HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan)
Subject: Re: The reason for Rage
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:03:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.225739.22409@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
 > In article <1992Jul22.120733.8852@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
 > 
 > >Further, I do not care what people think about me as long as it is accurate.
 > >I am arrogent, self-centered, rude, sexually uninhibited, somewhat
 > >chauvanistic, somewhat prejudiced, and lots of other things. I not only
 > >admit to all of that, but I don't care who knows any of that. If
 > >they have a problem with it, it's their problem.
 > >
 > >As for having labels placed on me that are untrue, like homo or rapist, I can
 > >live without.
 > 
 > But why does the label of homosexual hit so hard that you wouldn't
 > report a rape?
 > 
 > Could it be, no, no way!  Your homophobia or society's?  If it's the
 > former, that's your problem. 

True.

 > If it's the latter, maybe you should be
 > concerned about lesbigay rights.
 > 

Many women do not report rape because of the further degredation they would suffer
from the police, society, friends, coworkers, bosses, etc. The degradation a 
male-male rape victim would suffer along those lines would probably be worse
because most members of society who would view a female rape victim as a slut
would likely view a male-male rape victim as a faggot-slut (what could be worse?).

Personally, such ignorant attitudes apall(sp?) me. However, given that they are
so widespread, I have my doubts as to whether I would report it if I were raped
by another male. The experience would be hard enough without much of society to
help with the degradation.

There is no reason for rape victims of any gender to be looked down upon. They are
victims of a horrible crime. I think society's attitude about male-female rape
victims is changing. From what I have heard, statistics indicate that part of the
increase in reported rapes is due to an increased percentage of rapes reported.

Hopefully, society's attitudes towards male-male rape victims will also change.
After all, it's not the victim's fault that he was raped.

Also, I hope that the attitude's towards lesbigays will change. Someone's sexual
preference is not anyone's fault. It's not even inherently a bad thing. It's just 
part of what makes an individual an individual.

The bottom line here is that if society stops worrying about sexual preference,
that will help them stop worrying about a rape victim's sexual preference and
start worrying about the rape victim.

 > (This probably doesn't belong in talk.rape, but I'll be darned if I
 > know where it does belong.  Talk.flame perhaps?)
 > 

Come on, this is nothing compared to some of the recent conflagrations(sp?) that
have passed through this group recently.



-- 
-Tim-

sheehan@ncar.ucar.edu
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: DC: Stick to law, sap ...!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:22:54 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Jul26.180509.18008@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
> ... and leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals.  I have a whole team of
> folks with more degrees than a thermometer lookin' after my mental health and
> they don't seem to think I'm beyond help thank you!  And furthermore I don't
> threaten bub.  I don't need to.  Nor do I cry for help.  If I need help I just
> pull out my wallet & buy some.  Sitting here I have an incredible urge to say
> a ton of really nasty things about you.  However I realize from some of the
> posts that I have read, man you already got plenty of people here that don't
> care for you.  You sure don't need an enemy as bad as me.  Therefore I think
> I'll just let you slide.  It's not worth workin' up a sweat over.
> 
> KimmyD

How bad are you Kimmy? Why did you state that Ami should be careful about what
she says about you?

Why threaten her and let ME slide?

DC
From: synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: More on fantasies and discussing one or two (was) Re: Rape in any form ...
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:47:36 GMT
	<SYNTH.92Jul30135630@deepthought.unm.edu> <l1qm#7-@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: SynthMedia Productions Ltd.: The Danes Call It Quality


[Some graphic language follows.]

Lazlo> Hearing someone say "I sure would like to shove my dick in her
Lazlo> mouth" demonstrates that they're a clod, but it's hardly
                                          ^^^^
Could you elaborate on this.  What do you mean by "clod"?

> ...your definition of "rape fantasy" seems to involve a lot more of an
> extreme kind of image or attitude than mine.  Rape follows a *wide*
> spectrum. 

Lazlo> I define rape as "non-consensual sexual contact" -- I'm not sure
Lazlo> how that differs from your definition but it's probably not by
Lazlo> much.  When I said "full-blown rape fantasy" I said "full-blown"
Lazlo> to distinguish a fantasy that specifically and intentionally
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lazlo> includes rape as a part of the fantasy,

A definition of rape as "non-consensual sexual contact" need not mean
that there has to be a specific, intentional desire to inflict "rape"
on someone.  Are you suggesting that some date-rape cases can be
thrown out because the attacker was under the delusion that he was not
"raping"?

>> If these ... are really typical of the fantasies of the males you were
>> socialized with, then the fact that you still associated with them says
>> almost as much about you as it does about them. 
>
> "Still associated with them"?  From what hat did you pull *this* rabbit
> out of ...? 

Lazlo> If you didn't associate with them, how can you say that you
Lazlo> were socialized with them?  What am I missing?

You are adding two assumptions:  1) that I harbor these attitudes as
well, which is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard you say, and
2) that I continued to associate with them upon learning about their
attitudes toward women.  Let me state this as plainly as I can, so as
not to promote further confusion:  *both of these are False*.


===============================================================================
    :: :: :: :: ::     Synth F.    synth@deepthought.unm.edu    U S E N E T   
 :: :: :: :: :: :: ::  Oberheim    synth@yenta.alb.nm.us             in color!
===============================================================================
"When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple ... or at least
 a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center."
						   -- Emo Phillips
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Re: Rape (what else?)
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16:27:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.135937.8812@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.143840.22127@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>
>> 2) the person who submits to sex
>>   b) is forced by force, threat of force or "coercion which would prevent
>> 	resistance by of a person of ordinary resolution."
>> 
>>>Hypo #1. They go into his place, sit on the couch, and he is on top of her.
>>>He unbuttons her shirt and lays it open. In a trembling voice she
>>>says a faint 'No.' When he continues, she closes her eyes and tries to imagine
>>>she is somewhere else.
>> 
>> 2b?  no, I don't think so.
>
>Why not. Are you saying no reasonable woman could reach this conclusion?
>Any women care to differ?

To prove sexual assault by coercion in a court of law is it necessary for 
it to be proven that

1) The person who submitted to sex was aware of coercion whether or not
	the potential offender was
2) That the potential offender was aware of coercion, whether or not the
	person who submitted to sex was also aware thereof
3) That both/all parties are aware of significant the coercion.

My favorite here (see e.g. Regina v. Morgan and People v. Evans) is 2.

Would you be comfortable attempting with the above facts to prove that the
potential offender was cognizant of the fact that he had applied
"coercion which would prevent resistance by of a person of ordinary 
resolution."?  Am I allowed to assume that there are no additional
elements of coercion and that e.g. other articles of clothing have to be
removed and are removed without protest, that the woman does not
physically resist the act of sex, that the man has no reason to suppose 
that the woman is young or mentally incompetent?

Hmm. Might possibly fit this under (misdeamenor) sexual imposition

(1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the
other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that
regard.

which, (un?)fortunately, requires other evidence than the victim's
testimony.

>Sure. His threat made her consent unlikely. Of course. The sure cure to the
>whole problem involves a simple act of bringing her teeth together HARD.

After which he picks up a rock and bashes her skull in.  Not always
practical, that.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape (what else?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:09:47 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Jul22.162749.5818@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
> 
> To prove sexual assault by coercion in a court of law is it necessary for 
> it to be proven that
> 
> 1) The person who submitted to sex was aware of coercion whether or not
> 	the potential offender was
> 2) That the potential offender was aware of coercion, whether or not the
> 	person who submitted to sex was also aware thereof
> 3) That both/all parties are aware of significant the coercion.
> 
> My favorite here (see e.g. Regina v. Morgan and People v. Evans) is 2.

All of the above, or only one?

> 
> Would you be comfortable attempting with the above facts to prove that the
> potential offender was cognizant of the fact that he had applied
> "coercion which would prevent resistance by of a person of ordinary 
> resolution."?  Am I allowed to assume that there are no additional
> elements of coercion and that e.g. other articles of clothing have to be
> removed and are removed without protest, that the woman does not
> physically resist the act of sex, that the man has no reason to suppose 
> that the woman is young or mentally incompetent?

Would I be comfortible trying to prosecute? No. But her having said no one
time, and the growing public awareness of date rape, I would not be comfortible
as the defendant either.

We are approaching the point where a single no, with no other resistance, 
will begin to get prosecutions. (Provided she does not encourage after that
point.) 

> 
> Hmm. Might possibly fit this under (misdeamenor) sexual imposition
> 
> (1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the
> other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that
> regard.
> 
> which, (un?)fortunately, requires other evidence than the victim's
> testimony.

Depends on the state.

> 
>>Sure. His threat made her consent unlikely. Of course. The sure cure to the
>>whole problem involves a simple act of bringing her teeth together HARD.
> 
> After which he picks up a rock and bashes her skull in.  Not always
> practical, that.

Tell you what. I'll get someone to bite off your dick, and take off running,
and let's see if you can catch her.

Or walk.

Or do ANYTHING other than lay there screaming.


DC


PS. To even have suggested that, you must have one tough groin!
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: The reason for Rage
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:45:40 GMT
	<SCG.92Jul22091626@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Jul22.120733.8852@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>That statement says quite clearly the way we read your original post
>was, in fact correct.

>Why do I not want to be viewed as homosexual? Besides the fact I am
>not?  I need a reason???

Why are you concerned that somebody else might view you as homosexual?
I grant people the right to their misimpressions; you can't stop
people from being stupid.

>Yes, but I remember a post about being upset that the police viewed
>the mal/male rape as being 'icky'. Let's face it, homosexuals are
>discriminated against in employment, promotions, friendship, social
>activities, and, in TRYING TO GET WOMEN TO GO OUT WITH THEM!!!

Well, this is of no concern to me; I'm married.  By the way, my wife
knew about the tape long before we were married.

>If nothing else, the LAST thing I need is to have women avoid going
>out with me for fear I may have caught AIDS the night before. It
>really ruins the chances for an intimate interlude.

Only with idiot people who can't believe you when you say you're not
gay.  Such people are not worthy of my attention; perhaps you should
raise your standards.

>However, let me ask YOU a question. Would you care if I braodcast to
>your employers, co-workers, and friends you'd been bu-fu by another
>man???  Or, do the opinions of those who can hire and fire you matter
>on this.

Go ahead, tell anybody you want.  I've told most of my friends, I've
posted about it several times on news, and I'm generally quite open
about it. 

I personally think it horrid that our society punishes people who get
sexually assaulted, and I think it's horrid that you seem uninterested
in changing this, or at least seem to accept it as some sort of
'status quo'.

>Further, I do not care what people think about me as long as it is
>accurate.  I am arrogent, self-centered, rude, sexually uninhibited,
>somewhat chauvanistic, somewhat prejudiced, and lots of other things.
>I not only admit to all of that, but I don't care who knows any of
>that. If they have a problem with it, it's their problem.

If you don't care what people think about you, then why are you so
concerned about whether or not people would think you were gay?
--
A man walks into a crowded theater and shouts, "ANYBODY WANT TO BUY A
CAR?"  The crowd stands up and shouts back, "WRONG THEATER!"
	-- Edward Vielmetti (env@msen.com), news.admin
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: The reason for Rage
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:16:26 GMT
	<SCG.92Jul21085828@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Jul21.134948.8810@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<1992Jul22.035836.29793@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul22.083440.8833@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>Oh, I was fully aware he was insinuating I had homophobia. Which is
>why I simply brused it aside and used the word 'ranting'.

First of all, I'm straight.

I was also ranting not at your homophobia, but the homophobia of the
Austin police who handled my report.

>His ranting was that I was homophobic.

No, it was that the Austin police were homophobic.  Get it straight,
idjit.

>(A nice, politically correct word used to slam anyone who does not
>care about gay issues. [...])

Actually, I implied that you seem to have some problem with being
potentially viewed, even if incorrectly, as homosexual.  Why?

>As for homosexual rape, that is no different a crime that ordinary
>rape.

Then why is it handled differently?

Anyway, it may be where you are, but in most states, it's a totally
different crime.  Here in Indiana, rape is ONLY when a man has sex
with a woman without consent.  Same-sex "rape" would be "deviant
sexual conduct".  Both are Class B felonies, I believe; the difference
is that rape can be elevated to Class A if deadly force is used.  DSC
has no such provision.

>But, as there is information out there to indicate that a significant
>percentage of men who get raped are singled out because they are gay
>(right or wrong, that perceotion exists) to be the victim of gay rape
>is to start to have people suspect you are gay.

Why should I care if people suspect I'm gay?  The simple fact is, I'm
not gay.  The fact that most people are idiots should not (and will
not) stand in my way to report a heinous crime against my person.

>That is why I would not report it.

In other words, you're afraid of being thought of as gay by idiots.
Why do you place so much stock in the opinions of idiots?
--
A man walks into a crowded theater and shouts, "ANYBODY WANT TO BUY A
CAR?"  The crowd stands up and shouts back, "WRONG THEATER!"
	-- Edward Vielmetti (env@msen.com), news.admin
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: <None>
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:24:57 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <namm_5q@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
> synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:
> 
>>> When people say they fantasize about raping someone, are they referring
>>> to a nonviolent scene such as Rolfe described earlier, or something
>>> very different? 
>>
>> Based on personal experience and observation -- namely, growing up
>> around and being socialized with other males -- I've seen that most men
>> visualize a scenario of simply "getting sex" at the expense of whoever
>> is on the receiving end -- a purely selfish goal. 
> 
> And just how many of these males you were socialized with have gone into
> detail with you about their rape fantasies, Synth?  Do you have hard data
> or are you generalizing based on an example or two and a lot of
> assumptions? 
> 
> --
> Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Although you raise an important question, I tend to believe what Syth has found
is probably the norm. Let's face it, when you fantaszie, you tend not to get
overly elaborate. In mainstream fantasies (regular other partners kind of
thing), how many people sit there and fantasize about LOTS of foreplay? Just as
in real life that is too much work. ;-)  My guess would be that the more
elaborate and sadistic the the plot becomes, or repetitive, the more likely you
are dealing with someone who is crossing into neurosis.

But, that is my GUESS.

DC
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:45:50 GMT
	<1992Jul28.145113.4251@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
	<1992Jul28.134937.9015@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>The biggest difference I can think of is a woman can fulfill her
>sexual fantasies any time she wants. Men must wait for the woman to
>want to fulfill hers before they can fulfill theirs. 

Doesn't it generally take two (or more) to fulfill a sexual fantasy?
How it is any different for women?  A woman needs a willing partner
(male or female), just as a man does.

I suspect there is an underlying assumption that you're making.
Perhaps something about how men are always ready to perform?

By the way, some of my sexual fantasies do not involve women in any
way.  Some require both men and women.  Please be careful not to shove
'sexual fantasies' into the heterosexual one-on-one mold.

>(Not fair in the least!) The end result is a woman fantasizes about
>exercising this option of sex on demand, while the man fantasizes
>about having the option of sex on demand.

I find the entire concept of 'sex on demand' extremely revolting.
--
The real question for 1988 is whether we're going to go forward to tomorrow or
past to the -- to the back!
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Question for Scott
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 16:58:42 GMT

In article <SCG.92Jul24192917@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>>I am glad that you agree with me that there are a plethora of reasons
>>to not report a rape.
>
>Unfortunately, there are.  What bothers me is that you don't seem to
>consider this to be a problem.

Bingo!  That's exactly what I find so annoying about DC's posts.  It
alarms me that a law student can be so clueless.  His solution is that
he'd take the law into his own hands (albeit that he says that he'd
expect to be punished for that).  What about the rape victims who want
justice but don't want to take the law into their own hands?  DC seems
to have no answer for them.

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Discussions of particular rape victims (was flaming DC)
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.215130.21133@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

>>8) I'll only tell you this one time.  Leave my wife out of your post.  I can
>>   assure you that I am serious on this point.  I am deadly serious.  You are
>
>   I think you should decide what you can talk about, and what you can't,
>before you post. It's not possible to argue with you if we have to worry
>about stepping on landmines.
>   You are absolutely right, _you_ brought you wife into the argument. In
>fact she was the sole reason for you articles. As far as I am concerned,
>you have only two choices, retract statment 8, or 'u' this group, and
>don't come back.

Does any rape/abuse victim/survivor's identity belong in this news group
without their explicit consent - even if their name has been mentioned?

I vote no.  Stop now.  Hurtfully dragging the identity of a person who
is already needing to be more in control of his/her life through usenet
continually is bad.  Possible prior errors in judgement are not a good
enough reason to be hurtful.

That said it is not always best to be overly protective of victims,
either, for roughly the same reasons.  I have this failing however,
and have to be careful thereof - and am also guilty of prior errors in
judgement on similar matters.

I would be glad to recieve an e-mail address from the of >> quoted
material.  I have not managed to reach him with several tries.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Newsgroups: talk.rape