HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: meriel@stein.u.washington.edu (Daughter of Oshun)
Subject: Re: i'm not supposed to be jealous... but...
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:30:39 GMT

well...
i am no longer friends with the woman i mentioned.  there was really
no other way that it could have turned out; aside from the problems
with the way she pursued the relationship with my lover, there were
other serious problems in my relationship with her (not the least of
which was my attraction to her, which she chose to ignore.)

my primary lover and i have started talking more about things.  he has
insisted upon seeing her, still, and while i really would rather he 
didn't, if she is as selfish, and as much of a control freak as i think
she is, her relationship with him won't last long.  I have also added
another relationship; after talking to my lover about it, we decided it
was okay for me to start a relationship with someone else... that has
turned out quite well, and both my partners know that the other exists,
and that my primary lover has priority. 

eventually, i realized that it wasn't necessarily _jealousy_; it was 
really anger, anger over being played with, and anger over things being
done and decided with out my knowledge or approval.  

so, things are working out.  my primary arrives here on a permanent basis
on the 25th of this month; we've planned to take a week to not see anyone
else, and just get our bearings.  we'll also be doing a private 
committment ceremony, about which i am quite happy.  

-meriel

Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1703 alt.romance:13785 soc.singles:30056 alt.sex:35243 alt.pagan:12541
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Monogamy, Polygamy, and raising children (Was: Falling in Love
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:09:23 GMT
	<9ePXTB3w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us>
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: donal@brewich.hou.tx.us's message of 8 Nov 92 19:02:43 GMT

Does anyone know where Heinlein et al found the idea of line marriage,
that is, what culture it's indigenous to?
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1673 alt.romance:13692 soc.singles:29873 alt.pagan:12361 alt.sex:34999
From: jdm@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:31:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz) writes:

>> I'm pissed about the Colorado loss on #2.

>OK, I heard that Oregon defeated Prop 9, but did Colorado actually
>get it's version passed?  Gaack!


I'm extremely ashamed to report that Colorado did pass state Amendment 2.
And the damn thing was drafted by a group called "Focus on the Family"
right here in Colorado Springs (Ack!). 

Boulder and Denver had put local laws on the books to spell out the
fact that people cannot be the target of discrimination due to sexual
preference. Amendment 2 makes it illegal to pass anti-discrimination
laws that single out homosexuality as an official group to be protected.
This renders the existing laws void and this is sure to be challenged
in the court system. I think it is ludicrous that such a law was 
even up for popular vote as this is clearly an individual rights issue
that should not be part of the democratic process. 

My favorite bumper sticker to come out of this morass:

	"Focus on your own damn Family"

Jim Moore
SunSoft, Colorado Springs
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:41:59 GMT

In article <40474@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark) writes:
>In article <Bx1yAq.C5G@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>+
>+What were the Teutonic Knights doing in Russia in 1242?

They were on a crusade.  It was not in Palestine.

>Skating on thin ice.

That, too.  (Anyone not knowing what we're talking about should see a 1938
movie named _Alexander Nevsky_.  It's magnificent.)

-- Herb Huston
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1731 alt.romance:13847 soc.singles:30224 alt.sex:35494 alt.pagan:12634
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: raising children
From: woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:08:13 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>>[Joe writes: - not that David kept track of attributions]
>>   And anyway, there are precious few genuine "2 parent" families *anyway*.
>>More usually they are "1 parent and 1 wage earner" (or both could be
>>working, but still only 1 parent). Very few 2 parent families involve
>>both parents actually *raising* the children...I'm sure I heard of a US
>                            note: check this---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>study sometime in the last year that found that the average father spent
>>amazingly little time with their children - probably less time than they
>>spent on the toilet each day.
>>
>Apparently, in this case, considerably less than they spend on the "net" each
>day.

   You got something to say here?

   This sort of statement has always interested me. When people *don't* hear
a response to a certain line, they assume that basically no-one disagrees.
When someone *does* take the time to address important issues, they're
accused of "taking it too seriously" or something similar.


>>>>Children of unwed mothers showed similar tendencies.
>>>I knew a few myself and can only confirm it. Again, it's not to
>>>generalize,
>
>>   No, after "knowing a few yourself" who could possibly accuse you of
>>generalizing?
>
>Well, after YOUR quote above....("I'm sure I heard of a US study sometime in
>the last year.....")  how could you possible criticize anyone's generalizing?

   I think my very wording allows for the possibility of correction. The
statements I replied to were making bland sweeping generalisations with no
appeal to *anything* to support them.


>Some people simply have too much time on their hands.  Not to mention info
>from vague, erroneous, and unsupported by "almost-remembered US studies".

   Well, *pardon me*! Heaven's forbid that I should actually take the time
to try to be a voice against blind bigotry...

   And if you *did* actually read all of my article that you deleted, you'd
see that this study you dismiss was only a fractional part of my arguments.

   I'm wondering just why exactly you bothered flaming this? I mean, sure,
I expect flames from people who actually object to the oh-so-heretical
notions that 1-parent, or same-sex parent, or more than 2 parent families
are not actually Terrible Awful Things That Shouldn't Be Allowed...but
you don't even seem to have that motivation.

   It's odd that a flame criticising me for "having too much time on the
Net" seems to have been little more than an idle bored whim...

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: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Love
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:53:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Being "in love with" someone, to
>me, then, is when they make you feel so very good that you are really
>happy when you are around them and you want to be around them a *lot*.
>
>Loving someone, on the other hand, seems to have more to do with feeling
>good when they feel good around you.  Or, more to the point, wanting
>them to feel good and wanting to have a hand in that, because when they
>are happy, you're usuall happy.

I noticed that your definitions parallel mine.  But I also noticed that
these are applicable to one-self.  What it means to love yourself, and
loving yourself.

....jeff
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:32:25 GMT

Somebody said, but the attribution is so messed up that I can't figure
out who:
>In most countries adoption by homosexual couples is not allowed, so I
>don't think there can be enough material to study so far. My personal
>opinion is that this would be even worse than a single parent situation.

"Sherrianne M. Johnson" <sj1s+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Okay, I've been quiet, but I haven't seen ANYONE refuting this statement
> and the one above!  I had the idea that this bboard was at least
> *slightly* gay/les/bi positive...

Aack!  I *MISSED* this!?  Of *course* gay/les/bi parents wouldn't
be bad!  I guess I simply can't understand why anyone would think
they'd be worse.  Damn homophobes!

> I'm pissed about the Colorado loss on #2.

OK, I heard that Oregon defeated Prop 9, but did Colorado actually
get it's version passed?  Gaack!

> Ob. pagan content:  Wow, there's been a lot of talk about cats
> lately...but what would you all suggest for someone (me!) who's so
> allergic to cats that they can't touch them?  I guess I could have a
> bird around (I really love them)...I wonder if they like rituals?

Well, *my* bird just *loves* whistling during rituals.  Of course
he loves whistling ANYtime, so I guess it isn't a surprise.  And
you never have to worry about him walking through the circle!

How do you feel about more exotic pets?  Rabbits can be good pets --
I've heard of people who have them litter-box trained, even.

> Sigh....and hello to everyone.  I guess I'm leaping out of the
> non-posting closet and into the fray.

Welcome!

For some reason, I feel like being a welcome wagon today.  I've already
sent a few welcome messages via e-mail.  Maybe I'm just missing soc.bi,
since I don't have time to read it any more.

OK, here goes in the grand old soc.bi tradition:

Welcome and HUGS!

Or should that be "H * U * G * S!!!!!"
(-:  OK, I'll keep it subdued.  I don't think alt.pagan is ready for
"smooch, slurp".  :-)

Bear Blessings!

Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1764 alt.romance:13938 soc.singles:30512 alt.sex:35958 alt.pagan:12774
From: Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Religious bigot ?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 02:26:51 GMT
Organization: ANU Canberra
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.16
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:26:58 GMT

In article <ewright.721346941@convex.convex.com> Edward V. Wright,
ewright@convex.com writes:
>>Out of ALL of the people in school I am close to, I
>>and ONE OTHER PERSON are the only people to grow up in normal families.
>>Everyone else?  Two alcoholic parents, one religious fundie, 
>
>Ordinarily, anecdotal evidence doesn't prove very much, but in
>this case you have shown that someone from a "normal family" 
>can grow up to be a religous bigot.
It might not be any of my business, but I think that Edward misunderstood
the posting, since Janis was referring to somebody else as a religious
fundamentalist ... Just be careful folks, or try to define what a
religious bigot is (at least I'd like to understand what do you mean by
that... :-)
Lubosh
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: justin@aix3090b.uky.edu (Justin P Sullivan)
Subject: Re: raising children
    <1992Nov6.233902.15418@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Path: justin
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:27:37 GMT

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>   "In your opinion" is a very important statement, Lubosh, because it
>demonstrates a lack of research and education on your part.  Seeing as
>I know several same-sex couples with children, my observation as an
>outsider is that these children are better cared for than their more
>traditional peers, more loved and better educated.

Why would having same-sex parents make someone 'better educated?' If they
go to a public school, they'll get a rotten education just like every
other public school sap (with the addition of ruthless badgering from their
peers).
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
From: anonymus+1542@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Lisa)
Subject: Re: question
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:39:17 GMT

Just wanted to say that I was really glad to read Joe's post on his defintion
of his polyamoury -- cause it fits in better with how I feel.  I don't go for
the 'primary, secondary' partner bit -- I really can't see myself defining any
of my 'important' relationships as the most primary -- with people that I love
or really really care about, trying to classify who is most important is really
not a good thing for me.

And it feels harder to figure out how to let potential partners know what my
situation is, 'cause I'm not automatically assuming that my current relationship
is 'primary' and my SO doesn't have veto power.  He wants to know who it is 
that I'm getting involved with, and we would certainly discuss it if he really
didn't like somebody, but he doesn't get to make the decision for me and to me
having veto power is making the decision for me.

-Lisa
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+name.of.news.group@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		user's-alias@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
From: corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:32:05 GMT

In article <1d952bINNpht@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>>But it looks as if children need two parents of
>>>opposite genders to fill some basic emotional
>>>and sociaslization need.
>
>>Absolutely.
>
>I have a SERIOUS problem with this... saying that
>children need two parents of opposite genders seems to be
>saying that both a "male" and "female" role model are needed...
>and this would seem to be predicated on the sexist (but
>prevalent) notion that it's desirable that men and women have 
>distinct roles in society.  IMO of course...
>
>Steve

But men and women DO have distinct roles in society. There are things that
women can do that a man can't, and vice versa.  And there's nothing WRONG
with this. It's not BAD. Only our perceptions MAKE it BAD, because we get
caught up in the game of Better-THan-Thou when it's not necessary. Merely
recognizing differences in people should not imply that those differences
make a person better or worse than anyone else. It's only supreme ego that
makes a person say they are BETTER than another, when the truth is they are
only different.

Children need role models, male and female. All children, male and female.
Nowhere does it say that the men and women sharing the responsibility of
raising children should be married or even involved sexually. That's a myth
purported by our supposed Moral Majority (which is neither). I've known
plenty of single parents, living alone and in multiple partner households
(and I don't use the word partner in a sexual connotation, since the sharing
of responsibilties represents a partnership), raising some of the most
amazing children. Children need role models, and those models should provide
the widest set of experiences for the growth of the child.

Bb,
Corun


-- 
===========================================================================
    Corun MacAnndra    |    My opinions *are* those of my boss, because
  Dark Horde by birth  |   he is me, and I am he, and we are all together.
    Moritu by choice   |                 Coo coo cachoob.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Date: Wed,  4 Nov 1992 17:05:37 -0500 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: I may be, SO isn't

Hi everyone...

I was wondering if I could get some advice...

I was in a LDR that has become a SDR (she moved here).  She's deeply in love
with me, and I love her, yet at the same time I'm not sure I can stay
monogamous, mainly because I see nothing wrong with the concept of occasionally
sleeping with close friends...in the abstract.  How I'd handle that in real
life I don't know...

Anyway - my SO is very worried about whether I'm poly, and we've discussed it.
One of the things that she said is that if I really do want to love others,
I can't have her.

Aside from the obvious (i.e. don't sleep with friends) is there anything that
you folks can think of?

David
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza)
Subject: Re: Love
Organization: Specialix International, London
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:41:52 GMT

boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:

>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Being "in love with" someone, to
>>me, then, is when they make you feel so very good that you are really
>>happy when you are around them and you want to be around them a *lot*.
>>
>>Loving someone, on the other hand, seems to have more to do with feeling
>>good when they feel good around you.  Or, more to the point, wanting
>>them to feel good and wanting to have a hand in that, because when they
>>are happy, you're usuall happy.

>I noticed that your definitions parallel mine.  But I also noticed that
>these are applicable to one-self.  What it means to love yourself, and
>loving yourself.

	To love one-self: Oh! I'm Soo BEAUTIFUL! I'm so wonderful!
	How can people help but not love me too ?
	Loving one-self: I try to do what makes me happy with as little
	harm done to others as possible. (Well, it's not a perfect world
	** grin ***)

	Sorry to butt in....

	Kamal

>....jeff

-- 


=============================================================================
			|
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Love
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:59:43
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mikecap@bigwpi.WPI.EDU's message of 29 Oct 92 05:07:59 GMT


In article <1cnrjfINN843@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mikecap@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Vince Caprio Jr) writes:

>A friend of mine once said, "If you think you're in love, you're in love.",
>referring to a relationship a friend of ours was having where I didn't think
>they had the relationship they thought they had.  Is it enough to just be 
>happy?  I guess that's what I'm asking.  Is love just a fantasy of confused
>minds?

>The above quote from my friend really upsets me sometimes; I don't know what
>to think anymore...but I don't want to believe that love is just being happy.
>If that were true, then a greedy man's love for money would be the same as
>one person's love for another human being.

Well, I was trying to explain to someone why it is that people keep
falling in love with my SO.  In doing so, I think I defined "in love,"
in a way, and I think I can separate it in this way from "love,"
although the two often go together.

Basically, my SO concentrates a lot of attention on anyone he is
interested in.  People like getting attention, it makes them feel good.
Very concentrated attention is either very scary (some people just run
away) or very very nice (makes them feel *really* good).  Naturally
enough, if something makes you feel good, you like it.  The better it
makes you feel, the more you like it.  Being "in love with" someone, to
me, then, is when they make you feel so very good that you are really
happy when you are around them and you want to be around them a *lot*.

Loving someone, on the other hand, seems to have more to do with feeling
good when they feel good around you.  Or, more to the point, wanting
them to feel good and wanting to have a hand in that, because when they
are happy, you're usuall happy.

When I am in love with someone, it is because they make me feel so good.
When I love someone, I just want to do more and more to make them feel
good, so that I can be happy that way.  For me, being in love can be
very quick, and very euphoric.  Loving someone takes a while longer, and
I really need to feel like I know them...part of wanting them to feel
good has to do with thinking they're such a great person that they
deserve to feel really great...*smile*.

I don't think either one of these is "better," but I do think that they
are pretty different.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Need opinions/advice...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:40:37 GMT

In article <Bx7Aq2.9IF.2@cs.cmu.edu>
     anonymus+264@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (shalimar) writes:

>Also:  What kind of "rules" do you have about foregoing spending time with
>one SO in order to give attention to another SO who needs you?  What works
>best for everybody?

   Well, Omaha and I have a couple of rules, a heirarchy of needs
(eek!) by which we agree who gets what.  There's a strong sense of
freedom in our relationship, so often matters like this get broken down
into categories of physical / emotional / mental needs, in that sort of
priority (someone in the hospital gets priority over someone who needs
a hug over someone who needs help with their homework).  And "I need"
takes over any "I wants."

   *I* have to decide, really, when an expressed need is real versus
when one is a want.  It takes a little sense.

>I'd also like to know what you think about Bill's trying to be poly with a
>non-poly person (Ann).  I've never met her because she has no desire to
>meet me.  She basically denies that I exist (and doesn't want me to exist).

   Then she's going to have to come to grips with you, or else Bill's
going to have to tell someone in this triangle goodbye.  Sorry to be so
blunt, but those _are_ the choices presented.

>Thanks in advance....  :-)

   Well, we try.  Rarely succeed, but we do try.

>shalimar

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   | The post you have just read is true, but it
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | could have been avoided.  Inbreeding is every-
elf@seanews.akita.com | one's problem.  Call your local Mormon church
                      | and be sure you aren't marrying a relative.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex