HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:00:24 GMT

Duane Hentrich writes
> [MrEuStress`] "rants" remind me of Holy Hubert 
> on Sproul Plaza in Berkeley. High on vitriol, 
> low on information. Vanishingly low.
> . . . I see no advancement by using StressedOut's 
> technique of constantly lashing out.

   Am I a devil?

   How more concrete can I get?
   I suggested sex insurance!
   This suggestion is not "lashing out"
   -- it's "advancement."

   If people payed high sex insuracne
   then the population (environment)
   problem would diminish.

   Insurance is another word for communism.

   Child-Support is not the "biggest
   problem in the world" and I do
   like to hear myself talk -- but I'm allowed.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <Btr1zD.59@cs.psu.edu>
	<1992Sep1.024134.7681@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:36:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.024134.7681@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

[details from a novel deleted]

<   It is rape.  The man is not able to give his consent to sex, thus it's
<   rape.

<   Of course, you know these staunch feminists who frankly don't respect
<   men and their suffering.  

	As a matter of fact, some exist.
	
	Andrea Dworkin comes to mind. There are others as well, 
	such as the owners of the Lillith Bookstore in Boulder
	Colorado, who had a sign in 1978 that proclaimed
	"No dogs or males over the age of 12 allowed".

	I doubt that Farthing will reply, as it's always
	inconvenient when reality interferes with dogma.


<If they're not becoming lesbians, killing
<   their babies, or engaging in witchcraft, they're becoming nurses so
<   they can rape unconscious men at will.  This is something Pat
<   Robertson should add to his list of the perversions feminists want to
<   inflict on the rest of us God-fearing folk.


	It was a work of fiction, Farthing. 

	F-i-c-t-i-o-n.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.135939.12517@news.nd.edu>
slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>Isn't this sort of like studying the royalty of the middle ages and 
>then using their lives as an example of day-to-day medieval life? 
>Kind of skews reality, doesn't it?
>
>The professions where men are making more than enough to support the 
>family are vanishing.... and this is true in the lives of the 
>middle and lower classes, a much, much larger slice of the population 
>than physicians.

Perhaps you weren't following the discussion. The question is How much
harder is it for men to be a stay-at-home father?  As you note, the
state of the economy makes it difficult for both sexes.  I'm saying
there's a deeper underlying factor that makes it considerably more
unrealistic for men, regardless of the economy.  That's the fact
that women who -are- in a position to be breadwinner overwhelmingly
choose not to be (unlike men).  Obviously, the only stats that are
relevant to this claim are those for higher earners.

>BTW, this lower class woman spent four years supporting a husband 
>and child.  It happens and it happens a heck of a lot more often 
>than your physician stats would suggest.  

Hmmm.  And just above you said these families are 'vanishing.'
Now I'm confused.  ;^>

The fact that men are more amenable to the sole-breadwinner role than
women, in general, is so apparent I'm surprised it needs to be
defended.  Perhaps we should start another debate on whether somebody
killed Jimmy Hoffa.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:15903 soc.women:16127 alt.child-support:3038
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Lawyer Speak
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:13:18 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Aug31.022244.11982@u.washington.edu> 
twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:

>(By the way, I find it insensitive, to be nice about it, that you equate 
>being pressured to support your child with rape.) 

Tell me Barbara, how do you call a statement like
"pay child's support or you will be sent to jail,
and we all know what will happen to you there."

Tell me Barbara, how do you call to the feminists
who want to send the FBI after "dead-beat" dads,
no matter why they don't pay.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 08:13:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.035820.5097@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>It does not ignore, it simply fails to speak to that particular
>issue due to abvious lack of data.  If people were to relate
>such experiences and note that their experiences were not traumatic,
>then the issue would be dealt with.  I feel, noting what has been
>happening with this topic, that it is extremely unlikely that any
>such people would come forward because they would experience
>emotional abuse as bad as rape at the hands of certain members of
>this group.

First, I think nearly all adults who were sexually abused as children
can also relate experiences of being approached sexually by an adult,
saying no, and not being molested.  I was molested from the time I was
4 until I was 8.  I also remember being approached when I was 11 and
saying no, and the man left me alone.  It didn't make me feel very
good and it was frightening, but he did take no for an answer.  What
was the difference?  First, I was 11, not 4.  Second, the second man
was not an important person in my life.  I barely knew him and I
didn't risk losing his love, affection, attention, and protection by
saying no.

Second, I realize it's easy to overstate your case when you get pissed
off, but to compare the drubbing you're taking in here to being raped
is a gross exaggeration.  If another poster posted that I was a
lunatic who only fantasized about being molested as a child and was
really a child molester, that still wouldn't compare to rape.

>This argument is tempting.  But our society has not chosen to
>ban automobiles to prevent the risk of accidents, not to ban
>sexuality to prevent the risk of rape.  The only activities
>where this "avoidance" is recommended are those which the
>Puritan sects of our culture have looked upon with gravest
>suspicion.

The problem I'm having with what you're saying is that you do seem to
think that an adult approaching any child at any age is permissible.
I know some men who talk of their sexual experiences with adults when
they were 11, 12, or 13, and view them as positive.  I've yet to hear
anyone talk of sexual experiences with an adult when the child was 3,
4, or 5 and view them as positive.  

Perhaps if you'd be more explicit as to what you think is permissible
you'd be better understood.
From: 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:22:09 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <4845@daily-planet.concordia.ca> honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna) writes:
>I doubt that it is possible to disentangle the facts of jewelry and cosmetics
>from the current state of the world and even *suggest* that anyone's
>*enjoyment* of these things is not intractably linked with the perception
>of self by others - and by extension, the assessment/judgement/appraisal of
>self by those same others.  It seems to me self-deception to wear the 
>mantle of *enjoyment* in re: jewelry and cosmetics - Can You see the earrings
>that you are wearing?  Can you see your necklace?  Can you see the visual
>effect of make-up on your own face in a more-or-less typical (social) setting?
>Can you see the effect of that scarf on your face?  
>she is probably self-deluded - and I mean that.  The nature of decoration is 
>that it is visible.  We don't live - literally, anyway - in a house of mirrors.
>-- 
>***************************************************************
>department of computer science
>concordia university  *****************************************

Why is it that all of a sudden, Concordia University is the world mecca
for people who want to shoot off?

Mitch.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
X-To: BRONIS VIDUGIRIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:32:00 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes...
BV> Yep.  I emailed my 'REJECT: from soc.feminism' post - anyone else who wants
BV> a copy let me know, I still have it around somewhere.

I'll bite, Bronis.  Send me a copy.

Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * A Paradox can be Paradoctored - Robert A. Heinlein
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:34:28 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jeffrey Boser) writes:

 I agree.  This thread started because some of us find the laws
 to be ineffective, inappropriate, and based on false information
 and assumptions.  Examples were given, showing that though there
 was a potential for harm, there was also a potential for good.
 
You have not provided ANY evidence that there is "potential for
good" in older-adult younger-child sex. None. Zip. Nada. 

 On top of this, there is evidence that incest is actually a
 natural urge.  It certainly is found in many aspects of life,
 we joke about it, debate about it, have it..  And its so far

Of course incestual feelings for a parent is a "natural" urge.
This is known as the Oedipus and Electra complex. There are
"natural" urges to kill a parent also; civilization is something
that attempts to control the "natural" urges which tend to
make life nasty, brutish and short.

 We have given you arguments saying that some events do not
 involve coercion, and you repeatedly sweep them under the
 rug.
 
Yes you have given arguments that ATTEMPT to show events
which do not show coercion. I have not swept anything under
the rug, rather it is you and Mr.  Chapin who repeatedly
ignore the fact that children of a certain age are INCAPABLE
of giving consent to a sexual act with a much older adult.

This is the central point at which your argument breaks
down and one that has not been and will not be successfully
rebutted.

Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:57:56 GMT

In article <HARKCOM.92Aug17075630@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.205638.29522@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu
>    (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>
> =}Alton Harkcom writes
> =}>    Fraud, deceit, coercon, duress, etc... can be figured in.  Of course
> =}> they won't help with the case in point.  In this case the father willingly
> =}> created and now wants to avoid responsibility...
> =}
> =}    Al, Give me all your money!
> =}    Don't avoid this responsibility . . .  Give me all your money!
>
>   Since when is it my responsibility to give my money to some idiot
>that I didn't spawn?

Similarly, since when is it my responsibility to give my money to some
kid that I didn't AGREE to spawn? 

								- Kevin
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:58:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Dan O'Connell writes:
>
> Tom Chapin writes:
> On the other side are those who state that they have proof by their
> experiences that the first side is wrong.  Either they had such
> activities which were not traumatic, or they received advances and
> rejected them without any further undue consequences.  Their
> existence and experiences are a contradiction to the view of the
> first side.
>
>There are two things wrong with this assertion (IMO), the
>first is that it ignores the incest issue, 

It does not ignore, it simply fails to speak to that particular
issue due to abvious lack of data.  If people were to relate
such experiences and note that their experiences were not traumatic,
then the issue would be dealt with.  I feel, noting what has been
happening with this topic, that it is extremely unlikely that any
such people would come forward because they would experience
emotional abuse as bad as rape at the hands of certain members of
this group.

>I think it is a bit condescending of Mr. Chapin to 
>pity the rage of someone who has had intimate contact
>with sexual abuse, when it seems clear that Mr. Chapin
>has had no such experience.

I know only too well what it feels like to experience long-
term abuse, even if that abuse was not sexual.  I know how
tempting it is to respond to abuse with rage, and how difficult
it is to look for better alternatives than merely perpetuating
the abuse in another context.

>If the amount of rage is so great, one would think 
>that avoiding putting children into this position 
>even if abuse rarely occurred would be well worth what
>would be lost, i.e., no societal condoning of incest
>or much-older-adult/much-younger-child sex.

This argument is tempting.  But our society has not chosen to
ban automobiles to prevent the risk of accidents, not to ban
sexuality to prevent the risk of rape.  The only activities
where this "avoidance" is recommended are those which the
Puritan sects of our culture have looked upon with gravest
suspicion.

>I hardly think it is much of a trade-off. IMO, if
>it seems too great a burdern, then the Adult is
>more interested in adult-child sex than the child's
>welfare, and that settles the issue right there.

The issue here has not been the feelings of the adults
involved, but those of the child.  Please do not let 
this form of argument descend into the sleaze perpetrated 
by others.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Newt Gingerich, Feminista?!?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:05:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.202321.10716@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>So it's now revision time.  On NPR radio this morning, Newt paraded
>the new party line...that males are no longer a part of the family:
>
>	"Males are designed to be somewhat irresponsible."
>
>And we now discover that The New Republican Party no longer believes
>in the family structure of Wally Beaver, but rather in the new 
>family which consists of the child and its mother, and in the
>"extended family" which includes the mother's parents.
>
>Anybody else wake up early enough to hear the interview in a less
>groggy state than I, and get more exact quotes of his words?

My son woke me up at 5:30, and I heard the comments in a groggy state too,
but your first quotation is pretty accurate.

I stopped being surprised at National Politicallycorrect Radio a while
ago, and I'm not sure why I still listen, especially after this
weekend's MaleBashFest, which included a piece comparing the
reliability of husbands to the reliability of cars.  Amid much
female chuckling.  (A piece on The Backlash would have been terribly
appropriate at that point.)

Perhaps old age (thirty-minus-something :-), parenthood (single),
and Mr. and Ms. Clinton are swinging me gradually to the right, but 
if this is what the Republicans represent as the right...  There's 
nowhere to go!

Anybody for an alt.npr.flame group?   :-|

Don Beaver (no relation to Wally)
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:45:58 GMT

In article <715561809@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>Try to guess who said that "a woman without a man is
>like a fish with out a bicycle."

I guess you need to get a sense of humor. 
>
>Try to guess who said "if we can send one man to the moon then
>why can't we send them all?"

I guess you need to get a sense of humor. 

>
>a) The anti-feminist right.
>
>b) A radical feminist.
>
>c) A main-stream feminist.
>
>You have just one guess.



Guess you need to lighten up. 





Newsgroups: soc.men
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 1 Sep 1992 21:59:45 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

( Tom Chapin ) writes:

 If those who were not scarred were to give up sex, would that heal
 those who were scarred?  If men who are not rapists were to give up
 sex with women, would their sacrifice protect women from rape?  No,
 because the problem is not the sexual activity, but the coercion
 used to get it. 

This ignores the fact that older adults/younger children
sex is not a basic human need.

Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 09:31:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.041716.24082@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>>>o	adult solicits (propositions, cajoles, courts) kid for sex
>>>o	kid says "no"
>>>o	adult respects turndown, goes elsewhere
>>>o	kid continues with whatever they were doing...
>>
>>As it happens, I was a participant in exactly that scenario.  The place
>>was the Underground Station at Oxford Circus, and I was 14.  At the time,
>>my major anxiety was how to phrase the sentiment "no" in an appropriately
>>gentle manner, given the gentleness and courtesy of the solicitation.  The
>>adult of course respected the answer - it never occurred to me that they
>>wouldn't.
>>
>>Sigh.  A memory from a better, saner world.
>
>Yes.  Once when I was three or four and the adult was somewhere in
>their late teens, and another time when I was about nine and they
>were five or so years older.  Again, the memories were of how to
>turn down the requests without hurting the other person, and I knew
>that I was the one in power in the situation, because at any moment
>I could have cried out and had any number of adults at my side to
>protect me and destroy the other person.  Hmmm...

You're fortunate.  Unfortunately, some of us were approached sexually
by the very people who were supposed to protect us.  When you're three
or four and the person you love the most wants to have sex with you,
the chances aren't really good that you'll say no.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:16:23 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Aug26.162424.645@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca writes:
>Because she's the Duchess of York.

	Well, maybe I'm missing something but don't Duchesses have the right
to dress as they please?  I always thought royalty was *more* privileged
than us mere commoners...
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:24:24 GMT

In article <3524@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.035606.25258@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>  
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> >>	And just what exactly is wrong with romping topless???
> >Myself, I prefer bottomless.
> 
> 	My point was that as always people equate nudity with sex.  She
> wasn't covered in cloth so that kiss was scandalous.  Don't a lot of women
> not cover their breasts in that part of the world?  Why can't a woman kiss
> a friend?  It was on a public path for cryin' out loud...

Because she's the Duchess of York.

- db
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:41:55 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

Tom Chapin writes:

 I see absolutely no problem in the kid [a 5 year old fellating his
 18 year old brother] coming up with it on his own or from discussing
 it with his young peers. 

Then Mr. Chapin has a vivid imagination, one that IMO, stretches
the limits of believability. He goes on to say:

 I came up with a helluva lot more intense ideas than that before
 I was four...  I was masturbating from age three

Mr. Chapin and jeff (who says he masturbated at least daily since age
10) seem to have matured early.

This though, sort of takes the cake:

                               and I sure as hell was not molested
 by any adult no matter how many fantasies I had about it.

And Mr. Chapin wonders why anyone would question his motivation
in making it easier for adults and children to have sex?

Dano
From: slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Thoughts on this whole Woody and Mia thing...
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:50:44 GMT
Distribution: soc.men, soc.women
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <75bns6-.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>
> I personally feel that what Woody Allen did with Soon Yi Previn was 
>*really* stupid, but I have even more of a problem with what Mia has 
>subsequently done.
>
>She and that Dershowitz character have fed her eleven children to the wolves.
>Helicopters follow Soon-Yi to school, and Mia has reportedly already been on
>talk shows and such with the remaining children...or maybe it was just Dylan.
>In either case, between that and the tape of Dylan she has been waving under 
>people's noses, how much privacy do you think they have now? Zippo, most 
>likely, and that truly sucks. Mia has turned this whole thing into a media 
>circus out of her hurt and anger, IMHO. 

Let me say, that I think it is hideous to lie to win a domestic case.  
Whether it is Mia lying or whether it is Woody lying.  But to be charitable, 
I suppose that it is possible that neither is "lying".

However, it is my understanding that Mia did not start the publicity rolling.
It was Woody who filed for custody, creating the public record.  It was 
Woody who called a number of press conferences throughout last week to 
both explain his relationship with the young woman and to deny the 
molestation charges.  In fact, I have not seen Mia's face at all on the 
tube.  

It is my opinion that when public people decide to make 
their private lives an issue, they deserve whatever media focus they get.
Both Woody and Mia have been in public life for a very long time.  Both 
of them should have realized that their activities and accusations would 
be splattered across the global press and would be, in the end, most harm-
ful to their children.  If these people really love their children and if 
Woody really cares about this young woman, they will both shut their yaps 
and let this sordid business die a natural death in the press.  It would 
be a true shame if all these children received no better in their celebrity 
parents/parent surrogates then a pair of self-absorbed, egoists, who would use 
a child's life as a bargaining chip.

And food for thought:  What a strange coincidence that this whole nasty 
business came to a head less than two months prior to the opening of Mr. 
Allen's next film, a story about a husband of many years taking up with a 
19-year-old student of his.  Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm?"

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu