Re: Nude Models

Thread View: net.rec.nude

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by Marc Majka Fri, 31 Jan 1986 18:10

#296

Author: Marc Majka
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1986 18:10

29 lines
1563 bytes

> From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)...
> Get off the fence.

Who is on a fence?  I thought my last statement was clear:

    "We do not approve of gawkers or those who want 
    to exploit what we regard as entirely natural."

I quite agree with your assertation that the law of the excluded middle
still holds:

> Either people have a right to do what they want with thier bodies 
> (including nude olympics, nude bathing, and posing for magazines) or 
> they *don't* because they might offend someone.

Although I did not say anything about being offended.  The trouble is that
there is more to consider than a "either I can do it or I can't" attitude
will permit.  I was objecting to what I see as exploitive and degrading, not
to someone posing in the nude.  In my judgement, there is a difference in
kind between an art class and "swank" magazine.

> Get serious.  I presume that you have never posed in the nude, but I used
> to pose for classes of art students a lot.

You presume incorrectly.

---
Marc Majka

Re: Nude Models

#306

Author: Laura Creighton
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1986 19:25

30 lines
2298 bytes

In article <80@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes:
>         ...I was objecting to what I see as exploitive and degrading, not
>to someone posing in the nude.  In my judgement, there is a difference in
>kind between an art class and "swank" magazine.

Yes, there's the rub.  ``In *your* judgement''.  ``What *I* see''. But other
people find nude beaches exploitive and degrading.  And other people don't
find SWANK magazine degrading.  Now, maybe I missed something here, but I
thought the whole focus of ``the Naturalist movement'' was ``we're here
voluntarily, we're free people, leave us alone to do what we want''. Now I
am getting a hint of ``we are morally superior people, we have better attitudes
than those repressed prudes, and a much better attitude than those who read
or pose for filthy magazines''.  

If the second position is closer to the Naturalist philosophy, then somebody
had better set the record straight. There are a whole lot of 
libertarians and rational anarchists who are buying into it because they
believe in the first position -- and to use them to further the second
position is pretty foul.  I hadn't considered the possibility that I was
being used last time I posted, and thought that you were being terribly
inconsistent, which is why I accused you of sitting on the fence.

Now, it would be stupid of me to take Marc Majka's personal position as the
official position of the Naturalist movement without checking it out further.
What do the rest of you think?  And are there any official positions I
could look up?  
-- 
Laura Creighton		
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura 
hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa

Re: Nude Models

#310

Author: Calille
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1986 22:52

37 lines
2520 bytes

> In article <80@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes:
> >         ...I was objecting to what I see as exploitive and degrading, not
> >to someone posing in the nude.  In my judgement, there is a difference in
> >kind between an art class and "swank" magazine.
> 
> Yes, there's the rub.  ``In *your* judgement''.  ``What *I* see''. But other
> people find nude beaches exploitive and degrading.  And other people don't
> find SWANK magazine degrading.  Now, maybe I missed something here, but I
> thought the whole focus of ``the Naturalist movement'' was ``we're here
> voluntarily, we're free people, leave us alone to do what we want''. Now I
> am getting a hint of ``we are morally superior people, we have better attitudes
> than those repressed prudes, and a much better attitude than those who read
> or pose for filthy magazines''.  
> 
> If the second position is closer to the Naturalist philosophy, then somebody
> had better set the record straight. There are a whole lot of 
> libertarians and rational anarchists who are buying into it because they
> believe in the first position -- and to use them to further the second
> position is pretty foul.  I hadn't considered the possibility that I was
> being used last time I posted, and thought that you were being terribly
> inconsistent, which is why I accused you of sitting on the fence.
> 
> Now, it would be stupid of me to take Marc Majka's personal position as the
> official position of the Naturalist movement without checking it out further.
> What do the rest of you think?  And are there any official positions I
> could look up?  
> -- 
> Laura Creighton		
> ihnp4!hoptoad!laura 
> hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa

Hey, where can you meet some good looking models in the Chicago area. Or is
there a nude beach in this area that I can visit to see what it is actually
like.  If you are a good looking FEMALE maybe we can meet in the Chicago 
area.

Re: Nude Models

#312

Author: Rick Yazwinski
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1986 16:07

7 lines
1045 bytes

>Hey, where can you meet some good looking models in the Chicago area. Or is
>there a nude beach in this area that I can visit to see what it is actually
>like.  If you are a good looking FEMALE maybe we can meet in the Chicago 
>area.

This, in my opinion, does not belong in net.rec.nude! This net is for naturalists not for people with hormone problems. Take this kind of posting to net.singles or some other appropriate place.
			Rick...

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads