Ever found yourself naked in a public place?
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
John Cook
> Was it awkward?
>
>
No
--
Ok! Thanx Just John:
ThunderBird! of COURSE...
(Smacks forehead)
"one of the most intelligent and decent in the
lot - his name is unpronounceable, but you can call him Howard"
Ian
"Orson Wells as CitizenCain" <noe...@here.invalidd> wrote in message
news:43275$4b1f20da$a666682c$31...@ALLTEL.NET...
> Was it awkward?
>
Hope not. See sig.
--
Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
Thanks
Ian
James Dale Guckert
<noem...@here.invalidd> wrote:
> Was it awkward?
If one *finds* one's self naked in a public place, rather than
actually *causing* one's self to be naked in a public place, I suppose
that could be awkward. You know, like waking up after a bender nude on
a street corner at the start of the Monday morning rush. I wouldn't
care so much about being seen naked... I'd be more concerned about
where my stuff is and whether I'd be carted off to the pokey.
Anna
> "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" <noem...@here.invalidd> wrote in messagenews:43275$4b1f20da$a666682c$31...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> > Was it awkward?
>
> Hope not. See sig.
>
> --
> Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
>
> Thanks
> Ian
Please explain how what you do isn't exhibitionism. After all you ride
naked through a group of textiles.
Or do you expect the streets you ride through to be completely free of
people as you ride by? How do you accomplish that.
Anna
<noem...@here.invalidd> wrote:
> Was it awkward?
This has never happened to me but I would think I would find it quite
awkward (as well as being illegal).
To have all those textiles laughing and pointing and mocking. No, not
a pleasant prospect indeed.
Now if I was naked in front of a bunch of people who had no problem
with me being nude but aren't nude themselves and I was the only one
nude (say at Burning man or somewhere like that with people who don't
freak out or mock at naked bodies) I think I wouldn't have a problem
with that. Now being a model at an art class (where of course you are
the only one nude in front of people who might not mind your nudity
but you are definitely the center of attraction) I don't know how I
would feel about that.
But your question is being naked in public which I assume you mean
somewhere where nudity isn't expected, surrounded by textiles who
don't have a nudist mindset and aren't necessary comfortable with the
idea of nudity, putting aside the legal questions for a moment, the
negative reaction of the crowd (or perhaps not exactly negative,
perhaps they find it funny) would be an unpleasant experience indeed.
Also, in regards to freehiking on public lands, again aside from the
legal questions (which is less nude friendly than many claim) unless I
was somewhere pretty isolated I would worry about running into people
who might get upset and think me a perv. Skinny dipping is slightly
different because if a stranger comes you can hide yourself in the
water and then tell the person to look the other way when you get out.
And there seems to be more of a tradition of skinny dipping that
people would accept more than they would free hiking. But even there
it would have to be an isolated place (or a place where nude use is
common but that's not in the spirit of your question). Would I have a
problem being the only one naked at say a hot spring surrounded by a
bunch of people who are wearing swimming suits (again not in the
spirit of your question)? It would probably depend on the attitude of
the textiles there including if there were any textile children there
which would make me uncomfortable unless the parents seemed very
comfortable with me being there nude. It might make me more
comfortable if the hot spring had a tradition of nude use so that they
should have expected to see nude people there, but again my comfort
level would most likely depend on the reaction of the textiles who are
using the hot spring.
newsgroups
heating, does so under the Constitutional protection found in the 1st
Amendment. Onlookers might point a finger, laugh, and mock but that should
be expected, so the protester needs to evaluate their passion for the cause.
US courts have said appearing nude in protest or in a theatrical performance
is protected speech, bud sadly washing the car or gardening while nude does
not fall under the same protection from people who find the nudity
objectionable.
Bill S. in AZ
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:05948b4e-4140-41c7...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Anna
> A person who goes nude on a bike ride to protest the consumption of oil for
> heating, does so under the Constitutional protection found in the 1st
> Amendment. Onlookers might point a finger, laugh, and mock but that should
> be expected, so the protester needs to evaluate their passion for the cause.
Yeah, point is that it is indeed a negative experience for someone who
isn't an exhibitionist. The person might do it nude but only to bring
attention to the cause that is being promoted. But many on here
(Richard) enjoy doing the ride even though he is being gawked at.
That suggests exhibitionism.
I am against The World Naked Bike ride for two reasons. One, I don't
believe in the cause. And two I believe it is for most of the riders
exhibitionism.
> US courts have said appearing nude in protest or in a theatrical performance
> is protected speech, bud sadly washing the car or gardening while nude does
> not fall under the same protection from people who find the nudity
> objectionable.
> Bill S. in AZ
Funny thing. I heard that in Eugene Oregon public nudity is illegal
BUT if it is nudity for a cause, such as the World Naked Bike ride
then it is free speech and legal.
Perhaps one can say that their washing of the car or gardening while
nude is actually a protest. Heck, it might work. Especially in a city
like Eugene.
Oh, in Lane County (outside of Eugene like in the unincorporated area)
unless the law has changed women toplessness isn't illegal like it is
in Eugene. That is why the Oregon Country Fair allows it.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 14, 2:36 pm, "newsgroups" <123...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > A person who goes nude on a bike ride to protest the consumption of oil for
> > heating, does so under the Constitutional protection found in the 1st
> > Amendment. Onlookers might point a finger, laugh, and mock but that should
> > be expected, so the protester needs to evaluate their passion for the cause.
>
> Yeah, point is that it is indeed a negative experience for someone who
> isn't an exhibitionist. The person might do it nude but only to bring
> attention to the cause that is being promoted. But many on here
> (Richard) enjoy doing the ride even though he is being gawked at.
> That suggests exhibitionism.
No, it doesn't. It's called not caring how he is perceived by others.
He can enjoy the ride for its own sake and not have to quiver in
paranoia that someone might be getting his or her jollies at the
sight.
Quivering in paranoia is for fake nudists. You know, like our "Anna"
bloke.
> I am against The World Naked Bike ride for two reasons. One, I don't
> believe in the cause. And two I believe it is for most of the riders
> exhibitionism.
Saving energy *is* evil, of course. I agree that we need to burn as
much oil as possible before anyone else gets to use it... and who says
those Arabs should be allowed to keep it? The more we use, the less
they have. Let them keep our money... all they want. We can always
print more. So I fully agree with your position on the cause. (And
don't get me started on solar. If we install too many of those
photovoltaic panels, the sun might get tired out powering our homes
and such.)
A fun bike ride is actually an attempt to seduce people into not
driving when the distance is short. The savages! Everyone knows that
it's much more civilized to drive.
As for the question of exhibitionism, the *motive* is what matters. If
the rider *wants* people to get excited at the sight of his naked body
on a bike, then he's being an exhibitionist. If he doesn't care, then
he's not.
Exhibitionists would be sorely disappointed if nobody made a big deal
at the sight of their naked flesh.
So, in short, "Anna," I agree with you on the evils of energy saving;
I disagree on the exhibitionist question. I also disagree on your
ability to read people's minds when you say that "most of the riders"
do it to be, as you say, exhibitionists. That takes a level of psychic
ability that you have not demonstrated yet.
:-)
JDG
Anna
> On Dec 14, 2:57 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:36 pm, "newsgroups" <123...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > A person who goes nude on a bike ride to protest the consumption of oil for
> > > heating, does so under the Constitutional protection found in the 1st
> > > Amendment. Onlookers might point a finger, laugh, and mock but that should
> > > be expected, so the protester needs to evaluate their passion for the cause.
>
> > Yeah, point is that it is indeed a negative experience for someone who
> > isn't an exhibitionist. The person might do it nude but only to bring
> > attention to the cause that is being promoted. But many on here
> > (Richard) enjoy doing the ride even though he is being gawked at.
> > That suggests exhibitionism.
>
> No, it doesn't. It's called not caring how he is perceived by others.
> He can enjoy the ride for its own sake and not have to quiver in
> paranoia that someone might be getting his or her jollies at the
> sight.
Even most nudists don't like to be gawked at.
Those who do are exhibitionists.
One is riding through a street filled with textiles, perhaps shocked,
offended, maybe disgusted. They are looking at you and pointing at
you and insulting you. Or perhaps they find it "funny" and are
laughing at your nudity.
Tell me how anyone but an exhibitionist could enjoy that.
zeptov
Easy. I've long since passed the point that I care what others think
about me. The part I enjoy is being part of a cause I care about (which
this particular one may or may not be) and being with like-minded
friends. It's not a matter of enjoying what the others are thinking,
it's a matter of not caring what they think.
In fact, that's part of what makes naturism "enjoyable" - being
comfortable with yourself and others regardless of all the other stuff
that others want to impose on us, regardless of race and whatever-isms.
Of course, if it's a protest then the reaction you're looking for is
outrage, not amusement. So I'm not overly sure that a nude bike ride is
an effective protest. Unless, of course, the riders are so homely that
seeing us nude is encouragement for others to do anything we want to get
us to put clothes on.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 14, 3:35 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:57 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 2:36 pm, "newsgroups" <123...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > > A person who goes nude on a bike ride to protest the consumption of oil for
> > > > heating, does so under the Constitutional protection found in the 1st
> > > > Amendment. Onlookers might point a finger, laugh, and mock but that should
> > > > be expected, so the protester needs to evaluate their passion for the cause.
>
> > > Yeah, point is that it is indeed a negative experience for someone who
> > > isn't an exhibitionist. The person might do it nude but only to bring
> > > attention to the cause that is being promoted. But many on here
> > > (Richard) enjoy doing the ride even though he is being gawked at.
> > > That suggests exhibitionism.
>
> > No, it doesn't. It's called not caring how he is perceived by others.
> > He can enjoy the ride for its own sake and not have to quiver in
> > paranoia that someone might be getting his or her jollies at the
> > sight.
>
> Even most nudists don't like to be gawked at.
>
> Those who do are exhibitionists.
It's not a matter of liking or not liking; it's a matter of directing
one's concern elsewhere and not quaking in fear about what's going on
in the minds of those who can see.
"Anna," you clearly could never be a nudist because you don't trust
anybody... probably not even yourself.
> One is riding through a street filled with textiles, perhaps shocked,
> offended, maybe disgusted. They are looking at you and pointing at
> you and insulting you. Or perhaps they find it "funny" and are
> laughing at your nudity.
>
> Tell me how anyone but an exhibitionist could enjoy that.
Again: It's not a matter of liking or not liking; it's a matter of
directing one's concern elsewhere and not quaking in fear about what's
going on in the minds of those who can see.
No doubt a nude rider can expect a multitude of reactions, including
insults.
Some people, especially very fat people, walk the streets -- wearing
clothes -- and experience that every day. Heck, a person who looks
like he might be from the Middle East going out in public in certain
parts of the U.S. knows that he will cause some people to react in
certain undesirable ways.
Are you going to argue that the obese and the "Arab-looking" should
alter their behavior because of how they anticipate people will react
to them?
Are they being exhibitionists when they choose to go out anyway?
Finally: What are you doing to stop the evils of energy conservation?
JDG
Anna
> In fact, that's part of what makes naturism "enjoyable" - being
> comfortable with yourself and others regardless of all the other stuff
> that others want to impose on us, regardless of race and whatever-isms.
Yes, but in an environment of like minded people.
James Dale Guckert
That's *your* problem, dude. You just keep trying to thrust it upon
others.
Silly goose.
JDG
Anna
> Finally: What are you doing to stop the evils of energy conservation?
>
> JDG
I have filled my front yard with all kinds of Christmas lights, a
train set, and a blow up Santa Claus. Oh, and I regularly am using my
hot tub (nude of course) out back. And I am thinking about putting in
an electric sauna.
James Dale Guckert
Just so long as the coal mines and firing plants are not in your
backyard, eh?
Good on ye!
JDG
Anna
> It's not a matter of liking or not liking; it's a matter of directing
> one's concern elsewhere and not quaking in fear about what's going on
> in the minds of those who can see.
It's not quacking in fear. It is just embarrassing. I would equate it
to showing up at a formal wedding in a t-shirt, flip flops, and blue
jeans.
There's a place for things.
> "Anna," you clearly could never be a nudist because you don't trust
> anybody... probably not even yourself.
I don't have a problem in general with seeing naked people riding down
the street except for the fact that I don't believe in their cause.
But I would probably have a problem with some of the nude bike riders
because although they are nude many there don't have a nudist mindset
and would probably do something sexually provocative. Not all of the
bike riders, probably not most, but still enough. That is the problem
with such public nudity events. You don't only attract the pervs to
watch but to participate as well. It's not really a "Naked Bike Ride"
if you read the fine print. It's a "bare as much as you dare" event
where people are going around in various states of nudity including
provocative ones, and even some of the people use the ride as an
opportunity not to really be nude but to wear sexually provocative
clothes.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 15, 11:02 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not a matter of liking or not liking; it's a matter of directing
> > one's concern elsewhere and not quaking in fear about what's going on
> > in the minds of those who can see.
>
> It's not quacking in fear. It is just embarrassing. I would equate it
> to showing up at a formal wedding in a t-shirt, flip flops, and blue
> jeans.
Listen, Duck, embarrassment *is* a form of fear. People often feel
afraid the first time they take their clothes off in public, even if
everyone else is doing the same.
As for the wedding scenario, if you *intended* to follow the standard
dress code for the wedding but forgot, then you'd likely be
embarrassed about the lapse. If you *intended* to wear jeans and flip-
flops for some reason, then you should not be embarrassed.
> There's a place for things.
Everywhere is a place for thinking. Time to start.
> > "Anna," you clearly could never be a nudist because you don't trust
> > anybody... probably not even yourself.
>
> I don't have a problem in general with seeing naked people riding down
> the street except for the fact that I don't believe in their cause.
So they should get dressed because they don't share your politics?
> But I would probably have a problem with some of the nude bike riders
> because although they are nude many there don't have a nudist mindset
> and would probably do something sexually provocative.
So, before any of the nude riders actually *does* something racy,
you've already judged the lot because someone might?
That's your cover: Claim not to have an issue with nudity per se, but
then use the *potential* for something outrageous happening to argue
against the whole thing anyway.
You are such a fake. And a bad one at that.
JDG
Anna
> On Dec 15, 11:07 am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:02 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Finally: What are you doing to stop the evils of energy conservation?
>
> > > JDG
>
> > I have filled my front yard with all kinds of Christmas lights, a
> > train set, and a blow up Santa Claus.
In one way some might think it's kind of pointless to put up lights
because few people will see it. But we enjoy it. The daughter will be
home for Christmas so she will enjoy it as well. And you always have
the postman.
Anna
Not everyone who participates in the World Naked Bike Ride are
nudists. Actually most aren't.
Have you seen some of the photos coming from that event?
Anna
> On Dec 15, 11:15 am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:02 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Listen, Duck, embarrassment *is* a form of fear. People often feel
> afraid the first time they take their clothes off in public, even if
> everyone else is doing the same.
Like I said, there's a time and place. And a place where you are
gawked at by a bunch of textiles isn't the place.
I nether quack (sorry about the typo) or quake at being nude but I am
respectful regarding those who might not share my view regarding
nudity. And of course I am uncomfortable being among those who would
ridicule me for my nudity.
I don't mind people with the nudist mindset seeing me nude, but for
the rest yeah, I mind. And I believe most nudists mind as well. They
don't like to go nude among a bunch of gawking, laughing and insulting
textiles.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 15, 11:27 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:15 am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 11:02 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It's not a matter of liking or not liking; it's a matter of directing
> > > > one's concern elsewhere and not quaking in fear about what's going on
> > > > in the minds of those who can see.
>
> > > It's not quacking in fear. It is just embarrassing. I would equate it
> > > to showing up at a formal wedding in a t-shirt, flip flops, and blue
> > > jeans.
>
> > Listen, Duck, embarrassment *is* a form of fear. People often feel
> > afraid the first time they take their clothes off in public, even if
> > everyone else is doing the same.
>
> > As for the wedding scenario, if you *intended* to follow the standard
> > dress code for the wedding but forgot, then you'd likely be
> > embarrassed about the lapse. If you *intended* to wear jeans and flip-
> > flops for some reason, then you should not be embarrassed.
>
> > > There's a place for things.
>
> > Everywhere is a place for thinking. Time to start.
>
> > > > "Anna," you clearly could never be a nudist because you don't trust
> > > > anybody... probably not even yourself.
>
> > > I don't have a problem in general with seeing naked people riding down
> > > the street except for the fact that I don't believe in their cause.
>
> > So they should get dressed because they don't share your politics?
Well should they?
> > > But I would probably have a problem with some of the nude bike riders
> > > because although they are nude many there don't have a nudist mindset
> > > and would probably do something sexually provocative.
>
> > So, before any of the nude riders actually *does* something racy,
> > you've already judged the lot because someone might?
>
> > That's your cover: Claim not to have an issue with nudity per se, but
> > then use the *potential* for something outrageous happening to argue
> > against the whole thing anyway.
>
> Not everyone who participates in the World Naked Bike Ride are
> nudists. Actually most aren't.
As if you could judge what makes a person a nudist!
> Have you seen some of the photos coming from that event?
Some. Are you trying to change the subject?
JDG
Anna
No, just saying that some use the event as cover to create sexual
photos.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 15, 11:27 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:15 am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 11:02 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Listen, Duck, embarrassment *is* a form of fear. People often feel
> > afraid the first time they take their clothes off in public, even if
> > everyone else is doing the same.
>
> Like I said, there's a time and place.
That's just a cliche that holds no meaning.
> And a place where you are
> gawked at by a bunch of textiles isn't the place.
Then don't take your clothes off in public.
Oh, yeah, right: You never do.
> I nether quack (sorry about the typo) or quake at being nude but I am
Because you don't take your clothes off in public.
> respectful regarding those who might not share my view regarding
> nudity. And of course I am uncomfortable being among those who would
> ridicule me for my nudity.
So don't take your clothes off in public.
Oh, yeah, right: You never do.
> I don't mind people with the nudist mindset seeing me nude, but for
How do you know? You need real-life experience to figure that out.
When was the last time you aired out the twig and berries in front of
a mixed group of people?
> the rest yeah, I mind. And I believe most nudists mind as well. They
Your belief about what "most nudists" think or feel is open to the
following question: Who cares?
> don't like to go nude among a bunch of gawking, laughing and insulting
> textiles.
You really do hate people, don't you? You are a simpering, paranoid,
misanthropic textile.
JDG
Lane
c754a6...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 15, 11:02�am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not a matter of liking or not liking; it's a matter of directing
>> one's concern elsewhere and not quaking in fear about what's going on
>> in the minds of those who can see.
>
> It's not quacking in fear.
Is quacking in fear something you do while stripping in parking lots?
--
Lane
Anna
> How do you know? You need real-life experience to figure that out.
> When was the last time you aired out the twig and berries in front of
> a mixed group of people?
That doesn't sound like a nudist mindset to me?
And yeah I am ignoring you accusing me of having a penis because I
have said over and over again that I am a female.
But yeah, calling a penis "twig and berries"? Definitely not someone
who I would want to be around nude with. Sounds like a textile mindset
to me.
James Dale Guckert
> > > Not everyone who participates in the World Naked Bike Ride are
> > > nudists. Actually most aren't.
>
> > As if you could judge what makes a person a nudist!
>
> > > Have you seen some of the photos coming from that event?
>
> > Some. Are you trying to change the subject?
>
> No, just saying that some use the event as cover to create sexual
> photos.
Again with the mind-reading, and the absolutist nonsense.
One need not be nude to "create sexual photos."
JDG
Anna
Not mind reading. I have seen the photos.
Anna
The whole statement "you aired out the twig and berries" sounds like
something a textile would say and not a like minded nudist you would
be comfortable being naked with.
James Dale Guckert
>
> > How do you know? You need real-life experience to figure that out.
> > When was the last time you aired out the twig and berries in front of
> > a mixed group of people?
>
> That doesn't sound like a nudist mindset to me?
Was that a statement or a question?
> And yeah I am ignoring you accusing me of having a penis because I
> have said over and over again that I am a female.
You've said a lot of crazy things over and over again. I still can't
get over your bizarre anti-conservation agenda.
(Well, at least you have fans in Saudi Arabia.)
> But yeah, calling a penis "twig and berries"? Definitely not someone
No... that refers to the penis *and* testicles.
I know the unclothed body scares you, but you should at least be
familiar with your own bits.
> who I would want to be around nude with. Sounds like a textile mindset
> to me.
Right. Because, in your Fantasyland, nudists cannot joke around about
body parts. You do know that men have been taught to compare women's
breasts to various fruits when shopping for clothing for their
significant others, right?
Anna
> On Dec 15, 12:04 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:54 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How do you know? You need real-life experience to figure that out.
> > > When was the last time you aired out the twig and berries in front of
> > > a mixed group of people?
>
> body parts. You do know that men have been taught to compare women's
> breasts to various fruits when shopping for clothing for their
> significant others, right?
The statement " aired out the twig and berries" sounds definitely what
some textile would say in a juvenile manner, and no it's not within
the nudist mindset.
No, nudists cannot joke around about body parts. That is totally
inappropriate. And it is inappropriate to compare women's breasts to
various fruits as well.
You don't have the appropriate nudist mindset. I am sure people must
be uncomfortable being nude around you James, especially when you
start talking about your "twig and berries" and your significant
other's ripe melons?
Is this the kind of language we can expect from you around the pool?
Gosh, it has been a long winter. I have so been wanting to air out my
twig and berries. Wow they are really pale. And my wife, she really
needs to tan her melons and make them ripe.
For the other nudists out there, James aside, if someone started
talking that way around you would you want that person booted from
your club?
Anna
> Would I have a
> problem being the only one naked at say a hot spring surrounded by a
> bunch of people who are wearing swimming suits (again not in the
> spirit of your question)? It would probably depend on the attitude of
> the textiles there including if there were any textile children there
> which would make me uncomfortable unless the parents seemed very
> comfortable with me being there nude. It might make me more
> comfortable if the hot spring had a tradition of nude use so that they
> should have expected to see nude people there, but again my comfort
> level would most likely depend on the reaction of the textiles who are
> using the hot spring.
Of course I would only be naked at a hot spring where nude use is at
least traditional. But even there if everyone else wasn't nude I
guess it would for the most part depend on the attitude of the other
people around. I would be inclined to do it nude (after all after
making such a long trek I wouldn't want such an effort to go to waste)
but if there are children there or if the people there are not
accepting of nudity I probably wouldn't do it.
Anna
> A person who goes nude on a bike ride to protest the consumption of oil for
> heating, does so under the Constitutional protection found in the 1st
> Amendment.
Being nude even for a protest is not speech. I know some Ninth
District loonies might have ruled otherwise but still actions aren't
speech.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 15, 12:17 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 12:04 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 11:54 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How do you know? You need real-life experience to figure that out.
> > > > When was the last time you aired out the twig and berries in front of
> > > > a mixed group of people?
>
> > nudists cannot joke around about
> > body parts. You do know that men have been taught to compare women's
> > breasts to various fruits when shopping for clothing for their
> > significant others, right?
>
> The statement " aired out the twig and berries" sounds definitely what
> some textile would say in a juvenile manner, and no it's not within
> the nudist mindset.
And you would know this because......
> No, nudists cannot joke around about body parts. That is totally
> inappropriate. And it is inappropriate to compare women's breasts to
> various fruits as well.
You joyless prick. Hopefully you don't have access to firearms or
children.
> You don't have the appropriate nudist mindset. I am sure people must
> be uncomfortable being nude around you James, especially when you
> start talking about your "twig and berries" and your significant
> other's ripe melons?
Thanks for this. I needed the laugh.
You have hereby further demonstrated your hatred for humanity, what
with all of that sex and humor.
> Is this the kind of language we can expect from you around the pool?
When would you ever be near a pool, what with all of that exposed
skin and sensuous enjoyment of the physical world.
> Gosh, it has been a long winter. I have so been wanting to air out my
> twig and berries. Wow they are really pale. And my wife, she really
> needs to tan her melons and make them ripe.
Aha! So you ARE a man... a marginally literate one at that. Do try
understanding what I wrote, rather than just staring blankly at each
word.
> For the other nudists out there, James aside, if someone started
> talking that way around you would you want that person booted from
> your club?
Humorless, clueless, tone-deaf, and hateful.
I would avoid any club that would have you as a member.
JDG
zeptov
> District loonies might have ruled otherwise but still actions aren't
> speech.
Actually, every court of the land has ruled that actions are speech.
Repeatedly, actually. But even if you disagree with the Supreme Court on
down, you could also read further in the first amendment, to where it
says "the right of the people to peaceably assemble".
I'm not saying nude gatherings are effective or preferable protests. But
the statement above is that (any) action isn't speech: every district
and the Supreme Court have fallen on exactly one side of that.
Actions are speech.
Lane
8a42-6a7...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
...to "Anna"
> I would avoid any club that would have you as a member.
>
If you say so. You seem to be enjoying "Anna's" company, from what I can
tell.
--
Lane
Anna
> > Is this the kind of language we can expect from you around the pool?
> > Gosh, it has been a long winter. I have so been wanting to air out my
> > twig and berries. Wow they are really pale. And my wife, she really
> > needs to tan her melons and make them ripe.
>
> Aha! So you ARE a man... a marginally literate one at that. Do try
> understanding what I wrote, rather than just staring blankly at each
> word.
No, I said is that something I would hear from someone like you if I
was around the pool with you? Is that the kind of language I could
expect from YOU?
Dan Abel
Lane <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He (Anna) is an easy target. If he (JDG) takes on Anna, the rest of us
can ignore Anna until JDG tires of his job, which won't take long, since
Anna is incredibly repetitious. I remember when *you* were the newby on
the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the rest of us
don't have to do it.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Dan Abel
<f1fcb833-2057-45ad...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
James Dale Guckert <Dip...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:45�am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > The statement " aired out the twig and berries" sounds definitely what
> > some textile would say in a juvenile manner, and no it's not within
> > the nudist mindset.
>
> And you would know this because......
Because he's not a nudist, and therefore knows how people think who
aren't nudists. And yes, that's a joke, even though it's not funny.
> Humorless, clueless, tone-deaf, and hateful.
Maybe he intends to be humorless, but I'm not *ever* going to forget the
posts about the naked parking lot striper. Not to mention the series of
posts about people who live at nudist venues not being allowed to have
sex in the privacy of their dwellings. That was a classic!
James Dale Guckert
> James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:f1fcb833-2057-45ad-
> 8a42-6a7b2e69a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
> ...to "Anna"
>
> > I would avoid any club that would have you as a member.
>
> If you say so. You seem to be enjoying "Anna's" company, from what I can
> tell.
Touche! A hit... a palpable hit!
(Still, it's not about his company, so much as about the club itself.)
JDG
James Dale Guckert
You read my words, misunderstood my meaning, and jumped to stupid
conclusions that further led to irrelevant questions.
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> In article <Xns9CE377AE31B1Eabsolaneyahoo...@188.40.43.245>,
>
> Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:f1fcb833-2057-45ad-
> > 8a42-6a7b2e69a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
> > ...to "Anna"
>
> > > I would avoid any club that would have you as a member.
>
> > If you say so. You seem to be enjoying "Anna's" company, from what I can
> > tell.
>
> He (Anna) is an easy target. If he (JDG) takes on Anna, the rest of us
> can ignore Anna until JDG tires of his job, which won't take long, since
> Anna is incredibly repetitious. I remember when *you* were the newby on
> the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the rest of us
> don't have to do it.
Sometimes it gets dull... but then he says something that reeks of the
finest aged cheese and I cannot help but take a bite.
JDG
Anna
> Because he's not a nudist, and therefore knows how people think who
> aren't nudists.
First I am a she.
Second, I am a nudist in mindset at least. But that doesn't prevent me
from knowing how others think. I am very good at "putting myself in
the other's shoes".
I know while I can look at a naked body nonsexually others are not
willing or able to. I know that while I can look at a naked body that
is old and/or out of shape and not be disgusted, others are not as
willing or perhaps not as able to.
Even if you didn't see me as having a nudist mindset wouldn't my
ability to think like people who aren't nudists be handy.? After all
you have to deal with people who don't think like nudists all the
time, and if by me being "Devil's Advocate" allows you to develop good
responses to the "textile minded" then in the end it helps nudism.
I know you don't believe it but I am really pro-nudism. I just want it
to live up to what it claims to be. I just want to be sure that this
idyllic concept can actually work in the real world.
Anna
> Maybe he intends to be humorless, but I'm not *ever* going to forget the
> posts about the naked parking lot striper.
I was joking there.
> Not to mention the series of
> posts about people who live at nudist venues not being allowed to have
> sex in the privacy of their dwellings. That was a classic!
I never, ever said that people who live at nudist venues should not be
allowed to have sex in the privacy of their dwellings. Of course they
should just like in any other neighborhood.
Anna
> You read my words, misunderstood my meaning, and jumped to stupid
> conclusions that further led to irrelevant questions.
>
> JDG
I read your words with contempt for the attitude they revealed.
And then I imaged what it would be like to overhear them in a nudist
setting.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 16, 11:36 am, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Because he's not a nudist, and therefore knows how people think who
> > aren't nudists.
>
> First I am a she.
Yeah, whatever, Dude.
> Second, I am a nudist in mindset at least.
What deluded nonsense!
You are in prime form today, my man!
> But that doesn't prevent me
> from knowing how others think.
You're right. Being an ignorant, deluded, arrogant pedant prevents you
from knowing how others think.
> I am very good at "putting myself in
> the other's shoes".
You are not.
> I know while I can look at a naked body nonsexually others are not
> willing or able to. I know that while I can look at a naked body that
> is old and/or out of shape and not be disgusted, others are not as
> willing or perhaps not as able to.
As soon as you stop celebrating yourself, maybe somebody will take
what you say seriously.
> Even if you didn't see me as having a nudist mindset wouldn't my
> ability to think like people who aren't nudists be handy.?
Handy? You think that you've provided something of use on this
newsgroup?
Well, let me modify. One time out of a hundred (maybe seventy-five)
you re-post an article relevant to nudists.
> After all
> you have to deal with people who don't think like nudists all the
> time, and if by me being "Devil's Advocate" allows you to develop good
> responses to the "textile minded" then in the end it helps nudism.
Right. Because readers of this newsgroup don't deal with people of all
walks of life and all "mindsets" on a daily basis.
They need you to fill a gap in their experiences, because they don't
have jobs, don't have friends, don't belong to any organizations
outside of the insular world of nudism.
You actually have to believe that in order to think that you are
providing something that people don't have regular access to.
> I know you don't believe it but I am really pro-nudism. I just want it
> to live up to what it claims to be. I just want to be sure that this
> idyllic concept can actually work in the real world.
No you don't. What you want is for nudists not to be people. They
should be these non-biological entities drifting about in non-
hormonal, non-psychological, instinct-free bliss... like angels.
Only then will you deign to actually join up in "mind" and body.
This is why your "contributions" are useless at worst and hilarious at
best.
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> <f1fcb833-2057-45ad-8a42-6a7b2e69a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Because he's not a nudist, and therefore knows how people think who
> aren't nudists. And yes, that's a joke, even though it's not funny.
>
> > Humorless, clueless, tone-deaf, and hateful.
>
> Maybe he intends to be humorless, but I'm not *ever* going to forget the
> posts about the naked parking lot striper. Not to mention the series of
> posts about people who live at nudist venues not being allowed to have
> sex in the privacy of their dwellings. That was a classic!
I remember that. Yet I'm certain he did not mean to be funny about
that either. Couples having sex in their dwellings at a nudist resort
is just too damn close to swinging, which is by extension too damn
close to homosexual activity, so best to nip that sucker in the bud!
JDG
Anna
Are we talking about permanent residents or visitors?
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 16, 11:40 am, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You read my words, misunderstood my meaning, and jumped to stupid
> > conclusions that further led to irrelevant questions.
>
If there's any contempt in my words, it's toward your spoken beliefs.
> And then I imaged what it would be like to overhear them in a nudist
> setting.
Your imagination is crippled by your bizarre hatred for humanity.
JDG
James Dale Guckert
Does it matter?
(This should be good.)
JDG
James Dale Guckert
You most certainly did say that. I'm just glad that Dan brought it up.
It was a funny exchange, for which you were not properly thanked.
JDG
Anna
I said that ones motivation in going to a nudist venue shouldn't be to
have sex.
Anna
When did I say that? Certainly it should be like in any other
neighborhood.
Lane
news:dabel-6E17F4....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> In article <Xns9CE377AE31B1E...@188.40.43.245>,
> Lane <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> James Dale Guckert <Dip...@Yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:f1fcb833-2057-45ad-
>> 8a42-6a7...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> ...to "Anna"
>>
>> > I would avoid any club that would have you as a member.
>> >
>>
>> If you say so. You seem to be enjoying "Anna's" company, from what I
>> can tell.
>
> He (Anna) is an easy target. If he (JDG) takes on Anna, the rest of
> us can ignore Anna until JDG tires of his job, which won't take long,
> since Anna is incredibly repetitious.
I never thought of it that way. That helps.
> I remember when *you* were the
> newby on the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the rest
> of us don't have to do it.
Ah, you had to go and remind me.
--
Lane
James Dale Guckert
> have sex.
No, you were on a crusade to ensure that the environment of a nudist
resort was "nonsexualized." After all, if a happily married couple
(for example) wanted to spend a long weekend in such a resort, one
would think it likely that they fully intended to have sex there at
some point. You were pretty darn clear that this would be
inappropriate because of its supposed effect on the environment.
JDG
Anna
Exactly, and I still believe that.
This is totally different than saying that people who live full time
at nudist venues should never have sex in the privacy of their own
home.
James Dale Guckert
Of course you do. And this is why the *actual* nudists on in this
newsgroup see you as such a joke.
> This is totally different than saying that people who live full time
> at nudist venues should never have sex in the privacy of their own
> home.
Why should that make a tiny bit of difference? How does the duration
of a couple's stay in a place have an effect on how "sexualized" the
environment is?
I can only guess that, for you, sex between married people in their
own homes is not at all sexy.
How sad, Dude.
JDG
Anna
> > This is totally different than saying that people who live full time
> > at nudist venues should never have sex in the privacy of their own
> > home.
>
> Why should that make a tiny bit of difference? How does the duration
> of a couple's stay in a place have an effect on how "sexualized" the
> environment is?
It all has to do about the purpose for which the people go to the
nudist resort.
If they live at a nudist resort they haven't "gone to a nudist resort"
but are just home.
But if they go to the nudist resort with the purpose in their mind to
have sex then such a sexualized attitude will come out even subtly
through their interactions and body language.
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 16, 2:49 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is totally different than saying that people who live full time
> > > at nudist venues should never have sex in the privacy of their own
> > > home.
>
> > Why should that make a tiny bit of difference? How does the duration
> > of a couple's stay in a place have an effect on how "sexualized" the
> > environment is?
>
> It all has to do about the purpose for which the people go to the
> nudist resort.
Recreation, is my bet.
And vacation sex definitely qualifies.
What is wrong with you?
> If they live at a nudist resort they haven't "gone to a nudist resort"
> but are just home.
>
> But if they go to the nudist resort with the purpose in their mind to
> have sex then such a sexualized attitude will come out even subtly
> through their interactions and body language.
Bah!
The more strenuously you claim to know people and how their minds
work, the sillier you become. You've really gone off the deep end
today.
You really want to dictate to married nudists whether or not they
should intend to make love to each other while on vacation? Do they
fill out a Waiver of Intent at the door? Are they given chastity
rings? Do you stick probes on them to test for horniness?
Is it better if they don't intend to make love, but, during the course
of an evening together, look lovingly at each other and spontaneously
get that itch? If the desire does flare up, do they then need to file
an application in triplicate with the Nudism Desexualization Council
to have their Sexual Congress Permit and Confidentiality Waiver
stamped -- wherein they agree to have sex but then conceal what
happened? Are they then permitted to have sex but not to enjoy it too
much?
What's funny is that you are blind to just how bloody insane your
fantasy is. People often don't have enough sex with their significant
others during their everyday lives due to stress, time constraints,
and other things caused by the external pressures a vacation is meant
to draw people away from.
Now *you* want to imagine into existence a new type of pressure not to
have sex.
Here's a hypothetical for you: Pretend your job is to greet incoming
guests at a nudist resort. You tell a married couple with a four-
night reservation that *any* intent they might have to make love
during their stay is inappropriate and frowned upon.
What is their response? Write your answer below:
I will score your response later.
JDG
Dan Abel
Lane <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:dabel-6E17F4....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> > I remember when *you* were the
> > newby on the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the rest
> > of us don't have to do it.
>
> Ah, you had to go and remind me.
Hey, I had my turn! But I killfiled Anna three years ago.
Lane
> In article <Xns9CE38BAF6C82E...@188.40.43.245>,
> Lane <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:dabel-6E17F4....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
>> > I remember when *you* were the
>> > newby on the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the
>> > rest of us don't have to do it.
>>
>> Ah, you had to go and remind me.
>
> Hey, I had my turn! But I killfiled Anna three years ago.
>
Unlike most trolls, I just can't bring myself to killfile Anna.
Sometimes the entertainment is just too compelling. I guess that makes
me a voyeur.
--
Lane
James Dale Guckert
> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote innews:dabel-10BBCB....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
> > In article <Xns9CE38BAF6C82Eabsolaneyahoo...@188.40.43.245>,
> > Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote in
> >>news:dabel-6E17F4....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
> >> > I remember when *you* were the
> >> > newby on the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the
> >> > rest of us don't have to do it.
>
> >> Ah, you had to go and remind me.
>
> > Hey, I had my turn! But I killfiled Anna three years ago.
>
> Unlike most trolls, I just can't bring myself to killfile Anna.
> Sometimes the entertainment is just too compelling. I guess that makes
> me a voyeur.
I'm not sure what my reasons are for maintaining the volley.
I'm nearly certain that, if I (and everyone else) never posted one
response to his lunacy, he'd just continue post inane nudity-related
link after inane nudity-related link. Ignoring him would *not* make
him go away.
JDG
David Looser
> I'm nearly certain that, if I (and everyone else) never posted one
> response to his lunacy, he'd just continue post inane nudity-related
> link after inane nudity-related link. Ignoring him would *not* make
> him go away.
Probably true. It's certainly the case that if Zee thinks he's not getting
enough attention he'll start a new thread with the hope of provoking someone
into replying to it. Of course Zee is also extremely repetitious, he has his
few pet themes which he rants on about regardless of the subject that anyone
else is discussing.
David.
David Looser
news:ec48d512-5b76-42f5...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
It certainly was funny. It was hilarious watching "Anna" tying himself in
knots trying to define when having sex was, and when it wasn't "acceptable".
David.
Zee
wrote:
> "James Dale Guckert" <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote
he he....it is soooo obvious that the uk and down under boys are actin
in homosexual unison lately and now are joining hands in ring around
the roses with the little shrink boy with a dream of a nudist camp
right on the big hwy going into los angeles....with his little sock
puppets of tom and mary .....hanging from the mirror of his ol station
wagon.....what a sight....and of course his motorcycle monkey ridin
days of gang bangin in SF....are in his mind of maybe better days gone
by....yep rec nude gets em all....and here we have the ol off the top
loser brit recording it all.....ya never did say anything worth
hearing try again.....jz.
James Dale Guckert
No need for me to voice agreement with your point about Zee when he/
she/it comes along and proves it right away.
JDG
Terry J. Wood
245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> He (Anna) is an easy target. If he (JDG) takes on Anna, the rest of us
> can ignore Anna until JDG tires of his job, which won't take long, since
> Anna is incredibly repetitious. I remember when *you* were the newby on
> the group, and you took on Anna. Same thought: now the rest of us
> don't have to do it.
JDG is just earning his rec.nude merit badge.
Terry J. Wood
245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> Hey, I had my turn! But I killfiled Anna three years ago.
It's funny now that I think of it. I have killfiled every poster who used
NOCHARGE.COM as their ISP. I didn't mean to. It just happened to work out
that way. What's the chances of that happening by accident?
Terry J. Wood
188.40.43.245:
> Unlike most trolls, I just can't bring myself to killfile Anna.
A glutton for punishment you are.
Terry J. Wood
220b6b...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> Ignoring him would *not* make him go away.
Yes it does.
Terry J. Wood
f6095f...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Couples having sex in their dwellings at a nudist resort
> is just too damn close to swinging
It makes the baby Jesus cry.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=make%20baby%20jesus%20cry
Anna
> On Dec 16, 3:18 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 2:49 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is totally different than saying that people who live full time
> > > > at nudist venues should never have sex in the privacy of their own
> > > > home.
>
> > > Why should that make a tiny bit of difference? How does the duration
> > > of a couple's stay in a place have an effect on how "sexualized" the
> > > environment is?
>
> > It all has to do about the purpose for which the people go to the
> > nudist resort.
>
> Recreation, is my bet.
>
> And vacation sex definitely qualifies.
No, no it doesn't.
Anna
> Here's a hypothetical for you: Pretend your job is to greet incoming
> guests at a nudist resort. You tell a married couple with a four-
> night reservation that *any* intent they might have to make love
> during their stay is inappropriate and frowned upon.
>
> What is their response? Write your answer below:
Okay, we know nudism isn't about sex. We aren't here for nudity as
foreplay. We are here really because we like nudity in a nonsexualized
atmosphere.
If we wanted to have sex we would have gone to that "adult" nude venue
down the road.
We are so glad you are maintaining nudist standards at your resort.
Nude isn't lewd.
Anna
wrote:
> "James Dale Guckert" <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:ec48d512-5b76-42f5...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
It's never acceptable when visiting a nudist venue.
James Dale Guckert
> James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:4338ee05-2f26-487a-b163-
> f6095fbef...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Couples having sex in their dwellings at a nudist resort
> > is just too damn close to swinging
>
> It makes the baby Jesus cry.
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=make%20baby%20jesus%20cry
It also makes you go blind and grow hair on your palms.
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:3d500456-0278-4050-bf46-
> 220b6bec7...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Ignoring him would *not* make him go away.
>
> Yes it does.
Been there, done that. It doesn't.
James Dale Guckert
I pity you.
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> On Dec 16, 3:57 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's a hypothetical for you: Pretend your job is to greet incoming
> > guests at a nudist resort. You tell a married couple with a four-
> > night reservation that *any* intent they might have to make love
> > during their stay is inappropriate and frowned upon.
>
> > What is their response? Write your answer below:
>
> Okay, we know nudism isn't about sex.
Okay, plus half a point for that.
> We aren't here for nudity as foreplay.
Plus another half point for that. (That's 1 point so far.)
> We are here really because we like nudity in a nonsexualized
> atmosphere.
Plus another half point for that. (1.5 points so far.)
> If we wanted to have sex we would have gone to that "adult" nude venue
> down the road.
Minus six points for associating sex between married, consenting
adults as pornographic. (-4.5 points so far)
> We are so glad you are maintaining nudist standards at your resort.
Minus six points for assuming *you* know what "nudist standards" are,
given that you're not a nudist. (-10.5 points so far)
> Nude isn't lewd.
Neither is sex per se.
Minus six more points.
Total: -16.5 points
CONCLUSION: You think of nudists as chaste beings made of light and
energy, that love, lust, and sex are filthy burdens on their lives
from which they can escape by attending a nudist resort.
GRADE: Fail.
Big shock.
JDG
Terry J. Wood
b046f1...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> It also makes you go blind and grow hair on your palms.
No, voting Republican does that! :-)
Terry J. Wood
6cb2d4...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>> > Ignoring him would *not* make him go away.
>> Yes it does.
> Been there, done that. It doesn't.
It works every time. He's completely gone. *I* haven't seen him in YEARS.