HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Coed Bathrooms
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:44:26 GMT

In article <1186@shrike.com> tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis) writes:
>Try France sometime -- a common occurrence is to have the (only)
>restroom door open onto a common lavatory room, and have two toilet
>rooms, one per gender, off that. The interesting thing is the urinal
>in the lavatory room.

And to have a little old lady sitting in the front charging a small
"donation" for keeping it clean and the rifraf out.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Nudist documentary proposed for local access cable channel
Organization: TFS
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:03:20 GMT

The nudists who want their say:
I think their attitude is the correct one. How about equal access?
Body-positive, sex-positive people have the same right to define the
world in which they live as people who would like to put in all in
a long oblong box.

viva.
-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Fascinating Breasts (was Re: BRA SURVEY)
Followup-To: rec.nude
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:45:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.222440.6742@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>I must point out that there are many men in this society who have
>BREASTS, and by that I mean fatty pendulous objects protuding from
>their chests, the same as women do.  I have seen many a large man who
>has these objects go topless.  
>Why is this not "indecent?"

The view from those devout naturists is that body acceptance is a
primary objective of social nudity, hence extensive comments on others'
body image, critical and otherwise, becomes a sensitive issue: the
comment is encouraged if it centers on the body owner's health, but is
totally discouraged if it centers on the latest trend in a fashionable
body shape. Even the former type of comment, on health reasons only,
must take into account many closely related factors, hence the comment
must be along the lines of "in the context of such and such a skeleton,
height, race, metabolic level, amount of exercise, etc., this body is
in need of a tune-up, or it's just fine."

>alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
>All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: fuck
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:51:51 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: Jeff_R_Spangenberg@cup.portal.com's message of 5 Sep 92 23:22:47 GMT


In article <65325@cup.portal.com> Jeff_R_Spangenberg@cup.portal.com writes:
   You are all a bunch of nigger fuckheads

Er, Jeff -- It looks like you forgot to log out before
going home...


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: PATZNER@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de (Achim Patzner)
Subject: Re: COED WASHROOMS
Followup-To: rec.nude
Reply-To: PATZNER@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Organization: No, we're not organized yet
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:32:26 GMT

In <9854@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM> tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM writes:
> 	1. If its ok to walk around nude, bathe nude, swim nude, eat nude
> 		etc, how come the washrooms are seperate.

I don't know if it is a typical German problem but it IS sometimes
scary to see what men can do to a toilet seat ("We aim to please - YOU
aim too, please"). So if I was a woman I wouldn't like sharing EVERYTHING
with men...
 
> 	2. How come the staff, like bartenders wore clothes.

Can you imagine a bartender getting certain parts of his anatomy into
the mixer? 8-) (*I* would find it funny too see a bartender using a
shaker and giving his best... 8-))) ).
Besides... they're there for working, not for having fun...

Achim
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Curiosity (was Re: how about CO in a computer lab??)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:06:43 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght) writes:
>I have been following the thread on bare breasts and why we are so
>fascinated by breasts and such.  

I think a lot of it is just plain old curiosity.  Thus, it is not that
we become desensitized, it is just that our curiosity gets satisfied.
Admittedly, there are some people with breast fixations, but I believe
most of what you described (male students couldn't keep their eyes off
of woman with breasts hanging out) is simple curiosity.  Those with
less exposure seem to take longer to satisfy their curiosity.  Thus
young males tend to stare whereas nudists who have been around a while,
women and experienced, older males don't have that problem.  Their
curiosity is mostly satified by previous experience.

What I'd like to know is if women and girls have a similar curiosity
towards the penis?  Perhaps the fact that, even though they are covered,
breasts stand out and obviously have variants in size and form stimulates
the curiosity.  And, if the attraction to breasts is sexual, why aren't
we having a discussion about vaginas?  Going back and reading the comments
some have made about breasts and then replacing the word breast with vagina
would probably give an interesting base for wonderment.

-- 
===============================================================================
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"
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Subject: Re: Breasts and exposure
Followup-To: poster
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:36:36 GMT

Well, I didn't plan to reply to this thread any more, but since I keep
getting quoted....

In article <12SEP199222223820@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> s7356911@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (DYLYN) writes:
>arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>>=> In article <1992Sep5.023114.21069@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs....
>>=> >Be forwarned; if women begin going topless in public, I will enjoy it and
>>=> >think politically unfashionable thoughts. 
>>=> 
>>=>You are, of course, correct.  There is no law against being rude,
>>=> disrespectful, and obnoxious.
>>=> Bill.
>
>	I don't think simple enjoyment = rudeness or disrespect.

Nor do I.

>	Actually, at one of the few places I have seen wide-scale 
>toplessness,  at South Beach on South Miami Beach during Art Deco weekend,  
>there was no harassment of any woman who was topless that I could see.  
>There were a number of them at the beach alone, too, so you can't attribute
>this lack to "boyfriends scaring off the harassers''.  Sure there was
>lots of looking (I don't considered a glance to be harassment);

Nor do I, but the original post ("Be forewarned....") and several others
which appeared about the same time, implied....to me...
that a simple glance wasn't all that the author was referring to.  Rather
he seemed...to me...to be arguing that *any* response was fully justified
if a woman should be bold enough to bare her chest.  He made no attempt
to quantify what he deemed "acceptable behaviour" thereby leaving me to
conclude that that included "rude and obnoxious" behaviour.

Additionally, this is the type of behaviour women in this group had been
objecting to, and his post clearly stated that women should be prepared
("forewarned") to accept the type of behaviour he thought would bother
them.  Seems to me he was justifying rude and obnoxious behaviour.  If
this is not what he intended, then his post was insufficiently clear.

And besides, I was *agreeing* with him that the women have no (legal)
right to complain about his "enjoyment".  :-)

If you wish to flame me (again) please feel free to do so....by email, please!

Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: lebrun@ll.mit.edu (Steven F. LeBrun)
Subject: Re: Disc. against singles esp. men (was Re: FIRST TIMER REPORT. )
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
	<17u02nINNmh@network.ucsd.edu> <79267@ut-emx.uucp>
	<37799@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 92 08:03:10 -0400

In article <37799@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> aminkoff@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Tony Minkoff) writes:

>   I asked a lawyer (actually, third-year law student) friend of mine,
>   "How come insurance companies can change males more for automobile
>   insurance than they charge females?  It certainly would not be legal
>   to, say, charge blacks more than whites, would it?"
>
>   He explained to me that men are not a "protected, insular minority,"
>   which the 14th Amendment was designed to protect.  Neither are
>   whites, which is why public universities can have scholarships
>   specifically for minority students.
>
>   (Sounds like a crock to me, but we live in the age of political
>   correctness.)
>
>   Tony Minkoff

Here in Massachusetts, the State Legislature did decide that it was
unconstitutional to charge males higher insurance premiums than 
females.  Now, higher insurance premiums are charged to people who
have had the drivers license for less than three years.

--

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steven F. LeBrun             |      MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Group 91     |
|                              |        244 Wood Street, Room LI-136       |
| lebrun@ll.mit.edu (Internet) |          Lexington, MA 02173-9108         |
| lebruns@merlin    (internal) |  Phone:(617)-981-5742, FAX:(617)-981-0991 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"Hard as ligthning, soft as candlelight;                                  |
|                    Dare you trust the Music of the Night?" - The Phantom |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: malcolm@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: coed bathrooms
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:49:12 GMT
Reply-To: malcolm@minster.york.ac.uk (Malcolm Wallace)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Karen Biesel writes:

>You people are talking about coed bathrooms, then ask what's wrong
>with urinals. Ha, Ha,
>
>As men say, we find them quite useful.  My point exactly.  They are only
>useful to men.  Why are you spending money and using up room putting
>a fixture in a coed facility that only 50% of the people can use?

The woman I live with claims that it is perfectly possible for women to
use urinals.

    -malc.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers : -)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 06:10:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.214835.18532@meadow.uucp> zeke@meadow.UUCP (Samuel Lee) writes:
>But then howcum men can be arrested for fondling a woman's breasts
>against her will, but women can't be charged with fondling a man's
>chest against his will?  That's not equality. 
   
This has very little to do with which parts of the body must be kept
covered.  Instead, it has much more to do with the difference in
(perceived) vulnerability between the genders.  Until a few years ago
(for example) Canada's statuatory rape law *only* applied in the case
where the *female* was under the age of consent.  Boys were not protected
by law because there was no perceived threat.

For another example: men's and women's are *not* perceived to be any
different by most people (not in the way that chests are) but if a
woman walked up and squeezed your butt, do you think you would be taken
seriously if you tried to charge her?  Would you even consider trying?
Would you even care?  (Probably you would actually like it.  Most men
would consider it a boost to the ego.)

That difference is *not* a result of your ass being any less private
than a woman's.  The difference is entirely in the attitudes, motivations,
vulnerabilities, and fears of the two genders.

Bill.

ObNude: The weather forecast for this weekend doesn't give much hope for
outdoor nudity.  :-(   I cancelled my plans to go to Lake Bronson.  If
the weather is unexpectedly nice, I might check out Sunny Trails club
close to home.  If anyone has ever been there, I 'd appreciate some
info/opinions.

-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: English 101: How I Spent My Summer Vacation
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:22:55 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <5814@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>A number of people ask to have their picture taken with me.  

	Why you ?
From: arioch@cellar.org (Arioch)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Looking for Nudist group in SEPA
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:13:40 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Hi. I am a 21 year old college student from SePA. I am interested in finding 
a local nudist group to join. If anyone out there knows of one near 
Havertown, PA then e-mail me at either:
arioch%cellar@tredysrv.tredydev.unisys.com  or at
MKaminsky%K%WCU@isn.wcupa.edu
Thanks
---
Arioch

------
arioch@cellar.org (Arioch)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
From: root@lintech.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Test
Keywords: test
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:06:48 GMT
Organization: lintech

this is a test news posting
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: tcumming@netcom.com (Tom Cumming)
Subject: Re: Topless in Safeway
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:34:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep9.200504.12825@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:
>
>>I saw a very unexpected sight recently: a topless woman shopping in
>>Safeway (a large supermarket, for those of you in other parts of the
>>world)!  Santa Cruz is known for its liberal attitudes on many topics,
>>but I never thought I would see that!
>
>Naw, she probably got cold. 'Tis a bit nippy down the freezer isle.
>

I know that store... The *entire* store is cold... Maybe to insure everyone
will keep their clothes on? ;-)

Tom C.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Someone else will be offended
Summary: You can always find somebody...
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:10:08 GMT

middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>Somehow, we in the nudist/naturist community need to be able to convince
>politicians and judges and administrators that allowing nude use areas
>will not result in a large public outcry for their removal.  (or will it?)
>
>Any thoughts on this?

Yes.

To quote Roger Rector, Superintendent of Assateague Island
National Seashore, "You can always find somebody to complain
about something."

My answer to CalTech: "So what?" If I complain about the
fact that the tuition is too damned high, are they going
to lower it? I don't think so! Must they address every
complaint as legitimate?

This country is run by complainers! That's my complaint!! :)

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: noid@nick.csh.rit.edu (ky the art fag!!)
Subject: Re: COED WASHROOMS
Organization: Computer Science House @ RIT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:13:10 GMT


in response to the idea that men will watch their aim just
'cause it's co-ed.....    bzzzztt
	thank you for playing.... have a nice day...  :)
on my floor we have unofficial coed bathrooms and showers
	and the toilet seats are still quite a mess...

which still amazes me...  since sometime somewhere the men
	who aim sooo bad are going to have to sit down
	themselves.     of course if it were wet when they sat
	they would probably quit.     :)

-simply noid
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Coed Bathrooms
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:59:10 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <chil.716031384@sfu.ca> chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim) writes:
>residence assistant makes a request to the men on the floor at the
>beginning of the semester to not use the urinals, out of courtesy. The

	I often :-) attend the large concerts given by a certain 
rock group, and usually by the second set there are as many women in 
the men's room as men.  Certainly by the time the show is over.  No one
seems to have a problem with the guys using the urinals; you don't really 
expose yourself anyway.  

	The only thing I think is wierd is the women washing their feet 
in the sinks...

							W.rat
From: reidyj@CS.ORST.EDU (Jay Reidy)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers : -)
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:29:17 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Oregon State University


   Ya know, I think I've found a thread here.  What it is that turns (most)
   guys on is good looking women!!!!!!!!!!  Thank god they're so damned
   many of them!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Coed Bathrooms on College Campuses...
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:40:11 GMT

In article <BuAIvu.D00@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, erno@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Erno Pena) writes:
> Coed Bathrooms on College Campuses...
> 
> Is there anyone out here on the net that goes to a university or a college  
> where coed bathroom facilities are officially (or also unofficially...) set  
> up on campus? If so, could you please describe the facilities that are  
> shared, the general guidelines and rules that the residents follow, and any  
> problems that arise, or don't arise.
> 


I dropped my step-son off at Drake this fall and when I went to use the
bathroom I found it was coed.  There are no urinals, just one stall
without a door or seat.  (The other stalls had doors/seats ;-)  There
were three shower stalls with curtains, but no doors or (private) dressing
areas.  There was only one bathroom per floor.  I don't know what the
rules are or what problems they have, I could ask during parents week.

Rick
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers : -)
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 22:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.012802.17150@cco.caltech.edu> brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:
>kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes (re: bare chests),
>> It [is] an equality issue.  I would be perfectly content to keep my shirt
>> on, if men had to also.
>
>You don't mind being oppressed, as long as everyone else is too?  I'd
>rather achieve equality by moving forward, not backward.
>

Methinks Karen wants it the same way as you, she just didn't put enough
smiley faces in there for you to get it.  ;)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Swimsuit-optional hours at the Caltech pool?
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:08:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.201020.17591@cco.caltech.edu> brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:
>I'm currently petitioning the Caltech administration to set aside some
>swimsuit-optional hours at the pool.  
>Here's my working hypothesis: Nobody actually objects strongly, but
>everyone's afraid someone else will be offended -- Dan of Gary, Gary of
>Tom, Tom of the community.  

It's the usual thing. 'Think of what everybody ELSE would say!'

Politics as usual, eh?

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: World Guide Confusion
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:10:03 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <88317@netnews.upenn.edu> stein@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Matthew Stein) writes:
>Query to the Massed Minds of rec.nude:
>
>	On page 20 of the World Guide there is a picture of Deep Creek
>Hot Springs.  On page 21 is a picture of a woman jumping what looks
>like 10-15 feet into deep water.  The caption reads "How Deep is Deep
>Creek?".  Now this looks like a lot of fun, but ranging up and

>searched for this spot too.  Can anyone provide a clue to would-be
>rock jumpers as to where this spot might be?  Or is this just trick
>photography?

Well, the photo looks authentic to me.  Even if it was a trick angle or
something you should still be able to locate the spot,  especially if
the painting is still on the rock.  But there is no indication that
the photo was taken anywhere near the hotspring.Also , the caption
implies that someone else(perhaps the photographer) had difficulty 
believing the water was Deep Creek. Maybe the photographer (or someone
else) got mixed up....the photo may not be of Deep Creek at all.

Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Topfree equality on Fox TV?
Date: 9 Sep 1992 00:57:30 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> stewart@tscvm (Mark Stewart) writes:
>The next day 4 of them hit the beach; without warning Miranda removes her 
>top.  Immediately the men panic and look away, visibly feeling awkward.  
>She is clearly challenging her companions: "They can't just look at 
>breasts, they've got to leer at hooters... can't they see they're attached 
>to a person?"  

Well, it looks like we are going to miss the alt.sex people with this
discussion but I don't consider that a big loss.  If you read both
rec.nude and alt.sex and feel they could benefit from my words feel
free to post this to alt.sex, just please don't cross-post.

Anyway, this seems to point to one of the big problems many boys have
with breasts and nudity.  And also a problem with peoples perception
of nudity.  That is, they concentrate on one body part and ignore the
person.  Some of the posters in the breasts discussion talked about
enjoying breasts, or not being able to carry on an intelligent conversation
while looking at breasts.  They point they all seem to be missing is
that those breasts are on a person and it is the person that should be
receiving your attention.

I've been a nudist a long time and must say that meeting other people while
we are all nude makes it easier to get to know the person.  Many of the
barriers are striped away and you aren't looking at the uniform wondering
what the person is really like.

-- 
===============================================================================
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"