HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dza@unixland.natick.ma.us (David Archer)
Subject: Re: answering the door nude
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:39:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep16.214130.18702@unixg.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>Or is this just paranoia?  If you are in your house, you are on *your*
>private property and they (standing at your door) are also on *your*
>property, so you are *not* in public view.  That means *public* nudity

It's not just a matter of being on "public property" though.  At least
in Massachusetts there is some wording in the code for "lewdness" that
reads something like "... did expose .. genitals ... so as to shock
or offend ...".

For example, university police will arrest a person for nudity on a 
college campus (private property).  Granted, that kind of "private property"
is open to the public.

Amazing the hubbub over someone taking off their clothes :-(

>Many times at home, I've just about had people walk in when I and/or
>someone else was nude and we had left the front door wide open. :-)
>(Several of us will never forget the first time that happened!)

What happened?  :-)

-- 
----
\  /  David Archer
 \/         dza@unixland.natick.ma.us
From: middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Name change for rec.nude?  Is it time?
Date: 27 Sep 1992 23:02:41 GMT
Organization: Institute for NonLinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu
Summary: NO

In article <6207@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>So this brings me to the point where I'll actually ask:  IS anybody
>interested in getting rec.nude changed to something that will not attract so
>much sexually oriented postings?

No, sticking with rec.nude is fine.  It is possible that you responded to a
rec.nude article and then someone crossposted a followup to that article to
alt.sex and left a quote from you in it (with your email address).  We just
need to keep on letting people know what rec.nude is about and is not about.

Maybe doing the FAQ twice a month will help.

-- 

"These are difficult times for our country, and in searching for the causes
of our social ills, we could chose to blame the media, or the congress, or
an administration that's been in power for 12 years, or we could blame me."
Newsgroups: rec.nude
id <m0mZCZB-0000PuC@crash.cts.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 92 21: 18 PDT
	id <ir75411@pro-amber.cts.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 92 20: 56 PDT
From: morton@pro-amber.cts.com (Craig Morton)
Subject: Name
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:56:29 PDT

I am new to the group. I have to say something about changing names and
secret posts.
 Changing the name of the group will more then likely not change the amount
of assholes that post. Just ignore them. They want attention. They want
long draawn out flame fests. If they dont get them they will lose interest
and go away. The group won't be "fun".
 Secret posts...don't let it happen. If a man isn't man (or woman) enough
to sign his/her name then what they have to say can't be worth much.
From: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: nude in maui
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:01:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Oct6.220108.342
Reply-To: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <LZF8RB8w165w@netlink.cts.com> susan@netlink.cts.com (Susan Atrix) writes:
>I was over in Maui and visited Little Makena Beach. 
>My tour book said that in the past that nudists had
>been arrested there. 
>
>I didn't see any police. Has anyone heard of any trouble there?

I am not sure which one you are talking about but if you are talking about
the beach which is about 3/4 of a mile past Maui Prince hotel (Oneda beach
north entrance); its not true. If you actually mean little Makena then yes,
it might be true. Its certainly a lot easier to get to then the CO beach
at Oneda where you have to hike over a 300+ feet cinder cone. I have never
seen police over at Oneda. If you go to CO section of Oneda or the red-sand
beach on the other side of Hana Bay you should be safe. I do not recommend
going to the Hana one unless you are athletic -- its quite a dangerous
decline down to the beach.

Reha Elci
Email: elci@bugs.gs.com
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Reasons for restricting nudity
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:56:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <4297@moscom.com> jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri) writes:
>The bottom line is that moral codes based upon religious, personal, or
>traditional values are not validly subject to legislation, despite
>the fact that it happens all the time.  How easy, it seems, it is to forget
>that the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect the minority
>from the tyranny of the majority.
---
	The majority of our 'morality' laws are religious based.  If we
had true separation of church and state, *alot* of laws would be thrown
out.  As it is, the state implements a religious framework in which
we are free to choose religious practices that conform within the 
framework.  This is freedom and freedom of religion :-(.

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Name change and Anonymous Postings
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:45:58 GMT

steve@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Steve Pierce) writes:
>2)  It is evident from some of the posts on this topic that the poster has not
>read the FAQ.  What guarantees us that anyone else will?

It's September. Maybe I'll unsubscribe until the freshmen get
situated.

>Could the person who mentioned having a copy of the charter e-mail me a copy?

OH! I thought you had that little paragraph that I once posted
here with the FAQ. That should do the trick with some
necessary additions.
>
-- 

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Approaching a woman at a CO beach?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:02:27 GMT

From article <38577@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, by aminkoff@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Tony Minkoff):
> Suppose I (I am a 22 year old male) am at a CO beach, and see an
> unacompanied woman (clothed or not, as the case may be) of about my
> age.  Is it OK to approach her and attempt to converse?  ....

Philosophical ramblings truncated.  The general rule is: do when nude
as you would when clothed.  More philosophical rambings (mine) also
truncated.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: rec.nude
id <m0mZX6O-0000mWC@crash.cts.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 92 19: 14 PDT
	id <is68748@pro-amber.cts.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 92 19: 05 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Subject: Re: Would anonymous access here be desirable?
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:40:51 PDT

In <1992Sep27.161607.634@eskimo.celestial.com>
wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:

>One thing to consider is that anonymous posting does not allow
>cross-posting!  That would have to be a definite advantage!


I still don't think its worth it. Anon posts do attract wackos. I ran one
anon section on my bbs and it was shortlived. Folks just tend to get very
brave when they don't have to sign their name.
From: s884764@otto (Grant Waldram [Atom Smash])
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Women enjoying nature in natural state.
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:41:07 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: otto.bf.rmit.oz.au

ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:

>middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>>
>> [mild rant deleted :-]
>>
>>Now folks, I guess I should apologize for the above ranting and raving.  What
>>I would like to see is a discussion of solutions.

> [bits deleted]
 
>The solution would appear to be to have designated areas, or designated
>beaches, be places where this behavior is acceptable.

Woah. Sorry. That is a kinda crazy concept. It's like having
'designated areas or beaches where this behaviour is acceptable' on a textile
beach.

I can just imagine a sign... "No sexual advances allowed in this area"

Yah. Right. I would suggest we fight our way over the 'hump' of problems
that are associated with the fact that there are relatively few nude
recreation areas at present. Whether <spel> we like it or not, they are
a curiosity which attracts attention from people who intend to behave in
that manner. They also attract significantly more attention from people
who simply wish to enjoy nude recreation.

If nude beaches were as ho-hum as textile beaches, or in fact more popular,
then the concept of them being 'unusual' or, as I put it, a curiosity,
would evaporate.

_That_ is the solution.

Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress
any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."  from 'Contact' by Carl Sagan
------   s884764@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au     Grant Waldram [Atom Smash]   ------
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: dhanson@cc.utah.edu (Devin J. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Photos: courtesy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date:  1 Oct 1992 09:43 MST  

In article <1acs2cINNe8b@network.ucsd.edu>, middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes...
{>In article <1a5nr6INN1u1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> philb@cats.ucsc.edu (Philip Brown) writes:
{>>But it isn't alright to take picture of someone clothed< either. you need
{ 
{In article <1992Sep30.012633.22521@eskimo.celestial.com> wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
{>Sorry Philip, that isn't true.  You can take pictures of anything and
{>anybody you want to.  
{ 
{Anytime a person is the subject of your photography it is a common courtesy
{to ask them if they mind.  True whether clothed or unclothed.  If taking
{pictures of scenery or of another person and someone is incidental to that
{photo it is a judgement call but it would be courteous to give them a
{chance to move or ask if they mind.
{ 
{Of course, I know some people are opposed to courtesy.  Eventually, they
{will learn.
{ 
{-- 
{===============================================================================
{Thomas Earl Middleton		|
{aka Happy Bare			| "Murph, it's Dan Quayle, forget about it."  
{middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu	| 			Frank Fontana
[B

It is ok to take pictures of anyone you like, but if you ever plan on publicly 
diplaying these pictures you have to have written consent of the people in the 
pictures, or they could sue you.  The only case that this wouldn't be true is 
for editorial comment, such as a newspaper, or a television news program.  They 
don't need anyones permision to display the pictures.
From: 891406b@ace.acadiau.ca (STEPHEN BENNETT)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: gwen jacobs info?
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:04:08 GMT
Organization: Acadia University


 well just as the line says......i'm looking for articles or any literature 
in regards to gwen's court decision or the ralleys that were held on her 
behalf......if anyone could help me with this it would be greatly 
appreciated!
thanx in advance
steve
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: vanhilst@cs.washington.edu (Michael VanHilst)
Subject: Re: Name change and Anonymous Postings
Keywords: FAQ
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 08:10:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.034814.26649@rtfm.mlb.fl.us> steve@rtfm.mlb.fl.us
(Steve Pierce) writes:
>That said it the rec.nude populace agrees I will be glad to post the FAQ or
>some such "statement of purpose" posting on a more regular basis around this
>time of year (though it seems the "weird" threads started in mid-summer).

I think that the "some such" is a good idea.  By this I mean posting a
much abbreviated FAQ bi-weekly (and weekly in Sept.) which states the
purpose and refers those with the E question to the monthly FAQ.  If it
is short enough (and has a catchy subject line) it might even get read
by those for whom it is intended.

	Mike
-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mike VanHilst 	  vanhilst@cs.washington.edu / mvh@cfa.harvard.edu |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A 15 year study of 55 countries cited in IEEE Spectrum, July 1992, found |
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: End of my thread Open Sexuality in rec.nude
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:03:08 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:

Sorry, Marty, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
In order for me to defend my ideas, I have to be able to say what they are,
and clarify them. That process has been censored here.

And don't for one damned second say that it hasn't.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Social Attitudes
Keywords: inappropriate for the incapable
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Oct1.055945.19175@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>your attitudes help to perpetuate a society which chokes our very life force.
> But NEVER, EVER bother to wonder if the extremity of your reaction
>indicates unfinished psychological business, severe repression, or anything

	Well, *my* desire not deal with people having sex on the beach
comes from the fact that I go there for relaxation and peaceful times. 
Thus, people screaming, groaning, and making squishy slappy noises
prevent me from realizing my goals.  Sexual behavior in this context is
like playing a large radio loudly, except that it also smells.

	There's also the problem we face as nudists, which is that this
kind of behavior is often used by the Establishment to close our facilities.
For instance, I have nothing against people smoking pot, but I'd rather
they didn't make a habit of doing it openly at the beach because I'd be
worried that it might be used as a reason to close it.

>the reason Polk County, FL outlawed most skin on beaches is because the
>people there are HYSTERICALLY AFRAID of human sexuality? 

	Perhaps.  But our position is that what you're wearing has nothing
to do with your sexuality.  The two issues are more or less orthoganal.

>YOU don't seem to be able to face the collapse of some of your moral values.

	Actually, we're more afraid of having our quiet afternoon's nap
shattered by your girlfriend's orgasms and by the thought of having our
favorite places closed down because some young couple couldn't be bothered
to go off into the woods.

>That is not MY problem. And I will NOT let it be. 

	You don't have a choice.  If you impinge on my freedoms I'll
make it your problem.
					"Some folks look for answers,
					 others look for fights..."


Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Name
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:53:25 GMT

In article <ir75411@pro-amber.cts.com> morton@pro-amber.cts.com (Craig Morton) writes:
>I am new to the group. I have to say something about changing names and
>secret posts.
> Changing the name of the group will more then likely not change the amount
>of assholes that post. Just ignore them. They want attention. They want
>long draawn out flame fests. If they dont get them they will lose interest
>and go away. The group won't be "fun".

 I agree with this, wholeheartedly!  
 Just ignore them and they will go away!

> Secret posts...don't let it happen. If a man isn't man (or woman) enough
>to sign his/her name then what they have to say can't be worth much. 

 I resent this statement, as I am sure many other people reading this
 group do.  If this were a perfect world, there might be _some_ 
 validity to your statement, but as it is ...
 Some people work for companies and people that are not as open minded
 and enlightened as we would like them to be, and posting to some
 news groups with their real name might be hazardous to their career.
 If you want some real serious reasons for anonymous posting and replies,
 start a correspondence with some of the women on the net.  I have 
 corresponded with a couple who would not post, even anonymously, because
 of the volume of crude and suggestive mail that they received!
 

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: witters@eskimo.celestial.com (John Witters)
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Social Attitudes (re: soc.nude)
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:31:33 GMT

In article <1ad6feINNkaf@network.ucsd.edu> middleto@poincare.ucsd.edu (Tom Middleton ; System Manager) writes:
>
>                                 (
>                                 ))
>                                 ((
>                                 )))
>                                /   \   (
>                          )    /     \ / \
>                          (   /    )  X   \   )
>                         / \ /    / \/     \ / \
>                    )   /   X    /   \      X   \
>                   /\  /   / \  /     \    / \   \
>                  /  \/   /   \/       \  /   \   \
>                 /   /   /     \        \/     \   \
>
>		     [do these look like flames?]

Oh boy!  A Rorshach test!  Well to me, they look like mountains or Madonna's
breasts during an earthquake.  Sorry, I guess I've been doing too much
mountain climbing and watching too much MTV.  :-)

Obnude: Well, I did go skinnydipping at a local lake last Tuesday after work.
It looks like our indian summer ended today, so I probably won't be doing it
again this year unless I visit a hot spring.

-John

-- 
	John Witters				(206) 356-5274	(Work)
	210 124th ST. S.W. Apt. #1		(206) 353-4672	(Home)
	Everett, Washington  98204		witters@eskimo	(E-Mail)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Would anonymous access here be desirable?
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:30:08 GMT

5727 - moderator to receive anonymous postings to filter works.
Also, people can seek out a writer here and ask them to post it for them
anonymously.

I may be off the net in 2 weeks (cheers in the background, I know),
but if not, I'll post anonymous messages for people who want this.

Let me apologize for the flood of mail - I'm catching up after 12 days
of flamewar in soc.bi. And a week of P&Q.

-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude
id <m0mYU29-0000kFC@crash.cts.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 92 21: 45 PDT
	id <ip78284@pro-amber.cts.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 92 21: 44 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Subject: Re: Would anonymous access here be desirable?
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 21:41:41 PDT

No, I don't think anonymous posting serves a purpose here. It would
activate the children and the group would go downhill fast. I vote no for
anonymous posting.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Women enjoying nature in natural state.
Keywords: nudity, rape, women
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:33:28 GMT

tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis) writes:
>
>You talk, Tom, about a man walking up to a woman and asking her help in
>jerking off.  Someday, we're going to realize that that's just another
>form of rape, and put a stop to it.  Yes, women are afraid to be nude,
>because so many men believe that sexily (un)dressed women are just
>begging to be assaulted.  And that all comes back to the fact that a lot
>of men in this society just haven't grown up and accepted that women are
>people, not (play)things.

Scenario:

Man walks up to woman at nude beach.
"Hello, my name is ____. I enjoy sex. Would you like to participate in
a sexual act with me?"

Woman:

response (a): "No, thank you, I'm not interested in doing that with you."
response (b): "Why, yes, I think that might be nice. Thanks for the offer."

I'm not interested in a society that defines the exchange resulting in (b)
to be *impossible*. That society - ours now and reinforced by the above '>'
comments - is in denial around human sexuality. I don't CARE if 97.5% of
people *presume* that (b) is an impossible response. The truth is not the
property of the majority.

The standard assumption is that the man above is being RUDE, AGGRESSIVE,
OBNOXIOUS. Witness the '>' calls it RAPE.

I allow that the man could just as well be being FRIENDLY, NICE and COURTEOUS.
I can see it called SHARING.

Get this straight: there is nothing wrong with sexual behavior.
All we're arguing is where is it appropriate to express it?

I will *not* endorse a society whose answer is an unreasoned NOWHERE.

-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: spam@IASTATE.EDU (mike begley)
Subject: Re: Photos at nude beaches
Reply-To: spam@IASTATE.EDU (mike begley)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:44:16 GMT

In article <6513@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.164512.10279@meaddata.com>, markw@meaddata.com (Mark
Wasson) writes:
> 
> > overlooked the beach.  Up there, I came across 3-4 people with
> > binoculars and/or cameras with large telephoto lenses trained on the
> > beach.
> 
> It makes you feel sorry for those people when you think about it!  They've
> *got* to take pictures in *secret*!  If they'd get a copy of Playboy they'd
> get better pictures for lower cost! ;-)

and if they had any balls at all, they could just wander around the beach,
get their fill of looking at naked bodies, and maybe, just maybe, they
might get a clue into the nude philosophy and abandon the pictures
altogether...

--
Michael Begley             Ask me how           "the man and the woman were
spam@iastate.edu      Iowa State University        both naked, and they were
(515) 296-8378    is censoring my usenet access      not ashamed..." Gen:2.25
id <m0mbXzZ-0000OCC@crash.cts.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 92 08: 35 PDT
	id <j430801@pro-amber.cts.com>; Sun,  4 Oct 92 08: 33 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: NY TV Show airs nudity - E.T. Mentions Warning
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:32:28 GMT
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca

In <1992Oct3.002403.26832@netcom.com>
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>I would definitely add Civil Wars to my list of shows to watch if they
>featured nudity regularly. I've never watched the show before this
>week and I thought it wasn't half bad.
>-- 

This was one I missed. I set the VCR wrong. Isn't technology wonderfull!!