From: craigbr@informix.com (Craig Browning)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Uptightness about sex & ...
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:00:21 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Mike,

Your point, entirely it seems, is one of concern about people not having
the accurate description of a beach if it's called clothing optional, yet
has sex, too.

As long as you are willing to stipulate as part of your position that
there are sex-free beaches *available* everywhere there is a clothing-optional
beach, I don't think you'll get much argument.

Otherwise your position is a little like saying that nudity should not be
allowed at any beach called clothing-required, without addressing the need
for any clothing-optional beaches.

I think it's pretty clear here that the people advocating sex be allowed
are not trying to mislead anyone, they are trying to get places to exercise
freedoms and are willing to rename the beach to achive this, so the accuracy
issue will be taken care of.

Craig

In article <palmer.713464890@isye.gatech.edu> palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>
>>In article <palmer.713239219@isye.gatech.edu> palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>
>>>What's so horribly repressive and uptight about that?  Besides, you have no
>>>earthly idea what my "value system" consists of.  That is irrelevant.  But
>>>wouldn't you prefer to not frequent the local AS (animal sacrifice) beach if
>>>you know what's going on?  It DOESN'T MATTER if you approve or not.  You still
>>>should be able to at least KNOW what to expect, so you can make an intelligent
>>>choice to go there or not.
>
>>	As for animal sacrifice -- um, seems like the issue of blood-letting
>>alone would violate the principle of not harming others on the basis
>>of health reasons.  But I'm a vegetarian anyway, so I'm not in favor
>>of barbecues at the beach either.  The smell of animal flesh being singed
>>over a fire is not exactly a smell I really want to deal with when going
>>to a nude beach.
>
>My point EXACTLY!!!  But if ANYONE can do ANYTHING they want ANYWHERE, then
>your nude beach is not going to be very fun to go to anymore, is it?  And
>here, *anywhere* refers to all *public* property like national parks and
>recreation areas, etc. to avoid the private property argument.
>
>So, if you had a choice of beaches to go to, and you knew that activities
>at one of them were somehow disagreeable to you, wouldn't you choose to
>go to one of the others?  But how can you make that choice if you don't
>know?  ** YOU ** seem to believe that public nudity and public sex should
>go together nicely.  Many people probably agree with you.  But many others
>don't, and those people should have the choice to avoid your beaches.  And
>this is only possible if public areas are appropriately labelled according
>to the activities that are likely to take place there.  Agreed?
>
>If you read back over my previous posts, I NEVER said that public sex was
>bad in any way.  I just said that public sex at areas designated only as
>"clothing optional" is inappropriate because people who choose to go there
>are being MISINFORMED as to what to expect.  This is a very straightforward
>argument, and ignores all of the issues brought up by others such as
>trying to placate lawmakers into not shutting CO beaches down.  It's very
>simple... intelligent choices require correct information.
>
>Mike
>--
>Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  23665
>Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-????,   Email: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.nude