HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cds@ossi.com (Chris Seabrook)
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:55:04 GMT

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:

>                                       I think getting married at 18
>is equally foolish as some think multipartner relationships.

Definitely a case of 'your mileage may vary', we got married at 21 having been
together for a couple of years previously and are still together 10 years on.
We've always had an open relationship which has evolved and got better over
the years. A solid relationship is a great place to start from to experience
others.
--
Chris Seabrook		cds@ossi.com 			+1 510 652 6200 x118
Engineering Manager	Open System Solutions Inc	COINS: 7924-118

	Per saltire gules and Or, a sun counterchanged.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:11:08
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: na,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jew@venus.sunquest.com's message of 25 Sep 92 15:06:49


In article <JEW.92Sep25150649@venus.venus.sunquest.com> jew@venus.sunquest.com (Ward... James Ward) writes:
>My wife and I are poly-interested and experienced.  My wife has bi
>tendencies and is slightly interested in additional male or female
>partners to play with.  I am not interested in other males however.  I
>feel kinda guilty limiting the posibilities.

If you're not interested, you're not interested.  Are you interested in
every woman you meet?  You "limit the possibilites" every time you don't
find someone attractive.  Even though we don't all agree on a definition
of polyamory, I have never heard anyone say that if you're polyamorous
you have to have sex with everyone who is available.

>Am I right?  Am I wrong?  Should I try it?  Is it scary?

I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" in who you are attracted to.
There is no requirement in polyamory that you must be bisexual, although
the two seem to go together a lot.  If you're interested, try it, if
not, don't.  New things are often scary, but you're the one that knows
if it's scary for you.  Don't do it because you think you're "supposed
to," though...do it if you *want* to.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: blaze@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Suki)
Subject: the ACS thing...
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:13:00 GMT

Hi ya'all...Karl and I both took up this conversation in ASB.
If you want to see what we're saying please check it out there...
I don't want to get into it seperately in both groups since
Karl chose to only respond to one....

		-Suki

PS.  To the person who asked why I have an anonymous address
	even though I post straight....it's because some people
	don't want to mail anyone with their address and I
	respect that.  This gives them a way to get ahold of me....

-- 
	>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Suki<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
		    blaze@westmark.stanford.edu  or
		 anonymus+284@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:26:54 GMT

In article <asuccop.717814753@milton> asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop) writes:

>	the only time it bugs me that guys' *only* interest in me is
>	my bisexuality and/or polyamority is when they're sleazeball
>	pigs about it.

All men are sleazeball pigs.

Are we not men ?  

:-)


		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:50:31
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: na,local
	<MUFFY.92Sep26191108@remarque.berkeley.edu> <38668@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu's message of 27 Sep 92 18:49:03 GMT


In article <38668@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Sep26191108@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>+I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" in who you are attracted to.
>+There is no requirement in polyamory that you must be bisexual, although
>+the two seem to go together a lot.  If you're interested, try it, if

>I do think there is a 'right' and 'wrong' type of attraction. I feel
>that it is 'wrong' to be attracted to the play-mate-of-the-month and
>not to the ordinary, non-airbrushed, plain clothed, various sized
>and shaped women that one meets in ordinary social contact.

Why is this wrong?  It may be pretty silly, not to mention frustrating,
but what makes it *wrong*?  If I am attracted to men taller than myself,
is that wrong?  What if they are shorter?  If I am attracted to redheads
but not blonds, is that wrong?  If I like slender women, is that wrong?

Yes, we get our ideas of what is attractive from our society, and yes,
it is probably wrong (it's certainly slimy) for advertisers to use
unattainable ideals of beauty to manipulate people into buying their
products.  However, that does not mean that an individual's personal
preferences, even if they coincide with the advertiser's ideals, are
*wrong*.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: whelan@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (John T. whelan)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: So, you're straight... so far. (was Re: Why are you straight?)
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:56:23 GMT

williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:

>	Not that I disagree entirely with your post, but to be honest,
>one could use the same justification to say -- well you just are not
>a child molester -- yet, or you just don't like sex with animals --
>yet.  You can use the same arguments about keeping your mind open
>toward 'bi' towards other areas.

	The difference is that I have yet to hear a good reason other
than personal taste not to have sex with another man, whereas there
are good arguments about consensuality by which one can rule out
bestiality and pedophilia in the abstract.
					John Whelan

--
	"Do you know what Freud said about dreams of flying?
	 It means you're really dreaming about having sex."
	"Indeed?  Tell me then, what does it mean when
	 you dream about having sex?"  -- Sandman #15
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:50:56 GMT

In article <38797@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.162435.7473@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>Now, as for the 'humanness' of this system, haven't heard of
>non-humans engaging in barter systems or other systems of
>evaluation, so maybe this is what differentiates us from the rest of
>the animal pack, since tool use doesn't do it any more. But soon I
>suppose we'll hear of dolphins bartering for sex and even this
>distinction will collapse between us and the animals.

The various species of bower birds engage in building elaborate show
cases for the brightly colored trinkets that the the male bower bird collects 
to entice the female bower bird to mate with him.  These bowers 
have no known connection to nesting, as the female uses a site 
separate from the bowers to lay and incubate her eggs.  Each species of 
bower birds specializes in trinkets of a particular color.  One species 
is especially fond of blue trinkets.  Another desires yellow trinkets. 
Since these trinkets tend to be scarce, male bower birds will raid 
the bowers of their competitors, steal the trinkets and destroy the 
bower, just for good measure.  All this effort is expended by the male 
bower bird because the female will judge his adequacy for mating based 
on the quality of his trinkets and bower.

Hey, if this isn't capitalism, I don't know what is.


Another fine digression brought to you by:
Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:49:03 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <MUFFY.92Sep26191108@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
+
+In article <JEW.92Sep25150649@venus.venus.sunquest.com> jew@venus.sunquest.com (Ward... James Ward) writes:
+>partners to play with.  I am not interested in other males however.  I
+>feel kinda guilty limiting the posibilities.
+
+If you're not interested, you're not interested.  Are you interested in

But then may be you are  interested and at a paradoxical point where
you are confronted with two moral systems. The one which is negative
toward homosexual behavior, the other positive. Life is paradoxical
and so this is just another installment.
+
+>Am I right?  Am I wrong?  Should I try it?  Is it scary?
+
+I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" in who you are attracted to.
+There is no requirement in polyamory that you must be bisexual, although
+the two seem to go together a lot.  If you're interested, try it, if

I do think there is a 'right' and 'wrong' type of attraction. I feel
that it is 'wrong' to be attracted to the play-mate-of-the-month and
not to the ordinary, non-airbrushed, plain clothed, various sized
and shaped women that one meets in ordinary social contact. But then
if every man was only attracted to the available women of his social
circle, Playboy et al. would be out of business, sex wouldn't sell a
host of useless products, and peace and prosperity would reign suppreme.

But on a different campain, I feel that the women's movement has
erred in eschewing objectification. I feel that any 2-3-d artistic
representation is 'objectifying' and hence it is only the
'exploitation' that is the objectionable residue, i.e. gross amounts
of money is made on the 'women-as-object' industry with little pay
back to the model or person who is objectified (Madona is a rarity
in that she is in control of her money and profit margines).

Well, what's the point? I feel that there is a complete lack of male
erotic images available. The only ones come from the homosexual
world and may or may not appeal to the general heterosexual
audience. Hence, a heterosexual male has very little to view in
regards to male's as seen as erotic, other than going to a
homosexual venue, which may be 'scary' (there is the sneak pre-view
in adult films with very long scenes where a penis is paramount).

So what does that have to do with the women's movement, at least in
art? Well, name the long list of women who have 'objectified' the
man as erotic object! I think there are a few but defininately not
many (Personally I can't think of any). Why is this? The feminist
critique of erotic art is that it objectifies and hence enslaves
women, since feminists are against objectification and enslavement,
they are against the current eroticism in art.


-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: So, you're straight... so far.  (was Re: Why are you straight?)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:01:27 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Oct1.005204.19721@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   Even more importantly, perhaps, is the penultimate goal of getting
>rid of these words, and their accompanying concepts.  Most people said
>"I'm straight because I've never been attracted to a member of my own
>sex..."
>
>   Let's put an important word in there.
>
>   "... Yet."
>
>   Most of the people on USENET are young, literate, and intelligent.
>I think, even with the attitude of "I've always been completely
>straight," most of the people on the 'net are smart enough to realize
>that, over the course of a long life, stranger things could happen.
>
....
>   Sex is a lot more than Tab-A into Slot-B.  It's about hugging,
>kissing, cuddling, touching, and loving someone.  It's about looking
>down at someone in morning sunlight and thinking about how pretty they
>are.
>
>never."  Let's be honest... you don't know.
---

	Not that I disagree entirely with your post, but to be honest,
one could use the same justification to say -- well you just are not
a child molester -- yet, or you just don't like sex with animals --
yet.  You can use the same arguments about keeping your mind open
toward 'bi' towards other areas.

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
Subject: Explanation, please.
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:05:29 GMT

	I was looking through the various newsgroups, and yours sounded 
interesting.  I assume that this topic refers to loving a variety of 
people.  
	As it takes a while for information from the coasts to reach the
center of the country, I would appreciate a description, history, whatever
of what polyamory is.

	Please post the explanation for future adventurers.

Thank you.	Torsten at Omaha,The Great American Desert
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:30:08 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


   Oh no! John, normally we are almost always in agreement, but I gotta
take issue at this...

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>On the woman's side I would like the woman to take reponsibility for
>being sexual[ly] provocative.

   I realise I have a bit of a kneejerk reaction to this, but John, I find
this a really hurtful & damaging idea. "Whatever we where, wherever we go,
No means No".

   Do we really suggest that banks are "financially provocative" and should
take responsibility for armed robbery because of all that money they keep
there?!?

   In some circumstances miscommunication can occur to the point where
someone inappropriately perceives a sexual invitation on the behalf of
another, sure. But it is *their* responsibility to ensure that it *isn't*
inappropriate! 

   The view of the law in my state here in Australia is that consent 
cannot be presumed in any sexual situation unless it has explicitly been
asked for and received. (I think that's it anyway, don't have the
wording in front of me). Among many other factors, the clothes someone
is wearing or not wearing says *nothing* on the issue of consent.

   We are not responsible for the unreasonableness of others.


>Again, a woman raised in the US culture
>should have by the time she has arrived at adulthood learned the cue
>cards and uses them with the reponsibility of adult acceptance that the
>cues imply.

   "They should really have known better than to...<whatever>" is very
damaging because (in my opinion) it takes the burden of responsibility
from the perpetrator and places it on the target.

   The problem lies in whatever is wrong in peoples' heads that there
*is* this notion of "the cue cards" - they associate "Yes I want sex"
with various things like clothing, behaviour, location, whatever.

   I say that only *one* thing means "I want sex" - and that's someone
informedly saying "I want sex".

   "Those banks really should have by the time they arrive at incorporation
learned the implications that accumulations of money invite". Neither
fair nor reasonable, is it?

   [sigh] If I've read you wrong, I'm very sorry.

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Hello from anony.
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:18:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Bv7BAM.F0F@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
+In article <Bv1G8y.KIn.2@cs.cmu.edu> anonymus+521@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
+>Hello out there, freako's.
+>--
+
+And isn't this just exactly what this group needed?  Anonymous assholes 
+from everywhere sending friendly greetings.

Unfortunately, this is a side effect of the anonymus(notice the sp)
post services. I must agree that there are individuals who may wish
to post informative messages via anonymous posting services.

However, I would like to have the ability to send a message to the
a.p service provider that an anonymous poster is mis-using the
service to post hateful drivel which provides nothing to general
understanding, except that there are assholes in the universe which
is well known. The a.p provider may then mail back to the individual
to change or refrain from posting.

Censorship, why of course! I'm tired of hearing from negative
drivelers, I would rather wade through 100 positive drivel posts
than the typical negative drivel post.

Now I do think that there is a 'right' to post objections to
polyamory, even in alt.poly (here I'm thinking of at least
'reasoned' objections rather than just a tirade of insults). But
I'd rather it be from a real name, or as real named as the e-net allows.
At least with some types of 'fake' posts one can determine some sort of
reverse path to at least the culprits site and notify the system
administrator. But with the anonymous services there is an additional
layer of cover to go through and that's were the sevice provider needs
to be sensitive to abuses of that service.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: hughesk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Kirby W. Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:39:57 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <MUFFY.92Sep29103638@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> [quoted previous posts deleted]
>
>It is not the "indicating interest" that causes women (or anyone, I
>would think) to be "put off," it is the fact that the interest is in a
>single feature, rather than the whole person.  For example, if someone
>was interested in you for no other reason than that you had blond hair,
>and they would have sex with you without even wanting to know anything
>else about you, would you find that appealing?  Perhaps you would, I do
>not know.  I know that I would not, and do not.  If a person wants to
>sleep with just a feature, they can find someone besides me to do it
>with.
>
>I have heard men complain that women are only interested in money,
>status, or success.  What if a woman lit up when she found out that you
>had a couple thousand dollars in your pocket?  Would you be pleased?
>
>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
>~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
> sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
> But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn

This is utter nonsense.  What if the guy who posted was sick of going
through all the dating-and-getting-to-know-eachother thing with women
only to finally find out that they are not interested in bi or poly
relationships?  It would sure save a lot of fucking time if he knew
beforehand if a certain woman was bi/poly.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: anonymus+1121@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: WMC ISO BiF in Austin-Houston-S.Antonio area
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:16:00 GMT


ISO femme, non-smoking, W or HBiF, age 20-30, in the Austin-
Houston-San Antonio area for romantic adventures.  This 
opportunity involves a MWC in our mid-twenties who really 
would like to try this out and enjoy other women.

YOU:  We'd like to talk to and meet genuinely interested
women who are femme and discrete only please, and
open minded about romance and adventure.

US: love dogs, camping, bike-riding for recreation and
nature stuff, native American and Mexican art, food,
and culture.  Health conscious, but NOT jocks.  She's a
beautiful femme, he's a relatively handsome graduate
student.  We love innovation, novelty, spontaneity,
and creativity in sex,  and we're into total sharing & 
seething passion.  We haven't  tried this before, 
but we're looking to broaden our horizons and
make special friends.

Are you?

Let's talk tonight!!!
--
To use this service, send mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: dmason@plg.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Mason)
Subject: People are People (Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Organization: /u2/dmason/.organization
	<1992Sep30.130934.24980@tfs.com> <BvEM0o.AF5@news.orst.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Sep30133423@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<lcm2sgINNl0n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<MUFFY.92Oct1102623@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:02:31 GMT

 I don't understand what's going on here.

 What I read is Muffy saying, ``I find some people attractive, but I
don't usually want to jump their bones until I get to know them a
little bit, find them interesting & feel that they find *ME*
interesting.''  She's also not usually interested if someone wants her
because some tiny subset of her characteristics pushes the other
person's button.

 The other people in the thread (apparently all guys) seem to be
saying, ``If I meet you and 30 seconds later want to have sex with
you, that's because I'm taking everything into consideration: 1)
you're female, 2) I have the hots for you, 3) you're poly, so I don't
have to worry about SO problems, 4) Ummm....''

 I guess I'm weird.  96% of my daydreams are not about ``great legs''
or ``making it with two bi babes'', but rather about how to make my
compiler produce better code, or how to manage for my 2 loves and I
and possibly others to settle down & have some kids and live happily
ever after.

 I guess I'm weird.  When I meet people, I find them interesting as
people.  I don't expect to play genital games with many people, so I
don't much worry whether they have genitals that I am interested in
playing with.  If later on I get really close to them and they happen
to have male genitalia, then it just removes a few things that we
could do to pass the time & get closer.  A shame, but not really very
important.

 As for >2 people making love at once: I think it would be interesting
to be one of two people (A & B) making love to a third person (C).  It
doesn't really matter to me whether person B is male or female,
although for whatever reasons I wouldn't be comfortable with person C
being male.  I also think it would be interesting to have multiple
people making love to me.  Again for whatever reasons I wouldn't be
comfortable with them being male.  On the other hand, I can't see
going very far out of my way for a 3+ way sex experience.

Peace & Love	../Dave

BTW, I'm not trying to inflame people.  Just calling it as I see it.
Feel free to flame me, but mail is probably better... no reason to
waste everyone else's time.