HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Multiple Orientations?
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:39:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep30.131038.17865@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
+
+On the other hand, for all that I may "know myself", I can still be

When I as first presented with the two famous delphic statements,
they happend to be right next to each other on the the same line so
I blythly translated them:

"Know thy self, none to much".

I was somewhat disapointed to learn that they were independent
statements of "Know thy self" and "Nothing to much" or
"moderation"..

Then there was the Thucyldes fractured translation, "For man the
whole earth is a tomb". I was again disapointed when the instructor
described the context where Thyculdes was dedicating the burial
mound at Marathon and was probably pointing to it when he said,
"This big pile of dirt is the grave for these men".
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: 75furlong@cua.edu
Subject: Re: *grin*
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.130934.24932@cbnews.cb.att.com>, eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
> 
> *Grin* *grin* *grin* *giggle* *BLUSH*.
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-).
> 
> Go ahead, ask me about last night--I dare ya!!
> *beam*
> 
> Eleanor

OKOKOKOKOK - now that my arm has been sufficiently twisted...

Well? Come on - 'fess up!!

-Alison
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Some fears and doubts about my sexuality
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:45:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.38932
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct2.035100.29597@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
+In article <1992Sep30.235725.16758@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> 
+ cjohnson@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Coe Salzgeber) writes:
+>I have always thought it might be amusing, once or twice, from an
+>anthropological sense, but a date just doesn't seem like the best way
+>to lead up to any sort of interaction, from a one-time fling to a
+>long-term committment.
+
+I have also generally avoided traditional "dates" (with some strange
+and forgettable exceptions like high school proms) ... I feel like I get

Personally I like Carbon Dating. It really does give reasonably
acruate results. Traditional dates have been proven to be in error.

Funny I don't think I've heard of the 'High School Prom' dating
method. Does it use some new scientific technique?
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Multiple Orientations?
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: soc.bi
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <1992Sep29.061528.29635@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
 jcatesii@nyx.cs.du.edu (James Cates III) writes:
>Anyway, I think this muffin is about ready...oven mitts anyone?
>
>Jim
>
>" I think he went both'aways..."
 Welcome!

 *hug* *hug*



-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Some fears and doubts about my sexuality
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:19:33 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (Arrowsmith) writes:
>>> [ ... ]  Mike is right about permanence being optional when the
>>>issue of breeding is removed, but there is still a lot going for it in
>>>terms of stability, in knowing that you've got someone to rely on.
>>>A brief relationship, no matter how intense, is not going to provide
>>>the same sort of emotional anchorage -- if you can manage without that,
>>>I envy you your freedom, but I can't get the hang of it.

idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>[...]  Any "stability" that I may get from other people -
>>friends, lovers, whoever - is *supplementary* to the stability I have
>>in myself.  It can't be counted on.  The only person I can't lose, whom
>>I can rely on always being there, is me.  If I don't have security
>>enough of myself, then I can't afford to live (for anything other than
>>bleak terrible moments) on others' gifts.

SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (Arrowsmith) writes:
>Well, I went away and had a good think about this.  You could well be right
>about it being dangerous to rely on others -- it would certainly go some
>way to explaining how I got so completely screwed up.

This is something I've often thought. Unless you're completely detached,
all relationships are emotionally "dangerous". Ending relationships always
hurts (hence the appeal of lifelong relationships, I suppose).

>  But, on the other
>hand, I don't have that internal stability -- I *can't* rely on myself -- 
>so my only chance is to get it from others, if I'm to survive.  Maybe the
>external support would be enough for me to get some sort of self-confidence
>back, but it's almost impossible to find anything purely within myself that
>would give me that sort security.

Me too. Well, I *can* survive on my own, but not well. It's not so much
a question of self-confidence, I think, but self worth. If no-one else
values me highly, I don't value myself highly.

>  I feel, well, hollow -- like there's no
>real "me" inside, that there's just some sort of shell that only really
>exists as a reflection, or creation, of those around me.

This strikes a strong chord. The closest thing you can get to an objective
assessment of yourself is what everyone else thinks of you. You are what
you do; what you think counts for very little, especially in the long run.

>  What it needs, I
>guess, is convincing me that I'm more than that, that somebody can see the
>"me" that can be trusted, and to show it to me.

I don't know you all that well (more's the pity) but this sounds very
plausible.


//jon

   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
Xref: sparky soc.bi:13347 soc.motss:41609 ne.motss:507
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: vikki here for the first time,
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:25:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <s882916.717839639@otto> s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD) writes:
+
+Well i don't have much else to say. Except maybe some one could give me
+some advice. I'm fucking this gut at the present time but i'm a bit
+worried about his PC ness shall we say. He isn't political at all and
+has no social consciousness.

The personal is political.. Sex is politics.. They don't call it
sexual congress for nothing..
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: liz@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Liz Highleyman)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Where are the bisexuals?
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:25:05 GMT
Followup-To: soc.bi
Organization: Free


In article <1992Oct4.133147.11002@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:

 >  I'm like to pursue the question of what are the "natural habitats"
 >  of bisexuals in today's society -- spaces that are bi-friendly or
 >   tolerant enough to encourage bis to be visible.

 >  Many bi activists have come out thru the gay/lesbian communities; but there
 >  are also significant contingents of bisexuals who feel little connection 
 >  with those communities.

I'm glad to finally be seeing recognition of the existence of bis that
don't identify with the gay/les community...

I find that groups of radical/progressive political people are often
bi.  This would include anarchists, socialists, student activists.
In the several anarchist scenes I am familiar with, bi is the most
common orientation (then het, then gay/les).  Among some student 
and other activist groups I have encountered, being straight is
considered somewhat non-PC, or at least `uncool'...esp. if you're
male.

The performing arts/music scenes also seem to have lots of bis,
esp. alternative music.  Several punk zines are devoting space
to gay/bi issues and concerns these days.

The s/m scene also has many bi or at least bi-friendly people.
Many people will do s/m play with people of both genders, even
if they might not have genital sex with both, so the orientation
boundaries are much more fluid.  People who do s/m play with both
genders may consider themselves bi, het or gay/les.  In my
experience, it's rare to encounter biphobia in s/m circles.

The transgender community also seems to contain many bis....at
least we have had a lot of TS/TG/TV people come to our bi meetings.
I'd guess this is because many bis don't put so much emphasis on
gender or think of it in such an either/or way.  Also, the sexuality
of a TS/TG doesn't fit traditional categories: if a person with a
male body and a female psyche is attracted to women, are they gay
or straight?


-Liz
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz A. Highleyman                     MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
liz@ai.mit.edu                        Cambridge, MA  02139
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Re: Hello...[grin]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:36:48 GMT
Keywords: hello...


Hi, Dawn!  <pounce!> *snuggle* *flirt* *HUGS*

El

P.S.  *slurp*  yum--blueberry?
From: pfieland@citron.sw.stratus.com (Peggy Fieland)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: My first Triangle
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:17:26 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Oct6.174026.4597@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
>I considered what to say,
>and felt "they mean you have unconventional sexual proclivities"
>would not get the idea across.  I said "They mean you're gay",
>and I felt pretty bad saying it.  I don't identify as gay, despite
>strong support for The Cause (after all, it's largely the same one).
>I know leatherfolk who would probably feel even more excluded by my
>definition.  Still, I couldn't think of a way to say it which got as
>much of the idea through.  We exchanged a few more words (she reacted
>positively) and then I had to move on.  What *should* I have said?
>


How about "It means you're attracted to others of the same sex".
This has a slightly different subtext, in that it doesn't necessarily
imply that you're not attracted to people of the opposite sex.

Peggy
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Multiple Orientations?
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:12:42 GMT
Reply-To: orc@pell.chi.il.us
Organization: Ministry of Skritching

In article <1992Sep23.074232.8972@vax.oxford.ac.uk> cen@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
| orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
|> "aha, you've slept with 4 men and 3 woman; you must be a kinsey 3.5 today!" 
|And you tell us you have a quiet sex life. Seven in one day?

   (blink)

   The mind boggles.

   Maybe that'll be my project for next year...
                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ From the land of brain-dead mailers.
		  \/
From: Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Other Side of the Closet (Re: Spouses of bi's: anybody out
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 01:23:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Sep27.033351.693@u.washington.edu>

well i am sorry but my wife, who is straight but loving and understanding and
alot more cool aobut my sexuality than I have been at times does not read this
group. She is too busy laughing her head off at some of the other less 
relavant, more silly news groups.:)

Ben Gibson
From: pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: I'm unhappy
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:36:52 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) wrote...
>
>   I'm really upset because soc.bi, which is the only completely friendly
>& safe space I have, has got all sorts of nasty things happening in it
>now. One of my loves summed it up perfectly when they said "...I'm reading
>soc.bi and feeling bad! I don't read soc.bi to feel bad!".
>
>   I should be really happy. I've got lots of good news that I'd normally
>want to be madly posting and telling everyone about.
>
>   But I can't. It's not appropriate any more.
>
>   Soc.bi is the last place I would have thought to find harassment &
>abuse. And even here I can't get away from it.

Argh!  Joe.  It's been said before, I'll say it again, soc.bi is
what you make it.  You contributing your good news will make it
all the better.  The general consensus seems to be let's move on to
more positive, more construtive topics.  Help us do it.

soc.bi is my safe space, and I will continue to make it so.
Ellen
From: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (Arrowsmith)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: State Sanctioned Suicide
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:56:37 GMT
Distribution: soc.bi
Organization: Surrealists against Lobsters

In article <1992Oct1.013238.9141@vax.oxford.ac.uk> cen@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>Owen pointed out that it wasn't really very sweet or honourable to die choking
>in a gas attack in world war ii because of a clapped-out Latin phrase.
>                             ^^
Ahem, shouldn't that be WWI?  (Why didn't WWII produce poets the way the
first did, anyway????)

--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk           | There's nowt |"Stormy weather turns to blue;
sarrowsm@nyx.cs.du.edu        | so queer as  |"Here's a song to take with you:
                              | folk....     |  --Mike Oldfield, "Taurus II"
From: atmpas@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: being "in love"
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:18:04 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct5.180304.21112@midway.uchicago.edu>, h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair) writes:

> He then replied that he didn't
> see how this alleged love could compare to the "simple love" he felt for
> his wife and son.  And that made me think, has this married man never
> experienced erotic love?  Why would he call his love for his wife "simple"
> and utter it in the same breath as his love for his son?
> 
	Perhaps because affection dominates his feelings for his wife now.  
Being 'in love' is, at least for some people, an obsession or a minor insanity -
a pleasurable one, but still not something to make lifetime decisions for you.

> Anyway, what I want to ask you net.people is whether you think that their
> are people who have never experienced erotic love for anybody, same or
> opposite sex?  The reason I ask is not to say that people who have never
> experienced it are "wrong", "sick", or "bad" - but just out of my own
> bafflement.  I know that I came out to myself as bi after acknowledging that
> I had been in love with both men and women.  If it had only been one or
> the other I'd have called myself something else.

	Since I've only fallen in love once, and waited until I was 22 for it to
happen, (and to my misfortune and that of the object of my affections, it was
utterly unencouraged and unreciprocated) I'm fairly sure that there are people 
who have never fallen in love.  I was one until then - in fact, I didn't even
believe in 'falling in love'.

> And do you think the invocation of "love" is a good or bad technique for
> convincing the sceptical straight-person?

	Probably not; if they are reacting irrationally, then no arguement
could convince them.  If they are reacting rationally (which is not to say
correctly!) then an emotional arguement won't work.  Feelings are not a good
basis for justifying behaviour, since feelings as powerful as romantic love -
even including romantic love - have also motivated terrible crimes.

>   
> -- 
> 
> - Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu


		- Paul
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Sults)
Subject: I am not a bisexual!!!! 
Organization: The Third Reich! 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:03:59 GMT


I just wanted to share with you all, my 30,000 odd friends (oops, I suppose
I should mention my enemies as well, I guess I made a few recently)
that I am no longer bisexual.  I don`t suppose I ever was.

I am actually just a sexual, no sillies ... not asexual but a Sexual.  I am
not actually attracted to any gender, or any person.  I simply enjoy the
occasional bit of sex.  It seems to have nothing to do with the gender or
indeed the person. 

So there you have it,
Iseult.
From: Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: being "in love"
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 13:54:05 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

God I hope not. I would hope that everyone on this planet has felt erotic
love at least once while they were here.

But unforunately it has been my experience that most humans sleepwalk thru
life, never thinking, never questioning, never feeling. I wouldn't call it
bad or wrong or sick, I would call it tragic.

I think attempting to show that we can feel the same for someone with our 
plumbing as they do for someone with different plumbing might work. After all
love is supposed to be Christian virtue:)

Ben Gibson (just 5 more minutes...zzzzzzz)
From: panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (/)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Where are all of you? (flamish)
Date: 26 Sep 92 01:41:24 GMT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.

cen@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

> 
> Er, this is *why* I don't want manhood to go... or womanhood. 
> 
> Tanaqui
> 
> "Do what thy manhood bids thee do: from none but self accept applause
>  He noblest lives and noblest dies who makes and keeps his self-made laws"
> 
> _The Kasidah of Abdul Al-Harij_, translated by Burton and badly recalled by m


Nice quote.  Yes indeed.  I happen to like both "manhood" and "womanhood" 
as good old historically-rooted words and good solid concepts.  I just 
see no reason to let the bigots define them.

Namaste,
Elizabeth
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Some fears and doubts about my sexuality
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:27:25 GMT
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


In article <1992Sep26.070407.15182@midway.uchicago.edu> 
orc@pell.chi.il.us writes:
>In article <25xqb6xv@cck.coventry.ac.uk> 
 idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>|In article <1992Sep23.052007.13368@midway.uchicago.edu> 
  orc@sybase.com (David Parsons) writes:
>|>Dating sucks dead bunnies through a straw.)
>|What's so ukky about dating?

>   Everything.  And *Everything.  (I could write a book, but then I'd
>be in a very bad mood....)

hmmm...
i dunno.  i kinda like dating... even though it was 
*disastrous* in high school!  (ugh!)  i like doing 
the asking as well as being asked, with men and/or 
with women.  (i am *such* a bi!)  

i'll never forget that unbelievable feeling when 
i realized that the casual evening out with my then
best friend was really a *date* (!?!) -ooooh!-
talk about goosebumps!  ;)  and now she's my so...

;) (hi b!)

peg
-glad to be on the net...
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: dsuchy19@ursa.calvin.edu (Dawn Suchy)
Subject: Hello...[grin]
Summary: Just making my debut here....
Keywords: hello...
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:48:39 GMT

Hello.....

After reading you guys for a few weeks now I've decided to [gulp] actually post something.  

I hate public speaking and it was extremely difficult to type "world" a few moments ago, so please bear with me [grin]!  (I had to say "world" so a certain someone in Australia would notice that I posted....)  

I really have no comment on all the stuff that's been going back and forth in the group, but I must say that although I haven't met most of you via email or talk, the people I have met have all been wonderful and very understanding....

Thanks, Muffy, for reassuring me with all the compu-stuff the other day...
Thanks, Heather, for the info on the group at U of Chicago...
Thanks, Karina, for the surprise "talk" we had the other day...
And, thanks, Joe, for, um.....for being you!  [smile] 

If there's any problems with this posting, please don't complain 8-)  It's my second one EVER and the first was just a test.....I'm an English major who's just moderately computer literate..... [grin]  But more computer literate than the average English major, I must admit...

Oh, and bi the way, I am.   Um, y'know....Bi! [grin]

Dawn


*******************************************************
* I don't know how to do a .sig file.....and I'm sure *
* anybody who can figure out where this is coming     *
* from knows that my thoughts and orientation do not  *
* in any way reflect the wishes or thoughts of the    *
* institution of origin.....                          *
*******************************************************
From: adkisson@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Rob Adkisson)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Thanx! / Question?
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:36:45 GMT
Reply-To: adkisson@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Rob Adkisson)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: adkisson@mickey.cc.utexas.edu

Thanks for the welcome, and the advice, both private and public :-)
(i.e. about long distance relationships....)  My SO arrived from
Germany this weekend, and I haven't had much time to write since
then!!!   [big grin]

There's one thing I've noticed, and was wondering if anyone else
had noticed (no flames please) -- how come so many queers
(lesbigays) are vegetarians??  I'm one too, just wondering about
this fact.......

P.S.  Don't know whose triangle I stole--but thanks!!!!!  (I've
seen it on several people's .sigs ...
-- 
____________________________________________________________
rob adkisson         ____     Claudia hat 'nen Schaeferhund,
                     \bi/     den hat sie nicht ohne Grund!
U. of Texas, Austin   \/      --Die Aerzte
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Elizabeth Holden)
Subject: Re: I have a question !
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 19:14:09 EDT

cllcor01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

> What I want to know is :If a female is bi-sexual,are her male
> partners necessarily bi as well?

No.  Why?

> I'll tell you why.

Okay....

But I don't understand how what you said relates to the question.

> I understand them.I have always been called female in my thought
> processes and really do communicate better with women.

I don't think this is uncommon.

> Id like someone out there to be able to talk to me about herself,
> using the incredible distance between us as a protective barrier,
> so that I can learn more!
> Thanks for the time
> Corrin


So what do you want to know?

Namaste,
Elizabeth