regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/10/85)
The original question -- surely -- related to the use of toilet paper per incidence of useage -- no total lifetime consumption (after all, women live longer (-:). Total consumption isn't the question: the person who posted the article, complete with sound effects, was talking about how much paper was used in one. . .er. . .sitting. Now, I have known a number of men who also retire to the proper location and one hears "vroom, vroom, vroom" over and over as the toilet paper roller rolls about. One does not listen for this, of course, but past a certain number of vrooms, one becomes curiously aware. Surely there are as many men who use as much paper per incidence of useage as women. Actually, we might postulate that since women use paper more often, they are less paranoid and may use less paper per occasion then men, but perhaps it would be best to do a study on the issue. So, how many sheets, on the average, do you use per incident of consumption? You can use eyeliner to make notes on the bathroom mirror, and keep a log over the period of one week. And no fair counting as you pull -- you have to pull your normal amount first, then count. Double sheets count 1 1/2. Mail your average to /dev/null. Ready, set, YANK!!!!
roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) (06/13/85)
I don't know about the rest of the guys out in net-land, but I just
stick my left foot (I'm left-handed) in the water and piss down my
leg. I don't have to sit down (or lift the seat), and there's no
splash to worry about.
Seriously, I am astonished at the attitudes of a number of women
in this newsgroup. You all seem to be pretty rabid (no pun) men-
haters. Now I didn't ask to be born a man any more than I asked to
be white, half and half Italian/German, USofA'ian, or anything else
of that nature. Blaming a man for his balls is no different from
calling a black stupid because of his skin color. Parts is parts,
and discrimination is discrimination.
You have all bitched and moaned about male's testosterone poisoning,
our basic inability to put the seat down (which is, of course, the
ONLY possible correct position for the toilet seat). Men have been
lambasted for having sex drives and dirty minds, as well as (of course)
those most masculine of tendencies: hate and violence. Well, I'm me,
I was born me, and I'll die me. I resent being lumped into a category
(violent, dumb, etc.) just as much as anyone who is the butt of
prejudice.
Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before
you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like
to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the
babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you
insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens
next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers.
Perhaps if we all treated each other as people with strengths AND
weaknesses (instead of I've got all the weaknesses and you've got all
the strength) we could reach a common understanding.
Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little
easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little
time being considerate about ours.
--
Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services.
Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163
...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy
The Map is Not the Territoryjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/14/85)
> Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." I can understand that; it's happened to me. It's 'very nice'. > before you > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > next on the man. If he does anything she hasn't given consent for him to do, then what happens next *should* be blamed on the man. Whether or not your gonads are poking you in the ribs makes absolutely *no* difference. > It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. That's why you have to assume that when she says 'no' she *means* 'no'. > Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little > easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little > time being considerate about ours. What problems? Men have problems? Are you sure you aren't just projecting your own personal problems onto men in general? If you had any sensitivity at all, you'd understand that the problems women face are many orders of magnitude larger than the one you mentioned. (you get a little horny sometimes, awww, poor guy. You think women don't have the same little problem sometimes?) > -- > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/14/85)
> Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little > easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little > time being considerate about ours. > -- > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. I, for myself only, will be only to willing to do just that as soon as I see some evidence of reciprocation. I know many very sensitive men but even they fall down when it comes to copong with the understanding of what women face every time they go out the door. *(and sometimes even if they dont)* jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse) (06/14/85)
The Soviet Union: >> Well, maybe we'd have a little easier time being >> considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little >> time being considerate about ours. The USA (Ronnie): >I, for myself only, will be only to willing to do just that as soon >as I see some evidence of reciprocation. "You go first." "No, YOU go first." "Not until *you* do." What utter bullshit. No wonder so many people are screwed up. Maybe it's time they tried GROWing up. I sure hope these two are not examples of typical adults. Naw, they post too much stuff to the net [0.5 :-)] SJBerry
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (06/16/85)
> > Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little > > easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little > > time being considerate about ours. > > -- > > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. > > > I, for myself only, will be only to willing to do just that as soon > as I see some evidence of reciprocation. I've been reading comments like this for quite a while. When will we, as members of the human race, (not just MEN or WOMEN) realize that consideration and understanding starts with oneself. If I sit here and wait for someone to be considerate of my feelings, I'll have a LOOOOONG wait! On the other hand, if I start by being as considerate and sensitive as I possibly can, I find that I tend to breed consideration in others. The old adage "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" really holds true. > I know many very sensitive men but even they fall down when it comes to > copong with the understanding of what women face every time they go out > the door. *(and sometimes even if they dont)* > > jeanette l. zobjeck > ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie I really doubt that rape is something any man can truly understand. I also think you're exagerating the threat of rape a great deal. I'm sorry you feel you have to face that threat "every time [you] go out the door." I don't. Maybe it has something to do with where I live. -- Sarah E. Dugan "LET ME OUT OF HERE - I WANT TO GO HOME!" ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/18/85)
> > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." > > I can understand that; it's happened to me. It's 'very nice'. It's especially nice when everyone else sees it and laughs. > > > before you > > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > > next on the man. > > If he does anything she hasn't given consent for him to do, then what > happens next *should* be blamed on the man. Whether or not your gonads are > poking you in the ribs makes absolutely *no* difference. grudging agreement here > > > It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. > > That's why you have to assume that when she says 'no' she *means* > 'no'. > > > Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little > > easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little > > time being considerate about ours. > > What problems? Men have problems? Are you sure you aren't just > projecting your own personal problems onto men in general? If you had > any sensitivity at all, you'd understand that the problems women face > are many orders of magnitude larger than the one you mentioned. (you Apples and Oranges, you blithering fool. Any well-versed feminist will tell you that men suffer from skewed gender roles too. Everybody suffers. Everybody faces problems. Who is to say one set is "magnitudes larger" than another set. Of course, women need equality. Women deserve the right to choose their destinies, as do men. But don't make such oversimplistic "problem" comparisons. Gimme a break. > get a little horny sometimes, awww, poor guy. You think women don't > have the same little problem sometimes?) > > -- Fair or not, women can find men(?) to sate their lust easier than vice versa. (Or maybe I had the wrong opening lines!) > > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
steven@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (06/20/85)
In article <645@ihlpg.UUCP> sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) writes: >> > Women say they want men who are sensitive. >> > -- >> > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. [jeanette] >> I, for myself only, will be only to willing to do just that as soon >> as I see some evidence of reciprocation. [sarah] >I've been reading comments like this for quite a while. When will we, as >members of the human race, (not just MEN or WOMEN) realize that consideration >and understanding starts with oneself. If I sit here and wait for someone to >be considerate of my feelings, I'll have a LOOOOONG wait! On the other hand, >if I start by being as considerate and sensitive as I possibly can, I find >that I tend to breed consideration in others. The old adage "You catch more >flies with honey than you do with vinegar" really holds true. How about "What goes around comes around"? Or The Golden Rule? Anybody ever wonder why there are so MANY adages dealing with interpersonal relationships? Can you survive without them? [jeanette] >> I know many very sensitive men but even they fall down when it comes to >> copong with the understanding of what women face every time they go out >> the door. *(and sometimes even if they dont)* >> >> jeanette l. zobjeck >> ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie [sarah] >I really doubt that rape is something any man can truly understand. I also >think you're exagerating the threat of rape a great deal. I'm sorry you feel >you have to face that threat "every time [you] go out the door." I don't. >Maybe it has something to do with where I live. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression was not that jeanette was concerned with rape. Rather the phrase "every time they go out the door" seemed to be meant to compare the experience women in our culture/society as opposed to men. At least I hope she wasn't referring to rape. I do wonder why you drew the inference that you did? I'm so confused at this point after reading (and to a small extent parcipating in) the exchanges between you two and good ol' SRT that I don't know what to think or say. BTW where DO you live? -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!steven ***
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/20/85)
> > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens Wait a f*cking minute, "brother" Most men get "excited" occaisionally at the sight of a gorgeous babe. Most women get "excited" occaisionally by the sight of a gorgeous dude. Some people get "excited" by the sight of an unattended Mercedes with keys in the ignition. Most people dress in a way that makes them feel good about themselves. What a crime! If you get excited by it, TFB! > next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. "Oh pardon me, m'am. I thought by your mode of dress that you wanted to be raped. I'm terribly sorry! Boy is my face red!" > Perhaps if we all treated each other as people with strengths AND > weaknesses (instead of I've got all the weaknesses and you've got all > the strength) we could reach a common understanding. > > Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little > easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little > time being considerate about ours. "You first!"-he "No, You first!"-she "No, You first!"-he "No, You first!"-she "No, You first!"-he "No, You first!"-she "No, You first!"-he > -- > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. > Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 > ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy > > The Map is Not the Territory Sorry Roy, Ya' make me kinda sick, buddy The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/20/85)
> Fair or not, women can find men(?) to sate their lust easier than > vice versa. (Or maybe I had the wrong opening lines!) > > The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. > > FLAME ME IF YOU DARE! No flame but a definite statement that this is a lot of bull. The assumptions evident in this statement are very indicative of the steretyped concept that women are merely sexual tools placed on this earth for mens amusement. The concept of sexual freedom does not imply that women can just go out and "sate their lust" as they please. Considering the state of things today it is actually more difficult for a woman because of: a) the danger or chance of being raped. b) the state of society which labels as despicable the morals of any woman who is obviously out for a roll in the hay. c) Men are allowed this freedom of action without any great amount of public antipathy. I admit it would be a nice situation , even ideal, but today, in this country or most others I have heard of, it is simply untrue. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ From the mostly vacant environment of my subconscious join me if you dare. ============================================================================
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/21/85)
> > get a little horny sometimes, awww, poor guy. You think women don't > > have the same little problem sometimes?) > > Fair or not, women can find men(?) to sate their lust easier than > vice versa. (Or maybe I had the wrong opening lines!) > > > Jeff Sonntag > Todd Jones > > FLAME ME IF YOU DARE! Gladly. I think you should have said ``women can find men who want to sate their own lust easier than vice versa.'' That is, a woman who dares to go out and just pick up some guy who wants to ``get physical'' is more likely to ``get used'' than ``get sated''. At least so seem to feel the women I've discussed this with: sex tends to be a much more emotional thing for women than for men. There are plenty of exceptions on both sides, but they still can be hard to find. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/21/85)
> > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. > Perhaps if we all treated each other as people with strengths AND > weaknesses (instead of I've got all the weaknesses and you've got all > the strength) we could reach a common understanding. > > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. I can only assume that by "what happens next," you mean rape. I assume this because the connection between rape and clothing has been a heated topic of conversation here for quite a while. If this is what you mean, then I strongly disagree with you. If a woman is raped, it is not her fault, regardless of what she looks like, what she wears, or how she acts. A woman should be able to walk naked down Main Street without being raped. Too many men believe that their sex drive absolves them from responsibility. You have probably heard the expression, "a stiff prick has no conscience". I say that the conscience is usually in another part of the body, and that sexual excitement is no excuse for violence. The above assumes that rape is motivated by sexual excitement. I know that in many cases of rape, sex is not the primary factor. However, Mr. Mongiovi was implying that sexual excitement could justify rape, and I felt that it was worthwhile arguing against the moral side of his statements as opposed to the objective factual side. What I have said about rape goes for less violent behavior. Some men feel that, if they think a woman is sexy, they have the right to come on to her in all sorts of obnoxious ways, and persistently at that. And the more scantily the woman is dressed, the more obvious it is to them that she wants their attention. Such men think they have the right to make suggestive, lewd comments, to grab "feels", to follow the woman down the street, all because she looks sexy to them. You have to realize that women are in a double bind. They are expected to make themselves physically attractive (within narrowly defined societal standards), and end up objects of scorn if they don't. I have heard both men and women make nasty comments about women who don't do enough to "look good". But if a woman makes herself look too good, then some men take this as a signal that she is "open for business", and won't take no for an answer. If she makes the "no" strong enough, then she becomes a "bitch", "prick-tease", or "ball buster". And usually, the men who assume that they have rights to any woman who looks good to them are the same ones who despise women whom they think don't do enough to make themselves sexy. It's true that not all men act like this, but enough of them do to make many women fearful and apprehensive of all men. Mr. Mongiovi, I suggest that you follow your own advice, and wear the woman's shoe for a while. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
quint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) (06/22/85)
In article <465@gitpyr.UUCP> roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) writes: > >Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before >you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like >to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the >babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you >insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens >next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. >Perhaps if we all treated each other as people with strengths AND >weaknesses (instead of I've got all the weaknesses and you've got all >the strength) we could reach a common understanding. I have no argument with your idea of treating people as people. However, in your statement about your gonads poking you in the chest, you have almost totally destroyed whatever credibility your other ideas might have had. What makes you think that girls don't have strong physical reactions to the sight of aesthetically pleasing men? Girls get horny too, and just because dont have an obvious visible physical reaction doesnt mean we dont have the same desires. But the excuse that your gonads made you do it is immature and childish, and criminal if your subsequent actions are rape. Your horniness does not give you the right to tell me what I can and cannot wear. Nor does it give you the right or the privelege to relieve yourself with anyone who isn't willing. Most men over the emotional age of 12 have the self-control necessary to live from day to day. Why is sex assumed to be exempt from this? >Women say they want men who are sensitive. Well, maybe we'd have a little >easier time being considerate about your problems if you'd spend a little >time being considerate about ours. I got the surprise of my life the day I met a man who refused sexual congress with a woman he was aroused by, because he knew she was tired and just making a casual offer. THIS is consideration and sensitivity! THIS is what many women give men, and which many men expect as their due. I have met only 3 or 4 men who are like this.... out of hundreds that I know. Women are supposed to know when a man wants sex, and exactly what mood he is in, and are often presumed not to have moods and desires of their own. This is changing on an intellectual level, but still hasnt filtered into society yet. There are lots of times that I want to make a pass at a man, because he is good-looking enough to have aroused me physically. This sort of behaviour is considered natural for men, and slutlike for women. And if other men observe my attempts, they are liable to assume that I am "up for grabs" as it were, and NOT LISTEN when I say NO, loudly and forcibly. This is the result of MY gonads poking me in the chest. AND it should NOT happen! >Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. >Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 > ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy /amqueue
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (06/22/85)
In article <2345@topaz.ARPA> quint@topaz.UUCP (Amqueue) writes: > ... >I got the surprise of my life the day I met a man who refused sexual congress >with a woman he was aroused by, because he knew she was tired and just making ... sexual congress? gimme' a break. i realize this is *technically* correct, but somehow sex loses its magic and appeal when 'congress' is associated with it. congress does and always will make me think jerks in D.C. ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (06/23/85)
>sexual congress? gimme' a break. i realize this is *technically* correct, >but somehow sex loses its magic and appeal when 'congress' is associated >with it. congress does and always will make me think jerks in D.C. And what do they do there? Screw people! :-) -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa "I know a computer when I talk to one." -The Doctor. (Anybody know which episode???)
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (06/24/85)
In article ####, <everybody> writes about Roy J. Mongiovi: > > > > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you > > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > > keys in the ignition. Most people dress in a way that makes them feel > good about themselves. What a crime! If you get excited by it, TFB! > Come on, now! I think that everyone is being much too hard on this poor person! He has stated a legitimate problem, that his hormones absolutely prevent him from acting like a human being! Condemning him for a regrettable medical problem is just completely uncalled for! Especially when medical science can provide him with relief!! Veterinarians have just about perfected the method by now. As a rare humanitarian gesture, I think that we of USENET should start taking up a collection to have Roy "fixed" so he can lead a happy, productive, and harmonious life! Colon - dash - close_parenthesis -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA The State Department is paying me to post this message, but if I am caught, they will disavow all knowledge of my actions.
roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) (06/24/85)
> > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you > > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > > next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. > > "Oh pardon me, m'am. I thought by your mode of dress that you wanted > to be raped. I'm terribly sorry! Boy is my face red!" Oh really? So that's what's on your mind when you see a pretty girl? Maybe you need to talk to somebody about your problem.... What I actually had in mind is that a woman dressing in a "provocative" (and let's not get into the discussion of what's provocative, eh?) fashion could cause a man to approach her with a proposition. Actually, I never considered violence. I really prefer sex when both parties cooperate. In any case, I feel that if you dress in such a manner, it isn't the man's fault for mis- reading the signals.... > Sorry Roy, Ya' make me kinda sick, buddy So sorry to have inconvenienced you. I'll try to do better next time. -- Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy The Map is Not the Territory
roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) (06/24/85)
> I have no argument with your idea of treating people as people. However, > in your statement about your gonads poking you in the chest, you have almost > totally destroyed whatever credibility your other ideas might have had. > What makes you think that girls don't have strong physical reactions to the > sight of aesthetically pleasing men? Girls get horny too, and just because > dont have an obvious visible physical reaction doesnt mean we dont have the > same desires. But the excuse that your gonads made you do it is immature and > childish, and criminal if your subsequent actions are rape. Your horniness > does not give you the right to tell me what I can and cannot wear. Nor does > it give you the right or the privelege to relieve yourself with anyone who > isn't willing. Most men over the emotional age of 12 have the self-control > necessary to live from day to day. Why is sex assumed to be exempt from this? My credibility has been gone for years, why else would I be posting to this ridiculous female-chauvinist (to coin a phrase) newsgroup? In the past I have been told (by this very newsgroup) that I cannot call a female a "girl" even though I find that term more attractive than "woman" because the female I call a girl might be offended and cannot take the time to realize that I am not being condescending about it. Fine. The moral of that story is that I am supposed to curb my speech because of the way other people might interpret it. Now you turn right around and say that it isn't the woman's fault if a man misinterprets the way she dresses. Am I the only one in the world that this seems inconsistant to? When I go walking the streets of Atlanta at 11pm, I DO NOT dress up in my best clothes because that is a sign to muggers that I'm a good choice for a roll. Ignoring the fact that it is wrong for him to mug me, it is STUPID for me to dress in a fashion that invites a mugging. The fact that I am more comfortable in those clothes has nothing to do with it. Rape may be absolutely the worst crime on the earth (and you won't hear me argue about that), but if the woman dresses in a fashion that broadcasts that fact that she is desirable, she at least should accept that she attracted the rape by her manner of dress. Your life is yours to live as you see fit, but if you play with knives you will get cut. -- Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy The Map is Not the Territory
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/26/85)
> > . . .if the woman > dresses in a fashion that broadcasts that fact that she is desirable, she at > least should accept that she attracted the rape by her manner of dress. Your > life is yours to live as you see fit, but if you play with knives you will get > cut. > -- > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. This is predicated on the assumption that what motivates rape is overwhelming sexual desire. Read "Soul On Ice." Rape is a violent crime, the rapist does not rape for sexual gratification, he rapes with angry violence. The idea that a woman solicits the rape by he mode of dress is not addressing the crime. Rape is more akin to racial violence, and often it is a part of racial violence, both in and out of prison. Women are raped simply because they are women, in prison men are often raped. They are raped to establish dominance and protection. Many states have recognized that women can be raped by their husbands. Rape is a method that extremely powerless individuals use to convince themselves that they have power. The idea that rape is caused sexual desire is not appropriate. Since it does not reflect the actual real world instances of rape (you looked so ravishing tonight dear that I had to rape you), it is not a useful model. Besides not appropriately modeling the facts of the situation, the idea that women can somehow bring it on themselves is counter productive. If a women who believes this is raped, she would be less likely to take appropriate action against the man, being trained to believe that there is something she could have done to prevent it. The idea that rape is cause by overwheleming sexual desire, in this day of psychological defenses, makes is seem like you are making the rapist "not guilty by reason of insanity." (You know, jury, he was an all around good guy, went to church on Sunday, coached little league, but .., well, I guess he had too many sex hormones. When that little cheerleader went by, he just went apeshit But, look, she was asking for it, and boys will be boys . . . The doctors are sure that she will recover her speech almost completely . . .). There is a group in Santa Cruz called "Men Against Rape." If you are ever around here, give them a call. On of their councilers will be glad to talk to you about violence against women. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/26/85)
> I think you should have said ``women can find men who want to sate their > own lust easier than vice versa.'' That is, a woman who dares to go > out and just pick up some guy who wants to ``get physical'' is more > likely to ``get used'' than ``get sated''. At least so seem to feel > the women I've discussed this with: sex tends to be a much more emotional > thing for women than for men. There are plenty of exceptions on both > sides, but they still can be hard to find. > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall There are so many exceptions, I think your generalization is meaningless. I am among many, many males who find sex bogus without an emotional factor. I also know of many women who shun emotional committments in favor of sating needs. I think stereotypically men and women are supposed to have the kind of attitudes you indicated. Fortunately, there is (I have found) a great variety of sexual attitudes among men and women. I'm finished although I may have totally undermined my original point. An auto-flame! What a concept!! The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/27/85)
This is what Roy first said: > > > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > > > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > > > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > > > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you > > > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > > > next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. > > This was my response: > > "Oh pardon me, m'am. I thought by your mode of dress that you wanted > > to be raped. I'm terribly sorry! Boy is my face red!" > Roy attempts sensitivity: > Oh really? So that's what's on your mind when you see a pretty girl? > Maybe you need to talk to somebody about your problem.... > Oh come on! Haven't I established myself as a totally wimpy bleeding- heart post-liberal? Do I have to follow all my facetious responses with a sideways smiley face? The rest of my response totally flamed the original sexist posting. Read my entire response, mon. > What I actually had in mind is that a woman dressing in a "provocative" (and > let's not get into the discussion of what's provocative, eh?) fashion could > cause a man to approach her with a proposition. Actually, I never considered > violence. I really prefer sex when both parties cooperate. In any case, I > feel that if you dress in such a manner, it isn't the man's fault for mis- > reading the signals.... I'm not sure you were the one who introduced the "it takes two to tango" concept to this discussion, but it serves my point perfectly. Communication requires two parties: the communicator and the communicatee. How can you say the communicatee has no responsibility for miscommunication? If I choose to interpret your mode of dress as violent, can I defend myself accordingly? > > > Sorry Roy, Ya' make me kinda sick, buddy > > So sorry to have inconvenienced you. I'll try to do better next time. > -- You did! > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. > Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 > ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy > > The Map is Not the Territory ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
grwalter@watnot.UUCP (Fred) (06/27/85)
> . . .if the woman > dresses in a fashion that broadcasts that fact that she is desirable, she at > least should accept that she attracted the rape by her manner of dress. Your > life is yours to live as you see fit, but if you play with knives you will get > cut. > -- > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. Here at the University of Waterloo it is summer. And hot. So girls/women tend to run around wearing halter tops and shorts. This (because they aren't covering themselves up decently like they should :-)) broadcasts the fact that they are desirable. Yet most of them have only one thing in mind - not frying/melting/getting heat prostration. The furthest thing from their mind is the possibilty of getting raped - that's because (in theory anyway) any normal man, while he may desire to tear her clothes off, realizes that women are more than sex objects/are people too, and will get to know her first - so that she is the one that tears her clothes off. If women have to actually worry about being raped (ie. they are not just paranoid) every time they go out in public wearing revealling clothes then there is something really wrong with this society, and the people (certain men anyway :-)) in it. Fred UUCP : {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watnot!grwalter CSNET : grwalter%watnot@waterloo.csnet ARPA : grwalter%watnot%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Ladies, gentlemen, and people who aren't sure, do you know where your parents are ?
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/28/85)
> > [jeanette] > >> I know many very sensitive men but even they fall down when it comes to > >> copong with the understanding of what women face every time they go out > >> the door. *(and sometimes even if they dont)* > [sarah] > >I really doubt that rape is something any man can truly understand. I also > >think you're exagerating the threat of rape a great deal. I'm sorry you feel > >you have to face that threat "every time [you] go out the door." I don't. > >Maybe it has something to do with where I live. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression was not that jeanette was concerned > with rape. Rather the phrase "every time they go out the door" seemed > to be meant to compare the experience women in our culture/society as > opposed to men. At least I hope she wasn't referring to rape. > > BTW where DO you live? > * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA Jeanette here: I live in Beloit,Wisconsin and while in the area I live currently rape has been uppermost in consideration because of a nut that has been runnig loose inthe area that had nothing to do with the lines quoted above. Perhaps that other parts of the posting dealt with rape and also other posting I have made. Steve was more correct in his interpretation of what I meant at the time I made the posting. I grew up in and around Chicago before moving and living all over the US at one time or another. I live where I do now for a variety of reasons non of which is the sexual freedom of the area. Beloit is a semi-industrial semi- agricultural area on the Illinois-Wisonsin border. Being more than a little way from areas like Chicago or Milwaukee (Rockford is 15 miles away) the attitude toward women is perhaps a little less than admirable at times and a woman alone faces not just sexual dangers but real sexual prejudice in just existing. I was unemployed for almost 14 months during which time I fortunately was able tolive with friends since single women in the county are not eligable for general relief housing assistance as men are. If I had a child or was pregnant however thatwas another story as ADC takes care of that. The best I could hope for was $65.00 a month in food stamps which would have to be paid back as soon as I found a job. A friend of mine tried to get insurance on her car but the insurance companies (3 of them before she said to hell with it) refused to consider her for low cost insurance because her husband had a marginal driving record (2 tickets in 6 months after 12 years without a single violation) jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================ ~~~ (o o) ************************* |WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM /MWMW| * TO HELL WITH THE DOG * |MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW | WMWM| * -*-*-*-*-*-*- * _________I_I________|/_____ * WATCH OUT FOR THE * * OWNER * *************************
roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) (06/28/85)
> I can only assume that by "what happens next," you mean rape. I assume this > because the connection between rape and clothing has been a heated topic of > conversation here for quite a while. > > If this is what you mean, then I strongly disagree with you. If a woman is > raped, it is not her fault, regardless of what she looks like, what she > wears, or how she acts. A woman should be able to walk naked down Main > Street without being raped. Actually, I don't think there is any excuse for violence being performed on another without their consent. What I had in mind for "what happens next" was a rude/lewd comment/suggestion of the type, "Hey baby, wanna ####?" Which sexy clothing could provoke from some people. I also don't believe that there is any excuse for not taking "no" for an answer. But in one of the postings about this subject the woman indicated that (although she did not tell the guy to bug off) she got extremely upset for days. To avoid a reaction like that you may have to modify your dress habits because you cannot modify the rest of the people in the world. Yeah, maybe a woman should be able to walk down the street in her birthday suit without so much as a second glance. But then maybe the rapist should be able to get help for his problem before he turns to violence. The world isn't perfect and you have to take it as it is. Only your own life is under your control. If there is a rape waiting to happen, whose fault it is is absolutely immaterial. If your behaviour incites a rapist to pick you instead of someone else, then I think that if you have any brains at all you will change your behaviour. Being in the right is damn poor consolation for being raped. -- Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy The Map is Not the Territory
crs@lanl.ARPA (06/28/85)
Hey, folks... How about editing the subject line. This seems to have
gone pretty far afield from its original inane topic.
--
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpaquint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) (07/02/85)
In article <490@gitpyr.UUCP> roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) writes: in reply to my message <2345@topaz.arpa>: >> What makes you think that girls don't have strong physical reactions to the >> sight of aesthetically pleasing men? Girls get horny too, and just because >> dont have an obvious visible physical reaction doesnt mean we dont have the >> same desires. But the excuse that your gonads made you do it is immature and >> childish, and criminal if your subsequent actions are rape. Your horniness >> does not give you the right to tell me what I can and cannot wear. Nor does >> it give you the right or the privelege to relieve yourself with anyone who >> isn't willing. Most men over the emotional age of 12 have the self-control >> necessary to live from day to day. Why is sex assumed to be exempt from this? > >My credibility has been gone for years, why else would I be posting to this >ridiculous female-chauvinist (to coin a phrase) newsgroup? In the past I have >been told (by this very newsgroup) that I cannot call a female a "girl" even >though I find that term more attractive than "woman" because the female I >call a girl might be offended and cannot take the time to realize that I am >not being condescending about it. Fine. The moral of that story is that I >am supposed to curb my speech because of the way other people might interpret >it. Now you turn right around and say that it isn't the woman's fault if a >man misinterprets the way she dresses. Am I the only one in the world that >this seems inconsistant to? Taking your analogy to its (seemingly) logical conclusion, I cannot dress the way I want to look my best because you find it inconvenient to talk in a way that makes you "look your best". I am not being inconsistent, YOU are. I may be wrong, but I beleive the promary definition of "girl" is a young human female, pre-adult. Young also has connotations of immature and incompetent, and usually sounds condescending to a female person who has tried to be a mature, competent, respected person. Thus using "girl" generically is similar to dressing up in grimy blue jeans and a tie-dyed t-shirt for an executive meeting: it serves the same purpose, but is inadequate, in bad taste, and liable to get you in trouble. (not counting those companies which have *no* dress code). >When I go walking the streets of Atlanta at 11pm, I DO NOT dress up in my best >clothes because that is a sign to muggers that I'm a good choice for a roll. >Ignoring the fact that it is wrong for him to mug me, it is STUPID for me to >dress in a fashion that invites a mugging. The fact that I am more comfortable >in those clothes has nothing to do with it. Rape may be absolutely the worst >crime on the earth (and you won't hear me argue about that), but if the woman >dresses in a fashion that broadcasts that fact that she is desirable, she at >least should accept that she attracted the rape by her manner of dress. Your >life is yours to live as you see fit, but if you play with knives you will get >cut. >-- So. what if the woman has a date with a man whom she wishes think that she is desirable (i think that makes sense...)... must she bring a change of clothing with her so that when she is going home that night she does not invite a rape? Mugging and Rape are NOT comparable crimes!!!!!!!!! If you get mugged, you will lose your money, and perhaps sustain physical injury. If you live, you will most probably not have severe mental and emotional problems that would keep you from interacting normally with motas. If you try to bring the criminal to court, you will not hear moralizing from the attorneys on how you were asking for it. You will not be mishandled in the hospital because you are immoral. I know someone who was raped. She was wearing jeans, a loose t-shirt, a loose woolen sweater, and a jacket tied around her waist. She is and was rather overwieght. She was approached in a lighted area of a park, at about 5am (a time when many people are awake and going to work). She received a slash on her neck, at which point she stopped struggling, so as not to pump blood out faster. The rapist removed the tampon and fucked her, and then proceeded to try to take care of the slash. She managed to get him to go away, and then called the cops. A car picked her up, and they found the guy on the way to the hospital. She had to have the stitches replaced twice, cause the original doctor mangled it. She has a scar on her neck, 6 years later. The attorney assigned to her case said he didnt really think she had a good case cause of the time of day and the fact that she wasnt a virgin, but she was in luck cause she wasnt wearing a dress. The defender called her a liar, a prostitute, and various other names to discredit her. The rapist finally went to jail cause the defender recommended it... cause he lied about having vd. If she had been mugged, she would NOT have had the harrassment, the maltreatment, and the slander. She would potentially have gotten her money back. As it is, she had to pay to get rid of the VD that the rapist gave her. She is not particularly attractive, she was not dressed attractively, and she wasnt even trying to draw attention to herself. She will now not walk more than 1/2 block alone at night, nor take mass transit, or talk to people at random even to give directions. a friendly outgoing person has become frightened, paranoid, and withdrawn. And also dangerous, because she now carries a pocket knife around constantly. >Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. >Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 > ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy For yet another time: clothing does not determine rape. Babies, prepubescent children, nuns, age-wrinkled grandmothers all get raped. Clothing does not determine rape. /amqueue
carter@masscomp.UUCP (Jeff Carter) (07/03/85)
I enjoy reading many of the philosophical debates in net.women (net.flame is another matter), but if I see this subject line again, I think I'm gonna throw up. For the last month or so, the *real* discussion has been 'Women and rape' or 'Men and rape' or 'Equality of the sexes' or 'Equal worth'. Do any of these belong under 'toilet paper'? If they do, then I apologize. But if you're trying to make a point, I hope it deserves a better opening line.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/03/85)
> > I was unemployed for almost 14 months during which > time I fortunately was able tolive with friends since single women > in the county are not eligable for general relief housing assistance > as men are. If I had a child or was pregnant however thatwas another > story as ADC takes care of that. The best I could hope for > was $65.00 a month in food stamps which would have to be paid > back as soon as I found a job. > > A friend of mine tried to get insurance on her car but the > insurance companies (3 of them before she said to hell with it) > refused to consider her for low cost insurance because her husband had a > marginal driving record (2 tickets in 6 months after 12 years without > a single violation) > > jeanette l. zobjeck > AAACK! This sounds extremely illegal. How do they get away with it? Has anybody ever sued the county or the insurance company over these policies? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff