HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:19:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <1993Jan26.103845.15318@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <C1FBB1.KKw@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>>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.
>
>What about all the "regular" people who have charges of sexual
>harassment, child abuse, or rape levied against them, and despite
>the charges being dropped, or being found not guilty, are continually
>referred to as "accused rapist, child molstersts" etc?  And lose their
>job because of it?  Lose a custody battle because of it?  

what are you trying to say, that if a woman is raped she shouldn't file
charges because if the charges are dropped, the rapist will still be
labeled an accused rapist?  or, are you saying that we shouldn't form
are own opinions about someone?  i happen to believe that william kennedy
smith was guilty of rape.  i also happen to believe that the verdict
of not guilty was correct.  there was not adequate proof of the rape.
if the photos of the victim's injuries had been done properly, so that
the victim was identifiable from the photo (and assuming that these 
photos really were of the victim, who really was injured in these ways)
then i believe a verdict of guilty would have been justified.

if you are so sure that false accusations are damaging people's lives 
maybe you can supply a list of 10 rape cases that hit the courts in
the US, where the final verdict was not guilty, but the "accused"
lost their job because of the accusation. Facts please.

>I was not referring to a strictly courtroom version of this, but more
>the media and society in general.  People are all too quick to
>convict, lock up and throw away the key on someone before the case
>even hits the courts!

yes, people are entitled to form their own opinions before it hits the
courts. "innocent until proven guilty means the person gets a trial,
and the outcome dictates what happens to them, not public opinion.
nobody "convicted, locked up, and threw away the key" on William Kennedy Smith.
he didn't lose anything-- he went on to his medical internship in New Mexico,
and will becoem a practicing doctor after that.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:23415 talk.rape:3156
From: charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:20:38 GMT
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology

In article <1993Jan27.113457.5124@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
>
>Rape should be dealt with very seriously.  However, one MUST remember
>that charges can be filed BY anyone, ON anyone.  This is why we have
>courts that make a decision on charges, and not a system that simply
>runs to the accused's house and locks them up the minute someone files
>charges.  No one should be punished for having charges filed against
>them.  

Good point.  Then, unbelievably, Amy goes on to say...

>They are more than likely true, but for the same reason we have
>a judicial system, to keep innocent people from taking the hit of the
>law, we should also wait for a while after the first headline to start
>making social judgements of someone. 

"More than likely true"?  Please explain this.  What is so instantly
credible about a rape charge?  Why does presumption of innocence go
right out the window?

Charleen

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Michal - Who should protect your rights?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:56:34 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>I would dearly love to have such public records more easily available.
>A national computerized database of birth and death records would be a 
>good start. I don't see that this would violate privacy since such 
>records are already public -- but it would greatly improve access
>and simplify record-keeping.  Comments anyone?

A common misconception is that making "public" records more available
does not decrease privacy.  Many things that are public remain so
by virtue of the difficulty of retrieval -- the price of a house,
the age and number of people in your household, etc.  Nobody objected
(strongly) to their being public since the easy counterargument was,
"It's too hard to get that info, anyway."  You really have to re-evaluate
all sorts of "public" records before you broadcast them.

And imagine the resulting junk mail.  I find more serious problems with
the concept of making any "public" information easily accessible,
but I suggest you look at comp.risks/alt.privacy if you're interested
in discussing it.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:50:55 GMT

In article <C17KFJ.9Iz@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>>>Well now; consider the case where (b) is the only reason for a woman
>>>to have an abortion.  That is, there are no rapes, no congenital
>>>defects, no pain or possible medical problems for the mother or
>>>child-to-be.  Do you think such a society would make abortion
>>>legal or illegal?
>
>>A lovely ideal.  But how does one ensure pain-free pregnancy and birth?
>
>Apologies for being unclear.  Imagine an alternative universe in
>which the positions of men and women were identical w.r.t. the
>production of a child (clearly we can't get there from here, but
>it's an interesting thought experiment).  That is, there would be
>no more burden on women than there is right now on men.  The question
>is whether such a society would make abortion illegal altogether,
>whether it would allow either parent the decision of whether
>to abort, or whether it would require joint consent.
>
>If abortion would be illegal, then financial burdens would be
>considered an insufficient basis for choosing abortion.  If joint
>consent were required for an abortion, then in the case of disagreement
>it is possible to argue that the parent wanting the child should
>shoulder a greater share of the childcare/financial burden.  If
>either parent could cause the abortion, then it would be assumed
>that both parents wanted the child, and the burden would be shared
>equitably (possibly with time/money tradeoffs).
>
>I would tend towards the belief that such a society would make
>abortion illegal, at least if it had ethics comparable to those
>of our industrialized world, because it is so controversial at
>present, and many of those who support abortion do so only because
>of the burden placed on women.  This would suggest that financial
>burdens are not considered sufficient reason; which removes the
>force behind the movement for men to have (formal) input into the
>abortion decision.

Chris, what does baseless idealogical speculation prove? I observe that
reality often bears little similarity to the way I think things would
work out on their own. The problem is not with reality, but with the
model, which is unreal.

If pigs could fly, we'd all carry stout umbrellas. Sounds deep, don't
it? :^)  But it is meaningless.
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Sometimes when you think the earth moves, it is only an earthquake.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:23171 alt.abortion.inequity:6689
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: bodily autonomy
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:09:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>I don't see how compelling a NCP to support a child violates his/her
>>bodily autonomy.

>Would compelling *you* to pay for *my* child violate your bodily autonomy?

>That is, would it be a physical restriction on you if you were given
>the choice to:  (1) work 40 hours per week and give me 1/4 your salary;
>or (2) sit in jail?

No.  It is not the same as forcing a person to undergo unwanted surgery.
It is not the same as forcing a person to remain pregnant against their will.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:51:53 GMT

In article <C19CED.6n7@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Parental failure may actually be greater at the
>higher income levels, because jobs, especially the low-
>paid jobs, can be very stressful.  

Huh?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: wdh@faron.mitre.org (Dale Hall)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Followup-To: soc.men
Summary: a suggestion.
Keywords: child support
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:27:20 GMT

In article <30446@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>|> Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
>|> the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
>|> worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
>|> injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
>|> requirement for paternal notification.  
>
>I can support a requirement for paternal notification.  I'm not sure
>what to do in those cases where the mother doesn't know (or claims
>she doesn't know) who the father is, though.
>
>Scenario: Woman has baby she knows she can't support, and wishes to
>give up for adoption.  She claims she doesn't know who the father
>is.  
>
>Now what?   
>
>Options:
>1) refuse to allow Mom to give up Baby, even though she doesn't want
>the baby, and that would make her (I would think) more likely to
>abuse the child
>
>2) Force her to list all possible fathers and contact them all to
>see what they want to do.  If a possible father wants custody if the
>child is his, then do DNA tests to see if he's really the father. 
>If all possibles don't care if the child is put for adoption, then
>there's no problem.
>
>3) Figure that if she doesn't know, whoever she names would likely
>be uninterested/disbelieving that they were the father.
>
>#1 seems as if it would leave to child abuse.  #2 sounds fairest to
>me.   #3 doesn't give men enough credit for decency.
>
>What other ideas?

How come no one ever thinks of the child's right to financial support
by the biological parents, regardless of who's doing the actual
rearing?  After all, if the ma keeps the kid, the pa is tapped for
support.  If the pa keeps the kid, [ideally] the ma gets hit up for
child support.  Fairness suggests that if the child is placed into
adoption, a dollar amount be determined, and the biological parents be
held liable for that amount to be paid into a fund for the child's
benefit.  No problem if the ma can't recall who out of the entire
world might happen to be the pa, she's just required to fork over the
money.  The presence of a financial incentive sometimes works wonders.

Just idle speculation, that's all.
						Dale.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:55:47 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:

>: 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.

Guess again.  This is CA law.  If you have a party, one of your guests
gets drunk, drives off and injures someone, then you're liable.  It is 
a host's responsibility to ensure that his guests do not drive off if
they're drunk.  (The host can either call them a cab or have them stay 
over and sleep it off.)
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Don's interesting proposition
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:00:34 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Okay, Michal, you have 6 months to find *either* Rich Payne's
>>birth certificate or my son's birth certificate.  Otherwise I
>>claim the right to adopt your first child against your wishes.
>
>An interesting proposition.  What if it is against my husband's 
>wishes?

Both of you can look.

Do you need any more head-start advantages?

Don't forget, these challenges were inspired by YOUR claim
that it is feasible (easy, in fact) for a man to determine 
whether he's a father or not by checking public records.

