From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Sexual behavior
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:30:40 GMT

Here is an exchange, a reply to mail sent privately. Some people are too
squeamish to admit their squeamishness. So be it. The author's name is
not listed. The author's text has not been modified. To the author, I suggest
you attempt to meet someone, anyone, who shares my views. Perhaps you can take
this to a psychologist, and listen to a balanced discussion of the thing from
your point of view, *and* mine. You just *might* learn something.

] Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:03:38 PDT
] To: ecsd
] Subject: Re: Women enjoying nature in natural state.
] Newsgroups: rec.nude
] 
] In article <1992Sep26.232101.17824@tfs.com> you write:

>You presume that *no* woman on the beach wants to "be bothered".
>Sorry; we don't know this.

] You assume that if one woman wishes to be bothered then it is o.k. to
] bother all women.  That is blatantly wrong, MOST women do NOT wish to
] be bothered but you won't ever know that until you start talking to some
] women and LISTENING to their answers.  If you have any women friends or
] relatives ask them; "If you were laying around nude on a beach would you
] be bothered by guys approaching you?"

No, you assume that's what I'm implying in what I write. I have listened to
women; responses fall into several groups. The point of view you express
here is but one of several.
The problem is you mistake my talking about what is possible, with what I
actually endorse. So far as I can tell, you assume I am saying that men
*should* approach women. I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are
enough people, men and women, where an approach could be made and might be
accepted, in a socially acceptable way. I am not saying that our society
is presently this way; I am saying our society could very easily be this
way, if a few common preconceptions were disposed of. In any case, with
my idea that places can be made available for both types of behavior, we
would see evidence that there are people at large, such as I describe.

The fact is that I know women who are self-possessed enough and who accept
their sexuality and male sexuality, such that approaches are not a threat
to them. They are able to tell the men to leave them alone, and make it stick,
if that's what they want; and not consider the mere approach to be an attack.
You seem not to have met any such women.

>The masturbator was at least being open and honest. 

] I am being open and honest now, I hope you like it.
] you write:

>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?"

] This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen posted.  Really,
] do you know any women?  Ask them about this.  Ask them how it would make
] them feel in the above scenario.  And then ask them if they would return
] to a beach (whether nude or not) where the above was considered acceptable
] behavior.  Open your eyes to other peoples feelings.

My eyes are open to my feelings, and to the feelings of numbers of people
I know. It is simply not the case that an open offer of sex offends everyone.

If I believed what you said about women-in-general, I would never make such
an approach, and I would reinforce the current social values, which I think
injure human beings. I have no desire to live in a closet around my sexuality
for the rest of my life just because *some* or even *most* people will be
offended. I would never know if the woman might be receptive if I did not ask.
I doubt that I would be as blatant as that, but I'd rather move in that
direction, than stay suppressed in catering to "what everyone knows that
everyone thinks." Since I think otherwise, there must be people like me out
there, and I want to meet them.

>I allow that the man could just as well be being FRIENDLY, NICE and COURTEOUS.
>I can see it called SHARING.

] I call it bullshit justification for your own naive opinions.  You really
] don't get out in the world much, do you.

I'm not interested in reinforcing society's denial of the sexuality of its
members. That means that where an image is subject to interpretation,
when I am the author of the image, it means what I say it means. I don't
like to experience rejection, but that man *might* be me; and if I did such
a thing, I would do it and mean it in the way I describe it above. I am an
autonomous individual. The fact the every other person on the beach might
call it aggressive, rude and insulting, does not make it so. I know my own
intentions. I have been punished before for violating social norms, without
having been asked what my intentions were. The things I did, I did out of
lack of social skills, as they say, and out of innocence. I will no longer
tolerate to be punished for committing an act out of innocence, good intentions
and the desire to share, nor will I accept to have my behavior characterized
by others. They are not the authors of the behavior and they do not know my
intentions without asking me. Namely, their fear is their fear and I will not
pay the bill for other people's fear, if they don't admit that their
assessment of my behavior is subjective, and not based in *fact*, since it is
*NOT* based in fact. If they admit the subjectivity, then I will accommodate
them. If they claim that their treatment of me is warranted because what I
did was *objectively* wrong, then they are violating *MY* integrity as an
individual who knows themself, and I will *NOT* cooperate. I don't seek out
people to injure them, and I will avoid anyone who abuses me this way; I am not
trying to force myself on anyone. But by the same token, I will not be forced
or coerced by a self-blind society which reinforces blindness in its members,
and I will speak my mind freely, as is my right as an American Human Being.

] And just for the record, I no longer hear anything you say.

I am replying to your post. I am addressing your points. Namely, I am playing
"fair". Given what you say above, I feel free to post this letter into
rec.nude, without attribution to you. I value my opinion of my intellectual
integrity, and I try to be fair and honest. I ask you to keep trying to do the
same. I feel you have something to learn from me. Whether you do, or wish to,
is your business. But in all fairness, if you refuse to receive my input, then
don't engage any further with me through private mail - you should not have
posted this letter to me without expecting a reply, and I think I can fairly
claim your attention to the reply.

The word of sin is denial. I acknowledge and understand the views you express
to me; I simply do not accept them. You do not understand my point of view.
You don't acknowledge that I could hold these views in a consistent and positive
way. Too bad. I will continue to espouse my views to people who are able to
receive them.
Newsgroups: rec.nude