HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: off
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:51:49 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati OH


# In message <C02pE0.8n9@world.std.com>, 
# apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
 
muffy> Well, that's it.  I'm tired of being attacked by Vicka.  I'm
muffy> unsubscribing.  Anyone who wants to respond to any of my recent posts,
muffy> please email me.

tony> Um, should someone tell her about kill files?

Muffy knows all about kill files.  She expounds upon them in
alt.feminism all the time.  She's just throwing a tantrum.
Ignore it.  It's better than announcing "You're in my kill
file Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah!".  At least this way we
don't have to listen to her self-righteously explaining why
she's sticking her head in the sand, and why everyone else
should do it too.
                                                        - MM
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: davidr@world.std.com (David Rostcheck)
Subject: 1993
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:49:58 GMT

Happy New Year to everyone on alt.poly! I hope 1993 is filled with
positive personal growth for you all (with perhaps a dash or two of
physical intimacy - my favorite personal growth dietary supplement ;) 
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=davidr@world.std.com=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Marley was a Rasta; Moses was a Jew; Jesus was an outlaw, just like
me & you. Let love be our religion; until this life is through, the
next best thing to heaven is a sinful life with you." -T3
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Golden Rules And Me
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:49:59 GMT
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia

>	How does someone approach the possibility of polyamory who has
>been in a long marriage and who feels his/her SO's knowledge of outside
>relationships would do more harm than good?

Well, I'm hardly an expert on anything related to marriage, but here's
how I think about it:

Even if your wife doesn't WANT to know, what happens when she finds out?
Sometimes it can be very hard to ignore reality, especially when some
"helpful" friend decides to explain to her what's going on. At the
least, she's going to be very upset and embarrassed and unable to
explain to the friend what's going on; at worst, you're going to be
divorced.

How is your lover going to deal with the fact that your wife doesn't
know? I'd find that very unsettling. I don't like the concept of
"sneaking around". I like being able to call up a lover any time to
chat, and I'd feel awful if she answered the phone and I had to lie.

How are you going to deal with keeping a part of your life hidden from
your wife? This is what I would find hardest, if I were you. Lovers
are people that I share my life with, and having pieces which are not
not shared and MUST be hidden is not something I'd deal with. "Whew!
She didn't find out today, so I'm not going to lose her today."

Of course, everyone's different. But that's why I make my rules the
way I do. And I had a discussion with a good friend about this last
night who doesn't think about things the way I do, so it's obviously
something that lots of people think differently about. Good luck.

-- greg
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: an4400@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Is there a FAQ?
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.polyamory
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:53:20 GMT



Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:47:42 -0600

 TLO> There have been at least five people in this thread 
 TLO> who agreed that my use of the word fit their 
 TLO> definition; I've never even met some of them. You've 
 TLO> had exactly one supporter in this newsgroup, if you 
 TLO> want to do it by poll.  In *my* experience (and I 
 TLO> daresay I've spent more time talking over definitions 
 TLO> of "monogamy" than you have, since it's a word I use 
 TLO> for myself), most people don't have a problem in 
 TLO> dealing with it in reference to a preference for 
 TLO> having one lover. 
 TLO> 
   
   I've been watching this thread for what seems like a *very* long time, and
after reading and pondering have found myself with the following conclusions:
 
   1) Muffy does not understand vicka.  
   2) Vicka is willing to rephrase and try explaining again and again even when
Muffy uses negatively loaded language at her.
   
   These two things on their own make me suspect that Vicka has dealt with this
issue more thoroughly than Muffy.  (Not certain, mind you, just "suspect".)
   
   3) Muffy does not ask respectfully and non-judgementally for clarification of
vicka's beliefs and identity desciptions.
   
   *This* leads me to wonder if Muffy has any real interest in understanding
vicka, or ability to do so.  It's also something I've had to train out of
myself, so it's something easily seen in others.
   
   Not that either of you asked, but it reminds me of the spats over labelling
in one of my communities, where a certain sexual preference label is pasted on
certain people when they themselves are clearly expressing that they feel
another label fits them better.  
   As one who believes in an individual's right to choose their own
descriptives, I cannot support Muffy's highhanded labelling of vicka, done in a
manner that can only be described as closed-minded and ham-handed.  (If you like
kinesthetic metaphors, that is.)
   It's nonconsensual, and I wish to extend my hand to vicka with an
acknowledgement that Muffy's behaviour in this must be about as much fun as
being attacked by a swarm of our northwoods mosquitos. (Said insects seem about
as easy to reason with, too.)
 
   Muffy, I think you blew it on this one.  This is odd, since I had been told
of a friend that your posting was pretty good, but I have yet to see any reason
for the admiration in which he held you.  Perhaps you could show some of your
other facets?  I hope and trust there is more to you. (I know, I know, who asked
me?  Still, I have friends who tell me when I'm being a jerk, and on the whole,
I think I'd rather know.)

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 17:43:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.170528.16344@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>Just because one has a tool (a penis, artificial or otherwise) that
>allows one to perform a certain act (penetration) that someone without
>that tool cannot perform does not inherently make the person with that
>tool superior in that act.  It is quite possible that the person who
>is penetrated can be the one who is the active force behind the act.

>When I've watched Donahue, Geraldo, etc. do shows on polyamory topics
>I think the single biggest obstacle that prevents a large portion of
>the audience from even understanding the topic is that they are
>constantly trying to fit it into the standard power relationship which
>is defined by society: man and woman as partners, man on top giving,
>woman on bottom receiving.

I was thinking of this while reading the first (included) paragraph.
When I'm on the bottom and my partner is on top, I do not feel
superior.  I've never considered myself to be a person who explicitly
practices dominance/submissive acts, yet in a way I feel like I'm
being dominated when my partner is on top, and I sometimes get a
thrill out of it.

--gregbo
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 12:55:53 GMT

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
:    That's very contrary indeed to my experience, and also seems very
: counterintuitive. I'll outright ask people - does it really not seem 
: worthy of comment at least for someone to say "Yes, by my own choice
: I have more than one partner, but really, I'm monogamous, I am, since
: I'd *prefer* having only one"?

Well, doesn't this describe most of the world?  That is, the vast
majority who claim to be monogamous, insist that it is the True Path,
but mess around now and then.  Vicka is at least being honest about
her.. err, umm, well, whatever it is she is doing!

	Tony
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: conversation stimulation
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:57:25
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: an3096@anon.penet.fi's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:59:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.025935.29601@penet.fi> an3096@anon.penet.fi (lazlo) writes:
> My dilemma is that even though I occasionally see two other women,  I
> am in a monogamous relationship with my SO.  With one exception, I
> have been in a sexually monogamous r'ship with her for the past 9
> months.  I have discussed the idea of polyamory with her and she has
> told me that while she doesn't mind if I see other women, she isn't
> interested in meeting other men.

What exactly do you mean by "seeing" other women?  Do you mean that you
"see" women who are friends, or you are "dating" women, or what?

> When I pressed further, she said she might become jealous if I had sex
> with another woman.

Did she say that she therefore did not want you to do that?

> The point to which I am converging is that as I become closer to my
> SO, I find that I am becoming more and more monogamous.  The idea of
> monogamy is not itself a bad thing, but I would like to have the
> freedom to explore other people. 

What does "explore" mean to you?

There are (at least) sexual monogamy (no sex with anyone else) and
emotional monogamy (no "too close" (however that is defined)
relationships with anyone else).  The former is not much of a problem,
for me.  If my SO wanted me to not have sex with other people, it would
be occasionally frustrating, but I, while remaining myself, *could* do
it (I'd rather not, though, so I'm glad I don't have to...*smile*).  The
latter is a very big problem - to me, the only line between close
friends and lovers is having sex.  I could not be happy being
constrained to a certain emotional distance from other people.

Now, it sounds like your SO is okay about the emotional involvement with
others, just (perhaps) not sexual.  Is the problem that you also want to
have sex with people other than your SO?

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
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:34:27 GMT

Muffy sez:
> You give me two choices, neither correct

Hmm.  Well, if you don't mind the way I use the word "monogamy", and
you don't mind the fact that I prefer to be monogamous even though I 
can (and do) have simultaneous lovers, then why have you been calling
me "cruel" and "dishonest" and trying to insult my language skills?

> You are *not* living your life the way *you* say you want to.  As I
> said at the beginning, I think that is an odd way to live.  

I don't.  There are a lot of things I want in life, and I can't at this
point arrange to have 'em all at once.  I therefore compromise as best I
can, and try to stay honest about both my various desires and my practical
constraints.

> if someone says to me "I'd rather be a vegetarian, but I really enjoy
> having a nice steak every week or so," I think it is useful to them
> to point out that this is very contradictory.  

How's about, "I prefer to be a vegetarian, but I can't get good nutrition 
given the assorted veggies presently available.  I therefore eat a steak
from time to time for now, but I take care to warn my butcher that when 
squash comes into season, I'm outta there."

> When I discover such a place in my life, I try to resolve the conflict.

When I discover such a place in my life, I acknowledge the conflict and
cope with it honestly.  It may not be worth "resolving" one desire at the
expense of another, any more than a preference for vegetables is worth
having ricketts about.


cheers,
--vicka							vicka@wrq.com
	          "Count to one hundred...."

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: tonyl@vcd.hp.com (Tony Long)
Subject: Golden Rules And Me
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:36:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


	OK, I'd like to put something out for discussion and personal
e-mail advice:

	How does someone approach the possibility of polyamory who has
been in a long marriage and who feels his/her SO's knowledge of outside
relationships would do more harm than good?

	Of course, the accepted "rules" specify that this is not good,
and therefore not valid, but then what does one do?

	My situation: married to one woman for 21 years. During that time
my wife had one affair that was disastrous (she nearly left me) and later
I had a "one night stand" that was regrettable, for sex only, and left 
a bad taste in my mouth. Since then, I have developed several "more than
friends, less than lovers" relationships with women, mostly in the work-
place, and have come to feel "at home" with the idea that I could have
a lover; only one of these relationships, though, has approached this
point but we have backed off for various reasons so I am left with
a lot of *feeling* for this experience but not enough experience to 
really know what I want or is right for me.

	My wife and I kid around about these things, but even though she
still experiences infatuations she backs away, talks to me about it,
and doesn't think she could handle a relationship, and she doesn't
think she could handle knowing I was having one. Her position is
"If you have an affair I don't want to know about it". 

	I know "we should respect each other enough to be honest with
each other", but what we "should" do might possibly cause more damage
in our marriage (which I want to keep, I suppose, for the next 20-40
years) than we can handle.

	So, then, what does one do? Risk all damage with total disclosure,
even though it may cost the marriage? Or stifle the growing desire
for other loving relationships to to keep the waters smooth? At this
point in my life, I feel a need for filling out my life in ways that
my marriage doesn't seem to fully provide--we seem to have reached a
plateau where we are giving each other as much as we can but neither
of us seems fully satisfied.

	Well, I know that many "polyamory purists" will insist that
it's either open and consensual in a marriage or it's out--I expect
both that and the argument for strict monogamy. However, I would
like to hear discussion of these issues from different perspectives
and maybe some personal stories of how others have dealt with
this.

	I suppose others will be interested in postings of this
discussion, but for personal advice/correspondence you may email me at

		tonyl@hpvcpsr.vcd.hp.com

		or reply to the above address


		Thanks for your input,

			Tony

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: off (was Re: Intro to me and question for all)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:58:47 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
: 
: Well, that's it.  I'm tired of being attacked by Vicka.  I'm
: unsubscribing.  Anyone who wants to respond to any of my recent posts,
: please email me.
: 

Um, should someone tell her about kill files?

	Tony
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: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:59:55 GMT

Let's try one more time:

How 'bout if we all just agree that Vicka is *currently* in a
polyamorous relationship, but that she *prefers* to be in a monogamous
relationship.

Later on, we can try to find a new word for such a category.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 8 days and counting
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:45:28 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise) writes:

>   This is pretty close to how I feel about it.  Whenever possible 
> I like to talk with the "someone else" just as a matter of general 
> friendliness, and also to satisfy my curiousity... [..]

>   If anyone doesn't want me to talk to their "someone else", I get 
> just a bit nervous as to whether there's a secret being kept here.

Elise, could you elaborate for us a bit on how you deal with this
situation beyond "getting nervous".

Obviously, any sane person is (at least in general) not going to 
want to get involved with someone who is being deceptive
about said involvement with their other partner(s).

Sooo... if you can't meet the other party, what do you do?
Back away from the situation entirely?  Are there other
specific methods you can use to assure yourself that no deception
is involved?  Or do you just rely on "gut feel" and play
it by ear?

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jlw3y@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:54:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

weissman@netcom.com (Bob Weissman) writes:
>ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:

>>I've had my fair share of sex, vaginal and otherwise, and I've
>>enjoyed it.  But I've never completely understood what the big deal
>>is.  I've understood the problems intellectually.  But I've never had
>>a corresponding emotional or empathetic understanding.  It's just a
>>totally foreign concept to me to see sex as anything really more then
>>a basic biological function ranking up there with eating, sleeping,
>>and taking a shit.

>Whew.  If you find taking a shit as satisfying as having sex, I pity you.

In the words of a friend of mine (which I think he horked from
somewhere else):

"There's nothing as underrated as a good shit or as overrated as a bad fuck."

-jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:10:02 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec16171122@remarque.berkeley.edu>>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>   [responding to Frances Selkirk
>   Muffy might also assume that Vicka, who has been so very clear from the
>   beginning of this as to what she, personally, meant by monogamous, was
>   similarly clear to her lovers about what she meant by it. 
>
>I have indeed assumed this.


No, you haven't.  You've previously posted: 
	> I think that claiming to be monogamous but then not acting
	> that way (in other words, lying to yourself and your partners) is.
and 
	>>Do you have any reason to believe that Vicka is anything but
	>>honest with her lovers?
	>
	> I have no reason to believe she is or isn't. 

>   [Frances again] She used a word in a way you would not,
>   while being completely, totally clear about that usage. Deal.
>
> Why?  

Because there isn't any way to describe me within the limited lexicon
you'd like to allow.  You've never offered any more useful term.
 
> If I started using extremely insulting terms to refer to her, claiming
> that I had simply "redefined" them for myself,

The point is that I have never claimed to have "redefined" any word at
all.  I use "monogamous" in a valid and extant way; it's only within your
personal limitations on the language that it's been "redefined".

cheers,
--vicka							vicka@wrq.com
	
			"Talk, talk, talk"
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, etc. etc.
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.153139.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:

>   This was the justification used in CA for the introduction of
>   compulsory helmet laws for motorcyclists. A figure of $170M/year
>   was quoted, I believe.

That's more than a nickle pre capita.  I hope he's sufficiently impressed.

>   Firstly, wearing a skid-lid may reduce your chance of being killed
>   when you fall on your head, but it also _increases_ the chances of
>   neck injury. 

Citation please.  The last ABATE meeting I was at (many years ago) this was 
debateable.

>You aren't violating the law of energy conservation by
>   wearing your crashhat - the energy which would have gone into
>   cracking your skull now goes into compressing your spinal column.
>   I'm not sure what the trade-offs are, however. Anyone got any
>   figures?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: mjann@hotcity.COM (Maureen Jann)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: anarchism
Date: 22 Dec 92 09:47:49 PST
Organization: BBS

Do you thinhk that anarchism is a big part individualism? 
                        \c2;)KaWsMiCkE(;
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Indivi
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:50:56 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <liqi9qINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>Is bicycle riding a privilege?
[del]
>Driving a car is a privilege.
>
>Driving a bicycle is a right.

>Kris Skrinak

How come driving a car is a privilege? I don't believe it was before
the 30's.

Why doesn't a person have the right to drive his car if he does
so peacefully?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)