From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,alt.polyamory
Subject: Our heroes!
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:00:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: nwnexus.1992Sep15.100018.25026
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Originator: elf@halcyon.com

In article <1992Sep14.192738.4232@nwnexus.WA.COM>
     elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>Geraldo:  I don't know why I'm being so annoying today so I'll shut up
>right now.

   Omaha shouted a "PLEASE DO!!!" when he said this.

>Charles and Janice...

   Both looked incredible onstage; Charles had IMPACT in his purple
shirt and earring, and Janice was just a perfect study in composure.
You want my opinion?  The audience was soo! hostile to these two
because, despite their talk about loving others, about polyamory and
bisexuality, they held hands, leaned against each other and whispered
and smiled to each other through the whole thing.

   You made their lives difficult by being married, happy, loving...
and still being what you were.

   My hat is off to Charles and Janice!

>Both are bisexual-- that's unusual because in the first
>two cases only one partner in the marriage was bisexual...

   Hmph.  Geraldo flunks Logic 101; he's got FOUR case individuals, but
assign HALF of them to the "unusual" category because they happen to be
the second half.

>Charles:  Do you want her phone number?

>     [ Sudden outbreak of laughter an 'Ohhhhhs' from the audience ]

   The last time I delivered a line like this in such a setting,
someone walked _right up to me_ and accused me of whoring my wife.
Hmph.  Still, a good shot, Charles, but I didn't click on Geraldo being
your type.  Either of you.

>Janice:  No.  [ Charles leans over and says something the Janice, and
>she breaks out laughing suddenly ] Nope.

   Okay, Charles.  Give.  What did you whisper?  :-)

>Geraldo:  Marie, in the green dress, is the sad side of this story.

   More sighing; goddamit, Geraldo made Marie sound like the sad side
of ALL of this, not just that of the sneaking-around-closeted-bisexual.

>Geraldo:  [ To Camera] Getting down with bisexuals!  The doubt, the
>dishonesty, the danger!  We'll be right back.

   Hmph!  I say, Hmph!

>Lorraine:  Bisexuality is normal.  [ More cheering from the front two
>rows ]  And, there's no such thing as bisexuality.  There's no such
>thing as heterosexuality, there's no such thing as homosexuality,
>there's sexuality.  And we all explore it, and follow our own desires,
>and our own hearts and identities as we grow, and as we realize
>ourselves.  Does that make sense to people?

>Geraldo:  Umm, no.

   And that, friends, is part of the problem.  Lorraine talked WAY over
these people's heads.  As someone else said, this was not the high-
brow, thoughtful crowd of people who exchange long, complex discussions
about gender identity!  The basic issues of non-discrimination or
kinsey orientation are more important than new-agey discussions.

>Geraldo:  Does that sound real to you, or does it sound like just words
>to justify extramarital affairs?

>UAM 2(F):  It sounds like words to me, because I really don't
>understand.  I wanna be fair, along with the lady in the green dress,
>don't judge people and things like that.  But you two, I don't know...
>Something about you two... was this discussed... okay.  You were married
>for five years, but you were together for fifteen years...

   *Sigh*  Is this really so hard to get across?  I know the show
wasn't about non-monogamy, but is this really such a hard issue to get
across to people, this want to be close, this non-supremacy of sexual
exclusivity?  It seems so easy to me; it's _always_ seemed so easy to
me.

>Charles:  Well, we're here to try and make more.
>     [ Laughter from the audience. ]
>Geraldo:  He means, he's here to...
>     [ Louder laughter. ]
>Charles:  What... Uhm, what DID I mean by that?

   Yeah, Charles, what DID you mean by that?  :-)

>UAM 4(F):  But Why do you have to go out to someone else?
>Charles and Janice (simultaneously):  We don't have to.
>UAM 4(F):  So why do you do it?
>Charles:  Because we like to.
>     [ Laughter and expression of disbeleif from the audience ]

   Arrrgh!  Why!?  Why does the average American find this concept so
difficult to grasp!?  Is it?  I mean, is it really that alien a thought
process?

>UAM 4(F):  You guys, I don't understand you....

   No shit.

>Carolyn:  That would have bothered me.  Because, there's nothing another
>woman could have given him that I couldn't.  But I surely couldn't give
>him something that another man could have.

   Now this is a funny attitude.  Normally it's the "I can't compete
with anything my spouse's sex has to offer" that's the troubling
aspect.

>Lorraine:  Can I answer that?  Well, everyone is different.  These
>people  say they're a hundred percent Bi-.  That's because they're
>trying to tell you that they don't necessarily say "Hey, I'm 70%
>attracted to women and 30% attracted to men."  Because it changes, and
>everyone has their own story to tell, there's no one way of being
>bisexual.  You can be bisexual and monogamous, you can be bisexual and
>celibate.

   Irghle!  This paragraph annoyed me, 'cause suddenly Lorraine's
speaking for others, and _not even including_ herself in that
collection!  And the points about being bisexual didn't get hammered
home enough.  Bisexual and monogamous, bisexual and celibate.  Yes,
Charles, I agreed with you 100%... I too, would feel somewhat
incomplete without a man in my life.  But that's all the audience will
hear.  *sigh*

>Charles:  He.  Well, actually, he's not old enough to tell us if he's a
>he or she, either, but.

   Whooosh!  Went right over the heads of the audience.  The bisexuals
didn't miss it, everybody else did.

>Charles:  If that's what you want, if what you need is monogamy, by all
>means negotiate that, communicate that, get that up front.  But not
>everybody needs that.

   Jeez, Charles, we're having trouble getting them to understand they
should negotiate for their own sexual safety, and suddenly you want
negotiation for monogamy and understanding and commitment, too?  :-)


>Lorriane:  Heterosexism is not that big a word.  What's it's saying that
>if there's supposedly only one correct way to be...

   *Sigh*  The "need" for duality issue.  Again, right over the heads
of the audience.  Totally missed it.

>UAM 11(F):  I understand the partner business, but why everyone else,
>why is it such a big deal to get more of the community involved with
>this?  Who you sleep with is your own business.

>Charles:  The second time you see a kid kicked out of their house,
>commit suicide, because they're bisexual and their parents can't accept
>that, you'll stop asking that question.

   Not to mention, if we're all in closets, how are we gonna find each
other!?  :-)

>UAM 12(F):  Yeah, but I'm normal!

   Bleah.  Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.

>Charles:  No, it's not a problem.  For you it is out of the normal, and
>for you it might be something that makes you unhappy.  For me to NOT do
>it, would make me unhappy.

   Tear 'er up, Charles!  :-)

>Lorraine:  I would like to say that the wife is playing Russian Roulette
>with her own health, because we each have responsibility... [ cries of
>outrage from the audience ]  Wait, wait, let me explain... let me
>explain what I'm saying.  My assumption, and I think everyone's
>assumption needs to be that we need to protect ourselves...

   Whoops...  There we go again, getting into that gray area the
outside world doesn't want to deal with.  Remember that there's still a
fantasy romance world out there that we're dangerously close to
shattering.  People want a comforting fantasy, folks...

         Elf !!!