HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithd@stallion.oz.au (Keith Duddy)
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Organization: Stallion Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:05:30 GMT

In <1gh062INNiej@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> I've just basically got a question -- in a thead Poly=different 
>> people were using SO & lover as different kinds of 
>> relationships -- and I was curious as to their general definitions.  
>> I guess because SO is a pretty recent term -- I've been using 
>> it for about a year & it doesn't connote a very strong, or 
>> commited, or whatever relationship -- I like it mostly
>> because it's gender nuetral.

>The connotation of these terms is very subjective.  However, I 
>agree with Christina that "SO" doesn't connote a very strong
>relationship.  There's something tentative sounding about
>"SO".  As though if you have to explicitly
>call something "significant" then it is probably only significant
>to a limited extent.  

>The phrase "significant other" has an undercurrent of "this 
>person is important to me, but..."

That's strange, because the way I use and have heard this term
used is quite the opposite. When I first heard the term (4 or 5
years ago) it was used by married people to describe their spouse
in terms that could be interchangeably used by de-facto married
people. It always seemed to me to connote (in their term - monogamous)
marriage-like commitment. I began using it to refer to my partner
in preference to "boyfriend", "bonk-buddy", etc - exactly because
I thought it connoted something long-term, strong, if not
exclusive (and yes I like its gender neutrality too).

Maybe this is a location usage difference....here in Australia I
don't know that many people who use it - but I know none who use
it to refer to a recent/uncertain/tentative partner

Tim (my SO, bonk-buddy, and partner of 4 years) and I have
started using the term OSO (Other Significant Other) to refer to Mark -
his other partner of 1 and 1/2 years (or to me when Mark has
been called SO.)

I suppose it's good to know that some people out their may see
this as a sign of tentativenes, and I may use it with caution
from now on - but what would you suggest instead?? I suppose
partner is OK, and bonk-buddy is our prefered term - although that
connotes some degree of frivolity, and lover & boyfriend are
inappropriate.

More feedback appreciated..

Keith
---
\\\\\                                                                   /////
////                   keith duddy - slave to the rhythm                 \\\\
\\\  stallion technologies - 56 sylvan rd, toowong, qld 4066, australia   ///
//     ph              fx                 mail                 uunet       \\
\+61-7-870-4999  +61-7-371-8881  keithd@stallion.oz.au  uunet!staltec!keithd/

       ^^I write software for this company - not policy statements^^

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: accepting poly* in partner means being poly?
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:30:42 GMT
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus

Just a quick note to say that I think that a poly's partner can still be
monogamous.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:50:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.92Dec15073433@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.133957.15688@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>   Why don't you tell people you got these definitions out of soc.couples,
>   Muffy?  Do you have something to hide?
>
>I already *did*, when I posted the first definition.  Don't blame *me*
>if *you* can't keep up with the conversation.

     soc.couples is hardly the place to get a representative sample
of definitions for "monogamy", wouldn't you agree?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul E. Ourada)
Subject: Re: About Mormons...
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:34:06 GMT

finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney) writes:

>The official Mormon position is going to be totally against most of
>what you intend, however, there is more than one Mormon sect, and
>some of them may accept some of what you intend.  As a Christian
>fundamentalist minister, I'm always more concerned about what the 
>Bible actually says and doesn't say versus what a particular sect
>believes.  In truth, the Bible allows more than any sect I know of
>(except my own!).  In short, sexual relationships between women
>are not prohibited, multiple wives are not prohibited, multiple
>husbands are prohibited, sex outside of marriage without your
>spouses consent is prohibited, sex outside of marriage with your
>spouses consent is questionable, and multiple partners at the
>same time (privided it doesn't violate any of the other rules)
>is not prohibited.  These are some of the basics, if you have
>any questions or want clarification to what I've said, feel
>free to ask.

Hmmmmm.  I coulda swore that in Genesis in that part where it says things
like, "Thou shalt not have sex with thy father's mistress/wife because
that will dishonor him...", it also talks about women who sleep with 
women.  Now I don't think that it is too far a stretch to assume that
"sleep with" means "have sex with", given the context.  Still, I'd have
to go look up the reference for the exact wording.  Also, I'd like to 
know where it prohibits multiple husbands.  Don't seem to remember that
one.  I do remember someone once telling me that some reference to an
early King's being admonished not to have too many wives as being a 
prohibition against having more than one wife.  Thot that was pretty 
funny and sad at the same time.

Nice to hear some non-condemning, honest-to-God :) input from a 
Christian fundamentalist.  What church do you preach at?  I have attended
a cupla such churches here in the land of Mork 'n Mindy ( known to outsiders
as Boulder, CO ).  I have always had to filter out the sexual shame stuff
from the messages that I have heard in these institutions.  How much 
do you publicly espouse this particular interpretation of the Bible, and
how much of your constituency would bolt, if you did?  Hmmmm.  That last
question wasn't quite coherent, but I hate vi enuf to not want to go back
and fix it. :)  You ever read a book called "Embodiment, An Approach to
Sexuality and Christian Theology"?  It's by a James B. Nelson and written
in 1978, I believe.  Has more interesting ideas about how we as humans have
(mis)interpreted the Bible wrt sexuality as the title indicates.

Paul Ourada
paulo@ohmeda.com
From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The TRUTH about Mormons (was Re: "infidelity")
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:23:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Dec10.224610.2200@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
+
+I remember reading an article of this in our Sunday newspaper a couple of
+years ago.  There are several families in Utah living a polygamist lifestyle,
+but they are not *legally* polygamist, since the man has only one *legal*
+wife.  The other "wives" are not legally wives at all, they just happen to

The use of the term 'polygamy' and various references to family
organizations in Utah is misleading. The state does not recognize as
'married' any couple but a heterosexual dyad in inwhich neither is
married to some other individual.

The use of 'polygamy' and Utah(or most any where else in the US
except possibly indian reservations) refers to how the individual
themselves state their relationship one to the other or how the
community considers the family group. Ther are large number of
'open' family groups where there is one man designated the 'husband'
and several women designated the 'wives' in Utah. Many of these
groups subscribe to various tenents of Mormonism. However, the
current officially recognized religious group centered in Salt Lake
Utah, (and even the other varients in Missouri and Ohio) do not now
recognize polygamous family structures in the these areas. (I dont'
know what the Salt Lake group does with converts in countries were
polygamy is allowed and the convert is polygamous).

Also there are a number of family groups, often former mormons who
no longer subscribe to a coherent set of mormon derived beliefs who
practice polygamy. Since these groups are almost exclusively
heterosexual, one man multiple women, the groups is often ignored by
the community as are the more religious groups. It seems that only
when the group becomes extremely 'overt' do they get truely 'persecuted'.

A recent court case in Utah where a 'wife' in a polygynous group died and
the 'husband' and one of the remaining 'wives' were trying to adopt
the childern of the dead woman, seem to find in favor of the
adoptive couple and held that a polygynous environment was not
prohibitive to adoption.

Now, the had the couple involved been a lesbian dyad or a group
which had a more 'erotic' environment, i.e. a know bunch of Tantrics,
then in all likelyhood the case would have gone the other way.

Probably a better term to use to define the structure of the Utah
family option, is 'polygyny', multiple women, with the removal of the
'gamy'--marriage, it becomes more clear that the group had no
'offical' legal status, and each event, such as death and
transference of rights, must be litigated by the courts rather than
appealing to law.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney)
Subject: About Mormons...
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:49:53 GMT

The official Mormon position is going to be totally against most of
what you intend, however, there is more than one Mormon sect, and
some of them may accept some of what you intend.  As a Christian
fundamentalist minister, I'm always more concerned about what the 
Bible actually says and doesn't say versus what a particular sect
believes.  In truth, the Bible allows more than any sect I know of
(except my own!).  In short, sexual relationships between women
are not prohibited, multiple wives are not prohibited, multiple
husbands are prohibited, sex outside of marriage without your
spouses consent is prohibited, sex outside of marriage with your
spouses consent is questionable, and multiple partners at the
same time (privided it doesn't violate any of the other rules)
is not prohibited.  These are some of the basics, if you have
any questions or want clarification to what I've said, feel
free to ask.

--
[] SEANEWS [] Seattle Public Access Usenet News + Mail [] +1 206 747 NEWS []
finneyk@seanews.akita.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:39:57 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec14180752@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Any word can be misused.  That doesn't make it ambiguous (are you *sure*
>you're a native speaker of English? - that's *two* words you don't seem
>to know the meanings of).  Here are the definitions received so far for
>monogamy:

Why don't you tell people you got these definitions out of soc.couples,
Muffy?  Do you have something to hide?
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@bnr.ca (Bradley Booth)
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:46:11 GMT

I tend to use the term SO for someone who I'm having the
primary relationship with (ie. spouse, boyfriend, whatever).
The term "lover," I tend to associate with someone who is
new to the me or my SO.

It really starts to get confusing when my SO has her own
SO... yes, life can be confusing, but as fun as all...!!

Comments by,

     o      Brad Booth              | "I want you/
    /--     Bell-Northern Research  |  to know me only as/
    \ |     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  what I believe I am."
____/____,  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |     ... Fiftyfour-40
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: "Ethical Non-Monogamy"
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:38:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: "Ethical Non-Monogamy"
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Keywords: 

I noticed a classified ad in the Express (the local weekly 
throwaway) for a group that's forming with an interest
in "Ethical Non-Monogamy".

It's a somewhat sad comment on our times that one must explicitly 
assert that non-monogamy is ethical... 

Has anybody heard of this group?

(I asked my wife who she thought would place such an ad.
Her answer was, "someone without a computer account...")


Steve


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: robb@tfs.com (Not a tty)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:25:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.005715.10493@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>In article <BzDKHz.Cr0@wrs.com> jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart) writes:
>> the Golden Rules of Polyamory  [...]
>>
>> 1) Avoid people who work where you work.

Before this gets too far afield, I should point out that when I sent Jessica
the "golden rules", I used the phrase "try to avoid becoming involved".   This
is not always possible or feasible.  A case in point would be my swain of five
years, who I met at work, still work with, live with, sail with, and am very 
much in love with.  They were meant more as guidelines than "rules", although 
I do insist on the honesty part.

-- 
Robb Kane (robb@tfs.com) | Triarchy - 1: government by three persons   2: a 
TRW Financial Systems    | country under three rulers   3: A large, elegant,
Berkeley, California     | full keeled sailing vessle so named for its crew.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:37:57 GMT

In article <921218185700@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
>In article <BzDKHz.Cr0@wrs.com> jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart) writes:
>nn
>> 1) Avoid people who work where you work.  
>
>Oh my! and here I am, married to a co-worker! (*giggle*) Seriously, it
>probably depends on the person (should anything happen, do you trust them
>to be a _sane_ ex?) and the workplace.  Here at FTP, we have found this
>sort of structure to work very well at facilitating inter-departmental
>cooperation! Offhand, I can think of seven married couples working here,
>there are many more dating, and we've occasionally had two or three
>members of triads in concurrent employment.  We've never had any trouble,
>even when couples have broken up while working here, and many employees
>have recommend ex-lovers for jobs.

Yow!  Does FTP have a job opening for a Unix system administrator
at the moment?  Seems like a company with a lot of compatible people
and some room for personal growth.

Of course, I haven't been at my present job long enough to know what
exists at PictureTel: perhaps it's almost as good.

>Of course, at some places, such things are forbidden. That's another
>kettle of worms (can of fish? :-), entirely, as are direct supervisors
>and direct subordinates.

P.E. Trudeau once said, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of
the nation," and introduced legislation which at least got the
state partway out into the corridor.  To that I'd add that company
management has no place in the bedrooms of its employees: it seems
to me that they should oughta wait for some effects to turn up
in a person's work before even _asking_ about such things.

Getting involved with a supervisor or subordinate (or even just someone
who has real influence over your employment, or whose employment
you influence) seems like a potentially bad idea.  On the other hand,
as a French guy where I used to work said, "You Americans are far
too concerned about your jobs.  Where you are employed, or even whether
you are employed, shouldn't always be the most important thing in
your life."

>							-Francie
...
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
>"Hi, Love! Look, we really need the new beta disks over in Support..."

"Okay, but if I get in trouble for this you'd better buy _lots_
of Mazola..."

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
I dreamed I had to take a test in a Dairy Queen on another planet...
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:13:07 GMT
	<1992Dec10.130819.1140@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.194826.17404@microsoft.com>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: philipla@microsoft.com's message of 11 Dec 92 19:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.194826.17404@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>[speaking about Vicka again]
>>
>>Aah.  Perhaps this is the problem, then.  I do not believe that she is
>>being dishonest with her current lovers.  Indeed, we have heard from one
>>of them that she is not.  What I'm talking about is what it seems to me
>>that "outness" is all about - how the *rest* of the world perceives you.

>Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?  

Apparently, Vicka does.  She's the one who brought up "outness."

>>For example, if I was a lesbian, that would presumably not be a surprise
>>to my lovers, but if I spent all my time in public being affectionate
>>with men, then the people around me would not *see* me as a lesbian.

> So?  I know people who are emphatically not heterosexual that
>live their public lives as such - who are they being cruel to?  Who
>is being "hurt" by their actions?  Or do you see closeted GLBs as
>somehow doing harm to society?

I didn't say they were doing any harm, so I don't see why you ask.
Once again, the discussion was about "outness."  I don't call it "being
out" if I act differently than what I claim to be.

>>Similarly, if I show up at the office Christmas party with two or more
>>lovers (or with interchanging lovers from one event to the next), then
>>my coworkers are going to see me as polyamorous (or whatever their term
>>for it is), not monogamous.
> You make love at the office Christmas party? 

Well, I might, but I haven't yet.  I am certainly sufficiently
physically affectionate with all of my lovers (hugging, stroking,
cuddling, kissing) for it to be obvious that we are more than friends.

> Which brings up yet another point probably worth discussion:  The
>vast majority of the people in the U.S. have no idea what polyamory is,
>and the thought of someone having multiple lovers would either disturb
>them or never even cross their mind.

Indeed.  So, if someone told them that they were monogamous, then
started having other lovers, they'd be pretty damn surprised, wouldn't
they?

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
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:09:18
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Dec11.193751.24150@u.washington.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Dec11122227@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec12.192423.11058@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: aahz@netcom.com's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:24:23 GMT


In article <1992Dec12.192423.11058@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>   Given that I, and others in this group, have agreed that an acceptable
>   usage for "monogamous" is "preferring to have only one lover under most
>   conditions" I think it's a little unfair of you to keep harping on this
>   one point.

  I don't think it's an acceptable usage at all, as a matter of fact, I
think that's a very poor way of defining the word.  So does the fact
that I and others disagree with you make it unfair for you or anyone
else disagree with us?

  If so, shut up.

 -- d
From: an3258@anon.penet.fi
Subject: info.
X-Anonymously-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:11:00 GMT

Any ideas of how to connect with others interested in poly in a
non-metropolitan area?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:51:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11202447@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> Muffy, you called her relationship a "cruel lie".  The burden
>>of proof is on you to back that statement up, or else retract it.
>
>Now you are lying, or maybe you have just been misled by Vicka's claims
>of what I have said.  Show me this text where I "called her
>relationships a cruel lie."
>

    Press 'n' now if you don't want to see it...


In article <MUFFY.92Dec7140555@remarque.berkeley.edu> you said:
>>What exactly 
>>do you think is the lie, and to whom do you imagine it's been told?
>
>The lie is that you're monogamous and you seem to be telling it to
>everyone.
...
>
>>"The one who thinks a thing is impossible 
>>should get out of the way of the people actually doing it...."
>
>It's not "impossible," it's just cruel.


In article <MUFFY.92Dec8150841@remarque.berkeley.edu> you said:
>
>I haven't used either of these arguments.  Also, I do not think that
>monogamy is cruel at all, I think that claiming to be monogamous but
>then not acting that way (in other words, lying to yourself and your
>partners) is.
...
>I don't lie to myself or my partners.  Whatever lifestyle someone
>chooses, if I see them lying, I will think that that is wrong.  A poly
>person who lies is equally cruel, or even more so, since they don't have
>nearly as much pseudo-justification for it.


      Would you like me to go back and find even more examples?
Do you read the stuff you write, Muffy?

				-Phil



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory