HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rage (story)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:24:31 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <19253@plains.NoDak.edu>, hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:

> <I would like to see your refernces for this, as it is opposite what we 
> <learned in Criminal Procedure--Adjudications last semester.
> 
> I wrote that that was not how it worked in the real world. I did not write
> that it ever worked that way in the real world. Why expect a citation?
> When literally any testimony on the subject of a crime is testimony
> against oneself, then taken literally a prohibition against requiring a
> person to testify against himself prohibits requiring literally any
> testimony on the subject. That is tautological.

You say that that is not how it works in the real world. What are
you basing that statement on? That is all I want to know. What causes you
to formulate the opinion that the real world does not work that way?

> 
> <> <...                           If she is being charged, THEN the fifth amendment
> <> <is an absolute. ...
> <> 
> <> Maybe today. Have you read the paper next week?
> <
> <Martians may land next week and conquer the world. You may speculate on the
> <judicial system tossing out hundreds of years old standards sometimes soon,
> <I see no such trend.
> 
> I do.  Non-self-incrimination may very well go the way of due process,
> just compensation, the right to confront one's accuser, and the right
> to trial by jury.  I even have some idea of the rationalization that
> might be used, but I'd rather not be spreading such ideas.

What due process rights are you taking about? What right to confront
one's accuser has been compromised? Trial by jury--compromised???
Where are you getting these notions???

I am sorry, but you are spouting ideas that are simply not in line with what
I have been learning. If you have specific examples, I would love to see them.

> 
> <> <the prosection can ask that she be compelled to give testimont anyway, but
> <> <the Constitution protects her by assuring that her testimony may not be used
> <> <against her in further proceedings.
> <> 
> <> Immunity is not automatically given, nor automatically enforced. One can
> <> do heavy time or be executed waiting for one's rights to be enforced.
> <
> <Sure. You have to request it from the judge. If they decline, you file a
> <motion in limine to the appellate court immediately. 
> <
> <As for doing heavy time, or being executed, how does that apply to the given
> <hypothetical?
> 
> It means that she could spend several deccades in the electric chair while
> appeals are being denied.

Only after she is found guilty. She mst be on trial for that to happen. If she
is on trial, THEN her fifth amendment protection kicks in, and the state can
not force her to testify. You will not find an exception to that.

And, if her counsel asked for immunity, her prior testimony on the subject can
not be used.

DC
From: s_mesbah@engr
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape experiences
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:57:03 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <1992Jul26.201904.9599@midway.uchicago.edu>, tb13@ellis.uchicago.edu (leon joel gross) writes:
> In article <1992Jul26.144038.1@engr> s_mesbah@engr writes:
>>Looking for someone to share rape experiences with.  
>>
>>regards,
>>Sam
> 
> Before corresponding with the person using the above account, I suggest
> that people look at the following post from the same account on the
> same day, on soc.women. 
> 
> Sam, is this a joke, a forgery, or what?  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Path: uchinews!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!carbon!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!engr!s_mesbah
> From: s_mesbah@engr
> Newsgroups: soc.women
> Subject: women's place in life
> Message-ID: <1992Jul26.142146.1@engr>
> Date: 26 Jul 92 14:21:46 GMT
> Sender: usenet@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (NNTP server account)
> Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
> Lines: 8
> 
> Hi y'al
> 
> 	I am new to this group and I'd just thought I'd share my views with
> you.  I think that all you women should get away from the computer and start
> doing what you were created to do (kitchen, kids, and domesticated love slave).
> Remember, you were made from our rib!
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------  
> 
> Leon Gross
> i'M not an actor, but I play one on TV.

What!  I'm not allowed to have an opinion.  Is it that strange that I am
anti-feminist and would also like to here about people experiences with rape. 
I would probably just like to talk over my experiences in hope for a better
understanding of my own raging actions.   

regards,
Sam
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Re: Rights
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:04:13 GMT

In article <archer.143@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>concerned about lesbigay rights.
>
>Nope.  Individual rights, not lesbigay right.  Groups do not have rights, 

I love that term too.  Lesbigay rights.  Sounds like "Let's be gay" rights to
me.  I thought that humorous.  What about letsbestraight rights?

And what are all these "rights" people keep talking about anyway?  I wonder if
half the things people say is their "right" really is.  I imagine the Bill of
Rights has been expounded and expanded on by case-law (I'm no law student, so
I probably don't know what I'm talking about here) and this is where people
get their extra "rights" not covered therein.

I occationally hear people bark about how their "right" to this or that has
been infringed upon.  I can't think of specific examples, but most of the time,
what they're yap'n about makes me go, "Hey, that's not really a _right_, is it?"


-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: U. of Cape Town posts
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:52:55 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

I suggest that if someone were so inclined, sending mail to the appropriate
authorities about the mail coming from University of Cape Town might help
straighten out the accounts there.

I decline, however, as I feel somewhat sorry for the people (person?) who is
posting the (intended to be) offensive posts. Can you imagine what kind of
miserable life they must have to pick out a group which is designed to deal
with such a sensitive issue as rape, and then send childish jokes and insults
along?

Must be a real frustrated person. Probably does not have a grilfriend. Harbors
lots of hostility towards women. Not the most attractive, as otherwise the
looks could make up somewhat for the negative personality.

Probably looks back on life and is angry about the past. Looks forward, and
things just don't look any better.

Is so socially unaccepted that the only people they have to attack are at the
other end of some net-link thousands of miles away.

Sad. Very sad.

DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Question for Scott
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 08:26:17 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul23.072136.2998@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
#In article <1992Jul22.235648.8867@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

##
##Listen, you reported your incident. Great. Here's a cookie. It will go good
##with the additional degrading the police gave you.
#
#This is really low, DC.  It shows appalling insensitivity to what
#happened to Goehring.
#
#If a woman had posted about the mistreatment she received after
#reporting a rape, would you respond like this?
#
#(Why do I even ask a question like that?  You probably would, you're
#probably proud of being insensitive.)

This person seems to be proud of being obsessed by rape, so
no doubt he's proud of being insensitive as well.  

Forgive me, if you will, for opting out of discussions with
this piece of slime.  This really isn't the appropriate group
for me to express my feelings toward him.

I guess I'll have to readjust the killfile again.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: holzman@fnalo.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: DC: You just can't ...
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:45:31 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul28.203838.18809@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy 
Posey P920) writes:
> 7) I would rather blindly attack the problem of rape in our society than sit
>    around waiting for something to happen while people like yourself go
>    right on compiling lists of flicks with rape scenes and telling people it
>    is a-ok to have fantasies about forcing another person to have sex with
>    them.

The problem with blind attacks is that you tend to hit the wrong target.
 
> 8) I'll only tell you this one time.  Leave my wife out of your post.  I can
>    assure you that I am serious on this point.  I am deadly serious.  You are
>    welcome to attack me all you want.  But leave her out of it.  To answer
>    your question, if my wife has such fantasies (I am sure she doesn't) she
>    wouldn't be able to tell me or anyone else about it.  Regardless of how we
>    would react.  You see DC, rape can do that sort of thing to you.  After
>    3 different animals force you to have sex with them every day from age 6
>    to age 13, well it's a little tough to talk about.  Even to yourself.
>    Especially when they tell you what a piece of garbage you are, that you're
>    a whore etc, etc.  It takes professional help to get better.  Now I know
>    that I originally mentioned my wife in this group.  I was attempting to
>    make folks understand why I feel like I do.  Maybe it was a mistake.  But
>    regardless let me warn you not to mention her again.  I mean it.  Just
>    don't do it man.

Some time ago, I dated a woman who was gang-raped on two seperate occassions,
at ages 8 and 15, as well as a number of other rapes and abusive relationships.
She had no trouble discussing it with me, nor did she have any trouble telling 
me about her rape fantasies -- raping and being raped. 

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Degrees of rape (was) Re: Clarifications on Rape in any form ...
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.161815.26091@brtph560.bnr.ca> kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:

>Differing degrees of rape ???  What a thoroughly obsurd idea !!!  No means
>no.  THAT'S IT !  PERIOD !  There is no aggrievating circumstance that lessens
>the wrongness of rape.  I don't care what some sap-liberal-lawmaker says !

There are significant advantages to having (legally) different degrees
of rape.

1) Plea bargins.  These have a bad reputation but *most* of the jail
time served for rape in this country is the result of a plea bargin.
This, among other things, means lessened trauma to the victim in
testifying and does result in jail time.  Commonly these do consist
decreasing a charge from, say rape to sexual battery (a lessor crime)
and/or decreasing the number of counts of a particular crime.  They
result in jail time in cases which might otherwise result in traumatic
(for the victim) trials and possibly acquittals.

2) Well there is bad, horrid, horrendus and inhumanly ghastly.  I do not
believe that someone who has sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent
is nearly as bad as someone who secretly puts barbituates in women's food so
they will become unconsciencious and he can have sex with them.  Even this
latter person is a saint in comparison to the guy who asked a fourteen
year old into his house to pay him for lawn-mowing and then pinned him
down and violently sodomized him the day the rapist discovered he was
HIV+.  Now, that is *not* a nice man but at least he did not repeatedly
use physical violence and threats of death to force his 11 year old 
step-daughter, then living in the same house that he was,
have sex with him and not tell, impregnate her and (contrary to a court 
order) seek out said daughter and follow through on said threats of death 
when he had been indicted for rape and she had been asked to testify.  I
note that in this last case I might have prefered a plea bargin as the
only important element of the crime which was not proven without her
testimony (e.g. by genetic tests on and the birthdate of their son) was 
the violence as it is in any circumstance rape to have sex with someone that
young in Ohio and proof of violence was required only for a mandatory
life sentence.

I trust you will be glad to know that the latter three are all now in jail
for a long, long, time with sentence increasing from I believe 15 years
to a mandatory life sentence.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Homosepciesexist fantasies.
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:04:55 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <SCG.92Jul31084607@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
> 	<SYNTH.92Jul30141726@deepthought.unm.edu>
> 	<1992Jul30.225839.9073@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
> Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
> Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
> Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations
> Lines: 16
> 
> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
>>If you only fantasize and experience sex with members of the opposite
>>sex, you are heterosexual. If you only experience and fantasize about
>>members of the same sex, you are homosexual.
> 
>>Everything else is just a bi.
> 
> By that definition, probably just about everybody is bi, then.

Only about six percent of men and women are exclusively heterosexual or
homosexual in their orientation.

> 
> DC, ever hear of the Kinsey scale?

Yes, I mentioned it in a post yesterday. What do you want to know?

DC
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Clarifications on Rape in any form ...
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:35:18 GMT
	<1992Jul24.194019.25211@news.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

>If you oppose rape, you do so because of the concept of justice (whatever
>that means to you).

Um, I oppose rape because of the concept of bodily autonomy.  Justice
has nothing to do with that.  Justice is the concept of receiving due
reward and/or punishment for your actions.  Bodily autonomy is the
concept that you have ultimate authority over what is done to your
body.

It is not unjust that people are raped; it is unjust when people are
raped and the rapists do not subsequently pay in some way for their
actions.
--
"My TA wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer--overall, I'd say she's a few
 fries short of a Happy Meal."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Rape in any form ...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 14:35:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.013123.8886@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.175429.11674@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
>I don't know if they should be executed. We were recently discussing one male
>who spent six years in jail before his accuser came forward and admitted she
>made up the entire story to make her boyfriend jealous.
>
>Should he, the convicted man, have been executed?

This is more an argument against capital punishment than an argument
against executing rapists.

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Subject: Rape in any form ...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:46:58 GMT

I just subscribed to this group and after reading only a few of the b-zillion
messages here I found myself compelled to make a couple of statments:

  1) Anyone who commits a rape deserves death.  Period.
  2) Anyone who has rape fantasies is sick and should seek professional help.
  3) Anyone who gets his / her cookies watching rape scenes on film refer to
     item (2) above.
  4) Anyone who condones rape should refer to item (1) above.

Rape is the most hideous crime that can be perpetrated on another human being.
It is a form of twisted, savage, deviant, mal-adjusted behavior.  As a guy
who's reason for living was brutally raped by 3 different animals in her
family on a daily basis from age 6 - 13, I am appalled by some of the things
I have read here.  I can only hope that some of you will not one day have the
person you love more than your own life tell you that every act of love that
you have shown her (or him) for the last 13 years sickened her and she never
wants you to touch her again.  All because some piece of non-human garbage
forced it's perverted desires on her.

KimmyD

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Subject: To Tim S.: You're right man ...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:43:17 GMT

Yeah Tim you're right.  I'm afraid I let some folks get to me here.  I should
think this stuff out before I let it jump out of my head like that.  But these
days it is way hard to think straight on this issue.  I hope I didn't harm
Amy with that junk.  The thing is I see people here who seem to trivialize
rape.  They think "oh yeah! it's normal to fantasize about rape.  We can
separate fantasy from reality.  And because we can do that it's oki-dokey"
That just doesn't wash with me.  They think it's *NORMAL* to sit around
watching flicks with rape scenes.  I just can't buy it man!  I find myself
thinking that the slimy animals that hurt my wife did just that sort of thing.
Then they decided "hey why not".  It makes me boil!

In retrospect I guess I have been ranting like a lunatic.  But darn'd if it
don't seem like maybe we need some lunatics on the good side of this issue
so's maybe they'll cancel out some of the lunatics on the bad side.  I want
rape to stop.  I want child molestation to stop.  I feel powerless to bring
that about.  It makes me nuts!  I rant.  Don't know exactly what to do about
it.

KimmyD
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: More on fantasies and discussing one or two (was) Re: Rape in any form ...
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:18:11 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:

>> Did they just "casually" mention in your presence that they'd like to
>> rape someone, or did they just say things that you chose to *interpret*
>> as rape fantasies? 
>
> Within the date-rape mentality, they many times don't *realize* that
> it's rape they're contemplating, why would they say it openly?  To them
> it's just an image of sex they're thinking of; of taking the girl,
> ripping off all her clothes, and getting their rocks off inside her. 

How do you *know* that?  Again, you're generalizing: first by assuming that
the people you're talking about have the "date-rape mentality", and then by
characterizing their fantasy in a way that supports that assumption (I assume
without evidence -- if you have evidence, please share it).

> If it's a visualization of sex either with protest from the woman or
> with the woman being oblivious to any act taking place, it's a rape
> fantasy.  If she consents in the fantasy, then it's not.  From there the
> interpretation is pretty clear cut. If the fantasy does not have a sense
> of the encounters being *mutual*, it's not necessarily a rape fantasy,
> but the spectrum of sexism is the same. 

So which of these two possible situations are you using as the primary
foundation for your opinion?  The times when you were presented with
someone else's outright rape fantasy, or the times when you heard a
fantasy but didn't hear anything about consent and therefore decided to
*interpret* it as a rape fantasy?

> Originally you accuse me of having only "an example or two and a lot of
> assumptions", and now suddenly it looks like you asked *for* an example
> which I have now somehow refused to provide.  You surprise me, Laz. 

Why does it surprise you that I expect you to support gross generalizations
about other peoples' sexuality with some kind of reasoning?

By all means, post all the opinions you want . . . but if you want them to
be taken seriously, please be willing to back them up.  (You can safely
interpret that as a request for examples.)

> Now show me where in *this* thread I ever said my contention was true of
> all men, or even a majority sample of the male race. 

In <SYNTH.92Jul27130810@deepthought.unm.edu>:

>> When people say they fantasize about raping someone, are they referring
>> to a nonviolent scene such as Rolfe described earlier, or something
>> very different? 
>
> Based on personal experience and observation -- namely, growing up
> around and being socialized with other males -- I've seen that most men
> visualize a scenario of simply "getting sex" at the expense of whoever
> is on the receiving end -- a purely selfish goal. 

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"Miracles will happen as we dream"
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Question for Scott
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:44:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.122910.8875@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>As a matter of fact, Paul Sorvenio starred in a movie years ago where he had
>been raped, and was laughed out of the police station. No one believed him.
>And, yes, I am aware that women who are raped are considered wimps. However,
>I do not worry about that because no one I know of would ever dream of calling
>me that. 

But people you know would call you gay if you reported a rape by a
man?
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Homosepciesexist fantasies.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 19:55:22 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:

>> A rapist is someone who has committed the act of rape.  Mental states
>> do not enter into it in the least.                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming I'm reading this ...

Really?  What mental state will make someone who has never committed the
act of rape a "rapist", then? 

>> C'mon use your brain. If sexual orientation was ONLY experience,
>> then how could someone "come out of the closet" after years of
>> screwing women and raising a family? How could he say "I have been
>> gay all of this time and been forced to hide it"?
>
> All I can say is:  I am truly in awe at how naive you are, DC.

So you think sexual orientation *is* only a matter of experience?  Why?

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape in any form ...
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:55:51 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>Quite true, as rape fantasies are the second most common fantasies ejoyed by
>both men AND women. (If you want, I will e-mail you the studies. They

If rape is the second most common fantasy, what's the first?

-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma