HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:27:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BRUCE.93Jan7131154@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>,
bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>
>Much deleted:
>>>>>> On 6 Jan 93 17:49:54 GMT, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W.
Chapman) said:
>
>> Nudity with artificial restrictions is not nudity.
>
>Huh?  What is it then?
> 
>> There is nothing unnatural about a woman's legs being spread apart
>> and nothing unnatural about a man having an erection.
>
>No, nothing unnatural, but different behaviours are appropriate in
>different situations.  Having an erection on a CO beach is
>inappropriate socially, which is why it so rarely happens.  There are
>restrictions to our behaviour; whether you describe social pressures
>as `artificial restrictions' or not is largely up to you, but don't be
>surprised if society (in this case naturists) disagree.

I think you would do well to present a more balanced view on this topic; I
sense that there is not universal agreement among nudist/naturists on the
"appropriateness" (or significance) of an erection in a CO situation.
Also, to say that "it rarely happens because it is inappropriate" is to
suggest that a person has some control over what I believe to be an
essentially involuntary body function.

My main point is this: the view that an erection is inappropriate in a CO
situation is based on the false assumption that all erections are sexually
motivated, which as I have already pointed out in other posts, is not the
case!  Honestly, the only thing I find inappropriate are the unwarranted
assumptions of people who jump to conclusions; however, I'm NOT advocating
disregard or insensitivity to things that may make others feel ill at ease.

Sorry to resurrect this thread of discussion; if I could, I would just wave
my magic wand and make it all disappear.  :-)

-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|             Ecstasy is transitory, but a theorem is forever!              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ccbjr@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (charles.c.bahr..jr)
Subject: Sandy Hook Status
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:22:56 GMT


Hello out there!

Has anyone visited Sandy Hook since the big winter storm
which ripped the NY/NJ area in December?
Is Gunnison beach still there?

Also, how about the C.O. beach near Cape May? (I forgot the name)
Does it still have sand, and do you think it wil be C.O. this year?

Thanks for any info.

"Standard Disclaimer and Signature"
-charlie bahr
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:00:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan11.145413.1688@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>In article <C0ozCn.Hr1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>  It's a distinction without a difference.   If someone walks
>>  around with 90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered
>>  is his "private parts" he's not nude.   If he walks around with
>>  90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered is only his 
>>  forearms he is considered nude.
>
>If he walks around with 90% of his body covered, but the 10% that's
>exposed is his "private parts", is he nude?


   Remember, language is consensus reality -- definitions are 
   descriptive, not prescriptive.  So on that basis I would
   say, "yes".   I.e., if you were reading a movie review or
   label in a TV listing any such scene would certainly qualify
   to give such a movie a "nudity" rating.   And if such a person
   were at a beach that had a CO section, he would certainly be 
   required to remain in that section.


---peter


  
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Chicago area CO choices?
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:11:56 GMT

In article <1ice7oINNpg0@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> doc@webrider.central.sun.com writes:

>Failing that possibility for the moment, I'd like to prepare for
>better weather.  Can anyone tell me what the possibilities are
>for CO sites in the Chicago area (say within about 2-4 hours 
>drive time?).  Any organizations etc. that are reasonably local
>for information and events.  How about any winter options? I assume 
>these would be indoor :^).

Contact:  Chicago Sun Club
          Box 583
          Chicago Hts
          IL  60411
          708-758-5496

-- 
Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: dean@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Dean Collins)
Subject: Nude Job Inverview
Keywords: nude, naturist, interview, job
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:10:05 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: crow.csrv.uidaho.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I had a job interview today for a computer science related job in Seattle.
The inverview was via phone.  I was nude at the time. :-)  (I was relaxed
and did a good job, by the way.)

Anyhow, I thought y'all might find this interesting.  It's not something
that happens every day (to me at least.)  Too bad.

--
Dean Collins
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:06:08 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu



>In article <13#3-tj@rpi.edu>, dking@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Dave King) writes:
>>
>>	If you read publications relating to the TV industry, you'll
>>soon find that, for them, nudity=sex.
>> ... [stuff deleted] ...
>>	And you wonder why there's almost no casual nudity shown on
>>American TV.

In article <1993Jan10.043530.28127@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
>It has occurred to me that there are three very wealthy special interests
>that undoubtedly want the current state of American TV to continue to be
>nudity-free: (1) the cable industry, 
>                        (2) the mainstream video sales/rental industry,
>           (3) and the pornography industry, 



And on the flip side, there is no (as in zero) wealthy special interest
group that would benefit from casual nudity being portrayed accurately
on American TV.  Although IMHO the people would benefit from dissolving
the TV equation of nudity and sex there is no financial benefit to
encourage such an act.

Also WE (yes, you and me) probably don't complain when T.V. portrays
nudity and then uses black outs or fuzzies or whatever to cover up
genitals and female breasts.  Well, we complain to each other, but who
here has actually written a letter to a T.V. Station or Network
complaining about the lack of nudity?

-- 
Tom Middleton					.signature temporarily
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu			    out of service
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:45:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0Jtpp.2AJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   Yes, and notice how the original poster has disappeared 
>   back into the woodwork leaving all of us knights-errant
>   to fight over this by ourselves.

Actually, I think that, for once, this erection discussion has served a
useful purpose.  Until it was mentioned here, I never really gave any
thought to what someone with a implant might look like.  If ever I should
happen to see somebody I don't know with a "raging hardon" I'll probably
chalk it up to an implant or whatever.  But I doubt that I'll get bent out
of shape over the situation.

I think that what one is doing with the alleged hardon is far more important
that the hardon itself.

For example: One of the women I met a Grand Lido was a regular at Black's
Beach.  One of "horror" stories that she told was about a strange couple who
came to the beach and played with his erection all day.  Basically, it
seemed that the couple was trying to see if he could stay hard all day.

Now behavior such as this strikes me as strange and inappropriate in public.
Simply having a hardon does not.

Terry
From: bcollins@utdallas.edu (ARLIN B COLLINS)
Subject: Re: Cancun Mexico Vacation
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:33:40 GMT

kjk0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KEVIN J. KRESS) writes:
>     I will be leaving for Cancun Mexico in a few weeks and would like to know
>     if there are any CO beaches on the Hotel Zone.  Any information that
>     anyone could give me would be greatly apprieciated.  Thanks,
>                                                            Kevin

    make sure you leave your kids WELL supervised by an excellent
    baby sitter!!!           :-)
-- 
 Arlin B Collins    Sat 09 Jan   Sun   Civil  Naut   Astro
 bcollins@utdallas.edu   rise:  07:31  07:04  06:34  06:04
 lat N32.9 long W096.9    set:  17:39  18:06  18:36  19:06
From: lmeissne@carson.u.washington.edu (Loren Meissner)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Seattle Nude Swims
Date: 7 Jan 1993 15:58:20 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

1-206-424-6833. It is the number of Lake Associates in Mount Vernon, WA.
It is a message tape, so you can call late at night or early in the
morning when long distance rates are lower. Leave your name to be put on
the mailing list. The next nude swim is at Seattle Athletic Club (Northgate)
Jan 9. Please call 1-206-424-NUDE to confirm details or get last minute
changes. The swim sponsors ask that we DO NOT call Seattle Athletic Club.
Apparantly  ASA or Naturist Society membership is required. This requirement
is causing some members of local recognized nudist parks to complain.

My previous message (in case you are just "tuning in:"

> > I apologize in advance for taking up national bandwidth on what is admittedly
> >a local concern.
> >
> >The Nude Swims in Seattle apparantly require ASA or Naturist membership.
> >I called the phone number to inquire about the policy regarding guests
> >at the swims, but received no response to the voice message I left nearly a
> >week ago. Does anyone know what the policy is regarding guests?
> >

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com (Arthur G. Yaffe)
Subject: Re: Leif Heilberg (was: Nudist TV segment)
Reply-To: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
Organization: . . . Next week, we've got to get organized.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:48:06 GMT

In article 1ieam4INN5q8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca, arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.134111.21465@icd.teradyne.com> yaffe@icd.teradyne.com writes:

                [Material deleted for brevity]

>>Peter, IMHO, I think you're falling into the Leif Heilberg trap here.  Leif
>>is a Naturist/Nudist photographer who always seems to want women to spread
>>their legs (and not just "a little"), justifying it with an argument similar
>>to yours.
>
>Do you have some evidence to support this?  I have seen many of Heilberg's
>photos but have never seen any emphasizing a woman's genitals.  The Naturist
>Society frequently publishes pictures by him---usually in issues where they
>are not criticizing him for selling photos to H&E.  There are a bunch of
>photos by him in the World Guide (eg., pages 142-143).  Several other nudist
>magazines also publish his photos, maybe more.

Bill, I have to admit my information is second hand.  My remark was prompted
by a statement made by one of his subjects when he did an article on Orient 
Beach.  She was posed on the beach and he asked her to spread her legs.
I can't give an exact quote - I wasn't there - but she objected first to
the language he used (the term she objected to was "pussy"), and second
to the notion.  Her husband, who was also present on the beach at the time,
supported her complaint.

I apologize if I have characterized Leif incorrectly, but this was the 
distinct flavor of him that I got from that discussion and from some of
his photos in H&E.  I agree that the photos in World Guide and those that
are published in N are generally more appropriate, but we need to keep in
mind that they were selected for those publications.

               [ More deletions ]

>Cheers.  Bill.
>-- 
>Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca

 . . and a Happy New Year to you. :-)
---
********************************
Arthur G. Yaffe
Internet: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
********************************
From: lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz (Lance Andrewes)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Reef Beach to be off-limits to nudists
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 19:23:57 GMT
Organization: none
Keywords: Reef Manly Free Beach

The following is posted without permission, by-line NZ Press Association:
  ++ARTICLE BEGINS++
  "Nude bathers will challenge cover-up"
  SYDNEY. - The difference between nudity and swimming togs may be
  only a fine line of lycra but it will have an effect on the cost
  of swimming at Sydney's Reef Beach from February 1.

  After more than 16 years as a nudist beach, Manly Council has told
  bathers that from next month their choice is clothing or a $20 fine.

  But frequent Reef Beach-goers are outraged and have made it clear
  they will simply turn the other cheek, so to speak, when beach
  inspectors come a-calling with their notebooks in three weeks
  time.

  In fact, bathers are seeking advice on how to stage a professional
  protest and have vowed they will errect a plaque on the beach to
  honour those arrested in the brewing fight over the right to
  bathe in birthday suits rather than swimsuits.

  Further outraging the bathers is the revelation that the
  New South Wales Government has given Manly Council $80,000
  to support the council's new cover-up policy, despite a recent
  survey of Manly residents which showed most did not object to
  the nudist beach.

  It is accessible by walking track only and the decision to end
  its free-for-all status, decreed by former premier Neville Wran
  in 1976, was made after complaints from some residents of lewd
  behaviour and perverts.

  But most of the swimmers believe the ban is a prudish blast
  from the past and say they are prepared to go to court and
  challenge any attempt to prosecute them.

  Other swimmers say they will reluctantly dress but believe
  the campaign is a waste of money.

  Three beach inspectors will be employed fulltime to take
  the names and addresses of people either in the water or
  on the beach without benefit of clothes.

  They could be fined $20 for being "not properly and adequately
  clad".
  ++ENDS++

An article in the Jan-Mar '93 "Australian Sun & Health" gives
background to the story.  After reading that, I'm convinced that
the nudists are blameless victims of a small-minded council.  The
nudists were reportedly not allowed to make submissions to the council.

Quite amazing that a Free Beach can be closed like this.  Does
anyone know if the Inspectors are to be there purely to enforce
the ban?  Couldn't they could spend their time warding off
the undesirables who exhibited the lewd behaviour?  That would
be far more constructive, and would presumably achieve what the
residents wanted, while protecting the rights of the nudists.

__
 _______  Email: lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz
////      ZL2AJH    Wellington, New Zealand

From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV
Date: 10 Jan 93 04:35:30 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <13#3-tj@rpi.edu>, dking@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Dave King) writes:
>
>	If you read publications relating to the TV industry, you'll
>soon find that, for them, nudity=sex.
>
>	Csae in point: Entertainment Weekly magazine 10/23/92.  Cover
>story title: "Sex on TV".  The story calls this fall TV season "one of
>the most sexually explicit ever" and cites as its first two examples
>the Mariel Hemingway nude modeling session on Civil Wars and the June
>Chadwick skinny dip on Going to Extremes ... both of which were
>nudity, but not sex.

Excellent examples (alas, I didn't see the episodes in question).

>	And you wonder why there's almost no casual nudity shown on
>American TV.

It has occurred to me that there are three very wealthy special interests
that undoubtedly want the current state of American TV to continue to be
nudity-free: (1) the cable industry, which profits from special pay
channels like HBO, Cinemax, Prism, etc. that show R-rated movies (some of
which contain nudity) -- for a supplemental fee in addition to the cost of
ordinary cable service; (2) the mainstream video sales/rental industry,
which likewise allows the American public to partake of R-rated movies --
for a fee; (3) and the pornography industry, which allows the American
public to partake of X-rated materials (sexually explicit videos and
magazines) -- for a fee.

All three of these industries must make quite a tidy bundle by taking
advantage of the market created by the TV censors.  Free enterprise at work
-- the American way!  :-)

Fred Chapman

P.S. I wonder whether the pornography industry/market is a uniquely
American phenomenon, or if other parts of the world which are more at ease
with nudity and human sexuality experience the same phenomenon.  For
example, do Europe and Australia have large pornography industries?  I
would not expect there to be a market for it in those locations.

P.P.S. Defn.:  "Pornograph" -- what you play pornography on... :-)

P.P.P.S.  I don't even own a pornograph.  :-)
-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|             Ecstasy is transitory, but a theorem is forever!              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:52:48 GMT

In article <1is7muINN2t7@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:

>By the way, if a woman walks around without a shirt many people would
>say she is partially nude, if a man does the same thing will those
>same people say the same of him?  Probably not.  

Au contraire.  It depends on the circumstances (no one would think
anything of a topfree man at the beach).  But in some circumstances I've
heard men without shirts described as "half naked."

Jon Alan Conrad
From: silberman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (NASA)
Subject: Life Modelling
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:40:00 GMT

A couple of months ago, There was a discussion of life modelling. 
Someone said that he had taken a seminar in life modelling. I don't 
remember who. If you are out there, could you please describe the 
seminar? For whose of you who have modeled, How did you get into it, 
and how did you learn how to model?

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Victory for Elysium
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:09:40 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro

A short item appeared on today's L.A.Times Valley Edition's "Community
News" page which I thought would be of interest.  I meant to bring in
the article and plagiarize it, but I left it at home.  I'll have to
paraphrase.

The article stated that Elysium, the nudist resort in the mountains above
Los Angeles, has "ended" its 21 year battle with the county by getting
its zoning permit.  Elysium says it will not appeal the requirements on
it such as upgrading the road.  It was not clear from the article whether
neighbors can or will appeal to the County Board of Supervisors.

     Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence and
					   F reedom!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Re: Chicago area CO choices?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:06:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1ice7oINNpg0@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>,
by doc@webrider.central.sun.com (Steve Bunis):
> 
> Failing that possibility for the moment, I'd like to prepare for
> better weather.  Can anyone tell me what the possibilities are
> for CO sites in the Chicago area

I strongly suspect it's not legal, but I've seen nude sunbathers on the
seawall by the golf course just south of Montrose Harbor in Lincoln
Park.  The police patrol the area by car, so unless someone complains,
they'll never see nude sunbathers on the far side of the wall.  As with
most of the seawall protecting Lincoln Park, its made of cut limestone
blocks, built stairstep style down to the water, so there are plenty of
warm flat stones for sunbathers to flop down on.

					Doug Jones
					jones@cs.uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ben@val.com (Ben Thornton)
Subject: Re: Excluding Single Males (Was: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: Video Associates Labs - Austin, TX
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:57:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.003855.33687@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
>In article <C0JL49.9BJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
>Nelson) writes:
>
>...
>
>I object to any policy which attempts to characterize my behavior solely on
>the basis of my gender and marital status (I don't care for it when
>automobile insurance companies do it either).  Despite what such policies
>suggest, there are decent single men who are quite capable of controlling
>whatever interest they may have in sexual matters and of behaving in an
>appropriate manner in the company of others.  *affixes tag labeled "Exhibit
>A" to self*

I agree with you here, but for a different reason I'll mention below.  
It's interesting to note that some clubs require participation by 
*both* spouses, thus creating the situation where one cannot particpate 
and is considered a single in the eyes of the club.  Thus, being married 
doesn't necessarily mean anything where gender balance is the primary concern.  

Personally, I don't consider the issue of gender balance to be as important
as, say, the preservation of our right to participate in nude activities
in the first place; not a minor issue at all.  In fact, the issue of 
discrimination for the purpose of gender balance may very well be
the leverage the opposition needs, since any kind of discrimination
at all can be misconstrued by the press and blown out of proportion.
It's time for clubs to rethink their policies, I think, and concentrate
on building a positive public image.  The obvious first step is to abolish
any kind of discriminatory policy and activities that might tarnish
that image.

Comments?

   Naturally,
       Ben


-- 
Ben Thornton                packet:  wd5hls@wd5hls.ampr.org
Video Associates Labs     Internet:  ben@val.com
Austin, TX                    uucp:  ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben
"Push to Test ---> @   ... Release to Detonate"