Conference moira::naturism

    
    I strongly agree.  It would certainly make this world a much better
    place if we could get everyone to understand that naturism is certainly
    not pornograhic - far from it !  If everyone in the world could
    make that distinction, they probably would have a lot less hangups
    about their bodies, and others, and we'd see naturism become normal
    in society.
    
    > We need to do more than mouth: "Nudism is not Lewdism".
    
    What do you suggest we do ?
    
    Darrell
    

    
    My understanding from previous pornography discussions (notably
    in WOMANNOTES) is that the US lacks a clear definition of what exactly
    is pornography.
    
    British law defines it as "published material likely to deprave
    and corrupt a typical member of the public" and in a classic
    jury-direction a judge once defined a 'typical member of the public'
    as "the man on the Clapham Omnibus". There is a clear distinction
    in British law between material which is obscene, and material which
    is lewd and offensive, or which depicts an illegal act. There is
    only one class of photography that is per judis illegal, and that
    is taking pictures of minor children, with the genitals exposed,
    for purposes of publication, other than as reportage. 
    
    Much of the material classed as pornography in the States is not
    classed as such in Britain (pictures of intercourse for example
    are merely offensive, pictures of bondage scenes depict an illegal
    act - assault and battery - and as such are illegal. Pictures of
    the erect male sex organ are lewd and so illegal, etc...)
    
    The point is that in Britain pornography is inexcusable (you cannot
    publish pornographic material on the excuse that it is fair reporting,
    or for any other reason), however many otherwise lewd or offensive
    pictures are acceptable in say a medical text-book. This defence
    has been successfully used on several occasions by "Health &
    Efficiency" who have defended their pictures as reportage, and/or
    instructional material depicting naturism.
    
    I doubt very much if you'll succeed in doing anything in America
    as long as pornographers can hide behind the First Amendment.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Thanks for the comments:
    
    One of Naturism's problems is being included in the trash.  I find
    that thought unacceptable.
    
    I believe that the Naturist Society, et al, should start coming
    out of the closet a little and make a statement in the form of a
    prominent advertisement in the regular press.  Nothing flashy.  Just
    straight talk.  Could be all type.  We are not exhibitionists, after
    all.
    
    Put an ad in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor,
    plus prominent Mid-West, and West-Coast newspapers.  Repeat it again
    in mid summer.  The ad should offer to cooperate with others
    ("neighbors") who share the same view regarding pornography.
    
    That TV show was careful not to use the word "pornography" alone.
    They always used "Illegal pornography."  In my mind, pornography
    is just that kind of junk that makes OPTS (Those who opt for clothing
    in a "Clothing-Optional" site) purchase the stuff, wrap it up, then
    go into hiding while they drool over it. Ugh!
    
    It's like drugs, though, one can get hooked on that guk.  The results
    can be shockingly bad for the hooked one and those with which he/she
    comes into contact.  Probably no-one is immune to some degree.  The
    results, which are real, must not be swept under the rug.  But, like
    drugs, all the laws and police actions in the world will not do much
    more than get a little media attention. 
    
    Naturists take their children to Naturist places.  Certainly Naturists
    would not take their children where "pornographic" activities exist
    live. In the same sense, I am sure that Naturists would not like to see
    their children exposed to pornographic printed material ... "legal" or
    not. 
    
    Thus, the best way, in my opinion, is to go to the grass-roots level.
    Define your own limits.  
    
    For example: Go to a store, purchase groceries enough to get the
    counter person's attention ... see pornographic materials there behind
    the counter and then make a complaint and leave the groceries on the
    counter and walk out!  Get enough people to do THAT and the porno stuff
    will be isolated in the sleeze joints where Naturists and nice OPTS
    wouldn't be seen anyway. 
    
    The conversation might be like this:
    Customer:  "I see you sell pornography here.  I also see you sell
    things attractive to children."
    
    Clerk:  "That's right, but we don't sell them to children."
    
    Customer:  "But MY children know about them ... I heard them talking
    about them, yesterday, and came over to see for myself."
    
    Clerk:  "I see."
    
    Customer: "I guess I don't wish to purchase food for my children's
    bodies with this kind of brain food sold at the same counter.  Here
    ... I have changed my mind."
    
    Clerk: "You mean you are not going to buy anything?"
    
    Customer: "That's right; and you might inform your manager."
    
    Clerk: "Are you going to put them back on the shelf?"
    
    Customer: "No, start cleaning up this place right here.  Good bye."
        
    Can you imagine the consternation when 25 people do the same thing
    in the span of one hour?  All over town?  Spaced between normal
    customers, but appearing often enough to clog progress, the tactic
    might just work. 
    
    This would make Naturists and their Opt Neighbors agree on something
    very significant and very personal.  Maybe we can get them to at
    least talk over the back fence.
    
    Stan/

    Treasures and Trash!
    
    It would be hard for me to think that a publication such as CWS
    would ever be able to attract the attention of the "professional"
    porno mag publisher.  A bunch of people (such as us) going to
    the beach?  
    
    My primary thrust is against the minds that pick on kids as their media
    for lust both as the purveyor to (of?) that lust and those who treasure
    that kind of trash. 
    
    Gosh, would a Junk Bond Takeover such as we hear about for industry,
    ever happen to a magazine like CWS?
    
    Perish the thought.   But you do give me pause.  I just hope they
    keep their paws off our kids.
    
    Stan/
    

    Re Jay's comments on pornographic usurpation of naturist publishing,
    the following bits might be of interest.  From "A Good Heritage for
    Naturists" by Phil Stewart, in _CwS_ 7.2 (Summer 1987).

    	-Neil

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ...

    In 1933, the year _The Nudist_ (later _Sunshine & Health_) began
    publication, it was actually easier to publish images which we find
    pornographic today, than nice family nudist images.  A detective
    magazine image of a woman in her underwear being murdered by a fully
    clothed man, for instance, had no trouble being published in 1933, so
    long as her underwear didn't reveal too much.  An image of a man and
    woman playing table tennis in the nude, however, was a clear-cut
    violation of the law. ...

    ...

    Although _Sunshine & Health_ was hounded for 25 years by the U. S. Post
    Office, which had been designated by the COmstock Act of 1873 as the
    moral guardian of Americans saw and read, it eventually won its fight.
    In addition to creating a new kind of nude in art, nudist magazines
    forced the U. S. Supreme Court to redefine what was obscene and what
    wasn't.  The court finally agreed with Ilsey Boone, publisher of
    _Sunshine & Health_, that nudity was in itself not obscene and there
    was such a thing as nudist photography which, if not good was at least
    not bad.  In the mid-1950s several Supreme Court decisions gave nudist
    magazines the right to publish nude images to promote their cause
    without censorship from the Post Office.

    Not surprising, there suddenly appeared a lot of would-be nudist
    magazines, some sincere, many not.  The end result was that the victory
    which nudist publishers had won created such a fast market that proper
    nudist publications were driven off the newsstands.  Also, enter
    _Playboy_ and the others.  ...

    ...

    History indicates that short of Mao's Cultural Revolution, society will
    never rid itself of images of which its moral leadership does not
    approve.  ... Visual sexual expression, erotica, appears to be such a
    basic human drive as to defy all attempts, both by way of fear and
    conscience, to eliminate it.

    The good news may be, however, that in the past few people understood
    the differences between three distinct kinds of images:  non-sexual
    images of the human body, images of normal human sexuality, and
    exploitative, demeaning and violent images which included nudity --
    nude was lewd and that was that.  Perhaps, now that nudity is not in
    itself illegal, the differences can be established.  Then the
    proliferation of what nudists regard as pornography can be stopped.

    ...

    ... ASA [American Sunbathing Association], although identified on the
    cover of many nudist magazines from about 1940 on as if it were the
    publisher, never published anything on its own until after 1970. Before
    1964, ASA "Official" magazines were published by individuals. ASA had
    no control over them.  Fortunately the early publishers were sincere
    proponents of nudism as a way of life. ... Unfortunately, between 1964
    and 1979 it became increasingly harder to tell the "good guys" from the
    others.

    ... [After 1964] ASA attempted to continue the tradition of having a
    mass circulation magazine to promote nudism to the public.  They
    contracted with an ASA photographer to publish _Nudism Today_ for them. 
    However, according to Latimer [former ASA president] the relationship
    between client and publisher was a strained one because of the
    increasingly sexual content of the magazine. ... According to Latimer,
    the publisher felt erotic content was necessary to compete in the open
    marketplace and without the higher sales brought by erotica, the
    venture would lose money.  Latimer reported that many ASA members began
    complaining as images of "split beavers" became common, along with
    images of erections and intimate behaviour which was not allowed at
    most ASA clubs. ... ASA [cancelled] the contract in 1970 and [pulled]
    out of mass market publications altogether.  Subsequent issues of
    _Nudism Today_ do not carry the ASA logo. ...

    Also from _CwS_ 7.2 is the following article by Nikki Craft, describing
    the organization Naturists Opposing Pornographic Exploitation, or
    N.O.P.E.  You might want to send them a SASE at P. O. Box 671,
    Oshkosh WI, 54902.

    You should be aware that Nikki Craft (and, I suspect, a number of the
    other N.O.P.E. founders) has parted company with The Naturist Society
    under less than amicable circumstances, at least in part over the issue
    of whether _CwS_ may be little better than pornography.  There is
    clearly a lot of personality and politics going on here, as well as
    principled anti-pornography (which may itself be dogmatic or
    "radical"); but you might find something of interest here.

    	-Neil

    [Note:  I have edited the version of this note that I posted earlier,
    excising the list of specific sexual activities that N.O.P.E endorses.
    Suffice it to say that it is very broad.  Please note that 156.8 and 
    156.9 were written in response to the original version of this note.]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    We Are Anti-Censorship
    ----------------------

        We support unlimited freedom of the press.  We contend that no
        government, special interest group or individual is qualified to
        regulate access to information.  We do not want pornography hidden. 
        We want it exposed and highlighted, because we know it cannot exist
        outside its dark corner.

        We want pornography, with its stereotyped, oppressive view of
        women, to be rejected as bigotry.  We do not want censorship, but a
        citizens' mandate against pornography.

        We call on people who believe in freedom to take public and private
        responsibility to work towards ending this trafficking in women and
        children.



    We Are Opposed to Fetishization, Objectification and Pornography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

        We oppose the display of women's bodies as subliminal inducements
        in advertising.  We oppose using women's bodies as objects to sell
        magazines in any media whether it be mainstream, naturist, nudist
        or pornographic publications.  We protest women being judged like
        objects in beauty pageants, clothed or unclothed.  We reject the
        boring, fetishized soft and hard pornography that perverts
        sexuality in our society.  We refuse to tolerate the stripping,
        binding, rape, torture and humiliation of women, children, or men
        in the name of sexuality, entertainment and profit.  We demand
        corporate and individual responsibility for publishing, printing,
        distribution and selling of violent pornography.


    We Are Pro-Nudity and Sexuality
    -------------------------------

        N.O.P.E. supports genuine sexual liberation, not the fetishized
        consumption of distorted images created by the soulless, profit-
        motivated corporations that are currently defining sexuality for
        our society.

        Without exception, we support an individual's right to control her
        or his own body.  We embrace diverse, consenting sexual experiences
        between consenting adults including [list of activities deleted].

        We seek an end to our society's body hatred and guilt concerning
        normal bodily functions by joining with other organizations and
        working together toward a national clothes-optional ethic.

    
    Since .7 has been amended to delete the reference to a specific
    act that this note refers to, I am re-entering my note, without
    the earlier footnote, that also specified the act in question.
                                    
    /. Ian .\
    
           <<< MOIRA::SYS$SPECIFIC:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NATURISM.NOTE;4 >>>
                                 -< Naturism >-
================================================================================
Note 156.9                    Stop Pornography NOW!                       9 of 9
ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action" 20 lines   4-MAY-1989 03:33
            -< very much tongue in cheek, but nonetheless true... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    The statement included in .7 is, well, "interesting".
    
    I am aware of course that British law in no way applies in the US,
    and possibly doesn't apply to this conference at all (moot point,
    since being visible to more than three people in Britain in is
    technically 'published' here), but the statement in .7 appears to
    implicitly promote an act which is illegal under British law, and
    that endorsement is itself of course illegal here.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------