HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sday@lacerta.unm.edu (Stephen F. Day   UNM CIRT)
Subject: Double Standards (WAS Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 06:45:28 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <Bv9Io8.BKM@ansoft.com> elliot@ansoft.com (mike elliot/.nam) writes:
>I always find it strange when people expect different behavior in a
>CO setting than they would in a textile one. Take photographs for
>example. On a textile beach, most people wouldn't think twice if they
>saw someone with a camera taking pictures. But, put that some person
>on a CO beach and alot of people think it is inappropriate. Surely,
>if nudity is nothing to be ashamed of and isn't to be equated with
>sex, then we should behave the same whether clothed or not.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that doesn't necessarily share our
enthusiasm for nudism, and, quite frankly, we must make compromises if
we are to 'survive'.  I know of teachers, politicians, and others who
hold positions that are subject to scrutinity by the public and/or the
personal mores of their employers.  If you are lucky enough to work for
employers and in a local community where naturism isn't a problem with
them, then you probably don't care about having others taking photos of
you.  Even so, you may change jobs and move elsewhere, and if these
photos should inconveniently pop up in a national magazine, you may
have a lot a fast talking to do (especially if you are a politician,
public school teacher, or minister).  After all, this _is_ the sort of
thing that people have been known to be blackmailed over.

Albeit we don't have any PERSONAL problems with nudism, most of us are
continuously trying to educate friends and family as to what naturism
is really all about and what it is not, especially dealing with the
false notion that nudity equates to sexual promiscuity.  Think of how
much harder this task would be if you (or your employer) *must* also
deal with the general public's perception of naturism.  Nudism is not
publicly accepted (at least not here in the USA)...  until it is, you
can expect a lot of nudists to remain in the closet, and, when they
venture out occasionally, to be very guarded as to who knows their
'secret'.

I know some of you who read this have been very public about your
nudist lifestyle.  However, I am sure you realize that you are the
exception rather than the rule for most societies today.  Perhaps
(hopefully soon), this will all change.

>Mike Elliot                  Did Adam and Eve have navels?? -Milo
>elliot@ansoft.com

-- 
    Stephen F. Day         (SFD7)  AT&TNET:      (505) 277-8499
    Systems Analyst/Programmer     BITNET/CREN:  SDAY@UNMB
    CIRT-APSYS                     INTERNET:     sday@ariel.UNM.EDU
    University of New Mexico       TECHNET:      UNMSDAY
From: millman@asp.bear.com (Phillip Millman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: To Join or Not to Join
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:21:57 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


I have recieved information on Both the TNS and the ASA.  My question is 
it worth it to join both or either orginaztion?  I enjoy the CO lifestyle as
does my wife.  

What are the pro's and Con's of both orginiztions???

Phillip Millman
millman@bear.com
--
Phillip Millman					millman@bear.com
The opinions expressed are those of Phillip Millman and not that of 
Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.  I think it is better that way.
From: cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Date: 1 Oct 1992 05:13:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) says:

>
>  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.

last night (i.e. 9/30/92) at 10, ABC aired a new episode of their drama "Civil
Wars" in which Mariel Hemingway's character does a nude photo shoot. It was
the boldest nudity I have ever seen on American broadcast TV. Although ABC
stopped short of showing Hemingway's breasts or pubic region, there were
several full-length shots of Hemingway nude.

I'm not sure of the motives behind the nude scene (word has it the show is
about to be cancelled if ratings don't go up) but it was refreshing to see
that network TV is challenging Victorian standards for a change...

Incidentally, earlier that night, "Doogie Howser M.D." had a fairly typical
skinny-dipping scene, i.e. a couple of people go skinny-dipping and
everyone assumes sex. What was this, sweeps week or something? :)
-- 
Mark Cornick                | "You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you
cc647@cleveland.freenet.edu |  the world..." -- Girls Against Boys
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey indie-rocker! Subscribe to the indie-list! Mail me for more info...
From: tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude?  Is it time?
Keywords: name
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:23:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Austin Division, 6800 Burleson Rd, Austin, TX 78744

In article <1992Sep24.192711.28141@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
(martin.brilliant) writes:

> ... Which name best describes us?

I vote for a compromise -- rec.nudism

-- 
   Tom Davis                    Internet address: tmd@austin.lockheed.com
	"Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do;
	 Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too."
   [Disclaimer: I speak for nobody but me - and sometimes not even that.]
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:34:57 GMT

elliot@ansoft.com (mike elliot/.nam) writes:
>
>I always find it strange when people expect different behavior in a
>CO setting than they would in a textile one. Take photographs for
>example. On a textile beach, most people wouldn't think twice if they
>saw someone with a camera taking pictures. But, put that some person
>on a CO beach and alot of people think it is inappropriate. Surely,
>if nudity is nothing to be ashamed of and isn't to be equated with
>sex, then we should behave the same whether clothed or not.

{sound of British Parliament cheering the Prime Minister - hear, hear.}

Hmm. There is a twist though - the women on the clothed beaches are not
impressed with salivating cameras, so it would probably be on a CO beach.
I use a 250mm Zoom, myself.
:)
-ecsd

Oh- neither are the men, but they don't expect to end up on your darkroom floor.

double :)
From: elliot@ansoft.com (mike elliot/.nam)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:28:56 GMT
Organization: Ansoft Corp. Pittsburgh

In article <38577@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> aminkoff@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Tony Minkoff) writes:
>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

I think it is quite acceptable to engage people in friendly conver-
sation when in public settings.  I also think it is acceptable for
the person approached to politely ask you to move along, when they
are not interested in interacting with you. Once you have been asked
to leave, you should promptly do so. Whether the people involved are
clothed or not shouldn't make any difference.

I always find it strange when people expect different behavior in a
CO setting than they would in a textile one. Take photographs for
example. On a textile beach, most people wouldn't think twice if they
saw someone with a camera taking pictures. But, put that some person
on a CO beach and alot of people think it is inappropriate. Surely,
if nudity is nothing to be ashamed of and isn't to be equated with
sex, then we should behave the same whether clothed or not.

-mje

-- 
Mike Elliot                  Did Adam and Eve have navels?? -Milo
elliot@ansoft.com

Disclaimer: My boss doesn't listen to what I say, why should you?
From: leed@pro-harold.cts.com (Lee Dronick)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Tanning
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:39:56 GMT
Organization: The Harold Network -- An Alliance For Creative Communication

>I understand there is an article written by a doctor, soon
to be published in a national medical journal, espousing the
habit of sunning oneself until just enough Sun has been
absorbed without sunscreen, then eliminating or reducing
the exposure, either with clothing or moving to shadier
|becomes more child-like (child-like as in innocent instead of
immature)confines. I find this a more natural solution than slathering
some of these noxious sunscreens on my body; this last bottle
of stuff I bought has a pungent alcohol carrier base and
is almost unbearable while applying--it had better be
the best sunscreen ever made!<

I think our "primitive" ancestors probably did their out door chores in the
morning or evening and spent the middle of the day in the shade making
baskets, arrowheads of just making love. Hence they tanned evenly, but did
not burn because they avoided the direct mid day sun. Working all day is is
probably a social instiutution from the industrial revolution period.
-----
Lee Dronick
ProLine: leed@pro-harold
Internet: leed@pro-harold.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-harold!leed
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: "Nudity" according to Hollywierd producers (was: something else)
Summary: nudity synonymous with 'sexual situations'
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:59:27 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   The Boston Globe made a big deal about "nudity on network TV" 
>   yesterday, in reference to the above Hemingway scene.  But my 
>   understanding is that it didn't "show anything" (i.e., breasts,
>   buttocks, etc) that you wouldn't see on any other TV show or any
>   ordinary non-topless, non-CO US beach.
>
>   So what does "nude" mean in this context?    Does TV have a different
>   definition of "nude" than the entire rest of the English speaking
>   universe?   

Yes they do.

This is a gripe the NAC is slowly working to address with
the folks in Hollywierd who produce and market their products.
But we don't have any friends there; do any of you? At
least the writer of Doogie Howser made an attempt at
articulating a philosophy, however preachy it turned out to be.
That's a start.

Have you read your TV guide lately? The listings synopsize
the movie, then list the various salient features, including
(but not limited to): adult situations, violence, nudity,....
You get the idea. A lot of these programs use the term
'nudity' interchangeably with 'sexual situations', and
this trend seems to me to be growing more entrenched.

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: dhanson@cc.utah.edu (Devin J. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Open sexuality, strangers, etc.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: nudity, rape, women
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date:  1 Oct 1992 09:33 MST  

In article <BvELJ1.3J0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, shulick@navajo.ucs.indiana.edu (Sam Hulick) writes...
{In article <1992Sep26.233328.18024@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
{>Scenario:
{>
{>Man walks up to woman at nude beach.
{>"Hello, my name is ____. I enjoy sex. Would you like to participate in
{>a sexual act with me?"
{>
{>Woman:
{>
{>response (a): "No, thank you, I'm not interested in doing that with you."
{>response (b): "Why, yes, I think that might be nice. Thanks for the offer."
{>
{>I'm not interested in a society that defines the exchange resulting in (b)
{>to be *impossible*. That society - ours now and reinforced by the above '>'
{ 
{Unlikely!!  Do you honestly think a woman is going to respond (b)?  Get real.
{Especially with a total STRANGER. (indicated by "Hello, my name is ____")  No,
{if a man walked up to a woman, introduced himself, then asked for her to
{participate, she'd most likely look rather perplexed and ask "Do I KNOW you?"
{By your scenario above and response (b), you're giving the image of something
{like _Brave_New_World_ where people are reduced to primates where we simply
{"choose" someone to have sex with and ask, and they MAY agree, even though they
{both may be strangers.  We're humans, not 100% logical, unemotional aliens.
{Reponse (b) gives me the impression of someone with no emotion and all logic,
{somewhat like Spock.  "Why, yes, I think a sexual deed may be particularily
{pleasurable."  Humans have emotions, and response (b) is extremely unlikely.
{The first thing that may go through a woman's head when asked by a stranger to
{participate in sexual act(s) is perhaps fear.  She might think "Oh no.. if I
{refuse, he might attack me."  For all he knows, she may be "in the mood," but
{not with him (a stranger).  If you're hoping that our society can be like your
{scenario, think again.
{ 
{-- 
{Sam Hulick          | "The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to
{shulick@indiana.edu | hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the
{(NeXTmail welcome)  | essence of inhumanity."  --George Bernard Shaw


Who says society isn't like this.  I have had a very similar exchange, although 
not at a beach.  Actually I thought it was kinda nice, it hadn't happend to me 
before and I was pleased with the openess and honesty.  I hope that our 
society can be as open and honest as this scenario.  I hate games!

Devin

To each their own.  Celebrate diversity and difference!!!


Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Nudist/Naturist population
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:42:35 GMT

stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes) writes:
>I don't know if anyone keeps such statistics but are the number of
>nudist/naturists growing or shrinking?  
>
>I ask this because I observe that bathing suit fashions are getting
>more conservative.  (Boxers instead of speedos and one-piece instead
>of bikinies)

Naturists don't wear bathing costumes, so such stats
would prove meaningless.

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: cbrooks@ms.uky.edu (Clayton Brooks)
Subject: Re: HELLO CENTRAL KENTUCKY???
Distribution: ky
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:21:28 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <1992Sep29.194720.17709@ms.uky.edu> mtbb136@ms.uky.edu (John S. Roberts Jr.) writes:
>just wondering what the readership was like around here.  not including
>the geeks :-)

Here is one geek.

If you're embarrassed, you could just reply to him.
How about a survey, John?
-- 
 Clayton T. Brooks       _,,-^`--.   From the heart          cbrooks@ms.uky.edu
 722 POT U o'Ky    .__,-'    *    \   of the blue           cbrooks@ukma.bitnet
 Lex. KY 40506   _/              ,/    grass and   {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!cbrooks
 606-257-6807   (__,-----------''   bourbon country    AMA NMA MAA AMS ACBL DoD
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Social Attitudes (re: soc.nude)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:33:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1ad6feINNkaf
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


                                 (
                                 ))
                                 ((
                                 )))
                                /   \   (
                          )    /     \ / \
                          (   /    )  X   \   )
                         / \ /    / \/     \ / \
                    )   /   X    /   \      X   \
                   /\  /   / \  /     \    / \   \
                  /  \/   /   \/       \  /   \   \
                 /   /   /     \        \/     \   \

		     [do these look like flames?]

-middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
->How about adding a new news group called "soc.nude" which can take all
->the discussions about social nudity and its impact on society and its
->sexual ramifications.  IMHO, I would like to see rec.nude as a place
->where we can share stories about first time nude adventures, finding
->new places, etc., etc. and not have to deal with all the extra baggage.

In article <1992Sep29.093124.5056@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>I'd like to point out that you are the author of the BRA survey - and maybe
>the Breast things? Or have contributed.

Once again, totally incorrect.  You see, you really don't pay attention to
what you are reading before you post, do you?

>I don't know why , but I sense you are uncomfortable about something.

Yeh, Eric, I got so many sexual hangups it would make your head spin.

>Please let us agree: NO cross posting to alt.sex; 

How about this -
Please let us agree: Put SEX articles in alt.sex and NO cross-posting to
rec.nude.

And for those of you that don't understand my anger it is not based on a
disagreement with Mr. Eric C. S. Dynamics opinions but on the obvious
fact that he proclaims to be fostering discussion while merely looking
for affirmation of his own opinions and using a shotgun approach to 
posting in hopes that a few hit the mark.  IMHO he has ignored the charter
of this group and after this flame I will be adding
			/ecsd@tfs.com/h:j 
to my kill file.

My apologies for posting this.  I will now sit back and take my medicine.

-- 
===============================================================================
	Thomas Earl Middleton		
	aka Happy Bare		
	middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Sexuality and Social Attitudes (re: soc.nude)
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:31:24 GMT

middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>So whats wrong with a "*very* stale" place for such
>postings?  Note that the first three letters are 'r', 'e', 'c' which
>stands for recreation.  I don't think rec.nude needs to be a social
>battleground.  However, there does seem to be a need for one.  
>
>How about adding a new news group called "soc.nude" which can take all
>the discussions about social nudity and its impact on society and its
>sexual ramifications.  IMHO, I would like to see rec.nude as a place
>where we can share stories about first time nude adventures, finding
>new places, etc., etc. and not have to deal with all the extra baggage.

I'd like to point out that you are the author of the BRA survey - and maybe
the Breast things? Or have contributed.

I don't know why , but I sense you are uncomfortable about something.

I am trying very hard to remember to post into the above thread,
and to scrupulously omit alt.sex from the posting.
This group can serve BOTH functions with no further concern.

Pardon my arrogance - which I admit - but the topic *does* bear on nudity,
even if from an abstract place. When I have anecdotes from outings to
CO beaches/locations, I'll share those.

Numbers of people here *are* interested in the topic. "soc.nude" is not
a bad idea, but there is overhead and any amount of debate about *what*
should be here.

Please let us agree: NO cross posting to alt.sex; and put the social topics
under a thread titled "Sexuality and Social Attitudes", or at least containing
the word Sexuality, then people who are Not interested can kill those. Killfiles
are easy and do *not* imply hostility - they are a time saving device if used
properly. Everyone can be happy here. The 'sexuality' people, I think, are
exploring a consensus attitude and looking at arguments around it, and these
do indirectly bear on nudity - they form a theory of which nudity is a part.

Jeez, Tom, I'm sorry. But let's just go on posting what *we* want to see,
whatever that is - you, me, everyone. Stories, Location info, whatever.
I'll try to be true to my thread promise.

-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght)
Subject: Re: Photos at nude beaches
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:02:45 GMT

middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:

>In article <Bv9Io8.BKM@ansoft.com> elliot@ansoft.com (mike elliot/.nam) writes:
>>example. On a textile beach, most people wouldn't think twice if they
>>saw someone with a camera taking pictures. But, put that some person
>>on a CO beach and a lot of people think it is inappropriate. 

hhhmmmmm... personally, I gt annoyed by anyone who takes a picture and
includes me in the shot without my permission.  If I see them stting up
for the shot I ask them nicely NOT to include me in the shot, if they
refuse than I either do something to remove myself from the shot or
something to ruin the shot so that they will not take it.  If they snap
it off to quick for me to do anything I inform them that I am offended
by that as I did not give permission for my picture to be taken.  I
am not talking nude beach here as I ahve not been to one, I am talking
anywhere.  i think it is highly rude for someone to snap pictures of
other people wihtout their permission.  Personally, when i take pictures
I don't want strangers in my picture and I do whjat i can to avoid
having them in my shot.

Jim
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Exponential Sexual Liberation
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:50:13 GMT

This one teases viciously, but to make points. ':)' in advance, please:

ddrewery@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (David Drewery) writes:
>
>Perhaps it has something to do with being a little more self-concsious than our

...and self-aware, and self-accepting

>predecessors. Personally I would be quite offended if someone all of a sudden 

...*gasp* - avert your eyes

>started bonking away in the middle of the street. I agree with sexual freedom

...because your SO is not nearby, or you are not invited?

>but I also believe that people should have the right to walk along the street 
>and not be offended. I mean, can you honestly say that you would enjoy screwing

...and not be thrilled, either?

>on a crowded street in front of your peers, or what about if your mother 

...with the right amount of applause - but no, my mother would *not* understand

>happened to be walking down the same street. Would you honestly not feel the 
>slightest bit of shame (or responsibility)? What about children in early 

...if we did it without grace, yes

>childhood? Are they to grow up in your free-sex world thinking that it's OK to
>bonk anywhere you like, anytime and possibly anyone? It surprises me how 

...we aren't there yet, but there's still time

>people can actually consider such a prospect. Freedom is but a word......

...and consider why it happens *never*, too.
...but a word until made manifest through intention.

No, it's beyond the reach of our *current* society.
I am not *advocating* sex on the street - but I can't really argue against it
either, not if I am to be self-consistent in my philosophy. Let the doers
take their chances. If a couple grapples clothed - & I've watched a middle-aged
couple do that in a park in NY across the Hudson from NYC - then why not nude?

I can only stand in awe of what humans *might* become, when desire meets
probity. Here's to my children's freer future, and a freer one yet to theirs,
etc. - and at every step we will argue what is still improper. Do you see
mu point?

-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude