HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com (Arthur G. Yaffe)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Reply-To: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
Organization: . . . Next week, we've got to get organized.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:48:58 GMT

In article 13039@waikato.ac.nz, bthoms@waikato.ac.nz () writes:
>             . .  If you need to show a scene suggestive of nudity, why go to
> such an artificial extent. Sometimes I think, when watching things like that,
> that the actors are more concerned with their props than their lines.

Thanks, Brent.  I couldn't have said it better myself (and didn't ;-) ).  I, too,
find the artifice annoying.  Do the darned nude scene, already, and enough with
the cutely placed forearms, pillows, bedsheets, . . .  When I love my wife the
pillows and sheets wind up on the floor.  Surely, someone half my age should be
at least as passionate.  How do they arrange to have their sheets wind up just
exactly covering their genitals?

Brent also writes:
>            . .  I'd have thought that nudist groups had roughly the same
> opinion of women sitting with their legs wide apart as with men showing
> rections - certainly seems so in my experience.

Actually, in my experience this isn't so.  An erection implies sexual arousal.
Female genitals don't.  In my experience, nudist women do, sometimes, expose
their genitals, and, IMHO, nobody gives a damn.  This isn't about genitals.
It's about being able to be clothes-free and comfortable.  (Frankly, I don't
care about erections, either, but other people seem to care.)

> Brent Thomson, Waikato, NZ

Art Yaffe, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

---
********************************
Arthur G. Yaffe
Internet: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
********************************

From: silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org (silsbee)
Sender: postmaster@therose.pdx.com
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: being uncomfortable
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:21:34 -0700

In article <C0nFsJ.D3r@xrtll.uucp> stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane Deschenes)
writes:

 SD> Erections may not be anything to be ashamed of but I don't think you
 SD> should show off either.

Ok. Let's see if I get this straight.


 1) If someone were ashamed of his erection, he would hide it.

 2) An erection is nothing to be ashamed of.

 3) Therefore, since it's nothing to be ashamed of, he should hide it anyway.


Are you sure he was showing off, or was he simply comfortable enough that he
didn't go to any great pains to hide it?


Wayne
silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org


Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: galster@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight Galster)
Subject: looking for a mother
Summary: Apology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:54:16 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

My deepest apologies for the recent mistake in posting.
I inadvertently sent to this newsgroup the text of a personal letter...
oh how awful.  I hope none of you read it!

Dwight

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Subject: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:58:08 GMT

In article <C0JL49.9BJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|>     Then why does nudism/naturism define itself in terms of exposing 
|>     the regions of the body associated with genitals?  The only distinction
|>     between a nude beach and a textile beach is that those specific
|>     regions are revealed on the CO beach*.   Moreover, many nudist clubs
|>     and organizations have rules against single males attending their
|>     facilities and events.   This also suggests a fascination with or
|>     focus on sexual matters.
|> 
|>                                          
|>  *  The obvious answer is that this definition is set by the textile
|>     beach's preoccupation with _covering up_ those specific regions.
|>     But all that explains is who's setting the definitions.   It
|>     doesn't change the fact of the definition -- nudity is defined
|>     in terms of the display of those parts of the body associated
|>     mainly with reproduction.   A man who walks around with a bare
|>     chest is not considered "nude" -- a man who walks around with a 
|>     bare penis is.

I think you're off track here. Nudism is *not* defined in terms of
exposing the body. Every definition I've seen says 'without clothes',
not 'displaying genital regions'. Nudists don't make a big deal about 
genitals. Laws and social conservatives do, but they cite 'exposure 
of genitals' and not 'nudism'.

The fact that some nudist clubs have a rule about single males has to do
with making some women feel more comfortable. Whether it actually does
that is immaterial. I would not say that this constitutes a 'fascination
with or focus on sexual matters.' Rather, I would call it an attempt to
allay the discomfort of newcomers who are trying to see if it is all
about sex. Of several women I have spoken with, all have said that they
initially had misgivings about being nude with men around, but once
they got used to being a nudist, disparity in numbers of men and women
was no longer relevant.

And a man who walks around with a bare penis is bottomless or bottomfree
(depending on your preference). He is only nude if he is wearing no other
clothing either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin  Bell-Northern Research  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  glenm@bnr.ca
"You don't need to be afraid of us, but that just might be your daughter on
our bus." -- 'New Kid on the Block' by BareNaked Ladies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: frandsen@seismo.CSS.GOV (Marvin Vaun Frandsen)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Reef Beach to be off-limits to nudists
Keywords: Reef Manly Free Beach
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:42:38 GMT
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA

Its not amazing at all that a local government tries to close the beach.
But governments are not all-powerful, nor do they have infinite resources.
So now the tug of war begins again.

$20 doesn't seem like a serious fine, while the money allocated for 
enforcement seems serious.  A rather odd situation.

I'm rooting (and betting on) the nudists.  Naturally.

--Marv Frandsen

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:00:44 GMT

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.

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.

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:09:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175808.15871@bnr.ca> glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin) writes:
>The fact that some nudist clubs have a rule about single males has to do
>with making some women feel more comfortable. Whether it actually does
>that is immaterial. I would not say that this constitutes a 'fascination
>with or focus on sexual matters.' Rather, I would call it an attempt to
>allay the discomfort of newcomers who are trying to see if it is all
>about sex. 

Regardless, I find such regulations to be sexist.  But then, I'm not a 
nudist, so it's not any of my busniness.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: lmeissne@carson.u.washington.edu (Loren Meissner)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Seattle Nude Swims
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:02:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu


If you are interested in the Seattle Nude swims, call
1-206-424-NUDE direct and leave a message for the organizers.
I have absolutely nothing to do with the organization or 
operation of the swims, so it is bet for interested parties
to call the organizers direct (evenings are best time to call,
I think).

Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:54:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec22.015544.23540@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> barlow@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Rebel) writes:
>Wow....now I am curious...what movie did they show that has frontal male
>nudity? Personally I have never seen this on HBO or in the movies that I can
>remember. I think I would remember if I can see it because I am always the one
>after a movie who complains that the woman was in umpteen trillon full frontal
>nude shots but that the men NEVER are...which seems to me to be very sexist,
>not to mention what it says about the acceptability of the male body. I
>personally don't understand the prohibition against male nudity....it seems to
>me that either you're against nudity all together or that you are for it all
>together...what's with the double standard? *perhaps I am naive :-)*

  A female writer editorialized against this same "double standard" in the
  Sunday New York Times, last fall.

  The flaw in her reasoning (and yours) is simple:  The prohibition is
  against showing *genitals* onscreen.   When you see female "full frontal
  nudity" on HBO, say, all you're seeing is pubic hair.  Nature has 
  arranged for the female external genitalia to be modestly hidden by
  her pubic hair.  Thus "full frontal nudity" on most women is about as
  revealing as a beard (also a kind of "pubic hair") on a man.  But males
  enjoy no such modesty when it comes to genitals.  

  So there's really no double standard.  Now I've seen the "no genitals"
  rule violated on both sexes *occasionally*.  But in general they're quite
  consistent about it and if there's any "double standard" in this matter
  it's in the way nature made us.


---peter
From: yaffe@pendragon.ICD.Teradyne.COM (Arthur G. Yaffe)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Nude Mexico
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:30:12 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

We are considering a winter vacation in Mexico.  Can anyone give advice
on clothes-free opportunities there?  Beaches? Hotels?  Whatever!

********************************
Arthur G. Yaffe
Internet: yaffe@icd.teradyne.com
********************************
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:18:05 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK


Much deleted:
>>>>> On 6 Jan 93 17:49:54 GMT, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) said:

> Nudity with artificial restrictions is not nudity.

Huh?  What is it then?
 
> There is nothing unnatural about a woman's legs being spread apart
> and nothing unnatural about a man having an erection.

No, nothing unnatural, but different behaviours are appropriate in
different situations.  Having an erection on a CO beach is
inappropriate socially, which is why it so rarely happens.  There are
restrictions to our behaviour; whether you describe social pressures
as `artificial restrictions' or not is largely up to you, but don't be
surprised if society (in this case naturists) disagree.

> Fred Chapman

--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool
Use PGP 2.1; make private email private!
From: doc@webrider.central.sun.com (Steve Bunis)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Chicago area CO choices?
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:50:00 GMT
Reply-To: doc@webrider.central.sun.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: webrider.central.sun.com

Seems that every time I look outside at the wonderful weather
we're having here lately, I start thinking about nude beaches :^{.

Failing that possibility for the moment, I'd like to prepare for
better weather.  Can anyone tell me what the possibilities are
for CO sites in the Chicago area (say within about 2-4 hours 
drive time?).  Any organizations etc. that are reasonably local
for information and events.  How about any winter options? I assume 
these would be indoor :^).

Thanks much,

---
Steve Bunis,  Sun Microsystems
              Itasca, IL
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Running the National Flag
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:53:10 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1479@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.174954.66473@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
>fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
>
>> My remarks will no doubt prove controversial, but so what...
>
>Probably not as much as you may think! ;-)

Thanks for the swell reply!  ;)

>> To say that nudity is OK
>> as long as a woman does not spread her legs or as long as a man does not
>> have an erection is like saying that you can show as much skin as you want
>> as long as your private parts are covered.  Nudity with artificial
>> restrictions is not nudity.
>
>This is pretty much the attitude I found while staying at Grand Lido in
>Negril, JA.  One woman from Vancover, who is a regular at Wreck Beach
>told a young fellow not to worry if he got an erection.  "It's completely
>natural" she told him.
>
>I think the important point is what one DOES with the said erection.

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... ;)

>Basically I figure that as long as you behave in public with clothes off
>the same way as you would with clothes on, you're on fairly safe ground.

Well, the flag tends to bind in my undershorts...  :) Yet another
argument in favor of nudism...

Fred Chapman
Just Being Silly

-- 

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
(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0nB9W2-0000mbC; Sun, 10 Jan 93 12: 44 PST
From: leed@pro-harold.cts.com (Lee Dronick)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Pornagraphy market, was TV Nudity
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:35:28 GMT
Organization: The Harold Network -- An Alliance For Creative Communication

>P.S. I wonder whether the pornography industry/market is a uniquely
American phenomenon, or if other parts of the world which are more at ease
with nudity and human sexuality experience the same phenomenon.  For
example, do Europe and Australia have large pornography industries?  I
would not expect there to be a market for it in those locations.<

I was a ship's navigator while in the Navy and visited a number of Pacific
and Inidan Ocean ports. I have seen what could be called pornography
just about everywhere except in Muslim dominated countrys. In Japan they
have vending machines selling "porongraphic" magazines. However in Japan
they block out or airbrush the vaginal area. While I have not visited
there, I understand Denmark has quite a large pornagraphy industry, but it
is treated matter of fact and not made to be an issue.

Lee Dronick, San Diego CA
ProLine: leed@pro-harold           | What a price we pay for Experience
Internet: leed@pro-harold.cts.com  |  When we must sell our youth to buy it
UUCP: crash!pro-harold!leed
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:13:07 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan8.125229.13059@waikato.ac.nz>, bthoms@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>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.

All I was really trying to say is that having an erection does not
necessarily mean that a man is sexually excited or that the cause of the
erection was sexual in nature.  Sometimes it just happens (*spontaneous
boing*), and no one (owner included) really knows why.

Fred 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
|             Ecstasy is transitory, but a theorem is forever!              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: A change of pace, news of the Mirza Ranch
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:28:21 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1693@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>In article <C0pHDJ.CA0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>
>> I'm terribly sorry to add this distraction, but after wading through
>> almost 60 posts containing that old E theme, I thought I should post 
>> something.
>
>Not to take away from your fine posting, but there was some NEW info in
>that old "E" theme:  IMPLANTS.  

Not to mention the tremendous opportunity for plays on words that the
subject affords...  I must admit that after all that punning, I feel
kinda petered out.

:-)

Fred "Terminally Silly" 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
|             Ecstasy is transitory, but a theorem is forever!              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: bell@aussie.dec.com (Peter Bell)
Subject: The battle for Reef Beach - Round 2
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:43:36 GMT


         [From Page 3 of the Sydney Morning Herald Monday 4 Jan 1993]

           [Photo showing the backs of 9 nude people at the beach]

                    ALL DRESSED DOWN -- AND NOWHERE TO GO

If you go to Reef Beach next month, take your bathing costume or prepare to be
pinched by Manly Council's nudity police, who are about to go full-time at
State taxpayers' expense.

After more than 16 years as a "free" beach, nude bathing is to be banned from
Feb 1. Those who insist on being naked will be fined $20.

To warn sun lovers, Manly Council beach inspectors have been handing out
notices stating: "It is the intention of the Manly Municipal Council to restore
Reef Beach to the public with respect to the standard of dress."

Any person "not properly and adequately clad" on the beach or in the water will
be liable to prosecution: "Members of the police may remove offending persons
without affecting liability to prosecution."

Manly's Mayor said three officers would soon be employed full-time to keep Reef
Beach covered up.

One nude bather predicting that many people would challenge their fines, said
the spending of public funds had only just begun: "The council will lose in
court and it will be ratepayers' money they will be losing."
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: being uncomfortable
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:11:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <C0nFsJ.D3r@xrtll.uucp>, stephane@xrtll.uucp (Stephane
Deschenes) writes:

>[...] I had an experience where an individual was at the same club I was
>and he had an erection the entire afternoon he was there.  He also
>insisted on laying on his back, therefore displaying his 'flagpole'
>to anyone in the area.  That may have been 'natural' but it made my
>wife and I uncomfortable. [...]

If he had covered himself, say with a towel, he would merely have
succeeded in converting his "flagpole" into a "tentpole" -- what a
circus that would have been.

:-)

Remember what P.T. Barnum used to say...  :-)

Other ideas: install a weather vane/wind-speed indicator to provide
useful information to passers by.  "Look Margret... a 10 knot
breeze... we should have no trouble flying that box kite today..."

Fred Chapman
Just Being Silly
-- 

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
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Genital focus (was: Re: Nudist TV segment)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:17:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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.

  Really?  Some might, but I'll bet most people would call her "nude".


---peter
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Pornagraphy market, was TV Nudity
Organization: VTT
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:45:58 GMT

There is a lot of pornography in Europe (Finland, France, Germany,
Sweden, Austria are places i've recently seen it on display).  The
covers seem to be a lot more explicit than those in the US and are on
display in grocery stores, gas stations, and kiosks everywhere.  Female
nudity in advertisements (for sexual titilation) is common and
non-genital male nudity is not that rare in ads  (i.e. billboards, bus
signs, magazines, fliers dropped in the mail box, ...).

Finland is quite prudish by western European Standards, but nudity in
the other listed countries is not at all rare.

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: rec.nude,soc.men