HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Subject: Re: raising children
Followup-To: alt.polyamory,soc.couples
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:28:14 GMT

This thread seems to be in too many newsgroups.
Please note my Followup-To: line.

Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au (Lubosh) writes:
>tendency for these things.) That's all - I just want to stand behind a
>male/female family... if somebody defends other types of families, let
>him/her have it, or live in such a family. What if we'd try to make a
>survey among some kids with a question "What kind of parents would you
>like to have - 1. a mum and dad; 2. two mums; 3. two dads; 4. a dad and
>two mums; 5. a mum and two dads; 6. a dad and 7 mums; etc.... ?!?

Most kids would probably answer according to the type of family they
had, if it worked well, or the type of family they almost could have
had, if theirs didn't work.  I, personally, would answer that the
options you give don't really matter.  I wouldn't want parents of any
specific number and gender, I'd just want good parents, whoever they
might be.

>Some people might call be a bigot, because they have a non-traditional
>views, but I think their views of the world are not just different - they
>are ridiculous ! Oh, Joe, my dad was horrible, but he still is my dad and
>I love him. He was drunk every second day, but would he be a female I
>wouldn't be here to write this...

"Their views aren't just different, they're ridiculous!"
Face it, you *are* a bigot.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu  WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
   Love: a blurring of the distinction between selfish and selfless.
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1718 alt.romance:13826 soc.singles:30187 alt.sex:35445 alt.pagan:12603
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Does anybody celebrate a Deathday?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 12:54:46 -0600

 S> I do.  Last year I had the opportunity to meet this 
 S> character in the "flesh".  Fortunately, it was only a 
 S> casual introduction and since I'm happy to still be 
 S> here, I have decided to celebrate Deathday (October 
 S> 19th).  I was wondering if anybody else had a similar 
 S> thought.

   You might appreciate this poem by W.S. Merwin, then.  It caught my eye
fifteen years ago and has been stuck in my mind ever since.
  
      FOR THE ANNIVERSARY OF MY DEATH
 
Every year without knowing it I have passed the day
When the last fires will wave to me
And the silence will set out
Tireless traveller
Like the beam of a lightless star
Then I will no longer
Find myself in life as in a strange garment
Surprised at the earth 
And the love of one woman
And then shamelessness of men
As today writing after three days of rain
Hearing the wren sing and the falling cease
And bowing not knowing to what
   
   I'n not too sure what Merwin's circumstances re relationships were, though
there are some hints within the poem.  For myself, being loved by more than one
and so loving in return seems to make death somehow more.... not palatable,
exactly, but different.  The adults around me when I was growing up seemed
tense, anxious and terrified of dying before they had made their little
stranglehold on exactly one other human being.  Perhaps it was the only alliance
they were ever going to get, according to the system, and the love of one other
similarly terrified monogamy-hemmed spirit is a frail hedge against the great
unknown country of death.  Myself, I rather hope death is like many-love:
cutting loose of my fears, futile defenses, and crippled self-perceptions to
become part of some larger give-and-take. 
   If that's so, no wonder the price of admission is so high.  Seems like each
new form of being/thinking/living/loving has a price tag....maybe to weed out
the uncommitted?  Dunno.  These are all just random thoughts on a snowy Sunday. 
Hope they find you well and content.  Thanks for the opportunity to muse on the
poem a bit.

 * Origin: Mammals' Melting Point <Stipple City, MN> (1:282/341.19)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1723 alt.romance:13842 soc.singles:30214 alt.sex:35480 alt.pagan:12629
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: I may be, SO isn't
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:30:00 GMT
	<1992Nov10.061538.15186@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>   My advice - talk, and plenty of it. Is it monogamy per se that she's
>after, or merely concepts that she *associates* with monogamy? It's a
>subtle distinction, but an important one IMHO.

My SO said that she can't handle even _thinking_ about my being in bed with
another woman.  That's the issue...she has no problems with my "loving"
others so long as it stays platonic.

David
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:06:51 EST
From: Sonja Kueppers <SEK@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Need opinions/advice...

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

We have a rule that says that if your primary partner needs you, your
secondary partner(s) are going to have to wait.
We've never had to remind each other of this rule at this point, but who
knows what the future will hold.

>                                                     It seems to me that
>he could have foregone seeing Ann, since I was needing to talk

Are you sure that this wasn't simply a communication problem?  Did you make
it clear to him that you wanted to talk *a whole lot*?

I think one of the big dangers of a situation like the one you're in is
that people who are not poly themselves are going to try to "steal" someone
away from their primary partner.  It requires a great deal from your
partner to maintain his relationship with you over his local relationship
with a woman who doesn't want to "share."  I think your depression probably
results from this fact -- and his unwillingness to talk to you that night
was, to you, an indicator that she was succeeding in stealing him from you.

I think you need to be cautious though -- invoking a rule like, "You're
supposed to put me first" when you are feeling upset about his relationship
with another person may be intended more to keep him from spending time with
the other person than it is to satisfy your personal needs.

You need to talk to him and find out what was *really* going on.  It is
entirely likely that he merely didn't understand how much you wanted to
talk to him that night.

-Sonja
------
SEK@psuvm.psu.edu SEK@PSUVM.BITNET
Sonja's Polyamorous Relationship Rule 5
Don't spend a lot of time with a secondary partner if there are urgent
problems requiring resolution in the primary relationship.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
From: k138836@cc.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 09:13:02 GMT

**Header killed, so don't get mad**
> [some stuff deleted].

>>>Children being raised by two parents of the same
>>>sex were also at risk, but not as great.
>>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.

>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...

>How would having two parents of the same sex be "worse than a single
>parent situation?"  Because they aren't teaching biased gender roles? 
>Because for some reason they wouldn't love and cherish a child as
>heterosexual couples do?  Or because of the hostility that would be
>directed at the child by his/her peers?  I'm sorry, but my opinion is
>that there is nothing wrong with same-sex parents, but there is
>something VERY wrong with the society that would punish the child for it.

!!! No, that IS NOT THE POINT here. The point of negative-positive attitude
of gays/lesbos is definitely not the topic here. Usually here people don't
mind about it. 
Now this time the talking here has NOT beem refusing. Only scientific:
it's not 'imprtant' here is it acceptable for non-mainstreamers to raise 
children, but what does it affect on the children, from statistical point.
Read the previous letter: _the_risk_ of children raised by minorities
is greater... The same of course applies if we are talking, say some 
peculiar hobby goers and their children, they'll have a measurable change 
to end up something. See? No-one has been judged here, yet.

I guess, that if you had to define 'natural' way to raise children, 
you'd to count the history of nature, and these statistics, how do people
thrive (sp?) in different environment. The particular ethics is not 
important at that kind of discussion.



-- 
---------------------------------------------
It's TKorho above there, at k138836@cc.tut.fi
"The Black Crow of love"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Subject: TV News version of 'extended' family
Reply-To: glenm@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 14:06:59 GMT

Some humour for y'all.

On my way home from work yesterday, the radio had an ad for the 6 o'clock
news on TV, and said that "wrapping up their series on families in these
troubled times 8-) they would be convering new ideas in extended families."
This was to be on CJOH, that bastion of quality reporting <choke>.

So, I watched it. They talked about .... drum roll .... *grandparents*
acting as 'caregivers'. What a hoot! This is the modern extended
family, eh?

PS. I'm allowed to say 'eh' 'cuz I'm in Canada, eh.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin              Bell-Northern Research          Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Phone : (613) 763-7299   Fax: (613) 763-2626             Internet: glenm@bnr.ca
"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter; (Christian) Fundamentalism 
is the triumph of Paul over Christ." 
 - Will Durant. "The Story of civilization;  part III"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: meriel@stein.u.washington.edu (Daughter of Oshun)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Sharing a story about a wonderful weekend
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:48:19 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

dand@Turing.ORG (Dan 'Bart' Duncan (KD4IGW)) writes:

>In article <1688EC2B2.ESMITH@SUVM.SYR.EDU> ESMITH@SUVM.SYR.EDU writes:
>>   I wanted to share with you folks what looks like my great fortune.
>>I'll keep you all posted as to how it works out. Damn, is it really
>>possible to love more than one individual? Sure looks that way to me.
>>I know, I know, it was only one weekend. You really had to be there
>>to see how everything came together. It was wonderful.

>I completely understand what you mean.  I recently had my first
>such encounter.  I was a guest of a couple I know locally, and did not
>meet through the net.  I was supposed to go over to their place
>this evening, as well, but I got snowed in. :(

>-DanD
well, i should give everyone an update on my nonmonogamy situation, too!

my lover and i have worked lots of things out; thanks, especially to sonja,
for the aggreement.  he balks at the word "veto," so the word is not there
but the sense still is.

we have also talked about him not telling me what's going on with him; i
do give him partial responsibility for the problems, since if he'd been
really frank with me from the beginning i might have had a better idea 
of what was going on and could have objected sooner.

the other thing is that now i also have a secondary relationship.  my 
housemate fixed me up with an old lover of hers, and we hit it off quite 
well.  i played by the rules, and they both know about each other and where
my priorities lie, so no one is surprised.  i personally am happy as a clam.

i have broken things off with my friend... who is now my ex-friend, i suppose,
and it really was like having a divorce.  blah.  i figure we would have
drifted apart anyway, but this was much more painful.  she still intends to 
see my primary, and she and i don't speak.  she had her priorities, and i
had mine, i guess.

now i'd better get home and see if my local sweetie is free this weekend!

-meriel
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1687 alt.romance:13725 soc.singles:29932 alt.sex:35073 alt.pagan:12422
From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:47:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.40614
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Bx6zHq.Ar7@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
+
+Monogamy   Mild Polygyny   Moderate Polygyny   Extreme Polygyny
+Gibbons    Humans          Gorillas            Elephant seals
+1:1        1.2:1           2:1                 3:1
+
+The ratios are male:female weight.

So this would give credence to polyandry arguements, i.e. more than
one man for each woman... But how does this prove 'mild polygyny'.
What it may 'prove' is that the Gorillas, et al. have much greater
energy spent on mate selection, in the form of agression, than Gibbons
and humans. (But I though there were more females than males in the
'normal' population).
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Hellos and cross-connections (was:question)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 13:31:18 -0600

 > Is this an issue?  Does this happen alot?

 ES>    Of course it happens "a lot," from my perspective.  
 ES> I'm not sure that's really a problem.  You've been 
 ES> honest, laid your expectations out on the table, done 
 ES> your negotiating up front. What they do with it is up 
 ES> to them.
   
   Yup.  Hard to remember, sometimes, but essential.  And then there's always
the ironic possibility that they'll think about it for a couple of years, say,
and *then* take you up on it.  The universe does have a sense of humor, even
though it's occasionally a cruel scriptwriter.
 
 ES>    If you can't handle rejection, well... that's a 
 ES> different matter, ain't it?
   
   Lordy lordy, yes. And it sure gets yanked out into the harsh light of day
*real* fast under these conditions, don't it?
   I used to wonder if people sometimes had monogamous relationships because
once they got a "yes" they never wanted to risk another "no".

 > How does one explain their  poly relationship to someone 
 > else they happen to be attracted to? Also, with most 
 > poly relationships (not that one can really make 
 > generalizations, but I AM curious), how often do 
 > relationships outside the primary relationship occur?

 ES>    Straightforwardly.  That's all it takes.  Be up 
 ES> front.  As for "How often," well, that depends 
 ES> strongly on the social environment you run around in.  
 ES> As a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism 
 ES> and the National Leather Association, not to mention 
 ES> Usenet, I have a _lot_ of very very tolerant 
 ES> friends... :-)

    Hee hee! I didn't know you were scadian, old legume.  Pleased I am to make
your acquaintance, m'lord; Lady Arthemise the Weaver of the Barony of
Nordskogen, Midrealm, at your service.
   By the way, I went to Living In Leather with the dear one (Rebecca) a couple
of weeks back.  *Most* educational.  A good time was had by all, and vice
versa.
   Hoping you are the same,
 
                          that blonde woman with the hearing aids

 * Origin: Mammals' Melting Point <Stipple City, MN> (1:282/341.19)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1719 alt.romance:13827 soc.singles:30188 alt.sex:35448 alt.pagan:12604
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Date: 3 Nov 92 11:32:30 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <Oct30.032019.32205@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>In article <ritter.720368764@claude> ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>>arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>>
>>>Well, maybe.  Might have something to do with the fact that it's better if
>>>two parents raise a child.
>>
>>>This, BTW, is the argument against "Monogomy violates human nature," If 
>>>anybody's interested.
>>
>>I don't follow?  I'll agree that two parents raising a child is better than
>>one.  But I think three or four parents (or even more) is better yet.
>>So I see this as an argument *for* "Monogamy violates human nature".
>>The important thing is a loving, supportive family, regardless of how
>>many adults that family has.  And the more adults available, the less
>>chance of one accident destroying the family.
>
>Well, I have to read up on the literature...
>But isn't that what tribes are for?
>
>Big Al.  The Raving NEOPHYTE Zoologist.
--------------
Right, Al. But there has likely always been the attachment to one
person in particular for many of us, just because we tend to simplify
and to focus on one person at a time. Intercourse is not limited to
two people, not critically, but since we are given one organ of these
types each, it tends to fall into that pattern. It needs be said that
romance needn't be bound to only one other partner. I'm rather sure
that in the tribes of old, people had multiple romances going even
while they might have had a favorite for a while, or a lifetime. But
back then it didn't get so involved with children and those loyalties.
All women had sex and all women had babies, and they just didn't
connect sex to it for a long time. In a small tribe of under a
hundred, where most people looked fairly much alike, it wouldn't have
been obvious, even though they constantly saw repeated themes in the
faces of their children and the faces of long dead relatives and
friends, almost as spirits that dwelled in that tribe, and not some
genetic thing at all. There were likely romances more of the heart and
likely less of the gonads, since they probably fucked everybody from
time to time, perhaps at feasts and in celebration of successful
hunting or gathering. People of like temperament tended to share some
kinds of things better than others, and then again, the variety always
stimulates with someone not exactly like yourself. I wouldn't put down
romance. It seems to me a feature that is pandemic in humans, but
subdued immensely in current humans!
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: arianne@bigboy (LeatherKat)
Subject: Re: I may be, SO isn't
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 20:14:53 EST
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:
: 
: 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...

I have based some of my opinions on how you phrased this.

: 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.

There is a distinct difference between "I see nothing wrong with the concept
of..." and "I feel the need to..." or "I won't be happy unless...".  I think 
there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy in monogamous relationships 
even though they don't see anything wrong with sleeping with friends 
occasionally.  I believe it is a matter of priorities.  Before you go taking  
any drastic action like leaving this woman, you should decide how much the 
ability to have other relationships means to you.  I'm not trying to tell you 
that you should automatically dismiss the "poly urge", but decide whether or  
not it is really there.  If you decide that in order for you to be happy and
satisfied, you cannot hold yourself to one mono relationship, then you will
probably have to consider ending your current relationship.

arianne
*******************************************************************************
wi.6078@n7kbt.rain.com                *  All you want is a little piece of ass  
apb.4014@n7kbt.rain.com               *  all you'll get is a little piece of me
ap-poly.151@n7kbt.rain.com            *  you won't get no cheap satisfaction   
anonymus+276@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu *  'cause I don't give my love for free.  
arianne@bigboy.cis.temple.edu         *  -Baby Animals                         
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 20:59:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.173125.11737@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM> jdm@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Moore) writes:
>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.

Actually, it goes even a little beyond that--the wording of the amendment
is rather interesting, inasmuch as it states that homosexuals shall have
no basis for any claim of discrimination; the way it's worded, if someone
is homosexual, he or she cannot make any claims of discrimination on *any*
grounds, not just due to sexual orientation.  Thus, under this amendment,
gays cannot even make any claim of discrimination on the basis of race,
religion, sex, or whatever.  

Whether this will stand up in court is questionable, but it could result
in the interesting scenario where the standard tactic used to respond to
charges of discrimination is to attempt to prove that the plaintiff is
gay--at which point the plaintiff would no longer have any legal protection.

Both the Mayor of Denver and the Governor of Colorado have pledged to fight
this amendment and have said that any state or city employee found to be
practicing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be
dismissed.

Colorado did, however, pass another amendment protecting black bears.  
So, someone has started producing t-shirts that feature a large pink
triangle containing the words "don't shoot--I'm really a black bear."

Trygve 
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory