HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark.Cornick@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mark Cornick)
Subject: Re: rec.nude or alt.sex ????
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:39:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.152916.8162@hubcap.clemson.edu> jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght) writes:
>Alt.sex is no longer carried by our server and from talks with other
>people round the world this is true at there sites as well.  This is
>good in my view as alt.sex was the most depraved, silly, waste of
>resources I have ever seen.  The sad point though, it seems that lately
>some of the old alt.sex people are gravitating to rec.nude to continue
>there inexperienced fantasizing.  If this keeps up, I think I will have
>to stop reading this list. Have any of you other rec.nudists noticed
>this trend of late?
>
>Jim
>


Right on. My kill file is growing to Herculean proportions. I stopped
reading rec.nude for a few weeks to let most of the sex-on-the-beach
threads die. But hey, you can't stop anyone from posting whatever they
want here. God bless the kill function.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: sex in CO beaches ... nonsense
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:04:53 GMT

jathamez@wam.umd.edu (J A T) writes:
>    All this discussion of  allowing sexual activity in CO beaches is nonsense,
>  and it is only supported by those who are missing the point of public nudity
>  in the first place.  It seems to me that those who support sex at the  beach
>  do not have a full understanding of the purpose of going to a CO beach. They
>  still have problems putting aside nudity/sex, and they will never understand
>  a true nudist (because they probably have more of an exhibicionist than they
*----
It seems to me you're missing the point.  Nobody is arguing that it
IS legal to have sex on a CO beach, and I certainly wouldn't want to
claim that it's always appropriate.  I'd think a "true nudist" (your
words) would not care whether or not people want to have sex in
public.

I raised the question in the first place asking what is inherently
wrong with sex in public when the subject came up recently.  The
concensus that I've seen is that it's wrong because it might give
prudes the wrong idea about CO beaches and activities, and because
its illegal.

Neither of those seem like compelling reasons.

You're saying about the same thing.  It sounds like you object to sex
at the beach because it gives people the wrong idea.  It sounds like
THEIR attitudes are the problem.

Now, I am not advocating that everybody have sex in public to make
the point.  I just want to clarify why it's "wrong".
--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: After Hours at Bonny Doon? (Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde of the Coast ?)
Summary: I thought I had seen it all!
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:04:17 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA

tcumming@netcom.com (Tom Cumming) writes:
>zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>>Now I'm considering a campout at Bonny Doon -- but I've heard that the 
>
>    Yes. During the day it's a wonderfull friendly place... at night 
>...watch out!
>
>    We have complained (A lot!) to the county, and to the sheriff dept.
>    They also hired "Rent-a-Cops" to patrol the beaches. This really
>cut down on the problems during the day. Unfortunatly, the first thing the
>Rent-a-Cops did was to try to tell us that "this is not a nude beach".

I read the first line and thought "Neat! you can actually camp
out ON the beach without hassle." 

After reality set in, I see the point John Kyff was making
tonight that if it were a clothing-mandatory beach,
the riff-raff would have been deftly handled.
Since it is a nude beach, the problem MUST be the nude
beach, not the idiots falling off the cliffs, fighting
each other, and generally acting unsociable. Your
tax dollars hard at work. :(

That sounds like the "solution" the boys at
Rooster Rock thought up. Ugh.


-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Interesting (?) opinion :)
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:52:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug20.134811.24511@cc.tut.fi>, ta66863@cc.tut.fi (Ahlqvist Tero) writes:

> some of you out there are super-humans. You go to nude-beach and don't
> want to expose yourself, then you strip all you clothing...
> Then you see other people naked and you don't look their cocks, tits or
> buttocks, you just see the face.

No, no, my boy, you got it all wrong!  All wrong I say!  Of course we see
their "cocks, tits or buttocks", we just don't get all flustered when we
do!  It's no big deal.

It may be "something" to see the first time one goes to such a beach but
the novelty wears off after the first 15 minutes.

>     And about this peeping-tom stuff. If you have spent a day in a CO-beach
> with someone, I'm sure that you know if you'll be asked, if that someone
> had i.e. shaved his/her pubic hair. If you don't look the normally covered
> places.

Believe it or not, I also note what color the person is!  Yea, it's true
I can tell someone who's black from someone who's white or red or sunburnt!

Seriously, you're making too much of this.  


> How can you be offended by erection if you don't even see it. How
> you can be sure someone is having sex if you dont really look what is 
> happening behind the dune.

I only get offended by an erection if the owner wraps it in "THE AMERICAN
FLAG" or "TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES" ala George Bush! ;-)

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: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sex on the beach
Date: 18 Aug 1992 14:10:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Aug18.082623.12589@unixg.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <l8opdkINN9kb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>personal act should be allowed.  The reason is that what harms none,
>>and is done by yourself or between consenting adults should be 
>>allowable.  That's the acid test.
>
>It seems like that "acid test" is whether or not such an activity fits in
>with *YOUR* sense of morality.  You obviously care not whose morality
>is *harmed* by your activities.
>
>For the last week or two you have been repeated saying *everything* should
>be allowed so long as it doesn't (physically ) harm anyone.
----
	We are talking about activities in public.  If you cross onto my
private property, that is a different matter.  
>
  So obviously
>you wouldn't mind if me and 20 friends moved into your apartment/house for
>a couple of months---we wouldn't harm you while we were there.  You wouldn't
>mind if I "borrowed" some of your belongings?---it wouldn't actually "harm"
>you.
---
	By stealing things I have had to physically labor for, you are 
taking part of my life when you steal -- my things or my space.  You
are forcing me to work without compensation -- forcing me to physically
labor without compensation.  I would call that physical harm.

>  And you wouldn't mind if some strange guy walked up and gave your
>girlfriend (or you) a hug, a kiss, and a grope?---this wouldn't actually
>cause any physical harm (if he was healthy).
---
	Since you are physically touching me (or her), I (and/or her) might
consider this an assault and respond accordingly.


>Is it still so easy to define right and wrong in terms of physical harm?
>Does the definition of "harm" need to be expanded?
---
	In both the cases you describe you are causing harm in the physical
realm.  You are directly depriving me of something physical.  Furthermore,
we have been talking about *public* land/places.  What laws people 
institute on their own property should be their business.  If you
want to say 'no sex in your home', or 'no nudity', either is fine with
me.

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
From: henry.tan@cccbbs.UUCP (Henry Tan) 
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: RE: SHOWER HEADS?
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248
Reply-To: henry.tan@cccbbs.UUCP (Henry Tan) 

Kkbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel)

Sometime ago you wrote about the stripper places in Utah and would
provide addresses if one desired. You posted the message in response to
the e NYtopless" law.  To that extent I left a message for you in E-Mail
but got the mail returned because your address seemed to be "unknown"
to the system. Can you provide those addresses. Would you be able to
give me those addresses, if you prefer you can sent by E-mail. Thanks

From: cccbbs!henry.tan@uceng.uc.edu (Henry Tan)
From: mike@wang.com (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: exercise
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:45:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:

>In article <1992Aug14.225328.27139@mr.med.ge.com> campbell@clam.med.ge.com (Scott Campbell Mfg QIE 4-6778) writes:
>>Canoeing nude (canodeing) or Kayaking nude (kaynodeing) is also great
>>exercise. 
>                ^^^^^^^^^
>Normally it is spelled CANUDING.

And shouldn't it be KAYNAKEDING?
I like stark-gazing to!

  ______________________
 /  __              __  \  | Michael J. Sullivan    |     Love all
|  |  \  /\  |\ |  /  `  | | Independent            |     Serve all
|  |__/ /--\ | \|  \__T  | | mike@WANG.COM          |  Save the Planet
 \______________________/  | FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN|   - Rock Hard -

-- 
  ______________________
 /  __              __  \  | Michael J. Sullivan    |     Love all
|  |  \  /\  |\ |  /  `  | | Independent            |     Serve all
|  |__/ /--\ | \|  \__T  | | mike@WANG.COM          |  Save the Planet
 \______________________/  | FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN|   - Rock Hard -
From: Pat O'Brien <naturist@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:50 PDT
Subject: Rooster Rock Alert
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1457200026:000:970
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!naturist    Aug 18 11:50:00 1992


To anyone who uses Rooster Rock:
	Reports are filtering in to The Naturist Society daily about dire
problems at your beach. In the last several days the tone of these has been
that the beach is lost after it closes at the end of this season.
	We need to build an emergency coalition to work on this issue immediConsidering how many weekends of good weather may be left, we have but hours
to make sense out of this important Naturist site before the bureaucrats
can once again start carving at it during the winter.
	I understand the American Sunbathing Association's government affiars
person, Turner Stokes, visited the beach after ASA's annual meeting, or during
it, and said the organization was not willing to help. If true, that is not
acceptable. The Naturist Action Committee may be able to help, but it will be
better to try to save an operating clothing-optional beach than to resurrect
a closed one.
	The time for action is now.
	Pat O'Brien, NAC Board Member

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: jathamez@wam.umd.edu (J A T)
Subject: sex in CO beaches ... nonsense
Originator: jathamez@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:46:54 GMT


    Just to let you all   know  what I think, and having the danger of getting
  thousands of flames (which I will not respond), I will post this message.
    All this discussion of  allowing sexual activity in CO beaches is nonsense,
  and it is only supported by those who are missing the point of public nudity
  in the first place.  It seems to me that those who support sex at the  beach
  do not have a full understanding of the purpose of going to a CO beach. They
  still have problems putting aside nudity/sex, and they will never understand
  a true nudist (because they probably have more of an exhibicionist than they
  like to admit).  When people go to a textile beach (at least those sain ones)
  they never consider having sex there,  because  it is illegal to have sex in
  public, whether it is a natural activity or not.  So, what makes  all  these
  sex-at-the-nude-beach advocates believe that it would be different in a nude
  beach?  That is where sex and nudity are being related again, and until they
  cannot put both things aside, they will never understand this point.  
    The bottom line is the following: you should not have sex at  a  CO  beach,
  just as much as you should not have sex in any other public place.  Now,  if
  you are the exhibicionistic type and wants to do it in public, go ahead, but
  be aware of the consequences.  However, do not go to a CO beach and put  the
  pressure on the CO beach itself, because all these beaches  have  their  own
  problems already, and they do not need the burden of dealing  with your prob
  as well.  And please, do not  tell  me  that  nudism  is  also  illegal  and 
  therefore falls in the same category as having sex in  public,  because  the
  nudist community is fighting for places in which they can be naked, NOT  for
  places in which they can have sex in public.  If you feel so strongly  about
  having sex in public, maybe you should start your own movement,  but  please
  leave the nudist community aside.

                                    My humble opinion,

                                                      Javier
From: Pat O'Brien <naturist@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:07 PDT
Subject: Re: All the people (was Re: Embarrassed
Nf-ID: #R:155dqeINNhpq@network.ucsd.edu:-1642266757:cdp:1457200024:000:680
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!naturist    Aug 17 15:07:00 1992


Hmm, this is a bit late, but I think I ought to add a few more cents worth
	Some may not agree that there is anything wrong with public sex
acts. That is their opinion.
 But as someone who works on the issue of preserving established
clothing-optional sites, I have to repeat that this is a major problem and
it closes beaches.
	Yes, the authorities and many in the public want to say we are not
acceptable in our nudity or that we are illegal. But there is almost no
support at all, nude, clothed, uniformed and carrying guns-handcuffs-clubs, for
the idea that it's OK to have sex in places where others could reasonably
be expected to see those doing it.
	It's that simple.
Pat

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick)
Subject: Warning -- this is a flame
Reply-To: cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 03:07:29 GMT


Why is it whenever I fire up rec.nude these days, all I see are articles
about sex on the beach? If we're trying to make the point that this group
isn't for sex discussion, this certainly isn't the way to do it.

And now back to the beach sex discussions already in progress.
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Uptightness about sex & naked bods
Summary: End of a thread
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:56:13 GMT
	<1992Aug4.224056.10691@eskimo.celestial.com>
	<1992Aug6.224453.17396@eskimo.celestial.com>
	<15pf9dINNp30@network.ucsd.edu>
	<1992Aug5.125222.4251@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Aug7.170356.9503@eskimo.celestial.
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
X-Old-Subject: Craziness in Idaho

In article <166h74INNd5c@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>In article <> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
[ in <1992Aug8.040550.22777@eskimo.celestial.com> ]
>>		Trouble is, that ain't the *only* social change this
>>country needs, and it's tough doing more than one thing at once.
>
>Thanks Kurt for making TNS's point.  Its tough doing more than one thing
>at once and the one thing TNS is doing is breaking down the taboo
>against social nudity.

Ya got me there.  I was talking about myself and should have realized that
that applied to TNS, too.

In <166gu1INNd0r@network.ucsd.edu> you state the case for the "law-abiding"
approach succinctly.
I have no particular problem with obeying commonly agreed-to *guidelines*
to living one's life in a tranquil style, but I *hate* it when the phobias
of "pseudo-wise old men" (prophets, sages, gurus, messiahs, "chosen ones",
"ass-ended masters", hermits, personified deities, lords, and assorted other
charismatic cranks such as Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Zoroaster,
a seemingly unending train of them...) and their gullible followers are cast
in the concrete of taboo, law and custom, and I *hate* it when the only way
I can live a tranquil life is to constrain myself to pander to those
self-reproducing phobias, sometimes at great inconvenience, discomfort,
effort, cognitive dissonance, and perhaps even personal danger (talk about
a double-bind!).

I must say I disagree with some of the reasoning in
<166gu1INNd0r@network.ucsd.edu> justifying the particular approach the
cops took toward the guy in the fountain.

I guess people aren't really interested in discussing that in this newsgroup.
Too bad.  To your collective credit, you all let me come around and dance in
your fountain, and splash around a bit, without some net.cops coming around,
net.macing me, and dragging me off in net.chains to net.jail :) ...sort of
makes *my* point, doesn't it?  Of course, maybe they just haven't gotten here
yet :( .
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
e-mail me at kurt@eskimo.celestial.com for a copy of Bob Black's essay,
"The Abolition of Work"
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: craigbr@informix.com (Craig Browning)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Uptightness about sex & naked bods
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:03:30 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <166h74INNd5c@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>In article <> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>>		Trouble is, that ain't the *only* social change this
>>country needs, and it's tough doing more than one thing at once.
>
>Thanks Kurt for making TNS's point.  Its tough doing more than one thing
>at once and the one thing TNS is doing is breaking down the taboo
>against social nudity.
>
>-- 
>Thomas Earl Middleton
>middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu
>aka Happy Bare

Fair enough. But it's also fair to say the public is trying to accomplish
ONE goal - beach recreation for everyone - with beaches, and that it shouldn't
add nude beaches to the list of goals. Since we're running out of beach to
split up here, perhaps we should have two types of beaches - tolerant and
non-tolerant... where one is for those who are easily offended, with
many rules, and one for those who wish to have more freedom, with the
price being that they will tolerate others exercising their freedom.

Craig
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Uptightness about sex & ...
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:23:06 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug13.014655.12454@informix.com>, craigbr@informix.com (Craig Browning) writes:

> Gee, you make a convincing case against nudity as well as sex at the beach.
> Doesn't that scare you a little? It's because you are violating the same
> principles you use to justify nudity when you codemn sex.

> Craig

Who's the one not getting the point? ;-)

Actually, Craig, I not the one advocating that sex must be allowed on the
nude beach because 100% natural.

What I'm trying to say is that the nude beaches are on shaky ground.
It does not surprise me that the people who enjoy them are worried that
including yet another "dubious" activity, in the public's mind, will
endanger them.

I'm asking that those who want public sex to be "OK" try to "prove" their
case in another forum.  Such as a bowling alley, if they like.  If "public
sex" is OK in a bowling alley, they'll have no problem getting it approved
at the beach.

Many naturists organizations have pioneered public nudity through the years.
Some of the children of 40's & 50's nudists are naturists today.  They've
earned the rights we now enjoy.

If y'all want to press the case for "public sex" please form some
organizations and support groups and lobby your representatives in your
respective governments.  Trying to "piggy pack" on their accomplishments
seems like asking for a free ride.

Just don't come into rec.nude and whine that we're SEX-NEGATIVE because we
aren't interested in having sex.  Go whine in alt.sex. ;-)

And with that I think I've made my point for about the 30th time.  Sheesh!
What ever happened to those ERECTION questions?!

Terry ":-P  --- ah, you know who it's for" Wood


(-;        PS: Hey, let's all go to alt.sex and whine              ;-)
(-;        that not everyone there wants to be nude.               ;-)

-- 
        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: campbell@clam.med.ge.com (Scott Campbell Mfg QIE 4-6778)
Subject: re exercise
Reply-To: campbell@clam.med.ge.com (Scott Campbell Mfg QIE 4-6778)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee,  WI
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:53:28 GMT

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Exercise
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:13:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.163546.4811@leela.cs.orst.edu> megs@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Meg Sisson) writes:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am finally able to post properly to this group. And that leads to 
>my questions for you all.
>
>While I was trying to restart my morning yoga program, it occurred 
>to me that I haven't seen anything about exercising while nude. I've 
>taken a few yoga classes (clothed) and gone through a few books. 
>One book did recommend practising nude in order to get more deeply 
>into the postures and not be limited by binding clothing. 
>
>I am guessing the CO resorts might offer some exercise programs 
>beyond beach volleyball :-) Does any one know of such or had any other 
>experience in nude exercises, not necessarily yoga? Does jogging 
>really require support (both male/female) or is the clothing industry 
>just trying to sell more apparel?
  
^Well swimming is the obvious choice and it's great as most people
^have discovered at one time or another in their lives.
^  
^Something else I know about is rowing. Shoes (or some kind of covering)
^are necessary else your feet chafe on the straps that hold your feet
^in place. With some seats it helps to wear bottoms so you get enough
^friction so you don't slide off the seat but that's not always true.
^Tops aren't necessary and many female rowers don't wear bras anyway
^because it's hard for them to find one that fits. All in all it works
^out pretty well but lakes are better than rivers because they don't have
^bridges every 500 yards.

Canoeing nude (canodeing) or Kayaking nude (kaynodeing) is also great
exercise. 
 
Their is nothing better then communing with nature in the nude.

				Scott (the river pirate)


A

Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming