Nude in the cool/COLD!
Jenn
Florida :) -- but, we do get cooler weather here in the fall/winter,
and there is something about going outside naked, feeling the
cool/cold air against my bare skin, or the dew under my bare
feet...it makes me tingle all over!
We are fortunate in that both the spa and the pool are heated so we
can swim in comfort year round. As for the spa, that is another
wonderful thing. When the temp gets cool and you sink down to your
neck in 100+ degree water and drink in the contrast! When you get
out the feeling of cool air hitting your now very warm skin is
exhilarating! For these occasions we usually have our big Terry
cloth robes close by, wrap up and run into a warm shower...it is a
great way to end a stressful day...well, there are other ways to
release that stress too, but right now I am ONLY talking about the
joy of being nude. I love it, and am so grateful that with a little
adaptation I can enjoy it year round!
Hope everyone's week is starting off great!
Love to all,
Jenn
143/2
moderator of: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Isabelle-Jenn/
Anna
Jenn you were so good about staying away.
We aren't really into your "forced to be nude" nudity.
Dicky Boy
Snarl ............. Growl ...................Claw, Claw..........!!!!
Jenn
nudity...it must always be on your mind! Thanks so much for bringing
it up :)
Love you,
Jenn
143/2
Anna
Jenn wrote:
> Anna, you so make my day...I don't recall saying a word about forced
> nudity...it must always be on your mind! Thanks so much for bringing
> it up :)
>
> Love you,
> Jenn
> 143/2
I bet you don't even go around nude. These are all stories that you
make up.
elix...@yahoo.com.au
How splendid it is to bathe naked! I really miss the swimming pool at
my last house. The only time I ever went in wearing bathers was when I
had guests who were uncomfortable with nudity. Isn't it just great
swimming freely, unencumbered! Lucky you having both a spa and a pool.
Elizabeth
David Looser
news:1164064423....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE warm weather, its why we live in
> Florida :) -- but, we do get cooler weather here in the fall/winter,
> and there is something about going outside naked, feeling the
> cool/cold air against my bare skin, or the dew under my bare
> feet...it makes me tingle all over!
>
> We are fortunate in that both the spa and the pool are heated so we
> can swim in comfort year round. As for the spa, that is another
> wonderful thing. When the temp gets cool and you sink down to your
> neck in 100+ degree water and drink in the contrast! When you get
> out the feeling of cool air hitting your now very warm skin is
> exhilarating! For these occasions we usually have our big Terry
> cloth robes close by, wrap up and run into a warm shower...it is a
> great way to end a stressful day...well, there are other ways to
> release that stress too, but right now I am ONLY talking about the
> joy of being nude. I love it, and am so grateful that with a little
> adaptation I can enjoy it year round!
>
David.
Simon N
So why dont you?
>
> We aren't really into your "forced to be nude" nudity.
I do hope you speak for yourself though!
--
Nude regards
Simon
Stay healthy, happy and nifoc
http://www.simonnoot.nl
Richard C.
news:1164065567.9...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jenn you were so good about staying away.
>
> We aren't really into your "forced to be nude" nudity.
>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6625693438605202471&q=intrusive
Richard C.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6390466288849056792&q=made+up+stories
Terry J. Wood
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Projecting?
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
Hi Jenn,
It's good to hear from you again.
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE warm weather, its why we live in
>>> Florida :)
Depending which part of Florida you're in, it can be not particularly warm
there in winter. For instance, at one Winter Gathering at Sunsport, the low
temp was 42 degrees.
However, here in the hot springs area near Tonopah, it has never snowed and
a really cold, miserable winter day means it's 65 and sunny. Seriously,
during certain El Nina and El Nino times, we can have a lot of rain, but
sustained cold weather is rare. For instance, for the last two weeks (and it
looks like the next week too), we've been suffering in wonderful 85-88
degree wall to wall sunny daytime weather with overnight weather in the low
50's, plus or minus, perfect for sleeping with the windows open and no heat
on.
In The Hot Water Country Of Arizona,
Bill Pennington
Anna
Jenn, if you are going to post here please don't mention your yahoo
group with your fictional stories of "forced nudity".
At least provide that degree of separtness between these opposing
mindsets regarding nudity, as this group is supposed to be about the
promoting of non-sexualized nudity.
Anna
Simon N wrote:
> > We aren't really into your "forced to be nude" nudity.
> I do hope you speak for yourself though!
>
> --
> Nude regards
>
> Simon
> Stay healthy, happy and nifoc
> http://www.simonnoot.nl
No Simon I speak for all who want to practice nudity in a
non-sexualized atmosphere.
Terry J. Wood
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Jenn, if you are going to post here please don't mention your yahoo
> group with your fictional stories of "forced nudity".
Don't be the pot calling the kettle "black". If YOU'RE going to post here,
then please explain your "Liberals aren't merely wrong. They are indeed
evil" posts and why your language is so similar to Jeff Jenson’s (See my
post with message id: <Xns9833CD0259...@216.168.3.30>)
This is an open newsgroup "Anna". You can't control rec.nude any more than
you can control naturism.
Terry J. Wood
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> No Simon I speak for all who want to practice nudity in a
> non-sexualized atmosphere.
Do you speak for Jeff Jenson?
Anna
Casa Blanca Hot Spring wrote:
> Hi Jenn,
>
> It's good to hear from you again.
Why is it good to hear from her again? She isn't into nudism. She is
into a mild form of BDSM or whatever you want to call it that plays
upon the concept of "forced nudity" as well as being spanked.
There are appropriate newsgroups for such stuff but not this one as it
doesn't have to do with nudism.
Nudists need to make every effort to disassociate themselves from
people like Jenn.
Richard C.
The HELL you do!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2727644074473825629&q=crazy+expert
Anna
Are you a Jenn fan? Surely I would hope not.
Jan Dijkman
following message across the Holy Marbles. Upon discovering this
gruesome sacrilege, the priests screeched, "We have lost our Marbles!"
<snippers>
> I speak for all who want to practice nudity in a
> non-sexualized atmosphere.
You don't speak for me, and i doubt you speak for a significant minority
of the people here.
Jan Dijkman
Terry J. Wood
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> Casa Blanca Hot Spring wrote:
>> Hi Jenn,
>>
>> It's good to hear from you again.
> Why is it good to hear from her again?
Hey, we put up with a non-nudist like YOU don't we? We're equal
opportunity in this nudesgroup.
Terry J. Wood
news:1164311807.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Are you a Jenn fan? Surely I would hope not.
He's a real Republican NUDIST. Too bad the same can't be said for you.
Terry J. Wood
@news.wanadoo.nl:
> You don't speak for me, and i doubt you speak for a significant minority
> of the people here.
Maybe he speaks for Jeff Jenson and Mad Max.
septithol
> At least provide that degree of separtness between these opposing
> mindsets regarding nudity, as this group is supposed to be about the
> promoting of non-sexualized nudity.
Hmm, I don't know anything about stories of 'forced' nudity, but absent
unprovable religious prejudices, neither nudity, nor sexuality is
wrong, in and of themselves. Both forced nudity and forced sexuality
are wrong, as would be forced anything else, like robbery. Anyone who
claims otherwise has thus far not been able to give me an argument that
doesn't ultimately reference their diety of choice, whom they are
unable to prove the existence of.
I would say that it would be extremely *rude* to engage in sexuality in
a camp devoted to those who want to devote their lives to non-sexual
nudity. But it would not be wrong for those who wanted to have a camp
devoted to sexual nudity to create one.
Anna
Nope.
I have given up on the Republicans for quite some time now. And if
they don't become conservative they will die as a party.
Anna
septithol wrote:
> Anna wrote:
>
> > At least provide that degree of separtness between these opposing
> > mindsets regarding nudity, as this group is supposed to be about the
> > promoting of non-sexualized nudity.
>
> Hmm, I don't know anything about stories of 'forced' nudity,
She posts them all the time to soc.sexuality.spanking
And most of the time the stories are about the nudity being "forced" in
the way bdsm activity is forced but not forced. The submissive gives
the dominant power to do whatever he wants to her (usually a her
sometimes a he) with the trust that he will not do anything to cause
long term injury and with the hope that he can be sensitive enough to
the subtle signals she gives off that he will not push her too far from
her limits. In more extreme forms of BDSM a "code word" is usually
given to the submissive that she can use if she really feels like the
experience is causing her harm that she really doesn't want..
So, forced in the sense that the individual things he may do isn't by
her consent, but the situation she has placed her in is by her consent
and the ultimate power to say no to anything that happens is ultimately
with her as she can always use her code word to stop what is going on.
Anna
septithol wrote:
> I would say that it would be extremely *rude* to engage in sexuality in
> a camp devoted to those who want to devote their lives to non-sexual
> nudity. But it would not be wrong for those who wanted to have a camp
> devoted to sexual nudity to create one.
I have no problem with that as long as there are no children around
that camp.
And the camp shouldn't call itself a nudist camp as by definition
Nudism is the practice of non-sexualized nudity.
JD
> septithol wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>
>> > At least provide that degree of separtness between these opposing
>> > mindsets regarding nudity, as this group is supposed to be about the
>> > promoting of non-sexualized nudity.
>>
>> Hmm, I don't know anything about stories of 'forced' nudity,
>
> She posts them all the time to soc.sexuality.spanking
>
And why would you expect anyone interested in nudism to even know that news
group exists, let alone to have looked at it? Seems to me that it is saying
most about the person who knows all about it!
JD
Anna
Whenever she posts, including when she posts to rec.nude, she posts her
Yahoo Group link at the end of her message. That Yahoo groups have
stories of "forced" nudity in them.
Again I put quotes around the word "forced" because like in the case of
most all BDSM as it is practiced, it is only the illusion of being
forced as the person enters into the experience freely and has a
mechanism to get out of the situation if it becomes too unpleasant for
her. The only way it is "forced" is that during the "scene" as they
call it, she has to either comply with what is commanded of her or she
must end the "scene". So within the "scene" it is her being "forced" by
her act of submission to do something, but with the ultimate escape
route of having the ability to end the "scene" if she feels it is
necessary..
It would be interesting to discuss though if some people do like nudism
for the "forced" aspects of it. This of course wouldn't be "forced" in
the truest sense of the word or even as Jenn describes it in her
stories, but I am talking about it in a very, very subtle, subliminal
form. At a nudist venue it is expected for you to be naked which I am
all for mind you since if you aren't there to get naked, why are you
there?
But perhaps for some, they like the fact that they "have to" (again in
quotes) get naked. For them perhaps part of the thrill is in being
"prevented" (again in quotes since in actuality you don't have to be at
the nudist place) from wearing clothes.
Who knows what influences are playing upon one another when people
enjoy going around naked. And I guess as long as it doesn't rise to
surface level intent and just stays subliminally in the background of
someone's mind it would not hurt the spirit, the atmosphere of the club
or the behavior of the individual. But it if does ever become a surface
level reason for going to a club (if you ever realize that is why you
are going to a nudist park) then it would hurt the club's environment
and you shouldn't go.
-T.
wrote:
>And why would you expect anyone interested in nudism to even know that news
>group exists, let alone to have looked at it? Seems to me that it is saying
>most about the person who knows all about it!
Anna can't seperate someone's sexuality from their participation in
nudism, even if the two don't overlap. This is especially true for
sexuality that Anna disapproves of, which is interesting because she
searches it out, wallows in it, and then posts it here, where nobody
really wants it.
-T.
When the man said alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I just naturally assumed he was making a delivery.
septithol
Anna wrote:
> I have no problem with that as long as there are no children around
> that camp.
>
> And the camp shouldn't call itself a nudist camp as by definition
> Nudism is the practice of non-sexualized nudity.
I don't know what you would call it, then.
When you have a problem with *sexuality*, you are guilty of the same
false reasoning as those who have a problem with *nudity*. Namely, you
can't accurately define what is supposedly inherently morally wrong
with EITHER without eventually making reference to a diety you are
almost certainly unable to prove the existence of. I am not going to
argue whether or not God exists. I have my own opinions on that subject
which are too long to list here. However, the question as to whether
God, or your particular beliefs in God should exist in this country's
legal code was settled over 200 years ago. The answer is NO. It's in
the first amendment.
As to the question of whether children should actively participate in
sex, the answer to that one is defined by mother nature. Namely NO. A
prepubescent child is neither interested in, nor physically capable of
participation in sex, in much the same way that an infant with no teeth
cannot participate in a hot-dog eating contest. To forcibly stuff
hotdogs into an infant's mouth, or to force a child to have sex, is
therefore a form of abuse.
When it comes to the question of whether or not it is abuse for a child
to simply observe adults having sex, but not participate in it
themselves, I would say the answer to that is 'no'. To observe
something is not to take part in it, and I see no inherent reason why a
child would be harmed by merely seeing adults have sex, any more than a
baby would be harmed by merely seeing adults eat hot dogs. In fact, it
has actually been historically normal in almost all places and times,
until fairly recently, for children to see adults having sex. Of
course, if a child has been raised to think sex is 'bad' and 'dirty',
then they are likely to get upset by seeing it. But you could condition
a child to react that way to ANYTHING. Such as in the movie 'The
Village' where the children who lived in the village were raised to be
frightened by the color red, and upon seeing a red flower growing by
their porch one day, were very upset, and they hurried to bury it in a
hole so they wouldn't have to look at the 'bad color'.
