HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: the "oh" experience
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:19:52 GMT
Organization: Specialix International, London

eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:

	[Stuff deleted to reduce bandwidth...]

>Does that make sense?  Am I splitting moral hairs in my argument?
>Should I refrain from making passes at attractive women that I meet??

>Help!!

Well - my wife and I are both bi-sexual. But we found that the sharing 
experience was more important than plain fooling around seperately - which
all too often can cause jealosy, no matter how hard one tries to control it.
We always take the approach that if a third party gets involved with us, they
get the total package - both of us as a complete entity. To give you a little
background, we've known each other for 19 years now and feel that each of us
makes up a part of the whole. Using this approach, I'm sure we'll last together
for the rest of our lives. If you try to seperate multiple relationships
some one will always get hurt because your'e taking the attitude of wanting the
cake and eat it. When we meet an intresting person, we make sure that both of
us find he/she intresting and attractive as well as he/she finding both of us
attractive. I believe, and this is borne out by experience, that polyamory
only works well if it's in a sharing context. Going seperate ways will always
raise the suspicion of deception - even if there isn't any. Try to relax a
little, try threesomes. It can be just as fulfilling as one on one lovemaking.

Kamal


>Piglet, drowning in a sea of morality--or amorality, depending...
-- 


=============================================================================
			|
From: jbl@mesaadm.cre.nt.com (JB)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Queer marriage, an other view
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:54:52 GMT
Organization: NT/BNR
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b3

Recently the question was asked: should queers do mock marriages? 
Speaking as one who was in a "traditional" hetero marriage, GO FOR IT. 
The divorce rate will bear me out,  marriages today are more about the
sherbet colored dresses and the gifts than the sacred bonds between two
people.
  
The government, etc, sanctioned my marriage; I had the tax breaks, the
insurance, the whole legal bit.  Did that mean that my union was
specially blessed?  Did it stave off divorce?  Were we faithful one to
another, forsaking all others.  Hell no.  

And it's so easy, any two het people can get married and divorced without
any more thought than what they'd like for breakfast.  They only thing
that will hold off your divorce is the length of wait to get a court
date.  

I am now in a monog. het. relationship, sans marriage.  We have no
benefits from the government, but that will change someday.  And it will
for homosexual unions.  Not so many years ago I would have been called
"hippie trash" who was living in sin.  These days, the banks will loan
you money, you can own joint property, etc, without anyone blinking an
eye. So hang in there, times will change. People will realize that it is
the sanctity of the bonds between two people, any two (or three?) people
that is the MARRIAGE, not the rice and flowers.  Well, maybe. 

On a serious note, get what legal protection you can:  the powers of
attorney, the wills, and the ALL IMPORTANT health care power of attorney.
 If nothing else, this can protect your union from family members who
"know what's best for you".

OK, I'll stop now.
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: "Giving up" Marraige
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:05:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug13.160714.14724@philabs.philips.com> kts@philabs.philips.com (Kimberley T. Smith) writes:
+
+To whine a bit:
+whether it sounds like the fox and the grapes, IT'S NOT FAIR that only some
+people have the privilege.
+
+SERIOUSLY:  governmental advocacy of heterosexuality only serves to
+produce and feed the social mentalities that are the foundation of all personal
+prejudices, insecurities, superier attitudes, and fear of difference that
+results in gaybashing, etc.  


I recently read a 'definition' of 'conservative' in W. F. Buckely's
National Review. One of the 'points' made was that 'conservatives'
believe in the limitation of goverment in the affairs of the
individual and the 'leftists' are vilefied as 'statist' trying to
place more control on the individual.

But as I was reading, my mind kept cycling through 3 issues which
in my mind are highly 'private' and should ultimately be left to the
individual, those being, marriage, reproduction, death.

These three items are highly regulated by the 'conservatives'. The
'marriage' is limited to a specific category of individuals. The
reproductive rights are highly modified(or at least those
modifications are the conservative goal), and death is regulated to
only caprice of events which are not in the control of the
individual as opposed to euthanasia or suicide.

No to me, in my leftist bent, see a double-speak here. The
'conservative' support of the individual right, yet they limit
of that right in several significant life situations. It would appear
that the 'individualism' afforded the person by the state is only
that individualism required to 'make his own way' in the world.
Even in that there are some limits by defining certin activities
'criminal', but the tolerance for expression is far greater than in
the expression of personal life styles. In fact most legislation to
protect the masses from the explotatin of the few seem to gain the
condemnation of these individuals (except when the few happen to be
the 'MEDIA').
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Iseult White)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Iseult, Tanaquai and crutches (was: That bloody War )
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:10:06 GMT

tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:

>Dunno what to make of this, except to defy your femmey role & say "You're
>the Boss" |-) & me? Provide floor show entertainment? What a shocking thought:
>you'll ruin my carefully cultivated aura of innocence....

Innocent????   I will have to check with Sara and Ellen as to whether or
not that is a word that can be used in conjunction with you.  Somehow
I doubt it.

The Boss!
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Some button badge slogans/designs
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.103232.1607@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>In <1992Aug10.234100.7663@amhux2.amherst.edu>
>twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater ) writes:
>>>"REAL women DON'T EAT MEN"
>>
>>This is a slogan for soc.bi?  Gawd help us.
>
>(<hushed whisper> Pssst, Tim. This thread is also cross-posted to
>soc.motss:-)

That article wasn't.

>While the slogan is offensive, sometimes this sort of offensive humour
>can be effective in shutting up one's oppressors. For example, I know
>lots of GLBO folk who like the slogan "Please do not tease or feed the
>straights" but aren't too worried about its potential to be offensive.

I liked it even when I thought I was straight.  If such a slogan was
posted to soc.straight-people, I'd wonder.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lt. Yar nearly naked on Showtime
From: dsolis@koko.csustan.edu (Djelrik Solis)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 07:54:13 GMT
Organization: CSU Stanislaus

In article <1992Aug16.054715.11486@HQ.Ileaf.COM> mhk@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mark Kaepplein x1517) writes:

>Doesn't anyone else have even a little crush on her?

	Yes. :)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Djelrik Solis
CIIS, San Francisco

fishheads, fishheads, roley poley fishheads
fishheads, fishheads, eat them up, YUM!
From: chris@unicorn.resun.com (Chris Von Hendy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: semi-serious question
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:01:58 GMT
Reply-To: chris@unicorn.resun.com
Organization: Metalogic, S.a r.l.
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v3


In article <1992Aug10.090636.21731@news.Hawaii.Edu> (soc.bi), johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
> Oh, I don't know.  I have some friends with whom I've slept
> occasionally, and some friends with whom I've had serious crushes on,
> but with whom I could never imagine sleeping.  All depends on the
> chemistry of the particular relationship.

I know what you mean here.  I have slept with people out of friendship,
loved friends with whom I never slept with, slept with lovers and had
people I loved but could not sleep with.  Each relationship has a
slightly different feel to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Von Hendy            "If we shadows have offended,
Escondido, California       Think but this, and all is mended,
ncr-sd!blkhole!chris  or    That you have but slumbered here,
chris@unicorn.resun.com     While these visions did appear." Puck
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: bv426@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven A. Kendrick)
Subject: Re: the "oh" experience
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 16:56:06 GMT



In article #11599, kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza)
Writes:
 
>>
}}eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
}}
}}        [Stuff deleted to reducebandwidth...]
}}
}}Does that make sense?  Am I splitting moral hairs in my 
}}argument?
}}Should I refrain from making passes at attractive women 
}}that I meet??
}}
}}Help!!
}}
>>Well - my wife and I are both bi-sexual. But we found that
>>the sharing experience was more important than plain fooling 
>>around seperatly - which all too often can cause jealosy, 
>>no matter how hard one tries to control it.
 
You can get jealousy in any "sharing" just as easily as "plain ol'
fooling around....the cause is the same....
 
>>Using this approach, I'm sure we'll last together for the 
>>rest of our lives. If you try to seperate multiple 
>>relationships some one will always get hurt because your'e 
>>taking the attitude of wanting the cake and eat it. When we 
>>meet an intresting person, we make sure that both of
>>us find he/she intresting and attractive as well as he/she
>>finding both of us attractive. 
 
I dunno 'bout this... I mean, if you are upfront about your-
self, then it is obvious that the 3rd party would think that your
SO is OK (after all, they can't be that bad if they love you, after
all).  But I think that it is almost impossible to find someone who
is equally attractive to both people in a partnership... not only
are you looking for a perect balance in that tricky chemistry
you are trying to find a "perfect Kinsey 3".. a daunting proposition
to say the least..... 
 
>>I believe, and this is borne out by experience, that 
>>polyamory only works well if it's in a sharing context. 
>>Going seperate ways will always raise the suspicion of 
>>deception - evn if thereisn't any. Try to relax a
>>little, try threesomes. It can be just afulfilling as 
>>one on one lovemaking.
 
My wife doesn't use my toothbrush, why should she use my lovers?
I think that I, and she, would be excluding a LOT form our lives
if we followed this rule:  all the beautiful Kinsey 1's & 6's,
and all the rest who'd find it too "heavy" to play with
us both!  Some people needto feel special and unique
when lovemaking, & this is a hard stunt to do when a SO is there
at the same time!
 
Jealousy is fostered in an environment of competitveness and
lack of communication, and there is NO guarantee that you
won't have it if all your play partners are shared, or 
that it will happen if they aren't shared.  If you take the
time and treat your SO right, you can expand, rather than destroy
intimacy, with polyamory, whether it be thru threeseomes, 
moresomes, or not!
 
If such works for you--fine.  I just think that, with so few
people in such arrangements, that you can come to _any_ hard
and fast rules.  Just listen to others' experience, and make 
the rules that fit you and your SO best, ones that you
can be consistent with.
  
               s. kendrick
From: fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: alt.lycra?
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:00:22 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <17972@acorn.co.uk>, osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith) writes:
> Has there been anything entertaining on alt.lycra yet? It exists here
> but claims no messages have been posted to it. I want to know it it's
> worth pestering our sysadmins (or UKNet?) into doing something.
> 
> Owen.

 Yup, it definitely exists; going quite nicely, as well. (68 messages last time
I looked). Then again, at Oxford it seems to be not getting through at all
well, oddly enough. Pester! Pester! <grin>

 -- Fenthe
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Tech Post, no content whatsoever (was Re: Alt.sex.wizards)
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:00:50 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

dente@els.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
>Colin
>(Who cut his teeth on a 6502, and was only introduced to the likes of VMS, unix
>and DOS when he started working in a university).

   Oh, I'm sobbing in relief. I thought I Was The Only One Like This... 8->

   (I *still* have maybe 50 double-sided disks full of Apple II games...)

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: soc.bi
Subject: Re: The ??? Between Us 
From: orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:18:46 GMT
Organization: Ministry of Skritching
Keywords: *DeFlower* ME will you...
Summary: Wave bye-bye to the nonzero signal to noise ratio...

In article <1992Aug22.210438.2748@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> pclary@radish.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
|orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) wrote...
|>In article <1992Aug18.000800.151310@zeus.calpoly.edu> cjohnson@zeus.calpoly.edu (Coe L Johnson) writes:
|>|In article <1992Aug16.043151.4330@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
|>|[about Chicago bi party]
|>|> ... Then off to hot tubs in SF, and *then* ...
|>|BTW, it was determined last night that the aforementioned hot tub 
|>|fits five quite nicely.
|>   (Except in the case of certain people who had to scurry to Oakland
|>airport to catch a *full* 23:15 flight to the abovementioned Chicago :-(
|>I was *very* *relaxed* on the flight back, though :-)
|Oh stop it, you did fly first class.

   Well, yes, but it was the only seat left on the plane.  (In case everyone
else is wondering, the abovementioned hot tub is right next to - in California
units of distance - the Oakland airport, and not-even-close to the San
Francisco airport.  The original ticket I had was for San Francisco, and
when I realized the distances, I tried to get my ticket changed over to
Oakland, with little luck, because the airplane was full.  At that point
whim (I was calling on a telephone located quite near the hot tub in
question) hit and I said "but wait!  I've got about 60,000 frequent flyer
certificates, will they do?"  And they did, and I only had to say "NO!"
about 20 times to the rather-more-enthusiastic-than-you'd-ever-wish-to-meet
ticket agent's requests of "Is it alright if I cancel your existing ticket,
then?" before I found myself in possession of that last seat on the plane.
And the only side-effect was that it's a round-trip ticket, which means
that I have to visit San Francisco again, on a date where a certain computer
hippy will be there <intensely goofy smile...>, as if all of the other
neat things that San Francisco has aren't enough....)


   As I said, *very* *relaxed* :-) :-)

                 __
   david parsons \/ "More money that sense, this man, but that's not
		     difficult because he doesn't appear to have any
		     sense to begin with."
From: chris@unicorn.resun.com (Chris Von Hendy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Subject Theses Theses...
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:55:31 GMT
Reply-To: chris@unicorn.resun.com
Organization: Metalogic, S.a r.l.
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v3


In article <AAG.92Aug16183324@artemis.aber.ac.uk> (soc.bi), aag@aber.ac.uk (Angela Gilham) writes:
> Inconsequential drivel, I have. I'm great at it. It's the technical
> content part of the thesis I have problems with . . . I shall be very
> glad to get away from it for three months . . . even though for those
> same three months I shall probably be without soc.bi (blatent play
> for sympathy no. 1) as my job doesn't carry a news feed with it ;-(

Sympathy definately given.  Three months away from soc.bi (shudder.)  I
don't think that even my sysadmin, sweet and lovable though he is,
would save the newsfeed for that long.

Of course we also suffer since we will be three months without you.
(blatent e-flirt ;-))

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Von Hendy            "If we shadows have offended,
Escondido, California       Think but this, and all is mended,
ncr-sd!blkhole!chris  or    That you have but slumbered here,
chris@unicorn.resun.com     While these visions did appear." Puck
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Identity (was Re: The War Between Us)
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:56:02 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>[Joe complains about the lack of a Bi Movement in Australia]
>
>Hiya, Joe!
>
>Well, I don't know about Melbourne, but the Australian Bisexual Movement seems
>to be alive in Perth... 

   Yeah, I remember hearing about them when they started up, but Perth is
about as far away from me as it's possible to get and stay in the same
country. Sort of like the distance between Chicago and SF, I think.
(I know this because Karina and I are trying to plan our insane zig-zagging
tour of the US Bi-hotspots! 8->).


>The first national conference is October 17th-20th, in Perth (contact West
>Australian Bisexual Network).

   Argh, last week of semester. And no way can I afford it - not only am
I saving up for my US trip, but I had a 5.5 hour talk to my long-distance
lover in the US on my birthday the other day, cost me maybe ~AUS$400!!!
Ah, what price love? 8->


>There are at least other groups in Brisbane, and other areas; get in touch
>with WABN for more news.

   <dubiously> Well, I'll give them a go...

   I did recently hear about a Sydney GL bar that even has a Bi night!!!

   And there *is* a GL youth organization here in Melbourne that is
(inconsistently) slightly Bi-inclusive. They sent some representatives
to LaTrobe for our GL Pride Day a couple of weeks ago, and took heaps
of the Bi pamphlets Karina & I made back with them. So maybe things are
looking up...


>Hope this helps...

   Oh, just having people who *understand* is a help-and-a-half. You know
I was recently accused here in LaTrobe's GL community of calling myself
Bisexual "just because I sleep with 2 women"!!! They were completely
serious, too.

   But still, without the friends I've made on the Net, I don't know what
would keep me going. You people *are* my Bi safe-space. Thanks, all of
you.

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: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Joke
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:25:38 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Aug23.085419.15065@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) says:
>>
>>   Now, "package store", that's a new one....
>
>It's a (gratuitous) New Englandism.  

Correction.  It's a Massachusettsism.  I grew up in Vermont, and was
perplexed as hell the first time I went to Boston and heard the term
"package store."

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||            -- My Bloody Valentine
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Homosexuality and sendmail (was: Bisexuality and DEC PDP's... is there a link?)
Organization: Tom's Box of Ahedonia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:00:16 GMT

[ this is now xposted to soc.motss ]

Enough about the PDP!

Has anyone noticed a high number of sendmail hackers being queer?
Maybe LeVey (?) should forget brain size and figure out if writing
sendmail.cf files causes homosexuality.

Someone I know, however, claims all M4 lanuages do it.

Tom, who think's it's great!
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
S7/2 b+ g l+ y z- n++ o++ x++ a-- u+ v+ j+
PIG8/5
From: rwab@bnr.co.uk (Ralph Becket)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: hot bi babes
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:18:06 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Limited, Harlow, GB

test [sorry!]
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: queer marriage - personal problem
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.190011.2717@fig.citib.com> swc@fig.citib.com (Steve Carpenter) writes:
>
>...and what would I do with my wash-n-wear Brides Maid Outfit??
>

I am sure that a use could be found for it.  My girlfriend just got a new
tuxedo, in fact....

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: The ??? Between Us 
From: pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 02:57:56 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey
Keywords: *DeFlower* ME will you...

orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) wrote...
>   Well, yes, but it was the only seat left on the plane.  (In case everyone
>else is wondering, the abovementioned hot tub is right next to - in California
>units of distance - the Oakland airport, and not-even-close to the San
>Francisco airport.  The original ticket I had was for San Francisco, and
>when I realized the distances, I tried to get my ticket changed over to
>Oakland, with little luck, because the airplane was full.  At that point
>whim (I was calling on a telephone located quite near the hot tub in
>question) hit and I said "but wait!  I've got about 60,000 frequent flyer
>certificates, will they do?"  ...
>I found myself in possession of that last seat on the plane.
>And the only side-effect was that it's a round-trip ticket, which means
>that I have to visit San Francisco again, on a date where a certain computer
>hippy will be there <intensely goofy smile...>, as if all of the other
>neat things that San Francisco has aren't enough....)

If you haven't guessed, Orc admits to being a wee bit implusive...

Ellen