HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:05:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug16.234325.511@fibers> mbuck@fibers (Michael D. Buck) writes:
+In article <Bt3380.KKz@world.std.com>, apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
+> 
+> I was reading this morning that the "Pornography Victims Bill" is
+> moving along in the legislative process.  This bill allows people
+> who have been victims of crimes "caused" by pornography to sue
+> the producers of the material.
+> 
+> Obvious right-wing tactics aside, I just might support this.

The 'right' wing has some serious problems with this bill. One of
the 'right'-planks is 'reduce the legal system's burden'. Well this
bill were it a 'enviromental' bill, would be on their hit list,
because guess what, it would increase the already overloaded court
system.

I am not going to be 'correct' politically or otherwise. I do not
agree with recent court cases suiting cigarette manufacturers. I
believe that each person who smokes should be told (via packaging
messages) that the activity they ar doing 'will cause cancer in more
than just laboratory animals and the cancer or other diseases
related to inhaling particles and toxins and irratents will kill').

If each homosexual has to take the 'hit' for AIDS, then each smoker
must take the hit for his cancer/respitor/cardiac disease.

For pornography, there is so much that can be called 'pornographic'
depending on the location, that in some portions of the US
landscape, the Cistine Chapel could be viewed as such and the
owners, the Roman Catholic Church sued (hey maybe we've got
something here).

To further this, when a mad man kills and rapes numbers of people,
then at his trial claims that 'god, jehovah, told him to do it' no
one ever says, 'well gosh let's ban the christian bible'. The usual
christian apology for this is, "there is an EVIL force and this is
one instance of his power to twist the truth".

Of course even the most secular anti-pornography crowd wouldn't
class the everyday cunt/dick shot of the usual porno formula
presentation as equivalent to 'the bible'. But how much damage to
others has been done in the name of that widely esteemed tome. I
think I have to wait a long time before a war is begun over a porno
film.(I wonder if the Trojan War could be a close example, you know
three godesses offering a somewhat inept man a choice on beauty).

Next the Meese(plural of mice) report will be introduced as 'evidence'.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:58:35 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   In article <1992Aug17.003906.26312@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
>       woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>   >>   And BTW - I'm currently reclaiming the word "slut". I'm here, I'm a
>   >>slut, get used to it! 8->
>   >   You're a little late; I've been a slut since November of last year,
>   >and damned proud of it too.  There's nothing wrong with being a slut!

>  So what does it mean when you say you're a slut?  Does it matter that
>you're using it (apparently) in a polyamorous context?

My reclaimed definition of "slut" is something like "gourmet/gourmand wrt 
physical contact."

--
Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
stef@apple.com
From: slf@netcom.com (Sharon Fisher)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: (spoilers) FORWARDED : Ayn Rand's Contribution to Poly-ness?
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:18:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:


>Personally, I dislike Rand's books, although the one play I saw by
>her was interresting in incorporating the audience in the jury(can't
>recall the name). The plot was to review the 'evidence' of a murder
>and determine if the defendant was guilty or not.

The Night of January 16th.

I like some of her books.  Meaning, there's portions of them I like.
I find them inspiring.  When the world seems populated by incompetent
bozos who get in my way, I tend to go re-read either The Fountainhead
or Atlas Shrugged.  Yes, there's holes in her philosphy and she tends
to make certain assumptions about her characters' motivations, but
that's true for practically any novelist.  

However, all the "you are responsible for your own actions" part
aside, dunno how applicable polyamory is to Rand, or vice versa.  I
can't think of any healthy polyamorous relationships in her books;
Dominique gets raped and likes it, and then goes from one man to the
next one while at the same time loving the guy who raped her, and
proving how much she loves him by slagging his professional
reputation...granted, it was to make sure that only the people who
*really* wanted him went to him, so they proved themselves worthy of
his work, but still...  In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny is serially
monogamous to the point that she no longer sleeps with Hank once she's
met John, and implies she'll never sleep with Francisco, either, while
her brother sleeps with a woman just to have revenge on her husband --
in fact, both of them are sleeping together to have revenge on her
husband.  

And then there's Ayn Rand's personal life herself, where she had a
long-term affair with the husband of one of her best friends...you can
read all about that in The Passion of Ayn Rand, written by the best
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: despair@netcom.com (Scott Hanson)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:56:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <mumble> ronw@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Ron Whitetree) writes:
>
>Chris English Writes:
>
>>Hmm... What about opportunities that present themselves without the
>>other partner being available for discussion?  Should they be
>>declined, and thus perhaps lost?
>
>
>This seems rather shallow. After all what is more important, a moment
>of excitement or your previous commitments and the feelings of those
>you ask to believe in you. I think it is the word "opportunity" that
>I am objecting to. But, any "opportunity" worthwhile will not likely
>be lost.

Two topics.  In my opinion, "opportunities" are lost all the time.  This
makes them both more and less meaningful.  My life seems to be a series
of amazingly random coincidences, and I do not think I am singular in this.
The most important people in my life so far were met in such an improbable
and mind-blasting manner I almost think it was planned.  (Of course things
could not be as strange if they were planned)  Although I am meandering
my point is this:  If I have any "...previous commitments..." they were
made possible by chance.  If I avoid chance due to these commitments it
refutes their origins in addition to the lost and possibly equally important
encounters.

Also, a primary reason for my poly nature was hinted at.  My first few
relationships were monogomous.  Each time there was an ending it was
painful, regardless of who chose it to end.  After a lot of thinking
(brooding actually) I decided these relations ended largely because of
resentment or boredom.  If I avoided an attractive woman because I had
a commitment with someone else, I resented it.  At first I did not even
know this.  Naturally it worked the other way, I think.  (I cannot be certain
since few people are willing to admit this)  After enough of this the 
relationship becomes poisoned and nasty (quite common) and/or "cheating"
sets in. (also quite common)

For these reasons I think it is important to be allowed unforseen chance
meetings.  It makes important relations last longer and makes them possible.
My apologies for the fuzzy rambling.  Not enough coffee.

Regards.

-- 
Scott Hanson		This has been a recording.
despair@netcom.com
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Polyamory and Marriage
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:24:35 GMT


Michael Short writes:
> Several of the posters in various threads have mentioned being married. 
> In my own mind, this has nothing to do with the presence/absence of a piece of
> paper, but rather a connectedness in feelings and desires.

I agree, but the piece of paper can be damn handy at times (ie. travelling in
the Middle East).

> OK, given that (and I may already be far off the mark), what is it that led
> to those being married to _chose_ to do this? (shotgun weddings don't count!)

I'm interpretting that as "Why did you get married?"  If that's the correct
interpretation, then my answer is love.  I love my wife more than any other
woman I've ever met. :)

> Did a state of polyamory happen only after your marriages?

Yep.  There was some latent jealousy that had to be removed before we became
polyamorous; the marriage helped to remove it.

> Are all of you polygamist/polyandrous?

All of us, you mean my wife, myself and our lovers?  If so, yes. All our lovers 
have their our lifes and loves, and we will not interfere with that.

> Another question: for the few polygamists I've met, polygamy usually meant
> several women being monogamous to the same man. Is that your experience also?

Nope.  In our situation, my wife tends to have the most lovers.  I tend to be
the more monogamous one.

      __o       Brad Booth                |  Cyclist with an attitude!
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |  Me speak for my employer?
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  That's pretty funny!
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:50:11 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
>Ron Whitetree writes:
>> Chris English Writes:
>> >Hmm... What about opportunities that present themselves without the
>> >other partner being available for discussion?  Should they be
>> >declined, and thus perhaps lost?
>> 
>> This seems rather shallow. After all what is more important, a moment
>> of excitement or your previous commitments and the feelings of those
>> you ask to believe in you. I think it is the word "opportunity" that
>> I am objecting to. But, any "opportunity" worthwhile will not likely
>> be lost.
>
>Well, there are some opportunities that only present themselves once.
>For instance, if you should meet a person while you are travelling.  If
>your partner is not available for discussion and you're worried about 
>what they're going to think, then *maybe* a decline is best.  But if you
>want to prevent this indecision, you should discuss this situation with
>your partner before this situation presents itself.  Then you will know
>where you stand.

   Precisely what I was going to say. I try to let my sweeties know in
advance (more out of a sense of being polite, than "asking" them or
something like that), but failing that we *do* have a bit of a general
policy on these things : Play Safe, Hurt No-one. (The Witches' Rede in
a Poly domain? 8->).

   Uh, looking over that parenthetical comment above, it may seem like
I'm saying "This is what I'm going to do, I'm not asking permission,
too bad if you don't like it". That's *not* what I'm saying, but Karina &
I very deliberately do not have a "veto" arrangement (there was a very
big debate about this on Bisexu-L earlier in the year). I don't mean to
drag this argument up, but a comment one person made stuck in my mind :
"Having a veto arrangement in a non-monogamous context is attempting to
make a non-monogamous relationship function monogamously".

   *On the other hand*, I'm very uncomfortable at the idea of proceding
blithely on and ignoring, say, distress at the idea on the part of an
existing partner. Hasn't happened yet, and frankly I can't imagine many
contexts where it might, but it's a fine line to walk.

   I *do* know that monogamy is *never again* an option for *me*. I
won't tell other people *they* have to be Poly, but I won't be told by
them that *I* can't. It's a sanity-preserving measure, much like many
Bi people finding they start becoming more and more focussed on wanting 
Bi partners (I'm trying not to overgeneralize, but I *have* heard a lot
of Bi people say this. I've also heard plenty who don't).

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: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 16 Aug 92 10:16:43 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

macarthr@dae.Princeton.EDU (Karen M. Macarthur) writes:
> [excellent wisdom deleted]
>Hmmm... I think I'm going to start a flame war because of all the
>flagrant morality judgements I just made.  At least it should
>lead to some highly interesting discussion of perspectives!

   Karen, I wanted to followup your article in detail, but I found myself
just quoting entire paragraphs and saying "Yep." after each one. I'm
afraid you won't get a very interesting discussion of perspectives from
*me*...since mine seems to be just about exactly like yours. 8->

   They may have been flagrant morality judgements (didn't push any of
my buttons, though), but I think they were each and every one of them
*my* flagrant morality judgments too.

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!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: this thread in alt.romance
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:12:07
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: chil@fraser.sfu.ca's message of Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:36:21 GMT

In article <chil.714036981@sfu.ca> chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim) writes:
>If anyone's got time on their hands that they don't know what to do
>with, check out alt.romance, specifically, the messages in the thread
>titled "Reverse LJBF problem."

Well, I checked it out (I'm recovering from throat surgery, so I've got
lots of time on my hands).  However, this thread doesn't seem to have
any more to do with polyamory than most of the other threads on there,
all of which that I saw assume that monogamy is the right way, that
everyone really really needs a "romantic partner" (not to mention sex,
but that's not mentioned as much as a primary goal), etc.  What sort of
response were you thinking people should make?

Muffy


--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: jladwig@soils.umn.edu (John Ladwig)
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Reply-To: john.ladwig@soils.umn.edu
Organization: UMN Soils GIS Lab
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:19:29 GMT

In <1992Aug9.161703.16536@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>How many relationships really begin with an explicit monogamy
>manifesto??).

Umm, mine?

Elise and I spent the first couple of years of our relationship running on 'term
commitments' - periods of a week or two where we'd pledge to be with each other,
exclusively.  Outside activities were strictly negotiated, and the default assumption was
that we were monogamous.

This was pretty useful in helping Elise to get over her fears of relationships, which
stemmed from a not-so-long-past divorce.  It was kind of nice to be able to ask "Will you
be mine for the next two weeks?" - you're not committing to forever, and you get a nice
little shot of security.  Worked for us, eight years later.

>   And the idea "Poly <> committed" really burns me. 

And how..


--
	     UMN Department of Soil Science; St. Paul, MN

Internet: john.ladwig@soils.umn.edu             Fidonet: John Ladwig 1:282/8
          jladwig@torpedo.forestry.umn.edu       
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Anonymous post for "Alan Hardy"
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:33:45 GMT

The following is an anonymous post from my correspondent, "Alan
Hardy."

--------------------

> From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
>
>   I *do* know that monogamy is *never again* an option for *me*. I
> won't tell other people *they* have to be Poly, but I won't be told by
> them that *I* can't. It's a sanity-preserving measure, much like many
> Bi people finding they start becoming more and more focussed on wanting 
> Bi partners (I'm trying not to overgeneralize, but I *have* heard a lot
> of Bi people say this. I've also heard plenty who don't).

REPEAT 
  --Get involved with person 
  --Implicitly or explicitly make commitment to monogamy
  --Have wonderful relationship for about a year 
  --Feel trapped/bored/stifled/narrow but too responsible to cheat 
  --Break up
UNTIL Head_Sore_From_Pounding_Into_Wall

I did this a half dozen times over a period of 10 years before it
occurred to me, hey, maybe I'm just not monogamous.  Could have saved
a number of good women some hurt if I'd gotten a clue sooner.  I'm
about equally annoyed at myself for blindness, and at the culture for
not providing more positive images of nonmonogamy.

Also came to the conclusion recently that I'm bi---if Joe's comment about
bi partners is true, hopefully I won't take 10 years to figure it out...

> From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
>
> a bit insensitively. (But where are they supposed to learn how to do it
> sensitively? There aren't any classes in How To Have Affaires, or How To
> Be Safely And Nicely Poly).

Hmmm, one could make some money teaching adult education classes on
this at the local community college.  And grading the class projects
should be a blast!


> From: snively.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
> 
> When did you start feeling that monogamy wasn't for you?  About what time 
> did you first have a polyamorus (sp?) relationship?
> 

Monogamy seemed unpleasant to me the first time that it occurred to me
that I should be monogamous (say age 18 or so). (My first relationship
that went beyond a few dates.)  The only times it wasn't unpleasant
was when I was so busy with work the thought of more than one
relationship was unthinkable.  I've just reached 30 and have finally
realized that I'm not a sleazy, weak-willed, uncommitted, lust-crazed,
typical no good male. I'm just not monogamous.

Only one person ever called me those negative things, by the
way---mostly I called myself them, helped along by our wonderful
pro-monogamy culture.  Want a hint?  Don't do that to yourself. 

--Alan Hardy

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:41:22 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   Maybe not quite that strongly, but yeah, there's a feeling of "But you
>>can't fault me for that, it's only natural, of course I'd feel like that,
>>what's wrong with it?", etc.
>
>   They obviously have a definition of "perfectly natural" I've never
>run into!  Throw a few articles about Bonobos Chimpanzees at 'em, and
>while you're at it, throw the entire last year of Audobon Society's
>newsletter, pointing out all those "birds as exemplars of monogamy"
>manifesto now turn out to be completely in error, now that the science
>of tagging has gotten accurate.

   Heh heh heh. Are you proposing we tag our lovers too? 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: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:56:51 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

Cynthia Nolan writes:
>whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock) writes:
>>BTW, this is my first posting to this group, I applaud the vision of its
>founders in pursuing their idea...
>
>I just found them recently too, and, believe me,  they're great!

   Well, as half of the alt.polyamory creative team, I gratefully and
gracefully accept these accolades... 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!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jladwig@soils.umn.edu (John Ladwig)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Reply-To: john.ladwig@soils.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:21:51 GMT

In <1992Aug12.131320.20256@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:


> Chris English Writes:
> >Hmm... What about opportunities that present themselves without the
> >other partner being available for discussion?  Should they be
> >declined, and thus perhaps lost?
> 
>Well, there are some opportunities that only present themselves once.
>For instance, if you should meet a person while you are travelling.  If
>your partner is not available for discussion and you're worried about 
>what they're going to think, then *maybe* a decline is best.  But if you
>want to prevent this indecision, you should discuss this situation with
>your partner before this situation presents itself.  Then you will know
>where you stand.

Elise and I have a standing pattern of taking temperature before
leaving on any solo trips, for just this reason.  If either partner is
not feeling completely comfortable giving "use your best judgement and
have fun" consent, then all outside activities are off until we are
reunited.

Seems simple enough, and avoids lots of unpleasant surprises.

--
	     UMN Department of Soil Science; St. Paul, MN

Internet: john.ladwig@soils.umn.edu             Fidonet: John Ladwig 1:282/8
          jladwig@torpedo.forestry.umn.edu       
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: spz@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (S.P.Zeidler)
Subject: Re: Non-Heinlein Poly fiction
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:21:04 GMT

Another suggestion, even if not expressly about polyamoury:
Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Wahlverwandschaften
(for those of you not reading German :-), its title should be sth along
the lines of 'the chosen relatives'. It's a classic, there shhould be
several translations around.)

regards,
	spz
-- 
        spz is S.Petra Zeidler  Copyright 1992 S.Petra Zeidler
spz@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de  
 MPI fuer Radioastronomie Bonn  
    Auf dem Huegel 69, Germany  reading prescription: cum kilo salis
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory