HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:38:00 GMT

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
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Correction:  Barbara H. Is Insensitive to Financial Rape
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:23:32 GMT

Barbara Hlavin wrote:
> Barbara Hlavin has never "advocated" [Financial Rape]. . . .
> What I did do was (mildly) demur at your judgment in using 
> the word "rape." 

    I'm very glad to hear his -- MAYBE I mistook you.

    Child-Support *IS* Financial-Rape and it
    *IS* as bad as Sexual-Rape.
    
    I should have titled it:
      "Barbara H. Is Insensitive to Financial Rape"
    
    Other people, besides yourself, have
    complained about my use of the word "rape".

> > > Mia Farrow has never asked for a dime in alimony or 
> > > child support from anyone  . . .
> I'm not going to spend an instant "proving" anything to you, you 
> rude person.  For all you know, Andre Previn voluntarily chose to 
> contribute to his children's support.

   So don't blame me if I'm not convinced of
   your assertion about Mia not demanding money.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:44:27 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <1992Sep3.165905.25808@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, a@a wrote:

> "What is Wrong with this picture??  Well, quite a lot.  Barbara Erhenreich  
> has made the point in her _Hearts of Men_ that the anti-feminist right is  
> really out to restrict the lives of men.  This is her final  

[deletia]

I can't tell the difference between the anti-feminist right, and the
radical feminists. According to the theory advanced in your post 
reguarding the right, they both believe in the goodness of women, and
the evil of men. The only real difference is that one believes that it
is the way G*d made us, and the other believes that it is by nature 
that way.

The results will be the same.

K'Char
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 22:50:07 GMT

In article <=xdn5_c.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>>>The previous posters talked about how the idea of kids as
>>>passive, eager, innocent blinking faces and adults as
>>>manipulative, lustful, abusive parents isnt always true
>>>
>>>.......jeff
>>
>>So what's your view?  Is it that children should be viewed as
>>being sexually available to adults?  I don't.  I think that
>>adults who think of children as sex objects as very sick
>>individuals.  I think children should be protected from them.
>>How do you feel?
>
>I have said how I felt before in this thread.  I will repeat
>for your benefit:
>
>I dont feel, I know, that kids have sex with other kids.  That
>kids want to have sex with some adults, and that kids are not
>sexless, innocent, little people.  That many people have had
>sexual experiences as children with other children or adults
>and were not harmed by it.  There is even scientific evidence
>to support this.
>

I don't see an answer to my simple question here.  I'm sure
you do, but please phrase it simply so I can understand it.
Do you believe that children should be viewed as being
sexually available to adults?

>I think that I want to have sex with women.  I think there
>is no reason at all they should be protected from me.  A
>proposition is not attempted rape.  Attempted rape is when
>I dont take no for an answer and something happens to interrupt
>the proceedings, just as attempted murder isnt the same as
>self defence.

Have sex with children is illegal.  Its called rape.  If you
attempt to have sex with children, but don't succeed, its
attempted rape.

>
>A common myth is that kids dont know better, that they cant
>decide right and wrong, and cant chose for themselves.  I
>feel that they can, if they had the information to make that
>decision.  I know I was making decisions about myself as a
>minor.  And I know alot of kids who do.
>
>I know that a power problem exists in almost every relationship,
>adult and minor.  That social pressure, as well as emotional
>and economic, are used in sexual matters every single day.  And
>I think its wrong.
>
>What I dont feel is that if such a condition exists that
>means that the condition must be used.  A employee/employer
>relationship doesnt have abuse the economics of it. People,
>kids and adults, can resect each other.  And just because
>some dont doesnt mean that most cant.
>
>
>......jeff

Then I suggest that you as an adult respect children.  Don't
view children as sex objects.  Its all very simple.

Xref: sparky soc.men:15922 soc.women:16139 alt.feminism:587
From: 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:03:44 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <1992Sep2.151603.26592@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>Carol mentions the old saying that women dress for other women.  I just
>wanted to add my two cents...  I think this is definitely true.  I
>often ask male friends whether they like when women wear makeup, and
>I have received unanimously negative responses.

Who (among men) seriously considers a woman attractive, if it looks like
she applied her makeup with a small trowel?

Personally, I find women VERY attractive when I hear them THINKING about
what they say, instead of just spouting what they've been programmed to
say.

(I must however, relate a small anecdote.  When my girlfriend goes to
work (waitress), she applies a small amount of perfume.  The running
joke is that she also dabs a little on me, so "I don't go chasing other
women" - besides, I like the smell!)

Mitch.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 01:43:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>  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

I so no problem with this.  The 5 year old could have learned
it from a huge number of sources.  sneaking peeks at adults doing it,
watching vidios, reading a book..

Just because a teenage girl comes onto someone doesnt mean she was
forced into it either.

.....jeff

Xref: sparky soc.men:15628 soc.women:15921 alt.child-support:2969
From: slarsen@haydn.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Break-ups
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:16:25 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug28.204354.11394@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Alan Yasutovich writes
>> I always believed that, for some reason
>> I can't fully explain, marriages broke up some
>> time around the birth of a child.
>
>   Woody Allen started his affair with
>   Soon-Li(?) less than a month after he
>   adopted 2 of Mia's kids.
>
>   People hate enslavement.

Ouch!  Maybe it can be claimed that men are forced 
into biological parenthood, but it is pretty far-
fetched to suggest that a man can be forced into 
adoption.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Sep 1992 12:48 EST  

In article <BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
 slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury) writes...

>On the other hand, I've known men to claim they like women 
>without makeup but future statements reveal this to be false.

I gotta agree.  I LIKE the look of makeup that's well-applied.  It 
certainly takes a degree of skill, too.  I also like good perfume.  Most 
women I know like cologne and nice clothes on me, too.

Why deny it?  Mostly for two reasons.  (1) it's more "correct" to deny that 
a little makeup improves a woman's appearance  (2) people don't "notice" 
makeup that's done well (Christi Brinkley vs Tammy Faye Baker ... whose 
makeup do YOU remember move vividly?).  :+)
^^^^^^
                                                  James S. Zakany
						(no e-mail please!)
Xref: sparky soc.men:15789 soc.women:16023 alt.child-support:3011
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:00:40 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Sep1.020034.23991@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>Like me, he has been through a rough time (a different situation from mine,
>mind you), and it seems that he still needs to get over his anger.  If he
>"rants," which people who are very angry sometimes do, and you don't like it,
>you can put him in your kill file.  What he does *not* need, is to be insulted
>and belittled.

What we do not need is to be insulted and belittled. By him or anybody.
His situation does not give him the right to piss all over anyone he
feels like it with impunity. His "rants" remind me of Holy Hubert on
Sproul Plaza in Berkeley. High on vitriol, low on information. Vanishingly
low.

It's always been my contention that Christianity, as a movement, isn't
particularly advanced by preachers like Holy Hubert. Similarly I see no
advancement by using StressedOut's technique of constantly lashing out.

We don't need to be no stinking punching bag.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:29:15 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs

Barbara Hlavin wrote:

> I guess you need to get a sense of humor. 

> I guess you need to get a sense of humor. 

> Guess you need to lighten up. 

And when men tell women this, they are insensitive boors, incapable of
sensitive feelings.

Welcome to Catch-22.

We don't like being the butt of abusive jokes anymore than you do.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Lawyer Speak
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:44:57 GMT

Barbara Hlavin writes
> > [Woody Allen] wasn't forced INTO it.
> > But he's forced to REMAIN in it.
> Huh?  He sued for sole custody of three of the children, two of 
> them adopted.  
>      Doesn't sound to me as if he's being forced to remain an adoptive 
> parent against his will.

   You must not be familiar with custody battles.
   Even if Woody was *VERY* lucky and won 
   *evenly-split* visitation -- the courts (god) 
   designates only one to be the "primary care taker". 
   Woody would be grossly lucky to get 49.999% visitation.
   The 50.001 guy (Mia) gets the Child-Support money.
   For woody, 49.999% custody means that he joins the
   ranks of the "remote wallets" -- male enslavement
   -- male rape.  Like sex, Support-money is only 
   wonderful if it's not forced.  If the majority wish
   to support the kid, then the *majority* -- without 
   enslaving an individual -- should pay for it.
   If Woody doesn't work as hard as he has ever worked 
   (no vacations) -- If he doesn't help pay for Mia`s 
   house (to keep the kids in the "lifestyle that they 
   are accustomed to") then he is a outlaw -- like me.
   
   Calling Mia "unfit" and wanting "custody" is
   old lawyer speak for "Don't soak me."
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:19:32 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <VIXIE.92Aug22131333@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>[bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)]:
>> Why is it that the biological father has to convince somebody to let
>> him have custody of his own children?

>The fact of the mother's motherhood is usually not in dispute, at least
>in the hospital where the birth occurred, since various people witnessed
>it.

>On the other hand the people in the hospital have only hear-say evidence
>of the father's identity, since the his biologically neccessary participation
>was presumably not witnessed by the hospital staff.

You're describing something that should be decided upon in a
biological/medical setting, not a court one.

I agree that the problem is in establishing paternity.  However, a
court is not equipped to answer that question, don't you agree?

While I am sure that there are many cases of the mother refusing to
acknowledge the father as the biological father, what about the cases
where the mother and father agree?  Why is that taken to court?

If the question is one of paternity, why are we going to court rather
than the med lab?

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:01:30 GMT

In article <kzfn6f_.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>This all leads me to think, "Thank God, that with people like
>>you in the world, we have laws that restrict your behaviour."
>
>I have never trusted religion as the basis for moral and ethical
>guidelines.  History has proved how badly xtian principles govern
>and how often they are abused.

I have no idea what xtian is or means.

I wasn't talking about religious laws here, but the laws of
our state.

>
>And laws do not restrict my behavior at all.  I will act, as always,


Gee, I thought you said previously that you don't go after
children for sex because of the laws, that's what I was
referring to above.

>to do so.  That is my right.  Laws, in this country, do not restrict
>behavior at all.  Police cant arrest you because you might rape
>someone in the future, they arrest you only because you have already.
>
>Also be aware that I am one of those who has a vote and therefore
>one who can work to change the laws.
>
>However, richard, this is far afield.  You have yet to show
>that adult/minor sexual experiences *must* be abusive, simpley
>because you cannot.  There are those who have posted their
>own experiences that were not abusive or harmful.
>
>Somehow we have to ditch this idea of kids as innocent, beautiful,
>pure little cherubs.  Kids get horny.  Kids are curious.  Kids
>do things with other kids.  Adults do not have to push their
>sexuality on them, and when they do its wrong.
>
>Many people were sexually initiated, by consent, by someone
>much more mature than they were.  Why is this wrong?  Why
>cannot a relationship coloured by a age difference be loving
>and caring on both sides?
>
>
>......jeff


And Jeff somewhere you will have to disprove this idea of you
as a horny guy hanging around school yards, or I will maintain
my view of you as a very sick individual.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Gender and bathing suits
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:08:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>I've noticed an interesting difference between men and women
>when it comes to bathing suits.
>On the beach, most women wear clothing which is skimpier 
>and more revealing than men.
>Women tend to wear small, hugging, bathing suits,
>while men tend to wear shorts, which are baggy and long.
>Why don't more men wear tight, revealing, bathing suits?
>Why don't more men wear thong-style bathing suits,
>like the suits worn by the women on the beach-scenes
>of the NBC television show "Baywatch"?
>(Have you ever recorded the opening-scenes,
>and single-stepped through the recording,
>and seen all the mostly-bare female buttocks which are displayed?)

Simple.  Bathing suits for women are designed to be as sexy as possible,
sexy according to what society is thinking at the time.

The one-way sexuality is nothing more than societies messed up
values.  Women are there to be looked at, men are there to look.

me, i have nothing against women wearing baggy or lumpy clothes
to the beach, i certainly dislike bathing suits that look uncomfortable
(the bare-butt ones, ouch, major wedgie).

.....jeff
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:19:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

anoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
> (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.
> 
>(Jeffrey Boser) writes:
> 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.
> 
>You miss the point. Just because Tom Chapin, et al were
>approached as youngsters, said no and suffered no 
>harmful consequences doesn't mean that mother-child
>sex (which is where this started) is a good thing,
>or that other children will be so lucky.
>
>Dano

That was not the point of their postings.  They said that
if they were propositioned, they refused, and were left
alone, that there was no such thing as rape.

Thats not logical at all.

Your point is true, but only in as much that sex between any
two individuals isnt necessarily a good thing.  Regardless
of their relationship.

My point is that sex between any two individuals isnt necessarily
a bad thing.  Regardless of their relationship.

The previous posters talked about how the idea of kids as
passive, eager, innocent blinking faces and adults as
manipulative, lustful, abusive parents isnt always true


.......jeff
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Break-ups
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:32:17 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

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

I have been told that having a baby and buying a house are two of the things
that some couples do, consciously or unconsciously, to bolster a fading
relationship.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky soc.men:15641 alt.child-support:2975 soc.women:15929
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.women
Subject: Re: "Winning" Personal Rights
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:28:38 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.215953.651@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>   Go suck my dick!
>

Perhaps the thing that is most gratifying about participating in Usenet
discussions is the uniformly high level of maturity and intellectual
content in the postings.  It is indeed refreshing to find such a haven
from mindless gutter talk.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Bad states for men/divorc
X-To: EDWARD BERTSCH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:46:00 GMT

Note To Ed: Could you please e-mail me to confirm that this post actually
makes it to alt.dads-rights?  My posting software is having some problems,
so I'm not sure what is making it where, any more.  Thanks!

eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch) writes...
EB> Well, I'm asking the question for a third time.  I've gotten
EB> virtually no response (1 message by mail)

EB> What states are good, and what states are bad for men, in regards to
EB> marriage, divorce, child custody, spousal maintenance, child support,
EB> distribution of assets, and respect for pre-nuptial agreements?

EB> Thanks for any response you might be willing to give,

I'd suggest asking one of the following:

FREE: President: Anne P. Mitchell, Juris Doctoris : shedevil@vix.com
      Files Coord. : Bob Kirkpatrick: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us

Fathers Of America: fa@socal.com

Mind you, I'll bet that one of the people who wrote back to you, was from
FREE, so I'm wasting my breath telling you to talk to them.

The reason I say this, is because I've found FREE to be quite efficient ;
they're usually a step ahead of most people on the net when it comes to
family and legal issues.

Mind you, if it *wasn't* Bob or Anne, or one of the many FREE coordinators,
then there you go, you have some more contacts...

---
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 * Windows: a colourful clown suit for DOS
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights