How come Pure Nudism website isn’t considered child pornography and illegal?

Have you ever heard of the website called Pure Nudism? I am not sure who operates it. It seems to be featuring nudists from Russia and Eastern Europe that engage in nudity around the Black Sea. The website is in English and seems to be operated by a well financed group of English speaking individuals, possibly Americans. The models appear to be Russian or Eastern European. The website claims to support nudity but in the guise of supporting family nudity seems to feature nude children.

Several of the nude photos, some offered for free to entice people to subscribe to the website for about per month, feature mostly nude children, with young girls favored over boys.
I looking over the legal disclaimers the owners of the site say that people including the child models are not engaged in anything sexual. Is child pornography limited to displaying children engaged in sexual acts? Isn’t displaying children nude also considered child pornography? This is not the innocent photo of a child taking a bath. This is full frontal nudity with genitalia exposed with posed child models.
There are also beauty contests for the girls who compete nude for prizes. The families are paid for their children to pose. Some of the parents also pose nude with their nude children.
I thought that showing children nude in posed photographs and paid professionally would be considered child pornography. How is that incorrect?
How come Pure Nudism website isn’t considered child pornography and illegal?
Does it complicate things when the website may be operated outside of the country. It looks like the company is operated out of Eastern Europe although they have local distributors in the US.
It seems a little strange. Yes, most of the photos appear to have the children involved in some activity. They could be drawing something, involved in some activity. It just seems strange that showing a nude child could easily be used used as fodder for pedophiles. The kids are completely nude. No, they are not engaged in any sexual activity. I seriously doubt that most guys would pay a month to look at kids drawing pictures and doing various activities if they were clothed. Nude kids, especially underage girls, seems to be the lure for PureNudism. I imagine that most of their paid clientele are, no doubt, pedophiles. My question remains, given all of this, how can a site that depicts nude children, full frontal nudity, and a paid site with subscribers, be legal? How is that not a kiddie porn site? Logic would follow that guys that subscribe and pay a month to subscribe to this site get off on looking at photos and videos of nude kids. How is this, then, not exploiting the chil
Doesn’t child pornography include photos of nude children, full frontal nudity? What about the paid subscription angle? Isn’t that considered a red flag that the owners of this for profit business are not doing it for the love of nature? Isn’t it obvious that Pure Nudism is catering to a pedophile clientele interested in looking at nude children as a form of sexual gratification? Why would a guy spend a month, over 0 a year to look at beaches and rocks? Don’t you think its seeing the nude kids that is the lure of this website? Other websites for nudists show nature shots of the locations without peopling the scenes. If nude people are shown, its consenting adults and most of them are not very flattering to look at.
In PureNudism, the majority of photos display underage children. These are not ugly children. In fact they would be what most people would consider child fashion models, chosen because they are pleasing to the eye. You rarely see a fat nude kid on this site or any ug.

Best answer:

Answer by Zack
yeah it’s different outside of the US and that’s probably why it isn’t illegal
it could also be considered to have artistic potential and not be blocked for that reason

howtophotograph