The "Ritz" at the Oregon Country Fair. Clothing Optional!
Anna
public part of the event) but for them nudity isn't what most people
think of. If the women want to take their top off hey the men can so
you can too (topfree friendly). And want to just go in a loincloth,
look as long as your genitals are covered (bring a sock) it's okay.
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org
The one area where nudity is permitted is in their outside sauna they
call "the Ritz" That is clothing optional. Here's a couple of videos
about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SDuvS06QyI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRrF4KIevvU
Missed the 1960s? This is as close as you can get North of San
Francisco. But you need to get your tickets ahead of time because
they do sell out.
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/faqs.php
Again, I am specifically referring to the public part of the fair.
After the fair closes for the day among the workers who camp there for
the weekend well, it seems like anything goes (as long as no one gets
harmed of course). I wouldn't know. You really have to be connected
with someone with the fair to become one of the workers.
Short of that or trying to sneak in the best option is some nearly
campgrounds. But you need to get your tickets ahead of time because
they fill up fast.
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/where_to_stay.php
Zumwalt Park I hear they can be pretty nudity friendly and being on a
lake historically pro-skinny dipping but I don't know if they have any
official nude policy. But you need to get tickets to camp here ahead
of time.
http://www.friendsofzumwaltpark.org/
Or you could stay at the nudist park near Eugene but that's actually
more than an hour from the Oregon County Fair site.
-T.
wrote:
>Now the Oregon Country fair does ban nudity (during the day during the
>public part of the event) but for them nudity isn't what most people
>think of. If the women want to take their top off hey the men can so
>you can too (topfree friendly). And want to just go in a loincloth,
>look as long as your genitals are covered (bring a sock) it's okay.
That's pretty much the law in the entire state.
>Missed the 1960s? This is as close as you can get North of San
>Francisco. But you need to get your tickets ahead of time because
>they do sell out.
Rarely. I've bought tickets same day a number of times.
-T.
Anna
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:40:19 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Now the Oregon Country fair does ban nudity (during the day during the
> >public part of the event) but for them nudity isn't what most people
> >think of. If the women want to take their top off hey the men can so
> >you can too (topfree friendly). And want to just go in a loincloth,
> >look as long as your genitals are covered (bring a sock) it's okay.
>
> That's pretty much the law in the entire state.
Yeah, that's what they say. Cities though have their own laws. Like
female toplessness is illegal in Eugene. But since it isn't in the
city they go with state law.
Here's a good discussion about the nudity policy at the Oregon Country
fair.
http://ocf.tribe.net/thread/493eb434-a607-4500-9c04-55adc512f3f0
Can't get totally naked but certainly can get all but naked. Women
could probably get away with just wearing tape. As long as the
genitals are covered so yeah, the sock thing for the males. Although
how people will respond to that I can't say. This might be a
tolerant crowd but if people think you are trying to make their event
lewd they will attack.
> >Missed the 1960s? This is as close as you can get North of San
> >Francisco. But you need to get your tickets ahead of time because
> >they do sell out.
>
> Rarely. I've bought tickets same day a number of times.
>
> -T.
Yeah, especially when it rains that weekend. But still it would be
disappointing if you were coming in from several hours away only to
find out that it was sold out. If you live near Eugene and think at
the last minute, heck lets go, you would likely get in.
Zee
Anna....having spent some time in oregon at rooster rock and sauvie
island and jubitz truck stop and that city park down by the river....i
think i have oregon figured out now.....where it all started in
ca....is first to see the handwriting on the wall by limiting children
in nudist facilities....even californians can feel the guilt of their
misguided ways and this is the reason that 32 million people only have
a handful total of five or six camps and a couple of nude beaches left
for children.....so oregon with their lust for visitors and travelers
to enhance their income says hey....we need to tap into this vacuum of
naked children and sexual nudity as we can have it all......but it
seems to have gotten out of hand at ashville ....right....he he....oh
well america needs a nevada and oregon toooo....huh...at least bankok
and india cannot say america is behind on sin lust and child
slavery.....hell we got it all.......z
Virtual Shadow
news:10345452-7a7b-4d7a...@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> Now the Oregon Country fair does ban nudity (during the day during the
> public part of the event) but for them nudity isn't what most people
> think of. If the women want to take their top off hey the men can so
> you can too (topfree friendly). And want to just go in a loincloth,
> look as long as your genitals are covered (bring a sock) it's okay.
>
Tits, I can take 'em or leave 'em; your Colonel is more of an assman. Legs
and ass, they're more to my liking.
Anna
Ashland, yeah things got out of hand there.
There's a lot less tolerance of public nudity than one might think.
Eugene for example despite it's Liberal image doesn't allow female
toplessness. But county laws are less restrictive and I guess
technically it's the "just cover genitals" rule. But since the Oregon
Country Fair is on private property I don't know why they couldn't
allow full nudity there but perhaps it has something to do with
inviting the general public onto the property that makes them have to
follow the nudity regulations. Like I said, after the the public
leaves for the night and it's just the workers there it's anything
goes and nude performances have been known to happen,
Anna
Like I said though there is one part of the Fair that is clothing
optional even during the regular fair hours. And that place is the
Fair's outdoor shower/sauna which they call "the Ritz"
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
yep ...same ol same ol about nudity as being a tease
game...ref...promise of sells some tickets and word of mouth that
nudity occurs sells a lot more tickets....and if it is in your face a
whole lot more and on and on......even the chicago art thing is the
same....one might say well all the lighting and body painting and i
wanted to see more bare dripping flesh but promises of the next year
being lots more lewd keeps em buying tickets to see if they are
telling the truth.....he he......you got to admit that modern man sure
improved upon primitive mans way of doing things.....z
Don Stockbauer
> "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in message
I like the taint.
The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel
> > If the women want to take their top off hey the men can so
> > you can too (topfree friendly).
It's perfectly legal for women to go topless in most parts of the
country these days. It isn't really socially acceptable anywhere
outside California, and it's just plain not practical north of about
Omaha, but you generally can't get ticketed for it.
"No shoes, no shirt, no service" still applies, however.
--
C.
-T.
wrote:
>On May 31, 7:35 pm, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:40:19 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Now the Oregon Country fair does ban nudity (during the day during the
>> >public part of the event) but for them nudity isn't what most people
>> >think of. If the women want to take their top off hey the men can so
>> >you can too (topfree friendly). And want to just go in a loincloth,
>> >look as long as your genitals are covered (bring a sock) it's okay.
>>
>> That's pretty much the law in the entire state.
>
>Yeah, that's what they say. Cities though have their own laws. Like
>female toplessness is illegal in Eugene.
No, it isn't.
-T.
Anna
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 21:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
Unless one is breastfeeding or protesting it's illegal in Eugene.
There's a city law about it.
Lane County however doesn't have such a law and the Oregon Country
Fair property isn't in the city of Eugene.
Technically since I don't live in a city and my country doesn't have
any specific laws regarding this I guess I could jog around near my
house topless but I don't do so. Also remember there's always the
"disturbing the peace" catch all that police could use if they wanted
to. I think that's wrong. Laws do need to be somewhat specific.
Look, if you think it's legal, go have a bunch of women swim topless
at the Sheldon Community Center and see if they aren't at least
ejected from there if not arrested. At least it would make for an
interesting article.
Anna
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 21:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
Okay, have some females swim topless at the Sheldon Community Center
and see if they aren't ejected from the pool and perhaps even
arrested.
Except for breastfeeding or if it is done as some type of protest (it
is odd but in Oregon there is an exemption for public nudity as long
as one is protesting something) there is a city law in Eugene against
female toplessness. Now Lane County has no such law and therefore then
you have to look at the state statutes where there is no such law
either so in Lane county, yeah women can go topless outside in parks
and such. I guess the same is true where I live too.
Of course there's always the "catch all" disturbing the peace that law
enforcement can use which I think is so wrong. Laws should be
specific.
The Oregon Country Fair isn't in the city limits of the city of
Eugene. And therefore they adhere to county standards.
The truth is even when it's not technically illegal few women want to
go topless. Sure, at the Oregon Country Fair they do but you won't
find females in public parks in Lane County outside of Eugene going
topless even though I guess they could since men can. Perhaps nudist
females there could make a point of topless sunbathing at public parks
but if they do all that would happen is then it would motivate the
people there to make a law banning it.
The Oregon Country Fair is on private property so I would think they
could make any rule they wanted about nudity regardless of what the
county or even the state law says including total nudity being allowed
but perhaps because they do invite the public into their fair there's
some regulations they have to follow in order for the county to give
them the permits they no doubt need.
I am no lawyer but thinking about it doesn't this mean that all
beaches at the Oregon Coast are topless beaches (unless they are in
cities with laws against female toplessness)? Or is there like some
regulation allowing male but banning female toplessness? Obviously
social pressure is enough to make this an issue that is rarely if ever
addressed because women who would try to use the Oregon Coast topless
would no doubt be subjected to the anger of fellow beach users
especially families. And if nudists try to push the issue it would
just mean that some regulation or law would be passed.
But the larger point is even when legal women DON'T WANT to go topless
for the most part. And if anything I see the trend going against male
toplessness too if not legally at least socially.
-T.
wrote:
>On Jun 1, 10:48 pm, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you think it's illegal, post the law.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
>Of course there's always the "catch all" disturbing the peace that law
>enforcement can use which I think is so wrong. Laws should be
>specific.
That rarely holds up for simple nudity.
>The Oregon Country Fair isn't in the city limits of the city of
>Eugene. And therefore they adhere to county standards.
>The truth is even when it's not technically illegal few women want to
>go topless.
And you know this how?
> you won't
>find females in public parks in Lane County outside of Eugene going
>topless
I won't? Really?
>But the larger point is even when legal women DON'T WANT to go topless
>for the most part.
And you determined this how?
>And if anything I see the trend going against male
>toplessness too if not legally at least socially.
You don't seem to get out much.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
Screw it, you're so lazy it won't get done:
Eugene City Code
4.760 Prohibited Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any person eight
years of age or older to expose their genitalia while in a public
place or place visible from a public place, if the public place is
open or available to persons of the opposite sex.
(Section 4.760 added by Ordinance No. 16626, enacted September 25,
1972, amended by Ordinance No. 19462, enacted April 13, 1987; and
administratively amended by Ordinance No. 20113, enacted April 6,
1998, effective May 6, 1998.)
For the record, breasts aren't considered genitillia.
-T.
Zee
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:15:18 -0700, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
look idiot.....what is genitillia.....and there is not a law stating
children or minors of any age can not dance nude in public or bars but
as Anna says....disorderly conduct....or contributing to the
delenquency of a minor child will be used as it has been used before
and convictions attained.....Anna does not like one size fit all law
and neither does some nudist but that is reality.....get a life that
is way this system works........same for women....there is no laws i
am aware of that states no topless for women or men but men are the
only ones i have ever seen topless in public and i have never seen
women topless but it does happen as such with the female that came to
ashville and rode her bicycle topless but i understand now she has
given it up......z
-T.
wrote:
>look idiot.....what is genitillia....
You call me an idiot and then ask what is genitalia...that's some
funny shit there.
>.and there is not a law stating
>children or minors of any age can not dance nude in public or bars
In Oregon, minors cannot enter bars at all.
>as Anna says....disorderly conduct...
Disorderly conduct has been tried, and it has failed.
>or contributing to the
>delenquency of a minor child
We were not talking about children, just for openers. And naked
children, under 8 years old, under the city code, would not fall into
the delinquent category. You don't know shit about law, do you?
>will be used as it has been used before
>and convictions attained.....
Feel free to post the case numbers, jurisdictions, and the
convictions.
-T.
Zee
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
> wrote:
>
> >look idiot.....what is genitillia....
>
> You call me an idiot and then ask what is genitalia...that's some
> funny shit there.
> >.and there is not a law stating
> >children or minors of any age can not dance nude in public or bars
>
> In Oregon, minors cannot enter bars at all.
> >as Anna says....disorderly conduct...
>
> Disorderly conduct has been tried, and it has failed.
>
> >or contributing to the
> >delenquency of a minor child
>
> We were not talking about children, just for openers. And naked
> children, under 8 years old, under the city code, would not fall into
> the delinquent category. You don't know shit about law, do you?
>
> >will be used as it has been used before
> >and convictions attained.....
>
> Feel free to post the case numbers, jurisdictions, and the
> convictions.
>
> -T.
no you everyone is free to click and prove it wrong or right....this
ng is not some kind of court contest but of course i always tell the
truth so no need for me to prove anything to a retarded idiot....you
were as usual wrong on every statement you made here....dont you ever
want to stop being an idiot.....at least be right sometimes.....what a
loser.......and if the kid is jackin off....then the new law made with
nudist in mind.....allowing the sexual performance of a
child.....hmmmm hard time for that one.....z
-T.
wrote:
>On Jun 3, 7:23 am, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >look idiot.....what is genitillia....
>>
>> You call me an idiot and then ask what is genitalia...that's some
>> funny shit there.
>> no i asked what is genitillia........
>> >.and there is not a law stating
>> >children or minors of any age can not dance nude in public or bars
>>
>> In Oregon, minors cannot enter bars at all.
>> in lots of states a beer and wine license does not limit children...
>> >as Anna says....disorderly conduct...
>>
>> Disorderly conduct has been tried, and it has failed.
>>
>> >or contributing to the
>> >delenquency of a minor child
>>
>> We were not talking about children, just for openers. And naked
>> children, under 8 years old, under the city code, would not fall into
>> the delinquent category. You don't know shit about law, do you?
>>
>> >will be used as it has been used before
>> >and convictions attained.....
>>
>> Feel free to post the case numbers, jurisdictions, and the
>> convictions.
>>
>> -T.
>
>no you everyone is free to click and prove it wrong or right...
Easier just to call you a liar. I provide evidence for what I say. You
provide nothing.
>.this
>ng is not some kind of court contest but of course i always tell the
>truth
Without any shred of evidence. That makes you a liar.
>so no need for me to prove anything to a retarded idiot....
Because you think name calling substitutes for reasoned argumentation.
It doesn't.
>you
>were as usual wrong on every statement you made here....
Minors in Oregon cannot enter bars. Fact.
In Oregon, disorderly conduct has been tried and failed. Fact.
Naked children under the age of 8 cannot be termed delinquent under
the law. Fact.
What, exactly are you arguing with?
>dont you ever
>want to stop being an idiot.....
I have an IQ in excess of 130, two bachelors degrees and a masters
degree. I'm not really too interested in your assessment of my
intellect. You're wrong about everything else, that's just one more
thing.
-T.
Zee
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:28:15 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
well if you had paid attention to dialogue between Anna and i you
would have noted that oregon is a different situation to the rest of
the usa.....bars in most states offer beer and wine licenses which
does not limit children....so moma and daughter can sometimes be found
dancing in these topless bars.......and disorderly conduct and public
lewdness is charges that has convicted many nudity and child nudity
cases.....so i could prove it but this is not what rec nude is
about...if a parent is really interested with a child it is up to them
to research what they read on the internet...i am not here to play
games and tell lies....but you are here to entrap innocent folks to
get into nudist with kids and to hell with what happens to them
later......so just go ahead and follow me on every post i make as i am
just about disinterested in your....that is not true shit and furnish
the proof....hell any one can do that so who in hell pays you to do
this.......z
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
so to prove my point....Cheri told of a single nudist guy at foothills
nudist camp in sc....that had been convicted ...contributing to the
delinquency of a minor child.....i knew the guy and the two girls that
was left with him by their parents to baby sit.....he stated to me he
was not a pedo and i told him and the owner of camp that the oldest
girl was jackin her clit off last night when every one was in the club
house and just be careful...the owner called me a liar like you and of
course with in 3 months that single nudist had been convicted of the
above charge.....he told cheri he did not know me so i know now he is
a liar.....he told the story that he had a camera in his trailer and
the girls took the photos when they were alone in the trailer but he
still was convicted and put on the sex offenders list and could never
visit a nudist camp again....this is recorded in rec nude.......so i
know that you wish this had not been made public along with many other
nudist....this single guy was retired and did not work as far i knew
so he was not hurt badly other that about 10 years probation but what
if it had been a younger guy and he had a good job and a
family....this is total disaster for a person like that.....yet you
scum bags are not worried just bring em on to the nudist camps and to
hell with what happens later.......so see i usually can ref a case
that is recorded right here in rec nude and is known by other
posters....of course you say you always have proof but you do not
state things of negative facts about nudist.....you are the ultimate
pimp and liar for nudism that all textile folks are familiar
with......and so you say you have all these degrees....but who
cares.....john edwards has many degrees but look how stupid he
is....he is really paththetic...and look at donald trump....he is
paththetic also...soooo obvious of how stupid he is......and of course
it would be fitting for you to have a degree and fitting for you to be
stupid as a ostrich........z
-T.
wrote:
>well if you had paid attention to dialogue between Anna and i you
>would have noted that oregon is a different situation to the rest of
>the usa....
And that's what Anna and I were discussing, Oregon. Look at the
header.
>bars in most states offer beer and wine licenses which
>does not limit children....
Horse shit.
>....and disorderly conduct and public
>lewdness is charges that has convicted many nudity and child nudity
>cases....
Define "many".
>.so i could prove it but this is not what rec nude is
>about...
No, that's not what you are about. You claim many things, prove none,
because your primary interest is not truth.
>..i am not here to play
>games and tell lies...
Really? That's about all you ever do.
>.but you are here to entrap innocent folks to
>get into nudist with kids and to hell with what happens to them
>later.....
I'm here to present factual information.
>.so just go ahead and follow me on every post i make as i am
>just about disinterested in your...
That's why you call names and throw tantrums, cause your not
interested. Right.
>that is not true shit and furnish
>the proof....hell any one can do that so who in hell pays you to do
>this.......
Anyone can furnish proof....except you.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
So isolated incidents define the whole? That's your position? So
because some guy is masturbating and flashing folks on a bus, mass
transportation is all about that? And when a child is raped at a mall,
malls are all about child rape? That's the reasoning that you're
trying to sell folks here, and it simply doesn't wash. It never has
and it never will.
-T.
Zee
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 21:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
so you are so stupid that you dont realize that when you switch from
adults and children exposing their crotches to one another...that
means you have realized your ignorance and want to try and hurt the
folks that dont do those evil things.....and then your nudist partners
in crime isolate yourselves further from the 99.99......z
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
to finish that isolated incidence...after the owner said i was lying
about what i had saw along with many others....he was sitting with a
lady and her 10 year ol at the pool deck with about a half dozen folks
in the pool the very next day and the little girl reached over in
front of everybody and grabbed his dick and started playing with it
and every one started laughing and some probably started getting hard
ons......oh well so much for isolated incidences.....time for you to
tell us about the naked adults and children at shopping malls fuckin
one another......rave on with your lies......z
Cheri Alexander
thread. It's a co-op of sorts. The office manager at that time was
a woman. The person who was convicted unfairly, did his 5 years
probation. He did live at the park after that. He passed away over 3
years ago. That park has since become a place I would not
recommend.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
time....i and the school teacher at the entrance gate installed the
volleyball court lights and they did have three kids of which were
great kids.....sorry to hear that the convicted dude has passed
away.....the owner at that time was living off site as i remember but
was there on the weekends...and he was friends with the convicted
dude....i recommended at the time that they should cool their wild
child and adult behavior as word does get out....but i hold no
grievances against anyone....it just seems to me that family nudist
goes in that direction too often and of course when you and your
husband came along then the rest is history....regards......z
Anna
> thread. It's a co-op of sorts. The office manager at that time was
> a woman. The person who was convicted unfairly, did his 5 years
> probation. He did live at the park after that. He passed away over 3
> years ago. That park has since become a place I would not
> recommend.
Wow, Cheri did I get you right. A convicted sex offender was still
allowed to live at a park?
And the place went down AFTER he died?
And AANR like always SILENT!
Anna
Why was he convicted? Why was he allowed AFTER conviction to live on
site?
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anna....after his conviction i moved on so all i know is what he told
me......the parents left their two girls with him and i think he was
not some one that would molest a child of which he was not
charged ....he told me he had a camera in his bedroom and he was
absent leaving the kids there alone....they got the camera and started
taking pics of which i did not see and all i know is the police said
they were sexual in content.....so when he was arrested that family
got out of dodge like real fast like ...never to be seen again.....so
according to textile prosecutions ...usually the charges are trimmed
down to charge the parents with abandonment or contributing to the
delenquency of a minor child but since the parents were not available
he was charged because he had been left in charge......he was well
liked and was a good citizen as far as i could tell......so nudist do
tend to act with compassion when sometime they should act in
accordance with the legal system ......Anna i gotta tell ya....family
nudist should be aware going in that they are at a disadvantage to the
99.9....this means they should know that a certain amount of smugness
is forfeited up front....reason being.....most all except small
children know that it is illegal and wrong to expose ones crotch to
children and vice versa for recreational purposes......and
technicly...sp...the nudist are illegel to do it also.....but since
clothed folks ...police included.....allow the nudist to do their
thing and when child exploitation comes to their attention via outside
textile contacts then they go in and investigate......as we all know
nudist are big time cover up artist.....so this is the reason the
chickens have come home to roost and nudism has lost its
credibility......it always takes a few years to educate public opinion
to what is really going on.....but there is no doubt now....the public
is fully aware.....and it aint good......z
-T.
wrote:
>....Anna i gotta tell ya....family
>nudist should be aware going in that they are at a disadvantage to the
>99.9....this means they should know that a certain amount of smugness
>is forfeited up front....reason being.....most all except small
>children know that it is illegal and wrong to expose ones crotch to
>children and vice versa for recreational purposes......and
>technicly...sp...the nudist are illegel to do it also....
1. The 99.9% is a number that you made up and has no basis in fact.
2. Nudism is not illegal, and simple nudity is not illegal in many
juristictions.
>.as we all know
>nudist are big time cover up artist....
"We" all do not know any such thing. Again, you're just making things
up.
>.so this is the reason the
>chickens have come home to roost and nudism has lost its
>credibility.....
Which is why it's a growth industry. Again, if you believed half of
what you say, you'd go away.
>it always takes a few years to educate public opinion
>to what is really going on.....but there is no doubt now....the public
>is fully aware.....and it aint good....
You are so full of shit. You'd do well to check public opinion polls
on the subject.
-T.
Zee
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 08:40:40 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
standing in your door way naked might fetch a high approvable rating
per a poll as humans are fickle.....hey i might accidently be naked in
my doorway via not thinking at the moment and some kids just happen to
be walking by and i would go to jail .....hey i think it should be
legal at least for me.......and if that dirty ol man is caught naked
in his front door next door...there should be a law to send him
straight to the gallows.......of course thats just my opinion as nice
little ol lady......z
Anna
I didn't think convicted sex offenders were allowed to visit, far less
live at, nudist venues but you are saying that at this SC nudist park
he was allowed to?
Or did I misunderstand?
Anna
Sounds fishy to me.
But say he didn't do it. Then we need to worry about family nudism not
only for the children sake but for those who might falsely be accused
as well.
Anna
Dysfunctional Families are a bigger threat in my opinion then the
Dirty old single male. But see in this case we really don't know
who's telling the truth.
Either way, someone's life was destroyed. Either the children's or the
man if he was falsely accused.
It is beginning to be obvious that there's just too much that can go
wrong for children to be involved in nudism.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
well Anna i feel your pain.....Cheri is a promoter of aanr nudism so
for her to even utter one thing about child porn produced at a nudist
camp makes her shine like a star over all other nudist.....the lady
that she mentioned was the wife of a great brilliant non owner high
tech computer scientist....as i do not think he had monetary interest
in the camp......yes there was another couple...ron was his name and
he was good guy with a great personality.....but the owner i was
speaking of had gobs of money invested and he was usually around on
the weekends and was single as best i remember.....the girl that was
jackin off in the clubhouse was not the same girl that grabbed his
dick and played with it on the deck....that was another little girl
whom was the daughter of a massuese that had a business off site and
passed out cards to single men....now the guy Bob as i reember did
continue to live there after conviction but as i remember the
probation officer found out about it told him he could not live there
anymore so he moved out....i have not heard of further actions on his
part as he may have died after he moved out .....i understand that
probation means reporting once a month when you are on the sex
offenders list but after the probation runs out it is once a year
reporting and i think it may still have the same living requirements
as when on probation....so living around schools or in nudist camps
where there is access to children but i stand to be corrected on this
detail....
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
i forgot to mention that i was left in charge a day or so when
everyone was off site and i remember a couple with two kids that
called and i told them about the camp and they hurried on down and i
left for the massachusets tns gathering but they all said i did a
good job...imagine that huh......he he....so ron and that scientist
guys wife was sorta left in charge but i dont think they were
owners ....it could have been a nice little agreement with the owner
to have manager authority when on site.....not really a coop like glen
eden or como in florida......they installed a nice new swimming pool
while i was there and they filled it with water and it was leaking and
they kept filling it up at night and looking for the leak.....i told
them you will need to let it leak down to where it no longer leaks to
find the leak....they did and found the leak.....i really like all the
folks and they all seemed good natured escept the owner was very quick
on the draw......z
Anna
Absolutely. I was proud of Nudiarist for his stand on Lupin Lodge but
he has seemed to drop it now even though nothing has changed. So he is
now a coward. Cheri is the only courageous one out there now I guess.
> he was good guy with a great personality....
Such people worry me because they can get away almost with murder
since people naturally like such people and don't want to think ill of
them.
>.but the owner i was
> speaking of had gobs of money invested and he was usually around on
> the weekends and was single as best i remember....
I guess the place was a co-op but you probably mean he still
contributed a lot to the place and invested a lot in the property he
rented on site. I am not quite sure how legally such things work but
I know it is the case at many of these nudist camps/parks that they
own the building but not the land or something like that. So you while
you can' t call him an owner OF the club he could be an owner IN the
club if he had a private building he owned there.
>.the girl that was
> jackin off in the clubhouse was not the same girl that grabbed his
> dick and played with it on the deck....that was another little girl
> whom was the daughter of a massuese that had a business off site and
> passed out cards to single men....
Dysfunctional family situation. Causes a lot of problems.
Dysfunctional family situation is just my fancy way of saying sleazy
trashy family,
>now the guy Bob as i reember did
> continue to live there after conviction but as i remember the
> probation officer found out about it told him he could not live there
> anymore so he moved out...
I thought the CLUB would kick him out. All this stuff about how they
filter out the people who are there, a bunch of BS I guess at least in
this case.
>.i have not heard of further actions on his
> part as he may have died after he moved out .....i understand that
> probation means reporting once a month when you are on the sex
> offenders list but after the probation runs out it is once a year
> reporting and i think it may still have the same living requirements
> as when on probation....
I thought it was for life. It is really hard to be tagged a sex
offender. In fact you are better off dead. He probably committed
suicide. Even if he was innocent, especially if he was innocent that
would have been the best option for him as life tagged as a sex
offender ain't work living.
>so living around schools or in nudist camps
> where there is access to children but i stand to be corrected on this
> detail....
Don't know for sure. Perhaps it depends on state and even what is
individual conviction details were.
Still regardless of whether or not legally he was allowed to live
there, nudists always talk about their higher standards and therefore
they should have forced him out. Even unfortunately if he was
innocent because standards must be maintained. There shouldn't even
be the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
Anna
Not a good idea. I previously wrote on how I believed that parents
should maintain line of site with their children and that if they
didn't they should be booted from the club. Also if they allowed their
children to be alone with any non-family member adult both the adult
and the family of the child should be booted. It doesn't only create
an unsafe situation for the children but an unsafe situation for the
adult who may falsely be accused of something. An adult stupid enough
to be alone with a naked kid is just asking for trouble for themselves
and of course it would hurt the club. If the adult is in a room and
an unattended child comes into the room the adult should immediately
leave, ideally to report the child who like I said should never be
unattended.
>.so ron and that scientist
> guys wife was sorta left in charge but i dont think they were
> owners ....it could have been a nice little agreement with the owner
> to have manager authority when on site.....not really a coop like glen
> eden or como in florida......they installed a nice new swimming pool
> while i was there and they filled it with water and it was leaking and
> they kept filling it up at night and looking for the leak.....i told
> them you will need to let it leak down to where it no longer leaks to
> find the leak....they did and found the leak.....i really like all the
> folks and they all seemed good natured
And perhaps they were. OR perhaps they were perverts. That's the
problem. That's when things can get ugly. Appearances CAN be
deceiving especially when it is someone's purpose to deceive.
They made themselves important to the club. That meant if they were of
mind to and I am not saying they were but if they were of a mind to
abuse and people reported their activity, the club would instinctively
defend them until it became too obvious.
Ted Bundy was a very attractive, likeable person. You just don't
know who people really are. Never for sure.
Anna
> wrote:
>
> >....Anna i gotta tell ya....family
> >nudist should be aware going in that they are at a disadvantage to the
> >99.9....this means they should know that a certain amount of smugness
> >is forfeited up front....reason being.....most all except small
> >children know that it is illegal and wrong to expose ones crotch to
> >children and vice versa for recreational purposes......and
> >technicly...sp...the nudist are illegel to do it also....
>
> 1. The 99.9% is a number that you made up and has no basis in fact.
>
> 2. Nudism is not illegal, and simple nudity is not illegal in many
> juristictions.
>
> >.as we all know
> >nudist are big time cover up artist....
>
> "We" all do not know any such thing. Again, you're just making things
> up.
Didn't make up what is going on at Lupin Lodge. But nudists are trying
to cover that up!
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
well....the way i perceived it as at the time i was in and out and
traveling quite a bit....he was not convicted or charged with taking
the pictures....this is the confounding part about nudist that i have
never understood...he took the film to one of those out in parking lot
developing drop off stands and went back to pick them up and they
arrested him or maybe later as he had to sign for the pics or
whatever....it was that they could not locate the parents and
naturally someone has to be convicted so he was it.....but if he went
back to camp with the pics not knowing of any problems with the pics
then why and how come did the parents leave with the
children....oh ...this oldest sister was the one sitting on the back
of the couch jackin off......so when the arrest happened it is not
clear to me or i just dont remember......so you and i are also very
right about these charges of contributing and disorderly
conduct ...abandonment and endangerment......they all get guilty
sentences but are vague .....but when it comes to convicting adults of
child abuse situations.....there is no body interested in defending a
nudist for vague or inefficient police work.....like the guy in tx
that got a life sentence for his stepson molestation....a person on
the jury said.....we are sending a message to the nudist with this
harsh sentence.....i have told these nudist in rec nude for years that
throw away those fuckin cameras and stay out jail....a they all say
but we have a right to take pics.....no that is where they are
stupid...the can take the pics but is non nudist views them.....more
than probably they are headed to jail and they cannot seem to get
through their hard heads.......nudism would probably never have had a
problem if they had just used the written word and would probably have
packed houses everywhere.....but of course if voyeurism and
exhibitionism is the name of the game...then it just would not be as
much fun doing it that way....oh well justice comes to all in the
end........z
-T.
wrote:
>
>It is beginning to be obvious that there's just too much that can go
>wrong for children to be involved in nudism.
You know, if you had a life, you wouldn't go around saying such inane
stuff. Given your take on things, there's just too much that can go
wrong for children to be born. We should just sterilize everybody and
die out as a race.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
>On Jun 5, 9:12 am, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Which nudists would those be?
-T.
Zee
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:44:26 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anna....if an alien from another planet came here with no knowledge of
the social family nudism he would be far ahead of this joker.....i
have said many times that nudist are their own worst enemy....while
they contended they needed to take those pictures and get them into
the dirty book stores ....this was sheer madness and now if your had
been a nudist all these years you would also know that even the
written word has been their downfall also....ie.....never a hint of
any arrest or convictions in the aanr bulletin of child abuse or child
sexual molestations......never any detail or comments on clubs that go
astray or have their membership cancelled......never any news of wrong
doing or bad behavior at nudist places.....we are talking about the
AANR bulletin ...the national organization that is viewed by just
about all nudist that have been to a nudist camp.....of course this
joker is not a nudist and he ask stupid questions about ...who are the
nudist that suppress information and hide the truth.......see he has
never been to any places and has not knowledge of the nudist general
public exposure and wants to know....gee kinda like obama....we have
to have him around giving him free on the job training about nudism
and its history......and just yesterday i noticed a factual illness on
science channel about a nice lady and her husband that happens more
frequently than one might think.....they were a very happy couple and
suddenly at about age forty she had a stroke in a spot in her brain
that caused her to be unconscious for a brief time and as she was
waking back up in the hospital he noticed she was masturbating.....it
turns out that the research by the dociors have found that it is call
a dysfunctional compulsory disorder that can happen if the stroke
occurs in a special place of the brain....they were talking candidly
and are trying to get the matter corrected as she would go to the
store shopping and could not refraim from asking a strange guy to have
sex with her....so with penile implants and medical conditions like
this lady has.....it is totally unconceivable that social nakedness
can occur with children involved....of course it never was a practical
idea from the beginning as the nudist argued that children are not
sexual....another lie of course but this joker here picks up on all
the lies and tells them as truth....and he probably actually believe
them......but i suppose he is so obvious that he is good for rec nude
to represent the hard core stupid of family nudism........z
-T.
wrote:
>On Jun 6, 8:38 pm, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>....while
>they contended they needed to take those pictures and get them into
>the dirty book stores ....
Could you provide that quote? Thanks.
>been a nudist all these years you would also know that even the
>written word has been their downfall also....ie.....never a hint of
>any arrest or convictions in the aanr bulletin of child abuse or child
>sexual molestations......never any detail or comments on clubs that go
>astray or have their membership cancelled......never any news of wrong
>doing or bad behavior at nudist places.....we are talking about the
>AANR bulletin ...the national organization that is viewed by just
>about all nudist that have been to a nudist camp....
So, let me get this straight, AANR is supposed to use it's bulliten to
discuss club closures, arrests and such? Kinda like the local Chanber
of Commerce is supposed to put rape and burglury statistics in their
"Welcome to Our City" brochures??? And because they don't do that, the
C of C is engaging in a cover up? I suppose a corporate prospectus
should have a section on which boss is banging which secretary and
which employees steal office supplies? Either that or their engaging
in a coverup? You are profoundly confused about how the world works.
> ...who are the
>nudist that suppress information and hide the truth.......
Seems like a reasonable question; one which, notably, hasn't been
answered.
>see he has
>never been to any places and has not knowledge of the nudist general
>public exposure and wants to know....
My information is current. My experience is current. Yours is all
decades old.
>....so with penile implants and medical conditions like
>this lady has.....it is totally unconceivable that social nakedness
>can occur with children involved...
But it still does. Still a lot of family freindly venues chugging
along, all inspite of your lies and innuendo, and your proclamation
that social nudism is dying any day now.
>of course it never was a practical
>idea from the beginning as the nudist argued that children are not
>sexual....
And you can provide those quotes too? I'd love to see them.
>another lie of course but this joker here picks up on all
>the lies and tells them as truth....
More quotes please!!! Here's your big chance. Post all of my "lies",
show the world....
-T.
Zee
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 23:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
there has been quotes here in rec nude by your cronies that made the
ignorant statement that children are not sexual....so now you admit
that you took your naked children to a nude beach and they were sexual
and really focused in on all those dicks and it turned you
on....huh....thats what i thought.....Anna he will now admit it.....he
he what a perv. er ah lying perv at that......and pedo tooooo.......z
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
so the chamber of commerce does not include crimes in their city when
soliciting folks to locate there....no they do not as they know that
their behavior is normal as in all other cities and their crime is
maybe lower than the big cities and they can tout the police records
of course......but not so with the nudist....the nudist has been
charges with obviously being criminals from the beginning of their
cult....ie....children being in the presence of stranger adults that
are exposing their crotches while the children themselves are naked
and exposing their crotches.....this is a criminal offense in the usa
when done for fun and recreational purposes.....so when crimes happen
in their environment associated with this criminal behavior then they
are required morally to speak about it to let other prospective
members and visitors know about it to protect their kids...ie ...never
a mention about nudist camp child porn scandal ....and never a mention
of stopping the princess and royalty contest at AANR
conventions.....and never a mention of why they stopped the body
painting contest in the bulletin....they make the changes but do it
real secret like......yes if the city chamber of commerce runs naked
along with the children....they would need to report this as an
abnormal human behavior and i think most cities would do that.....i am
sure that love lock nevada with it two or three whore houses does
mention these houses or does not have a broschure selling the
city.....reno and las vegas does advertize but they do not have legal
whore houses....they advertize gambling but it is totally legal....the
nudist have chosen to be outcast and as i told Cheri...they need to
forfeit their smuggness because of their criminal behavior.....kinda
like the dog and rooster fighting folks....it took many years but they
have nearly disappeared from the scene....as with ca...where well over
5 million people per nudist camp and it used to be around a million
per camp....it is slowly going away rather than to be forced away.....z
Anna
> So, let me get this straight, AANR is supposed to use it's bulliten to
> discuss club closures, arrests and such? Kinda like the local Chanber
> of Commerce is supposed to put rape and burglury statistics in their
> "Welcome to Our City" brochures???
Should AANR "Promote" nudism or should it "Serve" nudism?
> And because they don't do that, the
> C of C is engaging in a cover up?
Say places were going out of business around town. Then you read in a
C of C publication "serving our prosperous business community". I
guess you wouldn't call it a coverup but
> I suppose a corporate prospectus
> should have a section on which boss is banging which secretary and
> which employees steal office supplies? Either that or their engaging
> in a coverup?
If all that is going on and there was no means to address it? Perhaps
you wouldn't call it a cover-up but...
>You are profoundly confused about how the world works.
I am not.
That is why nudism can't work in the real world.
You are right. AANR sees its role as being a "Cheerleader" or a
"Chamber of Commerce" instead of an organization that sets the
standards.
So, how do standards get maintained. In all too many places, like
Lupin Lodge for example, it doesn't and bad things continue to happen
there.
Just like I guess it does at the place Cheri was mentioning.
Ironically, unless I read her wrong, the guy, despite himself being a
sex offender was the closest thing to a standard holder there was and
now he is gone it's even worse. What an indictment on a place.
Things were much better when the sex offender was alive.
Makes me want to rush out to visit.
Anna
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 23:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
The Case Cheri mentioned is current. Lupin Lodge is current. It's
not like with slavery where you could say well it used to happen but
that was a long time ago.
Either Historical Perspective can remind us how much we have changed
or in the case of nudism how little things have changed.
> -T.
Scratch beneath the surface if you dare and even you wouldn't like
what you see going on just below the surface. Or do, what I expect you
do, put blinders on. In any case it is probably a good idea to leave
kids out of it.
Anna
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:37:12 -0700 (PDT), Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >It is beginning to be obvious that there's just too much that can go
> >wrong for children to be involved in nudism.
>
> You know, if you had a life, you wouldn't go around saying such inane
> stuff.
I think over the years we have documented all kinds of sleaze that
have been going on at nudist venues. We have looked at it
historically but also currently, and ongoing.
Sorry, the evidence is in. I am not saying all places are bad. But it
is just too hard to distinguish the good from the bad ones.
I actually think the biggest problem is that it ISN'T one big orgy.
Provocative statement I know and I say it to be. But I mean it to be.
But I don't mean by it what you might think I mean.
If it was one big orgy then it would be easy to condemn and then just
move on. But the fact that sleezy stuff happens on occasion instead of
all the time out in the open means that it is easier to defend.
But "on occasion" is still bad. I have said often that depending of
course on the nudist resort I choose to go to I doubt I would see
anything sleezy going on for I would be going just one weekend or so
in a whole season. But if I practically went everyday THEN INDEED I
WOULD SEE SOMETHING SLEEZY. And seeing something sleezy going on say
once or twice a season is still bad. You are still putting yourself
into a situation where eventually you will see bad stuff. And while
you could say that's true with anything, it really isn't with the same
odds as it is with a nudist venue. And those things where it is, well
I avoid those too. (No big city parks for my kid or public
transportation).
It may happen occasionally but occasionally still equals being exposed
to it.
The Lewd is attracted to the Nude. Now most nudists are not lewd but
instead are good natured people. But the problem with being good
natured people is that the lewd takes advantage or their easy going
nature.
Anna
> a dysfunctional compulsory disorder that can happen if the stroke
> occurs in a special place of the brain....
I can understand why nudists want to be tolerant of people with health
problems but sorry there are some, few mind up but still some medical
conditions that does indeed prevent one from being able to participate
in nudism. This sounds like one of those medical conditions. Sorry
lady, can' come here should have been the nudist resorts response.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anna....my responses are determined by what i feel is not totally
understood about family nudism as i can look back in my past a be
somewhere close to everyone that post here.....and now i feel there is
a vacuum that needs to be adressed that has only vaguely been
mentioned in the past.....that being who are the nudist that migrate
through the gates of family nudism and where do they come from ....and
WHY.....all the nudist camps are usually located out in the county
areas where they can be hidden from view and local folks....local
folks do not enjoy a great many benefits from having a nudist club in
their area.....sure a few will stop at walmart and buy a towell or two
and maybe a part of camping equipment that they have lost or
misplaced....and of course a few groceries but not many as a lot of
families just bring stuff from their own kitchen......and of course
the nudist camps could not survive legally in a city as they have
regulation that can deal with folks that act inappropriate and are not
shy about doing so.....so now who are those people....when going to a
nudist camp you are a stranger and they all seem friendly and as time
goes on they tell you ...well john got transferred on his job and we
did not know anyone so i saw an ad in the paper and checked it out and
here we are.....now after you get to know them better you learn they
were not all that great about be friending folks in their old
neighborhood......most not all are dysfunctional families coming from
broken homes and dysfunctional families.....and most do not vote...as
you will find they find excuses to not be interested in the future of
the country or politics......now the singles present the higher class
or caliber as they are just plain guys that are seeking romance or
some sexual perverted fun....so we dont have to spend much time on
them.......then there is a few that seem to be located in the large
city that is near and grew up there.....and yes here we go with the
same profile......a junk yard type guy with a family that does not
have local friends......a ghetto family that sees this as a chance to
at least get away temporary from the ghetto and its miseries......then
there is the pimps and whores with these same problems......and also
the artist that are mentally impared and lazy and want a life of just
plain doing nothing and scratching on a pad on a easel and conving
folks this is real art.....and then of course there is the local
school teachers that should have been a waitress in a local diner with
all these same problems.....so what i am trying to say here is that
for the most part the families that have been raised to portray a high
level of moral and secure living standards are constantly seeking and
evaluating groups of citizenry that is worthy of their membership or
comaraderie...with no apparent behavior that would be inappropriate
for family or children.....of course the ones above are not giving
this much priority so family nudism is inhabited by a lower class
membership in comparison......now if the we compare with the mormons
this is not true with them....they tend to be very selective and this
attracts the educated and high moral folks but they are dumb to the
history of mormonism and therefore wind up getting booted out and
given hell if the dare talk bad about the mormon church but as we have
seen lated the ol john law finally caught up with them and now they
have been seen as child molesters with their bullshit about multi
wives.....the nudist may push john law to do the same thing to them or
the families may have seen the handwriting on the wall and have left
under their own power....the usa seems to tolerate inappropriate
behavior as long as care is take to have those dog and rooster fights
out in the rural or go naked out there also or molest the kids at a
church that has a wierd belief system but eventually things happen to
stop em in their tracks like the mormons........z
-T.
wrote:
>
>there has been quotes here in rec nude by your cronies that made the
>ignorant statement that children are not sexual...
None of my cronies ever said any such thing.And you cannot produce one
shred of evidence that says they did.
>so now you admit
>that you took your naked children to a nude beach and they were sexual
>and really focused in on all those dicks
See, there's your problem: YOU focus on genitals, so you're sure
everyone else does. That'd almost be funny if it weren't so damned
pathetic.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
Must have really gotten your panties in a knot to reply twice.
>so the chamber of commerce does not include crimes in their city when
>soliciting folks to locate there....no they do not as they know that
>their behavior is normal as in all other cities
So, by what passes for your logic, cities are about sex and unsafe for
children BUT it okay because it's normal.
>..the nudist has been
>charges with obviously being criminals from the beginning of their
>cult...
And yet, even Nikki could only come up with a handful of arrests and
convictions. Of course you'd have us believe that nudists have managed
to hide their dark secrets from the same government that just hunted
down bin Laden over in Pakistan. With such a powerful secret society
it's a wonder they haven't simply made you disappear.
>ie....children being in the presence of stranger adults that
>are exposing their crotches while the children themselves are naked
>and exposing their crotches....
You really are profoundly obsessed with crotches, aren't you?
>.this is a criminal offense in the usa
>when done for fun and recreational purposes....
Nudism is not a criminal offence in the USA. You're lying again.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
>On Jun 7, 7:02 am, -T. <stinson_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, let me get this straight, AANR is supposed to use it's bulliten to
>> discuss club closures, arrests and such? Kinda like the local Chanber
>> of Commerce is supposed to put rape and burglury statistics in their
>> "Welcome to Our City" brochures???
>
>Should AANR "Promote" nudism or should it "Serve" nudism?
AANR is definately there to promote club nudism. They do little or
nothing to serve nudism.
>
>
>> And because they don't do that, the
>> C of C is engaging in a cover up?
>
>Say places were going out of business around town. Then you read in a
>C of C publication "serving our prosperous business community". I
>guess you wouldn't call it a coverup but
>> I suppose a corporate prospectus
>> should have a section on which boss is banging which secretary and
>> which employees steal office supplies? Either that or their engaging
>> in a coverup?
>
>If all that is going on and there was no means to address it? Perhaps
>you wouldn't call it a cover-up but...
>>You are profoundly confused about how the world works.
>
>I am not.
>
>That is why nudism can't work in the real world.
So corporations and cities can't work in the real world either? Ditto
for schools, day care centers, churches, 4-H, Little league? Again,
you are profoundly confused about the real world. Perhaps if you could
get out in it more often.
>You are right. AANR sees its role as being a "Cheerleader" or a
>"Chamber of Commerce" instead of an organization that sets the
>standards.
>
>So, how do standards get maintained. In all too many places, like
>Lupin Lodge for example, it doesn't and bad things continue to happen
>there.
Everyone wants a quick fix. Lupin will work itself out. AANR has a
problem on it's hands, and it will eventually attempt to do the right
thing.
-T.
-T.
wrote:
Okay, let's get something straight. When I'm replying to Zee, I'm
really not engaging you in conversation. Ditto for when I'm replying
to you, I'm not addressing Zee's points. If the two of you would like
to continue to pretend that you are seperate entities, you're going to
have to be a bit more careful.
>The Case Cheri mentioned is current. Lupin Lodge is current. It's
>not like with slavery where you could say well it used to happen but
>that was a long time ago.
The case that Cheri mentioned is how current?
>Either Historical Perspective can remind us how much we have changed
>or in the case of nudism how little things have changed.
Which you have absolutely no first hand experience of.
>Scratch beneath the surface if you dare and even you wouldn't like
>what you see going on just below the surface. Or do, what I expect you
>do, put blinders on. In any case it is probably a good idea to leave
>kids out of it.
If you had any kids, or had had a childhood, you might have a clue.
But, you don't. Just like Zee. Just like Mike. Weird, it's like a
non-nudist single men's support group.
-T.
Zee
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:14:16 -0700 (PDT), Zee <billmyr...@hughes.net>
yeah just another typical perverted crotch exposer.....we never focus
on genitals....well the textile world focus on genitals when they find
perverts like you and your perverted children exposing your genitals
to strangers......so how would you know your kids do not focus on
genitals....do you ask them ...and they all agree they dont....strange
i have heard girl kids say time after time...things like if you got a
good looking body and and all the parts....show it and enjoy it....and
yes there has been typical nudist here in rec nude that said they had
seen nudist kid polls where the nudist kids thought their genitals
were the most fun part of their body......you need to get a
life.....you are beyond making a fool of yourself....like the mormons
must have felt that they was home free and never be convicted ....and
like wiener that shopped his naked body around on the internet ....the
critics said he thought he would get away with it......and so the
nudist think they are getting away with skirting the law and will get
away with exposing their crotches to kids.....so stay tuned ..one of
these days.......you fuckin pervert........z