HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wadlow@bela.music.washington.edu (John Wadlow)
Subject: Re: Am I a grandfather? You be the judge.
Reply-To: jwad@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:43:02 GMT

I just had to post about my family.

Well, I have my pap-pa who I consider completely to be my grandfather,  
however, he is technically my step-grandfather.  I never knew this growing  
up but in my teens I had asked my mother who Grandma Suzie was and she  
answered, honestly, that she was the women who remarried my grandfather  
that I had never known (he died before I was born)  It was surprising but  
it never changed my view of my pap-pa.

Next I have my half-sister which I found out I had in third grade because  
I had a huge argument over whether I was an uncle or not.  Basically I  
knew I was but none of my brothers had kids back then so I couldn't back  
it up.  Well, I asked my mom and found out that Claudette was my sister (I  
had thought she was my aunt, she is 20 yrs older than me) and my dad had  
been married before he married my mom.  My sister wasn't around much  
mainly because of custody stuff but after my father died ( *erk!* men die  
too young in my family) my mother and sister developed a strong  
mother/adult relationship.

When I was about fifteen my mother remarried to my step-dad.  I not only  
got a new dad but a huge Irish family to boot.  I feel lucky to have  
gotten to know my Grandpa Sterling before he died and I cherish my  
relationship with my Grandma Sterling (I don't put step in front becuase  
there is no need to).  I also enjoy knowing my step-brother and  
step-sister.  (I even got to know my step-dad's x-wife who turned out to  
be pretty cool but it definitely was weird)  At the time my mom got  
remarried, I remember thinking it was neat that I got another set of  
grandparents.  I'm still the youngest person in the immediate family but I  
think that all my brothers and sisters have a good relationship with  
everyone.   

My relationship with my step-dad isn't as close as I would like it to be.   
I think I was too old to get to know him as *dad* and I refer to him by  
his first name.  However, when talking to others I always refer to him as  
my dad unless I end up talking about my real dad then I have to go trough  
this long story of who is who.  I know that he has had a huge influence in  
my life, and I partially contribute my going to college because of him.   
We may never have a father/child relationship but I really hope that our  
father/adult relationship continues to grow.  Now, if I could only find  
the time to take him to a Husky Football game.  

I've got aunts and uncles and cousins and nephews and nieces (etc)  
everywhere now.  I enjoy all my grandparents and I think, all in all,   
that my family is close and friendly to one another and, thinking of my  
brothers and sisters, we turned out to be o.k.  I think that if there is  
love, understanding, and respect a family is a family.

john a wadlow
jwad@milton.u.washington.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:15841 soc.women:16064
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "family values"
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:50:20 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "family values"
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)
Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep1.135210.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
)In article <1992Aug28.195009.28283@wolves.uucp>, woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller) writes:
)> Mr. EuStress,
)> 
)> If the agents of the court were placing financial burdens on randomly
)> selected men, there would be some justification for calling this
)> "financial rape."  However, there is nothing random about seeking
)> out a person such as you, who participated in bringing children
)> into the world, and requiring you to pay for support of these children.

	[excellent article deleted for bandwidth. Read it. It's good.]

)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
)|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)|  I personally cannot condone non-payment, as it  does indeed hurt the  |
)| children. But along with money, they need BOTH their parents in their  |
)| lives in a fair balance. After all, SOMEBODY has to teach them how to  |
)| parallel park!  :)                                                     |
)|  On a more serious note, what kind of an experience is it being a      |
)| child growing up with a mother who made you lie about things your      |
)| father was supposed to have done to you?  In your heart of hearts, you |
)| know it's a lie. You know YOU were part of that lie, no matter how much|
)| pressure your mother put on you. That has to affect your self esteem   |
)| as you grow up.  And lets face it, the mother/child family unit built  |
)| on falsehoods is hardly going to teach a child any lessons about honor |
)| integrity and fairness. People who complain that children from "broken"|
)| homes show a much higher incidence of crime ought to take a look at    |
)| this aspect.                                                           |
)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike, I'm here to tell you that what you describe in your .sig is abuse.
Emotional abuse. It can be used successfully in winning custody. I did.
Some judges, even judges that really feel kids should be with Mom, think
that this situation is indefensible. Maybe not enough, but they exist.

teh other point here is that using the term "rape" in relation to this
obfuscates rather than focuses the issue. The court WILL respond to
abuse allegations, they would not like to hear this sort of abuse called
rape.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals
Subject: Re: DANGER!!!!
From: rdale@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:59:50 GMT
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

> Illinois if you want to know what paying taxes is really like.  Why would the
> news media say that the literacy rate in Arkansas has risen greatly if it
> wasn't true?

	Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
        ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

	"The news media"!  Thanks for your joke.  It really made my day!
	In a recent survey, the top 3 professions distrusted the most
	were politician, lawyer, and journalist.

	Vote for Bill Clinton and you'll be writing your penpal letters
	on the toilet paper!  Bwa ha ha ha.  Sheesh!  But the
	alternative is BUSH!  . . . . . .  REVOLUTION!!!!!!
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 27 Aug 1992 22:56:00 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
  What a bunch of self-serving bullshit.  By these asshole's
  reasoning, there is no rape.  A child's only problem when
  approached by someone so deranged that they see a lone
  child, or children playing away from adults as a sexual
  opportunity is, how shall that child turn down sex without
  hurting the other.  If you are so emotionally damaged that you
  need to have sex with children, then you should lock yourself
  up.
 
(Jeffrey Boser) writes:
 Boy richard, sure know how to lay on the insults eh?  No,
 according to their reasoning, they know the definition of
 rape.  rape is sex without consent.   they are saying that
 they had experiences where such consent was denied, and no
 sex took place.
 
You miss the point. Just because Tom Chapin, et al were
approached as youngsters, said no and suffered no 
harmful consequences doesn't mean that mother-child
sex (which is where this started) is a good thing,
or that other children will be so lucky.

Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Love love can turn Jekylls into Hydes
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:08:51 GMT

Aaron reprints a USA Today article, and then claims that lawyers are
to blame for the outrageous behavior exhibited by clients acting
extrajudicially.  Yet, in his own post, Aaron unwittingly gives evidence
damaging his argument/assertion.

In article <1992Aug24.024614.844@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Source: USA Today, Friday, August 21, 1992
>
>By Karen S. Peterson
>[...]
>Louise B. Raggio of Dallas tells why she keeps a chainsaw in her
>office.  A multimillion dollar settlement was hanging up on a $159
>chainsaw both splitting spouses wanted.  "I went out and bought another
>one for him to settle it.  Then after it was all over she gave me
>her's, saying she never really wanted it in the first place; she just
>didn't want him to have it."
>
>And she shows the trophy to other unreasonable clients.
>[...]
>Mattenson says the healthiest of his clients treat the divorce process
>"like an operation.  They want to get it done with and get out of the
>operating room."
>
>########################################################################
>
>In effect, what all these professionals
>are saying is that people in divorces go wacko because of the stresses
>of breaking up.  Yet, the divorce system itself, which encourages this
>kind of behavior and rewards the most contemptuous litigants, is
>absolved.  Funny thing that the lawyers don't think they have anything
>to do with this problem, wouldn't you say?

Well, if you read the article, the lawyers seem to be the rational ones
involved.  It certainly wasn't the lawyer holding up a multi-million
dollar settlement over a chainsaw.  Note the lawyer that says the
healthiest clients are the ones who settle quickly -- in other words,
it's the clients who are driving the process, the couples who turn
a breakup into a disaster.  It certainly wasn't a lawyer encouraging
a husband to dump manure into a safety-deposit box.  Changing the
divorce laws isn't going to change these people's sense of betrayal
or desire for revenge.  Hoffmeyer's blame of the legal system for
these basic human emotions (anyone remember the myth of Medea?  the
Greeks were writing thousands of years before the current Anglo-American
divorce system, but somehow a Greek dramatist had the foresight to
convey emotions that could only be caused by the current legal system) is
a non sequitur.
-- 
             ......................................................
             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,alt.child-support,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: "Winning" Personal Rights
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:59:53 GMT

Woody Muller writes
> In your case, a "win" is . . . lesser support amount
> liberal visitation rights . . . is also a "win."

   You can't tell me what a "win" is!
   2 teams play -- one wins.  You're on the
   "family values" team -- I'm on the
   "personal rights" team.

    MY win is NOT your win!!
    Jesus -- I've reapeated this over and
    over to you -- my win is not your win!

>I'd take the legal brief Bob so generously prepared . . .

   Go suck my dick!

>>   "Playing the game" -- as you call it -- 
>>   is just avoiding rape by being willing.
> Your use of the term [rape]
> applies equally well to what you want to do to your kids.

    Avoidance is NOT rape.
    Avoidance prevents rape.

>It's pretty obvious that you want to martyr yourself.

    Yea?  And it's "pretty obvious" that
    you're a duck with a large red bill.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:16:04 GMT

In article <715561914@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.201838.14188@u.washington.edu> 
>twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>
>>The latest whine is that people who are left-handed tend to die five 
>>to seven years earlier than right-handers.  
>
>Tell me Barbara, do you call "whine" to women's "59 cents!" complain?
>
>Tell me Barbara, do you call "whine" to women who complain that
>tools have been designed to men's hands?
>
>Just wondering...

Jeez, get a life, Hillel. 

 I thought it was abundantly clear that as a left-handed person myself, 
I was making fun of those who make claims about Special Status. 

If you can't get a life, get a sense of humor. 

--Barbara
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:07:48 GMT

In article <10478@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
)Seth Breidbart writes
)
)+ All of the women I've dated have fingers, toes, tongues, breasts, and
)+ other appendages capable of penetrating my mouth.  YMMV
)
)Do you know any cops personally? As an experiment, see what their
)reaction is to "I was raped by a woman!".
)
)I betcha they'll say: What? You were raped by a WHAT? *snicker*

Yes, I'd also like to see you explain to a cop that you were raped because
a woman stuck her finger or tounge in your mouth during foreplay and you
didn't give her explicit permission beforehand.

Please record your conversation & post it to the net! :-)

I'd bet you'd find that you didn't have a leg to stand on legally, either.

If she stuck her finger up your rectum, you might have an actual  legal case,
but I'd still like to see the conversation with the cop - I'd bet you'd have
a *whole lot* of difficulty getting that case prosecuted.  And if you did
get it prosecuted, why, I'd bet it was thrown out of court.

So, yes, the law is sexixst in practice regardless of whether it may or may
not be theoretically gender neutral (I don't think it is even close, BTW).
Xref: sparky soc.men:15872 soc.women:16100 alt.feminism:504
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:17:13 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury) writes:
>
>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. 

I suspect that men often don't know how much makeup a woman is
wearing.  In particular, some women they think wear no makeup
are in fact wearing some.  

Moreover, our notions of beauty can't help but be influenced by
2-dimensional, somewhat lo-res images, such as photographs and tv/film
pictures, in which it is difficult to assess how muck makeup is
involved.  Here's an example.  When I moved from the US to the UK and
say Dallas for the first time in the UK, I was surprised at how madeup
and "fake" all the faces looked.  Sure, they didn't look completely
natural in the US either, but viewers weren't so strongly made aware
that they looked unnatural.  And, indeed, they looked more natural
in the US.  TV has higher resolutuion in the UK.

In short, what most people think of as "natural" and no-makeup is
probably skewed in the direction of some-makeup.  Women (and men
who use makeup) are presumably more aware of the truth than the
rest of us.

>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.

Well, _of course_, he thinks you look best when wearing the amount
of makeup he thinks makes you look best.  How could it be otherwise?

I don't think this should discredit the idea that some makeup can
look better than none.  Of course, it's the person wearing it who
should decide how much they want to wear.  But looking better to
other people whose opinion you care about is not necessarily a bad
reason for doing something.

>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.

Agreed.

-- jd
Xref: sparky soc.men:15574 soc.women:15870
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Denied visitation by CP - Solution
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:01:05 CDT

In article <7560110@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>  Perhaps the court costs from an NCP trying to get visitation enforced
>could be deducted from child support?


  When I inquired (Affidavit and Motion) the judge simply replied:

No.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 29 Aug 1992 00:13:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

  ljf wrote:

  You're fortunate.  Unfortunately, some of us were approached sexually
  by the very people who were supposed to protect us.  When you're three
  or four and the person you love the most wants to have sex with you,
  the chances aren't really good that you'll say no.
 
 Tom Chapin writes:

 "Fortunate" implies statistical minority.  I do not know that.  From
 my memory of my experience and those of my friends and playmates at
 the time, it would seem that my experience was the norm, while

It seems the rest of the post doesn't really address
the issue ljf brought up: i.e., that if you're 3 or 4
4 years old, you won't say no.

Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:56:24 GMT

Dan O'Connell writes:
>It seems the rest of the post doesn't really address
>the issue ljf brought up: i.e., that if you're 3 or 4
>4 years old, you won't say no.

The issue was previously addressed.  I was three or four years old.
I was asked by someone older, stronger, and in a caretaking position
over me.  I said no.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Soychak v. Chapin
Date: 1 Sep 1992 21:54:15 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 ljf wrote:

  	I realize it's easy to overstate your case when you get pissed
  off, but to compare the drubbing you're taking in here to being raped
  is a gross exaggeration.  If another poster posted that I was a
  lunatic who only fantasized about being molested as a child and was
  really a child molester, this still wouldn't compare to rape.
 
 ( Tom Chapin ) replies:

                    But even though the gentler forms of emotional
 abuse, such as those perpetrated on the Net, certainly "wouldn't
 compare to rape," the potential consequences of such abuse could
 make the horrors of sexual abuse look tame by comparison.  
 
 It can happen [emotional abuse] here.  Because it already has.
 
I hardly think the exchange between you and Rich constitutes
emotional abuse. If the consequences of expressing your opinion
is causing you such pain, perhaps it would be good to desist.

In short, I think you are over-reacting.

Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: asparrow@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:15:21 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <4845@daily-planet.concordia.ca> honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna) writes:
>I doubt that it is possible to disentangle the facts of jewelry and cosmetics
>from the current state of the world and even *suggest* that anyone's
>*enjoyment* of these things is not intractably linked with the perception
>of self by others - and by extension, the assessment/judgement/appraisal of
>self by those same others.  It seems to me self-deception to wear the 
>mantle of *enjoyment* in re: jewelry and cosmetics - Can You see the earrings
>that you are wearing?  Can you see your necklace?  Can you see the visual
>effect of make-up on your own face in a more-or-less typical (social) setting?
>Can you see the effect of that scarf on your face?  

I cannot see the earrings I'm wearing, but I can feel them
move on my neck (I like the long dangly ones) and it arouses me.
I am buxom enough that a siump[le glance doiwn at the keyboard
brings my necklace into vision (Of course, the picture of my
baby is upside down from this angle...)
No make up and I don't wear a scarf.

I am no longer in school, so my chance of an experiment
is put off until grad school (2008 at the latest)

Angel, long-term mother type.
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Thoughts on this whole Woody and Mia thing...
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:22:08 GMT
Distribution: soc.men, soc.women
Organization: The following is all GERG'S fault!


 I personally feel that what Woody Allen did with Soon Yi Previn was 
*really* stupid, but I have even more of a problem with what Mia has 
subsequently done.

She and that Dershowitz character have fed her eleven children to the wolves.
Helicopters follow Soon-Yi to school, and Mia has reportedly already been on
talk shows and such with the remaining children...or maybe it was just Dylan.
In either case, between that and the tape of Dylan she has been waving under 
people's noses, how much privacy do you think they have now? Zippo, most 
likely, and that truly sucks. Mia has turned this whole thing into a media 
circus out of her hurt and anger, IMHO. 

I have been truly apalled at the women posting here saying that they would have
done the same thing [made false accusations against a spouse/lover] in similar 
circumstances. Making false accusations carries a stiff penalty in California, 
both via successful libel/slander, or spurious case suits. I have no idea what 
the legal situation in New York is, but if Mia's claims *are* indeed false, 
then I hope she goes down in flames...and does time. 

Removing the children from her care would be a sad undertaking, but if she is
speaking out of anger and lying, then she needs to suffer the consequences of
her actions. She most likely won't though...stars rarely suffer.

As I said above, what Woody did was really stupid, but no matter how hurt or
angry one is, there is *no* justification for making false accusations. Yes, 
rejection and betrayal hurt and *all* that, but if you are going to BS in a 
court of law, be sure you can deal with the consequences of your actions.  

Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape