What are your thoughts on these websites?

[ZVOTD]

So there are websites out there that pose as and claim to be sites "promoting and celebrating nudism," but they clearly just use that as an excuse to be able to (sort-of) legally be able to make money off of photos and videos of naked children. If you look at the photos on those sites, nearly all of the photos feature children and teens in some way, mostly girls, performing activities in a non-sexual matter. They also usually have some sort of paywall, which is most the obvious give away that it isn't just about promoting nudism. If they only cared about celebrating nudists than they probably wouldn't make you have to pay to look at their pictures.
However, from what I have seen there seems to be no overt foul play going on in the taking of these photos. These photos seem to be of actual nudist children, or at least children performing in nudist activities, and they all seem willing to be doing these activities and have pictures taken of them. These are not voyeur websites as far as I have seen. I have no idea how these sites get the photos and get the family's permission to have their children filmed and shared on these websites, but there seems to be no abuse involved.
However, that does not mean that these websites are free from criticism. You could definitely make the argument that it is wrong to make money selling photos as a sexual thing when they originally were not sexual at all. Also, there is a strong possibility that these websites are deceiving these families, who are usually from poorer Eastern European nations, into giving them their photos.
I know this isn't entirely related to MAPs, but considering that quite a few MAPs likely visit these websites, I was wondering what your thoughts on these websites are. Are they deceptive unethical websites that should be avoided, or are they a nice innocent way to see pictures of nude children without worrying about criminal charges? I would link some of the websites but I don't know if that would go against the policy of this forum.

[Jim Burton]

I would imagine the models are paid a small amount, and are happy for their pics to be shared because they are not westerners.

[BLueRibbon]

I'll let others debate the ethics, but please note that these sites are legally questionable and links should not be posted here.

[PorcelainLark]

I'm in two minds. On the one hand nudists are explicitly opposed to voyeurism or sexualizing nudity (for example, see the essay below). On the other hand, I don't think nudity should be labelled pornographic. Like, some people are turned on by feet, so should we ban images of feet? The counter points are obviously a larger number of people find nudity to be sexual compared to feet, and in practice people will collect images even if they're not intended to be sexualized.
I think most of this is incompatible with the central argument that nudism is trying to make: that nudity isn't inherently sexual so we should be more tolerant. Sadly, I think the battle may have been lost because of smartphones and the internet. If nudism had become the generally accepted through out society prior to everyone having a camera in their pocket, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
At the end of the day the central issue will always be the fear of children being sexualized. Until people are able to confront and overcome their fears, a MAP is still going against the will of the majority even if they restrict their use of masturbatory material to non-sexual images of nude children.

https://www.bn.org.uk/news/information/ ... sport-r70/

[Lewis]

I think that using it for monetary porpoises is bad
selling the pictures don't make it be like porn?