HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:18:55 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov10164439@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>Watch out, or I'll tell you why the Slovaks at the steel mill were only
>allowed a half-hour lunch break.

Ok, I'll bite. Why *were* the Slovaks at the steel mill only allowed a
half hour lunch break?

Bb,
Corun


-- 
===========================================================================
    Corun MacAnndra    |    My opinions *are* those of my boss, because
  Dark Horde by birth  |   he is me, and I am he, and we are all together.
    Moritu by choice   |                 Coo coo cachoob.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:58:45 GMT

In article <40643@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark) writes:
>In article <Bx8r63.8q1@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>+In article <40474@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark) writes:
>+>In article <Bx1yAq.C5G@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>+>+
>+>+What were the Teutonic Knights doing in Russia in 1242?
>+
>+They were on a crusade.  It was not in Palestine.
>
>Which papal command loosed this 'crusade'?

Pope Gregory IX's to "Christianize" the Baltics.

>                                           The problem is more like
>the Spainish wars with the Moors, under papal blessing but not
>classed as a 'crusade' since there were no 'holy lands' to retake.

The Teutonic Knights were a crusading order.

-- Herb Huston
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1769 alt.romance:13948 soc.singles:30536 alt.pagan:12793 alt.sex:36016
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: raising children
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:23:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.140241.10424@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
      jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:

>In article <921110174648@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.233544.2675@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg>) writes:

>>>     Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>>  children for granted.  They can't afford to.

>>Definitely parental involvement is very influential in a child's education!

>So I guess that is to say that gay individuals have never slept w
>the opposite sex to have a baby.

>Frances meet Elf. Elf meet Frances. The founding whatevers of 
>generalisers.r.us

   Somehow, I think James missed a good chunk of this conversation.  We
were specifically talking about openly gay parents, especually those
living with their same sex partners.  "Sleeping with" a member of the
opposite sex does not mean they live with or raise those children.

   The major crux of the conversation centers around the rights of
adults _known to be homosexual_ to keep those children.

   Pay attention, james.

   Elf (There will be a quiz next period) Sternberg
-- 
      __        | The post you have just read is real, but it could
      \/        | have been avoided.  Inbreeding is everyone's
Elf Sternberg   | problem.  Contact your local Mormon church and 
elf@halcyon.com | be sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Colorado amendment #2
From: anonymus+791@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:25:23 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

Hi,

I am a native Coloradan.  I would like to apologize for my fellow Coloradans for their vote to pass
amendment #2 which basically legalizes discrimination against homosexuals.  I am embarassed that this
law passed.  It nullifies three city ordinance in Boulder,Denver, and Aspen which prohibit this kind of
discrimination.  I do believe the amendment will be challenged and I do not believe it will be found to
be constitutional.  That remains to be seen.
I am a heterosexual who doesn't support _any_ kind of discrimination.  Please don't think all
Coloradans are uninformed rednecks.

-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, 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)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1696 alt.romance:13767 soc.singles:30024 alt.sex:35192
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:35:13 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov7.164735.1767@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> has3@peru.cxo.dec.com (Harry Schroeder) writes:
<stuff deleted>
>So, maybe my situation is unique, though I doubt it. It does not seem 
>to be the case in a majority of situations.

You are all unique!
        We are all unique!
You are individuals!
        We are individuals!
                    <I'm not>
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1690 alt.romance:13733 soc.singles:29955 alt.sex:35108 alt.pagan:12438
From: vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:31:47 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <Bx91tI.AxL@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com
(Corun MacAnndra) sez:
>But men and women DO have distinct roles in society. There are things that
>women can do that a man can't, and vice versa.

Uh huh.  And there are things that white people can do that black people 
can't, and vice versa.  And tall folks can do stuff that short folks can't,
but they have a harder time fitting into the back seats of Hondas.

> Children need role models, male and female. All children, male and female.

Children do need role models.  But why stop at male and female?  Why 
not insist that every child needs a black parent and a white parent
(oops, not to mention an Asian, and a Native American, and....) so that
they'll get the full perspective?  And oh -- doesn't every child need
a straight parent and a gay one, too, so that they'll be guaranteed an
appropriate role-model for their upcoming orientation?  (Oh, my goodness --
what if that child grows up to be attracted solely to puppydogs?  We had
better make sure to include a role-model for that....)

> Children need role models, and those models should provide
> the widest set of experiences for the growth of the child.

Gender isn't the only distinction around in our society.  Kids grow up
fine in families of one race, one socioeconomic status, one kind of sexual
orientation.  No reason they can't grow up fine in families with parents
of only one gender, too.


cheers,
--vicka						     vicka@wrq.com
	"More fun than a barrel of monkey wrenches!"
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1680 alt.romance:13698 soc.singles:29887 alt.sex:35031 alt.pagan:12374
From: lynne@pacersoft.com (Lynne Chantler)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:04:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-XXDate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:11:32 GMT

In article <1d952bINNpht@agate.berkeley.edu> Steve Pope,
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu writes:


<stuff deleted>

>
>> If some of
>> those unfortunate have to raise their kid (s) alone...
>
>There IS nothing "unfortunate" about raising kid(s) alone.
>What's unfortunate is society's negative view of this situation,
>which is unfounded.

HERE! HERE!

We all have to start thinking of ourselves as parents to all children. We
are the protectors and teachers of the next generation. Would you watch a
stranger's child walk into the street or would you stop them?


>>>But it looks as if children need two parents of
>>>opposite genders to fill some basic emotional
>>>and sociaslization need.
>
>>Absolutely.
>
>I have a SERIOUS problem with this... saying that
>children need two parents of opposite genders seems to be
>saying that both a "male" and "female" role model are needed...
>and this would seem to be predicated on the sexist (but
>prevalent) notion that it's desirable that men and women have 
>distinct roles in society.  IMO of course...

Agreed!

It takes many, many people to raise a child, grandparents, aunts, uncles,
close friends, and others. We, as a society have to start placing value
on *all* of the children in the world.  We (the collective 'we') have to
start cherishing *our* children by providing them with a solid education,
eliminating drugs and violence from our society, teaching them
self-esteem, tolerance and acceptance of others.

Scott, I think I really like you :-) I hope you have many children some
day.

Lynne
From: anonymus+3029@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (lost in the fog)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: polygamous marriage in the Christian faith
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:49:24 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

Please observe that this is a serious request, preferably for private
discussion.

I am interested in discussing issues regarding polygamy as it relates
to those of the Christian faith.  I am a Christian man who sometime
back found himself compelled to study the issue of polygamy in
juxtaposition with my faith, and found no justification for the out-
of-hand dismissal which it receives among society as a whole, much
less within the Christian community.

I had of course long accepted the historical fact of polygamy
especially as depicted in the OT but had never come to terms with its
viability in modern times.  I have to admit, I was expecting to find
that it wasn't a reasonable concept at all (cultural bias, after all),
and was surprised when a serious search for information didn't turn up
such.

I'm interested in comment and discussion with other Christians
regarding lifelong (not just "long term") polygamous marriage and the
problems or difficulties it represents in today's society and
especially with regard to one's local church.

						-LitF-
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, 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: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:34:53 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

(Corun MacAnndra) writes:
> (Steve Pope) writes:
>>
>>... saying that
>>children need two parents of opposite genders seems to be
>>saying that both a "male" and "female" role model are needed...
>>and this would seem to be predicated on the sexist (but
>>prevalent) notion that it's desirable that men and women have 
>>distinct roles in society.  IMO of course...

>But men and women DO have distinct roles in society. There are things 
>that women can do that a man can't, and vice versa.  

It seems obvious to me that while it is true there are some
things one gender can do that the other can't, this disparity
is minor compared to the huge differences in gender roles in
society...hence the one does not justify the other.

> there's nothing WRONG
> with this. It's not BAD. Only our perceptions MAKE it BAD, 
> because we get caught up in the game of Better-THan-Thou when 
> it's not necessary.

I won't argue with the existential fact that good vs. bad
is always a matter of perception.  I will only comment that your
description of my sense of ethics here as "the game of
Better-Than-though" is off-base, presumptuous and impertinent.

> It's only supreme ego that
> makes a person say they are BETTER than another, when the truth 
> is they are only different.

This seems wildly off-subject.  

> Children need role models, male and female... 

Alot of people believe this, but I don't.


Steve
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Poly breakups?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:42:56
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu


Well, I'd love to see some more specifically poly-relevant stuff on
here, so I decided to try to provoke some non-cross-posted discussion.

What happens when part of a poly relationship breaks up?  I've seen or
thought of some examples:

  A secondary relationship breaks up.  The non-involved member of the
  primary relationship has to deal with the effect on the involved
  member.  It seems a little rough on the non-involved member, even
  though they presumably want to provide emotional support to their
  partner when they are needed.  Of course, the non-primary person is
  without this sort of support at all.

  Both members of a primary relationship get secondarily involved with a
  third person.  One member wants to split with the third person, the
  other doesn't.  This is difficult to manage, since anyone your SO is
  involved with is at least a little involved with you.

  A poly person is involved in a non-primary relationship with someone
  who gets involved in another non-primary relationship.  The first
  person doesn't like the third person (but there is no "veto"
  agreement) and ends the first relationship.  Is it necessary to like
  all the people involved?  If so, how much?

  A poly person is in a primary relationship with a "veto."  They get
  involved with another person, who their SO seems to accept.  After
  they get very close, the veto is invoked, and the second relationship
  is ended.  Is this "fair"?  It's certainly hard on the people who
  thought it was okay.  What if there were problems all along?  Is there
  a limit (time or emotional) past which a veto either cannot be used or
  is much more negotiable?

  A primary relationship breaks up, but one of the members has a
  secondary relationship.  How does this secondary relationship change
  with the loss of the primary?  Is it likely to become a primary, or
  will the person find some other primary and keep the secondary as is
  (I know either is possible, but what have people seen happen?)

Note that there are a lot of assumptions about arrangements in here, and
I have only described arrangements with three people.  I'm not saying
that any particular arrangement is better, required, or whatever.  I'd
be particularly interested to hear examples/perspectives from other
arrangements...I'd like to see how they compare.

I'm basically interested in information or speculation on how breakups
happen and affect people outside of serial-monogamy arrangements.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1682 alt.romance:13705 soc.singles:29894 alt.pagan:12382
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Monogamy, Polygamy, and raising children (Was: Falling in Love
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:33:18 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >
> >that impression is not far from the rule. studies show that a 
> >child's sense of security is as much or more depedent on the 
> >strength of the parent-parent relationship than the parent-child 
> >relationship. when parents divorce a large part of a child's world 
> >is ripped to pieces.
> 
> Gotta love those blanket expert statements. Yea when my parents 
> divorced the thought of never being hit with the belt ...

[ other misc. abuses munched ]

> all but ripped me apart. I would venture to say the childs security 
> is more dependent on a parent child relationship then a book put 
> out to justify somebody's degree.

considering that the book used a large number of cases and you are
1 (one) case i'd have to stand by my original statement. and besides,
your case pretty much proves my point. "the child's sense of security
is as much or more dependent on the strenght of the parent-parent
relationship than the parent-child relationship". if your parents
divorced and you were abused then you're case is one of bad parent-
parent *and* band parent-child relationships. when your parents
divorced the parent-child (hopefully) improved.

jason
 
--
 "Y'all ain't from around here are ya?" - The best compliment I ever got, 
                                          from a local in Defiance, 
                                          Ohio
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,alt.sex
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Organization: The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:06:49 GMT

Herb Huston:
>This is overstated and imprecise.  The evidence of sexual dimorphism 
>indicates that humans are mildly polygynous.  Here's a handy scale:
>
>Monogamy   Mild Polygyny   Moderate Polygyny   Extreme Polygyny
>Gibbons    Humans          Gorillas            Elephant seals
>1:1        1.2:1           2:1                 3:1
>
>The ratios are male:female weight.

Can't be.  Either your ratios are backwards, or you should have said
polyandrous.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: val@cs.curtin.edu.au (Foxy Lady)
Subject: Re: I may be, SO isn't
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:15:42 GMT

arianne@bigboy (LeatherKat) writes:

>bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:
>: 
>: Anyway - my SO is very worried about whether I'm poly, and we've discussed it.
>: One of the things that she said is that if I really do want to love others,
>: I can't have her.

>There is a distinct difference between "I see nothing wrong with the concept
>of..." and "I feel the need to..." or "I won't be happy unless...".  I think 
>there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy in monogamous relationships 
>even though they don't see anything wrong with sleeping with friends 
>occasionally.  I believe it is a matter of priorities.  Before you go taking  
>any drastic action like leaving this woman, you should decide how much the 
>ability to have other relationships means to you.  I'm not trying to tell you 
>that you should automatically dismiss the "poly urge", but decide whether or  
>not it is really there.  If you decide that in order for you to be happy and
>satisfied, you cannot hold yourself to one mono relationship, then you will
>probably have to consider ending your current relationship.


Arianne has hit the nail on the head. For me, being with other people 
felt very comfortable, but my SO couldn't handle it. I had to work out 
what was more important to me and decided that my longterm relationship 
should be protected from any upsets that me sleeping with other people 
was causing. 

I'm lucky my SO gave me the opportunity to explore my feelings. 

If you and your partner have different ideas on what's allowed and what's 
not, you're likely to have problems. Find out why your partner is against
you being poly - there can be many different reasons. Then you might be 
able to see it from their point of view.

Good luck,


Valerie.
  

--
----------------val@marsh.cs.curtin.edu.au-------------- /\_/\  
  You can't know what love isn't...               FOXY  / O O \  
        ...until you know what love is.           LADY  \ \./ / 
----------------------------------------My other car is a broom!
From: crime@grind.cheme.cmu.edu (W. Scott Shannon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:21:52 GMT
Organization: Grind Systems, Inc.
X-Posted-From: grind.cheme.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Why did the Slovaks only ger 1/2 hourpstack 
r lunch break at the steel mill?
Ignore that "pstack" my keyboard is FUBAR.

Scott
Live for now. The past is gone, and the future's too far away.
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 13:43:26 -0600

 ES>    Ah, but studies have shown over and over again that 
 ES> parental involvement in a child's education is the key 
 ES> element in insuring that children pay attention to the 
 ES> education they _are_ receiving.  Gay parents, at least 
 ES> from my observation, _care_ a lot more about their 
 ES> children, heap TONS of parental attention on them, and 
 ES> ensure that, unlike their more conventional peers, 
 ES> they do their damned homework.

 ES>    Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents 
 ES> don't take their children for granted.  They can't 
 ES> afford to.
   
   That last statement sums it up.  Thanks.  Guess you're just doomed to be
quoted, elf.

 * Origin: Mammals' Melting Point <Stipple City, MN> (1:282/341.19)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Question on finding couples
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:17:26 GMT

anonymus+877@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Sunni) writes:
: 
: I have a question about etiquette for couples finding couples.  My SO and I
: were at a club dancing on Friday night and there was another couple there 
: who we both found very attractive.  Despite our subtle efforts to get our
: message across, they either weren't interested or didn't notice.  Is there
: a polite, sexy, not overtly blatent way of indicating interest in such a poly
: situation that anyone has had success with?

Well, if we were at the nightclub, anything beyond "Would you like
to dance?" as an opener would get you a cold shoulder.

We have had people try to pick us up at a night club: "Would you like
to come back to our place for a few drinks?"  "Um", (visions of cult
murders flash through our heads), "We have to be running along now.."

But even if you could provide proof that you live in a glass bowl 
across the street from the State Police barracks, we still aren't
going to run home and jump into bed with you.  Get to know us.  Let
us get to know you.  Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't.

I would also suggest that a night club is not a great place to count
on meeting poly type people.  There are swinger type clubs that are not
open roman orgy places where couples and singles do meet.  Most of
the time (just about always for us) it's just food and conversation.
But at least the conversation is with people who you *can* suggest
other activities to if all of you are so inclined.

		Tony

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory