HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Subject: Re: genetics (was Re: Walking her to the car.)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:55:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.122558.8576@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
|> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
|> >It is pretty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
|> >ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.
|> 
|> There is no evidence that the difference in women and men's strength in our
|> society is genetic.  It could be entirely cultural.
|> 
|> *NOTE* I said NO EVIDENCE.  Responding with "come on, surely it's genetic" is
|> not a valid counterargument (though it's the one I usually get).

Pick up a copy of "Muscle & Fitness" magazine.  Find a photo of the largest,
most powerful pro builders of both genders.  Compare the two.  Now, think about
how they got that way.  They eat the same food, train with the same equipment,
read the same things, think about the same things, talk about the same things.
Obviously before they started training they may have lived differently but to
me comparing Anja Schreiner or even Paula Birchumshaw to Dorian Yates or Lee
Haney is EVIDENCE ENOUGH. Some of the difference in strength *MAY* be cultural.
But to suggest that it is entirely cultural just doesn't ring true.  IMO the
difference is *MOSTLY* genetic.

KimmyD
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:37:35 GMT

query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>I was told by a 'liberated' woman that she thought that it was macho bullshit
>for me to offer to escort her.  She made it home safely that night, but, since
>she was so 'liberated', she went out many other times.  Eventually, someone
>saw her as a victim, and she was mugged and raped.  I don't think being
>'liberated' is a very good reason for wanting to go out alone.

Permit me to explain, then.  Rape is about control.  Some aspects of feminism
are about control.  Women are being told to live in fear and never go out
alone.  They are being told this by rapists, in the sense that they know that
there are rapists out there and that they may get attacked if they go out alone
at night.  But unfortunately they are also being told this by nicer people who
are concerned for their welfare and are trying to protect them against rape.
Well this pisses some women off.  Rightfully so.  If we (men) can go out on the
street at night alone, why can't they?  It is truly discriminatory.  It has an
effect not only on one's social life, but it also makes it difficult to take
certain jobs, especially if you can't afford a car, and so on -- it affects all
walks of life.  So some women are insisting that they have the right to go out
alone at night, to take control of that aspect of their lives.  This is
praiseworthy, if they can do it.  It's not always safe, but many things are not
safe.  And it is an important thing affecting their lives.

>Since that has happened, I now usually INSIST on escorting a woman to where
>she needs to go.  If she refuses, I will usually follow her from a distance of
>about a block, and then run up to her if it seems like something may happen.
>Maybe thats wrong, if theyt said I should not go, but, hell, I would rather be
>stubborn and called a jerk or worse, than let someone get attacked.

This is a very tough judgement call.  I don't have any advice to contribute --
hopefully some of the women on the group will answer this point (if a certain
man hasn't caused them all to lose interest in this group yet).

However, don't be surprised if women react quite negatively to your doing
this.  They are trying to take control of their lives, and you are saying to
them, no, a man must be involved in your walking at night, either as rapist or
as benevolent protector.  It is going to be perceived as an invasive thing.

One partial solution to this is to have women escort women, thus proving that
men do not have to be involved.  This is anti-rape because rapists are in
effect saying that they do.
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: HANDS IN ACTION
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:50:14 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl

This is a new Organization that is trying to raise money to build a home for
abused children.I would like you all to spread the word,I would be going on
Cristina's Show to get it known Nationwide.But I can help by putting it on here
too.I will give you the address if anyone can help.Just mention
T.Taylor....here is the address.

  HANDS IN ACTION/MANOS EN ACCION,INC.
    11890 S.W.8th Street-Suite 402
          Miami,Florida 33184

Any help would be a blessing. Thanks
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Books
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:52:28 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl

I                                      I have many book titles that can help
the survivor and the loved ones of the survivor,that can help you understand
how this affects the survivor and the family....but the books or good to help
all.I am glad to be part of this discussion cause it is going on everydaand I
would like to be able to help in someway if I can. 
                          T Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: lioness method
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:15:44 GMT

In <1992Aug10.193208.91631@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Aug10.165152.18662@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>#In article <1992Aug7.222313.19298@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>##[about rape] When it ends, you will be dead; or alive, but physically
>##and emotionally shattered, probably permanently.
>#
>#    I'm not entirely sure this is what we want to say to young women
>#who may one day be unfourtunate enough to be the victim of a violent
>#crime.
>#    I would like to think that a rape victim could recover and live a
>#happy and normal life after the attack. This sounds to me more like
>#advocation of suicide.

>I agree.  The last time someone posted this particular article, I
>objected to this sentence.  (I assume that Mr. Booth did not see 
>that discussion.)

>People can recover from the effects of rape.  I have.  I wish
>that the original author of the article had talked to a several
>rape survivors before making such sweeping statements.  

You both seem to be missing the point, "RAPE IS A BAD THING!"
and one should do whatever is necessary to avoid it. I don't
suppose Daniel or Susan would suggest that that line be replaced
with "When it ends, you will be ok and unharmed, so don't worry
about it"?

Would the line in question be more accurate if it said
"When it ends,.... emotionally shattered, possibly permanently"?
                                          ^^^^^^^^
While the lioness method paper does contain some generalizations,
such generalizations seem to be on the side of caution.


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: walking her to her car
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:39:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.151607.5685@hubcap.clemson.edu> jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght) writes:
>There have been many times that a girl has asked me to walk her to her
>car after a party or work or some such thing.  I always repsond by
>saying I would be glad to if they will in turn give me a ride back or to
>my car or whatever is prudent in the particular situation.  NONE of them
>have EVER agreed to this.  Interestingly, if I wait till I get them to their car
>to ask for the ride, they ALWAYS agree, presumable out of a feeling that they 
>owe it to me.  They want me to walk them to their car for
>their safety, but they then feel their safety is inpinged if they let me
>IN the car with them.  This is actually a very good point from their
>standpoint.  It is just as likely that the guy they ask for help could
>rape them as it is that a stranger might.  However, if they are that
>afraid of me, then I am equally afraid of them, and I do not help.  I am
>not personally afraid of being raped, though maybe I should be.  I am
>more concerned about being mugged, robbed, shot, stabbed, hit by a drunk
>driver, as these are considerably more likely to happen to me.  I am
>willing to aid in the safety of another person if they are equally
>willing to aid in my safety.  If they demonstrate a disregard for my
>safety, then they do not get my help.

Why would a person choose someone to walk her/him to her/his car and
then refuse to let that person into the car?  "I'm too afraid to walk
by myself, so I ask someone, but then I'm afraid of her/him and won't
let her/him in my car."?  How bizarre!  If I requested help, it would
be of someone I trust enough to walk me back to my car and let in my
car.  

I certainly agree with you.  If the person won't drive you back to the
party, your dorm, etc., don't walk her/him to her/his car.  I also
think you should say that upfront and give the reasons you have the
right to be driven back.  One thing to say may be, "If you're too
afraid of me to let me into your car, why are you trusting me to walk
you to your car?"

(BTW, my opinion of my friends and the people I socialize with has
risen after reading posts like this.)

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Summary...
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:20:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.172808.9517@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.051524.3667@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>
	(Deleted to save space)
>
>And if you tell them to "Piss Off!", they will go on their merry way and leave
>you be.
>
>Tell me, if I were to stand out on the public sidewalk, set up a telescope, and
>start to peer through your windows, how long before you felt I was infringing
>upon your space?
>
	You would be looking into my home, somewhat violating my privacy,
NOT forcing me to do any actions I would not choose to do.  Remember, the
argument is whether I am violating their autonomky, not their privacy.
(But, since I do not follow them into their homes, or wherever they are
going, and only watch for thewm on public places, then I am not even
violating their privacy.  If they are out in public I have the right to
watch them.  Your example dosent hold.)

>I'd have the legal right to look, and you would have the legal right to close
>your blinds if you didn't like it.
>
	Go ahead... :)  My blinds are usually closed anyway.

>And the only way a person can avoid being escorted by you is to sprint faster
>than you can follow.
>
>Maybe you do not feel this is infringing upon their space, but it is pretty
>blatent to me--IMHO.

	It is not making it so that they can do any less than before, or
forcing them to do anything at all.  They are in public areas when they go
out, and therefore, ANYONE who wants to look at them, or even follow them
would be guilty of same.  Also, I doubt that any of the other people who
may follow them have intentions as good as mine...
	If watching someone in public is wrong, then EVERYONE is guilty of
it.
	Case closed, there is no valid argument for why it is either wrong
for me to follow someone, or if I would be violating their autonomy or
space more than anyone else out there.  Hell, I'm increasing their
autonomy, if you consider giving them more options if they get attacked.

>
		(Stuff deleted)

>
>Adding your "opinion" does NOT relieve you of slander liability. We all KNOW the
>other person is expressing an opinion* even if they do not say "In my
>opinion..." Therefore, adding the qualifier does nothing as far as the court is
>concerned.
>
>Just a little legal tidbit to keep in mind.

	Actually, isnt the only way for someone to avoid a slander charge
to either proove the accusation or statement made, or if they can proove
that no damage to the victim was done?  Seems rather impossible to prove an
opinion, and I doubt that any judge or jury would want to see proof of
same.  Anyway, useless to debate it here.

>
>DC
>
>* The exception to tthis rule is where people are qulified to make assesments
>of mental capacity, then add ing their opinion does relieve them of some
>liability if they are wrong.
>
>
Sam, the public space violator.


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:39:50 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

BOGGS RICHARD GRAN (boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Aug16.083246.18166@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
: >	The saying about dont draw a gun unless you intend to use it should
: >be changed to "Dont draw a gun unless you are going to kill someone
: >immediately thereafter".  This is an issue that you cannot take too
: 
: I had always heard the second one.  Nope, take that back.  What I have always
: heard and believe is that "If you must shoot, shoot to kill."

I think there is a grievous problem with this attitude.  The tactical
objective, when using a gun to defend oneself against an attack is NOT
to kill the attacker, but to make them stop attacking.  If the sight of 
a weapon, in the hands of someone who appears willing to use it, is 
sufficient to cause the attacker to flee, that's wonderful.  If so, you
have no business shooting them in the back as they run away.  If they
continue, perhaps believing that you will not be willing to shoot them, 
the object is to stop them.  If you shoot the attacker once and (s)he 
falls to the ground, and does not make any further attempt to attack you,
you do not have any business shooting them in the back of the head.  An
amazing number of totally incapacitating gunshot wounds (for example, a
guy who took a 12 guage slug in the spine in a botched attempt to stick
up a gun shop... i'll post details if anyone cares) can be recovered from.

The problem is that, if you kill them, they are much less likely to try
to sue you than if you merely maim them... this, however, falls into the
realm of strategy, rather than tactics.
: 
--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:41:55 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug15.194609.19535@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Amy Young Leith <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.004044.9419@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
>>and greeks. Ninety-eight percent! (Please do not assume I am attacking
>>either group, I am merely relying information.) These attacks do not happen
>>walking to parking garages, or in the bushes near the physics building. They
>>happen in dorm rooms and frat houses.
> 
> Wrong again.  Many DO happen in the bushes, woods, or buildings that
> are not sports or fraternity related. 
> 
> amy

No, you have FAILED to use your own head before commenting. Think about it--if
98% of all campus rapes are greek or jock related, then a woman is 49 times as
likely to be raped by one of these two groups than all other groups on campus
COMBINED!

If your use of the word 'many' means less than 2%, then I guess you are right.
However, had you quoted this in context, you would have to admit that it does
correlate with the issue I was addressing--certain situations and factors are
more likely to result in a rape than others--by about 49 times in this
situation.

DC
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Victims
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:55:02 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl

I am a survivor of Mental,Physical,and sexual abused.I have been on radio in
Fla...WFTL Ft.Lauderdale I have spoke in hospitals and groups.I am being voted
in on the Dade County Board I am going on TV soon about my story of my lilife.I
just lost a daught
life.I lost a daughter in Jan.she was an incest victim and she shot herself.I
want any one out there that needs a friend you have me.Please feel free to
leave me e-mail or po here.
May God bless each one of you.
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:58:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.083246.18166@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>	The saying about dont draw a gun unless you intend to use it should
>be changed to "Dont draw a gun unless you are going to kill someone
>immediately thereafter".  This is an issue that you cannot take too

I had always heard the second one.  Nope, take that back.  What I have always
heard and believe is that "If you must shoot, shoot to kill."

-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:21:15 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <10294@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
> In article <1992Aug8.054641.10769@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>From what I've seen and done, the driver drives the other person,
>>regardless of gender, to her/his house, apartment, or dorm.  That
>>seems to protect both of them (unless there's an attacker hiding in
>>the car).
> 
> Aaaah, herein lies the confusion.  I was referring to the situation where 
> someone at a social gathering who doesn't want to leave gets asked by someone
> to walk her to her car.  
> 
> In my experience this happens quite frequently, and I assumed that was the
> reference.  I don't recall a woman's ever offering to drive me back to the
> party who has asked me to walk her to her car.  Of course, I should.  However,
> doesn't the fact that she didn't even consider it important enough to ask 
> convey useful information?

Yes. According to Kimmy, you are not a real man.

> 
>>>Should you be so quick to condemn the annoyance of those men whose histories
>>>you yourself do not know?
>>
>>I've been sexually assaulted.  I still walk my friends to their cars
>>when they're alone.
> 
> Well, I've been sexually assaulted, and I still walk people to their cars
> when they're alone.  I consider it a Nice Thing to Do.  I do it, and walk 
> alone by myself, in spite of the fact that it scares me shitless.  Are you 
> and I in some sort of competition?  To what end?  What are the rules?
> 
> -EMP

I think the rules are since HE does it, YOU are expected to do it.

DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Statistic info
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:24:20 GMT

>>>  "If there was no way you could get caught for the crime of rape, would you
>>>   do it?"
>>>
>>>   75% of the college boys who were asked said YES.
>
>   Any guess as to the %-age of "boys" saying YES to
>      "Would you steal if you wouldn't get caught?"
>      "Would you speed if you wouldn't get caught?"
>      "Would you spit on the floor if you wouldn't get caught?"

I'd prefer someone to cover the floor with spit three inches deep rather than
to rape someone.

>   How about:
>      "Would you rape if you wouldn't get caught, but you knew
>       the victim would hate it?"

But if they don't know the victim will hate it, it will still have the same
effect.  It's scary that people are eager to rape.  It's not comforting to
think that this is probably just because they don't know of the trauma it
will cause, because there's nothing on the way to becoming a rapist that
automatically informs people of this.  It's scary to know that the only thing
stopping them is fear of the law, because we all know that there will be
circumstances under which this fear is not present.  And then these college
boys will rape.

I just can't get upset about people's willingness to spit on the floor.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.072624.26832@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug11.175613.475@brtph560.bnr.ca> jcmarx@bnr.ca writes:
|> >3) It is my duty as a man to make every effort to protect the female against
|> >   other males (again, generally speaking). As my DC-DISCLAIMER states, I have
|> >   no data to back this up, but in my area, one seldom hears of an 'attempted'
|> >   rape against a woman -- the man almost always gets what he wants.
|> 
|> Grrr....  This is definitely NOT what I had in mind when I posted
|> about men being aware of women's fears and precautions about rape.  My
|> point was that sometimes many men aren't aware of women's fears or
|> think they're trivial.  (e.g., They're not afraid to walk around on
|> campus at night, so why should women be?)
|> I never intended to imply that men have a certain duty to protect
|> women against other men.

And *I* am saying that *I* *AM* aware of the fears they face based on the
actions of other men (rapists). I understand their fears so much, that "I
consider it my duty to protect the female against other males..." etc as
mentioned above.

|> I think all of us, men and women, have a
|> certain duty to protect each other against attackers.

I agree: We should all pitch in to help one another. I have even elaborated on
this point in previous posts. Only through unity can we show criminals that we
ain't gonna take it no more.

|> It really annoys me to hear that men have special duties to protect women or
|> vice versa.

As I mentioned, my obligation to protect women against men is based on an old
fashioned set of traditional morals. I feel it necessary to show women (when
prompted) that not all of us men are macho-scumbags - some of us understand
their fears and are willing to help in any way possible (which may even include
not helping at all - whatever they want).

|> And yes, one does hear of attempted rapes against women.  Sometimes
|> the woman fight off the attacker, sometimes other people scare the
|> attacker away, etc.
|> 

If you read what I posted carefully, you will see that, first of all, I said
"in my area". Secondly, I believe I said "...in my area, one *SELDOM* hears
of an attempted rape..." I didn't say one *never* hears of it. The paragraph
you have snipped out of context was originally driving the point that IN MOST
CASES (note that I did not say ALL CASES), the average women fending off an
attack against the average man will USUALLY lose. The post then went on to
discuss a specific aspect of self defense to help balance the odds.

United we conquer, divided we fall,
JC