Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekigm2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!tekigm2!wrd
From: wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert)
Newsgroups: net.rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nude Models
Message-ID: <389@tekigm2.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Jan-86 12:36:47 EST
Article-I.D.: tekigm2.389
Posted: Sun Jan 26 12:36:47 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jan-86 06:19:43 EST
References: <69@ubc-vision.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 61

> > I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ...
> 
> [IGNITION]
> 
> Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude.  Naturists are not the kind of
> people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines.  We respect
> ourselves and other people.  We are mature enough to understand that true
> human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes.
> We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as
> entirely natural.
In the United States of America we have what is know as the First Amendment
which allows anyone the freedom to express themselves in any shape or form.
This, in fact, is the basis for most of our suits in court to get anti-nude
beach laws (etc.) off of the law books.  While I may agree in principle as to
what you are saying I do not like some of the specific things you mention.
By stating "trashy" magazines you are implying that some forms of nudity should
be banned by law.  It seems to me you are saying that people should be free
to go without clothing only under those circumstances which you approve of.
[Getting asbestos suit on]  Why is it that I have seen some of the so-called
trashy magazines at our local nude beach at Rooster Rock?  If naturalists are
so "non-gawkers" why do they feel the need to look at magazines of unchothed
persons?  Seems to contradict you viewpoint of the magazines as obviously they
read the magazines for something other than the pictures.  Or do they gawk
like non-naturalists do (per your comments)?
> 
> > Am willing to split all prizes, etc. on a 50-50 basis.
> 
> This is no less than amateur pimping.  It has no place in this newsgroup.
Obviously you have never photographed models professionally, they usually
expect some form of payment.  Even animal models require payment to their
owners.  When you get out of the University and into the real world, you
will discover that no one works for free.  Splitting of fees, prizes, etc.
earned by photographs taken constitute "wages" which both the photographer
and the model are entitled to.  However, you are correct in one respect,
I am an amateur, it takes much work and dedication to forsake a regular job
and work as a professional photographer or artist.  My painting and
photographing are strictly amateurish.  


> 
> ---
> Marc Majka

As to why I posted this in net.rec.nude as opposed to net.micro or even
net.women -- it would seem to me to be fairly obvious.  While 80% of the
females readers of net.rec.nude probably have no interest in modeling, 
maybe 20% might.  In net.women, probably 99.99% would have absolutely
no interest and for the .01% missed, big deal.  The women who read 
net.women get upset when someone talks to them while they have untied
the top of their bikini (if you do not believe me, read the current raging
argument in net.women).  Mentality like that would outlaw all clothes
optional beaches everywhere.  

By the way, I do respect you right to fame (blowtorch) me, this again is
guaranteed by the 1st Ammendment (to the U.S. Constitution).  I am surprised
that it made it past the Canadian censors, however.  This gets this
conversation off to what would be better discussed in net.politics, so I
will get off of my soapbox, except to say that most of the magazines that
may be enjoyed in the U.S. are either not available in Canada or are a
bowlderized version (spelling?).
--Bill--