HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Subject: Re: male/female joy of sex
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:05:20 GMT

 mas1!kens@apple.com (Ken Showman) writes:
> Muffy writes:

> >In fact, it is not clear that women, in general, enjoy sex nearly as
> >much as men.  It's only lately that men have even been that concerned
> >about women having orgasms, and there are many women who have had sex
> >many times and never had one, which is *very* rare with men.  In fact,
> >look at what constitues "sex," to most people.

> I am male, and for me having an orgasm does not constitute success
> in a sexual encounter.  The "goal" of a sexual encounter is not _my_
> orgasm; it is mutual pleasure, preferably leading to orgasm for both
> of us.  If it happens that I have an orgasm but my partner does not,
> I am terribly dissatisfied and do not consider the encounter to have
> been a success by any means.

isn't this what is called 'performance anxiety'? It's what I get
accused of when I get paranoid about (my only, so far) girlfriend
faking orgasms just to get it over with. Or is this the mutant
version: normal PO is worrying that _you_ can't 'get it off`?

what amuses? me is the number of my friends who don't ever/often have
orgasms through coitus/intercouse, but still have the sex=coitus
hangup.  I would have thought that they (especially) would have got
round that one by now.

Although, I differ from Ken in that I don't consider orgasm to be
vital to sexual pleasure. But then, I would rather hold hands than put
my arm round someone at lot of the time, coz touching skin is what
sets me off.  (mind you, what _I_ consider holding hands, and what is
considered `decent' in public have been known to diverge markedly...).
Also, I tend not to use success/failure criteria so much as a
happiness scale - me more happy, you more happy, all right!

arrrggg, this talking about sex stuff is way beyond me.

MOZ
sex guru - NOT!

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Recommended Viewing: The Famine Within
Date: 14 Aug 1992 03:40:29 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Summary: I recommend "The Famine Within" a documentary now on Cinemax
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Now airing as part of Cinemax's Vanguard Cinema series, check out "The
Famine Within", a documentary on female social views regarding weight,
physical appearance and it's effect on self-esteem and health.
-- 
-- Jeff (jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu)
-- No NeXTmail please


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Rational person standard
Date: 13 Aug 1992 17:04:15 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug11.173510.276@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman) writes:
>> ...  When I hear a consensus among women that uninvited comments on
>> appearance or sexual characteristics are offensive, as I have all my
>> life, that's good enough for me.
>
>consensus amoung women that univited compliments can be very pleasing,

Let me try to draw a distinction between a comment and a compliment:

	"You look nice today, as usual."

is obviously a compliment.

	"The way you wiggle when you walk really drives me up the wall."

is not necessarily a compliment.

The first example was a general statement that indicated the man's
notice and approval.  Nothing more.  Nothing specific was said.  The
woman's appearance wasn't dissected, nor were her actions.  Nor was she
forced to hear about his specific internal reactions.

If the woman is interested in finding out the specifics, she can invite
further comment.  Otherwise, telling her about the specifics, as
in the second example, would be invasive and inappropriate.

-r


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: ADMIN: Berkeley machines down
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:15:31
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu


All the Berkeley machines I use were down all day yesterday.  I appear
to have received all my mail, but it is possible that some posts got
lost in the ether.  If your post was sent yesterday and does not appear
(or get rejected) in the next couple of days, please re-submit it.

Thanks...

Muffy Barkocy (moderator)
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: the draft as a foil to dismiss the plight of comfort women
Date: 13 Aug 1992 17:03:19 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu

In another posting, Diane quoted Tom's use of the draft issue to
dismiss the plight of the comfort women.  As she pointed out in that
posting, his doing so showed an incredible degree of callousness.

Since I took Diane to task for what I saw as her callous response to
men's issues, I feel it is only fair that I speak out directly on
this.  As a man, I neither agree with, nor approve of, nor condone
the approach Tom took in dealing with the issue of sexual slavery.

The terrible plights of too many women in this world are not to be
callously dismissed for any reason.  Just because men may have their
own terrible plights doesn't minimize or compensate for the sufferings
of women.  Nor do the sufferings of women compensate for those of men.

Citing the suffering of one's own kind as a defense against feeling
compassionate or responsive to those of another is both callous and
counterproductive.  Tom, as far as I'm concerned, what you did was
wrong.  Don't do it again.

If feminism _is_ largely callous to men's issues, I am beginning to
understand why.  Unless and until men drop the denials and
defensiveness and really listen to what women are saying about their
lives, there can be no room in feminism for men or men's issues.

-r


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Xref: sparky soc.feminism:2034 news.answers:2486
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.EDU (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:28:18 GMT

> >uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:

> >>	Also, I'm not aware of figures for other wars, but there
> >>were 50,000 men who died in Vietnam, and 1 woman nurse.

> flaps@dgp.toronto.EDU (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:

> >Many people of both genders were killed in the Vietnam war.  Entire
> >villages were destroyed.

infmx!godzilla!robert@uunet.UU.NET (Robert Coleman) writes:
> I could have been somewhat clearer, I suppose, by saying "50,000 US
> soldiers and 1 US woman nurse", but I felt that the context made it
> clear; I think if you go back and read it again, you'll see that we
> were not discussing civilians.

So were you discussing only American military personnel, or all
military personnel?  I'm not sure about the gender composition of the
Vietnamese military of the time, but it seems to me from your
clarification that you are still forgetting about the non-Americans
involved.  (And, the relevant part is, I think that these stats would
be a little less biased if you included them, even if it was
restricted to military personnel.)

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Census Data on Child Support
Date: 17 Aug 1992 16:13:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I fear that this is losing its relevance to soc.feminism, but
there are still some mistaken assumptions regarding data on
child support payments floating around on this group.

Originally, Daniel Holzman said:
"The 1990 census shows that fathers with joint custody are over 90%
 likely to pay the full ordered child support."

I replied that the 1990 census could not possibly say this since it did
not ask any questions dealing with the issues of child support and
custody.

Then Lisa Nyman wrote:
"Well the Census takes many surveys in addition to and in conjunction
 with the current population decennial survey.  
 Every two years, the Census collects data which it
 publishes in the supplimental report P-60 #173 Child Support
 and Alimony.  Last published in Fall of 1991, it does support
 the above assertion."

To clear up everything, I would first like to say that, indeed,
the Census Bureau does many different surveys.  However, there is
no survey it does which is called the "current population decennial 
survey."  It does the Current Population Survey (often called "the CPS")
every two years.  It does the Decennial Census (often called "the Census")
every 10 years.  The CPS covers between 50,000 and 120,000 households.  The
Census attempts to cover every household in the country.

Secondly, I looked up the report Lisa Nyman cited, but it does not say that
90% of fathers with joint custody pay "full ordered child support" as Daniel
Holzman contends.  The report says that 90.2% of fathers with joint 
custody paid SOME child support in the year (1989) prior to the survey.
I called Gordon Lester, the author of the Census Bureau report, to confirm
this.  He said that, indeed, that 90.2% figure, includes fathers that 
paid any non-zero amount of child support in 1989.  He also told me that 
in next year's report he would include the percentage of fathers that
paid full support, because a lot of people have asked him about it.

In summary, if Daniel Holzman had said "The April 1990 CPS shows that
90.2% of fathers with joint custody paid SOME child support in 1989,"
then he would have been correct.  I think it is important that folks
correctly cite statistical reports on this group (and every group)
because there are many people reading, who may not have access to the
original sources, and would take something as true, when in reality,
it is false.

-Dawn


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: dbailey@cix.clink.co.UK (Diane Bailey)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Preventing Female Children - in India
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:42:04 GMT
Reply-To: dbailey@cix.clink.co.UK

Killings in India

My cause for posting is the subject of female infanticide and
foetuscide in India - millions of deaths.  The "reason" is
supposedly dowries.

An article in The Observer (excellent and available for
re-publication) last week led me to enquiries which seem to
confirm the size of the problems.  Unicef have them as a priority
there and have a rather good pamphlet published there, in
English, with damning statistics.  The problem is that laws, even
a 1991 law, are not enforced. India is a signatory of neither
CEDAW nor the new Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Although mindful of the need to tread carefully on "matters of
culture", and abortion, I do wonder if there is really nothing we
outside the country can do - apart from donating to Unicef.

I still have other avenues of enquiry but I wondered if anyone
here was interested, has references or knows of groups or
publications (especially in India or Indian commmunities) that
are effectively active or would have something to contribute on
these subjects. What is the level of awareness here that this
problem exists and is developing?

Diane Bailey
dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Gender differences
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:33:21 GMT

In <2436@cronos.metaphor.com> falcao@felix.metaphor.COM (Ronnie Falcao) writes:

> <@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>> . . . . In every person's life perhaps especially at adolesence, but
>> also at other critical times, we need to be exclusively for some
>> short period, with those of our gender -- people who can "truly
>> understand" where we are and have been. Hence the need for safe
>> space to be a woman among women or a man among men.

>I disagree strongly with three notions put forth above:
>1) A person's most important characteristic is their gender.
>2) All people of the same gender "truly understand" each other.
>3) Anyone of your same gender is more sympathetic and safer
>	than anyone of another gender.
...
>I can hardly imagine what it means to be a "woman among
>women" or a "man among men".  What is it like if there's
>no consensus about what it means to be a man or woman or
>if everyone else agrees that it means something that
>doesn't apply at all to you?

I'd like to add another perspective to this discussion.

I don't find that I expect other women to "truly understand" where I
am and have been: I have found both men and women to range the gamut
of incomprehension to understanding (women moreso, simply because I
know more women, but the proportions are similar).

What I find I value about a group of women -- and I belong to several
-- is the notion of *shared experiences*.  In our society today, there
is a body of experiences that women tend to have that men do not.
Finding others with that same set of experiences reassures me that it
isn't "my fault" or "something I'm doing".

Those men who have displayed understanding of what I've experienced
almost always are able to relate it to similar humiliating experiences
that they've had, and I also find that valuable.  But it's not quite
the same as realizing you're not alone.

--Cindy
--
	"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what
	feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist
	whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a
	doormat, or a prostitute."  -- Rebecca West, 1913
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: mgflax@phoenix.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: NY Senate Race: Liz Holtzman
Date: 12 Aug 1992 16:08:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <156qcdINNpk5@agate.berkeley.edu> Julie Wright <julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> writes:
>Ferraro voted to recriminalize homosexuality in Washington, DC

Really?  When/where/citations?  How come I haven't heard this before?

marshall
-- 
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: panda@syrinx.umd.edu (Lisa Nyman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Census Data on Child Support
Date: 14 Aug 1992 14:08:01 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

This is in response to the person who said 1990 Census Data
did not include data to support the statement that fathers
who share custody are more likely to pay child support.

Well, the Census takes many surveys in addition to and in
conjunction with the current population decennial survey.

Every two years, the Census collects data which it
publishes in the supplimenatl report P-60 #173 Child Support
and Alimony.  Last published in Fall of 1991, it does support
the above assertion.



-- 
Lisa Wolfisch Nyman         "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
panda@syrinx.umd.edu                    
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
New from Dweeb Publishers: Memoirs of a Workstation Widow, Oh the Agony of It


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Xref: sparky soc.feminism:2035 news.answers:2487
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Subject: Re: "sexual favors" as a "power base"
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:06:47 GMT

(Muffy Barkocy) opines:

 Actually, my understanding of the way the "traditional" roles work is
 this (note that these are stereotypes, not assertions about how people
 actually are):

I think your list is more appropriate for stereotypes
from the 1950's. I do not think they work "that way"
today. I will just comment on the first one.

Also, I would change them a bit (but of course!):

 o Men are told that they should desire lots of sex from women and that
   they should go to great lengths to get it.

Perhaps men have acknowledged to other men the seemingly
insatiable desire which hormones provoke most especially
at puberty. This is different than men "being told", I think.

This reflects the anachronistic paradigm that all men at all
ages want sex all the time, yet upon marriage never want
sex with their spouses, while the women complain about
not "getting any" anymore.

I think the essential parable is this:

     One day President Coolidge and his wife were touring a
     farm. Mrs. Coolidge was ahead of the President and saw
     a bull mounting a cow in the field. "Oh my," she said,
     "how many times does that happen a week?"

     "Uh, up to five times a day in season" replied the farmer.
     Do tell my husband that, would you?" asked Mrs. Coolidge.

     So President Coolidge got to the same part of the farm
     and was dutifully told the trivia by the farmer. Coolidge
     asked the farmer:

     Coolidge: "Well, is it with the same cow every time?"
     Farmer:   "No, it's usually a different cow every time."
     Coolidge: "Do tell my wife that, would you?"

The point is I don't think anyone really believes those
myths and stereotypes anymore, and to pretend that they do
is a refusal to acknowledge the present reality. If they
are historical stereotypes, yet "not assertions about
how people actually are", what's the point?

 Now, in the context of "modern relationships," things change a little.
 Women can now have sex with one or two people before getting married.

This begs the question of who the "they" is that says
what is and is not permissible (how many pre-marital
lovers, etc).

The writer goes on to speak in generalizations about
power dynamics in marriage in terms of the man's
sexual drive and the woman's financial dependency.
I think this grossly oversimplifies the marriage
contract.

Perhaps the discussion of power balance in relationships
only comes up when there is a "victim".

Dano


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Rational person standard
Date: 14 Aug 1992 03:41:24 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug11.173510.276@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman) writes:
>> So, even when women do their best to make the rules known and clear,
>> men may not get them.  Also, the minority of women who want to
>> exploit men via sex tend to sabotage the clear communication
>> whenever it is in their immediate interest to do so, and this too
>> leave men confused.
>lets not argue the pros and cons of F->M communication here, BUT can I
>say that sexual harrassment at work is all about making it in the
>interest of the woman NOT to make this clear.

Howzat? Would you mind explaining this to me?

-r





-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.