HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
X-To: SBISHOP@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:14:00 GMT

SB> In article <1992Aug4.133641.27209@news.nd.edu>, slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
SB> san larsen) writes:
SB> >
SB> > I applaud the fathers, who in their search for legal justice,
SB> > never lose sight of the needs of their children.  And who would
SB> > never conceive of casting their own children as villians in the
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SB> > custodial melodrama.


Okay, Susan, I know that you aren't looking for a fight, and in spite of our
misunderstanding of two months ago, when I first joined soc.women, I am not
looking for any fights, either.

However, I have seen this text of yours quoted many times, and while I
*wanted* to say something about it, I was concerned that you might think
that I was attacking you personally, or "itching for a scrap," etc.

At any rate, although you have a valid point, I do not think that unwilling
fathers are the only ones casting their own children as villains.  Indeed,
consider what some unwilling pregnant mothers do, or the "pro choice"
advocates who apparently speak for them - they do not even consider the child
to be a child ; they use words like "lump of cells" or in my own situation,
the phrase "this cancer inside me".  (I do not need to tell you just how much
it would hurt if you wanted a child and someone called him/her a "cancer")

The reason why I chose to make this point was not to attack you in any way,
but to illustrate that those who are Pro-Male Choice are NOT casting their
unborn children as villains, any more than advocates of Pro-Female Choice
are doing.

However, I *would* consider it hypocritical for a person to be of the belief
that Pro-Female Choice advocates do not think that they are casting unborn
children as villains, but that Pro-Male Choice advocates *are* doing so.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * GOiD is a state of mind.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:33:26 GMT
Distribution: na

Seth Breidbart writes

+ All of the women I've dated have fingers, toes, tongues, breasts, and
+ other appendages capable of penetrating my mouth.  YMMV

Do you know any cops personally? As an experiment, see what their
reaction is to "I was raped by a woman!".

I betcha they'll say: What? You were raped by a WHAT? *snicker*

K'Char
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:40:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1992Aug30.034032.4671
Organization: AT&T

Rich Soyack writes:
>				 cases in which good comes
>from it seem to come from those adults who view children as
>sex objects.

If this had come many postings ago, it could have been dismissed
as misunderstanding.  However, since it follows numerous postings
specifically attacking the possibility of such misunderstanding,
and occurs in response to just such an article, it loses all claim
to be seen as innocent, and displays itself as a deliberate act of
deceit.

It's purpose is to perpetrate an act of abuse, specifically an act of
emotional abuse.  A deliberate attempt is being made to avoid losing
an argument by using only ad hominum arguments in return.  The
particular form of deceptive ad hominum is to attempt to pretend that
every example where a child was not harmed by an adult is an example
of an adult wishing to harm a child.  When I was growing up, I was
taught how to recognize the "BIG LIE" technique of propaganda.  Rich
is using this technique of repeatedly lying in each of his responses, 
in the hope that eventually the fears and biases of his audience
will allow the lie to take root.

Rich has shown himself to be an abuser.  But it is important to
recognize the form of his abuse, since, in our society, emotional
abuse, the form of abuse which he perpetrates, is often not recognized.

Emotional abuse can be just as harmful as any other form.  One
practitioner, Senator Joe McCarthy, was able to totally destroy
many lives and cause several suicides through his expertise in it.

Much of the power of emotional abuse derives from scapegoating, the
act of falsely attributing evil qualities upon the scapegoat, and
inciting a mob to destroy the scapegoat, since the cowardly abuser
would never dare attempt it himself.  

In this example, Rich is attempting to impute evil motives upon
anyone who refutes by counterexample his claims that all acts of
sexuality or attempts at acts of sexuality between a minor and an
adult cause damage to the minor.  Even though all the counterexamples
were specifically from the perspective of the child considering an
adult as a potential sex object, he has repeatedly attempted to twist 
the perspective into the opposite because the first perspectve can't
be connected to his scapegoat while second is easier.

If he can portray all those who were not harmed by opportunities of
childhood sexuality as suspected child abusers, he gains by, first,
effectively silencing those who could prove him wrong, second, by
discouraging others with similar experiences from coming forward,
third, by potentially showing his power to sway a mob if he can get
others to join in the attack.  Not too shabby a result from just a
few deceptions.  Joe would be proud.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 11:57:42 GMT

In article <719@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>No, as a matter of fact, my ex and I didn't marry until after the
>birth of our second child. So for two of the three, your scenario
>holds directly.
>

	Interesting testimony.  I always believed that, for some reason
	I can't fully explain, marriages broke up some time around the
	birth of a child.

	*You* got married after the children.  What changed?  You
	certainly didn't have stars in your eyes!

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:28:24 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug25.124923.20482@zooid.guild.org>, 
Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes...
> MP> "We conclude that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the 
defendant
> MP> without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the
> MP> specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault,"
> MP> Justice Alan B. Handler said in writing the opinion on behalf of a 
unanimous
> MP> court.
> 
> Notice also that this judgement ONLY includes men as defendents, ie., "any
> act of penetration engaged in by the defendent" can ONLY be done by men,
> since only men can penetrate.  Of course, you COULD charge a woman with rape
> if she was using a sex toy on an unwilling male :-), which is rather unlikely.
> 
> Don't you just LOVE gender-specific legal judgements?

The case involved a gender specific plaintiff and a gender specific defendant,
hence a gender specific judgement.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:58:58 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Aug25.124923.20482@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes...
> MP> "We conclude that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the defendant
> MP> without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the
> MP> specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault,"
> MP> Justice Alan B. Handler said in writing the opinion on behalf of a unanimous
> MP> court.
> 
> Notice also that this judgement ONLY includes men as defendents, ie., "any
> act of penetration engaged in by the defendent" can ONLY be done by men,
> since only men can penetrate.  Of course, you COULD charge a woman with rape
> if she was using a sex toy on an unwilling male :-), which is rather unlikely.
> 
> Don't you just LOVE gender-specific legal judgements?
> 

  Actually, this kind of legislation takes all the romance out of lovemaking,
with both participants too concerned with possible litigations to be able to
truly appreciate each other as caring human beings. It's gotten to the point
where trying to even meet a woman has bcome more trouble and
more threat than it's worth. A lot of men just don't bother anymore.

  This leads me to the conclusion that the legal snowstorm surrounding sexual
relationships is actually a conspiracy to control population!  :)



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:24:14 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird




  ljf wrote:

  I don't agree with that.  If a 4 year old is asked (not
  coerced) into fellating an adult man, no harm is done?
 
 Tom Chapin replies:

 When I was sixteen or seventeen, a friend related that a few nights
 previously his brother, age 5 or so, came into his bed and performed
 fellatio on him.  He pretended to be asleep and did nothing.
 Did the older brother harm the younger brother by passively allowing
 his younger brother to perform incestuous fellatio on him?  Would

Once again Mr. Chapin sidetracks the issue. The question asked
remains unanswered. Mr. Chapin instead relates some other story.

Also, assuming the story is true, one would have to wonder 
WHERE the 5 year old LEARNED that behavior?

 Just where was the harm located, and who harmed who?

This ought to be obvious. The fact that it isn't means
someone (and it ain't me) is in denial.

Dano


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:25:08 GMT

An interesting technique, and one that seems to be very
popular these days, which is, the victimizer puts on the cloak
of the victim.  I guess you feel it works.  For me the issue
at hand is very simple.  Children should not be viewed as
being sexually available to adults.  Easily stated, easily
understood.  As for the rest of what you said, please keep
typing those long articles, because it keeps you occuppied.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 13:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.043344.6009@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>Rich Soyack writes:
>>And Jeff somewhere you will have to disprove this idea of you
>>as a horny guy hanging around school yards
>
>You are perpetrating abuse, Rich.  Stop.  You are showing yourself
>to be as sick as those who hurt you or those close to you.  But you
>have the chance to heal, rather than perpetuate the cycle.  Limiting
>yourself to forms of abuse which are legal is NOT the way to do it.
>
>-- 
>	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com

But Jeff's statements that having sex with children is not
rape, or that even though there are laws against it he will only
choose to follow those laws that he feels like following do not
indicate that he is only interested in his needs doesn't show
a predilication towards abuse?

Interesting point of view.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: Q
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:01:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.124500.3156@memstvx1.memst.edu> mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Is this group for MEN only?
>Just curious.
>

Not Hardly, Rai, there's always room for a net.goddess

>Rai.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I could do it forever and ever                    Raina Weinberg
>Give me an hour to kiss you                   Memphis State University
>Walk through heaven's door I'm sure              Memphis, Tennessee
>We don't need a doctor to feel much better
>Let me in                                   MCSWEINBERG@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU
>Forever and ever and ever and ever"
From: jordan+@pitt.edu (Kenneth D Jordan)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: Pittsburgh Volleyball
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:53:19 GMT
Distribution: pa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: jordan@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

*******************************************************************************

				    OPEN VOLLEYBALL

	Location:	Gateway Junior High School (Monroeville).
			Only 15-20 minutes east of Oakland / Pittsburgh.

	Elibigility:	Both individuals and teams are welcome.
			Men, Women, or Coed.
			A great place for teams to scrimmage, or for
			individuals to get some serious court time.

	Day / time:	Thursdays, 7-10 pm.

	Starting date:	September 24, 1992

	Fee:		Only $26 for 12 weeks.  Cheap!
			(6 week registration for $15 also available --
			good for any 6 weeks during the fall session.)
			(There is a one-time-per-year fee of $5 for
			non-Monroeville residents which applies to all
			programs, including the next session.)

	Miscellaneous:	This is to be clean "power" volleyball.  Ability
			levels typically range from B through AA.  There
			are 2 courts, and the gym is fairly nice.  I'd
			describe the atmosphere as "friendly competetive".
			The program resumes with a new session in January.

	Directions:	From Pittsburgh:
			Take the Parkway (376) east to the third Monroeville
			exit, which is Route 48 North.  Turn left at the first
			light (<1/4 mile), and the entrance to GJHS's parking
			lot will be immediately on your left.  The gym is at
			the back of the school, next to the track.

			From various other places:
			Or take the Turnpike (76) to Exit 6 (Pittsburgh).
			Exit onto Business Route 22 West, and make the first
			right onto Route 48 North.  Then proceed as above.

			From elsewhere:
			Contact Nick (see below).

	More details:	Contact Nick Nystrom (nick@theory.chem.pitt.edu)
			or by phone at (412)-372-1817.

*******************************************************************************

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nick Nystrom      University of Pittsburgh      nick@theory.chem.pitt.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:11:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.024134.7681@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <Btr1zD.59@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>>A man is wounded in war action and is virtually brain-dead.  All
>>>high-order brain functioning is lost.  Low-order brain functioning is
>>>intact.  Everyday, on numerous occasions, the man gets an erection.  A
>>>nurse, who works with this man, notices the erection and devises an
>>>intricate little plot.  She wants to have a child, but does not want to
>>>have a relationship with a man.  She is a staunch feminist, and frankly
>>>does not respect men and their suffering.  Anyway, one evening, the man
>>>gets his usual erection and the woman mounts him and has sex with him to
>>>ejaculation.  Whether she repeats this numerous times is unknown.
>>>However, eventually she conceives adn no one knows who the parent of her
>>>child is.
>>>
>>>Is this rape?  He never consented.  He was not penetrated.
>>
>>I don't know if it's rape or not, but it would make a great story line!
>
>It is rape.  The man is not able to give his consent to sex, thus it's
>rape.

I agree.  You shouldn't have eliminated my smiley-face, though.
(And go read or see "The World According to Garp"!)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.131841.19570@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>In article <13cnd=j.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>>What a bunch of self-serving bullshit.  By these asshole's
>>>reasoning, there is no rape.  A child's only problem when
>>>approached by someone so deranged that they see a lone
>>>child, or children playing away from adults as a sexual
>>>opportunity is, how shall that child turn down sex without
>>>hurting the other.  If you are so emotionally damaged that you
>>>need to have sex with children, then you should lock yourself
>>>up.
>>
>>Boy richard, sure know how to lay on the insults eh?  No,
>>according to their reasoning, they know the definition of
>>rape.  rape is sex without consent.   they are saying that
>>they had experiences where such consent was denied, and no
>>sex took place.
>>
>>how the hell does that equate to rape?  or abuse?
>
>I guess you didn't know that its rape when adults have sex
>with children.  Its attempted rape when adults attempt to have
>sex with children.  Is that clear?
>
>>
>>>Am I angry about this, yes, as angry as a woman who had been
>>>raped might be when reading how when a rape attempt is made
>>>her only problem is avoiding the sex without hurting the other
>>>person.
>>
>>Where did you get this idea?  They were saying that they
>>had situations where there was no force, no power, where they
>>werent afraid of saying know, and didnt want to hurt the other
>>person.
>>
>
>No force?  No power?  Adults have power of children.  Their
>size alone gives them an implied force when making a
>suggestion of sex with children.  I would suggest you worry
>less about the offense I gave those arguing that there is
>nothing wrong with children being seen as sex objects and
>worry more about the effect of this on the children.
>
>>Women do it every day of their lives.  Its called letting
>>them down easy.  And I dont see a damn thing here that has
>>to do with rape.
>>
>>.....jeff
>>
>
>Approaching an adult with suggestions of sex is not attempted
>rape.  Children have not learned to cope as well as children.
>Can you understand this?

Ah, a typo, that should have read, "children have not learned
to cope as well as adults."  Those who like to argue
non-issues may jump on this, but I think that even with the
typo, those concerned with issues will have understood what I
meant.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 22:46:35 GMT

In article <l60m-xf.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>A few brief quotes from Houston _Chronicle_ reporter Jacsun Shah, as
>reported in the Jan., 1992 issue of "Liberty" magazine, p. 78:
>
>   "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
>    Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.

Of course, I and probably every other feminist on the net are going,
"And who the hell is Jacsun Shah??"
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is it that the men want?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:01:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: riley

In article <3556@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.200615.23173@news.nd.edu> slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>> What is it that the men want?
> 
> 	Fast cars and fast women.  Geez, were you like born yesterday
> or something? 
> 

  So THAT'S where I blew it. I had "fast women and slow horses". No WONDER
I'm broke!



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:01:47 GMT

In article <Btr1zD.59@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>A man is wounded in war action and is virtually brain-dead.  All
>>high-order brain functioning is lost.  Low-order brain functioning is
>>intact.  Everyday, on numerous occasions, the man gets an erection.  A
>>nurse, who works with this man, notices the erection and devises an
>>intricate little plot.  She wants to have a child, but does not want to
>>have a relationship with a man.  She is a staunch feminist, and frankly
>>does not respect men and their suffering.  Anyway, one evening, the man
>>gets his usual erection and the woman mounts him and has sex with him to
>>ejaculation.  Whether she repeats this numerous times is unknown.
>>However, eventually she conceives adn no one knows who the parent of her
>>child is.
>>
>>Is this rape?  He never consented.  He was not penetrated.
>
>
>I don't know if it's rape or not, but it would make a great story line!
>
>;-)
>
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

I don't know if you have *ever* followed any rape cases etc.. but
penetration is *not* a requirement.. sheesh..  I hope you were
joking... but I didn't see anything indicating humour...

Hmm.. I know of a couple of stories nurses told... oops.. shhhhh!
-- 
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.     | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada   | UUCP:...!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
Newsgroups: soc.men