HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dennett@unsw.OZ.AU (Dennett Jaques)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Summary: Australian TV
Keywords: Lots of it!
Reply-To: dennett@unsw.OZ.AU
Organization: University of New South Wales, Australia
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:18:20 GMT

Here in Australia, watching TV any night of the week, you
would be hard pressed to find a show that did not have
nudity. It appears (full frontal male and female) in
everthing - Movies (Australian and O.S that are
NOT censored for TV), Soap Operas, Serials and even
commercial advertisements (tits and bums mainly in the adds).

We even have a weekly hour long program called S.E.X that is
extremely explicit - showing many close ups of male and female genitals
even in aroused states. Naturally there are lots of wowsers who
write in to the Networks and complain - but mostly they are ignored.

I have been to America several times and the archaic censorship
laws there amase me. The general rule in Australia is that most 
viewers are intelligent enough to decide whether or not they find
a program offensive. If so they switch to another station.




  
  Cheers.

  Dennett Jaques.

             _________________________________________________________________
            
   ,-_|\     Senior Network Analyst     E-mail: dennett@blimey.csd.unsw.edu.au
  /     \    The University of N.S.W    Phone:  +61 2 697-2324
  \_,-._* <- Sydney, AUSTRALIA          FAX:    +61 2 662-8665
       v                                Harley: 93 FXDWG
             _________________________________________________________________

                         When I want my employers opinion,
                               I'll give it to them.



Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: khockenbury@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
Subject: Naked folk & Computers (Was: Seattle Swims and Computers)
Organization: Stevens Institute Of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:30:40 GMT

In article <1ivk33INNji2@network.ucsd.edu>, "Mark Allen" writes:
> 
> Things went on for years like this until this past fall when someone, whose
> name I won't mention, posted the time and location of the swims on some
> computer bulletin boards in the Seattle area.  The swims increased in size
> over 600%.  

This leads me to an interesting question: why so many of us online?  That is, 
why are some many nudists/naturists/etc computer users?  Is it as simple as the 
fact that we have clear communications channels that others lack?  Or is it 
that current computer users are neophiles, willing to try CO recreation?  The
above example would support either hypothesis.

I remember reading an interview with Lee Baxandall where he stated that if you 
were to guess a naturist's profession, your best guess would be "computer 
professional" (programmer, system admin, etc.).  His hypothesis was that 
computer people were trained to think logically about things, and when exposed 
to the idea of naturism realized that swimsuits were just plain silly.

But maybe it's not even that.  Maybe it's just that the non-computer-networked 
world doesn't know about us.  They are cut off from open information flow, and 
only receive what they get from newspapers and television.

Or maybe there's some hidden mental urge that makes people who take off their 
clothes want to use computers.  :-)

	-Kurt Hockenbury
khockenbury@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
khockenbury@stevens.bitnet
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Denver clubs/resorts
Date: 7 Jan 1993 02:26:40 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


This article came to me with an anonymous request.  This is the same
fake Mark Allen as in the other article I posted for him.  Please
respond to the net, do NOT respond to me unless you want me to
anonymously post your response.  Mark Allen is an alien.  [I was
going to say alias but alien sounded better. :-)]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I need help in locating a nudist club or resort in the Denver area.  We will
be staying in Denver for a week this summer on other business, and there's
no way that my wife and kids want to stay at a motel, or some other place 
where one has to be clothed.

Mark Allen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Reef Beach to be off-limits to nudists
Keywords: Reef Manly Free Beach
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:58:46 GMT

In article <726866637lance.lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz> lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz (Lance Andrewes) writes:
>The following is posted without permission, by-line NZ Press Association:
>  ++ARTICLE BEGINS++
>  "Nude bathers will challenge cover-up"
>  SYDNEY. - The difference between nudity and swimming togs may be
>  only a fine line of lycra but it will have an effect on the cost
>  of swimming at Sydney's Reef Beach from February 1.
>
>  After more than 16 years as a nudist beach, Manly Council has told
>  bathers that from next month their choice is clothing or a $20 fine.

[snip]

>
>  But frequent Reef Beach-goers are outraged and have made it clear
>  they will simply turn the other cheek, so to speak, when beach
>  inspectors come a-calling with their notebooks in three weeks
>  time.

>  They could be fined $20 for being "not properly and adequately
>  clad".
>  ++ENDS++

Gun control is a far cry from anti-nudism, but I have made an interesting 
discovery.  Both firearms enthusiasts and nudists are a minority, but fairly 
large ones.  Further, there is something of a social stigma (minor) 
attached to being a member of either group.  Further, members of each group 
tend to have a small, but significant amount of disposable income.

It has been suggested that gun control in the form of fines, liscencing, and 
fees, as it does nothing to inhibit violent crime, is not intended for 
anything of the sort, but is an effort to extract additional revenue from a 
sufficiently small minority that the additional burden will not lose too 
many votes in the local elections.

Perhaps this attact on the Free Beach is a similar effort to raise revenue 
from the CO crowd.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:54:13 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <C0ozCn.Hr1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  It's a distinction without a difference.   If someone walks
>  around with 90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered
>  is his "private parts" he's not nude.   If he walks around with
>  90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered is only his 
>  forearms he is considered nude.

If he walks around with 90% of his body covered, but the 10% that's
exposed is his "private parts", is he nude?


--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: ak441@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Suter)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Frontal nudity in films
Date: 11 Jan 1993 05:43:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ak441@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Suter)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


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....
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Excluding Single Males (Was: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:38:55 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <C0JL49.9BJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:

> [...] Moreover, many nudist clubs and organizations have rules
> against single males attending their facilities and events.

This policy really bothers me.  It seems very unfair.  How can they get
away with something so blatantly discriminatory in this day and age?

Why not bar single females too?  How can they justify the presumptions that
(1) single males have an "excessive" (whatever that means) interest in
sexual matters, and (2) single females have an "acceptable" (whatever that
means) level of interest in sexual matters?  Damn it, from grade school on,
the boys always got blamed for everything and the girls could do no wrong.
:-)

I object to any policy which attempts to characterize my behavior solely on
the basis of my gender and marital status (I don't care for it when
automobile insurance companies do it either).  Despite what such policies
suggest, there are decent single men who are quite capable of controlling
whatever interest they may have in sexual matters and of behaving in an
appropriate manner in the company of others.  *affixes tag labeled "Exhibit
A" to self*

Fred Chapman
I Resent It, 
I Resent It.
-- 

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: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Excluding Single Males
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:47:31 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


It is my understanding that single males seem to have made some progress
at our local nudist club/resort.  The SWALLOWS in San Diego (California)
County has recently changed their daily use fee policy to equalize the
fee paid by all singles.  They now charge $10 per person (singles) whereas
they used to charge $16 per single male and $8 per single female.  It
will be interesting to see the overall affect on the club as better
weather rolls around.

-- 
Tom Middleton					.signature temporarily
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu			    out of service
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: marsh@sad.hp.com (Marshall Ward)
Subject: Re: Naked men in movies (re: Network Nudes)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:34:04 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


I just rented "The Lords of Discipline" and there was a locker room shower
scene (non-sexual situation) where there were several young men showering
and their genitals were plainly visible.  It was no big deal, but it was 
there.

Marshall
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 10:19:14 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <C0pMGB.6Ks@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.145413.1688@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>>In article <C0ozCn.Hr1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>  It's a distinction without a difference.   If someone walks
>>>  around with 90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered
>>>  is his "private parts" he's not nude.   If he walks around with
>>>  90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered is only his 
>>>  forearms he is considered nude.

Nude?  No.  Practically nude?  Yes. 

>>If he walks around with 90% of his body covered, but the 10% that's
>>exposed is his "private parts", is he nude?
>
>
>   Remember, language is consensus reality -- definitions are 
>   descriptive, not prescriptive.  So on that basis I would
>   say, "yes".

...but the correct answer is "no".  Depending on where he was he may or
may not be breaking a law but he definitely is not "nude".  If a news
paper was to describe the scene they would not refer to him as "nude".
They might say he had no pant, that he was exposing his genitals, or that
he was indecently exposed.  But they wouldn't say he was nude since he
wasn't.

(In the previous example --only arms covered--they proably would call
it nude.  That doesn'tt mean they'd be right, though, but it would be close
enough to the truth.)

>   I.e., if you were reading a movie review or
>   label in a TV listing any such scene would certainly qualify
>   to give such a movie a "nudity" rating.

Yes, but movie ratings only apply to movies. and they are a short hand.
"nudity" in this context is not literal because anyone who desires 
this warning is actually only worried about the exposure of the "privates",
the rest of the body is irrelevant.

>   And if such a person
>   were at a beach that had a CO section, he would certainly be 
>   required to remain in that section.

Yes, but the law does not say that "clothes must be worn" on the clothed
side.  Nor does it say that "*nudity* is prohibited".  It says that
"exposure of the genitals and/or buttocks and/or female breasts is
prohibited".

If the law actually prohibited "nudity" we wouldn't have much of a problem....
...I'd be willing to wear, say, an arm-band in the non-nude areas! :-)

Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: bthoms@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:52:29 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1993Jan7.014215.48757@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
> 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.


I'm not sure what other causes of an erection you had in mind, but are you
seriously trying to say that guys who wander around nudist clubs with hardons
have full bladders? - I can understand that early in the morning, but most
clubs have reasonably sophistocated toilet facilities.

Personally, I would usually take the "ignore it & it will go away" rule: I
played an energetic game of miniten with a young lad who was making his first
visit to a club last year who was much more excited than my miniten abilities
deserved. I hope his erection didn't impair his game, because he thrashed me!
The "problem" (if it is one) didn't either force him into his shorts or out of
the gate, and no-one made any comments. A year later, he's adjusted to being a
seasoned nudist, and, like the rest of us, maintaining a constant (or even
regular) erection is just too much effort.

I'm for the easy life.

Brent Thomson, Waikato, NZ
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: seppi@ruble.fml.tuwien.ac.at (YASHI)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:09:11 GMT

In article <C0ozCn.Hr1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter  
Nelson) writes:
>   It's a distinction without a difference.   If someone walks
>   around with 90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered
>   is his "private parts" he's not nude.   If he walks around with
>   90% of his body exposed but the 10% that's covered is only his 
>   forearms he is considered nude.

     No, he is an exhibitionist.



--
YASHI         seppi@fml.tuwien.ac.at

   NeXTmail: allowed
   Flames: not allowed
From: abel@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Excluding Single Males (Was: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:05:08 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1993Jan9.003855.33687@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
> In article <C0JL49.9BJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
> Nelson) writes:
> 
>> [...] Moreover, many nudist clubs and organizations have rules
>> against single males attending their facilities and events.
> 
> This policy really bothers me.  It seems very unfair.  How can they get
> away with something so blatantly discriminatory in this day and age?
> 
> Why not bar single females too?  How can they justify the presumptions that
> (1) single males have an "excessive" (whatever that means) interest in
> sexual matters, and (2) single females have an "acceptable" (whatever that
> means) level of interest in sexual matters?  Damn it, from grade school on,
> the boys always got blamed for everything and the girls could do no wrong.
> :-)
> 
> I object to any policy which attempts to characterize my behavior solely on
> the basis of my gender and marital status (I don't care for it when
> automobile insurance companies do it either).  Despite what such policies
> suggest, there are decent single men who are quite capable of controlling
> whatever interest they may have in sexual matters and of behaving in an
> appropriate manner in the company of others.  *affixes tag labeled "Exhibit
> A" to self*
> 
It bothers me also, and it *is* unfair.  Unfortunately, it is also 
realistic.  As a young male, I felt as you do.  As I got older, when 
seasoned grade school teachers, both male and female, talked about 
behavorial differences between girls and boys, I had mental 
reservations.  Once I had children, had to deal with them and their 
friends, and taught Sunday school, my views have changed.  It's not 
even necessary to know why, whether it is genetic or learned, it just 
is.  Of course, I keep an open mind, since every person is different, 
but if I am in a situation where I need to predict behavior, don't 
know the kids, and only know what sex they appear to be, I will 
predict their behavior by sex.

As a different example, there are a limited number of young people 
who think that they are healthy and appear healthy, but actually are 
very sick and will die soon.  There are also old people who are 
healthy and will remain healthy for the next thirty years.  Yet, 
should they both purchase term life insurance, the older will pay 
considerably more.

Maybe the key is not to take it personally.  It's not you, it's the 
group to which you happen to belong.  And, as far as descriminating 
against young males goes, at some point you will no longer qualify as 
young, which will have good and bad points.
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:28:36 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

>In article <1is7muINN2t7@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>>By the way, if a woman walks around without a shirt many people would
>>say she is partially nude, if a man does the same thing will those
>>same people say the same of him?  Probably not.  Its just a thought.
>
In article <1993Jan11.170044.18441@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>On the other hand if a woman walks around WITH a shirt on but nothing
>else many people would say she is partially nude and the SAME thing
>for a man.

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.

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

-- 
Tom Middleton					.signature temporarily
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu			    out of service
From: jmcging@access.digex.com (John McGing)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Running the National Flag
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:32:05 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
Reply-To: jmcging@access.digex.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

[somebody said]......
>Here's an idea...  Why not provide each man at a CO resort with a
>small flag indicating his national allegiance, which he could affix to
>the designated part of his body; that way, if physiology does its
>thing, it will be put to use for a noble purpose.  "Look at John --
>he's being patriotic again..."  *insert big smiley here* 

>Could result in a real upsurge of national sentiment!  Not to mention
>the educational value of boning up on flags from other countries... ;)
                          ^^^^^^^^^^

Intentional pun? :)

John

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jmcging@oss724.ssa.gov  or jmcging@access.digex.com    
SSA, your FICA tax people    woodb!oss2cc!jmcging@soaf1  
J.MCGING on GEnie  70142,1357 on Compuserve
From: nickm@eecs.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Hawaii Suggestions?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:33:52 GMT
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: nickm@eecs.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: clair.berkeley.edu

-------

We're off to Hawaii (Big Island and briefly in Honolulu) at 
the end of January and are looking for some good CO spots.

Any suggestions? Please mail me direct.

Thanks,

Nick