HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:17:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> 
> I never intended to imply that men have a certain duty to protect
> women against other men.  I think all of us, men and women, have a
> certain duty to protect each other against attackers.  It really
> annoys me to hear that men have special duties to protect women or
> vice versa.

My feelings exactly. There are cases when a man may be more
vulnerable that the woman or women he is with. Rather than argue
about who is responsible for whom, I argue that we should all
be responsible for each other.

Letting others know your vulnerabilities is an important part of
this. When my girlfriend did not have a car, I resented the amount
of time that I spent on the road to pick her up for dates. She 
started taking cabs occasionally, but there was still a lot of
tension around this.

Finally I found out that she was afraid of taking cabs because most
of the cab drivers in this area are seedy characters (I had no idea
since I never take cabs). When I found that out, I never complained
about the time again, and insisted that she not take cabs. The whole
thing centered around me not knowing her vulnerabilities.

The people who I have chosen as friends (and who have chosen me
as a friend) have always looked out for one another. Rarely has
any of us had to ask another to make sure we get back to our car/
home safely. And when anyone has asked, it has been done without
question.

Based on my experience, I offer the following suggestions:

1) If possible, escort each other back to the cars (i.e. walk
together to one, drive together to the other).

2) If dropping someone off at home, the driver should make sure
that the home person gets in ok (this may involve going into the
home to make sure there are no intruders). The home person should
then watch to make sure the driver gets back to the car o.k.

3) If for some reason the car is not visible from a window of the
home, the driver and home person should arrange for the driver to
drive somewhere s/he can be seen and give a prearranged signal
(e.g. stop at the stop sign and flash brights).

4) If someone is going through a dangerous area, or driving in 
dangerous conditions, have them call when they get home.

5) Always offer when it is appropriate, insist if you feel it is
necessary.

6) Always ask when you feel you should. Don't put yourself into a
risky situation to save yourself some embarassment.

7) Don't make fun of anyone's vulnerabilities when it comes to
safety.

8) Impress the importance of making sure that everyone is safe on 
others, especially your own children.

9) If your friends are not willing to do this, get new friends.


-- 
-Tim-

sheehan@ncar.ucar.edu
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: HANDS IN ACTION
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:32:36 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl

I am a volunteer for this new Organization that is raising money for abused
children.They are building a home now which is half finished.I will be going on
Cristina's Show to help these abused children.I am also a survivor of abuse and
I am going on Geraldo to tell my lifes story.My therapist has wrote 2 books and
you can get them at the book store.I just want you all to know that there are
many people out there that needs a friend...and I want you to know that I am
your friend.And if you want to know more about what I mentioned above feel free
to leave me e-mail.Please spread the HANDS IN ACTION around...APRIL is the
GREEN RIBBON month to stop abuse.My therapist is also going to write a book
about my life.God bless each one of you out there who has been a victim...but
there is help out there for you,or knows someone who is a victim.You have me to
talk too.
                     T Taylor
From: sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.004156.9383@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.171700.11453@ncar.ucar.edu>, sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan) writes:
> 
> > 
> > Based on my experience, I offer the following suggestions:
> > 
> > <deleted>
> > 
> > 4) If someone is going through a dangerous area, or driving in 
> > dangerous conditions, have them call when they get home.
> > 
> 
> You do realize that this one is solely for the peace of mind of the person who
> is already home. Figure, if they get stopped or raped along the way, what are
> you going to do? Go looking for them when they don't call? IF you find them,
> the event they needed to be protected from is probably long over.
> 
> DC

I disagree. It by no means guarantees complete safety, but it is one
way to increase it.

Hypothetical situation. I drop my girlfriend off at her house at
1:00 a.m. I've got a 20 minute drive home through a bad part of
town. My car breaks down 10 minutes into my trip.

Now, I'm a sitting duck. My choices are to lay low in my car, or to
walk. From my way of thinking, walking makes me much more visible. So
I sit in my car because I know that my girlfriend will call my house
when she doesn't hear from me. When she gets no answer, she will trace
the route I drive, pick me up, and I can worry about my car (or its
remains) tomorrow. Now, my risk was reduced and I am safe because I
was supposed to call her back.

Sure, there is the possibility that by the time she gets there, all 
remains of me is the memories, but the chances of that have been 
reduced because the amount of time I have had to stay in the area 
is limited by the fact that I am supposed to call her. Additionally, 
if I had been attacked, and she finds me, I get medical attention 
that much sooner - that in itself could save my life.

-- 
-Tim-

sheehan@ncar.ucar.edu

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Book
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:41:30 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl

There is a book that is good for helping people who has been abused.I would
like to share it with you.I am a survivor of Mental,Physical,and sexual abuse
and this book answers alot of questions for the Survivor and the loved
ones.Here is the name of the book.

        ALLIES IN HEALING
     BY:LAURA DAVIS
Please let me know if this book helps.I have other books titles that I can
share just for the asking.May God bless each one of you.I CARE very much and I
want to let you know YOU have a friend here ALWAYS!  T Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: Amy Young Leith <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:31:07 -0500

In article <1992Aug14.092850.9423@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>You have missed an evvent that has shown up too much even on this
>newsgroup--real men don't worry about being attacked syndrome. WOmen get wlaked
>to their car, men do the escorting, and forget about the consequences
>damnit--you're SUPPOSED to be a man!

Again, I ask you, why can't you do ANYTHING without sarcasm? 

>Most men would rather risk the attack than be labelled a phrase that indicates
>they were born either without male genitals, or they are real, real tiny.

Sadly, many do feel this way.  I would argue on the "most" part... 

>Maybe women should do something for themselves on their own--like overcoming
>the difference by LEARNING to fight, and stop counting on men to be their hired
>guns. (Actually, welfare-supplied guns.)  

Perhaps men should also look to themselves for strength and not worry
about what others might call them if they do something "unmacho."  

>See comment directly above. Just because I have been in more fights than you
>does not place a responsabilty on me to protect you.  

But he's pointing out that to say that men and women are equal in
ability to protect themselves is, in general, not possible because
circumstances have made experiences unequal.

>Well then I suppose women are just going to have to stand up for themselves and
>compensate. This is 1992, and the old 'we've-been-denied-opportunities' line is
>a little thin. You want to get stronger? Go to Vic Tanney. You want to get
>meaner, go tke a self-defense class at some community service program?

Many women do this. 

>You want me to defend you in a fight? You first be ready to defend ME!

I wouldn't count on you for anything. 

>When the defendee is someone I do not know, the defender is me, an equation
>kicks into place--the more likely she is to be attacked, the less prudent it is
>for me to defend them. Why? Because of something you left out of your
>equation--as their risk of being attacked goes up, MY risk of being attacked
>goes up.

Believe it or not, however, SOME people have selfless concern for
others. 

>And no one who is not friend or family EVER is worth that.

Your opinion.

>Bingo!
>
>I prefer not to increase my odds of being a stat for the purpose of someone
>else not being a stat--unless it is friend or family.

A common attitude, sadly.

amy
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:41:40 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Aug16.030109.18569@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden) writes:
>In <1992Aug15.150901.9480@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>>In article <0095F210.3CB54940@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>>> I had a longish discussion about this with a woman about six weeks ago.  She
>>> was, in fact, a rape victim and refuses to carry and handgun (but does carry
>>> a spray can of mace).  
>>> 
>>> What's wrong with a good, sturdy .38 or 9mm?  It's more effective than a can
>>> of mace or trying to gouge an eye w/ a set of car keys.  
>>> 
>>> Please educate me on this subject (or flame if you must by Email).  Thanks.
>
>>The LEGAL problem is one of concealed weapon and carrying a handgun without a
>>permit in most states. You blow him away, and then you go to jail, where you
>>are raped in prison by a bunch of dykes on a regular basis. Seems
>>counter-productive.
>
>    The same, of course, is true of Mace and similar substances, in many
>states.  In California, for instance, any noxious substance not
>specifically approved is forbidden.  CapStun, one of the more effective
>mace-like (yes, I know it works differently) substances, is therefore
>outlawed.  But in Massachusetts, it's legal, because it hasn't been
>specifically banned.  But Mace has.


In Massachusetts, Mace is legal with a Firearms Identification Card.  Unless
you are a crazy who just got out of jail, you will probably be able to get
one.  It allows purchase of Mace, ammunition, and long guns, and it allows
you to transport said weapons unloaded in the trunk of your car.  It also
allows you to carry mace as a concealed weapon.

There was a recent case in MA where a perpetrator was drenched in CapStun
by the police, and it didn't even phase him.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:15:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.133820.17093@nmsu.edu> loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:
>Samuel Green (query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
>: 	
>: 	Sorry to rant, but, there are a lot of people out there that wave
>: guns around and do not understand that a gun was designed to kill, not
>: disarm, not injure, not permanantly maim, but to KILL. 
>
>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I still contend that
>handguns are designed to STOP, not to kill.  The distinction is kind of 
>subtle, though, since a handgun stops in a manner that is quite likely to
>cause death; nevertheless, stopping the attacker is the object, killing
>him is not.  The attacker's state of health after the fact is largely 
>irrelavent.

	Agreed, this is mostly a matter of how far an individual is willing
to go with defense.  Attackers health after the incident is only irrelevant
if you are not particular about whether or not they die.  I personally,
would not wish to kill unless forced into it, as, in my opinion, damaging
someone to the point where they are pretty much incapable of attack (i.e.
blinding, breaking bones if possible, knocking them unconcious so that a
person could get away) is the solution I would use.  To each their own, though.
>

>: 	Again, you cannot take the issue too seriously.
>
>Agreed.  The only ethiical use of deadly force, and I certainly won't 
>argue that handguns are not deadly force, is in the gravest extreme, when
>you have every reason to believe that the alternative is your own death.
>But I contend that, given such a situation, it is reasonable to use deadly
>force, and furthermore, that it is reasonable to be prepared in advance 
>for such a situation, in the fervent hope that it will never happen.  By
>prepared, I mean both mentally (willing to defend oneself) and physically
>(having the means to defend oneself at hand.)
>
	Thats pretty much what I advocated, albeit I also advocated not
using a gun at all if possible.  If uoi must use a weapon, be sure that you
are fully qualified, trained, and comfortable with the possibilities before
using it for defense.  It will help you understand whether the risks of
using it are ones that you are willing to take.
	Do what you feel is right for defense, but, please be careful.

>: 	Sam
>
>--Dan
>
>--
>"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
>	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
>	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
>	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu

	Question about the sig above:  Did Metallica release an album about
8 or so years ago called "Kill 'em All" ?  Can't remember if it was them
or...?
	Thanks :)
	Sam

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:02:26 GMT

In article <0095F210.3CB54940@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
|> Just curious, but I notice a lot of discussion (not necessarily on talk.rape)
|> regarding self defense techniques "for women".  Generally, that includes 
|> things like marital arts, hat pins, car keys, mace, etc., but rarely are
|> handguns brought up.  Practical question;  wouldn't there be less ambiguity
|> when faced with a rapist (i.e. potential rapist) to just use a handgun
|> (as opposed to mace or some equally "cute" but questionable technique)?
|> 
|> I had a longish discussion about this with a woman about six weeks ago.  She
|> was, in fact, a rape victim and refuses to carry and handgun (but does carry
|> a spray can of mace).  
|> 
|> What's wrong with a good, sturdy .38 or 9mm?  It's more effective than a can
|> of mace or trying to gouge an eye w/ a set of car keys.  
|> 
|> Please educate me on this subject (or flame if you must by Email).  Thanks.


In addition to what DC has already said, handguns are not normally as accessable
as a small container of mace. Mace is legal and can be attached to one's car
keys, which are quite often already in one's hands anyway. Probably wouldn't
do to have a woman, who thinks she is being stalked through the mall, to have
her handgun ready, esp if a) no bullet is breached, and b) she is carrying
several packages. Beside, IMO, most woman aren't as vengeful (sp) as men. If 
some guy(s) tried to rape me, I would definately be trying to kill them. Woman
don't normally have this thirst for blood and simply wish to escape the
attacker, which frankly, makes much more sense.

In addition to the above, one must be trained to use a handgun effectively - 
no training required for mace. Mace goes in the face (an easy target in most
instances), however, a bullet must be aimed with precision. If the woman
hesitates, even for a second, her own gun could be turned against her. She is
more likely to make that deadly hesitation while aiming a handgun.

Lastly, a small container of mace is several times cheaper than a handgun.

That's all,
JC
From: jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:57:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <1992Aug16.083246.18166@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:

>	I would say that a handgun is a last resort weapon.  I mean just
>carrying one for self defense.

>	First off, in many states they are illegal, except for use on a
>range (recreation).  If they are not illegal, then you have to go through
>getting the concealed carry permit, and that is almost impossible in most
>states (and I think universally in urban areas, where they would be useful)

    Varies extremely from state to state.  In New Hampshire, Florida,
Oregon, Washington and perhaps others, they're required to give it to
you within a given time limit or notify you in writing why not, and they
can only deny for good cause.  (Felony record, etc.)

    Other states, or cities, no go.  For instance, Texas, New York City,
Washington D.C.

>	Second, a gun is a killing weapon.  There can be no doubt about it.
>If a gun does not kill it's target, it was a bad shot.  Only carry a gun if
>you intend to kill your target, because, unless you are an *unbelievable*
>shot, you run a high risk of killing someone evenwhen aiming to wound, and
>not kill.

    If you are justified in using lethal force, then you shoot to the
center of the target.  Shooting to wound increases your own danger, not
to mention the likelihood of a miss and a bullet careening where you
don't want it.  However, you don't shoot to kill.  You shoot to stop
(most likely stop is the center of the target).  All else being equal,
you'll survive being shot with a handgun more than 75% of the time.
Not odds I'd want to play given the alternative, but it's not a sudden
death weapon by any means, even if you do hit.

>	So, I guess the question remains:  If you are attacked, are you
>willing to kill (not just risk killing, but outright kill) your attacker?

    If you carry a handgun, then you must accept the chance of taking a
human life.  That's all there is to it.  It's the risk you take to
prevent yourself against lethal harm.

    EVERYONE WHO IS STILL READING THIS THREAD:  Get Massad Ayoob's _In
the Gravest Extreme_.  It's the best coverage of employment of lethal
force in self-defense.  Very easy to read, it makes many things clear.
(Too many to write in here.  Buy the book and re-read it occasionally.)

    Also likely of interest in this newsgroup:  _Armed and Female_, by
Paxton Quigley.  Covers carrying a firearm for everyone, but is written
by a woman to an audience of women, and covers how to carry concealed in
a woman's clothing and other issues.

-Josh.

--
Josh Alden:  Joshua.Alden@dartmouth.edu
EMT Instructor, DMS Health Education And Rescue Training
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.  (Where it's a crime at all.)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 08:56:07 GMT

(argument for not using WD40 deleted)
(counter argument and ego stroking deleted)

 NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR
>SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!

	"Well, your honor, there isn't really a law that spells this one
out..."
	Judge sits back and thinks for a few moments...
	"You're right.  Because there is no law specifically prohibiting
the use of a Tomahawk (conventional) missile for self defense, I am afraid
that the only charges we can prosecute for are wilful destruction of
property..."

	Or, "Gee, your honor, it dosen't specifically state that I cannot
carry a halberd around for self defense..."
	
	I'd get a kick out of watching that defense.
	I think that there are probably enough blanket laws out there that
would cover a lot of home and store bought defenses.  Probably a state that
restricts mace and capicum and the like would also make use of other
chemicals for defense equally illegal.  I mean, it wouldn't make sense to
make mace illegal, and allow, say, concentrated hydrochloric acid to be
used...  Even though mace is a wee bit easier to carry and utilize for
defense (Unless, of course, you rig something up...)
	Sam
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght)
Subject: walking her to her car
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:16:07 GMT

There have been many times that a girl has asked me to walk her to her
car after a party or work or some such thing.  I always repsond by
saying I would be glad to if they will in turn give me a ride back or to
my car or whatever is prudent in the particular situation.  NONE of them
have EVER agreed to this.  Interestingly, if I wait till I get them to their car
to ask for the ride, they ALWAYS agree, presumable out of a feeling that they 
owe it to me.  They want me to walk them to their car for
their safety, but they then feel their safety is inpinged if they let me
IN the car with them.  This is actually a very good point from their
standpoint.  It is just as likely that the guy they ask for help could
rape them as it is that a stranger might.  However, if they are that
afraid of me, then I am equally afraid of them, and I do not help.  I am
not personally afraid of being raped, though maybe I should be.  I am
more concerned about being mugged, robbed, shot, stabbed, hit by a drunk
driver, as these are considerably more likely to happen to me.  I am
willing to aid in the safety of another person if they are equally
willing to aid in my safety.  If they demonstrate a disregard for my
safety, then they do not get my help.

Jim
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert)
Subject: Re: Expendible men, helpless women?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:51:21 GMT



DC

	Believe it or not there are women who believe that women should be
	allowed in combative duty as well as they should register for the
	draft. I think one of the key reasons why women don't lobby for
	equal rights to register is because most women I know (and yes
	I do tend to associate with feminist) are opposed to the draft
	and registering for the draft. This goes for MEN and women. 

	Now as far as the argument about women soldiers being raped. I once
	got into this same discussion with a MAN who was in the army who
	said that he didn't want women in the army with him because he
	didn't want to have to worry about them and he wondered how they
	would deal with the possiblity of being raped by the enemy.

	My personal philosophy is that throughout the history of war
	women have been raped by the enemy and ally. Women are raped
	by the defenders and the invaders. I think if a woman were trained
	as a soldier at least she could go down fighting before taken prisoner
	then possibly raped. However, I'm against the draft, so I am against
	registering for the draft and I'm generally against war.


Newsgroups: talk.rape