It was my edit. I take responsibility and stand by it.

We are members of a community that is constantly fighting the ignorant perceptions of others -- many of whom would rather wipe us from the face of the earth than take a moment to make an thoughtful distinction between those who desire to live honorably and rightly with attractions they did not choose, and criminals who destroy young lives for their own gratification.

Blackstone, you have taken great pains in the past to hold many on this board (me included) to a high standard of accuracy in our statements. And maybe, based purely on the all-knowing Wikipedia definition, you are technically "correct". [Though I disagree with their inclusion of social nudity in the definition, which I believe is a result of a failure to understand that nudity does not have to have anything to do with sexuality.] So, though you may be "correct" based on their definition alone, I believe you're falling into the same trap that those who label us as monsters do: you're painting naturism with the same broad brush strokes used to paint "representations of sexual intercourse or masturbation". The fact is, a few naked boys playing in the surf on a beach and a group of sweaty people fake-humping are in NO WAY even vaguely similar, and to group them together so casually is disingenuous on your part.

I don't believe this is the place to be discussing the lives (or deaths) of soft core child porn stars.

There you go again! Knowing that those terms offended me so much first time around, it would have been nice had you chosen to tone it down a bit (if only as an act of grace to a Christian brother). But I guess not.

Rainboy