HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perky@acs.bu.edu (Melissa Sherrin)
Newsgroups: rec.nude,alt.sex
Subject: Re: BRA SURVEY
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:53:52 GMT
Followup-To: rec.nude
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: perky@acs.bu.edu


Always behind the back.  I've tried the "belt" method, but with all the tugging and pulling, things get all jostled around.  Quite undignified, although amusing to watch, I'm sure. :D

The Melistress
who doesn't need a .sig... yet
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: Mark.Cornick@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mark Cornick)
Subject: National Capital Naturists
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:35:59 GMT


Anyone out there affiliated with National Capital Naturists? I have been
attempting to call the (703) 241-BARE number to see what's happening, but
got no response. I have NCN's mail address; should I write instead? Thanks
for any help. (BTW, I live in Harrisonburg, VA, 140 miles SW of WDC, but
I'm in the District a lot lately...)

--mark

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ta66863@kaarne.cs.tut.fi (Ahlqvist Tero Kalevi)
Subject: Re: Humpty-dumpty
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:36:05 GMT

From article <3548@unisql.UUCP>, by wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie):
> In article <QebGWem00WB8IWR1VL@andrew.cmu.edu> mf0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michel Fougeres) writes:
>>Forget it, this is just a discussion about the proper meaning of a word.
> 
> 	Oh, I see.  The Humpty-Dumpty approach.  Listen, if that worked 
> we could just define "clothed" as "wearing a birthday suit" and this 
> newsgroup would have to discuss tuxedos.
> 
> 	An exhibitionist is someone who gets a kick out of exhibiting
> themselves.  If I wanted to draw attention to myself I'd shave my pubes
> and paint my balls green.  Just getting naked doesn't do it.  And when it
> does it's a side effect, not a goal.
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
> 	When people get drunk and throw up, would you say that the goal
> of drinking _must_ have been to get sick?  When I strip and attract gawkers
> the gawkers are an unwanted side effect.  You misunderstand my goals
> if you really think I get naked to attract attention.
> 

You got the point!

I started the discussion of exhibitionists and peeping toms, and I didn't
blame any of you being either of them. I said just that it's maybe part of
the good feeling.

I think I found a weak point in some of your thinking. I got answers through
rec.nude and via email. All of the opposite answers were that We're not
Exhibitionists or peeping toms. I also wrote that there is some Murderer
and some thief in all of us, but I didn't get ANY answers like: Tero, I'm
not a murderer. Or I've never stolen anything. :-)

I know the real meaning of those words and because the explanation of these
words begin A people who AIMS TO GET sexual... So Should i have added the
word PASSIVE to these E and p-T words (like passive smoker-case).

I feel good when naked, also when looking at naked people, also when looked
at as a naked man. Maybe it's purely sexual, maybe it's partly sexual, maybe
it's just the feeling that i'm a nudist and the people all over me are nudists.
You tell me :-)

Yours. Tero




-- 
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel)
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers : -)
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:26:11 GMT

ta66863@kaarne.cs.tut.fi (Ahlqvist Tero Kalevi) writes:

>From article <3564@unisql.UUCP>, by wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie):
>> In article <1992Aug29.084630.22035@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:

>I'm another male with the same opinion. How many such opinions we need
>to make it clear, that it's part of the "little difference" that makes
>the breasts so stimulating. Not the fact they're usually and most of
>the time covered.

>Yours Tero.

I associate chest hair, muscles, etc with masculinity.  It's one of
those "little differences" that makes the <male> breasts so stimualting

I love to watch men wiggle those chest muscles, and watch them change 
shape as men move.

You Got IT ?????????
OHH OHH OOHHHH

And, men are allowed to strut their stuff whenever they want.  I don't
give a shit what you think of women's breasts.  If men can flaunt it, so
can women.  It an equality issue.  I would be perfectly content to
keep my shirt on, if men had to also.

Karen Biesel
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Keeping men out
Date: 2 Sep 1992 12:36:31 -0700
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin) writes:
>middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>|> Maybe we should post an invitation in soc.women to read and join rec.nude!

>Hear! Hear!

No, the problem with sending an invitation to soc.women is that most of
its readers are men (I counted 7 men posting there for every 2 women in
a quick count of first names), and many of those are probably single men
out to find women.  An invitation in soc.women probably wouldn't do us
much more good than an invitation in alt.sex.

     Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence and
					   F reedom!
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Interesting (?) opinion :)
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:49:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: unisql.3543
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <Eeb6OKG00WBMM9Kbp5@andrew.cmu.edu> mf0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michel Fougeres) writes:
>do practically all the nudists do ?  They make a point of disregarding
>the instructions (which in fact are the French LAW) and they take off
>all their clothes WHILE passing through the narrow channel, to make sure
>that the oggling crowds DO see them naked. 

	No, they take off their clothes as soon as they can to get 
comfortable as soon as they can.  Your mistake seems to be the assumption
that they are undressing to be seen, when they are undressing to be 
comfortable.  I'd do the same, especially if I had paid money to charter
the boat.

>they just laugh it all off.  You don't.

	(He's talking about the fact that all the first-timers he saw
immediately got hard-ons when they undressed)

	I _might_ "laugh it all off" if I ever _saw_ it happen.  I never
have.
From: FORTMAPL@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU ("Paul Fortman : free spirit")
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Erection questions
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:31:57 GMT


	Newsgroups: rec.nude
	From: jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght)
	Subject: erection questions
	Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:07:27 GMT
 
	AAAAARRRGGHHHHH !!!!! THE UNDYING THREAD FROM HELL !!!!!!!!
 
	Am I weird if I get an erection from rubbing suntan lotion on my dingy?

How could a small boat benefit from suntan lotion?  :)
 
	Am I weird if I get an erection from seeing a beutiful Lamborghini
	Diablo?
 
	Am i weird if I get an erection while playing that Basoon?
 
	Am I weird if I get an erection while studying for a quantum physics
	exam?
 
	In all these cases I would say NO!  ...
 
Doesn't evryone get an erection when they see a Lamborghini Diablo
or while playing a basoon or while studying for a quantum physics
exam.  Imagine the erection you would get if you were to see a 
Lamborghini Diablo while you were playing a basoon while studying 
for a quantum physics exam.  It could explode, then no more 
erections. :(

8-)

*Pooh Bare
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Other places to be nude.
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:31:40 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

jlong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (John Long) writes:
< story of near-accident, prevented through evasive action deleted>

>Maybe I should have gotten out of the car and shouted "Look what you
>did!", and if I hadn't been naked, I would have. But I just smiled

Maybe "Look what you did!  You scared the pants off me!" :-)

>at him and said "excuse me..." (I was pretty pleased with the spinout...
>did it *just* right.) and drove back onto the highway.

>Yeah, maybe I should have.

>But I stopped and put my shorts back on, f'sure!

>-LongJohn
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
Xref: sparky rec.nude:4121 alt.sex:27766
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex on the beach
Date: 15 Aug 1992 02:02:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Aug14.140122.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <l8nsafINN6bd@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>
>> 	I don't have a problem with this Terry.  As long as you take your
>> dump or your leak into a container that will in no way pollute the beach
>> and cause a health hazard, go right ahead.  If you are advocating 
>> polluting the beach, I will have to disagree with that.
>
>Then you are <generic>-negative.  It's a 100% natural function.  You are
>oppressing our rights.
---
	Hey, Terry, killing happens all the time in nature.  Maybe we should
also be able to kill each other at any time because it is natural?  

>  Our bodily functions are not pollution!!!  :-P
---
	So you wouldn't mind it being in your drinking water or water
you swim in?  

	Anyway. Get a clue -- I said if it isn't harming anyone then you
can do it.  Me having sex on the beach isn't going to harm you, but
you taking a dump is a documented health hazard.  It causes disease.
This is a medically proven fact.  If you can document that me having
sex with my girlfriend causes someone else any disease, you might
convince me. 

	Being natural is not the basis I believe sex on the beach or any
personal act should be allowed.  The reason is that what harms none,
and is done by yourself or between consenting adults should be 
allowable.  That's the acid test.

>I guess "sex" at the nude beach is OK with me too if you do it in a container.
---
	We'll do it on a towel or blanket -- just for you Terry!

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: picl27@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu (Jeffrey Johnson)
Subject: Re: Michigan CO
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: picl27@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu
Organization: F.S.U. Dept of Physics
Distribution: usa
Date: 26 AUG 92 17:49:13    

In article <1992Aug26.060745.2989@access.digex.com>, bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) writes...
>zsalman@chess.engin.umich.edu (Zaid Kadhim Salman) writes:
>>Well, somebody needs to do something around here. Hash Bash and Coming-Out-Of-
>>The-Closet Week but no CO activities. Go figure.
> 
>Rather, Go To It!

i've seen enough of us in ann arbor writing in to this newsgroup to
start something.  so if everyone who is here and would like to have a
nude event of some sort would send me email to the address listed
below, we could certainly pull something off---as big or small as
we feel like making it!

ande   ====>>>  kennedy@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
                (and in spite of my deceptive email address i am in a2)
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Erection???
Summary: Moral of the story
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:49:49 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In article <> jhsegal@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il (Livy) writes:
>  Going to nude beaches and seeing nude sexy girls don't lead to a fast
>  erection?	Isn't that embarrasing a bit?

If thine cock offends thee, cut it off!

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes)
Subject: Re: Disc. against singles esp. men (was Re: FIRST TIMER REPORT. )
Organization: WCOM Public Access Unix - Toronto
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:14:46 GMT

In article <17u02nINNmh@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>
>I'm opposed to discrimination based on marital status also but I am not
>sure this is it.  Being a single male I don't like it but it seems to me
>that if a club has a $20 entrance fee and gives single women a $5 discount
>what they are doing is trying to encourage single women.  By charging couples
>the same as a single they are encouraging couples.
>
There are many institutions (zoos, museums, amusement parks, tec...) which
charge a family fee for admission.  Usually, this is lower than the same
number of simgle people.

Is this discrimination against singles?
Should a family of four pay four times the single entrance fee?
What about group rates???



-- 
========================================================
Stephane Deschenes     stephane@xrtll.uucp
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
========================================================
From: v024971@plato.lsvl8.stortek.com (Robert J. Waddell)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Phoenix, 1st timer
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:11:15 GMT
Organization: StorageTek

In article <1992Aug28.203745.7918@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu>, perlman@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu writes:
> I may be spending a week in Phoenix around October.  Any recommendations
> for 1st timer (maybe) in that area?
When I lived in the Phoenix area from 1972/76 I was a member at Shangri La

Resort. Very nice community minded resort. Even the Cub Scouts took swim 
 -- 


lessons there. They should still be in the phone book, if not call information



            ***   It's never to late to have a happy childhood!

********************************************************************************
V024971@PLATO.LSVL8.STORTEK.COM / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert_Waddell@Stortek.com     / perhaps shared (though not by my employer).
********************************************************************************
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Breasts (hers :-)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:18:02 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Aug29.084630.22035@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:
> They are exciting because you never see them, or "aren't supposed to."  

	No, they're exciting because I associate them with femininity, a
characteristic I find desirable in my companions :-)  Unless you're a 
fellow nudist, I've probably seen more breasts in my life than _you_
have, and I still love to watch them change shape as she moves, and the 
way every woman's are different, and how the nipples go up and down... :-)

	Sorry, but I don't take of my balls when I take off my pants...
And it's most definitely not forbidden fruit.  The body *by* *itself*
is merely interesting, not exciting, I'll grant you, but when we're alone
and cuddled close her breasts are indeed one of the things that makes me
want to bed her and not her brother Sam...
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: Being Naked in Canada
Keywords: laws, police harassment
Organization: York University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:44:25 GMT

drascic@ie.utoronto.ca (SpIke) writes:
|There is/was a nude beach in Toronto, located somewhere in the Scarborough
|Bluffs, about a 30 minutes hard and treacherous hike from the nearest road.
|A month ago a sqad of armed cops arrived by boat, and had accomplices at the
|top of the bluffs to guided them to the people hidden in the more private
|areas.  Seems Toronto's (Im)Morality Squad really hates people having a good
|time without inviting them... :-/

  Are you sure that's correct? I know the beaches well, and they're
by no means hard to get to.  One's at the foot of Warden!

  I do know there was a flap about nude persons on the main (east)
beach at bluffer's park early this spring, and a raid two years ago
on the Warden beach, but I haven't heard anything unusual this year.
  The boaty-cops were cool: they used to wave as they drove by.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |               -- Clay Bond
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers :-)
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:59:26 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <21416@optima.cs.arizona.edu> jiang@cs.arizona.edu (Howard) writes:
>This guy was gettin' a little bit too overboard here. 

	Why?  Because I don't subscribe to the idea that (the human body)
and (sexuality) are disjoint sets?  Pfffftttt.

					"She's got everything delightful,
				 	 she's got everything I need!"
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: An option to the s** word
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:12:59 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

Michael_Pizolato@afs.com (Michael Pizolato) writes:
>< lots of stuff about tolerance of other viewpoints deleted >

>> Why do I have to go through dozens of postings about subject matters which
>>     are irrelevant?  (we are supposed to have specific interest groups)

>Is it irrelevant to want respect for more than one way of looking at things  
>within the context of the group?


>This is exactly the kind of thinking I meant when I began discussing this  
>newsgroup's "guardians of political correctness."  It's clear that these people  
>want to have the group to themselves, so they can spend all their time telling  
>each other how wonderful they and their points of view are.  If this is the kind  
>of attitude that nudists/naturists have, then I'm something else.

>All I tried to do was show that it's not the death of the movement to have  
>differing opinions, and on topics that are mostly tangential, too.  What a bunch  
>of closed minds!  In another of my posts, I said that if you require everyone to  
>think the same way you'll soon be fighting your cause alone.  Well, I still  
>believe in legal and accepted CO activities, but I'm outta here.

So you're saying that you won't tolerate the opinions of the closed-of-
mind??  How is that different from them not tolerating the opinions of
the open-minded?  The points you make above are good; tolerance of other
opinions is necessary for the survival of society.  Unfortunately, your
actions seem to say that you don't believe what your post says.

Back to the true purpose of this group:  Anyone doing anything interesting
and nude over Labor Day weekend?  I'm hoping to get to a local club
(well, it's two hours drive away, but close enough) for a day; maybe
meet some net.friends there as well.  
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: dza@unixland.natick.ma.us (David Archer)
Subject: "Guide to Nude Recreation"
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Distribution: ne
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:26:45 GMT

Does anyone know of anyplace in the Boston area that sells the
"Guide to Nude Recreation"?  Or does it have to be mail order?
I heard there was a fairly recent copy out.

Thank you.

-- 
----
\  /  David Archer
 \/         dza@unixland.natick.ma.us
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Concerns of a New Nudist
Date: 25 Aug 1992 21:34:51 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Aug24.200256.14156@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>I don't know if I could ever get myself to be nude in public.
... stuff deleted ...
>I would be afraid that I might get out there and be humiliated.
						  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I mean this seriously. I might see someone near my age and feel inadequate.
							    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"Mine is not big enough, my body is not in as good as shape as these muscle
	      ^^^^^^^^^^
>I can't be the only person who has thought about this--can I? 

You are not the only one.  It is a shame what this clothing compulsive
culture does to people.  Fact is there are all kinds of people out there
with all kinds of bodies.  If you are happy with your body, if it does
the things you want it to do, if it serves the purpose it was meant to
serve, then why should anyone feel inadequate and humiliated?  In your
entire lifetime there are a very limited number of people who will even
care if you are "big enough" (I might even say just a handful :-) ).  The
rest of the people don't matter, so why be concerned?

[note: If you AREN'T happy with your body, if it DOES NOT do the things
you want it to do, if it DOESN'T serve the purpose it was meant to serve,
then you need help beyond what I can offer here.]


>I wonder in Europe, for example, is there as much pressure for this "perfect"
>body???

Good question.  Any Europeans out there care to comment?

-- 
Thomas Earl Middleton			|	Camping Bares
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu		|	P.O. Box 81589
aka Happy Bare				|	San Diego, CA 92138-1589