HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Possible UL alert(was Re: Videotaping rapes)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:38:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.115625.3838@darwin.ntu.edu.au> comp_oper@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.041618.4869@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.
>com (nancy b.) writes:
>>>>
>>>>          Tonight I attended a lecture and slide show by sociologist Dr.
>>>>          Gail Dines on images of violence against women in the media.
>>>>	[...]
>>>>          One example she gave was a new form of video porn playing off of
>>>>          the rape theme.   Women are forced into vans where they are
>>>>          raped.  The rape is videotaped.  The videotape is sold for
>>>>          profit.
>
>The local paper last Saturday (2 days ago) reported the sentencing of three
>men in Sydney, New South Wales for rape.  The main alleged culprit was the
>womans ex-boyfriend out for revenge for the breakup of the relationship. While
>the ex-boyfriend and another man raped the woman, a third man was video-taping
>the rape for the alleged purpose of blackmailling the woman into not saying
>anything.

Note, however, that this is not what Dr. Dines is talking about--these
folks were not going to sell this videotape to pornography hounds, for
profit or otherwise.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Family Values
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:05:40 GMT

I realize I started this whole family values issue, but I think we've strayed
from the purpose of this network.
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:18:53 GMT

In article <+b_py!c.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.030029.6036@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
>>re:  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
>>> How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 
>>
>>	Simple.  Ask the woman.
>
>	Bingo. Now ask the next question: why would anyone market a
>recording of themselves committing a felony which, in combination with
>the woman's testimony, makes an open-and-shut case?
>
>	Urban legend; QED.

Not so fast.  By that same "proof", no one sells cocaine because doing
so is admitting a major crime.  Yet, people do.  Note also that Barry
assumes that the rapist is necessary identifiable in the video.  Heck,
he's assuming that both the victim and the attacker are identifiable.
(The prosecutore can't just trot in a woman who's been raped.  The
tape is only useful in a trial involving the rapist of the taped
victim.)

So much for the proposed use/existence of said evidence.  In other
words, people do things all the time that are "evidence", and the
video isn't necessarily useful evidence.  There may be a good "it
can't be true" theory, but this one doesn't qualify.

I want to see relevant evidence.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:01:41 GMT


re:  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)

> How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 

	Simple.  Ask the woman.

					nancy b.

     ===================================================================
	Damn my soul  that remembers  and clutches to  this pain.
		-- Melissa Etheridge
		   "The Late September Dogs"
     ===================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Lot's daughters
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:26:15 GMT

Someone asked me a couple of weeks ago about Lot offering his daughters to be
gang raped.  For those of you not familiar with what I'm talking about, this
has to do with the Bible.
     As the story goes, Lot and his family were in the city of Sodom.  He was
visited by two angels.  They were going to spend the night on the street (the
next morning they were going to destroy the city), but Lot insisted they stay
in his house.  This mob of people showed up at the house later and demanded
that Lot hand over his visitors.  What could he do? He had insisted they stay
the night, so he was responsible for them.  He went outside, knowing that he
could be killed or gang raped (the city was filled with homosexuals), to try
and calm the people down.  When talking didn't work he offered his daughters. 
He didn't want his daughters to be gang raped, but his guests were more
important than him or his family.  Before this could happen the angels grabbed
Lot and brought him back inside.  They then blinded everybody outside.  The
next morning they destroyed the city.  I hope everyone now understands why Lot
would give his daughters to the crowd to be raped.
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.140215.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>, holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
> The Catholics have a different opinion on that.  Were the Protestant instituted
> tortures and burnings of "witches" in Scotland, and hangings in England an
> example of Judeo-Christian Values?
> 

Well half-way it is.  Under the Judaic Law witches were to be put to death. 
This was necessary for the time.  When Jesus died for us he removed us from
being under the curse of the law.  So as Christians we should not put witches
to death.  But neither should we condone their pagan practices.  No one said
that Protestants were perfect, but being an ex-Catholic I know that
Catholiscism is plagued with false doctrines.
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 21:23:43 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|So what you you have him do?

Just about anything would have been better.  Even dropping dead where he stood
would have been an improvement.  How about protecting his daughters with
whatever courage, strength, and wile he can muster?  If he's total mush, at
least he can take them and flee, or send them elsewhere.

If I ever have daughters and give them up to be gang raped, I hope that
whatever deities happen to be paying attention will turn me into slug-slime,
or a rabid fundamentalist, as appropriate.

-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
  In the '70s, you laughed at Frank Burns.  In the '80s, you voted for him.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 20:54:32 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|I realize I started this whole family values issue, but I think we've strayed
|from the purpose of this network.

Yeah, I agree.  Advocating killing people because of what they believe doesn't
have a lot to do with rape.

You're scary, man.
-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
		    Where are you when I need you, Nikki?
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: epohl@hubcap.clemson.edu (Erik Alan Pohl)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:04:20 GMT

In article <Bv78K5.3sG.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>
>No doubt to everyone's relief, I'm taking this to e-mail until
>I have some evidence one way or the other about the lecturer's
>claims.  
>
>Susan

I believe there was a case here in S.C. of marital rape- recently
(covered on the local news and (oh boy) A Current Affair- not that
that show helps substantiate my argument) where the husband videotaped
his sexual congress between he and his wife and that congress supposedly
did not involve consent from the wife.  The wife, after the trial
where the husband was aquitted, spoke out against marital rape and
is considered (by some) to be a martyr for the cause.  She was brave
enough to go to court.  This was videotaped- does it count?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's still hard for me to have a clear mind thinking on it.
 But it's the truth even if it didn't happen."(One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
---Erik Pohl at epohl@hubcap.clemson.edu--------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 07:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.153420.6790@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>   The second reason is that the man was aquitted. If there was no rape,
>then there was no rape-movie. The case was more complicated. The couple
>were into bondage, and that was the content of the movie. Also, the 
>couple is (or was) getting divorced, so there may be some reason to doubt
>the varacity of the charges.

You're not from Sumi Valley by any chance?
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:46:13 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
|In article <1992Oct2.135807.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu 
|writes:
|> It happened to the Catholic Church (become polluted that is). 
|> Rather than your execution, I'd like to see your conversion to Christianity.
|You're funny.

If those are our options, I'd rather see his execution.  (Sorry, Daniel.  :-)

-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2536 alt.folklore.urban:24855
From: bradn@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Bradford H Needham)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:58:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.rape
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <removed to protect the innocent> anonymous@your.back.yard writes:
>so there may be some reason to doubt
>the varacity of the charges.
      ^

Hurry, Hurry, Hurry!  Only a few vowels left!
Hungry grandmothers are waiting!
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2492 alt.folklore.urban:24450
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 29 Sep 1992 12:58:13 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mrg.phys.cwru.edu

In article <2_+p_qd.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.001853.12666@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <+b_py!c.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep28.030029.6036@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
>>>>re:  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
>>>>> How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 
>>>>
>>>>	Simple.  Ask the woman.
>>>
>>>	Bingo. Now ask the next question: why would anyone market a
>>>recording of themselves committing a felony which, in combination with
>>>the woman's testimony, makes an open-and-shut case?
>>>
>>>	Urban legend; QED.
>>
>>Not so fast.  By that same "proof", no one sells cocaine because doing
>>so is admitting a major crime.
>
>	Bad analogy. If they videotape themselves selling coke and then
>market the video, _then_ you've got an analogy. Though still a poor one,
>since videos can't tell coke from baking soda, or even sugar.

Child pornography is both made and sold.  Making child pornography is
a crime which, I suppose, would not in principle require any proof other
than the documentary evidence itself (the child's testimony e.g. if the
child was obviously pre-puberty would not seem to me to be required) and 
a quite serious one.

I suppose that the makers hope never to be identified/caught and/or
don't have the intelligence of a Kenn Barry or his other options.
--
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: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:10:56 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <BvB84t.8Gq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <+b_py!c.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>#
>#	Urban legend; QED.
>
>QED, I guess, if one does not believe in the existence of
>pseudonyms nor masks.  
>

   Since this isn't dying out, I will cite my reference. Last year, the
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry had a single topic issue about
Obscenity law. (volume 14, number1-2) The article by Kutchinsky titled
"pornography and rape: theory and practice?" talked briefly about snuff films.
   Some years ago, the anti-porn movement began to talk about snuff-porn.
This was where a woman was kidnapped and raped and/or murdered. Needless to
say, this would cause a strong reaction. But the problem is that noone could
ever find one, or even show that one existed. The FBI has never seen one.
Screw Magazine (that hotbed of liberalism :-) has offered a $20,000 reward
for anyone who can produced one. There have been no takers.

   Now, we cannot exclude the possiblility that there is a secret private
club that does engage in such practices. But the FBI has been pursueing
sexual exploitation vigorously, and has come up with nothing along these
lines.

   What I want to know is if the original author will retract her statments
if she can't come up with any evidence for the existance of these films?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape and Porn, NOT Videotaping Rape
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:52:36 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Oct1.185953.11381@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
<>Finally, he says that he wants to masturbate, but he wants her to get on 
<>the floor on all fours with her rear facing him because it excites him. She 
<>does. He keeps saying, "move back, closer, closer. And she does. Finally, 
<>she gets close enough and he inserts his penis and they have sex doggie 
<>style. However, the look on her face *seemed* to be one of confusion mixed 

<   I'm not sure why you think this could be rape. You are reading complex
<emotions from the expression of people's faces. According to your report,
<she wasn't forced to do anything. If she was mentally competant, then there
<really shouldn't be any issue.

If rape is defined as sex without consent, then the first sex act was rape.
Regarding the others one might argue about implicit consent.

-- 
Mike   hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu
"I still thing it's garbage, but beautifully cooked."   --  TP on TP
From: 01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:59:05 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

For those of you who firmly believe in the Mother Church, check
out your history. (not just the approved versions either)

After the fall of the Roman Empire as a secular power in Europe,
the Church stepped in as a strong political force throughout the
continent. This was done in part by conversion, but also by
conscription and coersion. There was also a policy of assimilating
pagan holy days as Christian holidays. ( Christmas comes to mind,
and All Hallows Eve )  The belief in the Middle Ages that witches
must be burnt came about in part by a mistranslation of the 
term for poisoner in the original text. It served as justification
for the elimination of what were competing religions in the North
and West of Europe, most of which were based not on witchcraft in 
present definition, but were small but strongly held areas of 
belief.

The power of the Catholic church derived in a large part from the
lack of education and the harshness of everyday life on the part of
most common folk. The agreement of the Church to support the concept
of divine authority on the part of royalty was an attempt by the
Church to maintain that power in the face of mounting opposition from
the heads of Europe. The Inquisition, practiced with more vigour in
Spain than most other countries, was an extension of that political
agenda, reducing the once powerful Muslim population to a minor
incidental. (that is not to say that its practitioners were not 
devout, simply that what they practiced in the Inquisition was 
actually better for the government than its peoples)

Remember that like most organisations the primary agenda of the
Church is its survival, regardless of the means. Also, the God
of Judao-Christianity is an absolutist, at least historically.
He is also a conqueror. By extension, this means that most 
varieties in this field are conquerors and absolutists. 
"God is on our side" is an almost exclusive property of this
area of religion.

I am rambling now, but there appears to be a lot of mis-information
about the Church's past exploits and its justification, mostly based
on the readings of that oft-revised and censored book, the Bible.

Joe Chiasson
01fortec@ac.dal.ca
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:02:15 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep28.090404.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu 
writes:
> know of any instance where they don't.  The Spanish Inquisition was very
> un-Christian.  That's not surprising since the Catholic Church at the time 
> was very un-Christian.

The Catholics have a different opinion on that.  Were the Protestant instituted
tortures and burnings of "witches" in Scotland, and hangings in England an
example of Judeo-Christian Values?

-- 
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       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:04:04 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

Kara writes:
> *exactly*.  However, when you equate "Family Values", the Republican
> platform, and "Judeo-Christian values" then I assume you are espousing
> "Judeo-Christian values" as interpreted by most people and most Republicans.
> Admittedly, this doesn't have to coincide with Biblical principles.
> 
> How J-C.V.-correct was the Spanish Inquisition?

The "Tradition Family Values" that the Republicans are talking about are a part
of the JCV.  These don't have to coincide with Biblical priciples but I don't
know of any instance where they don't.  The Spanish Inquisition was very
un-Christian.  That's not surprising since the Catholic Church at the time was
very un-Christian.
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 08:13:10 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Sep28.030029.6036@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
>re:  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
>> How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 
>
>	Simple.  Ask the woman.

	Bingo. Now ask the next question: why would anyone market a
recording of themselves committing a felony which, in combination with
the woman's testimony, makes an open-and-shut case?

	Urban legend; QED.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: This whole Lot thing ...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:20:18 GMT

kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
>Let me just clear this Lot situation up for you people.  Lot did THE ONLY
>THING that could have saved his guests AND his family from the Enemy.  If Lot
>had agreed to allow his guests to be victimized then his whole family would
>have suffered the same fate as the rest of the people of that city.  If he
>had refused their demands completely and barricaded the door then his family
>and friends WOULD HAVE BEEN RAPED AND KILLED.  The point is that Lot was
>WILLING to sacrifice his daughters.  God seeing Lot's willingness to surrender 
>himself and his family counted that obedience as righteousness and SAVED LOT'S
>FAMILY INCLUDING HIS DAUGHTERS.  It was not the act of offering his daughters
>to be raped that was righteous, but his willingness to do so.  This O.T. story
>has nothing to do with 'Family Values'.  It has everything to do with trusting
>God.  Lot knew that God made him and his daughters as well, and that God had
>every right to do whatever with them he pleased.  He also knew that God loved
>(and still does love) his daughters and therefore would not allow them to be
>harmed unless it furthered His purpose.  And further more if they were hurt
>then God would not only heal that hurt but reward them many fold for their
>obedience.  But of course we know that God rewarded Lot and saved his house-
>hold from destruction.  Excluding his wife who DID NOT OBEY GOD'S COMMANDS.

So in other words, it was ok to tell the crowd that they could rape
his daughters because he knew god wouldnt let them?  makes me wonder
what he would have done if he didnt know that god would protect them,
would he have acted so 'morally'?

It is very debatable that this was his only course of action.  I
personally would have thought him a better man if he had decided
to scarifice *himself* to allow his family and guests time to
escape the crowd.  (or at least have his family slip them out
back to avoid the mob).

No, I do not agree that Lot was a man of good morals.  If god
requires me to sacrifice my daughters to a mob, he can politely
go to hell.

>KimmyD

....jeff

Xref: sparky talk.rape:2535 alt.folklore.urban:24835