HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wildthing@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Frontal nudity in films
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:41:15 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1ir1dvINNo0h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ak441@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Suter) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth) says:
> 
>>There is a reason for little frontal male nudity.  By definition, at least in the 
>>US, any showing of an erect penis is an "X" rating.  Since a man involved in a
>>sexual situation would be expected to have an erection, this produces a problem
>>for the film.  Therefore, men are never shown in such scenes in non-X rated
>>films.  
>>
>>As an aside, I can only recall 2 movies where actual female genitalia were shown.
>>They were an "art" film where the actress involved was Ellen Barkin, and 
>>Sharon Stone in the recent big movie, I can't think of the name, with Michael
>>Douglas.  All other cases of female, non-X, frontal nudity showed only 
>>pubic hair, but nothing else.
>>-- 
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
>>
> "Billy Bathgate" where the female lead comes out of the pool shows full
> frontal female nudity.
> 
> In "Universal Soldier", Jean Claude van Dame constantly has his clothes off
> --something about being too hot all the time and having to cool off--and 
> thus, we get to see a lot of full ass shots.  In the context of the
> movie there was nothing for him to be aroused about since the scenes were
> totally non-sexual, so he could have done full frontal shots if he chose, but 
> from rumors, he just might be intimidated by exposing too little to his 
> adoring fans....


Does full frontal nudity for woman mean that they are just showing breasts and
pubic HAIR?  Or are they actually showing the vaginal area??  

I think there is a big difference in showing frontal nudity between a man and
a woman.  The woman will not be showing her sexual organ.  On the other hand,
the man will be, eventhough it may not be erectic.


I say show it all!!  Let everyone see.  A man can show his chest, so should a
woman.  If a man show his penis, let the woman show her vagina.



NO sig
From: an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 13 Jan 1993 01:30:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) says:
>If there are any sociology or psychology students out there looking for a
>class project (maybe for extra credit) here it is.
>
>Get four friends, 2 male, 2 female to come into your class, one male and
>one female wearing only pants, no shirt; one male and one female wearing
>only a shirt, no pants.  Give all the students in the class a form to fill
>out and for each subject indicate whether that person is nude or not nude.
>Then chart womens and mens responses, determine if there is a gender bias in
>the viewing audience and also look for a gender bias towards the subjects
>being viewed.

You would have to add two (1 male, 1 female) clothed and two completely nude
conditions, and have four seperate class settings.  In one class you would 
bring in a male and a female wearing only pants, another class have one male
and one female wearing only shirts, etc., giving a 2x2x4 study.  

Anyway, I like the idea.

>And when you are done I hope you get an A and I also hope you report your
>results to us.

Ditto on both.

*Pooh Bare
-- 
Paul Fortman - fortmapl@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu fortmapl@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu
At tables strewn with artifacts and other data, researchers are working to 
solve puzzles and riddles concerning the strangest and most dangerous creature
in the solar system. A specimen of this creature is now reading this sentence.
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:05:50 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
  (you didn't really want to read all this stuff again, did you?)
>
>To say that "genitals are about sex" is to contradict the philosophy of
>nudism.  Genitals are not necessarily about sex.

Not only.

I use my genital(s?) much more often for urinating than for sex.
I'll have to do something about that ratio...

p.s. does this mean that if my genitals are exposed I must
be urinating?

-- 
bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) 
This week's usenet malapropism: its, it's
its = posessive pronoun; "My car blew its engine."
it's = contraction of 'it is'; "It's cold outside!"
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:42:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan6.134858.25251@icd.teradyne.com>,
yaffe@icd.teradyne.com (Arthur G. Yaffe) writes:

[...]

>An erection implies sexual arousal.

I know this topic has arisen before, and although I do not wish to prolong
discussion when so many pointers have already been given, I would like to
express my own firm beliefs on this subject, yet without being rigid and
dogmatic, lest some become hardened to dissenting points of view, or lest
others react by getting their dander up, or lest I myself acquire a
throbbing headache, sleep fitfully, and awaken as so many do, with puffy
peepers.

;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-)     ;-) 

Erections occur due to a VARIETY of causes, not all of which are sexually
motivated; e.g., a full bladder.  Consequently, an erection has no
intrinsic significance and no universal interpretation, which is why I
believe there is no need for people to get upset if a man has an erection
in a clothing-optional situation.  In my opinion, this is a case of the
beholder imputing intentions to the beholdee.

Fred Chapman
-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|             Ecstasy is transitory, but a theorem is forever!              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Lawsuits (was Re: Excluding Single Males)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 11:14:49 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <a952008@pro-harold.cts.com> rford@pro-harold.cts.com (Richard Ford) writes:
>I think the reason nothing has happend yet is that alot of people do not
>want to let the world know that they attend CO resorts.  If a person were
>to bring a lawsuit, they would be admitting that they go nude which (if I
>can use my boservations of the concerns of some people who post anonymous
>messages on this board) would be a threat to their image\job etc.  It is
>interesting to note that a local nudist resort "Swallows" has apparently
>revised their fee policy due to fears of just such a lawsuit.  Perhaps
>those of us who do not fear having our names associated with nudity should
>file a discrimination suit against a discriminitory resort.  We just might
>make some money!

Please *don'* do this!
1) you would probably not win.
2) you would probably succeed in shutting down the club/resort you were
wanting to attend!

Why would you lose?
1) This "discrimination" is probably not illegal.  Spa Lady and Living Well
Lady (health clubs) actively prohibit male members without breaking any laws.
2) They do not (generally) discriminate based upon gender.  They discriminate
based upon marital status.
3) The jury would be biased against you. (i.e., Joe Public *knows* that you
only want to get in there so you can drool over the babes.)

Why would you shut the place down?
1) Most nudist places are not big profit makers.  If you actually won your
lawsuit they probably wouldn't be able to pay their bills.
2) Most nudist places are owned be people just trying to help out other
nudists be sharing their own land.  After being sued, they will probably
just decide that it's not worth the hassle any more.

Of course, they might just give in an let you join, but guess how welcome
you'd be made to feel!

If you disagree with these policies, tell them.  Ask to speak at their
annual meeting (assuming it is a local club).  Write letters to Nude&Natural
or the ASA bulletin. ...

BTW, I disagree with this discrimination, too.  But I also support the
right of a privately owned club to decide for themselves who they admit
and on what basis.

Cheers.  Bill.


-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:51:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan8.135008.3356@icd.teradyne.com> yaffe@icd.teradyne.com writes:

>You're right, Peter, the original post was about genitals,

  Yes, and notice how the original poster has disappeared 
  back into the woodwork leaving all of us knights-errant
  to fight over this by ourselves.


>by that.  I don't go to nude beaches for the purpose of exposing my
>genitals or to be exposed to anyone else's genitals.  Perhaps some
>people do, but I don't, my wife doesn't, and I doubt it's the top item
>on the lists of many nudist families.  I don't object to the exposure
>of genitals in those (or nearly any other) settings, but genitals are
>not the reason I'm there.  I go there to be clothes-free.  

  Me too.  But my point is that, like it or not, purposes are
  subjective matters of opinion.   But the objective reality
  of what naturists do that distinguishes them from non-naturists
  is to expose their genitals. 


---peter
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: being uncomfortable
Date: 11 Jan 1993 04:21:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <C0nFsJ.D3r@xrtll.uucp> stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes) writes:
>I agree that erections are not always caused by sexual desire.
>I agree that they are normal and occur often.
---

	Good start.
	
>However,
>I had an experience where an individual was at the same club I was
>and he had an erection the entire afternoon he was there.  He also
>insisted on laying on his back, therefore displaying his 'flagpole'
>to anyone in the area.  i
---
	If he had an erection the entire afternoon, it wasn't likely
due to sexual desire -- he may have even had an implant.

>That may have been 'natural' but it made my wife and I uncomfortable.
---	
	I'm sorry that someone else's condition made you uncomfortable.
Are you equally uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs, or if
someone was there on the beach missing a limb.  I suspect you would be.
Most people are uncomfortable about people who are different.  


>Sorry if this goes against some people's ideas of nudism but I feel that
>you should exercise some level of humility.  Erections may not be anything
>to be ashamed of but I don't think you should show off either.
---
	You said the person was laying on his back.  If he stood up and waggled
it about, he might be considered showing it off, but just lying there
is showing off?  Must have been an impressive erection.

	You really should consider why you were embarrased and why you feel
someone else, who was literally just lying there should be asked
to 'change' because you feel uncomfortable.

-wat-
--
1935 will go down in history.  For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration.  Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future.
                         --Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: rec.nude
(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0nApp1-0000TCC; Sat, 9 Jan 93 15: 42 PST
From: rford@pro-harold.cts.com (Richard Ford)
Subject: Re: Excluding Single Males (Was: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: The Harold Network -- An Alliance For Creative Communication
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 14:21:39 PST

I think the reason nothing has happend yet is that alot of people do not
want to let the world know that they attend CO resorts.  If a person were
to bring a lawsuit, they would be admitting that they go nude which (if I
can use my boservations of the concerns of some people who post anonymous
messages on this board) would be a threat to their image\job etc.  It is
interesting to note that a local nudist resort "Swallows" has apparently
revised their fee policy due to fears of just such a lawsuit.  Perhaps
those of us who do not fear having our names associated with nudity should
file a discrimination suit against a discriminitory resort.  We just might
make some money!
-----
Richard Ford
ProLine: rford@pro-harold
Internet: rford@pro-harold.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-harold!rford
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Those pesky elections (or Clinton Wins in ERECTORAL COLLEGE!) ;-)
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:37:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan6.174954.66473@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:

> My remarks will no doubt prove controversial, but so what...

Probably not as much as you may think! ;-)

> To say that nudity is OK
> as long as a woman does not spread her legs or as long as a man does not
> have an erection is like saying that you can show as much skin as you want
> as long as your private parts are covered.  Nudity with artificial
> restrictions is not nudity.

This is pretty much the attitude I found while staying at Grand Lido in
Negril, JA.  One woman from Vancover, who is a regular at Wreck Beach
told a young fellow not to worry if he got an erection.  "It's completely
natural" she told him.

I think the important point is what one DOES with the said erection.
Basically I figure that as long as you behave in public with clothes off
the same way as you would with clothes on, you're on fairly safe ground.

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: bthoms@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:12:45 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1993Jan5.134111.21465@icd.teradyne.com>, yaffe@icd.teradyne.com (Arthur G. Yaffe) writes:
 
> Peter, IMHO, I think you're falling into the Leif Heilberg trap here.  Leif
> is a Naturist/Nudist photographer who always seems to want women to spread
> their legs (and not just "a little"), justifying it with an argument similar
> to yours.
> 
> Naturism/Nudism is not about genitals.  It is about going without clothes.
> This thread began with an article about a Nudist TV segment, so we're not
> talking about an anatomy lesson here - we're talking about nudism.  I resent
> that we're getting down to whose genitals are showing.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand - I admire good looking bodies as much as anybody
> else, and I show a marked preference for good looking female bodies.  But
> genitals are about sex, and Nudism/Naturism is not.
> 
> FCIFOC (AW),
> 	-Art


Excellent point (no pun intended), but I'm staying right out of the ongoing
nudity/sex debate. I'd have thought that nudist groups had roughly the same
opinion of women sitting with their legs wide apart as with men showing
erections - certainly seems so in my experience.

A flaccid penis isn't really any more sexually encouraging than the Victorian
ankle or shapely legs (or any other fettish). In fact, it may even be a turn
off for someone who expects more interest. What bugs me about nudity on tv and
in films is the contrivance to avoid it: women cover their breast after
sessions of highly overdramatised passion, men never just turn back the covers
and get out of bed. If you need to show a scene suggestive of nudity, why go to
such an artificial extent. Sometimes I think, when watching things like that,
that the actors are more concerned with their props than their lines.

There is an unusual film called (I think) The Seventh Man, bursting with sexual
overtone (but not very much actual sex) which demonstates a very mature
attitude in not hiding either male or female genitalia. The female nudity
doesn't emphasise breasts or vagina and the male nudity doesn't show erections,
although it does show fairly lengthy shots of frontal nudity.

Someone should tell Hollywood to GET A LIFE!

Brent Thomson, Waikato, NZ
From: kallits@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Indiana nudist resorts
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:05:18 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY


My wife and I would like to visit a nudist resort this summer, but
don't know about any in our area.  We have heard about 2 in Roselawn,
Indiana, but have heard mixed reviews about these resorts.  Has anyone
visited either of these nudist resorts?  If so, what where your
impressions.  Also any information on any other resorts in the IL, IN,
KY, and TN area would be appreciated.  Please e-mail directly to me,
as I don't always read this newsgroup.
Thanks in advance.
From: osterber@husc8.harvard.edu (Richard Osterberg)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
Subject: Re: Goggles
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:30:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.osterber.726852638

king@reasoning.com (Dick King) writes:

>PS: Replace the goggles every 6 months [120 miles] .  

>    I used to wait until the strap broke, which was usually about a year, but
>    with a strap break being likely to cost $60 or so* you should replace
>    goggles preemptively.

How does a strap break cost $60? Do you realize that for nearly all
goggles, you can buy replacement straps for about 50 cents apiece?
-Rick
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
Subject: Re: Lane Etiquette
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:55:34 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1993Jan5.174815.22749@icd.teradyne.com> feinberg@icd.teradyne.com writes:
>One that I _like_ most is when >2 are sharing the lane going counter clockwise
>(isn`t that an obvious way if you ever had valid drivers license?) and an
>extra dives in and starts plowing clockwise with his/her eyes closed.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>|                                                                           |
>| If you didn't want to push yourself, you would've joined basketball team. |
>|                                                                           |
>|  - Why there are no sharks in the pool?          ---------- __o           |
>|  - Masters ate them.                             -------- _`\<,           |
>|                                                  ------- (*)/(*)          |
>|  Internet:  feinberg@topaz.icd.teradyne.com                               |
>|___________________________________________________________________________|
>


Actually i would like it if pools' lanes alternated; odd numbered lanes
circulate clockwise, even numbered lanes circulate counterclockwise.  

The advantage?  In the all-too-narrow lanes of the pools i have available,
"hand-to-hand combat" with the person going the other way is common.  If you
give the centerline a wider berth you start threatening the person going the
other way in the NEXT lane.  If circulation alternated, you would be going the
same direction as the nearer people in the adjacent lane; this would reduce
collisions and make people feel more comfortable about giving the centerline a
wider berth.

-dk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
From: sshws@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Herb Schilling)
Subject: Nervous High School Swimmer
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:22:19 GMT


Hello,

 I am not sure if this is the best group for this but... 

 A young girl I know is a freshman in high school and on the swim
team. She is pretty good and does well in meets even when she swims
in varsity races. The problem is that she gets incredibly, almost
hysterically nervous from the day before a meet right up to it. 
It hurts to see her this way because she is good and she loves to swim 
and be part of the team. There does not seem to be any pressure from
either her coach or family. She can't really explain why she feels
this way. 

 Any suggestions? First person stories from people with similar
problems would be best. Thanks.
-- 
Herb Schilling , NASA Lewis Research Center , 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 142-5
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 . (216) 433-8955       sshws@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
From: kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Goggles
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 16:42:17 GMT

In article <osterber.726852638@husc.harvard.edu>, osterber@husc8.harvard.edu (Richard Osterberg) writes:
|> king@reasoning.com (Dick King) writes:
|> 
|> >PS: Replace the goggles every 6 months [120 miles] .  
|> 
|> >    I used to wait until the strap broke, which was usually about a year, but
|> >    with a strap break being likely to cost $60 or so* you should replace
|> >    goggles preemptively.
|> 
|> How does a strap break cost $60? Do you realize that for nearly all
|> goggles, you can buy replacement straps for about 50 cents apiece?
|> -Rick


It costs $60 when your contact lenses wash out.  You didn't really think
that he was going to pay $60 for a replacement strap, or even the goggles,
did you?!?

Oh, and "inevitably" doesn't have a "d" in it :-) (from your other post).
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
From: kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Lane Etiquette
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:20:34 GMT

In article <1ig1nlINN6r4@usenet.pa.dec.com>, alvidrez@tpflow.enet.dec.com (Artie Alvidrez) writes:
|>   o  Leave a good enough gap from the swimmer in front of you.  Ten seconds
|>      is a good rule of thumb.  If there are a lot of swimmers in your lane,
|>      you can cut it to five, but no less.  You might crash into each other
|>      when doing flip turns if you leave too soon (plus you'll draft from
|>      the swimmer in front)
|> 

Try leaving ten seconds (or five seconds) between swimmers when you've got
11 swimmers in a single, 25yd pool lane, doing 10x50 on :35.  The lead
swimmer gets hammered on the way back, and the last six guys get dragged
into the wall...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
From: bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill)
Subject: Re: Lane Etiquette
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Hughes STX Corp./NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:23:00 GMT

My wife's pet peeve is people who take her kickboard when she is
temporarily not using it.  Naturally, she leaves it on the side at the
end of the lane, and naturally, some idiots are too lazy to go to the
kickboard storage pile and get their own.

Also, she doesn't like the feet-touching protocol for passing.  Either
just pass if you are fast enough and in a position to, or wait.  The
swimmer being passed is usually aware and should just stop at the end
of the lane if necessary.

Also, people entering an established lane should make sure and 
communicate with those already there, and not just dive in.

Robert S. Hill                  
bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov