HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: polsak@nuscc.nus.sg (Suzaina Abdul Kadir (Ms))
Subject: Period
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:39:18 GMT


I've never posted to this newsgroup but I don't
know where else to post this question. Apologies
if this is the wrong group though....

I had a talk with a group of women friends last
night and the topin of menstruation, PMS etc etc
came about. A friend then mentioned that it *is*
possible to *induce* your period if it happens to
be a few days late already.

My enquiry is whether this is true ? That you can go
to the doctor and ask them to *induce* your period ?
Is this a form of abortion ? But, in the case
that my friend was talking about abortion was not
really in the picture since the woman wasn't concerned
about pregnancy or not, just that she wanted to get
her period over and done with before she went on some
trip or other.

I have heard of cases of pills given to prevent 
the menstrual flow but not the other way around.

Thanks....

- Suzaina


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: topfree, answer this?
Organization: York University
Distribution: soc
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:03:22 GMT

spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
|I think that it's a bit silly.  In OUR SOCIETY, female breasts are 
|considered sexually enticing and are not publicly displayed.  The argument 
|that "you men can disply YOUR chests, so we can too" rings hollow and petty
|  The male chest is physically and functionally different than the female 
|chest.  More importantly, though, is that it is PERCEIVED as different.

  Different is not indecent.  Different is just different.  The logical
equivalant would be to declare display of male secondary sexual
characteristics ``indecent''.  Which would then cause them to be considered
erotic.

  What do I mean?  Why, a law prohibiting beards, of course!

--dave (:-)) c-b
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |               -- Clay Bond
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Impossible
X-To: LJF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:11:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes...
LJ> It seems a slam to me to tell those of us who have decided for whatever
LJ> reasons that we're not marriage material (some of us because we're not
LJ> legally allowed to marry)

Really?  Why would you be legally disallowed from marriage, for reasons other
than being underage or already being married?


LJ> Why do our complex obligations to each other mean that we should marry
LJ> and have children?

Not necessarily...  A lot of couples have decided that they don't want to
have children.  And frankly, I don't have a problem with that.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                   "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Locutus to Pontiac: Excitement is Irrelevant.
Xref: sparky soc.women:14166 talk.abortion:29186 sci.med:14587
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:57:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.155122.2986@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>If the St Paul law was unConstitutional because in some strange way it
>>>addressed the "content" of a "speech act", and (stare the 1988 decisis
>>>re the Revolutionary Communist Party's flag burning) almost any act is
>>>therefore speech, then I hereby state that the way I speak about the
>>>idiot injustice of our economic system is, I knock over convenience
>>>stores.  A la Thelma 'n Louise.  Whaddya mean there's a law against
>>>armed robbery?  You is unjustly addressing my speech act based on its
>>>content, which I claim necessarily includes emptying the cash drawer.
>>>So all you people git yo ass down on the floor.

Laws against armed robbery do not refer to possible messages that can
be expressed by robbing people.  Armed robbery is banned regardless of
whether or not it has a message, and regardless of what its message
is.  (And what message can the armed robber possibly be expressing
through armed robbery that he can't express via a letter to the editor,
a letter to his elected representative(s), or a posting to usenet?)

A law that banned armed robbery *because* *of* some supposed message
expressed by that act should be overturned by the supreme court.  This
is not the same thing as granting first amendment protection to armed
robbery: such a law would be overturned in order to protect *other*
*acts* expressing a similar message without the violence.  Armed
robbery would still be illegal after such a law was overturned.
Amazingly like the cross-burning case, eh?

If somebody persisted in objecting to the supreme court's ruling on the
grounds that the law that was overturned was needed to ban armed
robbery, when in fact it had been pointed out to him repeatedly that
armed robbery was still illegal, then it would be clear that armed
robbery was not his real concern.  He would have to be using his
arguments about armed robbery to further some other, unadmitted, goal.
If he could argue for that goal directly and expect to have his
audience agree with that goal, he would argue for it directly.
Therefore, his hidden goal would be one that he didn't expect his
audience to agree with if he were to argue for it directly and
honestly.  He would be trying to put one over.  He would be attempting
a con job.

Would you buy a used ideology from this man?

-- 
David Canzi	Prior to the days of Tom Edison, early electric eels had to
		stun their prey with gas. -- C. Abrell & J. Thompson
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:15:21 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Jul30.192956.16296@nynexst.com> clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.185045.15436@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>What if the father is not interested in producing offspring which survive to
>>reproduce (or in producing offspring at all)?

>  Then get a vasectomy, simple.

Let me rephrase that...

What is the father is not interested in producing offspring which survive to
reproduce (or in producing offpsring at all), but may be some (uncertain)
time in the future?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

RandomSort:  It sorts numbers in constant order time, but does not guarantee 
correctness.
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Electronic Matchmaker Need more Women!
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:40:22 +1700
Distribution: world
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <62833@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
> Women, I am about to launch a free electronic matching service on 
> Usenet.  Unfortunately, more guys than gals have expressed an 
> interest so far.  If you would like to see the fourth draft of my 
> questionnaire so we can alter it to also fit women's needs as well as 
> men's, either send me mail or look at the copy I posted in 
> alt.personals.
>  
> This service is serious and I already have 119 men and 86 women signed
> up so far.  The site of the service has already been selected and
> programmers are being lined up for the construction of the listserver.
>  
>                                                             Eric Klien


Let me figure here a second....         119 men
				      -  86 women
				      ____________
                                         33 Sad Men left over

Come on Gals!  Where is that great american spirit?   Let's see at least  33
more women, so it will be at least even!  (hi-hi)  I don't want to be # 87..

-=[ PL ]=-
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Morals Do Not Make Great Men - Great Men Make Great Morals!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminis
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:01:14 GMT


Sorry, didn't mean to imply that men only have AIDS. But, read the original 
post - I said that it *began* as *primarily* a disease of homosexual men.
At least, that's how I understood the beginning of the disease in this country.
But, I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong.  Now, though, it is a disease of both
sexes and affects drug users and non-users alike.  Women included - we're not 
innocent in this situation!

Carol
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 6845400@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: RE: Marines-Paris Island
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:15:37 GMT

No, it really was the incident at Paris Island SC., I went through Boot Camp
there in 1965 and the subject came up then.  They didnot march us through the
swamps but we did have to go through the tear gas chamber/exercise. Oh, I guess
I should mention that I am a Woman Marine (former).

Thanks,
      Kathy
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: ejohnson@graph.. (Liz Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Boot Camp
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:00:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Jul23.130050.14425
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

In article <1992Jul23.040948.9689@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.204524.18758@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
> >The last thing I recall hearing about abuses in the military - think it
> > was even the Marines - was when somebody was abused so badly in
>> training that they died - drowned, I think.

> The incident you are thinking of happened at Paris Island during the mid
> fifties.  A drill instructor was marching his platoon through a swamp
> and about a dozen recruits drowned.

No, the incident is probably a more recent case, in the 1980's, where a
Navy recruit drowned. He was afraid of whatever water exercise they were
doing, but the person in charge forced him into the water and forced him
to stay in the water. I don't remember the resolution, but I know that the
recruit's family tried to sue.
Liz Johnson
From: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) 
Subject: width test Re: Support for those who raise children
Reply-To: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:47:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.033558.9940@access.digex.com>  writes:
>In article <adams.710529269@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Prima-facie proof that `Q' is an egalitarian idiot.
>
>Is English your first language, or are you just a fucking dork?
>
>What's the matter, Stevie?  Upset cuz you don't "know best"?  You'd
>better get used to disappointment.  Chances are, you already ARE used
>to disappointment in your puny little life.
>
[deleted]
>ALREADY have total control?  Yeah, I bet you really are that stupid.
>And that is one of the key reasons why you shouldn't reproduce.
[deleted]
>No benefit to wealth in the political arena?  My you certainly ARE a
>blithering idiot.  Ever met a homeless person elected to any position?
>How did Dan Quayle get HIS job?  Certainly not through brains, you sniveling
>fool.
[various deleted]
>Well, you ignorant procreational slut, I give away more money per year than
>you will probably ever make in your lifetime.  Now what will you snivel
>about that?

>Q

Come on, guys!  Let's try to act a little better than 
juvenile delinquents.  Don't waste our valuable bandwidth 
with your silly little flame wars.  Flinging around insults 
and profanity dosen't impress _anyone_.  Filling a followup
like the above with this kind of stupidity and no substance
is frankly quite annoying.  So please, show a little
maturity and respect for others and clean up your posts.

---------------
"They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
Timothy K. Canham
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women can wear anything... Men can't wear skirts...
Keywords: Women, skirts
Date: 28 Jul 1992 23:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.000856.28156@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.011440.18243@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> > This reminds me of a news story about the Houston police going
> > undercover to arrest gay bashers.  Male police officers would walk out
> > of gay bars or walk hand-in-hand with other men.  Many police officers
> > were attacked and beaten.
> 
> The report I saw on this is that the program has been stopped because
> it was too dangerous for the police officers (too many serious
> injuries).

Actually, it was stopped (according to the HPD PR flack) because it was too
well known and had accomplished its purpose. There was a statement that it
would be restarted on random and unannounced intervals. I have not heard
of it being restarted so who can say.







-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Xref: sparky soc.women:14112 soc.men:13724
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Boot Camp
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:29:29 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <MILT.92Jul24110320@primus.esd.sgi.com> milt@sgi.com (Milt Tinkoff) writes:

>Richard> The incident you are thinking of happened at Paris Island
>Richard> during the mid fifties...

Milt posts 1988 case ---

>WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday refused to disturb a
>ruling that the Navy cannot be sued by the family of a recruit who
>died when officers repeatedly forced him under water as he screamed
>for help during a training exercise...

Yeah, that's probably what he was thinking of -- Bronis mentioned the
Marines, so I assumed he was talking about the swamp incident which did
result up in a shake-up of training practice.  Evidently some instructors
in the Navy didn't get the word.  There is a fine line between beneficial
harassment and abuse.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Sick leave for period
Reply-To: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:28:36 GMT

In article <5406@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com>, ginger@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ginger Grover) writes:
>Sheila Ralston ral3@midway.uchicago.edu writes
>
>> I'd like to solicit opinions on whether taking time off for
>> menstrual pain is an abuse of sick leave policy.  Neither my union
>> manual nor my copy of the company policy address this problem.
>
>Definitely take the time off and take care of yourself!
>
>I usually have very painful cramps and take a combination of Ibuprophen
>and Vicodan.  You have to have a prescription for the Vicodan, but it enabled
>me to cut back on the Ibupropen, and that was important because that stuff
>can cause *damage*.  I used to take 8 at a time, sometimes 12, and the effect
>would only last about 90 minutes, then I'd need more. My ears would be ringing
>from the stuff, and I'd still have some pain, but at least it was tolerable.
>I can't remember which Ibuprophen harms, the liver or the kidneys, but it can
>also affect your inner ear and other things.  I suppose Viodan is probably bad
>for me too, but I usually only take half a dose, and I guard them like GOLD.
>I have found that taking small doses of Ibuprophen daily for a few days
>preceding my period helps prevent some of the pain, and I also try to arrange
>for my life to be as stress-and-obligations free as possible around 'that time'
>Avoiding sugar, caffeine, and salt also helps, as does plenty of walking.
>Fortunately, I seem to *finally* be entering into menopause, thank Goddess.
>I have no symptoms other than a couple missed periods, but believe me, I don't
>'miss' them at all!  I look forward to a Croning Party soon.
>
>I suppose it is inevitable that some of the men readers will be making rude
>comments about this thread.  Guys, before you fire up your keyboards, recall
>the worst gas pains you've ever had and then imagine having them continually
>for several days.  And imagine going to a (male) doctor for help and getting a
>pat on the head and being told by the smirking, paternalistic twit that such
>pain is normal and you simply must 'accept being a woman'.  I was able to get
>a prescription for Vicodan because of the neck pain I sometimes have from an
>old whip-lash injury; apparently, *that* sort of pain is >legitimate<. :-(
>
>Ginger	uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ginger OR ginger@ssc-vax.ds.boeing.com
>-- 

I had a conversation with my doctor about Ibuprofen. It's hard on the stomach,
and *especially* hard on the intestines, and can occasionally cause anemia. Bad
news. This is just one person, and just for what it's worth.

Bill Welsh



>
>      "The opposite to love is not hate, but power.  Power obliterates
>      another's individuality."  - Marion Woodman, "The Pregnant Virgin"
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Re: Today's Joke (Was: Right To Not Support)
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:46:05 GMT

In article <32620064@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:

>	Stated another way.... is pregnancy and birth the deciding factor
>	in the abortion, or is it the impending parenthood?
>
>	Who doubts that abortion is, in most all cases, about avoiding
>	parenthood? (vs. avoiding pregnancy and birth)

anyone who has ever tried to adopt, knows about adoption or has tried to
persuade a woman not to abort but to give up a child for adoption, or
even anyone who looks a the statistics of how many women who can not
abort for whatever reason choose to become parents rather than give the
child up for adoption.
--
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
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.men
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:51:22 GMT

In article <kePBOFy00VpEEV_Exx@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Ed says:
>
>>If the St Paul law was unConstitutional because in some strange way it
>>addressed the "content" of a "speech act", and (stare the 1988 decisis
>>re the Revolutionary Communist Party's flag burning) almost any act is
>>therefore speech, then I hereby state that the way I speak about the
>>idiot injustice of our economic system is, I knock over convenience
>>stores.  A la Thelma 'n Louise.  Whaddya mean there's a law against
>>armed robbery?  You is unjustly addressing my speech act based on its
>>content, which I claim necessarily includes emptying the cash drawer.
>>So all you people git yo ass down on the floor.
>
>The 1988 ruling also held that you could not burn a flag if it would
>incite a riot.  The act of burning the flag was legal (it is the
>standard method of disposing of old flags).  The act of burning a flag
>as a political statement is also legal, since the speech does is
>protected under the first amendment.  However, when the burning is done
>in a way that will tend to incite a riot, then it becomes a crime.  Not
>because of the political content of the speech, but because of the act
>of inciting a riot.

Well, Tom, as the man says in Thelma and Louise, armed robbery does not
have to be an unpleasant experience.  I am not trying to incite a riot,
only empty the cash drawer (warning to cop wannabes and those of a
literal cast of mind: this talk of armed robbery is hypothetical, of
course.)  This is done as a protest against our economic system (we'll
say I am a rich playboy who robs as a lark, hypothetically.)

And given that I am of course familiar with the incitement to riot
exception, why is the shock and harm experienced by Viktora's victims
unimportant, or less important than avoidance of a riot?

>

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:12:10 GMT

From article <1992Jul31.084704.3509@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> 
> 	So this analysis proves that it is wrong to perform simplistic
> extrapolations from animal behavior to what "human nature" supposedly
> is. In many cases, it is a simple matter of economics. And this
> also explains many arrangements of human societies, rather than some
> supposed biological imperatives.
> 

Good enough, but I'd be more interested in reading a synopsis about the mating
habits and social structure of our closer relatives:  gorillas and chimps.  As
these are more likely to be applicable to humans.

SEH  
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Dad's aren't Vital.
X-To: CAROL GIBSON
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:18:00 GMT

carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes...
CG> I was brought up by my dad. I think mums are non-vital. The only
CG> reason why people think mums are so neccessary is that they saw so
CG> much more of their mums as kids and they can't imagine what the
CG> reverse would have been like. And the only reason they saw so much
CG> more of their mums was because of the patriachal family setup.
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On the contrary, I would call the family setup that says that men *have to work*
(outside the home) and should therefore not be allowed to be with their children
until after 5pm is a *matriarchal* family setup that favours *women* and demeans
*men* as care-givers.

Better yet, why don't we just stop squabbling about whether it's a "matriarchal"
or "patriarchal" problem and just acknowledge that its "oppressive," and try
to find a compromise where men and women can both share time at work and with
the kids.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                     "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If you're having a hallucination, I can come back later.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Boot Camp
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:54:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.040948.9689@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

)The incident you are thinking of happened at Paris Island during the mid
)fifties.  A drill instructor was marching his platoon through a swamp and
)about a dozen recruits drowned.  There was a huge furor at the time.  The
)DI was court martialed, busted to private, and got a small bit of time.
)The court martial was conducted in a blazing glare of publicity.  

The one I recall involved someone in a swimming pool.  Hey was panicking,
and the DI refused to let him get out of the water.  He drowned.

Newsgroups: soc.women