HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:21:45 GMT


As I read over these postings and follow-ups again and again... etc. I
get the feeling that those who deem themselves "polyamorous" tend to
have excellent communications with their SO (spouse, main partner, etc.)
and all their other loves and lovers.  IMHO, only through open and honest
communication can jealousy be erraticated, and those involved will know
where they stand.

I think that open and honest communication between a person and their SO
is paramount for a poly relationship.  With good communication, you don't
have to worry about those "what if" situations, because you've already
discussed them.


My 2 cents (excluding GST and PST),

      __o       Brad Booth                |  
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |  "He doesn't need a motive.
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |   He's a psychopath."
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  ... Tony Scalli, The Commish
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:37:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Bsw2pI.8r2@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
+
+Back then (the 60's and 70's) "nice" people didn't have VD.  Of course
+that is a totally asinine statement, but that's what we believed.

Don't know about you, but I was aware of penicilin resistent
gonarhea in about 69-70. I presume it had to do with my associate
with a drug hotline and having to have a lot of facts and factiods
on hand to answer people's questions.

Condoms have always either been worn by me or I've felt guilty for
not. Now what the '80's have brought is other paths and so I'm
pretty much to the point of condoms for falacio and the rubber
sheets for cunalingus.

(spelling errors due to webster being down here).
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:48:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug18.004901.16375@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
+In article <Hg2LPB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
+     snively.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
+
+>When did you start feeling that monogamy wasn't for you?  About what time 
+>did you first have a polyamorus (sp?) relationship?
+
+   Well, I was 19 when I first had sex, so I guess it started when I
+was 20.  I was never monogamous; it just didn't seem functional for me.

My first heterosexual experience was with a treesome, at age 15. The
other boy and I had be 'beating off' together for several years and
so it wasn't like I had never seen him hard before, and likewise. So
there didn't appear to be the "we've got to hide and be private"
syndrome. The girl 'alleged' that she was 'experienced' but on after
thought, I think she wasn't so, and the threesome experience was
news to all.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: this thread in alt.romance
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:36:21 GMT

If anyone's got time on their hands that they don't know what to do
with, check out alt.romance, specifically, the messages in the thread
titled "Reverse LJBF problem." And then you might reply to the people
posting in that thread (remember, this is only if you've got lots of
time on your hands--you'll probably need it.) Be kind. :)

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.

"Take a sniff, pull it out,
 The taste is gonna move ya when you pop it in your mouth."
                                                        --Juicy Fruit ad.
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: more sluttishness (was Re: Monogamy manifestos)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:48:17 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>My reclaimed definition of "slut" is something like "gourmet/gourmand wrt 
>physical contact."

   Heh heh heh. Nicely done. Yep, "gourmet" as well as a "gourmand",
although my sweetie oftens accuses me of being far too undiscriminating
with my affections to merit "gourmet". 8-> It's a bit of a standing joke
with us that I'll go after anything that moves, and plenty that doesn't.
I don't know *where* she gets that idea...

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:48:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.003906.26312@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
    woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>   Oooh. Sometimes I shudder to think of the many stereotypes I must be
>furthering. I mean, I'm Bi, I'm Poly, I'm Promiscuous, I'm a Slut. All
>fine with me, but it confuses many issues for a lot of people. And (for
>example) Bi people who *aren't* (for example) Poly get annoyed.

   Fuck 'em.  Seriously, Joe, part of the les/bi/gay movement is the
issue of human freedom.  Although maybe we want the acceptance of
bisexuals more than we do the rest of the world, those that dislike the
polyamorous among them are just going to have to learn.  "We're here,
we're queer..." and all that.

>"Well, it's alright for others,
>but I'm *much* to possessive for that!", all the while staring nervously
>at me to see if I've gotten the point...heh heh...

   They say that as if it were a *good* thing?  Hmmm....

>   And BTW - I'm currently reclaiming the word "slut". I'm here, I'm a
>slut, get used to it! 8->

   You're a little late; I've been a slut since November of last year,
and damned proud of it too.  There's nothing wrong with being a slut!

>   I don't know - the feeling I've gotten many times is that it's "very
>understandable". It's like wife-killers claiming their masculinity was
>insulted by something - generally the legal scene just nods along, of
>course that's reasonable, who can fault them for that?

   Well, given the paradigms under which the legal system operates, it
IS perfectly understandable.  There's a testosterone-charged set of
assumptions that people like you and me and the rest of us sexradicals
(gays, lesbians, bisexuals, tranvestites, polyamories, sadomasochists)
to challenge these assumptions that "It's alright to do X because
you're a man/woman/cuckold/whatever."

>That's something I throw back in anti-Poly people's
>faces - their stance is directly responsible for the deaths of many
>people who's only real crime was perhaps breaking the monogamy contract
>a bit insensitively.

   But for the anti-poly people, murder is a viable ("if extreme")
option to a cheating spouse.  Violating a custom or two is okay, but
marriage is supposed to be a more', and violating those is strictly
taboo.  'Course, it's a more' observed more in the breach, but hey...
that's no excuse, right?

      Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: still more sluttishness (was Re: Monogamy manifestos)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:53:34 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   But... I'd like to ask a question.  Is it just me, but what it is
>about bisexuality and polyamory _in men_ that drives women to
>incredible degrees of distraction?  I cannot for the life of me
>understand why it is that, now that I've come out of the closet and
>chosen to look at, examine, and live my bisexual and open life to its
>fullest, that I now have more women interested in me than at any time
>previous?

   Oooh, maybe I'm not out enough as Bi, but I haven't experienced this
yet. Thanks Elf! You've given me something to look forward to!!! 8->


>   And, under this duress :-), I seem to have the capacity to be "a
>slut."  To stand up proudly and say in a loud, clear, voice, "I like to
>fuck him, him, her, her, him, and, oh, yeah, er, them, too!  And when I
>have nobody around, a couple of 'its' in my toybox, too!"

    Ha ha ha ha ha! ROTFL! Speaking of toys, what are first the minimum,
and then optimum, number of vibrators required to adequately service a
FMF threesome? I have to plan my overseas trip soon, you know... 8->
(BTW, I was thinking maybe 5, and 7, respectively 8->).

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
From: john@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: alt.personals and enforced monogamy
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:03:41 GMT
Organization: Two strange people in Forest Grove, OR

I run the ACS for alt.personals.bondage and I'd be glad to set one up for
alt.personals.poly (or whatever).  I don't want to start a competing ACS in
alt.personals, as I don't want to be swamped by all the traffic.

Since I own this machine, I don't have to answer to anyone for what I put on
it and I have more freedom than the admin of the alt.personals ACS.  In all
fairness to the admin, I'm not totally convinced he was being an asshole
(never having dealt with him, I have no way of knowing).  Perhaps it's a
condition the Powers That Be at his company have imposed on him in order to
be allowed to run the ACS using company property.

What do you all think?

-- 
John Opalko

john@n7kbt.rain.com  -or-  wi.5327@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
From: gxc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Guylene Citta)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:42:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions (was Re: the "third" person)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: fun with vibrators (was Re: still more sluttishness)
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:48:56 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>Speaking of toys, what are first the minimum,
>>and then optimum, number of vibrators required to adequately service a
>>FMF threesome? I have to plan my overseas trip soon, you know... 8->
>>(BTW, I was thinking maybe 5, and 7, respectively 8->).
>
>   You know, this paragraph took me nearly ten minutes to figure out!
>I make a distinction between _dildo_ and _vibrator_, Joe!

   Same here, I know the function of one is not necessarily performed by
the other...I had in mind *vibrating* dildos, actually (purely from the
point of view of being maximally efficient, of course! 8->).

>I would go
>with just five dildos, whether they vibrate or not.  They never taste
>all that good.

   Oh! I didn't think of putting them *there*! In our *mouths* - Elf,
you're disgusting. 8-> 8->

>As for vibrators, I would recommend _two_ wall-current
>powered ones, with the 'small spot' ("For tight muscles!"  Uh-huh.
>Sure it is.) attachment.

   So actually, we arrive at the same figure here. 5 + 2 = 7 total,
which is what I was figuring (7 if we want to cover *all* the bases, as
it were... 8->).

   And what do you mean? If they're not for "tight muscles", what *are*
they for, then??? 8->

   Of course, we might need to rope in a few helpers just to ensure that
all this hardware stays where it should! 8-> 

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: alt.personals and enforced monogamy
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:29:03 GMT


In article <4058@n7kbt.rain.com>, john@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
> I run the ACS for alt.personals.bondage and I'd be glad to set one up for
> alt.personals.poly (or whatever).
> 
> What do you all think?

Sounds like a good idea to me.  Obviously, there is a need for such a
service.  (Three cheers for John!) :)

      __o       Brad Booth                |  
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |  "He doesn't need a motive.
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |   He's a psychopath."
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  ... Tony Scalli, The Commish
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: "poly" label and other people
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:00:07 GMT

In article <ICE.92Aug10173339@netcom.Netcom.COM> ice@netcom.Netcom.COM (I. Chris English) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.213000.5845@Princeton.EDU>
>macarthr@dae.Princeton.EDU (Karen M. Macarthur) writes:
>
...
>   *Very* good question.  I suppose I deal with it by a sort of
>   inherent writing into the "committment contract" with my partner
>   that we communicate always, and work things out before any
>   contemplated involvement with another person.  If such involvement
>   would hurt us or the relationship (including causing serious
>   jealousy) than we choose not to do it.  We try to deal with any
>   jealousy occurring later on by deciding if it's typical normal
>   loneliness we already decided it was worth risking, or a sign of a
>   major problem.  If the latter, we end the involvement which is
>   causing the problem.  (This hasn't been in practice very long,
>   however; I'll let you know if it works for the long term or is just
>   idealism! :) )
>
>Hmm... What about opportunities that present themselves without the
>other partner being available for discussion?  Should they be
>declined, and thus perhaps lost?
>
>Chris English.

Sort of depends on what's in your "contract," I guess.  Some people
want to know before you get past some point with another or others,
some people would rather you told them when you're back in each others'
arms or near proximity.  You could, of course, be talking about
"opportunities" ranging from conversation/moviegoing to a sexual
encounters: people can be jealous about just about anything.

Probably if you're in doubt you should let the opportunity go, given
that your bird in the hand is worth more to you than that one in the
bush you're thinking of.  Your life may be a little poorer, in some
sense, but taking the opportunity may make another's life miserable
and make you unhappy into the bargain.

Bob

-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Welcome to Difficult Listening Hour...
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.002111.4100@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
    woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

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

>   Well, part of what I'm doing is to counter the *negative* stereotypes.
>People are so sure Polyamory can't work out, they're usually aghast to
>hear that Karina & I have been living together since we were 16.

   Yeah.  People often ask Omaha and I if we're newlyweds (must be all
the animal nuzzling, hugging, kissing and tickling we do in public).
They're usually surprised to learn we've been together since 1985.
Yes, these marriages _can_ and _do_ last.

>   Maybe not quite that strongly, but yeah, there's a feeling of "But you
>can't fault me for that, it's only natural, of course I'd feel like that,
>what's wrong with it?", etc.

   They obviously have a definition of "perfectly natural" I've never
run into!  Throw a few articles about Bonobos Chimpanzees at 'em, and
while you're at it, throw the entire last year of Audobon Society's
newsletter, pointing out all those "birds as exemplars of monogamy"
manifesto now turn out to be completely in error, now that the science
of tagging has gotten accurate.

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: this thread in alt.romance
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:22:51 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

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

>However, this thread doesn't seem to have
>any more to do with polyamory than most of the other threads on there,
>all of which that I saw assume that monogamy is the right way, that
>everyone really really needs a "romantic partner" (not to mention sex,
>but that's not mentioned as much as a primary goal), etc.  What sort of
>response were you thinking people should make?

Oh, I was just pointing out the thread for anyone who might not read
alt.romance. It has a very strong pro-mono slant, so I thought us poly
types might

- take some time off to get reacquainted with the mono point of view.
Not that we don't have to deal with it all the time, but we should
all remember always that our beliefs aren't morally or intellectually
superior, just an alternative to the prevaling societal customs/
traditions.

- offer an alternative viewpoint that the participants in the
discussion may not have considered, or even imagined existed. Perhaps
some may have thought of it, but not dared mention it (because it's
socially unacceptable.) 

That thread in particular just seemed (to me) to be one where the
pro-mono stance seemed stronger than lots of others (e.g., those which
just discuss romance/love/sex in general, which are equally 
applicable to a mono or poly lifestyle.)

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.

I'll go anywhere with you; just wrap me up in chains. --Shakespeare's Sister
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Cynthia Nolan
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:41:06 GMT

In article <whitlock.71.0@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu>
whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock) writes:

>
>My experience (in two open marriages) was that much of the "work" involved 
>explaining to the "others" who were not necessarily "poly" just how our 
>marriage worked.

Reid, my husband and I have had the same experience.  Once we worked things out
for ourselves and realized that we could make our marriage whatever we wanted
it to be it's been mostly a matter of just being honest and kind to each other.
 But it's the business of clarifying it to others that is still the most
difficult.  Potential lovers, as you mentioned, (unless they've already been
"poly-ized" through other experiences) seem to have a real struggle with the
concepts. 

 I've often thought I'd like to put together a small brochure, so I wouldn't
have to go through the whole thing over and over.  You know, with a definition
of terms, and FAQ section and a sort of "so you think you might be polyamorous
too..." section, and just hand it to the person! (in fact, maybe I will - I'll
post the draft here first for comments - ;)  )

I guess I sort of look on the whole thing as spreading the good news, so I
attack these explanations with a missionary-like zeal and enthusiasm, but
nonetheless there is a tiring sameness about the responses and the
counter-responses, etc.  That's where the hard work comes in.  But I guess if
you really care for someone, and want to help them understand, (and of course,
are hoping to expand your own relationship with them in a variety of ways), the
effort is well worth it.      

 When you explain that (A) it wasn't 
>cheating, and (B) it was o.k., believe me , it can be work.

and it works so nicely, too!  Isn't it marvelous to be honest all the way down,
instead of covering up real feelings and attitudes with societally prescribed
or defined glazes. 

>
>BTW, this is my first posting to this group, I applaud the vision of its
founders in pursuing their idea...
>Reid


I just found them recently too, and, believe me,  they're great!


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:14:21 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

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

   Oh, it was never for me. Right back to my very first True Love at 14.
Like, I knew what I was *supposed* to do, but I couldn't really understand
what people meant. I mean, *I* knew none of their concerns were relevant :
I wasn't about to leave them, I wasn't going to hurt anyone, I didn't love
them any less, etc.

   Most of the time I tried really hard to play by the rules, but 
occasionally that didn't work. I felt really bad because I knew that they'd
be hurt and disappointed that I hadn't abided by the rules (well, that's
how I saw it at 14 8->). And I was really puzzled that they didn't seem
to like it when I said that I didn't mind *them* having other people too!

   Of course, I was a bit inconsistent back then. That first True Love
relationship was very unsteady, so I was very insecure, and I *was*
threatened by them getting on with other people, since I *did* have a 
fear that it would mean they'd turn away from me. But I Got Better. 8->

   When I started living with my current sweetie back when we were both
16, it wasn't long before sorted Poly issues out. So the first "out"
Poly situation for me was at maybe 17, I think.


>(Don't kill me, but) I'm only 16, and I can see how monogamy isn't for 
>all people.  

   Hey, you sound more together than most people I know (myself included!)
were at 16. Not that I speak with the wisdom of age, for that matter...I'm
not all that far into the 20's myself. 8->


>Sheesh.  I've typed something about four times, and I keep messing up.  
>Basicly, I've been on both sides (mono/poly) and poly relationships seem 
>easyer, more open, and free.

   *I* think so, yeah. But to be fair, I suspect there is a greater range
of potential problems involved in being Poly, too. I've said I think being
Poly acts as a coefficient for relationships; it multiplies *everything* -
how good it can (potentially) be, how bad it can (potentially) be. Maybe
half of the other relationships I've had since I was first out as Poly have
bombed. Maybe in half of those cases, I could attribute the problems as
being specific to the Poly-ness of it all.

   On the other hand, it's the half that didn't stuff up that make it
worth it all. 8->

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory