Peter Frouman wrote:
I'm not sure if you realize what you are requesting.
"Glorfiy God In The Dance" was a Music with Meaning pornography video with sexually explicit performances by both adults and children.
Significant portions of it constitute child pornography that is illegal to possess or distribute (except under certain circumstances for a legitimate and lawful purpose). The remaining part is the text credits (the only part included in our archive) and sexually explicit performances by adults. Some of the latter are also evidence of criminal child abuse and neglect as they were performed in front of children.
Thank you for your reply.
As I said, I have only seen a very short excerpt in a documentary(Lost&Found,maybe?!). I was under the impression that it wasn´t explicit childpornography in itself, but that it was used as evidence to show the kind of enviroment these children were growing up in.
My meaning is not to trivialize what these individuals have endured, but rather to have it be an example of how two comparable actions (or what I thought out of ignorance was comparable) "nude dancing" could be both an expression of innocence and freedom(in the case of naturists) and an action of exploitation and abuse(in the family) and from this extrapolate some insight on our view of the naked body.
These videos were not produced by innocent nudists or naturists but by child molesters abusing and exploiting children. I'm sure it's possible for some, but I find impossible to ignore the context in which this footage was produced. Some Family members have publicly claimed these videos were not pornography while others have acknowledged the irrefutable evidence (which consists not only of the video footage, which alone would be more than enough evidence, but also sworn testimony by those who were there and written publications detailing the production of these videos as well as private correspondence between the leaders of The Family and the staff of Music with Meaning).
I meant in no way to imply that the family is(or was) a group of innocent nudists. I used that to exemplify how setting and context determine how we view(or could view) public displays of nudity.
Obviously I was not aware of the full extent of the contents of that video. Also one would have to take into account that the glorify god videos were not meant for public viewing. A fact that plays a part in how it should be viewed.
Again thank you for your reply. It gave me good things to consider in my continued research into this issue(nudity, not the family).
I certainly didn´t mean to offend anyone with this request and I wasn´t aware the video itself constituted pornography which would make it problematic to possess even if I were to find a copy.
Any misunderstandings about my intentions that is not a direct complication of my ignorance about the video I blame on the fact that english is not my first language.