Unwelcome voyeurs
Zardoz
unwelcome viewers
The question is how to deal with them.
My suggestion is that someone has a megaphone and very loudly
announces something like "Hey you. Yes you in the blue t-shirt and
jeans with your two friends.. yes thats right, you. Are you a pervert
or are you simply plucking up the courage to take your own clothes
off so we can all have a good look at you"
Now that would work and the good thing about a megaphone is it doesn't
involve direct confrontation and of course it would make everyone else
stand up and look at them!!!
--
With best regards
Zardoz II
Biker2
<377609AB.MD...@cableinet.co.uk>...
> Sadly Studland and other similar places will get their share of
> unwelcome viewers
> The question is how to deal with them.
Big snip..
To be fair, you must also bear (bare) in mind, that there are *many*
couples who go to these places for the sole purpose of putting on a show..
- -
Steve - Gatwick 07801 432 539
YFASA + TROPHY 1200
bik...@dial.pipex.conm
Andynude
Biker2 wrote in message <01bec0a0$c447e920$6401a8c0@home>...
>To be fair, you must also bear (bare) in mind, that there are *many*
>couples who go to these places for the sole purpose of putting on a show..
>
maybe then all these couples putting on the show, and the voyeurs, all the
beach bonkers, cruisers etc. etc. should be locked away in the secret clubs,
so the rest of us (those without a sexual agenda) can enjoy nudity
everywhere.
Oh! and stick the clothe-compelled perverts in there too <grin>
--
Andynude
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
creator
Keith Dunnett
> My suggestion is that someone has a megaphone and very loudly
> announces something like "Hey you. Yes you in the blue t-shirt and
> jeans with your two friends.. yes thats right, you. Are you a pervert
> or are you simply plucking up the courage to take your own clothes
> off so we can all have a good look at you"
>
vivian
Zardoz <zar...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:377609AB.MD...@cableinet.co.uk...
> Sadly Studland and other similar places will get their share of
> unwelcome viewers
> The question is how to deal with them.
>
Jilli
>Sadly Studland and other similar places will get their share of
>unwelcome viewers
>The question is how to deal with them.
>
>My suggestion is that someone has a megaphone and very loudly
>announces something like "Hey you. Yes you in the blue t-shirt and
>jeans with your two friends.. yes thats right, you. Are you a pervert
>or are you simply plucking up the courage to take your own clothes
>off so we can all have a good look at you"
>
>Now that would work and the good thing about a megaphone is it doesn't
>involve direct confrontation and of course it would make everyone else
>stand up and look at them!!!
Where the heck has all this hostility come from?????
Let them look! What does it cost you?? If you are happy and
confident in yourself, be proud to be nude and lead by example!
Because maybe they MIGHT just be trying to pluck up the courage to get
their kit off too.... for all the right reasons.
Then again, maybe its a guy thing?
love
puzzled Jilli
Jilli
(voodoolady) wrote:
I think we both have the same ultimate goal, VoodooLady.. but maybe a
different approach? Possibly you prefer to stand up and fight for
something, whereas I favour the compromise route... sometimes losing
ground but with a slow steady push rather than a battle? Please
forgive me if I have read you incorrectly, and obviously I am speaking
generally... You have the experience of these issues... I'm new to
this, and I applaud your achievements in Australia. And I'm coming to
check them out real soon :-)
>Really I think it's more a case of invading someone's personal space.
>This space varies from person to person.
Agreed. But I don't believe I have the right to set the boundaries of
my space at an intolerable level for others. This planet is too small
to insist on *nothing I don't like within my field of vision*... as
some would suggest.
>
>There is a similar thread going at the moment in rec.nude. People who
>attend naturist beaches for the sole purpose of "getting their rocks
>off" by viewing naturists in their natural habitat especially with
>binoculars are a sad fact of life and unfortunately something that
>will always be ongoing.
This is where I get lost in my understanding of the problem. I have
been taking my clothes off on beaches for many years. I find a quiet
spot and just do it. Until last year (at Swanbourne, WA) I had never
been to a designated naturist beach. The only place I have ever been
aware of blatantly sexual behaviour was on that officially approved
naturist beach.
Dilemna: officially approve it as naturist... and thereby make Joe
and Jane Public aware that there will be nude bodies to be seen?
And to the non-naturist mind-set, nude seems to equal available. What
started out as a good intention to grant/recognise the rights of
naturists to their personal space, free from censure, ends up
providing the local bonking-ground.
( I bet you've gone through all this before in urn, haven't you?
Please hang in here and give your feedback for the benefit of other
newbies too??)
>What should be actioned are people performing sexual acts on a
>naturist beach. Not because naturists beaches are so much more
>special than textile beaches but because word of mouth gets around and
>more and more people go to these beaches for the purpose of either
>having sex or asking someone on the beach for sex. It's a very
>precarious situation to have a naturist beach in. In Australia we
>lost a legal nude beach for just that reason. Residents took photos
>of couples engaged in sex. One Citizen made several citizen arrests
>of meercats and it was decided that the beach attracted the "wrong
>element" and it's legal nude status was revoked.
My point is that any behaviour offensive to the majority, at _any_
location is unacceptable. If someone was having it off in Tesco's
car-park I would think it inappropriate. (May I burn in hell for such
hypocrisy.. but hey! it was dark and there was no-one around to
offend <g>). I guess what I'm trying to say is, are we doing
ourselves and our lifestyle a dis-service by
requesting/demanding/working for special treatment which thereby
raises the public profile enough to invite pervs to move in to what is
perceived as a *special* place?
I have this sneaking feeling that I'm starting to sound like
Vincent... but shouldn't we be working more for a general awareness,
acceptance, encouragement of naturism rather than creating ghettoes
which have to be policed... either by officialdom or vigilantes?
>I would hate to see more beaches lost due to inaction by a naturists
>who prefer to turn a blind eye, get up a leave or use a "live and let
>live" attitude. Now you may all say well usually you say we should
>all be more tolerant and accepting of people's lifestyle choices. I
>do think lifestyle choices are important BUT when their choice puts a
>legal nude beach at risk then I will defend the beach not the person's
>right to bonk wherever they like.
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree in approach :-(
I would rather promote an awareness in the general population that
some people prefer to be naked (somehow the word *naturist* keeps
sticking in my throat... I don't know what it really means). I'd like
to educate and encourage others to enjoy our wish to go naked as a
generally accepted "normal" part of life. And rather than protect a
designated beach, I would be so much happier if nudity wasn't even
noticed on _any_ beach. That way the bonkers, meerkats, whoever...
would be spread so much thinner on the ground.. there would be no
*reason* for them to target any particular location....end of the
problem??
I have never stood up and waved a flag saying hey.. I'm a naturist..
this is my space. And I don't ever want to have to do that. With
territorial rights comes conflict. Not my scene.
As a post-script: I really do respect and admire what you do,
VoodooLady... especially your welcomes to, and encouragement of, those
who have newly found this resource. You personally have probably done
more for the cause of UK naturism than anyone I've ever heard of.
(ooops... and Malcolm with NUFF too!)
<http://w3.to/nuff/>
I'm keeping quiet from here on in....I think I need another
holiday...?? Any offers?
love
Jilli
Rick Martin
>
> I'm keeping quiet from here on in....I think I need another
> holiday...?? Any offers?
I just hope your ISP doesn't have a limit on the number of incoming
email messages!
R
--
Please change 'abuse' to my first name if replying via email
msouthg
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>On 27 Jun 99 11:23:23 +0000, "Zardoz" <zar...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sadly Studland and other similar places will get their share of
>>unwelcome viewers
>>The question is how to deal with them.
>>
>>My suggestion is that someone has a megaphone and very loudly
>>announces something like "Hey you. Yes you in the blue t-shirt and
>>jeans with your two friends.. yes thats right, you. Are you a pervert
>>or are you simply plucking up the courage to take your own clothes
>>off so we can all have a good look at you"
>>
>>Now that would work and the good thing about a megaphone is it doesn't
>>involve direct confrontation and of course it would make everyone else
>>stand up and look at them!!!
>
>
>
>Where the heck has all this hostility come from?????
>
>Let them look!
Other way around.
> What does it cost you??
My right to exist as a unique entity, without someone projecting their
assumptions about my sexuality onto me.
> If you are happy and
>confident in yourself,
So how many are? You?
> be proud to be nude and lead by example!
>Because maybe they MIGHT just be trying to pluck up the courage to get
>their kit off too.... for all the right reasons.
>
That's not the explanation I've been hearing lately.
If you are speaking on behalf of women as a whole, then I think you are
being hypocritical.
Isn't the "new" woman's chant: "I can wear anything I like, *anywhere* I
like and it doesn't mean what you want to think it means".
Any woman who practices that gets no sympathy from me.
Smell the coffee.
And anyone who thinks that me getting my kit off *on a naturist beach*
*necessarily* means I'm looking for a shag, gets all that's coming.
If you think that's contradictory, think again.
As far as I am concerned, the scum in the title are the same kind of
people that run a key down the paintwork of your car, or defecate in
your garden.
Been there, done them, lived to tell the tale.
They don't seem to respond to reason.
Give no quarter, take no prisoners.
As YOU said, be proud and lead by example.
It's them or us(?).
Eradicate the scum.
Do YOU want to hide behind Craven Walker's rusting chain link fences?
Do YOU want ALL the rape laws repealed?
>Then again, maybe its a guy thing?
>
Maybe. You'd have to be there. Maybe a previous life?
>love
>puzzled Jilli
Well, I guess, since you imply that you can't see a "guy" point of view,
I can see why you are puzzled.
Equally, anyone reading these words but understanding only what they
want to understand, might believe that I have a problem with "pervs".
I would suggest otherwise and feel I could justify such a suggestion.
What irritates the hell out of me is not the practices, but the
circumstances, the lack of consideration or respect, the selfishness.
Well, fuck it, at the end of the day this naturism thing is just a
passing fad, isn't it? Not as well established as abusing other people,
right?
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
ld.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>Biker2 wrote in message <01bec0a0$c447e920$6401a8c0@home>...
>
>>To be fair, you must also bear (bare) in mind, that there are *many*
>>couples who go to these places for the sole purpose of putting on a show..
>>
>maybe then all these couples putting on the show, and the voyeurs, all the
>beach bonkers, cruisers etc. etc. should be locked away in the secret clubs,
>so the rest of us (those without a sexual agenda) can enjoy nudity
>everywhere.
>
(End of thread?)
>Oh! and stick the clothe-compelled perverts in there too <grin>
>--
>Andynude
>www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
>
>
>
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 11:11:31 GMT, voo...@nospam.nsw.bigpond.net.au
>(voodoolady) wrote:
>
>I think we both have the same ultimate goal, VoodooLady.. but maybe a
>different approach?
I'm sceptical.
> Possibly you prefer to stand up and fight for
>something, whereas I favour the compromise route... sometimes losing
>ground but with a slow steady push rather than a battle?
How about if it's one step forwards and two steps back? Cue another
Vincent debate.
> Please
>forgive me if I have read you incorrectly, and obviously I am speaking
>generally... You have the experience of these issues... I'm new to
>this, and I applaud your achievements in Australia. And I'm coming to
>check them out real soon :-)
>
>>Really I think it's more a case of invading someone's personal space.
>>This space varies from person to person.
>
>Agreed. But I don't believe I have the right to set the boundaries of
>my space at an intolerable level for others.
So why the f**k do you grant that to others?
> This planet is too small
>to insist on *nothing I don't like within my field of vision*... as
>some would suggest.
Cue the dead deer story. (Sorry, I have to leave for an 8 hour drive for
Scotland in 3 hours. Gotta find some time to sleep.)
>>
>>There is a similar thread going at the moment in rec.nude. People who
>>attend naturist beaches for the sole purpose of "getting their rocks
>>off" by viewing naturists in their natural habitat especially with
>>binoculars are a sad fact of life and unfortunately something that
>>will always be ongoing.
>
>This is where I get lost in my understanding of the problem. I have
>been taking my clothes off on beaches for many years. I find a quiet
>spot and just do it. Until last year (at Swanbourne, WA) I had never
>been to a designated naturist beach.
OZ has a lot of beach?
> The only place I have ever been
>aware of blatantly sexual behaviour was on that officially approved
>naturist beach.
>
It's more than "blatantly visual" that we are talking about (I think).
>Dilemna: officially approve it as naturist... and thereby make Joe
>and Jane Public aware that there will be nude bodies to be seen?
And ...?
>And to the non-naturist mind-set, nude seems to equal available.
Ignorance is no defence in law.
> What
>started out as a good intention to grant/recognise the rights of
>naturists to their personal space, free from censure, ends up
>providing the local bonking-ground.
>
>( I bet you've gone through all this before in urn, haven't you?
>Please hang in here and give your feedback for the benefit of other
>newbies too??)
>
>>What should be actioned are people performing sexual acts on a
>>naturist beach. Not because naturists beaches are so much more
>>special than textile beaches but because word of mouth gets around and
>>more and more people go to these beaches for the purpose of either
>>having sex or asking someone on the beach for sex. It's a very
>>precarious situation to have a naturist beach in. In Australia we
>>lost a legal nude beach for just that reason. Residents took photos
>>of couples engaged in sex. One Citizen made several citizen arrests
>>of meercats and it was decided that the beach attracted the "wrong
>>element" and it's legal nude status was revoked.
>
Sledge-hammer.....
>My point is that any behaviour offensive to the majority, at _any_
>location is unacceptable.
Close.
> If someone was having it off in Tesco's
>car-park I would think it inappropriate. (May I burn in hell for such
>hypocrisy.. but hey! it was dark and there was no-one around to
>offend <g>).
Hence, it was not inappropriate.
> I guess what I'm trying to say is, are we doing
>ourselves and our lifestyle a dis-service by
>requesting/demanding/working for special treatment which thereby
>raises the public profile enough to invite pervs to move in to what is
>perceived as a *special* place?
>
No, merely asking for the existing laws to be enforced where anti-social
acts are involved.
You really want to legalise drink driving? Sheesh!!!!!!
>I have this sneaking feeling that I'm starting to sound like
>Vincent... but shouldn't we be working more for a general awareness,
>acceptance, encouragement of naturism rather than creating ghettoes
>which have to be policed... either by officialdom or vigilantes?
>
So go educate the abusers, instead of sitting on your arse.
>>I would hate to see more beaches lost due to inaction by a naturists
>>who prefer to turn a blind eye, get up a leave or use a "live and let
>>live" attitude. Now you may all say well usually you say we should
>>all be more tolerant and accepting of people's lifestyle choices. I
>>do think lifestyle choices are important BUT when their choice puts a
>>legal nude beach at risk then I will defend the beach not the person's
>>right to bonk wherever they like.
>
>
>I think this is where we fundamentally disagree in approach :-(
>I would rather promote an awareness in the general population that
>some people prefer to be naked (somehow the word *naturist* keeps
>sticking in my throat... I don't know what it really means). I'd like
>to educate and encourage others to enjoy our wish to go naked as a
>generally accepted "normal" part of life.
Do it! Write a letter to somebody; that'd be a start.
> And rather than protect a
>designated beach, I would be so much happier if nudity wasn't even
>noticed on _any_ beach. That way the bonkers, meerkats, whoever...
>would be spread so much thinner on the ground.. there would be no
>*reason* for them to target any particular location....end of the
>problem??
>
And what's your "solution" to paedophilia? Create more children?
Spread the paedophiles around more thinly?
>I have never stood up and waved a flag saying hey.. I'm a naturist..
>this is my space. And I don't ever want to have to do that. With
>territorial rights comes conflict.
Duties? Responsibilities (ecology, etc?)?
> Not my scene.
>
(Cue gender jibes.)
>As a post-script: I really do respect and admire what you do,
>VoodooLady... especially your welcomes to, and encouragement of, those
>who have newly found this resource. You personally have probably done
>more for the cause of UK naturism than anyone I've ever heard of.
>(ooops... and Malcolm with NUFF too!)
><http://w3.to/nuff/>
>
>I'm keeping quiet from here on in....I think I need another
>holiday...?? Any offers?
>
Auschwitz? There's lots of nice people there to "accommodate".
They'll be the ones wearing the smarter uniforms.
>love
>Jilli
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
<Bik...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>> unwelcome viewers
>> The question is how to deal with them.
>
>
>To be fair, you must also bear (bare) in mind, that there are *many*
>
Fuck 'em, if you'll excuse the irony.
>- -
>Steve - Gatwick 07801 432 539
>YFASA + TROPHY 1200
>bik...@dial.pipex.conm
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
MARC
> Auschwitz? There's lots of nice people there to "accommodate".
> They'll be the ones wearing the smarter uniforms.
ARROOOPPPAA! ARRRRRROOOOOOOPPPPPAAA!
I hereby invoke "Cattles Law"
Cattle's Law is a Newsgroups convention, which starts by observing
that in any argument on a newsgroup, there is a tendency for discussion
to degenerate, and that this will eventually lead to
a comparison being drawn to Hitler or the Nazis. Cattle's Law states
that in any argument, of which the original subject was not Hitler or
the Nazis, the first person to bring up Hitler or the Nazis has
demonstrated that they have no further sensible points to make, and
has lost the argument
Marc
nell...@my-deja.com
ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk wrote:
> I have this sneaking feeling that I'm starting to sound like
> Vincent... but shouldn't we be working more for a general awareness,
> acceptance, encouragement of naturism rather than creating ghettoes
> which have to be policed... either by officialdom or vigilantes?
>
> .......... That way the bonkers, meerkats, whoever...
> would be spread so much thinner on the ground.. there would be no
> *reason* for them to target any particular location....end of the
> problem??
Thanks Jilli for expressing so clearly a notion with which I and perhaps
many others heartily agree.
The ultimate goal of all those who like to go without clothes must be to
see nudity being accepted wherever clothes are pointless, e.g. beaches
and swimming pools. You are right to question the aggressive defense of
the tiny pockets of land currently available to naturists. We (and I use
the term "we" very loosely) should be seeing the broader picture.
There.
That's my two penn'orth.
Thank you for your patience.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Olden McGroin
southeast of England.
Its' not like his owner is providing him with any doggy entertainment whilst
he "sniff" out the various couples sunbathing.
Richard Burnham
>> Vincent... but shouldn't we be working more for a general awareness,
>> acceptance, encouragement of naturism rather than creating ghettoes
>> which have to be policed... either by officialdom or vigilantes?
>The ultimate goal of all those who like to go without clothes must be to
>see nudity being accepted wherever clothes are pointless, e.g. beaches
>and swimming pools. You are right to question the aggressive defense of
>the tiny pockets of land currently available to naturists. We (and I use
>the term "we" very loosely) should be seeing the broader picture.
I suspect that almost anyone here would agree with that. What is lacking
here is any practical suggestion of how we get to that desirable state,
rather than defending what little we have. You're not a Microsoft
employee, are you?
To return to the subject of this thread, nudity will be more widely
accepted when more people - not just committed naturists - can expect to
enjoy it without harassment and hassle. That won't happen if gawkers and
exhibitionists are tolerated. Jilli may not mind their attentions, maybe
she enjoys them. However, for most people, why should they choose the
nude option when they can be more relaxed with clothing, because they
get less unwanted attention?
Richard Burnham------------------------------------------
Important: to reply, replace "zz" with "uk".
Resource page: http://rburnham.com/co/coresrce.html
I alone supply my opinions.... accept no imitations!
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>To return to the subject of this thread, nudity will be more widely
>accepted when more people - not just committed naturists - can expect to
>enjoy it without harassment and hassle. That won't happen if gawkers and
>exhibitionists are tolerated. Jilli may not mind their attentions, maybe
>she enjoys them. However, for most people, why should they choose the
>nude option when they can be more relaxed with clothing, because they
>get less unwanted attention?
>
>
>Richard Burnham------------------------------------------
Two points.
1) I do not mind people seeing me nude. I don't encourage it. I
don't hide from it. I'm not threatened by it. I'm indifferent to it.
2) If someone is more relaxed wearing a thong, a mini-kini or a
twin-set and pearls, then hey! thats the way to go for them. I can't
make any comment on the degree of attention they will get, except to
say its probably going to be a heck of a lot more than a naked Jilli
gets.
I'm still having serious trouble understanding this hassle/harassment
notion held by so many. Maybe you are all much more attractive than
me? Maybe you (1) honestly believe that anyone who glances in your
direction is threatening you? Or are you seriously telling me that
getting your kit off immediately brings unwanted people to your feet?
I mean.... what the heck do they say to you??
I'm not doubting the validity of either your perceptions or your
experiences for you... but they are so far distant from my own that I
simply can't comprehend. Someone please help me understand this point
of view?
love
Jilli
(1) generic *you*.. sorry about my grammar
--
Going somewhere nice and wouldn't mind company?
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/urn_awaydays
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>1) I do not mind people seeing me nude. I don't encourage it. I
>don't hide from it. I'm not threatened by it. I'm indifferent to it.
The issue is not "seeing people nude". The issue is people (invariably
men, in practice) invading other people's personal spaces, because they
apparently believe that nudity is an invitation to voyeurism,
exhibitionism or other sexual activity.
>I'm still having serious trouble understanding this hassle/harassment
>notion held by so many. Maybe you are all much more attractive than
>me? Maybe you (1) honestly believe that anyone who glances in your
>direction is threatening you? Or are you seriously telling me that
>getting your kit off immediately brings unwanted people to your feet?
>I mean.... what the heck do they say to you??
I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to think you may be unusually thick-skinned
or unobservant. The issue was first brought to my attention by women who
were with me at the beach - men tend not to notice it, or to appreciate
what is going on. It is usually women who are the centre of this
unwanted attention.
One of them was working as an artist's model at the time, so hardly
unused to people looking at her naked body, but it made her very
uncomfortable.
Even observing someone else being exposed to this behaviour will detract
from someone's enjoyment, just as one may not revisit a restaurant or
social venue after an unpleasant incident involving someone else.
I can understand the viewpoint that we must ignore or accept this
behaviour, although I don't agree with it. But it's ridiculous to say at
the same time (1) we must go for wider acceptance of nudity and (2) only
people who can tolerate high levels of invasion of their personal space
are entitled to enjoy nude recreation.
Andynude
Richard Burnham wrote in message ...
>To return to the subject of this thread, nudity will be more widely
>accepted when more people - not just committed naturists - can expect to
>enjoy it without harassment and hassle. That won't happen if gawkers and
>exhibitionists are tolerated. Jilli may not mind their attentions, maybe
>she enjoys them. However, for most people, why should they choose the
>nude option when they can be more relaxed with clothing, because they
>get less unwanted attention?
>
The root of the problem lies with the gawkers. It is likely, that due to
them only seeing nudity when it is associated with sex that they get a kick
out of it.
To reverse this cyclic process of, keeping covered up which creates these
sex pests, so people cover up more. We need to be uncovered (when practical
and can be done innoffensively) so that society does not suffer a knee-jerk
reaction and does not get a kick out of nudity.
I do not think that it is such a big task either. There will always be those
self rightious misguided and nieve people that think that *others* should
cover up to protect themselves, from their own erotic thoughts. But as with
any declining minority view, they would soon dissapear into insignificance.
All we need to do is to be seen naked more often, and if we are seen and do
not create uproar we are helping these poor souls (both prudes and perverts
alike) to come to terms with their own existence and accept innocent nudity.
If *we* make a big deal of it, so will others!
--
Andynude
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
Mike Hopkins
o...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> writes
>nudity will be more widely
>accepted when more people - not just committed naturists - can expect to
>enjoy it without harassment and hassle. That won't happen if gawkers and
>exhibitionists are tolerated. Jilli may not mind their attentions, maybe
>she enjoys them.
--
Mike Hopkins - wear a smile if nothing else
(If replying direct, please change "co.xx" to "co.uk")
Mike Hopkins
>nude option when they can be more relaxed with clothing, because they
>get less unwanted attention?
>
undergraduate student who regularly went to the Shoreham naturist beach
rather than the nearer textile beaches at Brighton or Hove. Her reason?
She got less unwanted attention there and so could study in relative
peace.
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>In article <377de624....@news.freeuk.com>, Jilli
><ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>
>>1) I do not mind people seeing me nude. I don't encourage it. I
>>don't hide from it. I'm not threatened by it. I'm indifferent to it.
>
>The issue is not "seeing people nude". The issue is people (invariably
>men, in practice) invading other people's personal spaces, because they
>apparently believe that nudity is an invitation to voyeurism,
>exhibitionism or other sexual activity.
>
OK.. I think I might be getting closer to understanding. We agree
that there is nothing wrong with being seen naked, yes? Invasion of
personal space is the issue...? Who sets the boundaries though? What
happens when one person's border is set at a limit vastly different to
those judged appropriate by another? And what constitutes invasion?
Oh forget all this theoretical stuff.... may we use plain language
please?? Are you telling me that someone sunbathing naked on a beach
can expect to experience a stranger coming up and wanking over them
unless the vigilante posse is on full alert, or what? Has this ever
happened to you? To any of your friends?
>I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to think you may be unusually thick-skinned
>or unobservant. The issue was first brought to my attention by women who
>were with me at the beach - men tend not to notice it, or to appreciate
>what is going on. It is usually women who are the centre of this
>unwanted attention.
So you personally haven't experienced a problem?
re: your female partners...WHAT unwanted attention did they receive???
I wish someone would spell it out for me, because its something I've
never been aware of. Yes, I'm short-sighted. No, I'm not now, nor
have I ever been, drop-dead gorgeous. But sheesh! even I'm not dense
enough to miss signs of sexual activity happening within my personal
space! (and a good bit further too....)
>One of them was working as an artist's model at the time, so hardly
>unused to people looking at her naked body, but it made her very
>uncomfortable.
Why?? Again.. what made her uncomfortable?? Guys looking?
Masturbating? Couples having it off? What? Lets get specific.
>I can understand the viewpoint that we must ignore or accept this
>behaviour, although I don't agree with it. But it's ridiculous to say at
>the same time (1) we must go for wider acceptance of nudity and (2) only
>people who can tolerate high levels of invasion of their personal space
>are entitled to enjoy nude recreation.
Please don't call me ridiculous for something I haven't said. Nobody
invades my personal space uninvited and gets away with it. And
neither should they with anyone else's reasonable concept of personal
space. What we disagree on is our perception of what constitutes
invasion, and where the limits of personal space are.
oh.... hang about! The light-bulb just came on! Is it because I've
never been to a "designated" naturist beach in the UK that I've not
experienced the unwanted sexual activity you speak of?
But... doesn't that support my view that naturist ghettoes are NOT the
way to promote naturism? Haven't you just proved that for me?
I think I'm glad its raining today :-(
How about I put the kettle on Richard, you fancy a cuppa indoors?
Should I keep my clothes on? :-)
love
Jilli
Rick Martin
>
> I'm still having serious trouble understanding this hassle/harassment
> notion held by so many. Maybe you are all much more attractive than
> me? Maybe you (1) honestly believe that anyone who glances in your
> direction is threatening you? Or are you seriously telling me that
> getting your kit off immediately brings unwanted people to your feet?
> I mean.... what the heck do they say to you??
I might suggest you take some time, preferably when you're not paying
the internet connection phone bill, to trawl through http://www.deja.com
to see what's been said here in URN over the past year or so since I
started posting. There have been contributions which have detailed the
kind of nuisances which women, accompanied or otherwise, have had to
endure.
Let's just say that if I had attracted that degree and type of attention
from women while nude at a beach, I'd have been extremely flattered and
happy [1] and if I'd attracted that degree and type of attention from
men while nude at a beach, there might well have been ambulances and
police involvement [1].
Rick
[1] although that probably says far more about me than it does about
anything else ;)
Jilli
<Andy...@skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>If *we* make a big deal of it, so will others!
oh sod it Andy! You've just said in 11 words what has taken me two
days, and gosh knows how many lines, yet still failed to get my
meaning across.
*sulk*
Andynude
Jilli wrote in message <377e1865...@news.freeuk.com>...
>On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:10:16 +0100, "Andynude"
><Andy...@skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If *we* make a big deal of it, so will others!
>
>oh sod it Andy! You've just said in 11 words what has taken me two
>days, and gosh knows how many lines, yet still failed to get my
>meaning across.
>
>*sulk*
>
It is exactly the point though that we need to get across to people like
Richard (is that your real name?) Burnham and the old timers locked away in
clubs. Maybe in *their* day it was a big deal to strip naked to [1] swim [2]
sunbathe [3] go to bed [4] make love [5] take a bath. (when I was a child,
my sister used to sit in the bath with her new Jeans on!)
But since then, much of society has had foreign traval and *seen* 'tits on
beaches'. Many people make love in the daytime, or at least with the
lights on (and naked) and dont get dressed straight away. And Thongs! I dont
remember those in yesteryear.
These old die hards with their attitudes from bygone days are declining in
numbers and will soom drift into insignificance.
So lets not make a big deal eh!
--
Andynude
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
Richard Burnham
<mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.xx> writes
>A cheap gibe Richard and well below your usual standard of contribution.
>
Not a gibe, at all. Just a statement of possibility, in view of Jilli's
own comments.
Richard Burnham
ld.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>It is exactly the point though that we need to get across to people like
>Richard (is that your real name?) Burnham and the old timers locked away in
>clubs. Maybe in *their* day it was a big deal to strip naked to [1] swim [2]
>sunbathe [3] go to bed [4] make love [5] take a bath. (when I was a child,
>my sister used to sit in the bath with her new Jeans on!)
You do write a load of drivel, Andy, when you really get down to it. You
know that I use my own name (unlike you) and that I am not a club member
(unlike you, I understand). I never have been a club member. I normally
use only public beaches, swims and other CO opportunities, which is why
I am so concerned about the lack of them.
[snip]
>So lets not make a big deal eh!
So you are telling us to ignore the gawkers and masturbators?
I think it should be pretty obvious to all but the densest members of
urn: To extend nude tolerance and widen opportunities we need wider
involvement and wider awareness - and that includes the 50% of people
known as "women" who are badly-represented in urn and under-represented
in naturism/nudism generally.
If that wider involvement and awareness involves sexual harassment as a
likely part of the experience it won't come about.
It's Andy who is the elitist, not me, as he believes that nude
recreation should be only for those committed enough to brave all the
obstacles - except when he's safely in his own club, of course. I wonder
why elitists like Andy have to get so personal when faced with the
facts?
Rick Martin
>
> Andynude writes:
>
> >It is exactly the point though that we need to get across to people like
> >Richard (is that your real name?) Burnham
> You do write a load of drivel, Andy, when you really get down to it. You
> know that I use my own name (unlike you)
STOP IT YOU TWO!!! YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS BEFORE!!!
Take it to email, PLEASE!!!
Rick
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>In article <a$JxTUAxw...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk>, Mike Hopkins
><mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.xx> wrote about RB's comment that maybe Jilli enjoys the attentions of gawkers and masturbators.
>
>>A cheap gibe Richard and well below your usual standard of contribution.
>>
>
>Not a gibe, at all. Just a statement of possibility, in view of Jilli's
>own comments.
These comments?
(Message-ID <377de624....@news.freeuk.com>)
"I do not mind people seeing me nude. I don't encourage it. I
don't hide from it. I'm not threatened by it. I'm indifferent to
it."
Or possibly this, in response to your suggestion that I may be
unusally thick-skinned or unobservant:
(Message-ID <377e0adf...@news.freeuk.com>)
"re: your female partners...WHAT unwanted attention did they
receive???
I wish someone would spell it out for me, because its something I've
never been aware of. Yes, I'm short-sighted. No, I'm not now, nor
have I ever been, drop-dead gorgeous. But sheesh! even I'm not dense
enough to miss signs of sexual activity happening within my personal
space!! (and a good bit further too....) "
It really does sound as if I'm gagging for it at every opportunity,
doesn't it?? I think not.
Maybe your "statement of possibility"... I'm seriously impressed by
your use of weasel-words to describe an insult btw!... needs a little
work, Richard :-)
love
Jilli
P.S. I'm happy to take this to e.mail and stop bothering everyone
else, if you think I can be convinced your point of view is the right
one....
--
Where did you go today? Calomine lotion, anyone?
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/urn_awaydays
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>To extend nude tolerance and widen opportunities we need wider
>involvement and wider awareness - and that includes the 50% of people
>known as "women" who are badly-represented in urn and under-represented
>in naturism/nudism generally.
Badly-represented?? Absolutely! You honestly expect the two of us
who regularly contribute to the ng to represent the sum total of
*female* opinion? I think you will find that we both speak as
individuals first, as naturists second ... and somewhere way down the
list.. as women.
I strongly suggest that if you don't like the points of view I hold
*as a woman* that you encourage others of my gender to participate and
tear my posts to pieces! I'm not the only one around here who would
love to hear what other females are thinking... I might even listen
more attentively to them!
:-)
love
Jilli
Andynude
Richard Burnham wrote in message ...
>You do write a load of drivel, Andy, when you really get down to it.
I do not deny I write drivel from time to time, however I take it as a
personal insult to tell me so in such a blatent manner.
You
>know that I use my own name
No I dont, you (whoever you are) use the name >Richard Burnham-------- Which
really means bugger all to me apart from being a method of identifying the
author of counter drivel.
(unlike you)
Indeed, but those that know me here know my full name. And those that know
me in the real world and are on the net know that they can reach me at
Andy...@Skyworld.freeserve.co.uk so i dont see your point.
and that I am not a club member
>(unlike you, I understand).
Yep, I belong to a club. Not to buddie up with nuddies in some secret
society but simply because the facilities offer good value. And, I'm not
forced to do the Towel Tango or sit in soggy shorts. Its also good for the
all over tan.
I never have been a club member. I normally
>use only public beaches, swims and other CO opportunities, which is why
>I am so concerned about the lack of them.
Oh so you can only get naked at 'officially sanctioned' places where you can
be naked in the security of other nuddies and the law on your side. This
attitude only serves to force nudism into ghettos that attract the perves
that you want to be rid of.
>
>>So lets not make a big deal eh!
>
>So you are telling us to ignore the gawkers and masturbators?
>
I aint tellin' you or anyone to do anything. But when certain behaviour
really gets up ones nose, ignoring it can often be the most effective way of
dealing with it.
>I think it should be pretty obvious to all but the densest members of
>urn: To extend nude tolerance and widen opportunities we need wider
>involvement and wider awareness - and that includes the 50% of people
>known as "women" who are badly-represented in urn
Nah! Jilli and voodoo dont badly represent women.
>If that wider involvement and awareness involves sexual harassment as a
>likely part of the experience it won't come about.
It sounds like the big complaint is unwanted sexual interest/harassment at
naturist beaches. If thats how you feel I suggest that you get away from
these perverts paradises and find yourself a quiet spot and strip off.
>
>It's Andy who is the elitist,
Am I?
not me, as he believes that nude
>recreation should be only for those committed enough to brave all the
>obstacles
Do I?
- except when he's safely in his own club, of course.
Of course (now I'm lost on this one! help me out Jilli)
I wonder
>why elitists like Andy have to get so personal when faced with the
>facts?
>
Elitists like Andy? whos getting personal?
--
Andynude - Abusive correspondence will be done by email and further
insulting remarks may be ignored
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
Andynude
Rick Martin wrote in message
<377F44C7...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk>...
>
>STOP IT YOU TWO!!! YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS BEFORE!!!
>
--
Andynude - Let's not make a big deal of it!
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
Stuart Grant
> I wish someone would spell it out for me, because its something I've
> never been aware of.
>
There's a difference between looking at someone and ogling them.
Voyeurism and exhibitionism are sexual acts, and if one of the
participants is unwilling, offence is caused. It's nothing to do with
personal space.
Dealing with the problem is much easier said than done.
Pay more attention to these offenders, watch them, make sure you know
them again. Photograph them and publish their pics on a web page, "do
you know this man/woman". Take the number of the car they leave in -
anything that might help identify them. They hide behind anonymity, if
you can take that away, they'll disappear.
Stuart Grant
Jilli
<Andy...@skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Richard Burnham wrote in message ...
>
>>It's Andy who is the elitist,
>
>Am I?
>
> not me, as he believes that nude
>>recreation should be only for those committed enough to brave all the
>>obstacles
>
>Do I?
>
> - except when he's safely in his own club, of course.
>
>Of course (now I'm lost on this one! help me out Jilli)
>
Andy.. I can't help you out here... because I still fail to see the
thrust of RB's argument :-(
"Andy is elitist, Jilli is a pervert." I guess that sums it up??
... but I'll fight ya for the label :-)
I think we should just continue to get naked and enjoy it, Andy. Let
others worry about it :-)
ooops... I _am_ allowed to enjoy it, aren't I?
Richard Burnham
spam.demon.co.uk> writes
>"They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Well, at least I started to analyse how my mum and dad were "fucking me
up" at an early age, and realised that clothing-compulsiveness was an
important part.
So I used to argue with them, and my schoolmates, for (what I then
called) naturism at the age of around 14 or 15.
And I haven't stopped arguing about naturism yet :)
Richard Burnham
Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>
>STOP IT YOU TWO!!! YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS BEFORE!!!
>
>Take it to email, PLEASE!!!
Point noted, and "Andynude" is going into my killfile under my new,
stricter policy. My killfile is not for those I disagree with, but for
those who are a waste of bytes. In "Andynude"'s case, it's because there
is a 180-degree difference between what he preaches and what he
practises.
BTW, this breaks the chain of people called Ant(h)ony... perhaps it's
just people with names beginning with "A" ? :)
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
[snip]
I apologise to Jilli if my comment was taken as "a cheap jibe". It was
not intended.
Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding here. I believed that Jilli
and I were talking about the same thing, and it never crossed my mind,
in view of the frequent appearance of the subject in this group, that
she was thinking I was talking about merely seeing people nude.
It appeared to me that she was defending sexual harassment, or denying
the existence of it, on the grounds that it didn't bother her or didn't
happen to her. This also made it seem that she was deliberately
distorting my views in order to do this.
I am planning a serious reply to one of her posts. However, I like to
think before writing and revise before posting, and it may also be
delayed a few days by lack of access.
The chain of thought was unfortunately interrupted by an inane posting
from "Andynude".
Jilli
>There's a difference between looking at someone and ogling them.
>Voyeurism and exhibitionism are sexual acts, and if one of the
>participants is unwilling, offence is caused. It's nothing to do with
>personal space.
Thanks Stuart for your reply.
But I think I need to make a macro which says <I have never seen or
experienced this kind of problem>. Hence my failure to understand it.
If its a genuine problem to others, then I'm sorry. But.... how much
of the problem is real? I guess if its perceived as a problem to one
party then its real enough? I'm really _trying_ to understand this
issue.....
But I think I should drop out of this thread now though. I'm never
going to comprehend the problem :-( I'm lost in the terminology...
it seems to be ok to be seen naked, but voyeurism is bad. Doesn't
voyeurism mean watching someone.. who is therefore seen? How do you
tell if someone is admiring the view or lusting after you? (First
person to mention either parrots or driftwood is dead.... I'm being
serious here!) And is exhibitionism the same *problem* as has been
covered in previous threads about erections? Or are we talking real
serious *flashers*... wave it in your face type of behaviour? Sorry
to be dense....
I'm wondering if everyone else has sex on the brain the minute they
get naked? That was a cheap shot....I'm sorry. But it somehow
doesn't occur to me at the beach (fibber! .. yes it does sometimes...
I'm human too!).... but when it does, its a public place and I know
how to behave. I suppose I'm daft enough to expect the same from
others. And so far, I haven't been proved wrong.
I give up...
Thanks for giving me the bandwidth.
ian bibby
Mike Hopkins <mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.xx> wrote in message
news:TZdTaFAd...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk...
>
> Who was it who said that any virtue pursued to excess become a vice?
Don't know, can't find it in my quotation book.
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>Andy.. I can't help you out here... because I still fail to see the
>thrust of RB's argument :-(
>"Andy is elitist, Jilli is a pervert." I guess that sums it up??
>
>... but I'll fight ya for the label :-)
>
>I think we should just continue to get naked and enjoy it, Andy. Let
>others worry about it :-)
>
>ooops... I _am_ allowed to enjoy it, aren't I?
Perhaps I should revise my recent apology, as Jilli's contribution seems
to be nothing more than a string of "cheap jibes", with no attempt to
follow up the discussion or the issue.
Of course, Jilli may enjoy it, and who is to say she may or may not?
But others of us discuss how *other* people can enjoy it, including
those who may not even have considered it yet, and what sort of
experience they actually have when they try it.
Stuart Grant
experience these dune rats first hand Jilli, then you might be less
free with the "what the hell - let em look/pose/show off their
erections, it don't bother me" attitude.
It occurs to me that many dune rats read this group, I wouldn't be at
all surprised if one or two of them regularly post here. Encouraging,
or at the least non-discouraging comments from a female ain't going to
help get rid of them.
Stuart Grant
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Perhaps I should revise my recent apology,
What apology? To whom?
Cancel that.. I've just read it. I accept it in the spirit in which
it was offered. It would have been nice to see one to Andy too,
though?
> as Jilli's contribution seems
>to be nothing more than a string of "cheap jibes", with no attempt to
>follow up the discussion or the issue.
uh-huh... I guess you didn't say sorry after all then?
You will no doubt be pleased to see that I've given up, Richard. I
have tried desperately hard to understand the concerns, worries,
demands, phobia's that you and possibly others have. I have asked you
for clarifications, explanations, experiences .... they weren't
exactly forthcoming. I've given up.
>Of course, Jilli may enjoy it, and who is to say she may or may not?
>
Being naked? Yes I do. Or was that a repetition of your original
insult?
>But others of us discuss how *other* people can enjoy it, including
>those who may not even have considered it yet, and what sort of
>experience they actually have when they try it.
Richard.. it is for the sake of people about to venture forth and try
it, that I fervently wish to dispel your rumours that every naturist
beach is a perverts paradise in need of a shot-gun patrol. And why I
long for the day when naturist beaches are not required.
End of story.
Richard Burnham
spam.demon.co.uk> writes
>It would be nice to see some discussion rather than argument. Some of
>your recent postings are putting you dangerously close to my 30day sin
>bin.
A cheap jibe, I think.
You are, of course, free to kill-file me if you wish, but I'd be
entirely happy to defend my record. I think you will find, if you
actually read what I have posted in urn recently, that I try to post on
what I consider to be genuine issues, that I do not introduce
personalities into the arguments unnecessarily, that I am restrained in
my language, and that I never escalate the level of flames. I often
retain what I write for 24 hours or more and re-edit it. (I found one
post you might object to, not in this thread, but it was a joke in
response to a troll.)
In this thread, a post on what I regard as a real and serious topic
(sexual harassment on CO beaches) was turned into an attack on me. I can
only speculate on the motives of the people concerned.
I do seem to attract more than my share of flames - usually there is one
joker (the current one is now in my kill file), but I think this is
because I address issues that some people would rather not see
discussed.
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>What apology? To whom?
>Cancel that.. I've just read it. I accept it in the spirit in which
>it was offered. It would have been nice to see one to Andy too,
>though?
For what?
>> as Jilli's contribution seems
>>to be nothing more than a string of "cheap jibes", with no attempt to
>>follow up the discussion or the issue.
>
>uh-huh... I guess you didn't say sorry after all then?
As I have noted, the jibes seem to be mostly the other way round, but I
am sorry if the original statement referred to was taken to be a "cheap
jibe".
>
>You will no doubt be pleased to see that I've given up, Richard. I
>have tried desperately hard to understand the concerns, worries,
>demands, phobia's that you and possibly others have. I have asked you
>for clarifications, explanations, experiences .... they weren't
>exactly forthcoming. I've given up.
I am *not* pleased to "see you have given up". I want to see real issues
aired, which is why I joined the thread. I don't think of a newsgroup
discussion as a contest that the "loser" resigns from. Even if we don't
agree, at least we may end with a clearer idea of the problems and
positions.
As I have already said, I was trying to prepare a reply that will do
justice to the seriousness of the subject. I wanted to answer your
points, and expand on them.
Other posts that were personal attacks on me distracted me from my
intention.
I anticipate that it will be several days now before I can post it. I do
not have the time that many others seem to have, I have been taking the
weekend away from the computer, and I will not have full Internet access
now for several days.
>>Of course, Jilli may enjoy it, and who is to say she may or may not?
>>
>Being naked? Yes I do. Or was that a repetition of your original
>insult?
I fail to see how this can be interpreted as an insult. I am merely
stating (the obvious) that no-one is entitled to say that you may or may
not enjoy being naked.
Somehow, I feel that it is going to be very, very difficult to phrase
anything so that it can't be misinterpreted in your reply.
>>But others of us discuss how *other* people can enjoy it, including
>>those who may not even have considered it yet, and what sort of
>>experience they actually have when they try it.
>
>Richard.. it is for the sake of people about to venture forth and try
>it, that I fervently wish to dispel your rumours that every naturist
>beach is a perverts paradise in need of a shot-gun patrol.
Where have I said this?
> And why I
>long for the day when naturist beaches are not required.
>End of story.
And so do I, but we are not likely to see this in our lifetime, and in
any case there is a lot to go through to get there, and that needs
proper discussion.
Jilli
(Kris) wrote:
>
>Now will someone help me pick up the teacups and broken biscuits so we
>can get back to making life less stressful. :-)
For sure :-)
What would you like? Tea and biccies, or coffee and cake?
Or how about a nice day out of the office?
Maybe a nice clean fight with someone on a Committee somewhere?
Or a post from Rincon? (does it for me every time in the
stress-relieving stakes....remember the surfer story??)
love
Jilli
hey Kevin...where's a Rincon when you need one?
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>In article <377ffca3...@news.freeuk.com>, Jilli
><ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>
>>What apology? To whom?
>>Cancel that.. I've just read it. I accept it in the spirit in which
>>it was offered. It would have been nice to see one to Andy too,
>>though?
>
>For what?
Personal swipes, outwith the issue being discussed.
<creative snipping>
> I am sorry if the original statement referred to was taken to be a "cheap
>jibe".
Apology accepted. And thank you. Forgiven and forgotten already :-)
>I am *not* pleased to "see you have given up". I want to see real issues
>aired, which is why I joined the thread. I don't think of a newsgroup
>discussion as a contest that the "loser" resigns from.
Me neither. But neither do I see much sense in dragging out a
*banging my head against a wall* exercise for too long. I know that
my communication skills aren't the best, but I don't think I'll ever
be able to either convince you of my viewpoint or be able to
understand yours. So maybe its time to agree to disagree and move on?
>As I have already said, I was trying to prepare a reply that will do
>justice to the seriousness of the subject. I wanted to answer your
>points, and expand on them.
I'm sorry but this thread has already been killed by many :-( Perhaps
you would like to start another one dealing with this issue anew and
we can try again? Was that a *groan* I heard from the gallery??? I
promise I'll try and view it from a *wider than personal experience*
approach this time...
:-)
love
Jilli
Tim Forcer
>
> Stuart Grant wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between looking at someone and ogling
>> them. Voyeurism and exhibitionism are sexual acts, and if
>> one of the participants is unwilling, offence is caused.
>> It's nothing to do with personal space.
>
> Thanks Stuart for your reply.
Agreed. Put things in a nutshell. The "personal space" thing is a
useful concept, but I think Stuart's analysis gets at the heart of the
problem. (Tim's getting wordy again - you can see why I don't want to
pay for online time!)
> But I think I need to make a macro which says <I have never
> seen or experienced this kind of problem>. Hence my failure
> to understand it.
OK. In umpteen years of visiting naturist beaches (mainly in UK and
France), my sum total observation is: the Studland meerkats (only ever
seen at long range, and a source of curiousity rather than concern), a
few TEXTILE meerkat-like observers on UK cliff-tops and equivalents
(one, standing in waist high scrub, was not amused by the loud comment
while passing along the adjacent path that "it must be sad if that's how
you get your enjoyment"), one very pushy guy on a French beach who was
trying to chat up every female - moving on to the next one once he was
rebuffed (which required one to be pretty rude - he didn't give up
easily), an occasional casual "looker" (might have been entirely
innocent, might not, couldn't tell) on clifftops (etc) at a couple of
French beaches, one or two surf-strollers (I'm one myself - like to
wander up and down the beach from time to time) who seemed to give
people slightly more than casual glances in passing, only one out of
half-a-dozen tour boats which not only came in much closer to nude
Skiathos beaches than was really necessary and also sounded its hooter
and made "funny" remarks over its public address system.
But (except for the French guy) neither I nor my wife has ever felt
personally targetted, and have never felt really uncomfortable at the
attentions of these types. But I can sympathise with people whose
experience has been only slightly different where this result in
considerable discomfort.
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Mike Hopkins
o...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> writes><mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.xx> writes
>
>>A cheap gibe Richard and well below your usual standard of contribution.
>>
>
>Not a gibe, at all. Just a statement of possibility, in view of Jilli's
>own comments.
>
Richard, true to form, had chosen to ignore any points of view that were
not congruent with his own. Is it surprising that yet another thread has
deteriorated into a Richard versus "the rest" shouting match.
I frequently find myself in initial sympathy with views that Richard
puts forward. However, more often than not, the didactic and adversarial
style in which they are presented together with Richard's total
inability to admit the possibility of valid alternatives (some of which
might even happily co-exist) usually pushes me toward the other side.
Who was it who said that any virtue pursued to excess become a vice?
--
Mike Hopkins - wear a smile if nothing else
(If replying direct, please change "co.xx" to "co.uk")
Jilli
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> wrote:
>But (except for the French guy) neither I nor my wife has ever felt
>personally targetted, and have never felt really uncomfortable at the
>attentions of these types.
*phew* I was beginning to feel that I was the only one around here
not to feel threatened by everyone within normal field of vision!
>But I can sympathise with people whose
>experience has been only slightly different where this result in
>considerable discomfort.
Please don't get me wrong... I'm also sorry if said people had a bad
time. What I can't accept is the need for a policed location to make
them feel safer. I'm sorry, but the *victim mentality* just doesn't
wash with me. I'm offerring two suggestions for consideration...
Education of the general public that nude people are just that...
nude. Not available. And re-inforcement of the confidence of
naturists that they can be free to be themselves... whilst exercising
the courtesy they expect from others, especially about not making
false assumptions that everyone is *after them*. Because that is as
rude as other things I've seen described.
love
Jilli
hey! I've got sunshine today! I'm off outside.. all replies will
be responded to by my bot :-)
--
Only 5 more days till the weekend :-)
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/urn_awaydays
Jilli
I'm listening, Stuart.
A few questions:
Why would they be interested in a Jilli sunbathing/swimming?
Why would I be in the dunes? I hate sand.. except that its softer on
the toes than pebbles..
Why would I be shocked by seeing an erection? I reckon most people
have seen one... I don't want to say "seen one, seen 'em all".. but
I'm damn sure I wouldn't faint at the sight of the next one. Even
though I _still_ can't imagine being approached this way....
OK... I'm going to ask a more serious question.. one that has been
skirted around and around for days and days now .... maybe its not
fair because all of you gentlemen have shown very positive attitudes
towards protecting my sensibilities. And I thank you for that.
But... does this topic have more to do with homophobia than anything
else? Just who is feeling threatened around here?
Sorry... I have to ask. You don't have to respond.
love
Jilli
MARC
> (First
> person to mention either parrots or driftwood is dead.... I'm being
> serious here!)
Who's a pretty Polly then?
Marc
Jilli
(voodoolady) wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 10:05:01 GMT, in uk.rec.naturist Jilli
><ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> hey! I've got sunshine today! I'm off outside.. all replies will
>>be responded to by my bot :-)
>
>
>Does this mean you talk through your arse :)
>
>(sorry someone had to say it) :)
>
And you think you are the _first_ one to say it??
<g>
Back indoors... oh well.. 20 mins of sunshine is pretty damn good
around here :-(
Jilli
(voodoolady) wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 10:32:38 GMT, in uk.rec.naturist Jilli
><ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sorry... I have to ask. You don't have to respond.
>
>Yes I do, I am a woman, I have to respond - it's in the book :)
>>
And I'm damned glad you did!!
I was starting to wonder if it was truly a guy thing... you've
explained differently. But I don't believe you felt threatened enough
to call the cops did you? You found it distasteful, yes. Able to
deal with it, yes. Any different to any other social scene? No.
As you said... I guess I've just been *lucky*. But then again... I
haven't been to a UK naturist beach. Swanbourne is the only
*officially designated* one I've visited... and there its the Aussie
equivalent of the SAS that one would stumble across in the dunes...
NOT recommended!
I really am going to shut up now until I've actually experienced what
everyone else is talking about. Studland here I come... first person
to abuse me is in for trouble..... If I notice you, that is :-)
Just before I leave this thread... (ok, ok... it takes me a while to
get ready to go out.. I'm a woman!!) I honestly don't wish to
denigrate the feelings of anyone here, but...
My feeling is that what is being asked for is a private club in a
public space. That can't happen. And why should it? Are you
prepared to give up "your" space to people who want to wear anoraks at
all times?? Either get behind the barbed wire or get out there in the
real world. And if the real world hurts a bit... do your bit to make
it better (which thought is NOT an encouragement to do more than a
little conversion work.. so put away the mobile phones, the guns, the
hit teams please?) or else retreat back behind the fences. Our
options are always there.
Just my opinion....
love
Jilli
END.. honest!!
Mike Hopkins
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes some observations on his experiences
of beaches and finishes with
>personally targetted, and have never felt really uncomfortable at the
>experience has been only slightly different where this result in
>considerable discomfort.
>
more "beach wise", I know of plenty of ways of quietly (and non-
aggressively) confirming the limits of our personal space and signalling
that such attentions are not welcome. I also know that to ignore such
attentions can mistakenly signal "silent consent".
Returning once again to a positive note. Val has never ceased to be
amazed at the general high standard of behaviour of children on the
naturist section of Studland beach. This in sharp contrast to the sea of
noise and nuisance that one has to pass through on that long walk from
the NT car park.
Jilli
Tim Forcer
>
> ...
> Returning once again to a positive note. Val has never ceased
> to be amazed at the general high standard of behaviour of
> children on the naturist section of Studland beach. This in
> sharp contrast to the sea of noise and nuisance that one has
> to pass through on that long walk from the NT car park.
Hear, hear!
I've often claimed that naturists are "just folks", but in one respect
they do differ from the mass. By and large, people on naturist beaches
are cleaner, quieter, better-behaved and happier than people on textile
beaches. By "happier" I mean that it's much more likely that one's
smile and "Hi" or "Good morning" will be returned, for example.
Jilli
<i...@pamjaq.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Mike Hopkins <mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.xx> wrote in message
>news:TZdTaFAd...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>> Who was it who said that any virtue pursued to excess become a vice?
>
>Don't know, can't find it in my quotation book.
Aristotle? Just a guess...virtue was one of his favourite words...
..but I bet Oscar Wilde did something with it :-)
love
Jilli
Stuart Grant
>
If you can't tell, there's no problem. If you can tell, the
luster/ogler/voyeur is at best not being sufficiently discrete, at
worst being outright blatant, thus causing offence.
Stuart Grant
Stuart Grant
>
I was referring to the dune rats that read your posts, and will take
the "they" in your question to mean the same.
This is usenet, you are invisible and inaudible, they will assume you
to be whatever their imagination cares to feed them with, however un -
"drop-dead-gorgeous" you say you are. As a female discussing sex and
nudity, they will hang on every word you write.
> Why would I be shocked by seeing an erection?
>
Shocked? Not at all. I would expect most naturist women to be
indifferent to merely seeing an erection, but I would hope most would
be at least indignant, preferably outraged, at having one blatantly
displayed to them for sexual gratification.
> But... does this topic have more to do with homophobia than anything
> else? Just who is feeling threatened around here?
>
I dislike and disapprove of homosexuality as I have said before, but I
do not judge all homosexuals by their sexual leanings alone. I would
consider most dune-rats to be sex addicts who resort to homosexuality
because females are unavailable to them, and rate pond-life above them
in all respects except as organ donors, and even then in many cases.
That may constitute homophobia in many peoples' books, but I certainly
do not fear them, as the suffix "phobia" implies. I do fear the damage
they are capable of causing, however, and I'm not just referring to
getting all the public toilets locked and barred at dusk.
Threatened? If I spend a couple of hours dragging self, wife and
necessary accoutrements to Studland beach for the day and after half an
hour of unwelcome attention from said dune-rats my wife says "I can't
stand any more of this, take me home please.", (this has happened more
than once) then they threaten to destroy my wife's confidence to
practise naturism, not to mention my efforts to have a pleasant day
out. In fact I doubt if I'll ever persuade her to go to Studland again.
Stuart Grant
Stuart Grant
> public space. That can't happen. And why should it?
>
What is being asked for is that all members of the public using that
public space respect each other and cause no offence.
Dune-rats don't misbehave in the street or at work, why shouldn't they
control themselves in similar fashion on a public beach?
Stuart Grant
Terry Blunt
writes
>> Why would they be interested in a Jilli sunbathing/swimming?
>>
>
>I was referring to the dune rats that read your posts, and will take
>the "they" in your question to mean the same.
>This is usenet, you are invisible and inaudible, they will assume you
>to be whatever their imagination cares to feed them with, however un -
>"drop-dead-gorgeous" you say you are. As a female discussing sex and
>nudity, they will hang on every word you write.
>
>> Why would I be shocked by seeing an erection?
>>
>Shocked? Not at all. I would expect most naturist women to be
>indifferent to merely seeing an erection, but I would hope most would
>be at least indignant, preferably outraged, at having one blatantly
>displayed to them for sexual gratification.
>
member, attract everyones attention then burst into uncontrollable
laughter.
--
Terry Blunt <te...@langri.demon.co.uk>
I want my gravestone the be a *huge* flat lump of granite inscribed:
Lie down dammit!
MARC
> BANG!!!!!!!!!!
Arghhhh!
This, is an ex parrot! It is no more, it has ceased to be.
Marc
Tim Forcer
>
[clearly-stated views cut]
> ... If I spend a couple of hours dragging self, wife and
> necessary accoutrements to Studland beach for the day and
> after half an hour of unwelcome attention from said dune-rats
> my wife says "I can't stand any more of this, take me
> home please.", (this has happened more than once) then
> they threaten to destroy my wife's confidence to
> practise naturism, not to mention my efforts to have a
> pleasant day out. In fact I doubt if I'll ever persuade
> her to go to Studland again.
I'm now getting a bit puzzled, although some things are becoming clear.
When I/we go to Studland, we normally set up on firm sand (depends on
the state of the tide and whether it's going in or out), so are rarely
close to the dunes. (Part of the reason is that I particularly dislike
getting sand into everything.) Very occasionally, during a stroll, I/we
might go into the dunes for a bit, but we never settle down there. So
maybe that's why we've not been troubled by these "dune rats".
While I can understand people particularly liking the dunes as a place
to be based (easier to get some natural wind-screening, wider views), if
it also means unwelcome visitors, then why not use the beach proper
rather than the dunes? Or if your preference for dune-style beaching is
too strong, chose a place which is only just in the dunes, such as the
many "half-bowls" which open onto the beach?
Another Studland-specific query: have any of those who've experienced
unwelcome attention at Studland ever complained to any of the National
Trust personnel? Whenever I've been there, it seems that one or other
of these people passes at least every half hour or so.
How about a NUFF page (or a CCBN page, if they want to put their money
where their "tolerance" campaign mouth is) devoted to pictures of "dune
rats"? If there are only a few, then irregular visitors to the beach
could check out the mugshots before visiting, and, if they see one of
this unwelcome breed, be pretty sure of their ground in telling them to
push off. If there are a lot, then it shows the problem is probably too
great for individual action to have much effect, and the beach should be
boycotted by naturists. If there are a large number of dune rats at
Studland, then I suggest appropriate non-violent direct action is to put
notice-boards stating "Oglers and exhibitionists will be encountered
beyond this point" in front of the NT notices, while home-made "many
beach users beyond this point regard clothing as optional" notices
should be set up outside the resultant ghetto. And if the NT get arsey
about it, then get the local press along. Why should all the complaints
be from textiles wanting to avoid seeing naked bodies? Why not have a
few hundred nuddies wanting to enjoy their bit of beach in peace,
undisturbed by dune rats?
Tim Forcer
Ah, but associated misbehaviour at work might consist of being a fund of
sexist remarks and being "a lad", who can be relied on to comment on the
physical characteristics of any female within sight. While unwelcome,
such behaviour is most unlikely to result in formal disciplinary
procedures.
Making people feel uncomfortable by ogling, leering or being
exhibitionistic should be completely unacceptable to and by naturists.
But exactly how one goes about eradicating it is a very difficult
question.
MARC
> (Oh dear here we go) :)
Oh so you ARE talking to me! I spent hrs yesterday shouting at icq
Marc
MARC
> While unwelcome,
> such behaviour is most unlikely to result in formal disciplinary
> procedures.
It does in my place, and I am glad to say the Tribunal threw out his
claim for unfair dismissal.
Marc
MARC
voodoolady <voo...@nospam.nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> ICQ is stuffed again sorry :(
no prob, thought i had upset you ( I'm prone to that)
Marc
MARC
> BTW are you going on a naturist holiday or only partly or
> not at all?
leave Sunday, one night in Calais, two nights in Paris,arrive Euronat
on the Weds and then 2.5 weeks before we need to get dressed again.
Marc
Treenman
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes
>Stuart Grant wrote:
>>
>> > My feeling is that what is being asked for is a private club in a
>> > public space. That can't happen. And why should it?
>> >
>>
>> What is being asked for is that all members of the public
>> using that public space respect each other and cause no offence.
>> Dune-rats don't misbehave in the street or at work, why shouldn't
>> they control themselves in similar fashion on a public beach?
>
>Ah, but associated misbehaviour at work might consist of being a fund of
>sexist remarks and being "a lad", who can be relied on to comment on the
>such behaviour is most unlikely to result in formal disciplinary
>procedures.
>
>exhibitionistic should be completely unacceptable to and by naturists.
>
>But exactly how one goes about eradicating it is a very difficult
>question.
>
--
Treen Man
Tim Forcer
>
> Tim Forcer wrote:
>
>> How about a NUFF page (or a CCBN page, if they want to
>> put their money where their "tolerance" campaign mouth
>> is) devoted to pictures of "dune rats"?
>
> Hmm - that sounds a bit like the Walls of Shame in the
> Mao Cultural Revolution. It would probably be regarded
> as a potential libel.
Certainly does run counter to civil liberties principles, but then if MY
liberties get infringed, maybe I don't care about infringing the
infringers.
As to libel - doesn't that have to be based on an untruth? Or be
defamation by being truth which is selective or out-of-context from a
greater truth which is the opposite of that implied? Would photos
titled "Some folks who took a more than passing interest in me at
place/date/time" be actionable? Anyway, in English law libel is a civil
wrong with no opportunity for legal aid and (effectively) only open to
the rich, AND with the verdict determined by a jury. I fancy my chances
with a jury would be pretty damn good, whoever it was complaining. And
can you imagine the tabloid headlines?
ISTR a newspaper story about a community that got fed up with
kerb-crawlers, took photos of the cars and stuck these up somewhere.
Don't know what the final outcome was, but I think they got some
official attention to their complaints.
Tim Forcer
>
> Tim Forcer wrote:
>>
>> the rich, AND with the verdict determined by a jury. I
>> fancy my chances with a jury would be pretty damn good,
>> whoever it was complaining. And can you imagine the
>> tabloid headlines?
>
> of "Innocent until Proven Guilty".
I'm glad someone does.
>> ISTR a newspaper story about a community that got fed
>> up with kerb-crawlers, took photos of the cars and stuck
>> these up somewhere. Don't know what the final outcome
>> was, but I think they got some official attention to
>> their complaints.
>
> Yes and people have had burning tyre necklaces for being
> suspected of putting a spell on their neighbour's cow. The
> vigilante and lynch mob mentalities breed intolerance and
> opportunities for private revenge that go well beyond
> civilised behaviour.
>
> ...
>
> I have to stop - this is starting to feel too much like a scenario for
> another Crystalnacht. :-(
OK, OK. It was feeling increasingly "wrong" as I typed it. Instead of
binning it and starting again, I let it run to its logical conclusion.
Logical, but stupid.
Full retraction of suggestion.
Lowering oneself to the level of gawpers and leerers by putting up their
images to be gawped and leered at isn't a good idea. Must think
positive. But I just get a big blank.
[Note to Marc - please don't apply Cattle's Law to Kris here - his
analogy was running to its logical conclusion, not to the reduction ad
absurdum. IMO.]
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Not a prof, University of no-name, UK
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>Or was that a repetition of your original
>insult?
I'd like to make it absolutely clear, for the record, that I intended no
"insult" or "jibe" at all. It was a third person who interpreted a
comment as a "cheap jibe".
I write for a living, and I try my hardest always to say what I mean and
mean what I say (unless what I write is clearly intended to be
humorous). In order to achieve that, I usually do not post an article
until it I have re-read it and edited it.
However, it is inevitable that in practice there will be phrases that
others may give a meaning that I didn't intend.
In this case, I had just 48 hours to read the articles of interest to me
and respond to them. I was not going to spend the whole of a reasonably
decent weekend in front of a computer. So would people please note that
if they don't get an immediate reply, it doesn't necessarily mean that
someone has failed to answer a point?
Richard Burnham------------------------------------------
Important: to reply, replace "zz" with "uk".
Resource page: http://rburnham.com/co/coresrce.html
I alone supply my opinions.... accept no imitations!
Andynude
Richard Burnham wrote in message <9EYjCDAg...@wiseword.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <377ffca3...@news.freeuk.com>, Jilli
><ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>
>>Or was that a repetition of your original
>>insult?
>
>I'd like to make it absolutely clear, for the record, that I intended no
>"insult" or "jibe" at all.
Note the word *intended*
It was a third person who interpreted a
>comment as a "cheap jibe".
>
Third, fourth, fifth.............
>I write for a living, and I try my hardest always to say what I mean and
>mean what I say (unless what I write is clearly intended to be
>humorous). In order to achieve that, I usually do not post an article
>until it I have re-read it and edited it.
>
Note the word *try*
>However, it is inevitable that in practice there will be phrases that
>others may give a meaning that I didn't intend.
Inevitably, thats why some folk seem to get more than *their fair share* of
flames!
>
I love it! He's kill-filed me!
Yippee
--
Andynude
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
Derek
Stuart Grant wrote in message ...
>Threatened? If I spend a couple of hours dragging self, wife and
>necessary accoutrements to Studland beach for the day and after half an
>hour of unwelcome attention from said dune-rats my wife says "I can't
>stand any more of this, take me home please.", (this has happened more
>than once) then they threaten to destroy my wife's confidence to
>practise naturism, not to mention my efforts to have a pleasant day
>out. In fact I doubt if I'll ever persuade her to go to Studland again.
>Stuart Grant
>
My wife has felt exactly the same, although Studland (out of the dunes)is
probably the place she has felt most relaxed, due to the large numbers of
families. Waxham in Norfolk was the worst for dune rats, as we kept getting
dazzled by the
sun reflecting on their binoculars.......
Oh damn, I seem to have de lurked. Can I have a biccy now?
Derek.
Stuart Grant
and the rats used to freely venture out on to the open beach to pester
anyone there, so it didn't matter where you sat. Perhaps they feel less
bold at weekends among greater numbers, but we don't like crowds.
As to your solution, I suggested in a recent thread that they hide
behind anonymity. If they can be identified or their photos published
on the web, then that anonymity is taken from them and they will
disappear. Of course, there will always be one or two who won't care if
the world knows how they spend their free time. As you say, it's not
easy.
Stuart Grant
Stuart Grant
>
Stuart Grant
Stuart Grant
> kerb-crawlers, took photos of the cars and stuck these up somewhere.
>
That was an Asian community somewhere in Brimingham I think. They took
car reg. numbers and published them in a notice in the local press.
Easier and better than photographs, which often depict unrecognisable
faces which the perpetrator could deny. They succeeded in cleaning up
their neighbourhood in a fairly short time.
Stuart Grant
Stuart Grant
> until Proven Guilty".
>
beaches, not prosecuting anyone for breaking the law. Dune rats need an
incentive to show respect and consideration to other beach users, as
do many others who are allowed to mix with the human race on public
transport, streets etc.
> Yes and people have had burning tyre necklaces for being suspected of
> putting a spell on their neighbour's cow. The vigilante and lynch mob
> mentalities breed intolerance and opportunities for private revenge
> that go well beyond civilised behaviour.
>
Bit extreme for a bit of justifiable naming and shaming don't you
think? And a dune-rat or meercat snapping everyone in sight would stand
out like a sore thumb - very different from pulling a camera out of a
beach bag and once-off snapping a pest.
Do you always take such extreme views?
Stuart Grant
MARC
> I think we are going to have to have 2 buses at this rate :)
I always presumed it was one of those airport type buses with a hinge in
the middle.
Marc
a.cameron
think you shouldn't have sexual thoughts even if someone attractive is
naked in front of you and that swingers are a dirty abhoration. ok no one
really wants to offend sensabilities but we're not all dead from the waist
down but resent having to be dead from the waist down and if some idiot
came being obnoxious in front of my kids then simply they wouldn't do it
again least ways not after they'd been chopped off maybe your wife objects
to your lack of protection to,the family unit
Stuart Grant wrote:
> > Why would they be interested in a Jilli sunbathing/swimming?
> >
>
> I was referring to the dune rats that read your posts, and will take
> the "they" in your question to mean the same.
> This is usenet, you are invisible and inaudible, they will assume you
> to be whatever their imagination cares to feed them with, however un -
> "drop-dead-gorgeous" you say you are. As a female discussing sex and
> nudity, they will hang on every word you write.
>
> > Why would I be shocked by seeing an erection?
> >
> Shocked? Not at all. I would expect most naturist women to be
> indifferent to merely seeing an erection, but I would hope most would
> be at least indignant, preferably outraged, at having one blatantly
> displayed to them for sexual gratification.
>
> > But... does this topic have more to do with homophobia than anything
> > else? Just who is feeling threatened around here?
> >
>
> I dislike and disapprove of homosexuality as I have said before, but I
> do not judge all homosexuals by their sexual leanings alone. I would
> consider most dune-rats to be sex addicts who resort to homosexuality
> because females are unavailable to them, and rate pond-life above them
> in all respects except as organ donors, and even then in many cases.
> That may constitute homophobia in many peoples' books, but I certainly
> do not fear them, as the suffix "phobia" implies. I do fear the damage
> they are capable of causing, however, and I'm not just referring to
> getting all the public toilets locked and barred at dusk.
>
Malcolm B
voo...@nospam.nsw.bigpond.net.au (voodoolady) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:08:24 GMT, in uk.rec.naturist
> usenet8...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Kris) wrote:
>
> >
> >Hello and Welcome!
> >Is anybody keeping a count - the 'bus must be starting to fill up
> >nicely now. :-)
>
> I think we are going to have to have 2 buses at this rate :) - I
> wonder how much it costs to hire a bus over there? Say for a week or
> weekend? Anyone want to do the stats on it for me? You never know
> this bus may just become a reality. Even if it's just for a weekend
> we could pick up as many people as we can and go off to a beach or
> resort or club or I don't know you lot know better than me! :)
>
> It's actually becoming quite a good idea :)
Boeing 747-400 has how many seats?
--
Malcolm, Webmaster for NUFF venues.
NUFF is the FAQ for this newsgroup. Please read before posting.
It is the comprehensive www source of UK naturist information.
<http://w3.to/nuff/>
Richard Burnham
have been added to this thread since early Monday morning, 5 July.]
In article <3859eb1b.1599222600@news-server>, voodoolady <voodoo@nospam.
nsw.bigpond.net.au> writes
>Richard, there are actually more women in the world than men. We are
>not the weaker sex or the fairer sex or the hard done by sex. We are
>individuals and equals nothing more nothing less.
This is what I would say myself, and I have not said anything to imply
the opposite.
>As for saying females are badly represented, let me check exactly what
>you are saying. Are you saying that the females who post here badly
>represent naturist females in general or that there are few women
>posting in here.
The latter, and I am sorry if rapid writing resulted in any doubt as to
my meaning.
>If the former, as Jilli stated we aren't here to represent females,
>we are here to represent ourselves, our opinions and our views on
>naturism the same as everyone else is. If you feel that our views are
>not those generally held by naturist females. Tough. It's still our
>view and as such belongs here as much as the next person.
I don't regard *anyone* here as speaking for their sex, whether men or
women. We all write as individuals. (Even though sometimes people try to
inflate the importance of their views by claiming to speak for groups.)
In my case, I am often accused of being associated with people who have
nothing whatsoever to do with me, hence the disclaimer at the bottom of
each article of mine.
I speak for myself, and give my own interpretation of my experiences
with others, although I have of course discussed it with them.
[snip for brevity]
I'm not sure what the point of the explanation of net demographics is,
but you may be interested to know that the Guardian today gives an
account of a survey showing more teenage girls than teenage boys as
Internet users in the UK. I think that, as the emphasis is less on the
technology and more on the communication possibilities, women will make
much, much more use of it. Like the telephone :)
But back to my point. Beyond the secretive people in the gender-balanced
clubs, naturism in the UK is overwhelmingly a male hobby (not a
"lifestyle"), with male attitudes and assumptions and largely male-
orientated magazines. Its public image is much like that of train-
spotting, except that train-spotters don't seem to have a noticeable
seedy fringe. What's more, the mostly male people whose opinions seem to
matter in the "movement" appear to have no idea about how to promote
their ideas to the public.
I'd like to look at it this way: to increase public awareness, tolerance
and participation, how could you market and sell CO activities in our
current culture?
As someone once observed, men have hobbies but women have lives. Men
tend to go off and do things along with other men.
Most decisions that involve the whole family (holidays for example)
will involve a much larger, perhaps majority, input from women. I
recently saw an estimate that women are responsible for 80% of family
expenditure. In addition, there is now a large proportion (around 25% ?)
of single-parent families in the UK, and most of those are headed by a
woman.
So, if you actually wanted to target a part of the population that would
give the best return on a promotional effort, which would it be?
(BTW, I'd drop the word "naturism" - I believe that = in the UK - it's
irreversibly tarnished by seedy associations.)
Richard Burnham
have been added to this thread since early Monday morning, 5 July.]
Jilli wrote:
Are you telling me that someone sunbathing naked on a beach
>can expect to experience a stranger coming up and wanking over them
>unless the vigilante posse is on full alert, or what? Has this ever
>happened to you? To any of your friends?
Here's an incident, described in u.r.n:
"My single experience of Studland was the worst on a naturist beach that
I have ever had. My partner and I could find nowhere to be that wasn't
the focus of attention by single males who risked falling of the dunes
to get a better look. There was one man with an erection who stood for
twenty minutes on a dune overlooking the path. My impression was that it
is outdoor pervert capital of the world, and they are welcome to it."
No, that didn't happen to me, it was described in June 1998, by Tony
Russell. What makes it notable is that he was actually pooh-poohing my
own views. (Incidentally, *I* don't describe these men as "single
males", as I suspect that many of them have told their wives they are
going somewhere else.)
I can describe incidents that have happened in my own experience, but
what's the point as they've already been dismissed out of hand?
>So you personally haven't experienced a problem?
If my companions can't enjoy themselves because they are made
uncomfortable, then of course it's a problem for me. I would have to be
very insensitive not to appreciate their feelings.
But that's not the real point at all, because people should not have to
go through this, even if it is a woman on her own. And naturists claim
to be more accepting of others than non-naturists, so where naturists go
a woman (or a man, for that matter) should feel more at ease, not less.
>Please don't call me ridiculous
I didn't call Jilli ridiculous.
What we disagree on is our perception of what constitutes
>invasion, and where the limits of personal space are.
Of course, like every moral issue, there are cases that are difficult
to judge. I have recently written about this very problem in a different
context in rec.nude. The point about the gawkers and wankers, though, is
that they are out to provoke a response, they clearly don't think they
are not bothering their victims.
BTW, please note I have never used the word "pervert" to describe
anyone, ever.
>oh.... hang about! The light-bulb just came on! Is it because I've
>never been to a "designated" naturist beach in the UK that I've not
>experienced the unwanted sexual activity you speak of?
Not many designated naturist beaches in the UK, are there? My nearest
one is 200 miles away, and I've only been once to an official beach in
the UK in my entire life (Brighton, which I plan never to visit again).
Some of the incidents in my experience happened at Morfa Dyffryn, which
is unofficial, and frequented by both textiles and naturists.
>But... doesn't that support my view that naturist ghettoes are NOT the
>way to promote naturism? Haven't you just proved that for me?
If one only goes nude in "quiet spots", of course one won't find a
problem. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had convenient access to "quiet
spots", especially on beaches?
Please would someone tell me how when I write about "clothing-optional
opportunities", it gets read as "naturist ghettos"? I'm not advocating
"naturism" anyway, I don't call myself a naturist, and I regard the word
as a cop-out. I was the one who wanted to call this group something like
"clothes-optional". I'm not a club member.
I don't advocate "ghettos". However, I know (through talking to people)
that there are many who would try clothes-freedom only as long as they
knew that it was officially tolerated there. Some other people would not
be happy naked in an optional place. I would like there to be "clothing-
optional opportunities" of all kinds, so that more people can try it. I
advocate the Netherlands as a model, have praised it more than once, and
think it's worth trying to work towards here.
Moving on to a post by A N Other, where does he get the idea that he is
the first person to go nude anywhere it will not cause offence, and that
I am against it? Don't we all do it when we can? I have been finding
places since I was first able to go out on a bicycle unsupervised. I
recently mentioned how difficult it is to be prosecuted for nudity in
this country if you are not deliberately being offensive. However, if I
want to be with people whose company I enjoy, and share the CO
experience with them, then their wishes matter as much as mine.
I am sorry that there are men, whether they call themselves "naturists"
or not, who can't understand that nude tolerance depends on a reasonable
standard of personal behaviour towards others.
Stuart Grant
> think you shouldn't have sexual thoughts even if someone attractive is
> naked in front of you
>
can keep them to myself so that no-one else is aware of them and bother
no-one. You don't have to be dead from the waist down, just have the
faculty of self-control, and exercise it. My sex life is between myself
and my wife and I keep it there.
I've nothing against swingers either, so long as they are discrete, take
no for an answer and don't expect all naturists to share their kinks.
Are you a dune-rat?
Stuart Grant
Stuart Grant
> meerkats?
>
If they were meercatting in the photo there'd be no question. It'd induce them to improve
their behaviour.
> Our civilised veneer is very thin. People have fears and frustrations.
> (Snipped)
> I think the technique is called "bait & switch". We have seen a recent
> posting in urn that tried very hard to set up what "appeared" to be a
> factual statement about someone's postings - and then extrapolated
> into an emotive smear that could have caused that person physical
> danger.
>
Presumably you refer to Pietroxxx and Mick Southgate. The former did for his credentials in
his first post and the latter we all know as a harmless joker that gets taken seriously when
he wants to be.
> If you want the convention of no-cameras to remain in force then you
> can't encourage their use for a particular purpose.
>
I don't mind cameras. If I didn't want to be seen on a naturist beach I wouldn't go there in
the first place.
> So - you pull a camera on a naked meerkat - and *he* starts to yell
> he's found a "pervert" taking photo's while he's been "innocently"
> walking past?
>
To whom? To others on the beach who have noticed both our modes of behaviour. I'd trust the
judgement of the majority and have the sense to make certain of the subject myself before
taking such a photo. Once I got it wrong my own credibility would be diminished.
> However I have lived in environments where violence was always
> just below the surface and life was cheap. Those people were in theory
> no different from a slice of the average population in any country.
>
And what did you do to change that situation? Walk on by or talk to people in your community
and put your own viewpoints and try to generate some better understanding?
> A neigbour's son was badly beaten up recently while walking home - a
> car stopped and three men, from the pub he had just left, attacked
> him. The only motive that anyone could ascribe is that he could be
> described as "pretty" and was in the pub on his own that night as his
> girlfriend was away. :-(
If that's your sum total knowledge of the situation you're not in a position to judge it.
> "Because we see the same thing doesn't mean we share the same interpretation of its meaning"
Oh well, that's most conclusive then. We'll just have to abandon public naturist facilities to
the perverts and retreat into vetted clubs cos there's absolutely nothing else for it.
Stuart Grant
msouthg
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>I'm sorry, but the *victim mentality* just doesn't
>wash with me. I'm offerring two suggestions for consideration...
>Education of the general public that nude people are just that...
>nude. Not available. And re-inforcement of the confidence of
>naturists that they can be free to be themselves... whilst exercising
>the courtesy they expect from others, especially about not making
>false assumptions that everyone is *after them*. Because that is as
>rude as other things I've seen described.
Tricky, though.
At Morfa a couple of days ago, my slave had gone off to find driftwood
and a single guy "parked up" next to me. After a few minutes, his first
words to me were "Would you rub some sunscreen on my back?" I told him
I'd prefer not to. He said he was "not that way inclined". I told him
I'd ask my slave to do it when she got back (she's not unlike you in
many ways, judging by your posts).
She returned some minutes later and I put the situation to her. She
seemed reluctant at first, but (in order to prove your/her point?) did
it after a few moments deliberation. I'll have to ask her exactly what
was going through her mind.
There were several other ambiguous incidents; guys walking just a couple
of feet in front of me/us, stopping, turning round and walking back. *I*
didn't feel "invaded" particularly, but I imagine, given the same
attention, a lone female might.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>Richard.. it is for the sake of people about to venture forth and try
>it, that I fervently wish to dispel your rumours that every naturist
>beach is a perverts paradise in need of a shot-gun patrol.
But your and Richard's perceptions (and probably mine) seem to be
different......
No, don't think I'll expand on this - I feel a circle coming on :-(
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
spam.demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>Now will someone help me pick up the teacups and broken biscuits so we
>can get back to making life less stressful. :-)
I'd like to volunteer for that, but am probably 5 days too late.
I've met Andynude and Jilli, but not Richard. I'm probably overdue for a
return visit to his website.
Let's enjoy the weather while we have it and before Voodoolady wants it
back again? Shame that the heat makes the choccy biccies icky.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Jilli
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tricky, though.
>At Morfa a couple of days ago, my slave had gone off to find driftwood
>and a single guy "parked up" next to me. After a few minutes, his first
>words to me were "Would you rub some sunscreen on my back?" I told him
>I'd prefer not to. He said he was "not that way inclined". I told him
>I'd ask my slave to do it when she got back (she's not unlike you in
>many ways, judging by your posts).
>
>She returned some minutes later and I put the situation to her. She
>seemed reluctant at first, but (in order to prove your/her point?) did
>it after a few moments deliberation. I'll have to ask her exactly what
>was going through her mind.
I can't presume to guess what her thoughts were... but maybe she was
quite happy to oblige said gentleman (there's nothing worse than
ending up with that sunburnt V-shaped bit on one's back where one
can't quite reach with the sunblock!) but didn't want to *get
involved* after your initial exchange with the other gentleman had
already involved a *sexual issue* viz: "being not that way inclined"?
For myself... if someone approached me with the same request... I'd be
happy to apply sunblock to bits he/she couldn't reach... the rest they
can do for themselves :-)
>There were several other ambiguous incidents; guys walking just a couple
>of feet in front of me/us, stopping, turning round and walking back. *I*
>didn't feel "invaded" particularly, but I imagine, given the same
>attention, a lone female might.
erm.... I think it was _you_ who told me off in another posting for
assuming that my opinion was representative of that of *all women*?
Its your turn now to be asked, politely, not to do the same re: lone
females:-)
Incidentally, during the times I _was_ for all intents and purposes a
lone female on the beach recently, I never once felt invaded by the
behaviour you describe. Vaguely curious as to the motivation behind
it, yes. Threatened, never.
love
Jilli
on a cloud-break :-(
--
a.cameron
but it is good of you to realise your failing now maybe you'll be more tollerent without being so judgemental if asked a civil question in future.
so lets let byegones be bygones in future accept there are a number of swingers in the naturist scene, and that all we were trying to do was find where more of them go so as not to offend and ask or mention our lifestyle choice and avoid starchy looks after all we don't carry around banners
ju and al
Jilli
<c...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>[This post is written and posted without knowledge of anything that may
>have been added to this thread since early Monday morning, 5 July.]
ditto... I've been away too... but I think my news-server didn't wipe
anything in that time.
>Here's an incident, described in u.r.n:
>
>"My single experience of Studland was the worst on a naturist beach that
>I have ever had. My partner and I could find nowhere to be that wasn't
>the focus of attention by single males who risked falling of the dunes
>to get a better look. There was one man with an erection who stood for
>twenty minutes on a dune overlooking the path. My impression was that it
>is outdoor pervert capital of the world, and they are welcome to it."
I have really, really tried to understand this behaviour as a problem
experienced by others. And... now that I can put my hand up and say
I've seen what you describe, all be it to apparently a much lesser
degree... I'm even more at a loss to understand. :-(
I guess it comes down to my perception of what constitutes a
threat/invasion/annoyance? To be honest... a guy with a hard-on
enclosed in his Levi's at pub chucking-out time represents a far
greater *possible* threat to me than someone proud of his body, even
his sexuality, displaying himself naked at the sea-side (please note
my next words VERY carefully...) to those who wish to look.
I'm comfortable within myself. I can control where I look. I don't
feel my enjoyment of somewhere diminished by possibly being restricted
in what I look at. I don't feel intimidated by something I might not
choose to see.... sometimes amused, more often bemused, never
threatened.
>I can describe incidents that have happened in my own experience, but
>what's the point as they've already been dismissed out of hand?
NO they haven't!! If you read back through this thread you will see
that time and time again I have asked for reasons why other people's
experiences have led them to their point of view. None... not ONE..
truly personal experience was forthcoming. It seems to me that all
this anti-perv hysteria (too strong a word, but I can't think of a
better one) is based on hearsay and assumptions about what *others*
are thinking/experiencing.
>>So you personally haven't experienced a problem?
>
>If my companions can't enjoy themselves because they are made
>uncomfortable, then of course it's a problem for me. I would have to be
>very insensitive not to appreciate their feelings.
see my comment above about second-hand perceptions.
>But that's not the real point at all, because people should not have to
>go through this, even if it is a woman on her own. And naturists claim
>to be more accepting of others than non-naturists, so where naturists go
>a woman (or a man, for that matter) should feel more at ease, not less.
>
Pardon?? "EVEN if it is a woman on her own" ?
Why do I get this dreadful urge to lace up bovver boots and get a #1
haircut when I read such comments??
Richard, I think you may have just given me a clue as to where you are
coming from re: this issue. And its not a bad place per se. Its the
traditional "women are frail creatures, unable to think or act for
themselves without the protection of a strong hetero- male to
guide/guard them". If I'm right, then that's still OK with me. My
Dad and lots of other males I know hold that same position. All I can
say is that its not one that I would like to see flourish :-)
<little snip>
>The point about the gawkers and wankers, though, is
>that they are out to provoke a response, they clearly don't think they
>are not bothering their victims.
BINGO!!!
What's the quickest way to get rid of an audience-seeker? Ignore
them. Laugh at them even, if it makes you feel better. Any reaction
stronger than that diminishes YOU.
Don't become a victim.... enjoy your own power/confidence/sheer bl**dy
self-belief in being able to control a situation.
And that doesn't only apply to *helpless females* either....
>BTW, please note I have never used the word "pervert" to describe
>anyone, ever.
And what does that word mean? "one who has deviated from the norm".
So I guess naturists/nudists are included by default? Anyway, quite a
few *good* people are proud to wear that label... but that is a
completely different issue not particularly relevant to this ng.
<another little snip>
>Some of the incidents in my experience happened at Morfa Dyffryn, which
>is unofficial, and frequented by both textiles and naturists.
I'm sorry that you (ooops.. your partner?) had a bad experience at
Morfa Dyffryn. I've just spent a few wonderful days there.... and
never once felt threatened, intimidated or even annoyed. And no.... I
wasn't *up for it*... I sunbathed, I swam, I walked, I chatted with
people, I chilled out. I'll happily recommend the place to anyone.
Sheesh!! I could have taken my 80 y/o Mum with me and she would have
loved it too!
>>But... doesn't that support my view that naturist ghettoes are NOT the
>>way to promote naturism? Haven't you just proved that for me?
>
>If one only goes nude in "quiet spots", of course one won't find a
>problem. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had convenient access to "quiet
>spots", especially on beaches?
"Quiet spots" are available all over the place. I found one at Port
Merion (sp?) .. a major tourist attraction with a huge coach/car park
and many thousands of visitors. Which is the reason I've never felt
the need to visit a designated *naturist* beach. But I do agree with
you on that point.... one shouldn't NEED to find a quiet spot before
getting naked. It should be seen as acceptable behaviour in any
leisure context. I feel we will only go around in circles if I
re-iterate my thoughts about designated places.... so I won't bother.
>Please would someone tell me how when I write about "clothing-optional
>opportunities", it gets read as "naturist ghettos"? I'm not advocating
>"naturism" anyway, I don't call myself a naturist, and I regard the word
>as a cop-out. I was the one who wanted to call this group something like
>"clothes-optional". I'm not a club member.
And this is cop-out time by me. I really don't want to get into the
politics of clubs, because I'm ignorant about the matter (as already
proven elsewhere <g>). I'll leave that one to those who know much
more about it. And I don't call myself anything but Jilli. Sometimes
nude, sometimes not :-) I'm me... neither primarily *a naturist* nor
any other label others wish to categorise me by.
>I don't advocate "ghettos". However, I know (through talking to people)
>that there are many who would try clothes-freedom only as long as they
>knew that it was officially tolerated there. Some other people would not
>be happy naked in an optional place. I would like there to be "clothing-
>optional opportunities" of all kinds, so that more people can try it. I
>advocate the Netherlands as a model, have praised it more than once, and
>think it's worth trying to work towards here.
The clothing-optional idea sounds excellent to me (and I quite like
the *clothes-freedom* term too). I honestly don't think we are too
far apart in some of our opinions, Richard. I'm for tolerance... if
people are happier clothed... that's fine by me. I'll tolerate them
wearing clothes, but I expect a reciprocal deal.... I want to be
tolerated naked, without there being a sign saying I'm *permitted* to
be so within certain delineated boundaries. And... desperately trying
to drag this back to being relevant to the subject header.... I truly
believe that general acceptance of nudity will alleviate the pressure
on the current *hot-spots* where behaviour offensive to some occurs.
>Moving on to a post by A N Other, where does he get the idea that he is
>the first person to go nude anywhere it will not cause offence, and that
>I am against it? Don't we all do it when we can? I have been finding
>places since I was first able to go out on a bicycle unsupervised. I
>recently mentioned how difficult it is to be prosecuted for nudity in
>this country if you are not deliberately being offensive. However, if I
>want to be with people whose company I enjoy, and share the CO
>experience with them, then their wishes matter as much as mine.
So you have been doing for many years what I'm advocating :-) Choose
your spot, behave according to what are your own and your companions'
personal standards.. always showing regard to/tolerance of others.
And (my suggestion) don't imagine a problem where there isn't one.
oh... and I nearly forgot... enjoy it! :-)
>I am sorry that there are men, whether they call themselves "naturists"
>or not, who can't understand that nude tolerance depends on a reasonable
>standard of personal behaviour towards others.
Richard, I do understand that your motives are good ones. And I hope
you can accept or, at least, listen to my (not always) different point
of view :-)
love
Jilli
--
Jilli
(Kris) wrote:
>Yes and people have had burning tyre necklaces for being suspected of
>putting a spell on their neighbour's cow. The vigilante and lynch mob
>mentalities breed intolerance and opportunities for private revenge
>that go well beyond civilised behaviour.
>
>In fact I would suspect that the leaders brandishing the nooses would
>often be the very same people as the campaign was supposed to be
>against. Think of the licence you are giving meerkats to walk about
>the beaches snapping and videoing everyone in sight.
>
>I have to stop - this is starting to feel too much like a scenario for
>another Crystalnacht. :-(
>--
>"Our inner thoughts that we fear are a whip for our intolerance of other people"
I know I should restrain myself long enough to read the complete
thread re: any subject before replying, but this time I can't.
Thank you Kris... wonderful post. I hope that many, many people read
it and possibly even absorb a fraction of the message your words and
your sig contain.
Thanks again :-)
Jilli
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But your and Richard's perceptions (and probably mine) seem to be
>different......
Yup... Richard and I have different perceptions, different points of
view. But isn't that what this is all about? The exchange of
views.. the chance to learn something by listening to someone else?
Or have I missed the point yet again? *sigh*
>No, don't think I'll expand on this - I feel a circle coming on :-(
I thought you liked circles.... stone ones anyway?
Ceegee
a.cameron <m00n...@mcmail.com> wrote in message news:3788BA2C...@mcmail.com...
Jilli
(voodoolady) wrote:
>I think we are going to have to have 2 buses at this rate :) - I
>wonder how much it costs to hire a bus over there? Say for a week or
>weekend? Anyone want to do the stats on it for me? You never know
>this bus may just become a reality. Even if it's just for a weekend
>we could pick up as many people as we can and go off to a beach or
>resort or club or I don't know you lot know better than me! :)
>
>It's actually becoming quite a good idea :)
Its getting better by the day :-)
IF.... you promise not to sing that song again <g>
Knowing our weather... a club/hotel with pool, etc, might be a safer
bet than a beach and campsite. Has anyone got any thoughts on a club
we can take over for a couple of days? What's the approx time-frame,
VoodooLady?
I know of a hotel in Devon with 14 bedrooms, a pool, a jacuzzi, sauna,
etc that might be interested in a block-booking if we can confirm
dates.... you ARE Y2K compliant aren't you, VoodooLady?? <g>
Jilli
twice but it was living in the wrong thread....
Jilli
wrote:
>at no point did we say we would thrust our happenings down anyones throat in
>fact we wouldn't want to disturb people that in fact why the question was
>asked in the first place . but no someone had to get shirty and start
>slagging us off. if we werew dune rats we'd go and "say stuff anyone else's
>sensabilities. And don't come all innocent now, you know thats how it
>started.
I'm a bit confused here... I think I must have missed a step or two?
Who is *we*? Where and what are we talking about?
love
Jilli
lost again .... :-(
--
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>Personal swipes, outwith the issue being discussed.
Errrm... please read that part of the thread again.
If AndyNude feels he has been done wrong, then he knows who I am and can
take any necessary legal steps.
However, I don't think he will. People who hide behind anonymity in
order to attack the integrity of others are cowards. I don't think they
are deserving of any respect at all, whoever they may be.
I think that remaining anonymous is justified if someone feels that s/he
would suffer as a result of being named, but they shouldn't abuse that
anonymity. There seems to be some correlation (not a total one) between
irresponsibility and anonymity in u.r.n.
Richard Burnham
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>Pardon?? "EVEN if it is a woman on her own" ?
>Why do I get this dreadful urge to lace up bovver boots and get a #1
>haircut when I read such comments??
>Richard, I think you may have just given me a clue as to where you are
>coming from re: this issue. And its not a bad place per se. Its the
>traditional "women are frail creatures, unable to think or act for
>themselves without the protection of a strong hetero- male to
>guide/guard them". If I'm right, then that's still OK with me. My
>Dad and lots of other males I know hold that same position. All I can
>say is that its not one that I would like to see flourish :-)
I am sorry, Jilli, but this is such a disgraceful misreprentation of my
views, that I felt unable to finish reading your article on Sunday
evening. I hope to read it again in a calmer state later in the week.
You will find nothing in anything I have ever written, on usenet, on my
web site or elsewhere, that implies that I hold the views that you are
imputing to me here.
I shall follow this up when I have more time, but in the meantime,
please do not take "Jilli's" account of my opinions as in any way
factual. Whether deliberately or not, it is absolutely wrong.