HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: the "oh" experience
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:18:45 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

>I fully and wholeheartedly agree with the above.  Also remember (in
>cases where they don't work well) that the reason that threesome don't
>work maybe that it was wrong for only  one of the participant.  This
>might have been you or it might have been one of the others.

I tend to agree. for me, it seems that the energy and willpower necessary
to stay open and honest escalate rapidly with three or more individuals,
that have the ability to communicate (verses talk at each other). sometimes
I lose sight of the possibility that even though I am having a hard time
staying true (open and honest) with my partner(s) it may be that they are
having a much harder time. 

this is not limited to sexual connections, for me. this situation occurs
anytime I engage in a group activity designed to delve into the group's
(individual and composite) internal landscape. a group of lovers, though,
seems to provide a unique challenge in terms of verbal/non-verbal communication.

I notice in group situations I tend to get so embroiled in cutting through
my communication barriers that I may be missing some assistance I could
render to another loved one participating with me in the situation.

whether sex or any other activity... seems to me you are right on... if
the activity is wrong for one participant then not only does that single
individual suffer, the entire group suffers... well now you've gotten me
thinking about this... there goes the day... :-)
From: mlloyd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Disturbed
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:34:55 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug28.035311.5621@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>(More suicide-related postings.  Hmmmmmm.  Well I guess I might as
>well out myself on this one.)

(Ditto.)

>As someone who used to be quite suicidal, I've always been a little 
>amazed (perhaps envious, perhaps not) at those who a) have never felt
>suicidal and don't understand it b) aren't suicidal persay but
>can more or less understand how it might happen.  To me those
>perspectives are as foriegn to me as heterosexual perspectives.
>Have to go think about this one (haven't done so in a long while.)

It's recent enough for me that I've been over this ground a few
times of late - it's a decent part of all the changes in my life
over the last good few years.  I was pretty suicidal too, way back -
method and location chosen, etc (I actually used to *stop*
myself by planning and replanning notes to leave), and I too find
it amazing that there are people who haven't been at least some
way down that road.  For my part, though, I have no doubt over
the value of having been there - I would never envy those who've
not experienced it.

It's the same with most, perhaps all, of the things I've done and
moved on from, esp. religion (I did the fundie Xian thang in
college).  Without such things, I wouldn't have the perspective
I do now.  Sure it'd be fun to be born well-rounded, "together",
bi-positive [whoops - it's that old "aren't we all?" bit :-)],
but there'd be so much you couldn't understand.

So if I have a point, it's that these experiences do make you
a better person in some way, if/when they finally fade away.

If nothing else, they make you tougher for when the world dumps
on you - I rely on that a lot these days (coming out wasn't
all peace and light).  Gabriel and Bush sing "Don't Give Up"
as I type, and I think "yea - that's it; you learn how to say
that with real belief"

Mike, who when reading the above, is reminded of a friend who
had an essay returned with the comment "Abysmally shallow" ...
-- 
Mike Lloyd                         | B0/1 h- f- t w- c g+ k(+) s m- e? 
Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and     | "The Trouble with Normal is it
owner of a one-track mind:         |  Always Gets Worse" - Bruce Cockburn
   "thesis .. thesis .. thesis"    |    (-:   F**k Your Gender!  :-)
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lovely things found in my mailbox
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:55:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <64993@cup.portal.com> Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON) writes:
+
+I stand corrected. I don't know too much about the Libertarians except
+I have heard that they want to repeal income tax, and are for private
+ownership of roads. Also they don't seem to have much chance of getting

The Libertarians fail on the 'social consciousness' aspect, since
quite a few religate concern for the welfare of other to the
religious domain, and with the lessening of the 'religiousness'
people have looked to the government to fill the void.

This presupposes that the 'needy' were well looked after by the
church support institutions, which in fact was not true, but at
least one could call on that icon as an answer to the 'problem of
the poor' posed by the laisse-fare advocates. Other issues the
Libertarians don't deal with on a 'purist' level is various personal
issues which are the logical extreme of 'governmental hands off',
such as spousal abuse, rape of the wife, etc. The 'purist' argument
suggests that the government should stay out of personal
relationships, but in these cases most feel that the state does have
an interest in protecting the person from abuse by another.

As additional information, in the Constitution there is a requirement
for raising taxes for the 'general welfare of the United States', most
'anti-entitlement' types only quote the 'for the defense of the United
States' as reason for taxes.(In fact one less illuminated
conservative made the claim to me that defense spending was the only
'mandated' expense in the Constitution, well until I pointed to the
'general welfare..' phase). The original Constitution limited taxes on
individuals but the 16th Amendment changed that to allow tax on individuals.

So the real debate on taxes and expenditures really centers around
definitions of 'defense and general welfare' rather than 'to tax or
not to tax'.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: New (? doubtful) thoghts on bi'phobia'
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:13:50 GMT

bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
> much summed up the feeling for me, "If somebody feels really good about who 
> they are, they don't feel threatened by what other people are."  I think it's
> a cool quote... definitely one to add to one of my .sigs. :)

The bad news is that enough people are out there who don't feel good about
who they are, and who therefore feel threatened by what other people are.
This often causes them to act threatening toward those other people and
actions, as has been said, speak louder than words.  Sigh.
--scott
    (feeling dwarfed right now)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver)
Subject: Re: hot bi babes
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: soc.bi
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 00:16:06 GMT

pclary@radish.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:

>jet@ki.com (Jeanette Bradley) wrote...
>> In the vein of this whole hot bi babes thing...
[Pride Day]
>>And said "Oh, are you, er,... *into* *that* ?"

[Clueless pick-ups by straight men]
>To be quite honest, if I think i'm going to get that reaction
>I tell 'em I'm gay.  (Unless of course they've spotted some
>bi related thing I'm wearing.)  Usually they need more exposure
>to queers of whatever sort.

Oh. I take the attitude that they need more exposure to bisexuality, &
that they can damn' well learn that hot bi babes can not only turn them
down but be a helluva lot more interested in each other than them. So, the
"No, I'm bi" approach is the one I'd usually take, despite the pain of the
clueless attitude that bi women are there for threesomes with men. Hmm.

>Other possible responses to the 'Oh you're bi - can I have sex with you?'
>come ons:
>
>"Only if I get to watch you have sex with a man first."
>"You know I've always had this fantasy of two men together...."
>"Only if I get to top you" (they won't get this... At first. Hehe)
>(Might have to rephrase it as:)
>"Only if you're the receptive partner."
>(But I really wanna say:)
>"Only if I get to fuck you."  (But they probably wouldn't get that either.)
>
>Attitude helps.

Oh, priceless. I must remember these, instead of getting sullen.

Tanaqui

I don't get mad, I get odd.

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: (re) Introduction
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:20:55 GMT

In <1992Sep3.201309.20595@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> crabtree@drivem.enet.dec.com
(Alyson Crabtree) writes:
>I don't know if any of y'all remember me.

Of course I do. <smug, self-righteous face> *Some* of us aren't fickle. :-)

Welcome back. And congrats on getting your degree.


Ciaran.
-- 
Ciaran McHale                                                             ----
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.       \bi/
Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-772204 email: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie \/
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Arresting Behaviors (was Mr Right)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:14:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug27.032114.1632@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mvsaf1@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steve-o) writes:
+	Did anyone watch that new show (in the US) Arresting Behaviors? 
+
+	me about it last week, but I was reading this group. _Anyways_ it
+	had an interesting scene where two brothers drop in on their sister,
+	who is having a birthday party, where there is all females. Thinking
+	that they'll be able to score big-time, being the only two 'studs'
+	there, they slowly learn after hitting on most of the woman there
+	that they are all (gasp) lesbians, (it took them awhile). In the next
+
+
+	The show aired on ABC at 9:30 out here in Mass/New Hampshire area, check
+	it out - it is sort of like Married with Children done with live video.

I was just reading in 'American Spectator' about how there is a
hypocracy of the conservative management of the 'Media' and the
actual programing. This conservative rage lamented that ABC was run
by 'Republicans' and should become an outlet of conservative values
and thought. Well, from the above, personal values shouldn't get in
the way of making a buck.... And they wonder why the 'Dominant
Media Culture' continues to exist.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (Arrowsmith)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:53:18 GMT
Organization: Bad Grammar

In article <v7dpbaa1@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>Oh, just been looking around the news system, and this article's going
>to be #9908 or so for soc.bi... since we missed a little at the start,
>I guess that we're, globally, somewhere about the ten-thousand-messages
>mark.
>
You're #10550 here -- amazing that they missed less that you....

>I think that calls for a little celebration, don't you?
>
When {is,was} the First Anniversary -- isn't that about nowish?


--
\S 
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk           | There's nowt |"Stormy weather turns to blue;
sarrowsm@nyx.cs.du.edu        | so queer as  |"Here's a song to take with you:
and elsewhere, for a while.   | folk....     |  --Mike Oldfield, "Taurus II"
From: orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Cool Spots for Bis (Was the War Between Us
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:24:34 GMT
Organization: Ministry of Skritching

In article <BtFIBp.6MD@blkhole.resun.com> sara@blkhole.resun.com (Sara Hopkins (Swamp Thing)) successfully defames my character:
|orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
|>ELAINE@brownvm.brown.edu (Elaine M. Brennan) writes:
|>|orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) said:
|>|>ELAINE@brownvm.brown.edu (Elaine M. Brennan) writes:
|>|>|In article <5658@ebt-inc.UUCP>, pks@queue.uucp (Pearl Stark) said:
|>|>|>I couldn't let this pass without plugging providence ...
|>|>|yeah, and soon to be even cooler ... and neater ...
|>|>   Might this have something to do with certain people moving there?
|>|why whoever (in what hot tub) could ever have given you *that* idea?
|>   Um, er, yeah.  Whoever indeed. ...  Any reports to
|>the contrary are slightly exaggerated.

|In that case, herewith an exaggerated report; you did so!  And so, and
|so ... I was there, in that very hot tub and I SHOULD KNOW!

   Well, yes, I noticed you.   But the only thing I was deny was swooning
and proposing marriage, which I didn't have *time to do!
                __
  david parsons \/ "I might as well libel myself first, just to keep ahead of
		    the crowds..."
From: IO81409@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Omaha! Omaha! Omaha! (was: something less interesting)
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:07:53 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

do we want more posts from omaha?  yes, certainly...
altho i keep picturing her with fur and a tail and pointy ears...
just figures she woudl have been an exotic dancer...  B)

                                   -ailsa
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Hello everyone!
From: cjohnson@zeus.calpoly.edu (Coe Salzgeber)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 23:59:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cow Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA

lorico@boomboom.Eng.Sun.COM (Lori Cotton) said...
>In article <la4siqINN8ff@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> fishnets@soulsteppin.Corp.Sun.COM (Spanky) writes:
>><big breath>
>>After reading soc.bi for a coupla months now, I decided that it was time
>>to take the plunge and de-muffin.  Everyone here seems like an extremely
>>nice group of people, and I wanted to get in on all the hugs ;^) 

Since you ask so nicely... *hug*... Glad you demuffined :^)

>I've noticed everyone here is extremely nice too and I want to get in
>on the hugs too, so I guess I'm de-muffining too!  (Phew, that wasn't
>so bad I guess :^)  )

Seems like everyone's taking the plunge in twos lately... well, welcome,
and *hug* to you, too :^)
    
>>I just recently came out to my dearest love, and boy, what a relief!
>
>Well, I came out to my dearest love, my husband to be exact and it 
>backfired.
>[story of leaving husband and "open marriage"]

>Because this happened recently, I still feel really guilty about leaving
>my husband (he had to move back in with his mother, he's 25, I'm 29 and
>the bread winner).  I guess sometimes when I put my happiness in front
>of others I feel bad.  

*sigh* [seldom-seen serious mode on]

One of the hardest times in my life was spent realizing that i had the
capacity to really hurt someone i love, simply by doing what i _had_ to
to for myself (in a very similar situation as yours).  I felt like i
was learning that i was capable of enormous cruelty.  Of course, i knew
then and know now even more that it would have been infinitely more 
cruel to _both_ of us for me to deny what i wanted in my life.  (The 
"both uf us" part is important: i would not have been happy, and also,
the other person would not have been happy, because even if i had stayed,
they would not be having a relationship with the real me.  And i think 
that would have torn us apart anyway.)  Still, it was jarring to my
self-image to think that i could hurt someone like that - emotional
gentleness (lack of emotional cruelty) is very important to me.  The
best way for me to deal with it was to look at how things would be if 
i hadn't done what i needed to do.

[serious mode off... now back to flirting]

>Anyone out there have any kind words or hugs, or
>anything else they want to give me ;^)

It's good that you are looking out for yourself - not because no-one
else will, but because must value yourself before you can love someone
else.

Definitely, hugs are in order...
<HUG>
and, since i'm back in flirt mode,
<smooch on the cheeck>
-Coe
-- 
cjohnson@nyx.calpoly.edu
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: the "oh" experience
Date: 25 Aug 92 12:23:11 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

>get me HOT! Oh, and by the way, YOU broke the first bed, remember. You
>flopped down and then we heard that wonderful `crack' sound. Hmmpf! Try to
>blame me for that one.

few experiences have I've found so thoroughly... inspiring as the sound of
a bedframe cracking... that momentary freeze where all, er, uh... activity
ceases and all parties consider, "what's that sound?!?!". then the ensuing crash
the lends a particularly satisfying dimension to the experience. and finally
the resumption of love making amidst the tears of hard laughter with the
matress at a crazed angle...
From: pflynn@ccvax.ucd.ie (Peter Flynn, Official Muffin-sampler)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Cracker crumbs and where to put them
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:33:33 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

In article <1992Sep2.144354.3491@sci.kun.nl>, janhen@sci.kun.nl (Olaf) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.170900.49566@ccvax.ucd.ie> pflynn@ccvax.ucd.ie
> (Peter Flynn, Official Muffin-sampler) writes:
> 
>>Doesn't *anybody* here have a foreskin?
> 
> Of course I have. And, if you asked this a few days earlier, were in
> Norwich, were sufficiently interested, and asked nicely enough, you
> even might have gotten to see it! That makes you feel bad now, doesn't
> it? :-)

<*sob*> I *knew* I should have found a way to get to Norwich :-)

> In fact, I've never understood why people would circumcise their
> children for other than religious reasons (and even then, barely or not
> at all, but that is probably related to my general outlook on
> religions).

Huh? There is a medical condition (something Latin, doubtless...Kay?)
involving tightness of the foreskin: in those cases it has to be removed
or excruciating agony will follow when an erection occurs. IMHO that is
the only justification for removal, unless you are, as you say, an adherent
of a religion which requires it.

///Peter
From: osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New (? doubtful) thoghts on bi'phobia'
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:24:42 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

In article <4kJeqB6w165w@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca> panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca
(Elizabeth Holden) writes:

>No, I haven't found BAON.  Still searching.

I bought a copy at Norwich. I haven't started reading it yet though - Suzie
Sexpert is far too good a read to put down before I've finished it.

Owen.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Subject: Re: New (? doubtful) thoghts on bi'phobia'
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:31:01 GMT

bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler) writes:


>  Since this is normal for me (Has been for a long
>time -- Long before I would admit such a thing to myself), I somehow
>expect it to be normal for everyone else.

>So, in blatant disreguard for others' rights to be themselves the only
>judge of who they are/should be attrated to, I still wonder (To myself)
>how anyone could fail to be attracted by a beautiful female body, how
>anyone could fail to be attaacted to a beautiful male body.

	i don't care if a biphobe doesn't understand, as long as they
	leave *me* alone.  i may not 'understand' monosexual attraction
	at a gut level; i can certainly understand & appreciate the freedom
	to *have* monosexual feelings on an intellectual level.

	i have a gynomimetic friend (m-f transsexual who retains her penis
	because she wants to); sometimes she acts as if she thinks i under-
	stand her.  i don't, at all, on a gut level.  the point is, i don't
	*have* to understand at that level.

>Jeff

>PS Question -- If you believe that each person should be able to have
>his own beliefs, how can you react to one who believes that all should
>believe his way without being a hypocrite?

	you can have whatever belief you want.  my problem comes
	whne you start imposing these beliefs *on me*.  someone can even
	think i *should* be dead, as long as they don't interfere w/my right to
	*be* alive.

>-- 
>|Jeff Epler               Additions Welcome           c(-8 ;-) >{8-) |
>| :) (=( =-] (-= Celebrating the variety of faces =-> :^) {-= |-) (: |
>| >X^P 8-[                                       __ Lincoln, Nebraska|
>|   						 \/ IRC Synger       |


	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu
From: sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Appreciate Me Now and Avoid the Rush!
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:34:54 GMT
Organization: News Addicts

J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
[gerbil]
>I'll say hi for you though, I'll be seeing her at the next NEBG meeting
>(now with 3 soc.bifolk!!) ...

Only 3?

>{8-)

Sara
-- 
 >{8-)     Sara Hopkins     (-8}<              _____^__
 Geography Dept.  Edinburgh Uni.  Drummond St. \ OOO/ / The Thing
 Edinburgh,  EH8  9XP,  UK. +44 (0/31) 650 2662 \++/ /   From
 >{8-) sara@geovax.ed.ac.uk (-8}<                \/\/ The Swamp
From: Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Hello everyone!
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 00:21:31 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Sep1.003559.2732@news.acns.nwu.edu>

Welcome aboard Spanky.

You will find that most of don't bite unless you ask very, very nice.:)
(Down Albert:)

Ben Gibson
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lemmings!
From: pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:42:24 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing) wrote...
>You can get Lemmings for the ST?  <interested look>

All right.  Lemmings fans (of whatever sort) hands in the air.
I'm up to Mayhem level, and am taking a break from it.  (After being
terribly addicted to the first 90 levels)  However, when I start again, 
I'm going to probably need some helpful hints from the Lemmings masters.

Ellen
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: the "oh" experience
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:05:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug25.235623.18567@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
+
+Hi, Omaha!  I quite enjoy threesomes--at least, I did the one time
+that could technically be called a threesome, but, might, on the
+other hand, be technically disqualified.  I hadn't learned to aggress
+sufficiently to find out if we could have moved in that direction,

The word 'congress' derives from latin and has the implication of
coming to together to battle. I've often pondered the significance
of the useage 'sexual congress'. So to rephase your above statement
maybe you didn't congress sufficiently.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu