HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
X-To: CORY ALBRECHT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:25:00 GMT

ccalbrec@nyx.cs.du.edu (Cory Albrecht) writes...
CA> an example: Last year my cousing and his fiancee called the entire thing off
CA> Needless to say it was very messy and neither of them wanted to see each
CA> other ever again. 8 weeks after they split, he found out that she was pregna
CA> and going to have an abortion. My cousin was able to get a court order to
CA> stop her from doing that because, while he didn't want to have anything to
CA> do with her, he wanted to raise the child since it was his. She had the orde
CA> overturned so she could have the abortion. My cousin took the matter to the
CA> courts where an injunction was placed on his ex, pending a trial. Her primar
CA> argument was that she was financially unable and emotionally not ready to
CA> have a child. My cousin's response to that was that he would raise the child
CA> himself, and not ask for a single penny in support. After that argument was
CA> presented, her lawyer asked for a dismissal on the grounds that it was her
CA> body and she should have the right to do with it as she pleases. My cousin's
CA> lawyer objected to that saying that if she had decided to keep the baby,
CA> she most likely would have come to the courts looking for child support.
CA> The objection was overruled and the case was summarily dismissed. A similar
CA> process happened in an appeal. All because, as has been said, the family
CA> courts a heavily biased in favour of the woman.

Interesting.  Do you have a court reference on this?  (ie., how can I find
the court documents related to this case, if they are available?).

Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:35:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.=xdn5_c.boserj
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>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?

I have said how I felt before in this thread.  I will repeat
for your benefit:

I dont feel, I know, that kids have sex with other kids.  That
kids want to have sex with some adults, and that kids are not
sexless, innocent, little people.  That many people have had
sexual experiences as children with other children or adults
and were not harmed by it.  There is even scientific evidence
to support this.

I think that I want to have sex with women.  I think there
is no reason at all they should be protected from me.  A
proposition is not attempted rape.  Attempted rape is when
I dont take no for an answer and something happens to interrupt
the proceedings, just as attempted murder isnt the same as
self defence.

A common myth is that kids dont know better, that they cant
decide right and wrong, and cant chose for themselves.  I
feel that they can, if they had the information to make that
decision.  I know I was making decisions about myself as a
minor.  And I know alot of kids who do.

I know that a power problem exists in almost every relationship,
adult and minor.  That social pressure, as well as emotional
and economic, are used in sexual matters every single day.  And
I think its wrong.

What I dont feel is that if such a condition exists that
means that the condition must be used.  A employee/employer
relationship doesnt have abuse the economics of it. People,
kids and adults, can resect each other.  And just because
some dont doesnt mean that most cant.


......jeff
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Re: Gender and bathing suits
Summary: Buck the trend!
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:59:48 GMT

In article <9208290650.AA08237@cs.utexas.edu> klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>I've noticed an interesting difference between men and women
>when it comes to bathing suits.
> 
>On the beach, most women wear clothing which is skimpier 
>and more revealing than men.
> 
>Women tend to wear small, hugging, bathing suits,
>while men tend to wear shorts, which are baggy and long.
> 
>Why don't more men wear tight, revealing, bathing suits?

We used to... the trend has been toward the shorts... can
anyone adequately explain fashion?  If they could, the industry
would be destroyed...

>Why don't more men wear thong-style bathing suits,
>like the suits worn by the women on the beach-scenes
>of the NBC television show "Baywatch"?

I own some G-Strings (aborted career choice.. :-), but don't
feel it is socially acceptable to wear them, however, I do wear
swimsuits which are full-back, but skimpy.. much like you see
the swim competitors wear.  This seems to be skimpy enough or
unusual enough to get attention at the beach... 'course this might
be due to me looking like a beached whale.. (I saw pictures of me
this summer.. yecch.. I have the mass from weights, but now it is
time to trim the fat and tone the muscle... Actually, it probably
isn't that bad, I *do* get compliments)

>(Have you ever recorded the opening-scenes,
>and single-stepped through the recording,
>and seen all the mostly-bare female buttocks which are displayed?)
> 

Nope, can't say that I have... don't watch the show (nor much TV at
that).. although I have seen it once or twice when it first came on.
Patrick
-- 
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.     | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada   | UUCP:...!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
From: cliff@buster.stafford.tx.us (Cliff Tomplait)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Lawyer Speak
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:32:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: buster.1992Sep04.153249.28295
Organization: Buster irby

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.022244.11982@u.washington.edu> 
>twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:

>>(By the way, I find it insensitive, to be nice about it, that you equate 
>>being pressured to support your child with rape.) 

>Tell me Barbara, how do you call a statement like
>"pay child's support or you will be sent to jail,
>and we all know what will happen to you there."

>Tell me Barbara, how do you call to the feminists
>who want to send the FBI after "dead-beat" dads,
>no matter why they don't pay.

What amazes me is the fact that mothers use the "family" court system to
fuck over the fathers with no regard for the father's rights or the rights
of the child(rend) AND THEN WONDER WHY THE FATHERS DON'T JUST SAY: "Oh well,
I guess I lost and now it's time to forgive and forget."

Barbara, my prayer is that you someday get a small taste of reality from
a father's position.  THEN you can find whatever you want "insensitive".

Cliff
father of Kenneth (now 7)
victim of Harris County (Texas) "family" court system
avowed enemy of lawyers and Allen Daggett (corrupt, immoral, unethical
abuser of the public trust and "judge" of 310th judicial district "court")
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Denied visitation by
X-To: BELINDA ASBELL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:07:00 GMT

Belinda Asbell writes...
BA> In article <1992Aug6.101844.26399@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, weverka@spot.Colorado.
BA> (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
BA> |>
BA> |> The courts do not want to put the CP in jail for contempt when
BA> |> the CP withholds visitation since that would hurt the child.
BA> |>
BA> |> Why not give the CP guilty of contempt one of these weekend
BA> |> sentences in which the weekends in jail are to conincide with
BA> |> the time of visitation?  The child need not know.  If the
BA> |> visitation is for only a day, put the CP in jail for the day
BA> |> of the NCP visitation.

BA> other thing I can think of is to have the CP reimburse the NCP (monetarily o
BA> perhaps otherwise) for withheld visitation.  (But then again, that raises
BA> problems all its own.)

Actually, some members of In Search Of Justice, Canada's largest Men's Rights
group, suggested that the CP be penalised by a reduction in child support
and/or alimony payments for each withheld visitation.

In fact, many denied fathers are already wielding this form of punishment
(mind you, they go a bit TOO far and withhold ALL support, more often than
not), and I think that it's time for the legal system to get off its
collective posteriors and DO SOMETHING to enforce visitation rights as well
as harassing dads for child support!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * hAS ANYONE SEEN MY cAPSLOCK KEY?
Xref: sparky soc.men:15548 soc.women:15841 alt.feminism:173
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:43:48 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <26AUG199214230230@tacos.caltech.edu> gag@tacos.caltech.edu (GUIDO A. GIAMBERARDINO) writes:
>Are you serious?  Don't you have anything better to do with your time than
>worry about this trivia?  Get a JOB, man.
>
>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.

Hmm. I don't mean to flame anyone, but here are just a few thoughts of my own:

1). Wow! Has Mr. Giamberardino got a chip on his shoulder against
those "traitors of Masculinity, Machismo and Hairy Chests" ;-) or
what?!!

2). Is he obsessed with "getting a JOB", or is this just a peculiar
American expression a la "Get real (man)","Get a life" etc?

3). A New York friend of mine once described a Guido (sp?) as the
slang stereotype for what we in the UK describe as a "Medallion Man",
but specifically, an Italian of the worst chauvanist mien. My friend
did an hilarious impression of a typical Guido (pronounced
gwee-dough?)  trying to "chat-up" (I believe Americans call it
"hitting-on") a woman, viz: "'ey baybee! Wanna ****?" (done in a
coarse accent) Mr. Guido (sic) A. Giamberardino's anti-feminist 
ravings, together with his name, brought this to mind.  Naturally, I'm
not implying anything (just feeling a little mischievous!) ;-)

Finally, my tuppenceworth on the "Makeup/Veil" debate: It's sad if the
general consensus is that women *need* makeup to be attractive (sic),
because they don't (confidence counts for a lot). However, I don't
think a woman should be criticised for wanting to wear makeup, if it
makes her happy (unless she is made unhappy in the first place by
society telling her she *has* to wear makeup ... and it goes on...).

-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, Scotland
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is it that the men want?
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:47:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: galaxy.22046
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <3556@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.200615.23173@news.nd.edu> slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>> What is it that the men want?
>
>	Fast cars and fast women.  Geez, were you like born yesterday
>or something? 
>

"I wanna be free
 to ride my machine
 without being hassled
 by the man"

   Blue, "The Wild Angles" cica 1965

starbuck
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Better Late than Never
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:47:17 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>   Just as aggressive, but more focused into less confrontational methods.
> Men throughout history kill with knives and guns. Women choose poison as
> was demonstrated by Mdm Borgia and the Marchioness De Branvilliers. Or
> they choose fire, as happened last Easter with the "Bunny Burning".
> Men usually face their enemies, while women killers prefer stealth and
> surprise.
        It's a minor point, and it doesn't address your main thesis at all, 
but Lucrezia Borgia was not the scheming poisoner common wisdom makes her out 
to be. Will Durant has a sympathetic passage about her in his "Story of 
Civilization." Quite the opposite of the legend, in fact.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:04:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>This all leads me to think, "Thank God, that with people like
>you in the world, we have laws that restrict your behaviour."

I have never trusted religion as the basis for moral and ethical
guidelines.  History has proved how badly xtian principles govern
and how often they are abused.

And laws do not restrict my behavior at all.  I will act, as always,
to my benefit, but laws I do not care for I obey only when conveinient
to do so.  That is my right.  Laws, in this country, do not restrict
behavior at all.  Police cant arrest you because you might rape
someone in the future, they arrest you only because you have already.

Also be aware that I am one of those who has a vote and therefore
one who can work to change the laws.

However, richard, this is far afield.  You have yet to show
that adult/minor sexual experiences *must* be abusive, simpley
because you cannot.  There are those who have posted their
own experiences that were not abusive or harmful.

Somehow we have to ditch this idea of kids as innocent, beautiful,
pure little cherubs.  Kids get horny.  Kids are curious.  Kids
do things with other kids.  Adults do not have to push their
sexuality on them, and when they do its wrong.

Many people were sexually initiated, by consent, by someone
much more mature than they were.  Why is this wrong?  Why
cannot a relationship coloured by a age difference be loving
and caring on both sides?


......jeff
Xref: sparky soc.men:15747 soc.women:15992 alt.child-support:2996 alt.dads-rights:2162
From: turner@reed.edu (English Muffins are important too)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:07:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug31.200759.6357
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <1992Aug31.185835.8099@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.233905.23184@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug20.131221.12296@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>any better.  But you seem to have very strong views toward this
>situation, so please tell us how'd you make this situation more "equitable".
>But before you do, let me take a stab at what your answer would be:
>
>  -- You would change the laws so that whenever a father decides that
>  he doesn't wish to be a father any longer he could be released from his
>  responsibilites.  This would apply to minor children of any age,
>  born or unborn.  That way, even if you got divorced after the child
>  was born, you couldn't be forced to pay your child a cent.  To
>  hell with them, let the mother worry about it.

This isn't even remotely close to what my answer would be.  Sorry Mike.  
My answer:  
A man can decide he does not wish to be a father up until he acknowledges or
supports the child in any way.  (Usually this point would be birth. But I
wanted to include those who suddenly get sued for paternity when the child
is 9 or 10.  This might also include if he's supporting the woman prior to
birth, i.e. some kind of committment with her, the burden of proof being on
her to prove that he did.)  As soon as he supports the child in any way,
he's made his decision and therefore is now responsible for that child at
least partly.  This means he also gets visitation and unless there is some
good reason, joint custody. But if he's never supported the child in any
way, or agreed to support the child in any way (burden of proof on the
mother here if she says he did, and he says he didn't offer to support the
child) then he can make this decision.

I think people who agree with me on that he should have some choice would
agree more closely with my answer than with yours.  But I could be wrong.  I
hope not.

	Johanna
turner@reed.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Break-ups
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:28:31 GMT

susan larsen writes
> MrEuStress writes:
> > Woody Allen started his affair with
> > Soon-Li(?) less than a month after he
> > adopted 2 of Mia's kids.  People hate enslavement.
> Ouch!  Maybe it can be claimed that men are forced 
> into biological parenthood, but it is pretty far-
> fetched to suggest that a man can be forced into 
> adoption.

   He wasn't forced INTO it.
   But he's forced to REMAIN in it.

   Mia can enslave Woody by
   yelling "responsibility"
   and pointing the eager
   mob towards Woody.

   Watch Woody run!  Watch the Break-up.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:11:28 GMT

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

  Exactly!

	Pinar

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Subject Line...
X-To: ROSS RIDGE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:33:00 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
DH> In article <1992Jul25.191233.25220@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org (W
DH> Steeves) writes:
DH> |> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
DH> |>>And anyway, shoplifting a pack of Pampers(tm) is much more morally defens
DH> |>>than shoplifting a semi-automatic weapon so you can take over the neighbo
DH> |>>drug trade.
DH> |>
DH> |> That is QUITE stereotypical, Duane.

DH> And quite a bit funnier than your reply. So, what's your point?

DH> "Come on man, spit it out!" - Ren Hoek

All right, all right...I admit it .. Sometimes I can be a humourless activist.

Yes, what you wrote was funny, but the first thing I saw, was the implication
that a woman who shop-lifts will usually only get domestic products, but that
when a man shoplifts, he does so in order to acquire weapons of violence.

NOW, I realise that it's funny, but my initial feeling was an activist's
"knee jerk".  Yes....I admit that too.  Nobody's perfect, right.  :-)

I realise that I probably ruined a good joke, but I somehow think that you'll
forgive my occasional humourlessness...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Oxymoron : Virtual Reality
Xref: sparky soc.men:15757 soc.women:15999 alt.child-support:2999
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:21:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug31.232147.683
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

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.

	Tasteless as well as insensitive.
-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:15678 soc.women:15951 alt.child-support:2982
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Break-ups
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:02:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug29.180205.25693
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug28.222831.14003@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>susan larsen writes
>> MrEuStress writes:
>> > Woody Allen started his affair with
>> > Soon-Li(?) less than a month after he
>> > adopted 2 of Mia's kids.  People hate enslavement.
>> Ouch!  Maybe it can be claimed that men are forced 
>> into biological parenthood, but it is pretty far-
>> fetched to suggest that a man can be forced into 
>> adoption.
>
>   He wasn't forced INTO it.
>   But he's forced to REMAIN in it.
>
>


Huh?  He sued for sole custody of three of the children, two of 
them adopted.  

Doesn't sound to me as if he's being forced to remain an adoptive 
parent against his will. 


--Barbara
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights