HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Male/Female Rapists (was: Re: Sexual Harassment)
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:33:00 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes...
JK> In <1992Nov23.151108.11827@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Bl
JK>  writes:

JK> >Male-male sex is not necessarily homosexuality.
JK> >As Tim P. points out, the former is action; the latter is orientation or
JK> >desire.

JK> Is is possible for a man to commit what people usually call rape if he
JK> lacks sexual desire?

Hmmm...Actually, I have heard that *some* male rapists have been devoid of
desire or otherwise impotent, and have sublimated their desires through
violence.

I imagine that this may work for some female rapists also, but I have not
heard statistics either way.  I have therefore cross-posted to talk.rape, in
the hope that someone there, may be able to offer some statistics.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We replaced the Dilithium with Folgers Crystals...
Xref: sparky soc.men:21103 soc.motss:52112 soc.culture.new-zealand:3315
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.motss,soc.culture.new-zealand
Subject: Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
From: derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 22:16:27 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <1gafqvINNe3j@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <eumLVB2w165w@netlink.cts.com>, system@netlink.cts.com (System Administrator) writes:
>> 
>> We have been receiving a number of requests to censure Mr. Bowery for
>> his post (F81iVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com).  
>> 
>> NetLink is a public access system, and provides access for people to
>> exchange ideas and opinions -- any opinions, not just those that are
>> "politically correct."  
>> 
>> However, Mr. Bowery's post was in violation of soc.motss charter and
>> was also innapropriate for the other groups as well.  He has been 
>> counseled about proper net etiquette, and had his posting access temporarily
>> suspended.
>> 
>
>Great.  So in other words, he's free to say whatever he wants.  Except he isn't.
>Ever consider a career in politics?
>
>And no, I didn't think his posting was anything other than hateful garbage.

I think sometimes we shoot ourselves in our collective feet when we stop 
people like this from posting.  If we exclude them from our vision we tend
to forget that they exist.  Then we live in quiet complacency thinking society
is free from nutters.      

Let him post - let him get shot down in flames - maybe he has a thick skin 
and won't notice - but - just maybe - after repeatedly being informed of the
distance from the <usenet> societal norm which his postings take him - he 
may change his attitudes.  Sometimes peer group pressure can be a positive 
thing.  


After all there are always kill files (a freudian name if ever there was one).


-- 
Derek Tearne.   --   derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz   --    Fujitsu New Zealand   -- 
 _______
 _______} This is a Usenet condom<tm>.  Roll the condom over the .signature 
	  file before posting to protect yourself from .sig retro-virii
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:47:47 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

#Will you ever, even after all the communication you want, let
#your bed-partner decide what to do in a case of unplanned pregnancy?

In article <28307@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu 
(Beth Weiss) writes:

>_We_ have decided what to do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy:
>make our family one bigger than it is.

If you would change your mind, do you want to do it independently,
or under a law that says that your partner must agree?

Do you have any objection to a legislation that will require your
sex partner approval for your abortion right?

Do you have any objection to the current legislation that let you take
your partner to the cleaners, even if you agreed about an abortion in
a case of unwanted pregnancy?  (Assuming you changed your mind.)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Distilled Wisdom on M
X-To: ERIC PEPKE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:53:00 GMT

pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes...
EP> 2) Men's Health

EP> A gynecologist is a physician who specializes in women's health.  There is
EP> no kind of physician who specializes in men's health.  The closest is the
EP> urologist, who specializes in diseases of the urinary tract and, almost as
EP> an afterthought, with the reproductive system of men.


Actually, Eric, there *is* now a male equivalent for a gynaecologist - an
"andrologist".  I saw one's office at a reproductive health clinic, about
three years ago.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "I'm...I'm supposed to be dead?!" - Tasha Yar, Star Trek
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Nasty E-mail (was: Hooray!!)                 
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:19:48 -0500

In article <1992Dec10.031718.6599@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>I've gotten some rather interesting mail myself. But, the worst stems 
>from posts in the comp.msdos.* groups (msdos is a product of the company
>I work for, I work with it a lot)...anyway, I heard from several...ummm
>...dissatisfied customers...though "bitch" & "whore" don't make me too
>interested in replying..."microslut" seemed rather inventive tho...

I have a nice little file with the addresses of those who have sent me
"wannafucks."  Get a clue, boys (and I use that word for I can't
believe anyone who would send the type of correspondance I'm talking
about qualifies to be a man).  This kind of stuff doesn't impress most
women.  A one line message saying, "I bet you're hot in bed," is less
than intriguing, at least in my opinion.

>I've also received responses from posts in alt.sex.bondage and feedback
>on a few stories I've posted to alt.sex.stories. Interestingly enough,
>the alt.sex.stories feedback is the most consistently positive with no
>name-calling.  

You get a lot of freshman reading the *.sex.* groups because they see
that little word.  Most don't even stop to read more than five
messages on the board before either making a fool of themselves by
posting looking for "hot babes in my area" or whatever.  

The correspondance I have received that I deem "good" far, FAR
outweighs the worthless.  I enjoy talking about sensuality and
sexuality, I have nothing against honest questions and curiosity.  But
I don't come to the net to get picked up, or to have net.sex.
Flirting is fun if done creatively, of course, but you have to know
more than a person's email address to do that, I think.

>I *did* get the socks surprised off of me this morning...I was awakened
>by a phone call from "Ed in Chicago" who called to tell me he liked the
>story I posted recently (!)  

I've had a few people call me, too!  I'm thinking, "How in the HELL
did this person get my number?"  Normally it does't bother me.  I had
a guy who once called, and KEPT calling.  That made me begin to
wonder.  This person never revealed to me a way I could get in
touch with THEM, such as telling me their email address, or mailing
and saying, "Hi, I'm the one who called the other day."  

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Xref: sparky soc.men:21392 alt.dads-rights:3007
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:02:24 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1gth7bINNcfi@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???

	Since this bozo doesn't read soc.men, could I ask those of you
who feel compelled to followup to her nonsense to edit your Newsgroups:
line?  And please, no lectures about killfiles.  
Xref: sparky soc.men:21485 alt.feminism:6277
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: "They take their ideology from Mao and their money from Daddy"
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:56:18 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Living In Harmony


#As a real idealist you just force someone else to pay for you ideals...

In article <1992Dec20.032801.26066@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com 
(Kenn Barry) writes:

>	The illogic of your statement really stands out with the
>intervening bullshit removed, doesn't it?

Sarcasm, of course, is wasted on people with no sense of humor...

(Especially on the kind of idealists who use the state power to 
enforce their ideals, and even get paid for it...)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Artificial Wombs
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:28:09 GMT

In <1992Dec19.010025.21784@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>MLP> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>MLP> >If doctors refuse to perform a "current procedure" abortion, but will
>MLP> >perform an incubator transplant (heh, we named the procedure already!)
>MLP> >then the issue of what is legal is moot.

>MLP> I find this terminology, with it's implication that the woman in
>MLP> a mere "incubator", rather insulting.

>Michal, it WOULD be offensive, IF he meant the term to be used in that fashion,
>which is *not* the case.  He was only attempting to place a name on the
>operation of removing a "foetus" and placing "it" into an incubator.

I think he meant the term in precisely that way (although he may not
have intended it to be insulting).  By making the woman out to be no
more than an incubator, he implies that which lends credence to the
idea that there is no problem with simply removing a baby from the
womb -- that the mother has no right of say in that.

As a point of argument, its slippery and effective.  As an insult...
I tend to agree with Michal.  I would find it insulting if I was a
woman.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:59:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
 
>        "We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.

  Does it occur to you that men are also the one who PROMOTE all
  the institutions and practices you describe, above?   From murder
  to war to boxing to football, these are mainly male activities
  performed by males, and promoted mainly by males.  It's true that
  you occasionally get female fight fans and football fans, but 
  most serious fans of these sports are male, as are all of their
  practitioners.   Female soldiers are even rarer -- occasionally
  you'll find female guerrilla fighters in resistance armies, but
  the vast, overwhelming number of the world's, and history's,
  combatants are male.   Poll after poll shows that when going 
  to war is the topic, men are statistically more likely to favor
  it than women.  Over 90% of violent crimes are committed by males.
  When you look at the thugs in Somalia, the thugs in ex-Yugoslavia, 
  or any other place where humans are being violently inhumane 
  to other humans you are mainly seeing the actions of males.

  I also detect a disturbing fatalism in your posting -- don't
  you think trying out for the football team or watching boxing
  on TV (or watching TV at all) are VOLUNTARY?

  
---peter







Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Artificial Wombs
X-To: DEVJANI MISHRA
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:56:00 GMT

misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes...
DM> In article <ByID1v.KJ8@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
DM> wrote:
DM> >
DM> > In article <1992Nov27.014651.13322@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zoo
DM> uild.org> writes:
DM> > >
DM> > >At any rate, I'm glad to see that there is at least ONE person besides my
DM> > >who is pushing this idea.  I still don't understand why so many people ha
DM> > >problems with artificial wombs (it would remove "women's biological priso
DM> > >or at the very least, have seemed *very* quiet about the idea.
DM> > >
DM> > >Any other ideas here?
DM> > An artificial womb is the anti-choice crowds' best dream.  It renders the
DM> > issue of >killing< an aborted fetus moot.  It is also the feminists' worst
DM> > nightmare.  It renders men and women equal in this area.  Now abortions fo
DM> > all three reasons above do >not< result in the death of the fetus.  Now
DM> > women, who claim that their right to abortion is based on the right to
DM> > control the use of their body, end up supporting children they do not want
DM> > (just as men do today).
DM> >
DM> > Is this not obvious on the surface?
DM> >

DM> Not flames, just honest questions:

DM> 1.  Whether or not there is a right to choose as it is currently framed, is
DM> there a right to bodily integrity to the extent that some sort of invasion
DM> would have to be made in order to remove the fetus?

if the operation is as safe as the current operation, there would be no more
"invasion" than the present operation.  This is my *hope*, although there is
no such technology available, nor do I know of *anyone* researching it at the
present time.

Hopefully, with enough discussion, *someone* might even notice...  :-)


DM> 2.  Is there a right to control the use of one's own genetic material?

Apparently, there is.  Refer to the recent case of the woman who wished to
impregnate herself with frozen embryos fertilised by her husband.  The husband
sought an injunction against the action, and won his case, on the grounds that
the judge had reason to be believe that the man "could not be forced to be a
father".  This also has important ramifications for the Freedom Of Choice For
Men movement.


DM> 3.  Who pays for the procedure, and/or the raising of the child, including
DM> the intensive care for all these premature infants?

The same people who pay for all those abortions...  :-)  (sorry, that was a
blatant COPOUT answer, wasn't it?  :-> ).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Keyboard not found, press F3 to continue...
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:56:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Newsgroup free of female context?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.men


	
	I think that what you are describing is giving up power and 
	gaining assistance or sympathy.  The powerlessness  isn't real,
	except to the extent that the person believes themselves to 
	be powerless.  This is especially (and unfortunately) strong
	in the popular black culture,  where powerlessness is argued
	_for_, and is used as a manipulation technique.   It's effectiveness
	is a form of power (but if you mention it, it will be
	denied as a form of power).

	-Mike-

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Are pregnant anti-abortion women compelled to be parents?
X-To: LARRY MARGOLIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:01:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In <forb0004.110.723631534@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (
LM>  Forbis) writes:
LM> >In article <1foerrINN3f1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
LM> i) writes:
LM> >>
LM> >>If the men are are willing and able to care for their children
LM> >>and if then I see nothing wrong with their using incubators to
LM> >>gestate these children.  However, the men would have to find a
LM> >>woman who is willing to contribute an ova, and I would hope that
LM> >>society would hold her responsible in the same way that men are
LM> >>today held responsible when they contribute semen.
LM> >>
LM> >>You see, I really do believe in gender-neutrality.
LM> >
LM> >If it were the same issue, you might be able to justify your claim. It
LM> >isn't, though; women aren't compelled to become mothers. Fathers are.

LM> Actually, a woman who is strongly opposed to abortion is "compelled" to
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LM> become a mother just as much as the man is compelled to become a father -
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LM> after the initial decision to have sex, the dice are thrown.  That's why
LM> I feel that the only reasonable change in this area is if the people have
LM> discussed it *before* engaging in sex.


This is not necessarily true, Larry.

Even *if* the woman is opposed to abortion, you are correct in what you say,
insofar as she would feel compelled to *bear* the child, but her anti-abortion
opinion does not necessarily compel her to *raise* the child.

If she chooses not to give the child up for adoption, she has made the *choice*
to become a rearing mother, but if the man did not wish to do so, he *has* been
*compelled* to become a father.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * C is for Cookie, that's good enough for me...
Xref: sparky soc.men:21160 soc.women:21462
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Supporintg the Children
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:01:37 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1gie2pINN1q2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>custody.  In many cases, society expects a man to help pay for that food
>and housing, but absent the man, it STILL expects it of women.

	(I'm reading this in soc.men.... Where is it really?)

	But Adrienne, she can put the children up for adoption, a
which point they become the State's (read "taxpayer's") responsibility
to support.

	Or she can keep them and ask the State (read "taxpayers") for
money to support them and herself.

	So to say that society expects a woman to support her children
is an untruth.
Xref: sparky soc.men:21150 alt.feminism:6018 soc.women:21455
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:24:45 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <92349.004937U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|> Oh, one other thing (and flames are still going to bounce, whether Beth Weiss
|> likes it or not)  [junk deleted]
|> 
|> Elizabeth herself, somewhile back, argued for unrestricted divorce, allegedly a
|> pro-male position. After making a hysterically funny attempt to argue that it
|> was sexist of me to suspect that she was a young woman (ignoring the first
|> paragraph where I mentioned the possibility that she was faculty), she went on
|> to argue that female grad students (who, BTW, like male grad students, are
|> usually in their 20's : that young enough ?) weren't generally young women, and
|> that she was dating someone in his 40's. 

I can only presume, as no other woman is specifically mentioned, that J
Dunphrey means me when he says 'Elizabeth'.  Besides it being totally
condescending of him to refer to me as 'Elizabeth', when I only use
'Beth', he is also misrepresentating the position I took.

I have been married (to a man 2 years older than I am) since before I
first had access to the net.  At no point during the time I have posted
to soc.men (or any other group) have I been dating a man in his 40s.  (I
recall something along the line of what he mentions, but his recollection
of the discussion does not coincide with mine.)

Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:36:54 GMT

     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.

In article <1992Dec9.155420.22931@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.192220.24218@rock.concert.net> woody@rock.concert.net (Woody Muller) writes:
>
>>This crude shell game amounts to the same thing.  The money, which is
>>essentially the birthright of the child, goes to the head of the 
>>child's household.
>
>And the head of the household is not obliged to spend it on the child,
>or in any way related to the child, and is not required to account for
>the money to anyone, ever.
>
>The legal issue seems plain: is the the custodial parent, or the non
>custodial parent, who shall be permitted to steal the child's birthright?
>
>This whole "it's owed to the child" issue is so much garbage.  Until the
>custodial parent is held accountable, it's their money, free and clear,
>and the system is a transfer payment from one parent to the other, free
>of encumberance.  The child is just the excuse used to pry open the wallet.


-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /  On Vacation:  12/21 to 12/27   /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support