HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: RR04@bunny.gte.com (Rob Robertson)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:59:26 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories


In article <38577@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> aminkoff@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Tony Minkoff) 
writes:

> Suppose I (I am a 22 year old male) am at a CO beach, and see an
> unacompanied woman (clothed or not, as the case may be) of about my
> age.  Is it OK to approach her and attempt to converse?  There would
> be no sexual overtones, of course; I am a sociable person, and enjoy
> spending time with women (especially attractive women, but that's
> another issue) near my own age.  On the one hand, it seems that the
> purpose of nudism is to lower barriers, not create them, so it would
> be the natural, sociable thing to do.  On the other hand, it might
> serve to strengthen the perception that a woman can not go
> unaccompanied to a CO beach without being harassed, and create only
> anger.  What is the opinion of the net community?

I would say go ahead, just do it with some sensitivity. Try to read her 
facial expression and body language. Does she look bored and lonely? Is 
she deeply engrossed in a book? Is she looking around with an open, 
inviting face? Does she look content just being by herself? I see nothing 
wrong in being friendly. Ask her if she would like some company; explain 
that YOU would appreciate some company and conversation. If she gets 
pissed and complains that 'women just can't be left alone on a nude beach' 
or something like that, make a sincere apology, explain your motivation, 
wish her a good day and be on your way. Maybe later she will rethink the 
episode and think 'maybe he really WAS just a nice, friendly guy'. Or 
maybe she'll see you being real and having an enjoyable time with someone 
else and come to the same conclusion.

  Personally I usually give up after the first couple rejections and 
relegate myself to the confines of my own mind even though I'm surrounded 
by dozens of seemingly like-minded people.

  On a somewhat related note, when I was unattached and wanted some female 
company I'd wear a wedding ring whenever I went out. It seemed to take the 
edge off of meeting and talking to a woman. After I got to know her and 
she got to know me, then I could tell her that I was in fact single and 
just wanted to 'talk' to a woman and nothing else. This is much more 
believable after a two hour conversation as opposed to a two minute 
conversation.

Give it a go; just try to see it from their perspective.

Peace,
    Rob

 

Rob Robertson
GTE Laboratories          (617)466-4144 vox
40 Sylvan Rd.                (617)890-9320 fax
Waltham, Mass. 02254
From: djserian@flash.LakeheadU.Ca (Reincarnation of Elvis)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: aceptable actions?  (something worse than photographers
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:29:32 GMT


I think that this is a little worse than photographers using telephoto lenses
or binaculars to catch a peek!


While on vacation in Vancouver I went to Wreck Beach... a CO beach on the West
Coast of Canada.... 

The concern I had while I was there was not the photography that was going on
(I had no problems with that) but the most disturbing thing I saw was a
young man masturbaiting in plain view right there on the beach... 

I found that the most disgusting thing 	I had ever seen...         

This type of act is just uncalled for... (especially when young kids are 
in plain view)...

Does anyone else have any similar stories... what can be done to take care of
these people?

Derek



--
| Derek J.P.K. Serianni       |   E-Mail: djserian@flash.lakeheadu.ca |
| Station Manager - CKLU      |---------------------------------------|
| Lakehead University Radio   |                HELP !!!!!             |
| Thunder Bay, Ontario CANADA | I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!|
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: laura@vipunen.hut.fi (Laura Tiilikainen)
Subject: Re: Nudist/Naturist population
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:58:26 GMT

In <BvDEB3.6to@xrtll.uucp> stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes) writes:

>I don't know if anyone keeps such statistics but are the number of
>nudist/naturists growing or shrinking?  

>I ask this because I observe that bathing suit fashions are getting
>more conservative.  (Boxers instead of speedos and one-piece instead
>of bikinies)

I'm apt to believe it's only fashion that changes. We've been told so
much about the risks of uncautious tanning that people don't want to
tan themselves anymore. Consequently, beach clothing doesn't have to
be as revealing as before. One could still think it's this attitude
which affects the number of naturists, but I think it has more effect
on sunscreen sales.

			Laura
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: oleg@cs.sunysb.edu (Oleg Sokolsky)
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook Computer Science Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:45:38 GMT

I readily agree that there should be no difference whether you approach a person
(woman or man) at a textile or CO beach. Unfortunatly, there is. As an example,
here's my personal experience of a couple of years ago. I just started going to
a certain beach, it was the closest one and I liked it. On my second visit to the 
beach I met a guy who seemed to be working on something similar to what I was 
doing, so we decided to stay in touch. In the midst of a purely computer-related
discussion, a man aproached us and quietly and politely asked us to leave; he was 
obviously a kind of 'chairman' on the beach and enjoyed everybody's respect.

I left and came back in about a month; I never saw the other guy again at that 
beach (maybe I should mention that it was his first time in CO environment). I was 
never able again to just come to anybody there for conversation. 

I don't blame anybody; I know that they had a lot of trouble with police and 
neighbours in the past so they wanted to avoid anything like that in the future. It's
just that I don't beleive that really approaching people at co beach is the same as
anyplace else.

Oleg


--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oleg Sokolsky     | Dept. of Comp.Sci. | - Are you interested in       |
                  | SUNY @ Stony Brook |   Artificial Intelligence?    |
oleg@cs.sunysb.edu|                    | - No, I prefer using natural. |
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Bashful Bladder Syndrome : (
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:28:27 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

Tero, at least you *have* a foreskin. :(
:) -ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Hiking nude
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.142528.8041@infonode.ingr.com> maverick@topgun.b29.ingr.com writes:
>In article <19r149INNc4o@network.ucsd.edu>, middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>|> [...hiking story...]
>|> 
>|> We do a lot of nude hiking and the general rule of thumb is the further
>                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> you are from civilization the more civilized you'll be treated by the
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> people you meet on the trail. 
>
>Did anyone else find this statement both amusing and yet a kind of sad
>condition of our society?  
>More civilization = less civilized?
>Less civilization = more civilized?
>Is this some kind of oxymoron?
 I would guess that those who venture far from "civilization" are
 more confident and able to handle what they might encounter without
 the "protection" of laws, norms, public opinion, and other trappings
 of "civilization."
From: s884764@otto (Grant Waldram [Atom Smash])
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude? Is it time?
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:10:13 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: otto.bf.rmit.oz.au

middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>We just
>need to keep on letting people know what rec.nude is about and is not about.

>Maybe doing the FAQ twice a month will help.

Maybe someone would like to set up an automatic mailer on a machine
somewhere which looks at all alt.sex articles to see if they are
cross-posted to rec.nude and then mails the poster with a short, say five
lines or so, comment about the fact that rec.nude is not a forum for
discussions better held in alt.sex, or something similar?

Atom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress
any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."  from 'Contact' by Carl Sagan
------   s884764@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au     Grant Waldram [Atom Smash]   ------
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:14:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvGJsp.ApH@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>    I mean, granted, her *character* may have been nude and through careful
>    editing and camera angles this may have been hinted at to the viewer.

Star Trek: TNG had as much nudity in several recent episodes.  French Canadian
TV has quite a bit more on a regular basis -- nobody there seems to think
it's a big deal.  People in the U.S. are really "hung up" about their bodies.

Terry
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Social Attitudes
Keywords: no crosspost to alt.sex!
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:38:55 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Oct1.061016.19401@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>Nudity could not possibly flourish as it might,in a sexually 
>repressed society.

	Actually, if people could _totally_ repress their sexuality, nudity
might not even be an issue.  

	Imagine!  No E-word threads.... :-)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:36:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1afftfINN5u1@smaug.West.Sun.COM> Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick) writes:
>>Incidentally, earlier that night, "Doogie Howser M.D." had a fairly typical
>>skinny-dipping scene, i.e. a couple of people go skinny-dipping and
>>everyone assumes sex. What was this, sweeps week or something? :)
>
>Sweeps month starts today, I believe.
>
>I didn't see the show with Hemingway; but from what I hear here, it seems
>that was done much more for the purpose of titillation.

   I didn't see this 'cause I don't have a TV (I stopped watching TV
   some time back).   But I do have a question:

   The Boston Globe made a big deal about "nudity on network TV" 
   yesterday, in reference to the above Hemingway scene.  But my 
   understanding is that it didn't "show anything" (i.e., breasts,
   buttocks, etc) that you wouldn't see on any other TV show or any
   ordinary non-topless, non-CO US beach.

   So what does "nude" mean in this context?    Does TV have a different
   definition of "nude" than the entire rest of the English speaking
   universe?   

   I mean, granted, her *character* may have been nude and through careful
   editing and camera angles this may have been hinted at to the viewer.
   But so what?  This has been done on half the TV shows of the the last
   30 years.   Hell, _Love American Style_ had an episode set in a "nudist
   colony" that used these methods a generation ago!  In the last year
   that I watched TV STNG, LA Law, and a dozen or so other TV shows
   did this stuff.  So what was the big deal about this latest TV "nude"
   scene?



---peter
From: sday@fornax.unm.edu (Stephen F. Day   UNM CIRT)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Flames - NOT NUDE -
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:52:24 GMT
Reply-To: sday@ariel.unm.edu
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM

In article <1aqbsmINNhvf@network.ucsd.edu>, middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
> 
>                                  (
>                                  ))
>                                  ((
>                                  )))
>                                 ((())   (
>                           )    ((()))) ())
>                           (   (((  ) )))())   )
>                          ))) )))  (())    (( (()
>                     )   (( )))   )) (()    ))() )
>                    ()  ))) (()  ())) (()   (()  ((
>                   (())()) )() )(())   ))) (() )  ))
>                    ()())())(  (()))) (())()() ()))  
> 		    ()   (())    ((()))     (())
> 							tem
> 			    - F L A M E S -

Now that Tom has provided us with an icon for "FLAME ON"....  I am
anxiously awaiting for his next piece of artwork showing a bucket of
water dousing the flames --- entitled "FLAME OFF".  :-) :->

-- 
    Stephen F. Day         (SFD7)  AT&TNET:      (505) 277-8499
    Systems Analyst/Programmer     BITNET/CREN:  SDAY@UNMB
    CIRT-APSYS                     INTERNET:     sday@ariel.UNM.EDU
    University of New Mexico       TECHNET:      UNMSDAY
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
#include <std.disclaimer.h>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: oleg@cs.sunysb.edu (Oleg Sokolsky)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:22:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: sblapis1.OLEG.92Oct3152250
	<OLEG.92Sep29124538@sblapis2.cs.sunysb.edu> <2049@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM>
Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook Computer Science Dept.

mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Michael R. Kesti) writes:

> >                                In the midst of a purely computer-related
> >discussion, a man aproached us and quietly and politely asked us to leave...
>
> I was hoping someone else would ask, but after a couple of days nobody has,
> so I get to be the net.dunce:  On what grounds did this individual feel he
> was justified in asking you to leave?

Several of the beaches I've been to were self-regulated in some way or other.
Sometimes there are specially appointed people (I think, Sandy Hook has this
now, but I might be wrong). Mostly, self-regulation is done by the most
respected members; you don't HAVE to comply, but they are people you'll have
around if you choose to stay. Thus, I think the guy was justified to do it. He
might be wrong (I hope he was, whatever he had in mind) in my particular case,
but in general I guess he was doing a useful job.

Oleg
--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oleg Sokolsky     | Dept. of Comp.Sci. | - Are you interested in       |
                  | SUNY @ Stony Brook |   Artificial Intelligence?    |
oleg@cs.sunysb.edu|                    | - No, I prefer using natural. |
From: bvntyler@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Professional Amateur Nudist!)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sex and (vs.) Nudity
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Bvns48.651@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v076rtlz@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard M. Green) writes...
>Just a side comment on this whole nudists against sex (sorry, could that be
>possibly implying something?):
> 

just for the record, (i haven't seen the entire thread) Not all nudists are
against sex *grin*
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions? (something worse than photographers
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:51:16 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <ringo.718382008@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> ringo@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Ringo) writes:
>What's wrong with masturbation?

	Nothing's "wrong" with masturbation.  Public sexual displays are
simply rude and can be unsanitary - I object to used condoms in the bushes
as much as I object to piles of empty beer cans in the bushes.  I don't see
anything wrong with asking people not to be rude and go jerk off in the sand
dunes if they _must_ have immediate release...  
								wr
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Sexuality and Social Attitudes
Keywords: no crosspost to alt.sex!
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:58:42 GMT

 sday@lacerta.unm.edu (Stephen F. Day   UNM CIRT) writes:
>Seeing that this thread is focusing more on open sexuality rather than
>nudism, may I suggest that further discussion be limited to alt.sex,
>and no longer be crossposted on rec.nude?

No. We're not doing graphic things here, and this was settled, I think.
We keep alt.sex OUT of it.

I see a large connection between open sexuality and nudism.
Mutually reinforcing. What does nudism symbolically imply?
This is a subtle thing - human self acceptance about the
intentions of our bodies. Only by meeting the issue face on,
will humans become truly comfortable. The *WISDOM* about the
issue is had by integrating the two. "open sex" will seek
its level; this thread endorses moving to that equilibrium.
At least that is my motion here.

Please note the thread name; I'll try to keep this name, for people
to kill who aren't interested in the topic. That leaves space for
everyone here.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:24:03 GMT

I would definitely add Civil Wars to my list of shows to watch if they
featured nudity regularly. I've never watched the show before this
week and I thought it wasn't half bad.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
From: PunisherX@cup.portal.com (M Phil Collins)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Big Time Nudity on Cable!
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 20:44:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

the name of the movie is Shaka Zulu and it is on TBS this week
Newsgroups: rec.nude,alt.sex
From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
Subject: Re: Male vs. Female Bodies
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: northamerica
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:06:04 GMT


Kenny Bell welcomes us to the Mind Wars by claiming that 
women's bodies have more sexual attractiveness in some 
sort of a-priori way.

I caution that:

>  It is only because womens bodies are more
>objectified in the culture that they are able to stand as objects
>of sexual attraction in the erotic lives of people.  There is 
>nothing about womens body, inherent to it, that makes it any more
>suitable for an object of erotic attraction.  It is the society
>that has deemed it so.  More than this, this objectification makes
>possible the whole patriarchal structure of our society.

>guy
>gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca

Mr. Bell then goes on to say:

>I for one refuse to be an easy push over for all this talk of  'Society' 
>and 'Cultural Objectification'.  First, what is 'Society' except just people 
>like you and me?  Second, specifically what components of the 'culture' is 
>this 'objectification' of what I claim to be differential feminine sexual 
>attractiveness traceable to?  If there is anything more than conversation-
>stopping obfuscating mystification going on these words, and there may well 
>be, I certainly don't see it.  I hope you won't think I'm just being 
>nitpicking if I don't assume there's anything more to it than cant.

Well... where do I begin?

Lets start with the fact that in certain industrialized societies
women are the property of their fathers or husbands.  I am not talking
only about India.  The Irish men enjoy the protection of law when they rape
their wives.  Would this count as evidence that women are objectified?
They certainly are treated as any other property would be; they are  
at the disposal of the owner as *he* sees fit.  Now lest you
think that we have come such a long way may I remind you that it has
been about 50 years since women have been allowed the right to 
vote. This is a very extreme example of what is a subtle yet strong
undercurrent in the ocean of our society. 

Hence objectification.  The younger, and more boyish in appearance if
fashion mags can be used as a guide, will be used in the erotic
landscape created.  Women cast in the image of men and used to
express latent/suppressed homo-eroticism. This serves to consolidate
the cult of the male. 

Now, about that society thing.  There have been societies that
held the male up as the ideal of sexual attractiveness.  The culture
of the ancient greeks comes to mind.  That we are not biologically
different from the greeks is clear.  Thus we are looking at a 
societal change.  One that has replaced the idea of male as
ideal of erotic lust with the idea that women, made object to
diffuse their power, albeit in the shape of men, can stand for erotic
ideal.

Guy
gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Big Time Nudity on Cable!
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:27:17 GMT

One of the cable channels is running a 5-part mini-epic on the Zulus.
The first episode was last night, the next tonight at 8pm CDT. I first
saw this series on PBS in Austin in 85. It's also available on
videocassette.

Highly Recommended!!!
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
From: dwatts@ki.com (Dan Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: HELP for a friend. "indecent exposure" at Crane's Beach.
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:11:51 GMT
Organization: ki Research, Inc. Derry NH


Hello fellow netters.  I was wondering if someone out there could offer
some guidance in what to do following a summons to a complaint hearing
in Ipswich District Court regarding an event that occured to a good friend
of mine.  A few weeks ago during the nice warm weather, he frequented
Crane's Beach and being a nudist, enjoyed the weather sans clothing. As
I understand it, he was out of the way and wasn't bothering anyone.
Appearently, a ranger [?] happened apon him and gave him a ticket or
some such.  He now has to appear in court.

In the past, I've heard other netters say that requesting a trial-by-jury
many times can get the case dismissed because the courts don't want a
test case.

Does anyone have any thoughts/wisdom on what his steps should be?  Should
he pay the $$ and hire a good attorney to represent him?

What are the ramifications of being convicted of "indecent exposure"? What
kind of "crime" is this?  Would this label him as a "sex offender"?
-- 
######################## Have A Nice Nude Day #########################
# CompuServe: >INTERNET:uunet.UU.NET!ki.com!dwatts  Dan Watts         #
# UUCP      : ...!uunet!ki.com!dwatts               ki Research, Inc. #
# The Bill Of Rights: Void Where Prohibited by Law. Vote Libertarian ##
From: philb@cats.ucsc.edu (Philip Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Photos at nude beaches
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:18:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


spam@IASTATE.EDU (mike begley) writes:
>and if they had any balls at all, they could just wander around the beach,
>get their fill of looking at naked bodies, and maybe, just maybe, they
>might get a clue into the nude philosophy and abandon the pictures
>altogether...

"philosophy" has NOTHING to do with why men buy playboy :-)

-- 
  --------------------------------------------------
"How do I love sea? Let me count the waves.." |philb@cats.ucsc.edu
P.Anthony, "The Colo(u)r of her panties"      |philb@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude