Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site frog.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!wjr From: wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) Newsgroups: net.rec.nude Subject: Re: What's wrong with sex? Message-ID: <685@frog.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 02:45:47 EST Article-I.D.: frog.685 Posted: Wed Mar 5 02:45:47 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 08:33:57 EST References: <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> <389@tekigm2.UUCP> <609@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <638@frog.UUCP> <449@ubvax.UUCP> Reply-To: wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) Organization: The Church of the Holy Starship Lines: 52 In article <449@ubvax.UUCP> sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) 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.) Good grief! Grammar coals in net.rec.nude! (*Note that I carefully did not accuse you of _flaming_! Thanks for the laugh!*) I found "nake" as a noun in one of L.Neil Smith's books as a racist insult used by chimpanzee citizens about homosaps. So while you're probably more historically correct than I, I'm a nake. >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. You are not responsible for the consequences of my choosing to believe that god is an old woman with a beard; why should other women's beliefs affect my behavior? It's another variation on the theme "this offends me, so you should stop." Accept that argument, and you'll end up wearing clothes because others find naked flesh offensive! I find Jerry Falwell offensive -- does this obligate him to commit suicide? >I don't suppose I have to justify that porn is a sexist >activity. Is porn sexist because men buy more than women do and are therefore presumably driven by their glands to waste money? Or what? >We have laws that protect pornographers. . . . All of our rights would be >meaningless if they were subject to selective application. Glad we agree on this most important point! >pornographers need not apply to net.rec.nude. We don't have to agree here, thank goodness. STella Calvert Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea, it's the law! Guest on Account: ...!mit-eddie!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)