majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) (01/25/86)
> From: wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) > I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ... [IGNITION] Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude. Naturists are not the kind of people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines. We respect ourselves and other people. We are mature enough to understand that true human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes. We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as entirely natural. > Am willing to split all prizes, etc. on a 50-50 basis. This is no less than amateur pimping. It has no place in this newsgroup. --- Marc Majka
wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (01/26/86)
> > I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ... > > [IGNITION] > > Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude. Naturists are not the kind of > people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines. We respect > ourselves and other people. We are mature enough to understand that true > human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes. > We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as > entirely natural. In the United States of America we have what is know as the First Amendment which allows anyone the freedom to express themselves in any shape or form. This, in fact, is the basis for most of our suits in court to get anti-nude beach laws (etc.) off of the law books. While I may agree in principle as to what you are saying I do not like some of the specific things you mention. By stating "trashy" magazines you are implying that some forms of nudity should be banned by law. It seems to me you are saying that people should be free to go without clothing only under those circumstances which you approve of. [Getting asbestos suit on] Why is it that I have seen some of the so-called trashy magazines at our local nude beach at Rooster Rock? If naturalists are so "non-gawkers" why do they feel the need to look at magazines of unchothed persons? Seems to contradict you viewpoint of the magazines as obviously they read the magazines for something other than the pictures. Or do they gawk like non-naturalists do (per your comments)? > > > Am willing to split all prizes, etc. on a 50-50 basis. > > This is no less than amateur pimping. It has no place in this newsgroup. Obviously you have never photographed models professionally, they usually expect some form of payment. Even animal models require payment to their owners. When you get out of the University and into the real world, you will discover that no one works for free. Splitting of fees, prizes, etc. earned by photographs taken constitute "wages" which both the photographer and the model are entitled to. However, you are correct in one respect, I am an amateur, it takes much work and dedication to forsake a regular job and work as a professional photographer or artist. My painting and photographing are strictly amateurish. > > --- > Marc Majka As to why I posted this in net.rec.nude as opposed to net.micro or even net.women -- it would seem to me to be fairly obvious. While 80% of the females readers of net.rec.nude probably have no interest in modeling, maybe 20% might. In net.women, probably 99.99% would have absolutely no interest and for the .01% missed, big deal. The women who read net.women get upset when someone talks to them while they have untied the top of their bikini (if you do not believe me, read the current raging argument in net.women). Mentality like that would outlaw all clothes optional beaches everywhere. By the way, I do respect you right to fame (blowtorch) me, this again is guaranteed by the 1st Ammendment (to the U.S. Constitution). I am surprised that it made it past the Canadian censors, however. This gets this conversation off to what would be better discussed in net.politics, so I will get off of my soapbox, except to say that most of the magazines that may be enjoyed in the U.S. are either not available in Canada or are a bowlderized version (spelling?). --Bill--
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (01/27/86)
Summary: In <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes: > >> From: wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) >> I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ... > >[IGNITION] > >Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude. Naturists are not the kind of >people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines. We respect >ourselves and other people. We are mature enough to understand that true >human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes. >We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as >entirely natural. I am a nudist/naturist and I get kicks out of trashy sexist magazines. They have no connection, but they are not mutually exclusive. Just because I don't equate nudity with sex in most instances, it doesn't neccessarily follow that I don't make that connection in certain contexts. -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark D. Freeman Guest account at The Ohio State University StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP 209 Olentangy Street Mdf@Ohio-State.CSNET Columbus, OH 43202-2340 Mdf%Ohio-State@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA !cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf I disclaim even my very existance. Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. -- Gary Zukav from "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
tomp@amiga.UUCP (Tom Pohorsky) (01/28/86)
In article <389@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: >> > I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ... >> >> [IGNITION] >> >> Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude. Naturists are not the kind of sans hostility, agreed. My *opinion* is that it's just inappropriate. >which allows anyone the freedom to express themselves in any shape or form. Sure, you can do whatever. My request is to not do it here. >Obviously you have never photographed models professionally, they usually I think net.rec.photo would be an appropriate place to look for models.
cak@purdue.UUCP (Christopher A. Kent) (01/29/86)
Phew! I can't believe all this noise about nude models. Especially from naturists! Why do you, of all people, immediately jump to the conclusion that photography of nude models is going to have sexual connotations? Nudes (of either sex) can be very tastefully rendered in several media, photographs being one of them. Go check out Rubens and Michaelangelo for a few examples of painting and sculpture, and then check out the internal assumptions you have about this subject! chris
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (01/30/86)
In article <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes: >[IGNITION] > >Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude. Naturists are not the kind of >people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines. We respect >ourselves and other people. We are mature enough to understand that true >human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes. >We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as >entirely natural. > Dear Marc, Get off the fence. Either people have a right to do what they want with thier bodies (including nude olympics, nude bathing, and posing for magazines) or they *don't* because they might offend someone. Where do you stand? Sounds pretty much on the *don't* side -- you just draw your lines differently. Nobody was coercing *you* to pose. How about you let the people do what they want. By the way, I know literally dozens of people who would be interested in this offer (except that they *won't* want to go to Oregon unless travel expenses are reinbursed) and I *know* that they would be pretty insensed with the implication that they aren't naturalists. >> Am willing to split all prizes, etc. on a 50-50 basis. > >This is no less than amateur pimping. It has no place in this newsgroup. Get serious. I presume that you have never posed in the nude, but I used to pose for classes of art students a lot. And I damn well got *paid* for it. -- Laura Creighton sun!hoptoad!laura (note new address! l5 will still ihnp4!hoptoad!laura work for a while....) hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (01/30/86)
I always thought it was really wierd that "naturists" and "nudist camps"
seemed to attract uptight people who just happen to want to take their
clothes off.
(Personally I'm more of a hedonist -- pleasure seeker -- and nudity in
the right surroundings is just one kind of pleasure.)
But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to
meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed
by this group. I thought you-all had more class.
I was thinking of sending a donation to help the nude beach legal fight
but if it ends up that I'm helping nude prudes, they can fight their
own battle. If this is the prevailing attitude I may as well unsubscribe.
--
# I resisted cluttering my mail with signatures for years, but the mail relay
# situation has gotten to where people can't reach me without it. Dammit!
# John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,nsc}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpasxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) (01/31/86)
In article <460@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to > meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed > by this group. I thought you-all had more class. I posted a reply to the "nude model" message, though I'm not sure it got out to the net properly. In summary, I said that the only type of nude photography that I find objectionable is just the kind encouraged by the magazines mentioned by in the original article (High Society, Stag, Swank). These soft-porn mags generally display women in unnatural poses designed to cast the women as objects of lust for men. Not only is this degrading to women, but it propogates the concept that nude equals lewd. It's this equation which stirs up many conservative Christians to oppose efforts to designate free beaches, and it's certainly the reason the Accomack County council passed its unsupportable ordinance which closed the free beach on Assateague Island. Believe me, I'm not a prude. Art which depicts people in natural and erotic poses can be quite pleasing to me. I'd be interested in hearing whether you believe *any* pornographic art is acceptable, or if you agree that pornography which degrades women should be discouraged. > I was thinking of sending a donation to help the nude beach legal fight > but if it ends up that I'm helping nude prudes, they can fight their > own battle. If this is the prevailing attitude I may as well unsubscribe. 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. I personally know the people fighting the Accomack ordinance (which is basically a societal dress code!). I've participated with them in conservation projects carried out with the Chincoteague Wildlife Refuge and Assateague Island National Seashore, including contruction of a sand fence behind the de facto free beach to protect the freshwater marsh there. The ordinance they're fighting has truly national scope, since it confronts directly the consitutional question of whether the government is allowed to restrict your freedom of expression (1st Amendment) by demanding a certain public (state of) dress. I hope you decide to support them. I'll probably post in a little while an article from the latest ``Clothed with the Sun'' which addresses this very issue. It descibes a Naturist artist's attitude towards unclothed art. Not all Naturists have views which agree with his or mine, and I'm not sure what the "prevailing attitude" is, but I would say it's not predominantly prudish. -- Steve Nahm amd!ubvax!sxnahm or amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM (formerly decwrl.arpa)
majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) (01/31/86)
> From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)... > Get off the fence. Who is on a fence? I thought my last statement was clear: "We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as entirely natural." I quite agree with your assertation that the law of the excluded middle still holds: > Either people have a right to do what they want with thier bodies > (including nude olympics, nude bathing, and posing for magazines) or > they *don't* because they might offend someone. Although I did not say anything about being offended. The trouble is that there is more to consider than a "either I can do it or I can't" attitude will permit. I was objecting to what I see as exploitive and degrading, not to someone posing in the nude. In my judgement, there is a difference in kind between an art class and "swank" magazine. > Get serious. I presume that you have never posed in the nude, but I used > to pose for classes of art students a lot. You presume incorrectly. --- Marc Majka
ccs025@ucdavis.UUCP (Johan) (02/01/86)
> Phew! I can't believe all this noise about nude models. Especially from > naturists! Why do you, of all people, immediately jump to the conclusion > that photography of nude models is going to have sexual connotations? > > Nudes (of either sex) can be very tastefully rendered in several media, > photographs being one of them. Go check out Rubens and Michaelangelo for > a few examples of painting and sculpture, and then check out the > internal assumptions you have about this subject! > > chris I am not against this guy for advertising at all. I think he has the right, but I think you missed the point. His advertisement listed several magazines he would be sending pictures to. One of them was SWANK. Go buy a copy and then try to make a comparison to Michaelangelo or Rubens. :-) If a picture in swank doesn't have sexual conotations, it isn't in swank. -- Martin Van Ryswyk {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025 uucp ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkley.edu arpa
ales@hpfcla.UUCP (02/02/86)
> Now, it would be stupid of me to take Marc Majka's personal position as the > official position of the Naturalist movement without checking it out further. > What do the rest of you think? And are there any official positions I > could look up? > -- > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura > hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa /* ---------- */ Quoted without comment from the World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation by Lee Baxandall (second edition): The Naturists emphasize that clothes-optional life-styles provide an alternative both to puritanism and pornographic exploitation. We believe that the more acceptance of the body is suppressed, the more degrading pornography we're going to see and the more puritanical reaction there will be. We reject both directions and steer a middle course - the rational, healthy course - with naturism. The Naturists P.O. Box 132-W Oshkosh, Wisconsin, 54902 --- Ales Fiala {ihnp4|hplabs}!hpfcla!ales
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/02/86)
In article <80@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes: > ...I was objecting to what I see as exploitive and degrading, not >to someone posing in the nude. In my judgement, there is a difference in >kind between an art class and "swank" magazine. Yes, there's the rub. ``In *your* judgement''. ``What *I* see''. But other people find nude beaches exploitive and degrading. And other people don't find SWANK magazine degrading. Now, maybe I missed something here, but I thought the whole focus of ``the Naturalist movement'' was ``we're here voluntarily, we're free people, leave us alone to do what we want''. Now I am getting a hint of ``we are morally superior people, we have better attitudes than those repressed prudes, and a much better attitude than those who read or pose for filthy magazines''. If the second position is closer to the Naturalist philosophy, then somebody had better set the record straight. There are a whole lot of libertarians and rational anarchists who are buying into it because they believe in the first position -- and to use them to further the second position is pretty foul. I hadn't considered the possibility that I was being used last time I posted, and thought that you were being terribly inconsistent, which is why I accused you of sitting on the fence. Now, it would be stupid of me to take Marc Majka's personal position as the official position of the Naturalist movement without checking it out further. What do the rest of you think? And are there any official positions I could look up? -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa
wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (02/03/86)
> > But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to > > meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed > > by this group. I thought you-all had more class. > > I posted a reply to the "nude model" message, though I'm not sure it got out > to the net properly. In summary, I said that the only type of nude > photography that I find objectionable is just the kind encouraged by the I love it, I love it. As the original poster of the "ad" may I say that..... you have all been had! The posting was posted just to see what sort of reactions would be obtained. I had the feeling that this group was just about dead, last summer when the weather was great this group had only about 1 or 2 postings a week. Finally there is some traffic. And, a lot of good philosophical questions have come out about the purposed of nudity, the interests of each member, etc. Good questions have come up also about what are the feelings of persons on a clothes optional beach when someone shows up with a camera vs individual rights vs first amendment rights, etc. However, may I suggest that the discussions continue, as there obviously are some strong feelings over the subject of nude modeling (no, I do not really photograph nude models -- not that I would pass up the opportunity if it presented itself -- I do not even have a 35mm camera that is operational) particularly those who object to it on the grounds of indecency! I find the contradiction in when nudity to be obscene or indecent to be hilarious coming from a group of supposedly nudist (naturalists). -- Bill Dippert --
ccs025@ucdavis.UUCP (Johan) (02/05/86)
> you have all been had! The posting was posted just to see what sort of > reactions would be obtained. I had the feeling that this group was just > about dead, last summer when the weather was great this group had only > about 1 or 2 postings a week. Finally there is some traffic. And, a lot Someone posted something like this on net.jokes a while back just to pi** people off and see what happened. Everyone felt kind of used, except those who caught on and felt priveledged to be 'in' on the joke. Now I gather from your recent posting that you posted the original article in order to jump start conversation. I hope that the few readers of this group do not get bent out of shape, as those in net.jokes did (myself included). It would just be a waste of time and ruin a discussion that has already started. Having said that, I will give my meager little opinion on the subject. I see nothing wrong with nude photography that is done in taste and with a more artistic approach than "Here he/she is and Oh look, he/she has one/two (three ;-) ) of these!!" Photographs of nude models are an art form like anything any other in that there are good pictures and bad. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. My personal favorites are black and whites with backlighting that pay good attention to the subtle curves of a woman's body. My favorite was done by a Swede (who's name I don't recall) that was far enough away to show the model's whole body (curled up some) yet had such clarity as to show the outline of the soft , normally invisible, body hair.(stomach, hips etc..) As for photographs that stray from the above stated personal criteria, I have only one thing to say. If the model, photographer, and reader are all of consenting age and do indeed consent, it is really none of my business. Just a few thoughts.... [please *do* disagree with me and let us all know your own feelings. I think naturists are like any other group of people, there are many different factions of the group whith different beliefs.] -- Martin Van Ryswyk {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025 uucp ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkley.edu arpa
ccalille@ihlpf.UUCP (Calille) (02/06/86)
> In article <80@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes: > > ...I was objecting to what I see as exploitive and degrading, not > >to someone posing in the nude. In my judgement, there is a difference in > >kind between an art class and "swank" magazine. > > Yes, there's the rub. ``In *your* judgement''. ``What *I* see''. But other > people find nude beaches exploitive and degrading. And other people don't > find SWANK magazine degrading. Now, maybe I missed something here, but I > thought the whole focus of ``the Naturalist movement'' was ``we're here > voluntarily, we're free people, leave us alone to do what we want''. Now I > am getting a hint of ``we are morally superior people, we have better attitudes > than those repressed prudes, and a much better attitude than those who read > or pose for filthy magazines''. > > If the second position is closer to the Naturalist philosophy, then somebody > had better set the record straight. There are a whole lot of > libertarians and rational anarchists who are buying into it because they > believe in the first position -- and to use them to further the second > position is pretty foul. I hadn't considered the possibility that I was > being used last time I posted, and thought that you were being terribly > inconsistent, which is why I accused you of sitting on the fence. > > Now, it would be stupid of me to take Marc Majka's personal position as the > official position of the Naturalist movement without checking it out further. > What do the rest of you think? And are there any official positions I > could look up? > -- > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura > hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa Hey, where can you meet some good looking models in the Chicago area. Or is there a nude beach in this area that I can visit to see what it is actually like. If you are a good looking FEMALE maybe we can meet in the Chicago area.
rayazwinski@watmath.UUCP (Rick Yazwinski) (02/06/86)
>Hey, where can you meet some good looking models in the Chicago area. Or is >there a nude beach in this area that I can visit to see what it is actually >like. If you are a good looking FEMALE maybe we can meet in the Chicago >area. This, in my opinion, does not belong in net.rec.nude! This net is for naturalists not for people with hormone problems. Take this kind of posting to net.singles or some other appropriate place. Rick...
steves@kepler.UUCP (Steve Schlich) (02/07/86)
0@hoptoad.uucp> <421@ubvax.UUCP> <414@tekigm2.UUCP> <153@ucdavis.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: steves@kepler.UUCP (Steve Schlich) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA Keywords: >you have all been had! [the original article was bogus, intending to >stimulate discussion] I have read the discussion with interest, but I don't like being had. If you want to start a relevant discussion (and this was one), why not simply ask a legitimate question? -- One town looks very like another / with your head down over your pieces, brother. ---from "One Night in Bangkok" Steve Schlich, MicroPro Product Development {dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!kepler!steves
ix742@sdcc6.UUCP (James Hayes) (02/10/86)
> >>you have all been had! [the original article was bogus, intending to >>stimulate discussion] > >I have read the discussion with interest, but I don't like being had. >If you want to start a relevant discussion (and this was one), why not >simply ask a legitimate question? >-- > There are times when I'm proud to own and use my 'n' key. -- -Jim Hayes / ix742%sdcc6@SDCSVAX.EDU The only people that don't make mistakes are dead people.
kishore2@watdcsu.UUCP (K.Singhal - Systems Design) (02/11/86)
In article <2414@sdcc6.UUCP> ix742@sdcc6.UUCP (James Hayes) writes: >> >>>you have all been had! [the original article was bogus, intending to >>>stimulate discussion] >> Hmmmmm.... sometimes I wonder if the people who post these type of "Aha! gotcha, I was only being an asshole to get a discussion going" pranks are only idiots trying to extricate their feet from their mouth. -- Sherman Lang Systems Design Engineering "May you have an interesting life!" University of Waterloo - Ancient Chinese Curse