HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike_p@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael John Petterson)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: new California top-free law?
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:21:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA.  USA

A co-worker has just informed me that she heard on the news the other night
that California has just passed a law providing for both men and women to be
top-free on the beach.  Unfortunately, she could not give me any details 
beyond this, and I haven't seen anything on this newsgroup.  I will now
proceed to scour the newpaper for any truth to this, but if anyone knows
anything else about this, please post and let me know which paper and
page number I can find this story.  (perhaps she's confused with the NY
ruling...who knows.)

thanks,


Michael J. Petterson     |"Listen, a sower went out to sow..."
mike_p@cheshire.oxy.edu  |                 -Jesus   
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Labor day at Black's Beach
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:51:06 GMT


I just received the following from the Black's Beach Bares:



                    You are cordially
                       invited to
              a nude Labor Day celebration
                     at Blacks Beack
                   San Diego, California
            on Monday the seventh of September
                   Nineteen Ninty Two
                      dawn 'til dusk




                                                     Dress optional
                                                  RSVP not required


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See you all there!!!
Y'all Come!

-- 
                
Rich Greenberg - N6LRT - 310-649-0238 - richg@hatch.socal.com
From: abel@vax.sonoma.edu (dan abel)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nudism in Utah
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:23:10 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1992Jul30.075844.510@unixg.ubc.ca>, arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.193619.18887@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>>After all this publicity of New York going top-free, I started hearing 
>>some interesting tid bits from the Utah natives.
> 
> Well, discussing strip-shows isn't exactly (or remotely) the purpose of
> rec.nude, but I'm always a bit surprised at the thought of "clothed"
> strippers.  Here in Vancouver (and the surrounding suburbs) there are
> dozens of bars that have strippers.  Almost all of them are free admission;
> all of them serve booze; virtually all the women are naked (unless you

[Stuff deleted from both posts above]

When you have a state (Utah) that doesn't serve alcohol in their bars 
(you have to bring it in with you), why should you be surprised at 
clothed strippers?
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Hot Springs / Hot Tubs
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:06:03 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <qgnmxnf@lynx.unm.edu>, sday@lacerta.unm.edu (Stephen F. Day   UNM CIRT) writes:

> A plug for "Hot Spring Etiquette":

> 	1.  Bring water...  soaking in hot water does make you thirsty
> 	    and hot springs (in the wilderness) are not near refreshment
> 	    stands, etc.  I wouldn't risk drinking the stream water...
> 	    giardia can put a real damper on your vacation!

> 	2.  If you are drinking alcoholic beverages, be aware that soaking
> 	    in the hot water does accelerate the effects of the alcohol.

> 	3.  Know your limitations... if you start to feel dizzy and ill,
> 	    get out of the hot water and let you body cool off!

I think that these first three are good to remember about HOT TUBS too!

I was hot tubbing this weekend and I didn't think to drink enough water.
Suddenly, I noticed how dizzy and disoriented I felt.  It then occurred to
me that I'd been sitting in this tub, I looked like a prune and I hadn't
put any of the water back into my body.  Drinking alchohol (and that includes
wine and wine coolers) only makes the situation worse.

I think it important to have some pop (soda) or some fresh water on hand
when hot tubbing.

Anyway, I'd just thought I'd amplify the above comments!

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: Nudity Harmful? (was Re: Information on indecent exposure arrest)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 17:47:51 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> jrobie@netmbx.netmbx.de (Jonathan Robie) writes:
>Smoking is legal.  Smoking bothers me.  If I ask someone to please stop 
>smoking, I would like them to stop.  
>Someone will probably object that smoking is unhealthy and nudity is not.

Correct, smoke does have a direct, harmful effect on the non-smoker.

>OK, display of sexual affection is legal, and may well bother me -- 
>especially if it is directed toward me!  If I ask someone to stop kissing me,
>I would like them to stop.

It is your body.  I don't know why someone would want to kiss you but as
with the smoke analogy if someone elses actions are affecting your body in
a negative way you should have the right to ask them to quit.

>But someone will object that someone else's nudity is not directed at me.
>True!  But like smoking, which is also not directed at me, it changes my
>environment in ways that I may not like.

But nudity does not change your environment in a way that damages you.
There is a big difference between a harmful environment and one which
you just don't like.

>Here in Berlin I am bothered by the fact that many nudists don't want to
>stay in the nude areas of the beaches, which means that there is no place
>for people to swim if they do not want to be around nude people.  I think
>those people have that right.  If you refuse them that right then you are
>being intolerant of their chosen lifestyle.

Here in San Diego I am bothered by the fact that many clothed people don't
want to stay in the textile areas of the beaches, which means that there is
no place for people to swim if they do not want to be around clothed people.
I think we have the right not to have our environment damaged by textiles.
If you refuse us that right then you are being intolerant of our chosen
lifestyle.

O.K., lets get real for a minute.  Here is what I think is a big difference.
By requiring clothes you are creating the environment you want by forcing me
to do something I don't want to do (i.e., get dressed).  In a clothing
optional environment I am not forcing you to do anything you don't want to
do (i.e., you don't have to get undressed).  Thus in my environment we both
have freedom of choice.  In your environment you have taken away my freedom
of choice.

Please do not get the above confused with private nude facilities where
cltohing is not allowed.  In these places the choice is whether or not to
go there.

Also note that I have no problem with setting aside a few areas for the
textile compulsive where people who are threatened by seeing someone in 
their birthday suit can hide from the facts of life.

Your problem seems to be with what you see and that is a relatively minor
and easy to solve problem.  Close your eyes.

-- 
	Thomas Earl Middleton
	middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu
	aka Happy Bare
From: rambo!es9100@texbell.sbc.com (Eric Smith 5-0990)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sunburn
Date: 20 Jul 92 18:50:58 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

In article <9207180444.AA07710@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> fortmapl@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU ("Paul Fortman : free spirit") writes:
>I have not noticed any difference in sunburning, but then I have 
>never had a sun burn (if anyone cares, I am white, skin type 2, 
>and a naturist).  I stay out in the sun for hours and I don't get 
>burned, or tanned for that matter.

	What is skin type 2... I've never heard of a designation like that.
From: clune@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Clune)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: CO in Santa Barbara
Date: 31 Jul 1992 15:28:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu

I happen to find myself for a couple of weeks at UCSB.
While in a sunny part of the country, I thought I might give CO
a try.  Any suggestions as to good beaches in the area would me
welcomed.

- >Tom
.
From: s884764@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Grant Waldram [Atom Smash])
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Any CO beachs/areas in queensland
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:40:23 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.

In article <1992Jul28.102912.51965@qut.edu.au>, anderssen@qut.edu.au writes:
> Would anyone know where a CO beach is in Queensland of Australia is.
> This would be very appreciated.
> thank you.

OK... There are none. At least, no legal ones.  To quote from "Bare Facts"
(The Australian one printed by Australian Sun & Health) ...

---- begin quote ---

Queensland - The legal situation.

At present Queensland is the only mainland state without "legal" dress
optional beaches. Not only that but the laws pertaining to nudity in
public areas are the most repressive of all states. This is probably not
surprising since the act was written in 1931. Afterall what was totally
unthinkable in those days is quite readily accepted today.

There are two laws in Queensland under which you could be prosecuted. They
are:

Vagrants Gaming & Other Offences Act 1931
Section 4(1)(viii)(d)
Any person who-
...without lawful excuse (the proof of which shall be on him)
...wilfully exposes his person in view of any person in any public place
...shall be deemed to be a vagrant, and shall be liable to a penalty.
Section 7(e)
Any person who, in any public place or so near to any public place that
any person who might be therein, and whether any person is therein or not,
could view or hear -
...behaves in a ... disorderly, indecent, offensive,
...or insulting manner,
shall be liable to a penalty.
Criminal Code
Section 227
Any person who-
(1) Wilfully and without lawful excuse does any indecent act in any place
to which the public are permitted to have access, whether on payment of a
charge for admission or not; or
(2) Wilfully does any indecent act in any place with intent to insult or
offend any person; is guilty of a misdemeanour...

---- begin quote ---

Now, here... a vagrant is "a person without a settled home or regular work"
which is curios :-)

It then goes on to describe the problems with what is left out of the
law...

Contact the Free Beach Association of Queensland (FBAQ) at:
P.O. Box 5526, Mail Centre, Gold Coast, Qld 4217.

The ones listed are
North Stradbroke Island - Frenchmans Bay
South Stradbroke Island - (Ocean side near Currigee Camping Ground)
Bribie Island - about 1k north of Woorim Car Park

That's near Brisband and the Gold Coast, anyway... If you want some
from other areas, either write to the FBAQ or get a copy of Sun & Health
and order Bare Facts.

Queensland is probably the only place in Australia where you could visit
a beach at the moment :)

Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress
any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."  from 'Contact' by Carl Sagan
------   s884764@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au     Grant Waldram [Atom Smash]   ------
From: mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Michael R. Kesti)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nude swimming question
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:11:53 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley  CA

In article <1457200022@igc.org> naturist@igc.org (Pat O'Brien) writes:

>	Interesting question. I don't think I have seen it raised before.

I seem to recall a similar posting some time ago.  I had the same reaction
then: It never fails to amaze me what some people will dream up to be
concerned about.

>I was personally bit on the tip of my penis by a crappie a couple of years
>ago and it is caused me to ponder the situation you mentioned. It was 
>extremely painful.

No kidding?  A first hand account of this phenomenon?

>                   Maybe we need some sort of cage, like what they use to 
>photograph great white sharks or something, only they'd have to be a lot 
>smaller. What do you think?

I think Pat forgot to type a smiley face.  Or, how about this: I presume
one would somehow mount this cage in a concerned male's groin area, in
order to provide protection for their penises from these brutal fishs'
potential attacks.  But what about one's fingers?  They're similarly worm
shaped, and typically 10 times more available for attack.  Yes, we surely
MUST act before millions of people begin to lose their precious digits
to this dreaded attack by aquatic wildlife.

Do I need to say it?  OK: 8-)

-- 
============================================================================
Michael Kesti  Grass Valley Group, Inc. | "And like, one and one don't make
    mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM              |  two, one and one make one."
    !tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mrk        |         - The Who, Bargain
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Hot Springs / Hot Tubs
Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:09:15 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>Reading these hot springs and tubs postings  have gotten 
>me to ask a question I've once was wondering about.
>
>So, what were thoughs chemicals and/or nasty diseases 
>in hot springs that could cause us problems?

Its a percentage thing combined with a cover your ass mentality.  On very
rare occassions someone will succumb to the effects of drinking hot springs
water.  One rather nasty chemical I have heard about is arsenic which is
found in variing levels at almost all hot springs.  A parasite or bacteria
or nasty bug called 'giardia' is also known to exist in some wilderness
streams in the California Sierras.  Ringbolt Hot Springs along the Colorado
river below Hoover Dam has a warning about some microscopic creature that
enters through your nose and can kill you when it gets in your lungs and
multiplies.

The incidence of problems is very, very rare but one incident can result
in a very expensive lawsuit for the governing body (park or forest service
which controls the area).  Thus, signs go up all over the place warning
you of the dangers so if you do get ill or die they can say "well, that
person was warned, they took their chances and it isn't our responsibility."
To the best of my knowledge only one fatal case of the microscopic creature
mentioned above has ever been reported.

My opinion is that almost all popular, known hot springs are tested by
county health agencies and if high levels of dangerous chemicals are found
there will be clear "STAY OUT" signs.  Living organisms present a different
problem in that the levels may change from week to week.  They are more a
problem in streams and warm springs.  Hot springs tend to well up from deep
within the earth so if you are in a place near the source with a constant
supply of fresh water you are unlikely to have a problem.  On the other hand,
if you are in a tub where the water doesn't change very quickly or a stream
that perhaps many people and animals use you are taking a higher risk.

So, if you take your own fresh water to drink and keep your head above
water so none of the potentially bad stuff enters your mouth or nose you
can have fun and not worry.  Use the signs as clues on how to avoid getting
in trouble.

-- 
Thomas Earl Middleton				Camping Bares
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu			P.O. Box 81589
aka Happy Bare					San Diego, CA 92138-1589
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: The Topfree States
Keywords: NY Court Ruling Footnotes
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:15:39 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Distribution: usa
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Jul24.122708.10377@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>	Indecency statute prohibits exposure of genitals only:
>		Texas

	I'm sorry, but it's not illegal to be nude in Texas.  Unless you
do it in a manner meant to disturb, in a lewd manner, or in a place where
alcohol is served.  You can't be arrested for lying on a rock, unless maybe
that rock is right in a disturbing place...
From: speers@opus.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Embarrassed at the CO Beach.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 21:55:24 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

larry@panix.com (Larry Benjamin) writes:

> I did not say anything to any of the other people on the beach but I 
> was not happy and was embarrassed that my friend had to see this the 
> first (maybe the last) time she when to Robert Moses CO beach.

  You should have said something.  That behavior cannot be tolerated
in places that we are working to keep.
From: darkroom@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen G Bowman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: All right another question...
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:51:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network



  I have been seeing many articles posted about nudity laws, and I was
  wondering what the nudity laws are like in Indiana.

  Inquiring minds want to know...

  
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: All the people (was Re: Embarrassed
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:18:35 GMT

naturist@igc.org (Pat O'Brien) writes:
>	The message must remain: Don't do it. It is indefensible and it is
>illegal. Sex and our Naturist cause  Sex in public and our Naturist cause do not mix.
*----
I agree with your last sentence.  But I don't understand the preceding one.
Legality aside, what is "indefensible" about having sex at a CO beach?
I realize that it DOES offend some people, but that doesn't mean its
wrong.  Interfaith marriages offend lots of people too.
--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Information on indecent exposure arrest
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.054706.13925@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bi045@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John A. Purbrick) writes:
>And finally, suppose there had been another family there which didn't object
>to the nudist at all. And he brings them to court as witnesses. Mr and Mrs A,
>and the little A's say this is a dangerous individual, lock him up; the
>B's say he did nothing wrong and no crime was committed. What if the C's,
>D's and E's joined in with the B's. Still a criminal? Would they be "aiding
>and abetting"?

This Amerika, land of the free and home of the cry babies.

It doesn't matter how many Cs, Ds, ...Zs you have who have
no problem with it; as long as there is one special interest 
group named 'A' to whine and complain, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
From: speers@opus.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nude Beaches for those that want them
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:05:39 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:

> Right, and the default should be clothing optional except where posted
> otherwise.  Let the textile compulsives be the ones to have to fight for
> a section of beach.

   A resounding YES to THAT!
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Red all over
Summary: newsletter rates wrong
Keywords: Embarrassed
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:27:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


Well, that 'red all over' statement is from being embarassed, not from
sunburn.  I have posted many times and mentioned the Camping Bares.  We
are a non-landed club with over 200 members and we emphasize enjoying
nature in our natural state.  Many people have asked for more information
so I have been sending out a standard response.  Recently someone wrote
to me saying he could not afford the $15/month newsletter fee.  I had
to reread my note and therein found the source of my embarassment.

Folks, the Camping Bares newsletter is $15 per YEAR, not per month as I
have been incorrectly telling you.  This is really a bargain, it is a good
little newsletter with events and stories of our adventures.  Some people
take the newsletter just to read about our trips, even though they can't
go on them.  Other people sign up because our membership card can get them
discounts on admission to various clubs.  If you live outside of California
you can plan a vacation to this beautiful place around one of our houseboating
or canuding or hotsprings trips.  Or if you are coming to Calif. for any
reason stretch it out an extra weekend and join us on an outing or at one
of our houseparties.

Again, my apologies to all of you whom I have mislead.  I also apologize to
those of you that have no interest but read this anyway, it was the only way
to be sure those who had inquiries were informed of the truth.  I am not
trying to act as a salesman here, just hope to correct bad information.

-- 
Thomas Earl Middleton				Camping Bares
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu			P.O. Box 81589
aka Happy Bare					San Diego, CA 92138-1589
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Age: The Naked Truth
Originator: stgprao@xing
Keywords: none
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:23:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.125149.18132@walter.bellcore.com> mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch) writes:
>
>I'm 49 years old.  I read this newsgroup because, although I've
>never even been to a CO beach, I'm interested in the subject and
>am slowly but surely working myself up to visiting one.  A far
>more difficult hurdle will be talking my wife into joining me.
>
>Admittedly, I haven't been lurking here very long, so age is a
>subject that may already have been discussed.  Most posters are
>probably younger than I am, and I wonder:  What is the age
>spread at CO beaches and clubs?  Are we old-timers represented
>in any numbers?

At the beaches in North CA and San Diego County I've been to, there seem
to be more older adults 35+, than younger ones.  I think this is because
young people are more self-conscious about physical attractiveness and
the sexual implications of nudity while older adults have come to terms with
these issues.  Also I conjecture the older baby boomers are used to the
freedom of the 1960s while the youngsters are more conservative and uptight.
From: naturist@igc.org (Pat O'Brien)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nude swimming question
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:21:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Jul29.144312.17816@hubcap.cl:850026313:cdp:1457200022:000:399
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!naturist    Jul 29 18:21:00 1992


Jim,
	Interesting question. I don't think I have seen it raised before.
I was personally bit on the tip of my penis by a crappie a couple of years
ago and it is caused me to ponder the situation you mentioned. It was 
extremely painful. Maybe we need some sort of cage, like what they use to 
photograph great white sharks or something, only they'd have to be a lot 
smaller. What do you think?
Pat
Newsgroups: rec.nude