HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Protest! (sort of)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:27:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Summary: Protest what?

jbecker@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jane Becker) writes:
> Greetings from Berkeleyland! ... There were a dozen or so naked people
> parading around [Sproul Plaza], making speeches, etc....  [W]hat do you
> think of this kind of event?

Makes me think I miss those crazy Berkeleyland folks!  But what were they
protesting?  Berkeley is one of the easier places to be nude (2 CO sundecks
on campus, nude hiking on the Fire Trail, dozens of CO beaches nearby).  So
never mind their state of dress, what were they _saying_?

--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  David Brahm, physicist
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@cco.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---- Carpe Post Meridiem! --
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  | Disclaimer:  I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. | for the sensible folks.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Polk County, FL bans nudity
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:21:16 GMT

rlittell@1.com writes:
> (cites article about Polk County ban on even semi-nudity)
>
>I can not believe the folks that are running this country
>of ours.
>
>I am constantly assaulted by nasty pictures of Freddy Kruger
>both at work and at home on the TV and yet no one seems to be
>offended by these pictures/movies except me.

>I would much rather see folks, at the beach, in their natural
>way then see one of those horrible pictures of a slasher.
>
>Where is this country of ours going?
>
>Lord only knows.
>
>Rich Littell, Encore Computer Corporation

At a very root and archetypal level, it is the battle between life and death.
I'm not worried about Freddy; let people fill their subconscious minds with
fear images if that's what they want to do. But he represents death, especially
as he just keeps on coming back (I guess they're going to kill him off in the
next one.)

How about *life*? Sex, love, the freedom to enjoy it, and the responsibility
to insure the safety of that freedom.

Let Freddy get killed by a new-age couple doing Tantra, sheilding themselves
from his attack, and willing his hate to subsume him alone.
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions? (something worse than photographers
Date: 6 Oct 1992 21:51:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <ringo.718382008@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> ringo@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Ringo) writes:
>djserian@flash.LakeheadU.Ca (Reincarnation of Elvis) writes:
>>(I had no problems with that) but the most disturbing thing I saw was a
>>young man masturbaiting in plain view right there on the beach... 
>>I found that the most disgusting thing 	I had ever seen...         
>
>What's wrong with masturbation?
>Sounds VERY judgemental, coming from someone who DARES walk around
>wearing NOTHING at all. How dare someone behave in a way that might
>disturb you?
>
>-John Rescigno
---

	*snicker*  

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
From: hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Art Modeling
Date: 3 Oct 92 09:06:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: silberman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:28:00 GMT

In article <1OCT199219283103@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> silberman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (NASA) writes:
|Is there anyone in the Washington D.C. area who has ever modeled for 
|an artist or an art class? I am just interested in what it is 
|like.Please E-mail at the above address.

Well, this is an interesting topic.  I think topics like this are
valid for discussion in this newsgroup, and reasons why we shouldn't
change the name to rec.naturism or any such.

I'd like to hear about any experience people in this group might have
in this area as well.  Please post to rec.nude, as well as mailing to
silberman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (the original poster).
--
William R Ward                       Bay View Software
VoiceMail: +1 (408) 479-4072         Internet:  hermit@cats.ucsc.edu
SnailMail: 1803 Mission St. #339     BITNet:    hermit@cats.bitnet
           Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:41:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1a5nr6INN1u1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> philb@cats.ucsc.edu (Philip Brown) writes:
>But it isn't alright to take picture of someone clothed< either. you need
>their permission. except that people generaly don't get upset about it,
>cause the photographer is not likely to sell pictures of them to someone
>else for money. If you are naked,however, the probability of a financial
>transaction goes up dramatically.
---
	What is your definition of 'alright'?  It is legal, in a public
setting to take pictures, though it may not be legal to sell such
pictures.

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: elogan@mistxt.oc.com (Ernie Logan)
Subject: Re: Protest! (sort of)
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:22:27 GMT

Jane:
I am glad to hear that your reaction is simple amusement, as opposed to
any kind of offense. :) Seriously though, this type of thing generally
does the nudist/naturist movement more harm than good, IMHO. The large
majority of nudist/naturists with whom I have come into contact, would
not wish to be nude anywhere and everywhere. This does tend to make us
look too reactionary, and too crazy for society to ever accept our right
to occasional nude recreation.

We are generally folks who, other than preferring not to wear clothes,
are the same as anyone else, and this type of display hurts us in the
eyes of the general public.
Just my .02 worth.
---
Ernie Logan, Jr.
SWSA (ASA Regional) Vice President
elogan@oc.com    OpenConnect Systems +1 214 888-0493  +1 214 484-5200
From: grogono@cs.concordia.ca (Peter Grogono)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Tanning
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:02:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <1992Oct2.113912.4313@unixg.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>A recent issue of _Going Natural_ (published by the Fed. of Canadian
>Naturists) contained an interesting article on the health BENEFITS of
>exposure to the sun's rays (and some cautions, too).  I believe it was
>translated from some INF publication.  The author admitted that he
>wasn't a doctor, but had obviously given the matter a considerable amount
>of research.

The original article was published in "Au Naturel", the organ of the
Quebec Federation of Naturists. It was based on a book called
"Sunlight could save your life" by Zane R. Kime, M.D., M.S. published
by World Health Publications, CA. The article describes not only the
GOOD effects of sunlight, but the BAD effects of bathing suits.
Apparently skin cancer often starts where the suit ends, etc.

It seems to me rather unlikely that the fading ozone accounts for
skin cancer increases. The most reasonable explanation that I have
seen is that people have placed too much trust in protective
creams that have much less screening effect than they claim.

Peter
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Photos: courtesy
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:35:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1acs2cINNe8b
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

>In article <1a5nr6INN1u1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> philb@cats.ucsc.edu (Philip Brown) writes:
>>But it isn't alright to take picture of someone clothed< either. you need

In article <1992Sep30.012633.22521@eskimo.celestial.com> wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>Sorry Philip, that isn't true.  You can take pictures of anything and
>anybody you want to.  

Anytime a person is the subject of your photography it is a common courtesy
to ask them if they mind.  True whether clothed or unclothed.  If taking
pictures of scenery or of another person and someone is incidental to that
photo it is a judgement call but it would be courteous to give them a
chance to move or ask if they mind.

Of course, I know some people are opposed to courtesy.  Eventually, they
will learn.

-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Earl Middleton		|
aka Happy Bare			| "Murph, it's Dan Quayle, forget about it."  
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| 			Frank Fontana
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Tanning
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:47:28 GMT

arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>		  
>Our society lately is encouraging an active lifestyle and discouraging
>tanning. ...

Am I wrong, it seems to me that say, 20 years ago, people were not worried
so much about ill effects of tanning. I know that tanning, or over-tanning,
has been linked to skin-cancer, but does anyone know the statistics about
skin-cancer in this regard? Because I suspect people may now be being
overcautious. I know about the Ozone hole, but those effects do not
significantly reach down to our latitudes, do they? Being here 37 North.

I lived on Guam and in Miami, and tanned significantly. I haven't noticed
ill effects from it, and I hate lotions (skin can't breath.) Somehow I
wonder if tanning is as serious a threat as it's been made to be.

If a person builds up exposure gradually, wouldn't the melanin in the skin
protect the skin? I thought that's what it was produced for.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexuality/Nudity
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:16:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct6.131553.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>, lsheehan@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:

> Any more
> questions?  Let me know.  Replies more than welcome.

Yea, did you mean to post this into rec.autos or alt.sex? ;-)  It ended up
in rec.nude!  It's interesting and all, you being a bisexual, but I'm not
sure it gets the widest possible audience here in rec.nude.

Terry "nude while posting this, but not having sex" Wood
From: aminkoff@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Tony Minkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:56:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Suppose I (I am a 22 year old male) am at a CO beach, and see an
unacompanied woman (clothed or not, as the case may be) of about my
age.  Is it OK to approach her and attempt to converse?  There would
be no sexual overtones, of course; I am a sociable person, and enjoy
spending time with women (especially attractive women, but that's
another issue) near my own age.  On the one hand, it seems that the
purpose of nudism is to lower barriers, not create them, so it would
be the natural, sociable thing to do.  On the other hand, it might
serve to strengthen the perception that a woman can not go
unaccompanied to a CO beach without being harassed, and create only
anger.  What is the opinion of the net community?

Tony
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: witters@eskimo.celestial.com (John Witters)
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude?  Is it time?
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:40:48 GMT

In article <6207@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>
>So this brings me to the point where I'll actually ask:  IS anybody
>interested in getting rec.nude changed to something that will not attract so
>much sexually oriented postings?
>
>Personally, I *hate* (no, I **HATE**) getting involved in USENET
>reorganizations.  That's usually the domain of "control weenies". ;-)  I'm
>much more of the "leave well enough alone" variety, but this e-mail really
>makes wonder if it isn't time.

Well, another reason for the name change is to possibly get around
ill-informed system administrators who confused rec.nude with alt.sex*.  The
site where I work banned rec.nude, along with alt.sex*, rec.humor*,
rec.arts.erotica, rec.arts.bodyart, and soc.singles as a result of the flap
over the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Several people at our site argued
unsuccessfully to restore rec.nude.  Their arguments that nude was not lewd
fell on deaf ears.  Incidentally, this cut off access by a woman at our site
who used to post some of the more enlightening articles I've ever read here.
As far as I know, she hasn't pursued an alternate site for access as I have.
(Wading through cross postings at 2400 baud is the pits!  Thank ghod for kill
files!)

So in a nutshell, I think re-naming the group is a good idea, and it's too bad
it didn't happen when net.nude was renamed rec.nude.  I guess my preference
would be first for rec.natur(ism, ist) (to avoid confusion by ignorant system
administrators as above,) and second for rec.nud(ism, ist.)  Another option
that could work well would be a moderated newsgroup (assuming we can find a
willing victim!)  Do you suppose we could talk a group of people at the
Naturist Society into moderating a newsgroup (i.e. rec.naturist.mod?)

By the way, what happened to the mailing list that was described here a few
months ago?  I tried sending a query about it to the address listed in the
article, but I got no reply.

-John
-- 
	John Witters				(206) 356-5274	(Work)
	210 124th ST. S.W. Apt. #1		(206) 353-4672	(Home)
	Everett, Washington  98204		witters@eskimo	(E-Mail)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton)
Subject: Re: Art modeling
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:01:45 GMT

In <01GPIGZKV2SY002LKI@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu> FORTMAPL@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU (Paul Fortman) writes:
>I am interested in doing some modeling too.  A friend, who knows of my 
>naturist lifestyle, suggested that I do some modeling and gave me the 
>name of who to contact.  Appearently models for art classes are hard 
>to get in this area (SW Ohio).  I definitely need the extra income.  
>What is the going and/or fair hourly rate for models?  To repeat the 
>question of a previous poster, what is it like to model for an art 
>class?  

   Hourly rates vary, of course.  Around here, it is usually $8.00 for
   clothed and $10.00 for nude per hour.            

   Modeling requires you to hold a pose for as long as 30-45 minutes.
   That gets tiring and you do get sore muscles.  Hopefully, you are
   in good shape.

   On to the obvious questions, if you have any qualms about nudity,
   the art class isn't for you.  If your fear is being overly *excited*,
   it usually doesn't happen.
From: cs161feu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sex and (vs.) Nudity
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:36:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

edu> v076rtlz@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard M. Green) writes:
>This was from just after the topless ban was lifted in New York state.  On one
>of the local news programs they were getting reaction to women going topfree on
>public beaches through "man-on-the-street" interviews.

Is this becoming the standard in New York?  Or is the newy
estabished right mosty being ignored?

Tony
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexual behavior
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:52:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1ad3elINNict@network.ucsd.edu>, middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:

> The default rec.nude answer to this is: If you really think this is 
> appropriate in your classrooms, at the grocery store, or at a textile

Please add REC.AUTOS to this list! ;-)

> beach then by all means it is appropriate at a nude beach

or in rec.nude!

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:39:58 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.115413.4612@unixg.ubc.ca>, arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:

> Well, I'm confused. Would *someone* please tell us: did they or did they
> not reveal more than the accepted prime-time standard???  

They didn't show anything really.  You could see more in a PG-13 movie.
She was clearly nude, but she covered her breasts with her hands and
arms.  The "suggestion" was that you were seeing "images" of her posing
nude for the photographer.  You could see that she wasn't wearing anything
but her breasts, her tush, etc were never shown.

They used the same technique that Gene Roddenberry used in the original
Star Trek series:  Show parts of the body that aren't normally shown to
suggest something racy, but don't violate the standards.

About the only thing I can think that they did show, that Gene Roddenberry
could not, was the bottoms of Mariel's breasts.  Gene tried once, but the
censors insisted that you could only show the tops of breasts, not the bottoms.
(Gene wondered: "Why?  Does moss grow there or something") ;-)

> Several people have said they "didn't hide everything" and several others
> have said that they didn't actually show anything like breasts or buttocks.
> So exactly what was it that they didn't hide?


The scene broke no new ground for TV.  However, it conveyed the sense of
power, self assurance and body acceptance that one gets from having finally
figured out that being nude is no big deal!

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: darkmoor@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Darkmoore)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nudity in the dorms
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:45:05 GMT
Organization: Purdue Computing Center

In article <1992Sep28.235133.477@ab.wvnet.edu>, miller_dm@ab.wvnet.edu writes:
> 
>     I think the world needs to learn to express themselves their own way and
> accept others for who they are not judge them. I hate it when in the privacy
> of my own dorm room someone just walks right in and acts as if the world has
> ended when they find me studying, reading, or  watching t.v. nude. The males
> act as if I am some kind of sick fag , and the females think I'm just another 
> horney pervert. I think the way I express  myself in private is my business,
> I have to follow their laws and rules outside of my room, so they can leave
> me in peace. Are there any other people out there facing similar problems?

  Please take it from me, if people thought you were a sick fag then they
  would even come into your room.  I often like to do the same activities in
  dorm room nude, but I also know from living with roommates in the past
  that they get used to it.  

  My sophomore year there were three nudists on my floor and eventually the
  rest of the guys got used to it.  Especially since everyone is nude in the
  shower room every morning.

  Then again I am a gay nudist, so there might a large difference in our
  experiences with the dorms.

  Good luck in your dorm.

  Darkmoore.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Subject: Re: "Nudity" according to Hollywierd producers (was: something else)
Reply-To: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:15:56 GMT

In article <BvnJH6.7sv@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  But when TV Guide says "nudity" in reference to a cable movie,
>  for instance, they are referring very specifically to exposure
>  of the buttocks, pubic region, or women's nipples.   There's really
>  no equivocation about this.  But broadcast TV is a different
>  matter, as I illustrated above.  Here they seem to use the term 
>  "nude" in some new way that I don't understand.  In what way was
>  the Hemingway character "nude" that countless other people have
>  not been "nude" on broadcast TV for 25 years or so?
>                                                    

Exactly right. What this basically means is that the cable industry is
using the terms for their intended purpose and that the broadcast T.V.
uses the terms to increase ratings. Broadcast T.V. is actually a lot more
sleazy than the cable industry. I don't think there is much chance of
the networks accepting nudity as a natural part of their programming. I think
the only solution is the demise of the broadcast medium -- luckily HDTV
will do exactly that in a quick and painless way :-).

Reha Elci
Email: elci@bugs.gs.com



Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:39:11 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey


  Last week, I believe, Entertainment Tonight broadcast a 
small bit about a NY Broadcast TV station that plans on
airing a show/movie that contains nudity and will be making
several strong warnings to viewers prior and during the show
about the nudity.
  Has anyone heard about this?  I fear I don't remember which
show or which channel this is supposed to be on.  I think it's
channel 9, but can't be sure.  If you have heard of this,
please let me - and the rest of the rec.nude readers - know.

   Thanks!


Dan Speers                                       (speers@micro-c.mcds.com)
Sysop & Dictater - err - Ruler - Hmm.. - How bout BOSS - no - King!
                no - Alright then, Super Genius! - TOO Much... What
                about, Dan The GREAT! - No huh? - ok, what about
                System Guru?  That's good.  Hey Sarah!  Don't touch
                that keyoluboaidkla;lkj,mn.,amnsdklga;lk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan's Domain - THE Best BBS Period! (Ok, semicolon...)
(201) 366-5018 - We use a Telebit T3000 (among other things...)
Newsgroups: rec.nude