HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes)
Subject: Re: Interesting (?) opinion :)
Organization: WCOM Public Access Unix - Toronto
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 14:05:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.134811.24511@cc.tut.fi> ta66863@cc.tut.fi (Ahlqvist Tero) writes:
>    I'm not going to start new rec.nude.flame.sex.on.the.... discussion,
>There has just been some arguments I dont agree.
>
>    1.  Exhibitionists dont come to CO beach
>    OR  nudists aren't exhibitionists.
>
>    2.  nudists dont act like peeping-Toms
>
>    Sorry if I offend some of you with this article, but I think that
>some of you out there are super-humans. You go to nude-beach and don't
>want to expose yourself, then you strip all you clothing...
>Then you see other people naked and you don't look their cocks, tits or
>buttocks, you just see the face.

I'm not offended by your posting.  I think you have some good points.
However, I have alternative views on why I go to nude beaches.

In Canada, it is illegal to be seen nude publicly.  In other words, if I
am nude in my own backyard and someone sees me because they are looking
out of their second floor window, I can be charged with indecent
exposure.  The only place where I can feel confortable being nude outdoors
is on a nude beach.  

I also like nude beaches because I want to be social.  I like talking
with people and playing sports with people.  Yes I do look at their
bodies.  I look at all their parts.  I don't think there is anything
wrong with that.  You look people over when they are dressed, so why 
shouldn't you look at them when they are nude.  As a nudist/naturist, I
accept all parts of the human body as normal and acceptable.

If I see someone who is particularly good looking and in good shape, I
do enjoy looking at them just as I would if they were wearing clothing.

Does that make me a peeping tom or an exhibitionist?  

Not by my definitions of those words.

-- 
========================================================
Stephane Deschenes     stephane@xrtll.uucp
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
========================================================
From: jiang@cs.arizona.edu (Howard)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers :-)
Summary: boobs
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:12:05 GMT

In article <3564@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Aug29.084630.22035@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:
> > They are exciting because you never see them, or "aren't supposed to."  
> 
> 	No, they're exciting because I associate them with femininity, a
> characteristic I find desirable in my companions :-)  Unless you're a 
> fellow nudist, I've probably seen more breasts in my life than _you_
> have, and I still love to watch them change shape as she moves, and the 
> way every woman's are different, and how the nipples go up and down... :-)

Watch a couple of National Geographic native specials, and let me know how you
feel.

Howard
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Nude Bicyclist - San Luis Obispo
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:48:38 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu


This morning I read an associated press article in the San Diego Union
about a man who claims he was delibarately struck by a police car while
riding a bike in the nude.  He is suing the city.  The mans name is Glenn
Westergren (23 yrs old) and the incident occurred on March 20, 1991.  He
was riding naked through downtown San Luis Obispo "to impress some girls"
when it happened.

Is there a story here?  Anyone in S.L.O. know about this?  Do the police
in S.L.O. routinely run over nudists?  Was he even arrested or charged for
anything?  And, most importantly, were the girls impressed?  Were they 
impressed enough to ..... oh well, never mind that one, its too personal.

[And for those of you asking, where the heck is San Luis Obispo?  It is on
the California Coast about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco.]

-- 
===============================================================================
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: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Subject: Re: Breasts (hers : -)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:06:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.222611.15416@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>ta66863@kaarne.cs.tut.fi (Ahlqvist Tero Kalevi) writes:
>>I'm another male with the same opinion. How many such opinions we need
>>to make it clear, that it's part of the "little difference" that makes
>>the breasts so stimulating. Not the fact they're usually and most of
>>the time covered.
>
>I associate chest hair, muscles, etc with masculinity.  It's one of
>those "little differences" that makes the <male> breasts so stimualting
>I love to watch men wiggle those chest muscles, and watch them change 
>shape as men move.
>
>And, men are allowed to strut their stuff whenever they want.  I don't
>give a shit what you think of women's breasts.  If men can flaunt it, so
>can women.  It an equality issue.
 
Well put Karen.

Moreover, naked breasts arent't the only thing (most) men find attractve.
Breasts covered in a micron of spandex are pretty hot, too.  (Better make
bikinis illegal!)  And evening dresses can be a real turn on.  (Better
ban them, too.)  And necks are pretty sexy.  (Better make all the women
wear turtleneck sweaters.....but not the tight, fuzzy ones 'cause they're
kinda sexy, too!)  But to me none of this is as sexy as a nice face
(better make the women wear veils!) and long hair (maybe short hair should
be mandatory?).

If the fact that naked breasts can be a turn-on for men is enough reason
to justify forbidding them, then why do we tolerate all these other
turn-ons?

And if this isn't the reason, then what is?  Perhaps it's like Tom Middleton
said in another thread that (some) men are jealous of other men seeing "their"
women naked.  They want to know that they're the only ones who can look at
certain parts.  Maybe it gives them a feeling of power.

(This wasn't exactly Tom's point, but it seems to fit here, too.)

>  I would be perfectly content to keep my shirt on, if men had to also.
Or put another way, if women have to wear shirts, why don't men?
								
Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Michigan CO
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:07:45 GMT

zsalman@chess.engin.umich.edu (Zaid Kadhim Salman) writes:
>Well, somebody needs to do something around here. Hash Bash and Coming-Out-Of-
>The-Closet Week but no CO activities. Go figure.

Rather, Go To It! I don't know what Hash Bash is, and I can probably
guess what the second item is, but I can guarantee that you'll
get some interest if you do something as wacko as print
up some signs telling of a meeting time and place, post them
around campus, and see who shows up. Talk about good stuff,
fun stuff and you can relate it to all the heavier issues
that come into focus after you look deeper, like all the
brouhaha over breast implants and body image and all that.
This is meaningful stuff that gives you purpose 
beyond just 'getting naked'.

I don't know how belligerent your student activities folks are,
but I can't see any harm in trying. The most they can do
is deny you campus community space, so you can meet off-campus.

Do it!

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Info Needed - Virginia
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:01:20 GMT

middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>(email from anonymous person):

Does this mean I should post anonymously, also?

>>I am located
>>in south eastern Virginia.  I remember that there was a place in Suffolk and
>>one in Gloucester I had heard about, there should be a beach somewhere near by
>>with Nags Head, Hatteras, Va Bch and Sandbridge.  How do we get started?

Just do it. If you want to meld into the crowd, I definitely
recommend Sandy Hook up in New Jersey. It is well worth
the trip with thousands of people there on a weekend.
It's a great place to go your first time because
you can't possibly feel self-conscious.

Now, you tell me about Sandbridge. If I actually had
time off (HA!) I'd go down there myself to see what's up.
I have seen various references and requests for info
around that area, but no actual information about it.

A friend says that it is a neat beach and has very
cool rules, but that isn't much for me to go on.
I can't believe that nobody on this group knows anything
at all about it or its surroundings. Still, I hope...

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Keeping men out
Date: 31 Aug 1992 21:47:50 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Aug31.170804.8379@bmerh85.bnr.ca> glenm@bnr.ca writes:
>The club owners who have these policies are trying to fight a very
>real problem: For some reason (which isn't itself important), many
>women are uncomfortable around a predominance of men. It is felt by
>these owners, and perhaps many of their members, that the only way
>to get women to participate is to keep the (numbers of) male
>members down. 8-)

It is unfortunate more clubs don't take a more active role in increasing
female participation rather then decreasing male participation.  Perhaps
they could advertise in womens magazines, get women who enjoy the experience
to write about it.  Maybe we should post an invitation in soc.women to
read and join rec.nude!


An interesting point here.  The nudist women I have talked to don't seem to
be bothered by being around a bunch of men and few women.  Perhaps they
enjoy the extra attention. :-)  The group that seems to be most bothered
by it is the group of male partners of females.  From my meager experience,
observation, reading, and discussion it is invariably the male who says "I
don't like all these single men around my women".  This could be another
factor in the discrimination against single males at clubs that are dominated
by couples.


-- 
===============================================================================
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: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Being Naked in Canada
Keywords: laws, police harassment
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:14:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.163431.7451@bmerh85.bnr.ca> glenm@bnr.ca writes:
>There are a number of accepted nude-use locations in the country.
>One is Wreck Beach, at Vancouver, BC. Another is Meech Lake, near
>Ottawa, Ont. I belive there are a few spots in Quebec as well.

I have just been to both Wreck and Meech. Wreck Beach is truly a
very large beach, while Meech is IMHO only good for launching your
inflatable mattress and there's little room for anything else,
not even for merely sitting around on lawn chairs.

I wonder whether there is a CO beach larger than Wreck anywhere in Canada?

>Most hot springs are accepted for nude use. Of course, they are
>usually fairly remote.

Please post their locations for the benefit of all if you can. Thanks.
---
Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: drascic@ie.utoronto.ca (SpIke)
Subject: Re: Being Naked in Canada
Keywords: laws, police harassment
Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Industrial Engineering
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:52:03 GMT

glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin) writes:

>In article <BtpFyz.5oD@ie.utoronto.ca>, drascic@ie.utoronto.ca (SpIke) writes:
>|> But it got me to thinking about similar events here in Canada, and I
>|> realised that I know nothing about Canadian laws regarding being naked in
>|> public places.  Near as I can tell, it's completely forbidden always.
>|> I think you can also be charged with "indecent exposure" for being naked in
>|> your own home.

>Mostly, yes, it is illegal, just as in the US. The law is not against
>being nude, though - rather it as against being seen nude, presumably
>by those who might be offended. Thus you can be charged with indecent
>exposure if you are nude in your home, so long as someone outside can
>see you. I suspect that if they need binoculars to see you, no charges
>will be laid. 8-)

Unlike some places in the USA, however, I have the impression that the cops
can be the one to place the complaint, and so can act on their own.  Anyone
know if this is true?

>You can be nude on private property in Canada, so long as you are not
>visible from outside that property.

>You can be nude in public property so long as no-one complains. This
>is just common sense. After all, who can stop you?

>There are a number of accepted nude-use locations in the country.
>One is Wreck Beach, at Vancouver, BC. Another is Meech Lake, near
>Ottawa, Ont. I belive there are a few spots in Quebec as well.

I've heard from a friend in Ottawa that cops have been roving Meech Lake
harassing the naked people, but only on weekdays when there aren't many
around.

There is/was a nude beach in Toronto, located somewhere in the Scarborough
Bluffs, about a 30 minutes hard and treacherous hike from the nearest road.
A month ago a sqad of armed cops arrived by boat, and had accomplices at the
top of the bluffs to guided them to the people hidden in the more private
areas.  Seems Toronto's (Im)Morality Squad really hates people having a good
time without inviting them... :-/

	SpIke.
From: steve@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Steve Pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Status on S. Florida Nudist/Naturists Groups/Clubs
Summary: Status of SF CO Groups after Andrew
Keywords: S. Florida, Status
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:56:15 GMT
Organization: We don't need no stinkin' batches!

We have called all the groups that would have been in Andrew's path last week.
Here is a report:
	Sunnier Palms - no damage.  2 locations that T.A. had picked out were
		flattened! Talk about luck :-)
	South Florida Free Beaches - 2nd hand we heard that the Masons lost a
		few windows and had a tree fall on the roof but not major.
		We still want to reach them and speak person to person.
	Seminole Health Club - lost a few trees.
	Sunsport Gardens - no damage
	Diversions - no damage (Diversions will open about January).

More later.

Yours naturally,
  Steve
-- 
======================================================================
Steve Pierce             Palm Bay
steve@rtfm.mlb.fl.us     Florida
      Space Coast Naturists, PO Box 560086, Rockledge, FL 32956-0086
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Interesting (?) opinion :)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:56:18 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu

In article <> mf0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michel Fougeres) writes:
>Well, those poor neurotic boors were there by the hundreds and watched
>every day and all day long -- 

Michel, were you a watcher or a watchee?  I suggest it is the ones who
are watching without joining that have the problem.  Enjoying the sun,
air and water wearing only the clothes you were born wearing is a
thoroughly enjoyable experience and has nothing to do with the watching
or being watched.  Perhaps your socialization doesn't allow you to enjoy
being nude without tacking some label like 'exhibitionist' or 'peeping
tom' on it.  If that is the case I feel sorry for you, I hope you will
be able to get over that some day.

>nudists going on the nude cruise are always admonished to keep at least
>a bathing attire or a towel on while the ship passes through the channel
>(on one side of which the oggling crowds keep their vigil.)   Well, what
>do practically all the nudists do ?  They make a point of disregarding
>the instructions (which in fact are the French LAW) and they take off
>all their clothes WHILE passing through the narrow channel, to make sure
>that the oggling crowds DO see them naked. 

And the oggling crowds love it.  I myself get naked every chance I get
because I feel really comfortable when I am nude.  I don't get naked for
the oggling crowds, I do it for myself.  I don't let the oggling crowds
concern me unless there is chance of legal entanglement.  I would guess
from your post that the law in this case is not enforced, probably due
to a lack of any complaints.

Michel, I still don't know if you were in the oggling crowd or in the
crowd being oggled.  My opinion is that the oggling crowds would enjoy
themselves much more if they could get over the hangups that prevent them
from joining the nudists.  You seem to have been to Cap D'Agde more than
once, did you enjoy yourself?  What did you enjoy about it?  And if you
didn't enjoy it why did you return?  (Your comments would seem to indicate
you did not enjoy it.)

-- 
===============================================================================
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: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Campus Naturist Network
Summary: Don't say nothin...jes do it!
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 09:43:27 GMT

FORTMAPL@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU ("Paul Fortman : free spirit") writes:
>	Well, look y'all. This is about the umpteenth person
>	in the last month or two who has expressed a serious
>	interest in what would generally be termed "Campus
>	Clothing Freedom".
> 
>I am up for it.  
>...  Perhaps The Naturist Society could help with 
>advice and maybe even a small report or article in each issue
>of Nude and Natural 
>...Anyway, I think a Campus Naturist Network is a 
>good idea.  The first meeting of the Purdue branch will be 
>very soon (even if I'm the only one who shows up).

I can't think of what advice anyone could give except
keep on keepin on. The most useful thing to do would
be to circulate some sort of newsletter to get
other campuses on track, sort of a how-to and
update sheet all in one. That would get things rolling
and if distributed to Naturist-poor campuses would
be a great starting point for them to organize.
(I'd better shutup before I get elected to something:)

I am almost positive that TNS would print a summary
article of Campus Naturist Network activities and
updates, but probably not one from each individual
school. I can see it now "Around the world in
3 months, this is CNN Headline news." Gotta love it! :)

-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
From: abel@vax.sonoma.edu (dan abel)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: An option to the s** word
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:12:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax.1992Aug28.101225.1
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1992Aug28.092529.3219@wg.estec.nl>, carlo@wg.estec.esa.nl (CDfreak) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.134253.262@afs.com>, Michael_Pizolato@afs.com (Michael
> Pizolato) writes:
>> 
>> When will people on this list realize that they do not live in a vacuum?  If
>> you  
>> support a behavior that most people don't do (let alone believe is OK), you
>> are  
>> going to find many who agree with you, but you are also going to be  
>> misunderstood and criticized.  There are as many ways to interpret any
>> behavior  
[STUFF DELETED]
> articles explaining what nudism and naturism are about 	and still people write
> for BRA SURVEY. I mean, do people write to
> 	rec.bicycles to talk about cars and motorcycles? Come on now, it is not
> 	censorship we are talking about here, it is about being practical (in 	this
> case I call it sorting!). I read alt.sex and there is plenty of 	room there
> for such surveys/articles. 
> 
One of the reasons I'm leery about riding a bicycle or motorcycle has 
to do with sharing the road with crazy car drivers.  I don't read 
rec.bicycles, but I think that cars would be an appropriate subject sometimes.

On the other hand, what do techniques for putting on and removing 
bras have to do with alt.sex?

Granted, the bra survey is kind of ridiculous.  In fact, it's so 
ridiculous that it's kind of "cute" (IMHO).  I'm looking forward to 
seeing the results.  That's not to say that I'm looking forward to 
any other clothing-type surveys!
>> 
>> Here is just one example:  Even though sex properly has virtually nothing to
>> do  
>> with CO activities, it is a simple fact that you are going to have those who
>> > link the two, and that you are also going to have those who believe that
>> CO is  
>> wrong.  So what?  Defend your position!  Hiding behind some newsletter that
>> has  
>> been scrubbed clean of all the "garbage" is not the answer.
>> 
> 	It is not about discussing if being nude is wrong or else that I am 
> concerned about. That a great topic. All I am asking is... give Caesar 	what
> is Caesar's, you know what I mean? Put things were they belong, 	do not ignore
> them, just organize yourself a bit.

It's a judgement call.  I propose letting this one slide as a 
novelty.  *I'm* going to enjoy it!
  
>
From: naturist@igc.apc.org (Pat O'Brien)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: COED WASHROOMS
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:00:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:ncrwat.waterloo.ncr.com:9854:cdp:1457200027:000:492
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!naturist    Aug 26 17:00:00 1992


Trevor,
	I don't know where you visited. You might want to know that some
nudist parks do have coed bath/toilet facilities. Empire Haven, one of the
oldest resorts in the country, in Upstate New York, has had a shared bathroom
for years. We recently held our Eastern New York Gathering there and there
was no problems in using a coed facility at all. Your basic question, of 
course, is valid. Where there is true body acceptance it would not seem 
necessary to have a separate bathroom.
Pat
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: COED WASHROOMS
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:45:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.161250.29117@bmerh85.bnr.ca> glenm@bnr.ca writes:
>|> 
>|> 	2. How come the staff, like bartenders wore clothes.
>
>2) There are a couple possible reasons for this. One is that the
>   staff are hired-hands, and not themselves nudists. Another,
>   especially if there is food involved, is local health regulations.
>   Or maybe they were waiting for better weather, or it was chilly
>   inside, or something.
>   Still, at least one club I've visited (Glen Echo) had a nude cook.
>

A nude COOK?!? I can see a nude waiter, but a nude COOK?

That dude is CRAZY. Hot as it is working in a restaraunt kitchen, first time
you stir up a little hot grease you are very glad to be wearing pants.....


Newsgroups: rec.nude