HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 18:53:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>I would suggest that you are also coming across as someone who
>denies the experiences of all of the children who were severly
>damaged or killed by adults who were so sick that they prey on
>children for sex.

You are comming across as someone you denies the experiences of
all the children who benefits from a loving experience with
an adult who did not prey on them at all.

I repeat: just because authority exists, does not immediately
imply that it must be used.  There is such a thing as not
exercising that, as well as actions that will nulify any non-active
expression of that power.  There is a power imbalance in many
non-minor relationships, and abuse occurs alot more frequently
to adults than to kids.  And if you think the effects are less
damaging, you are wrong.


.....jeff
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:31:43 GMT
Distribution: na

Cathi Cook writes

+ The question here is, "What's the point?"  Rivero apparently knows
+ a woman who has a bad attitude and isn't afraid to show it.  Does 
+ this really SAY anything?  Wishing that children had been abused 
+ for ANY reason immediately disqualifies that person from being
+ considered rational in my mind.

These people are self-defined as feminists,  and worse, are dogmatic
about it. Run into  enough of them like that and it makes you wonder
if *all* feminists are like them.

Now, if the subsample of feminism is like that described above, and
you applied your rationality criteria, what would *you* think of
feminism???

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: MN 5th district primary warning
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: mn
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:21:55 CDT

I read in this morning's Trib that the crazy feminist lawyer who got Playboy and
Penthouse banned from campuses around the State and started the assault on the
Strohs Bikini Team, is trying to unseat Sabo in the primary on September 15.
Unless you want Mpls to be represented by a very radical feminist, be sure to
vote in the primary for Sabo.

Steve Anderson
Cray Research, Inc
These are strictly my personal opinion.


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Gender and bathing suits
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 07:10:59 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <9208290650.AA08237@cs.utexas.edu> klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>Women tend to wear small, hugging, bathing suits,
>while men tend to wear shorts, which are baggy and long.

>Why don't more men wear tight, revealing, bathing suits?

>Why don't more men wear thong-style bathing suits,

Would *you* wear a lycra-spandex thong bikini?

If not, there's your answer.

Personally, I own a thong bikini, a "sliding front pouch" bikini (that
is, the fabric that forms the pouch loops around the waist so that you
can slide it to form a wide or narrow pouch), a pair of Speedo's and a
pair of boxer trunks.  Which do I normally wear?  The boxers.  Why?
'Cuz I'm a white boy and the last thing I want to show off when I go
to the water park is my white-as-the-driven-snow ass.

Besides, we all know that if a male wears a revealing swimsuit, he
must be gay...showing off his genitals for all to see!

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Xref: sparky soc.men:15575 alt.child-support:2944
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support
Subject: Fixing Family Law (was Re: Bob is NOT the benefactor that he claims to be.)
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:17:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: a944107c304aa555d11a0ab38adae58d

Alan Yasutovitch writes:
>>>Woody Muller writes
>>>>[...] if you want to win, you've got to play the [legal system] game.
>> [my (woody's) treatise use of courts deleted for brevity]
>
>	I agree with your premise.  But not with the point or outcome.
>
>	Sadly, people that can work the system make out.  But it
>	is still a very valid objection that people have, that
>	justice should not literally mortgage your entire future
>	with legal bills.

Yes, I think we all agree that the family law system needs some fundamental
change.  The point I've been trying to convey is that raw expressions of
anger at the system are not productive, and may well be counterproductive
toward gaining a better balance of fairness toward father, mother, and
child.

Our legal system is extremely resistant to change, and I think it's fair
to say that most court decisions are based on previous court decisions.
The courts are perpetually in a kind of feedback loop of "traditional"
decisions, and dads' rights are not currently in much favor.  My feeling
is that we must win this war one battle at a time.  Each time a father
wins fair consideration in court, we all win.  And each time a father
makes a poor showing in court, we all lose.

>	There are all kinds of people on this net.  Some have been
>	raked over the coals.  To hold them up as the example of
>	what "must be done" to get by in our legal system does
>	no more than highlight the problem, rather than show examples
>	of what kind of hell one must go through to be heard.

When I was summoned by the Attorney General's office of Utah, I began
my own journey of distress.  My stress level was lessened greatly by
getting a lawyer and letting *him* worry about the first several rounds
of communication with the Big Bad AG Lawyer of the Beehive State.
When I see posts by an obviously stressed individual in a similar
situation who refuses to hire such an expert to help him, I can only
feel that this individual is partially responsible for his own feeling
of impotence.

Of all the helpful comments and support I got from the net back then,
the thoughts I most remember were from Peter Barbee.  He offered the
observation that society will begin treating fathers more and more
fairly only when they observe more and more men being good fathers.  It's
a bit of a chicken-and-egg theory, and in the beginning many of us can
only be the best possible "visiting" father we can be.

With this in mind, I feel that every chance I get to be a good father
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.
-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 02:41:34 GMT

In article <Btr1zD.59@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>A man is wounded in war action and is virtually brain-dead.  All
>>high-order brain functioning is lost.  Low-order brain functioning is
>>intact.  Everyday, on numerous occasions, the man gets an erection.  A
>>nurse, who works with this man, notices the erection and devises an
>>intricate little plot.  She wants to have a child, but does not want to
>>have a relationship with a man.  She is a staunch feminist, and frankly
>>does not respect men and their suffering.  Anyway, one evening, the man
>>gets his usual erection and the woman mounts him and has sex with him to
>>ejaculation.  Whether she repeats this numerous times is unknown.
>>However, eventually she conceives adn no one knows who the parent of her
>>child is.
>>
>>Is this rape?  He never consented.  He was not penetrated.
>
>
>I don't know if it's rape or not, but it would make a great story line!

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

Of course, you know these staunch feminists who frankly don't respect
men and their suffering.  If they're not becoming lesbians, killing
their babies, or engaging in witchcraft, they're becoming nurses so
they can rape unconscious men at will.  This is something Pat
Robertson should add to his list of the perversions feminists want to
inflict on the rest of us God-fearing folk.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: mandatory service
X-To: DAVE EISEN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:26:00 GMT

dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes...
DE> The fact that women justify their desire to have custody primarily
DE> on the basis that it is better for the child and that men justify
DE> their desire primarily on their right to have custody says more
DE> about the methods men and women use to try to get what they want
DE> than it says about who would make a better parent.


No, no, no, Dave...  I know a *lot* of men who are trying for custody,
especially *JOINT* custody, and they are NOT *just* saying that "it's our
right" ; they are ALSO saying that it is GOOD FOR THE CHILD to be with BOTH
parents, not just the mother, and indeed, not just the father.

---
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 * If it has feelings, it's not cooked enough!
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Gender and bathing suits
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:04:31 GMT
Organization: WCOM Public Access UNIX - Toronto
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I've noticed an interesting difference between men and women
when it comes to bathing suits.
 
On the beach, most women wear clothing which is skimpier 
and more revealing than men.
 
Women tend to wear small, hugging, bathing suits,
while men tend to wear shorts, which are baggy and long.
 
Why don't more men wear tight, revealing, bathing suits?
 
Why don't more men wear thong-style bathing suits,
like the suits worn by the women on the beach-scenes
of the NBC television show "Baywatch"?
(Have you ever recorded the opening-scenes,
and single-stepped through the recording,
and seen all the mostly-bare female buttocks which are displayed?)
 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: redmondd@unix1.tcd.ie (Judge Raz)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:25:17 GMT

In <w-knrs_.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:

>danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>>boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>> >( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>>
>>I'm not saying you are a deviant.
>>Yes, sex is a basic human need.

>No it is not.  Virgins can live long and lead productive lives.
                                               ~~~~~~~~~~ 
Surely not!  ;-)

Judge Raz
Xref: sparky soc.men:15531 alt.child-support:2931 soc.women:15828
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.women
Subject: EuStress in DiStress (was Re: Avoiding Rape by Being Willing)
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:40:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: cf199888008b7d024f4662f98732ab2b

EuStress writes:
>Woody Muller writes
>>>Woody Muller writes
>>>>EuStress, if you want to win, you've got to play the game.
>>In reality, the system rewards those who know how to work the system,
>
>   Suppose that what I wanted to "win" was
>   to not pay child support.

I'd say that your goal is unrealistic and unfair to most of the parties
involved in your lawsuit.  In your case, a "win" is better defined as
a settlement for a lesser support amount than "guidelines" would dictate.
Gaining liberal visitation rights, should you want them, is also a "win."

First thing to do is get a good attorney to make sure you don't screw
up and get a summary judgement against you, or worse.  The cost of the
lawyer will come back to you via the reduced support award he will be
able to negotiate on your behalf (over the first 10 or 20 months).

>   Now you give me the name and address of
>   a man that has a judges signature on a
>   (non adoption) order that frees him of 
>   his support obligation.
>
>   I can name one (depublished) case: "Joshsua M." Cal.Rtr.???
>   (I don't have the case number with me).
>
>   I've asked repeatedly if Bob K. or anyone
>   else personally knew of any other case.

I'd take the legal brief Bob so generously prepared for you and show it
to my attorney.  Of course, we already know that you want to play the
game without an attorney, with both hands tied behind your back.  Well,
you're navigating pretty tricky legal waters here, and without an attorney
you're going to get laughed out of court.  Bob has prepared a brief which
he feels might be of some use to a Utah attorney, but he's holding onto
it because you have no Utah attorney.  He does not want to be a party to
the debacle that would most certainly ensue due to your naive ignorant
assumption that you can represent yourself.

>   "Playing the game" -- as you call it -- 
>   is just avoiding rape by being willing.

Your polemic term 'rape' is inaccurate at best.  Your use of the term
applies equally well to what you want to do to your kids.  By not hiring
an attorney to protect your interests, you are sticking your head in
the sand and providing the opposing attorneys with a ready target.

It's pretty obvious that you want to martyr yourself.  By failing to
take adequate steps to protect your interests (hiring the lawyer), 
you're just going to ensure a harsher judgement against you.  Then you'll
howl "see what they did to me!" 

But the worst possible terms seem to be exactly what you want.  The
better to martyr yourself with.
-- 
wm
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:46:29 GMT

In article <3540@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.162424.645@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca  
writes:
> >Because she's the Duchess of York.
> 
> 	Well, maybe I'm missing something but don't Duchesses have the right
> to dress as they please?  I always thought royalty was *more* privileged
> than us mere commoners...

Kings, Queens and Gods must act within a strict set of rules set by
society. 

- db
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:13:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>I don't see an answer to my simple question here.  I'm sure
>you do, but please phrase it simply so I can understand it.
>Do you believe that children should be viewed as being
>sexually available to adults?

I dont think that *anybody* should be seen as being sexually
available to *anybody*.  Your question applies equally to
adults as children.  Also, the definition of what a minor
is falls under question in consent issues. (legals history
has shown that the age has fluctuated up and down according
to social and criminal problems)

>Have sex with children is illegal.  Its called rape.  If you
>attempt to have sex with children, but don't succeed, its
>attempted rape.

Actually, sex with a minor is satutory rape.  And is one of
the hardest crimes to prosecute, especially when the minor
gives consent.  The illegality has nothing to do with it.
In fact, the law itself is hypocritical.  Find out at what
age minors can marry and have sex, and not marry and have
sex..

The effects of a true rape (one where consent was not given
by a participant) and statutory rape (where one of the
participants is considered for legal convienience to not
be able to consent, regardless if they did or not) are
quite different from individual to individual.

>Then I suggest that you as an adult respect children.  Don't
>view children as sex objects.  Its all very simple.

In response to the indirect question: Do I consider children
sex objects?  I would have to answer that as a child I sure
as hell did.  And this is actually considered healthy behavior.
When I stopped?  I dont know if I did, I certainly notice
children's sexualy characteristics, but I do modify my behavior
to benefit my survival.  meaning I am quite aware of society's
taboos and laws regarding the matter.

that does not mean, however, that I agree with these morals.
in point of fact, i think they are hipocritical in nature.

(then again, i also think monogamy is as well)

.....jeff
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:08:48 GMT

In article <#kbn4n@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <702@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>>In article <VIXIE.92Aug22131333@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>>[bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)]:
>>>> Why is it that the biological father has to convince somebody to let
>>>> him have custody of his own children?
>
>>For all three of my kids, when it was time for them to leave the hospital,
>>I picked them up. I didn't have to show ID, I just went and asked for my
>>kids. I was told congratulations, handed a box full of baby products, and
>>given the child.
>
>That's because you were married to the mother and were assumed to be
>the father...even if they weren't biologically yours.
>
>>If there is a contention about paternity, then the short answer to "Is this
>>the father?" is settled pretty rapidly by tests. A better circumstance than
>>playing eenie-meenie-miney-mo with the stories that the court hears.
>
>Exactly.  That the biological father would have to go to court to get
>custody rather than the med lab is what is at issue.
>
>>Fortunately, I live in Washington, where if the mother wants to give the
>>child up, legal notice has to be served on the father who has first option
>>to take the child... and without adoption. It's simply his.

But how does the bio-father show he's the bio-father?

If the mother is married to someone else, he typically doesn't
even have standing to claim paternity.  No courts, no DNA tests.

Does anyone know: does any man have standing to claim paternity
against an unmarried woman?


>That's at least a partial answer to my question:  He is considered a
>biological father, not an adoptive one.  But again, it is my
>impression that such is not the case all over.
>
>Now, can he sue her for support when this happens?

The point is moot if he can't even attempt to prove fatherhood to begin with.
(I say +only+ that, because I don't know a definite answer to your question.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:50:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1992Aug30.155058.13919
Organization: AT&T

Rich Soyack writes:
>Tom Chapin writes:
>>You are perpetrating abuse, Rich.  Stop.  
>
>But Jeff's statements that ...

It doesn't matter what Jeff said.  What matters is how you respond.

Even if Jeff raped your daughter, it would not give you the
justification to rape someone else's, or even his.  Each act of abuse
must stand on it's own.  No other's act of abuse justifies your acts
of abuse, even in supposed retaliation, and most certainly not in
"pre-emptive retaliation."  It merely makes you an abuser in your turn.

Yes, I know that being the recipient of abuse makes it almost
impossible to resist the temptation to become an abuser in return.

But understanding how the abused become abusers, and even trying
to have compassion for the agony of those who suffered abuse and now
want to give that agony back to someone they think is connected with,
or resembles, or follows the same party line as, those who caused
the agony, cannot justify or excuse abuse, even retaliatory.

Abuse can only be forgiven or healed, it cannot be tolerated.  As
near as I have been able to conclude, from studying how abuse
happens, all abuse given is retaliation for abuse received.  The
abuser never feels the abuse they give is as bad as the horror
they felt.  Far too many abusers feel that their actions are not
abuse at all, but only justice.  And it never is.  Too many abusers
feel that as long as the abuse they give is not identical as that
which they received, as long as they give emotional abuse in return
for sexual abuse, or provide neglect in response to physical
violence, then they themselves can't be an abuser...the abusers
are always someone else...out there...but the abuse and the abuser
is in here.

Before we can stop others from committing abuses like the abuses
we received, we must see how the abuse has turned us into abusers,
and we must stop it from inside.  Then we can find it in them...
and maybe even heal it.  Until then we can merely perpetuate it,
in pious fits of self-righteous rage.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men