H&E Watch
Richard
Here's some more publicity that naturists can well do without. People
who enjoy the places mentioned are warned.
"Old-style naturism... has an image problem" writes "Jamie Jones" in a
swingers' magazine called Desire Direct. "Cast off your clothes and your
inhibitions will rapidly follow".
"Jamie Jones" (perhaps another pseudonym of "Jill Bowen"?) contrasts his
"sexually sophisticated" readers, a "new wave of nudists...for whom
nakedness is a ... precursor to erotic pleasure" with a well-known
parody, "Mr and Mrs Genuine Naturist ... pretending they haven't got
cocks or pussies or the slightest intention of a sly fuck when they get
home". So, Mr Jones is going to tell us where we "can go if ... turned
on by social nakedness and the chance to see, be seen and, occasionally,
surrender to ... sexual urges amongst the elements".
These include Cap d'Agde (no surprise there), Eureka and Studland Bay.
Eureka "remains a favourite with exhibitionists, swingers and
(obviously) voyeurs". Amongst other attractions are acres of "frequently
X-rated woodland. The only house rule is 'Thou shalt not annoy'. Observe
that and you can do anything else".
Studland Bay is "renowned as one of the country's top outdoor sex
venues", where friends of his moved in order to have sex in the dunes.
(True, the pictures do not bear out the racy image conveyed by the text - there are
people sitting on beaches and someone making a call from a phone box in the
altogether - hell, that's not unusual for Mr and Mrs Genuine Naturist at Cap d'Agde.)
Then, perhaps no surprise here, the article turns out to be a plug for
the "new, no-inhibitions H&E", "reflecting a more liberated approach to
style and content". There's a picture of Helen Ludbrook and a special
subscription offer for Desire Direct readers.
Richard Burnham-----------------------------------------------------------
Get into your skin:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/burnham_r/co.htm
Bare feet are cool.
Peter Riden
sniff through the pages... (probably druelling) and then comes playing
the offended one and condemn the product of his secret delight.
That is far more dangerous in its obvious hypocrisy than any and all of
H&E and Desire Direct issues combined.
And if Helen is proudly pictured in all her glory what's it to you?
At least she's not ashamed of herself and has nor pronounced judgement
against you as you tend to do against H&E and the other publication
Deisre Direct are meant only for those of the more open-minded attitude
which help what one can absorb.
The arrogance of snooping through it all and coming playing the prude
might please to the few conservatives in here, but the many more who
scan through rec.nude and other non-conservative newsgroups won't embark
in your "Watch" of the ON~Anon style.
Hope H&E can survive any of your attacks as much as N&N, THE AFFILIATE,
NATURALLY and other fine publications shall survive the attacks of the
religious nuts out there.
--
In Frankness & Universality
Peter Riden
+-------------------------------------+
| |
| The Affiliate/TGB |
| http://www.hawk.igs.net/~tgbarn |
| |
+-------------------------------------+
Patrick
In article <33A1C4...@hawk.igs.net>, Peter Riden <tgb...@hawk.igs.net>
wrote:
> > "(etc., etc.)
> >ŠThen, perhaps no surprise here, the article turns out to be a plug for
> > the "new, no-inhibitions H&E", "reflecting a more liberated approach to
> > style and content". There's a picture of Helen Ludbrook and a special
> > subscription offer for Desire Direct readers.
> >
> > Richard Burnham-----------------------------------------------------------"
> It's not Desire Direct nor H&E that is wrong. It's the snoop that goes
> sniff through the pages... (probably druelling) and then comes playing
> the offended one and condemn the product of his secret delight.
> That is far more dangerous in its obvious hypocrisy than any and all of
> H&E and Desire Direct issues combined.
> And if Helen is proudly pictured in all her glory what's it to you?
> At least she's not ashamed of herself and has nor pronounced judgement
> against you as you tend to do against H&E and the other publication
> Deisre Direct are meant only for those of the more open-minded attitude
> which help what one can absorb.
> The arrogance of snooping through it all and coming playing the prude
> might please to the few conservatives in here, but the many more who
> scan through rec.nude and other non-conservative newsgroups won't embark
> in your "Watch" of the ON~Anon style.
> Hope H&E can survive any of your attacks as much as N&N, THE AFFILIATE,
> NATURALLY and other fine publications shall survive the attacks of the
> religious nuts out there.
> --
>
>
> In Frankness & Universality
>
> Peter Riden
> | |
> | The Affiliate/TGB |
> | http://www.hawk.igs.net/~tgbarn |
Right on, Peter!
As usual, you get right to the crux of the matter. So many of the postings
here sound so defensive of the conservative view of what nudism is. The
fact is, all persuasions and lifestyles are reflected among naturists as
among society in general, and there's not a damn thing that can be done
about it. Of course there are swingers among nudists - if you're not a
swinger don't associate with them. Over the years I've seen the most
censorious attitudes of nudists toward the wide spectrum of human
sexuality, and a generally agreed-upon attack has been leveled at H&E
magazine. I hope it thrives - as it undoubtedly will, as the curious will
flock to its pages after reading about it here and elsewhere.
Long Live Naturism in all its Glorious Forms!
--
Dave Am‹
Richard Burnham
Peter Riden wrote:
>[snip]
I don't normally read Peter Riden's posts because they take too long to
translate into English. When I do translate them, they bear out the
assertion that people who can't write clearly, can't think clearly,
either.
However, in this case his "answer" to my post is simply a personal
attack on me, so I shall answer it.
His "answer" consists of the following assertions:
That I am a hypocrite. No, I'm not, my genuine views are available to
all on this group and my website. Amongst those views are a desire to
see CO recreation available to all, which it will not be if it is
promoted, as H&E does, as a branch of swinging.
That I am a prude. No, I'm not, but I don't intend to prove it here,
except to say I believe in the right of consenting adults to do what
they like in private, but not to close down our few recognised CO
beaches by promoting public sex on them.
That I am a religious nut. No, I'm not. If I have to sum it up, I'd say
I'm an agnostic.
That I am a conservative. No, I'm not. I'm slightly left of centre of
British politics.
He also hints that I am anonymous. No, I'm not. I publish under my real
name, and you can find out who I am at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/burnham_r/
Richard Burnham (gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk)
Origin BV and Philips have no responsibility for my opinions
Richard Burnham
H&E and Peter Riden promote the narrowest and most exclusive possible
interpretation of nudism/naturism/CO recreation (whatever you choose to
call it).
That is, they promote it as an adjunct to a "sexually liberated"
lifestyle, and refer to people who feel that it should not be restricted
in this way as "prudes".
--
Cheef Dan
Richard Burnham (r.bu...@mpn.cp.philips.com) wrote:
: I don't normally read Peter Riden's posts...they bear out the assertion
: that people who can't write clearly, can't think clearly, either.
<snip>
: That I am a hypocrite. No, I'm not, my genuine views are available to
: all on this group and my website.
The simple fact that a hypocrite is someone who acts contrary to their own
stated views is very, very often lost on those who can't think clearly.
The non-clear thinker frequently defines a hypocrite as anyone who acts
contrary to the views the non-clear thinker believes someone should hold.
--
Wit is a form of arousal. We challenge one another to be funnier and
smarter. It's high-energy play. It's the way friends make love to one
another.
-- Annie Gottlieb
Richard
In article: <446316...@paley.demon.co.uk> Mike Paley
> Just because Peter has a laid back attitude to life (apart from arguing!)
> and permits a freer lifestyle at The Grand Barn (which I'm all for) and you
> disagree with is no excuse to have a heated argument in the group.
Where's the "just because"? Frankly, I don't care what Peter Riden does
behind closed doors. I *am* concerned that he encourages those who
engage in sex on our few CO beaches, and so, like H&E and certain
other magazines, threaten the future of naturism in our country.
> Just tell the group that you disagree with each other and argue by e-mail
> if you must.
>
Peter Riden is a barely literate sex-club owner who likes to think of
himself as a prophet of sexual liberation, but is probably more concerned
with his bottom line. If he stays in his club I don't give a toss for him.
I am concerned with much wider issues, like making CO recreation safe and
welcoming and more available for the many people who would enjoy it if
it weren't for the vocal minority who promote it only as part of a "no
inhibitions" lifestyle. That's why I post here more often than I
would wish.
Consider sport, for example: how many people suggest that sports
enthusiasts are prudes or asexual because they don't demand the right
to fuck on the field or in the gym? So why should we allow H&E* or
Peter Riden, who do promote sex on CO beaches, to "represent" naturism?
*e.g., the recent article by Jill Bowen that I quoted in an earlier post,
and the puff in Desire Direct.
Tone
>Consider sport, for example: how many people suggest that sports
>enthusiasts are prudes or asexual because they don't demand the right
>to fuck on the field or in the gym? So why should we allow H&E* or
>Peter Riden, who do promote sex on CO beaches, to "represent" naturism?
Carefull Richard or you will have Mr 'Net censor' Farthing here
complaining about your language.
>
>
***************************************************************
REDDE CUIQUE QUOD SUUM EST
to...@antb.demon.co.uk
The UK Detector Web www.antb.demon.co.uk
Fighting for freedom for UK Detectorists
***************************************************************
Peter Riden
Patrick wrote:
>
> In article <33A1C4...@hawk.igs.net>, Peter Riden <tgb...@hawk.igs.net>
> wrote:
> > It's not Desire Direct nor H&E that is wrong. It's the snoop that goes
> > sniff through the pages... (probably druelling) and then comes playing
> > the offended one and condemn the product of his secret delight.
> > That is far more dangerous in its obvious hypocrisy than any and all of
> > H&E and Desire Direct issues combined.
> > And if Helen is proudly pictured in all her glory what's it to you?
> > At least she's not ashamed of herself and has nor pronounced judgement
> > against you as you tend to do against H&E and the other publication
> > Deisre Direct are meant only for those of the more open-minded attitude
> > which help what one can absorb.
> > The arrogance of snooping through it all and coming playing the prude
> > might please to the few conservatives in here, but the many more who
> > scan through rec.nude and other non-conservative newsgroups won't embark
> > in your "Watch" of the ON~Anon style.
> > Hope H&E can survive any of your attacks as much as N&N, THE AFFILIATE,
> > NATURALLY and other fine publications shall survive the attacks of the
> > religious nuts out there.
> > Peter Riden
> Right on, Peter!
>
> As usual, you get right to the crux of the matter. So many of the postings
> here sound so defensive of the conservative view of what nudism is. The
> fact is, all persuasions and lifestyles are reflected among naturists as
> among society in general, and there's not a damn thing that can be done
> about it. Of course there are swingers among nudists - if you're not a
> swinger don't associate with them. Over the years I've seen the most
> censorious attitudes of nudists toward the wide spectrum of human
> sexuality, and a generally agreed-upon attack has been leveled at H&E
> magazine. I hope it thrives - as it undoubtedly will, as the curious will
> flock to its pages after reading about it here and elsewhere.
> Long Live Naturism in all its Glorious Forms!
> Dave Am‹
Most well received,and as a proven supportive friend who's clearly
demonstrated the capability to see the multiplicity of choices that
composes human choices you are responding with eloquence. Certainly
those who anger at the very sight of My name will feel all compressed
and nagged by anyone who dare express some sort of supportive words
towards One who do not shy away from standing tall for what goes beyond
the conservative spectrum in which they so limitedly tend to keep
themselves in.
No surprises those same offended ones will feel the urge to change the
name for rec.nude. Too late...can't do this! It will always remain, but
there is the choice for one to start an other more unidirectional
one,though.
And for the declared enemies of Peter Riden, as few as they may be...
tough luck!
And to add to your concluding statement...long live THE WORLDWIDE
AFFILIATE NETWORK!
--
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
Richard wrote:
>
> In article: <446316...@paley.demon.co.uk> Mike Paley
> > Just because Peter has a laid back attitude to life (apart from arguing!)
> > and permits a freer lifestyle at The Grand Barn (which I'm all for) and you
> > disagree with is no excuse to have a heated argument in the group.
prudes who in one hand joyusly (secretly) hold publications that are
claimed to be so despicable to them while at once are cursing such.
But it's more of a challenge than arguing. And seeing what Richard
Burnham answers right below gives added reasons.
> Where's the "just because"? Frankly, I don't care what Peter Riden does
> behind closed doors. I *am* concerned that he encourages those who
> engage in sex on our few CO beaches, and so, like H&E and certain
> other magazines, threaten the future of naturism in our country.
Oh you don't care..that's good! How then, can you claim stating for Me
the idiocies you come out with. At least ON~Anon has one fellow to feel
happy about and it's not Cheef Dan,this time.... It's you.
Yeah! I must be strongly encouraging SEX ON YOUR FEW CO BEACHES as you
claim in all My writings...isn't it??
Naturism as you hold it will never have a future as long as it plays so
hypocritical and so prudish... in fact as bad as those who want it down.
You're one of the best contributor to destroy any acceptability of the
natural fact of Nudity. It's a fact we all live with as human beings...
not a select few as you may think.
By the way,could you tell us what those certain other magazines may be??
> > Just tell the group that you disagree with each other and argue by e-mail
> > if you must.
Mike,I realize all the postings are not making it through in a very easy
way. Yours is read through Richard's answer to you and sometimes by the
giggling of Cheef Dan. Hard to keep with all what's being said about Me.
And reading the next lines from Richard Burnham he sounds as a recorded
script of ON~Anon.
> Peter Riden is a barely literate sex-club owner who likes to think of
> himself as a prophet of sexual liberation, but is probably more concerned
> with his bottom line. If he stays in his club I don't give a toss for him.
> I am concerned with much wider issues, like making CO recreation safe and
> welcoming and more available for the many people who would enjoy it if
> it weren't for the vocal minority who promote it only as part of a "no
> inhibitions" lifestyle. That's why I post here more often than I
> would wish.
I'm a sex-club owner,now! And I must have a multitude of beauties
surrounding Me at all times!?!? Enough to get all less uptight readers
of Rec.nude to rush this way to see if you're telling the truth. Why
don't I just wait and see the rush. You've all read it from ON~Anon last
year and that has helped the promotion and now you're reading it from
Richard. So if there is any misrepresentation you know who to fault,but
yes for those who may be curious why not check us out... Thanks Richard!
If you stay put and other constipated ones stay put,I'll leave the
others debate their usual little topics but when it concerns the chosen
open-mindedness that prevails on this side...you'll always hear from Me,
if I'm not too busy.
> Consider sport, for example: how many people suggest that sports
> enthusiasts are prudes or asexual because they don't demand the right
> to fuck on the field or in the gym? So why should we allow H&E* or
> Peter Riden, who do promote sex on CO beaches, to "represent" naturism?
> Richard Burnham
Who are the "we"??? You and your cohort?? If I got you all shaken
because I'm not as constricted in My life as you are you're the one to
blame yourself for. Don't come and tell the mass out there reading this
posts that we're all wrong to be more liberated in our choice in
conducting our lives. We're not hurting anyone except the hypocritical
prudes who are highly jealous of others happier lives. Shape up,shake up
and try to learn to love rather than perpetuate that nauseating hatred
of anything that is beautiful,Richard.
There is still time to see beyond you narrow path of judgemental
destruction.
In Frankness & Universality
Peter Riden
+-------------------------------------+
Mike Oliver
>The simple fact that a hypocrite is someone who acts contrary to their own
>stated views is very, very often lost on those who can't think clearly.
>The non-clear thinker frequently defines a hypocrite as anyone who acts
>contrary to the views the non-clear thinker believes someone should hold.
Actually I don't really buy your definition either, Cheef. It doesn't
make you a hypocrite that you don't always live up to your principles
(who does?). You're a hypocrite if you try to convince others that
you hold principles that in fact you do not hold, in order to gain
some advantage. Not just that you don't always achieve the standards
you claim, but that you really have no intention of holding yourself
to them.
Etymological note: "hypocrite" comes from the Greek word for "actor"
(one who is "under the critics").
Richard
In article: <33A7DD...@hawk.igs.net> Peter Riden
<tgb...@hawk.igs.net> writes:
> Most well received,and as a proven supportive friend who's clearly
> demonstrated the capability to see the multiplicity of choices that
> composes human choices you are responding with eloquence.
Certainly
> those who anger at the very sight of My name will feel all compressed
> and nagged by anyone who dare express some sort of supportive
words
> towards One who do not shy away from standing tall for what goes
beyond
> the conservative spectrum in which they so limitedly tend to keep
> themselves in.
> No surprises those same offended ones will feel the urge to change
the
> name for rec.nude. Too late...can't do this! It will always remain, but
> there is the choice for one to start an other more unidirectional
> one,though.
> And for the declared enemies of Peter Riden, as few as they may be...
> tough luck!
This Ridenspeak translates as something like, "Thanks, pal, you're
about my only friend". Sad, isn't it?
Back when I did my review of the "new" H&E, I said it represented those
naturists who view themselves as " a sexual minority that gets a thrill
from flaunting itself and being a little bit persecuted in return". And here
is Peter Riden presenting himself in exactly that image.
He inserted himself into the thread in the guise of someone being
persecuted by me, supposedly a "prude" and "hypocrite", when in fact
he is a businessman promoting a business based on sex. If he had the
intelligence to understand the situation, then he would know what the
word "hypocrite" actually means. However, I don't think he has that
intelligence.
Ruralmob
In article <33aca805...@news.demon.co.uk>, to...@antb.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>So why should we allow H&E* or
>>Peter Riden, who do promote sex on CO beaches
H&E does not "promote" sex on CO beaches, or indeed on any beach at all.
Diana
Ruralmob
In article <626862...@wiseword.demon.co.uk>, Richard wrote:
>Then, perhaps no surprise here, the article turns out to be a plug for
>the "new, no-inhibitions H&E", "reflecting a more liberated approach to
>style and content". There's a picture of Helen Ludbrook and a special
subscription offer for Desire Direct readers.
Yes, we do have a subscription offer in Desire. However the article was
not placed by us. Any opinions in it were those of the author of the piece
- we had no say in it. Desire approached us to see if we'd like a sub
offer placed alongside a feature that mentioned us.... that seemed like
commercial sense to us. We'd do the same if anyone featured us in any
magazine.
>"Jamie Jones" (perhaps another pseudonym of "Jill Bowen"?)
I don't know who the writer was, but I do know it was not Jill Bowen -
what's the poor woman done to upset you ? (don't even bother to answer
that...)
Diana
Tone
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:12:10 GMT, Brenc...@aol.com (Bob Brenchley)
wrote:
>to...@antb.demon.co.uk (Tone) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>
>>Diana. H&E is going to have to come off the fence soon.
>>Either its going to be a Swingers/moneymaking magazine. or its going
>>to be a Naturist magazine, YOU CANT BE BOTH
>
>Well I do hope H&E will be a money making magazine as well as a
>_nudist_ magazine, something that looks at the whole spectrum of
>nudest activities - not just the puritanical ones associated with the
>old fashioned naturist brigade in the UK.
No I'm not puritanical but I dont want innocent naturist activities
and swingers crap in the same magazine. That sends out the wrong
messages. There are plenty of swingers magazines out there
(I assume !). H&E is trying to insinuate that the Naturist lifestyle
and Swinging lifestyle go hand in hand, well they dont.
Yes there are Naturists that may be swingers but they are naturist
BECAUSE of the swinging.
I once disagreed with Richard Burnham on this subject arguing that any
point of contact for Naturism was a good one. I must now withdraw
those remarks and support Richard's views as I feel that Naturism and
H&E are not associated any longer.
Richard I apologise.
>>
>>I think that the use of the name of H&E to be used on the cover of
>>what I consider to be your swingers magazine is despicable
>
>To have some /swingers/ content is not despicable, to have some of
>anything is not despicable - they just need to get a good interesting
>mix that will please as wide a group of readers as possible.
IT IS DESPICABLE as it sends out the wrong message to newcomers.
Anyone looking at that mag for the first time could believe that
Naturism and swinging are part and parcel of the same passtime.
But they arent going to get anyone if all they do is advertise 0891
numbers on every page and then post 2 pages of swingers contact ads
I dont think the market is there for it, so they have tried to ally
swinging and Naturism. Which is wrong.
I still find it despicable that they are using an old name to try to
suck in Naturists when that is not the intent of the magazine
Im not against swinging per se, thats up to individuals and couples
to decide upon, what I object to is the portrayal of some sort of
relationship between Naturism and swinging
Bob Brenchley
to...@antb.demon.co.uk (Tone) wrote:
[snip]
>
>IT IS DESPICABLE as it sends out the wrong message to newcomers.
>Anyone looking at that mag for the first time could believe that
>Naturism and swinging are part and parcel of the same passtime.
>But they arent going to get anyone if all they do is advertise 0891
>numbers on every page and then post 2 pages of swingers contact ads
>I dont think the market is there for it, so they have tried to ally
>swinging and Naturism. Which is wrong.
The problem is that ANY magazine has to accept advertising to pay its
way. There is very little /commercial/ advertising of a 'purist'
naturist type going around. Sometime you just have no choice, you have
to accept what adverts you can get. As to the contact ads, I don't see
anything really wrong with them.
>
>I still find it despicable that they are using an old name to try to
>suck in Naturists when that is not the intent of the magazine
Try turning it round. H&E had gone so far down that it failed. Now its
got to climb back to its former glory (or better we hope). But to do
that it has to start somewhere - as I've said before, it is very
difficult to dredge up articles at a moments notice and the nudist
scene is not the easiest to get things written about.
I wish people would stop knocking H&E at such an early stage in the
relaunch. Help them, give constructive critisism not distructive.
Recognize that nudists come in all forms from the pritianical
old-guard to the orgy brigade - all have the right to have their
lifestile considered and talked about in H&E. You want /your/ type of
naturism talked about? Then write about it, from the smallist letter
to a long series of articles, every little bit will count. If your
views are worth holding they are worth taking the efforts to write
about them. I'm sure the editorial staff at H&E will gove all the help
they can to writers who have never been published before - I know that
as a publisher myself I get real satisfaction from helping new
writers.
>
>Im not against swinging per se, thats up to individuals and couples
>to decide upon, what I object to is the portrayal of some sort of
>relationship between Naturism and swinging
Nudist do things naked. Swinging is one thing that you can do naked,
as is swimming, volly ball and lots of other things. Sex is part of
everyday life and it should be no different if you prefer to spend you
time without clothes.
I hope this has helped further understanding.
Bob.
Mike Paley
In article: <457398...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> Richard
<Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> writes:
:) He inserted himself into the thread in the guise of someone being
:) persecuted by me, supposedly a "prude" and "hypocrite", when in fact
:) he is a businessman promoting a business based on sex.
Where's your evidence ?
--
Comm again, Mike.
Milk floats and stainless steel sinks
Ex Turnpike user.
If you want to see the rest of this sig. file or find out more about me,
have a look at http://www.paley.demon.co.uk/ [1997:4:20]
Mike Paley
1...@hawk.igs.net> <488201...@wiseword.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <267566...@paley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, Jun 22, 1997 12.33.56
Organization: Not organised yet
Reply-To: mi...@paley.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 23
In article: <488201...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> Richard
<Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> writes:
:) You'll be relieved to know I can't be bothered to reply to all this
:) untelligible garbage. However, I reserve the right to pick out a few
:) phrases I can have fun with.
:) I have no idea what you write in all your writings... I never read them,
Likewise with yours, Richard. Does anyone else ? Perhaps your wasting your
time ?
Ruralmob
In article <33ad4624...@news.demon.co.uk>, to...@antb.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>H&E is going to have to come off the fence soon.
>Either its going to be a Swingers/moneymaking magazine. or its going
>to be a Naturist magazine, YOU CANT BE BOTH
>
>I think that the use of the name of H&E to be used on the cover of
>what I consider to be your swingers magazine is despicable
It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
mad at all this.
I am getting more and more amazed at the vehemence of some attitudes
towards H&E.
We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
We want to help to represent all those individuals to be able to practice
their nudity in those places as and when they wish. That includes married
people, single people, male, female, young and old. heterosexual and gay.
monogamous or not, able bodies and disabled.
We are there to inform and entertain, and to campaign when necessary too.
We not only want to be a magazine for the individauls, but also to offer
other facilities. We want to have workshops to help people get more out of
thier lives. We want to have club grounds to open to all. We want to help
people contact each other. Above all things, we want people to be to
tolerant of each other.
Richard Burnham
Let's go back to my original message, before the idiot Riden interrupted
me trying to promote his club by pretending that I am persecuting him.
My message was:
I have seen in black and white that H&E and its associated magazine
Desire Direct are encouraging people to go to Brighton and Studland in
order to have public sex. (The evidence, in the form of quotes from the
magazines, has been presented in two posts in different threads.)
There are two issues here:
This will increase the amount of sexual harrassment on these and other
beaches.
It will provide ammunition to those who want to get the beaches closed
down.
I don't care what people do on private property, whatever Riden and Luis
say. I do care, passionately, that naturist beaches are kept open and
that people can use them without fear of sexual harrassment.
I read elsewhere that some people in the USA believe that religious
radicals are deliberately promoting pornography in rec.nude in order to
associate naturism with it. Although we have nothing like the RRR here,
could it be that the publishers of these magazines are promoting an
agenda that is not favourable to naturism?
Richard Burnham--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Burnham
rura...@aol.com (Ruralmob) wrote:
>In article <33aca805...@news.demon.co.uk>, to...@antb.demon.co.uk
>wrote:
>>So why should we allow H&E* or
>>>Peter Riden, who do promote sex on CO beaches
No, I wrote that, not Tone.
>H&E does not "promote" sex on CO beaches, or indeed on any beach at all.
>Diana
See the quotes from H&E and from the article promoting H&E in Desire
Direct, which I have already presented in this group.
Ruralmob
Digger
In article <867027572.21126....@news.demon.co.uk>, Richard
Burnham <gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I read elsewhere that some people in the USA believe that religious
>radicals are deliberately promoting pornography in rec.nude in order to
>associate naturism with it. Although we have nothing like the RRR here,
>could it be that the publishers of these magazines are promoting an
>agenda that is not favourable to naturism?
>Richard Burnham--------------------------------------------------------
HMM. Well thats what it looks like to me after seeing this last issue.
It will be the last time I buy it.
>
>
>
--
Digger
Tone
On 23 Jun 1997 00:12:36 GMT, rura...@aol.com (Ruralmob) wrote:
>
>In article <33ad4624...@news.demon.co.uk>, to...@antb.demon.co.uk
>wrote:
>
>>H&E is going to have to come off the fence soon.
>>Either its going to be a Swingers/moneymaking magazine. or its going
>>to be a Naturist magazine, YOU CANT BE BOTH
>>
>>I think that the use of the name of H&E to be used on the cover of
>>what I consider to be your swingers magazine is despicable
>
>It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
>lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
>mad at all this.
> I am getting more and more amazed at the vehemence of some attitudes
>towards H&E.
>We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
>living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
>back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
Then take out all the grab-it-and-run 0891 numbers and all the
Swingers Contact ads
>We are there to inform and entertain,
Absolute Bollocks. Inform ????
You are there to make money. END OF STORY
Whilst there is nothing wrong in that, I Object to the way you relate
Natusist lifestyles to Swinging and sex
Your magazine is sending out the wrong messages to potential
newcomers.
Whilst I admit that some articles in the recent edition were
acceptable, the overall feeling is one of seediness due to the 0891
numbers everywhere, the artificialy posed model photo's, and the
"Contact" section which is a rip off.
If you are really interested in people contacting each other then drop
the 0891 numbers from it. It is possible to get an 0891 number with a
low price. Do that if you are REALLY interested in your admirable
suggestions.
Bob Brenchley
rura...@aol.com (Ruralmob) wrote:
>
>In article <33ad4624...@news.demon.co.uk>, to...@antb.demon.co.uk
>wrote:
>
>>H&E is going to have to come off the fence soon.
>>Either its going to be a Swingers/moneymaking magazine. or its going
>>to be a Naturist magazine, YOU CANT BE BOTH
>>
>>I think that the use of the name of H&E to be used on the cover of
>>what I consider to be your swingers magazine is despicable
>
>It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
>lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
>mad at all this.
> I am getting more and more amazed at the vehemence of some attitudes
>towards H&E.
>We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
>living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
>back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
>We want to help to represent all those individuals to be able to practice
>their nudity in those places as and when they wish. That includes married
>people, single people, male, female, young and old. heterosexual and gay.
>monogamous or not, able bodies and disabled.
>We are there to inform and entertain, and to campaign when necessary too.
>We not only want to be a magazine for the individauls, but also to offer
>other facilities. We want to have workshops to help people get more out of
>thier lives. We want to have club grounds to open to all. We want to help
>people contact each other. Above all things, we want people to be to
>tolerant of each other.
Well put Diana. Keep up the good work.
Bob.
t...@sirsi.co.uk
In article <19970623001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rura...@aol.com (Ruralmob) wrote:
>
> It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
> lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
> mad at all this.
> I am getting more and more amazed at the vehemence of some attitudes
> towards H&E.
> We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
> living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
> back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
Humm...
Well if that realy is what you want, then why don't you reduce the number
of posed flesh photographs ?
and why don't you censor some of the more inappropriate adverts ?
With your re-launch the mag has an opportunity to prove itself.
If H&E does not change, then I for one will subscribe to Sunlovers
instead.
Tim Blom
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Virtual-Naturist
Richard Burnham From: Luis Cortés @Virtual-Naturist.com
>There are two issues here:
>This will increase the amount of sexual harrassment on these and other
>beaches.
>It will provide ammunition to those who want to get the beaches closed
>down.
>I don't care what people do on private property, whatever Riden and Luis
>say.
I think you were the one that brought up what people do in private
grounds on one of your attacks on Peter, I, nor Peter have ever
stated we are for sex on beaches, nor do we condone any such type of
behaviour, what we say is: we accept all people regardeless of their
race, creed, religion or sexsual orientation, we do not say in any of
our postings that we support this type of perverted behaviour on our
beaches or clubs either, we just don't discriminate others for doing
something we/I myself would never think of doing, as long as they do it
were it is apropiate, and on the beach/club, such activities are not
apropiate, desired or welcomed by anybody, even by those sensible
people, with real open minds.
>I do care, passionately, that naturist beaches are kept open and
>that people can use them without fear of sexual harrassment.
We, or I do to! now what's wrong with caring for all the people to?
Many persons
out there are the pervs you so despise, yet! you may think highly of
them, just because they are sensible and know how to behave, you may
even of enjoyed being in their company more than once before now, so
it is not these people you are against, it's the anomnymous mac
brigade that come in all shapes and sizes and can not be categorised
into any one group like you seem to be targeting, these the blatant
offenders, are products of the brain washed textile society, who have
lost their way.
Best Regards.
Luis Cortes
Virtual-Naturist
Available: The Nudest T-Shirts Anywhere on the Planet!
Video's, CD Rom/Paperback Naturist Magazines & Vacations
Contacts for Naturists and Open Minded Persons
Distributor for Virtually world's first CD-Rom Naturist Magazine.
All found at http://www.virtual-naturist.com
Where you will surely find The El Dorado of Naturism.
Luis Cortes: Delegate for Todo Naturismo, Central Europe.
Ruralmob
In article <33ad4624...@news.demon.co.uk>, to...@antb.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>H&E is going to have to come off the fence soon.
>Either its going to be a Swingers/moneymaking magazine. or its going
>to be a Naturist magazine, YOU CANT BE BOTH
>
>I think that the use of the name of H&E to be used on the cover of
>what I consider to be your swingers magazine is despicable
It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
mad at all this.
I am getting more and more amazed at the vehemence of some attitudes
towards H&E.
We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
Richard Burnham
Ruralmob wrote:
> We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
> living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
> back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
> We want to help to represent all those individuals to be able to practice
> their nudity in those places as and when they wish. That includes married
> people, single people, male, female, young and old. heterosexual and gay.
> monogamous or not, able bodies and disabled.
Diana,
You can't be all things to all people. You need to decide on your market
and do some genuine research on people's attitudes.
Suppose that (say) a yachting magazine decided to run articles
suggesting you should go to yachting venues to expose yourself to
passers-by for your own sexual arousal (cf the article by Jill Bowen in
H&E). Suppose that most of its small ads were from people seeking
"exciting yachting" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) with "like-minded
people", and that it carried a section for "Swingers". Suppose that a
quarter of its editorial pages consisted of pictures of attractive women
in their early 20s, with captions stressing their lack of inhibitions,
and pictures of other people given much less prominence.
Don't you think that there would be an increase in the number of men at
yacht events going in search of sexual excitement? Don't you think that
most women would be deterred from going by the attitudes of the men
there? If this magazine were the only source of information on yachting
for most of the general public, then people might even come to think
that yachting is all about sex.
Now, remember that, as far as naturism is concerned, you already start
from a widespread view that nudity and naturism are all to do with sex,
and this has been reinforced by the emphasis of H&E for many years.
You can't have it both ways. Either nudity implies sex or it doesn't. If
you agree with me that it doesn't, then you will need to omit the "men's
magazine" stuff that says that it does.
Please note that I am not saying that naturists should never have, or
think about, sex in appropriate situations. After all, people who enjoy
yachting may also enjoy sex, but they don't make it a feature of
yachting.
Also, I am not saying that serious discussions about sexual issues are
off-topic for a naturist magazine. Clearly, there are issues to be
discussed (like how to stop the general public thinking that naturists
are there only for sexual reasons).
Bob Brenchley
to...@antb.demon.co.uk (Tone) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:40:10 GMT, Brenc...@aol.com (Bob Brenchley)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I hope this has helped further understanding.
>>
>>Bob.
>
>No It hasnt. One should start as one mean's to continue.
>They have started as a mag containing many 'weird' 0891 numbers and
>numerous refernces to swinging.
>
>They could have started as a Family naturust magazine, but they chose
>the money money money scams of 0891 numbers. I now consider H&E on a
>par with the News of the World.
If only it was - now there is a mass circulation publication.
>
>BTW I am a Naturist NOT a Nudist
And the difference is?
>
Bob.
R. B. Richey
Last week, I visited London on business. I wanted to pick up a
copy of H & E, Starkers and the other new magazine out (cannot remember
the name at the moment) which is looking for the business of the nude/
naturist community to attempt to develop my own opinion of the publications.
I was unable to find any of them in the news shops that I visited. Are
they available on public news stands or must I visit codeword protected
naked publication venders?
I have picked up copies of H & E in past years and forms a totally
negative opinion of it (as, apparently most here have). I am willing
to look at "the new and improved" version for an issue or two to see
if my judgement will be revised.
Barely searching
Rich
John McCallum
In article <33AFE5...@mpn.cp.philips.com>,
Richard Burnham <r.bu...@mpn.cp.philips.com> wrote:
>Ruralmob wrote:
>Diana,
>
>You can't be all things to all people. You need to decide on your market
>and do some genuine research on people's attitudes.
>
<snip>
>You can't have it both ways. Either nudity implies sex or it doesn't. If
>you agree with me that it doesn't, then you will need to omit the "men's
>magazine" stuff that says that it does.
>
>Please note that I am not saying that naturists should never have, or
>think about, sex in appropriate situations. After all, people who enjoy
>yachting may also enjoy sex, but they don't make it a feature of
>yachting.
>
>Also, I am not saying that serious discussions about sexual issues are
>off-topic for a naturist magazine. Clearly, there are issues to be
>discussed (like how to stop the general public thinking that naturists
>are there only for sexual reasons).
>
>Richard Burnham (gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk)
Hear, hear.
The last time I purchased H&E was about 3 years ago. The reason that issue was
the last was because there was too much visual content that was blatently
sexual. This was not in the manner of Playboy, etc, but not appropriate in a
magazine supposingly espousing naturism. The final straw was a naked bum on
the back cover.
Cheers,
John McCallum
e-mail address: mcca...@melbpc.org.au
Phone 03 9478 4254. Member, Melbourne PC User Group.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
(Genesis 3,25)
Richard
In article: <19970623215...@ladder02.news.aol.com> rura...@aol.com
writes:
> <I have seen in black and white that H&E and its associated magazine
> <Desire Direct are encouraging people to go to Brighton and Studland in
> <order to have public sex.
>
> So posts Richard Burnham to this newsgroup. I am one of the shareholders
> of H&E and this rumour-mongering has gone far enough. H&E and Desire
> Direct have absolutely no connection with each other. Richard - please
> check your facts before posting. H&E does not 'encourage public sex' on
> any beach. I have never heard such nonsense in my life! The new H&E (owned
> by new Freedom Publications) sets out to provide information to all those
> interested in a naked lifestyle, whatever their creed, colour, sexual
> orientation, sex, age etc.
> Diana Roseman, H&E
>
The test in law is what a reasonable person would think. You have admitted
that H&E agreed to the article in Desire Direct, which promoted both H&E
and sex at Studland.
A reasonable person would assume that H&E agreed with the contents
of the article. If you do not agree with what DD said, please ensure that a
retraction is clearly stated in Desire Direct, and point out that public
sex on naturist beaches can result both in the
closure of the beaches to naturist use and in the arrest and conviction of the
perpetrators.
As for H&E, let me quote Jill Bowen in full (H&E quarterly 74 which you sent me):
"...Knowing that strangers can see what you're doing can add to the
thrill. If the weather's good, find Brighton's naturist beach -
it's partly overlooked by the promenade and voyeurs often gawp over the
side to get a flash of naked bodies. So, stand up and flash, let those
poor uninhibited folk see what they're missing! Showing off your
attributes to narrow-minded textiles can be a turn-on, especially if you
fantasise with each other as to what it would be like with them".
Healthy non-sexual nudity, eh? Want to dissociate the editor from that?
My own personal experience on my only visit to Brighton, documented on
my web pages, was to stop a young man displaying his erection to a
coach-load of young girls, just outside the end of the naturist area. My
partner had been to the naturist beach with me, and was less than
impressed with naturists at the end of the experience.
Richard Burnham-----------------------------------------------------------
Virtual-Naturist
Richard Burnham From: Luis Cortés @Virtual-Naturist.com
>> We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of naked
>> living in their lives, whether it be at a club, on a beach, only in the
>> back garden, in their lounge, watching tele, just on holidays, whatever.
>> We want to help to represent all those individuals to be able to practice
>> their nudity in those places as and when they wish. That includes married
>> people, single people, male, female, young and old. heterosexual and gay.
>> monogamous or not, able bodies and disabled.
>Diana,
>You can't be all things to all people. You need to decide on your market
>and do some genuine research on people's attitudes.
Richard!
I'm amazed! I have fallen over backwards of my chair with disbelive,
for once you presented your argument in a clear, precise and mature
way, with out once getting silly, this is more of a constructive
criticism than that previously posted by you and it's the way I think
one should present one's case.
And to think, with just one more silly outburst, I was going to strike
you out from my sensible peoples list :-)
I know that you, just like me, are very clear regarding this subject,
nudity does not equal sex, I just don't like pointing the finger at
any group in perticular as you have done, it is not right and you it!
I think Diana/H&E have got a very strong message from the opinions of
this group which represents an average portion of their customer base,
let us now drop this thread and let H&E sort themselves out as they
would like to, but do keep this in mind: without support from us they
are not going to get to where you want them to be with ease, or not at
all! in the end is the customer that decides the market, want to tip
the balance in your favour? be constructive and not destructive, if
you don't! well, you know as well as I do, don't you?
Ruralmob
In article <5oqtli$da0...@melbpc.org.au>, mcca...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>The final straw was a naked bum on
>the back cover.
Er, what's wrong with a naked bum?
Diana
Stephen Derry
In article <33ababc7...@news.enterprise.net>, Bob Brenchley
<Brenc...@aol.com> writes
>to...@antb.demon.co.uk (Tone) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>IT IS DESPICABLE as it sends out the wrong message to newcomers.
>>Anyone looking at that mag for the first time could believe that
>>Naturism and swinging are part and parcel of the same passtime.
>>But they arent going to get anyone if all they do is advertise 0891
>>numbers on every page and then post 2 pages of swingers contact ads
>>I dont think the market is there for it, so they have tried to ally
>>swinging and Naturism. Which is wrong.
>>
>>suck in Naturists when that is not the intent of the magazine
>
>Try turning it round. H&E had gone so far down that it failed. Now its
>got to climb back to its former glory (or better we hope). But to do
>that it has to start somewhere - as I've said before, it is very
>difficult to dredge up articles at a moments notice and the nudist
>scene is not the easiest to get things written about.
>>to decide upon, what I object to is the portrayal of some sort of
>>relationship between Naturism and swinging
>
>Nudist do things naked. Swinging is one thing that you can do naked,
>as is swimming, volly ball and lots of other things. Sex is part of
>everyday life and it should be no different if you prefer to spend you
>time without clothes.
>
>
>Bob.
Sex is not part of everyday life, sex is a private matter between
consenting individuals, and a lot of people prefer not to have it thrust
upon them. I am not religious, I consider myself to be liberal enough
but I think people should be able to enjoy the pleasures of naturism
without having to put up with sex in the magazines they read or the
clubs and beaches they visit.
That's not my main point, but it is relevant to it. I think Health and
Efficiency, whatever it has become, will always be associated in the
minds of the clothed British public, with nudism, not with swinging.
For any person who is thinking of becoming a nudist it is the logical
first step. I myself bought a couple of issues of Health and Efficiency
in 1993 before I realised it wasn't for me, but I did learn enough about
naturism from it to get in touch with CCBN.
As long as the name H&E exists, and some sort of information listings
for regular naturist clubs are contained within it, it helps the
movement. People enlightened enough to think of becoming naturists
aren't stupid enough to think all nudists are swingers. I certainly
wasn't; I bought a couple of issues in 1993, realised the magazine
wasn't for me, but did find enough useful information in it to get me in
touch with the right people (in this case CCBN). As long as the
readership doesn't increase dramatically, most people won't get "the
wrong impression" from the magazine; they'll never read it. I would
hope most naturists have more taste than to read it too!
The only problem is trying to convince the people who ARE actually
swingers to keep to their side of the line. Family naturism and
swinging do not and should not mix; swingers can swing all they want,
but not within the naturist movement.
--
Stephen Derry
Young(ish) British Naturist
*officially endangered species*
Tone
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:15:33 GMT, Brenc...@aol.com (Bob Brenchley)
wrote:
>the money money money scams of 0891 numbers. I now consider H&E on a
>>par with the News of the World.
>
>If only it was - now there is a mass circulation publication.
Now we know what AOL users read !!
>>
>>BTW I am a Naturist NOT a Nudist
>
>And the difference is?
If you have to ask....You wouldnt understand
Tone
On Tue, 24 Jun 97 10:09:20 -0500, R. B. Richey <rri...@delphi.com>
wrote:
>
> I have picked up copies of H & E in past years and formed a totally
> negative opinion of it (as, apparently most here have). After seeing the
> postings here from Diana, I am willing to look at "the new and improved"
> version for an issue or two to see if my judgement will be revised.
>
Ill send you mine if you want.I dont want it in this house,& as the
ink comes off you cant wipe your bum with it !!!
Richard Burnham
Virtual-Naturist wrote:
> I think you were the one that brought up what people do in private
> grounds on one of your attacks on Peter, I, nor Peter have ever
> stated we are for sex on beaches,
Go back and read the thread again. Riden attacked me for criticising two
magazines for promoting sex on public beaches. That was the theme of my
original article. Nothing else. I think that is an important issue for
naturists.
I have never suggested anywhere that what consenting adults do in
private is wrong, or expressed hatred for minorities. This is a spin
added by you and Riden.
Riden can do what he likes at TGB, but don't call me a hypocrite or a
prude for standing up for what I believe in and try to live by. Both of
you should go and sort out your extremely confused ideas.
Richard Burnham
Tim Rowe wrote:
Two
> four-page photospreads of what appear to be posed female models ("Micelle"
> and "Alexia")
I often wonder why Charlie Simonds never seems to find a Sharon, a Tracy
or even a Jane.
;)
Tom Pitton
Richard Burnham wrote in article <33B0EB...@mpn.cp.philips.com>...
>Virtual-Naturist wrote:
>
>> I think you were the one that brought up what people do in private
>> grounds on one of your attacks on Peter, I, nor Peter have ever
>> stated we are for sex on beaches,
>
>Go back and read the thread again. Riden attacked me for criticising two
>magazines for promoting sex on public beaches. That was the theme of my
>original article. Nothing else. I think that is an important issue for
>naturists.
>
>I have never suggested anywhere that what consenting adults do in
>private is wrong, or expressed hatred for minorities. This is a spin
>added by you and Riden.
>
>Riden can do what he likes at TGB, but don't call me a hypocrite or a
>prude for standing up for what I believe in and try to live by. Both of
>you should go and sort out your extremely confused ideas.
>
>Richard Burnham (gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk)
>Origin BV and Philips have no responsibility for my opinions
Richard is absolutely correct. I stopped communicating with Riden earlier
this year when it became clear that he was the operator of an
establishment catering to swingers and that he was trolling among the
nudists. Riden and those that support him are not worthy of either note or
reply and it does no good to telling them to go away. They twist, distort
and do whatever they have to do to promote their thoughts and activities.
It is embarassing to be in the same world with these sort of people who
refuse to either understand or even consider that there is a time and place
for everything. Nudism and rec.nude is certainly not the place for Riden
or his apologists and surporters.
>
Mike Paley
In article: <19970623001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
rura...@aol.com (Ruralmob) writes:
:) It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
:) lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
:) mad at all this.
You've just come across the naturist equivalent of racism.
Tim Rowe
In article <246391...@paley.demon.co.uk>, mi...@paley.demon.co.uk (Mike
Paley) wrote:
> In article: <memo.19970623...@digitig.compulink.co.uk>
> dig...@cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe) writes:
> :) I don't understand what the
> :) Kilroy article or the Booze busting article have to do with naturism
> at
> :) all.
>
> You're supposed to read it with your clothes off, then you'll realise
> that you can do non-naturist things as a naturist.
Then I might as well read Maxim with no clothes on for the same effect
with a more interesting and better written magazine. Come to think of it,
I do...
digiTig
John McCallum
Well said. Lets get on with it.
MIKE LAMBDIN, CANS
In article <33AFE5...@mpn.cp.philips.com>, Richard Burnham <r.bu...@mpn.cp.philips.com> writes:
>Ruralmob wrote:
>
>
>Now, remember that, as far as naturism is concerned, you already start
>from a widespread view that nudity and naturism are all to do with sex,
>and this has been reinforced by the emphasis of H&E for many years.
>
>you agree with me that it doesn't, then you will need to omit the "men's
>magazine" stuff that says that it does.
>
Nudity and sex. Such an over discussed topic but as long as the puritans
are out there trying to eliminate nidism it's an issue that can't be
ignored.
I've never read, or even seen, an issue of H&E so comment on it's content
would be inappropriate. Yes, nudity can have a sexual connotation but
so can various styles of clothing. We're all familiar with spandex pants,
mini skirts, see-thru clothing etc. One's mode of attire can, very easily,
be more provocative than being naked. It's not, always, the attire but
most often the persons attitude/personality. We all know someone who is,
physically, attractive but because of personality conflicts we don't find
sexually appealing.
As for the "men's magazine" that says "nudity implies sex", of course it
would make such a statement - sex sells!!! These magazines convince the
buyers that the purchase of the magazine guarantees sex. Albeit it's solo
but it's still sex. Let's not forget the fetish magazines where the
models are clothed - in leather, rubber, burlap, or whatever.
So, which is more provocative, being nude or clothed?
Mike.
>Please note that I am not saying that naturists should never have, or
>think about, sex in appropriate situations. After all, people who enjoy
>yachting may also enjoy sex, but they don't make it a feature of
>yachting.
>
>Also, I am not saying that serious discussions about sexual issues are
>off-topic for a naturist magazine. Clearly, there are issues to be
>discussed (like how to stop the general public thinking that naturists
>are there only for sexual reasons).
>
Mike Paley
<866999455...@paley.demon.co.uk> <867027575.21126....@news.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <704545...@paley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, Jun 25, 1997 11.48.34
Organization: Not organised yet
Reply-To: mi...@paley.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 30
In article: <867027575.21126....@news.demon.co.uk>
gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk (Richard Burnham) writes:
:) >:) I have no idea what you write in all your writings... I never read
them,
:)
:) >Likewise with yours, Richard. Does anyone else ? Perhaps your wasting
your
:) >time ?
:)
:) I post, as is my right. Other people read or not read, as is their
:) right.
:)
:) I see you exercise your right to read, Mike.
:)
I only read as far as that. That was enough.
Richard Burnham
Ruralmob wrote:
> I am getting more and more amazed at the vehemence of some attitudes
> towards H&E.
You are in a forum (newsgroups) where people are free to express their
true feelings.
I think perhaps you bought the title without doing adequate research
into the readership. I don't suppose Peenhill cared whether naturists
read their magazine, as long as it sold enough copies to somebody.
Tone
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:41:13 GMT, Mike Paley <mi...@paley.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article: <19970623001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>rura...@aol.com (Ruralmob) writes:
>:) It's not on the fence! It is a magazine for all who enjoy a naked
>:) lifestyle as part of thier lives. It is not a swingers mag . I'm getting
>:) mad at all this.
>
>You've just come across the naturist equivalent of racism.
>
You really are pushing things here mike with your silly one-liners
Constructive criticism never hurt anyone.
If someone sets themselves up as purporting to represent the naked
lifestyle then they should be prepared to take flak from those whom
they purport to represent.
If Diana doesnt like it then she should either resign or change the
magazine. I am prepared to defend my beleifs and lifestyles but I dont
wish my passtime of naturism to be thought of by others as swinging.
Oleg Sokolsky
e72...@toe.towson.edu (MIKE LAMBDIN, CANS) writes (much deleted):
> It's not, always, the attire but
> most often the persons attitude/personality.
> So, which is more provocative, being nude or clothed?
As you aptly point out yourself, we react to peoples' personality
more that to their appearance. So neither nude nor clothed body,
by itself, is provocative. It's "what you do with it" (borrowed
from another thread ;) that makes it provocative.
On the other hand, a person who wants to look provocative has more
ways to achieve it when clothed, as now there are more items to
manipulate. That's why, I think, I often hear people say that a
scantily dressed person is more sexy than completely naked.
Cheers,
Oleg
Richard
In article <98338...@paley.demon.co.uk>
mi...@paley.demon.co.uk "Mike Paley" writes:
> :) for most of the general public, then people might even come to think
> :) that yachting is all about sex.
>
> AND PEOPLE INTERESTED IN YACHTING WOULDN'T BUY IT.
No need to shout.
Do you have actual figures to prove that a lot of naturists buy H&E? (Or
rather, since many may have taken out trial subscriptions to the current
version, bought it, in the Peenhill days?)
Richard
In article <33b12a2f...@news.enterprise.net>
Brenc...@aol.com "Bob Brenchley" writes:
> Nudists are the same, each gets his/her own 'thing' out of being
> naked. Any magazine aimed at people who prefer a naked lifestyle must,
> be the very nature of nudists, cast its net wide in an attempt to
> satisfy most of the people at least some of the time.
That is true in some ways, but-
You can't accommodate those for whom nudity does not imply sex, and those for
whom it does. The latter will always drive out the former, out of places or
out of magazines.
You can't accommodate those for whom an unclothed state is just a preferable
way of being, and those for whom (to quote TGB) being nude is an attitude, a
flaunting of their sexuality.
Any more than you can have a public park where those who want to listen to the
birdsong and those who want to listen to ghetto blasters can coexist. You have
to keep them apart.
Richard
In article <867261426...@paley.demon.co.uk>
mi...@paley.demon.co.uk "Mike Paley" writes:
> :) I see you exercise your right to read, Mike.
>
> I only read as far as that. That was enough.
>
Fair enough. Sorry you missed the winning number. :)
Peter Riden
Tom Pitton wrote:
So Tom... Peter Riden makes your life miserable,isn't it??
I believe you far more subscribe to the inanities of ON~Anon than of the
scope of Universalism I stand for.
Yes...it must be frustrating having someone on the other side of one's
limitations, showing the world there is hope to reach out for one
another rather than dividing in all little frustrated groups,constantly
denouncing and snooping on one another...isn't it,Tom??
And Richard Burnham must ring so well into your ears as was ON~Anon last
summer in a failed attempt against Myself and in a continuous one
against Fred Bishoff of Paradise Lake or against AANR or Hedo II,as of
now.
Luis Cortes wrote this to Richard B.
> >> I think you were the one that brought up what people do in private
> >> grounds on one of your attacks on Peter, I, nor Peter have ever
> >> stated we are for sex on beaches,
And the pure and virgin Richard B. answers this
> >Go back and read the thread again. Riden attacked me for criticizing two
> >magazines for promoting sex on public beaches. That was the theme of my
> >original article. Nothing else. I think that is an important issue for
> >naturists.
To be looking and condemning at once...hmmm??
> >I have never suggested anywhere that what consenting adults do in
> >private is wrong, or expressed hatred for minorities. This is a spin
> >added by you and Riden.
Saying that about Luis and I... bad Boy!
> >Riden can do what he likes at TGB, but don't call me a hypocrite or a
> >prude for standing up for what I believe in and try to live by. Both of
> >you should go and sort out your extremely confused ideas.
> >Richard Burnham (gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.uk)
We're confused, writes Richard. If our capability to stand up for what
we believe in is called "confusion", we ought to look into the initial
meaning of what "confusion" is. And of course you come in, all happy to
say your good words about Me.
> Richard is absolutely correct. I stopped communicating with Riden earlier
> this year when it became clear that he was the operator of an
> establishment catering to swingers and that he was trolling among the
> nudists.
Oh that RIDEN... must be such a bad monster...is he???
Your brand of "nudist" is what makes those who face the notion of Nudity
with pride and free of societal negative imprints keep away from the
more fanatic "holier than you" attitude you so prominently display and
felt by a large portion of the public. That's why many are coming our
way where nonsense is eliminated and rationality and non-disguised
reality is being dealt with in all honesty.
> Riden and those that support him are not worthy of either note or
> reply and it does no good to telling them to go away. They twist, distort
> and do whatever they have to do to promote their thoughts and activities.
> It is embarrassing to be in the same world with these sort of people who
> refuse to either understand or even consider that there is a time and place
> for everything. Nudism and rec.nude is certainly not the place for Riden
> or his apologists and supporters.
> Tom Pitton
As I wrote,your brand of conservative disguised nudism will never
welcome The One who do not play hypocritical in the factuality of human
emotions. And for the prudes, who have carried all negative stigmas of a
society long gone wrong, it is to be expected that the pioneers do
appear a nuisance ...at first ... and are being unwelcome. But when
those freedom lovers succeed to have laws changed for more rights to go
about in natural ways, the conservative ones come in flock enjoying the
benefit of such stand that they have no merits at all for.
No... can't reply to somebody who is far above the routinely, gossipy,
denigrating standard of the declared pure "nudist" who is not a sinful,
impious life lover.
And if it's embarrassing for you and the likes "to be in the same world
with these sort of people", never thought of reversing that statement
and ask yourself where this could lead,Tom??
Clash! Conflict! War! For what?? To satisfy your little pedant world of
pretense and hiding all your true emotions in the sack of claimed
"righteousness"?
No,you can't answer to that,but many, reading this, will want to have an
answer because there are many out there that have expressed support for
Peter Riden and you,Tom, saying that they are not welcome here in a NG
that as its topic as NUDE, is doing a serious insult to many out there
at large.
So if all those who comprehend for what I stand up for, contrary to hide
behind Anonymity (for some) or hide behind societal discrepancies (for
others), come and speak up their minds in support of Peter Riden,
knowing that I value My stand for freedom, which will benefit even you
on the long run, what can you do about this?? Engage the war?? Or see
the potential for dialogue and reaching out to combat a real enemy out
there known as religious conservatism. For them you're on My
side...You're as impure and as evil as I am,Tom.
You're better not try to associate too much with them...they have you
already categorized. Better know where your true opponents are rather
than trying to associate with them and discard those who could be of
benefit for you. Unless you'd be truly one of them. Then,it becomes your
ANSWER,Tom??!!
In Frankness & Universality
Peter Riden
+-------------------------------------+
| |
| The Affiliate/TGB |
| http://www.hawk.igs.net/~tgbarn |
| |
+-------------------------------------+
Bob Brenchley
soko...@cis.upenn.edu (Oleg Sokolsky) wrote:
>e72...@toe.towson.edu (MIKE LAMBDIN, CANS) writes (much deleted):
>> It's not, always, the attire but
>> most often the persons attitude/personality.
>> ...
>> So, which is more provocative, being nude or clothed?
>
>As you aptly point out yourself, we react to peoples' personality
>more that to their appearance. So neither nude nor clothed body,
>by itself, is provocative. It's "what you do with it" (borrowed
>from another thread ;) that makes it provocative.
This is not really true, we are designed by millions of years of
evolution to be sexually attractive to one another - to deny that is
to deny nature.
>
>On the other hand, a person who wants to look provocative has more
>ways to achieve it when clothed, as now there are more items to
>manipulate. That's why, I think, I often hear people say that a
>scantily dressed person is more sexy than completely naked.
Very true Oleg.
>
Bob.
Malcolm Boura
In article <33B3CE...@hawk.igs.net>
Peter Riden <tgb...@hawk.igs.net> wrote:
and wrote and wrote and wrote. He doesn't seen to realise that
unless something is reasonable succinct, it will be ignored.
I don't like to turn him off completely, so I think I will just write
a filter to kill anything containing his name and of unreasonable
length, say 1K.
--
Malcolm Boura, ARMage Software
http://www.armage.demon.co.uk
Stephen Derry
>from a widespread view that nudity and naturism are all to do with sex,
>and this has been reinforced by the emphasis of H&E for many years.
>
>You can't have it both ways. Either nudity implies sex or it doesn't. If
>you agree with me that it doesn't, then you will need to omit the "men's
>magazine" stuff that says that it does.
>
>think about, sex in appropriate situations. After all, people who enjoy
>yachting may also enjoy sex, but they don't make it a feature of
>yachting.
>
>Also, I am not saying that serious discussions about sexual issues are
>off-topic for a naturist magazine. Clearly, there are issues to be
>discussed (like how to stop the general public thinking that naturists
>are there only for sexual reasons).
>
>Origin BV and Philips have no responsibility for my opinions
Well said as ever. I think it is irresponsible to associate nudism with
sex; if the nudism was a sexual pursuit there would be no room in the
movement for children and families.
It is a shame there are such legal complications over the portrayal of
family naturism in a magazine on general sale. H&E loves its
pictorials. But just because it is difficult to emphasise that aspect
of naturism doesn't mean you should alienate it and endanger it by
clearly labelling nudism as a specifically adult pursuit.
I doubt many people would let their young children read or look at H&E.
So in effect, it is an adult magazine. Naturism does not need or want
an adult magazine; it needs a magazine accessible to EVERYONE that can
put forward a case for naturism to the public at large. H&E is not that
magazine.
Keith Marshall
> I'm getting mad at all this.
Diana ...
If you're getting negatively mad, please stop! And start getting
positively mad - positively mad enough to go do something! Please try
to understand some of the reasons why H&E is generating so much emotion,
and also understand that there is some positive feedback underlying that
emotion.
None of us likes being criticised, especially when it's as negative as
we've (myself included) been. But let's try to make something more
positive out of this.
> We want H&E to be the best mag out for all who enjoy some form of
> naked living in their lives ...
I think (I hope) we would all share that sentiment! Indeed I suspect we
would all agree with all your aims. And we all would wish you to
succeed. What people are trying to tell you is that we think at the
moment you've got it wrong and trying to help you get it right *for us*.
But we're saying it badly! Equally, in your eyes, we may be wrong -
even if only because we may not be the key element of your target
audience.
If I try standing back and being dispassionate I do see why people here
can brand H&E as "a swingers mag". And if people here feel that way,
how will our less enlightened friend Joe Public view H&E?
Can you try it? Put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary Joe (or
Josette) Public; a textile with a couple of kids, who keeps hearing
naughty things about the internet and scares about pedophile in schools?
Look at your mag through Joe/Josette's eyes. Compare it with other
lifestyle mags (no, not top-shelf mags but the lifestyle mags you really
think you're competing against). Can you now see how you can/are being
perceived as what is here being termed "a swingers mag"? Is this the
image you want to portray?
Maybe try this on a couple of your textile acquaintances? Or maybe, if
you're brave, the people next to you at the bus stop? What's their
reaction?
I agree with you that H&E isn't a real swingers mag. Certainly not when
compared with mags like Desire Direct, Forum, etc. (Before anyone asks:
yes I do read them from time to time, and no we're not!) But all the
while you carry contact ads and some of the more explicit articles, you
will IMO be far enough adrift of what many ordinary people find
comfortable that you will continue to be perceived as a swingers mag.
Life isn't fair! It shouldn't be this way! But unfortunately I suspect
this is just how many of the Joe & Josette Public's you'd like to
attract will see you.
IMO there *is* a place for a lifestyle mag with the aims you espouse.
Not only do I think it could (and should) capture a large market, but it
could be very useful and healthy for our society (but that's a subject
for another day). I, personally, have no problem with H&E's content.
Where I have a problem is with the *level* of the H&E content, as I've
tried to say in the past. IMO (and certainly for me) the content and
style needs to be several levels higher. What you have at the moment
comes across to me as "a tabloid mag" (which I'm sure you'll find almost
as derogatory as "a swingers mag"), when *for me* you need to be aiming
more at the broadsheet market. OK, I accept that I am maybe being over
idealistic, but I suspect there is a happy medium somewhere between
where I perceive you are and where I'd like you to be. Maybe you need
to move from being "The Sun" (pun intended!) of your niche market to
being the Daily Mail equivalent - even if you don't want to go the whole
way up-market to be The Times equivalent??
There is a place for the lifestyle mag you propose. What we are trying
to tell you (and clearly we're doing it badly) is that in our opinion
you've successfully identified the niche, but you've not yet properly
honed the product to fit the niche.
Keith
Virtual-Naturist
Richard From: Luis Cortés @Virtual-Naturist.com
>In article: <446316...@paley.demon.co.uk> Mike Paley
>> Just because Peter has a laid back attitude to life (apart from arguing!)
>> and permits a freer lifestyle at The Grand Barn (which I'm all for) and you
>> disagree with is no excuse to have a heated argument in the group.
>Where's the "just because"? Frankly, I don't care what Peter Riden does
>behind closed doors. I *am* concerned that he encourages those who
>engage in sex on our few CO beaches, and so, like H&E and certain
>other magazines, threaten the future of naturism in our country.
>Consider sport, for example: how many people suggest that sports
>enthusiasts are prudes or asexual because they don't demand the right
>to fuck on the field or in the gym? So why should we allow H&E* or
>Peter Riden, who do promote sex on CO beaches, to "represent" naturism?
>*e.g., the recent article by Jill Bowen that I quoted in an earlier post,
>and the puff in Desire Direct.
Article by Jill Bowen ha?
Here is the only reference made to a beach in this disputed article:
-Quote-
find Brighton's naturist beach - it's partly overlooked by the
promonade and voyeurs often gawp over the side to get a flash of naked
bodies. So stand up and flash, let those poor inhibited folk see what
they are missing! Showing off your attributes to narrow - minded
textiles can be a turn on, especially if you fantasise with each other
as to what it would be like with them!
_UnQuote-
Hmmm, where is the engagement in sex on this public beach? that you
keep on raving about?
Reading the article in it's entirity only reflects how a healthy
couple in love may choose to spend a so called dirty weekend together.
Are you now going to tell us this is an unhealthy/abnormal
attitude/behaviour?
If so, it may be because it's something that's provably missing from
your life.
While some of the wording may have been a little unwisely chosen it
does not insiniuate you should have sex on the beach, it says
if you fantasise, what & with who, *not where*!!
-So stand up and flash- maybe it should of read:
So stand up and let those poor inhibited folk see what they are missing!
I'm sure we all have done this one, intentionally or not, even you!
-Showing off your attributes to narrow - minded textiles can be a turn
on,-
I see it reads *can be, &* NOT *it is.* down to the individual really!
-especially if you fantasise with each other as to what it would be
like with them!-
And who dosen't have fantasises? any fantasy?
tell me you don't!
A fantasy in the real 3D world is private and does not offend anyone.
Everyone has the right to fantacise, this is not a sex act.
A field, a cornfield to be more precise is what is talked about in
the disputed article by you, (miles away from any CO beach) and not at
all conected with naturism in anybodies mind, all the article states
is to find one and
-quote-
Feel the warmth - much nicer if it's on bare skin - relax and enjoy-
-unquote-
no hanky panky here? where is all the fucking in the field then?
You state you have it in BLACK & WHITE before you and say the
folowing:
-Quote-H&E and its associated magazine
Desire Direct are encouraging people to go to Brighton and Studland in
order to have public sex.-unQuote-
Well since I also have the H&E article in front of me in B&W I can
argue that your representation of the article in question is false and
you have very obviously spun it to sound more fitting for the purpose
of suiting your own needs, something you have yourself acused
me of lately,
not everybody has read this article, so many may take your word for it.
And since you keep on bringing this up I thought I check the vadility
of the information you post, and what do I find? only what I
so obviously suspected!
I can't personally comment on the desire Direct connection as I have
not seen anything regarding it with the issues I have, how ever true
it may be, I am now very unlikely to belive you.
>(The evidence, in the form of quotes from the
>magazines, has been presented in two posts in different threads.)
Half the evidence my friend is right before my eyes, and which I quoted
above as printed in the mag, some fine evidence!
Now tell me I edited it or doctored it to suit my own needs!
To be fair the article does mention practising to increase the worlds
population at another location that you have ommitted, but only as an
expressed opinion of what the artifact mentioned could be used for.
The essence of the article is not to go out to CO beaches and bonk in
front of everybody, but what a healthy couple might get up to on a
dirty weekend, a couple that is not shy of showing their feelings for
each other, it is not about an extrovet swinging pair out to bonk in
all naturist beaches in front of all & sundry and does not associate or
imply the notion of swinging=naturism as you say H&E does, nor
encourage others to rush off to their nearest CO beach and do it!
It's more of a fun article that a mature reader can browse and grin
and so flip to the next page. A younger person may find it more
titilating, but that's only natural and normal human behaviour.
Also it has been stated many times over that naturism is not all young
beautiful girls, I look at the magazine and I see exactly what I live,
Christ where the hell do you lot practice it? naturism in the UK
is not full of old and fat people, is it? there are many beauties out
there, they do exsist in greater numbers than what you are acustomed
too, true that naturism in UK lacks in numbers of young people, but
surely those that are, are not all MR & Mrs average 2,2 kids spare
tires etc.
Anyone that has done any naturist photography will tell you that a
body concious MR or Mrs average will not let themselvs be
photographed as easily as those much maligned beauties will.
So how can you expect to be served anything different if you yourselves
won't contribute?
It's a simple case of beign at ease with nuddity.
Terry Blunt
In article <373e...@armage.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Boura
<URL:mailto:mal...@armage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <33B3CE...@hawk.igs.net>
> Peter Riden <tgb...@hawk.igs.net> wrote:
>
> and wrote and wrote and wrote. He doesn't seen to realise that
> unless something is reasonable succinct, it will be ignored.
>
> I don't like to turn him off completely, so I think I will just write
> a filter to kill anything containing his name and of unreasonable
> length, say 1K.
Nasty! Almost bitchy :)
--
Terry Blunt
I want my gravestone to be a *huge* flat lump
of granite inscribed:- Lie down dammit!
Tim Forcer
Virtual-Naturist wrote:
>
>...HUGE cut...
>naturism in the UK
>is not full of old and fat people, is it?
Certainly seems that way most places I've been.
Since a majority of the population is overweight, and the balance is
continuing to shift towards an older population, AND retired people have
more leisure time than young people, it shouldn't be a surprise that
"old and fat people" are common in any form of UK leisure.
I don't have a problem with it, but then I'm not trying to make a living
out of selling pictures of naturists. Perhaps naturists don't care too
much what sort of bodies (if any) they see in a magazine, while
non-naturists considering buying a naturist magazine care quite a lot.
Which is where this thread started?
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions