HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler)
Subject: Re: The Resurrection of the Grinch
Reply-To: bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 03:22:03 GMT


In a previous article, grinch@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Dave Ferguson) says:

>*BOUNCE*
>*BOUNCE*
>*BOUNCE*
>
>HI GANG!!!!  
>
>I'm back to my perky self again, so I just thought I'd post so y'all can
>start getting some restful nights again.
>
> [stuff omitted]
>I just wanted to say I'm back.  Thanks to everyone who sent e-pick-me-ups...
>they really helped a lot.  
>
>Until I post again...
>
>Daemon -- as bouncy and mouthy as ever



YAAAAAAAAYYY!!

(Sorry, I could try to be in control of myself, and act mature.  But
this is soc.bi.)
-- 
|Jeff Epler               Additions Welcome           c(-8 ;-) >{8-) |
| :) (=( =-] (-= Celebrating the variety of faces =-> :^) {-= |-) (: |
|                                                   Lincoln, Nebraska|
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Hetero/bi/homophobia (Was: Lesbian denial)
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:34:29 GMT

"Homophobia" is a contraction of "homosexual phobia." Its original
meaning was something along the following lines (sorry, I don't have a
reference for this handy but should be able to find one somewhere if
you're really interested):

	If you place a person in a room full of homosexual people and
	that person feels panicy and distressed then that person can be
	said to be suffering from homophobia. In essence, homophobia is
	an _irrational_ _fear_ of homosexuality.

Over the years the term "homophobia" has taken on a different meaning:
a _dislike_ of homosexuality. Sometimes (often?) a _dislike_ is a
result of an _irrational_ _fear_ so the original and more modern
meaning of homophobia are somewhat related, though far from
equivalent.

So, how about the term "heterophobia"? This would seem to suggest an
_irrational_ dislike/fear of heterosexual people. And that's where my
problem with this term lies. Often a GLB person's dislike/fear of
heterosexual people has a firm basis rather than being irrational. As
such, I think it does not make sense to refer to it as a phobia.


In <1992Jul27.162224.6331@HQ.Ileaf.COM>
mhk@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mark Kaepplein x1517) writes:
>I'm using "heterophobe" and "homophobe" equivelently.

That's just it. They are _not_ equivalent. One is most often purely
irrational in nature while the other is often a mixture of good reason
and irrationality (the proportions in the mixture vary from person to
person).

To claim that these two terms are equivalent is nonsense (it fails to
take into account the power imbalance which makes issues in sexual
politics asymmetrical across both gender and sexuality borders) and
that is why I could not make any sense to your previous posting.

The definition you give of biphobia in your latest posting is similarly
flawed.

>It doesn't matter if you're straight or gay. Fear and denial are
>trouble.

Agreed.

>If you try and strictly define yourself into a rigid little
>box, you're destined for trouble.  That's why I feel bi's have it more
>together - accepting and acknowledging whatever feelings come along.

Is it just me or does anybody else find this to be bisupremist?


<> What does promiscuous mean today -- more sex than you
<> are getting or more sex than I am getting?
<> --- Rob Bernardo

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 \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: Hetero/bi/homophobia (Was: Lesbian denial)
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:47:15 GMT

In <1992Jul28.174859.7324@HQ.Ileaf.COM>
mhk@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mark Kaepplein x1517) writes:

>You carefully evaded the major point of my article: fear of hetero-
>eroticism and homoeroticism.

No, rather it is hard for me to comprehend whatever point you are
trying to make when you use undefined (or wrongly defined) terms.

>I don't care if some fundie is a bit antsy in a den of queens, but
>when some "we gotta prove our masculinity, let's go bash some fags"
>young men (denying homoerotic feelings) go on the rampage, there's a
>problem needing addressing.

Nobody is disputing that.

>Its usually feelings incongruent with one's identity that provoke such
                                 ^^^^^^^
>violent actions.

I hate it when people pull broad, sweeping statements out of thin air.
(Why do I hate this? Because too often they are incorrect.) Would it be
possible for you to either back up this claim or restrict yourself to
arguing from personal experience?

I am not trying to say that I disagree with your viewpoint---just your
presentation of it.


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: pclary@radish.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Look who's back - (was Re: Coming Out)
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:52:38 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) wrote...
>Aww, don't tell me there was some bbq-ripple at that party and I missed it!
>(Not to mention the chance to lick it off Ciaran, or anybody). Not fair :-(
>
>/jon (the other one who likes bbq-ripple)

No, Sara banned it.  (And I certainly didn't object.)
I think she threatened to use her clippers on anyone who brought it.

Ellen
From: pclary@radish.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bi in body or in mind (was Re: Bis and marriage)
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:12:35 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Iseult White) wrote...
>pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>
>
>>By the way, long time muffin Coe is considering posting.
>
>Coe - will you please stop teasing us with this "I might get around
>to posting" and actually do it.  I'll never ever lend you a certain
>memebership card again if you don't.  

But she did.  Your newsfeed must be a little slow.
Threatening her with the use of a certain membership card might not
work - she went ahead and got one of her own.

Ellen
So Iseult, what shall we plan to entertain Sara?  <the mind reels>
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Lesbian denial (was: Life does funny things sometimes)
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:02:24 GMT

In <1992Jul22.150841.3472@HQ.Ileaf.COM>
mhk@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mark Kaepplein x1517) writes:

>[...]
>Mark
>(too controversial for a recent poster?)

In a way, yes. I, and I suspect most people, react to questions based
not only on the question itself but also on who is asking it. Anything
"controversial" from a stranger may well be met with a gruff response,
but the same question may be given a much more considered reply if
asked by a friend.

So, as a recent poster, do not be too surprised if my response seems
somewhat gruff. Anyway, onto the body of your posting.

>Why is it that lesbians are in big time denial about two subjects:
>1. Lesbian domestic battering.
>2. Heterosexual feelings.

(The questions you raise are phrased in a very loaded manner.)
Domestic battering is probably as much a problem for other sections of
the population as it is for lesbians (possibly more so). So too is
denial of the problem. I have seen at least one book which addresses
the issue but I can't remember its name.

As for denial of heteroerotic feelings... it certainly happens, but then
so does denial of homoerotic feelings in heterosexual people.


>For such a community of aware, caring, loving, supportive... to reject,
>ostricise, and harrass bi-women seems contridictory.

Not at all. As I said before:

	Being oppressed is no guarantee that you won't be a bigot. If
	it were then I'd do the world a favour and oppress everybody.

It is certainly unfortunate and undesirable but by no means
contridictory.

>One of my dearest friends is a lesbian. We shared an apartment for a couple
>years until she moved out of state, and have kept in close touch since.
>She is positively HETEROphobic.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please state _clearly_ what you mean by this term.

>Seems heterophobia is more rampant among lesbians than homophobia
>among straights.

Methinks you don't know what you are talking about.


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 \/
Xref: sparky soc.bi:9576 soc.motss:32615
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: The War Between Us (Long)
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:41:58 GMT
Followup-To: soc.bi
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Bs0Ku2.Cv1@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott) writes:
+
+Here I am, thinking that I'm in my tribe and I'm safe and welcome and
+everyone is all warm and caring.  Then, I get hit by 'Bi's and
+Marriage'.  And of course the follow-up is Steve Dyer's 'every
+"bisexual" has a MOTOS hanging off hir arm'.  Boom.  The earlier
+elation, the halcyon days (brief as they were) are over.

I remember now, I was going to mention sometime about Steve Dyer's
post. I have been reading some about the changes in the 'family' in
the US over the last hundred years. One of the 'facts' presented by
one author was the shift from 'homosocial' organizations to the
'home' for the emotional support and general socialization.

It struck me as 'odd' that in an age which had a number of blatent
homophobic attitudes, that the emotional and social support would in
fact be classed as 'homosocial'. But then it has struck me before
about the 19th century's attitude that 'men should do most
everything worth doing with men except fuck'.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky soc.bi:9606 soc.motss:32641
From: julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Leaving for now...
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:50:33 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club


Hi people-- I'm going to do something which might seem unfair, which
is to drop out of this right in the middle of it.  I've suddenly
realized that I have a lot of my own issues to be working on right now
and I simply do not have the time to contiue this topic in a deserving
manner.

What it boils down to is that I'll have to stop reading this newsgroup
for some time and maybe come back to it in the future.  My e-mail
address is Julie@Drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu if anyone wants to contact me
privately and I'll be glad to talk to anyone who wants.  I just have
too much to think about with this stuff running interference with it
all right now.  Sorry...

--Julie
                                                                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------            

"Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along...  All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger." 

                          -- Hermann Goering, 1936
From: Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: On sex with men
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 21:07:51 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I think I have seen this myself. Although my experience is limited, my former
gay lover was more (what is the word) I guess animalistic than the bi lover I
have been with. More agressive and energetic(?). Not that I mean any of this
derogatory to either on.

I think this requires further study, Perhaps we could set up a research pro-
ject complete with detailed experiments. What do you say?

Ben Gibson

******************************************************************************
I love the smell of burnt feather and cordite- D.Duck

Drakon@cup.portal.com
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Lycra
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:54:02 GMT

>>>
>>> Weeell.. Anyone who's interested in this, alt.lycra is currently proposed in
>>>alt.config. If there's any interest, pleeeeeeezzzzee show it.. <grin> 
>> 
>> I am definitely voting against it.  If I start thinking about lycra at work,
>> I won't be able to get anything at all done.
>
> *snif*  Alright then.. is it okay if I just email you about it instead ?  :)

Well, maybe just a little bit.  But don't mention those tight little...
oh, no, I have to stop doing this during working hours.
--scott
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: 'women's' vs 'lesbian'
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:50:04 GMT

In article <Bs3GBE.MBI@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>alan@osf.org (Alan Hamilton) writes:
>>dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>>> In the brief reading I put in on the subject this term (the
>>> University Library is sadly lacking in this subject) it seems that
>>> both male and female bisexuals form stronger emotional bonds with
>>> other females.
>
>I nearly followed-up to this yesterday, to ask: what, all of us?

Like most clinical studies (those being the kind found in University
Libraries) the point is mired in statistics.  A friend in the social
sciences made the point to me that if you didn't quantify research it
wouldn't be taken seriously (she was doing some research and I remarked
how odd I thought all her quantitative analysis seemed given the qualitative
nature of her study).

People are sometimes too much in love with what can be done with numbers
(Kinsey scale, case in point?), and it becomes a trap as easy to fall into
as falling in love with the beauty of your argument rather than believing in
it (Republicans, case in point? :-)).

>>This isn't just true of bisexuals, though.  Both males and females in
>>the general population generally form stronger emotional bonds with
>>females than with males.  If a person has a close friend or best
>>friend, that friend is more likely to be female than male.
>
>I wish people would quote sources when making enormous generalisations
>like this.

Just Alan's, or did you want me to source my statements as well?

>I can't speak for the "general population" of the world, but in northern
>England at least, most (ie het) men have a "best mate" who is a man, and
>is usually a closer friend than any woman.
>
>Of all my male friends, only the gay (or high-end Kinsey scale) ones have
>close women friends.

My closest friend happens to be the woman I am married to, so having fallen
into the statistical argument I had read, I wasn't in a position to dispute
it.  In fact, on a personal level I am inclined to agree with what the book
had to say.  But haven taken no surveys on the matter, can't support the
author in general.

>/jon


Brad
From: pclary@radish.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Ireland Party (was Re: Muffin Alert!)
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:36:22 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

>In article <24184@castle.ed.ac.uk> sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing) writes:
>>No, I DO NOT DRIVE!!!  I gather this is sacrilige in that part of the
>>world.
Small correction.  _You_ do not drive a _car_.

Ellen
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Alt.sex.wizards
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:08:53 GMT


Well, following the peeping of a little bird from this very group, I looked.
The point had already been made by another poster in the group about male
oriented threesomes.  What will be interesting is the reaction to this posting.

Anyways, what I was really wondering was whether that 'lile' person was for
real.

lile writes:

>the possible positions we could come up with. One I have dreamed
>about quite a bit is a circle position where each person is eating
>the next so we make a circle of three or prehaps a triangle.
>
>Hmmm... I wonder if this is where the use of the triangle symbol 
>to represent bi's came from....
>
>Anyways, another really hot fantasy is to make love with the other
>woman while the male watchs and rubs his cock. In our love making
>we would eat each other and slide our bodies all over each other
>til we come like music instruments. :)
>
>Of course, I also enjoy fantasizing about larger numbers of people
>being involved...
>
>So far, I have recently made love to another woman for the first time
>and I thought the whole experience was really great. Woman have
>the most beautiful bodies. We're like flowers! Anyways, I feel so
>happy and commplete from this experience, like a coming home. Now 
>I would like to try such a threesome as you mentioned. Wish me luck!
>
>-lile

This doesn't sound quite right to me.  It sounds like a male
fantasizing about a woman fantasizing about a threesome.  But my foot
is too freshly out of my mouth to want to plant it back there again,
although the part about the 'use of the triangle symbol' really bugged
me.  What I want to say is 'Yup, you got it you clueless fuck -- the triangle
is a symbol that the only thing bi's are good for is threesomes'.

It also sounds like what I might have written were I out to jerk some chains.


Brad
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: The War Between Us (Long)
Keywords: Just a harmless little old survey...
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:01:46 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

In <hghnb9yl@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>I'd have said that 2-5 inclusive was bisexual enough, if you go by the
>Kinsey scale. [...]

Hmmm... Why is it that so many people are non-symmetrical when
mentioning the range of bisexuality on the Kinsey scale? If you consider
a Kinsey 5 to be bisexual, they why not a Kinsey 1?

I'm not picking specifically on Kay here. Somebody else said the same
thing a few months back, and this typo/thinko also appears _twice_ in
"Bi Any Other Name."

Maybe the people who think in this non-symmetrical fashion need to more
C programming so that they get used to thinking in terms of 0, rather
than 1, being the start of arrays (and the Kinsey scale).


<> I hate straight people who say, "I don't see why you feel the need to
<> wear those buttons and t-shirts.  I don't go around telling the whole
<> world I'm straight." --- "Queers Read This"

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: The War Between Us (Long)
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:57:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Jul29.034511.27697@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> cjohnson@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Coe Salzgeber) writes:
+I've been trying to think of a good analogy; this is the best i
+can do (with assistance from a net.cutie):
+Let's say you come from a family that has lived in your area for
+centuries.  There is a country club that your family has belonged
+to for generations, and has always been an important part of your
+family's interactions and traditions.  (let's also assume family
+interactions and traditions are important to you :^) )  But you 

This analogy reminds me of a 'soc.couples' type debate awhile back.
The 'thesis' was that a certain fellow was only going to look for a
suitable partner from the set of women who were jewish.

The net.consensus seemed to be that this, in this modern age, was a
limiting point of view. But from this fellow's point of view, his
wife and children would be excluded from the 'club' unless his wife was
jewish (rather than having his children 'convert' at later date,
but then there's probably some sort of discrimination).

Far be it from me to define for jews, or anyother group in which I
have no membership, what is it that defines a person jewish. Until
recently, by just marrying outside the club, a person lost his
family and heritage, a somewhat costly price. But in recent times
the number of jews marrying non-jews has increased, to the point
that some jews are concerned about the disappearance of the club as
a whole (well that's pretty catastrophic, but the number seems to be
approaching 50% jew to non-jew marriage.)

After all this rambling, what's the point? Well, the change in
attitude about jews to non-jews and marriage seems to based not in
'non-marriage' but in fact marriage. Maybe in the 17th the one
jewish person who married outside the club could be ostricized, but
now that the number is 50%, families of 2-3 children would be
distroyed. So the attitude changed.

So the thought I have on the subject of marriage, is rather than
'to marry or not to marry' but rather, change the definition, and if
some can obtain 'state' blessing, and still have a alternative to
the 'the only sucessful marriage is one wherein one or both of the
two parties is dead'.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Pseudo-monthly Posting: The Redhead List
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:03:24 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

In article <1992Jul29.161754.1678@sci.kun.nl> rhialto@cs.kun.nl (Olaf
Seibert) writes:

>
>	    **************************************
>	    *					 *
>	    *	       The Redhead List 	 *
>	    *					 *
>	    **************************************
>
>	  A service to all redhead hunters on soc.bi.

I didn't realise there was a formal list! Oh well, stick me on it (anything
for a laugh :-)). I have auburn/brown hair, which with the help of the sun
and/or henna shampoo (which Boots don't seem to do anymore) it can go quite
ginger-ish. Short, but getting longer. When I was a kid, it was very ginger
(as was my brother's). My mum used to joke that she could see us from three
miles away on a clear day. I dearly wish that my hair had not gone dark. If
it follows the pattern of my mum's father (who also had ginger hair) it will
be black by the time I'm forty. Boo, hiss!

Owen.

The views expressed are my own and are not necessarily those of Acorn.
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: tal@plts.uucp
Subject: Possible bi get-together in New Jersey!
Organization: Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:59:20 GMT

We're thinking of having a bi-party at our place in about 2 weeks.
It will be drug-free, alcohol-free, etc.  If you're interested,
write to me and I'll keep you up to date.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
      Maybe Bush will follow Perot's lead.
Newsgroups: soc.bi