HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
From: connor@sonoma.edu (Greg Connor)
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:05:38 PDT
 <ritter.715613954@claude> <1992Sep7.100037.27564@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
Distribution: world
Organization: Sonoma State University

I was pleasantly surprised to find this newsgroup.  Polyamory is a subject
which I have thought about a lot, but I couldn't find anyone else to discuss
it with seriously.

I am married (and happily) and so far we have stayed within the socially
comfortable bounds of monogamy.  But I cannot help but think of what it
might be like to expand the family to include more adults.

One thing I am curious about.  Those of you who have what you would call a
"stable" polyamorous relationship, please share your thoughts about this:

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)?
For those of you who have had BOTH kinds, which do you like better?
Which do you find more stable?

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?

Thanks for being patient
-----------
Greg Connor
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: rethinking polyamory
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:46:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <lafmmgINNhe2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
+
+	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?

One in a sense can't induce 'self-security' in others. The
individual needs to come to that state of their own volition. The
'security' aspect which you may provide is 'being there' when you
support is needed. The problem arrises when the person's need for
support requires your being a constant companion and any other
relationships are seen as diluting that support.

+
+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.

Well, depends on what your buying! A 1949 Eniac which computed no
more than your HP-41 costs Millions, but a pack of cigarettes cost
15 cents. Well, which item would have cost less, computers or
cigarettes.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: margi@indigo.Sgi.COM (Margie Levine)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: rethinking polyamory
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:36:22 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.


|> >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.
|> >>

I think that, for those of us who are still trying to attain "true" poly
status, the most difficult time is when a new relationship feels so intense
that you want to spend all you're time with the new person. To get past this 
and stick with you're original partner, one thing that really helps is to
have the conviction that your original relationship is a *really great*
relationship, and that that's really the best there is.  Other 
relationships could be *really great* too, but there's no comparing 
*really great* to *really great*.  Once you have this conviction, it 
makes jumping ship seem sort of pointless.  I think that if one member of 
a poly relationship doesn't think this way, it's probably a good bet that 
that person might induced to leave by a monogomous person that wants all 
of their time. A new relationsip can feel so intense compared to a long 
term one - if you can't step back and realize that your orignal relationship 
is equally good or better, but just at a different stage, then it's very 
tempting to let the intensity of a new relationship make you start thinking 
about leaving.

In article <keithd.715850431@cluster>, keithd@stallion.oz.au (Keith Duddy) writes:
|> 
|> I think that if the 'additional' people in the arragment are told from
|> the very beginning that the 'original' couple was not up for negotiation
|> and that the new realtionship would always be shared then the 2 people
|> in the new relationship would rarely get close enough that the new
|> person would be able to demand severing the orginal relationship.

I think that it is difficult to keep from getting *too close* to someone
when you really like them.  If I am in a true poly relationship, than I 
don't feel that there should be limits on how close I can get to another 
person.  I feel stifled and frustrated when that becomes the case and 
for me, it sort of defeats the purpose of trying to be poly.

I really like the idea that the new relationship would always be shared 
the two people in the original relationship, but for me at least, that
doesn't seem to be the way my poly relationship works.  I mean, every so
often I meet someone that I think is really great, and everything in me
says "get to know this person!".  But that doesn't mean my SO feels the
same way.  The resulting new relationship then seems to become more "my"
relationship that "our" relationship.  My SO may feel like the person is
a nice person and may spend time with us in groups, but he doesn't go
out of his way to develop any sort of emotional relationship with the
person.   


 - Margie
   margi@sgi.com or maybe margi
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand...
Organization: Elec Eng, Univ of Western Australia
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:59:24 GMT

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.

Hmm.  Not feeling incredible expressive today.  Anyone else wish to
expand on this thread?  Could be interesting....


--
Christopher Jam	__________________________________________________
phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au			c64 forever!!!!
300,000 c64's were sold in the fiscal year ending June 1991 :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand...
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:19:00 GMT

In article <BuI3K6.6rp@rice.edu> adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) 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.

