From: midkiff@public.BTR.COM (Neil E. Midkiff  midkiff@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions? (something worse than photographers
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:33:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: public.8102
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

In article <ld8l5tINNqah@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com 
(Dances with Drums) writes:
[responding to a discussion prompted by Tom Middleton's question:]
>>>Am I wrong to think that public masturbation on a nude beach will
>>>be used by opponents of nudity to close the beach?
>[William (-wat-) responds:]
>...moralists might check out a nude beach -- if they see guys lying with
>guys or holding hands -- or girls lying with girls and holding hands --
>or worse yet -- kissing, that could easily be used as fodder for those
>wanting to close the beach.  Are we to police those who's activities
>might offend vocal moralists?  Do we tell same-sex couples they can't
>frequent the beach?  Face, Tom, such activities can easily be construed
>as damaging you since they could easily be used as ammunition to "close"
>a beach to nudity.
>
>	Do we draw the line only at overt sexual activity?  Why there?

I've got divided sympathies on this one, as further reading will reveal,
so I guess I can propose an answer to -wat-'s question without being 
accused of too much bias.  I think our self-policing policy should be
based on discouraging *illegal* activities.

Granted, the vocal moralists will try to influence public policy as -wat-
suggests.  But I think we can make a useful distinction in arguing that,
to take his test case as an instance, since same-sex couples can legally
hold hands and kiss in public on a textile beach or downtown, there's no
basis for trying to discourage them from doing the same on the CO beach,
even if we fear that some yahoos will link that activity with their (or
our) state of nudity.  Our tolerance, I think we can all agree, should
be greater than our fear of being so linked in some people's narrow minds.

But there are more rational fears of official reaction in a case where
a site becomes known as a place where illegal activity is tolerated.  To
make an analogy, let's suppose I *love* to eat Ruritanian food, and there's
only one Ruritanian restaurant in town.  Suppose also (only for the sake
of argument) that although I don't do drugs, I have no objection to their use.
Still, if I knew that the chef was breaking the law by selling drugs, I'd
encourage him not to do so, in order that my favorite eating place wouldn't
get closed down.  I might even argue *at other times and in other forums*
for the legalization of drugs as a better public policy, but as a practical
matter I'd try to avoid getting Ruritanian food linked in the public mind
with drugs.

[Note to the rhetoric-impaired: My actual position on drugs is different
from that stated above, and irrelevant to this posting.  Please do not
follow up on this thread with any discussion about drug use.]

I think you can see where I'm headed with this.  Independent of the question
of whether public masturbation should or should not be acceptable, we have
to recognize that as things stand right now it's illegal.  If it becomes
tolerated to the extent that it's prevalent on nude beaches, I'd fear a
backlash that could disturb the present legal state where, as in California,
you aren't breaking the indecent exposure laws by being merely nude; in
addition the backlash could be even worse in areas where nudity is still
illegal but the local authorities haven't been pushed to enforce the laws
in "accepted" nude areas.

I'd suggest, too, that we limit our self-policing to politely explaining to
those who engage in overt sexual activity in public that this sort of 
conduct not only endangers our chances of having CO areas at all, but also
may discourage newcomers to CO activities from feeling comfortable.  I 
wouldn't suggest the message that "what you're doing is wrong" or "you
can't do that here-- get out!" but rather "please consider the feelings of
others and the possible consequences of what you're doing."

I'll acknowledge that I've enjoyed masturbation out in the fresh air and
sunshine many times over the last couple of decades, but in all but a couple
of instances in places and at times when I was quite careful to make sure
that I was alone.  The last time I did it at a nude beach was fourteen years
ago, on my second trip to a nude beach.  The first trip was a remarkably
liberating experience, quite free of sexual arousal even though it was the
first time I had ever seen members of the opposite sex in the nude.  The
second trip was made with the intent of becoming aroused, which happened;
I discovered I didn't enjoy the experience of a sexually-charged situation
around strangers.  Far more appealing was the freedom to exercise or relax
without clothing in an environment where everyone was accepted and nobody
had to put on any pretense.

*FOR ME* and I suspect for many others, the sexual charge involved in
arousal and overt activity interfered with the feeling of freedom and
lack of embarrassment that I so enjoyed on my first and my later visits.
I expect that Eric C.S. Dynamic would argue that I'm somehow too repressed.
I certainly can't deny his argument that human beings are inherently sexual
animals.  But I know I'm not alone in thinking that being able to control
and channel our sexual impulses into the directions and situations that are
best for us is part of what makes us human.  *FOR ME* the experience of
non-sexual nudity helps me conduct my life according to the standards that
I have set for myself.  In addition, I like to introduce others to the
same liberating "nudity does not necessarily imply sex" experience, and
this lesson can be somewhat undermined, and newcomers turned off from 
coming back, if open sex is going on.

And yet I can't get too angry at those who do what I once did.  Just 
yesterday (on the hottest day of the year in San Francisco) I went to
Baker Beach, twice (a couple of hours at midday and an hour just before
sunset).  I might have reacted differently if this had happened in the
midst of the biggest crowd I'd seen there, at midday...but the beach was
much more sparsely populated in the early evening when I saw a man stroking
himself not far down the beach.  I expected to be more offended than I was.
He was not obviously showing off to me or others, and was posed about as
discreetly as could be, given what he was doing.  I looked the other way
and considered what I'd say to him if I got the chance.  (Thus preparing
much of what is in this posting, without knowing that the topic would 
come up!)  As it turned out, he dressed and walked off in another direction,
so I didn't say anything to him.

Though I was neither enraged nor aroused, I still would have asked him
(nicely, I trust) to be more discreet in the future, for the reasons I've
mentioned above.

This is long enough now, and I suspect it will generate chances for further
discussion. :-)  Let's try to adjust the flames so they give off more light
than heat, shall we?

-Neil

PS regarding flames: Am I the only one who sees the onion domes of St.
Basil's church on Red Square in Moscow, instead of flames, in Tom Middleton's
graphic?
Newsgroups: rec.nude