HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.nude

>/ hpkslx:rec.nude / zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) / 11:50 am  Nov 29, 1992 /
>
>The main accepted nude beach I know of, is Bonny Doon beach, about 2/3
>of the way to Santa Cruz down Hwy 1 from Hwy 84.  It's at the base of
>(I think) Bonny Doon Road, which (I think) is called Ice Cream Grade
>higher up.  You have to climb down cliffs to get to it.

You forget about Red White and Blue, just South of Bonny Doon, or about
four miles north of Santa Cruz. (Your mileage will vary!  It's just 
after the second passing lane ends.  Look for the red/white/blue mailbox,
it's easy to miss.

>
>----------

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730

************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)

Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
From: gad@pencom.com (George Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Austin nudist areas
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:47:10 GMT
Reply-To: gad@pencom.com
Organization: Pencom Software

Tom Middleton ; System Manager writes
> There used to be two clothing optional apartment building in Austin.
> Are those still active or defunct now?  If defunct does anyone know
> why? 

When I moved here in 1988 there was one nudist apartment complex on
Manor Rd very close to the airport in what I would consider not a
very nice part of town. The complex was well laid out for a nudist
clientele, built like a stockade with only two entrances into a
central courtyard and all apartments facing in. Nothing was visible
from the street. Later that same year, 1988, the complex was sold
to a new owner who immediately evicted all of the nudist tenants
and made it a textile complex. At that time the apts suffered from
a low occupancy rate which the new owner sought to remedy by making
them non-nudist. To my knowledge that was the last nudist apartment
complex in Austin. I don't know of any here now. I do recall the 
Austin Apts being discussed in a fall/winter issue of N in 1988.
They also talked about some Apts in Arizona. Someone recently 
mentioned some nudist apts in Dallas but I don't know any details
about those...

George
--
		      George A. Durden			
		  	.5K EX Pilot
		       Unix Mercenary
DoD #0039	     "No Risk, No Rush"		CMRA #106
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Date: 20 Dec 1992 12:00:41 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

>------------ Begin Anonymous Letter ---------------------------------
>For starters, I agree with [Tom] entirely.  I better elaborate, though,
>or this will not be much of a post!  First, I would like to make the 
>matter more precise by stating that the problem is not "nudity = sex" 
>as much as it is "nudity => sex"  (the arrow means "implies").  
>i.e., "whenever there is nudity (among adults) there is or will be 
>some form of sex."  Given our society's views of sex, it is clear that 
>such a proposition is harmful to those who wish to enjoy nude 
>recreation.

And I agree with both of you...except for using the term "implies".
In the strict mathematical sense "implies" may be appropriate, but outside
of mathematics it's meaning is less precise.  Many things *imply* sex but
our perfectly acceptable in our society (e.g., beer commercials) so it is
certainly not the *implication* of sex that is unacceptable.  It is
"deviant" sexual behaviour that is unacceptable, and public nudity (in the
minds of the opposition) will *inevitably* lead to deviant behaviour:
exhibitionism, voyeurism, public sex, orgies,....  In their minds nudity
and sex are inseperable and sex in anything other than a private coupling
of "man and wife" is deviant.  Therefore, (to them) public nudity is
inseperabel from deviant sex, and both should be treated equally.  This
is where (IMHO) the nudity=sex comes from, and I think "equals" describes
the (mis)belief better than "implies".  Bikinis *imply* sex, nudity actually
causes it.  (WRONG! But that is the apparent belief.)

Actually, I think there is a bit more to it: clothes offer a denial
opportunity, a physical "wall" between the viewer and the other person's
sexuality. Even a tiny scrap of spandex is a physical barrier to make sure
the viewer behaves "appropriately" (i.e., doesn't engage in deviant sex).
Since it is human to desire the forbidden fruit (modern usage of the phrase,
not biblical), those opposed to public nudity fear that they (and obviously
everyone else) will be unable to control themselves once that physical
barrier is removed.

Of course, *we* know that people don't lose control when it is removed,
but in their minds that is not possible.

Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: jsd@esl.com (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: A new excuse
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:36:55 GMT
Followup-To: rec.nude
Organization: ESL Inc., S'vale CA

> In article <Bz5qLr.59G@newsflash.concordia.ca> grogono@cs.concordia.ca
> (Peter Grogono) writes:
> 
> :According to a story in today's newspaper, sharks tend to classify
> :an evenly tanned human being as "not good food" but they are attracted by
> :contrasts, such as tan-lines and swim suits. So, next time someone asks

I missed the reference as to which paper this was in.  Can someone tell
me?  I'd really like to get a copy.

--
Jeff Dalton, ESL Inc., S'vale CA
jsd@esl.com
From: zerkle@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: zerkle@cs.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis

In article <Bz7xz6.5B6@xrtll.uucp> stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes) writes:
>In article <Bz25xH.F0E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v076rtlz@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard M. Green) writes:
>>Bullshit.  Everything equals sex.  It's time you old farts admitted it.
>>
>I'm shure I won't be the only one to respond to this but I will anyways.
>
>When you eat, does it equal sex?

Some people do not deal well with food.  When they are feeling lonely,
unloved, or bored, they eat.  For them food is love.  In fact,
chocolate has been shown to do interesting things with various
hormones.  So yes, for some people, food is sex.

Besides, haven't you seen 9 1/2 weeks?

>When you go to work, does it equal sex?

Well, it depends on your line of work.  However, many women won't
marry a man unless he is fairly well-to-do.  People admit this less
than they did a few years ago, but there are still people out there
who still have this attitude.  I read in Dear Abby a letter from a
widower complaining that all his dates were mostly concerned with his
stock portfolio, not his personality!  Since many people have this
attitude, it stands to reason that other people work to aquire money
and attract mates.  So, work is certainly related to sex.

>When you visit you parents, does it equal sex?

How do you think they got to BE your parents?

>When you talk to young children, does it equal sex?

When I was a young child, I was teased by adults (relatives included)
about when I was getting a girlfriend.  Children learn their sexual
roles from adults.  Freud might have something to say about this, as
well.

>When you go out with your male friends, does it equal sex?

Sure.  If you're female or gay, it's obvious.  Often, though, men will
get together to cruise for women.  Sometimes, they just yell and
whistle, though.

Well, some of those are obviously a little far-fetched.  However, I
think I've made the point that there is usually _some_ element there.
People (and most other animals) are inherently sexual.  It is
necessary to preserve the continuity of the species.  However, the
sexual element certainly doesn't have to dominate every human
transaction.

In particular, a group of people in the nude (at a beach, resort, or
whatever) does not necessarily represent a more sexual situation than
a similar group of clothed people.  People will be people, no matter
what they're wearing.

--
Dan Zerkle  zerkle@cs.ucdavis.edu  (916) 756-5170
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: A new excuse
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:55:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bz5qLr.59G@newsflash.concordia.ca>, grogono@cs.concordia.ca (Peter Grogono) writes:

> According to a story in today's newspaper, sharks tend to classify
> an evenly tanned human being as "not good food" but they are attracted by
> contrasts, such as tan-lines and swim suits. So, next time someone asks
> you why you're always taking your clothes off, tell them
> "So the sharks don't get me".

Gee, this gives a whole new twist to Chevy Chase's "LAND SHARK" routine! ;-)

Terry "for those of you old enough to remember" Wood
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: leed@pro-harold.cts.com (Lee Dronick)
Subject: Re: Anonymous posting
Organization: The Harold Network -- An Alliance For Creative Communication
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 15:43:21 PST

>True, I've never rejected a Naturist just because they had a security
clearance :-).
<

Several years ago when I was having my TS reviewed I put down that I was a
member of the Naturist Society and the local group, The Camping Bares, when
I had to fill out my form. The investigator kind smiled when he saw that,
but I got to maintain my clearance.
-----
Lee Dronick
ProLine: leed@pro-harold
Internet: leed@pro-harold.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-harold!leed
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: witters@eskimo.com (John Witters)
Subject: Re: Teddy Bear Cove
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:55:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.014825.10263@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8948315@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Arthur Morgan) writes:
>were against the idea of a nude beach in the county. The SLUGS from Seattle
>spoke in favor of maintaining the status-quo, and a group from the county 
>presented petitions requesting that CO beaches in Whatcom County be made
>illegal. There is still a little time for written comment, so people can send
>letters to the Whatcom County Council at the courthouse in Bellingham, WA until
>friday the 18th. Also, if I remember correctly, the SLUGS or some similar
>group made an offer to buy back Teddy Bear Cove so that it can remain a CO 
>beach without the county parks department having a CO beach on their 
>consciences.

Here is a message I'm forwarding from the SLUGS to give a little more
information.  It is a response to a copy of the above article which I posted
on the Northwest Nudists' bulletin board system (206) 485-6141.

-John

	Msg #: [23/23]                          Base: Political Action Needed
	Date : Tue 15 Dec 1992  11:42p          Stat: Public
	From : Slug #6
	To   : John Witters #121
	Title: Re: Teddy Bare Cove Reply: This message is a reply to #22

	Thanks John for another one your great uploads.  Could you please put
	a note on usenet that the SLUGS did not make an offer to buy TBC, but
	have been inquiring into the feasability of buying TBC.  The current
	status of the inquiry is dependant of a few conditions, one of them is
	what the Whatcom County Council votes on Thurs and what an attorney
	says about the new law.  If it passes there is a good chance that we
	will fight it in court.  Could you also pass a message to Mark Turner
	that I would like to get a hold of him and Arthur Morgan too.  The
	SLUGS P.O.Box 2335, Lynnwood, WA  98036.  Thanks alot.  Could you
	check on Thursday and Friday to see what the news in.

	Just Stay NUDE!
	SLUG

-- 
	John Witters			(206) 353-4672 (H)   (206) 356-5274 (W)
	210 124th ST. S.W. Apt. #1	witters@eskimo.com	     (Internet)
	Everett, Washington  98204	witters@eskimo.celestial.com (UUCP)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: visiting Italy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:36:03 GMT
Keywords: Italy

	There is a slim chance I will be spending three weeks in Italy
	this coming February.   Not the best time of year, but take it
	when you can get it. (Rome)

	Anyway:   Any suggestions on recreational activity while there ??
	Can someone give me clues as to the social conscience  ?
	Any netters from Rome willing to act as host or guide for 
	a short while ?  Or even just to meet for a beer somewhere ?

	Actually any and all comments on Italian attitudes, habits, or
	practices that would benefit a visitor in getting along better 
	would be welcome.

	Any and all comments appreciated.
	I do not speak Italian or any language other than English.

	Either follow up or email directly.

-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
From: v076rtlz@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard M. Green)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Response to Paul Mason
Date: 12 Dec 92 22:59:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I agree with you Paul.  I've been involved with social nudity, I'm not just a
computer "gawker", if you will.  And I'm no more obsessed with sex than anyone
else, not abnormially so.  Nudity does not bring about sexual feelings.  Nor is
it a reason to shelve them either, and that seems to be the assertion of some
of the people on this board and in naturism, who are animant about keeping up 
a "naked but otherwise church picnic" image, and whom I affectionatelly refer
to as old farts.  Yes, I very frequently have sexual feelings, as do most healthy
people.  That doesn't mean that every time A woman walks but I get a strong urge
to whip out my Johnson  and start jerking off right then and there-then their
would be something wrong with me.  I don't even entertain thoughts like that,
give me credit, I'm a human, not a chimp.  I treat people with the respect,
and that's the same light which I consider them in.  And I'm no less a "red-
just as soon defend anyone elses sexual preferences as well.  And for some
reason, some people in the movement, particualrly those older and in positions
of greater influence, don't want to accept people like me.  
	The point is, I am making an honest statement, not just about me, but
about all of us, about human nature in fact.  and I'm exaggerating a little to
get a laugh or a smile or two, but also to make people look a little into
themselves, and scrutinize some of those hipocracies with which we rationalize
our way of life.  I consider myself a satirist of sorts, and that is what we do.

Howard "In my flame-retardent suit" Green
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:38:03 GMT

From article <Bz7xz6.5B6@xrtll.uucp>, by stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes):
> In article <Bz25xH.F0E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v076rtlz@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard M. Green) writes:
>>Bullshit.  Everything equals sex.  It's time you old farts admitted it.
>>
> I'm shure I won't be the only one to respond to this but I will anyways.
> 
> When you eat, does it equal sex?
> When you go to work, does it equal sex?
> When you visit you parents, does it equal sex?
> When you talk to young children, does it equal sex?
> When you go out with your male friends, does it equal sex?
> 
> etc....

Yes.

> I could go on forever.  If the answer to all of these is really yes, then
> you are obsessed.

And I'm not an obsessed teenager, I'm 61 years old.

When I was a pre-teen, I was taught that the "necessities of life"
were 1. food, 2. clothing, and 3. shelter.  But if you want "life" to
last more than one generation, you have to add 4. sex, otherwise
when you die the species dies with you.

When you eat, you are preparing for sex.  At my age, I'm preparing for
my children to have sex.  When I go to work, I'm making it possible
for me to eat, etc. as above, and also earning what it costs to get my
children married.  Parents and children are certainly part of the sex
package, since without sex there would be neither parents nor
children.  And male friends, even if you're male, or female friends if
you're female, are part of the social structure in which you have sex
and perpetuate the species.

WITHOUT SEX YOU WOULD NOT EXIST!!!!

Get the above through your head.  Along with food, clothing, and
shelter, sex is the most important thing in the world.

So what does this have to do with nude recreation?  Nothing.  The
reason we're talking about it is that so many people have this crazy
notion that there is something special about the equation nudity=sex.
Baloney.  The equation is everything=sex, and there's nothing special
about nudity.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: isc40041@nusunix1.nus.sg (LOO KOK HOE)
Subject: Help ! Visiting UK ... [ Repost]
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:14:54 GMT

Hi people out there !

Hope this message will reach UK  8)   ....

My friends will be going to UK next year May  (1993 ) ...
Any people knows any CO beaches there ?

There is not exact destination ...
Will travel by train or car ...


George

Internet:      isc40041@nusunix1.nus.sg
               lookokho@iscs.nus.sg

Bitnet:        lookokho@nusdiscs

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: pbrunk@aisun1.ai.uga.edu (Paul Brunk [MSAI])
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:07:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223803.26257@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>From article <Bz7xz6.5B6@xrtll.uucp>, by stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes):
>> In article <Bz25xH.F0E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v076rtlz@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard M. Green) writes:
>>>Bullshit.  Everything equals sex.  It's time you old farts admitted it.
>>>
>> I'm shure I won't be the only one to respond to this but I will anyways.
>> 
>> When you eat, does it equal sex?
>> When you go to work, does it equal sex?
>> When you visit you parents, does it equal sex?
>> When you talk to young children, does it equal sex?
>> When you go out with your male friends, does it equal sex?
>> 
>> etc....
>
>Yes.
>
>> I could go on forever.  If the answer to all of these is really yes, then
>> you are obsessed.
>
>And I'm not an obsessed teenager, I'm 61 years old.
>
>When I was a pre-teen, I was taught that the "necessities of life"
>were 1. food, 2. clothing, and 3. shelter.  But if you want "life" to
>last more than one generation, you have to add 4. sex, otherwise
>when you die the species dies with you.
>
>When you eat, you are preparing for sex.  At my age, I'm preparing for
>my children to have sex.  When I go to work, I'm making it possible
>for me to eat, etc. as above, and also earning what it costs to get my
>children married.  Parents and children are certainly part of the sex
>package, since without sex there would be neither parents nor
>children.  And male friends, even if you're male, or female friends if
>you're female, are part of the social structure in which you have sex
>and perpetuate the species.
>
>WITHOUT SEX YOU WOULD NOT EXIST!!!!
>
>Get the above through your head.  Along with food, clothing, and
>shelter, sex is the most important thing in the world.
>
>So what does this have to do with nude recreation?  Nothing.  The
>reason we're talking about it is that so many people have this crazy
>notion that there is something special about the equation nudity=sex.
>Baloney.  The equation is everything=sex, and there's nothing special
>about nudity.
>
>							Marty
>marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
>Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Oh! MyGod! Hot Well Trip
Date: 20 Dec 1992 01:23:44 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

 
Dec 31, thru Jan 3 (Thu, Fri, Sat, Sun):
NEW YEARS EVE CELEBRATION at Oh!MyGod! Hot Well.
 
     Everyone is invited to join the Camping Bares at
Oh!MyGod! Hot Well in the Anza Borrego Desert for our annual
New Years Eve campout.  The well was drilled by developers
looking for water to irrigate a planed golf course.  The
water came up hot with a low flow and the project was
abandon.  Since then locals and visitors have built soaking
pools around the well head this has become a popular spot
for a wide variety of people.  Local custom for this area is
clothing optional.
     This is a desert car camp so bring anything you can fit
in your car.  We may do some day-hiking so bring a canteen
and daypack.  Bring plenty of water to drink as well as any
food and other drinks you will need.
     DIRECTIONS: From I-8 in El Cajon, take CA-67 north to
Ramona where 67 (Ramona's main street) becomes CA-78.  Take
78 to Santa Ysabel.  Turn left onto CA-79, right at 11.4
miles onto S-2, left at 4.5 miles onto S-22.  Pass thru
Borrego Springs and continue through the Imperial County
line marked by a microwave tower next to S-22.  Continue
another 4.9 miles to a dirt road turnoff on the right.  It
is marked by a sign warning the road is not maintained.  The
well is 0.8 mile from S-22 and can be spotted by vegetation
that is moticeable thicker than in the surrounding desert.
At the well look for Camping Bares signs or ask around to
find our campsite.
     If you are coming from the Palm Springs area or from
the Imperial Valley area find CA-86 and drive to Salton
City.  There turn west onto S-22 and drive less than two
miles to the dirt road described above which will be on your
left.
 
-- 
===============================================================================
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: mjo@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: A new excuse
Date: 13 Dec 1992 03:39:43 GMT
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Company
Reply-To: "Mike O'Connor" <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ope001.iao.ford.com

In article <Bz5qLr.59G@newsflash.concordia.ca> grogono@cs.concordia.ca
(Peter Grogono) writes:

:According to a story in today's newspaper, sharks tend to classify
:an evenly tanned human being as "not good food" but they are attracted by
:contrasts, such as tan-lines and swim suits. So, next time someone asks
:you why you're always taking your clothes off, tell them
:"So the sharks don't get me".

I wonder who the people were to test this sort of thing out?

						...Mike

-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
From: dave@monitor.larc.nasa.gov (Dave A. Hinde)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: info on Nassua
Date: 16 Dec 1992 18:32:45 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: monitor.larc.nasa.gov

A co-worker is going to Nassua, in the Bahamas, Friday (Dec. 18) and 
asked about a good CO beach.  Can anyone reccomend one.  She doesn't have
usenet access herself, and asked me to find out for her.  

Thanks in advance for any info,
					dave@monitor.larc.nasa.gov
From: gad@pencom.com (George Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: CO spots in the Carolinas?  Info needed!
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:12:05 GMT
Reply-To: gad@pencom.com
Organization: Pencom Software

TJ Wood writes
> 
> >Hello Terry,
> >Could you please post this on rec.nude for me?  Thanks.
> 
> ______________________________
> Does anyone know of CO spots in the Carolinas (esp. SC, esp. near the
> Atlantic)?  Please post.  Thank you.
> ------------------------------

There's a CO resort near Myrtle Beach I think it's called Whispering Pines.
They have a small ad in N magazine (current issue).

George
--
		      George A. Durden			
		  	.5K EX Pilot
		       Unix Mercenary
DoD #0039	     "No Risk, No Rush"		CMRA #106