HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:18:41 GMT

In article <13cnd=j.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>What a bunch of self-serving bullshit.  By these asshole's
>>reasoning, there is no rape.  A child's only problem when
>>approached by someone so deranged that they see a lone
>>child, or children playing away from adults as a sexual
>>opportunity is, how shall that child turn down sex without
>>hurting the other.  If you are so emotionally damaged that you
>>need to have sex with children, then you should lock yourself
>>up.
>
>Boy richard, sure know how to lay on the insults eh?  No,
>according to their reasoning, they know the definition of
>rape.  rape is sex without consent.   they are saying that
>they had experiences where such consent was denied, and no
>sex took place.
>
>how the hell does that equate to rape?  or abuse?

I guess you didn't know that its rape when adults have sex
with children.  Its attempted rape when adults attempt to have
sex with children.  Is that clear?

>
>>Am I angry about this, yes, as angry as a woman who had been
>>raped might be when reading how when a rape attempt is made
>>her only problem is avoiding the sex without hurting the other
>>person.
>
>Where did you get this idea?  They were saying that they
>had situations where there was no force, no power, where they
>werent afraid of saying know, and didnt want to hurt the other
>person.
>

No force?  No power?  Adults have power of children.  Their
size alone gives them an implied force when making a
suggestion of sex with children.  I would suggest you worry
less about the offense I gave those arguing that there is
nothing wrong with children being seen as sex objects and
worry more about the effect of this on the children.

>Women do it every day of their lives.  Its called letting
>them down easy.  And I dont see a damn thing here that has
>to do with rape.
>
>.....jeff
>

Approaching an adult with suggestions of sex is not attempted
rape.  Children have not learned to cope as well as children.
Can you understand this?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Woody and Mia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:16:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.111606.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.045105.24582@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.151120.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:>>
>>>  Woody Allen passed his lie detector test. When will Mia submit to one?
>>>

>> 	"Lie detector tests do not indicate whether or not a person is
>>          telling the truth."
>> 		- Aaron Hoffmeyer
[Aaron Hoffmeyer describes problems with lie detector tests]

>  What you say may indeed be true for the Polygraph. However, there are far
>more modern methods such as the PSE, or Psychological Stress Evaluator. Having
>worked with this device myself, I can attest to it's value not only as a lie
>detector, but as a powerful tool for psychotherepists in dealing with
>surpressed memories.

With a Capitalized Latinate Designation (CLD), or better, 
a Three-Letter Abbreviation (TLA), it must be powerful.   ;-)

Do you know what kind of test Allen "passed"?


>  If you doubt the value of the polygraph (and you are justfied in that), 
>then let us tape record both Woody and Mia's public statements off of the 
>TV, then run them through the PSE to see who is telling the truth.

I seem to recall a story on NPR (I think) a couple of weeks ago
about telephones now being marketed with exactly this lie-detection 
"feature."  They ran some statements from Bush and Clinton through it, 
getting predictably humorous results.

We'll have some real fun when the media starts believing in such tests.

By the way, don't forget what profession Allen and Farrow pursue.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: "Tasteless and insensitive"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:01:38 GMT

Roger Tang writes
>(MrEuStress) writes:
>>  You're right 
>>  -- financial rape is "Tasteless and insensitive".
>	By the way, you HAVE been sexually assaulted, so you can compare
>them adequately?

  Force is force.

  Once, I lost my job when my female
  boss thought I should be her love toy.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Summary: A lot.
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:10:10 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1992Sep3.165905.25808@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> a@a writes:

>assertion is *naturally* true it needs no law to enforce it.  And all this  
>time I thought that families were built by love--no room for that in  
>Phyliss Schlafly's world.  

Try to guess who said that "a woman without a man is
like a fish with out a bicycle."

>than just a robot for industry and the battlefield.  I find that the  
>anti-feminist right hates men more than any radical feminist could.  

Try to guess who said "if we can send one man to the moon then
why can't we send them all?"

a) The anti-feminist right.

b) A radical feminist.

c) A main-stream feminist.

You have just one guess.
From: a@a
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:59:05 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Sep3.093747.6981@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux,  
just drieux) writes:
> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> ] In article <1992Sep1.183441.9858@wdl.loral.com> 
> ] bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
> ] 
> ] > The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
> ] > abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
> ] > reproduction.  
> ] 
> ] The patriarchal view is that abortion should be unrestricted 
> ] so that men have a better chance of escaping from their 
> ] responsibilities towards women and children.  
> ] 
> ] >J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
> ] 
> ] Doug Holtsinger
> 
> 
> Who decided that it is a Man's Responsibility to
> Take care of Women and Children?????
> 
> And What man is responsible for this child's Posts?
> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
> To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
> Put them back in the Refrigerator.
> This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
"What is Wrong with this picture??  Well, quite a lot.  Barbara Erhenreich  
has made the point in her _Hearts of Men_ that the anti-feminist right is  
really out to restrict the lives of men.  This is her final  
conclusion--found at the very end of her book.  Turns out that she was  
uncomfortable with that conclusion but was finally forced to except it as  
a result of her research.  The anti-feminist right believes that women  
really can do everything that a man can do everything that a man can do  
plus have babies.  They believe that women are deceiving men into  
supporting them and that this *this is good*.  The anti-feminist right  
goes on to assert that men are just vile beasts that are restrained from  
destroying the world by the civilizing influence of women.  (This is an  
unverifiable religious speculation and I shall not submit to it.  I  
believe that the First Amendment guarantees me freedom from religion and  
it is fitting that the Second Amendment should follow the First.)  If the  
assertion is *naturally* true it needs no law to enforce it.  And all this  
time I thought that families were built by love--no room for that in  
Phyliss Schlafly's world.  I believe that I am good for something more  
than just a robot for industry and the battlefield.  I find that the  
anti-feminist right hates men more than any radical feminist could.  And  
that such "feminists" are the useful tools of the right.  Robert Anton  
Wilson summed it up pretty well "If anti-semetism is the socialism of  
fools then androphobia is the feminism of imbeciles"


=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Society is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.  
Society is a joint-stock company in which the members agree, for the 
better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty  
of 
the eater."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:37:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.225756.1955@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>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.

You've used the term emotional abuse a lot (e.g., you feel emotionally
abused by me for not agreeing with what you're saying).  I wasn't sure
if you were referring to jail and/or prison or the fact that
pedophiles are "emotionally abused" by being treated for sexual abuse
of children.

>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?

I think the right thing for the older brother to have done was to stop
his younger brother and ask him where did he learn to do that.  I find
it hard to believe that the younger brother thought up fellating his
brother on his own.  Many sexually abused children act out sexually.
My suspicions are that this is what the younger brother was doing.

And no, I most certainly don't believe that the older brother should
have shamed the younger brother.  He should have shown compassion,
gentleness, and love for his younger brother.  It would have been easy
enough to say, "This isn't appropriate, but it's not that I don't love
you."

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization:  Hickory Ridge - Lisle, IL
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:55:25 GMT

ljf writes:

>Tom Chapin writes:
>>Yes.  Once when I was three or four and the adult was somewhere in
>>their late teens...

>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.

"Fortunate" implies statistical minority.  I do not know that.  From
my memory of my experience and those of my friends and playmates at
the time, it would seem that my experience was the norm, while
the experiences of harm were much less frequent, despite the impact
of their emotional horror.  Those whose experiences were nothing
more than a mild pleasure are less likely to have a motivation to say
much about it (especially if they know they will be suffer emotional 
abuse at the hands of well-meaning), even if they are the far greater
statistical majority.

Both persons who asked me for sexual activities were at the time
in a caretaking role.  Despite their presumed "position of power" 
there still was no hint of abusiveness.  

The fact that sexual abuses occur does not mean that sexuality is
inherently abusive.  The fact that some sexual abusers are gay or
black or Catholic or older does not imply that all sexuality with
people in those categories is abusive.  Stereotyping from an
extremely traumatic experience to a whole category is very easy, and
the greater the trauma, the easier and stronger the stereotype.  But
our experiences with racial, gender, and religious stereotypes should
have taught us the dangers of all such stereotyping.  Unfortunately,
they haven't.  We just avoid whichever stereotypes are politically
incorrect at the moment and make up for it by the strength of our
stereotypes elsewhere.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.185005.29368@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>As a feminist I don't see what is wrong with decorating our bodies or our faces
>in order to have fun, as part of a ritual, to improve our appearance, or 
>whatever.  The problem comes
>when we feel we *have* to look a certain way, or cover up our imperfections, in
>order to please *someone else*.  And in our Western society we consider it
>oppression for women to have to cover their faces and bodies because their
>Eastern, male-dominated society deems those bodily parts to be unclean, or
>unfit for looking at in public.

Party naked in public!  Should women be allowed to bare breasts in public?
Should men?  Should we be allowed to if they are within certain size limits?
:-)

How about limits on the shortness of one's pants or dress?  How about any kind
of dress code?  Is it ok to have such a dress code in a company, rather than
in a "public" public place?

>I've read Naomi Wolfe, and don't see how a woman who believes what she does 
>would use cosmetics or jewelry as anything but something *she* enjoys.  I doubt
>if she decorates herself for anyone but herself.  Which is the reason that 
>sometimes I wear makeup and jewelry, sometimes I don't.  Depends on the mood.
>Not what I think someone else (i.e. a male) wants me to do.

But you would for a female!?  Why??

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:26:51 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Sep2.223201.24322@crd.ge.com> 
cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:

>Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?

If someone defines hirself as a feminism then sie is a feminist.

>defined as "a woman who says something I don't like".  Over and
>over I see these anonymous "a feminist"s taking positions that all
>the feminists _I_ know wouldn't consider reasonable even if they
>had just had a fifth of tequila.  

But did they vote for candidates who support those positions?

Did they vote for liberal/feminist candidates that make their best
to preserve women's extra rights in custody, no-choice-for-men,
affirmative action quotas, fight against porno,
support men only registration for draft, etc.?

(Do they even *know* that Johnson sent 500,000 men Vietnam,
Nixon stopped the draft and Carter started a men-only
registration for draft?  Just wondering...)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<1992Aug31.185835.8099@meaddata.com> <1992Aug31.200759.6357@reed.edu>
	<10535@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 1 Sep 92 10:27:30

This baseline proposal...

> A man has one week after he is notified for the first time to file papers 
> opting out of fatherhood. If he does not file within the week, it is assumed 
> that he will act as father.  If he files papers, he gives up all right to 
> contact with the child (presuming that the mother makes the decision that 
> there be a child) and all responsibilities for support.

...would have to be agreed to by the child, who won't be born for another 38
weeks and won't be able to legally agree to such a think for 18 years after
that.

A parent's obligation is to the child, not the other parent.

> This baseline proposal has appeared time and time again [...]

Yes, and so has the above reply.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:18:00 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep3125846@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <3SEP199200564638@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:

>> So, I have a question for you feminist or feminist-leaning 
>> women.  Are you bothered that a man appreciates the look of a
>> woman in makeup better than without makeup?

>I'm not bothered at all by this.  However, I do think that it will make
>things more difficult for the man in question, since he is unlikely to
>find a woman who can be that well made-up all the time (i.e. all day and
>all night), so it seems to me that he will eventually be disappointed
>with any woman he meets. 

Perhaps I should add a little perspective on what I mean by 'appreciates'.
It is not an all or nothing approach to liking the 'looks' of a woman.

If I like the way a woman looks in some makeup it does not mean I
want her in makeup all the time.  It's like expecting people to have
flat stomachs or warm wit all the time (better yet, at the same time :-)).
Even though I find these traits alluring/endearing I am not dissatisfied
if those things are not permanent in people.  Being human they will have
some other trait I can appreciate.  If they turn into total assholes,
well, that's another story.

>... you might "appreciate the
>look" of a woman wearing a padded bra, corset, and girdle, but don't you
>think you'd feel rather disappointed if you got interested in her
>because of that look and then saw her without all those altering
>garments?

Yes, and soon after it goes it away, so what?
It's a deception but a small one.  You took away some of the props. The
stage may be less pretty but its the dialogue that carries the play.

Here's another perspective.
When I don't shave for 3 or 4 days people at work will say stuff like
"Here's a dollar, go buy a Bic".  A woman in my lab will say -
"C'mon Steve shave already, you know you'll look better."  This
is disappointment that neither of us take seriously even though I
think I look better clean-shaven.

One of the reasons I asked the question is that some women I know are
bothered by the fact that a well dressed made-up woman will easily catch
(some? most?) male eyes for a few extra seconds.  They don't know what
to do about it or even if anything should be done about it.  But they do
know that it makes them uncomfortable, although in a minor way.

>I prefer people who are attracted me as I am (jeans, t-shirt, no
>makeup)...they can always appreciate it when I am "dressed up," but I 
>don't want to be dressed up all the time.

I don't see that this attitude is any different than what I was talking
about.  The same approach goes for me too.

-=] Steve [=-      SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: The Ohio State University
 in
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:48:31 GMT


Jeffery - I have heard the saying that women "dress for other women" and do 
their hair and makeup for men.  I'd love to know what other posters think of 
this.  I know that the women I am around at work (not friends) almost never 
notice
makeup, but they do notice hair styles.  And they're very fashion conscious.
Fashion conscious almost to the point of being stereotypically "catty" about
it.  I've gotten comments, all from female co-workers, that they think I'm a
"dyke" because I wear "comfortable shoes"!  Thank goodness I don't care
what people think - I used to, almost to the point of driving myself nuts!

It is nice to hear from those men in this group that care about more than the
surface stuff.

carol
Xref: sparky soc.men:15783 alt.config:5404
From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.config
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:46:36 GMT
	<5001@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP><17gkuuINNa0q@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<MRMIKE.92Aug27174020@michelotti.ae.ge.com>
	<92244.105524NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines


# In message <92244.105524NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, 
# NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET (Nelson Broat) writes:

>In <MRMIKE.92Aug27174020@michelotti.ae.ge.com> I wrote:

>I will be the first to go out on a limb here and note that of
>all the s.f moderators, CTM is the only one who I have noted
>approving her own posts, but she does it quite often.  I
>cannot, in fact, recall a message of hers in the last 2 months
>which she did _not_ approve.

nelson> How do you know she has written something that she was
nelson> about to post but then decided against it? Or for that
nelson> matter lets not dicuss the written work, how about the
nelson> ideas which are on her mind which she decides to put
nelson> into words but at the last minute decides not to?

If I parse the above correctly, I believe you are confused
about the word "approve" in my post above.  I am using it in
the "News Software" sense, not the moral/personal judgement
sense.  That is to say that CTM added the "Approved:" header
line to her own posts to the moderated newsgroup soc.feminism.
This is an iffy practice (in a moral/ethical sense), and
directly refutes the arguments of Jim Dyer that this practice
is not followed by the moderators of said newsgroup.  Any more
questions?
                                                        - MM

P.S. This no longer pertains to alt.config.  F-ups to soc.men
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: soc.men