HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlw3y@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Subject: Re: Problem: the teddy-bear syndrome
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:00:42 GMT

mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	These are in conflict because my community in general believes
>that I'm a wonderful, close, cuddly, non-romantic, A-sexual friend.
>Teddy-bear.  I want my community to believe that I'm open to intimate,
>loving relationships, which is true.
>Somehow, society is not receiving the same signal I'm sending.

>	A recent solution-type-idea I was offered was to be physically
>honest with my attractions, in body-language as well as in speech.  This
>sounded promising, but this evening I realized why this feels lacking:
>Why would I be romantically or sexually interested in someone I didn't
>know?  I build emotional and relationship stuff with something like
>soul- or personality-attraction as my foundation, not initial physical
>attraction.  My soul is attracted to aspects of people that it takes
>weeks or months to see.  By then, it seems, the dynamic is in place and

Personally, I'm fairly physical with friends as well as with lovers.
I like to give hugs, touch my friends when I'm talking to them if
we're sitting close, backrubs, etc.  When I meet someone that I like,
I generally sound them out on these gestures, and if they seem to
enjoy them also I continue.  Sometimes this has turned into 3hr
backrub exchanges with someone I just met, with no romantic
involvement ever.  Other times that spark has been there, and we've
been rolling around on the floor making out like mad bunnies within
hours.  :)  

Most often the flirting continues for a while, say weeks or months,
and then the tickles turn into handholding, backrubs to caresses, and
we kiss.  

There are people that attract me from the moment I meet them, and I
generally signal this with long eye contacts, smiles, and whatever
flirting seems appropriate.  I don't push, if I get met with
indifference I back down, But if I find someone attractive physically
I consider that as good a reason as any to start talking to them, and
if I find the conversation interesting enough to keep on talking,
that's a good sign that there's something worth pursuing there.

Flirting is fun.  There is nothing wrong with flirting with friends,
as long as everyone involved understands the situation & is comfy
with it.  It is certainly not an a-sexual behavior, and I think is
unlikely to be read as one.  

-jennifer
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1801 alt.romance:14121 soc.singles:30896 alt.sex:36403
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: An abused networker? (Was:RE:raising children)
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:34:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bxq6nI.F3u@well.sf.ca.us> jrussell@well.sf.ca.us (Jerry Russell) writes:
>
>
>     Here are some miscellaneous quotes from James Dutton, taken out
>of context:
 
In Jerrys opinion.
 
>
>     It is interesting to speculate on the motives of an omnidirectional
>flamer such as James.  Does he somehow think he is going to win friends
>and influence people by insulting them like this?  Looking through the
 
Those ninkipoops need more insults.
 
>
>James, it sounds to me like you may be suffering from some sort of post-
>traumatic stress syndrome.  This is a very serious situation if you were
>abused like this as a child, and the effects may still be with you.  I could
>give you assorted advice that could either sound trite or hostile , but my
>honest feeling is that you are in need of some healing attention and I wish
>you the best of success in finding it.  (By the way, I don't mean a
>psychiatrist--please stay away from anti-depressants and neuroleptic
>drugs, they'll do you more harm than good!)  All you other folks on the
>net, please be gentle when you respond to James--he may have survived
>some real problems.
>
>--Jerry

Jerry is my only real friend. I love you Jerry.
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1822 soc.singles:31118 alt.pagan:13000 misc.kids:28704
From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:45:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BxG8w1.7zB@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
+>In article <Bx6zHq.Ar7@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
+>+
+>+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.
+
+When I wrote "weight," I meant mass times acceleration due to gravity.
+
+You deleted my earlier paragraph in which I had said that mild polygyny
+in humans was indicated by sexual dimorphism.  You appear not to understand

Yes I misread 'weight'. However, my thoughts on the subject are not
much modified. I thing the use of 'weight' relative to human
dominance behavior may not be as useful an indicator as in the other
species listed.

One should also list the weight ratio of chimps and in particular
bonobos for a non-human but 'evolutionarily' close neighbor to see
if the polygyny holds at 'slight'. The 'mild' polybyny in humans
seems to be due to a societal enforcement, since there are few if
any societies found where men are strictly, throughout their life,
monogynous. I think that what we call 'intellegence' mucks up the
the weight correlation. Whether men are 'more' intellegent than
women is not the issue, but whether men are more inclined use
intellegence for dominance than women is a debated topic from the
feminist crowd. If one were to use the number of men in power vs the
women in power, as an approximation to such a ratio, one could find
that it's surprising that monogyny exists in humans at all.

Of course all of this is based on 'sex for procreative purposes' and
not on 'sex of recreative purposes'. In the latter it is probably
not good to use non-human models for analysis of behavior, of if
using such finding more near evolutionary neighbors than Elephant
seals.

Also the mating season for some of the animals mentioned to not
match the human, or near human, species and so the polygyny of the
seals, during the few months of the season is a maximum breeding
principle, along with fitness and dominance, whereas humans may breed
throught the year, given adequate diet. I don't know if this would tend
to induce more polygyny, i.e. more chances for breeding or tend to
stabilize the group intractions by assigning a mate for a breeding 'season'
defined as time required for the female to conceive, and raise the
young, i.e. about 5-7 years.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: mbr2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Why I don't use the word "Love" very much
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:46:16 GMT
Reply-To: mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Universtiy of Chicago

Curious Of All Natures writes:
>>	This is very important to remember!  People do not mean the same
>>thing by "love" that you do.  If someone asks "Do you love me?" and you
>>answer "yes" without elaboration, they will walk away thinking you feel
>>what "love" means to _them_ and they won't have learned about your own
>>unique feelings and desires and beliefs.
>>
oopcv replies:
>Okay, so the next time someone says "I love you," should they get the third
>degree?  Shall I respond with, "What do you mean by _that_?" or "How do _YOU_
>define love?"

Well you don't have to be contentious about it certainly.  But unless
you know them very well - enough to know already what they mean by that,
then they haven't really told you much about what their own unique
feelings are like.  Ask for elaboration.  Or tell them what you mean by
love and they'll discover that it's not the same as what they meant, and
they'll clarify.


>BTW, you shouldn't have to ask someone if they love you.  By asking, you're
>forcing them into a corner (what are they supposed to say, no?).

Agreed!  Rah-rah!  I think that to ask a question fairly one must try
hard to make the possible answers ok to say.  (There's a limit to this
of course, but the effort is worthwhile).  A better question might be
"How do you feel about me?", and if answers of theirs could indeed hurt
you, at least don't threaten them with that hurt-potential.


-Matt Ryan, truth over tact,
mb-ryan@uchicago.edu                Curious Of All Natures
==================================  ====================================
If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. You'll never see the end of the road
If I'm awake, never let me sleep.   When you're traveling with me.
               -old chinese fellow                        -Crowded House     
==================================  ====================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
Subject: Re: Religious bigot ?
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<1992Nov20.062708.3878@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:24:57

> <re "quiz" being created because of a bet>
Yes, I heard that story.  

Possibly it was in a book series called "Childcraft".  Volume 2 (?) was a 
bunch of stories about people.  It may have been from the publisher of World 
Book Encyclopedia.

Of course, I usually can't remember where I heard something, so maybe it was
someplace entirely different than Childcraft.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay			CAD Language Systems, Inc.
					Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
Why can't _I_ think of a signature?	Columbia, MD  21045  USA
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1814 soc.singles:31072 alt.pagan:12966 misc.kids:28669
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:13:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov17.231317.809
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

>] Ask yourself, would you like to
>] have been raised in a single-parent family or a multiple parent
>] family?
> 

"If all are 'loving', for me as many as I can get", is what I would
have wanted. But for me, just ONE caring parent would have been OK,
my parents just did not wan't me around.

for the 14 year old boy i'm a BB to, if his 'male-parent' was not
there, he might have not been so screwed up. For him one would be
the answer.

remember for a lot of kids, at least one parent has some serious
problems with their kids, and will not seek help. The problem is
more common then most think. There are a lot of screwed up 'families'
out there.

-pete
petel@sequent.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Not sure if this belongs here, but...
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:12:13 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

moh2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>A bit of an intro....I'm 21, an English major, bisexual,

   There seem to be an awful lot of Bi Poly 21 year old English majors
with Net access out there! [laugh]

   (Not that this is at all a Bad Thing... 8->)


>a
>proponent of Joe's model of 'independent' polyamorous relationships
>(see, you're not alone),

   Thank *goodness*! [grin]


>[...]
>Not necessarily in that order.

   Isomorphic up to permutation, then... [shaking head to clear all the
Algebra from it now the exam is done...]

   I hear there are a lot of Poly people in the UCBU, too... [smile]
(And *no*, that's *not* self-interest speaking! [laughing]).

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!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:55:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.134059.16342@umr.edu> davem@reagan.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting, 
>>and one on relationships.
>
>A nice thought, granted ...
>Some people say I'm cynical , but I doubt it.     ;-) x 0.5
>I suspect these tests will soon be brought to a neighborhood
>near you by the same fine people who gave us voter qualification
>tests in the past (that a US Supreme Court Justice couldn't pass
>if (s)he weren't of the right race).

Maybe you don't even have to draw a parallel to voter qualification,
because (de facto) race-based "parent-disqualification" is a reality
of government already.

I saw "Malcom X" this weekend.  A scene in it has a social worker
disqualifying Mrs. Little from the job of motherhood.  This happens 
even more often now, I'm sure.

I think the idea of qualifying people for marriage and childbearing
is the product of the individualization and atomization of our culture.

Nuclear families have fewer "components" to rely on, so "failures" are
more catastrophic.  The notion of doing "quality control" on the
components then becomes attractive, but only from a control
perspective.  Arguably, however, it was this very control perspective
that caused the nuclear family in the first place.  Government, union
and corporate labor policies promoted the idea of the single male
breadwinner as a form of protection against the impoverishment of women
and children, and got higher labor mobility as a temporarily useful
side-effect.  Unfortunately, the long-term effect of this mobility was
the fragmentation of extended families and communities, which in turn
has had a corrosive effect on the nuclear family.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back.  It's only recently that
grandparents have been able to get AFDC benefits for taking care
of grandchildren.  To me, moralizing about how this might encourage
teen mothers and delinquent fathers is pointless.  Who says that it's
necessarily a dysfunctional family pattern to have children when
you're a teenager and turn a lot of the childrearing over to your
grandparents?  You will likely be a grandparent yourself one day, so
it's not like the responsibility won't come around to you again.
In fact, you might be bearing children at what is physically the
ideal time (when you're young and resilient) and then raising
children at the ideal time (when you are more mature, and have a
stable income.)
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.sex.motss
Subject: Re: Ignorance (repost)
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:31:58 GMT
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd

In <1992Nov17.174031.491@mks.com> grant@mks.com (Grant Millard) writes:
>In article <Bxt5Jx.Dn8@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>>rhiannon@netcom.com (The Lady R) writes:
>>: 
>>: Rhia here... and angry.
>>: 
>>Unfortunately, "most" people tend not to speak up when confronted
>>with bigotry or intolerance.  They may not agree, but they say nothing,
>>so the person expressing those thoughts is once again confirmed in
>>their belief that everyone (or all "normal" everyones) shares their
>>value system.
>>
>>That is why it is important to speak up.  Don't get angry, don't get
>>emotional, and don't even argue with them.  Just let it be known that
>>you do not think as they do.  Often, in group situations, it only takes
>>one person with the courage to speak up to get the rest of the group
>>in concurrence.  
>
>   But you didn't speak up yourself from what you tell in this posting.
>   While the others were not apparently aware that you were listening in on
>   their chat, it still would have been very appropriate and startling for
>   them to find they WERE being overheard and that someone passing by would
>   take the step of rebuking them for their statements. 
>
>   Seems like you are an example of what you were talking about. It's all
>   well and good to SAY how nasty those people were in the line-up but it
>   might have been a bit more effective if you had told them at the time.
>   Not so?
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Grant Millard, DI aka THUG          |MKS|                        grant@mks.com
>Manager, Dept. of Computer Services |DCS|                        (519)884-2251 
>Mortice Kern Systems Inc.           |RFM| Std. waiver of liability on opinions 

Grant, I think you misunderstood the attributions above ...

rhiannon@netcom.com (The Lady R) was the one who overheard
the conversation, while apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
was the one who said "... it is important to speak up."

Anyway, the Lady R herself suggested that she *would* speak up next time.
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Prove That Kids are Precious Gifts From God. (Was: Re: ra-ising c-hildren)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:38:18 GMT


dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
: 
: 
: Does anyone else think that this has drifted a bit away from 
: "polyamory" and more into "god" and "are children wonderful 
: or should they be shot"?  
: 
: All it seems to be proving is that "polyamory" people can have
: their heads wedged where the sun doesn't shine just like anyone
: else.  Maybe the soc.singles people are enjoying it (doubtful, 
: but who can know?) but maybe it shouldn't be on the polyamory 
: newsgroup?
: 

Agreed.  Personally I am continually amazed to find that obviously
intelligent people cling to superstition, but I'm even more amazed
that other obviously intelligent people want to argue with them
about it :-)

So, to everyone who wants to believe in any sort of superior being,
force, or whatever else you want to soothe your minds with:  Please
do so.  As long as you will defend my right *not* to hold such beliefs,
and will try real hard to separate those beliefs from the societal rules
you want to impose on me, then I will staunchly defend your rights.

And you can talk about God's miracles all you want.  Just not God's
law, OK?


		Tony   apl@world.std.com

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.callahans
From: mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures)
Subject: Re: Why I don't use the word "Love" very much
Reply-To: mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Universtiy of Chicago
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:05:44 GMT


>If there were spontaneously occurring soapboxes in this newsgroup, I'd
>be scaling my way down from them at this point.

COAN ducks as a misplaced counterfactual swoops by.  Assaying his safety
from a crouch, he stands up just in time for it's return flight to catch
him right upside the logic-center...

-Matt Ryan, in a realm where logic isn't quite meaningless, but does
            have a piss-poor exchange rate, 
mb-ryan@uchicago.edu                Curious Of All Natures
==================================  ====================================
If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. You'll never see the end of the road
If I'm awake, never let me sleep.   When you're traveling with me.
               -old chinese fellow                        -Crowded House     
==================================  ====================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:02:40 GMT

In article <92323.235320SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu> S. Wukovitz <SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com
>(markbr) says:
>>ABSO-FUCKING-LUTLY!!!!! Isn't marriage & creating kids, to be inserted into
>>society, at *least* as requiring of training as getting a drivers' license?
>>
>>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting,
>>and one on relationships.
>Maybe on relationships, but as far as parenting, there are people
>who, for health, career, or personal reasons, are not having
>children.  Make that all three in the case of my fiance and me.
>Such a course would be wasted then...

I would rather that people who -are- currently parents be certain to make
an effort to teach thier own kids what relationships are really about. The
parents would be in the best position to teach this as well, by showing
direct examples. This sort of change is something that takes time. 

There can be some addressing of this (especially communications skills) in
schools. But I don't think I want the government at any level having the 
power handed to them to teach our kids anything so basic. 

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?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:36:40 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Nov22.030240.26650@spdcc.com> pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:

>I would rather that people who -are- currently parents be certain to make
>an effort to teach thier own kids what relationships are really about. The
>parents would be in the best position to teach this as well, by showing
>direct examples.

I think most parents _do_ show direct examples.  And I think this is
part of the reason the kids are so messed up.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: davem@reagan.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis)
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:40:59 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>
>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting, 
>and one on relationships.
>

A nice thought, granted ...

Some people say I'm cynical , but I doubt it.     ;-) x 0.5


I suspect these tests will soon be brought to a neighborhood
near you by the same fine people who gave us voter qualification
tests in the past (that a US Supreme Court Justice couldn't pass
if (s)he weren't of the right race).

"Sorry, we don't need your kind reproducing"

Repeat after me 1000 times:

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to restrict your
rights and spend your mon... uh, I'm here to help. Yeah,
that's the ticket."


   -- davem

-- 
 There is no magic catapult to propel them back; they must   
 boost themselves over the wall of terror.                  
                                                           
 -- La Vergne Rosow; Phi Delta Kappan, 10/92, Vol 74, #2  
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1837 soc.singles:31284 alt.pagan:13079 misc.kids:28831