HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:35:53

> In article <MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >
> >Aah.  Perhaps this is the problem, then.  I do not believe that she is
> >being dishonest with her current lovers.  Indeed, we have heard from one
> >of them that she is not.  What I'm talking about is what it seems to me
> >that "outness" is all about - how the *rest* of the world perceives you.


Um, folks? Vicka does not go around with a button saying "monogamous." She
wanted to tell alt.poly that she was preferentially monogamous but in
a multiple relationship, by way of introducing herself and explaining in
what ways she was like and unlike the typical reader.

I don't have the first post in this thread, but I have what I believe to
be the third. In this Vicka uses a very good anology for her situation:

> ...  But just 'cause one accepts something as a possibility in one's
> life doesn't mean that it's what one wants or would prefer.  The classic
> example is the "opportunistic homosexual" -- people who have sex with 
> motss if and only if motos are unavailable, for example in prison or 
> in the armed forces.  These people are preferentially straight, though
> "practically" bisexual or gay.
> 
> Similarly, there are those of us who may happen to have more than one 
> lover at a time, even if it ain't the way we'd really like things to be.
> I'd rather not call that polyamory, any more than I'd call the poly-by-
> preference who happen to be in a single-dyad relationship monogamous.

Or, in terms of her analogy, she is "preferentially" monogamous (although
"practically" polyamorous). In an introduction to alt.poly, this is
relevant and worth saying; in most of the rest of life it is not. In
other contexts, in fact, she is quite open about her relationships. The
point, in both cases, is to highlight the non-obvious so that people can
see it, rather than being stuck with their assumptions.  I think this is
the antithesis of lying - she is going out of her way to reveal an
obscured truth.

			-Francie

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Language is a virus from outer space		-Laurie Anderson (WSB?)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Ambiguity! The Devil's volleyball...		-Emo Phillips

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:39:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <BzDKHz.Cr0@wrs.com> jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart) writes:
>
>Several people have emailed asking for the Golden Rules
>of Polyamory that I mentioned earlier. These were emailed
>me by a kind person who may or may not wish to have
>their name mentioned. So I will just summarize:
>
>1) Avoid people who work where you work.

    I think that are probably two separate justifications for this one:

    1)  If you get involved in the relationship and it doesn't work
        out and for some reason you simply can't deal with being near
        that person anymore, you still have to see them every day.
        This doesn't only apply to polyamorous relationships, though -
        it applies to all relationships, and I suspect that it might
        be less of a problem with poly people.
    2)  Both you and your partners could become the subject of
	water-cooler gossip, which is extremely tiresome and can
	effect your success in your career.  Again, I suspect most
	poly folks really don't get too big of a hoot what other
	people are saying about them, so this may not be a big deal
	either.


>2) Avoid people who are in a long-term monogamous, or
>advertised as exclusive, or legal relationship, lest you
>end up as the evil person who tried to break them up.

     I'm not sure I parse this one entirely, so forgive me if
my interpretation is off-base.
     I think that this rule in particular is not a particularly
good guideline.  There are quite a few married couples out there
who can be quite happily polyamorous - the key to not getting
burnt on this one is basically embedded in rule #3 - honesty.
Ask them how they really feel about it before anything happens,
and don't under any circumstances get involved with only one
member of the relationship without the knowledge of the other.


>3) Avoid people who are not honest; who claim one thing
>and act another; who are not sure what they want (not
>honest with themselves).

     I agree fully with the first two parts - I think that honesty
is perhaps the most important quality in any relationship,
be it polyamorous or otherwise.
     The last part, though, needs some qualification - not
everyone who isn't sure what they want is being dishonest with
themselves - some people just don't know.  And some of those
people might find themselves very happily polyamorous, if someone
were kind enough to suggest it to them.

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Could anyone be poly?
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:29:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec12.094042.23298@midway.uchicago.edu> mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>(Disclaimer: This is a reply by Devil's Paraphrase.  The D'ed words are
>not mine.  If Phil wouldn't swallow them either, and he replies to set
>himself apart from them, all the better!)
>
>Phil writes:
>
>>	I believe that the fundamental obstacle to polyamory is
>> jealousy, and I also believe that jealousy is a fundamental part of
>> some, if not most, human beings.  Certain people are jealousy- impaired;
>> they don't practice it, don't understand it, or can keep it under
>> control to an extent that the rest of the world cannot.  These are the
>> people that can be happily polyamorous.
>
>D Most people are not jealousy-impaired.  Such people inevitably
>D experience jealousy in polyamorously-flavored situations.  This 
>D jealousy inevitably makes a polyamorous lifestyle unworkable.

     Agreed for the most part up to this point.  I would probably
remove the word "inevitably" from that, though.


>D  It is
>D not possible for these people to emotionally learn and grow in ways
>D that make them immune or even less susceptible to jealousy.  
>D Confronting insecurities, discovering one's inner okness, evolving
>D a foundation of internal happiness rather than external happiness - 
>D none of these could even begin to declaw that beast.

     This I definitely would not say, although I can understand how
you inferred it from my original text, which wasn't the clearest
bit of prose I've ever written.  I would say that there are certainly
people that can learn to control jealousy - I would also say that
there are people who could not.

     My point, I guess, is that polyamory falls most naturally
to those who don't do jealousy naturally - anyone else is going
to have to work at it, and some of those people are going to
fail.

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Date: 14 Dec 1992 03:48:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

> I've just basically got a question -- in a thead Poly=different 
> people were using SO & lover as different kinds of 
> relationships -- and I was curious as to their general definitions.  
> I guess because SO is a pretty recent term -- I've been using 
> it for about a year & it doesn't connote a very strong, or 
> commited, or whatever relationship -- I like it mostly
> because it's gender nuetral.

The connotation of these terms is very subjective.  However, I 
agree with Christina that "SO" doesn't connote a very strong
relationship.  There's something tentative sounding about
"SO".  As though if you have to explicitly
call something "significant" then it is probably only significant
to a limited extent.  

The phrase "significant other" has an undercurrent of "this 
person is important to me, but..."


Steve
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: About Mormons...
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:08:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Dec16.153406.26679@ohmeda.com> paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul E. Ourada) writes:
+
+Hmmmmm.  I coulda swore that in Genesis in that part where it says things
+like, "Thou shalt not have sex with thy father's mistress/wife because

'Thy father's wife' comes under the heading of someone married to
another, and possibly sleeping with one's own mother. There is also
prohibitions about sleeping with both the mother and daughter, when
adultery would not become operable for the mother or daughter.
(These are in Deuteronomy). Gensis does have at least one account of
a son sleeping with one of the concubines of the father, Reuben, and
with only a 'mild' amount of censure. (Compare many of the
patriarchs and their transgressions regarding sex, and Uzzah who
'touched' the 'Arc of the Covenant' when it was transfered to
Jerusalem. In the case of the Genesis patriarchs even incest did not
get a thunder bolt from on high, but Uzzah was zapped into
oblivion.

If one were to derive a 'law' from this the law would be
'heterosexual sex, for the purpose of progeny, between a married man
and any unmarried woman, who may at some time may become married to the
man, receives a mild amount of censure, determined by the the
willingness of the man to marry the woman'. Any other form of sex is
essentially out, i.e between certain relatives; women who have been
offered to 'strange gods' either as temple prostitutes or by being
married to men who honoured 'strange gods'; women who amoung
themselves have certain relationships,
mother/daughter/grandmother/granddaughter etc.

(The astute reader may also note that it is the man's perogative to
marry or 'pay' for the sexual encouter, 'rape' is defined to be
forced sex, with the victim crying out, unless the victim is in a
desolate place, otherwise consent seems to be presumed, I think
there is a requirement for witnesses as well).
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: monogamy, flirting, and fantasizing
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:57:58
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec14.233228.13409@u.washington.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Dec14180752@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1gl8ftINNcck@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu's message of 15 Dec 1992 18:34:37 GMT

In article <1gl8ftINNcck@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>Somebody in some newsgroup I don't read said:

>> when I say I am monogamous, i mean that i am dating ONE person, and
>> having any physical relationship is kept to that ONE person. i do not
>> go on dates with other people, i do not flirt with other people, and
>[..] i also find i don't even fantasize or think about other people.

>Jesus.  Not even any flirting or fantasizing.

I think the person was saying that they weren't *inclined* to fantasize
about others; this is something that I have found is true of a lot of
people, even if they are not monogamous.  Many people seem to limit
their fantasies to them and their lover(s).

>Is the premise that if you start flirting and/or
>fantasizing, then without further volition you'll likely
>end up in bed with somebody?

Well, sometimes I think that is true.  As I mentioned before, a lot of
people *do* find themselves attracted to or even in love with others,
even when they have agreed to be monogamous.  In some cases, it seems
like the very restriction makes the other people so interesting and
exciting that people fall in love much more quickly than they would if
they were free to see the person (I've seen this happen several times; I
don't know how common it is).  So, I think for a lot of people, it is
easier for them to "stay monogamous" if they avoid considering other
people as attractive at all (no flirting, fantasizing, thinking, or
maybe even looking).  This can really limit outside friendships, though,
since close friends are often people who you find at least a little
attractive.

One of the main reasons I only want to be in poly relationships is that
I never know *where* a relationship with someone new will go, and if it
is constrained in some way, it will often either die quickly from
neglect or get totally out of hand.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Words
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:05:05 GMT

I would point out that the flexibility of definitions of words
has something to do with how recently they were coined and how
widely they are in use.

"Monogamous" is a word in wide use, with a long history and
a generally understood common meaning.

"Bisexual" is not in as wide use.  It has a history as a technical
term, but not much risk of being misunderstood (though I think it has
been used to mean "hermaphrodite" or "having two sexes" (of a species)).

"Polyamous" is a newly coined term, which indeed may date to the 
founding of this newsgroup.

The connotations of words can be more flexible than their 
basic definitions.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:57:15 GMT

In article <BzDKHz.Cr0@wrs.com> jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart) writes:
> the Golden Rules of Polyamory  [...]
>
> 1) Avoid people who work where you work.

Depends on where you work, I think.  My lover's wife and I used to work
for the same company; eventually, said lover came to work there too.  A
coworker came up to us once in the kitchen and said, "Hey Paul, they're
gossipping about you down in sales -- one person said you were Francie's
husband, and another one said she was sure you were Vicka's boyfriend!"

To which Paul smiled sweetly and replied, "It's a floor wax, *and* a
dessert topping!"

Even the salespeople coped somehow :)


cheers,
--vicka						     vicka@wrq.com
	         "Stranger in a Strange Land"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:28:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.005715.10493@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
...
>> the Golden Rules of Polyamory  [...]
>>
>> 1) Avoid people who work where you work.
>
>Depends on where you work, I think....

My first thought was that it was much more a matter of who else was
involved, but then I thought about "corporate culture."  I guess some
places are very parental and act as if they have some right to
determine a person's private life; the postings on this thread make
FTP Software seem like "polyamory heaven," a place where you can be
out of the closet, express your feelings for your loved ones without
fear of managerial retribution, etc..  Must be a great place to work.

>...  My lover's wife and I used to work
>for the same company; eventually, said lover came to work there too.  A
>coworker came up to us once in the kitchen and said, "Hey Paul, they're
>gossipping about you down in sales -- one person said you were Francie's
>husband, and another one said she was sure you were Vicka's boyfriend!"
>
>To which Paul smiled sweetly and replied, "It's a floor wax, *and* a
>dessert topping!"
>
>Even the salespeople coped somehow :)

Maybe the news even did a little consciousness raising...

>cheers,
>--vicka						     vicka@wrq.com
>	         "Stranger in a Strange Land"

It's funny, I've seen what I've taken to be mutual attractions and
even lusts in a number of the places where I've worked, but it's
always been repressed in public and even those clumsiest at keeping
their secrets have been very, very reluctant to admit to the obvious.
It never struck me as odd, just "something people do."  Now it seems
like a very strange thing, to suppress affection just because one
is earning money at the time!

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
I dreamed I had to take a test in a Dairy Queen on another planet...
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: "infidelity" (was Re: Back Again To Father)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:45:07 GMT

>In article <jay.18.724002203@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (
Jay Deuel) writes:>+
>+How do you know?  I live in Salt Lake, and can give you the TRUTH about 
>+"the Mormons in Utah"!  They instituted the practice of polygamy just prior 
>+to their pioneer trek in 1846-47, and ended it prior to the state being 
>+admitted into the Union in 1896.  So as you can see, their biggest problem 
>+for about 100 years has been statements like the one above!  There are non-
>+Mormon polygamists here, but it's still against the law.
>
>Yes, well that old favorite, if they continue the 'practice' in this
>earth, kick'm out. The polygamist in the hills think the downtowners
>have lost the theme in order to curry favor from the US government
>and the downtowners have anathemtized the hill folk as
>'non-Moromon'. Right here before our very eyes we can see the
>development of sectarian strife for the control of the temporal
>world. (But then there's always heaven and a man can have all his
>wives in the main line downtown Salt Lake version as well).
>

Good perception!  I left out that part because I was just responding to the
statement, "Mormons have problems with the state of Utah over polygamy".  
Also that a manifesto was issued banning the practice, prior to 1896, in 
response to the [then] government delaying statehood.  They still belive it 
is an eternal principle, though few women around here like to discuss it. 
 _________________________________________________________________________
|                  |_    _|  |_    _|                                     |
| Jay Deuel          |  |______|  |______  PHONE:  (801) 581-8343         |
| Computer Center    |  |_    _|  |_    _| FAX:    (801) 585-5549         |
| 3440 MEB           |  | |  | |  | |  |   E-MAIL: jay@cc.utah.edu        |
| University of Utah |  |_|__|_|  | |  |   BITNET: jay@utahcca.bitnet     |
| S.L.C., UT  84112   \__________/  |  |   I-MAIL: jay@edu-utah-cc-uuserv |
|                         |  |______|  |                                  |
|__________________________\___________/__________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: mbr2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures)
Subject: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Reply-To: mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Universtiy of Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:44:29 GMT

Re-posted for the benefit of non-usa folks.  

Please pay attention to the Distribution line, folks - we have plenty of
readers world-wide!

In article <BzDKHz.Cr0@wrs.com> jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart) writes:
>
>Several people have emailed asking for the Golden Rules
>of Polyamory that I mentioned earlier. These were emailed
>me by a kind person who may or may not wish to have
>their name mentioned. So I will just summarize:
>
>1) Avoid people who work where you work.
>
>2) Avoid people who are in a long-term monogamous, or
>advertised as exclusive, or legal relationship, lest you
>end up as the evil person who tried to break them up.
>
>3) Avoid people who are not honest; who claim one thing
>and act another; who are not sure what they want (not
>honest with themselves).
>
>I especially liked number 3. Of course, they all apply
>to any kind of romantic entanglement. But #3
>is especially important in an arrangement where society
>is actively against it and many people feel it is wrong
>or must be kept hidden, even if they personally are
>interested in it.
>
>I encountered this. I was interested in a married man
>(I was single at the time) and finally we discussed things.
>He revealed that, if I had not wanted to tell his wife,
>that is, if I was more comfortable believing we were having
>a secret affair, he and his wife had agreed to let me think
>that. Meanwhile, of course, he would be telling his wife
>everything. Why wasn't I immediately clued in that they were
>NOT HONEST PEOPLE ??????
>

-Matt Ryan, randomly helpful,
mb-ryan@uchicago.edu                Curious Of All Natures
==================================  ====================================
If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. You'll never see the end of the road
If I'm awake, never let me sleep.   When you're traveling with me.
               -old chinese fellow                        -Crowded House     
==================================  ====================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: BNR, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:47:56 GMT


Steve Pope wrote:
> The phrase "significant other" has an undercurrent of "this 
> person is important to me, but..."

This is quite the opposite for me.  To me, the significant part
of SO means that that person plays a significant role in my life.
I use SO to describe my spouse because it isn't gender specific,
yet let's me declare that I see this person as important in my
life.  Lover, on the other hand, implies to me that there is a
physical relationship with this person, but they do not play a
key role in my life.  They are important to me, but...

I've quite often used the term PSO (pseudo-significant other) as
a term for a lover, or used the term love (ie. my "love") to
denoted my SO.

Currently, I'm trying to figure out what term I can use to
describe my SO's SO.  And when they marry (although not legally),
does that make her my SO too? or should she be my PSO?  Or should
I not give a damn and start using their real names?   Let's face
it, if I start talking about Diane and Mimi, without SO terms in
there, you're not going to know their relationship to me... unless
you know me or ask me... but at least you'll be able to keep the
players straight. :)


Comments by,

     o      Brad Booth              | "I want you/
    /--     Bell-Northern Research  |  to know me only as/
    \ |     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  what I believe I am."
____/____,  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |     ... Fiftyfour-40
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory