HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: being "in love"
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:03:29 GMT


heather e blair writes:
> A friend of mine (bi female with a girlfriend) just came out to her 
> mother, and her ma is in the "denial" phase: "you're too young to know
> [your sexual orientation]", "can't you [and your lover] say you're
> just friends", "why does sexuality have to enter into it?".

Diane's (my SO) mom had (IMHO) a very unexpected reaction.  She said, 
"Well, at least you're not lesbian, I would hate for you to limit your
possibilities."  Definitely not a reaction that we expected... :)
(Please, no flames about the above quote... I didn't say it.)

> He then replied that he didn't
> see how this alleged love could compare to the "simple love" he felt for
> his wife and son.  

I've never known love to be "simple."  Heck, it's one of the most complex
things that I know of, and it's unique for each relationship.

> Anyway, what I want to ask you net.people is whether you think that their
> are people who have never experienced erotic love for anybody, same or
> opposite sex? 

Probably... due to the fact that they most likely see it as lust... and for
some people, lust is bad and wrong.

> And do you think the invocation of "love" is a good or bad technique for
> convincing the sceptical straight-person?

As long as you're both talking the same type of "love."  If not, then you
may have to discuss some of the components of love... trust, caring,
passion, desire, affection, communication, etc.  Then maybe when they see
that motss love has the same components as motos love, they will be a
little more convinced (but then again... maybe not *frown*).


Opinions of,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: Socratic silliness (was Re: Multiple Orientations?)
Reply-To: orc@pell.chi.il.us
Organization: Ministry of Skritching
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:55:25 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Sep29001349@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
|In article <1992Sep29.002123.10676@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
|> In article <ZEN.92Sep28165017@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
[much discussion about dying for ideals]

|> |... many people with wonderful ideas did die violently.  I
|> |wonder what would happen if they had backed down when challenged.
|>    Some did.  And then found ways to get around the challenge, and
|> continue to work.  Ideas are an amazingly fluid material; unless you
|> are dead, you can continue to think, and these thoughts will get out
|> from under the most thorough blanket of disapproval.
|
|  But the question is if you keep hiding, will the thoughts ever get
|out?  Some will, but some would be lost forever, at least to the rest of
|us...

   And if you're dead, then what?  Being dead, in this context, is a *very
*good way to hide.

|is it better an individual to live longer, or for them to try to
|influence their world and society?  Do we have a responsibility, as
|bisexuals, as people, to change anything, to make it a better world for
|us or for others?

   In my case, living longer gives me more chance of influencing my world
or society.  If I were to die now, that would be that; any impact I have
on the world would soon be forgotten. If I stick around and continue to
be a gadfly, more people will encounter my deathless drivel and possibly
be influenced by it.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ The man with no email address.
		 \/
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Blueberry Demuffinings.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 19:28:45 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Whatever.

In article <j5qz80p@rpi.edu> safarj@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jonah Emanuel Safar) writes:
-> One, they doubt my professed sexuality.  Namely, if I do not perform, I
->am not what I say.

Gee, sucks for them, I suppose ... I've gotten that kind of reaction when
I've told people I'm bi, and then mentioned I was a complete virgin (not a
problem anymore *wide grin* *blush*).  I personally don't let it bother me.
I mean, hell, if they doubt your sexuality, I suppose they may not go to bed
with you, which is generally the idea in this case, right?

-> Two, ever had someone who doesn't take a hint and won't take no for an
->answer?

No ... I don't meet many rapists in RL ...

-> So, <Hugs!> to you all, and come what may.

*hugs*, Jonah.

No comment about the rest ... :)

Welcome to soc.bi ...
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport         rsr@soda.berkeley.edu          bi-bdsm@ocf.berkeley.edu
        "In my opinion, anyone who wants to can call themselves a pervert
           or a queer but slut is a compliment you have to earn." -SFJ
From: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (Arrowsmith)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Some fears and doubts about my sexuality
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:05:50 GMT
Organization: Surrealists against Lobsters

In article <1992Sep30.010759.13687@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.172101.34697@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (Arrowsmith) writes:
>>                                      Why is the only ABBA fan I know
>>determinedly straight, much to the annoyance of at least two people I
>>know?
>
>Not true! I am *not* annoyed by it, just intrigued.
>Or was I not one of the 'at least two'? (-8
>
Honestly, all the egos around here thinking I was talking about them!
No, you weren't one of the two I thought of, and neither was Mike, but
you notice I left the escape clause of "at least ..." if you want to 
add yourself to the list.  And I'm not going to be naming names (not
here, anyway....)

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked
 about." -- Wilde, if my memory's not fallen apart again....


--
\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:
                              | folk....     |  --Mike Oldfield, "Taurus II"
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Sults)
Subject: Re: female v. male bisexuals.
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:34:06 GMT

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:

>(*wide grin* not like I have a choice in the matter :) ) ... _I_,
>personally, currently do believe that a woman would have an instinctively
>better/easier time pleasing another woman (not that this is not a handicap
>men cannot get over with with lots of practice, but practice, wrt women,
>is something I have _none_ of :) ) ... I have this vague suspicion I'd just
>sort of get in the way ...

Its funny - a lot of people seem to think that women know instinctively
how to please other women.  After all we do have the same body parts and
should be able to find each others clits.  I think I may  even have 
thought this at some stage in my life.

In truth I find women very complex sexually.  Whenever I sleep with a
woman I am generally stunned at how different she is physically
from me, and I wonder how I will ever find my way around.  I have alot
of sympathy for men and no longer wonder at those blind adolescent
fumblings. 

The biggest mistake one can make with a woman is to assume she  likes
things other women like.  I actually don't find men quite as complex.
Nor do I find that men are as easily pleased as a lot of sex manuals
make out.  

The best thing is to avoid "practice" and go for alot of explicit
communication.  Makes great foreplay too!  Followed by a lot of
exploration.

Iseult.
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Was socrates bisexual? (Was: Re: Multiple Orientations?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:57:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <ZEN.92Sep28142147@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
+things (general troublemaker, stirring up bad feelings, etc.)  In any
+case, I think that this again goes back to bisexuality (doesn't
+everything?  *grin*) -- that some people would rather die than have to
+continually hide themselves from the world (maybe socrates was bi?)  In

Uh?? From any indication left in Play-dough, Socrates was thrilled
at the sight of young boys in all their naked glory. But
unfortunately for the rest of the last 2.5 millenia, Play-dough saw
fit to suggest that Socrates never pursued these boys, but held
himself in restraint.

Or, Platonic Love really means, "You're so fucking good looking that
I'd like to throw you on the nearest bed and fuck my brains out, but
I'll restrain myself and fold my hand and cross my legs".
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: More fun photos
Date: 27 Sep 92 03:00:40 GMT
Organization: 6am Digital Playground
Address: Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, ENGLAND.
X-Furry-Character: Gerald_Duck
Telephone-messages: +44 223 33 4900

In article <t2xqbtwh@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.204826.26261@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
>>I *might* come by a 24-bit colour scanner sometime in the next few
>>weeks, although I'd only have it for a few days if I did. It would be
>>long enough to digitise a few pictures, however, and I suppose these
>>would be as good as any for system testing... (-8
>
>We have an A3 24-bit colour flatbed scanner here.  I used it for the
>first time yesterday to scan Klimt's "Fulfilment" for Judes.  It'll
>scan 8, 12, and 24-bit depth at densities from 30 to 600 dots per inch,
>and can write out TIFF, Targa, and other such useful formats.

OK. Kay gets the chocolate biscuit for best scanning facilities, I
suppose.

I'd like to see the pictures, too.

--Clive.
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Where are the bisexuals?
Date: 4 Oct 1992 20:51:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct4.133147.11002@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
->I'm like to pursue the question of what are the "natural habitats"
->of bisexuals in today's society -- spaces that are bi-friendly or
->tolerant enough to encourage bis to be visible.

I was going to mention Furry ... but you beat me to it ...

-> - FurryMUCK 
->
->(I haven't been there, but it's got a reputation ;)

As a rather avid furry person, whose character is bi (AND (!) a
gendershifter), I'm going to have to _way_ second that comment ... Furry is
so bi-positive it's not even funny ... I think I can count the number of
people I know there and who are monos on the fingers of three hands (any
volunteers for a helping hand?) ... 

Furry has been a rather cool influence on me ... I got comfortable with the
idea of male-male sex in Furry (lost my TinyVirginity there on my first
night *grinblush*) ... explored my communication skills, found I was a
BDSMer in Furry, met my MSO on Furry, met someone else who I'm heavily
involved with right now in Furry ...  Not to mention working on some <ahem>
skills that I worked on in Furry (at least in theory, I suppose) that I
think do have some relevance to RL.

I also got a bit more comfortable with polyamory in Furry (having something
on the order of 3 SOs + X close lovers had something to do with it, I think
:) ) ... 

So, err, yes.  Furry is a very friendly place to visit (sometimes _too_
friendly) ... I'd recommend it highly to any bisexual / pervert ...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport         rsr@soda.berkeley.edu          bi-bdsm@ocf.berkeley.edu
          I'm not gay but my boyfriend ... err, actually he's bi also.
DISCLAIMER:  "I meant every word of it ... but nobody else did."
From: pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: real men and women
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:00:24 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

vashti@concave.cs.wits.ac.za (Vashti Galpin) wrote...
>I have changed the newsgroups to soc.bi as I feel that I would like to discuss
>only on soc.bi (I don't know if this is correct?)
Not only correct, but generally a good idea.

By the way, welcome to soc.bi!

[Vashti replies to Eric's assertion that women need to teach him 
 about sexism:]
>This is similar to a discussion that occurred on soc.feminism a while
>ago, and there were some nice quotes which I don't remember. In effect
>part of what you are saying is that what women must do to sort out this
>mess that gender relations are in right now, is to spend their time and
>energy on men, but women have always been told that man are more
>important; and I think a lot of women are saying enough, we are going
>to spend time and energy on ourselves right now, the rest can come
>later. 

I was hoping someone would bring this point up.

In my area, how much energy women should spend trying to teach
men about sexism, was a very hot topic in the early '80s, and
still is to some degree.  Fortunately in the meantime, the 
availablity of other resources for men to learn about sexism
has grown.  

There are women's bookstores, there are bookstores that
have women's (and men's) sections, there are university
libraries, there are men's groups (some that focus on sexism),
and there are entire men's networks.

In the San Francisco area (since you were responding to Eric - 
who lives there), there is a veritable plethora of possiblities.
Off the top of my head, for women's bookstores there is
Old Wives Tales in SF, the newer Boadecia's in Kensington,
and Sisterspirit in San Jose.  (There was one in Berkeley,
but I don't know where it is anymore).

There are several men's groups listed in the weekly papers
(the Guardian and the Express), and there is also a men's
network listed.

And I won't even go into all the universities...
Though I will mention that anyone can use the online library
catalog (called Melvyl) for the Univerity of Calif. (all of them) 
and Stanford.  To do so type:
	telnet 31.1.0.1
	or
	telnet melvyl.ucop.edu

Ellen
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: Re: being "in love"
	<1992Oct6.140329.12145@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:23:19

"bbooth" == Brad Booth <bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca> writes:

bbooth> Diane's (my SO) mom had (IMHO) a very unexpected reaction.
bbooth> She said, "Well, at least you're not lesbian, I would hate for
bbooth> you to limit your possibilities."  Definitely not a reaction
bbooth> that we expected... :) (Please, no flames about the above
bbooth> quote... I didn't say it.)

Wonder what she'd have said if your SO said "mom, I'm straight."
Would she have gotten the "don't limit your possibilities" lecture? 

1/2 :-)

I doubt it. 
--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
                              '92 R100R, DoD# 0378
"I love the iPSC/860.
The iPSC/860 is my friend." (repeat until your code runs...)
From: bethan@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Bethan Davies)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Disturbed
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:01:28 GMT
Followup-To: soc.bi
Distribution: soc.bi
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <BvApu2.2yH@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>bethan@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Bethan Davies) writes:
>
>
>>Well, the one I have (and I suspect Clive too), has Kay holding a packet
>>of condoms above my head, with his usual innocently wicked grin... me?
>>Oh, I'm just smiling innocently...
>
>I notice it didn't figure in the photo collection you showed us on Friday
>(Saturday?)... next time I shall insist!

Are you _sure_ about that....? It should have been. Hmmm... I really must
get these photos sorted.


Bethan (who needs a graded access set of photo albums...)


>//jon (who *still* hasn't seen Ellen's photos from Dave's party either)

Yes, I know, I know. It was _completely_ my fault for not reminding Sara
that you'd be at the meeting on Thursday (grovel, grovel). Never mind...
just think that it'll give you the perfect excuse to come up to Edinburgh
again.....
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Some fears and doubts about my sexuality
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:50:43 GMT

In article <6216@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> colin@man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
>In all the talk of what it (a) takes, and (b) means to be bi, this really
>sums up my conclusion that "bisexual" is a completely crap label.  As it
>happens, I like sex with both men and women, therefore I'm bisexual.  If
>I want a label to describe all the other closely related parts of me - the
>parts of me that seem most closely to connect me with many in this group,
>then the best I can come up with is "sexual dissident", though the "sexual
>anarchist" that was bandied about a few days ago might do just as well.
>Note that, in this context, "sexual" means both the messy stuff involving
>body fluids, and that which is often (colloquially) referred to as "gender".
>
>That said, as "z" said:
>|> Bi is not a hard category because bi means a loosening of categories.
>
>Ooh, I just *love* having my categories loosened...  I now take "bi" as
>being a synonym for "sexual dissident".  Perhaps this is what people mean
>by "queer".
>

This makes me think about bi affinities to neo-paganism, as I have on
occasion called it "spiritual anarchy" (in contrast to the "spiritual
imperialism" of the "Kingdom of God" fundamentalists).

Both groups are diverse and resist neat definitions -- I've seen heated
discussion of if paganism is a "religion" and if it should be spelled with 
a capital "P".

Though in my case, I might be accused of "sitting on the fence" between
christianity and neo-paganism, too. ;)

Freedom of religion is supposed to be protected, but in practice this
works out too often to mean "freedom to choose your brand of Christianity".
-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Some fears and doubts about my sexuality
Date: 1 Oct 1992 12:17:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct1.014742.28171@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
->                 ____
->   david parsons \bi/ "Mommy, what's a wannafuck?"
->		    \/   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not going to answer that ... not really ...

All I _will_ say, is that in VR, my best record (best record? that may be a
redundancy) is 14 seconds on an IRC channel before getting a wannafuck.  In
RL, I got a wannafuck on my first date.  Ever.  With a man.  *grin* 

-roy, who refused both, and is sortof-regretting one of them ...

You know, it's interesting how certain completely innocuous incidents gain
new light when you look back at them ... I was talking with one of my best
friends a few days ago and we thought back to the days when I wasn't bi
(*grin*) and a certain night, when, while in the middle of friendly argument
or something he said "blow me!"

Yes, he said that.  It's OK.  It used to be our favorite
thing-to-say-to-a-friend thing ... Problem was, this was when there was just
him, me, and a third close friend ... 

so we started a game of chicken.  AKA who will stop first ...

I believe we got to the point where his zipper was pulled down before he
relented and gave in.  I do _not_ lose at chicken :).  

We talked about this a few days ago, as I said.  He said that if the third
person wasn't there, he could have quite probably gone further ...

My first reaction was "Thank God he was there."

My second reaction was "Err, actually, damn ... could have been fun."

*wide grin*


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport    rsr@soda.berkeley.edu  anonymus+328@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
               It's a great day to be a bisexual pervert.
DISCLAIMER:  "I meant every word of it ... but nobody else did."
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Platonic reflections (Re: Multiple Orientations?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:31:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Sep30.183126.8967
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Platonic love.  Y'all are shaming me into re-reading the Phaedrus in
my copious spare time, and to compare the place of sexuality in that
dialogue to the Symposium.  The Symposium seems to be down on physical
love - it is a kind of lesser love, which Socrates transcends when he
doesn't fuck his beloved, Alcibiades.

There's also that peculiar remark somewhere that the lowest kind of love
is to love just one person.  The next step is to generalize to all 
beautiful bodies.  The next step, to leave out the body part altogether.
This struck me as strange, and I'll check the reference if anyone's 
interested.

But the Phaedrus is often interpreted as giving a place to sexuality -
the dark horse that represents the "spirited" part of the soul.
But it's been a zillion years since I read the Phaedrus and I may be
remembering something else entirely.

In the Alcibiades I, a dialogue that most people think is a fake, 
Socrates says if you love somebody for their body, you don't love them, 
you love what belongs to them.  If you love somebody for their money
or property, you love what belongs to what belongs to them.

I guess we should all conclude that loving someone for their body is
better than loving someone for their money.

I don't know what to make of the anti-sexual sound of a lot of Plato.

-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi