HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:37:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.124923.20482@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
<goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes...
>MP> "We conclude that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the defendant
>MP> without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the
>MP> specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault,"
>MP> Justice Alan B. Handler said in writing the opinion on behalf of a unanimous
>MP> court.
>
>Notice also that this judgement ONLY includes men as defendents, ie., "any
>act of penetration engaged in by the defendent" can ONLY be done by men,
>since only men can penetrate.

All of the women I've dated have fingers, toes, tongues, breasts, and
other appendages capable of penetrating my mouth.  YMMV

>Don't you just LOVE gender-specific legal judgements?

I haven't seen any recently.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Denied visitation by CP - Solution
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:03:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

> Actually, some members of In Search Of Justice, Canada's largest Men's Rights
> group, suggested that the CP be penalised by a reduction in child support
> and/or alimony payments for each withheld visitation.

  Perhaps the court costs from an NCP trying to get visitation enforced
could be deducted from child support?
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
X-To: DAN O [CONTRACTOR]
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:03:00 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes...

DO[> (Mr. EuStress) rants:

DO[>       The government should use our tax money
DO[>       to insure people`s sexual contact.
DO[>       If a child is born then the insurer
DO[>       (the government) should reward money
DO[>       to the primary care giver.  The Insurer
DO[>       would do its damndest to prevent conception.
DO[>       Thus men would not be made slaves to women.

DO[> Karen Dawn sensibly replies:

DO[>    nonsense!

DO[> (Mr. EuStress) then chastises Karen Dawn:

DO[>      Of course you say "nonsense!", you're a woman --
DO[>      the benefactor of injustices against men.

DO[>      If the minority can be enslaved then the majority
DO[>      will support it.

DO[> This poster, Ms Dawn, is (IMO) known as an unhappy crank.
DO[> I would not take his garrulous illusions seriously.


Dan:

While I generally agree (strongly, too) with about 90% of the things which
you say, I would say that in *this* case, you are being just a *little* bit
rough and unfair towards Jeff (Mr. Eustress).

Like me, he has been through a rough time (a different situation from mine,
mind you), and it seems that he still needs to get over his anger.  If he
"rants," which people who are very angry sometimes do, and you don't like it,
you can put him in your kill file.  What he does *not* need, is to be insulted
and belittled.

Granted, while I may think that his idea of sex insurance was a little bit
silly, I *can* understand where he is coming from, and indeed, I do not
really think that he was *intending* for us to take the idea seriously, but
"proposed" it in order to express the hypocrisy in only forcing reproductive
responsibility upon men.  (I *believe* that we are somewhat in concurrence on
this point)

IMHO, I think that he was just trying to show how ridiculous the situation is,
*not* that he actually believes that we should all get sex insurance!

Also, while you complimented the response to his post, I would hardly say
that it was a "quality" response.  It was one word : "nonsense" ; hardly
the stuff of an intellectual killing stroke against his position.

BTW, please do not take this as a flame.  I have great respect for you and
many of the things you say, but I just think that you are coming down *way*
too hard on Jeff.

---
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 * Obi Wan Kenobi at the dinner table: Use the FORKS, Luke!
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:54:37 GMT

Rich Soyack writes:
>Actually Tom, you are the one arguing that the laws we have
>are wrong, so the burden of specifying age, and agruing why
>they are wrong is one you.  You say that the laws should be
>changed, so I feel perfectly justified in asking what you have
>to gain by such a change in the laws.  Other than some
>bluster, and some huffing and puffing I have seen nothing to
>address either of these points.  I have also never seen you
>directly answer anyone's question.

Actually, Rich, I do have some ideas on how we might heal the wounds
of coercion and abuse, and prevent them from occurring in the future,
but before a genuine dialogue can start, we have to deal with those
like yourself who feel the need to dump a lifetime's worth of built-up
anger and venom in a slurry of slimey insinuations and innuendos
against anyone who fails to parrot whichever "party line" (gee, Rich,
love your creative phrases) you would wish to become the touchstone
of Political Correctness, no matter that it has totally failed so far
to stem, much less solve the problems.

It's futile to answer deliberately abusive Catch-22 questions like
your "How long have you followed the NAMBLA party line?", and it's
nearly futile to attempt to answer the serious questions of others as
long as you continue to do everything you can to prevent any serious
discussion.

But if it makes you feel better to work off your fears and hatreds
regarding these issues by rolling around in verbal gutters, then
maybe I can oblige you until you work it all off and are ready to
talk about something serious or until I get bored with your games.

>		I feel perfectly justified in asking what you have
>to gain by such a change in the laws.  

If you should ever be able to ask that as a serious question rather
than as an attack, I will say that what I have to gain is a chance
for me and my loved ones to live in a world where fewer people get
fucked over by other individuals or by the system.  I think it can
happen, but it will never happen the way the system is now set up.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:15899 soc.women:16124 alt.child-support:3037
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Lawyer Speak
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:18:01 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Sep3.140236.14139@b30.ingr.com> yetmanw@b30.ingr.com (Warren Yetman) writes:
>  Since my two girls are 9 and 12 the only thing I have to look forward to
>is the day when they reach 18 and my ex is left with no means of support and
>no way to retire ---> "What goes around comes around!"

Pardon my cynicism, but:

How much do you want to bet that in ten to fifteen years we'll start hearing 
about how child support victimizes single mothers by keeping them out of the
work force, and how they will need supplemental payments for a readjustment
period?

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:30:21 GMT

> = (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>Mr Aznabul deleted all of Will Steeve's comments explaining that he'd
>>might kill a woman "on the spot" who DARED to tell him of getting an abortion
>>"a year ago".
>>
>>Which resulted in my comment.......
>>                                  |
>>> = (Char Aznabul) writes:        |
>>>> = Steve Novak wrote:           |
>>                                  V
>>>> I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
>>>> like you, Will.

>  After you run home and finish dishes Stevey, does she/he tie you up
>and whip you then or does she whip you after you have both watched 
>"Donahue" on tape? 

She gets a bigger kick out of tying me up BEFORE I do the dishes; then
she laughs at me while drinking a Mai Tai.

>Just wondering....

Well, let me know how he/she subjugates you; maybe I can help out - 
especially if you're sick of Donahue; we prefer "Thelma and Louise" :). 




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:28:21 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Aug28.231129.9466@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
> cases in which good comes from it seem to come from those adults who view 
>children as sex objects.

	( I can't belive I'm participating in this awful thread... )

	Is a 15 years old a child?  I lost my virginity when I was barely
15 to a woman around 10 years my senior.  It was one of the great
experiences of my life.  If I knew where dear Nell was today I'd send her 
flowers on our "anniversary"....

	But *I* don't see "children" as sex objects.  



Xref: sparky soc.men:15386 soc.women:15674 alt.censorship:7092
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Proclaims the End of Privacy (was: Robert Sheaffer W
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:38:33 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> >     The sad thing is how screwy the above paragraph is. The
> >revelations over the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss are no surprise, the
> >info on Gus Hall is even less so, and there aren't a lot of leftists
> >who look up to Armand Hammer, either. As far as I can tell, the only
> >'leftists' for whom the 'revelations' have caused pain are either
> >borderline nut cases, or they exist solely in Sheaffer's fevered
> >imagination.
> 
> Note the clear implication that Brian would have answered "yes" to
> most of my seven questions. It just PAINS him so to have to admit it!
> 
        Some people just don't get the point. As my comments make perfectly 
clear, it doesn't pain me in the slightest to acknowledge the guilt of the 
Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, and the well-knownfact that Gus Hall's just a 
mouthpiece.
        What is painful is Robert Sheaffer's assumption that such things 
_should_ be painful for Yours Truly-- it's sad that such an outrageous 
assumption should be made. But it's sort of established that Sheaffer's 
methods are of the McCarthyite "guilty until proven innocent" school; if 
you're even slightly to his left, you have to somehow _prove_ your 
rationality through an inane series of tests.
        This same assumption leads to yet another intimidating tactic; if you 
don't have anything to hide, then why don't you answer the questions, hmmm?

        For what it's worth, I regret posting the Email publicly-- if only 
because it obscured the point that Sheaffer's an authoritarian crank in a 
duststorm of "Oh,merciful heavens, Brian broke Usenet protocol" wailing and 
gnashing of teeth. After all, if you were receiving email whose purpose was 
apperently nothing more than to needle you, I'm sure you'd regard it as 
harassing and without constructive purpose.

        Someone suggested that Sheaffer and I take this whole argument to 
Email. At some point, that would've sounded like a good idea. After all, it 
would've reduced the 'playing to the crowd' aspect of public posting. But 
after seeing Sheaffer's conduct in Email-- lengthy screeds about how I'm 
going to have to 'eat flocks of crow' after readily 'eating plates of shit 
offered by Soviet propaganda' (no, I'm not exaggerating, he used these very 
phrases)-- I doubt that rational, one-on-one discussion is possible with him. 

        Evidently, Sheaffer already seems to regard me as a Stalinist 
apologist, a person whose ideology blinds him to the facts, a believer in 
Kennedy conspiracy theories, and probably a lot wor How could one carry on a 
civilized discussion with such extremists?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Vicious woman bus conduct
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:19:14 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: riley

In article <1992Sep1.020055.24065@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> PNCSPPC@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU writes...
> 
> PN> [Reuters 8/16/92] SHANGHAI -- A 24-year-old bus passenger, Dong Huibo, died
> PN> in the street, after tangling with one of the city's dreaded woman bus
> PN> conductors.   His nightmare began inside the bus when the ticketpuncher
> PN> snarled an insult about the shape of his backside.   She swore at him,
> PN> slapped his face and broke his glasses, made a grab for his testicles, then
> PN> stood back and aimed a vicious kick at his private parts.  As he scrambled
> PN> out of a window, the driver -also a woman- slammed her foot on the
> PN> accelerator pedal and sent him flying. (From: Di Bi Cao)
> PN>                         ____  ____  ____  ____
> 
> PN> I wonder what he did to provoke this sort of treatment.
> 
> 
> I don't mean to sound rude, but is this what you really think of this
> situation?
> 
> Reverse the genders and make it a situation where two men attack a woman.
> Now imagine how much you'd get flamed for asking "What did she do to provoke
> this sort of treatment?"
> 
> I'm not implying that *you* hold this double standard ; after all, how would
> I know, since I have only seen one sentence from you?  But, realise also that
> there *is* the double standard that violence against women is *never*
> provoked or justified, but that violence against men *must* have been
> provoked in some fashion, and is therefore justified in some fashion.
> 
> This double standard, in particular, has been a *very* nasty nut to crack.
> 

  True. Were any motion picture to show a man beating up a woman with a stick
as comed, that film would be severly criticized for portraying brutality.
However, when Disney's "Beauty & The Beast" shows a large woman beating up her
diminuative husband with a rolling pin, we as an audience laugh and nominate
it for "Best Picture".



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xref: sparky soc.men:15599 alt.child-support:2956
From: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Fixing Family Law
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:33:04 GMT
Reply-To: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50)
Followup-To: soc.men
Distribution: usa


In article <1992Aug28.001723.7682@wolves.uucp>, woody@wolves.uucp (Woody
Muller) writes:
|> to my boy Peter, and demonstrate this to other people, I'm helping
|> some future father somewhere in his battle to convince society that
|> men in general are worthy of parenthood.
|> -- 

No gender, class, race, etc. is in general worthy of parenthood.  Only
individuals, buy their own efforts, can be prepared and willing to be good
parents.  This is precisely the missing perspective of the current legal
system (and perhaps society as a whole).  It is irrelevant  that I happen
to be male ... my capacity and willingness (AS AN INDIVIDUAL) to be a good 
parent is all that should matter.

 \_\_\_\_      \_\_\_\_\_   \_      \_           Don McMillan       __  .   .  
 \_      \_         \_       \_\_  \_\_          GM Research Labs  /  ` |\ /|  
  \_       \_        \_       \_ \_\_ \_         (313) 986-1436    | ,_ | | |  
   \_       \_        \_       \_  \_  \_                          \__/ |   |  
    \_       \_        \_       \_      \_                                     
     \_      \_   \_   \_        \_      \_      CSNet: mcmillan@gmr.com
      \_\_\_\_      \_\_          \_      \_     I-net: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:44:05 GMT

Jeffrey Boser writes:
><sigh>  next you are gonna say I was molested by the pool pump, I suppose.

Depends.  Was the pool pump older or younger than you?

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:15959 soc.women:16162
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Lawyer Speak
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:04:39 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mcniel

In article <1992Sep3.140236.14139@b30.ingr.com>, yetmanw@b30.ingr.com (Warren Yetman) writes:
>> 
> 
> I have no problem with the reason for paying for child support; BUT I 
> truely feel raped when I have no control with how it is used. My ex has not
> made an attempt at securing a job for the past 3 yrs, she lives with her
> boyfriend which does not plan to marry and of which she has in the last
> year has had a child with. To be able to maintain my required support payments
> I have had to relocate for work and since I am not able to see my children
> on a regular basis due to distance I do call. Yet when I call my children
> to see how ther are the first thing that comes out of their mouth is all
> the neat things their mom has bought for them. My lawyer has informed me 
> that unless she is using the money to buy drugs or alcohol I have no recourse.

  The mother of David Brenner's son was KNOWN to be using part of the child
support money to purchase cocaine (and had violated paraloe 3 times by
leaving drug rehab to go back tpo using) and it STILL took him 10 years to 
get the courts to do something about it. Our society has become totally
blinded by the "bad men good women" mythos to the point where it tolerates the
political and economic repression of men while writing a carte blanche
for the abuses perpetrated by women.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: TFS
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:34:24 GMT

"xtian" = Christian. It is an obsolete religious doctrine, some of whose
adherents adamantly deny that humans are animals who enjoy sex. Those
adherents, making such a wretched name for Christianity, do not realize
that it is their denial of reality which is causing their belief system
to be stuffed on the "we tried it and it didn't work" pile.
I'm glad for that. The sooner it dies, the sooner new generations have a
better statistical chance of leading healthy lives which include the
integration of the "human" with the "animal", which rather self-evidently
seems what nature would prefer.
Xref: sparky soc.men:15460 soc.women:15744 alt.child-support:2890 alt.abortion.inequity:3270 alt.dads-rights:2087
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Pre-conception contract
Keywords: conception sex contract child support abortion
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:28:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

fabian@gecko.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:

>(Well if we can have pre nuptial contracts, why not pre conception?)

Such contracts are unlikely to be held up by the courts -- after all,
surrogate motherhood contracts are usually thrown out.

Moreover, if the persons engaging in intercourse are unwilling or
unable to successfully apply contraception, what makes you think 
that they will bother with pre-sex contracts?!

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:57:56 GMT

ljf writes:
>Tom Chapin writes:
>>I would not want my
>>abuser to suffer abuse, even in retaliation for my own.
>
>What do you mean about your abuser suffering abuse?  I know that I
>wouldn't want the man who molested me to be put in prison and raped,
>beaten, even killed.  But I wish he had received treatment to see the
>errors of his ways.  

You *do* appear to know what I mean about my abuser suffering abuse.
Our societal institutions are a cruel joke when it comes to
treatment to end abuse and prevent further abuse because we have no
treatment models in real life.  All we have is another set of
abusers angrily intent of giving abuse in return for abuse--in
exactly the ways you so clearly outline above.

If I had asked our institutions to help me, I would suffered far
greater abuse at the hands of our institutions than I ever did from
my abuser.  I would have lost my main source of love, would have
suffered guilt at causing abuse instead of ending abuse...and there
would have been no healing.

>I don't agree with that.  If a 4 year old is asked (not
>coerced) into fellating an adult man, no harm is done?

When I was sixteen or seventeen, a friend related that a few nights
previously his brother, age 5 or so, came into his bed and performed
fellatio on him.  He pretended to be asleep and did nothing.

Did the older brother harm the younger brother by passively allowing
his younger brother to perform incestuous fellatio on him?  Would
the older brother have committed equal harm if he had actually been
asleep as the younger brother believed?  Should the older brother
have stopped the act and sternly admonished the younger brother of
the infinite harm of such an act?  Should I have called the police
on my friend for his act of passively molesting his younger brother?
Or should I have called the police for the younger brother's act of
raping his older brother while apparently asleep, and had the
authorities try the child as an adult for the act, as our system
seems wont to do?

Just where was the harm located, and who harmed who?

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Bob is NOT the benefactor that he claims to be.
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:34:40 GMT

Don Beaver writes
>But men aren't going to get anywhere by following the victimization 
>approach that feminists have successfully used.  

   My goals are private.

>EuStress - if I've misunderstood you or sound condescending, sorry.
>BTW, what the hell does "EuStress" mean?!!
>Don

   Thanks for your concern!
   The "eu-" prefix means "true" or "good".
   As opposed to "dis-" meaning "bad".
        EuStress is productive 
        -- while DisStress is destructive.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights