Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!sxnahm
From: sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm)
Newsgroups: net.rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nude Models
Message-ID: <421@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jan-86 12:47:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.421
Posted: Fri Jan 31 12:47:55 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Feb-86 05:45:28 EST
References: <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> <389@tekigm2.UUCP> <609@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <460@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 53
Summary: Not all Naturists are prudes

In article <460@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to
> meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed
> by this group.  I thought you-all had more class.

I posted a reply to the "nude model" message, though I'm not sure it got out
to the net properly.  In summary, I said that the only type of nude
photography that I find objectionable is just the kind encouraged by the
magazines mentioned by in the original article (High Society, Stag, Swank).
These soft-porn mags generally display women in unnatural poses designed to
cast the women as objects of lust for men.  Not only is this degrading to
women, but it propogates the concept that nude equals lewd.  It's this
equation which stirs up many conservative Christians to oppose efforts to
designate free beaches, and it's certainly the reason the Accomack County
council passed its unsupportable ordinance which closed the free beach on
Assateague Island.

Believe me, I'm not a prude.  Art which depicts people in natural and erotic
poses can be quite pleasing to me.  I'd be interested in hearing whether you
believe *any* pornographic art is acceptable, or if you agree that
pornography which degrades women should be discouraged.

> I was thinking of sending a donation to help the nude beach legal fight
> but if it ends up that I'm helping nude prudes, they can fight their
> own battle.  If this is the prevailing attitude I may as well unsubscribe.

It may help a few "nude prudes", but it will ultimately help you too.  You
stated that you're a hedonist who happens to like nudity too.  But if your
personal liberties are restricted by laws passed by people who have been
conditioned to associate nudity with offensive magazines, you won't be able
to enjoy your pleasures.

I personally know the people fighting the Accomack ordinance (which is
basically a societal dress code!).  I've participated with them in
conservation projects carried out with the Chincoteague Wildlife Refuge and
Assateague Island National Seashore, including contruction of a sand fence
behind the de facto free beach to protect the freshwater marsh there.  The
ordinance they're fighting has truly national scope, since it confronts
directly the consitutional question of whether the government is allowed to
restrict your freedom of expression (1st Amendment) by demanding a certain
public (state of) dress.  I hope you decide to support them.

I'll probably post in a little while an article from the latest ``Clothed with
the Sun'' which addresses this very issue.  It descibes a Naturist artist's
attitude towards unclothed art.  Not all Naturists have views which agree
with his or mine, and I'm not sure what the "prevailing attitude" is, but I
would say it's not predominantly prudish.
-- 
Steve Nahm
amd!ubvax!sxnahm
or
amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM
       (formerly decwrl.arpa)