HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:34:29 GMT

ken bell writes
> [kids] are dependent, 
> and as such have a right to depend on their parents 
                                              ^^^^^^^
                                              WRONG!
    Kids have a right to be supported -- but from their
    community -- NOT from their "genetic link".
       Individuals should have the right to NOT support
    any kid -- but the community has already decided
    that they want to support all kids.  Besides all
    kids SHOULD be supported by something that wants
    to support him -- otherwise he'll be abused.
       Prehistorically -- kids were NOT supported by
    the genetic father -- no one even knew who he was
    -- the community supported them.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13568 soc.women:13943 alt.censorship:6144 talk.politics.misc:35316 alt.folklore.urban:19461 misc.legal:14681
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:49:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Jul22.114922.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul22.050251.25566@news.eng.convex.com>, datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
>>You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
>>At least, none have ever been documented.
> 
> It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
> that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.
> -- 
> 
> ======================================================================8--<

And when Hitler executed the people accused of plotting against him
by hanging with piano wire, he had that filmed also.  === Al Sparks
From: eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Man-friendly states (USA) ???
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:34:22 GMT
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Minneapolis, MN



I was wondering how the states in our not-so-fair union line up
in terms of man-friendliness versus the apparently normal case of
man-animosity vis a vis divorce, children, etc. and the rights
a man gives up/what it will cost him when he enters the shackles
of marriage and especially when he is 'freed'

I believe here in Minnesota we run a nice matriarchal family
court system.  I don't have any facts or statistics to back
this up, but I guess I am asking what are the implications of
getting married and residing and divorcing in different
states?

Same thing goes for cohabitation and /common-law/ wife type
garbage.  I know some states let you live with a woman as
much as you please without there being economic ramifications.

Also, where do the various states stand as far as respect for
pre-nuptial agreements go?

What are the best ways to protect assets from marriage?  It
appears to me that a trust fund should be the best way,
but I would like to hear some real-world advice and experiences.

Thanks,

Ed

26, single, and happy to stay that way for now


(originally posted to alt.dads-rights but didn't get any response
yet)

--

Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
(612) 645-0168 voice mail         [DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS; NOT MSCI'S]

"Read _MY_ lips: No vote this time, George"      vote Libertarian in '92

% echo "potatoe potato" | spell
potatoe
%
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@uriel.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: What's your KQ?
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:54:41 GMT

In article <Bs7J22.Ly6@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca  
(James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.095630.25751@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil  
Postlethwaite) writes:
> >In article <22123@watdragon.waterloo.edu> dmmooney@lion.waterloo.edu (Dave  
Mooney) writes:
> >>There's a little bit of Ted Kaldis in all of us.  The amount varies, of
> 
> 	Test deleted

> >Is this a 'The net Really Does go outside the USA I never knew' American
> >centred post because I haven't a bastard clue who about 75% of the above
> >people are.

> 	Probably not; it's being posted from Canada, a former colony of 
> Britain located mostly north of the USA (Which, granted, is also a former
> colony of Britain, but the beer is worse).

Well, technically, yes. Canada is part of America, which is North America
and South America together. In fact we're all part of the OAS (Organization
of American States).

> 
> 	van der Valm was the allegedly corrupt premier of British Columbia.


Bill van der Zalm, to be exact (I hope :-).

- db

--
-------
I always thought that NeXTStep was very good in its approach to color since
the tasteless are protected from their own stupidity. -- Jason Breckenridge
(I know Jason, Jason is a close personal friend of mine, and I am not Jason!)
Xref: sparky soc.men:13612 soc.women:13988 alt.censorship:6176 talk.politics.misc:35485 alt.folklore.urban:19530 misc.legal:14709
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:19:15 GMT
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

In article <1992Jul22.030941.5310@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.215707.29491@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>I'm a performance
>>artist or snuff filmmaker.  Laws against murder prohibit may favorite
>>form of speech.  
>
>You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
>At least, none have ever been documented.  If you actually know of any,
>please let alt.folklore.urban know, because they've been looking for
>one for longer than I've been on the net.


** To date in the United Kingdom, no police force has ever seized a "snuff"
   movie.


   

-- 
          ****************************************************
          *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@uk.ac.cov.cck  *
          *        LL.B. Law        *  Coventry  University  *
          ****************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:08:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.045823.14145@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
)Canadian women team up with the government to propose a new rationale
)to extract money from men.

...

)What do y'all think of this proposal?  Is it a long-needed stroke for
)women's economic justice?  Or is it another example of the New Women's
)Liberation, by which women are liberated from the economic consequences
)of their choices (with the gallant aid of the nearest male wallet)?  Or
)somewhere in between :-)?  I wonder if this idea has hit the US, and
)how it would fare there?

I have two basic reactions: 1) I'm not sure that 'statistical justice'
is totally valid here, and 2)  I'm not sure I trust the statistics
either.

I've seen contradictory claims on how much being out of the workforce
hurts one's salary.  The data I have shows that the loss, initially thought
to be large, was overblown.  However, I haven't looked at the original claims
for said loss (think they came from the 'Panel Study on Income Dynamics' or
somesuch.)  Here's the source (for the US) for the impact of being out of
the job market being temporary and not a long-term effect:

Ref:  "U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series
P-70, No. 10, Male-Female Differences in Work Experience, Occupation, and
Earnings: 1984, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1987

I think more investigation into the actual facts is called for - I would
tend to guess that the supporters of this bill would tend to put the most
favorable (for women) twist on the statistics, and that the truth is probably
highly arguable and open to interpretation.  I'd take a *real* close look
at the statistics the touters are proposing.

What I would like to see personally is for people to have more flexibility to
make their own prior agreements as to who gets what and pays what in advance
rather than government imposed default arrangements which cannot be escaped.

There is no reason that a woman *has* to leave the workforce nowadays -
mandating payments only on a statistical basis seems somewhat dubious in any
event.  

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 11:20:01 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Distribution: na

In article <9997@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>+ _before_ pregnancy occurs, both "parents" have the same choices.

>Bullshit. The man has absolutely no say in the matter. None. Nada. Zip.
>But he by damn sight better cough up the cash when the woman decides
>*unilaterally* to be a mamma.

No...Paul is quite right.  *Before* pregnancy occurs, the same choices
exist for both parties:  Engage in sex and risk pregnancy or don't
have sex.

It's after conception that the choices become unequal.  Before birth,
she has the right to not become a parent (specifically by terminating
the pregnancy).  After birth, she has the right to not become a parent
(by giving the baby up for adoption).

He, however, has no such right.  If she decides to become a parent,
then he automatically becomes a parent, too.

Now, I agree that all men who have consented to become a parent should
be made to support any and all such children to the best of his
ability.

However, I also feel that he should have the similar choices she has.
At some point before the option of abortion has passed, he should let
her know that he doesn't want to become a parent and will forfeit all
rights and responsibilities to the child.  This will give her the
chance to decide whether or not she wants to do it alone and, if not,
whether she will have an abortion or put the child up for adoption.

Once the child is born, however, it's too late.

In fact, if I recall the situation correctly, if the two people are
not married, the father has no legal claim to the child unless she
makes a bid for child support.  My point?  Suppose he wants the child
and she doesn't but also doesn't want to have an abortion.  She
decides to put the child up for adoption.  Well, wait a minute.  What
about him?  It's his kid, too, isn't it?  Nope.  Now, things may have
changed since last I looked into this, but the general trend for a
time was that if he wanted the child, he had to formally petition for
custody.

To put it simply, men have very little choice about if and when they
become parents when compared to women (yes, he can simply not have sex,
but that's a trivial answer...what happens when sex *does* occur, birth
control *is* used, and it fails?)  This hardly means that women "have
it easy," but it does mean that the situation is unequal and seems to
have little hope of being resolved in the future.

-- 
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,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:09:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.215707.29491@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>I'm a performance
>artist or snuff filmmaker.  Laws against murder prohibit may favorite
>form of speech.  

You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
At least, none have ever been documented.  If you actually know of any,
please let alt.folklore.urban know, because they've been looking for
one for longer than I've been on the net.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Always in motion, the
X-To: BETH WEISS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:35:00 GMT

BW> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
BW> Subject: Re: Always in motion, the future, hee hee (was: Re: Foetal Transfer
BW> Date: 28 Jun 92 16:12:10 GMT
BW> Followup-To: talk.abortion
BW> Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

Beth Weiss writes...
BW> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
BW> >Fetal transfer replacing abortion:

BW> >Will Steeves writes...
BW> >>Not really.  If the procedure is equally as safe as an abortion, then not
BW> >>even the woman loses, well, except her control as to whether the child liv
BW> >>or dies.  THIS is why I say that foetal transfer will revolutionise this
BW> >>entire debate, because it will FINALLY separate the rights of the "woman's
BW> >>body" from the "baby's right to life".

BW> >6. The process for terminating pregnancy must be implemented in such a way
BW> >   to ensure the maximum likelihood of the fetus's survival.

BW> This is an interesting idea, but I'd like to see medical research
BW> backing it up as a possibility.  Currently, doctors can't even
BW> re-implant a _wanted_ ectopic pregnancy.  I wasn't aware that they
BW> could remove a fetus _and_ be able to implant it in another woman.  Do
BW> you know something about this I haven't read?


You are correct, Beth.  This technology does *not* exist at the moment.  What
I was advocating (and Mark, I did *not* read any of your messages, so my
suggestion was formulated quite independently of your prediction <-: ) was
that science begin extensive research into discovering a method to do this.

My guess is that it *might* involve a derivative of RU-486....  *That* could
be a problem...


MARK: BTW, regarding your suggestion that the Supreme Court will rule that
      family law statutues will apply to foetuses...

      That would implicitly imply that the Court *will* decide that the foetus
      is a person.  Are you so sure that they will do that?

      (I certainly know that they will *never* do that up here in Canada!)


 Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * No I don't speak Klingon.  Do you??
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 05:18:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <712556351@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
#In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
#kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
#
##One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
##about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.
#
#They make a real effort to keep Politically Incorrect people off
#soc.feminism.  When I still tried to post there, I posted the
#rejections in soc.men; the righteous attitude and narrow minds
#of the moderators were pretty obvious from these rejections.


Maybe it was just a bias against you, Hillel.  There are plenty 
of anti-feminist men posting there now (I assume that these people 
fit your definition of Politically Incorrect.)  If they turned 
down one of your articles these days, I'd join you in making a 
complaint.

Susan
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:32:24 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell. [...]  What do you do?  What should the
>law be? It's not as obvious as you seem to think.

	I stay awake and when he bends over me to smother me with the pillow
I kick him in the balls - ooo, that's not very aiki, is it? Ok, I redirect
the energy of my foot into his crotch :-) - then explain to him that I'm
a very light sleeper and he shouldn't wake me up again 'cause it makes me mad.


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: me@isnext4.msu.edu (My Account)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Erections and Ejaculations: Speaking the unspeakable
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:43:36 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <bruzzone.711392468@cunews> bruzzone@alfred.carleton.ca (Alex  
Bruzzone) writes:
[much about penises ejaculation and youthful homosexuality in various cultures  
elided] 

I have long felt that Western culture (or whatever it's called) focuses to much  
on the penis and ejaculation.  Surely there is much more to a man's sexuality  
than that.  Then I read _The Tao of Love and Sex_ by Jolan Chang and got a  
Taoist perspective.  Did me some good.  Hard to explain to women sometimes but  
then so's everything else.  :-)

> We have to remember that male sexuality is exposed with both
> arousal and orgasm in the male being visible. (for more information
> refer to Puga's 1988 audio-cassette "The Reality of Men"). It's
> visibility makes the male sexual experience vulnerable to shame. 
> 
> I propose a discussion on these sensitive male-related issues and
> invite other men and women (particularly men) to make comments on
> this and other related topics.

{...}

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Alex Bruzzone                       bruzzone@alfred.carleton.ca
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

OK I'll bite.  I haven't heard Puga's "The Reality of Men" tape but I can  
identify with the part about the exposure of men's sexuality in arousal and  
orgasm and the risk of shaming that it entails.  In this era of man-hating it  
seems all the more likely to have a women laugh at you for this.  But  
heterosexuality is not the sort of thing you choose.  Sometimes I say  
(ironically) that heterosexuality is fundamentally flawed and that men and  
women are simply not meant to be together.  Sometimes I almost believe it.  In  
fact I actually did have a women laugh at me for liking her in a sexual way.   
(Ever wish you could unschtup someone?)  Yet another reason to be careful who  
you sleep with. >:-(

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked
why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist"
--Dom Helder Camara Brazilian Bishop Nobel Peace Prize nominee
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Garvin Hallucina (2)
X-To: MATHEMAGICIAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:49:00 GMT

Mathemagician writes...
MA> Bully for you.  I was raped by a woman and sexually assaulted by
MA> another...or don't my experiences count?  The fact that it happens
MA> rarely makes no difference if you are seriously concerned about it not
MA> ever happening.  If I want to make sure that nobody ever assaults me,
MA> then I am going to be cautious about *everyone* and *everything* that
MA> I don't know.  No, I'm not going to go into a panic about it, but I
MA> *am* going to keep my awareness up.


I know that this isn't strictly my business, but I am going to blatantly
admit my ignorance as to how a man can be raped.  I am *not* saying that
I disbelieve you, because in fact I *do*, but I am wondering about the
question of - What happened?

Now, I am aware of *one* case of a woman raping a man (in the movies, yes,
but still, please do not discount what I say...), namely in the movie "The
Rookie," where Clint Eastwood was tied to a chair, and the woman came up
to him, pulled off his pants, held a knife to his groin, and threatened to
emasculate him if he did not have an erection and allow her to mount him from
on top.

He did as she asked, and while she enjoyed every minute of it, (and yes, had
an orgasm too, apparently), Clint was shown growling silently, apparently in
pain.  *At first*, I mistakenly thought that he was "grunting" in pleasure,
but I thought better of it.

At any rate, if you don't feel like talking about your own case, then I
apologise for intruding, but I should say that I am *quite* curious.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                        "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Craig Shergold Wants You To Buy Paul A New Keyboard (Was: Right To Not Support)
Followup-To: alt.shift.key.support
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com>
	<1992Jul27.213256.25280@colorado.edu>
	<VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:12:08 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

[lotsandlotsandlots of vixie lowercase text deleted]

<   [kelvin]
<   # If you are so gungho, why dont you do it for him?

<   i've got my own wheel.

	But he obviously hasn't got his own shift key.
	Please send all your twist-off soft drink bottle
	caps to:

	The Buy Paul Vixie A Shift Key Fund
	C/O
	Craig Shergold
	Scamville, United Kingdom.

	Who knows, maybe we can save Vixie from his terrible 
	all-lower-case condition; after all, it is the net.
	equivalent of dotting the letter "i" with a smiley
	face!!!!!!!

Note followup.

Xref: sparky soc.men:13564 alt.discrimination:3710 soc.women:13937 misc.legal:14678