HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Followup-To: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Reply-To: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:55:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.020307.24091@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Well, let me see....  If I meander on over to
>/usr/spool/news/soc/men....   What's this?  Geez-o-pete.  Gosh.  Hey,

Do "df" on that filesystem (look it up in the manual if you don't understand
what that means).  You may be reading news on a dedicated server with lots
of disk space paid for by our long distance charges.  Your news server may
keep the articles for years.  Many sites junk old articles 2-3 days after
receiving them, so a number of USENET readers have to do their own
archiving.

A number of sites are connected to their news servers by NNTP (look it up if
you don't know what it is) and may not allow users access to the news spool
area.  This prevents people from being able to gain easy access to the old
articles outside of the news readers.

These clues are free.
-- 
Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:54:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>Notification of pregnancy is not a violation of the mother's right to 
>>privacy. Rights end where others begin; a pregnancy exists in part because 
>>of the other, and when fatherhood is the issue, that "other" certainly has 
>>the right to know. 
>
>Would you be satisfied with paternal notification of the child's birth?
>I would have no problem with that with regards to privacy considerations,
>since the birth is already a matter of the public record.  (I have problems
>with requiring additional governmental paperwork, but that is not an 
>direct inequity issue.)  However, requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.

Its not a violation of her privacy if you intend the result of her actions,
and the result of that pregnancy, to impact on SOMEONE ELSE'S financial
future.

Michal, this shows your true colors on the issue.  

Women should be free to keep from men the fact that they are pregnant,
presumably to keep them from influencing their decision on whether or not to
bear the child.

However, those same women should be able to bill the man for the result of
>her decision<, without his input, and without his concern.

Equality?  What's that?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Xref: sparky soc.men:21855 alt.feminism:6597
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: family"* than Pro-Choicers!
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Dec25.013523.29135@panix.com> gcf@panix.com 
(Gordon Fitch) writes:

>| GF>They are (1) to communize (or if you prefer, socialize)
>| GF>child support; and (2) to use the method used by (I
>| GF>believe) the Navahos, who allocate certain communal
>| GF>resources to mothers with children (in the case of the
>| GF>Navahos, arable land).

Gordon, I asked you that following question several times,
and so far you refused to answer:
"Do you think that a woman should have a right to have as many kids
as she wants regardless of economic considerations?"

If the answer is "yes", please state how much of the GNP you want to
allocate to support such women; if the answer is "no" then please
present your own criteria for deciding when and how to stop a woman
who keeps having kids that she can't support.

>As I pointed out in at least two previous articles, 
>any middle-class type who had children under the world 
>arrangement proposed by "men's choice", at least the 
>Hillel Gazit version, would be crazy; they'd lose the 
>rat race.

That's what happens today because of the socialist idea of *taxing*
middle class people and using some of the money to pay for the
stupidity of women who keep having kids that they can't support.

If the taxes will go down, then people will not have to work that hard.  
Some of them will decide to have children because they want to.  There
will probably be fewer children, but there will certainly be much fewer
unwanted children.

>The effect of even _present_ mechanisms of support, or
>rather, the lack of them, have apparently brought the 
>birth-rate below the population replacement level.

Before the industrial revolution *most* of the population grew food.
Today 3% of the population grows enough food to feed all of us.  Now
we enter a new industrial revolution, a robotic one.

More and more work is done today by robots.  We will probably be able
to keep the same GNP even if the population will shrink by adding
more robots.  And if there will be a real shortage in workers,
then we can always "import" more immigrants (it actually happens
today in engineering because the Politically Correct public schools
just can't "produce" enough students who can do math).

So, what are you *really* worried about?

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

"...13 of 17 valedictorians in Boston high schools last spring were immigrants
or children of immigrants." --  US. News & World Report, May 14, 1990
Xref: sparky soc.men:21715 soc.women:21850 alt.feminism:6452
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:22:24 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec22.164240.9686@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:

>>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>>>For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
>>>are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
>>>against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
>>>is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
>>>as serious as violence against a man.

>>>Do you not see that this sort of viewpoint is perceived as amounting to
>>>saying, "Women are more important, more human than men.  Their hurts matter
>>>more.  Women are entitled; men are not."

>Given the statistics, there is a lot of sexism going on here in this issue. 

>Violence against women is seen as a "bigger evil" perhaps because
>women are still viewed as "unable" to protect themselves, or unfairly
>"outranked" by men.  This is one possible explaination which is quite
>sexist. 

>The other could follow the logic that women do not victimize men as
>much as men victimize women, therefore the latter is a "larger"
>problem.  

All good points.  The same statistics make it abundantly clear that
men are the source of the vast majority of violence against men and
women both.

As a society, we pay lip service to the notion that the weak are
entitled to special protection, that violence against the weak is
more reprehensible.  I say lip service, because it is noteworthy
that the weak make the best and most convenient victims. [Contrast
the ideals of chivalry and the practice of feudalism.]

What no one seems to mention is that violent activity is a source of
pleasure.  [But not for all of us.]  Ghengis Khan once said that the
greatest thing in life was to slay your enemy and sleep on the white
bellies of his women.  As a rule, human societies tend to reserve
the fine pleasures of rape, pillage, war, looting, mugging, and
bar room brawls [to say nothing of football] to the male of the species,
although women will enthusiastically partake of said delights, given
the opportunity.  It does take a certain amount of training and
conditioning to participate in these, ah, sports and again, most
societies are more generous in providing said training and conditioning
to men than to women.

Perhaps what we are saying, as a society, is that those who aren't
players in the great game of blood sports should not suffer the
associated penalties.  On the evidence, however, we don't seem to
be terribly serious about it.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Vasectomies
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:08:25 GMT

In<9212211521.AA03954@nms.hls.com> kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar) writes:
>Keith Garrard writes:
>> Oh Don, how could you or any man even consider getting a vasectomy?
>> As a man, I feel that the spermal excrement is at the essence of
>> my experience as a man.  Most of the women I used to date really
>> enjoyed the excitement of seeing me spray my "love juices" over their
>> pulsating bodies.  How a man can even think of depriving himself of
>> that pleasure, is beyond me.
>
>The body and content of the seminal fluid is mainly provided by other 
>glands such as the prostrate which are unaffected by a vasectomy.
>Thus you can 'spray' all you want (the same volume) after a vasectomy 
>without much of a difference except that you will 'spraying' 'blanks'. 
>It does not affect your potency in any other way.
>
>	The above is based on my general reading and I would gladly stand
>corrected if somebody with experience or authority in this area
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>would state otherwise.

I can't say that I have lots of experience or authority in 'spray my
"love juices" over their pulsating bodies'.

But as for a vasectomy, It is no big deal.  Leaves you just as virul.
The hardest part is lying there with your legs spread, and your
balls shaved while the doctor takes a knife where no knife has gone
before.  Clench your teeth and sweat bullets.  The hardest part is
psychological.

-Ted
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:47:06 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <24597@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
|                                     ...  NOW's unwritten policy of seeing
| "all men as rapists."  ...

If it's unwritten, how do _you_ know it's their
policy?  Are you on the board of directors?  Please
let us know....

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.men:21838 alt.feminism:6587
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:21:34 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

The following article was rejected from soc.feminism.

In article <1hkqjdINNj7d@agate.berkeley.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>Let me add, present a believable case (*with details*) and I'll believe it.  

I don't want to play the game of "show me all your life for a
discussion on the net," but I can show a case, that you can check in 
your library, to show how affirmative action really works, especially
when it is implemented by liberals.

Take for example the case of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. in La.
Under government pressure the company used different criteria for
promotions of blacks and whites.  Whites had to have more years
on the job before they could have a promotion.

So Brian F. Weber, the son of a grocer who started to work in 1968
saw it as a discrimination and sued.  His point was that a quota which
is based on race and not on class or education is just a discrimination.
All the courts till the Supreme Court agreed.  In the Supreme 
Court one of the justices (Potter Stewart) pointed out that court
should decide if the law lets an employer "discriminate against
some white people."  

The very liberal Supreme Court of 1979 decided 7-2 that the answer is
yes, and all the liberals celebrated one more victory in the fight
against racism - the white son of a grocer lost!

Now try to answer just one question:

Did, by your criteria, Brian F. Weber was discriminated against?

Please try to answer yes or no.

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Were we the ones who called the shots, there would
be no institutional discrimination against us."  --  Clay Bond
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:39:12 GMT

Actually I live in Maryland.

Just looking back over the lists and realize I've been a busy
little poster this last week. Sorry about that.

Have a Happy (your choice) Holiday, and good New Year.

Bob



Xref: sparky soc.men:21590 alt.abortion.inequity:6086 alt.feminism:6345
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:02:36 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <bob1.724607266@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <BzB858.6EL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <1gg7lvINN5mk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,
>
>I guess I must be. In love with someone you met three hours ago in a
>bar and have just jumped in the sack with?

How does "three hours ago" compare to "year-long relationship."

Do you suggest that any man who sleeps with a woman before a year 
has passed is guilty of moral turpitude?

What about the woman?


>In love
>with a child I helped produce? Yes, I can understand that, I can even
>understand loving a child I raised whether it had my genes or not.

Do you support Michal's position that you have "fled the scene"
if you didn't pursue the woman you were in love with but broke up with 
after a year or three?  And therefore should have no parental rights?


>Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether two people get churched or
>not, but there needs to be a commitment, a meeting of minds and
>spirit, or what is different about it than two animals rutting in
>a field?

To contrast your image of animals rutting: the person you're supporting
suggested cunnilingus as a natural way to preserve a man's reproductive 
rights -- is that the kind of "meeting of minds" you're looking for?

>Guess I'm just too old-fashioned, but if this crap is the 'Brave
>New World', I'll keep my tired old one thank you very much.

Keep it.  But don't legislate my children (intended or accidental
or unknown) away from me because of it.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:21972 alt.feminism:6691
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:20:47 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

About the length of lives: men have a higher metabolic rate
(on the average) than women.  Thus it seems likely that their
bodies wear out faster.  One could disprove this by showing
some social arrangement where men lived longer than women,
other things being equal; but I don't know of one.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Coalition for family equity kaput?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:10:08 GMT

Anyone in California familiar with the present status of the "Coalition for 
Family Equity"'s attempt to rig the legal system to automatically give women 
the children and men indenturement in case of divorce?

The coalition claimed to represent 50000 professional women (which I doubt) 
and feminists (? are there this many "feminazis" in CA?), and attempted to 
revise California's no-fault divorce laws by creating 2 new categories, the "
primary caretaker" (mother) and "secondary caretaker" (father). The primary 
caretaker, the mother unless the father can _prove_ otherwise, automatically 
gets the children, reducing the stress of divorce for women. Because men 
know in advance they'll lose, this is supposed to reduce litigation....?
The group also wants to eliminate the "friendly parent" rules, which are 
disincintives for vindicative parents using kids to get back at each other.

---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:48:25 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <BzzFEB.Hys@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu 
(Lenore Levine) writes:

>What's wrong with asking for specifics? I certainly *won't* take a
>position for or against "affirmative action," (or most other policies)
>*in general*. 

Don't you have any opinion about the laws that demand affirmative 
action in *general*?  Don't you have any "axioms" that let you
have any opinion about the idea that the government asks
every applicant about his/her race and sex and decides if to hire
him/her based on that?

Does it fit your understanding of "equal protection under the law"?
Does it fit your understanding of privacy, and keeping the government
off people's back?

>>Did, by your criteria, Brian F. Weber was discriminated against?
>>Please try to answer yes or no.

>Maybe. :-)

Can't you state any clear position, even on a case that was
bitten in the courts?

>However, I've heard of other cases where the evidence for affirmative
>action is a lot more reasonable.

1) The Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land (as long as 
   Congress does not pass new laws).  That means that every man in
   Weber's situation heard from his lawyer "you don't stand a chance,"
   and probably did not sue.

2) In the "other cases," is the policy stated loud and clear?

   If a man decides that he is discriminated against, and therefore sues,
   is there a clear definition of the affirmative action programs that
   he can use in court?  
   
   (In the beginning, that how AA was; after the University of California 
   lost a case in the late 70's is realized that stating a clear policy 
   worked against it in the court, so it kept the same policy, but it 
   does not state the policy in a way that can be used in the court.)

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's discrimination,
when you do it to me it's affirmative action."
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About the contract issue
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 10:47:08 GMT

rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
] 
] In article <1992Dec9.155420.22931@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
] >
] >And the head of the household is not obliged to spend it on the child,
] >or in any way related to the child, and is not required to account for
] >the money to anyone, ever.
] >
] >The legal issue seems plain: is the the custodial parent, or the non
] >custodial parent, who shall be permitted to steal the child's birthright?
] >
] >This whole "it's owed to the child" issue is so much garbage.  Until the
] >custodial parent is held accountable, it's their money, free and clear,
] >and the system is a transfer payment from one parent to the other, free
] >of encumberance.  The child is just the excuse used to pry open the wallet.


Also worth noting in all of this,
My favorite NonCustodialParent is driving a 1974 volvo station wagon
and the CustodialParent is driving a new car that just got paid off....

ciao
drieux

equity? Is this an issue that women are interested in?
Or is it just one of those things that we do NOT wish
to bother their little fool heads about?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,soc.singles
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: If he bothers you, put him in your KILL file, please.
X-To: DESIREE CHAMPAGNE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:28:00 GMT

desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes...
>In an obvious attempt to provoke more amusement, the Sensitive Beast
>crossposts an article from soc.men just to make sure that I see it:

>>     I found this over in soc.men.  Since I do not know if you read soc.men,
>>I am posting it where I thing that you will see it.

>        Give it up Creature.  I've already said you bore me.  Don't
>even try to fuck with me.

If he bores you so much, then put him in your KILL file!  You needn't waste
bandwidth with insults of "Don't bother me with your crap," when you need
only place him in your KILL file and you won't have to worry about seeing
anything that bothers you.


>>>In article <1992Dec17.081631.19856@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu
>>> (Robert Firth) writes:

>[entire article deleted]

>        Forget it Firth.  I don't buy it and I'm still (and getting more
>so) tired of the whiny men that complain about the wallet.  As I said before,
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>if you can't pay the price -- don't enter the game.  The risks are
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>there -- even if you don't like them.


Okay fine, then if the Moral Majority succeeds in outlawing abortion, and a
woman complains to you that she's being forced to give birth, you can be the
first to tell her:

"If you can't pay the price -- don't enter the game".


Sarcasm aside, believe it or not, just as women don't always have sex for
reproduction, neither do men.  Neither *should* anyone, for that matter.
Indeed, do YOU think that women should only have sex for reproduction?
I didn't think so.  Indeed, so why *should* men?


>        If you can't understand that, you can't.  But don't bother me
>with your crap.

Fine, then put him in your KILL file.


>        The subject is dead.  Leave it there.  Understand?
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm...were you not accusing some of these men of trying to control women?
It sure seems as though *you* are trying to control *them*, now.

Not a flame, just an observation that you can spare yourself a lot of this
grief by making a KILL file.  If you don't know how to make one, simply
ask your System Administrator.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Borger King:  Have them our way--your way is irrelevant.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: that peri person
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:48:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>In article <1go33uINN2u9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>If people want to screw then they should take responsibility for possible
>>outcomes.

>	I'm sorry, but don't you mean "if men want to screw then they should 
>take responsibility for possible outcomes" ?

No.  I meant just what I wrote.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men