HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminis
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:35:29 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Jul23.143912.15524@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
> But, if you'll recall, AIDS began as primarily a disease of homosexual men 
> [ who spread it to us poor pure women ]

	Sorry, AIDS is a disease of both sexes.  Examine the situation in
Africa or the Carribean.  Unless I'm very mistaken, the prime vector for
the disease's spread into the general community in this country was drug
abuse.  An act a woman or two has been known to indulge in.  
							 	wr



Newsgroups: soc.women
Newsgroups: soc.women

Maggie
Xref: sparky soc.women:14409 soc.men:13976 sci.bio:2793 sci.skeptic:13451
From: dpaxton@ut-emx.uucp (Debi Paxton)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Impossible
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:02:52 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Jul17.023519.596@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes...
>LJ> One thing I find interesting is that the "pop" surveys nearly always
>LJ> show that husbands would remarry their wives in greater numbers than
>LJ> wives would remarry their husbands.  That suggests that marriage may
>LJ> be a better deal for men than women.
>
>Oh, PERHAPS it means that men are more willing to try to make it work, than
>women are.  Hmmm....ever thought of it THAT way?


Or perhaps, by the time it gets to divorce, women have *already* tried
and tried and tried to make it work and having finally realized it 
ain't gonna work, they have no interest in trying one more time.  I know
a hell of a lot of men, beginning with my father, and including my
two exhusbands, who do not listen or cannot hear it
when they are told "we have a problem".  Too often they can't or won't
admit it until the woman is out the door, and sometimes that's too late.



-- 
"Never imitate consciously, but do not worry about being an imitator;
take pains instead to admire what is good."

Debi Paxton                             		dpaxton@emx.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Exercise wear for the abundant of flesh
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:02:19 GMT

cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.015816.8864@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>>I tend to doubt the politics or the
>>self-awareness or the personal confidence, or the honesty of a woman
>>who shaves her legs, or her arm-pits for that matter. I have been lied
>>to more often by that kind than by those who don't shave. I believe
>>that can be generalized to men as well in my experience.

>Too true. Don't trust a man who shaves his legs.  Be very wary of a
>man who shaves his face. Don't turn your back on a man wearing a wig.
>And don't lend money to a man wearing a skirt.

Quite so. Above all, however, don't believe a man wearing a kilt, especially
if he rolls his r's. A man wearing a propeller beanie, with a hatchet tucked
into his belt, who goes "Vroommm, vrooomm, here come the Xists... Who said
that?", on the other hand, can be trusted implicitly.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
       wuzzat noise?
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: JJ's Girlfriend: Cheryl Stewart
Keywords: hans_und_frans is a fake id, for those with credulity problems
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:13:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23259
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <ya-ya@hans_und_frans> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com) writes:
>Ya, like you little girly-boy-jj@alice?  Cheryl is your hero, little
>girly boy?  She likes to pummel your flabbly little girly-boy buttox?
Hee hee.  You poor little boy, with your poor little ignorant
fanatasy.

I was probably the most persistant and overt Cheryl-opposer on the
network for most of her career.  Of course, since you don't know
anything about Cheryl (see below), you probably don't know that,
either.

>You wimp. 
Oh, woe, is me, Herr Dr. Goebbels thinks I'm a wimp. Oh,
gee, oh golly.  What will I ever do?  If I can recover from the
laughing fit, I might try to really embarrass this Dr. Goebbels,
but is it worth the effort?  Such entertainment!

>Cheryl Stewart was a moron who fantasized about having a
>husband and a permanent invitation from the Soviet Government to visit
>any time she wanted to.  She was so far into lala-land that she needed
>a passport to come back to reality.
Was?  Tee hee!

Oh, hee hee hee. <gasp>  A PhD moron, with a strong aversion to
marriage, and a dislike for anything authoritarian, including the
Soviet Government.  You really don't know what you're talking
about, what constitutes rhetoric, and just who was yanking your
sweet little tail, do you?

>You'll have to find someone else to suck up to.
Giggle.  Suck up?  JJ?  Methinks you are truly from another
planet.  Perhaps your ambassador Riff-Raff and his cohort
Magenta confused you? Or maybe you're just 7 hours old.

>Hans und Franz

Katzenjammers, indeed.

You know, Herr Clever Hans, you are a perfect example of why women
don't like men.  Is all your vituperitive fecal excretion due to your
frustration on that issue?   Did it ever occur to you that a little
socialized behavior on your part might change your problem, or have
you prated your misogynestic attitude so far and wide that you're
doomed forever?  Or what, Clever Hans?  Your keeper not fed you today?

Or do you just like to try to silence women by being such an ass in a
newsgroup supposedly dedicated to women's issues?  You won't silence me.
You won't silence anyone who counts.  

Heaven's sake, you don't even have the courage to use your
own mail address, you wimpy coward.  You think YOU will
intimidate anyone?
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Homophobics and pro-l
X-To: KEITH A. COCHRAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:36:00 GMT

kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes...
KAC> Ever notice that in "straight" porno movies, two women can get it on, and t
KAC> men find it enjoyable, but put two men together and they suddenly feel sick
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KAC> I wonder why that is?


Well, but I don't think that a lot of the *women* would enjoy it.  In
focussing upon the reactions of men towards homosexuality, you did not
address the questions of how:

1) women would react to male homosexuality.

2) women would react to female homosexuality.


What do the people on the net think about these questions?  How *would* women
react to homosexuality in movies?

For one example, my own wife and a lot of women I have spoken to, are not in
the least turned on by lesbian sex.  This does not make them heterosexist ;
it's just a question of their own particular preferences.  As for how they
might react to male homosexual sex, I do not have the opinions of any women
on this question.

In other words, I am *especially* curious as to women's reactions to male
homosexual relations.

Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                       "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Long-life batteries aren't.
Xref: sparky soc.women:14356 talk.abortion:29598
From: csulaima@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Cynthia Renee Sulaiman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:25:34 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Does anyone have or know the address for RCAR (Religious Coalition 
for Abortion Rights?

Thanks

Cynthia Sulaiman
From: repnomar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 18:13:17 GMT


>In article <712221402@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
>>vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>
>>>We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>>>are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
>>.......................................................
>>>Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.
>>
>>Please wait till the choice for women will be in a real risk
>>and then preach that to soc.women.  I wonder how all these
>>"for equality" feminists will feel when they will be treated
>>just like men, and when what they have preached at men for the
>>last twenty years will be preached at women...

Oh please.  Wake up and look around you!  First of all, choice for women
*is* at "real risk," if nothing else because fewer and fewer doctore are
willing to perform abortions because doing so means being harassed.  Many
clinics are closing for this reason, and also because reimbursement from
private and state insurance companies is very hard to get.  Abortion may 
still be technically legal, but it's becoming more and more difficult 
for women to obtain abortions.

Secondly, haven't you ever heard the old saw "You made your bed, now lie
in it!" directed at women.  Women have been hearing this for generations,
and are still hearing it.  When I told a (male) friend that a mutual friend
of ours was accidently pregnant, his first response was "She should have 
been on the Pill."  (She can't take the Pill.)  Talk about a blame mentality!
I don't believe in blaming either women or men for the fact that unintended
pregnancies sometimes occur.  I *do* think it's important to encourage both
parties to act responsibly.

/Janet

-- 
Internet: repnomar@leland.stanford.edu // GEnie: J.LAFLER
"Turnips care deeply about many things," remarked Rush, appearing suddenly. 
"Turnips are strongly emotional vegetables...."
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: What is the purpose of th
X-To: BILL BURRIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:59:00 GMT

bill@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Bill Burris) writes...

BB> This group seems to be dominated by men and men's issues, and every
BB> topic under the sun.

I think that you are being somewhat unfair here.  When the men's movement is
discussed, there are usually plenty of feminists around to debunk it by
talking about the "relevance" of women's issues and the "white elephant" of
men's issues.

Now, for the first time in three decades, people are daring to stand up to
the "moral supremacy" of women's issues and are *trying* to introduce the
more egalitarian notion of "Equalism" to embrace those issues of importance
to *both* women and men.

In other words, it is not all a matter of "men's issues and men's issues
and..." but *gender* issues.

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Horse Sense! It Keeps Horses From Betting On People...
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: topfree, answer this?
From: Gavin.Flower@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:48:22 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.

In article <1992Jul21.195425.24787@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes:
>
>>spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>>|I think that it's a bit silly.  In OUR SOCIETY, female breasts are 
>>|considered sexually enticing and are not publicly displayed.  The argument 
>>|that "you men can disply YOUR chests, so we can too" rings hollow and petty
>>|  The male chest is physically and functionally different than the female 
>>|chest.  More importantly, though, is that it is PERCEIVED as different.
>
>I take my shirt off when I feel like it, just like a man would.  I don't
>feel naked, and I'll never be convinced I should.
>
>Perhaps this person should change his PERCEPTION.  I beleive in a 
>"do as I say, and as I do" philosophy.  And don't think that <some> male chests
>aren't sexually exciting to look at.  
>Maybe we should make a law that says only "good looking people" can go
>top-free.  Cover up those beer guts and butt cracks.
>
>Hubba Hubba,
>
>Karen Biesel
>

When I was in Sierra Leone, my father attended, as a spectator, a
ritual where the local girls are accepted into womanhood.  There were
some female American tourists there in shorts.  He heard them comment
about the local females being rude in having bare breasts.  He was
aware that the the local people thought the American women were brazen
hussies displaying their naked thighs.  Logically the locals are
correct.  A woman's breasts are there to feed children, and it is
therefore reasonable to have them uncovered, especiallly in a hot
climate.  But a woman's thighs don't need to be naked in order for her
to walk, but they are (usually) during the act of sexual intercourse.


Gavin
-- 
Tomorrow's Society                              | flower_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
    Depends on                                   ----------------------------
Today's Children  - help us raise them properly! 
*******  These comments have no known correlation with dept. policy!  *******
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A question about NOW
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:30:34 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <l721kaINN6es@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)  
writes:
+ In article <9934@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char  
Aznabul) writes:
+ |I've been wondering about this the last couple of days, but does NOW
+ |fund any grants/fellowships/scholarships to assist in the education 
+ |of younger women and similar programs to fund research carried out
+ |by women?
+ |
+ |And if not, why not?
+ 
+ Because they don't have any money?

Well, I haven't heard that they do/don't, but such an explaination
is species when they can and do throw money into politics.

Of course, this *is* America, where the short term solution is much
more palatable even if it leads to ruination down the road.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Impossible
X-To: BETH WEISS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:05:00 GMT

bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes...
BW> adams@pooh.sdd.trw.com (allen Adams) writes:
BW> >Men are failures are running the world; Why should it then be surprising
BW> >that decent men cannot be found for interpersonal relationships??  Isn't
BW> >'decent men' an oxymoron, especially 'decent Caucasian men'??

BW> Allen,
BW>    I hope you don't expect anyone to agree with you.  I certainly
BW> don't.  I know _lots_ of decent men.  I know lots of decent Caucasian
BW> men.  Not many of them are someone with whom I could form a life
BW> partnership, but that doesn't mean they're not decent.  It doesn't
BW> mean that they're not men whose company I enjoy, or couldn't date for
BW> a while (if single).  So, no, 'decent men' is _not_ an oxymoron.


Beth, I realise that we have had our share of agreements and disagreements,
but in this case, I am *tempted* to say Allen was probably attempting to be
sarcastic.

*Then again*, the last time that I theorised that someone's *blatantly* sexist
remark (in that case, directed against lesbians) was intended to be sarcastic,
and to evoke an emotional response, the victim of the joke flamed me (or at
least tried :-) ) ... SO MUCH FOR TRYING TO BE NEUTRAL!  :-)  ...Not!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Horse Sense! It Keeps Horses From Betting On People...
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:20:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul28.042032.197992
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul27.234720.10907@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.142146.1@engr> s_mesbah@engr:
>
>probably didn't remember to log out of his terminal.



Nope, this one stands by his words.

I'd guessed that it was flamebait, too, but he's defended
his position in another newsgroup.

Susan
Xref: sparky soc.women:14412 talk.abortion:29695 sci.med:14935
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,sci.med
Subject: Re: Ancient Methods of Birth Control
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:02:03 GMT
Followup-To: ccsmh@gdt.bath.ac.uk (Mark Harding)

|> I recently read about an interesting method of birth control used in ancient
|> China.
|> 
|> The sex act wuold take place as normal but at the point of ejaculation the man
|> would have such great muscle control that instead of ejaculating into the woman,
|> the seman would be passed into the bladder.  It would then be passed later when 
|> the man urinated.
|> 
|> It's not a method that I'd like to try :-)    
|> 

hum... your source of information is slightly off. the technique you describe
is called 'Seminal Kung Fu'. the purpose of this Internal Art is to concentrate
energy in the body. energy is drawn into the body (air,water,food) and...
operated upon via different mental techniques. this energy is then 'locked'
in the body by sealing body cavaties. for example, during breathing a breath
is drawn in and anus/penis conduits are locked via muscle contractions. the
throat is then locked and all muscles contracted to force oxygen into tissue.
after there has been a thorough exchange of oxygen all cavities are unlocked
for the exhale, which includes the whole body surface.

a side benefit of this is that ejaculation can be controlled, and internalized.
however, the point of this is to retain the seminal fluid and its associated
energy/nutrients so that they are reabsorbed back into the body. in the first
stages of training this fluid may be passed via urination, but the goal is to
retain as much of this fluid as possible.

there is also 'Ovarian Kung Fu' that many women practice. a side effect of
this Internal Art is that menstration stops. so there is no monthly loss of
blood and the rich nutrients that the body provides in this fluid. ovulation
is also controlled.

the net effect of this is that energy is conserved and conception is planned
to the minute and is a matter of choice.

these techniques are practiced by a growing number of Americans, mainly for
health benefits. consider the implications of providing masses of oxygen to
every part of the body. also consider it is estimated that 20%-30% of the
nutrients entering a male's body go toward the formation of sperm (I wish
I had kept the specifics of this study, but I did not.) and that those
nutrients are lost during normal ejaculation. how would longevity and health
increase if these techniques were used? maybe some of the stories of long
lived masters of these Internal Arts are correct... there is only one way
to find out. practice these arts for yourself and deterimine their usefulness.
Xref: sparky soc.women:14341 alt.censorship:6480 talk.politics.misc:36594 soc.men:13896
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.men
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:24:01 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul25.040954.23288@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <robert.711924326@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>>
>>	It's not, but it's irrelevant.  You wouldn't be arrested for your
>>exercise of speech, you'd be arrested for robbery, which is a crime regardless
>>of your intended message.  You *would not undergo any punishment for your
>>message*.
>
>Your legal alchemy is able to transform the act of the punk Viktora, a
>form of assault, into protected speech that at one and the same time
>(you claim) can be punished under laws other than hate speech laws.  You
>fail to address how at one and the same time a citizen can be engaged in
>a crime (for posters have called for Viktora's prosecution under
>statutes other than hate crime statutes) AND in free speech.  One would
>think that a commission of a crime is NEVER speech.

Do you find it incomprehensible that someone may end up expressing an
opinion in the midst of commiting a crime? That expression is protected
by the first amendment, and is irrelevant to the fact that a crime had
been committed.

>
>Why, then, is your legal alchemy unable to transform my hypothetical
>robbery (just another crime) into speech.  Because, again, I declare
>that these robberies are protests against economic injustice.

Okay, we won't come down on *your* robberies any harder because you
are protesting "economic injustices". We'll still press charges,
though.

>
>
>     "Let's go do some crimes!"
>     "Yeah, let's get sushi and not pay!"
>
>                                - Repo Man
>
>
>
>>
>>	In contrast, Viktora would have been arrested for the message, when
>>it is not otherwise illegal to burn wood.
>
>Again: these attempts at miscasting what Viktora did constitute
>disinformation. In reality, Viktora victimized a black family with his
>crime.  Absent a hate crime statute, victims of these sorts of Nazi
>performance pieces have little recourse.

Yeah, they would only be able to press charges for trespassing and
assault.

>They can bring a private
>lawsuit, but often the perpetrators have little money and cannot be
>sued, or the victims cannot afford a civil suit.

Or, they could press charges - see above.

>In the absence of
>property damage (or a prominent white victim), the perpetrators are not
>likely to be sued for rowdyism because (again, absent a hate crime law)
>the authorities are apt to treat Nazi performances as little more than a
>hallowe'en prank.

Depends on the authorities.

.sig
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A question about NOW
Date: 25 Jul 1992 07:45:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <9934@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
|I've been wondering about this the last couple of days, but does NOW
|fund any grants/fellowships/scholarships to assist in the education 
|of younger women and similar programs to fund research carried out
|by women?
|
|And if not, why not?

Because they don't have any money?

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode,
	DSS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, SDI, communist, proletariat.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: RU-486 volunteer
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:59:45 GMT

Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>I'd bet that if they've raised their daughter the way I think they did,
>that question would simply never come up, because she would never need one.
>Believe it or not, there are patterns of behavior that make this a moot
>question. It was never an issue in my family because none of us go pregnant
>or got anybody else pregnant, and it is unbelievably easy to make it happen
>this way (basically we didn't sleep around!)

Never say never.  Unless you're planning to remain celebate for the rest of 
your life (including when you're married) you may yet find yourself in a
situation where you or your partner is considering an abortion.

							--  Michal
P.S.  Are you sure no-one in you family got pregnant or got anybody else
pregnant.  How do you know for sure?  Are you sure that your family is open 
enough that you would find out if your mother/sister/father's mistress
did have an abortion?

Xref: sparky soc.women:14307 talk.abortion:29494