From: palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Uptightness about sex & ...
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:25:17 GMT

williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:

>In article <palmer.713661137@isye.gatech.edu> palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>>Gee, since "my" solution is the way the system works *now*, how did we
>>ever get along??
>---
>	Simple -- by the majority repressing the rights of others.  That's
>the way the system "works" now.  Because of your system, you can
>still find places were cohabitiation between unmarried adults is 
>illegal, homosexuality: illegal, anything other than straight het sex
>is illegal, certain religions are illegal, etc.  Just because we have
>a system where minorities are easily suppressed/ignored doesn't
>mean it is a good system.  The way the system works "now" used to allow
>for slavery -- only until enough people thought it should be changed
>did we "allow" those poor blackies "freedom".  The way the system works
>"now" used to allow women no vote.  This doesn't mean any of these things
>were _right_.  Just because "that's they way it is" is a *very poor*
>excuse to justify anything -- and that is the excuse you are using.

Okay, wat, so what are you going to do to change things because you
believe them to be unfair?  Post items in a newsgroup?

All of the things you mentioned above have been corrected because people
were willing to organize, demonstrate, and convince enough other people
that things needed to be corrected.  Which is exactly what you should
be doing (in a larger forum than Usenet... here you only get the techie
geeks who play with computers).  Oh, about places where cohabitation is
still illegal (as well as other sundry activities between consenting
adults): in the few places where this is true the laws are generally not
enforced, since there are motions in the legislatures just about every
year to get them the heck off the books.

What good does ranting do, if the audience is too small or focussed?
I realize that you don't feel like you should HAVE to convince other
people to not "interfere" with your "rights" (like public sex acts),
but what is your alternative?  Concentrate your energies on approaches
that will GET you what you WANT.


>	The stopping condition is arbitrary and obviously "unfair" to 
>minority positions (just as black slaves, native americans, etc) and
>those with minority views/religions.  

Not totally true.  This is not a democracy, it is a republic.  The
rights of individuals, as originally expressed in the Magna Carta and
exhibited in Engligh Common Law, and formally recognized in our own
Bill of Rights, limits the Government's (majority of people) ability
to interfere with the lives of US citizens even if they happen to
belong to (currently) unpopular groups or sects.

Obviously, this has not always worked out in the short run.  But please,
show me a system IN EXISTENCE NOW that works better over the long haul.
Don't bother describing your personal vision of utopia, because no one
individual can forsee all the effects that changes initiate.


>>2)  Be considerate.
>---
>	Under current law, a great many things are illegal to do in the
>privacy of your own home.  If doing it in private isn't the height of
>being considerate, I don't know what is.  But that doesn't stop the
>current system.

Yes, that is considerate.  And, pray tell, how will the "current system"
know what you do there unless you're doing it to someone who complains?


>	Exactly.  Play by the majority's rules, or be locked up.  What is
>right has nothing to do with it.  The fact that you weren't bothering
>anyone has nothing to do with it.  Glad you agree -- *plugh*.

Well, obviously, other people think that you ARE BOTHERING THEM.  I can
see that you don't care what other people think, though.  But if your
position is "right" then you should be able to get others to agree, and
to secure your rights by legislation.  If you can't convince anybody
else, then perhaps you're off-base as to what is "right."


Sooo, we have come quite a ways from discussing issues specifically
related to public nudity.  In the interest of saving net bandwidth, I
will refrain from following up to your response to this post.

Others have said it better than I.  The issue of public sex should not
be tied directly to the efforts to establish clothing optional recreation
areas.  The whole idea here is to make changes.  Given the system we
have (whether it is deficient or not), the way to do this is to convince
lots of people that what you want is not outlandish, and to apply steady
pressure to lawmakers and city councilpeople.  Unfortunately (for wat),
too many people think that public sex is outlandish.  Maybe this will
change over time.  But if you push too hard you get backlash, which may
delay acceptance of such ideas for another 50 years.

So, what do you propose to do to make the changes that you want?  And
please identify some realistic odds of those changes actually taking
hold, given your aproaches.

Mike
--
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  23665
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-????,   Email: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov