HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:45:53 GMT

amy lynn young-leith (alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <1jjru2INN3kb@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM writes:
: >The problem is that this isn't always a safe bet. I've heard more than one
: >"authority" on rape (including the head of the Women's Rape Counseling Center
: >in D.C., whose name unfortunately escapes me) claim that a woman who realizes
: >in the morning that she probably didn't want to have sex (or wouldn't have if
: >she'd thought about it some more) has been raped. What this amounts to is
: >the ability to retroactively rescind consent.
: 
: But please remember that not all women think like one that you pick
: out to use as an example of what a group may think.  

The problem is how to spot them?
If rather than actually charging people with rape use it for blackmail, then
it is less obvious.

: 
: >This may mean that a perfectly well-meaning male may wake in the morning to
: >find out that he's a rapist. As males already have the greater burden
: >(culturally and perhaps biologically) for initiating sexual interludes and
: >interpreting their partners' responses, this sort of thing obviously makes
: >them a little uncomfortable.
: 
: I can't understand the flak I've gotten in email about my opinions on
: this.  I doubt I'd get this much if I posted that I thought all men
: were scum!!  I don't think having sex with someone who consents is
: rape just because they are drunk!  The way I look at it, these
: charges normally happen because 1)woman gets drunk.  2)Woman ends up
: consenting to sex, WILLINGLY has intercourse.  3)Woman wakes up in the
: morning and feels bad about what she's done, and foots off the
: responsability by trying to call it rape.  This is rediculous.  

The thing is that there are people who will agree with her (I would call them
"treating the woman as a child"), these people are also loud and backed up
by more than a few lawyers and cops.

: 
: Now on the other hand, I think having sex with someone who is
: unconscious is rape.  They CANNOT give consent.  Having sex with a

(except in ONE exceptional circumstance, which is where they have specifically
requested it)

: drunk woman who does not give consent is rape.  Where's the problem
: here?  *I* did not make the laws which we live under today, and I do
: not like them.  Hence I try to change them.  

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:27:46 GMT

amy lynn young-leith (alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <1jl2moINNlq3@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
: >Karl brings up an interesting question.  Suppose a person (let's remove 
: >gender, and just talk about drunkenness) goes to a restaurant and gives
: >the key to the valet, then gets drunk, then gets the key back from the
: >valet, drives, and gets in a traffic accident.  Is the restaurant 
: >liable?
: 
: I don't think they are. 
: 
: >I believe that CA has a law that hosts who allow party guests to 
: >drive home drunk are liable for damages caused if the drunk gets in
: >an accident.  Anyone else know more about this?

I think the only situation where this applies is in a situation where
alcohol is sold and consumed on the same premises i.e. A bar or restaurant,
in that the bar tender or waiter can refuse to serve alcohol to someone
who they consider to be intoxicated.

At a party, who is selling the alcohol?

Giving somone responsability for anothers drunkeness only makes sense if that
person has control over the supply of alcohol (and the ability to tell if
the person is drunk). A bar tender or waiter is in a position to do this.

The host of a party is unlikely to be able to.

: 
: Again, this is another attempt to pawn off responsability.  Why should
: those who sell drinks have to play babysitter?  The same is seemingly
: happening with gun sellers as well.  Someone sells a gun by legal

(or a kitchen knife, an axe, large lump of wood)

: means, and if that gun is used in a murder, the victim's family tries
: to prosecute the seller of the gun.  If it's legal to sell guns, then
: there's nothing wrong with selling them!  It's the person who uses it
: for an illegal use that should be prosecuted!!  What's next, someone
: OD's on aspirin, and we sue Krogers because they sold it to them?? 

Unfortunatly there are people daft enough to try this (and people even
dafter who will back them up).
: 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Groups
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:46:48 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

|> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
|>Does anyone have any information about men's/men's movement groups in
|>the Wash DC area.  Im on a low budget and am less interested in the
|>drum banging/ war paint set.

In article <C0pyz8.621@idm.com> rjr@idm.com (Ray J Rueb) writes:
|I'd again like to post this information:
|I'm involved in the men's organization known as ``The New Warriors''.
|These are the men featured on the Phil Donohue show.

Thanks, guys for bringing up an excellent topic, and one much more
germane to me than most.

If anyone else has information about similar groups, please don't be
shy, post it here. I for one will be listening.

Thanks again,
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: bodily autonomy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:35:55 GMT

In article <1jl12jINNl7o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>let's take this "bodily autonomy" thing for a minute, and see where it leads
>>us....
>
>>Would you agree that one's mind, and its output, is under a person's control
>>as bodily autonomy?  That is, that the output of a mind is something which a
>>person has absolute control over?
>
>>Would you agree that the output of one's muscles and other body processes is 
>>also under a person's control as bodily autonomy.  That is, the physical 
>>exertion (excretion, etc) of a person is something which a person should 
>>have absolute control over?
>
>The mind itself, yes.  The body itself, yes.  The output, no.
>This runs into issues of property rights, with which I am largely unfamiliar.

Is it a _general_ tendency of yours to trample all over things which you don't 
understand?

Learn what an "arbitrary deprivation of property" is, Michal, or an "excessive
fine", and how those things violate our Constitution...

								- Kevin
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Nice Guy's and the women who dump them
Date: 26 Jan 1993 01:22:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>The problem of not listening to women and being skinny are two that
>I had when I was young and the solutions I offered were the one's I
>took. 

I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to starbuck's comments.  Some
women *like* skinny men.  (Thought very few women like men who don't
ever listen.)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:51:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1993Jan25.231201.21812@informix.com> mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole) writes:
>Announcements on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The Super  
>Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events of the year; it is  
>also the day, according to women's shelters, when calls for help increase  
>by as much as 40%.

Domestic violence and other violence between intimates is a very
serious problem that needs to be addressed seriously.   Yet the popular
notion is that domestic violence means men beating women.   Yet,
consistently, studies that do not rely on crime report statistics
(that is, studies that sample a representative cross-section of the
population) indicate that violence between intimates is as frequently
women-on-men as it is men-on-women.   Studies also indicate that
consistently domestic homicide is as often women killing men as it is
men killing women.

Okay, calls for help to women's shelters increases 40% on Super Sunday.
Any statistics on the effect on calls for help to men's shelters?

Ed Matz		ematz@world.std.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:23242 alt.feminism:7619 soc.singles:37890
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:36:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:

>In article <1jstv4INNl7l@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>Such a good point I thought I'd paraphrase it.  The "nice guys" 
>>get happily married and go out of circulation.  The "jerks" are still
>>out there dating.
>>
>  That assumes that the nice guys married nice women.
>I suspect that for every male jerk there is an equal but opposing female 
>jerk, just as for every "nice guy" there is a "nice gal". 

Good point.  "Jerk" is an equal opportunity condition.

>  Just because someone is available for dating doesn't mean they are a jerk.

Certainly not.  However, past a certain age (say, two standard deviations 
above the mean age of marriage), one would be wise to consider *why* a 
certain person is "available for dating".  There may be a really good 
reason (eg, one of the sweetest people I know was widowed at the age of
25).  Or they may be a jerk.  Let the datee beware.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:35:43 GMT

intensit@netlink.cts.com (Michael J. Callahan) writes:

>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>> Let me also point out that there are certain parts of the country in
>> which an older woman is essentially unmarriageable, unless she has
>> an extremely valued physical appearance. I base this conclusion on
>> knowing, in two such geographical areas, middle-aged women who are
>> handsome (although not *standardly* beautiful), personable,
>> socially skilled, intelligent, well-groomed (all these good things) --
>> and yet appear to have resigned themselves, unwillingly, to singleness.
>> 
>> (To paraphrase Horace Greeley, go West... :-) )

>  Excuse me.  Could you please tell me where?

The "go West" is instructions to the *woman*. The sections of the
country I were talking about were New York City and the Midwest.
Here in the Midwest (where I have fortunately or unfortunately
been living for the past four years) it seems that middle-aged
women who are a size 20 don't date -- whatever else they have
going for them. (This was very definitely not the case in the Silicon
Valley.) 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:53:09 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>   Both the New York Times and LA Times News services reported
>   over the weekend that when Bill Clinton was choosing an 
>   Attorney General he limited his search to only women!   

>   And what effect would this have on compliance with anti-dis-
>   crimination laws, knowing that the Justice Department itself
>   was run by someone chosen by a process that violates the very 
>   statutes they are attempting to enforce?

Yes, the public can indeed recognize that hiring an illegal immigrant
is illegal -- creating an especially strong ethical problem for
an Attorney General.  But, you see, the public recognizes that
discrimination against anybody *except* white males is an offense; 
thus there is no conflict for an Attorney General or a President 
who is outspokenly prejudiced.  [sarcasm]

I wonder whether it would make a difference to observe that Clinton's 
"ethical search methods" discriminated against African American men, Native
American men, Hispanic men, Asian men, and physically-challenged men, 
among others?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23296 alt.dads-rights:3515
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:02:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>Do not allow the child to be placed for an adoption until
>suitable tests have been taken (eg. blood, DNA, etc) and
>a registry of the kind Michal imagines already exists 
>has been searched.  Enact a rebuttable presumption that if
>the father is found, he shall have sole custody if he desires.

This requires the existence of a registry with genetic
information on all possible parents.  Would an individual 
be able to opt out of providing her/her genetic record
for the registry?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:56:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <1993Jan24.220955.18245@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>What has happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"  You don't see
>much of it in this country anymore. 

What????  Willie Kennedy smith's acquittal is a testament to the fact
that "innocent until proven guilty" is very alive and well in this country.

a number of people are trying to say that the smith case shows the opposite,
when, instead, Smith was acquitted.  The fact that alleged victim had broken
ribs was not allowed as evidence in the case because the investigators
collecting evidence botched the case from inexperience in investigating
rape cases.  when photographing the woman's body, to show the injuries,
the photographers didn't know that they had to include in the photograph
the woman's face or something to prove it was her body with the injuries.
it could not be shown to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that Smith had
inflicted these injuries on the woman.  disallowing this evidence on
this grounds is the essence of "innocent until proven guilty" at work.

innocent until proven guilty means you acquit anyone for which there isn't
enough evidence to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is
guilty. innocent until proven guilty has never meant that people are
not allowed to form their own opinions about the case.  it means that the
justice system prevents people from acting on those opinions, instead leaving
the job to a justice system that is supposed to be fair in not falsely
convicting people of crimes.

if the justice system has fault, it is in *acquitting* too many people,
not in convicting too many.  very few rape cases lead to convictions in
this country.  if we are to deal with this problem, we need to address
this issue.  this is a difficult issue exactly because of the "innocent
until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" that is built in to our
legal code.  thus, for now, we are stuck with "innocent until proven guilty"
and very low rates of conviction in rape cases. 

Figuring out how to increase the rate of conviction in actual rapes up to
anything close to that of other violent crimes, without infringing on
the "innocent until proven guilty" that has remained sacred in our legal
system to this day is one of the important challenges facing us today.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:09:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>That's both a good point and a particularly good way of putting it--I'd
>>suggest that it goes even a little further than that, since most "jerks"
>>never actually go out of circulation [...] 
>
>Such a good point I thought I'd paraphrase it.  The "nice guys" 
>get happily married and go out of circulation.  The "jerks" are still
>out there dating.

Or as one of the [few] women I work with put it....

  my women friends think that working at microsoft would be great...
  men, men, men...and the men/woman ratio [we're in MS-DOS/Windows]
  is good.  But...the intersection of the set of men who are desirable
  [in terms of personality, interests, etc] with the set of men who
  are available is usually null.

  Or, if a man is available...it's usually for cause.

-jen
 [of course, if I didn't label all men in my immediate workgroup 
  'undesirable, it wouldn't be null in my case. but dating someone
  in my immediate group might induce insanity. oh well....]
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Re: Back to responsibility
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:33:54 GMT

In article <1jhnskINN964@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
 
Compare:

>There is still the question of bodily autonomy.  A woman has a right
>to decide to what uses her body will be put.  
>Consent to sex is not consent to allow one's body to be used by the
>foetus, nor is it consent to allow the father to force or rent one's
>body for the gestation of his child.
>Consent to sex is not consent to allow the father or the state to 
>force one to undergo surgery (abortion *is* surgery).

to :

>Why *alone*?  Doesn't a child have the right to be supported by both
>of its parents?

The woman can't be limited in any way, but the father has the 
"responsibility" to pay for the woman's choice. What garbage. 

If you took your rhetoric half seriously, "responsibility" would begin with 
a woman not being so irresponsible as to bring a child into the world she 
couldn't support. Your arguments for forcing men into indentured slavery 
have no basis in a world where "responsibility" is applied consistently. 

---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:03:23 -0500

In article <11784@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>I have a stock answer to this, but I really want to know the answer to 
>this question:
>
>Why does this fact make the intent harder to fish out?
>This is a serious question.  I want to know your reasoning.

These laws were made by a male dominated system.  Yet, these laws have
been twisted so that it's very easy for a woman to use them unfairly
against a man. Now why would men make laws that were going to be used
agsinst them unfairly?

As for the person who didn't believe that rape laws originated as a
crime against property, then why, for the longest time, was it not
considered rape if you were married?  A married woman could only be
raped by a man that was not her husband.  She could *not* be raped by
her husband, even if she was forced to have sex against her will with
him.  

amy



-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             I.U. probably doesn't agree with me.  I don't speak for
                    them so it doesn't matter, now does it? 
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:02:44 GMT

   Forgive my presumption, I just dropped by to what the crazies were
up to. I'm curious about this assertion that 80% of all divorces are
because the husband was abusive ...

   Gosh!

   How is this abuse measured? is it whatever the women (none of whom
has ever been wrong on any substative point) say it is or is the
husband even consulted (and if he is, who cares). I think that these
ridiculous numbers just float off the top of some people's heads
(there's certainly nothing to hold them down). Want to win an
argument, just quote some outrageous statistic, it doesn't matter if
it's accurate or even true, your cause justifies any device in its
futherence.

   If you'd like to reply, use mail, I won't be back ...

Bill
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:20:44 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <16B6184D5.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
>In article <C1BpFC.A35@cs.mcgill.ca>
>chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie) writes:

>>Do you think he should be LEGALLY guilty of anything?  Why should he be
>>punished, what did he do wrong?  If he was drunk himself, why is he more
>>guilty than she?
>>

>I didn't say that a man who takes advantage of a woman's diminished capacity
>was in the same catagory as one who used force or fear.  Indeed, I specifically
>said that to consider the two in the same class was unjust.

Fine.  I wouldn't put people who copy music tapes for friends with serial
killers, either.  And copying tapes is illegal, even...

>HOEWVER, the first
>man HAS acted less than honourably in taking advantage of the woman's lessened
>capacity, and to have NOTHING happen to him would also be unjust.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.  Cheating at
Monopoly is less than honourable, but you don't give people criminal
records for it.  I think you need to get things in perspective.

>It would
>not even REALLY be needful for the courts to become involved; if, once his
>behaviour became known nobody would have anything to do with him for a while
>it might be punishment enough.

WHAT HAS HE DONE THAT SHOULD BE PUNISHED ?

Lots of people do things that are "less than honourable".  They don't
necessarily get thrown in jail, which is what you seem to want.

You also, typically, do not address:

	- What if he is drunk himself, and they both agree to have sex.

This *does* *not* belong in talk.rape, since this situation IS NOT RAPE.

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights