photo: 25 new messages in 11 topics

rec.nude
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude

rec.nude@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NAKED CHILDREN at risk with jonzee on the loose......
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/4652c1bfe3b9d50f
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 2:05 am
From: Dan Abel

In article <ddqhn2hn5dedv0vvjrg34po35idtk217nk@4ax.com>,
-T. <stinson-family@charter.net> wrote:

> On 7 Dec 2006 04:59:39 -0800, "Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote:

> >..there have been pictures taken of kids
> >at nudist camps from parked rv s
>
> Blah, blah, blah. And your verifiable evidence is where????

Maybe he was the one taking the pictures?

:-(

--
Dan Abel
dabel@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 11:54 am
From: "David Looser"

"Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1165489382.420399.96510@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> so David and Dario agree that incestuous families are attracted to
> social family nudism

And you wonder why we call you a liar?. This is a particularly pointless lie
as it's so easy for anyone to look back through the rec.nude archive to see
what was actually said.

David.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 8:24 pm
From: "Terry J. Wood"

-T. <stinson-family@charter.net> wrote in
news:iuphn2piulvu57dv621fpida098gpqtfhk@4ax.com:

> Anything "he" says, should be taken with a grain of salt and a dram
> of tequilla.

I keep him in my kill file because I'm on a salt free diet. Try it. It
will lower your blood pressure! :-)

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:20 pm
From: -T.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:05:18 -0800, Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> wrote:

>Maybe he was the one taking the pictures?

Well you know what they say, confession is good for the soul.

-T.

When the man said alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I just naturally assumed he was making a delivery.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hot bi sexy girl looking for sexy bi fun
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/e3fb3361728e06d6
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 4:47 am
From: "sally"

I'm a slim 30 year old with a sense of fun and adventure. I have long
dark hair, long legs, and a lusty appetite. I've just moved to my
present location (Burgh Heath, Surrey) after the breakdown of a
relationship that was going nowhere. Contacts with me at www.swingus.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ~~~~~~~~Bisexual Personals ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/1971c5641804234e
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:06 am
From: slavun33@ya.ru

Stop wasting your time sifting through websites that offer false
promises of Bisexual Personals http://www.finder.dn.ua/ppc.html

.
There are many realistic and viable ways of achieving Bisexual
Personals http://www.finder.dn.ua/ppc.html

, and our website will
give you all of the essential Dating Advice Tips, Goth Dating Sites,
and resources necessary for success.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Enaturist - Legit or Not?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/1509752b87fc956e
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:50 am
From: "Richard C."

"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message
news:duhhn2h3vt7dkg0pvitfhd44soff3lmorp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:44:06 -0800, "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:01:59 -0800, "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Why would people be interested in paying to see pictures of people?
> ...
>>==============================
>>You did not read clearly.
>>My [sarcastic] response was to the previous poster who said :
>>"why would nudists pay to see pictures of nude people".
>
> I read it OK. I just didn't understand it to be sarcasm because I was
> not aware that people pay to see pictures of people on the Internet
> that are not sex related.
>
> I now see you did not limit your reply to the Internet, and there are
> plenty of people who pay to see pictures of people otherwise. In fact,
> there is a magazine called "People" dedicated to just that
> proposition, in addition to all the fan rags, posters, and so on.
>
> Also, people pay for cable and get CNN, for example, as part of a
> package. Then there are the DVDs, movies and other videos, travel
> guides, human interest stories and so on. Then there are the soaps.
> Then there are late night talk shows paid for indirectly by
> advertising included in the cost of the products we buy.
>
> The more I think about it, most people spend a lot of time watching
> pictures of other people that they paid to see directly or indirectly.

==========================
My point.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 3:38 pm
From: "David Looser"

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1dGdnfyYs7425uTYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message
> news:duhhn2h3vt7dkg0pvitfhd44soff3lmorp@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:44:06 -0800, "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:01:59 -0800, "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why would people be interested in paying to see pictures of people?
>> ...
>>>==============================
>>>You did not read clearly.
>>>My [sarcastic] response was to the previous poster who said :
>>>"why would nudists pay to see pictures of nude people".
>>
>> I read it OK. I just didn't understand it to be sarcasm because I was
>> not aware that people pay to see pictures of people on the Internet
>> that are not sex related.
>>
>> I now see you did not limit your reply to the Internet, and there are
>> plenty of people who pay to see pictures of people otherwise. In fact,
>> there is a magazine called "People" dedicated to just that
>> proposition, in addition to all the fan rags, posters, and so on.
>>
>> Also, people pay for cable and get CNN, for example, as part of a
>> package. Then there are the DVDs, movies and other videos, travel
>> guides, human interest stories and so on. Then there are the soaps.
>> Then there are late night talk shows paid for indirectly by
>> advertising included in the cost of the products we buy.
>>
>> The more I think about it, most people spend a lot of time watching
>> pictures of other people that they paid to see directly or indirectly.
>
> ==========================
> My point.
>
But it'd hardly the same thing. There is no equivalent that I know of of the
nudist photo gallery in the textile world. Just reams and reams of
unintersting pictures of total strangers.

David.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: septithol is a inhuman species unnatural
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/7721d94166213d3
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:55 am
From: "Richard C."

"-T." <stinson-family@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ccphn2h3s35p31vmt8qiui4snc7t5ofvfj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:07:47 -0000, "Terry J. Wood"
> <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I'm one.
>>
>
> I'm two.
>

I'm Three

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 7:59 pm
From: "Terry J. Wood"

-T. <stinson-family@charter.net> wrote in
news:j0rhn2t3oe9psdqvpens8riku1srurgv1o@4ax.com:

>>For some reason I seemed to be compelled to make some comment about
>>organizing nudists is like herding cats. But I have no idea why I
>>must say this.

> Alien mind probe. No doubt about it. And, no, the tinfoil hat ain't
> gonna fix it.

D*mn! That just leaves the tin foil underwear!

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 8:20 pm
From: "Terry J. Wood"

-T. <stinson-family@charter.net> wrote in
news:diphn2plgppdj30ud0l7tt3c5stm6rvq4o@4ax.com:

> Nikki has apparently authored an entry about <what else> Nikki Craft
> in Wikkipedia. She seems to have a need to validate herself on a grand
> scale. I suspect she and Jon Zee are related on some level. I can't
> prove it. Yet.

Well, she's SURE he doesn't belong in her Hall O' Shame, even though she's
SURE what he says is true, even though she's SURE they've never met, even
though she's SURE she interviewed him. Anything about that to make you
suspect something? Seems perfectly crafty to me!

But then again, YOU are a suspicious person. You probably have suspicions
about a mild mannered reporter of a great metropolitan newspaper and a
certain red caped superhero being one and the same. You and Lois Lane.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:18 pm
From: -T.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:20:51 -0000, "Terry J. Wood"
<TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You and Lois Lane.
>Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

HEY!!!! I was out of town that weekend. I don't care what Lois says.
We weren't even formerly introduced.

-T.
When the man said alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I just naturally assumed he was making a delivery.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 8:00 pm
From: "Zee"

Looser.......see below you state of course there have been cases of
child sex abuse connected with nudism.....and it was assumed that you
agreed with Dario and i that incestuous families are also associated
with nudism per Dario s testimony of incest families trying to enter
his discussion group......are you saying..... THERE IS NO WAY THEY
WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH FAMILY NUDISM.....if you are explain why
not....and if you cannot.... allow me to enjoy my weekend laugh of the
month.....bawahaha hehe he he ha ha ...you are the supreme fucked up
nude dude of the year....so dan rather that had the lady on sixty
minutes... and was discussed here in rec nude ....she testified that
her family were nudist and her husband had sex with their kids....hell
that was a world wide presentation and you forgot about it
....bawahahahehe.....i want to leave rec nude sometimes but hell where
else can i get laughs of this magnitude....jonZeee
David Looser wrote:

> The sexual abuse of children is sadly not that uncommon and it would be
> remarkable in the extreme if there had never been a case of child sex abuse
> by someone connected with nudism in some way. And of course there have been
> such cases, cases which jZ will use to "prove" his claim.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NEWBIE HERE,INTRO
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/649dc397aa04a153
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 9:58 am
From: "UTAH NUDIST"

Glad to be on board,long time naturist family from
Chicago,California,home in Northern Utah,we enjoy
swimming,camping,sauna,lifestyles,hottubbing with friends,pen pals,c/o
beaches,family,snail mail,TNS,AANR,country music,real
people,friends,have a Merry Christmas,Happy Nude Year 2007 to you
yours,

REX/SHARON

SPEEDOBOI07@WEBTV.NET

==============================================================================
TOPIC: House Ethics finds GOP leaders negligent in Foley scandal
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/6f219fc39f937347
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 8:33 pm
From: "Terry J. Wood"

See:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16107115/

Investigations are on going. Think they'll *EVER* arrest him? Or has he
"suffered enough"?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Parent's Dilemma: If and How should they allow their children to
practice nudity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/d921a20f90338bb3
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 3:33 pm
From: "Anna"

Here is an interresting discussion on a blog from a woman in Africa
regarding when should she allow her children to go naked. She seems to
live in a place isolated enough to allow her children to go around
naked on her property but she was wondering about other places like
family reunions and such.

http://www.tertia.org/so_close/2006/02/nudity.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What should we think about this guy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/8792ca012cadb37e
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 3:41 pm
From: "Anna"

-T. wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2006 15:03:24 -0800, "Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >Pedophile comes to mind.
>
>
> And idiot comes to mind when I read your tripe. What in the name of
> all that is holy led you to the word pedophile?

The focus of his life is taking pictures of naked girls. What would you
call that?

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 4:40 pm
From: "Anna"

Isn't there a difference between a guy who likes to go around naked
because he likes the feel of being naked and all of that and a guy who
likes to see nude girls?

Thought nudism wasn't about seeing other people nude but instead was
about being nude yourself.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:25 pm
From: -T.

On 8 Dec 2006 15:41:43 -0800, "Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote:

>
>-T. wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2006 15:03:24 -0800, "Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Pedophile comes to mind.
>>
>>
>> And idiot comes to mind when I read your tripe. What in the name of
>> all that is holy led you to the word pedophile?
>
>The focus of his life is taking pictures of naked girls. What would you
>call that?

Could you please, just this once, do your own g#damned research?
PLEASE? You are making a bigger ass of yourself than usual and I'm too
damn tired to educate you tonight.

-T.
(why is your email invalid?)
When the man said alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I just naturally assumed he was making a delivery.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:28 pm
From: "Anna"

-T. wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2006 15:41:43 -0800, "Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >-T. wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2006 15:03:24 -0800, "Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Pedophile comes to mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> And idiot comes to mind when I read your tripe. What in the name of
> >> all that is holy led you to the word pedophile?
> >
> >The focus of his life is taking pictures of naked girls. What would you
> >call that?
>
> Could you please, just this once, do your own g#damned research?
> PLEASE? You are making a bigger ass of yourself than usual and I'm too
> damn tired to educate you tonight.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2006-12-06/news/feature.html

"Cordelle wouldn't call himself a nudist, but as someone who has spent
the last twenty-some years focusing on naked girls and women through
his camera viewfinder"

-----

See, his own words condemn him. He is a self-admitted pedophile.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 9:23 pm
From: -T.

On 8 Dec 2006 18:28:49 -0800, "Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote:

>"Cordelle wouldn't call himself a nudist, but as someone who has spent
>the last twenty-some years focusing on naked girls and women through
>his camera viewfinder"
>
>-----
>
>See, his own words condemn him. He is a self-admitted pedophile.

You have taken one statement and used it to sum up the whole.
Meanwhile, those of us who have taken the time to famialiarize
ourselves with the man's work, have a clae. Perhaps, you should dial
one as well. And, BTFW IF you were a woman, you'd likely have a clue
already.

-T.

When the man said alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I just naturally assumed he was making a delivery.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: nudist cant have textile friends because they lie to them...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/d6bf57fa73d5057f
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 6:31 pm
From: "Anna"

Terry J. Wood wrote:
> "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:4tbs3pF12sbuuU1@mid.individual.net:
> >> But nudity is different. When the element of an sexualized
> >> environment is in play most people would not want to expose
> >> themselves which makes sense. If everything is a sexual environment
> >> obviously you wouldn't want children involved.
>
> > And yet they are. Would you believe many children are actually brought
> > up by a co-habiting pair of sexually active adults? Can you think of a
> > more sexualised environment than that? I know it's hard to believe
> > but there it is.
>
> There ought to be a HALL O' SHAME about something like this!
>
> It's a *BIG* problem!
>
> Did you know I've found "co-habiting pairs of sexually active adults" in
> nudist camps too?!?!?
>
> Someone contact Rep. Mark Foley and let him know about this ASAP!
>
> Terry "Good Golly Miss Molly!" Wood

People shouldn't go to nudist camps so they can get "turned on" and
then have sex.

People should go to nudist camps to experience non sexualized nudity.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 11:03 pm
From: Stuffed Tiger

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:27:58 -0000, "David Looser"
<david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote:

...
>Frankly I cannot see how one can produce rankings for sexualisation. What on
>earth it is supposed to mean to say that humans either are, or are not, the
>most "sexualised" creatures?

In this case, I am guessing that the word "sexualized" refers to being
endowed with the character of engaging in sexual activity. In most
sexual creatures, sexual activity is restricted to a short time when
the female can become pregnant. In humans, dolphins and few others,
sexual activity seems to provide some other function, and is engaged
in a large number of times when the female cannot get pregnant.

It is also interesting that the typical signs of pending ovulation are
hidden in the human female and that human females sleeping in close
proximity tend to synchronize their periods. This leads to the thesis
that there has been evolutionary selection favoring more fathers in a
group rather than one dominant male fathering most of the young.

I don't see how this makes humans more sexualized than other creatures
and could even mean humans are less sexualized in that competing for
females happens over years rather than in one battle to be top male.

It does indicate that human sexuality is significantly different than
sexuality in most other creatures.

...
>Being nude is not "an activity"

A point worth repeating over and over. Thanks. Allow me...

Being nude is not "an activity," it is a state of being. Getting
dressed is the activity. We are being forced to perform that activity
for religious reasons, i.e. a cultist, religious notion of modesty.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Real Republicans
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/browse_thread/thread/9b62252a54449ce1
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 11:28 pm
From: Stuffed Tiger

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:31:33 +1030, David Simpson
<farookdas@picknowl.com.au> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:49:37 -0500, Stuffed Tiger
><NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> typed furiously:
...
>>There are no methods I know of that will ensure we can engage in
>>sexual activity while preventing the transmission of disease or the
>>initiation of inappropriate pregnancy unless we limit ourselves to one
>>or a small group of sexual partners who are infertile and do the same.
>
>You've never heard of condoms?

You've never heard of the limitations of condoms?

http://web.mit.edu/lbgt/lavender/std.html

Understand the potential limitations of condoms.
====================================
While condoms can significantly reduce risk of STD (especially
HIV) transmission, it is important to understand their potential
limitations. Condoms and other barrier methods may only
be partially effective against certain STDs that are transmitted
by direct skin-to-skin contact (e.g., herpes simplex virus,
human papilloma virus). When blisters or lesions that are
symptomatic of these STDs are not covered by a condom
and are in direct skin-to-skin contact with another person, viral
shedding-transmission of the virus-can occur. Only total
absence of any touching of infected tissue is 100% effective
in preventing STD transmission.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/advocacy/yan/condom/facts.htm

... two in 100 women using male condoms consistently and
correctly for a year will experience pregnancy compared to 85
in 100 using no method. ... 15 of 100 women using the male
condom inconsistently or incorrectly will experience pregnancy
in a year compared to 85 in 100 using no method.

I personally know of two cases where condoms were used consistently
and correctly and did not prevent pregnancy. It happens. It's
certainly better than using no protection, but let's not be stupid
about it. There are better methods of birth control.

As for STDs, limiting ourselves to a small number of partners who
limit themselves to the same partners is also important.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 11:58 pm
From: Stuffed Tiger

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 04:06:22 -0800, Bert Clanton <eubiotis@sonic.net>
wrote:

...
>I would propose that if we want to practice a responsible, harmless,
>and consensual form of sexual freedom, we rigorously restrict our
>contacts to the members of a group who
>
>• consistently practice appropriate contraception;
>• are initially proven to be free of sexually transmitted disease;
>• are periodically tested for the presence of sexually transmitted
>disease, and if infected, are isolated from the group until their
>disease is cured (permanently, if HIV-positive); and
>• are excluded permanently from the group if they knowingly and
>deliberately have unprotected sexual contact with outsiders.
>
>Of course, this method would *not* be absolutely perfect--it would
>*not* prevent *all* inappropriate pregnancy and *all* transmission of
>STDs. But I would suggest that among the members of a group that
>consistently practiced such a method, the incidence of inappropriate
>pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease would be only a small
>fraction of what it is under our present antisexual moral regime.

IMHO, the kind of practice you suggest would reduce the incidence of
STDs and pregnancy to a level not worth worrying about. At that level,
people could be as safe and risk free in their lifestyle as monogamous
people like me or people who abstain altogether. This is the kind of
program I would like to see introduced and made such a part of the
lifestyle that nobody gives it a second thought.

I don't know why such a regime is not the standard format. It would be
well worth the savings in tears in these communities, and it would be
doing a favor to the greater community in reducing medical costs and
in extending the productive lives of these people.

In that context, your position below seems reasonable. It would not be
for me (I have enough to do managing a relationship with one woman),
but it would certainly be a group freedom I'd support as fundamental.

Bert wrote earlier:
>You didn't ask me. But personally, I'm pro any kind of sexual activity
>that's both harmless and consensual. I suggest that a sexual activity
>is harmful if and only if it causes bodily injury, or if it causes
>significant psychological stress independent of custom and learning, or
>if it doesn't involve appropriate measures to prevent the transmission
>of disease and the initiation of inappropriate pregnancy, or if it
>endangers or disrupts a beneficial intimate relationship. I suggest
>that a sexual activity is non-consensual if it's initiated by deceiving
>someone, or coercing someone, or exploiting someone. I suggest that if
>none of these things is true of a particular activity, then that
>activity is morally OK.
>
>I suggest further that any law which attempts to restrict any sexual
>activity which is both harmless and consensual is a morally
>illegitimate law, and that there's no *moral* reason to feel inhibited
>about violating it, or guilty if you have violated it. The same
>principle applies to people who violated Jim Crow laws in the South
>before the civil rights movement--those laws were morally illegitimate.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.nude"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.nude-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.nude/subscribe

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com

photo

Friday, December 8, 2006

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts