wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (02/10/86)
In article <421@ubvax.UUCP> sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) writes: >These soft-porn mags generally display women in unnatural poses designed to >cast the women as objects of lust for men. HUH? I rather thought they provided visual images as objects of lust for anyone. At least, never in my time of looking at heavily modified pictures that probably started with a female human model have I ever had someone burst into my house and demand that I stop lusting because I'm a woman. (Nor, in fact, have I had that problem when cruising the male nudes in mags oriented to gay men. "Stop looking, this isn't for the likes of YOU!") > Not only is this degrading to >women, but it propogates the concept that nude equals lewd. This nonsense again! Feh! By the time a picture is put into one of those airbrushed wondermags, it ain't a woman. This argument always reminds me of the folks who believe that taking your picture puts your soul in a box. I politely refrain from photographing such folks, but be damned if I'll refrain from snapping shots at others who don't share that superstition. Or looking at the photos when they're available. Or permitting folks to take pictures of me with my nakes hanging out iff they and I agree on the use of those photos. (BTW, Bill, I didn't offer to model for you because you'd probably find me over-abundant, as well as for geographic reasons. But if my bod matched the social norms for porn models, and our zipcodes had the first few digits in common, I'd have suggested a meeting for discussion, at least.) And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad. Even though we all come from a long line of people who found each other stimulating. As someone, probably Lenny Bruce, said, "I like things that make me hot!" >pornography which degrades women should be discouraged. You've lost me. How can I be degraded by anything but my own actions? If I stopped naking not because I think it's too cold, or because I think it's not right for me, but because someone _else_ said it was wrong, THAT _would_ degrade me. But neither looking at, nor posing for, sexually enchanting photos degrades me. >It may help a few "nude prudes", but it will ultimately help you too. You >stated that you're a hedonist who happens to like nudity too. But if your >personal liberties are restricted by laws passed by people who have been >conditioned to associate nudity with offensive magazines, you won't be able >to enjoy your pleasures. How, pray tell, will rolling over for the immoral minority, and agreeing that sexually stimulating equals bad or offensive, protect my liberties? I like sex, I like naking around, I enjoy porn that matches my preferences, and I don't waste my limited social time with people so warped by xian propaganda that they think the flesh and urges god(s|dess|desses) created are dirty. (If SHe didn't like flesh, why did SHe make so jiggling much of it?) You say yourself that these folks have been conditioned to associate nudity with offensive (?) magazines -- why should I give them half of their claim by joining them in flaming sexy mags? With equal logic, I could argue that _they_ should go naked. (0=0) I've never joined a naturalist-oriented organization for this precise reason. Claiming that nudism is MORE wholesome than wearing clothes, while finding something offensive in the use of those parts not customarily exposed doesn't make sense to me. But it seems endemic in the nudist culture. I'd rather wait for another snowstorm that permits making x-rated snow angels, or visit my farming friends. STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits> !SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) (02/19/86)
In article <638@frog.UUCP>, wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >I like naking around... and elsewhere: >I'm not a naturist -- I'm a nake. I'm not a grammarian, but it sounds better to say you're a naker than a nake. (The verb, to nake, implies action. Someone that nakes is a naker. A politcally minded naker might be a nakerist.) > And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks >trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad. I think this might be the central issue you expressed in your response. I happen to agree that a) there are alot of folks doing this; and b) their doing this is not useful. I wouldn't doubt that there are a number of people who are members of organized nudism who align themselves with this notion, though I'd wager the majority would be members of the tradional clubs, rather than the the Naturists (capital N). I don't see this as a problem for me, though, since I can choose not to associate with them. (Someone else posted Baxandall's philosophy from the World Guide: Naturists aren't into puritanism.) >>pornography which degrades women should be discouraged. >You've lost me. How can I be degraded by anything but my own >actions? I don't suppose that *you* personally can be degraded by anything except whatever you choose to be degraded by. It so happens that some people choose to feel degraded when they are indirectly (or directly) victimized by sexist actions. I don't suppose I have to justify that porn is a sexist activity. As to whether anyone is victimized by it, that's certainly open to debate. It's pretty clear, though, that some people feel they are. > This nonsense again! Feh! By the time a picture is put into one of > those airbrushed wondermags, it ain't a woman. Gee, they look alot like women... We have laws that protect pornographers. Thankfully they cannot be prohibited from publishing their interpretation of "all the nudes that's fit to print" due to the First Amendment. All of our rights would be meaningless if they were subject to selective application. But those people that feel that pornography is undesirable also have the right to express this point of view. The first response I saw to the Nude Model message was an example of this. I happen to agree with this too: pornographers need not apply to net.rec.nude. Users of Usenet can choose to ignore such statements; they can also ignore other norms of net behavior such as not purposefully posting misleading messages just to see what happens. We can all be glad Usenet is not a crowded theater where shouting "pornography!" could cause a stampede that might hurt someone. (Although I guess a flood of messages on the net could cause someone's phone bill to be hurt...) -- Steve Nahm UUCP route: {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (02/22/86)
> And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks > trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad. Even > though we all come from a long line of people who found each other > stimulating. As someone, probably Lenny Bruce, said, "I like things > that make me hot!" > > I've never joined a naturalist-oriented organization for this precise > reason. Claiming that nudism is MORE wholesome than wearing clothes, > while finding something offensive in the use of those parts not > customarily exposed doesn't make sense to me. But it seems endemic in > the nudist culture. I'd rather wait for another snowstorm that > permits making x-rated snow angels, or visit my farming friends. > > STella Calvert > Absolutely! I have had a difficult time trying to understand why nudism has a thoroughly asexual point of view. Is it so they can have greater acceptance among the mundanes? If so, then the word "naturist" is incorrect because sexuality, in it's purest sense, IS natural. The idea of having to go to somePLACE to "nake" also, doesn't seem right. It's nice to have a resort environment that allows me to drop the clothes (the first thing I do when I get home at night), but "naturist camps" still don't seem to fit the bill... I'd rather not have to bother with the travel time and the negated sexuality, which in many ways, can be as unnatural as celibacy. Oh well. Gary (hplabs,allegra,ihnp4)oliveb!olivee!gnome "The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest will inherit the stars."
wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (03/05/86)
In article <449@ubvax.UUCP> sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) writes: >>I like naking around... >and elsewhere: >>I'm not a naturist -- I'm a nake. >I'm not a grammarian, but it sounds better to say you're a naker than a >nake. (The verb, to nake, implies action. Someone that nakes is a naker. >A politcally minded naker might be a nakerist.) Good grief! Grammar coals in net.rec.nude! (*Note that I carefully did not accuse you of _flaming_! Thanks for the laugh!*) I found "nake" as a noun in one of L.Neil Smith's books as a racist insult used by chimpanzee citizens about homosaps. So while you're probably more historically correct than I, I'm a nake. >I don't suppose that *you* personally can be degraded by anything except >whatever you choose to be degraded by. It so happens that some people >choose to feel degraded when they are indirectly (or directly) victimized by ------ >sexist actions. You are not responsible for the consequences of my choosing to believe that god is an old woman with a beard; why should other women's beliefs affect my behavior? It's another variation on the theme "this offends me, so you should stop." Accept that argument, and you'll end up wearing clothes because others find naked flesh offensive! I find Jerry Falwell offensive -- does this obligate him to commit suicide? >I don't suppose I have to justify that porn is a sexist >activity. Is porn sexist because men buy more than women do and are therefore presumably driven by their glands to waste money? Or what? >We have laws that protect pornographers. . . . All of our rights would be >meaningless if they were subject to selective application. Glad we agree on this most important point! >pornographers need not apply to net.rec.nude. We don't have to agree here, thank goodness. STella Calvert Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea, it's the law! Guest on Account: ...!mit-eddie!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!<LongStrangeTrip>!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)