HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Subject: Re: Excluding Single Males (Was: Nudist TV segment)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:23:45 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.9 PL6]

-wat- writes:

-----------------
	Yeah -- I know how you feel.  I've seen the same thing with black
	children.  They cause more trouble, and show less respect and in
	general are just less intelligent.  It bothers me that it should be
	this way, but that's just the way it is.  When I need to predict
	the behaviour of black children vs. whites, I use my experience.
	I hope they don't take it personally, but it's just a general rule --
	black children cause more problems -- and in my experience they always
	seem to live up to those expectations.

		It's a good thing we are a good "prejudge" of people so we can
		predict such behavior and generate our rules from it.
----------------

I repply:

	Yeah -- I know how you feel.  I've seen the same thing with 'male'
	drivers.  They cause more accidents, and drive too fast and in
	general are just more dangerous.  It bothers me that it should be
	this way, but that's just the way it is.  When I need to predict
	the behaviour of 'male' drivers vs. 'females', I use my experience.
	I hope they don't take it personally, but it's just a general rule --
	'male' drivers cause more problems -- and in my experience they always
	seem to live up to those expectations.

	It's a good thing we are a good "prejudge" of people so we can
	predict such behavior and generate our rules from it and operate
	our insurance company profitably.

How 'bout them apples.....

-Mike-

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes)
Subject: being uncomfortable
Organization: WCOM Public Access Unix - Toronto
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:41:06 GMT

I agree that erections are not always caused by sexual desire.
I agree that they are normal and occur often.

However,
I had an experience where an individual was at the same club I was
and he had an erection the entire afternoon he was there.  He also
insisted on laying on his back, therefore displaying his 'flagpole'
to anyone in the area.  

That may have been 'natural' but it made my wife and I uncomfortable.

Sorry if this goes against some people's ideas of nudism but I feel that
you should exercise some level of humility.  Erections may not be anything
to be ashamed of but I don't think you should show off either.


-- 
========================================================
Stephane Deschenes     stephane@xrtll.uucp
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
========================================================
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:36:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <C0ozCn.Hr1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  It's a distinction without a difference.   If someone walks
>  around with 90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered
>  is his "private parts" he's not nude.   If he walks around with
>  90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered is only his 
>  forearms he is considered nude.

So are you saying that if I walk around almost completely clothed but
with my pants unzipped and my balls and penis hanging out people will
look at me and say "oh look, he's nude"?  Just trying to understand
your point.  Personally, I don't believe nudity is defined based
simply on the exposure of genitals.  Certainly genitals exposure is
a major part of the definition of nude but it is not the one and only
qualification as some people seem to be expressing.

By the way, if a woman walks around without a shirt many people would
say she is partially nude, if a man does the same thing will those
same people say the same of him?  Probably not.  Its just a thought.

Tom

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com (Arthur G. Yaffe)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment 
Reply-To: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
Organization: . . . Next week, we've got to get organized.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:50:08 GMT

In article IvA@apollo.hp.com, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.134111.21465@icd.teradyne.com> yaffe@icd.teradyne.com writes:

	[further references and much text deleted for brevity]

>>Naturism/Nudism is not about genitals.
>
>  No, but the other person's posting WAS.   She said that there was 
>  a double standard in the media about "full frontal nudity" and I
>  was pointing out that this is untrue.
>
>           
>  BTW, I disagree that nudism is not about genitals.  "NUDE" in
>  our culture is defined in terms of exposure of genital areas.  
>  On a textile beach you can expose almost any part of your 
>  body except those associated with genitals (and breasts on
>  some beaches).   A man or woman with the skimpiest bikini
>  is not considered "nude".  Remove it and they are "nude".
>  Are you saying this is just a coincidence?    
>
>
>---peter

You're right, Peter, the original post was about genitals, and you
are also correct that most of the laws that define "nude" refer to
exposure of the genitals.  It's also true that many of those laws
define "lewd" as "nude".  That doesn't make them right.  

Aside from the argument of what differentiates "nude" from "near nude"
from "not nude", the question I addressed was not about "nude".  My
statement was "Naturism/Nudism is not about genitals", and I'll stand
by that.  I don't go to nude beaches for the purpose of exposing my
genitals or to be exposed to anyone else's genitals.  Perhaps some
people do, but I don't, my wife doesn't, and I doubt it's the top item
on the lists of many nudist families.  I don't object to the exposure
of genitals in those (or nearly any other) settings, but genitals are
not the reason I'm there.  I go there to be clothes-free.  

The same applies to erections, for which I've been flamed (well, not
a very hot flame :-) ) in some other postings.  There are lots of
causes for erections, but in ten or so years of visiting nude beaches,
clubs, swims, bowling, etc., I only recall seeing one, and then only
when it was pointed out to me.  I wasn't offended.  But generally when
erections appear in the movies the topic is sex.  Naturism/Nudism is
not about sex.  Sex happens.  It happens more often when nude than when
not nude.  But sex is not the reason I go to nude beaches, Nudist clubs,
etc., and when I see sex happening on the beach I AM offended.  There
are some things that I feel should be confined to private space.  (I
will not defend that statement no matter how hot the flames get :-) ).


---
********************************
Arthur G. Yaffe
Internet: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
********************************

From: ales@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ales Fiala)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:09:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Denver clubs/resorts
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.nude

> I need help in locating a nudist club or resort in the Denver area.  We will
> be staying in Denver for a week this summer on other business, and there's
> no way that my wife and kids want to stay at a motel, or some other place
> where one has to be clothed.
> 
> Mark Allen

There are two nudist organizations in the Denver area: the Rocky Mountain
Bares (RMB) and Mountain Air Ranch (MAR).  Here is the info on the two.

Mountain Air Ranch - a landed club, about 20 miles west of Denver.
   The facilities include a swimming pool, hot tub, club house,
   hiking trails, sun deck, volleyball courts, campground,
   children's playground, picnic facilities.  They also have several
   cabins for rent.  Reservations are usually needed for the cabins
   in the summer.

	Mountain Air Ranch
	8796 Mica Mine Gulch Rd.
	Littleton, CO  
	(303) 697-4083

   
Rocky Mountain Bares - a non-landed club based in Denver.  They rent
   out a health club once or twice a month on Saturday evening to hold
   a swim party/social.  They have a pot luck dinner at their swim parties.
   The health club has a swimming pool, large jacuzzi, sauna, steam room,
   and exercise equipment.  In the summer they also have outdoor
   gettogethers at one of the members house who has a swimming pool.

	Rocky Mountain Bares
	P.O. Box 740159
	Arvada, CO 80006


I am a member of both of these organizations.  If you need more info
or some help, let me know.

Ales Fiala
ales@fc.hp.com
Organization: University of Central Florida--Computer Services
Date: Tuesday, 5 Jan 1993 14:04:34 EST
From: John Meaker <JMEAKER@UCF1VM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Jamacia Travel

    I am considering going to Jamacia in March.  I would appreciate any
information on the resorts there.  Which ones have CO beaches, which are
more or less family oriented, etc.  I believe that the all inclusive
are along the north coast, but any information on other locations would
be most welcome.

                                     John Meaker
From: Wayne.Silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Wayne Silsbee)
Sender: postmaster@therose.pdx.com
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Nudist TV segment
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:24:44 -0700

In article <1993Jan8.135008.3356@icd.teradyne.com> yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
(Arthur G. Yaffe) writes:


 > when I see sex happening on the beach I AM offended.  There are some
things
 > that I feel should be confined to private space.

I have no problem with that statement. I believe most folks have a few things
that they find offensive (and a few find most things offensive). My objection
isn't that people are offended, but that they try to regulate others'
behavior
based on their own feelings of being offended.


Wayne
silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org


Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:41:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan8.175808.15871@bnr.ca> glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin) writes:

>I think you're off track here. Nudism is *not* defined in terms of
>exposing the body. Every definition I've seen says 'without clothes',
>not 'displaying genital regions'.

  It's a distinction without a difference.   If someone walks
  around with 90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered
  is his "private parts" he's not nude.   If he walks around with
  90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered is only his 
  forearms he is considered nude.


---peter
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Naked folk & Computers (Was: Seattle Swims and Computers)
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:34:24 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <1993Jan12.203040.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> khockenbury@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu writes:
>This leads me to an interesting question: why so many of us online?  That is, 
>why are some many nudists/naturists/etc computer users? Is it as simple as the 
>fact that we have clear communications channels that others lack?  Or is it 
>that current computer users are neophiles, willing to try CO recreation?  The
>above example would support either hypothesis.
>
>		His [Lee Baxandall] hypothesis was that 
>computer people were trained to think logically about things, and when exposed 
>to the idea of naturism realized that swimsuits were just plain silly.

I'm sure there are many reasons.  Three important ones:
1) Computers tend to be used more by young people willing to explore
	and experiment.
2) Computers tend to be used more by intelligent, educated people who
	are more likely to use logic and reason when deciding how to
	live as opposed to following strict rules without thinking
	about them.  (basically Lee's hypothesis)
3) Computer networks allow open communication about the hows and wheres
	of getting involved in nudism/naturism.  There are probably many
	potential nudists/naturists out there who just don't know there
	are so many possibilities.  Give them a computer and modem and
	they will find us.

-- 
Tom Middleton					.signature temporarily
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu			    out of service
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sandy Hook Status
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:50:05 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


This response was sent to me with a request to keep it anonymous.
Please post followups, do NOT email them to me.  Although I can put
you in touch with the author (as he suggested) if need be.

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

In article <1993Jan8.142256.14982@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ccbjr@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (charles.c.bahr..jr) writes:
> Has anyone visited Sandy Hook since the big winter storm
> which ripped the NY/NJ area in December?
> Is Gunnison beach still there?
> -charlie bahr

On a recent lunch "hour" I made a pass along the whole length of the
shoreline of Sandy Hook at about 90 knots and 500 feet altitude in a
Cessna 150 (No, I wasn't nude, the thing had a crappy heater.  :-> ).
Anyway, at 90 knots I wouldn't call it a definitive survey, but here
are my impressions of all the Eastern beaches, from north to south:

The north end of North Beach seems even bigger that ever, but when you
get domn to near the parking area and south there is a section that is
pretty well washed away.  That big square gun emplacement that was by
North Beach is gone.  I heard it was undermined quite a bit, whether it
actually fell over by itself or was pulled down I don't know.

Gunnison (the clothing-optional beach) seemed unchanged in size, or even
a little bigger.  The "lake" that was in the middle of it is still there,
but smaller and in a different spot.  The fact that the Gunnison parking
lot is way back from the beach itself saved the lot from being buried in
sand as were many of the others.  The little umbrella-rental shop was
gone, but so were all other smallish unprotected structures like it all
up and down the coast.

The next beach south, the Area F fishing beach looked about 2/3 its old
width, and the situation got worse as you go further south.  The main
beaches near the park entrance have a sand-filled parking lot, a sea wall,
and then the ocean.  Damn little sand where it should be.

So the bottom line is that Gunnison came off better than any of the others.
Maybe "Mother Nature" is making a statement about how She would like to
be enjoyed!  What will be interesting to see is what happens when all those
clothing-compulsive folks find out the main beaches aren't so nice anymore
and all come up to Gunnison instead.  I have a feeling there is either
going to be a fight over Gunnison, or a lot of new "bunny tails" there in
the Spring!
						Cheers,
						"Be Bare or Be Square"

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: dking@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Dave King)
Subject: Nudist TV
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:05:33 GMT


	If you read publications relating to the TV industry, you'll
soon find that, for them, nudity=sex.

	Csae in point: Entertainment Weekly magazine 10/23/92.  Cover
story title: "Sex on TV".  The story calls this fall TV season "one of
the most sexually explicit ever" and cites as its first two examples
the Mariel Hemingway nude modeling session on Civil Wars and the June
Chadwick skinny dip on Going to Extremes ... both of which were
nudity, but not sex.

	And you wonder why there's almost no casual nudity shown on
American TV.

--
David C. King - RPI Center for Integrated Electronics
dking@unix.cie.rpi.edu
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: Lots of it!

In article <1993Jan6.211820.25586@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> dennett@unsw.OZ.AU writes:
>Here in Australia, watching TV any night of the week, you
>would be hard pressed to find a show that did not have
>nudity. It appears (full frontal male and female) in
>everthing - Movies (Australian and O.S that are
>NOT censored for TV), Soap Operas, Serials and even
>commercial advertisements (tits and bums mainly in the adds).
>
>We even have a weekly hour long program called S.E.X that is
>extremely explicit - showing many close ups of male and female genitals
>even in aroused states. Naturally there are lots of wowsers who
>write in to the Networks and complain - but mostly they are ignored.

They were heard on this side of the world, though! :-)   Hard Copy (or
Current Affair, or...) did a story on the shocking extent of nudity
on Australian TV.  They had interviews with several offended viewers.
They producers obviously disapproved of the openness.

>I have been to America several times and the archaic censorship
>laws there amase me. The general rule in Australia is that most 
>viewers are intelligent enough to decide whether or not they find
>a program offensive. If so they switch to another station.

I guess that's what happens when you let Puritans found their own 
country!  :-)

Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: A change of pace, news of the Mirza Ranch
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:17:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0pHDJ.CA0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

> I'm terribly sorry to add this distraction, but after wading through
> almost 60 posts containing that old E theme, I thought I should post 
> something.

Not to take away from your fine posting, but there was some NEW info in
that old "E" theme:  IMPLANTS.  It's something that I had never considered
and if any of y'all (or "yunz" as we say here in Pittsburgh) missed it, you'd
do well to take note!

I suspect that they'll become more common as time goes on!

Terry
Xref: sparky rec.nude:6149 soc.men:22563
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude,soc.men
Subject: Re: Excluding Single Males (Was: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:15:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1993Jan11.130508.1@vax.sonoma.edu> abel@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>It bothers me also, and it *is* unfair.  Unfortunately, it is also 
>realistic. 
>It's not 
>even necessary to know why, whether it is genetic or learned, it just 
>is.
>but if I am in a situation where I need to predict behavior, don't 
>know the kids, and only know what sex they appear to be, I will 
>predict their behavior by sex.
---

	Yeah -- I know how you feel.  I've seen the same thing with black
children.  They cause more trouble, and show less respect and in 
general are just less intelligent.  It bothers me that it should be
this way, but that's just the way it is.  When I need to predict 
the behaviour of black children vs. whites, I use my experience.
I hope they don't take it personally, but it's just a general rule --
black children cause more problems -- and in my experience they always
seem to live up to those expectations.

	It's a good thing we are a good "prejudge" of people so we can
predict such behavior and generate our rules from it.


-wat-

p.s. -- my comments above are only in relation to the current discussion
and should not be taken out of context.
-- 
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::
From: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com (Arthur G. Yaffe)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Reply-To: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
Organization: . . . Next week, we've got to get organized.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:41:11 GMT

In article LGA@apollo.hp.com, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes, in reference
to article <1992Dec22.015544.23540@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> barlow@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Rebel) writes:
>  A female writer editorialized against this same "double standard" in the
>  Sunday New York Times, last fall.
>
>  The flaw in her reasoning (and yours) is simple:  The prohibition is
>  against showing *genitals* onscreen.   When you see female "full frontal
>  nudity" on HBO, say, all you're seeing is pubic hair.  Nature has 
>  arranged for the female external genitalia to be modestly hidden by
>  her pubic hair.  Thus "full frontal nudity" on most women is about as
>  revealing as a beard (also a kind of "pubic hair") on a man.  But males
>  enjoy no such modesty when it comes to genitals.  
>
>  So there's really no double standard.  Now I've seen the "no genitals"
>  rule violated on both sexes *occasionally*.  But in general they're quite
>  consistent about it and if there's any "double standard" in this matter
>  it's in the way nature made us.
>
>
>---peter

Peter, IMHO, I think you're falling into the Leif Heilberg trap here.  Leif
is a Naturist/Nudist photographer who always seems to want women to spread
their legs (and not just "a little"), justifying it with an argument similar
to yours.

Naturism/Nudism is not about genitals.  It is about going without clothes.
This thread began with an article about a Nudist TV segment, so we're not
talking about an anatomy lesson here - we're talking about nudism.  I resent
that we're getting down to whose genitals are showing.

Please don't misunderstand - I admire good looking bodies as much as anybody
else, and I show a marked preference for good looking female bodies.  But
genitals are about sex, and Nudism/Naturism is not.

FCIFOC (AW),
	-Art

---
*****************************************************************************
Arthur G. Yaffe			 | "Fully Clothed in front of Computer,
Internet: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com |  (At Work)"
*****************************************************************************
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:09:36 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: Lots of it!

dennett@unsw.OZ.AU writes:
>I have been to America several times and the archaic censorship
>laws there amase me. The general rule in Australia is that most 
>viewers are intelligent enough to decide whether or not they find
>a program offensive. If so they switch to another station.

We Americans cannot do that. Instead, we tape hours and hours
of it so that we can be offended so that we can, in turn,
send these tapes to our government to protect us from it.

You see, Americans are fragile, helpless creatures and
will shatter at the mere thought of a nude Human being.

-- 
bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) 
This week's usenet malapropism: its, it's
its = posessive pronoun; "My car blew its engine."
it's = contraction of 'it is'; "It's cold outside!"
Newsgroups: rec.nude