HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: People are People (Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 14:58:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <MUFFY.92Oct4085731@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Once again, just to make my position clear, what I have been talking
>about all along is the incredibly nasty idea that women will "make
>something scarce" as soon as they find out that someone else wants it.
>My original posting suggested that the problem was not some sort of
>manipulation on the part of the woman, but disgust on her part that the
>other person would be interested in *ONLY* that one characteristic.
----

	I got the following email -- they didn't have time to write
a postable version, but I got permission to put an edited form here:

=Either most of the folks posting replies to your article have missed
=your point, or I have.  My response is... ask Gwynn. Southern
=women are particularly adept at this kind of game (c.f. the
=Scarlett O'Hara syndrome). I think the car salesman analogy is apt.
=The behavior I'm thinking about comes from the same motivation --
=to get a better exchange. Why pass up opportunities for gain by
=giving things away free when you don't have to? Relationships between
=the sexes are a game in which women wield power indirectly by 
=taking advantage of men's weaknesses and being alert to what a man
=is willing to give up to get what he wants. Just because a woman may
=want the same things is no excuse for ignoring potential advantage.
=Of course I'm exagerating, but in the case of southern ladies, less
=than you might think. Gwynn is very aware of this game. It's my
=perception that she rarely plays it, but her mother plays it to the
=hilt. 
----

    (Gwynn is a pseudoname of a common friend of ours).  If memory serves
me correctly, the person who wrote me this article was also a woman's
studies major back in college several years ago, so it is likely they
would have some knowledge of what they speak.

    It isn't just an incredibly nasty idea Muffy, it's a reality for alot
of men and women.

>Muffy
(william)
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
From: anonymus+791@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: poly?
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:32:27 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service


Hi,

I have been lurking here for some time now.  I have never had a
working poly relationship but I keep an open mind.  

I have discussed the possibility of a poly relationship with my
current SO.  She said it is okay for me to see other women as long as
I am open about it and careful.  She, on the other hand, is not
interested in looking for other men.  I have a feeling that she is not
really comfortable with the idea of polyamory, so I have not really
pursued any other relationships out of fear of losing the one that I
have.  Has anyone else had a working relationship in which one partner
sees other people and one doesn't?

Unfortunately, she has now moved to a small town 120 miles away.  We
will still see each other about once or twice a month, but obviously
we can't have the intense closeness we shared before.  She has told me
to stop worrying and just meet someone new.  It is okay with her.  I
believe her now, but have not yet met anyone new (I have a hard time
meeting new people).  Has anyone else out there been able to maintain
an open relationship with someone who is far away?

?



--
To use this service, send 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)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1334 soc.women:17181 soc.men:17097
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:50:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep29.162435.7473@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
+In article <lcgqg3INNrlb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
+>---
+>	Why is there this tendancy in humans, but it seems, especially in
+>women, that as soon as they find out you want something, they are
+>likely to withhold it or raise the price?
+>
+Don't know why it is there.  But I do know what it is called. 
+Capitalism.  I don't think women are the best known practitioners of 
+this little economic enterprise, either.

Uh? Any exchange system based on desire rather than absolute need,
but then what isn't need if not desire.

Even in a collective were shoes aren't made but need will have to
barter something for shoes, and the provider of the shoes may up the
'price' to beyond the absolute minimum required to produce the
shoes. The if the consumers objects to the jacked up price, the
provider will go else where, except in a system which requires the
provider to sell at whatever price given by the consumer.

Now, as for the 'humanness' of this system, haven't heard of
non-humans engaging in barter systems or other systems of
evaluation, so maybe this is what differentiates us from the rest of
the animal pack, since tool use doesn't do it any more. But soon I
suppose we'll hear of dolphins bartering for sex and even this
distinction will collapse between us and the animals.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:14:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BvH8tF.2Cq@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
+In article <MUFFY.92Oct1102623@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
+Aha! You have finally hit it.  "minimum but not sufficient."  When it
+>*is* sufficient that, for example, I am female, then I *do* feel that
+>the person is NOT ATTRACTED TO *ME*, and I do not find *that*
+>attractive. ...
+
+So if another person finds you attractive for fairly superficial
+reasons, is it that you do not find that person attractive for that

Berkeley had this 'theory' that as we preceive the world there is an
interaction between the perceiver and the thing preceived and the
thing preceived is an active agent in the act of preception, i.e
there is some action on both sides of the preception interaction.

