HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:19:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.151603.26592@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>Carol mentions the old saying that women dress for other women.  I just
>wanted to add my two cents...  I think this is definitely true.  I
>often ask male friends whether they like when women wear makeup, and
>I have received unanimously negative responses.  Same from my lesbian and
>Bi female friends.  Of course, this is
>selection bias -- I would expect the friends I have chosen not to be
>representative.  Nevertheless, with so many wo(men) simply preferring that
>a woman be herself, I am left suspecting that cosmetics are a
>collectivist conspiracy intended to keep all women equal by making
>them all look fake.


On the other hand, I've known men to claim they like women 
without makeup but future statements reveal this to be false.
Prime example: my ex-husband. He always said he didn't want me
to wear makeup. It turned out that what he really meant was that
he wanted me to wear makeup but make it look like I didn't. When
I didn't wear makeup, he complained of my "tired, graduate school
looks", but if I wore very much I looked too made up. So his
criterion was actually a desire for me to wear the "perfect" (in 
his opionion) amount of makeup.

Please, no flames -- I'm not saying all men are like that. (I'm
currently dating someone who says he likes me without makeup and
really means it) Just that I don't think the number of men
who say they like women without makeup is a true indicator of the
number who really feel this way.


Sus.
-- 
And the speaking will get easier and easier. ... And at last you'll know with
surpassing certainty that only one thing is more frightening than speaking
your truth. And that is not speaking.
		--Naomi Wolf, Commencement Address, Scripps College
Xref: sparky soc.men:15812 soc.women:16045 alt.feminism:366
From: traveja@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:47:37 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Aug26.185005.29368@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
> As a feminist I don't see what is wrong with decorating our bodies or our faces
> in order to have fun, as part of a ritual, to improve our appearance, or 
> whatever.  The problem comes
> when we feel we *have* to look a certain way, or cover up our imperfections, in
> order to please *someone else*.  And in our Western society we consider it
> oppression for women to have to cover their faces and bodies because their
> Eastern, male-dominated society deems those bodily parts to be unclean, or
> unfit for looking at in public.
> 
> I've read Naomi Wolfe, and don't see how a woman who believes what she does 
> would use cosmetics or jewelry as anything but something *she* enjoys.  I doubt
> if she decorates herself for anyone but herself.  Which is the reason that 
> sometimes I wear makeup and jewelry, sometimes I don't.  Depends on the mood.
> Not what I think someone else (i.e. a male) wants me to do.
> 
> carol



Dear Carol, 
	In response to your statement, I quote, "Not what I think
someone else (i.e. a male) wants me to do.", I understand that women
themselves exert a considerable amount of peer pressure on each other
concerning this "ritualistic warpaint" - make-up. I, for one, find
women much more attractive without their paint. I also am not alone in
this notion, but am supported by many other men who prefer the more
aesthetically pleasing "natural" look. I am pleased that you "hold
your ground" on this issue, but I hope to heighten your awareness by
interjecting that many man are more interested in what is inside a
woman's head instead of what is or is not on her face.

Sincerely,

Jeffery 

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Daniel R. Kegel)
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:17:59 GMT

noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>... At the present, most psychologists would
>automatically assert that a person who is inclined to have more than one close
>and intimate romantic/sexual relationship is somehow "imbalanced" and will
>strive to "help" or "cure" such a person with the goal of assisting them to
>become "monogamous" as is considered "normal".
>...
>I assert that such thinking does not come from a valid scientific or objective
>basis.  ...
>To summarize this long post and to present my belief on polyamory, I do not
>believe that polyamorous feelings/practice is in any way abnormal, rather it
>is normal and natural...

Has anybody here read "Threesomes: Studies in Sex, Power, and Intimacy"
by Arno Karlen (isbn 0-688-06536-8)?  He tries to look at the issue
objectively, by interviewing many informants.  His conclusions are
not quite in line with the egalitarian ideal- rather, "The simultaneous
search for power and intimacy is paradoxical, but it is common...
Some people achieve warmth, intimacy, and sensuality in triads.  Sometimes
these last, but often competition, jealousy, or one member's preference
for another ends the spell."

Is he talking about the same sort of relationships as y'all?
- Dan Kegel (dank@cco.caltech.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization:  Hickory Ridge - Lisle, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:17:16 GMT

>>o	adult solicits (propositions, cajoles, courts) kid for sex
>>o	kid says "no"
>>o	adult respects turndown, goes elsewhere
>>o	kid continues with whatever they were doing...
>
>As it happens, I was a participant in exactly that scenario.  The place
>was the Underground Station at Oxford Circus, and I was 14.  At the time,
>my major anxiety was how to phrase the sentiment "no" in an appropriately
>gentle manner, given the gentleness and courtesy of the solicitation.  The
>adult of course respected the answer - it never occurred to me that they
>wouldn't.
>
>Sigh.  A memory from a better, saner world.

Yes.  Once when I was three or four and the adult was somewhere in
their late teens, and another time when I was about nine and they
were five or so years older.  Again, the memories were of how to
turn down the requests without hurting the other person, and I knew
that I was the one in power in the situation, because at any moment
I could have cried out and had any number of adults at my side to
protect me and destroy the other person.  Hmmm...

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrccb.att.com
	      (effective Aug 1, 1992:  tjc@hrcce.att.com)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<VIXIE.92Aug22215909@cognition.pa.dec.com> <BtF9vL.8Ls@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 92 12:19:52

[beaver]
>[vixie]
>>In the case where the woman wants to give the baby up for adoption, yes,
>But if she wants to keep it, and decides that she doesn't want
>the father to walk out of the hospital with the baby, or even
>to see the baby?  Who is the baby given to?

I don't really know.  If I were a hospital administrator I'd have a strong
tendancy to want to stay out of what was obviously going to become a legal
battle; as such I'd probably give the baby back to the mother.  But that's
not a legal principle, just common conservatism.

Any battles over custody should not be fought in the hospital lobby.  In a
baby's first weeks/months of life there's still a biological bond to the
mother and unless she is incompetent or disinterested, this so-called "fourth
trimester" should be left alone -- in the interests of the baby, regardless
of what the parents want to do later.  I'm fairly sure that nearly all the
judges in America would see it that way, too.

>>Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
>It was a suggestion to explain your "trivially overcome": if the problems
>were purely legal (eg. the father's legal rights depend on having openly
>taken the baby into his own arms; or, eg., a later custody decision is
>based on the mother being the primary caregiver by fiat), then perhaps
>there were trivial ways to overcome the legal consequences of the father
>being denied these opportunities.

It is true that the strength of the "tender years doctrine" comes from the
presumed desirability of continuity of care after the "fourth trimester".
However, this is as it must be -- we cannot attack the roots of the tender
years doctrine by trying to remake biology and split the care of the baby
before it would make sense to do that.  And of course the tender-years
camp agrees with this and sets the date at which care can reasonably be
shared at three years or so; I on the other hand set it at three to six
MONTHS, depending on the particular baby.

There is NO trivial way to overcome the tender years doctrine.  A given judge
either buys into it or doesn't, and arguments from a plaintiff in a custody
case are not going to cause re-evaluation of what is usually a decades-old
personal opinion on the subject of "how old is old enough for joint custody?"
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:19:47 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 ljf wrote:

  The problem I'm having with what you're saying is that you do seem to
  think that an adult approaching any child at any age is permissible.
  
  Perhaps if you'd be more explicit as to what you think is permissible
  you'd be better understood.

( Tom Chapin ) writes:

 I don't know when you began following this, but I never stated or
 implied at any time that any adult should ever approach a child for
 sex.  I merely joined with others to give examples where adults did

Okay, so adults "should not" approach children for sex. . .

 As for my own opinions regarding "what is permissable," I believe
 that in any situation where a clear power differential exists and
 great harm is possible for the weaker party, the weaker party should
 be the one to initiate such activities.

but children are allowed to approach and have sex with adults
with the idea being that adults are not culpable?

I don't see the difference.

Dano


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: "Tasteless and insensitive"
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:55:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.002251.1933@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Roger Tang writes
>> (MrEuStress) writes:
>> > I am outraged that you advocate force (rape) as
>> > a valid way of accruing child support when
>> > their are so many better ways to support
>> > the child.
>> Tasteless as well as insensitive.
>
>  You're right 
>  -- financial rape is "Tasteless and insensitive".

	If you say so.

	By the way, you HAVE been sexually assaulted, so you can compare
them adequately?
-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: gag@tacos.caltech.edu (GUIDO A. GIAMBERARDINO)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.143622.9395@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <1992Aug24.112004.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
><100 lines of lawyer-bashing deleted>
>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
>>|                                                                        |
>>| In the Middle East, women are raised to always cover their faces with  |
>>| viels. Modern feminists point to this practice as proof of how these   |
>>| women are oppressed. Yet here in the Western (so called) Civilized     |
>>| countries, women are raised to cover their faces with cosmetics, to    |
>>| the tune of 50 billion dollars a year. In this regard, American women  |
>>| are just as oppressed as their eastern sisters while having to pay far |
>>| more for the priviledge. Why do the feminists pay such scant attention |
>>| to this most visible abuse of women's skin, health, and wallet?        |
>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 

Are you serious?  Don't you have anything better to do with your time than
worry about this trivia?  Get a JOB, man.


>Read some Naomi Wolf sometime.  Or just about any issue of Ms. magazine.
>Sheesh.
>-- 

And YOU!!!  You're another gem.  With all the great books to read in
the world, you waste your time reading and talking about this
GARBAGE?  Are you guys for real????   You "feminist men"  REALLY crack me
up.   The feminist women are annoying, but YOU guys are PATHETIC.
GET a JOB.  If you can't find a job then worry about why the 
economy is so bad--not about whether or not makeup oppresses
women.  Get SERIOUS.

>             ......................................................
>             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
>             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
>             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.065422.28289@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.205758.18945@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>
>>Do you know lots of men who are looking for a woman they can support
>>for the rest of their lives?  I don't.  In fact, most of the hetero
>>men I know expect their wives to work and often express dismay that
>>the wives don't (or won't) make more money.
>
>I think this happens considerably more with the sexes reversed.
>But regardless of who is doing the complaining, the end result
>is far more social obstacles for stay-at-home fathers than for
>stay-at-home mothers.
>
>The current situation is illustrated by a recent study that found
>that 64% of all married male MDs, and 0% of all married female MDs,
>had spouses not in the work force (Social Science and Medicine 30:
>373 (1990)).  This is from a random nationwide (U.S.) sample of 2000
>subjects.  Similar numbers hold for Australia, Great Britain, 
>Sweden, Canada, and for a wide range of professions.

And yet 2/3 of American women between 21 and 44 work outside the home.
Unless you're suggesting that male physicians are a good group for
women who want to stay at home to target, your stats have much more to
do with the male-dominated profession of medicine than husbands in
general.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:31:06 GMT
Distribution: na

Reid Kneeland writes

+ In article <1992Aug25.230720.19685@u.washington.edu>  
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

+ >>You see, to Mr. Mott, children don't need fathers - they need rich,
+ >>well-educated mothers.  How do we get such things?  Lots and lots of
+ >>child-support to pay for lots of Fisher-Price stuff and alimony to pay
+ >>for moms' getting educations, perhaps?
+ >
+ >    Don't force people (men) to be "remote wallets".
+ 
+ If he's fathered children, he has taken on that responsibility.  It is
+ a reasonable function of government to force him to make good on it.
+ It is NOT a reasonable function of government to take money away from
+ other people to cover HIS familial debt.

No, but it is a reasonable function of the government to see and insure
that he gets a reasonable chance of developing a relationship with his
offspring. Too many times, tho, a mother may devise ways that effectively
end any chance of such a relationship, _de facto_ reducing the father to
a remote wallet.

And you know what? The government doesn't give a rats ass. I doubt you
do, either, as long as YOU don't have to pay.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Women as Crazy as Men Behind Wheel (sorta long)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:40:46 GMT

Copyrighted material published in Boston Herald, Aug. 27.  Reproduced 
without permission.

If you ve been tailgated, run off the road or been given the middle finger 
by a surly young female driver lately, the following will not come as a 
surprise: Women aged 16-24 are becoming as aggressive as their male 
counterparts behind the wheel.

They re committing the same bad-driver behaviors as young men do -- they 
speed, they re discourteous and they may use vehicles as outlets for anger 
or expressions of power, says James Malfetti, who is studying gender 
differences among young drivers for the American Automobile Association 
Foundation for Traffic Research ...

In two of nine states Malfetti studied, young female drivers loss-ratio 
rate -- the amount of money insurance companies receive in premiums vs. 
what they pay out in claims -- exceeded that of young men.

Malfetti suspects several causes: Women are driving more, they re driving 
to and from places where alcohol is served, and women s roles have changed 
-- they re doing more things they used to depend on males to do...

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Rai's Rhetorical Question (Was: Q)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:39:54 GMT

<In article <1992Aug31.124500.3156@memstvx1.memst.edu> mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

<Is this group for MEN only?

	Rai, you know better than that......

<Just curious.

	Curious Yellow or Curious Blue?

	Just asking.....
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:37:51 GMT

In article <zjbnhsr@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.170049.584@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>>In article <+j_nzs#@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug18.183212.29094@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>>[in response to what I thought was a question about obtaining standing to
>> assert a claim for parental rights, omitted]
>
>>>I don't think you understand the point I was making.

I don't think I'm capable of following this thread's underlying question to
determined, so I concede the field to you, having through dishonesty, or a
desire to cause people to think I know something, when in fact, I know nothing
at all, or just plain error, failed to answer your questions.

Please don't let me know what the outcome is.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:36:47 GMT

In article <b-dn#yb.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>
>The previous posters talked about how the idea of kids as
>passive, eager, innocent blinking faces and adults as
>manipulative, lustful, abusive parents isnt always true
>
>
>.......jeff

So what's your view?  Is it that children should be viewed as
being sexually available to adults?  I don't.  I think that
adults who think of children as sex objects as very sick
individuals.  I think children should be protected from them.
How do you feel?
Xref: sparky soc.men:15809 soc.women:16042
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Barbara H. Advocates Financial Rape
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:37:32 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: riley

In article <1992Aug31.214526.28552@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> Barbara Hlavin writes
> 
>> (By the way, I find it insensitive . . . that you equate 
>> being pressured to support your child with rape.) 
> 
>    Sex is good -- unless it's forced.
>    Money for the home is good -- unless it's forced.
> 
>    I am outrage that you advocate force (rape) as
>    a valid way of accruing child support when
>    their are so many better ways to support
>    the child.
-- 

  I had a debate with a feminist ovr the weekend about the possability
that Mia had made up the charges about Woody abusing the 6 and 7 year olds
specifically to extort money. Her response was that she hoped Mia's
charges WERE true so that Woody would "get what he deserves" for the
Soon Yi affair.

  Look, I agree that there's some question of taste in the relationship with
the 21 year old, but to actually HOPE two small children were really sexually
molested so that Woody gets his comeuppance???????????  This is not a woman
I would want raising MY kids!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       And she called ME militant!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:58:46
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep2.114831.11458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Sep2.151603.26592@burrhus.harvard.edu>
	<BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<3SEP199200564638@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu's message of Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:56:00 GMT

In article <3SEP199200564638@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
> So, I have a question for you feminist or feminist-leaning
> women.  Are you bothered that a man appreciates the look of a
> woman in makeup better than without makeup?

I'm not bothered at all by this.  However, I do think that it will make
things more difficult for the man in question, since he is unlikely to
find a woman who can be that well made-up all the time (i.e. all day and
all night), so it seems to me that he will eventually be disappointed
with any woman he meets.  In the same way, you might "appreciate the
look" of a woman wearing a padded bra, corset, and girdle, but don't you
think you'd feel rather disappointed if you got interested in her
because of that look and then saw her without all those altering
garments?

I prefer people who are attracted me as I am (jeans, t-shirt, no
makeup)...they can always appreciate it when I am "dressed up," but I
don't want to be dressed up all the time.

Muffy
--

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
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism