaper changed and escapes the person doing the changing, gleefully running around enjoying its freedom from clothes. This could, and does, happen indoors and outside, at home, at the park, even at church. It is happenstance nudity.
Two or more children are at a river or lake and decide to swim. They can't get their clothes wet and don't have swim suites so they decide to skinny dip. An unplanned, chance occurrence, happenstance.
A teen sleeps nude and is woken by fire in his home. His only escape is to jump through the open window and he does so without thinking of his nudity. Accidental nudity, happenstance.
I could go on and on. To suggest that chance occurrences of nudity or accidental nudity of young or old does not occur in the US is incorrect. And as far as the law is concerned, no one has done anything wrong, no laws have been broken.
No one disagrees with you, Marc, that exploiting child nudity is wrong. But sometimes child nudity takes place in public, is witnessed by adults and nothing wrong has taken place. Even if an adult admires the body of a nude child it is not necessarily wrong; the human body is a beautiful thing.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
In regards to the law, you will find that taking a picture of a nude minor is not against the law. Publishing that picture is likely against the law and possession of the picture may be against the law.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your stand on the matter is based on the law, and it's okay to question the law, then why do you object to debate on this subject? No-one here has advocated breaking the law -- even assuming it is against the law in America to photograph one's child in the bath. It isn't in the UK, despite the attempts of more than a few hysterics to make it so.
While I don't have children of my own (yet), I get the impression from family members that do that bathtime can be enjoyable time for parents as well as their children -- 'quality time', to use a hackneyed phrase. I have no objection to any photographs taken when I was an infant being bathed, even if they are potentially embarrassing to me, because that was not their purpose. People take photographs to record significant events in their daily life -- why should they be denied the right to record the time they have spent with their children?
Personally, I find it shocking that you could think that such photographs could be taken for such base reasons as to humiliate or to be 'funny'. If it were for those reasons that people photograph their children, then I would probably agree with you. But it's not. With the greatest of respect, I wonder if you let your own lack of a paternal instinct influence your perception of the motives of others?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You could go on and on....
And each instance would be more rediculous then the previous....
There are changing tables in "family facilities" for the intent of changing babies... unisex resr rooms i believe they are called....
One could as easily decide not to swim in a public area not designated for nude bathing....
And someone mentioned nude beaches in the USA... they must be privately owned and operated because I know for a fact that there are no designated nude beaches on publick grounds anywhere in the USA...
As for the fire... a bit of a stretch of the imagination... or wishful thinking?
I agree the human body is beautiful.... But there is a time and a place for everything....
And the point of contention is when an adult sees the need to pull out the camera if a child does happen to "get away"....
To me this is wrong...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yes david, you must me right...
I have no paternal instinct... I care nothing about children.
So get your camera and have at it....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Let the police know you or anyone are taking nude pics of teens and see how long you will be on the streets....
I don't think it would be very long.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
LOL. "And each instance would be more rediculous than the previous". Yep, that's life for you, just ridiculous. LOL
"I know for a fact that there are no designated nude beaches on public grounds anywhere in the USA". Sure you do.
"As for the fire... a bit of a stretch of the imagination... or wishful thinking?" Of course, I love seeing people's homes burn.
Thanks for ending my night with a good laugh, Marc.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven‘t read all the post in this tread so I hope I’m not reproducing something that’s already been said, but I can tell you for sure that happenstance nudity of children happen every day all over the world on the streets and in public in third world countries.
Nudity is all a mater of what you do with it, but I think I may have seen this alluded to in the other thread. This puritanical attitude is western and Abrahamic in origin. I don’t see anywhere in the social history of mankind in general where this has become an issue that would take on these proportions.
I have always felt that it is the hiding of things i.e. the human body, sexuality ect. that generates the bad not the other way around.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my living room I have a collage of photos one of which is of me being bathed (past participle of the verb to bath, not to bathe) in my grandparents' kitchen sink at a very tender but recognisable age. It is there for any visitor or guest to inspect. I even forget it is there. They are more likely to comment on the picture included in the collage of the women from 'Last of the Summer Wine' (longest running UK TV comedy series).
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most museums I've been in seem to have had lots of marble statues (or casts of them) of naked men, usually rather young and quite good looking and in many picture galleries there are pictures of very human looking gods and goddesses with cherubs and putti (naked babies).
I think it was only when the victorians started to get embarrassed enough to put frills on table legs (because naked legs were indecent) that such statues and pictures temporarily ceased to be acceptable.
I'm very glad that they are acceptable again and that there is so much nudity on the web. I don't think I'm a pervert but I do find people wearing no clothes more beautiful to look at than clothed people and I do think that very scanty clothing is more pornographic than unforced naturally accepted nudity.
And I do like the pictures of crowds of naked people taken by that photographer (name escapes me for a moment) and the pictures of the world naked bike ride and bay to breakers and lots of other things.
I'm surprised Marc thinks there are no official nude beaches in the USA. From the pictures on the web of Black's beach and lots of others from New England to Florida I had the contrary impression - that there were more in the USA than here. And I also had the impression from the stories I read that it wasn't too uncommon for teenagers to get a thrill from illicit skinny-dipping.
Some people just like taking their clothes of. I always did. What's wrong with it?
Love,
Anthony
[Updated on: Sun, 13 July 2008 10:02] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
It would be nice if you respond to a post of mine that you read all the words... not just the ones that are convienent to your cause.....
Reread my post and you will see that I said "there are no nude beaches on public land.... if there are any they are privatly owned.....
I was given this information by an official of the national parks service.
regarding taking clothing off... This is about pictures of children.... not adult decisions to go in the buff...
Err.... as for the stories.... ever hear of the word "fiction"
[Updated on: Sun, 13 July 2008 11:58]
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
>Err.... as for the stories.... ever hear of the word "fiction"
When I was a teenager (aged perhaps 14+) I found it rather exciting to swim in the nude when no-one else was likely to see me. I don't think I was ever caught, but that doesn't make the phenomenon false.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Did he or did he not refer to stories?
Read all the words David...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the bloody words, Marc!
Anthony said that he had come across stories in which teenagers got a thrill from skinny-dipping; you suggested they were just fiction; I don't deny that the ones that Anthony heard about may have been fiction, but that doesn't make the phenomenon (that teenagers may get a thrill out of illicit skinny-dipping) false. I can demonstrate that at least one teenager has by giving myself as an example.
I don't think it is I who is not reading all the words.
David
[Updated on: Sun, 13 July 2008 13:31] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
And the story is where......
See David.... I do read the bloddy words....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever gave you that info was wrong. There are three nude beaches in Tampa alone and several in Calif. They are public beaches and not privately owned. So he lied to you.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Where?
I see listings of sanctioned beaches but nothing is mentioned of any being on public land.
[Updated on: Sun, 13 July 2008 14:36]
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>And the story is where.....
This is a non-sequitur. I didn't draw attention to any particular story, nor did I say I would. Anthony was the one who made the post referring to stories. I don't know which ones he was referring to specifically; if he wishes to respond, then he's the only one who can clear that up.
My responses were tangential. My point is that just because fictional stories indicate that teenagers enjoy skinny-dipping, that does not mean it's not true. If you weren't trying to cast doubt on the phenomenon as a whole, why would you draw attention to the fact that the stories may be fiction?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I suspect that the official of the National Parks Service was referring to public land owned by the NPS and either he misspoke or Marc misunderstood him. Roger is correct regarding nude public beaches in California and I have relatives who have spoken of those near Tampa.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Do you deny that they mayent be fitional?
And, my position has nothing to do with people grown enough to make informed decisions about their behavior....
My position is based on the fact that children photographed in the buff have no say so about it.. in fact they are too young to make an informed decision.
Adults going to nude beaches have nothing to do with that unless they haul around a CAMERA...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There is a difference between a beach located on public land and one operated and open to the public.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
