HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dude@losers.hacktic.nl (Dude)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: rape
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:34:55 GMT
Organisation: losers inc.

In article <1993Jan19.103609.1797@maths.tcd.ie>, aisling brown writes:

AB> Why is it that men don't seem to understand how scared women are about 
AB> rapist being around?
AB> 
AB> I go out with a few guys and all of them laugh whenever any of the girls
AB> are affraid. At present in the area where I live there is a rapist going 
AB> around it is unsafe for any girl to be going around on their own. Last 
AB> week, a 15 year old girl was raped outside a disco by a 16 and 16 year 
AB> old guys. Now you can see how unsafe we feel?

Not all men feel like this, trust me. Most of the men who laugh about rape,
don't know what rape is. They haven't seen how it can change your personality,
your body, your life. Personally, I always think it's very sad that when I
pass a girl late at night in a parkinglot or something, and she's looking
scared. Men and women should be able to walk the streets at night without
fear, but unfortunately that's still an utopia.

BTW: I don't mean to add more fear, but you shouldn't be careful just when 
there is a rapist going araound, you should always be careful.
I remember a story about a rapist, who entered his victims' bedroom through
an open window. After he was caught, somebody said 'I'm glad he was caught, 
now I can sleep with my window open again'. What if there's another one ?
A former girlfriend of mine was also scared, and went to a self-defence course.
When I asked her if she thought if it would help, she said: "I think so, and
even if it doesn't, it's better then walking around and doing nothing !".
 
          Dude
          
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3112 soc.men:23158
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:11:35 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <16B5EA76A.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:

>I don't think that anyone will argue that if a woman is falling-down-drunk
>or semiconscious she is still capable of giving consent.

I would.  If she drank willingly, and gave clear consent, I would.  Just like
she would be responsible for choosing to get into a car and drive.

>HOWEVER, the question
>is, what about the one who has had perhaps one G&T more than is strictly
>advisable?

Same as the man.

[...]

>In the
>abovedescribed state she goes to bed with someone.  The next morning she
>wakes up, hung over, looks over to the other side of the bed, and says:
>"WHAT was I thinking of last night?"

Tough.  As someone else mentioned, one is still responsible for their
actions while intoxicated, if the intoxication was willing.

>The man MAY be morally culpable for taking advantage of her state;

Perhaps he was drunk.  Does this still apply to women?

>is he,
>however LEGALLY guilty of rape?  That would put him in the same catagory as
>someone who jumped the woman as she walked home, dragged her into the bushes,
>and. . . .To put the two in the same class would, I think, be unjust; however,
>I am uncomfortable with letting the first man totally off the hook, because,
>after all, he probably was on some level aware that when the woman said 'yes'
>it was at least partly the gin talking.  Is there some lesser charge, perhaps
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ so what??
>even a misdemenour (sp?), he could be had up on?

Do you think he should be LEGALLY guilty of anything?  Why should he be
punished, what did he do wrong?  If he was drunk himself, why is he more
guilty than she?

If a woman has a bad day, and consents to sex as a result (perhaps to relieve
tension), would you be uncomfortable with "letting the man off the hook"
given that it was at least partly her frustration talking?

Amy, here is my example of someone who believes sleeping with a drunk
woman is grounds for being thrown in jail and getting a criminal record
(a misdemeanor is sufficient for this, is it not?).

Bloody scary, these people who think a reason must be found to put men
in jail and label them criminals at all costs.

No bloody wonder the US has the highest per capita prison population in the
world.

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3138 soc.men:23298
From: dude@losers.hacktic.nl (Dude)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:54:55 GMT
Organisation: losers inc.

In article <C1BpFC.A35@cs.mcgill.ca>, Charles J Savoie writes:

CH> >In the
CH> >abovedescribed state she goes to bed with someone.  The next morning she
CH> >wakes up, hung over, looks over to the other side of the bed, and says:
CH> >"WHAT was I thinking of last night?"
CH> 
CH> Tough.  As someone else mentioned, one is still responsible for their
CH> actions while intoxicated, if the intoxication was willing.

True, but taking advantage of someone when he/she is drunk something else..
When a man is drunk, and I take his money, it's a crime. When a woman gets
drunk, and I rape her, it's a crime.

CH> Amy, here is my example of someone who believes sleeping with a drunk
CH> woman is grounds for being thrown in jail and getting a criminal record
CH> (a misdemeanor is sufficient for this, is it not?).

There's a difference between raping someone and sleeping with someone..

CH> Bloody scary, these people who think a reason must be found to put men
CH> in jail and label them criminals at all costs.

I don't want to put men in jail and label them criminals at all costs, I'm
male myself. But I do think that it should be illigal to throw a drunk girl
to the ground and jump her. If she agrees to have sex with you, that's another
thing, but if she can't even talk or doesn't even realize what's happening
around her...

CH> No bloody wonder the US has the highest per capita prison population in the
CH> world.

I don't think that the US has the 'highest per capita prison population in the
world' because of this. I think it's because the US just has more offenders 
then, say, holland.
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:47:05 GMT

In article <1jvopvINNbc4@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.193255.24302@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David 
Steinberg) writes:>>>Take for example, William Kennedy Smith.  He was found 
innocent of>>>rape
>>
>>William Kennedy Smith was never found innocent of rape.  
>
>Really?  I thought he had been acquitted.  On the other hand, as an
>aspiring lawyer, I'm sure you'll tell us it was sexual assault or some
>other technical difference.  I think his point was that regardless of
>what he was charged with, he wasn't found guilty.

Ah, but aquittal is NOT the same as "found innocent."  We don't find people 
innocent in the USA, we find them "not guilty."  The ASSUMPTION is that you 
are innocent.  Failure to prove guilt is NOT the same thing as proving 
innocence.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: What a penalty...
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: talk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:45:26 GMT

I just heard that a bill was introduced in the New Mexico legislature
to have a new penalty for rape.  If a man is convicted of rape, he
would have the choice of being castrated... or being forced to leave
the state.  Is being forced to leave New Mexico really a legitimate
punishment for a crime this serious...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"Swim with the cactus and      *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* Float with the stone.         * film major, when all I really      *
* I try to convey what          * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* She's trying to condone."     * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:37:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.205130.26002@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.193255.24302@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>>Take for example, William Kennedy Smith.  He was found innocent of
>>rape
>
>William Kennedy Smith was never found innocent of rape.  

He wasn't?  I'm serious here; all I know is that he was not found
guilty.  Was there a hung jury or something?

>
>>, yet almost a year after the trial I saw a story on CNN about him
>>entering med. school (or something like that) in Albequerque.  Why was
>>this news?  Because he was, "Accused rapist William Kennedy Smith"...
>
>I'm sure it had nothing to do with his grandparents.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

His grandparents might have something to do with it- the fact is that
he was referred to as something like "accused rapist".  The fact
remains that he was not found guilty.  When you bring up the trial in
a ridiculous context, you make it sound like he was found guilty.  And
he wasn't...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"Swim with the cactus and      *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* Float with the stone.         * film major, when all I really      *
* I try to convey what          * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* She's trying to condone."     * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************



Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:33:37 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jt0r2INNm7j@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie) writes:
>
>>Amy, here is my example of someone who believes sleeping with a drunk
>>woman is grounds for being thrown in jail and getting a criminal record
>>(a misdemeanor is sufficient for this, is it not?).
>
>Would you say that a misdemeanor is sufficient for taking a drunk 
>person's wallet?  It's still theft, no?  Whether they're drunk or sober.

Not if I ask for the wallet and they willingly give it to me, drunk or
sober.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:52:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <16B5EA76A.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
> 
>I don't think that anyone will argue that if a woman is falling-down-drunk
>or semiconscious she is still capable of giving consent.  HOWEVER, the question
>is, what about the one who has had perhaps one G&T more than is strictly
>advisable?
> 
>The man MAY be morally culpable for taking advantage of her state; is he,
>however LEGALLY guilty of rape?

the legal definition of forcible rape is quite clear.  if the woman is too
drunk to to be capable of expressing that she doesn't consent to the acts,
then it is rape.  if the woman was not too drunk to be able to express 
non-consent, but nonetheless she did not express any lack of consent, then
it is not rape.  

in the justice system, the burden of proof is on the state prosecutors to
demonstrate to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was too drunk
to express non-consent.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3123 soc.men:23212
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:51:30 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan24.193255.24302@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>Take for example, William Kennedy Smith.  He was found innocent of
>rape

William Kennedy Smith was never found innocent of rape.  

>, yet almost a year after the trial I saw a story on CNN about him
>entering med. school (or something like that) in Albequerque.  Why was
>this news?  Because he was, "Accused rapist William Kennedy Smith"...

I'm sure it had nothing to do with his grandparents.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.rape:3143 soc.men:23316
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:23:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmsu.1993Jan26.152309.15240
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1993Jan25.044051.14016@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: 
   (stuff deleted)
>
>At any rate, which of the statements was untrue?  "Accused rapist"?  That's
>undeniable.  He was accused of rape, which makes him an "accused
>rapist."  "William Kennedy Smith"?  Well, that's his name.  So I'm
>unsure what you're objecting to.  The whole story was news in the
>first place because he was a Kennedy.  Otherwise, the story doesn't
>get in the papers in the first place.  And Bowman doesn't get her
>name dragged through the mud by the New York Times.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 


What I'm objecting to is that for the rest of his life he (most
likely) will be referred to as "accused rapist".  Maybe he was guilty
of the crime, but even if he wasn't (and there was not conclusive
evidence that he was) he wears a scarlet letter around his neck for
the rest of his life...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"Swim with the cactus and      *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* Float with the stone.         * film major, when all I really      *
* I try to convey what          * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* She's trying to condone."     * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Question???
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:20:06 GMT

<In article <1jn9acINNeeu@CS.UTK.EDU> mcghee@hydra3f.cs.utk.edu (GINA MCGHEE) writes:

<Being a newcomer to this newsgroup and the idea of a newsgroup, I am quite 
<curious as to the purpose of this particular one.  I am wondering, if this
<is supposed to be a place where people can discuss their pain resulting from
<a rape, isn't this bickering going against the healing process??

<If this board exists for people to argue about the specifics of rape, then I
<am sure that these discussions and tones are appropriate.

	Well, first of all, it's not a "board", it's a newsgroup.
	I'm not being picky, there's a big difference. BBS's
	are run by someone at some fixed location and generally 
	have someone who acts as a "gatekeeper" for postings. 
	This creates limitations; BBS's are kind of like local	
	newspapers.

	Internet newsgroups are not centrally located; each site
	has their own set of articles. Articles propagate through
	the net via a "store and forward" setup; thus, it takes
	a while for an article to radiate from the posting site
	to all possible sites. 

	Newsgroups such as talk.rape are not moderated; ANYONE
	with access can post. This creates, well, bickering
	and noise. It also means that anyone can post virtually
	anything; which is both good news and bad news.

	Now as to the main question; it's a bit of both. It's 
	a place for net.arguments *about* rape to be posted,
	it's a place for survivors of rape to post (and there
	are more reading than posting; folks who read but don't
	post are known as "lurkers") and it's a place where
	quite a bit of email discussion probably originates.

	You probably have already gotten a better explanation
	via email from any of several people than this one...

<Anyway.I would like someone to let me know something about the above question.

	There is a moderated group called, I believe,
	alt.sexual.abuse.recovery which is supposed to be moderated.
	There is also provision for anonymous posting to that
	newsgroup.

	While, strictly speaking, rape is not necessarily sexual
	abuse, it would surprise me if the moderator of that group
	refused a posting from a rape survivor that was appropriate
	to the group.
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: FOR LOS ANGELES AREA WOMEN ONLY
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:57:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.202559.13385@news.eng.convex.com> ramon@convex.com (Ramon Dominguez) writes:

)No, it won't bias the sample.  That's because the set of people who have
)ever felt pressured to have a sexual experience when they did not want to
)*is* the general population.  I'm sure that virtually *all* women and *all*
)men, even all children, have experienced such pressure however mild.

Virtually everyone has masturbated.  Advertising for people for a study
who have masturbated will still bias the sample.  People who respond to
such a query will tend to not represent faithfully all people who have
masturbated. Similarly, people responding to a query own feeling pressured
will probably not well represent people experiencing the pressure.

Anyway, as long as the author reports the details of the methodology, we
can go *ick* *phew* when we see the results, if we are so inclined.  One
problem comes in when the author does present the details, but the media
publishes the results and 'forgets' to mention  'all that methodology stuff'
when reporting the results - which is quite common, alas.

Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:30:29 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <C1BpFC.A35@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie) writes:
>In article <16B5EA76A.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
>
>>I don't think that anyone will argue that if a woman is falling-down-drunk
>>or semiconscious she is still capable of giving consent.
>
>I would.  If she drank willingly, and gave clear consent, I would.  Just like
>she would be responsible for choosing to get into a car and drive.

You got it.  I draw the line where she can no longer say "yes".

If, however, she is falling down drunk and I take her home, we end up in the 
bedroom, then she disrobes and slobbers "fuck me now you stud!" and I do, 
I have NOT committed rape.  Even if she changes her mind in the morning when 
she's sober.

>>HOWEVER, the question
>>is, what about the one who has had perhaps one G&T more than is strictly
>>advisable?
>
>Same as the man.

You got it.  If I do the same thing and end up in bed with someone I
shouldn't have, its my responsibility and my problem.  

>>In the
>>abovedescribed state she goes to bed with someone.  The next morning she
>>wakes up, hung over, looks over to the other side of the bed, and says:
>>"WHAT was I thinking of last night?"
>
>Tough.  As someone else mentioned, one is still responsible for their
>actions while intoxicated, if the intoxication was willing.

That's correct.

>>is he,
>>however LEGALLY guilty of rape?  That would put him in the same catagory as
>>someone who jumped the woman as she walked home, dragged her into the bushes,
>>and. . . .To put the two in the same class would, I think, be unjust; however,
>>I am uncomfortable with letting the first man totally off the hook, because,
>>after all, he probably was on some level aware that when the woman said 'yes'
>>it was at least partly the gin talking.  Is there some lesser charge, perhaps
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ so what??
>>even a misdemenour (sp?), he could be had up on?
>
>Do you think he should be LEGALLY guilty of anything?  Why should he be
>punished, what did he do wrong?  If he was drunk himself, why is he more
>guilty than she?

I don't think a law should have been broken here, and if I was on such a
jury, I would refuse staunchly to convict.

>No bloody wonder the US has the highest per capita prison population in the
>world.

Yep.  Its called refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
From: 90397106@bradford.ac.uk (JR HAVELOCK)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Life?
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:42:35 GMT
Followup-To: Nothing
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90397106@whisky



I am currently writing an artical for a university publication on the gestation period and
stages wherein. If you have any details especially when life `begins` the please send it to

			J.R.HAVELOCK@bradford.ac.uk

Thanks for your trouble
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:41:06 GMT

Eric Pepke (pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: Check folloups.
: 
: In article <1jjru2INN3kb@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM writes:
: >The problem is that this isn't always a safe bet. I've heard more than one
: >"authority" on rape (including the head of the Women's Rape Counseling Center
: >in D.C., whose name unfortunately escapes me) claim that a woman who realizes
: >in the morning that she probably didn't want to have sex (or wouldn't have if
: >she'd thought about it some more) has been raped. What this amounts to is
: >the ability to retroactively rescind consent.
: 
: Yes, I have heard this claim as well.  Fortunately, though, there is still a
: distinction between laws which are on the books and the way activists want 
: laws to go.  The laws of the states I have seen are a bit saner than this.

But are the people who actully operate those laws?

: 
: Unfortunately, though, the more people buy into these ideas the more likely
: it is for the laws to be changed to accomodate them.

What can matter more is not how it is written, but how it is used!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |