From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Uptightness about sex & ...
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:03:23 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <palmer.714057917@isye.gatech.edu> palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>Okay, wat, so what are you going to do to change things because you
>believe them to be unfair?  Post items in a newsgroup?
---	
	This argument is quite specious.  What good is any of our posting here
doing?  If you want to use that argument, we can all just pack up our
keyboards and not interact anymore.  

	I see this medium as a way to transmit ideas, discuss and debate them.
It is useful for me to hear the arguments on a topic so I can 
rationally discuss them outside of this context.  I've even been known
to change my mind given sufficient logical/rational input.

    Just like you know there are several people here on this net that
agree with my position that "allow nudity, prohibit sex" is just as
arbitrary a rule as "no nudity, no sex".  If you use logic, you will
realize that I and others on this net are only some representative sample
of what you will encounter out in the real world (off the net!).  You
benefit by getting to see that there are some out there that have
different goals than you.  I benefit by see that many nudists are as
different from mainstream as baptists are from methodists.  They have
different doctrine, but both are still christians.

	Furthermore I benefit in seeing just how 'religious' alot of 
nudism is -- not all of it, but many seem to have some opinions because
that is the *one right true way*.  

	
>>	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.
---
	Unfortunately, it happens quite a bit.

>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.
---
	Well, just because a system isn't around now doesn't mean it isn't
better.  But one author was quoted as saying that a democracy works until
it's constituents figure out that they can vote themselves the treasury.

	Since this is happening more and more, I feel it is only a matter of
time before the US goes down the tubes.  Given the growing national
debt, and the larger burden of interest this places on each individual,
it is only a matter of time before the US becomes insolvent.  The question
is, what harm will we do in our death throes?  Will we do a Germany, and
start a war as a solution?

	As I said in another note.  You call me to 'action', and claim that
my view of allowing sex at a beach is damaging to the image of nudism
(or ephemistically, naturism).  I claim that even w/o the sexual problems,
nudism hasn't made any great permanent strides in the past 40-50 years.
Styles and morals go in cycles.  I've seen things go both ways with more
restrictions being placed on public nudity in recent years, so I don't
think that the current plan of "let's appear proper", is working real
well.

-wat-


>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


--
"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