HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<SK73171.92Sep19154303@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
	<15500@suns501.crosfield.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:38:35 GMT


In article <15500@suns501.crosfield.co.uk> fap@crosfield.co.uk (felix power) writes:

> Well, I don't know about anyone else but from my experience I'd say men 
> and women use condoms together, or it can be so. They can both buy the

That should be the default case, but since most women just
do what their male partners want, that isn't.

> condoms, put them on the bloke's penis, think they'd rather be making
> love without the condom, get too involved to worry about that and then
> panic about whether the damn thing's done it's job or not. I like the
> fact it's not just one partner involved.

In optimal case, but not usually.

> Maybe not but I can assure you that taking the pill can give nasty side
> effects. What really frightened me about being on the pill and made me

I don't much like the idea of eating any pills without reason, in my mom's
case aging stopped the natural cycle and the pills replace the natural
production. But putting some extra stuff in naturally well working
system seems a bad idea.

> stop using it and never go back to using it was that my personality
> changed. I never felt really happy or really sad. It was a damn good

The stop of hormone production can cause same too, then the pills will
restore the original personality.

> method of contraception though ... I didn't want sex anymore, seemed
> to work :^)

Hmm... I have heared that KClO3 would cause same effect on men. Since
the stuff is generally used as part of rocket fuel, I don't like the
idea of trying it. Does this really work or does anyone
know a safer and better working stuff ? 

> That is apparently a common side effect. Blokes may not enjoy sex
> so much with a condom on but women may enjoy sex on the pill even
> less. I guess some blokes don't give a toss about that though ...

I saw an article in a newspaper that claimed women having 8 times higher
need for sexual activity than men. If that is true, it would mean that
women will do it with anyone, which would cause that such jerks are
always among the samples.

> Luckily I've never met any too closely ...

There is of course personal variation in that 8 times.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 13:15:46 -0700
Organization: HP/San Diego Technical Graphics
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1aap52INN77u@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>It's absolutely fair for society to not help with childcare.
>
>If somebody wants to take time-out in mid-career to
>pursue something of a personal nature that's their
>personal choice.  They should expect a commesurate negative impact 
>on their carrer.  And I don't care whether that "something"
>is looking after their children for 5 years, or following
>the Grateful Dead around for 5 years -- I am disinclined
>to help them out with my tax dollars either way.

careers and children: 

I feel that you can't really separate *business* from *the people who are
doing business*.  You (I mean the generic you, not Steve) shouldn't make 
money in a vaccuum, as if births and deaths and the rest of people's lives 
are secondary to making a profit.

Procreation is one of the fundamental forces in being human.  I do think
that it is important and should be taken into account when you consider
your employees.  No, I don't think that working less should be equivalent
to working more; but I would like to see more attention paid to the fact
that the vast majority of people have children, and that this is not
abnormal, or inconvenient, or necessarily burdensome. 

Sometimes I think "having a career" is way overrated.  It can be somewhat
impersonal.  How many jobs are really that earthshattering, that you can
look back and say, "selling those widgets sure put a warm feeling in my
heart."  I have been out of school for three years and my attitude towards
a career has changed so much.  Yes, I can work a 60 hour work week.  I don't
choose to, and I know an attitude like that will keep me from achieving the
most money I "could" in my profession (engineering).  But life can be so 
much more than the daily grind...there's so many interesting things in the
world, and people have a lot of talents that aren't used in their jobs,
and it's a shame if they're not expressed.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Well, my rambling $0.02,

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: re: Fresh... excuse me first year students
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.feminism
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:57:55 GMT

At my undergraduate institution (Bard College) some women first year
students made a big deal about the word freshm*n and even passed
legislation in the Student Forum requesting that people not use that
word.  Well I disliked the bill, and as a pseudo-protest, made a point
of always using the term first year student and correcting those who
used the non-inclusive word freshm*n.  As it turned out, I (along with
a friend who found it equally amusing) was the only one who ever used
the term.  Even the people who voted for the bill (along with the
person who brought it forth) never said first year student.  It made
me wonder how offensive they really thought it was.
************************************NOTE*************************************
This was just one example.  I am willing to admit that there are
women first year students in the world who find the word freshm*n
offensive, but I highly doubt it is along the same lines as the number
of jews who find kike offensive.
******************************END OF NOTE************************************ 

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
(sig temporary broken) 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180053.17246@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.132202.142@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>
>>The National Enquirer?  Lady Colin Campbell?  Come on, Robert, you've got 
>>to be joking.......

>Why? Actually, the "National Enquirer" has gotten pretty careful about
>checking out the facts before reporting a story, since they lost some
>big libel suits in the 1970s. (This does not guarantee that a story is
>true, of course, only that people have been quoted accurately).

So they find an idiot character assisnator to quote instead of making it up.
Still not a reliable source by any means.


>Why do you disbelieve this? Is is because sweet little women never
>belittle their husbands to test their manhood?
Don't be an ass.
It's because the NE is a comic book, not a newspaper.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:54:09 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>Procreation is one of the fundamental forces in being human.

I disagree.  I consider someone sterile is as human as
anyone.  I also do not think someone who has 8 children is
better than someone with none.

	[...]  but I would like to see more attention paid to the fact
>that the vast majority of people have children, and that this is not
>abnormal, or inconvenient, or necessarily burdensome. 

I disagree again, children are definitely inconvenient.

 ...I just realised you may mean the _process_ of having
them.  Surely that is still inconvenient tho, if you
had something else planned.

On the other hand, I agree that having children is normal.

>Sometimes I think "having a career" is way overrated.
	[...]
                               ...there's so many interesting things in the
>world, and people have a lot of talents that aren't used in their jobs,
>and it's a shame if they're not expressed.

There is not much talent required in procreating.  Apart from
that I don't see the relevance to what you were saying before.

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
From: rjn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard J. Nadolny)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Topless Beach Question.
Date: 26 Sep 1992 21:45:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Hello, 
	My name is Rich and I am a Computer Engineering Student
at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland OH.  I am 
currently taking a Gender Roles in the U.S. class here at the
university.  Part of the class requirements is to keep a journal
of observations about men and women and other selected topics.
I use this bulletin board to get ideas for my notebook.

I was reading the local paper one morning, in it was an article
about topless beaches in new york or something. I mentioned it 
in my Gender Roles Notebook and my professor asked me to 
elaborate.  I had told here I didn't keep the article and she
suggested that I do a little survey.  I asked the following
questions.

Q1: Do you object to there being topless beaches?
     Please state your reasons for being for or against.

Q2: What type of problems do you think would occur as a result
    of there being topless beaches?

Q3: Will topless beaches be accepted in the US?

Q4: Do think topless beaches will have a negative or positive
    effect on society?

Feel free to respond to any or all of the above questions.  I
am primarily interested in what the women who use this bulletin
board have to say on the subject, but I am interested to here 
what the men have to say also.  

Most of the women I surveyed here at school did not object to 
there being topless beaches, but some stated that they would
not feel comfortable going topless and others felt that it 
would be about time that they are allowed.  The major problem
that would result because of topless beaches is that it would
draw perverts to the beaches.  Many felt that after a few
generations, topless beaches would be accepted.  The last 
question presented many different opinions.

The above is a generalization of the responses that i have 
recieved so far.  They are not my opinions, nor any one person's
opinion.

I would like to thank anyone who responds for there time and 
effort in helping me with my class.  Please post your responses
on the bulletin board or feel free to send me some e-mail. I
would appreciate it if you kept your responses short.  I am
not posting this message to start any arguments nor do I wish
to offend anyone in the process.  
			Thanks again, your pal Rich

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:38:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.164948.2342@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.112907.12044@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>>Mr. Mike Passaretti (mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com) wrote:
>>: 
>>: NB: The rates are usually quoted for barier[sic] methods when
>>: used _as recommended_, which includes spermicides in many
>>: cases.
>>
>>When used _as recommended_ is the catch.  Even the rhythm
>>method is 100% effective, when used _as recommended_.

> Huh? How do you come up with this? There are just to many random factors
> for the rythm method to *ever* be this effective.

I think "as recommended" means "wait until you are sure she is not
ovulating."  In other words:  abstinence.   :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:25:04 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep23183025@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Nope, although some of the "disrespect" *does* sound more like hatred to
>me.

I felt that soc.women was full with hatred toward men,
so I just pressed "u."  You may try it sometimes.

>Perhaps not.  I've read almost everything posted here.  I have seen the
>idea that women try to get a man to get them pregnant so that they can
>force him to support them.  

You saw the idea that the *law* lets women having this option,
and most defenders of this law on the net are feminists.  And
they defend it under the banner of "children's rights."

Trying to enforce your morals by law causes people to dislike you.
The religious right and quite a few liberals can't understand that.

>No, the group is not anti-woman (soc.men may be, but I can hardly stand
>to stay there long enough to find out).  Nonetheless, many of the ideas
>posted here and there are.  I almost *never* see an anti-woman idea on
>a.s.b.

Still the ATT's feminists' claim was the a.s.b. is not carried 
on ATT machines because of AA and sexual harassment policies...

The point is that everyone has hir own ideas about what is "anti-
woman idea," and your approach is not universally accepted.

>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Hillel                                                   gazit@cs.duke.edu

It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
                                                --  Muffy Barkocy
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: multi-adult families
Keywords: muffy espouses another good idea
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:29:03 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> Personally, I think multi-adult families are the best solution.  Then,
> more than one adult can work (which seems to be necessary these days)
> while one or more others can stay home with the children.

a la Heinlein? Personal utopia!

I really like the idea. More people generally means less pressure to
conform to the rest of the flat, and it's easier to do your own thing.
As well, you can more easily find someone to do something with at any 
given time.

Must say that in my (limited) experience of children raised in a multi-
adult household, everyone was much happier. Albeit we still  had a 
house mother and father, mostly Betty the matriarch, who took
much responsibility for the organisational stuff. But, she also
proclaimed, and acted, lazy as hell about it. If someone else was
able / willing to do it, they did. It worked well, as a combination
drop in center/ refuge/ extended family (4 of the residents were
Bettys kids, and it used to be their family home until they 
declared it a flat when the youngest left home. Unfortunately,
as with many similar homes, it only lasted about 10 (12?) years,
when Bettys husband had another heart attack and they went into a
pensioner unit! (argg, yuk) to get away from the constant noise and
rush of the flat. Breakup took about a year from then.

Main points (from that, and flatting with 3-7 people:

you need either a lot of flat meetings, with a facilitator; or else
a house parent, who is responsible for making sure all the jobs happen.
This can be rotated, but someone always ends up doing it regardless of
whether you organise it that way. Formally doing it makes it easier,
as the victim has the backing of the flat as a whole when trying
to enforce flat discipline.

Rosters are essential. If you know what you have to do, and when,
then doing it is less hassle. As well, you (usually) have the Saturday
morning panic, as all chores must be done by lunchtime Saturday.

Cooking : I personally prefer the cook to do the dishes, as
peoples mess generation varies a lot, and you get a lot of resentment
of the messy people, especially from the person who is tidy but has
to clean up the messy persons kitchen.

moz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1797 soc.men:17113
From: ringo@icad.com (Amy Gorin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism (really male vs. female sterilization)
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:38:06 GMT
	<1992Sep24.063250.10912@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep24.151819.18086@sj.nec.com>
	<1992Sep24.213738.6514@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: ICAD Inc., Cambridge, MA


   According to The New Our Bodies Ourselves (anti-feminists, light your blow
   torches...)  tubal libation can be done under general, spinal, or local
   anesthesia.  Women go home the same day.  The most common technique is
   laparoscopy and involves making an incision in a woman's belly button and
   inflating the belly with carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide so that the 
   fallopian tubes can be more easily seen.  The tubes are moved into view by
   inserting a clamp onto the cervix and an instrument through the vagina, and
   then manipulating the uterus and tubes.  The laparoscope is inserted through
   the incision to see inside.  The tubes can be cut or cauterized.  It's 
   considered very safe, though of course, all kinds of terrible things can
   happen that I don't want to go into in detail, but include perforation of
   the uterus and carbon dioxide embolism (which causes immediate death).

   Male sterilization can be done in a doctor's office.  The doctor applies 
   a local anesthetic, such as Novocaine.  Two small incisions are made in
   the scrotum, the vas deferentia are located (the tubes that carry the 
   sperm to the penis), and a peice from each are removed.  The vasectomy 
   is considered very safe, though one (non-replicated) study suggests 
   it may induce hardening of the arteries for some reason.

   I don't have any numbers, but I bet you a dollar that a tubal ligation is
   much more expensive.

  
To inject another bit of information:

I know a few women who have had their tubes tied following (ie within minutes) the
birth of the child they intended to be their last.  In this case, I assume the surgery
is no more dangerous or invasive than giving birth in general.  For married couples
who intended to have a certain number of kids and then quit this is probably the 
simplest solution.  ("mommy can I have a little brother?" "no honey, when they made you
they broke the mold")

-ringo
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:32:38 GMT

In article <garry-260992122629@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
> I remember a recent email exchange with a female friend, where she
>said that it was time to pick-up her kid from day care and " ... I wish I
>could work late too ..." to which I could only respond "I wish I could go
>home at 5:00".  That's life.  

This is not at all obvious to me what you mean by this.  Do you mean
that you, as the sole wage-earner in your family, can't spend more
time with it?  Do you mean that your female friend, with a husband who
earns as much or more than she, can?

Or is it that your wife does most of the childcare as you work and
your female friend does most of the childcare as she works?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:21:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.014851.7691@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:
 
> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> | For starters,
> |    -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
> |    -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
> |     censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
> |     men the SAME power)
> |    -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
> |    -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
> |     same footing.
> 
> And how would you do these things?  All four would seem to
> require a sort of fascist seizure of power.....[reasons deleted]  

Huh ?  Could you explain what *fascism* has to do with this ? 
Since the first two items on Robert's list were originally brought about by
political pressure, could they not be removed by the same route ?
On the fourth item, "interference" with academic institutions is a national
pastime.  A little more won't hurt.  
Rice University has a major in Women's and Gender Studies. Nicely
complements the Doorways and Architecture major I'd like to see instituted.


> On the other hand, you might not be talking about state
> power.  In that case, you have a big problem, because part
> of the energy driving affirmative action and so on is the
> consciousness of administrators that a major portion of
> their constituencies are women or sympathize with women.

Good point.  I've long thought that the "patriarchs" who are supposed to
run things are largely shit-scared of women and their disapproval.  A
current example would be Sen. Joseph Biden (Mr. Plagiarism to his friends),
who has determined that the women of this country need special protection
from violence despite their lesser exposure.    

BTW, did Robert propose a "return to the kitchen amendment" ? (hint: no).
I assume that I've stepped into some long-standing personal argument here. 
If so, I apologise for taking your statements seriously.

Garry.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:58:41 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >What's the difference between
| >sex with a human being and sex involving a magazine?  In
| >the former case, there's a real person to associate
| >intense pleasure with, to become attached to, to love.
| >In the latter, there's nothing but a piece of paper.

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| 	Then why do you agree with MacKinnon that having sex with
| pieces of paper will negatively affect men's image of real women?
| Do men connect these photos with real women, or not? And, if they
| do, why would a pleasurable association produce a negative effect
| on the image of women?

I didn't say I agreed with MacKinnon.  I said that her argument
was reasonable.  Arguments against her conclusions could be
also reasonable.  What I've been interested in, and hope to post
on soon, is the way in which the image of MacKinnon is used
as a bogeyman.  
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism