HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: reactions to polyamory
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:37:23
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu


This is a letter from someone who cannot post.  He spoke to a class
about his polyamorous relationship and I asked him to tell me about what
happened.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
About a year and a half ago a friend of mine who teaches a "Marriage & Family"
class at the local community college asked me to participate in a roundtable
discussion on alternative relationships.  I reluctantly agreed (I'm kinda on
the shy side... yeah, right).

Here were the participants:
  A long distance marriage.  Husband lives in Brazil, wife lives in the US.
  A role reversal.  House husband, wife supports family.
  A gay male couple.  One had kids from a former marriage and was raising them.
  A polyamorous relationship. (me) Married (at the time) for 12 years.
                                   (It's 14 years now :)

The format was to have everyone give a talk on how the relationship developed
and how it functioned.  After each person/couple gave their talk the class
(of which the age range was 18-35) was allowed to ask questions.

Only a were asked of the first two couples.  The gay couple were asked a
fair amount of questions mostly focusing on raising the kids and how their
lifestyle might affect them.  But in general, all of the class was able to
relate with all three couples' relationships.

Not true for me!  They grilled me for over 45 minutes during the question and
answer session.  The class ended after 15 minutes but I guess the whole class
decided to stay over and rake me over the coals.  Actually it wasn't all that
bad because I like talking about how I feel, but it was kind of disconcerting
that no one in the class could relate to where I was coming from.  The
questions they asked were the usual.  "Don't you worry that your SO will find
someone better and leave you?"  "Then why get married?"  "But what about the
third person, is that fair to them?"  "Why do you need more than one person?"
"How can you be *in love* with more than one person?" and on and on... 

The nice thing was that it gave me a chance to put into words some things that
I hadn't had to before.  I understood myself better because of it.  The
teacher complimented me on how well I stated my beliefs when under so much
opposition.  I had one student come up afterward and thank me for sharing.
Only one.   :(  I was truly amazed at the lack of acceptance.  I can only
hope that in the end love will prevail...

Peace and Love,
  Marky
--"It's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired."

                                        -Lazarus Long

--

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: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:41:14
Organization: savage hackers
	<ZEN.92Aug28102359@death.corp.sun.com> <BtrGL2.ICn@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: apl@world.std.com's message of Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:53:26 GMT


In article <BtrGL2.ICn@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
> In article <ZEN.92Aug28102359@death.corp.sun.com> I write:
> >  I hear this kind of thing all the time... why don't you just go up and
> >*talk* to her?  You're not going to know if you want a relationship with
> >her until you talk a bit anyway 
> Your advice is good...
> [...]
> All I was trying to do was to explain to Muffy that many of the men who 
> seemingly ignored her might have been going through some real torturous
> thought processes.

  Indeed.  I was just saying that I know it works, from firsthand
experience, especially since I was the one guy that came up and talked
to muffy.  Gorgeous women (and men) really can be very nice -- as a
matter of fact, strictly from personal experience, I've found that they
are nicer, on the whole, than the not-so-beautiful-on-the-outside.  I
just don't know if that's because I'm biased, I try harder, or if they
really are... *smile*  In any case, I've never had anyone be rude to me
when I came up and struck up a conversation, although some were... say
we say "cooler" than others... *grin*

 -- d
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 25 Aug 1992 23:56:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Aug18.125837.25672@bnr.ca> Cynthia Nolan writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.024217.5844@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au
>(Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   Let's turn the tables. Do you really feel that no matter what the 
>>circumstances, and no matter how you're feeling (maybe both parents just
>>died, your cat was run over, you lost your job and one of your testicles
>>just fell off), you have an obligation to be sexually available to your
>>partner, even if only grudgingly via a hand- or mouth-job?!? ...
>
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with you on this, Joe.  One of the attitudes that being
>poly has really developed in me is an understanding that I can't (indeed,
>mustn't) take the responsibility for another person's physical or emotional
>well-being.  
---
	Then they should have no problem with you taking care of it yourself --
right?

	I've had a few partners in the past who actually were uncomfortable
with and/or got mad if I admitted to masturbating (which I did about
twice a day).  They felt I was cheating on them.  

	You may consider this ridiculous.  But by their standards, it wasn't.
So it comes down to "who's standards do we go by?"  Either that, or
you develop a system where your needs are met either in the relation or
outside of it.  To deny yourself constantly for another person can't
really be considered healthy, can it?

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:56:59 GMT

In article <BtK9DA.Hxs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bdienes@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Bruce Dienes) writes:
>
> I think we need to examine our
>addiction (it seems clear to me from looking at popular culture that
>most North Americans are sexually addicted) and decide how we can get
>rid of the addiction, without getting rid of sex.  How can we have warm
>sexual connections with our friends and lovers without the sense of
>compulsion and desperation which I don't believe is inherent?  
>
I was going to take issue with this, but then I thought about it a little
more and *maybe* you have a point here.

The problem that causes (IMHO) the compulsion and desperation is the
lack of easy availability, the strong social pressures against it, and
the entire burden of so-called Judeo/Christian ethics.

If I were locked in a dark, damp room and society told me sunlight and
warmth were BAD, i might be "addicted" to summer days...

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: cgw@sol.acs.unt.edu (christopher williams)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Originator: cgw@sol
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:18:18 GMT

In <l9psd6INN7sh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>	If the other person cannot or will not engage in sex with me
>willingly -- then eventually, for me, the relationship is likely
>*over*.  Since my love relationship include sex, if I am not getting
>that, then there is a failure of the love in my life to provide for
>basic needs of the relationship.  Now "eventually" doesn't mean over
>night and is grey depending on circumstances.  But basically, if they
>don't want to have sex with me anymore, the relationship is likely over.
>This is a fact -- not coercion.  

ditto (mostly, anyway)! (he says as he delurks after having read a.polyamory
for about half an hour (i knew it was there, but i didn't read it because it 
wasn't as important _then_... now, it is. ah, but i'm getting ahead 
of myself).

i also like (very much, indeed) to include sex in my love relationships ..
but with my current SO/roomate/best friend, that's not working out.
she doesn't want to deal with the ``hassle and responsibility'' of having
sex. while i don't quite understand why someone doesn't think having
sex is worth overcoming hassles and taking responsibility. however,
i do love her enough to respect that, even though it makes me very sad.
she loves me enough to respect and understand the fact that i need 
intimate physical contact (on a regular basis). the relationship isn't
over, just... different than it was in the beginning.

so anyway. that's what happened last night (hence, the reason i'm not
reading a.polyamory avidly). i'm now in the not-quite-happy position
of a poly-amour. that is, i'd _prefer_ to be monogamous, but it just
hasn't worked out (and i'm getting callouses!). i NEED intimacy. since
i didn't know until last night that she wouldn't be bothered if i 
dated another person, i didn't pursue that. fortunately, there are
prospects. 

so, what can you tell someone newly poly?

>william
>--
>"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
>the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
>Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

-cgw-

--
christopher williams   cgw@unt.edu  +1 817 565 4161  Just a guy
lead programmer/operator, university of north texas  made of dots and lines.
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:11:13 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>><Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
>>>   Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
>>>wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.
>>
>>To tell the truth, I don't see (from the description I deleted) why
>>Karina was so upset.  Surely the person has a right not to be
>>interested?? (and don't call me Shirley!)  

>   OK, I didn't indicate the dripping malice in their tone well enough.
>It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
>very far away from them indeed.

Ah, the "What!? You fuck small fuzzy woodland creatures before
breakfast!?" tone of voice.

>   So it wasn't just that they "weren't interested" - they were
>extremely offended, and quite rude about it. Karina & I were offended
>that they were so offended. Would they have said it the same way if
>I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
>or something else they simple weren't interested in?

Ok, next question is, why did you bother to restrain Karina?  Sounds
like this person deserved a good in-person flaming.  A short lesson 
on tolerance, at the very least.  Besides, watching such a session
when someone really deserved it can be fun!

-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:54:18 GMT

Marky writes:
>
>[Story of talking with a class about his poly relationships and how much
> opposition he got]
>
>I had one student come up afterward and thank me for sharing.  Only one. :(
>I was truly amazed at the lack of acceptance.  I can only hope that in the
>end love will prevail...

It doesn't surprise me all that much.  The acceptance of poly style 
relationships is VERY low in this society.  I can remember a program on poly
relationships on Donahue where the audience was almost universally hostile to
the guests on the show.  And this was basically the same group of people who
on previous shows had been fairly receptive to strippers and prostitutes
(ever notice how people are more accepting of "deviant" sexuality when there's
monetary exchanges involved?)

One particular exchange during this program brought home to me just how little
understanding there is of the poly lifestyle there is in society: three of the
guests were a FMF triad (one of which, by the way, was Nina Hartly the porn
star).  A female audience member asked one of the women, "doesn't it bother you
when you can hear your husband enjoying himself with another women?"  And the
woman responded, "No, I get turned on by it."

The woman from the audience had this look of total shock and surprise on her
face.  You could tell that never in a million years would it have ever occured
to her that someone could respond that way.

This is how wide the gap really is.
-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: despair@netcom.com (Scott Hanson)
Subject: Re: rethinking polyamory
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 19:19:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

The only person I "converted" became involved with someone who demanded
to be her only lover or no relations (even friendship) at all.  She was 
interested in him enough to agree to this arrangement.  I suppose this
would be more appropriate in alt.angst.

Regards.
-- 
Scott Hanson		This has been a recording.
despair@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ice@netcom.Netcom.COM (I. Chris English)
Subject: Re: sex and relationships (was Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:37:53 GMT
Organization: nope.  Just me.
	<l90di9INN5sf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <MUFFY.92Aug14174910@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>  That is, if I'm seeing A and A starts to
>see B, and B tells A not to have sex with me, then B has some control
>over me, since I'd like to have sex with A and now cannot.

What if the resource in question isn't fidelity, but time?  Now B AND
A have control because they limit the amount of time that A has
available to spend with me.

How are these issues different?
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships?
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:12:30 GMT


In article <paiumnc@fido.asd.sgi.com>, margi@indigo.asd.sgi.com (Margie Levine) writes:
> Hi all -

Greetings! :)

> So, to add to Muffy's questions, here's some of my own.  What does it
> take for you to be motivated to pursue a relationship outside your primary
> relationship?  Is a mutual attraction enough, or do you wait for some sort
> of strong friendship+attraction to develop? 

Depends on what we want... if it's mutual attraction for sex and we both know
it then it may be pursued.  More often than not, *I* prefer to have a more
permanent relationship with people and therefore will wish to develop a good
friendship.

> Do you find that starting a
> new relationship places additional stresses on you and your SO?

Definitely.  My wife is currently starting a new relationship and is wanting to
spend all her free time with her.  I don't mind this, because I'm an independent
person and can use the free time to do some things I haven't had time for.  The
early stages of a new relationship are tough, because that's the time that you
really need to be able to be close to the new person.  I recognize this and
let my wife know that she doesn't have to feel like she has to "share" her free
time with me and her new friend.

> Do you find it hard to manage your time between your different partners,
> and do you feel that time with one partner is unfairly taking time away from
> another?

See above point.  In previous poly relationships my wife and I have had, we
both have known the "third person."  Usually, all three of us have become good
friends, and we would share time with each other.  In a sense (IMHO), it's like
having a child, but the child is a full grown adult.  As a child, my mom took
care of us kids while my dad traveled on business.  My mom and I had a relation-
ship, my dad and I had a relationship, and my mom and dad had a relationship,
and combined we all had a relationship.  Now the relationship structure is the
same, but the slant is different (read: all adults, sex, etc.).


Just my thoughts,

    __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: alt.polyamory
From: jennifer@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201450.18784@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes:
>
>[Alan Hardy]:
>>
>>I've only ever heard four (now five) people express this sentiment
>>before, and all four were attractive, personable women in
>>male-dominated professions.  They apparently believed that one doesn't
>>need to make an active effort to look for potential partners---you
>>just run into them all the time.
>
>Well, now you've heard six.  And I'm not an "attractive, personable
>wom[a]n".  (Sigh.)  And while I don't run into really nifty people
>"all the time", it happens frequently enough that I have no complaints.

No, love, you're an attractive, personable man.  :)  Finish your
senior thesis yet?  

-jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:36:09 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
> 
> marriage counsellor that I've chatted with has said that the biggest problem
> with most seperated/near-divorce couples is that they have stopped
> communicating, even though both still feel commitment and love.
> 

I don't think Brad and Chip are so far apart. Commitment isn't just
something you *feel*, it's something you *do*. Communication is 
(sometimes) hard work, and you have to be committed to work that hard. 

So what I'm saying is, communication *is* critical to a good
marriage, but in the bad times, commitment is critical to
communication.  (Of course, it's possible that both partners
*are* committed, and are trying really hard to communicate, but
can't.  I bet this is less common, though, than the case where
one partner has stopped trying.) 

-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:11:52 GMT
	<1992Aug18.150437.2667@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<l9l9lmINNl27@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<MUFFY.92Aug26161045@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9psd6INN7sh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<1992Aug2
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca's message of Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:38:07 GMT


In article <1992Aug27.163807.9225@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
   In article <l9psd6INN7sh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
> > But basically, if they
> > don't want to have sex with me anymore, the relationship is likely over.
> > This is a fact -- not coercion.  
> Def'n: Coercion - the act, process or power of compelling to an act or
>		     choice.
>		   - the act, process or power of enforcing or bringing
>		     about by force or threat.
> By this definition (from Webster's), if you threaten to end a relationship
> due to your partner not wishing to have sex, then you are performing an
> act of coercion.

  Two things -- first, if you had entered the relationship understanding
that this was the case, I wouldn't call it coercion, unless you are
talking about specific instances instead of a general case -- for
instance, me saying "put out *now* or get out", or using this as a
constant threat in order to force your partner to have sex is coercion,
but merely saying "I want to have sex in my relationships, or they won't
work" is just stating a preference/fact.  Second, the definition seems
unreasonably broad, at least WRT relationships.  If someone is making me
unhappy in a relationship -- say they are sleeping with the window open
and I want the window closed -- then if I choose to end the relationship
unless they change, that may be stupidity, but I wouldn't call that
coercive.  But it's a very fine line to draw... I suppose that if you
knew that the other partner *really* loved the open window, and you were
just being mean, that might be coercion... but when do you call it a
compromise and when is it being coercive?  Seems very situation
specific.

 -- d
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:23:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug28.054309.13588@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
+
+   ie. while my drive towards having sex often overlaps with my
+desire to have relationships, I don't believe either has a hand in
+causing the other.

Look Ma no hands... Well, at least you won't grow hair in you
palms.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: mary@ossi.com (Mary Seabrook)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:07:52 GMT

>Muffy writes:
>>Alan Hardy writes:
>>I've only ever heard four (now five) people express this sentiment
>>before, and all four were attractive, personable women in
>>male-dominated professions.  They apparently believed that one doesn't
>>need to make an active effort to look for potential partners---you
>>just run into them all the time.

>Well, I do not think that this describes me very accurately.  I am
>indeed in a male-dominated profession, but that's about it.

Humm, I think you are putting yourself down unnecessarily there, Muffy.
I have rather vivid recollections of how difficult it was to have 
a conversation with any of the males at the Anaheim USENIX conference dinner
two years ago. It got worse when I mentioned that yes, I was aquainted with
that stunning person over there. Attractive is definately appropriate.

Mary

(BTW, I am also in the number of - look for a relationship? why? they just
happen if you keep enjoying life.)
--
mary@ossi.com
+1 510 652 6200 x 124