Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!sxnahm
From: sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm)
Newsgroups: net.rec.nude
Subject: Re: What's wrong with sex?
Message-ID: <449@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Feb-86 14:18:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.449
Posted: Wed Feb 19 14:18:12 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 06:21:28 EST
References: <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> <389@tekigm2.UUCP> <609@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <638@frog.UUCP>
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 59
Keywords: porn?
Summary: Pornographers are protected by law; so are social norms.

In article <638@frog.UUCP>, wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes:
>I like naking around...
and elsewhere:
>I'm not a naturist -- I'm a nake.

I'm not a grammarian, but it sounds better to say you're a naker than a
nake.  (The verb, to nake, implies action.  Someone that nakes is a naker.
A politcally minded naker might be a nakerist.)

> And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks
>trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad.

I think this might be the central issue you expressed in your response.  I
happen to agree that a) there are alot of folks doing this; and b) their
doing this is not useful.

I wouldn't doubt that there are a number of people who are members of
organized nudism who align themselves with this notion, though I'd wager the
majority would be members of the tradional clubs, rather than the the
Naturists (capital N).  I don't see this as a problem for me, though, since
I can choose not to associate with them.  (Someone else posted Baxandall's
philosophy from the World Guide: Naturists aren't into puritanism.)

>>pornography which degrades women should be discouraged.

>You've lost me.  How can I be degraded by anything but my own
>actions?

I don't suppose that *you* personally can be degraded by anything except
whatever you choose to be degraded by.  It so happens that some people
choose to feel degraded when they are indirectly (or directly) victimized by
sexist actions.  I don't suppose I have to justify that porn is a sexist
activity.  As to whether anyone is victimized by it, that's certainly open
to debate.  It's pretty clear, though, that some people feel they are.

> This nonsense again!  Feh!  By the time a picture is put into one of
> those airbrushed wondermags, it ain't a woman.

Gee, they look alot like women...

We have laws that protect pornographers.  Thankfully they cannot be
prohibited from publishing their interpretation of "all the nudes that's
fit to print" due to the First Amendment.  All of our rights would be
meaningless if they were subject to selective application.

But those people that feel that pornography is undesirable also have the
right to express this point of view.  The first response I saw to the Nude
Model message was an example of this.  I happen to agree with this too:
pornographers need not apply to net.rec.nude.

Users of Usenet can choose to ignore such statements; they can also ignore
other norms of net behavior such as not purposefully posting misleading
messages just to see what happens.  We can all be glad Usenet is not a
crowded theater where shouting "pornography!" could cause a stampede that
might hurt someone.  (Although I guess a flood of messages on the net could
cause someone's phone bill to be hurt...)
-- 
Steve Nahm                  UUCP route:       {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP           Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM