HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gad@pencom.com (George Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: RE: Austin/Hippie Hollow Directions & Review?
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:57:38 GMT
Reply-To: gad@pencom.com
Organization: Pencom Software

wday@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes
>  
> How about posting directions to Hippie Hollow, along with any personal
> "review" of the place - I've heard a lot of folks talk about it, and hope
> to visit this spring/summer, but a first -hand report would be welcome!

Sure...

Leave downtown Austin headed west on FM2222, follow 2222 about 10 miles 
to FM620, turn left on 620. Go approx 1 mile and turn right onto
Commanche Trail. You'll see signs for a restaurant named "Oasis" and
Hippy Hollow Park. Follow Commanche Trail for about 1 mile
past "Oasis" and you'll see the park on your left. Enter the park, pay
the $5.00 park entrance/parking fee, park, and follow the walkways down
to the waterfront area.

as for review:
The park itself includes a paved walkway that skirts the lake side on
a hillside for about 1/2 a mile. Below the walkways are teirs of rock 
ledges that people walk along, lay out on and store their stuff while
they explore the lake on floats and rafts. The park includes two sets
of latrine facilities located along the main walkway at the entrance 
and at the 2/3 point. Nudity is fully legal anywhere in the park 
(the parking lot is questionable). The crowd there ranges in size from
<50 to >500 on a nice day. The people range from UT students to 
famalies, to singles, to well just about anything. The very far end
of the park from the entrance is now predominately gay. Other areas
are mixed with packs of UT students, older couples, younger couples,
individuals, and the obligatory gawkers. Drawbacks to the park are
the gawkers, sometimes multitudious, boats crusing offshore with 
binoculars, and sometimes rowdy types within the park itself. It 
is regularly patrolled by the sherriffs dept who try to keep it
orderly and safe for everyone. The sherriffs deputies are very 
friendly, helpful, and have no prob whatsoever with the nudity.
I enjoy visit whenever I get chance.

Hope this helps,
George
--
		      George A. Durden			
		  	.5K EX Pilot
		       Unix Mercenary
DoD #0039	     "No Risk, No Rush"		CMRA #106
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: hcs+@cs.cmu.edu (Henry C Schmitt)
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Summary: SEX != Reproduction
Keywords: Sex Reproduction Nudity
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:10:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223803.26257@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>
>When you eat, you are preparing for sex.  At my age, I'm preparing for
>my children to have sex.  When I go to work, I'm making it possible
>for me to eat, etc. as above, and also earning what it costs to get my
>children married.  Parents and children are certainly part of the sex
>package, since without sex there would be neither parents nor
>children.  And male friends, even if you're male, or female friends if
>you're female, are part of the social structure in which you have sex
>and perpetuate the species.
>
>WITHOUT SEX YOU WOULD NOT EXIST!!!!
>
	Oops!  Now you've made the mistake that Sex == Reproduction!
It doesn't.  Now they may have a lot to do with each other, but sex is
not reproduction.  My wife and I have been having sex for years
without reproducing, now we've had sex and ARE reproducing (Due date
is May 13, if you're interested).

	If you take the included paragraph and replace sex with
reproduction (and make a few other grammatical changes) you get the
generally accepted view of survival of the species.  Everyone knows
the phrase "Survival of the Fittest," but usually mistake fittest to
mean physically.  This is almost right, fitness is measured by
reproduction in which physical fitness plays an important part.

	Now, get back to the matter at hand: Nude != Sex.
-- 
Henry C. Schmitt
Home: 2863 Beechwood Blvd.,Pittsburgh, PA 15217-3114 (412) 421-8482
Work: 2212 Hamburg Hall,5000 Forbes Ave,Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 268-2257
E-Mail: InterNet: hcs@cmu.edu CIS: 72275,1456 AppleLink, AOL, GEnie: H.Schmitt
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudity and nakedness
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:33:39 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec20.175109.29473@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>This is a good excuse to raise one of my favourite questions.  Do
>people here draw a distinction between nudity and nakedness?  ...
>	...	Comments anyone?

I don't but have had friends tell me that 'naked' sounds like something
bad.  Being nude and being naked seem to me to be the same thing but
the words sound different; nude is softer, naked is harsher.  I suppose
that is enough for some people to treat them differently.

-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Earl Middleton		| Camping Bares:  "An Anarchist Disorganization
aka Happy Bare			| Dedicated to the Destruction of the Fabric of
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| Our Society"
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: CO spots in the Carolinas?  Info needed!
Summary: Posted Anonymously
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:43:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


>Hello Terry,
>Could you please post this on rec.nude for me?  Thanks.

______________________________
Does anyone know of CO spots in the Carolinas (esp. SC, esp. near the
Atlantic)?  Please post.  Thank you.
------------------------------
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Legal Precedent for female nudity in FL
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:37:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <davecb.723994602@yorku.ca>, davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David
Collier-Brown) writes:
>fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
>[in a discussion of ``sex organs'' being prohibited]
>|Breasts fall under the category of "secondary sexual characteristics".
>
>  So do beards.  To be fair, if breasts are prohibited, 
>so are beards.  Imagine being arrested for not being clean-shaven (:-))

OK, fine.  I've grown a nice beard, now I'll try to grow some breasts, too.  

:-)

Frederick "Abundant Male Hormones" 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
| The day after the day after tomorrow is the last day before the rest of   |
| our country's future a week from the day before the day before yesterday! |
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: grogono@cs.concordia.ca (Peter Grogono)
Subject: A new excuse
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:44:15 GMT

According to a story in today's newspaper, sharks tend to classify
an evenly tanned human being as "not good food" but they are attracted by
contrasts, such as tan-lines and swim suits. So, next time someone asks
you why you're always taking your clothes off, tell them
"So the sharks don't get me".

Peter
From: isc40041@nusunix1.nus.sg (LOO KOK HOE)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: visitong UK
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:56:41 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Hi there !


My friends will be visiting UK next year May ....
ANy good recommendation on beaches ?



george

Internet:    isc40041@nusunix1.nus.sg
Bitnet:      lookokho@nusdiscs
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudity in California
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:44:28 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

midkiff@public.BTR.COM (Neil Midkiff  midkiff@public.btr.com) writes:

>The relevant California law is (if memory serves) sec. 314.1 of the Penal
>Code, on Indecent Exposure.  The gist of it (once again from memory)

You have a very good memory -- or at least a very consistent one.  Here
is an excerpt of an old posting of yours which is specific enough that
I suspect it was not from memory:

>California is mostly OK, thanks to a state Supreme Court decision and
>the way the basic law reads.
>Sec. 314 of the Penal Code: [Indecent Exposure]
>Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:
>1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public
>place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be
>offended or annoyed thereby; or,
>2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or
>take part in any ...[indecent or offensive exhibition]...
>is guilty of a misdemeanor.
>There's some more stuff about breaking into a house and exposing
>oneself, and about second offenses being a felony (!).  Doesn't sound
>so good at first glance.  
>But in 1972, the Calif. Supreme Court ruled (in re Smith, 7 C3d 362,
>102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807) that
>...a person does not expose his private parts "lewdly" within the
>meaning of [sec. 314] unless his conduct is sexually motivated.
>Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a
>reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but
>intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for
>purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.

>and that

>Absent additional conduct intentionally directing attention to his
>genitals for sexual purposes, a person who simply sunbathes in the
>nude on an isolated beach does not "lewdly" expose his private parts
>within the meaning of [sec. 314].

>So at least as far as the state is concerned, nude is not necessarily lewd.

>The Court has, however, upheld the right of local authorities (most
>notably Los Angeles) to ban nudity in public; the state code
>"proscribes only sexually motivated conduct and reflects no
>legislative intent to prohibit local legislation with respect to
>public nudity not so motivated when otherwise appropriate." (Eckl v.
>Davis, 1975, 51 CA3d 831)  So be sure to check out local ordinances!

     Richard M. Mathews			Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
					Brivu Latviju  = Free Latvia
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		Eesti vabaks   = Free Estonia
					        WE  DID  IT!!!
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Topfree news
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:27:42 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes) writes:
-I thought you might be interested in this article.

You were correct.

-BARE BREASTS WILL NOT LEAD TO MORAL DECAY, TRIAL TOLD
-Toronto Star, November 25, 1992
-
-KITCHENER-Average Canadians will not be offended by women going topless in
-public, experts in human sexuality and gender issues testified yesterday
-during the trial of five women charged with exposing their breasts.

...

Are there any updates on this?  If hte trial was in November this case
should be decided by now, what was the decision?  Anyone know?

-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Earl Middleton		| Camping Bares:  "An Anarchist Disorganization
aka Happy Bare			| Dedicated to the Destruction of the Fabric of
middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| Our Society"
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: grw@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Gary Wasserman)
Subject: CO Sites In/Around Palm Springs
Reply-To: grw@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Gary Wasserman)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 19:59:48 GMT


I'm going to be spending a week in the Palm Spings, CA area
between Xmas and NYs.  Any recommendations would be
appreciated.  I remember seeing a post about hot springs
in the area but I missed the note (it had expired).  Can
anyone repost or email me a copy?

Thanks in advance.  If I get enough responses I'll post
a summary.

-Gary
-- 
Gary Wasserman      "A completely irrational attraction to BMW bikes"
Interleaf, Inc.      Prospect Place, 9 Hillside Ave, Waltham, MA 02154
grw@ileaf.com        617-290-4990x3423 FAX 617-290-4970       DoD#0216
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:17:47 GMT

From article <1992Dec16.142204.25501@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, by adculha@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Andrew Culhane):
> In article <1992Dec14.223803.26257@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
> ....
>>WITHOUT SEX YOU WOULD NOT EXIST!!!!
>>
>>Get the above through your head.  Along with food, clothing, and
>>shelter, sex is the most important thing in the world.
>>
> 
> Nope.  Right logic, wrong conclusion.  The real equation is:
> 
>    Everything == eating
> ....
> 
> You can live for a longer time without sex than without food.  Is
> that a good thing?  I dunno.

But the species lives for a longer time than that, and it can only
do that if you have sex.

> Work, recreation, sex, etc. etc. etc. are all merely vehicles that
> the meta-being "EATING" uses to maintain itself.

I wouldn't want to overdefine the "meta-being."  The meta-being
is the species, whose survival requires both eating and sex.

> This was a silly thread to begin with ...

Only as silly as the people who are so obsessed with sex that they
object to public nudity.  They are a real political menace, and
I'm looking for ways to circumvent their influence.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: CO in Boca Raton???
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:15:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.152313.17296@netcom.com> you write:
>I just moved to Boca Raton and would like to mix with like-minded
>people. Does anyone know of CO groups/locations close to Boca?

Contact South Florida Free Beaches
        box 330902
        Coconut Grove
        FL  33133

Tell them I sent you.  :-)
-- 
Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Playalinda update
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 09:20:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.041314.13426@rtfm.mlb.fl.us> steve@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Steve Pierce) writes:
>   For general information -- Florida has very, very few hassle-free beaches.
>Playalinda still maintains that status for the time being and Haulover is
>generally hassle-free (both suffer from ONE "lone ranger" who sees it as his
>personal duty to clean up the world :-).

Just what is the status at Playalinda these days. I stopped by
to see the boiling grinders driven in by the high winds
right after the TANR convention in November and Ranger Friendly
was writing up a parking citation to someone in lot 13. Is
this the new tactic? I also understand that Wendell Simpson
is under pressure, so he is applying pressure.

>BTW, Playalinda is closed until mid-January.  Shuttle is sitting on the pad :-(

I drove back on the new road and was hoping that all it needed
was a stripe down the middle to make it bidirectional and
solve this problem. I was surprised it was already paved;
I thought it had to go through umteen-thousand committees
first.

Update us, please.

-- 
bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) This week's usenet malapropism: 
their(pronoun)=plural possesive; "They drove their cars to usenix."
there(misc.)=to or at a place; "Use the terminal over there."
they're=contraction of 'they are'; "They're shutting down the system now."
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:30:49 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <20330@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@cs.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes:
>In article <Bz7xz6.5B6@xrtll.uucp> stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes) writes:
>>
>>When you eat, does it equal sex?
>
>Besides, haven't you seen 9 1/2 weeks?

Or Tom Jones?

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
From: n8948315@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Arthur Morgan)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Teddy Bear Cove
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:48:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec12.014825.10263
Organization: Western Washington University

In article <723941339.AA00000@therose.pdx.com> Wayne.Silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Wayne Silsbee) writes:
>=============================================================================
>* Forwarded by silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Wayne Silsbee)
>* Area : Fidonet NATURIST echo
>* From : Lee Woofenden
>=============================================================================
>Just heard on KGMI AM 790 radio from Bellingham, WA:
>
>There is a measure before the Bellingham City Council (or Whatcom County
>Council?) to ban nude sunbathing at Teddy Bear Cove.
>
>Also, KGMI did a listener poll as to whether Whatcom County should try to sell
>Teddy Bear Cove, and of the 45 responders, 80% said yes.
>
>--Lee
>
>
>=============================================================================
Hi. I am a Bellingham resident, and can shed a little light on this matter.
A year or so ago the county parks department acquired the property, and over
the past several months or so the county council has been struggling with the
dilemma of having a nude beach in its park system (where there is a great deal
of anti-CO sentiment in the community). A few weeks ago an ordinance was
brought before the council and soundly defeated (7-0 vote) due to 
constitutional concerns. A night or so ago they had a short (20 minutes) 
public hearing about the matter, and a large majority of the people who spoke
were against the idea of a nude beach in the county. The SLUGS from Seattle
spoke in favor of maintaining the status-quo, and a group from the county 
presented petitions requesting that CO beaches in Whatcom County be made
illegal. There is still a little time for written comment, so people can send
letters to the Whatcom County Council at the courthouse in Bellingham, WA until
friday the 18th. Also, if I remember correctly, the SLUGS or some similar
group made an offer to buy back Teddy Bear Cove so that it can remain a CO 
beach without the county parks department having a CO beach on their 
consciences.

-- 
Arthur Morgan  <n8948315@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Legal Precedent for female nudity in FL
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:22:46 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:
>davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes:
>>  So do beards.  To be fair, if breasts are prohibited, 
>>so are beards.  Imagine being arrested for not being clean-shaven (:-))
>
>OK, fine.  I've grown a nice beard, now I'll try to grow some breasts, too.  

No problem. We'll just put you on a regimen of progesterone
and ... look out Morganna!


-- 
bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) This week's usenet malapropism: 
their(pronoun)=plural possesive; "They drove their cars to usenix."
there(misc.)=to or at a place; "Use the terminal over there."
they're=contraction of 'they are'; "They're shutting down the system now."
From: rford@pro-harold.cts.com (Richard Ford)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Trip Report - Big and Little Caliente
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:27:15 GMT
Organization: The Harold Network -- An Alliance For Creative Communication

Tom, thought you'd be interested in this.  On my way back to San Diego (Yes
,I did have enough gas to get down the mountain; barely) I ran into Bill &
Hillary's motorcade!  They were heading north in the opposite lane.  Oh
well, maybe we'll get them up there next time.   Richard

s
[A.


?
a
[A.a
-----
Richard Ford
ProLine: rford@pro-harold
Internet: rford@pro-harold.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-harold!rford
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: mkaufman@mcs.kent.edu (Michael Kaufman)
Subject: hello
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:34:40 GMT

Hello, i am a new user to this particular message base (I'm still stuck
in BBS lingo).  First of all, I'd like to know if someone could find out
if there were any "clothing optional" (politically correct, ya know) 
beaches or whathaveyou in Ohio.  Preferably in Northeast Ohio, like near/around
Cleveland.  I assume there might be because Lake Erie is RIGHT there, but
I haven't hear anything.
	Next, I've been following up on the latest "Sex = Nudity"
and the repurcutions(sp) thereof.  Now, time for my two cents worth.
Nudity DOES NOT equal sex.  I should know, I walk around nude in my house all
the time, but I don't have sex with anyone that drops by.  It is true that
you have to BE nude to HAVE sex..........well, actually not.  
It's been done without taking clothes off. 
	Also, sex DOES NOT equal reproduction (thank god!!).
If it did, I would be a father five times already.  No thank you   :)


	Anyway, I guess I've provided enough to shed light on the fact that
sex DNE nudity.  While, there are some cases where it does, it is not absolute.


thank you, 'nuff said



Mike Kaufman
mkaufman@mcs.kent.edu
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Anonymous posting
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:10:43 -0800
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:

>Hogwash!  It has always been possible to preserve one's anonymity, up to
>which machine one uses, by the simple expedient of talking directly to
>SMTP.

Hogwash!  You presume you have a network with SMTP on which you can talk.

    Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		        Laisve!
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nudity & sex
Date: 20 Dec 1992 11:14:15 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1gri7iINNgod@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
%In article <> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
%-	As for nudity and its relation to sex -- well, men are visually
%-stimulated.  If men see someone attractive it can cause arousal and 
%-desire for sex.  However, a well selected bathing suit can be more erotic
%-for many than no clothes at all -- also some women look better in clothing
%-than nude.  But for some women, nudity is far more arousing than being
%-clothed.  In that regard, nudity is related to sex and can stimuluate
%-sexual arousal.  But it is not a 100% positive correlation.
%
%Of course it can be shown that certain clothes derive a sexual response.
%Therefore clothes = sex and since we already know nudity = sex we see
%clearly that clothes = nudity.

...which proves that nudity is merely *one* choice of how to dress, no
different (essentially) than any other choice of how to dress.

Bill.  :-)
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
From: seghers@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (David Seghers)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 18:57:14 GMT
Subject: Re: CO in SF Bay Area
Organization: HP Response Center Lab