But you wouldn't want to admit that that's unreasonable, would you?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23193 alt.abortion.inequity:6701 alt.feminism:7584
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:34:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1D79w.90G
Distribution: na

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>How does cunnilingus prevent pregnancy, then?
>
>Don, I'll explain when you're a little older.	:-)


I am a little older.  YOU wrote and then deleted:

>>>No I suggested cunnilingus as a way to prevent pregnancy.
>>>Perhaps if you think about it some more the difference between
>>>"cunnilingus" and "restrict to only cunnilingus" will become 
>>>clear to you.


If you don't mean that contact with sperm should be made impossible
(hence "restrict to only cunnilingus"), then how DOES cunnilingus
prevent pregnancy?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23169 alt.abortion.inequity:6686 alt.feminism:7563
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:01:41 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>>
>>>I've said in the past that there is an inconsistancy between saying that he 
>>>has no rights as far as the z/e/f is concerned and demanding he support the 
>>>resulting child.  If support is demanded, then he must have some rights 
>>>associated with the z/e/f, if he has no such rights, then support should 
>>>not be mandated.
>>
>>I agree that the situation is not a good one.  However I find the 
>>alternatives worse.  Either (1) men get control over prengnacy and abortion,
>>thereby women lose bodily autonomy.  Or (2) children go unsupported by
>>one or more of their parents, thereby either living in poverty or becoming
>>a burden on society at large (or both).  

>does "free choice" really mean "choice without cost," to you?

No.  Woman are liable for 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the effort of parenting.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23015 talk.rape:3089
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist
Date: 21 Jan 93 02:27:58 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.rape
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Check folloups.

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.

Yes, I have heard this claim as well.  Fortunately, though, there is still a
distinction between laws which are on the books and the way activists want 
laws to go.  The laws of the states I have seen are a bit saner than this.

Unfortunately, though, the more people buy into these ideas the more likely
it is for the laws to be changed to accomodate them.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:23094 alt.child-support:4656 soc.culture.british:19169
From: steward@cup.portal.com (John Joseph Deltuvia)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Reporting requirements for un-married mothers
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 20:45:26 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <BD.93Jan19075935@bd.UUCP> <1993Jan20.011534.18824@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>


In the USA, CP's applying for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(welfare for you non-politically-correct folks :) ) must disclose the
names of the assumed NCP's of the child(ren) or face a sanction for
"non-cooperation".  The sanction is the reduction of the welfare grant
by approximately 1/3.  Waivers are granted for "good cause", such as
molestation accusations and the like.

There is a carrot as well as a stick.  If an order is entered against
the NCP and the NCP pays, the grant is increased by up to $50/month.
(That's total, not $50 per child).
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:26:18 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan22.180652.25341@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>Karl, you took this post out of context/

My apologies Amy; you're correct.

>I have said in the past that this isn't fair and shouldn't be.  A
>woman should not be able to turn around the next day and go, 'Oh, I
>know at the time I said I wanted to, but I was drunk...'  I made the
>simple suggestions that perhaps a man should, just for the sake of
>protecting his ass in this day and age, not sleep with drunk women he
>doesn't know.  Someone replied that this was hard to tell.  To which I
>replied the above. 

>I agree with this.  Pay attention to the thread next time and not
>individual messages. 
>
>amy
>-- 
>alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
>			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:45:50 -0500

>Michal Leah Peri (peri@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: >  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.

Oh puh-lease.  

Marriage is not something that naturally happens at a certain time in
life, and to not have it happen is a deviation that means you're sick
or something.  Yeesh.  Many people simply have more to do than get
married.  Or they've been married to people who couldn't handle
relationships well.  Or they're widowed, as you pointed out.  They are
just as likely to just have had better things to do as they are to be
somehow inept at personal relationships. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.indiana.edu	        	Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 14:23:01 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Now, Michal, what do *you* propose?
>
>Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
>the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
>worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
>injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
>requirement for paternal notification.  

Fine.  Will you legally permit a father to abduct a child and disappear
if he knows the mother to be abusive?

Do you condone a legal requirement to inform a mother where her child is?


After all, is the *good* of protecting the mother's parental rights
worth the *bad* of subjecting the child and father to the risk of
inquiry from an abusive mother?


Don't hide behind "mothers don't abuse children," Michal.  You've read
this newsgroup enough to have seen the statistics -- and Cal Tech isn't
*that* much of an ivory tower.  Will we see another sophomoric smokescreen
to hide your anti-father sentiments?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women