This may not be true for 'inanimate' objects, but it is clearly true
for animate. If the preceptions are equal and mutual all is well, I
suppose, but of course if the preceptions are disparate, then an
individual has the right to ignore, be offended, or deal with 'being
preceived' in way that the individual does not wish to be.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:17:55 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>When somebody hies themselves
>to some far-off place, it ain't easy keeping in touch when one is not a
>big letter-writer.  Physical proximity makes a *big* difference IMO!
>It's hard to stroke a tit (or a dick) thru the mail [...]

   Hmmm, had to interject at this point.

   Speaking from the perspective of someone who's currently in 5 long-
distance relationships (of varying sorts) over the Net (with some excursions
into the realms of the telephone and snail mail) : I don't really agree.
Some of my most sensual & satisfying encounters have been through the e-sex
I've had...

[warning - soppy stuff follows 8->]


   Wave to (in increasing order of age, this time 8->) :

D. (who can't read this group 8-<, but I'll wave anyway)
E. (who I *know* reads this group, seeing as I met them here! 8->)
J. (ditto, well, we met prior to the group starting up, but... 8->)
C. (who I don't *think* reads this group, but you never know 8->)
M. (who definitely reads this group 8->)

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 6 Oct 1992 14:24:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Oct5.143008.10158@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>>On the woman's side I would like the woman to take reponsibility for
>>being sexual[ly] provocative.
>
>   I realise I have a bit of a kneejerk reaction to this, but John, I find
>this a really hurtful & damaging idea. "Whatever we where, wherever we go,
>No means No".
>
>   Do we really suggest that banks are "financially provocative" and should
>take responsibility for armed robbery because of all that money they keep
>there?!?
---
	To use your analogy.  If banks had G-string walls and kept their
assets all sitting there in plain site -- 1000's of stacks of money just
sitting there out in the open for the taking, then -- yes, I would
say they are financially provocative.  Now no one is saying that doing
so makes it legal to take the money, but it is rather naive to think
that some people will not react to the money whatever the legality.

>>Again, a woman raised in the US culture
>>should have by the time she has arrived at adulthood learned the cue
>>cards and uses them with the reponsibility of adult acceptance that the
>>cues imply.
>
>   "They should really have known better than to...<whatever>" is very
>damaging because (in my opinion) it takes the burden of responsibility
>from the perpetrator and places it on the target.
---
	You seem confused on the idea of responsibility vs. criminal guilt.
If I walk down the shadey side of town with 100$ bills sticking out of
my pants/shirt, and I get held up, isn't the same if a woman walks
down the same area in a mini-skirt and a tank-top and gets raped?  Both
are illegal and both are wrong, but *practically* speaking, it wouldn't
be the *smartest* move for me or the woman to do those things.


>   "Those banks really should have by the time they arrive at incorporation
>learned the implications that accumulations of money invite".  Neither
>fair nor reasonable, is it?
---

    It is perfectly fair and reasonable.  If a bank didn't have it's
money in a safe, you can be sure that insurers would not insure the bank.
The bank is expected to take *reasonable* precautions.  If it doesn't,
while it may still be illegal to rip it off, it isn't likely to get alot
of public sympathy or support (or insurance).

	Your bank analogy is quite apt.
	
-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: So, you're straight... so far. (was Re: Why are you straight?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:14:42 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <whelan.718156583@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> whelan@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (John T. whelan) writes:
>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>
>>	Not that I disagree entirely with your post, but to be honest,
>>one could use the same justification to say -- well you just are not
>>a child molester -- yet, or you just don't like sex with animals --
>>yet.  You can use the same arguments about keeping your mind open
>>toward 'bi' towards other areas.
>
>	The difference is that I have yet to hear a good reason other
>than personal taste not to have sex with another man, whereas there
>are good arguments about consensuality by which one can rule out
>bestiality and pedophilia in the abstract.
>					John Whelan
---

	Consensuality is irrelevant to this particular argument.

	Just because you haven't done something non-consensual or something
"illegal" yet, doesn't mean you won't in the future.  

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:08:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <cds.717962104@ossi.com> cds@ossi.com (Chris Seabrook) writes:
+jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
+
+>                                       I think getting married at 18
+>is equally foolish as some think multipartner relationships.
+
+Definitely a case of 'your mileage may vary', we got married at 21 having been
+together for a couple of years previously and are still together 10 years on.

I would say that even 21 is 'young', but in cases were individuals
marry at 18, they've often been going to gether for your 'couple of
years' so that means they've started around 16 or so.

Personally, I think beyond 25-30 is good. Most people have school or
training out of the way, have become 'established' and may really
have delt with the 'need to marry'.

I got married at 26, it's lasted 13 years, but I'm not going to claim
that it will last forever, nor would I claim that it is a good basis
for 'development'. As usual it takes two to be a good basis.


-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:34:18 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>then I want to sleep with her), they might well find this a rather
>>>repellent idea, when they might have been interested in you if you
>>>looked on them as a person rather than an instance of, for example, a
>>>polyamorous woman.
>>---
>>You could broaden this statement, Muffy, like suppose a guy wants
>>a human that is 'female'.  If she is female, he starts off by being
>>attracted to her.  Surely you cannot be suggesting he ignore the
>>'female' attribute in his selection.  The attribute is likely to
>>be a *minimum but not sufficient* attribute toward compatibility.

>Aha! You have finally hit it.  "minimum but not sufficient."  When it
>*is* sufficient that, for example, I am female, then I *do* feel that
>the person is NOT ATTRACTED TO *ME*, and I do not find *that*
>attractive.  It has nothing to do with them indicating that they want
>something and me therefore "trying to make it scarce.".  I am not saying
>that they should *ignore* what they find attractive, I'm saying that I
>do not find it appealing when a single quality (or even a pair of
>qualities, such as poly and bi) are *sufficient* for this person to want
>me, without knowing anything more about me.  In that case, they don't
>want *me* they would take ANY person with those qualities.  One of the
>NECESSARY qualities for me to be attracted to someone is that they are
>interested in me, personally.  If I find out that they'd take anyone
>with a certain quality that I have, then I no longer believe that they
>are interested in me personally, so I am no longer attracted to them.

Want you HOW?? Get specific. Want to meet you? The concept of time or
sequence is entirely absent from your reply. If your answer is,

If he wants me only because I am female, after four months of knowing me

Then I have no problem with what you say.
If your answer is,

If he wants me only because I am female, in the moment of meeting me

Then you live in a dream world.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: na,local
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:42:13 GMT

In article <JEW.92Sep25150649@venus.venus.sunquest.com> jew@venus.sunquest.com (Ward... James Ward) writes:
>
>My wife and I are poly-interested and experienced.  My wife has bi
>tendencies and is slightly interested in additional male or female
>partners to play with.  I am not interested in other males however.  I
>feel kinda guilty limiting the posibilities.

There is nothing wrong with this. How are you limiting possibilities?
Are you saying that you wouldn't like it if your wife took a male lover?
A lot depends on your answer to that.

>Am I right?  Am I wrong?  Should I try it?  Is it scary?

If you fear your wife getting involved with another male, then you may
be somewhat wrong. However, that is for you to work out with your wife.

Some of my first poly experiences were with my SO and a male friend of
ours. We had all known each other for 10 years, and he had lusted after
my honey for a long time. I was nervous as hell, but it turned out to be
quite fun and interesting double teaming my sweetie and causing her to
make the most delicious noises.

If you are just worried because you don't want to become personally involved
with said male, there is still nothing wrong. Who ever said you had to be
something you weren't? If you aren't bisexual, it should be no biggie.

>jew@sunquest.com

Good Luck.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+     \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:15:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <lcu5scINNh16@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
+	Does anyone know the reasons why they broke apart?  Amicable or 
+not?  Did several couples which to pair bond off?  or what?...

There was a splinter group at PEPCON, think it was called "the
Purple Submarine". I didn't get a chance to talk with them on the
details and that's why I listed the 'reasons' as 'gossip'.

From the 'gossip' it was not amicable, but then I didn't hear about
any weapons being draw so it doesn't seem that it was bloody.

As for the 'layed back, less structred' arguement, I've been
contemplating "Altmont" since I drove throught it in September to go
to PEPCON at Harbin Hot Springs.

Altmont was the other side of Woodstock. The concert was a disaster.
People were killed and it ended 1969 on a note that spelled 'the
end'. (Almont is a area approximately 50 miles east of San
Francisco, were a 'Woodstock-West' was sponsored by the 'Rolling
Stones', I thing the movie 'Give Me Shelter' is out on video, so
rent 'Woodstock' and 'Give Me Shelter' and ponder).

It has been 23 years since, and I am very atuned to the need for
structure. The problem is the balance between the individual
diversity and the social group conhesiveness. Obviously for any
group if the individual is 'unhappy' then he can leave. But for the
'60 ideals of personal independence and liberty, the idea of being
forced out of the group because of individuality, seems
inconsistent. I haven't come to a 'good' solution yet so don't
expect to see me walking on water any time soon.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
From: wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn Wallace)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:21:19 GMT

apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>In article <asuccop.717814753@milton> asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop) writes:
>>	the only time it bugs me that guys' *only* interest in me is
>>	my bisexuality and/or polyamority is when they're sleazeball
>>	pigs about it.
>All men are sleazeball pigs.
>Are we not men ?  
>:-)

Ya know, I have this theory that it is a very common (het?) male fantasy
to have sex with two women, prefably bi.

This is in line with the theory that men are hormone filled animals, but
then most women are too. :-)

Rise above the chemicals, people! I know I wish *I* could.

:-)

Glenn

<insert witty quote from some movie (Dragnet?) about using utensils to
eat and controling sexual urges being the only thing distinguishing us 
from apes...>

Net: g.wallace@trl.oz.au | Help me escape this country! You can't buy Jolt
RealTime: Glenn Wallace  | here, and they don't have Tower records, or
Work: Telecom Australia  | Fry's or anything! Argh.... Oh to be at WDW!
      Drift Project      | I'm on the next plane outta here!
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:12:19 GMT

Thus spake williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums): 

>In article <38840@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>>However, just as dyads are pulled by social forces, the polyads are
>>too. One long term group collection call Kerista disintegrated into
>>monads, dyads, and polyads. I don't know the details, just gossip.
>----
>	This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've heard the word 'Kerista'.  But the
>word also seems familiar to me.  Why?  What is it???  Where...etc.??
>
	Kerista Village was a polyfidelous (their term) family in San
Francisco which lasted from the early 70s until a few years ago. If you have
spent any time in SF, you've probably seen their newspaper - it was
cirrculated freely in the Haight Ashbury area (Kerista Village was located
near the Haight just off GG Park). 

	The Kerista family held workshops and groups concerning the poly
lifestyle - but their structure was a bit too regimented (NO pair bonding,
all partners took equal - scheduled - turns sleeping with their group SOs,
virtually no gay or lesbian activities, etc.) to lead to ultimate success,
although their policy of polyfidelity (fidelity to the family with poly
behavior within the family) =did= provide a "buffer" zone of protection when
the AIDS epidemic hit SF. The family had several children, btw.

	I suspect that if they had not had the rigid structure within the
family and has simply enjoyed relaxed relationships among themselves, hetero
AND bi in nature, they would still be going strong.


-- 

                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
            The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
      over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
      prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
      not a sufficient warrant.                         John Stuart Mill
                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
          Rick Adams -=*=- adamsr@ais.org -=*=- adamsr@norwich.bitnet