HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Let's Move On Again.
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:54:51 GMT

In article <mcgeegt.921210025619@eng.auburn.edu> mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu (Gary T. McGee) writes:
>First of all, a geometric acceleration is much quicker than an exponential one.
>
>Next, being politically correct is not the issue. I agree that all 
>aspects of rape should be discussed. As far as Anmar Caves response 
>to my post, I have to say that perhaps some enlightenment will come his way. 

Just how much enlightenment should I get?  See below.

>
>I do not deny that rapes are committed by women, and I am sorry for 
>those people who have. However, we need not lose sight of the big 
>picture. My point was merely that we should discuss a topic and move
>on. That way everyone who may need to be helped is helped.
>Feel free to slam this post and any other from me. I do have my
>sources by the way. My sister is a licensed professional counselor. 

No, it seems that your point was that you were tired of discussing a
subject that didn't seem to fit into your world views.  As I tried to
point out in my post, the big picture includes *everyone* who has been
raped, not just women, and not just men.  The original thread was
about male being raped by female, if you get tired of reading it, the
n key or the k key should suffice (if you are using rn or trn or any
such version).  Your post came across as "this stuff just never
happens, so let's stop discussing it".

As for your sources, that has as much credibility as the fact my uncle
is a veterinarian give me authority to speak on that topic.
You want sources?  I've been raped by both a male, and a female.  I
worked teen counseling when I was in HS.  I've been an EMT for 5 years
and had many in depth inservices on working with victims of rape.  My
SO is a victim of multiple rape/incest.  I don't make a claim to have
cornered the market on the subject, but I do feel I have the ability
to explain some things from the points of view of the victim, and of
the counselor to the victim.  Just how much more enlightenment should
I get before my contribution to this topic is valid?

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: huggett@sequent.com (Terri Huggett)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 03:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.174618.2837@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>   The difference I think between rape and other violent crimes is that rape
>looks like normal social relations unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>I can't say that a person agreed to let me hit them with a baseball bat. That
>wouldn't be any defense at all. 
>
This argument really caught my attention.  I had to think about why I had a
big problem with this thinking.  In fact, I believe the reason rape is 
differentiated from other violent crime is just BECAUSE society considers
it to be part of NORMAL relations, NOT because is is hard to distinguish
from normal relations.  There is a big difference.

Terri Huggett
huggett@sequent.com


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:10:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.035417.22754@sequent.com> huggett@sequent.com (Terri Huggett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.174618.2837@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>
>>   The difference I think between rape and other violent crimes is that rape
>>looks like normal social relations unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>>I can't say that a person agreed to let me hit them with a baseball bat. That
>>wouldn't be any defense at all. 
>>
>This argument really caught my attention.  I had to think about why I had a
>big problem with this thinking.  In fact, I believe the reason rape is 
>differentiated from other violent crime is just BECAUSE society considers
>it to be part of NORMAL relations, NOT because is is hard to distinguish
>from normal relations.  There is a big difference.
>
   I don't think that there are many people who would say that rape is
part of normal relations. Except A. Dworkin.
   What you might say is that all laws relating to sexual morality from
homosexuality, to child abuse, to violent rape, were openly acceptable
in some society at some time.

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.  

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:42:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.193051.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.164726.22333@news.columbia.edu>, 
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>     Why am I wrong?  "I was joking." What proof will you have against this
>> if you don't have an act? "I wasn't going to take the money." What proof
>> against this without an exchange?
>
>"I was joking" doesn't get you out of any other contract, either.  At the point
>the person names the act and the price, a contract has been offered.  At this
>point the law has been broken.  Saying that you were only joking doesn't get
>you off the hook for verbally threatening someone or talking about bombs in
>airports, either.
>
   I don't believe it. Claiming to be joking is a perfectly acceptable 
defense. Do you mean that everytime I say "I'm going to hit you" I have
committed assault?   Surely not. Most times when I say this, the alledged
victim is perfectly aware that it is a joke. When the facts are known, 
a jury will have no trouble aquitting me.
   As far as bombs in airports, at least in Maryland, joking about it is
a crime in itself. So in this case the jock can't be used in a defense.

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.
From: langley@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Randolph Langley)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Vigilantes
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:35:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FSU Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
In-reply-to: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com's message of 7 Dec 92 15:45:33 GMT


In article <1992Dec7.154533.29060@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:


    The main problem here is not being taken by surprise.  Most people
    wander through life compleatly un-aware of what is happening around
    them. (condition white).  If you pay attention to what is happening
    around you, you stand a chance of taking action before you are
    attacked.  If you sitting at a light at 11PM on a deserted corner,
    and someone makes a move for the car door, put the pedal to the floor
    and run the light.  Be aware and avoid the problem.  


Right. You might also take care that when you pull up behind a car at
a red light that you leave enough room to maneuver your vehicle. Don't
let yourself be trapped by someone pulling up closely behind you.

rdl

--


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: grey@bnr (Grey)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Originator: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:48:02 GMT

Cott Lang writes:
> In <1ghsg0INNf8o@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de> simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
> (Julia Simon) writes:
> 
>>> to comprimise the defense. The defendant may claim that the sex was
>>> consentual. If there is any doubt about this, then the sexual history of
>>> the accuser is very relevant. It is certainly unfourtunate for a rape
>>> victim, but I don't see any way to fairly avoid the situation.
> 
>> OH MY GOD - that's just not fair!!! I mean, if someone steals my purse or
>> something, then it's illegal even if I'm known to happily spend all my money
> 
> I think a better comparison would be if you claim someone stole your purse,
> and that person said you gave it to them, and then it was discovered that
> you regularly gave away your purse to people.  =)

And, to the point, does this evidence affect the probability you gave the
purse away this time as well? Is it relevant? Personally, I'd rather the
judge decided whether given evidence is pertinent to a case, rather than
legislating that it never is.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grey@bnr.ca			              I think I know enough of hate
greymouser			     	      To say that for destruction ice
my own opinions, not those of my employer     Is also great, and would suffice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gt8834a@prism.gatech.EDU (Cott Lang)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Let's Move On Again.
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:19:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1gbsejINN55s@mozz.unh.edu> rll1@kepler.unh.edu (Robert L Lamothe) writes:

>If a 14 year old boy and a 14 year old girl have mutualy willing sex then I'd
>couldn't see having the boy face criminal charges for this, sure lack of 
>judgement may be at play here but not criminal intent.  However if a 19 year
>old boy and a 12 year old girl do the same then I'd have to say that the 19
>year old should face charges.  After all anyone of legal adult status should
>know better than to take advantage of an impressionable child.  I guess for
>me its a matter of degree.


Maybe, maybe not.  I mean, to me personally a 19 year old and a 12 year
old is a bit sick.  However, if it's a mature 12 year old and a mature
19 year old, and that's what they want, why is it any of our business?

That's not the big problem with me, however.  The problem with me is
the cases you hear about where the state's law was EIGHTEEN, and
an 18 year old guy and a 17 year old girl are dating, the parents
find out, and WHAM!  The guy's in jail and has his life ruined.  

Plus, most statutory rape laws work only one way.  If a 35 year old
woman has sex with a 10 year old boy, it's not statutory rape. They
can be tried for "lewd conduct in front of a minor" and other things,
but not statutory rape.  That's where it's descriminatory to me. <shrug>


-- 
------------             The Digital Wasteland               ------------- 
                    Renegade BBS Software Home Base 
             Running under OS/2 on a 486DX/50 with 880 Megs
        (404)933-9253 16.8k Dual        (404)955-0325 14.4k Dual
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Two Puppets
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Organization: m4

Interesting.  Of course, the woman could have avoided the
pain and humiliation by using a knee to the rapist's groin,
right?  Or if she had a whistle, or a hatpin, or mace- right?
Or if she hadn't led him on with by flirting or wearing sexy
clothes, right?

Or if she had shot him with a handgun when he was ten feet
away.  Right?

--- lee  KC6KXI  NRA-Life ---
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:37:56 GMT

	My pal Mickey has been more than willing to argue everything that goes
on on this ridiculous thread. However, there is one point that he doesn't seem
to want to respond to...
> > 
> > >>>>cordially,
> > >>>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> > >>>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> > 
> > JMF:
> > >>>	Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
> > >>>that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
> > 
> > MZ:
> > >>No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
> > 
> > JMF:
> > >	But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
> > >thrill for both of us.
> > 
> > But the genotype is an essential property of our bodies, Skippy.
> > Either we are relatives, or it is impossible for us to be related by
> > blood.  Since in the actual world, as a matter of empirical fact, no
> > deadbeat is a relative of mine, and since you are a _bona fide_
> > deadbeat, it is impossible for us to be related.  Q.E.D.
> 	If you don't define two guys like us who spend *way* too much time
> arguing over really silly things on usenet as being deadbeats, I don't know
> what is.
	Let me just, for grammatical reasons, change those last two words to
"who are," and I think I have an argument that even the esteemed Mickey
Zeleny won't touch. Wow...scary thought, huh?
> > 
> > >>>							Lard & Fishes,
> > >>>								Skipp
> > 
> > >>cordially,
> > >>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> > >>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> > 
> > >					More fun than lots of things, up to but
> > >					not including reruns of "Cheers,"
> >  
> > cordially,
> > mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> > "Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
> 								-Skipp

								-Skippy 
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3050 rec.arts.books:22899 alt.politics.homosexuality:8261
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:11:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]


	A few days later, and Zeleny still hasn't defined "deadbeat" for us.

	Could this be the end of Mickey Zeleny's reign of logic?

	Stay tuned...

							-Skippy
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2920 rec.arts.books:22266
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproduction
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:35:08 GMT

	Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it. 
	But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
operators...my god, it's quite a scene.

							-Skippy
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: JPL, Shuttle Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:58:42 GMT


In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>, 
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

|>In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu> 
|>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

|>>	But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
|>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
|>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
|>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
|>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
|>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
|>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
|>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
|>
|>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
|>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
|>time before the climax.  The long form will be found in my latest
|>reply to Mike Morris.  I await my promised reward.
|>

So therefore, a three-way relationship of two men and a woman would be
acceptable.  The two men could have sex while the woman watches TV in the
next room, because at any time before the climax, they could switch to a
potentially productive venue within their union.  Sounds good to me.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:42:00 GMT

Svein writes:
>The mistake lies in requiring that the Subject is to be found
>among the objects. But that is precisely what it is not. Every
>time you reach for the Subject like it was Object, and think
>you have grasped it - it is not It. For the Subject can never
>be Object.

I would just like to make clear that although Svein usually espouses
the Objectivist position on a variety of subjects, this view of
consciousness is not the Objectivist position.  Quite frankly, I
think it is totally incoherent and meaningless.

--Jimbo


Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3013 rec.arts.books:22666 alt.politics.homosexuality:8102
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes posssible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:38:19
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Dec16.212451.25986@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Dec16.184450.18580@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<1992Dec17.193101.3978@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com's message of 17 Dec 92 19:31:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.193101.3978@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

> As far as I could tell from the articles on my system, your syllogism
> went as follows:
> 	Given, 1) Only potentially productive unions are moral.
> 	And given, 2) The union of two males is not potentially productive.
> 	Therefore, 3) The union of two males is not moral.

> If #1 was somehow the conclusion (derived principle?) of some other chain
> of reasoning, that chain is no longer on my system.

I think most people haven't focused on this rather glaring omission,
since Zeleny has yet to provide a coherent definition of what
"potentially productive" even means.  Once he shows that this concept
makes sense, then he can begin to argue why it is morally significant.

Me, I think the whole discussion is silly anyway.  Most of the things
that I do, in bed and otherwise, have no connection with reproduction
at all; should I give up eating cheesecake, reading netnews, and
calculating Feynman integrals just because none of those things can
lead to making more babies?

(Well, maybe I should give up reading netnews, but that's not the
reason...)


--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductivenes
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:14:20 GMT

HERSCH@auvm.american.edu wrote:
> In article <BzG69y.qD@unix.amherst.edu>, jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL
> FUCHS) says:
> >
> > As it is, I have a sneaking suspicion that if
> >Zelany were to somehow wander onto the "alt.video.games.classic" newsgroup,
> >he would manage to start a gigantic, pointless flamewar over what qualifies as
> >"classic" in ten minutes flat.
> >
> 
> Actually, the flamewar he would start there would more likely be
> over the immorality of queer sex, don't you think?
	Nah. Mickey, like the cockroach, is infinitely adaptable. Just think
of some other newsgroups he could wander on to...
	"alt.chris.elliot," "alt.vectrex," "rec.music.industrial..."
	Actually, I would like to see him wander on to that last one - sure
be interested to hear Mickey argue the finer points of Big Black's "Songs 
About Fucking," recently re-released on CD (joy!)

> 
> H.
> 
> Herschel Browne
> "The" American University

						-Skipp
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: mine
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:32:06 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <10DEC92.21424584@vax.clarku.edu> dcantor1@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>For all you philosophers out there
>Answer me this
>
>Can human beings live in a society based on one principle?
>

"I am the only creature in the Universe with Free Will"


      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology




Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:24:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu> 
> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> 
> >	But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
> >male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
> >between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
> >clearly stated reason
> 
> The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
> switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
> time before the climax.  The long form will be found in my latest
> reply to Mike Morris.  I await my promised reward.

Oh, Lord, if this is what passes for "logical and clearly stated" at
Harvard, I weep for the state of higher education in this country.

Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
approved--and a more ludicrous premise I haven't seen in a long
time--I have no problem seeing that two women or two men could have a
potentially productive union in *some* world.  (Maybe it's my science
fiction background.)  Therefore, by your "reasoning," their union
should be okay.  If you can't envision such a world, that, my friend,
is *your* problem, not mine.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality