Sunshower Country Club
Cw4910
Sunshower in centerville,
I drove 70 miles to visit the place to see if it was the kind of place I wanted
to become a member of. After I wrote them they sent me back a nice letter and
invited me for a visit. When I got there they turned me away even after I
showed them the letter. A not so friendly place.
Jenny6833A
cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) tells us a somewhat incomplete story:
>Sunshower in centerville,
>I drove 70 miles to visit the place to see if it was the kind of place I
>wanted
>to become a member of.
*You* wanted to see if it was the kind of place *you* wanted to become a
member of.
*They* wanted to see if *you* were the kind of person *they* wanted as a
member.
Don't forget that such meetings are a two-way street.
>After I wrote them they sent me back a nice letter and
>invited me for a visit. When I got there they turned me away even after I
>showed them the letter.
Why?
> A not so friendly place.
Not necessarily. It depends on why they turned you away.
Why did they?
Jenny
Cw4910
Why they said was that they didn't except singles, but the letter didn't say
anything about not excepting singles.
Jenny6833A
cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) says
>Why they said was that they didn't except singles, but the letter didn't say
>anything about not excepting singles.
The question to be answered here is who mislead who.
What had your letter to them said?
Jenny
George M. Gumbert III
On 30 Jun 1998 04:24:33 GMT, cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) wrote:
>Why they said was that they didn't except singles, but the letter didn't say
>anything about not excepting singles.
Interesting. I visited Sunshower alone last September with no
problems. I happened to be visiting relatives in Ohio and despite
being a lone male, my phone call and spur-of-the-moment visit was well
received.
Perhaps it was because it was the off-season or the rules have changed
since my visit. Hmmm.
George
Cw4910
I feel that I was discrimiated against because I didn't bring alone a woman
with me when I came for a visit.
Sporty
Cw4910 wrote in message <199807010535...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>I feel that I was discrimiated against because I didn't bring alone a woman
>with me when I came for a visit.
>
I felt just the opposite. I wrote a letter ahead of time and asked what
their
policy is for single males. I received the information and they provided a
phone number to call. I called and made reservations to stay in one of their
cabins (which was very nice.... I enjoyed reading the guest book that was
kept in the cabin. It was great to read about others that had stayed there.)
and had a great weekend. The people at Sunshower where very friendly,
and made we fell very welcome.
Sporty
Jenny6833A
cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) says
>I feel that I was discrimiated against because I didn't bring alone a woman
>with me when I came for a visit.
You're avoiding my question. How about a straight answer?
Here it is again.
You claim you wrote them a letter. You claim that they responded with a nice
letter inviting you to visit. You claim that their letter did not say anything
about you needing to come as a couple. You claim that they rejected you when
you arrived because you were alone.
(We don't know that any of that is true, but that's what you claim.)
You claim that they mislead you with their letter.
My questions are: What did your letter say? Did you mislead them *first* by
saying or implying that you would come as a couple?
These are simple questions. Answer them!
Jenny
Sartre5
> I called and made reservations to stay in one of their
>cabins (which was very nice.
OK, now that I've followed this thread for a while and gotten interested, do
you mind telling me where this place is? Sounds pretty nice. Thanks.
Richard
keith Fulton
Why such hatred of single men?
Cw4910
I think they want to make sure they get enough women there. Thats why the
insist no single men.
Cw4910
here it is,
NO I did not write them and tell them I was coming as a couple. I am not
married but I'm not looking to just go to nudist clubs to look at naked women.
I'm 50 yrs. old and I know what a naked lady looks like. And again they did not
write in their letter to me that I had to bring lady with me.
J. Frank Higginbottom
Jenny6833A wrote:
==snip===
> You're avoiding my question. How about a straight answer?
> These are simple questions. Answer them!
>
> Jenny
Good points Jenny. Two ways to go on this one. He is honest, but just
not (or forgetting to) give all the details. Or, he could just be
trolling to start up the "old single male" thread, which seems to
surface several times during the summer.
I did notice the comment about being accepted and the guest found the
place friendly. I can relate to such. I also can relate to the "nice
letter" and "rejection".
Case in point. I too wrote a local club and received a nice letter back
inviting me to visit. My letter simply stated that "I" would like to
vist for a couple of days and would need overnight lodging. Their
letter included a registration form. I completed the form and
returned it. Just to verify things before driving out, they happen to
ask "Single or Couple?". I said "Single". Their next question was "Are
you married?". Answer. "Yes, but my wife would not be joining me." At
that point they mentioned their policy that ALL MARRIED MALES HAD TO
HAVE THEIR WIVES ALONG FOR THE FIRST VISIT. Well needless to say, after
all the "nice letters" I was rejected.
Sounds like CW should have called first before driving.
PS: There are other clubs that don't have such backward rules. Such as
those that are turning a profit for their members rather than turning
away acceptable, paying guests.
Cw4910
they made me feel that the only reason I wanted to stay was to gaze at the
naked women and they wanted me to bring a woman with me to prove that I
wouldn't. Or maybe they are just short of ladies.
Cw4910
I agree, I think they just want a new supple of women.
Jenny6833A
"J. Frank Higginbottom" <jf...@lottohq.com> says
>Sounds like CW should have called first before driving.
Yeah. Anyone who doesn't is taking an unnecessary risk, and is also being
highly discourteous to his hosts. That applies to friends, acquaintences, and
anyone else -- as well as nudist clubs. If a friend says, "We'd like to have
you visit sometime" -- you don't just show up at the door without calling to
say "How about today?"
> I too wrote a local club and received a nice letter back
>inviting me to visit. My letter simply stated that "I" would like to
>vist for a couple of days and would need overnight lodging. Their
>letter included a registration form. I completed the form and
>returned it. Just to verify things before driving out, they happen to
>ask "Single or Couple?". I said "Single". Their next question was "Are
>you married?". Answer. "Yes, but my wife would not be joining me." At
>that point they mentioned their policy that ALL MARRIED MALES HAD TO
>HAVE THEIR WIVES ALONG FOR THE FIRST VISIT. Well needless to say, after
>all the "nice letters" I was rejected.
Lots of clubs have that rule. I think it's a good one. It's good for the
club and arguably good for the couple.
The wife becomes aware that hubby is going to the place, and she learns what
the place is really about. That greatly decreases the odds that the wife will
cause trouble, and greatly increases the chance that the wife will visit again
and end up joining with her husband.
OTOH, both my husband and I visit clubs alone that we've never been to before.
Both our names are on both our AANR and TNS cards, and on both of our club
cards. That always satisfies the host club that we're *both* experienced
nudists/naturists.
>PS: There are other clubs that don't have such backward rules.
When it's administered sensibly, I don't consider that rule 'backward.'
> Such as those that are turning a profit for
> their members rather than turning
>away acceptable, paying guests.
Short term cash flow isn't a club's only goal. It must also retain its current
members and attract acceptable new ones by ensuring that the clientelle on the
grounds are good people who are there for the right reasons. It must also
avoid pissed off spouses with the ensuing bad feeling, bad word-of-mouth, and
bad publicity. For example, no club wants to be blamed (truthfully or not)
for the breakup of a marriage.
To put it another way, clubs don't want to be regarded as a place that married
guys sneak off to without their wife's knowledge in the way so many sneak off
to nudie bars.
Jenny
WAYNE1672
I wasjust therelast week, by myself.
Maybe I got in because I'm a member of another club. I don't think they
would accept a direct AANR member.
Cw4910
but tell me if they let you in because you was a member of another club how do
you get to be a member of a club if a single cann't get in to visit and see if
they would like the place.
George M. Gumbert III
Depends on the club; I suppose I got in because I'm a member of KYANA
Naturists of Louisville. Try other clubs like Tri-State Country
Club, Cedar Trails, etc. Many clubs accept singles.
ven...@my-dejanews.com
For a nice web page on why many clubs have such policies, read
http://www.best.com/~cgd/home/naturism/nudity8.htm
Once you read it, you'll see the rationale for this.
VR
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Cw4910
I still fell that Sunshower could have and should of let me stay and judge me
for who I am not what they think I am. They made me feel like I was a dirty old
man just wanted to be there to look at the naked ladies.
Richard Kenner
In article <199807052203...@ladder01.news.aol.com> cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) writes:
>I still fell that Sunshower could have and should of let me stay and judge me
>for who I am not what they think I am.
You need to realize that most of the smaller clubs are not run as resort
businesses, but as cooperatives, meaning that the member volunteer to
do "administrative" duties from time to time. They would rather not spend
their time watching you.
Frosty
Gentleperson cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) sed:
|||||||||I still fell that Sunshower could have and should of let me
stay and judge me
|||||||||for who I am not what they think I am. They made me feel like
I was a dirty old
|||||||||man just wanted to be there to look at the naked ladies.
THAT'LL teach ya to (not) be honest!
George M. Gumbert III
On 5 Jul 1998 05:16:14 GMT, cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) wrote:
>you must know someone or maybe you must have better like than me. If I was able
>to get in I just wanted to visit to see if it was the kind of place I wanted
>to go to .
>
Perhaps not. The Gathering Place in Clarkson, KY has a quota against
lone males. As my girlfriend is not now into nudism (although I'm
thankful she at respects my nudism; it doesn't have to go any further
than this as I'm still lucky for her feelings), I asked about an
introductory visit and even this was kindly denied.
George
Cw4910
I do not need to be watched, I am a 50yr. old male and I know what a naked lady
looks like. So why judge me before you know me. Would they discrimimate
against me for anyother reasons other than being a single male? I wonder if I
was a single female would I been able to stay.
Richard Kenner
In article <199807061234...@ladder01.news.aol.com> cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) writes:
>I do not need to be watched, I am a 50yr. old male and I know what a naked
>lady looks like. So why judge me before you know me.
You're personalizing it and missing the point.
What you said was that a club should have a policy of admitting people
and *then* "judging" then (your word). But in order to judge you have
to observe (you call it "watch"). My point was that many clubs
operate on a volunteer basis and don't want to have to spend the time
observing people.
That means there's *no way* to "judge" people once they are admitted,
which means they have to do all the judging beforehand. Since some
men have reported being admitted to the club unaccompanied, we're forced
to wonder why you "set off some alarm" during the screening process.
stoney
On 6 Jul 1998 13:08:29 GMT, ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
wrote:
The 'screener of the day' had a bad hair day? The immediate
assumption that CW 'set off some alarm' is quite sad. There are a
myriad of other factors of which any one could have had a 'non-entry'
result.
Regards,
Stoney
headers are forged due to spam bots. Real email addy is phonetic.
charlie charlie one six seven one two [at] charlie delta sierra
november echo tango [dot] november echo tango
Nudeone
On 29 Jun 1998 05:56:06 GMT, cw4...@aol.com (Cw4910) wrote:
>Sunshower in centerville,
>I drove 70 miles to visit the place to see if it was the kind of place I wanted
>to become a member of. After I wrote them they sent me back a nice letter and
>invited me for a visit. When I got there they turned me away even after I
>showed them the letter. A not so friendly place.
As I understand it you misrepresented your marital status. Single men
can visit, but they must be truly single and truly honest!
Cw4910
I believe the club is giving itself a bad image when in a letter they say it's
OK to visit and when you drive 70 miles to get there they say no single men and
the letter didn't say that.
SolarMass1
jenny...@aol.com (Jenny6833A) writes:
>
>OTOH, both my husband and I visit clubs alone that we've never been to
>before.
>Both our names are on both our AANR and TNS cards, and on both of our club
>cards. That always satisfies the host club that we're *both* experienced
>nudists/naturists.
Before my wife became truly comfortable with nudism, I was in the
same predicament as MOST married men - guy wants to go have some
natural fun, wife says no dice. That is the DEFAULT experience for
us, Jenny.
However, my wife knew that I was a nudist long before I met her, that my
nudism was philosophical and sensual and part of my belief system for life,
and so she NEVER prohibited me from going. Oh, she would groan a bit
and mockingly complain, but that's just marital tug-o-war. So when I would
go to a club or resort, I would ALWAYS call ahead of time from home, would
send a letter, and call the day I was expected just to confirm my plans with
the place.
Now, BOTH our names are on our TNS card, but by now we both would be
going anyway, usually - except when I am traveling on business and wish to
recreate myself. When I travel on business alone, I revert to my past
practice
and it is always appreciated by the club or resort.
It is a MYTH that married guys going to a club want to do anything other than
enjoy social nudism. We married men AND single men must constantly
and clearly make the case AND mean it and live it. Over time, it will become
less of an issue. I invite any married man to write me email if they want
to discuss ways of improving spouse acceptance from a guy's perspective.
Alan
solar...@aol.com
Jenny6833A
>Before my wife became truly comfortable with nudism, I was in the
>same predicament as MOST married men - guy wants to go have some
>natural fun, wife says no dice.
MOST married men aren't nudists and never will be.
> That is the DEFAULT experience for
>us, Jenny.
No, not really. Mixed marriages aren't limited to nudist guy and textile gal.
The converse situation causes problems too. I wish I had buck or two for every
nudist and nudist-wannabe female who has cried on my shoulder about an
adamantly opposed husband.
>However, my wife knew that I was a nudist long before I met her, that my
>nudism was philosophical and sensual and part of my belief system for life,
>and so she NEVER prohibited me from going. Oh, she would groan a bit
>and mockingly complain, but that's just marital tug-o-war.
Darn few textile men are so understanding of nudist wives.
> So when I would
>go to a club or resort, I would ALWAYS call ahead of time from home, would
>send a letter, and call the day I was expected just to confirm my plans with
>the place.
Smart. You knew how to reassure the club/resort that you were on the level,
and were willing to do so. I've been telling guys to do that for years, but
few of them get the message. They want to just show up at the place and demand
service as if they were buying a burger at McD's.
>Now, BOTH our names are on our TNS card, but by now we both would be
>going anyway, usually
Good for both of you.
> - except when I am traveling on business and wish to
>recreate myself. When I travel on business alone, I revert to my past
>practice
>and it is always appreciated by the club or resort.
Yup. It works. It's too bad that so few unaccompanied folk will take the
trouble to be considerate of the club they wish to visit.
>It is a MYTH that married guys going to a club want to do anything other than
>enjoy social nudism.
Oh, balderdash. That's a major over-generalization. You can't speak for ALL
married guys. Some are just seeking a variation on their visits to nudie bars.
>We married men AND single men must constantly
>and clearly make the case AND mean it and live it.
If all unaccompanied married and single guys went for the right reasons, they
wouldn't have to make the case. "Meaning it and living it" is a lot more
important than "constantly and clearly making the case."
Actions speak louder than words.
>Over time, it will become
>less of an issue.
I don't think it's much of an issue now. Very few clubs have blanket
prohibitions and fewer still enforce them 100%. Forget the so-called rules.
In practice, most clubs just ask that the guy (or gal) who wants to visit
unaccompanied jump through a few easily jumped-through hoops. As you've so
correctly pointed out, about all you have to do is make a couple phone calls,
demonstrate that you're legitimate, and make a good impression while doing it.
> I invite any married man to write me email if they want
>to discuss ways of improving spouse acceptance from a guy's perspective.
You mean I haven't done the perfect job already? <G>
Jenny
(who definitely DID have you in mind when extolling the virtues of aol posters
-- you can't possibly have thought I meant just Scootch, Bob, and me!).
Cw4910
in a letter to a resort, because I am in a long relationship and it make things
easyer when corressponding. And when I was honest and told them they said I
had to leave. That was, Sunshower Country Club, after I drove 70 miles to get
there.
SolarMass1
jenny...@aol.com (Jenny6833A) writes:
>
>solar...@aol.com (SolarMass1) says
>
>>Before my wife became truly comfortable with nudism, I was in the
>>same predicament as MOST married men - guy wants to go have some
>>natural fun, wife says no dice.
>
>MOST married men aren't nudists and never will be.
That is a true statement. What I meant to say was, "most nudist men who
get married to non-nudist wives ..." But I think it applies to men who want
to try social nudism after they are married and their wives are not too
enthusiastic ....
>
>> That is the DEFAULT experience for
>>us, Jenny.
>
>No, not really. Mixed marriages aren't limited to nudist guy and textile
>gal.
True. In my experience and I believe the majority of cases it IS that
way, but certainly not ALL. I should put away the same broad brush
I accuse others of using!
>The converse situation causes problems too. I wish I had buck or two for
>every
>nudist and nudist-wannabe female who has cried on my shoulder about an
>adamantly opposed husband.
Hmmm .... there's money to be made in hooking them up with <slap!>
Oh, nevermind. What a nasty thought. Tell you what, though ... lets play
a game: if you had a buck for every situation as you describe, and I had one
in the reverse, who would be buying whom lunch? <grin> I daresay that
the situation where men want to go, women do not is more common.
I wonder if any research has been done?
>>However, my wife knew that I was a nudist long before I met her, that my
>>nudism was philosophical and sensual and part of my belief system for life,
>>and so she NEVER prohibited me from going. Oh, she would groan a bit
>>and mockingly complain, but that's just marital tug-o-war.
>
>Darn few textile men are so understanding of nudist wives.
Do you have life stories (names changed to protect the innocent, etc.) that
you could share? It would be a revelation and illustrative ...
>
>> So when I would
>>go to a club or resort, I would ALWAYS call ahead of time from home, would
>>send a letter, and call the day I was expected just to confirm my plans with
>>the place.
>
>Smart. You knew how to reassure the club/resort that you were on the level,
>and were willing to do so. I've been telling guys to do that for years, but
>few of them get the message. They want to just show up at the place and
>demand
>service as if they were buying a burger at McD's.
Thanks. Just seemed like common sense, and also TNS says to do that
as well. Stepping back a half-second, the day when nudist resorts ARE like
McD's <wink> would be an interesting day indeed.
>>Now, BOTH our names are on our TNS card, but by now we both would be
>>going anyway, usually
>
>Good for both of you.
Her conversion has been documented on rec.nude in past postings ....
the free beach movement did it. I suspect that if a club such as Lupin
or other first-rate clubs had been CLOSE by (not more than an hour
away), that might have been acceptable to her. She was and is to this day
very "class-ist" in the sense that she decries declase', low-rent ANYTHING -
hotel rooms, restaurants, stores. She is the product of an upper-middle
class upbringing and her idea of "camping" is a Hyatt that is not a Regency.
<smile> Trailer parks are not her thing. She's a self-admitted snob, and
works hard for what she wants and gets. She's a Grand Lido person,
not a #include std.lowrent.campground person.
>
>>It is a MYTH that married guys going to a club want to do anything other
>than
>>enjoy social nudism.
>
>Oh, balderdash. That's a major over-generalization. You can't speak for ALL
>married guys. Some are just seeking a variation on their visits to nudie
>bars.
I should have said, "in my opinion and experience, it is a myth ...."
You're right - I can't speak for all guys. Just my long experience traveling
on business visiting dozens of places.
>
>>We married men AND single men must constantly
>>and clearly make the case AND mean it and live it.
>
>If all unaccompanied married and single guys went for the right reasons, they
>wouldn't have to make the case. "Meaning it and living it" is a lot more
>important than "constantly and clearly making the case."
That was what I meant, Jenny. We mean the same thing here in
this context.
>
>Actions speak louder than words.
Yes.
>
>>Over time, it will become
>>less of an issue.
>
>I don't think it's much of an issue now. Very few clubs have blanket
>prohibitions and fewer still enforce them 100%. Forget the so-called rules.
>In practice, most clubs just ask that the guy (or gal) who wants to visit
>unaccompanied jump through a few easily jumped-through hoops. As you've so
>correctly pointed out, about all you have to do is make a couple phone
>calls,
>demonstrate that you're legitimate, and make a good impression while doing
>it.
Yes.
>> I invite any married man to write me email if they want
>>to discuss ways of improving spouse acceptance from a guy's perspective.
>
>You mean I haven't done the perfect job already? <G>
Hmmmm .... rec.nude seemingly has a very short term memory cycle
time, constantly needing refreshing (like DRAM). Is anything you have
written in the FAQ's? I think you've done great work here on rec.nude.
But, of course, only I can in my imperfection be perfect <wink>. Not.
>Jenny
>(who definitely DID have you in mind when extolling the virtues of aol
>posters
>-- you can't possibly have thought I meant just Scootch, Bob, and me!).
Hey, hey, no fair taking the edge off my hard-boiled dry wit and cynicism,
OK? I have a reputation to uphold and .... oh, nevermind! :-)
FYI, I post from AOL because my family likes AOL and they out-voted me.
I used to post from work and have a REAL IP address, but then the
work-nazi's cracked down on that .... then I went to an ISP but found my
wife and kids didn't dig the setup, so it was to AOL for us .... in our house,
we have 5 computers and what the other Users want matters, too. Outvoted
implies we had a process for selection, and we do. But that doesn't mean
we won't have a coup d'etat someday.
Alan
solar...@aol.com
Ed
told them to false. I was just at sunshowers and Im a single male, I called
ahead and told them that upfront. I told them that I was an AANR member and
single. You my friend actually give singles a bad image by not being upfront
with them in the first place.
I would recommend that in the future, that you would refrain from not be
honest with resorts. Single males are the same as married males, each group
have sickos and perverts. But the majority of males are neither.
When you first posted your very first posting it didn't say anything about
lying, if you would have said that, then theses posting would not have
gotten this far. I have to wonder what else happened, that you selectively
forget to tell us about.
As a single male do me a favor and don't lie about you marital status.
Cw4910 wrote in message <199807111248...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Jenny6833A
> Tell you what, though ... lets play
>a game: if you had a buck for every situation as you describe, and I had one
>in the reverse, who would be buying whom lunch? <grin> I daresay that
>the situation where men want to go, women do not is more common.
There's no doubt that nudist or wannabe-nudist men predominate in 'mixed'
marriages. My guess is that it's at least four out of five and maybe nine out
of ten.
>Do you have life stories (names changed to protect the innocent, etc.) that
>you could share? It would be a revelation and illustrative ...
I'm in touch with three women now whohave adamantly opposed husbands -- and
have talked to 90-100 over the last few years. They see my profile in a chat
room, make contact, and away we go.
All the stories are pretty much the same. Husband is adamantly opposed. Wife
either doesn't dare bring up the topic, or has done so and been FORBIDDEN to
even think of it again -- usually with explicit or implicit threats of physical
violence.
I haven't kept stats, but the vast majority of the guys view their wives as
personal property. The idea of another man "sharing" their wives "private
parts" drives them absolutely insane with anger. Obviously, they view even the
most casual glance as the same as intercourse.
I've also talked to lots of those kind of guys. They see my profile, then call
me "slut" and a whole lot of other stuff. They say things like, "If you were
mine, I'd kill you."
It's a harem culture. A woman is a tw*t or c*nt -- that's it and that's all --
and the guy owns even the sight of it. Interestingly enough, they always
express it in those kind of crude terms.
Any distinction between mere sight and actual intercourse is beyond them. The
concept of mere, non-sexual nudity is beyond them.
I say things like, "Why must private parts be visually private?"and "Isn't
there a difference between merely seeing something and adultery?" The answers
are angry, incoherent, and usually very crude. Their whole self-image, their
whole being, seems wrapped up in the idea of owning a thingamabob and
protecting it from all the millions who would sully it for them.
Strangely, most of the women I talk to say they didn't realize what kind of guy
they were marrying until they had. It's sort of like it's not obvious until
the ceremony, then it's "I own you now!"
Jenny
(who has learned a lot in twelve years online that I would probably never have
learned any other way)
jmcc...@vunet.vinu.edu
If you reverse the sexes your story below fits my wife and I to a T.
Jim McCarty
In article <199807130131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jenny...@aol.com (Jenny6833A) wrote:
> solar...@aol.com (SolarMass1) says
>
> > Tell you what, though ... lets play
> >a game: if you had a buck for every situation as you describe, and I had one
> >in the reverse, who would be buying whom lunch? <grin> I daresay that
> >the situation where men want to go, women do not is more common.
>
> There's no doubt that nudist or wannabe-nudist men predominate in 'mixed'
> marriages. My guess is that it's at least four out of five and maybe nine out
> of ten.
>
> >Do you have life stories (names changed to protect the innocent, etc.) that
> >you could share? It would be a revelation and illustrative ...
>
--
Jim McCarty
Cw4910
not. Every body has their own believes even married couples. One might want a
nudist lifesyle and the other doesn't and why should the other one be punished
by a resort. Why don't they just not make a big deal out of it .
Cw4910
friend. I just started going to nudist resorts and I enjoy it very much. I do
not call it cheating on my girl friend because I would want her to go with me
but she says no. And down deep she doesn't want me to go, so what should I do?
So fare I just go by myself for a couple of hours and not tell anyone.
stoney
>solar...@aol.com (SolarMass1) says
>
>> Tell you what, though ... lets play
>>a game: if you had a buck for every situation as you describe, and I had one
>>in the reverse, who would be buying whom lunch? <grin> I daresay that
>>the situation where men want to go, women do not is more common.
>
>There's no doubt that nudist or wannabe-nudist men predominate in 'mixed'
>marriages. My guess is that it's at least four out of five and maybe nine out
>of ten.
>
>>Do you have life stories (names changed to protect the innocent, etc.) that
>>you could share? It would be a revelation and illustrative ...
>
>I'm in touch with three women now whohave adamantly opposed husbands -- and
>have talked to 90-100 over the last few years. They see my profile in a chat
>room, make contact, and away we go.
>
>All the stories are pretty much the same. Husband is adamantly opposed. Wife
either doesn't dare bring up the topic, or has done so and been
FORBIDDEN to
even think of it again -- usually with explicit or implicit threats of
physical
>violence.
YUCK!....:(
>I haven't kept stats, but the vast majority of the guys view their wives as
personal property. The idea of another man "sharing" their wives
"private
parts" drives them absolutely insane with anger. Obviously, they view
even the
>most casual glance as the same as intercourse.
Property? Slavery was abolished many years ago. These guys sound
pretty pathetic.
>I've also talked to lots of those kind of guys. They see my profile, then call
me "slut" and a whole lot of other stuff. They say things like, "If
you were
>mine, I'd kill you."
>It's a harem culture. A woman is a tw*t or c*nt -- that's it and that's all --
and the guy owns even the sight of it. Interestingly enough, they
always
>express it in those kind of crude terms.
Barefoot and pregnant mentallity.... :(
>Any distinction
between mere sight and actual intercourse is beyond them. The
>concept of mere, non-sexual nudity is beyond them.
'Tis very sad, indeed.
>I say things like, "Why must private parts be visually private?"and "Isn't
there a difference between merely seeing something and adultery?" The
answers are angry, incoherent, and usually very crude. Their whole
self-image, their whole being, seems wrapped up in the idea of owning
a thingamabob and
>protecting it from all the millions who would sully it for them.
Sounds like they have no self-image or self-esteem...:(
>Strangely, most of the women I talk to say they didn't realize what kind of guy
they were marrying until they had. It's sort of like it's not obvious
until
>the ceremony, then it's "I own you now!"
Ewww.... And divorce attempt would mean a graveyard...[shudder].
>Jenny
(who has learned a lot in twelve years online that I would probably
never have
>learned any other way)
Agreed. It's quite an eye-opener.
Oleg Sokolsky
> And down deep she doesn't want me to go, so what should I do?
> So fare I just go by myself for a couple of hours and not tell anyone.
If you ask me, that the worst possible decision. There's a problem
brewing, right there. Eventually, she'll know. And then her resentment
of you going there will turn into a resentment over being left out.
When two people care about each other enough, it should always be possible
to find a workable solution that would not cause distress in either partner.
It is possible to maintain a relationship doing something that one's SO
does not support - but not doing something he or she resents.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
Oleg Sokolsky e-mail: soko...@cccc.com
Note: I am *not* affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, and
we are not responsible for opinions of each other.
verm...@my-dejanews.com
> >a game: if you had a buck for every situation as you describe, and I had one
> >in the reverse, who would be buying whom lunch? <grin> I daresay that
> >the situation where men want to go, women do not is more common.
>
> marriages. My guess is that it's at least four out of five and maybe nine out
> of ten.
>
> >you could share? It would be a revelation and illustrative ...
>
> have talked to 90-100 over the last few years. They see my profile in a chat
> room, make contact, and away we go.
>
> All the stories are pretty much the same. Husband is adamantly opposed. Wife
> either doesn't dare bring up the topic, or has done so and been FORBIDDEN to
> even think of it again -- usually with explicit or implicit threats of
physical
> violence.
>
> personal property. The idea of another man "sharing" their wives "private
> parts" drives them absolutely insane with anger. Obviously, they view even
the
> most casual glance as the same as intercourse.
>
call
> me "slut" and a whole lot of other stuff. They say things like, "If you were
> mine, I'd kill you."
>
> It's a harem culture. A woman is a tw*t or c*nt -- that's it and that's all
--
> and the guy owns even the sight of it. Interestingly enough, they always
> express it in those kind of crude terms.
>
> concept of mere, non-sexual nudity is beyond them.
>
> there a difference between merely seeing something and adultery?" The answers
> are angry, incoherent, and usually very crude. Their whole self-image, their
> whole being, seems wrapped up in the idea of owning a thingamabob and
> protecting it from all the millions who would sully it for them.
>
guy
> they were marrying until they had. It's sort of like it's not obvious until
> the ceremony, then it's "I own you now!"
>
> (who has learned a lot in twelve years online that I would probably never have
> learned any other way)
men that have responded to you chats may appear to be that shallow however
there are men around that are not as you describe.
> In fact many of the men you have chatted with are not as bold when they can
not hide behind the keyboard. And many more are going for the shock value of
the chat.
> If any of these guys or gals were born with clothes on then i could see
their modesty but none were. Its a shame the entire world can not grow up and
act like civilized human beings.
> One more thought for these narrow minded individuals the act of sex is just
that it can be carried out with out love and with out guilt where as love
needs to be from the soul and can only be real thus increasing sexual
connection.
>Bottom line if your truly in love then nudity should not be a sexual thing it
is not what should trigger the urge for sexual activity that goes further than
the glance of a nude body.... grow up fellas and get on with life
enjoy......loose the restraints and go without burden as you came into this
world......Walter
SolarMass1
jenny...@aol.com (Jenny6833A) writes:
>I'm in touch with three women now whohave adamantly opposed husbands -- and
>have talked to 90-100 over the last few years. They see my profile in a chat
>room, make contact, and away we go.
>
>All the stories are pretty much the same. Husband is adamantly opposed.
>Wife
>either doesn't dare bring up the topic, or has done so and been FORBIDDEN to
>even think of it again -- usually with explicit or implicit threats of
>physical
>violence.
.... rest of true and disgusting chattel property story deleted to save
space and lunch.
Thank you for the information, Jen. I had no idea!
Alan
sola...@aol.com
Jenny6833A
>.... rest of true and disgusting chattel property story deleted to save
>space and lunch.
>
>Thank you for the information, Jen. I had no idea!
Alan, no idea? Don't you read the papers? "Jealous man stalks, kills,
estranged wife" and all the variations on that theme like "If I can't have
her, no one can!" and "Shelter for Battered Women Seeks to Triple in Size."
(Yes, yes, I agree that there are women out there who are like that. Miniscule
by comparison, though.)
Jenny
SolarMass1
>estranged wife" and all the variations on that theme like "If I can't have
>her, no one can!" and "Shelter for Battered Women Seeks to Triple in Size."
>
>(Yes, yes, I agree that there are women out there who are like that.
>Miniscule
>by comparison, though.)
>
>Jenny
1. They don't write those kind of articles in the Wall Street Journal.
2. They don't write those in the Austin American-Statesman, mostly because
they don't have good enough crime reporters!
Alan
solar...@aol.com
STEVE
sola...@aol.com (Solarass1) wrote:
> In article <199807130131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> jenny...@aol.com (Jenny6833A) writes:
>
> >All the stories are pretty much the same. Husband is adamantly opposed.
> >Wife either doesn't dare bring up the topic, or has done so and been
> >FORBIDDEN to even think of it again -- usually with explicit or implicit
> >threats of physical violence.
>
> .... rest of true and disgusting chattel property story deleted to save
> space and lunch.
>
> Thank you for the information, Jen. I had no idea!
>
> Alan
> sola...@aol.com
==========================================================================
Always take Alan at his word as he's not being facetious when he says he
has no idea. Unfortunately, there's more truth in Jenny's post than any
man wants to hear. Meanwhile, Alan---OJ, guilty or not guilty? -STEVE
Richard Kenner
>I wish I was more like you. I got myself in trouble when I said I was married
>in a letter to a resort, because I am in a long relationship and it make
>things easyer when corressponding. And when I was honest and told them they
>said I had to leave. That was, Sunshower Country Club, after I drove 70
>miles to get there.
See, what we're all confused about here is why they had one reaction to your
letter and another to you in person. Did you say the same thing both times?
Lee R.
>==========================================================================
>Always take Alan at his word as he's not being facetious when he says he
>has no idea. Unfortunately, there's more truth in Jenny's post than any
>man wants to hear. Meanwhile, Alan---OJ, guilty or not guilty? -STEVE
Old Scottish decision--not proven.
ObNude--I have finally realized that there are times when it is too
hot to enjoy being nude. 100 in the shade, even with humidity in the
30s, is too hot--and in the sun, I start reaching for the sunshade.
L. (Naking indoors today)
SolarMass1
>has no idea. Unfortunately, there's more truth in Jenny's post than any
>man wants to hear. Meanwhile, Alan---OJ, guilty or not guilty? -STEVE
Guilty.
Steve, I have an IQ of over 148. Don't bother attempting to denegrate my
intelligence. At least I am man enough to admit when I don't know something.
N'est pas?
Richard Kenner
>Can someone tell me what makes the difference to a resort if you are married
>or not.
To a resort? Not a whole lot since they are a business.
To a club? It creates the potential for unhappy spouses to cause them
trouble and many clubs simply don't want to have to worry about that.
STEVE
sola...@aol.com (SolarAss1) wrote:
> Steve, I have an IQ of over 148. Don't bother attempting to denegrate my
> intelligence.
You had to tell us. By the way, has a genius like you ever won any
spelling bees? -STEVE
Ben Thornton
> Always take Alan at his word as he's not being facetious when he says he
> has no idea. Unfortunately, there's more truth in Jenny's post than any
> man wants to hear. Meanwhile, Alan---OJ, guilty or not guilty? -STEVE
So long as men continue to believe that womens breasts are primarily
there for sexual purposes, you can pretty much rest assured that men
will continue to behave the way Jenny describes.
And I don't know if OJ is guilty or not.... neither did the jury. They
just couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
--ben
--
Ben Thornton Amateur call: WD5HLS
Internet: bth...@jump.net, http://www.sss.org/~bthorn
CAUTION: Clothing has been shown to cause extreme psychological
dependence upon textiles. Wear them at your own risk.
STEVE
=========================================================================
Both men AND women in this society believe that female breasts are
primarily for sexual purposes (read Dainerra's posts, aka Kepytan). Jenny
is saying that men view women and their bodies as sexual property. Both of
them are right, which means there is something wrong with men, as well as
women and society in general. Nudists should be able to recognize and
appreciate the sexuality of a women's breasts without fixating or obsessing
on it like everyone else. Denying this makes us look absurd because we are
essentially lieing to ourselves and everyone else, and no one is going to
believe a liar. Exposing ourselves to such ridicule allows society to
avoid it's responsibility for the continued exploitation and
objectification of women. -STEVE
pz: there was a second jury decision on OJ for those who couldn't get it
right the first time.
Cw4910
I don't just think of them sexually but as an act of freedom and being equal.
Be...@aceybbs.tfnetdotorg
Country Club.
c)> > Steve, I have an IQ of over 148. Don't bother attempting to
denegrate my >
c)> intelligence.
c)>
c)>
c)> You had to tell us. By the way, has a genius like you ever won any
c)> spelling bees? -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
Uh, so. People fuck up when typing. It's not a huge deal. Get over it.
STEVE
> 07/18/98, Beast quoted cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ): Re: Sunshower
> Country Club.
>
> > Steve, I have an IQ of over 148. Don't bother attempting to
> > denegrate my intelligence.
>
> > You had to tell us. By the way, has a genius like you ever won any
> > spelling bees? -STEVE
>
> Uh, so. People fuck up when typing. It's not a huge deal. Get over it.
==========================================================================
Okay, so he's a genius AND a spastic. Ever notice that the 'e' & 'i' keys
are on opposite sides of the keyboard, and it requires more than a slip of
the finger to confuse the two? -STEVE
pz: Alan have you on retainer, or something?
SolarMass1
cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ) writes:
>
>> Steve, I have an IQ of over 148. Don't bother attempting to denegrate my
>> intelligence.
>
>
>You had to tell us. By the way, has a genius like you ever won any
>spelling bees? -STEVE
I had to tell you, Steve. And genius is above 150. If you were a near-genius,
you would have know that.
Once again you have contributed zero to rec.nude. Here is my contribution:
Just talked to longtime nudist Ben Thornton, and he indicated that the
Hill Country Nudists had a table out at Hippie Hollow for National Nude
Recreation Week. Good for them!! I am proud of my fellow Austin-area
nudists.
STEVE
solar...@aol.com (SolarMass1) wrote:
> In article <crill-ya02408000...@news.concentric.net>,
> cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ) writes:
>
> >> Steve, I have an IQ of over 148. Don't bother attempting to denegrate my
> >> intelligence.
> >
> >You had to tell us. By the way, has a genius like you ever won any
> >spelling bees? -STEVE
>
> I had to tell you, Steve. And genius is above 150. If you were a
> near-genius, you would have know that.
Yeah, I guess it's more modest to claim that you're only a near-genius
instead of a real genius. How did you miss out by just two points? Forget
to do that extra-credit book report? Interesting that someone who is
virulently anti-spam like you doesn't mind placing advertisments for
himself here on rec.nude. -STEVE
==========================================================================
> Once again you have contributed zero to rec.nude. Here is my contribution:
>
> Just talked to longtime nudist Ben Thornton, and he indicated that the
> Hill Country Nudists had a table out at Hippie Hollow for National Nude
> Recreation Week. Good for them!! I am proud of my fellow Austin-area
> nudists.
What a self-serving hypocrite you are. Some contribution---tossing a bone
to your doggie-stooge Ben for services rendered. -STEVE
==========================================================================
STEVE
> STEVE wrote:
> I don't think that nudists deny the fact that women's breast have SOME
> sexual functions. It's just not true that the sexual function is the
> primary one. You have yet to prove that it is...
>
>
> --ben
I'm not trying to prove anything---I'm just more adept at recognizing the
facts of life than you are (which is why I know OJ is guilty, and you're
still trying to make up your mind). Tell me, Ben---why do women have those
things hanging off of them? -STEVE
STEVE
sola...@aol.com (SolarAss1) wrote:
> You have just made my killfile, STEVE.
>
> All longtime rec.nude readers:
>
> I dunno about you, but I have had it with STEVE. I have placed him in my
> killfile.
>
> He is dead to me.
>
> I am asking everyone to do the same. It is, of course, your choice.
>
> I ask you because STEVE has done but start fights, has added NO value to
> rec.nude, and in general is abusive and nasty for no good reason. In the
old > days of Usenet, the community would band together and basically
> ostracize people like STEVE. I believe there is enough people of good common
> sense to do the same even today.
>
> I have not asked this lightly - I have not asked anyone to do this even for
> notorious SPAMMERS like Peter Riden who are linked to people who have been
> accused of child porno. We can take care of Riden right here.
> I have not asked you to do this to anyone else. But I believe that STEVE
> (cr...@mailcity.com) warrents this action.
>
> Please email me if you want to know how to add someone to your killfile. If
> you wish, you can simply ignore his postings and that is effectively the
same > thing.
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Alan
> sola...@aol.com
==========================================================================
Yep, run and hide, Alan. Bullies can never finish what they start, and an
ostrich has more guts than a chickenshit like you (although it can't stick
its ass as high in the air). -STEVE
W.D. Peckenpaugh
> > I don't think that nudists deny the fact that women's breast have SOME
> > sexual functions. It's just not true that the sexual function is the
> > primary one. You have yet to prove that it is...
>
> I'm not trying to prove anything---I'm just more adept at recognizing the
> facts of life than you are. Tell me, Ben---why do women have those
> things hanging off of them? -STEVE
Well, what if you're not as adept as you think?
Do you suppose bulls find cows' udders sexually stimulating? No -- they
are organs for feeding the young. Do male dogs become aroused when a
bitch is suckling a litter? No -- by that time, she is no longer in
heat, and, therefore, no longer sexually as desirable.
And, just to bring us naked apes into the fray, why do you suppose there
are cultures in which women would be horrified to have you gazing at
their uncovered . . . neck, or lower lip, or face? Could it be because
different cultures among us have learned to find different body parts
"inherently" sexual? How could this be, if some parts are "inherently,"
objectively more sexual than others? Does this mean that no parts are
sexual, or that they all *can be* sexual?
Breasts are for feeding babies. If you like to look at them, or think
they are sexy, or whatever, more power to you. This does not mean that
nature put them there for you to admire -- only that you have decided
that they are worthy of admiration. The only real sexual organ in your
body is your brain.
Bill
--
The Rt. Rev. Bill Peckenpaugh, OSFL
frb...@priest.com http://www.wp.com/wdpeck/
Ben Thornton
>
> In article <35B14C85...@jump.net>, Ben Thornton <bth...@jump.net> wrote:
>
> > STEVE wrote:
> >
> > > Always take Alan at his word as he's not being facetious when he says he
> > > has no idea. Unfortunately, there's more truth in Jenny's post than any
> > > man wants to hear. Meanwhile, Alan---OJ, guilty or not guilty? -STEVE
> >
> > So long as men continue to believe that womens breasts are primarily
> > there for sexual purposes, you can pretty much rest assured that men
> > will continue to behave the way Jenny describes.
> >
> > And I don't know if OJ is guilty or not.... neither did the jury. They
> > just couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
> >
> > --ben
> >
> > --
> > Ben Thornton Amateur call: WD5HLS
> > Internet: bth...@jump.net, http://www.sss.org/~bthorn
> > CAUTION: Clothing has been shown to cause extreme psychological
> > dependence upon textiles. Wear them at your own risk.
> =========================================================================
> primarily for sexual purposes (read Dainerra's posts, aka Kepytan). Jenny
> is saying that men view women and their bodies as sexual property. Both of
> them are right, which means there is something wrong with men, as well as
> women and society in general. Nudists should be able to recognize and
> appreciate the sexuality of a women's breasts without fixating or obsessing
> on it like everyone else. Denying this makes us look absurd because we are
> essentially lieing to ourselves and everyone else, and no one is going to
> believe a liar. Exposing ourselves to such ridicule allows society to
> avoid it's responsibility for the continued exploitation and
> objectification of women. -STEVE
> pz: there was a second jury decision on OJ for those who couldn't get it
> right the first time.
I don't think that nudists deny the fact that women's breast have SOME
sexual functions. It's just not true that the sexual function is the
primary one. You have yet to prove that it is...
SolarMass1
Greg16029
>Ever notice that the 'e' & 'i' keys
>are on opposite sides of the keyboard, and it requires more than a slip of
>the finger to confuse the two? -STEVE
Actually, confusing the same finger on the left and right hand is the second
most common mistake typists make. e.g. "e" for "i" (especially me, I ALWAYS
mess up friend and receiving because of the "e" and "i" in them and you
wouldn't believe how many times I tried to spell "finger" b/f getting it right
;)
ObNude: Notice I have changed the subject of this string (hope no one minds)
Someone was asking what people like to do in the nude. I have recently taken
up playing with a Yo-yo. They're a blast to work with.
Now, let's try to get along.
Greg B.
shinin...@hotmail.com
For even as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so I, in my human
imperfection, do my best to reflect the light of the one true Son of God
STEVE
<frb...@priest.com> wrote:
> Do you suppose bulls find cows' udders sexually stimulating? No -- they
> are organs for feeding the young. Do male dogs become aroused when a
> bitch is suckling a litter? No -- by that time, she is no longer in
> heat, and, therefore, no longer sexually as desirable.
>
> And, just to bring us naked apes into the fray, why do you suppose there
> are cultures in which women would be horrified to have you gazing at
> their uncovered . . . neck, or lower lip, or face? Could it be because
> different cultures among us have learned to find different body parts
> "inherently" sexual? How could this be, if some parts are "inherently,"
> objectively more sexual than others? Does this mean that no parts are
> sexual, or that they all *can be* sexual?
>
> Breasts are for feeding babies. If you like to look at them, or think
> they are sexy, or whatever, more power to you. This does not mean that
> nature put them there for you to admire -- only that you have decided
> that they are worthy of admiration. The only real sexual organ in your
> body is your brain.
>
> Bill
> --
> The Rt. Rev. Bill Peckenpaugh, OSFL
> frb...@priest.com http://www.wp.com/wdpeck/
==========================================================================
Maybe we can take up cow udders and bitch teats some other time as the
discussion was about women and not animals (unless you somehow equate them
as the same). Also, try to focus on the United States of America in the
late twentieth century, unless you really are on another planet as your
post seems to indicate. It would help too if you stopped using your brain
as a sexual organ, and tried to think with it instead. -STEVE
W.D. Peckenpaugh
> Maybe we can take up cow udders and bitch teats some other time as the
> discussion was about women and not animals (unless you somehow equate them
> as the same). Also, try to focus on the United States of America in the
> late twentieth century, unless you really are on another planet as your
> post seems to indicate. It would help too if you stopped using your brain
> as a sexual organ, and tried to think with it instead. -STEVE
I just love it when someone tries to wield their rapier-like wit, yet
proves my point for me.
Why, Steve, do you want to focus only on 20th-century United States
culture? Is it because we are one of the few cultures that drools over
womens' breasts, thus supporting my argument? Or is it because it's the
only one with which you are familiar, again supporting my point?
Ah . . . ad hominem: the shameful refuge of those who don't have either
the skill or patience to win an argument any other way. Goodbye, Steve.
I'd like to say it has been pleasant, challenging, and exciting debating
you, but that would severely stretch the meaning of the word "debate."
Ben Thornton
>
> In article <35B299E5...@jump.net>, Ben Thornton <bth...@jump.net> wrote:
>
> > STEVE wrote:
>
> > > Both men AND women in this society believe that female breasts are
> > > primarily for sexual purposes (read Dainerra's posts, aka Kepytan). Jenny
> > > is saying that men view women and their bodies as sexual property. Both of
> > > them are right, which means there is something wrong with men, as well as
> > > women and society in general. Nudists should be able to recognize and
> > > appreciate the sexuality of a women's breasts without fixating or obsessing
> > > on it like everyone else. Denying this makes us look absurd because we are
> > > essentially lieing to ourselves and everyone else, and no one is going to
> > > believe a liar. Exposing ourselves to such ridicule allows society to
> > > avoid it's responsibility for the continued exploitation and
> > > objectification of women. -STEVE
> > > pz: there was a second jury decision on OJ for those who couldn't get it
> > > right the first time.
> >
> > I don't think that nudists deny the fact that women's breast have SOME
> > sexual functions. It's just not true that the sexual function is the
> > primary one. You have yet to prove that it is...
> >
> >
> > --ben
>
> still trying to make up your mind).
Well, you're certainly more adept at dodging issues... you certainly
haven't been able to back up ANY of the assertions you've made in this
forum. You've been tremendously successful at pissing off most of
the readership though. Perhaps you should just go off and entertain
another audience who might better appreciate your razor-sharp wit, eh?
> Tell me, Ben---why do women have those things hanging off of them?
You should have learned that in health class in high school, steve.
You DID take health class didn't you?
STEVE
> > > I don't think that nudists deny the fact that women's breast have SOME
> > > sexual functions. It's just not true that the sexual function is the
> > > primary one. You have yet to prove that it is...
> > >
> > > --ben
> >
> > I'm not trying to prove anything---I'm just more adept at recognizing the
> > facts of life than you are (which is why I know OJ is guilty, and you're
> > still trying to make up your mind).
>
> Well, you're certainly more adept at dodging issues... you certainly
> haven't been able to back up ANY of the assertions you've made in this
> forum. You've been tremendously successful at pissing off most of
> the readership though. Perhaps you should just go off and entertain
> another audience who might better appreciate your razor-sharp wit, eh?
>
> > Tell me, Ben---why do women have those things hanging off of them?
>
> You should have learned that in health class in high school, steve.
> You DID take health class didn't you?
>
> --ben
=========================================================================
You say I'm adept at dodging issues? Here you have the chance to provide a
better explanation, and the best you can do is ask if I had a 'health
class'? Only in rec.nude have I encountered this dogma that a women's
breasts have no sexual connotation, even though we live in a society that
glorifies breast sexuality to such an extreme that many women find their
natural function abhorrent and mutilate themselves with implants. In
America, a woman's breasts are primarily sexual, and I'm not going to be so
willfully blind as to deny the obvious like you do. -STEVE
STEVE
<frb...@priest.com> wrote:
> STEVE wrote:
>
> > Maybe we can take up cow udders and bitch teats some other time as the
> > discussion was about women and not animals (unless you somehow equate them
> > as the same). Also, try to focus on the United States of America in the
> > late twentieth century, unless you really are on another planet as your
> > post seems to indicate. It would help too if you stopped using your brain
> > as a sexual organ, and tried to think with it instead. -STEVE
>
> I just love it when someone tries to wield their rapier-like wit, yet
> proves my point for me.
>
> Why, Steve, do you want to focus only on 20th-century United States
> culture? Is it because we are one of the few cultures that drools over
> womens' breasts, thus supporting my argument? Or is it because it's the
> only one with which you are familiar, again supporting my point?
>
> Bill
==========================================================================
Because I'm dealing with the here and now, and citing the habits of other
cultures (and animals) isn't necessarily relevant, or exemplary. Maybe
they had it right in 12th century Borneo, but they also might have
practiced infanticide or cannibalism. Such cherry-picking is disingenuous
as it assumes that one aspect of a culture isn't interrelated to the whole,
and that somehow it is applicable by itself to a complicated modern society
like ours. Otherwise, I totally agree with you that America has a puerile
obsession with women's breasts that is ridiculous. -STEVE
Be...@aceybbs.tfnetdotorg
Country Club.
c)> I'm not trying to prove anything---I'm just more adept at recognizing
the
c)> facts of life than you are (which is why I know OJ is guilty, and
you're
c)> still trying to make up your mind). Tell me, Ben---why do women have
those
c)> things hanging off of them? -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
To feed a child. No other reason. NONE. Well, none according to
everybody
except Playboy and You, STEVE.
Be...@aceybbs.tfnetdotorg
Country Club.
c)> Yep, run and hide, Alan. Bullies can never finish what they start, and
an
c)> ostrich has more guts than a chickenshit like you (although it can't
stick
c)> its ass as high in the air). -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
You know, really STEVE, you're so full of shit you stink. Alan's not
hiding
from anyone. He's just tired of all the crap that you're posting. If my
Software had killfiles, I'd killfile you in a second.
STEVE
Get off it! You're the one opening my postings so you can get all excited
and rage self-righteously. You don't need a killfile to avoid me---just
don't click on anything marked STEVE, and you can remain blissfully
ignorant. -STEVE
STEVE
> n 07/20/98, Beast quoted cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ): Re: Sunshower
> Country Club.
>
> c)> I'm not trying to prove anything---I'm just more adept at recognizing
> the
> c)> facts of life than you are (which is why I know OJ is guilty, and
> you're
> c)> still trying to make up your mind). Tell me, Ben---why do women have
> those
> c)> things hanging off of them? -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
>
> To feed a child. No other reason. NONE. Well, none according to
> everybody
> except Playboy and You, STEVE.
I don't subscribe, or even look at Playboy, but millions of others do and
are willing to pay for that magazine, and ones like it. Hef and company
have gotten rich by recognizing and exploiting this society's obsession
with the sexuality of women's breasts. That's reality, and they have the
money to prove it. -STEVE
Cw4910
it to themselfs thats their business. And just look at the number of women that
wants them to think that way.
Be...@aceybbs.tfnetdotorg
Country Club.
c)> Get off it! You're the one opening my postings so you can get all
excited
c)> and rage self-righteously. You don't need a killfile to avoid
me---just
c)> don't click on anything marked STEVE, and you can remain blissfully
c)> ignorant. -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
True, If I was using any sort of Windows Newsreader. I'm not. I'm using a
BBS to get my mail, which means I'm using a program like Windows
Hyperterminal. To skip your posts I have to hit Enter Twice (Once to get
to
your post, then once to skip it)
Actually, I wouldn't killfile you if I could - reading some of your longer
posts (I ususally skip posts that are more than 2 - 3 pages long) you
actually
do say some interesting things, sometimes.
Be...@aceybbs.tfnetdotorg
Country Club.
c)> > n 07/20/98, Beast quoted cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ): Re: Sunshower >
c)> Country Club. > > c)> I'm not trying to prove anything---I'm just more
c)> adept at recognizing > the > c)> facts of life than you are (which is
why I
c)> know OJ is guilty, and > you're > c)> still trying to make up your
mind).
c)> Tell me, Ben---why do women have > those > c)> things hanging off of
them?
c)> -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0 > > To feed a child. No other
reason.
c)> NONE. Well, none according to > everybody > except Playboy and You,
STEVE.
c)>
c)>
c)> I don't subscribe, or even look at Playboy, but millions of others do
and
c)> are willing to pay for that magazine, and ones like it. Hef and
company
c)> have gotten rich by recognizing and exploiting this society's obsession
c)> with the sexuality of women's breasts. That's reality, and they have
the
c)> money to prove it. -STEVE - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
No, they have not. They have gotten rich off the Taboo of Women's breasts,
not the breast themselves. That's why, at least part of it, anyhow, the
sex
spammers post to this newsgroup - If suddenly nudism became mainstream, how
quick do you think that playboy would go out of business?
Be...@aceybbs.tfnetdotorg
Country Club.
c(> So what if men want to think of women's breast as sexual objects. If
they
c(> keep it to themselfs thats their business. And just look at the number
of
c(> women that wants them to think that way. - Gated via NewsHound 2.0
Heh. Uh, no. Look at the number of MAGAZINES (Playboy, Penthouse, etc.)
that
want men to think of breasts like that. Why? Because that way men will
buy
those magazines.
tim keene
>In article <6oulnm$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "W.D. Peckenpaugh"
><frb...@priest.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you suppose bulls find cows' udders sexually stimulating? No -- they
>> are organs for feeding the young. Do male dogs become aroused when a
Most of Bill's good post deleted.
>Maybe we can take up cow udders and bitch teats some other time as the
>discussion was about women and not animals (unless you somehow equate them
>as the same). Also, try to focus on the United States of America in the
>late twentieth century, unless you really are on another planet as your
>post seems to indicate. It would help too if you stopped using your brain
>as a sexual organ, and tried to think with it instead. -STEVE
Steve, in a vain attempt to argue with Bill, has, in fact, torpedoed his
own arguement. You may recall he claimed that larger breasts are the
result of evolution. Apparently, his premise includes the fact that he
only considers the United States of America, in the late twentieth
century, his target area. I wonder if he has any idea how long evolution
takes? (hint: They use fruit flies in the lab for a reason).
Perhaps he's a fruit fly?
attilla
--
attilla the hun (Tim Keene)
Best Process server/Skip-Tracer
in known world. (408-262-7021)
att...@netcom.com
STEVE
> In article <crill-ya02408000...@news.concentric.net>
cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ) writes:
> >In article <6oulnm$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "W.D. Peckenpaugh"
> ><frb...@priest.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you suppose bulls find cows' udders sexually stimulating? No -- they
> >> are organs for feeding the young. Do male dogs become aroused when
Attilla > >> whines
>
> Most of Bill's rant deleted.
>
> >Maybe we can take up cow udders and bitch teats some other time as the
> >discussion was about women and not animals (unless you somehow equate them
> >as the same). Also, try to focus on the United States of America in the
> >late twentieth century, unless you really are on another planet as your
> >post seems to indicate. It would help too if you stopped using your brain
> >as a sexual organ, and tried to think with it instead. -STEVE
>
> Steve, in a vain attempt to argue with Bill, has, in fact, torpedoed his
> own arguement. You may recall he claimed that larger breasts are the
> result of evolution. Apparently, his premise includes the fact that he
> only considers the United States of America, in the late twentieth
> century, his target area. I wonder if he has any idea how long evolution
> takes? (hint: They use fruit flies in the lab for a reason).
>
> Perhaps he's a fruit fly?
>
> attilla the hutt (Tim Keene)
-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position. Such a
premise is anathema to the dogmatists of rec.nude, and consequently
unacceptable to either you, or the right reverend. Sorry that I insist on
dealing in the here and now, and don't wander off into left field, or
otherwise get myself lost in space. Maybe if you could stay on topic and
focused, there'd be some evolution in your thought. Right now, fruit flys
all over the world are making greater progress than you. -STEVE
tim keene
>In article <attillaE...@netcom.com>, att...@netcom.com (tim keene) wrote:
>> attilla the hutt (Tim Keene)
because of forgeries such as (and worse than) this, the entire post has
been edited, excepting:
>Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
>to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position. Such a
>premise is anathema to the dogmatists of rec.nude, and consequently
>unacceptable to either you, or the right reverend. Sorry that I insist on
>dealing in the here and now, and don't wander off into left field, or
>otherwise get myself lost in space. Maybe if you could stay on topic and
>focused, there'd be some evolution in your thought. Right now, fruit flys
>all over the world are making greater progress than you. -STEVE
And other scientists have suggested that female breasts became larger to
aid in feeding, where the feeding parent stands and sits erect. Neither
of us was there, so no proof exists - but evolution takes *time*. And,
to be effective, it should be nearly universal within the breeding pool.
That is why you (and Desmond Morris) Theories don't hold water, unless
man is a superior brand of fruit fly. Not people, not enough time in
this part of the world. Sure, there is more to the world than the United
States - but in much of the rest of the world, Men ('the prey') are not
as enamored of the female ('the predator') breast. On the other hand,
breast feeding has been here, and has changed only slightly, to
accommodate man (the species) now erect posture.
You see, the term 'fruit fly' wasn't picked from the air. He (the fruit
fly) is better known to scientific circles as 'Drosophela' (probably
misspelled). He breeds many generations, not in centuries, but in
weeks. Easier to study.
W.D. Peckenpaugh
>
> Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
> to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position. Such a
> premise is anathema to the dogmatists of rec.nude, and consequently
> unacceptable to either you, or the right reverend.
Ummm -- incorrect, STEVE. Yes, I've read Morris, too, and Montagu, and
Lorenz, and other ethnologists/ethnobiologists. Morris' theory is great,
*except* it (and you) still have yet to explain why a Ubangi woman, if
accidentally found totally nude and without her lip plug, will use her
hands to hide her bare *lip*, not her breasts or vulva. Or, why most
Japanese don't mind being in co-ed nude public baths, but frown on
having to sit in the trains where males' and females' knees might
accidentally brush against one another.
Nature is certainly a strong force, but nurture rears her head, too.
> Sorry that I insist on
> dealing in the here and now
Then please, here and now, deal with my counterexample of your premise
that breasts are universally regarded as sexually stimulating. You
didn't do that the first time around, where you used ad hominem and
avoidance of my counterexamples. Be a mensch -- speak up.
Lee R.
Snipping introductory material
>I
>Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
>to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position.
Snipping other material.
The operative word here is "theorized". Perhaps "hypothesized" might
have been a better choice. Unfortunately, there are few facts to back
up DM's idea. However, on that subject further, the two differences
between homo sapiens and all the other members of the primates are the
lack of body hair and the size of the penis. Trying the "missionary
position" with the size of the average gorill's penis is a fruitless
<g> undertaking.
L. (Naking along quite well today, thank you very much)
STEVE
R.) wrote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tell me, do you "experts" publish anywhere else besides rec.nude? You
always demand proof, but then dismiss anything that is cited as inferior to
your personal views. Such equivocation isn't exactly intellectually
honest, but it certainly keeps your belief systems intact. -STEVE
STEVE
<frb...@priest.com> wrote:
> STEVE wrote:
> >
> > Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Maybe you've read something, but that doesn't necessarily mean you
comprehended it, or can process the information into a rational argument.
So what if the Ubangi's are aroused by lip plugs---every culture has it's
particular kink. Would you recommend that all American women insert lip
plugs? Should we keep our women barefoot and pregnant too? Maybe
cliterectomies are also applicable since you're impressed by African tribal
culture. How many Ubangis are there anyway? In the context of the whole
Earth, they're just another fringe group. I might find some validity in
your example if the Chinese started mutilating their women with lip plugs,
but then at one time they obsessed over bound feet. It's intellectually
dishonest to take facts out of context, and then structure false concepts
around them. Another discouraging aspect of any discussion on rec.nude, is
the prevalent habit of hearing only what you want to hear in someone's
posting. For instance, you claim that I hold "that breasts are UNIVERSALLY
regarded as sexually stimulating", even though I stipulated that I'm
talking about the here and now---the United States of America in the late
20th century, where everyone knows that a woman's breasts are sexually
stimulating except the sterile minds on rec.nude (sometimes I wonder if
you're all just gay). You must know the weakness of your argument if you
have to distort the facts, or else you're just a crank looking for a fight.
The basic issue here is that every culture in every time finds some way of
sexually objectifying the opposite sex. Can that really be a bad thing
since the overall intent is to get us to produce the next generation?
-STEVE
STEVE
> >Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
> >to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position. Such a
> >premise is anathema to the dogmatists of rec.nude, and consequently
> >unacceptable to either you, or the right reverend. Sorry that I insist on
> >dealing in the here and now, and don't wander off into left field, or
> >otherwise get myself lost in space. Maybe if you could stay on topic and
> >focused, there'd be some evolution in your thought. Right now, fruit flys
> >all over the world are making greater progress than you. -STEVE
>
> And other scientists have suggested that female breasts became larger to
> aid in feeding, where the feeding parent stands and sits erect. Neither
> of us was there, so no proof exists - but evolution takes *time*. And,
> to be effective, it should be nearly universal within the breeding pool.
> That is why you (and Desmond Morris) Theories don't hold water, unless
> man is a superior brand of fruit fly. Not people, not enough time in
> this part of the world. Sure, there is more to the world than the United
> States - but in much of the rest of the world, Men ('the prey') are not
> as enamored of the female ('the predator') breast. On the other hand,
> breast feeding has been here, and has changed only slightly, to
> accommodate man (the species) now erect posture.
>
> You see, the term 'fruit fly' wasn't picked from the air. He (the fruit
> fly) is better known to scientific circles as 'Drosophela' (probably
> misspelled). He breeds many generations, not in centuries, but in
> weeks. Easier to study.
>
> attilla
> --
> attilla the hutt (Tim Keene)
> Best Process server/Skip-Tracer
> in known world. (408-262-7021)
> att...@netcom.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Hmmmmm, after trying to make sense of the above, I'm convinced the fruit
flys have passed you by. -STEVE
STEVE
> Actually, I wouldn't killfile you if I could - reading some of your longer
> posts (I ususally skip posts that are more than 2 - 3 pages long) you
> actually do say some interesting things, sometimes.
Better do something about that short-attention span, Beast. Meanwhile, I'm
curious as to what someone like you finds sexually attractive in women, if
anything. It may be a leap in faith to assume you have a love life, but
what do you reach for first? As far as I'm concerned, women's breasts keep
us pointed in the right direction. -STEVE, aka FRED
STEVE
> If suddenly nudism became mainstream, how quick do you think that playboy
> would go out of business?
If men were confronted with mass female nakedness, the demand for Playboy
would be astronomical as they would clamor for relief from the ordinary,
and yearn for sexual stimulation. Without PlayChicks and Viagra, it's
doubtful whether anyone would be interested in sex, or reproducing.
-STEVE
W.D. Peckenpaugh
>
> In article <6p6cd0$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "W.D. Peckenpaugh"
> <frb...@priest.com> wrote:
>
> > STEVE wrote:
> > > Sorry that I insist on
> >
> > Then please, here and now, deal with my counterexample of your premise
> > that breasts are universally regarded as sexually stimulating. You
> > didn't do that the first time around, where you used ad hominem and
> > avoidance of my counterexamples. Be a mensch -- speak up.
> >
> comprehended it, or can process the information into a rational argument.
Ya got that right . . .
> So what if the Ubangi's are aroused by lip plugs---every culture has it's
> particular kink.
*My point exactly!* And, within a nation as culturally diverse as the
United States, there are *many* subcultures which have different ideas
of what is sexually arousing. To be very blunt, why are there "breast
men," "leg men," and "butt men"? Aren't breasts the structures which are
primarily sexual, according to you? The others are structures for
locomotion and excretion. What gives? Is it that people in different
[sub]cultures are *taught* what their culture *expects* them to find
sexually stimulating? *That* is why the Ubangi woman would find having a
"naked lip" so much more shameful than naked breasts or vulva: she has
been taught that it is "proper" for her to wear a lip plug, since "all
respectable women" wear them.
> Would you recommend that all American women insert lip
> plugs? Should we keep our women barefoot and pregnant too? Maybe
> cliterectomies are also applicable since you're impressed by African tribal
> culture.
Apparently you do not understand the purpose of a specific
counterexample. My point is not that *all* cultures should exhibit the
same behavior; the point is that all cultures *don't* exhibit the same
response to different body parts, indicating that it is *cultural*
influence, and not an inherent "sexuality" of the breast itself, that
causes *some* people to find breasts sexually stimulating.
> How many Ubangis are there anyway? In the context of the whole
> Earth, they're just another fringe group. I might find some validity in
> your example if the Chinese started mutilating their women with lip plugs,
> but then at one time they obsessed over bound feet.
Oh, *thank you* so much for bringing that up! Yes, some Chinese did (and
some still do) find small, bound feet very "feminine" and appealing.
Does that mean that small feet are, inherently, "feminine" and
"appealing?" *NO!* It means that [part of] their culture taught men to
prize small, bound feet. A foot is a foot, just like a breast is a
breast. It isn't the part itself that is inherently sexual -- it is the
attitude of the "viewer" that makes it sexual or not.
> It's intellectually
> dishonest to take facts out of context, and then structure false concepts
> around them.
You mean like your use of Desmond Morris' hypothesis, which you bandy
about like the Ultimate Truth(tm)?
> Another discouraging aspect of any discussion on rec.nude, is
> the prevalent habit of hearing only what you want to hear in someone's
> posting. For instance, you claim that I hold "that breasts are UNIVERSALLY
> regarded as sexually stimulating", even though I stipulated that I'm
> talking about the here and now---the United States of America in the late
> 20th century, where everyone knows that a woman's breasts are sexually
> stimulating except the sterile minds on rec.nude (sometimes I wonder if
> you're all just gay).
Oh, yes, Steve -- ad hominem attacks and fallacious appeals to the
people ("everyone knows . . .") really go a long way here. We've never
encountered *that* before. ReRe you're not; John Grubor you're not. You
ain't even in the same league -- no, the same *sport* as them! Just when
you get going good, and seem to be making some intelligent stab at
debate, you fly off with stuff like this. Do you expect us to take you
seriously when you can do no better than this?!?
> You must know the weakness of your argument if you
> have to distort the facts, or else you're just a crank looking for a fight.
Pardon me while I laugh convulsively at the hypocrisy of this statement.
Are you for real?
*I've* never stated that "nudism" and "swinging" are the same thing;
*I've* never said that breasts are, prima facie, sexual objects. Sounds
to me like you're the one looking for a fight, having made statements
like these.
> The basic issue here is that every culture in every time finds some way of
> sexually objectifying the opposite sex. Can that really be a bad thing
> since the overall intent is to get us to produce the next generation?
No -- the basic issue is that you feel all breasts to be sexual objects,
and I do not. I might find one particular pair of breasts, which happen
to be attached to someone I love, to be sexually stimulating -- just as
I might find that person's eyes, or smile, or neck, sexually stimulating
-- but that does not extrapolate to *all* breasts, or to *all* other
people. Even in the "here and now" of the modern United States.
Kjodle
and having kids just fine, thank you.
Remember: NUDITY DOES NOT EQUAL SEX. Get that through your head, please. If you
look at Playboy, Penthouse, etc., you will notice that many of the models DO
wear some clothes.
: ) Ken
My web page:
http://members.aol.com/kjodle/
Lee R.
>In article <35b765ab....@news.turbonet.com>, ele...@turbonet.com (Lee
>R.) wrote:
>
>> On 22 Jul 1998 13:48:47 EDT, cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ) wrote:
>>
>> Snipping introductory material
>> >I
>> >Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
>> >to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position.
>>
>> Snipping other material.
>>
>> The operative word here is "theorized". Perhaps "hypothesized" might
>> have been a better choice. Unfortunately, there are few facts to back
>> up DM's idea. However, on that subject further, the two differences
>> between homo sapiens and all the other members of the primates are the
>> lack of body hair and the size of the penis. Trying the "missionary
>> position" with the size of the average gorill's penis is a fruitless
>> <g> undertaking.
>>
>> L. (Naking along quite well today, thank you very much)
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Tell me, do you "experts" publish anywhere else besides rec.nude? You
>always demand proof, but then dismiss anything that is cited as inferior to
>your personal views. Such equivocation isn't exactly intellectually
>honest, but it certainly keeps your belief systems intact. -STEVE
Sorry, STEVE, the reference was the same as yours--Desmond Morris.
And yes, I have published a fair number of things, although I liked
being an editor better. But that was in a different field, and
nowadays, the "publish or perish" syndrome is not operative--one of
the joys of retirement.
Incidentally, "The Naked Ape" has one of the best descriptions of
intercourse that I've ever read. Clinically speaking, of course.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
L. )The naker in person, not a cheap imitation but the _expensive_
real thing)
STEVE
R.) wrote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And the operative word here is still "equivocation". Desmond Morris
presents one perspective that you virulently disagree with, and then
another which makes you all warm and happy. You're selectively shopping
for anecdotes that aid and abet your personal suppositions---and as said,
this is intellectually dishonest. -STEVE
SolarMass1
>>
>> Desmond Morris theorized in The Naked Ape that women evolved larger breasts
>> to attract men, and cajole them into the missionary position. Such a
>> premise is anathema to the dogmatists of rec.nude, and consequently
>> unacceptable to either you, or the right reverend.
Although I killfiled STEVE, thank God I didn't Bill, who makes a bunch of
sense.
I do note, however, STEVE, that you said THEORIZED. As in theory. As
in hypothesis, yet untestable in this case. As in OPINION.
>Ummm -- incorrect, STEVE. Yes, I've read Morris, too, and Montagu, and
>Lorenz, and other ethnologists/ethnobiologists. Morris' theory is great,
>*except* it (and you) still have yet to explain why a Ubangi woman, if
>accidentally found totally nude and without her lip plug, will use her
>hands to hide her bare *lip*, not her breasts or vulva. Or, why most
>Japanese don't mind being in co-ed nude public baths, but frown on
>having to sit in the trains where males' and females' knees might
>accidentally brush against one another.
I too have read Desmond Morris and Ashley Montagu (and Huxley), and
its more than that. Morris, who I consider brilliant yet certainly not prone
to be shy about his opinions, ignores that MALE breasts are ALSO capable
of sexual pleasure, and that men's breasts often enlarge with age. There is
certainly no evolutionary advantage to this, yet it appears to be occuring,
and at that more frequenty in modern times. MY theory is that it is due
to a build up of esterols (as in estrogen analogues) in the environment, and
these esterols are stored up over time in body fat .... but that's just MY
opinion.
>Nature is certainly a strong force, but nurture rears her head, too.
>
>> Sorry that I insist on
>> dealing in the here and now
>
>Then please, here and now, deal with my counterexample of your premise
>that breasts are universally regarded as sexually stimulating. You
>didn't do that the first time around, where you used ad hominem and
>avoidance of my counterexamples. Be a mensch -- speak up.
>
>
>Bill
>--
>The Rt. Rev. Bill Peckenpaugh, OSFL
>frb...@priest.com http://www.wp.com/wdpeck/
When a Catholic priest uses the term "mensch", I am heartened that our
society is gonna be OK :-) Actually, Fr. Bill is right - breasts as sexual
visual stimuli are NOT a human archetype (even Morris argues that swaying
buttocks in females is MUCH more universal).
It is a fact that breasts in North American society are sexually stimulating.
And here's the real deal: SO WHAT? Long hair is sexually stimulating for
most men. Shall women be forbidden from having long hair? And so on ...
Alan
solar...@aol.com Bill of Rights Enforcement
STEVE
sola...@aol.com (SolarAss1) wrote:
> Although I killfiled STEVE, thank God I didn't Bill, who makes a bunch of
> sense.
Have to thank you for that honor, Alan. Without a killfile to fill up,
you'd be out burning books. Glad Bill makes sense to you. Guess you'll be
joining Jews for Jesus soon.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> I too have read Desmond Morris and Ashley Montagu (and Huxley), and
> its more than that. Morris, who I consider brilliant yet certainly not prone
> to be shy about his opinions, ignores that MALE breasts are ALSO capable
> of sexual pleasure, and that men's breasts often enlarge with age. There is
> certainly no evolutionary advantage to this, yet it appears to be occuring,
> and at that more frequenty in modern times. MY theory is that it is due
> to a build up of esterols (as in estrogen analogues) in the environment, and
> these esterols are stored up over time in body fat .... but that's just MY
> opinion.
Nothing like the fascinating insights of a near-genius. Ever notice that
men's guts also enlarge with age, Alan? Kind of a de-evolutionary process,
though, and attributable more to excess beer, chips, and television than
esterols. By the way, do you orgasm when your breasts are manipulated?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> It is a fact that breasts in North American society are sexually stimulating.
> Alan
> sola...@aol.com
Whoa, now what is this? Is Alan cribbing from that heretic STEVE? Better
get him into a re-education program before he's burned at the stake for
contradicting a cherished orthodoxy of rec.nude. -STEVE
Lee R.
responding to a post of mine
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>And the operative word here is still "equivocation". Desmond Morris
>presents one perspective that you virulently disagree with, and then
>another which makes you all warm and happy. You're selectively shopping
>for anecdotes that aid and abet your personal suppositions---and as said,
>this is intellectually dishonest. -STEVE
I don't think I virulently disagreed with DM's view, just that it was
not a main stream belief. In general, I though TNA was well written.
It _is_ possible to read a book and agree partially with the author's
viewpoint. It's akin to voting for the best candidate, instead of
slavishly following some party line.
I maintain that his comments about the two differences between homo
sap and the other primates are an important contribution to
anthropoligical studies. And yes, practitioners of nudism or naturism
need to understand that the act of being naked has a lot to do with
the lack of bodily hair. (And no, I'm not getting into the arguments
about shaving body hair).
L. (Naking it out)
SolarMass1
>sola...@aol.com (SolarAss1) wrote:
>
>> Although I killfiled STEVE, thank God I didn't Bill, who makes a bunch of
>> sense.
>
>
>Have to thank you for that honor, Alan. Without a killfile to fill up,
>you'd be out burning books. Glad Bill makes sense to you. Guess you'll be
>joining Jews for Jesus soon.
I took you out of my killfile because you started posting worthwhile
things. Don't be nasty for no reason. Save your bullets for when
it counts.
Oh, Jews for Jesus wouldn't like me. Its like getting two myths
for the price of one!
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> I too have read Desmond Morris and Ashley Montagu (and Huxley), and
>> its more than that. Morris, who I consider brilliant yet certainly not
>prone
>> to be shy about his opinions, ignores that MALE breasts are ALSO capable
>> of sexual pleasure, and that men's breasts often enlarge with age. There
>is
>> certainly no evolutionary advantage to this, yet it appears to be occuring,
>> and at that more frequenty in modern times. MY theory is that it is due
>> to a build up of esterols (as in estrogen analogues) in the environment,
>and
>> these esterols are stored up over time in body fat .... but that's just MY
>> opinion.
>
>
>Nothing like the fascinating insights of a near-genius. Ever notice that
>men's guts also enlarge with age, Alan? Kind of a de-evolutionary process,
>though, and attributable more to excess beer, chips, and television than
>esterols. By the way, do you orgasm when your breasts are manipulated?
Last one first: not exclusively but its certainly erotic. My entire
body is. Comes from studying Tantra.
Yes, near-genius is fascinating to me. Get over it.
Sure, men's guts enlarge with age. Sure, it could simply be a
gross excess of Frito pies. But it is a fact that esterols have dramatically
increased in North America in the past 30 years. <shrug> Someone
will glom a government-funded study from it, doubtlessly.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>> It is a fact that breasts in North American society are sexually
>stimulating.
>
>> Alan
>> sola...@aol.com
>
>
>Whoa, now what is this? Is Alan cribbing from that heretic STEVE? Better
>get him into a re-education program before he's burned at the stake for
>contradicting a cherished orthodoxy of rec.nude. -STEVE
></PRE></HTML>
But then again, SO WHAT?? My feet can be sexually stimulated.
I know women who can cum from ear licking and neck kissing.
What is the relationship between an erogenous zone and nudism?
Answer: nothing at all. So no, Steve, I'm not cribbing from you.
When I do I will attribute kudos accordingly.
Alan
solar...@aol.com
Matt Myers
being given to whether nudity is inherently sexual or not. What is the point
of that discussion, however? So what if it is? So what if it isn't? In the
vast majority of cultures around the world, nudity is proper for two things
only: bathing and sex, and both are considered private doings. Obviously,
many people (myself included) feel that this is unnecessarily restrictive,
but there you are. That is the state of human development at this point, but
am I to understand that humans cannot evolve further on this subject?
Has this discussion been about the *morality* of nudism? Nudists who contend
that sex and nudism should not be equated are correct. There is much about
nudity alone that recommends itself. For example, I am a rather heavy person
who finds nudism as an exercise in self-acceptance. On the other hand, these
same nudists who feel they have to debate the puritans against the existence
of a sexual aspect of nudism are throwing their pearls to swine. Both seem
to be missing the issue. Invariably, nudism does have a sexual aspect to it,
pronounced in some, subdued in others. But so what? Is all this hubbub about
how to express human sexuality? Am I to understand that if sexuality *is* a
part of nudism, that nudism is somehow automatically debased? Please. I'd
hoped we were a little farther along than that. Humans are sexual beings,
there is no denying. Who really cares how I express my sexuality harmlessly?
It is not an attack on the puritans, just to piss them off. It is personal.
But that doesn't mean that one's harmless personal preferences can't be
exercised publicly.
The most frequent sentiment I have heard from non-puritanical people
concerning nudism, is that they don't want to see ugly and fat people naked.
To me this elitist attitude shows an over-identification between nudity and
sex. These people seem to feel assaulted by a nudist who doesn't turn them
on, as if to say, "Why else get naked, if you're not sexually attractive?"
Nudism, in its purist form, does not serve the onlooker, but the nudist
himself.
At this point I would expect the puritans reading this to respond with: "But
what about the children? ! . . . Sorry, I don't buy this end-around tactic
to squelch further discussion. The subtext of this guilt-trip is that if
families don't *protect* their children from public nudity, they are not
loving their children as they should. Rah! Rah! Family values and all! But
this is alarmist rhetoric designed to win an argument, rather than to serve
truth. The very conditions that puritans feel public nudity will reinforce,
such as premarital sex and teenage pregnancy, are actually the byproducts of
the *existing* emphasis on choking off powerful sexual impulses. Perhaps
public nudity would be very good for our culture, would force us to look at
ourselves more honestly. I have known a number of children of nudist
families, and I find absolutely no cause for alarm. I find nudist children
to be extremely well-adjusted and tolerant, and *no more sexually active*
than any other child their age. Mother Nature, it seems, will do her work as
intended whether we are clothed or not.
-T.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Tell me, do you "experts" publish anywhere else besides rec.nude? You
>always demand proof, but then dismiss anything that is cited as inferior to
>your personal views. Such equivocation isn't exactly intellectually
>honest, but it certainly keeps your belief systems intact. -STEVE
Did you want to have a discussion or just preach the gospell? This is
a discussion group. You say your piece, then others get to say theirs.
To quote the old hamburger comercial,"Where's the beef?"
-T.
STEVE
You know the gospel better than me, Tom. The point was the double-standard
that some apply here so they can maintain their specious arguments. They
accuse others of unsupported opinions, yet then discount or ignore any
sources that are provided to back a position. Meanwhile, they never come
forward with proofs of their own, and rely instead on personal opinions
which they naturally hold superior. That attitude would be fine if they
were published, and recognized as a citable authority somewhere else
besides rec.nude. There would be more beef in this newsgroup (i.e., better
discussions) if posters put more fact and thought into their posts, and
less opinion and prejudice. -STEVE
Matt Myers
So what if it isn't? What is the point of the discussion, anyway? In the
vast majority of cultures around the world, nudity is proper for two things
only: bathing and sex, and both are considered private doings. Obviously,
many people (myself included) feel that this is unnecessarily restrictive,
but there you are. That is the state of human development at this point, but
Has this discussion been about the *morality* of nudism? Nudists who contend
that sex and nudism should not be equated are correct. There is much about
nudity alone that recommends itself. For example, I am a heavy person
who finds nudism as an exercise in self-acceptance. On the other hand, these
same nudists who feel they can only win the debate with the puritans is to
argue that there is NO sexual element in nudism, that a nudist's motives are
strictly "pure", are throwing their pearls to swine. Both sides seem to be
missing the issue. Invariably, nudism does have a sexual aspect to it,
pronounced in some, subdued in others. But so what? Is all this hubbub about
how to express human sexuality? Am I to understand that if sexuality *is* a
part of nudism, that nudism is somehow automatically debased? Please. I'd
hoped we were a little farther along than that. Humans are sexual beings,
there is no denying, and what is wrong with that? Who really cares how I
express my sexuality HARMLESSLY? Nudity is not an attack on the puritans,
aimed to piss them off. It is personal. But that doesn't mean that one's
harmless personal preferences can't be exercised publicly.
The most frequent sentiment I have heard from people concerning nudism, is
that they don't want to see fat and ugly people naked. To me this elitist,
egocentric attitude shows an OVER-identification between nudity and sex.
These people seem to feel assaulted by a nudist who doesn't turn them on, as
if to say, "Why else get naked, if you're not sexually attractive? Please,
put your clothes back on!" Nudism, in its purist form, is not meant to serve
the onlooker, but the nudist himself.
At this point I would expect the puritans reading this to respond with: "But
what about the children? ! . . . Sorry, I don't buy this end-around tactic
designed to squelch all further discussion. The subtext of this guilt-trip
is that if
you don't embrace the same fanatical views that the puritans espouse, then
you are the very people whose influence will lead their children astray. If
families, they go on, don't "protect" their children from public nudity,
their children will naturally and mindlessly become depraved immoral adults.
(Monkey see, monkey do, you know.) They would not be "loving" their children
as they should. "Rah! Rah! Family values and all!" But this is alarmist
rhetoric designed to win an argument, rather than to serve Truth. I won't
even dignify with a counter-argument the assertion that nudism and depravity
go hand-in-hand. But let me offer this observation as grist for the mill:
The very conditions that puritans feel public nudity will reinforce, such as
premarital sex and teenage pregnancy (part of the "What about children? . .
." argument), are not the byproducts of a nudist culture that is, for all
intents and purposes, invisible in our society, but are actually the
byproducts of the EXISTING EMPHASIS on CHOKING OFF our powerful sexual
impulses. Perhaps public nudity would be very GOOD for our culture, would
force us to look at ourselves more honestly. I have known a number of
children of nudist families, and I find absolutely no cause for alarm. I
find nudist children to be extremely well-adjusted and tolerant, and NO MORE
OBSESSED with sex than any of their "unexposed" peers. Mother Nature, it
STEVE
<mhm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> New voice in this conversation. ETC...
Welcome to the discussion. Your remarks were worth repeating. -STEVE
Peter Riden
Keep the positive thoughts!
--
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
*****************************************************************
THE GRAND BARN Home of THE WORLDWIDE AFFILIATE NETWORK
and its publication THE AFFILIATE
777-Net Barb Road
Vankleek Hill,ON
K0B 1R0
CANADA
Website: http://www.the-grand-barn.com
e-mail: Affi...@the-grand-barn.com
*****************************************************************