HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Rel'ship Geometry (Re: reactions to polyamory)
From: connor@sonoma.edu (Greg Connor)
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:38:58 PDT
 <1992Sep4.101821.24250@latcs1.lat.oz.au>  <1992Sep10.071700.21476@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Distribution: world
Organization: Sonoma State University

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> 
>    Well, you're right; it is a bit of a naive question.  At the moment,
> I have a pair of twosomes, one with with a man, the other with a woman.
> It works as a "big" relationship only in that all three of us get along
> very well, going out to movies and plays and the like, but on the other
> hand they don't sleep with each other, while I sleep with each of them
> independantly.
>    That seems to be _my_ modus operandi of choice; I'd rather have my
> partners know each other, as well as possible.  One of Omaha's current
> playmates is a man I regularly have dinner with, a most preferable
> situation over not knowing him at all.


Thanks for your response.  I think if I were in a working poly-relationship
I would also like to be friends with all parties involved at least.  I don't
think I could imagine it any other way.  So I can understand your view.
This may not be the case in all multi-partner relationships, but I think that
would be the only way I would feel comfortable with it.

I trust my wife implicitly.  If she were to become involved with someone else
I would like to think of that other person as a friend whom I can also trust.
This is not a necessary condition, but it would sure help.  We have a close
relationship and we enjoy sharing everything with each other, so I would be
anxious to hear about the new relationship too, and I would like to think
that she could share with me what is going on without feeling like she is
betraying the other person's confidence.  So I would want person C to be able
to trust me.  I would also like to be able to trust person C enough to tell
him/her anything, so that anything could be shared about my relationship as
well.  Also I would not have irrational fears that my wife was being stolen
away (it couldn't happen, but that doesn't preclude irrational fear) because
person C would have my best interests in mind as well as my wife's.


Ideally I would like to imagine a relationship where all parties could share
with each other equally.  If there are three people, that makes for three
relationships.  Four people would have six relationships, etc.  Of course
not all of the relationships would be at the same point in development, but
I think they should all be "best friend/confidant" relationships at the very
least.  I think this may be what you were leading to...
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand and Love...
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:08:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <UehAZ2C00WB44fQkUq@andrew.cmu.edu> ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gerard Deckert) writes:
+
+    Altruistic love - Well, you're unattractive, plain and boring.  We
+have nothing in common, and I don't enjoy spending time with you.  I
+love you.  Will you marry me?

Straw Dogs, who was complaining about straw dogs? Altruistic acts
need not be 'life long commitment'. In fact most 'altruism' occurs
in a moment, since for the most part ....

+
+    Selfish love - You're wonderful.  I admire your intelligence and

Hey, baby, you look like a Hot Bi Babe (TM soc.bi) and I'd really
like to get into your pants (pant, pant, slobber...)...

Is more the norm than not.

Of course then I don't believe human acts occur in a vacuum so the
idea of 'altruism' may be 'attacted' on the grounds that the giver
is going to be rewarded on some level, whether its in the spirit
world on the next Karmic cycle or that sense of self-satisfaction
that the give may have.

The straw dog example suffers due to the ease with which one's
'selfish' interest leaves no room for the other person. The
'selfish' thought patterns are more often...

I really admire your ability with math, so maybe you can do my
accounting and I wouldn't have to pay a real accountant. And your
interest in literature will be helpful for my biblographic needs.
And by the way you look like you'd be great in bed...

So enters 'rational' 'selfishness', i.e. the one directionalness of
the above straw dog needs to be tempered by a moral code which
limits the self interest and allows the other person to pursue their
own goals, while in partnership with the 'rationally selfish' one.

Just as 'behaviorism' explains and can be used in various settings
for advantage, 'rational selfishness' can be used as well. But like
behaviorism, it's 'over' use and extention to an explain it all
theory fails.

I beleive that there are 'selfless' acts, and I beleive that such
acts are not vices or indications of weak people. I also believe
that individuals who espouse a 'rational selfishness' are covering
for their own fear of loss of control. The loss of control of the
individual is one of the main fears of 'communism'. However, in
reality I believe that human adult behavior is not modeled by a
'psychic' Rambo, that each individual is in fact part of a larger
functioning organism, call it leviathan or what ever.

There will be occasions were the 'organism' needs to change and
adapt, that why I'm posting to 'polyamory', but there are times
where the individual must adapt and leave his selfish state.

Of course if 'rational selfishness' is just saying there needs to be
a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of
society then fine. But by saying that any capitulation to the
societal need in deference to the individual is a weakness, I
strongly disagree, since I model human behavior as essentially
societally oriented.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: zen@death.Sun.COM (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: kids 'n' poly
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:27:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com


  I've been seeing more and more poly couples these days.  It's strange
how your perceptions change -- when I started driving a chevy citation
years ago, I started seeing them *everywhere*.  Now I see more and more
bi and poly people... hmmm... *smile*...  Anyway, some couples have
kids, most don't (this could be because of the bias of age, more than
anything else, but most of my friends don't have kids, for whatever
reason.)  However, the people that do have kids are, thankfully (IMHO),
fairly open to their children about the situation, beliefs, and
preferences, at least from what I've been able to discern.  Some time
ago though, I heard someone's six year old voice their concern about
their parents breaking up -- they didn't want their parents to get
divorced; apparently society had gotten their mono-hooks into them quite
early... *sigh*... and when I was talking alone in the bedroom with the
mother of the child, the kid came up and voiced their displeasure; when
the mom said that we weren't going to be getting naked and doing
anything, the kid said "yeah, but you did last night with that other
guy."  I felt like crawling away...  *wry smile*...

  So... this rambling beginning begs more questions, as seems to be the
norm for most of my posts.  What kind of experiences have people had
with kids and poly stuff (I'm not talking about having poly
relationships with little kids, mind you, this is alt.polyamory, not
alt.poly.pedophile... oops, biases creeping into my post here)?  Do your
kids, if you have any, fully understand what's going on?  How old are
they?  Has anyone raised any poly kids, or have their kids go mono on
them... *laugh*...?  I wonder if, like the ol' homo-research people have
done, if having poly parents has a bearing on if kids will be poly.  Has
anyone had their kids come home, teased by other kids about their
parents being weird (I'll expect this one...  *laugh*)?  I didn't give
it much thought, before this six year old came around, to how early the
mono manifesto kicked in; having never been around young kids much
(other than myself...), I don't know when people actually learn things.
I guess if I ever have kids I'll have to start telling them about
"deviant" sex and relationships earlier than I thought -- they might
grow up to be closet fascists unless (or in spite of, perhaps) I give
them enough information to make an informed choice (i.e. agree with
me... *laugh*... just kidding, I think.)

  Anyway, it was interesting.  Kids are spooky things.  Biases creep in
like roaches in the night, and fast!  I certainly don't want to cause
hurt and fear in people in general, let alone kids, who don't have the
same set of defensive and comprehensive tools that us more-like-adult-
types have.  I'd like to hear from people who have had any experiences
with this kind of stuff -- dealing with kids, either their own or
someone else's...

Poly wanna cracker?

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Reply-To: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:22:06 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8205356@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.100539.2613@nic.csu.net> connor@sonoma.edu (Greg Connor) writes:
>>Do you usually find that you have one BIG relationship where all partners
>>have open communication lines to all other partners?  Or do you have a
>>collection of twosomes with partners dividing their time (for example
>>XY and XZ spend time together, but Y&Z barely know each other)?
>
>Well, I have heard of some couples who insist that they both get
>involved with anyone new, but I don't think that this would work for me.
>However, I don't see just these two options.  Between any two people,
>there is a whole spectrum of possible feelings.  For the most part, I
>would prefer to be at least friendly with anyone my SO is involved with
>(more than "barely knowing them").  Better would be to be quite friendly
>with them.  However, unless we are both interested in each other, we
>wouldn't get involved; I certainly would not want to get involved just
>because my SO wanted to.
>
>This starts to answer your next question:
>
>>Another (possibly naive) question:  Do you usually find in your relationships
>>that there are 'dominant' pairings, and that one person may be more important
>>to you, (possibly the partner you have been with longest)?  Or do you feel
>>that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?
>
>It is not likely that any two relationships will be at exactly the same
>point at a given point in time.  Even if there is the potential to be
>equally close to two people, the amount of time I have had with each
>one, the experiences we have shared, what we know about each other,
>etc., will all affect how close we are at any particular time.  So, yes,
>one relationship is usually the closest.  However, this does not mean
>that I would "favor one partner over the other."  I would certainly have
>to decide how much time and attention to spend on each one.  If this
>decision was made purely on the basis of who I was closest to, that
>would pretty much preclude developing any new relationship, since the
>old one would be the closest.  If I am not prepared to treat a new
>person well, which includes trying to give them enough time and
>attention to make them happy with the relationship (this may, of course,
>not be possible, even in a mono relationship), I don't think that I
>should get involved with them at all.  I would still be prepared to end
>one relationship if it seriously threatened a more important one.
>
>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
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand...
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:53:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <phillips.716551164@infs5> phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips) writes:
| brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| 
| >In article <1992Sep13.021748.9576@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >>It seems to me the only righteous form of sex for a good
| >>Objectivist would be masturbation.  For one thing, no matter
| >>how selfish you are, there's a good chance the other party
| >>or parties will get something out of it.  In fact, they
| >>might get _more_ out of it than you do.
| 
| >It sounds like you have a pretty strange idea of what "rational self-interest"
| >consists of.  Do you really think that it is in your rational self interest
| >to never do something that benefits anyone else?  Geez, and they say 
| >Rand attacked strawmen!
| 
| Cheer!  Much support and agreement etc.  It is amazing how many people
| react like Gordon whenever anyone so much as suggests the possibility
| of peoples prime motivation being their own happiness.  So you
| ask them; 'Why do you do nice things for other people'.
| Many respond with "because I enjoy it", and then refuse to see that
| they are agreeing with you.

But that's what _altruists_ often say.  If you hold
selfishness as a value, instead of just "having a good time",
then it's got to be distinct in some way from altruism.
Otherwise it's meaningless.  You can't have it both ways.
You can enjoy the pleasures of altruism, love, generosity,
all that stuff; or you can be an Objectivist, and make sure
you're being strictly selfish; or you can waffle.  Which
is it going to be?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:03:32 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim) writes:
>woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   Oy! We're here! We drink Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi! Get used to it!
>
>Well, *I* wouldn't have anything to do with *that*!

   Ha ha ha! Priceless!

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
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 06:42:01 GMT

woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>   Oy! We're here! We drink Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi! Get used to it!

Well, *I* wouldn't have anything to do with *that*!

<insert lots of smileys at this point>
-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
>Opinions above are probably my own only...too weird to be anyone else's.<

"I can't be sure where I'm headed after death/To heaven, hell, or beyond to
 that Great Vast/But if I can I would like to meet my Maker/There's one or
 two things I'd sure like to ask"      --Crash Test Dummies, "At My Funeral"
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: rethinking polyamory
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:53:20 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <=zmnffk.despair@netcom.com> despair@netcom.com (Scott Hanson) writes:
>The only person I "converted" became involved with someone who demanded
>to be her only lover or no relations (even friendship) at all.  She was 
>interested in him enough to agree to this arrangement.  I suppose this
>would be more appropriate in alt.angst.
>
---
	This is a fear I've seen when expressing polyamorous concepts to
SO's.  Suppose we opt for some form of polyamorous relation and it
ends up serving as an avenue for me to get to know someone else.  As
a result, there is the 'threat' that I could become more attached
to the new person.  That by itself is a big enough threat, but then
there is even the added complication as happened above of the other
person demanding exclusive access or threatening to cut off all ties.

	Of course, if it was put so bluntly, it would be easy to see that
giving in to that person would be a bad move.  But nevertheless, there
are alot of unknowns / uneasinesses.  

	Is this type of thing just par for the course, or how do others
deal?  It seems like someone must be incredibly secure within themselves
or possibly not that attached to allow one's SO to be 'shared' with 
someone else.  I dunno.

	How does one foster self-security or how does one work on one's self
to bring one's self to a state of security where jealous is not a problem?

william
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: hees@cubic.com (Phil Hees)
Subject: Re: Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 21:27:00 GMT

phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips) writes:
>(Let us not say how we deal with people who drink caffiene free diet p**si..)

Caffeine-free diet pussi?!  What will they think of next...


(I didn't know that the usual version was caffeinated.  Maybe that's what's
 been keeping me "up" nights.)

((For that matter, I didn't know that there was a need for a diet
 version.  How many calories are in one of those things, anyway?))

--
Phil Hees
hees@cubic.com

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand...
Organization: Milo's Meadow
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:07:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.021748.9576@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>It seems to me the only righteous form of sex for a good
>Objectivist would be masturbation.

Judging from the Rand I've read, rape is OK too.

Adam
-- 
"Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the
 stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud.  There is _always_
 something." -- Robert Penn Warren | Vote Cthulhu in '92! | adam@rice.edu
If Rice shared my opinions I wouldn't have this disclaimer | 64,928
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:00:37 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   No doubts about that! We did regret not politely & simply asking them
>>if they were bigotted about other issues too...
>
>I suppose a good response to "*I* would have no interest at all in
>*that*!" would be: "Don't worry, we wouldn't ask *you*!".  Delivered
>in a similar tone of voice.  Just insulting enough to get your point
>across (not that the closed-minded ever notice that sort of thing), 
>but low-key enough not to disrupt the party.

   Ha ha ha! The point is, we *did* subvocalise something like that when
we were bitching about it afterwards too! 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: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand...
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:17:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <phillips.716551164@infs5> phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips) writes:
+of peoples prime motivation being their own happiness.  So you
+ask them; 'Why do you do nice things for other people'.
+Many respond with "because I enjoy it", and then refuse to see that
+they are agreeing with you.

Sometimes I do things for others and enjoy it, at other times I do
the samething and don't. The operative thing here is that in either
case I don't judge one a 'good' and the other a 'bad'. But then you
may say that I have a masochistic personality and derive 'pleasure'
from selfabuse, and hence really 'enjoy it' and hence are
'rationally selfish'.

Of course one can ask the directorate of a 'communist' cell why they
are controlling the activities of others and eventually they will be
forced to say 'because they enjoy it' and hence are exhonerated from
any moral culpablity, since they were acting in 'rational selfishness'.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: cmbr01@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 09:26:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.101821.24250@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
[discussion about dealing with indoctrinated/bioted people]

>    <sigh> I'm usually one for a fight on these sorts of issues, but
> lately I just haven't had it in me.
> 
> Joe.
>                                                          
Get it in you Joe, get it in you! :-)

WRT problems of the gay and bi communities not seeing eye-to-eye:
Here at Strathclyde the Homosexual and Bisexual Club is one group,
just one big happy family!.

Incidently, at Strathclyde about 10 years ago a
"Heterosexual Decadence Club" was founded to encourage sexual
openness (and orgies!) amongst the heterosexual community.
They were refused a grant subsidy (which all other clubs receive)
and, if I remember were not allowed to promote their activities!
Admittedly, it was set up more in fun than seriousness, but...

Talk to you later.
Adios, J.