HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: magnus@linerle.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude? Is it time?
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:54:45

In article <1992Oct10.113556.28104@greco-prog.fr> david@dragon (David SHERMAN) writes:

   > There is nothing wrong with the name "rec.nude" that a good kill
   > file and a little patience cannot fix.

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

'lacking an essential particular'..

rec.nude -> Recreation by lacking an essential particular? Yuch!

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Subject: Re: Dorm nudity
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:51:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.183506.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> lsheehan@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>	I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but at my school we have
>"clothing optional" halls.. the hallmates get together at the beginning of each
...
>too.  Neat deal, huh?  But then of course Hampshire is not known for its
>conventionalism, is it?  =)

That sounds really cool.  I think I went to the wrong school! :-)

I can't imagine anything like that having official support or even 
tolerance here at UBC where the administration is wasting $300,000 building
a stone wall between Place Vanier residence and the Wreck Beach "problem".
(Place Vanier houses about 1200 first- and second-year students).

Bill.

Obviously I'm *not* a spokesman for my employer! :-)

-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Subject: Anonymity (was Re: Name
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:23:47 GMT

>In article <1992Sep30.015325.23119@eskimo.celestial.com> wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>> I have 
>> corresponded with a couple who would not post, even anonymously, because
>> of the volume of crude and suggestive mail that they received!

This didn't make any sense to me the first time I read it, and it still
doesn't.  If a person is posting anonymously how can they receive "crude
and suggestive mail"?  Perhaps you are talking about people not posting
their names, but leaving their email address intact.  But I think the
anonymity being discussed was an automatic relay point that would remove
the email adress too, so it would not be possible to be harrassed by
email.

Once again, I'll say I don't think anonymous post are necessary or
desirable. Anyone wanting to post anonymously should pick someone
they trust and ask that person to post for them.
 
(I will post messages for people who ask me to. Though, obviously, I'm
not going to post anything that I think is unsuitable.)

Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Beachfront U.S.A. Loses Los Angeles Lawsuit
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:05:22 GMT

cs161feu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff) writes:
>an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.) writes:
>>It seems to me that [morality-based laws]
>>would be based on religious beliefs and would be violating the seperation
>>of church and state, thus unconstitutional.
>
>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.
>
>But for most people, a knee-jerk, "It's
>just immoral, that's why," is the only response possible.

The legal system exists for rational debate and decision;
unfortunately, many recent S.C. decisions seemed to be
based on knee-jerk responses. Too bad for us. :(

>...but others could
>make a case (very weak, IMO, but it seems strong to them) that
>proper attire is a societal necessity.

Without accepting any evidence to the contrary? Without
any proof that people can and do socialize in a civil
manner without resorting to clothing? Not much of a
probing, in-depth case.

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: desandgr@eos.ncsu.edu (DAVID E SANDGREN)
Subject: Re: Implants
Originator: desandgr@c00373-247dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: desandgr@eos.ncsu.edu (DAVID E SANDGREN)
Organization: Central Carolina Naturists
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:07:11 GMT


In article <1bjcs8INNbdl@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
 writes:

|>>To: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
|>>Subject: Anon Post Request
|>
|>       Hi Bill;
|>
|>           You  mentioned  a willingness to post anonymously for someone.
|>       I wish to take you up on your offer.

	Thank you, Bill for posting this for Anon.  And thank you, Anon, for
providing us with a new perspective on a subject about which many of us
can become so easily and often wrongly judgmental.  I, for one was very
moved by what was written and am thankful for the opportunity to learn
something about a subject of which I must admit I am ignorant.
	I have made copies of this article to share with my friends, and shall
file it as one unique among my many varied and special nudist/naturist
articles.
	I remember a few years ago hearing about the reluctant wife of a
friend, who felt somewhat physically inadequate and therefore
uncomfortable about public nudity until while on vacation in Mykonos she
met a woman on the beach who was so comfortable with herself that she
could freely enjoy the crowded beach Topfree--after having had a single
mastectomy.  I will set aside the issue of comparisons and judgements of
physique here, only to emphasize that brave souls such as this woman
serve to teach us that those who are physically different can and should
be welcomed and assimilated into the textile-free world without
difference and discrimination.
	It is unfortunate that most of us are ignorant about penile implants. 
And it speaks poorly of us that we can be so easily
disturbed/embarrassed/angered/offended/[insert_your_own emotion] by any
sign of an "inappropriate" erection.  Perhaps Anon's posting can serve as a
source of enlightenment to us.  He should not be made to suffer the
stigma of the deviant.  I believe that if Anon would continue to visit a
particular club he would soon be well accepted by those in regular
attendance.  Sadly, there would always be those who didn't know him who
would initially eye him suspiciously.  Persevere, and realize it is we,
collectively, who have a problem.
-- 
_______
David Sandgren,
Central Carolina Naturists (CCN) contact
desandgr@eos.ncsu.edu
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions?
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:18:44 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <4644@moscom.com>, jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri) writes:
>>From the description you gave there was nothing in his 
>>behaviour that warranted such treatment.

> Right on wat!  Once again you saved me from having to stuggle with
> putting the right words together.

That's true.  I also thought that this guy might have an implant.  Not
all of those implants "deflate".

And think of how embarrasing it would be for this fellow, on his first trip,
to be told by someone who doesn't share the same risks as he does that
"you've had enough".  Most people, no matter how "strong" they are, would
not come back.

It's sort of like Oleg's story about being told to leave the beach.  You
start to think "who died and left him/her king/queen?".

> If I were that person at the beach, I would have told that lady
> "Oh no, I don't think so, I've got plenty of sun screen on and can
> last the whole day.  And I really do think I can decide for myself
> when it is time for me to leave.  It was nice of you to show so much 
> concern, ....even though I don't appreciate it."

Good reply, but I wouldn't think of such as thing until *days* after the
incident happened!  (I think the French have a phrase for thinking of a
good comeback after the event.  Something like "On the way down the steps".)


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
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: HELP for a friend. "indecent exposure" at Crane's Beach.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:52:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.210730.5775@unixland.natick.ma.us> dza@unixland.natick.ma.us (David Archer) writes:
>
>The "ranger" is probably hired by the Park Reserve Association (or whatever
>it's called) to enforce their rules.  Also I think they frown on the nudity
>in large part due to the fact that there is a "problem" there with many 
>gay men engaging in sexual activities in the dunes.  

Interesting. The association is called the Trustees Of Reservation. I bet
there's something to what you say about the gay men business because the
rangers have never bothered me there. It could also be that somebody
complained on that particular day, I suppose. Could be people are more
likely to compalin about men.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: another model
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:02:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


>After I took my pose though, I realized that these people wouldn't look me
>in the eye.

A friend of mine took a art class a couple of years ago.  During one of
the sessions where they were drawning men, she found that ever time she
looked up at the model, he would stare at her.  She noticed that he stared
at anyone who looked up.  This was so distracting to her that she didn't
finish her sketch.

She mentioned that most models look off into the distance and don't make
eye contact with the artists.  Perhaps that's what happened to these people
as well.

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: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: HELP for a friend. "indecent exposure"
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:35:51 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


In article <> staylor@fudd.rtp.dg.com (Steve Taylor) writes:
>
>I'd like to hear the followup.  Let us know how your friend makes out.
>


Yes please do that, keep us informed.  I hate it when someone asks a 
question like this and then leaves us all hanging as to what the outcome
was.

AND while we are at it, Whatever happened to the guy who got busted for
going skinny-dipping on a river near Sacramento?  That situation was
posted early this summer and generated a lot of discussion but we were
never informed of the outcome.  Is it because the poster ended up in jail
and no longer has net access?  If anyone kept this guys email address
maybe you can prompt him to post a followup.

-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Earl Middleton		| Camping Bares:  "An Anarchist Disorganization
aka Happy Bare			| Dedicated to the Destruction of the Fabric of
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| Our Society"
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: clothing sexy
Date: 7 Oct 1992 23:55:29 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

-In article <> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
->	Most (all?) nudists are of the opinion that clothing is sexier
->than nudity, since clothing highlights and emphasizes sexual characteristics.

In article <> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>Not all.  I question even "most."  (How many nudists get dressed to have
>sex because it's sexier?)  Stick with "many" or "some."   This is a
>topic on which people genuinely disagree.  There's room for the opinion
>that either a clothed or unclothed state can be sexy -- it's a question
>of situation and attitude.

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.

-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Earl Middleton		| Camping Bares:  "An Anarchist Disorganization
aka Happy Bare			| Dedicated to the Destruction of the Fabric of
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| Our Society"
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: socks
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:14:23 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct14.025908.2250@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Randolph J. Finder) writes:
>I have relatively sensitive feet. In clothing optional situations
>is just wearing socks/socks&shoes unusual?

Not unusual at all.  Nudism is really about wearing *appropriate* clothing,
not about an aversion to wearing any clothes.  If your feet are cold, put
on socks.  If your body is cold, wear a shirt.   If you are cooking bacon,
put on an apron.  If the ground is rough or cold (or hot), put on shoes.

In CO clubs, it is normal to wear some sort of footwear---sandals are the
most common.  Around a swimming pool it is not.

I have continually cold feet, so I almost always wear socks at home, even
in the summer.  If the house is cold I wear a shirt, too, or cover myself
with a blanket---whatever's convenient.   Other than that I am basically
nude, even when cooking (though I use more caution than when I have clothes
on!).

Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: ales@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ales Fiala)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:27:00 GMT
Subject: Re: trip report (quick one)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.nude

We were at Paradise Lakes four years ago.  It was a nice resort, although
not very much kids oriented.  For example, children were not allowed in the
swimming pool after 9 PM.  When we came back from a long day of sight seeing
and playing tourists, we wanted to get in the pool and cool off.  All of
us, including our 3 year old daughter (at the time).  But they told us that
children were not allowed after 9 PM.

Also, no children were allowed in the jacuzzi (at any time).  I don't know
why.  Children also get cold sometimes after getting out of the swimming
pool.  I don't see why they could not get warmed up in the jacuzzi.
There always was enough room there to absorb a few kids.
From: jth4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JON T. HUTCHINSON)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nude vs. Naked
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:18:12 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct14.000946.1402@octel.com>, marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert) write
s:
>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"  ]
>
                As in the naked truth, not the nude truth?

                
-- 
________________________________________________________________________

Jon T. Hutchinson, Network Coordinator
Office of Telecommunications
office 215-758-5099
fax    215-758-6127
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions? (something worse than photographers
Date: 8 Oct 1992 15:33:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

	*William looks around warily, remembering the flames from the
last time he entered this fray*, then donning his asbestos suit,
he jumps in*.

In article <1992Oct7.184240.24626@news.columbia.edu> reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci) writes:
>In article <1atbuqINNh7k@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>>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?
>>
>Thinking that proper behavior will not result in shutting down of a CO
>beach is placing too much faith in the primitive minds of the people who
>oppose it. I doubt explicit sexual behavior could be a "last drop" that will
>cause the damage. Its sad that we have to depend on the tolerance of such
>closed-minded people in this day and age to gain a bit of freedom.
---

	Reha has a valid point, Tom.  As long as you are there only at
the sufference of the vocal moralists, anything could be used as a
threat to get you to conform to their will.  For example, if a
group of pagans came there and performed a celebratory ritual in
the daytime in the nude, that might offend someone.  If they did
it at night, that would offend some.  

	Tom, you use the words 'close the beach'.  Isn't it true, it wouldn't
really be closed, they would just tell you you had to wear clothing.  They
are just telling you how to behave when you attend that beach.

	There was an anti-Clinton advertisement put on by the Xtians showing
the Gay Freedom day parade and festivities.  They said Clinton 
supported Gay rights, and that they parade and festival could become
common place -- and was this 'your' vision of america.  The advertisement
got yanked because of public protest, BTW, but the point is, the vocal
moralists might check out a nude beach -- if they see guys lying with
guys or holding hands -- or girls lying with girls and holding hands --
or worse yet -- kissing, that could easily be used as fodder for those
wanting to close the beach.  Are we to police those who's activities
might offend vocal moralists?  Do we tell same-sex couples they can't
frequent the beach?  Face, Tom, such activities can easily be construed
as damaging you since they could easily be used as ammunition to "close"
a beach to nudity.

	Do we draw the line only at overt sexual activity?  Why there?
	
-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
From: pelfpk@ark.sbc.com (Fred P. Knod)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Social Attitudes
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:32:12 GMT
Reply-To: pelfpk@ark.sbc.com (Fred P. Knod)
Organization: Southwestern Bell Telephone -- Arkansas

In article <4321@moscom.com> jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri) writes:
>
>I find that relative newcomer to this group, Eric Dynamic, also a very
>clear thinker on some important issues, and feel bad that he and Tom
>are at such odds with each other.  They both in their own way contribute
>greatly to the group.
>

Thank you for expressing my thoughts so well, Jim.  This is, after all, a
public forum and all thoughts and opinions should be welcomed.  I have
never put anyone in my kill file.  I enjoy reading varying opinions whether
I agree or not.  I have even been known to be persuaded a time or two.

>
>I hope both can get beyond this stuff, and get on with posting more good
>thoughts.

Yes, please!

>... Eric is one of the most dynamic new thinkers
>that we have had for a long time. (Despite the pun).
>

I agree very much with Eric.  Attitudes toward sex are the real problem,
and if we can somehow turn that tide, the issue of nudity will become moot.
After all, the association of sex and nudity in the collective mind of the
establishment is what brings about laws against nudity.  Remove either the
association, OR the negative stigma sex brings with it, and nudity would
probably be fine with most.  I like the top down approach Eric espouses.
This doesn't mean, however, that I'm taking sides here.  I would like to
think that we're all on the same side, but we just have different ideas on
how to handle things.

>There are many who post here who could take a lesson from both these
>guys on how to organize and logically present your thoughts so as 
>not to look stupid.  Some more than others, myself included.

Add me to the list.
-- 
Fred P. Knod           Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.      Little Rock, Arkansas
pelfpk@ark.sbc.com                                     GO HOGS GO!!!!!!!!!!!
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: clothing sexy
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:09:32 GMT
Reply-To: glenm@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Oct8.235850.21909@unixg.ubc.ca>, arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
|> The reason nudists find clothes sexier than nudity is, IMHO, because
|> even to a nudist sexy clothes still *symbolize* sexuality, whereas nudity
|> does not.  

This suggests a bugger of a question - why is it that lingerie
contests seem so prevalent at some nudist clubs? This would appear to
be bringing overt sexuality (not overt sex!) into the club atmosphere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin              Bell-Northern Research          Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Phone : (613) 763-7299   Fax: (613) 763-2626             Internet: glenm@bnr.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.nude