HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:28:22 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
| >> Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
| >> be done in secret - my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
| >> public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  

tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
| >Who tells you this?  I kiss all the time in public and have never been told
| >that I shouldn't be doing it?  Maybe that's a difference between CA and PA?

mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
| Trying actually screwing in public.  That'll get a reaction in CA *and* PA.
| Maybe you'll even get arrested.

Nudity will usually do it.

Which reminds me of a story.  Back in the fabled 60s, some
students took umbrage at the appearance of a _Playboy_ team
on their campus to do one of those "Women of the Big 10" or
whatever stories.  Maybe it was still "Girls" in those days.

As a demonstration against _Playboy_, what the students did
was go to the office where the team was hanging out, and 
take off their clothes.  Dozens, or maybe hundreds of them.
Both sexes and all shapes, colors, and sizes of everything.
Some of them even engaged in sex play.  

The _Playboy_ team, however, ignored this free gold mine
of sexuality.  According to the subversive rag where I read
this story, they instead try to have the students arrested
for indecent exposure!  In any case, the scene did not
appear in the pages of _Playboy_, although pictures were
printed in the soi-disant underground press all over the
world.

Anti-feminists won't get this story -- they'll be trying
to figure out whether the students were "for censorship"
or "against censorship" -- but the rest of you can
enjoy it.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2450 soc.men:17626
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:42:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Oct12114823@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Let's see -- last I used a diaphram, I'm pretty sure that the instructions
>>involved inserting more spermicide with each act of intercourse.  Am I
>>wrong here?

> Nope.  If you want it to be effective, you definitely need to insert
> more spermicide.

Try the sponge.  You can make love as many times as you like and you don't
have to put more of anything (except your partner ;-) in!

> Bleah...yeah.  I seem to be rather sensitive to it, too, so it itched
> horribly.

Yea, I hate the stuff myself.  You can actually become allergic to it!

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dfrankow@myria.cs.umn.edu (Dan Frankowski)
Subject: "Womens'" magazines
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:43:23 GMT

In <1992Oct6.170233.20385@midway.uchicago.edu>
  mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>>I think Playboy *does* portray women just as sex objects (interview
>>responses notwithstanding), and I'm sure it is offensive, but if
>>you're offended you can ignore it.  Censorship is worse, though.

>(I'm not flaming you, Richard... just using this is a jumping off point
>for a teeny tirade of mine.)

>Playboy is not offensive to all women.  I have a big problem with people
>who argue it is.  I have a friend who does this, and it drives me
>nuts.  I'll tell you right now that *I* find Ladies' Home Journal
>more offensive than I find Playboy.  And you know what my friend
>says to this?  Not much.  She still banters that Playboy is offensive
>to women, while she clips recipes out of LHJ.  (She's a good, Christian,
>medium-traditional wife -- not quite the radfem stereotype.)  It blows
>my mind when she just refuses to hear me say it:  I do not find Playboy
>particularly offensive... and I'm a woman.... Hello? 

>In fact, you know what is really "offensive to women" (IMO)?  The
>attribution of opinions simply on the basis of having XX chromosomes.  
>It sucks, I think.  

>(opposition to censorship which I agree with deleted :-)

>I was just taking the openning to let off some steam.  (Am I arguing with
>*anybody* in net.land?  Mebbe not.  That would be nice.)

Nope, you're not arguing with me.  I found your comment about Ladies'
Home Journal interesting.  I have two reactions, both formed from the
supermarket checkout line.

First, it seems to me that many womens' magazines spend a silly amount
of time talking about men.  Not that men aren't important (okay, I
admit it, I am one), but I'm positive that there are _many_
interesting and important facets to womens' lives that don't have much
to do with men.  Look at the percentage of articles on how to please a
man, bed one, marry one, understand one, etc.  I've found around
30-50%.  Silly.

Second, I picked up one of these magazines once to find out what men
are really like (hey, that's what the article said), opened to the
first page to find the table of contents, and there was a nude woman!!
What a surprise!  Skinny as a rail, provocatively draped over some
product (perfume?) in jeans, breasts pert and pointing out.  I showed
it to my girlfriend and she said, "Yeah, sure, I know.  Didn't you?"
I didn't, since I never looked at such women's magazines.  We agreed
that it was weird.

Summary: I agree that there are many (sometimes surprising) reasons to
argue that so-called womens' magazines could be more of a threat, a
media blitz to stupid-ify women, than men's magazines.

Do I think they should be censored?  No.  I think that they're so
silly that no one should be them and they should go out of business.

>rini

Dan
--
Dan Frankowski                dfrankow@cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:22:33 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

[Background]
>>>know this, and that you are raped while wearing such clothing, do you
>>>think that the rapist should get a lighter sentence, since you are
>>Again, there are assumptions in your question that prevent me from
>>answering it. Please rephrase the question (and the scenario). 

>Dave, as is clear from Muffy's, somebody's, and now this post:  There are
>several people who don't know what assumptions are preventing you from
>answering.  Please elaborate.

There are many of them. Let's start with the easiest two:

"Wearing attractive clothing is cause for rape"
"'Lighter' or 'Heavier' sentences received imply degrees of crime committed"

>I (me personally, not Muffy, nor anyone else) would be happy to argue that a
>person should be able to wear any clothing (or none), act as coyly as they
>wish, and *STILL* not have any responsibility whatsoever for being raped.

It depends on the situation....

>While it's true that one must be reasonably aware and behave defensively, that
>is a bug of our society, not a feature.

...and that statement is possibly the crux of a disagreement between you
and I. I feel that the act of "being reasonably aware" should not be confused 
with any condition of the society you live in. 

There is *certainly* an awareness of an attractive body in an attractive 
outfit in the person that is in both. Taking responsibility for that situation
is not to be confused with taking responsibility for being raped either. 

>Please reconsider your stance that someone who is raped should be considered
>partially responsible.  The rapists (and the society that releases them 
>to rape again) are responsible.  Never the victim.

I cannot do this and stay consistent with my philosophy. Sorry. I am willing
to concede that most people do not consider (and are not ready to consider)
the rapee being partially responsible for a rape. 

And, as always, nothing here is intended to justify a rape of anyone or 
anything. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Going to church does not make a person religious, nor does going to
school make a person educated, any more than going to a garage makes a
person a car.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:31:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.160307.28705@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>solnorda@dmpe.csiro.au (Chris Solnordal) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>Dave -- you and I -- we share absolutely *no* responsilibity for the
>>>rain.  Snow either.  Not even tornados.  It's true.  Really.
>>
>>Hey I think you're being a little harsh on Dave.  I mean, if you choose to have
>>a big party outside, you should be taking responsibility for the possibility
>>of it raining.  
>
>But I do not bear responsibility for the weather itself.

#define humor-mode=on

Have you ever heard of the butterfly effect?

It is just possible :^} that the air disturbed by the opening of your
car door -caused- the thunderstorm that ruined the yard party.

But then again, maybe not...

no=edom-romuh enifed#
 
>I can choose how to *react* to the weather, but I *cannot* choose whether
>or not rain (snow, tornados, hurricanes) will happen.  
>
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:37:15 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>>  *LET* them?  *LET* them?  You imply that people have a choice in the
>>matter?  Jesus, do you think anyone *lets* someone rape them?
 
>Yes, in fact, I think people have a choice in the matter. Awareness of that
>choice, however, is not always there...

Wow.  You blow me away.  I can only call it niavete.  If you ever get
held down by four muscular people and fucked in the ass, do let us
know what you think then.  (pardon my swearing -- it's a problem I have.)

>>  I haven't forgotten.  But you still say, by virtue of existing, that
>>you are responsible if you are raped.  That's really bizarre.
>
>Well, it's not a concept most people entertain. I feel that you are 
>responsible for everything that happens in your life, period. Awareness 
>of that responsibility is (again) another matter.

I'll remember that next time it rains.  (I guess accepting responsibility
for the rain is the first step in making it stop, right?)

>None of these awarnesses justify any acts a "real" rapist commits. 

"real"?  "real"?  Please do tell -- what distinguishes a "real" rapist
from a rapist?  Are there "unreal" rapists?  Are they like ghosts or
something?

Blown away,

rini
From: sandy@cs.montana.edu (Colin "Sandy" Pittendrigh)
Subject: Women in Engineering
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, MSU, Bozeman Mt 59717
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:23:53 GMT

	A friend recently remarked to me that although there
are very few women at (our local) engineering college, the ones
there were all very good. In fact, in each class, the "best"
students invariably include a woman or two. This can, at first
glance, be explained by a "hostile filter" theory. Engineering
is so hard and so hostile to women that it drives away all
but the very best female students. 
	Well, I'll bet there is a great deal of truth to that.
But how do you explain the following: at the most recent Tau-Beta-Pi
engineering honor society initiation, women, who are at most
10percent of engineering, represented nearly 35% of the honors
inductees. Anyway, I just wondered.

Darnel
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:56:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

Sinead Update

Singer reveals why she tore up the photo of the Pope.

Sinead O'Connor, in her fires comments since teaaring up a photo of the pope
on "Saturday Night Live," says what she's _really fighting_ is child abuse.

In a statement, the Irish singer accused the Vatican of distoring histoy and
said ignorance of history "has resulted in the highest manifestion of the
disease of child abuse, which is also the root of all evil."

"That is what we need to fight and why I am fighting.", she said.

At the end of the Oct 3 show, O'Connor tore up a photo of Pope John Paul II
and said, "Fight the real enemy."

Extracted from the Press Enterprise.

starbuck
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:10:07 GMT

In <carol.718844010@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:


>I feel the need to be a feminist - not through any hatred of the male
>sex, but through a desire to see my own sex treated fairly. And if in
>doing this I take a job that once a man would have had, or even just
>tell a man to go to hell for harrassing me, is this a sign of hatred?
>Or is it just me sticking up for my personal rights as anyone should be
>encouraged to do?


I feel the need to be wary of some feminists;  I don't think its through
hatred or fear, but just concern.  When the government creates grants
exclusively for women, I don't entirely believe those feminists that say
all they want is a little fairness.  Is being concerned about my personal
rights suddenly not allowed anymore?

Ken

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Rights and Responsibilities
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:23:31 GMT

In article <1bfd4hINNq8d@uwm.edu> litow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (bruce e litow) writes:
>Normally, I refrain from serious posting because of my views about this
>medium. However, The following may be useful. I am not interested in
>debating the following points. Comments that seem to be to the
>point will be studied by me.
>
>1. I am opposed to laws that would impede a woman from having an
>abortion at any time during term, prior to onset of actual delivery.
>
>2. Given (note the word) that women may safely obtain abortions as
>in 1., then there are certain repsonsibilities attaching.
>
> a. Outside of marriage, where the father has expressly disavowed
>    support, and the woman elects not to abort pregnancy, then the
>    the child will be her responsibility, solely.

If I've been reading things right, the fathers opinion is irrelevant,
the mother can make the decision without asking the father, and he is
legally responsible for child support if she decides to have the child.

He has no options here, the mother has them all, and he is liable for
her decision. 

It looks like you are just expressing your opinion, although you were
not crystal clear on this.

This seems to bother Hillel, and Muffy thinks the guy should get a
vasectomy or give up sex. Although she says 'for the paranoid',
this seems to apply to all males in America who have sex, paranoid or
not. I think that this is the only situation where one person can
make a major financial decision for another irrespective of the wishes
or means of the other. And -both- parties consented to the sex. 

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:39:28 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.002640.14801@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> Now, where are the *secret conspirators* who venture
> forth between the great American corporations, asking "is anybody
> here *cheating* on our agreement to shaft women???"

Geeze Robert, now the secret cabal will have to KILL you too! ;-)

Terr.... gag,ack,sputter!

NO CARRIER
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.160838.9739@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard
Lynch) wrote:
 [ previous arguments deleted ]
 
> *I* think the real problem is the preponderence of pornography showing women.
> 
> But the pornography is a symptom, not the illness itself.  And it's not just
> a symptom of an illness in a few people who are going to be sick with or
> without porno.  It's a symptom of an illness in society as a whole.  Please
> note that I am still talking about the INEQUALITY of porno, not the existence.
> I enjoy a good porno flick as much as the next guy, but there IS something
> wrong when there are *way* more girly mags than there are Playgirl-type mags.
>                                                           ^[Note the irony.]
> 

Symptom ? Illness ?  
You are dangerously close to expressing a traditional sex=dirt view here.
( I don't believe that's your opinion, but read the words).

O.K. So what if (just if) more men prefer visual sexuality than women ?  Is
this a sickness, or a natural consequence of (for whatever reason) their
preferences ?
The real issue for MacKinnon is that she sees pornography as a Man_Thing
and therefore inherently dangerous.

Seen an ad for a diamond ring lately ?  See the sparkler on any hairy
fingers ? Talk about sickness.

I fail to see how more women viewing pornography would validate men's use
of it.


> "TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Unreasonable Objections? (was: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and..)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:20:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.212035.9623@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.154456.9613@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>Suppose somebody else had to spend time in the area where either calendar was.
>>Supoose that person found either calendar objectionable enough to complain that
>
>Suppose none of this was true? I have problems when supposes must be stacked too
>high. For the record, no one else works in my cube, and most of the time,
>neither do I. Suppose she found my jets calendar objectionable, for whatever
>reason, why should this be a firing offense?
>
>The point is that she will arrange -her- envirnment to suite her tastes,
>as will I. How is it that she is not responsible if I do not like her
>(what is the name of the mens pinup calander?) male pinup calendar?

Let's carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Never mind the Chippendales. Suppose that this woman has some sort of
feminist calendar or poster in her office, which contains the usual
kind of message about how women are so wonderful and men are bad.
Now, I personally feminism to be offensive because it expresses hatred
of men, and I happen to be male. So, I presume that under
the existing MacKinnon rules against sexual harassment, I can force her
to take her feminist poster or calendar down? 


>Why should a womans personal preferance take precedance over mine own in
>my enviornment?

Some people have *more* Constitutional rights than others.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:48:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.223052.21389@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
>Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
>Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:30:52 GMT

>[ bunch of reasons why women make less money than men  ]

>U.S. Labor stats show that women with equal educations and equal time 
>on the job (i.e. no breaks for family raising) make $1.01 for every $1.00 
>men make (in the same profession).

>Just and observation, not a commentary.

>Jeff.


Just to add my ha'pence in..... 

In the U.K. (where I come from) they did a similar study on the comparitive 
earnings of men and women solicitors (a branch of the legal profession in 
England and Wales). The findings showed that after the first year of 
qualification (and taking into account career breaks) women (at 2-3 
years qualified) earned on average 5% less than their male counterparts (and 
this increased gradually throughout the career path). Whether this will 
change, with the majority of new graduates with law degrees being female, I 
don't know, but as a female solicitor, it's depressing!!! 

Audrey.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:18:16 GMT

In article <7526@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>In article <92279.022349ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
 

[gobs and gobs of rude commentary deleted...]


>> Now let me tell you about Fernando.
 
>This is a joke, right?  You meant to post to alt.sex.stories, but by
>mistake you ended up posting here?
>
>No?  This is "for real"?  I can feel my leg being pulled from here!

Damn, what's *your* problem?  Can't believe that incredible bullshit
actually *does* happen?  Even if it is lie -- it's not particularly
unbelievable -- and it's not particularly funny.

>> Finally, a friend of mine answers and tells me what is going on.
>> "No, that can't be. Put her on the phone." I say to her, "Are you
>> fucking Fernando in the loft?" But she denies it. I warn her that this
>> would be a terrible mistake, that he has a "bad reputation."
>
>"But she denies it?".  What does she owe you?  She should have told you
>to go to hell.  It's none of your business who she chooses to have sex with.

Hello?  They're *friends*.  Maybe he thinks it is a good idea
to give her his opinion.  Is that so awful?  Is that not one thing
that friends typically do?
 
>Try minding your own business.

Try minding yours.  I'm curious how you see it is outrageous for him
to give his female friend what he saw as honest, well-intended advice and
at the same time how it is justifiable for you to offer incredibly 
vicious, rude "advice" to a virtual stranger (I presume).  How *do*
you justify it? 

>> Nothing
>> personal, it is simply unforgivable to stoop so low as to fuck this guy,
>
>Yea.  Especially when she will not "fuck" you.

This must be an issue with you.... careful... you're projecting.

>> The men just want to pommel this guy into oblivion. Ten, twenty, thirty
>> guys. 
>
>But they're all pussies.

Wow, low blow there, dude!  You must be so macho.  Can I feel your muscle?
 
If you a point (which I doubt), let's hear it.  Otherwise, keep your
irrational, misanthropic ad hominems to yourself.

>Al

rini