HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dude@losers.hacktic.nl (Dude)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: NEWS: Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:34:54 GMT
Organisation: losers inc.

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan18153212@gauss.nmsu.edu>, Nosy writes:

AT> <   Only if you read it out of context.
AT> 
AT> 	Huh. Here is the context:
AT> 
AT> >>	The Campus NOW Board editorial states: "Based on our
AT> >>experience with men-only groups -- fraternities, men's sports,
AT> >>groups of men screaming at us from cars -- men in such groups
AT>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AT> >>frequently and openly display sexist attitudes and tend not
AT> >>to object, but rather reward one another for sexist actions.
AT> >>Because of this, Campus NOW stands against men-only groups."
AT> 
AT> 	*IF* the Gainesville student paper quoted the NOW 
AT> 	spokesperson correctly, NOW is opposed to groups
AT> 	of men in cars.

Bullshit, if the police prohibits groups of people shooting bystanders from
cars, according to your 'theory', the police is opposed to groups of men
in cars too. So you *were* reading it out of context. Accept that, and quit
hassling the same person over and over again with your sarcastic posts.

                   Dude
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:20:01 -0500 
From: Mina Sandusky <ms8c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: NEWS: Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
 93Jan14140522@gauss.nmsu.edu><1993Jan15.030449.4927@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan18153212@gauss.nmsu.edu>


Recently ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) posted the following:


>>>	The Campus NOW Board editorial states: "Based on our
>>>experience with men-only groups -- fraternities, men's sports,
>>>groups of men screaming at us from cars -- men in such groups
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>frequently and openly display sexist attitudes and tend not
>>>to object, but rather reward one another for sexist actions.
>>>Because of this, Campus NOW stands against men-only groups."
> 
>	*IF* the Gainesville student paper quoted the NOW 
>	spokesperson correctly, NOW is opposed to groups
>	of men in cars.

NOW is a national organization (National Organization for Women). The
above quote may (or may not) be representative of that specific Campus
NOW chapter. It can not be attributed to NOW however, since only the
national office can speak for the entire organization.

                             - Mina Sandusky 

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Question???
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:10:03 GMT

In article <1jn9acINNeeu@CS.UTK.EDU> mcghee@hydra3f.cs.utk.edu (GINA MCGHEE) writes:
> 
>
>
>Being a newcomer to this newsgroup and the idea of a newsgroup, I am quite 
>curious as to the purpose of this particular one.  I am wondering, if this
>is supposed to be a place where people can discuss their pain resulting from
>a rape, isn't this bickering going against the healing process??
>
   The real purpose of this group (and the others in the talk hierarchy)
is to segregate extremely controversial topics from groups that exist to
discuss other topics.
   Subjects such as abortion, rape and evolution tend to degenerate into
flame wars. So the talk hierarchy is designed to give people who want to
talk about those subjects a place to go. There is a real need for the talk
groups. Experience will show that it isn't 'good' to talk about rape in
other groups.

   Most people who post here are genuinely interested in stopping or reducing
rape. But, like war, those who talk about the subject tend to disagree
strongly with each other's views, and belive that those views actually
increase te problem. So we have flame wars.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Xref: sparky talk.rape:3126 soc.men:23218
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:28:45 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1jt0r2INNm7j@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie) writes:
>
>>Amy, here is my example of someone who believes sleeping with a drunk
>>woman is grounds for being thrown in jail and getting a criminal record
>>(a misdemeanor is sufficient for this, is it not?).

>Would you say that a misdemeanor is sufficient for taking a drunk 
>person's wallet?  It's still theft, no?  Whether they're drunk or sober.

Hmmm... My last line above may have been ambiguous.  I meant, "Isn't a
misdemeanor sufficient for being thrown in jail and given a criminal
record."

Sorry for the confusion.

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: rape
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:58:52 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: chipotle.gac.edu

In article <1993Jan19.162634.8223@news.columbia.edu>  writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.103609.1797@maths.tcd.ie> abrown@maths.tcd.ie (aisling brown) writes:
>>Why is it that men don't seem to understand how scared women are about rapist   being around?
>>
>>I go out with a few guys and all of them laugh whenever any of the girls are
>>    affraid.
>
>   It is because they are afraid too.
>
>From Acts of War by Richard Holmes:
>
>      This [...] humor helps men to discharge dangerous tensions. In his
>...

Find new friends or educate them.
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3115 soc.men:23177
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 03:01:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie) writes:

>Amy, here is my example of someone who believes sleeping with a drunk
>woman is grounds for being thrown in jail and getting a criminal record
>(a misdemeanor is sufficient for this, is it not?).

Would you say that a misdemeanor is sufficient for taking a drunk 
person's wallet?  It's still theft, no?  Whether they're drunk or sober.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: FOR LOS ANGELES AREA WOMEN ONLY
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:38:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.081138.16308@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.220636.22762@netcom.com> ullman@netcom.com (Sarah Ullman) writes:
>>THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT IS FOR LOS ANGELES AREA WOMEN ONLY:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Have you ever felt pressured or forced to have sexual intercourse or
>>other sexual experiences when you did not want to?
>>
>
>  I assume you recognize that this biases your sample, so that
>no conclusions may be drawn about the prevelence of these problems within the
>general population?

But Michael, that's the whole point.  Propaganda is not based on
objective facts, it's based on biases and prejudices.  You can't
objectively create skewed data, now can you?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:58:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.023754.17077@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>His grandparents might have something to do with it- the fact is that
>he was referred to as something like "accused rapist".  The fact
>remains that he was not found guilty.  When you bring up the trial in
>a ridiculous context, you make it sound like he was found guilty.  

No.  That's what the words "convicted rapist" are for.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:29:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <1jjru2INN3kb@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM writes:
>The problem is that this isn't always a safe bet. I've heard more than one
>"authority" on rape (including the head of the Women's Rape Counseling Center
>in D.C., whose name unfortunately escapes me) claim that a woman who realizes
>in the morning that she probably didn't want to have sex (or wouldn't have if
>she'd thought about it some more) has been raped.

One reason the name may escape you is that there is no such thing as the
"Women's Rape Counseling Center" in D.C.  Yes, I know it sounds good to
appeal to the ultimate spokesperson of those you wish to discredit, but
a little more accuracy is called for.  Your claims are simply not credible.
Any authority on rape will tell you that if a woman is too drunk to have
been able to give consent (eg passed out) then perpetrating intercourse
on her body is rape.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3118 alt.politics.correct:6348
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Man rapes Man
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:40:56 GMT
	<1993Jan18.151528.2648@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<GPRIORES.93Jan20125826@fish.oracle.com>
	<1993Jan22.003334.11899@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


     I concede that I am not qualified to effectively counter "expert"
testimony on the effects of word choice on rape victims. On the other
hand, you can hardly expect me to take the word of hardly
disinterested gay-rights activists on the grammatical (as opposed to
political) correctness of the word "homosexual".

     More to the point, continually tying you in virtually identical
rhetorical knots has started to become more an exercise for my fingers
than my brain. I would probably be further entertained by a discussion
of the differences in worldview between philosophers and engineers,
but it seems to me that I've put you into such a contrary mode that
you automatically disagree with any statement I make, and thus the
chances for rational discussion are essentially nil.

     Instead, I thank you for an entertaining, if often entertainingly
acrimonious, discussion. As the winner of the War of Patience, yours
is the last word. Enjoy it.

     Good luck with your carpal tunnel syndrome.

                               Cordially,

                                      -g
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Followup-To: talk.rape,soc.men
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:09:13 GMT

Joseph Albert (albert@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
: In article <16B5EA76A.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
: > 
: >I don't think that anyone will argue that if a woman is falling-down-drunk
: >or semiconscious she is still capable of giving consent.  HOWEVER, the question
: >is, what about the one who has had perhaps one G&T more than is strictly
: >advisable?
: > 
: >The man MAY be morally culpable for taking advantage of her state; is he,
: >however LEGALLY guilty of rape?
: 
: the legal definition of forcible rape is quite clear.  if the woman is too
: drunk to to be capable of expressing that she doesn't consent to the acts,
: then it is rape.  if the woman was not too drunk to be able to express 
: non-consent, but nonetheless she did not express any lack of consent, then
: it is not rape.  
: 
: in the justice system, the burden of proof is on the state prosecutors to
: demonstrate to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was too drunk
: to express non-consent.

However to be able to do this they need to be able to consider just the facts
of the case.
It would appear that there are many people trying to undemine this by loudly
presenting a view of guild, before that matter would even get to court.

Also there is the fact that the damage to the accused may have already been
done, dispite them being found inoccent, (or the case being insufficent
evidence)

These are more social problems than legal problems, however it is easy to see
(due to a jury being made up of members of the general public) how these can
damage the mechinism of a criminal justice system.

(If people start with an assumption of "must be guilty" then holding a trial
is simply, and expensive, farce)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3128 soc.men:23223
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1jvopvINNbc4@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.205130.26002@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.193255.24302@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>>>Take for example, William Kennedy Smith.  He was found innocent of
>>>rape
>>
>>William Kennedy Smith was never found innocent of rape.  
>
>Really?  I thought he had been acquitted.  On the other hand, as an
>aspiring lawyer, I'm sure you'll tell us it was sexual assault or some
>other technical difference.  I think his point was that regardless of
>what he was charged with, he wasn't found guilty.

"Wasn't found guilty" or "acquitted" is not equal to innocent.
It merely means "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."  A jury
might find a defendant more likely than not to be guilty, but in America,
such a jury would have to find the defendant "not guilty", unless they
found he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The only thing the
verdict tells us was that there was a reasonable doubt as to Smith's
guilt.   

>>>, yet almost a year after the trial I saw a story on CNN about him
>>>entering med. school (or something like that) in Albequerque.  Why was
>>>this news?  Because he was, "Accused rapist William Kennedy Smith"...
>>
>>I'm sure it had nothing to do with his grandparents.
>
>Could very well be.  On the other hand, unless you happen to know for a
>fact that he was guilty (don't recall your being a star witness in the
>trial), isn't he supposed to receive the benefit of the doubt?  

Legally, yes.  I wouldn't send him to jail, because he gets the benefit
of the doubt.

>Coming
>from someone who is apparently a law student, I'm disappointed.

Going to law school, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't divest one
of one's critical reasoning abilities.  Given that an investigative
magazine was able to come up with a dozen-plus women who said that 
Smith sexually assaulted them in essentially the same fashion that
Bowman accused Smith of, I find it hard to believe that so many
women are lying.  

At any rate, which of the statements was untrue?  "Accused rapist"?  That's
undeniable.  He was accused of rape, which makes him an "accused
rapist."  "William Kennedy Smith"?  Well, that's his name.  So I'm
unsure what you're objecting to.  The whole story was news in the
first place because he was a Kennedy.  Otherwise, the story doesn't
get in the papers in the first place.  And Bowman doesn't get her
name dragged through the mud by the New York Times.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3129 soc.men:23231
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:25:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

Thank you for proving my point.  Since not being found guilty ranges from
the extreme (the accused proves conclusively that they didn't commit the
crime of which they are accused) to the gray (the case is largely one of
circumstantial evidence, which doesn't convince the jury), although we are
obliged to let the accused go free, only someone very naive would claim that
the reputation of the accused is restored.  If you don't believe that, ask
anyone who's ever been accused of child sexual abuse, which is basically
impossible to disprove.  And even if it were, the mud sticks.  Which is why
I find it offensive to hear this kind of crap from the mass media.  And I
think you are being disingenuous to not admit that although you are correct
in the technical sense, the public at large will read the worst into it.
And they are probably safe from a lawsuit, since the tabloids have honed this
skill to a fine art.  "Accused child-abuser Ted Frank arrested by State
Police!"  What they don't tell you is that the accusation of child abuse was
made by your ex-wife 3 years ago, with no substantiating evidence, and was
dropped.  And the reason you were arrested was because the statie who pulled
you over found that your license had expired the day before and you hadn't
gotten around to renewing it yet.  Of course, that's not what happened in
this case, but the dark and dirty part of people that this tactic appeals to
in precisely what headlines like this appeal to.

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: hippee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:07:25 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <C1H6wH.BKq@panix.com>, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
> In <1993Jan25.231311.46762@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> hippee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> 
>>The only question for me concerns the apparent choice which one has when
>>one becomes "infected" with this particular parasite [an unborn child].
>>I would, however, beg to remind anyone who would challenge on these
>>grounds that would remove the lice from their hair, the worms from their
>>dogs, and the ticks from their cat.
> 
> Your reminder would dispose of the matter if it were unreasonable to
> believe that the unborn child is of more value than a louse, a worm or a
> tick.  Is that your view?
> -- 
> Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
> "Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
> sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)

My position is that a human life is no MORE worth any other.  The point,
however, does not hinge on this.  Instead, the point is that the individual
who is doing the living on someone else (the parasite) should have the 
permission to do so or face the prospect of an attempt by the host to be 
removed.  This is nothing more than is performed for any parasite.  We don't 
know if the parasite even suspects, nor do we care. We merely remove it.  How
can someone require another to anything less be the parasite a louse, a worm,
a tick, or a human fetus?
From: hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:38:19 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

One must remember something with regard to abortion, etc.  The arguments that
can be logically redered infavor of abortion, as i see it, are as follows:

We don't understand what actually confers life (in the sense that you mean it).
We do understand that some individuals possess a quality called life (i.e. 
those who are born).
We are unsure if this quality is pre-labor.
Those recognized with the quality have certain claims within law (the proper
study for such problems as abortion) to pursuit of happiness.
The most expedient (and utilitarian) way to handle the situation is to allow
those who's claim to the quality is undisputed to have sway in the argument.

In my mind, the argument is not anything objective, it is, however, more
expedient, an issue I have certain reservations about.  The best one might
hope for is for the issue to remain open (choice) until such time as a
reasonably sure guess can be made concerning the amount of "life" that a 
fetus partakes of.

Hippee
@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:42:44 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan25.231311.46762@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> hippee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

...

>From a strictly pragmatic point of view (a view which I see is not often liked
>here), the issues involved in potentiality of life are pitted between the 
>sure potential of the host (mother) and the unsure potential of the parasite
>(fetus).  While the verbiage may be foul, the sense in which it is used is not
>intended to be so.  

The terminology isn't objectionable because it is "foul", but because it is
tendentious. If you buy the notion that the fetus is a "parasite", then of
course you've already made a judgment. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with
nipping off a bit of parasitic tissue. But then isn't the propriety of
doing this precisely what we're supposed to be debating?

>In any runoff between actuality and potentiality, "a bird
>in hand is better than two in the bush."

I think you might need an explanation and an argument here.

...

>The position that you state is the one held by the majority ofcommon law
>writings on the subject.  It is also the basis for the trimester method
>that was espoused in RvW.  As to the existence (or lack) of sentience,
>newer studies have given some reason to question whether the fetus has
>sentience (the results of which are inconclusive).  Much of the research
>concerns effects of pre- maternal stresses (divorce, father's death, etc.)
>that the child might know after birth.  The problems concern the
>reliability of post-natal recollection of a pre-natal occurence.

I fail to see what bearing either "sentience" or memory has on this issue.
Everyone says this is important, so they are surely right, and I must be
the only one who doesn't understand it.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: rosemary@joseph.WPI.EDU (Rosemary Irene Braun)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Intelligent?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:24:01 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: joseph.wpi.edu

Hello fellow thinkers!

Two friends and I recently got into a discussion concerning the definition
of intelligence... I was just wondering what you thought, because there seems 
to be a lot of ambiguity in the concept of intelligence. 

     *-------------------*-------------------*------------------------*
     |  drawroF gnikooL  |   Rosemary Braun  |  rosemary@wpi.wpi.edu  | 
     *-------------------*-------------------*------------------------*
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc