Family Nudism Online
Family Nudism in Movies

FKK Kinder

before the turn in the east with it was gone around, sees I there completely clear gesellschftliche differences.

In the east a atheistische system of government prevailed, there never someone on the idea would as well known have come that the sight of naked bodies for children could be harmful. In the FRG against it the state until connected with the church today is closely. One already sees that at the presence of Christian people's parties: CDU and CSU. Thus nakedness falls under a like a Christian dyed moral conception with appropriate moral values.

All the I find again and again the use of nakedness in the advertisement more amazing e.g. for fast cars, perfume etc.! And one is not limited even to show the bodies naked it sexy to it FKK Kinder also still induces itself! This is nevertheless quite accepted. In addition, thus children are confronted daily with naked bodies in the media. Doesn't one have to protect it against it? What hypocritical double standards!!!
I see that exactly the same. It would have to however already begin in the parents' house. Because all the more natural in the own home with the nakedness is gone around, all the can children healthy hold back-eat more unabashedly to its own body to construct. From this it results again that also handling other naked bodies than somewhat completely normal and nothing dirty or harmful can being regarded.

Nevertheless it remains stating that one - the social/Christian moral concept - and other one - to which recover handling nakedness - not automatically Dark side of "nude children photos" request mutually auschließen itself must. Because also FKK Kinder I became in the east largely, even catholic educated and nevertheless in the summer outside with parents and other humans was naked played, gesonnt and bathed. Exactly the same millions other children and young people experienced it and no damage suffered…
The first senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided with resolution from 10 March 1958 (thus more than 50 years ago) that the legislator is not authorized to intervene in the parental education right if parents educate their own children to the FKK. That concerns thus first only the relationship of parents (educate-entitled) to its own children.
(1BvL 42/56, BVerfGE 7, 320 - education to the nudist sunbathing)

In a second step became of the first senate of children photos the Federal Constitutional Court with resolution of 23. March 1971 more generally decided, at that time a section still occurring in the protection of children and young people law, which regarded FKK literature than youth-endangering, unconstitutional and from there to paint is.
Perhaps a something polarize-mixes answer: An alleged threat for children to design is a beautiful homicide argument and who can analyzed then equal as a potenzieller child enemy - if not worse - is denunziert. Thus a completely normal, bad rhetorical trick, in order to make the others mouth dead, if one has no more arguments. That might apply at least to the more formed part of those, which come thereby. That could be pursued by the way marvelously in the debate to the Internet censorship.

For the others, which actually believe that: Tradiertes “knowledge”: Parents haben's already told, grandparents also and it fits the own shame why one should analyze that?
Judges balance between starting from which the plaintiff, who deplored, the public prosecutor to say has and which is located in the legal text.

If the plaintiff feels disturbed now by the sight of naked humans, then this “disgust and abhorrence” can feel:

“File references: 2 Ss 166/99 - 23 OWi AK 139/99 higher regional court Karlsruhe”

Only can we disprove that?
We can disprove, which children would have to be protected against the sight of naked humans.

Are there papers, appraisals, scientific publications about this, something? FKK Kinder Something which occupies, or disproves?
Only can we disprove that?
We can disprove, which children would have to be protected against the sight of naked humans.

If your question were not so obviously tendencious, it would be possibly correctly good.

Answer A: We cannot do it after OUR juridical system - your assumption, concerning this juridical system -.

Answer B: There is not any necessity for the refutation. Which answer gives it on your question, depends alone on which world view one has (the majority has).

Someone, which does not feel attention for a naked human body, feels also no attention for a dressed. It WOULD BE its explicit intention of exercising POWER over others.
Are there papers, appraisals, scientific publications about this, something? Something which occupies, or disproves?

IF there are it, then they were suppressed. Because their RESULT would be not desired in a society, which sets exclusively on competition and competition.

Who hates its own physicalness, also the physicalness of the FKK Kinder others hates. Who rejects its own photos of children physicalness, is CONTROLLABLE. A society, which sets PLACE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY on CONTROL, FKK Kinder WOULD LIKE this so.

And do not put forward please any woman name, if it actually concerns to you “the legal thing”.

I seem myself sometimes correctly strangely that I am just before naked ones to defend compelling the nakedness (or with YOU, Andreas, more such a thing of the theory… hobby considerations, is to a certain extent. … Haste you would not near-dare itself socially more important legal questions, FKK Kinder on you? … Sorry, it goes to me not around it, you out of hobby, meinerseits, slamming one before the nose. But think please nevertheless once, before you publicly formulate such questions).

In view of an executive collapsing in the reality and a likewise collapsing jurisdiction your question, the topic is actually already wrong. You must admit so much.

There is there a FKK Kinder simple civilization rule:

Young people have to respect older humans. No matter, how dressed or unbekleidet this are.
Older humans have to protect young people.

eXTReMe Tracker