HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos (was Re: poly-wired?)
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:09:02
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Aug9.161703.16536@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
	<1992Aug14.001929.28461@news2.cis.umn.edu>
	<1992Aug16.051922.5107@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au's message of 16 Aug 92 05:19:22 GMT


In article <1992Aug16.051922.5107@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>No-one asks, "so,
>you have such strong feelings about monogamy that your immediate response
>was to murder someone" or anything like that. It's not questioned, *everyone*
>knows what they mean.

I was listening to a song by disappear fear called "Box of Tissues."  It
starts out:

  I put a box of tissues by
  my bed
  'cause I knew that I'd be up for hours
  waiting for
  you

and then the chorus is:

  And anybody with a heart
  would have been alone
  but you brought her
  and anybody with a brain
  would've left you then
  but I stayed...

I was listening to this and thinking, suppose our whole society used
polyness as a default and monogamy was exceedingly unusual.  Then, this
song wouldn't make any sense.  You'd sit there and say well, what was
*wrong* with this other woman?  Did she not bathe, mess up the house,
make rude remarks, what?  It's a very beautiful and sad song, but it's a
little silly if you don't accept that monogamy is the only way to go.

It's a very amusing (and sometimes sad, as in the murder example) way to
look at our culture.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~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: snively.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:37:04 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

When did you start feeling that monogamy wasn't for you?  About what time 
did you first have a polyamorus (sp?) relationship?

(Don't kill me, but) I'm only 16, and I can see how monogamy isn't for 
all people.  

Sheesh.  I've typed something about four times, and I keep messing up.  
Basicly, I've been on both sides (mono/poly) and poly relationships seem 
easyer, more open, and free.  I'd just like to know when all of the 
posters to this group started feeling this way.

Isn't love a beautyful thing?
Seer

--- InterNet: snively.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu       Seer Snively
  Steal this .sig  |   Better dead than Prodigy  |   Love & be loved.
I'm just a Kesey loving, drum playing, computer using, incense burning,
philosophical deadhead rainbow high school kid with a netnews account.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock)
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:13:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.004901.16375@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
>Subject: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
>Date: 18 Aug 92 00:49:01 GMT

>In article <Hg2LPB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
>     snively.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:

>>When did you start feeling that monogamy wasn't for you?  About what time 
>>did you first have a polyamorus (sp?) relationship?

>(beginning deleted)...
>   More open and freer, yeah, I can see how they could be that.
>Easier?  Guess again!  These things take _work_, they take
>understanding, and they take compassion of the sort the non-poly people
>never have to think about... society's built around them, after all.


My experience (in two open marriages) was that much of the "work" involved 
explaining to the "others" who were not necessarily "poly" just how our 
marriage worked. A guy who was interested in my wife would have a hell of a 
time believing that I wouldn't come into the bedroom and club him with a 
baseball bat if I "knew he was there". Likewise, I can remember (as can my 
ex's) people pulling us aside and telling us "in strictest confidence" how 
our spouse had been seen "cheating". When you explain that (A) it wasn't 
cheating, and (B) it was o.k., believe me , it can be work.

BTW, this is my first posting to this group, just having found it this 
morning. I applaud the vision of its founders in pursuing their idea to the 
point where the group became a reality.

Reid
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: "poly" label and other people
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:12:15 GMT

In article <asuccop.713698417@milton> asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop) writes:

>	Annemarie, Francie's husband's gf's housemate

This is beginning to sound like horse-breeding:  Succotash out of
Lightning, etc.             

Except, of course, that these lines can be recursive.  
:-)

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Anonymous post for "Alan Hardy"
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:24:00 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

Alan Hardy writes :
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P. Woodhouse) writes :
>> It's a sanity-preserving measure, much like many
>> Bi people finding they start becoming more and more focussed on wanting 
>> Bi partners.
>
>Also came to the conclusion recently that I'm bi---if Joe's comment about
>bi partners is true, hopefully I won't take 10 years to figure it out...

   Uh, Your Mileage May Vary (TM). I *have* heard a lot of Bi folk say
they *prefer* Bi partners, yes.

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: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:25:50 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

Cynthia Nolan writes:
>I agree wholeheartedly with you on this, Joe.  One of the attitudes that being
>poly has really developed in me is an understanding that I can't (indeed,
>mustn't) take the responsibility for another person's physical or emotional
>well-being.  

   Um, minor quibble, very small point really. Perhaps the way I'd've put
in would be something like "I have a responsibility to behave responsibly
about my partners well-being, but not past the point where that starts
decreasing their power to be responsible for themselves".

   Not sure if that came across well. I sort-of simultaneously feel that
both I and a love of mine have somewhat of a responsibility to both of us,
but it's a bit different depending from whom to whom. Sorry, too tired to
explain it much better than that. 8->


>This is not to say that in any loving relationship, both partners won't
>continually work to care for each other in physical and emotional ways, but by
>the same token one does no favours to a lover by sublimating one's own rights
>or feelings to theirs. 

   Yeah, that's crucial for me too.


>I think the most important responsibility we have to partners is to be honest
>with them, and to expect and encourage the same honesty from them, about our
>needs and our feelings.  And to not play rotten little "you owe me" games with
>each other. 

   Right on Cynthia. Although I, with my famous super-caution 8->, add a
little disclaimer : generally there is an obligation to be honest and
communicative *unless* there is a better reason not to. I can certainly
envisage many scenarios where it's very reasonable for a love to not want
to tell me something, even though I might be affected by that. But yeah,
I don't think we're in disagreement here. 8->

   BTW - thanks to Cynthia and others who've expressed support for my views
in this thread. I don't think I've ever had so many people agreeing with me
about the one thing at a time ever before! 8->

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: mbuck@fibers (Michael D. Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 16 Aug 92 23:43:25 EDT
Organization: Allied Fibers, Petersburg VA

In article <Bt3380.KKz@world.std.com>, apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.051922.5107@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>
>>>   I remember earlier this year on Bisexu-L, during all the discussions on
>>>monogamy, someone wrote about being very disturbed that (for example) a
>>>murderer, when asked in court why they did it, replied "because my partner
> 
> I was reading this morning that the "Pornography Victims Bill" is
> moving along in the legislative process.  This bill allows people
> who have been victims of crimes "caused" by pornography to sue
> the producers of the material.
> 
> Obvious right-wing tactics aside, I just might support this.

Oh no!  It's another re-cycled BISEXU-L flame-tested topic showing
up here in 'alt.polyamory'.  Please, please please, pretty please,
if we discuss the P.V.A., let's all try to get along, OK? 1/2 :-)
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Buck                          | "Orange Juice...It's not _just_ 
UUCP: decwrl!twwells!fibers!mbuck     |      for heterosexuals anymore!"
Internet:                             |                -- Anita Bryant, 
  twwells!fibers!mbuck@decwrl.dec.com |                 in a future life
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:29:59 GMT
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug21.015651.7505@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>   Well, as half of the alt.polyamory creative team, I gratefully and
>gracefully accept these accolades... 8->

Half? What am I, chopped liver?

No, don't answer that.

:-P
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Polyamory and Marriage
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:55:08 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>So the relationship you are mentioning is 'polygynous', it's 'female'
>complement is 'polyandrous'. With a expanded definition of
>'mating/marriage' i.e. any sexual act between individuals, 'polygamous'
>becomes gender inspecific and could apply to a group with a mixture of
>genders and which genders are sexual active with which.
>
>However, since 'gam--' is also closely related to 'marriage' in  the
>traditional and legal sense people have been reluctant to use that
>term which has a narrower definition than what many are practicing
>or theorizing about. So someone coined the greco-latin term
>'polyamory'. I believe the term 'polyerotic' would have pleased the
>greco-latinate-phobes, but the endings 'ous' would have sounded
>disonant. Also, 'eros' and 'erotic' have such narrow definitions,
>i.e. purely superficial sexual acts, that the latin 'amo' does not,
>that the coiner wished to avoid.

   Wow!

   I vote John for moderator of "alt.usage.english.polyamory"! 8->
Although it's just occurred to me that a very similar newsgroup to the
one I propose above is already in existance - I believe it's called
"soc.bi"!!! 8->

Joe - nothing much on soc.bi, but apparantly seen as a bit of a guru here
      in alt.polyamory! 8-> (funny, I'm one of the youngest here...)

  / 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!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Organization: For this they pay you?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:44:05 GMT


[I hope I'm getting this right, my site has purged the posting]
Karen Macarthur takes exception ("EEeeeyuk") to the idea that if one
must promise monogamy  the other should "put out whenever one wants it"
as compensation.

Well, I understand both sides of this, sorta.

Leaving aside for now the previous poster's implication that non-monogamy
is for getting sex whenever you want it (though some see it that way)...

Now Karen seems to be repelled by the "gotta put out" idea, and I must say 
it seems to imply a sort of crass attitude toward the act of sexual union.
It seems like a real "you are my piece of meat" kind of attitude, and if
that's how the fellow's relationships are, well, he's welcome to 'em.  

That said,  I also encounter times when either my wife or I "need sex" for
some reason, mostly either cyclical tension or severe cuddle deficiency, and the
other is not  terribly inclined towards it.  Usually we do it anyway, because
we love each other and it's the sort of caring we hope for from each other.
If one is REALLY disinclined, we don't, but at least hug real good.

Perhaps it's the same thing in action, but the difference in attitude counts
for a lot.
-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:49:01 GMT

In article <Hg2LPB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
     snively.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:

>When did you start feeling that monogamy wasn't for you?  About what time 
>did you first have a polyamorus (sp?) relationship?

   Well, I was 19 when I first had sex, so I guess it started when I
was 20.  I was never monogamous; it just didn't seem functional for me.

>Basicly, I've been on both sides (mono/poly) and poly relationships seem 
>easier, more open, and free.

   More open and freer, yeah, I can see how they could be that.
Easier?  Guess again!  These things take _work_, they take
understanding, and they take compassion of the sort the non-poly people
never have to think about... society's built around them, after all.

>Better dead than Prodigy
>I'm just a Kesey loving, drum playing, computer using, incense burning,
>philosophical deadhead rainbow high school kid with a netnews account.

   And I love your .sig!

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Cynthia Nolan
Subject: THANKS - YOU GUYS ARE GREAT!!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:41:54 GMT

Well, Hello all you polyamorous folks out there!  

I've just discovered this group, and I wanted to say thanks to you all.  My
husband and I have been married for 17 years and worked out this whole, complex
polyamorous view of marriage all alone (with input from lovers, of course),
never realizing that there were lots of people who felt the same way and
actually talked about it.  Monogamy never seemed to work for us, and for a
while we couldn't understand why.  Then we decided, "what the hell, it's our
relationship so we can let it be whatever feels right to us".  What a relief
that was.  


It's great to know that others have the same approach to relationships, right
down to the emphasis on caring for each other in all those ways that draw
people to each other and make them better and wiser and stronger. This is the
thing that has always seemed the most vital component to us in any
relationship... acknowledging and enriching the other. 

Polyamory has been a part of our marriage for over 10 years and has made our
lives richer and more complete.

This sounds a little sappy, I guess, as I read it back, but mainly I just
wanted to say I'm glad I've found you and yes, it's great and isn't life just
the grandest game of all!  

All the best, to all of you, and have a great week-end.

C.
From: woodhous@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: FORWARDED : Ayn Rand's Contribution to Poly-ness?
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:51:22 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au


   Another forwarded post for Jim Baranski, who's not allowed to post
articles himself. He can be contacted at :

       BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL

****************included message begins here***************
Subject:  Ayn Rand's Contribution to Poly-ness?

Many people have mentioned SF's contibutions to Polyamory...  Here's something
else that I've found helpfull.

How many people have read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", or "The Fountainhead",
or know much about objectivism.  While Ayn Rand and objectivism are pretty dry
and emotionless, they helped me form a resolve to try to look at life
objectively. To define who and what I am, and not to accept other people's
labels or characterization of me.  To think of what I think and Feel, and not
allow others to say what I think and feel. (some small credit to the women's
movement).  To think about what in life is important to me, and cling to that.

Because of this, I want my relationships to simply be what they are, rather
then clinging to, or dodging around arbitrary social rules.  I want to be able
to be myself, and to allow others to be themselves, and I want to know them for
who they are.

When I'm told, "What you did (with another person), hurt Me! (emotionally)"; I
can't accept that; they were not actually involved.  IF they choose to feel
hurt by that, I truely am sorry.  It was not my intention to hurt them, but nor
can I change who I am to fit an arbitrary social rule to cushion your feelings.
We can talk about how we can handle different situations, but it will be my
decision what I do, and who I am.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?

While objectivism has a soiled reputation from people using it to justify an
attitude of 'What I want is the only important thing'; hurting or abusing other
people, and doing whatever the hell they wanted; I do not believe that is it's
message.  Nor do I take it overboard and think that there is only one way to
look at things;  there are many ways of looking at one reality.

Jim.

James Baranski            | It's Not Easy Keeping Vaxen Working ...  Underwater!
Vax Systems Analyst       | BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL 203-440-6510, 889-4968
Lanman Hill, Norwich CT   | Be: Thoughtfull, Honest, Yourself, Happy
***************included message ends here**************

   Again people, that's Jim's message I'm forwarding for him.

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: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: defaults (was Re: Monogamy manifestos)
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:20:30 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>I was listening to this and thinking, suppose our whole society used
>polyness as a default and monogamy was exceedingly unusual.  Then, this
>song wouldn't make any sense.  You'd sit there and say well, what was
>*wrong* with this other woman?  Did she not bathe, mess up the house,
>make rude remarks, what?  It's a very beautiful and sad song, but it's a
>little silly if you don't accept that monogamy is the only way to go.
>
>It's a very amusing (and sometimes sad, as in the murder example) way to
>look at our culture.

   Yah.

   What gets me sometimes is that even among people who's *business* it
is to question defaults of relationships (I'm thinking particularly of
queer people fighting the "marriage is for MOTOS only" idea) still
often just don't think of Poly issues at all.

   "All *couples* should be able to marry". Well, yes, actually I agree.
But it sort of leaves some relationships out, you know?

   (BTW - not that *I* personally would have a legal Poly marriage if
such became available. But I know others who wish they could).

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: Polyamory and Marriage
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:41:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <171lanINNeof@agate.berkeley.edu> mshort@minestrone.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Short) writes:
+recognization of a 'First among equals'? Are all of you polygamist/polyandrous?
+Or something else?
+
+Another question: for the few polygamists I've met, polygamy usually meant
+several women being monogamous to the same man. Is that your experience also?
+(I mean outside of novels/fiction.)

The words 'polygamous' and 'polygnyous' are often confused and used
equivalently. However, 'polygamous' derives form 'poly'-- multiple,
'gam-' -- mating/marriage, and 'polygynous' derives from 'poly' and
'gyn--' -- woman.

So the relationship you are mentioning is 'polygynous', it's 'female'
complement is 'polyandrous'. With a expanded definition of
'mating/marriage' i.e. any sexual act between individuals, 'polygamous'
becomes gender inspecific and could apply to a group with a mixture of
genders and which genders are sexual active with which.

However, since 'gam--' is also closely related to 'marriage' in  the
traditional and legal sense people have been reluctant to use that
term which has a narrower definition than what many are practicing
or theorizing about. So someone coined the greco-latin term
'polyamory'. I believe the term 'polyerotic' would have pleased the
greco-latinate-phobes, but the endings 'ous' would have sounded
disonant. Also, 'eros' and 'erotic' have such narrow definitions,
i.e. purely superficial sexual acts, that the latin 'amo' does not,
that the coiner wished to avoid.


-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:969 soc.bi:11066
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.bi
Subject: Re: alt.personals and enforced monogamy
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:29:42 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>I've noticed this monogamy gestapo approach becoming more and more common
>in personal ads of all sorts (both newspapers and electronic.)  The
>providers of such services justify such an approach as a way of keeping 
>the 'sleaze factor' (whatever that really means) down.  Being non-monogamous 
>is portrayed as being bad, sleazy and not something you'd admit to your mother.


   "Monogamy gestapo", love it.

   And of course, the "sleaze" only comes from the Poly people, too.

   All a policy like this really can acheive is to have people *lying*
about existing partners - which will lead to further collisions between
monogamy and polyamory, with neither party being terribly happy.


>Maybe there should be an alt.personals.poly?

   Heh heh heh...sign me up...

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!)