HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Sexuality and Social Attitudes
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:13:45 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

pinelr@aix.rpi.edu (Rob Pinelli) writes:
>(adam and eve story)

I have a twist on that story.

God: Adam, now don't eat that apple!
Adam: Yes, Sir. (quavers slightly; twinge of regret.)
(God muses. God assumes form of Snake:)
Snake says to Eve: get him to eat the apple!
Eve: Adam, try this apple.
Adam: But Eve, God said not to!
Eve: Oh, I know - but aren't you curious?
Adam: Oh, alright. (eats the apple.)
(God pokes {his} head out of the clouds:)
God: Adam?
Adam: Oh, shit, I'm in trouble now!
God: No, Adam. Not really. Just wanted to give you a clue: you knew when
	 I said don't eat the apple, you wanted to check it out. Did you have
	 the courage to do that? No. You had to wait until someone *else* bucked
	 up your courage. You denied your own curiosity, which I gave you, out
	 of a fear of the unknown! Just wanted you to see that. You were *born*
	 curious, Son, so go out and *explore*! So get on with you - it's a wide
	 open world out there. Would you think I wanted any less than for you to
	 meet me at the end of time, knowing what I know? Now get started!! And
	 remember who had their head on straight all along!

-ecsd
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Crude email
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:19:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1a5fi6INN1l0
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> ta66863@cc.tut.fi (Ahlqvist Tero) writes:
>I just got some postings from some men (from States) who obviously
>thought I was female. They were like: Tell me where do you live I'll visit you
>or: if you're not ashamed why not send me your photo.
>
>Geez NOW I understand why so few women write to this newsgroup. :-(


Although not illegal and not immoral I think this is the kind of thing
that requires a "peer pressure" type of response.  I think this kind of
behaviour is rude and childish and stupid.  These guys didn't even check
to see if they had a member of the appropriate sex.  Then they assume
anyone who posts to rec.nude or alt.sex has to be interested in sex with
just anybody.  

As a system manager I'd like to know if someone who has an account on my
system is sending out such messages.  Not that I would censor them, but
so that I could give them a class in netiquette.

Anyway, I would suggest posting the email address of people who are so crude
and tacky so the rest of us can send them email letting them know something
about netiquette.

Unfortunately, Tero is correct in that women who are bothered this way are
probably going to just unsubscribe.  Thus we lose valuable input into this
group.  And that is the reason we should all let those responsible know it
is inappropriate.

-- 
"These are difficult times for our country, and in searching for the causes
of our social ills, we could chose to blame the media, or the congress, or
an administration that's been in power for 12 years, or we could blame me."
						Murphy Brown
From: Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Polk County, FL bans nudity
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:02:55 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon Univ, Nectar Project

From a UPI story found in a clari.* group, which I can't just forward
here lest The Wrath of Templeton come down upon me...

(...jus' kiddin', Brad...)

It seems that the commissioners of Polk County, FL voted 3-2 for an
ordinance banning everything from outright nude-going folk to T-back
swimsuits (e.g., the hotdog vendor issue).

Interestingly, the only female commissioner of the 5 was one of the 2
who voted against, and she had been sexually assaulted herself "many
years ago," in which her assailant's defense was based in part on the
idea that her dress had provoked the attack.  She (wisely) "could not
accept assumptions in the ordinance" that public nudity causes sex
crimes.

There were 200 in attendance at the hearing, almost all in favor of
the ordinance, sigh.

--karl
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude? Is it time?
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:07:01 GMT

scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>Some have suggested that the name of this newsgroup should be changed
>from rec.nude to rec.naturism to eliminate many of the irrelevant
>postings.  ...
>
>IMO the current name "rec.nude" is too broad and vague.  ...

Hey folks. Can we get a consensus that:

(a) no reason to mess with name "rec.nude"
(b) stuff related to issues 'above' nudism per se have thread names
	allowing easy killfiling (e.g. 'sex' 'sexuality' 'social' etc.)
(c) no cross-posting to alt.sex, so as to discourage cross-posts from there
(d) the "shall we change the name of the group" thread is allowed to die?

Thanks.
-ecsd
From: shulick@navajo.ucs.indiana.edu (Sam Hulick)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Open sexuality, strangers, etc.
Keywords: nudity, rape, women
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:18:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.BvELJ1.3J0
Organization: Vallen Software

In article <1992Sep26.233328.18024@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>Scenario:
>
>Man walks up to woman at nude beach.
>"Hello, my name is ____. I enjoy sex. Would you like to participate in
>a sexual act with me?"
>
>Woman:
>
>response (a): "No, thank you, I'm not interested in doing that with you."
>response (b): "Why, yes, I think that might be nice. Thanks for the offer."
>
>I'm not interested in a society that defines the exchange resulting in (b)
>to be *impossible*. That society - ours now and reinforced by the above '>'

Unlikely!!  Do you honestly think a woman is going to respond (b)?  Get real.
Especially with a total STRANGER. (indicated by "Hello, my name is ____")  No,
if a man walked up to a woman, introduced himself, then asked for her to
participate, she'd most likely look rather perplexed and ask "Do I KNOW you?"
By your scenario above and response (b), you're giving the image of something
like _Brave_New_World_ where people are reduced to primates where we simply
"choose" someone to have sex with and ask, and they MAY agree, even though they
both may be strangers.  We're humans, not 100% logical, unemotional aliens.
Reponse (b) gives me the impression of someone with no emotion and all logic,
somewhat like Spock.  "Why, yes, I think a sexual deed may be particularily
pleasurable."  Humans have emotions, and response (b) is extremely unlikely.
The first thing that may go through a woman's head when asked by a stranger to
participate in sexual act(s) is perhaps fear.  She might think "Oh no.. if I
refuse, he might attack me."  For all he knows, she may be "in the mood," but
not with him (a stranger).  If you're hoping that our society can be like your
scenario, think again.

-- 
Sam Hulick          | "The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to
shulick@indiana.edu | hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the
(NeXTmail welcome)  | essence of inhumanity."  --George Bernard Shaw
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Photos at nude beaches
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:51:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep29.164512.10279@meaddata.com>, markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson) writes:

> overlooked the beach.  Up there, I came across 3-4 people with
> binoculars and/or cameras with large telephoto lenses trained on the
> beach.

It makes you feel sorry for those people when you think about it!  They've
*got* to take pictures in *secret*!  If they'd get a copy of Playboy they'd
get better pictures for lower cost! ;-)

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: ales@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ales Fiala)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:09:26 GMT
Subject: Re: NAC Update
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.nude


David Archer writes:

> Once while hiking in a National Forest, I happened upon a (female)
> ranger talking to another hiker.  She practically fell over in hysterical
> laughter, and managed to say something like she could fine me for that.
> She didn't though, and I just kept on hiking, to get by her as quickly
> as possible.

At first, I thought that the ranger didn't know the policy and would be
wrong to issue a fine.

But then Pat O'Brien writes:

> For more than a decade the Eastern Region of the U.S.
> Forest Service has had a closure order on nudity in all of
> the areas it manages, from Minnesota to Maine.

This is a surprise to me.  I thought that there were no laws against
nudity on National Forest lands anywhere.

Although I live in Colorado, I sometimes vacation in northern Wisconsin.
We occasionally go nude on National Forest lands there.  I thought we
were safe as long as nobody complained.  We haven't ran into anyone
yet while nude to test this theory.

So how can the National Forest Service have different policies in
different regions?  I know, my company also sometimes acts like several
different companies that don't talk to each other.

> It appears that regional
> agency officials, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisc., are
> willing to talk and listen to a plea to relax this
> regulation.

I hope that the NAC succeeds with this goal.  Maybe they can use the
approach of making the rules for the Eastern and the Western regions
consistent.  (Consistently allowing nudity, that is, not the other way :-).


Ales Fiala
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Social Attitudes
Keywords: no crosspost to alt.sex!
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:56:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1ad49gINNj0s
Organization: Intstitute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Sep29.085842.3608@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>I see a large connection between open sexuality and nudism.

You are using nudity to forward your own agenda of open sexuality.  PLEASE,
before you post again.  Go read something about the history of nudism and
naturism.  Take some time and LISTEN to what the majority of people who are
involved in nudism/naturism have to say.  If you paid attention to postings
before you responded to them you might LEARN something.

I don't object to your "open sexuality" attitude.  I DO object to you
hanging on to the nudists coattails (symbolically speaking, of course)
to promote your personal agenda.

-- 
===============================================================================
	Thomas Earl Middleton		
	aka Happy Bare		
	middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions? (something worse than photographers
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:45:14 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

>ringo@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Ringo) writes:
>>What's wrong with masturbation?
>
In article <> cs161feu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff) writes:
>The masturbator, on the other hand, does harm others-- because he
>fuels the perception that "CO beaches are a place where immoral,
>disgusting people go," provoking a stronger reaction from society,
>and therefore increasing the probability that the CO beach will be
>shut down, thereby depriving other nudists/naturists of their CO
>activities.
>
>In a utopian society, I would say that what he wants to do with his
>own body, even in public, is his own business.  However, we do have
>political realities do deal with, and the masturbator creates problems.


When I read this I thought, "If I was walking down one of the many textile
beaches here in San Diego and I saw a man masturbating I would probably
laugh and ignore that person. But if I was on a nude beach and saw the
same person doing the same thing I would be angry and want to take some
direct action to end his activities."  Is this a double standard, am I
going against rec.nude guidelines by reacting differently on a nude beach
than I would on a non-nude beach?  Well, it would seem so.  But in fact
I think that the difference is that I know that on a clothed beach someone
else will complain, society will not blame the entire beach for the actions
of one person, and I don't find any strong association with textile beaches.

On a nude beach I feel (indirectly) threatened, I would have to agree with
Tony that there is a damaging effect to me if I take no action towards stopping
the activity in question.  I feel an association with nude beaches that makes
me want to be involved and I do believe society will blame the entire beach
for the actions of one person.  The problem here is that the masturbator thinks
he will get away with an activity, which he knows would not be accepted in any
other public place, simply because he is on a nude beach.  That is a problem
for me because I believe the only difference between a nude beach and any other
beach is that there is no dress code, you can wear or not wear whatever you
want.  I do not believe that any other rules, besides the dress code, are
changed when you change an area to become clothing optional.

Comments?  Am I being hypocritical?  Is it wrong for me to feel damaged
by activities which I think are likely to lead to the closure of a nude
beach?  Am I wrong to think that public masturbation on a nude beach will
be used by opponents of nudity to close the beach?

-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Earl Middleton		|
aka Happy Bare			| "Murph, it's Dan Quayle, forget about it."  
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| 			Frank Fontana
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude?  Is it time?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 20:25:54 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>If all rec.nude was, was postings on where to go and what the places are like,
>this would be a *very* stale place.

Eric has a point.  So whats wrong with a "*very* stale" place for such
postings?  Note that the first three letters are 'r', 'e', 'c' which
stands for recreation.  I don't think rec.nude needs to be a social
battleground.  However, there does seem to be a need for one.  

How about adding a new news group called "soc.nude" which can take all
the discussions about social nudity and its impact on society and its
sexual ramifications.  IMHO, I would like to see rec.nude as a place
where we can share stories about first time nude adventures, finding
new places, etc., etc. and not have to deal with all the extra baggage.

So can we handle two groups, rec.nude and soc.nude?  Or I am just
suggesting another net.headache?

-- 
"These are difficult times for our country, and in searching for the causes
of our social ills, we could chose to blame the media, or the congress, or
an administration that's been in power for 12 years, or we could blame me."
						Murphy Brown
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bal@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (alan.c.lester)
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude? Is it time?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:26:42 GMT

>
>tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>>What name would describe what we are interested in best, but make it clear
>>that we're not a poor-man's alt.sex?
>
>How about rec.hanging-around-nude-in-non-sexual-environments?  :-)
>
>Really, I think rec.nude is the best name we could have.  If we changed
>at all, I would say rec.nudist would be next best.  At least that is
>really clear.  But I don't think it is worth all the hassle to change.
>


How about just lengthening the name to rec.nude.lifestyle.  




Alan Lester
ATT.COM

"Sorry, but my dog ate my signature"



Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: experience was worth more than words can describe
Keywords: experience
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:40:46 GMT

djserian@flash.LakeheadU.Ca (Reincarnation of Elvis) writes:

>I was just wondering if anyone else has been to wreck beach... and if you have
>what did you think of it?

Love that beach!

Unfortunately, Wreck has "shut down" for the fall, in that the vendors and
various enterpreneurs are no longer setting up shop there. (No falafel, no 
hamburgers, no beer, no water-balloon target shooting, no t-shirt sellers,
no nothing.) It's pretty much a ghost town...beach...now. Besides, it's not
too warm anymore this time of year.

Next summer...

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Hon Cog Sci; Min Psyc; Forum; Senate; CDSU; URC; ASC; FARSIDE; LEAD; CCCS
I officially represent each and every one of the above bodies--NOT!

"Perhaps you're just different. It's not a sin, you know--though you may
 have heard otherwise."                     --Tam Elbrun, ST:TNG "Tin Man"
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Lighten up, gang
Summary: $$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:34:55 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <d!nz=yd@rpi.edu>, dking@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Dave King) writes:

> 	Post a trip report!  PLEASE!  Somebody, anybody!!

> 	I'm taking a collection so that whoever it was that recently
> wrote that great posting about his trip to Jamaica (the one with the
> unsuspecting clothed bar patrons at the CO beach) can keep traveling
> and providing entertaining reading.  (Note that I didn't selfishly
> suggest that you send *me*, although I do have quite a bit of vacation
> time coming.  :-)

Good work Dave, your check's in the mail! ;-)


> 	This concept could really be a convenience, you know.  With
> one designated person taking care of having all the fun, the rest of
> us would have more time to continue our important discussions.  We
> might even squeeze in a seminar on creative kill file construction!
> Isn't that worth at least $20 to you?  Make your contribution today!

Guys/Gals if 100 of you send me $20 each, I promise that I will post more
trip reports similar to the one I posted about Grand Lido.  No problem! ;-)
So you don't forget, E-mail your $20 to: tjw+@pitt.edu before midnight tonight!

I'll also accept $2 from 1000 of you ;-)

Terry "It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it" Wood
-- 
        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: FORTMAPL@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU (Pooh Bare)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Sick Society (was Re: Polk County, FL bans nudity)
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:28:14 GMT


	Newsgroups: rec.nude
	From: rlittell@wizard.Berkeley.EDU (Rich Littell)
	Subject: Re: Polk County, FL bans nudity
	Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:47:57 GMT
 
	In article <BvECH4.BIE.2@cs.cmu.edu>, Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu writes:
	> ...
	> It seems that the commissioners of Polk County, FL voted 3-2 for an
	> ordinance banning everything from outright nude-going folk to T-back
	> swimsuits (e.g., the hotdog vendor issue).
 
	I can not believe the folks that are running this country
	of ours.
 
	I am constantly assaulted by nasty pictures of Freddy Kruger
	both at work and at home on the TV and yet no one seems to be
	offended by these pictures/movies except me.

I too am offended by such things as Freddy Kruger.  

It is a sick society that accepts and glorifies violence, yet condems 
something as natural and beautiful as the human body.

	I would much rather see folks, at the beach, in their natural
	way then see one of those horrible pictures of a slasher.

So would I.
 
	Where is this country of ours going?

Down the toilet.
 

*Pooh Bare

--
fortmapl@dayton.bitnet
fortmapl@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu
fortmapl@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu
an725@cleveland.freenet.edu
paul.fortman@bbs.oit.unc.edu
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Would anonymous access here be desirable?
Followup-To: rec.nude
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:16:07 GMT

One thing to consider is that anonymous posting does not allow
cross-posting!  That would have to be a definite advantage!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Sexuality and Social Attitudes (why restrict nudity)
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:43:44 GMT

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>Conduct can be inoffensive in itself but offensive in inappropriate 
>circumstances.  Public nudity may fit into this class. ...
>
>The only ground I can see for restraining such behavior (nudity) is that,
>for most people, exposure to such sights is acutely *embarrassing*. ...

>causes of such embarressment, it surely exists and in not a few persons. It
>creates upset, excitement, repression; this conflict produces anxiety, a 
>kind of painful termoil, the exposure to oneself of "peculiarly sensitive, 
>intimate, vulnerable aspects of the self" ... which is called "shame":
>
>The result is not, therefore, mere 'offense', but a kind of psychic jolt 
>that in many normal people can be a painful wound.  Even those who could
>see such sights without experiencing shame of the kind described here, 
>might well resent the *nuisance* of having to repress other similar feelings.

Children believe in the world they grow up in. Should I internalize *your*
shame? Whose shame is it? Why do you have this shame?

When people without shame conduct themselves openly, people with shame can
see they have the option *not to have the shame*, since they see the shameless
doing so. If we prevent the shameless from holding their conduct into the open,
the shamed will not see an alternative and we reinforce the dominant attitude
of today.

It may not be 'polite', but if my simple action produces shame in *you*,
that tells you about *you*, not about what *I* am doing. It is a very hard
thing to own this and to face one's own fears. Some of us just cannot.
But I would rather it be a shameless world with a few ashamed, than an
ashamed world with a few shameless being free in the closet of a few CO
beaches. So I am advocating the "coming out" of the shameless and the
"coming out for" a shameless world. I believe the shameless would be in the
majority, if we allowed this to happen.

And there is nothing to be ashmed of for being shameless!!
We've tried shame for 2000 years or more. How about a change?
-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: tcumming@netcom.com (Tom Cumming)
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:03:20 GMT

In article <6655@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>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

So... We know nude != sex, but maybe nude == ratings!

I remember talking about this a month or so ago. Someone suggested we
"advertize" nude life style... I suggested just putting it into television
shows to increase the ratings, i.e., people would be drawn to the show by
the *percieved* sexual aspect, then only to find... nude people can be
normal to!

I think there are some script writers out there in rec.nude land reading
this... :-)

Tom C.