HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 07:15:07 GMT
Status: O

In article <1992Dec4.065656.26635@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>     Not necessarily.  As I wrote in my response to Deborah, I view
>sex as a way to express my love and/or affection for my partner, and
>also a form of recreation.  In addition to having both partners use
>birth control, I want some legal agreement to minimize the risks and
>equalize the power between the partners in the event of an unplanned
>pregnancy.

Oh HORSESHIT!  People are going to fuck their brains out whether
or not they have a contract because it feels good and they are filled
with hormones that make them want to do it.
Now can we stop all this contract bullshit and "expressing love for
my partner" bullshit and get on with it?

++++

From bob Sun Dec 13 21:59:37 PST 1992
Article: 92566 of soc.singles
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,misc.legal
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 05:07:00 GMT
Status: O

In article <1992Dec7.044510.18834@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>one or two months of extra rent.  Since the sexual relationship carries
>more financial risk, it would be stupid not to have a pre-coital
>agreement.
>
Another intellectual gem from someone who has assumed the net.handle
of Mr. Tickle Monster.  And we're supposed to take this drivel
seriously?
Why not eliminate the need for a pre-coital agreement entirely
and just go have coitus with yourself?
It'll be lots safer.

++++

From bob Sun Dec 13 22:27:31 PST 1992
Article: 93177 of soc.singles
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,misc.legal
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:38:27 GMT
Status: OR

In article <1992Dec11.054236.26513@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>
>     One of my reasons is to make sure that she and I both live up
>to our word.  Once she and I sign a contract, we both will not be
>able to change our minds, which I want.

Notice that Mr. Tickle Monster has made the statement, "we both will
not be able to change our minds, which I want."  Mr. Tickle Monster
missed one of his English classes.  The one Mr. Tickle Monster missed
was the one in which the teacher explained proper sentence structure.
Will everyone please send Mr. Tickle Monster an explanation of the
proper syntax?

++++

From bob Sun Dec 13 22:31:47 PST 1992
Article: 93176 of soc.singles
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:34:37 GMT
Status: O

In article <1992Dec11.052306.24744@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>
>     Actually, I have changed option #2 to the woman and man each paying
>50%.  That is a bit fairer.
>
Mr. Tickle Monster is being benevolent.  How nice of Mr. Tickle  
Monster.  Mr. Tickle Monster is showing us that he can be
big-hearted and logical by changing his mind.
Everybody send a note of thanks to Mr. Tickle Monster.

++++



-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /  On Vacation:  12/21 to 12/27   /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:08:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.090235.17949@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>
>>GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>99% of the people on here think you're an ignorant jerk.
>
>     So, what makes you think that you represent 99% of the readers of the
>five newsgroups, soc.men, misc.legal, ba.singles, soc.singles and soc.women?
>Did they elect you as their representative?  Will you back up your claim
>with valid statistics or not?

Nope.
>
>how we view sex is valid.  If you look below, then you will see your
>responses.  I do not see one valid logical response against the

YOU'VE BEEN SAVING EVERYBODY'S RESPONSES????????
That  is so  sad.
Get a life.


Xref: sparky soc.men:21106 alt.dads-rights:2927 alt.abortion.inequity:5870 alt.child-support:3939
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:15:27 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> 
> >Child support amounts are set based on the noncustodial
> >parents income or ability to make a set amount. 
> 
> You clearly know a great deal about the inequities of the 
> child support system. What is your interpretation of how
> these inequities arose in our historically male-dominated
> court system?  

Your way of asking obscures the basis of the traditional outlook. In
stating 'male dominance,' you misdirect from the fact that it was
women who dominated the home in the long history of an agricultural
society, and continued into the technological age. Today, women can
do pretty much what they set their sights on --or should be able to,
absent traditionalist thought. Our societal changes have removed the
categorized nature of labors to a great degree, and the problems we
men face in the courts is based in large part in the same pidgeon-
hole kind of thinking that women face in other areas.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky soc.men:21391 alt.abortion.inequity:6012 alt.feminism:6224
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: What's love got to do with it?(was Re: Male Choice Revisited)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:28:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>There is simply so very, very
>much that is rewarding and desirable about a stable relationship
>with someone you love, respect, and admire that I know of nothing
>else to equal it. It took a damned long time, but I now have that
>and would wish everyone else as much. But we are only guaranteed
>the right to pursue happiness - they didn't say we would always
>catch-up with it. But then, just maybe you have to work at it -
>getting it dropped in your lap is a bit much to expect. However,
>the best of luck to you all.

I used to think that few things worthwhile are easy.
Now I realize that few things that are easy are worthwhile.

Perhaps love, romance, and responsibility aren't dead afterall.

Thanks, Bob!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky soc.men:21034 soc.motss:52004 soc.culture.new-zealand:3311
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.motss,soc.culture.new-zealand
Subject: Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:32:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <eumLVB2w165w@netlink.cts.com>, system@netlink.cts.com (System Administrator) writes:
> 
> We have been receiving a number of requests to censure Mr. Bowery for
> his post (F81iVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com).  
> 
> NetLink is a public access system, and provides access for people to
> exchange ideas and opinions -- any opinions, not just those that are
> "politically correct."  
> 
> However, Mr. Bowery's post was in violation of soc.motss charter and
> was also innapropriate for the other groups as well.  He has been 
> counseled about proper net etiquette, and had his posting access temporarily
> suspended.
> 

Great.  So in other words, he's free to say whatever he wants.  Except he isn't.
Ever consider a career in politics?

And no, I didn't think his posting was anything other than hateful garbage.

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Going Down the Mine
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:53:05 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Dec15.045734.7814@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> 
DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
> We're all scared. We're devastated. It's
> insensitive. It's terrible.'

A few years ago I was at the mine and mill at San Manuel, Arizona and I 
asked my tour guide whether there were any women working underground -- 
because women were doing some heavy, dirty physical work up above.  He 
said that was a big issue because women wanted the high salaries that went 
with underground work.  However, each person had to load a given amount of 
ore per shift, and no woman had developed the muscle to meet those 
demands.  So in Arizona, there were women feeling discriminated against 
because they could not get the high paying underground jobs, and now we 
have other women who feel discriminated against because they are being 
given similar jobs.  With mining jobs going to developing countries where 
$50K is a small fortune, and safety regulations are non-existent, Sudbury 
might well be on its way to becoming another Bisbee or Ajo.  Once those 
deep mines get flooded, they seldom ever get pumped out.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:10:02 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#A solution that I suggested once was the following arbitration:
#if both parents are competent, let them both submit proposals for
#custody and child's support.  The one who asks for the smaller 
#amount will get the custody of the kids."

In article <1gtdiuINNbl1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>It sounds like this proposal is more interested in giving rights to 
>the richer parent, than in doing what's best for the child.  How
>convenient for you that (on average) men are wealthier than women.

Preserving the current situation where women win sole custody 
in 90% of the cases, quite often the father is require to pay
much more than the actual expenses of the kids, and there are 
*bitter* fights on a regular basis is of course much better 
for the children.

At least according to feminist criteria...
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Artificial Wombs
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:00:26 GMT

In article <Bz7Ksn.40p@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1g0ilgINNrul@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>>If doctors refuse to perform a "current procedure" abortion, but will 
>>>perform an incubator transplant (heh, we named the procedure already!) 
>>>then the issue of what is legal is moot.  
>>
>>I find this terminology, with it's implication that the woman in
>>a mere "incubator", rather insulting.
>>							--  Michal
>
>If you don't view the uterus as an incubator, from a medical sense, just 
>what IS it in this context?

The source of all the hysteria?   :-|

(Here come the flames, from the pun-challenged.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:47:46 GMT

In <BzB858.6EL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1gg7lvINN5mk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>What makes you think a man OR A WOMAN is obligated to stay with,
>>>pursue, keep in touch with, observe, or continue any sort of
>>>relationship with someone he or she has slept with?
>>
>>Common decency?  Sigh!  Perhaps it *is* an oxymoron.

>"Common decency" in those cases where the people clearly have nothing
>between them?

>It seems you might suggest that a persistence akin to stalking
>is the only way for a man to preserve his parental rights.

>>>Did it occur to you that one or three night stands occur, that year-long
>>>relationships end without the couple wanting to see each other again,
>>>that men and women move out of town or get busy with work, that not 
>>>every pair of sex partners has the same group of friends?
>>
>>Then why would these people be so het up about raising kids with
>>this particular partner??

>Because they are his children, that's why.  

>Love and a sense of responsibility, that's why.

>Common decency, that's why.


>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,

I guess I must be. In love with someone you met three hours ago in a
bar and have just jumped in the sack with? Sorry, but I just can't
conceive of that happening. Guess I don't see enough movies. In love
with a child I helped produce? Yes, I can understand that, I can even
understand loving a child I raised whether it had my genes or not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether two people get churched or
not, but there needs to be a commitment, a meeting of minds and
spirit, or what is different about it than two animals rutting in
a field?

Guess I'm just too old-fashioned, but if this crap is the 'Brave
New World', I'll keep my tired old one thank you very much. I have
by no means led a protected life, I've seen things I'd rather forget,
but much as I like animals, I had rather hoped we had some extra
qualities that will help redeem our baser ones.

It isn't only the need to provide a reasonably stable environment
for children in their formative years. There is simply so very, very
much that is rewarding and desirable about a stable relationship
with someone you love, respect, and admire that I know of nothing
else to equal it. It took a damned long time, but I now have that
and would wish everyone else as much. But we are only guaranteed
the right to pursue happiness - they didn't say we would always
catch-up with it. But then, just maybe you have to work at it -
getting it dropped in your lap is a bit much to expect. However,
the best of luck to you all.

>who moves away, or who fails to have the same group of friends as
>a bed partner,  is incapable of love, responsibility, and decency?

>Don

REB

Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Cuckolded Husband's Feelings Ignored... (was: Men's Issues #61)
X-To: DAVE GROSS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:07:00 GMT

Dave Gross writes in Men's Issues Brief #61...

DG>         ANOTHER THORNY QUESTION OF FATHERHOOD
DG>         Source:  SLO Telegram Tribune, 24 November 1992
DG>         Original article by Paul Gustafson
DG>         -----------------------------------------------
DG> Christopher Kelly says he is a proud and caring father even though he has me
DG> the 18-month-old girl he claims is his daugher only three times.  "I have a
DG> profound affection for her, and a very deep sense of commitment," he said.

DG> Kelly has filed suit in Washington County, Minn., seeking to force the girl'
DG> mother, with whom he claims to have had an extramarital affair in the late
DG> 1980s, to acknowledge him as the father and grant him an active role in the
DG> child's upbringing.

DG> The child's mother, who remains married to her husband of 13 years, has
DG> contested kelly's assertion of paternity, althoug he claims to have genetic
DG> testing results concluding to a certainty of 99.4167 percent that Kelly is t
DG> father.

DG> Minnesota law says that a mother's husband is presumed to be the biological
DG> father when a child is born during the marriage, and when the husband has
DG> received the child into his home and openly holds out the child to be his.

DG> But the 1989 Legislature added another legal presumption of fatherhood:  blo
DG> test results that establish paternity to a probability of 99 percent or
DG> greater.

DG> The decisive issue, however, will probably be what the judge finds to be in
DG> the child's best interests, said Ann Schultz, an attorney specializing in
DG> family law.  "It is the weightiest consideration in all of Minnesota law," s
DG> said.


Hmmm...

The article mentioned that the husband is still married to this woman...  Did
anyone say anything about what HE felt, possibly wondering if he was raising
*someone else's* child, and possibly wondering whether he would wish to do
such a thing??

I think that the article was VERY cruel in its ignoance of the man who may
have been feeling that he has been bitterly betrayed and may also feel like
getting a divorce *and* disavowing himself of "his" child.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * When the going gets tough, the tough buy a vowel.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Subject: Re: soc.men FAQ
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:44:33 GMT

In article <4317@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <ByzxAH.426@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <Byz1LL.3JA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>>wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>>>  [ all men are pigs ]
>>>   [ all men are pigs ]
>>    [ all men are pigs, and they're all violent killers too]
Oh, please, don't say this too loud, we might pay attention to it.
I got tired of hearing this when I heard the secretary on _Commish_
say this mantra.   Then she added, "pure pork sausage, baby."
Most people don't hear it: we're too used to hearing it, we expect it.

>	"Out of the mouths of babes"...  Ever see a dog roll on its
>back and piss itself to prove how dominated it is? 
Yeah, often.   Every time I hear men talk about how oppressed women are.


Xref: sparky soc.men:21261 alt.abortion.inequity:5937 alt.feminism:6137
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:21:18 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1gg7lvINN5mk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>What makes you think a man OR A WOMAN is obligated to stay with,
>>>pursue, keep in touch with, observe, or continue any sort of
>>>relationship with someone he or she has slept with?
>>
>>Common decency?  Sigh!  Perhaps it *is* an oxymoron.

>"Common decency" in those cases where the people clearly have nothing
>between them?

They've had sex -- is that "nothing"?

>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,
>who moves away, or who fails to have the same group of friends as
>a bed partner,  is incapable of love, responsibility, and decency?

Sorry, Don, but I just don't believe that the "zipperless fuck" is OK.
If people want to screw then they should take responsibility for possible
outcomes.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 12:50:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk

In article <eumLVB2w165w@netlink.cts.com> system@netlink.cts.com (System Administrator) writes:
)
)We have been receiving a number of requests to censure Mr. Bowery for
)his post (F81iVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com).  
)
)NetLink is a public access system, and provides access for people to
)exchange ideas and opinions -- any opinions, not just those that are
)"politically correct."  
)
)However, Mr. Bowery's post was in violation of soc.motss charter and
)was also innapropriate for the other groups as well.  He has been 
)counseled about proper net etiquette, and had his posting access temporarily
)suspended.
)
)Mr. Bowery speaks only for himself.  His opinions do not necessarily 
)reflect those of NetLink Online Communications, its owner or operators.
)
)Thanks to all who brought this to our attention.
)
)Scott McClure
)System Administrator
)NetLink Online Communications
)
)
)
)--
) Scott McClure, System Administrator    (system@netlink.cts.com)
) NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115

I'm curious as to whether alt.acad-freedom readers think that Bowery has
been given adequate due process here or not.