HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert)
Subject: Nude vs. Naked
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:09:46 GMT

In article <MAGNUS.92Oct11015445@linerle.ii.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>
>1. nude \'n(y){u:}d\ \'n(y){u:}d-*t-{e-}\ aj [L [italic nudus] naked --
>   more at [mini NAKED]] 1: lacking an essential particular 2: devoid of
>   covering : [mini NAKED]; [italic esp] : unclothed - nude.ly av

Back when I was worrying about the difference between nude and naked (Websters
aside) the best definition of the difference was as follows:
	
	Nude: being without covering
	Naked: being without protection

Sounds the same right?  Well, not quite.  A person can be nude without being
naked and vice versa.  Example: to be nude is to be without clothing.  To be
naked is to feel unprotected.  If you are fully clothed, you can still feel
unprotected.

comments?
	marc

-- 
[ Marc Lewert                      Phone: (408) 321-6626                 ]
[ Octel Communications Corp.       AspenNet(tm): (408) 321-6700 MB 6626  ]
[ 890 Tasman Dr.		   USENET: ...!uunet!octela!marc         ]
[ Milpitas, CA 95035               Smart Mailer: marc@octel.com          ]
[ Disclaimer:  The company knows what I think, I tell them often enough. ]
[ zen hugs - the hugs that you would get, if we were there,              ]
[            if we could hug you, but we aren't, and we can't            ]
[            - Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, "The Ship Who Searched"  ]
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: wwheeler@news.cecer.army.mil (Wes Wheeler)
Subject: distribution test
Summary: testing whether articles are being posted w/ given distribution
Keywords: distibution question
Reply-To: wwheeler@max.cecer.army.mil
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:52:02 GMT

My apoligies for the wasted bandwidth.  I do realize there is a "misc.test",
but I'm curious about articles that I've posted to this group (due to the
underwhelming response).

If some kind soul beyond my local site would e-mail back, I would be quite
grateful (and promise not to disturb these hallowed halls again)  :-}


Thanks!

-- 
"And when the band you're in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on 
the Dark Side of the Moon."

		- Mr. Floyd
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Art modeling (was: Re: another model)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:21:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct09.130436.21689@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin) writes:

> The fact that she was uncomfortable with this suggests that she wasn't
> interested in the *person* - she was interested in a hunk of meat. The
> artist of nudes had better get used to *people* who are nude - they
> have to try to capture the personality as expressed in the pose.

I'm sure it's difficult learning to draw people.  My friend is quite good
at drawing objects, landscapes, animals, etc.  I'm sure it's easier if you
can deal with people as "hunks of meat".  The eye contact really threw her.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Beachfront U.S.A. Loses Los Angeles Lawsuit
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:15:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) says:
>
>   When O'Brien (1968) was applied to the nude dancing girls who were the
>target of the state government in Barnes, the U.S. Supreme Court found that
>the makers of the Indiana statute banning public nudity did indeed have "a
>substantial government interest in protecting order and morality."
>Further, the Supreme Court found that the statute was "unrelated to the
>suppression of free expression."  The Court specifically rejected the
>notion that "restricting nudity on moral grounds [is] necessarily related
>to expression."

It seems to me that any law against nudity would be unconstitutional,
especially when based on "moral" grounds.  It seems to me that this 
would be based on religious beliefs and would be violating the seperation
of church and state, thus unconstitutional.

*Pooh Bare
-- 
fortmapl@dayton.bitnet
fortmapl@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu
Xref: sparky rec.nude:5144 misc.legal:18480
From: cs161feu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.nude,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Beachfront U.S.A. Loses Los Angeles Lawsuit
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:56:06 GMT
Followup-To: rec.nude
Organization: University of California, San Diego

brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:
>...quoting U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
>William Rehnquist: "Public nudity is the evil
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yipes.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:03:24 GMT

marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert) writes:
>I did not see either the "Civil Wars" ro "Dooggie Houser" shows.  It seems
>to me that this is getting so much attention only because it was on a "major
>network".

It's getting attention because it is SWEEPS PERIOD! Get out
those ratingzzz folks!!

PBS has traditionally been better about the whole affair,
although in recent years major donors have threatened
to stop sponsorship if certain shows were aired, some
on the basis that they showed the nude human form in
some degree or another.

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: wwheeler@news.cecer.army.mil (Wes Wheeler)
Subject: e-mail response to health clubs and puppy dogs
Summary: sender requested anonymous post of response
Reply-To: wwheeler@max.cecer.army.mil
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:45:28 GMT

Clipped below is a response sent to my earlier posts.  The sender
requested that the response remain confidential:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

> trying something new (such as Cypress Cove or
> Sunsport or Como).

Sunsport is rather, uh, rustic to put it politely.  Its an old
campground thats basically been allowed to run down.  The pool and
clubhouse are well maintained, but the dirt roads and grounds turn
into mud baths if it rains, the pond is a mosquito nest and the small
children's clubhouse is practically in ruins.


> Particularly, we were disappointed at the
> lack of weight-training equipment at Paradise (see previous post).

I have the same complaint.  If Sunsport had that, I would probably be
out there more regularly.

> I'd a thought there would be a lot more interest from a group of people that
> tend to be health conscious (I know, it's an over-generalization).  While on
> that point, why so many cigarette smokers???

Gag. So many smokers.  I think the health conscious aspect of nudism
is basically propaganda.  They don't some to be health conscious in
reality at all.

> If I were to organize a landed club, would there be enough interest
> ($ from users/guests) to support an indoor sports facility and a complete
> indoor non-smoking policy?

You'll get *my* membership dues.

> Just a question for you more experienced folks.  My wife and I seemed to often
> "pick-up" puppy dogs during our stays at Paradise (see previous post).
> In all cases but one, these were completely non-sexual, just guys who were
> lonely or bored, or both.  We told the "wild and crazy" creep to get lost
> and he eventually did.  The other guys turned out to be good friends.
>
> For the record, we are not "swingers" and are not interested in becoming so.
> I'll admit that both of us are out-going and friendly, but when I mentioned
> this to other couples who are shy and quiet, they said they had the same
> experiences.
>
> I know its a trivial question, but enquiring minds want to know, is this a
> fairly common occurence?

Well, I guess I'm one of those "puppy dogs" you're talking about, so
let me take a swag at an answer.  First, I'm not interested in meeting
people for sex at the resort.  If I want sex with someone, I'll marry
them first (yes, I'm one of *those* :-).  I'm also introverted.  I
have difficulty making new friends and am awkward and probably easily
missunderstood in the attempt.  But once you get to know me, I think
you would like me.  I'm more likely to try to strike up a conversation
with someone who is "out-going and friendly" than a fellow introvert.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

end-of-response...

-- 
"And when the band you're in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on 
the Dark Side of the Moon."

		- Mr. Floyd
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: clothing sexy
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:18:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1avtdhINN4ht@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>I'll give you "not all" but have to go with Wharfie in that "most" nudists
>feel this way.  Perhaps they don't get dressed for the act of sex but they
>do dress up to enhance the preliminaries.  I have been to about half a dozen
>nudist resorts and have talked to several nudists, both male and female, about
>this and everybody I have talked to agrees that sexy clothes or lingerie are
>more sexy and enticing than nudity.  Such items draw the eye to specific
>body parts, enhance those which you want enhanced and deemphasize those that
>you would want deemphasized.  At many resorts when they have dances people
>dress up in sexy clothes and lingerie.
>
>Or course, non-nudists will agree that nude is sexy because to them it is
>unusual and they interpret it as a come-on and invitation.  But to experienced
^^^^^^^^
>nudists the nudity is not unusual, is not a come-on and is not an invitation
>to sex. Picture your girl friend naked. Now picture her wearing a garter belt,
>hose and high heels with pointed toes.  Which is sexier?  I rest my case.
---
	I would say it depends on the girlfriend and how she carries herself
and her attitude, etc.

	But I high-lighted the word 'unusual'.  People notice things that
are different.  If you are use to clothing, nude is sexy.  If you are used
to nude, clothing can be sexy.  If you are a blonde in mexico, you get
lots of attention because blondes are 'unusual'.  There was once a quote
that an exposed leg in a bar-room would cause more excitement than
a bikini on a beach filled with such.  The reason is what you are used
to seeing.  I notice this every spring when clothing starts dropping
away -- certain styles excite me more in the spring that in summer wouldn't
especially catch my eye.

	In summary, most nudists would end up agreeing that clothing is
sexier than nude and most non-nudists would probably agree that nude
is sexier (assuming the given body allows it :-)) than clothed.  

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: witters@eskimo.celestial.com (John Witters)
Subject: Re: health clubs (sports in general) at nudist resorts
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:13:17 GMT

In article <7950028@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ales@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ales Fiala) writes:
>
>I have also noticed that there is a large number of smokers in the
>two nudist organizations that I belong to.  I don't know why that
>is.  I may be spoiled by my smoke-free work environment.

That was something I noticed too at the two resorts I visited.  Allow me to
speculate:

	1.      Maybe there aren't really that many smokers, but that the few
		who are around are really noticeable.  I find that even
		outdoors, the smoke carries a long way, especially if the
		breeze happens to be toward me.

	2.	Maybe there actually is a higher percentage of smokers in the
		nudist population than in the population at large.

If 2. is true, I can guess why this might be so.  It may be that people who
are willing to take risks are more likely to become nudists.  The same
personality trait would lead these kinds of people into other risky behavior,
such as motorcycling, skydiving, bungee jumping, or smoking.  On the other
hand, people into healthy lifestyles (like myself) are less willing to take
these kinds of risks.

Another possibility is that the granolas (like myself) prefer to hike into the
backcountry for nude recreation, whereas the smokers prefer to drive to a
park.

Finally, smokers are less likely to care about what other people think about
them.  These days, it isn't cool to smoke.  If a smoker has learned to
tolerate disapproval of their smoking, they are more likely to tolerate
disapproval of their being nudists.  On the other hand, granolas would be more
concerned about their image, and therefore less likely to risk disapproval by
becoming nudists.

(I hope I don't get too many flames from smokers and granolas!)

-John

-- 
	John Witters			(206) 356-5274		      (Work)
	210 124th ST. S.W. Apt. #1	(206) 353-4672		      (Home)
	Everett, Washington  98204	witters@eskimo.celestial.com  (E-Mail)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
From: cs161feu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Beachfront U.S.A. Loses Los Angeles Lawsuit
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:54:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.) writes:
>It seems to me that any law against nudity would be unconstitutional,
>especially when based on "moral" grounds.  It seems to me that this 
>would be based on religious beliefs and would be violating the seperation
>of church and state, thus unconstitutional.

This idea has been tried, and ultimately rejected by just about
every court in the land.  The "accepted" legal idea is that laws
which are based on morality which may have had their foundations in
religion are not in violation of the First Amendment.

And there is something to be said for this idea.  For example, can
you tell me why cruelty to animals ought to be illegal?  Just about
everybody agrees that it should (and I'm not talking about
scientific experimenting here, or fur trapping, or whatever; just
something "obviously" wrong like getting a dog and torturing it just
for the fun of it).  And I'm sure you could, if you tried, develop a
reasonably cogent argument against it without invoking a "God's
creatures" sort of idea.  But for most people, a knee-jerk, "It's
just immoral, that's why," is the only response possible.

Heck, one could even make a reasonably plausible arguement that
societal injunctions against murder derive from the Ten
Commandments.  Certainly you could make a case for murder laws being
a societal necessity, with or without religion, but others could
make a case (very weak, IMO, but it seems strong to them) that
proper attire is a societal necessity.

It's all a matter of opinion, and you can't invalidate a person's
opinion simply because he learned his values at church.

Tony
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: beyerc@carn25.alleg.edu (Chad Beyer)
Subject: Re: X-Plicit Players tour schedule
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202840.19390@netcom.com> mkent@netcom.com (Marty  
Kent) writes:
> 
> Here's a list of the places the X-Plicit Players are going to 
> visit in the last half of October. I've included phone numbers 
> to call to get details on any of the events.  The PeacePlay 
> and Act of Intimacy are 5-hour rituals of contact and merging 
> through reading, sound and touch. The Customs Workshop is 30-
> hour intensive meeting where we find out in depth about each 
> other's practices of enjoyment, intimacy and communion. Call 
> for more info if you're at all tickled...
> 
> Thursday, 15 Oct 
> "Top-free Street Action"
> 1:30 pm, outside Europa Books, 2406 Guadalupe, Austin, Tx
> 
> Friday and Saturday, 16 and 17 Oct
> "X-Plicit Act of Intimacy"
> 8 pm, Synergy Studio, 1501 W. 5th St., Austin, Tx
> 
> For info on these events call Debbie Moore at 512 495 9064.
> 
> ================================
> 
> Tuesday, 20 Oct
> "X-Plicit Act of Intimacy"
> 7 pm, Genesee Inn, 1060 E. Genesee St., Syracuse, NY
> 
> Wednesday and Friday, 21 and 23 Oct
> "X-Plicit PeacePlay"
> 7:30 pm (Weds), 8:00 pm (Fri), Genesee Co-op, Sunken Room, 715 
> Monroe Ave., Rochester, NY
> 
> Saturday through Sunday, 24-25 Oct
> "X-Plicit Customs Workshop"
> 10 am Saturday 'til 6 pm Sunday
> 
> For info on these events, call Morley Schloss at 716 244 1219
> 
> =================================
> 
> Monday 26 Oct
> "Lecture/Video with Deb Moore's X-Plicit Players"
> 7:30 pm, East Lecture Hall in Franklin Patterson Hall, 
> Hampshire College, Northhampton, Mass.
> 
> Tuesday, 27 Oct
> "X-Plicit Act of Intimacy"
> 7:30 pm, The Red Barn, Hampshire College, Northhampton, Mass.
> 
> For info on these events, call Whitney Witt at 413 584 9250
> 
> -- 
> Marty Kent 				mkent@netcom.com
> Sixth Sense R & D			510 548 9129
> 1914A Haste St.
> Berkeley Ca 94704
> 
> Kent's Heuristic: Look for it first where you'd most like to find it.
> "You're soaking in it..." - Madge
From: abel@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sunscreens -- as good as their SPF numbers? (was: Tanning
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:46:33 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1992Oct13.172147.16164@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, tjr@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (thomas.j.roberts) writes:
> From article <1992Oct5.224925.26720@sol.UVic.CA>, by klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen):
>> In article <*> grogono@cs.concordia.ca (Peter Grogono) writes:
>>>
>>>It seems to me rather unlikely that the fading ozone accounts for
>>>skin cancer increases.  The most reasonable explanation that I have seen
>>>is that people have placed too much trust in protective creams 
>>>that have much less screening effect than they claim.
>> 
>> Is this the latest "conspiracy-theory",
>> i.e., that 'Hawaiian Tropic' and 'Coppertone' and ...
>> are paying "hush-money" to the publishers of 'Consumer Reports' et al
>> to falsify the results of the scientific tests which C.R. performs?      :-)
>> 
> Ah. But what if the protection against skin cancer differs markedly
> from the protection against sunburn? The ratings are for the amount
> of sun it takes to start the skin turning pink/red. To my knowledge,
> no study has ever been performed on the effectiveness of sunblock cremes
> in preventing skin cancer. I suspect this would be a long and difficult 
> study.
> 
Not correct.  My skin turns pink and burns more quickly than most.  
People whose skin is dark without *any* sun are far more resistant 
than most.  The "F" in "SPF" stands for factor.  An SPF of 2 cuts the 
sun in half, more specifically, you would burn the same in 60 minutes 
of sun with the sunscreen than you would in 30 minutes without it.  
An SPF of 30 means that you could spend 4 hours in the sun with it 
and get the same sun as 8 minutes without it.

Now that we've mastered this, Consumer Reports notes that the ratings 
are based on how much sunscreen the manufacturer uses, not how much *you* 
use.  They found that very few people used "enough" sunscreen to get 
the claimed SPF.  Very few people would *want* to!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Subject: Re: Art Modeling
Reply-To: glenm@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 13:54:32 GMT

In article <1aqdv8INNjhu@network.ucsd.edu>, middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
|> I also find it interesting that they seem to use men as subjects as well
|> as women.  Would you say it is just about even or is there a preference?

For some, there is a preference for female. More often, though, there are
fewer men willing to pose. The model book for the figure group of a photo
club to which I belong has no males.

So far as 'body types': for painting and such, a perfect body is not very
important, as the artist has a lot of creative leeway. For photography,
the desired effect will dicate the body type to a large extent.

BTW - if there are people in Ottawa who are interested in posing for 
      photographs, they should feel free to contact me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin              Bell-Northern Research          Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Phone : (613) 763-7299   Fax: (613) 763-2626             Internet: glenm@bnr.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Tanning
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:40:45 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Austin Division, 6800 Burleson Rd, Austin, TX 78744

In article <1992Oct2.113912.4313@unixg.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:

>A recent issue of _Going Natural_ (published by the Fed. of Canadian
>Naturists) contained an interesting article on the health BENEFITS of
>exposure to the sun's rays (and some cautions, too).  I believe it was
>translated from some INF publication.  ...

It was taken from an issue this past spring of "Les Nouvelles Vacances",
the magazine of the Federation Francaise du Naturisme, the French naturist
organization.  That group of naturists spends nearly as much magazine
space on _natur_ism as nudism (subjects from how to sun healthily to
Jacques Cousteau's current project to guarantee an environment to our
descendents).

It's a balance that we could more of in this country -- treating nudism
not so much as an end in itself, but rather as one aspect of living in
harmony with nature as a whole.

-- 
   Tom Davis                    Internet address: tmd@austin.lockheed.com
	"Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do;
	 Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too."
   [Disclaimer: I speak for nobody but me - and sometimes not even that.]
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: wwheeler@news.cecer.army.mil (Wes Wheeler)
Subject: puppy dogs
Summary: Have other couples had puppy dogs tagging along?
Keywords: rabid curiosity 
Reply-To: wwheeler@max.cecer.army.mil
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:22:19 GMT

Just a question for you more experienced folks.  My wife and I seemed to often
"pick-up" puppy dogs during our stays at Paradise (see previous post).
In all cases but one, these were completely non-sexual, just guys who were
lonely or bored, or both.  We told the "wild and crazy" creep to get lost
and he eventually did.  The other guys turned out to be good friends.  

For the record, we are not "swingers" and are not interested in becoming so.
I'll admit that both of us are out-going and friendly, but when I mentioned 
this to other couples who are shy and quiet, they said they had the same 
experiences.

I know its a trivial question, but enquiring minds want to know, is this a
fairly common occurence?

Thanks!
-- 
"And when the band you're in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on 
the Dark Side of the Moon."

		- Mr. Floyd