That said, I would question the motives of adults in 21st century
America who insisted on, at all times, having children observe them
having sex. The area they inhabit has been pretty much cleared of
dangerous carnivores, so they don't need to be close by constantly to
watch for sabertooths. And I would think it would be rather difficult
for adults to properly enjoy sex, when they had curious children
standing by gawking. I have heard of parents who deliberately had sex
(of a sort) in front of their children a couple of times, in order to
educate their children about it, and give them what the parents hope is
a 'healthy attitude', but they do not do so constantly and repeatedly.
Given all that, I would think that someone who insisted that their
children observe not only their parents, but strangers as well, having
sex, and took them off to some sort of bizaare 'orgy camp' specifically
so they would observe all this, is either mentally completely screwed
up, or else has conscious malevolent motives regarding their children.
BBp
are a troll and your really not even welcome here by most of those who
frequent this board...
BBp
Anna wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE warm weather, its why we live in
> > Florida :) -- but, we do get cooler weather here in the fall/winter,
> > and there is something about going outside naked, feeling the
> > cool/cold air against my bare skin, or the dew under my bare
> > feet...it makes me tingle all over!
> >
> > We are fortunate in that both the spa and the pool are heated so we
> > can swim in comfort year round. As for the spa, that is another
> > wonderful thing. When the temp gets cool and you sink down to your
> > neck in 100+ degree water and drink in the contrast! When you get
> > out the feeling of cool air hitting your now very warm skin is
> > exhilarating! For these occasions we usually have our big Terry
> > cloth robes close by, wrap up and run into a warm shower...it is a
> > great way to end a stressful day...well, there are other ways to
> > release that stress too, but right now I am ONLY talking about the
> > joy of being nude. I love it, and am so grateful that with a little
> > adaptation I can enjoy it year round!
> >
> > Hope everyone's week is starting off great!
> >
> > Love to all,
> > Jenn
> > 143/2
> > moderator of: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Isabelle-Jenn/
>
> Jenn you were so good about staying away.
>
Anna
septithol wrote:
> Anna wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with that as long as there are no children around
> > that camp.
> >
> > And the camp shouldn't call itself a nudist camp as by definition
> > Nudism is the practice of non-sexualized nudity.
>
> I don't know what you would call it, then.
Adult nude camp. I have heard the term "lifestyle club" used.
Also the word "swingers". That has come into common usage as a term
that describes a lifestyle that practices group sexual nudity.
Zee
nude......rec nude is a collection of dirty ol men with dirty ol women
tag along females that no one else on the planet would be interested
in....he he....now i have your attention because you had suspicions
that was the way it is......yeah they are beyond fifty and scared that
their lifetime of lies and cult dogma has come back to bite them as
they go for it one more time to see if their sexual sick prowess is
still capable of raising their blood pressure slightly without having a
stroke.....and the media wont be too harsh on them when they find out
the kiddies have been abused and on and on.....jenn satisfies their
mouth watering desires with promises of one more sordid story that
their ol tag alongs will approve of and they can maybe have some kind
of sex with the ol bag while they fantasize of spankings and far out
bdsm that a life time of lying and covering up to the world about what
they been doing and telling the kids and grandkids that dont even want
to see em or hear from em any more.....you are a honest person and
would like some honest answers about the nudism game as you see daily
stories about nudist happenings around the world.....but if you realize
who these sick folks are then a simple lurking pedo that is curious how
sick these ol farts are and how many lies they will tell and cover
up.....about the abuse of women and children.....then you are just
about all the way there in seeing the picture as it really
is.......they know who you are and you offer no contentment or sick
pleasure for them but make them realize reality as it really is....and
that aint good for their ol bags are reading it too...their ol bags
want to read about how normal it might be to be exploited like they
have been as misery loves company....so any deviation to this sick
process will get cries of we dont like you but we love the jenn types
that makes us feel comfortable one more time in our illness of
depravity.......so hang in there you are just about all the way there
now...enjoy.....jonZeee.
Zee
-T.
>....rec nude is a collection of dirty ol men
Damn. First I'm a female feminist, now I'm a fifty something male.
Wrong on both counts. So much for your superior mental abilities.
The only pedophile, misogynist, rascist, lying, dirty old man, I see
around here is...
You.
-T.
(if you were real, which you ain't)
BBp
reader yet, I had to install a new Hard drive so I get to read all the
rubbish.. Things are easy though all one has to do is look a the
posters and if they are a lot of Anna and JZ, I just bypass that entire
subject.. lol
BBp
.
Neosapienis
> On 29 Nov 2006 13:53:33 -0800, "Zee" <jon...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> >....rec nude is a collection of dirty ol men
That is bullshit, JonZeeee.
How about:
1) Stuffed Tiger
2) Septithol
3) Anna Liddell
4) Nikki Craft
5) Jenny6833A (wonder where she's got to?)
6) Cyndiann Phillips
7) Cheri Alexander
The only dirty old man who posts here is *YOU* - so go stick that in your
momma's bong and smoke it!
--
Regards,
Dario Western
http://www.icq.com/38318214
http://www.myspace.com/25155501
http://theglamgod.spaces.msn.com
http://360.yahoo.com/larrikin70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Stuffed Tiger
An Equal Opportunity Nudesgroup
ROTFLMNAO (for the second time)
Thanks, Terry.
Terry J. Wood
14g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> She posts them all the time to soc.sexuality.spanking
D*mn, the USENET sure has diversified since the 1980s. Spanking now has
it's OWN subgroup?
Geeze, guys (and gals), rec.nude is falling behind!
We don't have ANY subgroups! I think it's time we propose a few, just
to keep up with the Jones'.
How about:
rec.nude.troll - most of the posts today would go into this group.
rec.nude.beaches - self explanatory.
rec.nude.shame - As on "Halls of" and Mark Foley.
rec.nude.nude - Only card carrying members of AANR or TNS could post.
rec.nude.rude - flames only please.
rec.nude.lewd - YOU KNOW WHO would be in here.
OK, that's all I can think of right now. I need YOUR help to slip up
rec.nude into it's component parts! Keep those cards and letters
coming!
Terry "200% Serious" Wood
Terry J. Wood
news:oonpm2hvk68ilshil...@4ax.com:
> Anna can't seperate someone's sexuality from their participation in
> nudism, even if the two don't overlap. This is especially true for
> sexuality that Anna disapproves of, which is interesting because she
> searches it out, wallows in it, and then posts it here, where nobody
> really wants it.
I think "she" doesn't get out much. Anybody got an extra life to loan her?
Terry J. Wood
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
> I have given up on the Republicans for quite some time now. And if
> they don't become conservative they will die as a party.
They haven't been conservative since Barry Goldwater was the
Presidential nominee. They became pseudo-conservative after Ronny
Raygun took over.
Here's one of your "real Republican" and his message to his critics who
were upset that he just didn't live in PA any longer:
http://www.ricksantorum.com/uvc/MythVFact.aspx
Traditional Family Values right? He's a DAD and therefore it's OK!
Those six kids need him more than we do! What's wrong with THAT? (hum
the "Star Spangled Banner" here or "American the Beautiful". Either one
works).
Yeah, the only problem with the argument is that Ricky Santorum used the
same issue about his congressional opponent, Doug Walgren, to get into
office in the first place. Doug moved his family to the Beltway and
Ricky beat they drum about how Doug didn't REALLY live in PA any longer
and how that made Doug unfit to represent us.
It's terrible with his opponent does this. It's understandable when he
does it. If you criticize him, you're hurting his kids and that's just
un-American!
I guess "conservatives" like Ricky think PA voters can only remember
that past 6 weeks before an election. (I won't even bring up his "man
on dog sex" issue. I haven't forgotten that one. Ewwwwwww!)
And Ricky tries to spin this as a "myth" and something you may have
heard around the "water cooler". It wasn't a myth. It WAS a fact.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said it best in this editorial:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06146/693291-192.stm
When a mainstream newspaper uses the words "weird" and "bizarre" in an
article, you pay attention. In this case, they also use "beyond weird"
and "hide behind his wife and kids". And I think this is BEFORE Ricky
made his video!
Yeah, the party is in trouble. We sent Ricky packing. I'll bet he
doesn't return to his 2 bedroom "home" in Pennsylvania with his wife and
six kids now that he's out of a job.
But you'd think now that he's lost the election, he'd take down his
commercials. But not Ricky! They're still out there slamming his
former opponent. Ah, well. That's the former 3rd most important
"conservative" in the party for you!
When you have the party turning out candidates like Rick and the
nudist's "friend" Mark Foley, it really is time to clean house. We
Republicans need to put REAL Republicans in office. Not the pseudo-
conservative chicken-hawks that have taken over the party.
Anna
Terry J. Wood wrote:
>> I guess "conservatives" like Ricky think PA voters can only remember
> that past 6 weeks before an election. (I won't even bring up his "man
> on dog sex" issue. I haven't forgotten that one. Ewwwwwww!)
Please do bring it up as I must have missed that controversy.
> And Ricky tries to spin this as a "myth" and something you may have
> heard around the "water cooler". It wasn't a myth. It WAS a fact.
Proof?
> The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said it best in this editorial:
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06146/693291-192.stm
>
>
> Yeah, the party is in trouble. We sent Ricky packing.
Most of the people we lost were RINOS but Rick Santorum is the
exception to this and will be missed (unless you have proof of him
having sex with dogs for if that is the case good riddance).
> I'll bet he
> doesn't return to his 2 bedroom "home" in Pennsylvania with his wife and
> six kids now that he's out of a job.
Probably not. It is said how the system corrupts good people.
> But you'd think now that he's lost the election, he'd take down his
> commercials. But not Ricky! They're still out there slamming his
> former opponent. Ah, well. That's the former 3rd most important
> "conservative" in the party for you!
Way to go. Too many conservatives aren't fighters. I am glad that he is
still fighting out there and giving it to the scumbag who defeated him.
> When you have the party turning out candidates like Rick and the
> nudist's "friend" Mark Foley, it really is time to clean house.
What was wrong with Rick? We all know what was wrong with Mark Foley
but he was a RINO and I say good riddance to him.
> We
> Republicans need to put REAL Republicans in office. Not the pseudo-
> conservative chicken-hawks that have taken over the party.
Agreed. People along the same line as Pat Buchanan. We certainly agree
on that. No more Bush-bots!
Terry J. Wood
79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> Please do bring it up as I must have missed that controversy.
Use google. You'll find all you want to know about it.
>> And Ricky tries to spin this as a "myth" and something you may have
>> heard around the "water cooler". It wasn't a myth. It WAS a fact.
> Proof?
You can visit the PG web site I mentioned previously:
>> The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said it best in this editorial:
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06146/693291-192.stm
Or this one:
http://www.pjvoice.com/v12/12003home.html
which is even better.
Or get in your car and drive to his empty house and ring the door bell.
Or call him on the phone and just ask him.
Or note that he finally returned the money the school district spend on
the cyberschool. I think that "proves" it quite well.
Anna
Terry J. Wood wrote:
> "Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in news:1165005389.682412.190430@
> 79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Please do bring it up as I must have missed that controversy.
>
> Use google. You'll find all you want to know about it.
>
> >> And Ricky tries to spin this as a "myth" and something you may have
> >> heard around the "water cooler". It wasn't a myth. It WAS a fact.
>
> > Proof?
>
> You can visit the PG web site I mentioned previously:
No Dog was mentioned
> >> The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said it best in this editorial:
>
> >> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06146/693291-192.stm
No Dog
> Or this one:
>
> http://www.pjvoice.com/v12/12003home.html
>
> which is even better.
No dog mentioned
> Or get in your car and drive to his empty house and ring the door bell.
What does that have to do with having sex with a dog?
> Or call him on the phone and just ask him.
And he will tell me that he had sex with a Dog?
> Or note that he finally returned the money the school district spend on
> the cyberschool. I think that "proves" it quite well.
Proves that he had sex with a dog?
Ok, I will use Google and Search "Santorum" "Dog".
Let's see what I will get.
When asked "Okay, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is
homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?" his
response concluded: "In every society, the definition of marriage has
not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on
homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or
whatever the case may be."
He was saying that men shouldn't have sex with men just like men
shouldn't have sex with a child just like men shouldn't have sex with a
dog, or whatever the case may be (men with horses, men with pigs,
etc). And he was saying that goverment had the right to outlaw such
sexual behavior and at the very least society shouldn't legitimatize
such sexual relationships by allowing them to get married.
You disagree with that? You think Men and Dogs should have sexual
relations and get married?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy
Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I think Rich Santorum is a
great man who will be sorely missed.
Anna
Terry J. Wood wrote:
> I guess "conservatives" like Ricky think PA voters can only remember
> that past 6 weeks before an election. (I won't even bring up his "man
> on dog sex" issue. I haven't forgotten that one. Ewwwwwww!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy
Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts
as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and
non-consensual sexual behaviors, such as adultery, polygamy, child
molestation, incest, sodomy and zoophilia (bestiality), whose
legalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they
are not monogamous and heterosexual.
So Terry, what's your problem? You are pro-bestiality?
David Looser
news:1165007919.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts
> as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and
> non-consensual sexual behaviors, such as adultery,
You regulate adultery in the US? How do you do that, does the state issue
licences or what? How long do you have to be married before you get an
adultery licence? Who makes sure that only licensed adultery takes place?,
do you have CCTV cameras in everyone's bedrooms?
David.
septithol
Anna wrote:
> Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts
> as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and
> non-consensual sexual behaviors, such as adultery, polygamy, child
> molestation, incest, sodomy and zoophilia (bestiality), whose
> legalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they
> are not monogamous and heterosexual.
The state does not (or should not) have the right to regulate
consensual sexual behavior, which would include all of the above, with
the single exception of child molestation. Any claims that such acts
are 'immoral' ultimately rely on the existence of an unproven diety,
and are therefore violations of the first amendment requiring
seperation of church and state.
If Santorum can't accept that, he needs to get out of politics and
become a priest. Better yet, he needs to grow up.
D. Kirkpatrick
"Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> rec.nude.troll - most of the posts today would go into this group.
>
> rec.nude.beaches - self explanatory.
>
> rec.nude.shame - As on "Halls of" and Mark Foley.
>
> rec.nude.nude - Only card carrying members of AANR or TNS could post.
>
> rec.nude.rude - flames only please.
>
> rec.nude.lewd - YOU KNOW WHO would be in here.
I don't think Skirv would allow it. :-)))))
DMK
BBp
two and stay there...
Personally I like the
rec.nude.rude - flames only please.
to flame some that really deserve it.. but I won't mention any names..
lol
BBp
D. Kirkpatrick
"BBp" <loo...@msn.com> wrote:
> Great idea!! And hopefully anna/jeff along with JZ will go to one or
> two and stay there...
> Personally I like the
> rec.nude.rude - flames only please.
> I could find a lot of people that I think needs flaming.. and I do like
> to flame some that really deserve it.. but I won't mention any names..
> lol
>
> BBp
See my response. It was a funny joke but the reality is quite
opposite.
Usenet has recently undergone some major changes in how new groups are
added/justified and now is under the oversight of a new committee.
Addition/creation of new groups in the Big-8 hierarchy has revised
guidelines and the variations as suggested just would not fly.
Bert Clanton
You didn't ask me. But personally, I'm pro any kind of sexual activity
that's both harmless and consensual. I suggest that a sexual activity
is harmful if and only if it causes bodily injury, or if it causes
significant psychological stress independent of custom and learning, or
if it doesn't involve appropriate measures to prevent the transmission
of disease and the initiation of inappropriate pregnancy, or if it
endangers or disrupts a beneficial intimate relationship. I suggest
that a sexual activity is non-consensual if it's initiated by deceiving
someone, or coercing someone, or exploiting someone. I suggest that if
none of these things is true of a particular activity, then that
activity is morally OK.
I suggest further that any law which attempts to restrict any sexual
activity which is both harmless and consensual is a morally
illegitimate law, and that there's no *moral* reason to feel inhibited
about violating it, or guilty if you have violated it. The same
principle applies to people who violated Jim Crow laws in the South
before the civil rights movement--those laws were morally illegitimate.
Best wishes,
Bert
Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
...
>You didn't ask me. But personally, I'm pro any kind of sexual activity
>that's both harmless and consensual. I suggest that a sexual activity
>is harmful if and only if it causes bodily injury, or ...
>if it doesn't involve appropriate measures to prevent the transmission
>of disease and the initiation of inappropriate pregnancy,
...
There are no methods I know of that will ensure we can engage in
sexual activity while preventing the transmission of disease or the
initiation of inappropriate pregnancy unless we limit ourselves to one
or a small group of sexual partners who are infertile and do the same.
David Simpson
<No...@NotAnAddress.com> typed furiously:
You've never heard of condoms?
--
Regards
David Simpson
"Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny. If you see him
without an erection, make him a sandwich."
- Someone on soc.sexuality.general
Bert Clanton
I would propose that if we want to practice a responsible, harmless,
and consensual form of sexual freedom, we rigorously restrict our
contacts to the members of a group who
• consistently practice appropriate contraception;
• are initially proven to be free of sexually transmitted disease;
• are periodically tested for the presence of sexually transmitted
disease, and if infected, are isolated from the group until their
disease is cured (permanently, if HIV-positive); and
• are excluded permanently from the group if they knowingly and
deliberately have unprotected sexual contact with outsiders.
Of course, this method would *not* be absolutely perfect--it would
*not* prevent *all* inappropriate pregnancy and *all* transmission of
STDs. But I would suggest that among the members of a group that
consistently practiced such a method, the incidence of inappropriate
pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease would be only a small
fraction of what it is under our present antisexual moral regime.
Best wishes,
Bert
Terry J. Wood
16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
> So Terry, what's your problem? You are pro-bestiality?
My problem is that it appeared that Rick thinks about bestiality when no
one else has mentioned it. This seems strange to me. If he was trying to
link homosexuality to bestiality then I'm even more bothered by him.
BTW, are you pro-bestiality?
Terry J. Wood
79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>> You can visit the PG web site I mentioned previously:
> No Dog was mentioned
Sorry if I confused you. Go to Google and put "Man on dog" and
"Rick Santorum" into the search engine.
You'll get at least this link at USA TODAY: http://tinyurl.com/76o9u
The reason why people think Rick was strange has to do with HIS brining
up the topic of "man on dog sex". It really creeped out the interviewer
and many Pennsylvanians. It makes me wonder if Rick thinks about "man
on dog" often.
Terry J. Wood
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
> If Santorum can't accept that, he needs to get out of politics and
> become a priest. Better yet, he needs to grow up.
Rick lost the election. I'm sure he'll run for President one day though.
"Anna", Jeff Jenson, Max, George, etc. can then get to vote for him.
Terry J. Wood
E713DF.172...@news.verizon.net:
> Addition/creation of new groups in the Big-8 hierarchy has revised
> guidelines and the variations as suggested just would not fly.
DEATH OF THE NET PREDICTED!
Stuffed Tiger
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:49:37 -0500, Stuffed Tiger
><No...@NotAnAddress.com> typed furiously:
...
>>There are no methods I know of that will ensure we can engage in
>>sexual activity while preventing the transmission of disease or the
>>initiation of inappropriate pregnancy unless we limit ourselves to one
>>or a small group of sexual partners who are infertile and do the same.
>
>You've never heard of condoms?
You've never heard of the limitations of condoms?
http://web.mit.edu/lbgt/lavender/std.html
Understand the potential limitations of condoms.
====================================
While condoms can significantly reduce risk of STD (especially
HIV) transmission, it is important to understand their potential
limitations. Condoms and other barrier methods may only
be partially effective against certain STDs that are transmitted
by direct skin-to-skin contact (e.g., herpes simplex virus,
human papilloma virus). When blisters or lesions that are
symptomatic of these STDs are not covered by a condom
and are in direct skin-to-skin contact with another person, viral
shedding-transmission of the virus-can occur. Only total
absence of any touching of infected tissue is 100% effective
in preventing STD transmission.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/advocacy/yan/condom/facts.htm
... two in 100 women using male condoms consistently and
correctly for a year will experience pregnancy compared to 85
in 100 using no method. ... 15 of 100 women using the male
condom inconsistently or incorrectly will experience pregnancy
in a year compared to 85 in 100 using no method.
I personally know of two cases where condoms were used consistently
and correctly and did not prevent pregnancy. It happens. It's
certainly better than using no protection, but let's not be stupid
about it. There are better methods of birth control.
As for STDs, limiting ourselves to a small number of partners who
limit themselves to the same partners is also important.
Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
...
>I would propose that if we want to practice a responsible, harmless,
>and consensual form of sexual freedom, we rigorously restrict our
>contacts to the members of a group who
>
>• consistently practice appropriate contraception;
>• are initially proven to be free of sexually transmitted disease;
>• are periodically tested for the presence of sexually transmitted
>disease, and if infected, are isolated from the group until their
>disease is cured (permanently, if HIV-positive); and
>• are excluded permanently from the group if they knowingly and
>deliberately have unprotected sexual contact with outsiders.
>
>Of course, this method would *not* be absolutely perfect--it would
>*not* prevent *all* inappropriate pregnancy and *all* transmission of
>STDs. But I would suggest that among the members of a group that
>consistently practiced such a method, the incidence of inappropriate
>pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease would be only a small
>fraction of what it is under our present antisexual moral regime.
IMHO, the kind of practice you suggest would reduce the incidence of
STDs and pregnancy to a level not worth worrying about. At that level,
people could be as safe and risk free in their lifestyle as monogamous
people like me or people who abstain altogether. This is the kind of
program I would like to see introduced and made such a part of the
lifestyle that nobody gives it a second thought.
I don't know why such a regime is not the standard format. It would be
well worth the savings in tears in these communities, and it would be
doing a favor to the greater community in reducing medical costs and
in extending the productive lives of these people.
In that context, your position below seems reasonable. It would not be
for me (I have enough to do managing a relationship with one woman),
but it would certainly be a group freedom I'd support as fundamental.
Bert wrote earlier:
>You didn't ask me. But personally, I'm pro any kind of sexual activity
>that's both harmless and consensual. I suggest that a sexual activity
>is harmful if and only if it causes bodily injury, or if it causes
>significant psychological stress independent of custom and learning, or
>if it doesn't involve appropriate measures to prevent the transmission