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

Oh come on!  Rand said that if the "rape scene" in The Fountainhead was
rape, then it was rape by engraved invitation. (And therefore not rape 
at all.)

Do you really think that Dominique didn't want to have sex with HR?  Did you
not notice that HR's taking charge of the situation represented a microcosm
of the relationship between the two where she rejected values because she
thought they are impossible and HR forced her to see that she was wrong?
Dramatized conflict in a novel is not the same thing as promoting conflict
in non-fiction.

Considering her views on the non-initiation of force, how can you say that
she ever advocated rape?  How does you rape theory fit in with the rest of 
the story?  How does it fit in with Rand's own explanation of the "rape scene"?

--Brian


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Anonymous contact service proposed
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:02:04 GMT


John,

*I* don't care where the service is, as long as it exists.  An ACS in
alt.polyamory might help to create some more discussion.


Thanks,

    __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  |     ... 54-40
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand, Open vs. Closed Polyamory
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:37:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Qeds5o_00VorQA=EZe@andrew.cmu.edu> ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gerard Deckert) writes:
+	So it's about Ayn Rand.  To be honest, I don't really think this is an
+appropriate bboard to discuss her and/or Objectivism.  Beyond saying
+that sex is a "celebration of life among people who respect each other
+and their concommitant values", Objectivism doesn't espouse any

And why isn't one's life philosophy part of the discussion. What for
instance does AR and Object.  have to say about such activities as
alturism, and selflessness? On the other hand what illumination does
this body of though give on human motiviations and actions? Further
how does this relate to 'relating to others' which is what most
people seem to think is the basis for relationships.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Am I the only bi woman in Kansas???!
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:35:43 GMT

In article <4270@n7kbt.rain.com> ap-poly.49@n7kbt.rain.com writes:
:ap-poly.41@n7kbt.rain.com:
:	[...]
:> What I am looking for:  someone creative, feminist, honest, discreet,
:> and fun.  What I am NOT looking for:  Republicans, smokers, swingers (in the
:> traditional sense of the term), couples, men who think bisexual women were
:> created sheerly for their voyeuristic pleasure, people who live so far away
:> that corresponding will just torture me :), anyone who thinks I'll leave
:> my husband (nope, no way), axe murderers, pro-lifers, cat-haters, or extremely
:> religious folks.  That about sums it up!
:
: What this person needs is a dog without a brain, has no opinion, and
:can be trained *exactly* she wants it to be.

May I invite poster #1 to join us in soc.bi where she'll find lots of
folks of a like mind, male and female.

Poster #2 might prefer the company in alt.flame.

Graham
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand, Open vs. Closed Polyamory
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:24:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep10.063634.7763@cubic.com> hees@cubic.com (Phil Hees) writes:
+
+Here's a challenge: can anyone think of a Heinlein novel published after
+1960 which didn't include at least one polyamorous relationship?  (Maybe
+_Job_ or _Farnham's Freehold_, but I think they lean that way too.)

In F.F. wheren't the potiential poly partners eaten by the 'bad
guys'?
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Organization: Junior, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:17:54 -0400 
From: Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Ayn Rand and Love...

    Sigh.  This is the sort of discussion I was hoping to avoid.  If
anyone wants a clarification of Objectivist though on these issues,
email me and I'll try to answer your questions.  I don't think
discussion of Objectivist principles is welcome/appropriate here, and I
think it'll just devolve into "Well, you're just wrong - and you're ugly
too!" 'discussions'.
    Here are two examples of love - altruistic (selfless) love, and
selfish (i.e. rational self-interest) love.  Tell me which you prefer...

    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?

    Selfish love - You're wonderful.  I admire your intelligence and
your humor.  You're attractive.  I enjoy being with you and I want to
spend more time with you.  Your company gives me great pleasure - your
presence inspires me to greater heights of achievement.  I love you. 
Will you marry me?

Comments?



                                            Gerry

--
******************************************
Today's random quote:
"The shamans are forever yacking about their snake-oil 'miracles.'  I
prefer the real McCoy - a pregnant woman."

					-Lazarus Long

******************************************
From: glenn@moeng2.morgan.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Our heroes!
Date: 15 Sep 1992 10:11:58 -0500
Organization: The Space-Time Fabrication Institute, Rockville, MD.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Sep15.100018.25026@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.192738.4232@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>>Charles:  He.  Well, actually, he's not old enough to tell us if he's a
>>he or she, either, but.
>
>   Whooosh!  Went right over the heads of the audience.  The bisexuals
>didn't miss it, everybody else did.

In only managed to catch about five minutes of the show (but I should
get to see it on tape later).  This was one of the lines I caught.

I'd like to thank Charles for that line especially, even before I
get to watching/reading the rest of the show.  Not just because it
can be interpreted as a reference to the "gender community", but 
because of the whole point Charles made in that section -- that he's
going to _ask_ what his son is, not encourage or dictate one "choice". 


Unfortunately, I too got the impression that a lot of the studio
audience didn't get it.


-- 
D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."

How much interest is there in a TV/TS newsgroup?  How many would post there?
You can send me mail anonymously at wi.2743@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (was wi.79)

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jrw27953@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon W.)
Subject: Re: RAH Poly (was Ayn Rand, Open vs. Closed Polyamory)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:32:17 GMT

Even in _Job_, the tight*ssed fundamentalist protagonist is forced to admit
that there can be more than one perfect woman for him... not to mention the
fact that the whole book is one long affair with Margie while he is still
married to the battle-axe prayer-matron.

---Jon W.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand...
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:11:20 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.  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!

If someone came up to you and offered you $1M, but only if your acceptance
would akso result in someone else getting $2M, do you think an Objectivist 
would say "No, that would be altruism."?  Come on.  Think a little.

>Then there's the problem of one's emotions.  Sex is 
>notorious for giving people those woofy, moist feelings
>for one another we call "love".  In fact, it's a lot
>more fun that way.  So one would always be strongly
>tempted to act altruistically.  Can't have that.

You love those false alternatives don't you?  Self-interest and love are
perfectly compatible.  In fact, I can think of few things as compatible
with my self-interest as a good healthy romantic relationship.  

Do you really think that love/sex is bad for you?

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:58:22 GMT


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)?
> For those of you who have had BOTH kinds, which do you like better?
> Which do you find more stable?

The above questions triggered some thinking about past poly relationships that
my wife and I have had.  Usually, any involvement has been started by my wife
and eventually the person has joined my wife and my relationship, but this
has mostly occured on a friendship level.  It has been very stable and very
enjoyable for everyone involved.

Recently though, my wife has become seriously involved with another woman.  I
have not met her yet, but I'm beginning to think that they are falling in love.
This is not the standard friendship that we've seen in the past and has been
forcing us to rethink and re-evaluate our relationship (in a good way).  I guess
to answer your question: I'm finding that the circumstances really dictate how
the relationship will evolve... and talking about it helps.

> 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)?  

My wife and I have been the dominant pairing, but mainly due to the fact that
we live together.  If we weren't married or didn't live/sleep together, then
the dominant pairing may be different.  Again, circumstances have dictated this.

> Or do you feel
> that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?

This is an interesting question... my wife has been feeling that she has been
favouring her lover over me.  She feels that this is unfair to me, yet I have
no problems with this.  I know that the two of them are early in their relation-
ship and (like all new couples) need more time to become familiar with each
other.  This can cause a lot of stress if the other person feels ignored.  I've
tried to step back and be more a friend than a husband... hopefully this will
ease her concerns and permit her relationship to grow with her lover.


Gambatte kudasai,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:53:56
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<ritter.715613954@claude> <1992Sep7.100037.27564@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
	<1992Sep8.100539.2613@nic.csu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: connor@sonoma.edu's message of 8 Sep 92 17:05:38 GMT

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