HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.bi
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:19:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec30.131918.3113
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA


I have added soc.bi to the Newsgroups line. It seemed appropriate.

In article <1hqik4INN7ns@bang.hal.COM> landman@hal.COM (Howard Landman) writes:
>>In article <725616049.AA00762@tdkt.kksys.com> Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise) writes:
>>> Some lesbians seem to have a deep fear that being fucked will turn them
>>> straight.
>
>In article <ZEN.92Dec29095115@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>  Sounds more like a male heterosexual fantasy than a lesbian fear to me...
>
>I'm not so sure.  Many songs in "women's music" warn about the dangers of
>intercourse.  Take, for example, Chris Williamson's "Twisted Love":
>
>	Twisted love, hard on the spirit
>	Twisted love, don't let me near it
>	Only one drop, can poison the water hole.
>
>And it's certainly true that many lesbians view heterosexual intercourse to
>be a form of political treason, and will get very angry at another "lesbian"
>who commits such a heinous "crime".

I have a first hand example of this. My Primary SO, Deanne, was for all intents
and purposes a lesbian prior to us getting together. She had a wide circle of
friends and an active social life.  Once she got together with me, the phone
stopped ringing immediately. Nobody called her, nobody asked her to go out with
them (even though she would have been free to do anything she wanted to).

Personally, I don't think it is a 'fear' thing at all, but more of one of 
'political purity'. As has been discussed here before, how do you tell that
a male-female couple walking down the street is bi? You can't. (Unless the
people make an effort to wear clues).

Now at least she can go out with a female and be social :) (Okay, it is a 
bit of a backhanded announcement) We have been involved with a third person
for the last few months. Her name is Georgia and I am once again amazed at the
similarities between her and the two of us. The thing I will wait to see now
is if when they do go out, the phone starts ringing again. If it does, I will
be rather disappointed. Sorry, it just sounds a bit fickle to me.

>But not all of them, thank goodness!

No, not all of them, but far too many of them.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
also smoir@World.std.com              # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:47:07 GMT
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus

Just wanted to recommend a very good book, _Male Sexuality_ by Bernie
Zilbergeld.  Interestingly enough, he's also been a computer columnist...
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 2 days and counting
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:51:15
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com's message of Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:08:30 -0600


In article <725616049.AA00762@tdkt.kksys.com> Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise) writes:
> Some lesbians seem to have a deep fear that being fucked will turn them
> straight.

  Sounds more like a male heterosexual fantasy than a lesbian fear to me...

 -- d
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: "cheating" and def.
From: patrickm@netlink.cts.com (Patrick McKinnion)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:42:11 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

  To comment on something in #1987, about some people considering 
anything other than intercourse as not cheating on s/o, let me relate a 
experience from my past:

  Once I found out a friend of mine in a closed relationship was bedding 
another woman.  When I asked her about it, she claimed that since she was 
with another woman, then she wasn't cheating on her husband, since it 
really didn't count as sex......

  I'm amazed at the straining at loopholes some people will undergo, 
rather than open up their relationship.   :)

  Thought I'd throw that one on.....

                   -- Patrick McKinnion

                   -- Patrickm@netlink.cts.com
                   -- Emerald@netrun.cts.com


--                    
INTERNET:  patrickm@netlink.cts.com (Patrick McKinnion)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!patrickm
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: Ambiguity
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:55:06 GMT

In article <42774@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark) writes:
>In article <BzJKA7.IAn@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>+Do you suppose it's possible to have safe sex discussions without
>+talking in conundrums?
>
>Conundrums should always be used for safe sex. Boy, where hav you
>been in the last ten years... 
>-- 
>
>John Clark
>jclark@ucsd.edu

Living in a condominium, obviously...

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
I dreamed I had to take a test in a Dairy Queen on another planet...
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:16:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.011416.6712@netcom.com> weissman@netcom.com (Bob Weissman) writes:
>In <1992Dec30.170528.16344@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>
>>I've had my fair share of sex, vaginal and otherwise, and I've enjoyed it.
>>But I've never completely understood what the big deal is.  I've understood
>>the problems intellectually.  But I've never had a corresponding emotional or
>>empathetic understanding.  It's just a totally foreign concept to me to see
>>sex as anything really more then a basic biological function ranking up
>>there with eating, sleeping, and taking a shit.
>
>Whew.  If you find taking a shit as satisfying as having sex, I pity you.

I think you might be quoting Chris a little bit out of context, here, but I'll
leave the final judgement on that to Chris.

Not-too-famous quote from Clint Eastwood, of all people: "If I've had a good
shit, and a good laugh, I've had a good day."  (It made me think the better
of him -- it made me realize anew that getting older is no picnic, even for
Republicans like him who seem to have turned senescence into an elite
profession.  But I digress, as usual.)

Good sex combines the best aspects of one of those wonderful biological
satisfactions with the emotional satisfactions of a good laugh (or a good
cry, for that matter).  But frankly, if I thought that sex would never
offer emotional satisfaction again, I'd stick with masturbation.  Sex is
not a purely excretory exercise in individual endorphin release, and only
a fool would think so.  It is essentially interactive.

I've had lots of sex that I'd rank lower than many good meals, good sleeps --
and good shits, for that matter.   The reason for the lower ranking almost
always had to do with flaws in my relationship with the person I was having
sex with.

And likewise, I've had many good laughs (and good cries) that were better
than lots of sex I've had, and the (often non-sexual) relationship I had
with the person I was laughing or crying with had everything to do with
THAT ranking as well.

>The reason sex is more satisfying than the activities with which you compare
>it is that it involves intimacy with another person.  I would have thought
>this was obvious.

The reductionist "sex is just a biological function" bit is a common pseudo-
profundity.  Sometimes "the obvious" goes by the wayside as people begin to
exercise their intuitions on a new topic.  Sometimes they come around again.
Sometimes they don't.

>>I've often thought that the world might be a better place if people just had
>>more sex (and enjoyed it for what it is).
>
>Now there's a statement I can agree with.

Making the world a better place will never be that simple.  Unfortunately.
But at least it's a half-truth with which I can agree half-way.
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: smoir@world.std.com (Scott A Moir)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:07:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.230020.7673@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec22124315@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>> Why not "polyamorous"?  
>
>Because the term misses a Very Important Point: that I don't *like*
>having multiple simultaneous relationships, and that I prefer my
>lovers one-at-a-time.  This is exactly the phenomenon for which I
>use the term "monogamous": to call myself "polyamorous" hides the
>fact.

Then if there is a term which fits what you are, then please tell us what
it is. If you love more than one person, without regard to how many you
are dealing with -at once-, you fit within the definition of Polyamory.

>> In fact, you *are* polyamorous, according to *your* definition ("max
>> number of acceptable lovers > 1").
>
>Note one more time: that is not my definition.  I cancelled the article
>that contained the "max number of acceptable" phrase, replacing it with 
>the term "simultaneous-number-of-lovers" as part of one's preferences.  
>
>> Also, according to the "societal" definition of monogamy you made ("max
>> number of acceptable lovers = 1"), you are not monogamous.
>
>My current relationship-status is not monogamous, nor have I ever claimed
>that it is.  (I've gone into some detail about the particular circumstances
>that allow me to conduct my simultaneous relationships just now.)  My
>preference is *still* for a single lover at a time, and has been since
>I began my sex life some ten years ago.

Well, look at the example of Elf Sternberg.. he has more than one lover,
but prefers to spend time with them alone rather than together with other
loves. (At least sexually, I don't think the restriction is there socially.)
I get the feeling that you are talking about the sex aspect, and if that
is the case, the term 'polyamory' isn't correct. We aren't using it to
mean 'sleeps with more than one person' but rather 'loves more than one
person'.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
smoir@world.std.com            \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
Also: pentangl@ursa-major.spdcc.com   # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbsl
From: ornoth@wonky.UUCP (David A. Liscomb)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: I feel like I'm listening to a cat fight
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:16:16 GMT

Hi, folks. New guy on the block. Elise sez:

>                                             I'm interested in the concept of
>how jealousy is unlearned, and in how people experience secure rather than
>insecure feelings in relationships.  What in you changed?

I'll put in my nickel here, for what it's worth. It's not based on
poly_yam experience, but I'll share it in hopes that you find it
useful.

I'm terrifically spoiled and was a very jealous and selfish boyfriend
for a long time. How jealous? Well, I used to get jealous of cats,
songs, food, anything that diverted my SO's attention from _ME_. Much of
the problem was my own insecurity, and my obtaining my entire self-worth
and security from my SO. I used to throw the most wonderful tantrums you
can imagine.

What changed that? Well, it's kind of an odd story. I started dating
this woman who was even more giving than I was selfish. She provided me
with love, security, and friendship, without ever asking anything in
return. Of course, I never realized that we were actually suffering
complimentary neuroses and codependency until we were divorced eight
years later.

But I learned some life-altering lessons from her. It may sound
ironic, but she's left me with a lasting confidence and security. And
the bitter realization that jealousy and selfishness will destroy even
the most beautiful relationship in the world. Realizing that, my
behavior has changed entirely.

Of course, I can't tell you how useful my lessons have been in a
nonmonog situation, yet. Hows about we bring this topic up again in a
week or so?  ;^)

-David/Orny Liscomb                  This package sold by weight, not
 Systems Programming Team Leader     by volume. Some settling may occur
 MediQual Systems Inc.               during shipment.
 Westborough, MA USA

Your_Insult: I know you'd love to be handicapped by a mermaid with a
             caramel apple.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules And Me
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:52:48 GMT

tonyl@vcd.hp.com (Tony Long) writes:
: 	Well, I know that many "polyamory purists" will insist that
: it's either open and consensual in a marriage or it's out--I expect
: both that and the argument for strict monogamy. However, I would
: like to hear discussion of these issues from different perspectives
: and maybe some personal stories of how others have dealt with
: this.

It's very hard to say that "non-open" (let's avoid the 'cheating' word)
is OK.  Personally, I strongly believe that I have my own life to
live and that technically I don't have to tell my wife anything.

However, that is totally offset by the fact that I love her, would do
nothing to hurt her, and cannot in fact live non-openly.

If I didn't, then I guess I'd have to question why I am married.

But that's me.  And it's not up to me or anyone else to judge you and
your relationship.  If it works for you, do it.

Just expect to get a lot of static for it :-)

	Tony
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: weissman@netcom.com (Bob Weissman)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Organization: The Ranks of the Unemployed
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:14:16 GMT

In <1992Dec30.170528.16344@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:

>I've had my fair share of sex, vaginal and otherwise, and I've enjoyed it.
>But I've never completely understood what the big deal is.  I've understood
>the problems intellectually.  But I've never had a corresponding emotional or
>empathetic understanding.  It's just a totally foreign concept to me to see sex
>as anything really more then a basic biological function ranking up there with
>eating, sleeping, and taking a shit.

Whew.  If you find taking a shit as satisfying as having sex, I pity you.

The reason sex is more satisfying than the activities with which you compare it
is that it involves intimacy with another person.  I would have thought this was
obvious.

>I've often thought that the world might be a better place if people just had
>more sex (and enjoyed it for what it is).

Now there's a statement I can agree with.

-- 
-- Bob Weissman
-- weissman@netcom.com
--
From: jlw3y@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: What does ployamory mean? (was Re: Intro to me and question for all)
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:13:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

ambar@cygnus.com (Jean Marie Diaz) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>   :    That's very contrary indeed to my experience, and also seems very
>   : counterintuitive. I'll outright ask people - does it really not seem 
>   : worthy of comment at least for someone to say "Yes, by my own choice
>   : I have more than one partner, but really, I'm monogamous, I am, since
>   : I'd *prefer* having only one"?
>
>I do not think this is any more remarkable than those people who say 'I
>am polyamorous by preference, but am currently being monogamous with my
>lover, because (for any number of reasons) I have promised them that I
>will do so.'

It is stupid to tell someone that they are wrong to call themselves,
or not call themselves, polyamorous.  As long as they communicate
what they mean, arguing about signifiers is dumb.

-jennifer
From: landman@hal.COM (Howard Landman)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:14:28 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bang.hal.com

>In article <725616049.AA00762@tdkt.kksys.com> Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise) writes:
>> Some lesbians seem to have a deep fear that being fucked will turn them
>> straight.

In article <ZEN.92Dec29095115@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>  Sounds more like a male heterosexual fantasy than a lesbian fear to me...

I'm not so sure.  Many songs in "women's music" warn about the dangers of
intercourse.  Take, for example, Chris Williamson's "Twisted Love":

	Twisted love, hard on the spirit
	Twisted love, don't let me near it
	Only one drop, can poison the water hole.

And it's certainly true that many lesbians view heterosexual intercourse to
be a form of political treason, and will get very angry at another "lesbian"
who commits such a heinous "crime".

But not all of them, thank goodness!

	Howard

By the way, despite having difficulties with some of her lyrics, I really
enjoy Chris Williamson's music and recommend it heartily for the rock-inclined.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:43:15
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<921216181012@desire.ftp.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec16171122@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec22.201002.4046@u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: vicka@wrq.com's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:10:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.201002.4046@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec16171122@remarque.berkeley.edu>>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>   [responding to Frances Selkirk
>>   Muffy might also assume that Vicka, who has been so very clear from the
>>   beginning of this as to what she, personally, meant by monogamous, was
>>   similarly clear to her lovers about what she meant by it. 
>>
>>I have indeed assumed this.

>No, you haven't.  You've previously posted: 

	   > I think that claiming to be monogamous but then not acting
	   > that way (in other words, lying to yourself and your partners) is.
   and 
	   >>Do you have any reason to believe that Vicka is anything but
	   >>honest with her lovers?
	   >
	   > I have no reason to believe she is or isn't. 

Yup.  First, there is a difference between "clarity" and "honesty."
Second, I believe you are "as clear" with your lovers as you are with
us.  That does not mean that I believe you are being very clear.

>>   [Frances again] She used a word in a way you would not,
>>   while being completely, totally clear about that usage. Deal.
>>
>> Why?  

>Because there isn't any way to describe me within the limited lexicon
>you'd like to allow.  You've never offered any more useful term.

Why not "polyamorous"?  In fact, you *are* polyamorous, according to
*your* definition ("max number of acceptable lovers > 1").  Also,
according to the "societal" definition of monogamy you made ("max number
of acceptable lovers = 1"), you are not monogamous.

>> If I started using extremely insulting terms to refer to her, claiming
>> that I had simply "redefined" them for myself,

>The point is that I have never claimed to have "redefined" any word at
>all.  I use "monogamous" in a valid and extant way; it's only within your
>personal limitations on the language that it's been "redefined".

Nope, it is within the limitations as it is used by all the other people
in our society that I have encountered, other than you and your two or
three lovers and/or defenders.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Merry! (was: Intro to me and question for all)
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:44:01

As a Christmas/Solstice present to myself, I am deleting this entire
thread, and killing my subscription to this group until I get back
from New Year's weekend. As a present to the rest of the group, I
suggest that the other participants do the same, or at least turn to
other subjects.  (Perhaps next year we can send these things to
alt.polyamory.semantics?) :-)

						
                 <*>    
                 /^\    
                //o\\	       "Then it's zippety-jingle and dash away ping.
               /o/^\o\          Hang holly and berries in all the halls,  
              o/*/^o\\*         tie tassels on all the thermostats, and
             //0/o^\\*\\        write "Merry Christmas!" on all of the walls."
            /o/*//^\0\\o\                          
           *//o*/*^*\o\\*\                       _Eloise at Christmastime_
          ////////^\\\\\\\\                         (Hillary Knight)
                 |||                                                      
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Get with the Northern Hemisphere: lighten up!"

									*hugs* 

										-Francie


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:20:49 GMT

In article <1hqik4INN7ns@bang.hal.COM> landman@hal.COM (Howard Landman) writes:
>I'm not so sure.  Many songs in "women's music" warn about the dangers of
>intercourse.  Take, for example, Chris Williamson's "Twisted Love":
>
>	Twisted love, hard on the spirit
>	Twisted love, don't let me near it
>	Only one drop, can poison the water hole.
>
I will raise some questions about this interpretation -- there is nothing
in the song that is gender-specific, and at the time Cris W. came out with
the album she got some reaction from would-be fans that it was not 
lesbian-oriented enough. So I doubt there is an anti-male or anti-het 
message in this song; I think she's just talking about messed up relationships
generically.

I can't think of good examples of the kind of song you refer to (though
they may exist), the best that comes to mind is the closing chorus of
some humorous song: "I've given up steak for tofu and I know I can't
go back" (might be "Piney Creek Woman" by Betsy Rose and Cathy Winter)

Or Malvina Reynold's song "We don't need the men". (but she herself was het.)

(Lycical celebrations of women are more widespread that denunciations
of men.)
-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................