From: Michael_Pizolato@afs.com (Michael Pizolato)
Subject: Re: All the people (was Re: Embarrassed
Reply-To: Michael_Pizolato@afs.com
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:01:56 GMT

In article <1457200024@igc.apc.org> Pat O'Brien <naturist@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 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.

In article <1457200025@igc.apc.org> Pat O'Brien <naturist@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 	I think you have Naturism mixed up with anarchism. It's not relevant
> what you think of The Naturist Society or the Naturist Action Committee.
> 	What is germane to this discussion is whether something at the 
> edge of the social envelope is worth pursuing and whether it can be attained.
> 	Opening the doors to public nudity on beaches, rivers, hot springs,
> in forests, deserts what have you is hard work. Keeping them open is an 
> equally onerous challenge, what with the level of right-wing fanatical 
> fundamentalist crapola out there.
> 	All I'm saying is we can't succeed at any of this in the current
> American environment if there is public sex involved. It just will not work.

These opinions finally state the matter correctly.  In the current repressive  
moral climate of the U.S., it is pointless to argue in favor of public sex in CO  
areas if you want to keep the CO areas open (and I certainly do).  Does that  
mean that anything is wrong with having sex in public?  IMHO, no.  Someday, I  
hope, it will not be an issue.

Like most people, I want a moderately high degree of privacy during sex.  But,  
if my SO and I choose a secluded (or not so secluded) glade in the woods to have  
sex, and someone happens upon us by chance, a simple "Excuse me" should be all  
that is necessary.  If someone should see us from a distance, then they should  
choose to watch or to ignore us, and nothing more.  I'm an anarchist only in the  
sense that I believe that laws are not necessary for myself because I am  
reasonable, and I would expect everyone to be reasonable in an anarchistic  
world.  Of course, we all believe that about ourselves.  It doesn't work that  
way, or that's how things would be.

On a different topic, and reasonable posts like the above aside, this group  
could do with a little less sensitivity to, and a lot more tolerance of,  
differing opinions.  There seems to be a small core of regular posters who  
jealously guard the tone and flavor of the group, and woe to any who dare  
express anything contrary.  You're not going to win any new friends that way.   
There's not much reason to continue to read and contribute to the group if  
people are constantly trying to make you feel like scum for disagreeing with  
them.

You (a generic "you" - another problem with this group is the need for myriad  
disclaimers like this one; lighten up) are not an asshole for expressing an  
opinion that I (again, a generic "I") disagree with.  Nor am I an asshole for  
disagreeing (although I may be an asshole for other reasons ;-).  Argue my  
point, but if you tear me down personally, eventually you will be fighting your  
cause alone.  A little respect in responses is called for all around.

Michael

--
Michael_Pizolato@afs.com                          Flames only help keep me warm.
~18 kyu
Q16
NeXTMail appreciated