HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 09:26:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.232508.4937@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.220608.28311@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>>And yet 2/3 of American women between 21 and 44 work outside the home.
>
>The question, as I recall, was whether women, given the choice, would
>consent to the breadwinning role for husband and family, while allowing
>the husband to be a stay-at-home father.
>
>Now, it doesn't make much sense to ask whether women at the low end of
>the income scale are in such a marriage, right?  They don't have the
>economic luxury to make such a choice.  My figures were strictly from
>the high end.  In other words, in the professions where women are
>making more than enough to support husband and family, those doing so
>are vanishingly rare.  At the same time, men at the high end -are- the
>sole breadwinner most of the time.

So, your problem is finding a group of women who make enough to
"allow" their husbands that choice?

>>Unless you're suggesting that male physicians are a good group for
>>women who want to stay at home to target, your stats have much more to
>>do with the male-dominated profession of medicine than husbands in
>>general.
>
>What does male dominance of the profession have to do with women's
>choice of mate?  Do you mean to imply that female M.D.s don't make a
>family wage?

Simple.  If you're looking at stats from 50 women and 10,000 men, it's
not significant that so few (or even none) of the women have
stay-at-home husbands.  Find a high-paying profession where men and
women are in the same percentages and a survey on them would be
telling.  Also the age of the people being surveyed is important.
Since most female physicians are young, it's important to compare men
and women at the same ages.  Otherwise, the older, more traditional
male physicians will skew the stats for the men.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:25:06 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <702@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>In article <VIXIE.92Aug22131333@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>[bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)]:
>>> Why is it that the biological father has to convince somebody to let
>>> him have custody of his own children?

>For all three of my kids, when it was time for them to leave the hospital,
>I picked them up. I didn't have to show ID, I just went and asked for my
>kids. I was told congratulations, handed a box full of baby products, and
>given the child.

That's because you were married to the mother and were assumed to be
the father...even if they weren't biologically yours.

>A picture is painted here as though fathers aren't permitted to do much
>else than peer through the glass at the nursery. Not so. Not so at all.

Again, you're talking about the situation that exists in married
couples.  I'm talking about unmarried couples.

>In cases where both mom
>and dad say that Mr. X is the dad, no suit is necessary --at least in this
>neck of the woods, that's true.

It is my understanding that such is not the case all over.

>If there is a contention about paternity, then the short answer to "Is this
>the father?" is settled pretty rapidly by tests. A better circumstance than
>playing eenie-meenie-miney-mo with the stories that the court hears.

Exactly.  That the biological father would have to go to court to get
custody rather than the med lab is what is at issue.

>Fortunately, I live in Washington, where if the mother wants to give the
>child up, legal notice has to be served on the father who has first option
>to take the child... and without adoption. It's simply his.

That's at least a partial answer to my question:  He is considered a
biological father, not an adoptive one.  But again, it is my
impression that such is not the case all over.

Now, can he sue her for support when this happens?

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 2 Sep 1992 19:04:24 GMT
Organization: HMmmmmmmmmmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jeffrey Boser) writes:

 The point being, what makes you god?  And why must you punish

It isn't just me. It is the society we live in. I didn't make
child abuse laws, I didn't make statutory rape laws or laws
against masturbating in public, or laws against incest. It is
the society you and I both live in, and as members of that
society we give our tacit agreement to those laws unless we
speak out against them. That's how this thread started.

 two consenting individuals for doing somethign that hasnt hurt
 anybody?  And dont say it has.  We have given you specific
 examples of cases where consent was clear, no coersion was
 evident, and harm was not caused by the act itself.

There is a difference of opinion on "consent". Several people
have said that small children can give consent. I and most
of the world (IMO) disagree with this.

Psychological harm from older-adult younger-child sex
has been shown to occur over and over again. As counter
evidence Mr. Chapin, et al have offered their personal
experiences.

I, and others, have replied that Mr. Chapin's experiences
are to say the least "unusual"; this can be show by the fact
that there are no studies I know of which bear out his
experience as being normal: in fact it is just the opposite.
 
 Your logic can just as easily applied to masturbating children,
 preventing them from possibly hurting themselves emotionally.
 
Masturbation, by definition, does not involve getting one's
parent, much older adult, etc. into the act; therefore this
argument does not apply.

Dano
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:55:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Vicious woman bus conduct
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.men

	
	ug.

	Will.... I think you missed the sarcasm.

	-mike-

Xref: sparky soc.men:15751 soc.women:15996 alt.child-support:2997
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Barbara H. Advocates Financial Rape
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:45:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug31.214526.28552
Organization: University of Washington

Barbara Hlavin writes
> Mia Farrow has never asked for a dime in alimony or child support from 
> anyone she's ever been married to or emotionally involved with, and I 
> have no reason to believe she wants any form of financial support from
> Woody Allen. 

  She asked for 7 million from Woody -- as hush money.

  Prove to me that Mia`s family has never received
  child support.  I know that Soon-Li was getting
  daddies money at age 21.

> (By the way, I find it insensitive . . . that you equate 
> being pressured to support your child with rape.) 

   Sex is good -- unless it's forced.
   Money for the home is good -- unless it's forced.

   I am outrage that you advocate force (rape) as
   a valid way of accruing child support when
   their are so many better ways to support
   the child.
Xref: sparky soc.men:15923 soc.women:16140 alt.feminism:588
From: 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:09:08 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <183fg9INNifu@cs.utexas.edu> russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams) writes:
>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.
>
>I think it also depends on context.  Most of the time I think too much
>makeup gets worn.  Most of the time I think it's silly to wear any.
>But if you're in a dress-up night on the town roleplaying kind of
>situation, then makeup can look good to me.  (Though of course I have
>my own tastes of what sort of makeup looks good, not just any old
>Tammy Faye effect...)

Russ, I'm going to have to second that.  You start to wonder what women
want to hide!

My most adorable SO (of 4 years) is quite plump - she floats in water
with the greatest of ease.  I've just asked her to describe herself, and
the two things she said was "like a pig" and "XL".  'nuff said.

Mitch.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 2 Sep 1992 18:52:53 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jeffrey Boser) writes:

 >And Mr. Chapin wonders why anyone would question his motivation
 >in making it easier for adults and children to have sex?

 Actually I dont recall anybody attempting to make it easier.

Then you didn't read the posts I was responding to. It was
my response to those posts which prompted yours.

 I knew a girl who, at age 17, came on to a chaperone that was age
 25, and they had sex.  The two of them, despite loving each other,
 are terrified that anybody will find out, because her parents will
 ruin the guy's life.
 
And this is an everyday occurence, one that I believe there
is little argument over. IMO, it is a situation easy to sympathize
with.

Dano
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:00:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.040456.23673@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>  
chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
> Darcy Brockbank writes:

> >Sex can mean power, and love, and the combination can mean 
> >damage to formative people (ie: children).
> 
> So can cars, yet people don't call for banning them whenever a child
> gets run over.  Perhaps because since the Luddites went out of favor

Are you sure? I think that for every opinion, there's someone
radical enough to support it.

> (I'm still trying to parse the phrase about power and love, and
> trying to understand how anyone could possibly feel that love could
> combine with anything else to make it more dangerous.  Love must be
> truly terrifying to some folks...)

I suppose that love is truly terrifying for the woman that won't
leave the man, though she is nearly beaten to death, because 
"she loves him". 

> I'll assume that by now others have given the obvious replies
> regarding eating-related disorders...  Any activity can become

YOU MISSED THE POINT. I assume you didn't read what I wrote.

> And which human activities are tied to neither?  Using emotionally
> loaded phrases does not make an argument.

I suppose that the human activity of defecation is tied closely
to YOUR sense of self, and to your conciousness. 

> >If sex was no more an act than eating, why are people so damaged
> >by sexual assault and rape? 
> 
> If the act causes physical damage, they are damaged by physical
> damage.  If it occurs as a result of threats of physical damage,

Bullshit.

I've been beaten nearly unconscious, and my girlfriend has been
raped. I suffered much "physical damage", she suffered a bruise
on her face. Years later, who cries at night?

Nice rape theory, you callous idiot. 

> >Sex is a powerful thing. It can be a weapon.

> So can a spoon...let's ban them for anyone under eighteen, lest they
> all be gagged with them.

Okay, to use similar "dumb" logic, since these harmless things
can all be used as deadly weapons, it makes no sense to ban
any weapons at all! Let's free up gun control, so more pissed
off people can easily kill those they're pissed at. (Again,
shown in Montreal with our new "killer Professor" how 
more control is needed).

>by those who try to demonize sexuality.

Who is trying to demonize sexuality? I'm trying to point
out that sex with one's 15 year old child is most likely
a bad thing. You're the one that takes every argument to 
the utmost silly limits of extrapolation. Again, saying that
sex with one's 15 year old child is not a good thing is
hardly "demonizing sexuality."

Anyway, what the hell should I care about your children?
Go ahead and fuck them.

- db
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:37:18 GMT

Bronis Vidugiris writes:
>I was thinking about this some more, and I realized it needed to be
>expanded some.  Penetration of the mouth or anus with a *penis*, rather
>than a finger, would very likely fall into the 'practical' range of 
>the 'penetration' definiton of rape (IMO).

It's my understanding (from a lawyer acquaintance) that in the state
of Illinois, penetration is defined as any contact, and need not
include any penetration...duh....the law has never been known for
consistency...

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:15502 soc.women:15793 alt.child-support:2916
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:25:13 GMT
	<VIXIE.92Aug22131333@cognition.pa.dec.com> <6jbnsg@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab

[Brian Evans]
>> You're describing something that should be decided upon in a
>> biological/medical setting, not a court one.

The original question was: "why is a child given to the mother rather than
to the father after a birth".  I answered the question in a hospital context.

>> I agree that the problem is in establishing paternity.  However, a
>> court is not equipped to answer that question, don't you agree?

A court usually has none of the medical tools to do the various blood and
genetic comparisons needed to scientifically establish paternity, that's true.
However, at some point you need a court to come along and read these reports
and declare paternity at the legal level, and decide something about custody.
(This obviously only applies if the parents do not agree.)

>> While I am sure that there are many cases of the mother refusing to
>> acknowledge the father as the biological father, what about the cases
>> where the mother and father agree?  Why is that taken to court?

Normally they go to court if and only if they can't agree on custody.  Since
the court has the final say over what is or isn't in the "best interests" of
the child, that's where you go to argue your case.  I don't know a better way
other than to find a way to increase the number of people who can agree with
eachother.

>> If the question is one of paternity, why are we going to court rather
>> than the med lab?

The question turns into presumed superiority of the mother's care, and a lot
of other very maternally biased attitudes in judges' brains and in the laws
themselves.  Paternity is just a small technical issue compared to the rest.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:43:13 GMT


Re: rape being penetration without consent

)Seth Breidbart writes
)
)+ All of the women I've dated have fingers, toes, tongues, breasts, and
)+ other appendages capable of penetrating my mouth.  YMMV


In article <1992Aug29.160415.2962@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)In article <1992Aug28.170748.18778@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

)I seriously doubt if anyone, male or female, who says s/he was raped
)because a mate stuck her/his finger or tongue in the mouth during
)foreplay will be taken seriously.

Yep.

)>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).

)I agree that rape of men is particularly difficult to prosecute.
)However, I think it would be equally difficult for a woman, if she
)agreed to consensual vaginal intercourse and then her male partner
)stuck his fingers up her anus without her consent, to find the police
)willing to listen to her.

But what if he stuck his fingers up her vaginia?  My impression of
the way I think this 'penetration' law would work in practice is
that penetration would mean penetration of the vagina in practice, no matter
what the law actually said.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.041716.24082@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>>>o	adult solicits (propositions, cajoles, courts) kid for sex
>>>o	kid says "no"
>>>o	adult respects turndown, goes elsewhere
>>>o	kid continues with whatever they were doing...
>>
>>As it happens, I was a participant in exactly that scenario.  The place
>>was the Underground Station at Oxford Circus, and I was 14.  At the time,
>>my major anxiety was how to phrase the sentiment "no" in an appropriately
>>gentle manner, given the gentleness and courtesy of the solicitation.  The
>>adult of course respected the answer - it never occurred to me that they
>>wouldn't.
>>
>>Sigh.  A memory from a better, saner world.
>
>Yes.  Once when I was three or four and the adult was somewhere in
>their late teens, and another time when I was about nine and they
>were five or so years older.  Again, the memories were of how to
>turn down the requests without hurting the other person, and I knew
>that I was the one in power in the situation, because at any moment
>I could have cried out and had any number of adults at my side to
>protect me and destroy the other person.  Hmmm...
>
>-- 
>	     tom chapin                tjc@hrccb.att.com
>	      (effective Aug 1, 1992:  tjc@hrcce.att.com)

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.

Am I angry about this, yes, as angry as a woman who had been
raped might be when reading how when a rape attempt is made
her only problem is avoiding the sex without hurting the other
person.
Xref: sparky soc.men:15510 soc.women:15800 alt.child-support:2920 alt.dads-rights:2108
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Denied visitation by
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:40:56 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Aug26.183435.22543@nsc.nsc.com>, jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
|> I think the answer to denial of visitation is to change custody.  If
|> there is court-ordered visitation and it's thwarted by the CP, then by
|> George give custody to the NCP.  In some states, at least, there is a
|> provision built into the law that says denial of visitation is to be
|> considered (rebuttable) presumptive evidence that the CP is not acting in
|> the best interests of the child, and therefore the NCP should be given
|> custody.  I don't think it's enforced much, but at least it's there.

Your statements are true. I am posting this just to show that it does happen.
And how it happens.

In the _Notice of Intended Decision_ from the trial judge for my custody action
I was granted physical custody for the following reasons:

	"(1) The emotional and physical welfare and safety of Jason
	will best be served by such an award of Custody to Father;
	 (2) The State Policy of assuring and promoting frequent
	 and continuing contact with both parents will be best served
	 by such an award;
	 ..."
	
This was determined after a year and a half engaged with the Family Law
system which was culminated by a 21 day trial. I had to prove she was
very unfit. This is not an easy thing to do.

Yes, at least the provision is in California Code, Thank God!

-- 
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
Xref: sparky soc.men:15556 soc.women:15846 alt.child-support:2939
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Unmarried parents
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:47:41 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <BtM2uo.9zJ@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
|> Does anyone know: does any man have standing to claim paternity
|> against an unmarried woman?

I know (at least for Minnesota). I had to take my son's mother to court
to get acknowledged as his father. She was using the fact that I could
not prove that I was his father to prevent me from seeing him.

She would not let me sign the birth certificate and refused to let me
see him. At the same time, she was working with the county attorney
to start an action against me.

I filed first and got to see him. Other than speeding the whole process
up a few months, I got no benefit out of it.

But, a man can claim paternity against an unmarried woman.

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:53:49 GMT
	<VIXIE.92Aug24111801@cognition.pa.dec.com> <BtInLB.Ds3@cs.psu.edu>
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab

[Don Beaver]
>Did she stay at home; did you work?  If you did stay at home and she
>went back to work, are there other reasons to think that her visiting
>you at feeding times and/or breast-pumping wouldn't have been equally
>good?

When he was only a month old, my son was a little bit trepedacious about
leaving the house, and seemed happiest in the most familiar surroundings.
Given that he had spent his whole life in one place, this was understandable
and it made a lot of sense for me to go to him rather than having him brought
to me.  Later on he became a lot less sensitive about his location.  Since
he's new and didn't have any options and can't think clearly about what he
wants, I am inclined to do everything I can to make things easy on him.

I really can't discuss this in greater detail since it's personal.

>The problem is the extreme cases -- "extreme" not by virtue of rarity
>but by virtue of extreme antagonism.  In these all-too-common situations,
>I would object to claims of "nursing necessity" as the tiebreaker between
>parents.  Both parents can provide warmth, attention, nourishment; without 
>rather unusual arrangements, only the mother (when parents are separate) 
>can provide the benefits of milk (including immunities, etc.); but the
>+effect+ of an early tiebreaker on the basis of nursing is to award
>permanent custody to the mother.  

That's all true.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men