HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Taking a walk
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:27:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct7.071425.17420@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
+   Actually, our culture has gone through four major paradigm shifts
+since it's "birth" five hundred years ago.  Three of those happened in
+the last century (Victorianism, Industrialism, Individualism) and, if
+you read Toffler, the next ones are coming even faster...

I haven't read Toffler since I rode to my pre-induction physical, it
was 'Future Shock'. Well, that book was wonderful in it's
discription of the 'malaise' associated with 'shock'. With that
attitude, my Navy Pea Coat on a hot august afternoon in LA, I looked
in 'shock'.

Psychiatrist: "John, why were you under psychiatrict care?"
John: "I was expelled from a military academy".  (in a slow
somewhat listless voice).

Psychiatrist: "John, why were you expelled from the military academy?"
John: "Uh, well, I had problem with being told what to do"

Psychiatrist: "And who long were you under the care of a
psychiatrist?"

John: "Uh, about two years",(equally as dull). 

Psychiatrist busy with papers.
John: "Uh, what are you doing?"(voice flat).

Psychiatrist looks up: "Do you really care?".

John: "Uh, no" (flatly).

Few minutes pass.
Psychiatrist: "Well I'm going recommmend that we give you a 1-Y
classification, that means we can recall you for an other
examination and see if you're ready to serve".

John: "Uh, ok".(meekly).


John receives papers, exits office. Proceeds to last station for
final sign out. John no longer listless; John has a shit-eating grin
on his face, and a bounce in his gait.

Last official communication: "John do you really not want to be
reclassified?"

John: "No, not at this time".

I thank Gawd for Alvin Toffler.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: urlichs@smurf.smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: People are People (Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:35:38 +0100
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG

In alt.polyamory, article <MUFFY.92Oct4085731@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
  muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> 
> Once again, just to make my position clear, what I have been talking
> about all along is the incredibly nasty idea that women will "make
> something scarce" as soon as they find out that someone else wants it.

I agree with you here. On the other hand, she may not want to be nasty
or anything. Maybe she just isn't interested in me but cannot say No.
Maybe she _is_ interested but cannot say Yes. For whatever reason --
I'm sure most amateur psychologists can come up with a few reason for
either, and most of these may even be correct at one time or another.  :-/

-- 
If God wanted us to be brave, why did he give us legs?
		-- Marvin Kitman
-- 
Matthias Urlichs  --  urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  +49-721-9612521     \o)/
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (was Re: So, you're straight... so far.)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:36:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <Uepmu4a00WAvA5GllZ@andrew.cmu.edu> ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gerard Deckert) writes:
+interact with anyone else.  Also, animals are incapable of recognizing
+and respecting rights (nor do they participate in a society), so the
+concept of rights does not apply to them.

Humans are animals. Therefore humans can not 'respect rights'. In
fact the entire life forms know in one way or another 'respect
rights', rights being defined as 'pecking order' or 'territorial
imperative'. What may be true, but not necessarily so, is that human
animals spend a hell of a lot of time worring whether they have some
justification beyond their animal state.

+	Morals, like rights, are not (should not be) subjective or relative -
+they can not be, without destroying the concepts of rights and morals. 
+Morals, as a guideline for one's actions, derive directly from the
+nature of rights.  Can a hermit commit immoral actions?  Can an animal?

Yes, hermits can commit immoral acts. Allowing one's sexual fantasy
to 'get out of hand'(or maybe into hand), was one of the popular
Christian hermitian immoral acts.

Each societal group defines the 'moral' and the 'immoral'. These are
so relative that one could not easily generalize without becoming
almost vacuous. Killing is moral in most societys. Sex is
ambivalently moral in many. Grabing all that one can is more often
than not a moral act. Likewise in other societies killing is
immoral, sex unless performed in a very narrow activity is immoral,
grabing everthing for oneself is often immoral.

There is no 'rights' beyond those demanded of, and those granted by
the society.

But back to polyamory, the whole problem here is that we who believe
that multipartner relationships are not immoral, believe we should
be able to have these relationships as validly and supported by the
society as any of the current heterosexual monogamous supported
ones.

This is not some 'god given', or 'absolute ideal' but an agreement
worked out between us and the society we live in. We will not get
total agreement from all members of the society, since there are
large numbers who feel that neither is there a right to such
relationships, in their own absolutist view, nor is there a moral
basis for even 'accepting' or 'tolerating' such. In this case we
must have recourse to the law to maintain our 'right', i.e. the
state grants it as expedient to calm social intercourse, but at the
same time protects this 'right' and thereby disrupts that calm.

Then it would seem that 'rights' only exist when the general
population does not deviate significantly in what is believed to
be an individual's 'rights' in that society. Or, wide disparate
beliefs will produce 'non-rights' for some, and 'rights' at the
expense of others for the majority.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Alexx@world.std.com (Alexx S Kay)
Subject: Re: Taking a walk
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:29:02 GMT

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>In article <39076@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> sd.edu>
>     jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:

>>Other methods of creating a safe environment include developing a
>>'code of ethics' which is very negative towards physical agression.

>   Or perhaps, very positive towards physical influence.  Teaching a
>society to be nonagressive is suicidal when _everyone_ isn't going to
>listen.  A better response, in my opinion, is to make everyone aware
>that unwanted physical agression will be met, unquestioningly, with
>disabling force.

"An armed society is a polite society."  I don't rember who said it, but
there's truth in those words.

Alexx

Alexx@world.std.com
"I am a seneschal, and forget prodigious quantities of information 
 as part of my job."
		-- Master Kobayashi
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: attire and behaviour? (Was Re: ISO Bi-Fem...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:13:34 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <Bw29x9.6AF.2@cs.cmu.edu> anonymus+570@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Marky) writes:
>
>First off, this is a bogus comparison.  What you are comparing here is
>some pretty outlandish behaviour on the part of the guy in the G-string
>to a woman wearing anything other than a potato sack.  To put this in
>a better comparison, if a smartly dressed person was mugged because (s)he
>"looked" rich do you think (s)he would be questioned as to why (s)he
>had to go around "looking" so rich?  That's ludicrous.
---
	It depends on where she is walking as to whether or not it is
outlandish.  There was a trucker who happened to drive into the wrong
part of oakland last week.  His truck was surrounded by guys with crowbars.
He was beaten to near death.  This in no way excuses the actions of the
attackers, but if a woman was walking in an area that is known not to be
safe in general, but especially for lone females, then she is asking for
trouble.  Sure, she can walk around saying "it's their fault if I am
attacked", but that the magic-bullet-proof salve will do wonders for
her safety.

>Are you trying to say that if I leave my windows down in my car, the car thief
>would get a lighter sentence because I was inviting him to steal my car?
>(Hopefully) Not! :)
---
	No, but if you leave the money sitting on your trunk and drive around
with it sitting there, you are inviting problems.  You can complain all you
want that it shouldn't be so, but at some point, you will have to 
deal with reality as it _is_, not how it 'should be' (unfortunately).

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:59:52 GMT

kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) writes:
>
>Yes. If I try to flatter and I insult, my communication is an insult.
>It doesn't matter what my intent was. If I realize this, then I can
>move forward in the communication. If I try to resist it, I'm caught
>in the interminable argument of "But I said XXX, not YYY, why aren't
>you flattered?".
>
>I keep looking at my results, not what I wish the results were or
>should be.

Whether your communication is or is not an insult, as received, depends
upon the receiver as well. If you didn't intend an insult and your
communication was received as one, then you can clarify why and make
corrections as appropriate. It might also be the case that no change
you make in your communication will get it received in the way you intend.
In this case you should recognize this and accept that it is not your
fault.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (was Re: So, you're straight... so far.) 
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:27:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Uepmu4a00WAvA5GllZ@andrew.cmu.edu> Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
| So it's about the nature of rights...

Well, OK, if you insist.  This probably belongs on the politics or philosophy
groups, but I don't read them.

| 	Hi Elf - long time no type.  Hello, Kay, nice to meet you.  Both of you
| are worried about rights (I'm generalizing from consensuality) being
| subjective.  I'm here to say that rights have an objective basis - if
| they didn't there would be no imperative to adhere to them (as you both
| intimated).  As I've mentioned before, I'm an Objectivist, so I thought
| I'd interject my views on this discussion...

I am a libertarian.  I am not an Objectivist.  I don not seriously use
"right" as a noun.  If "rights" exist in the universe, then they exist
in the same way as do "thoughts of unicorns" or "single quarks".

| (Note:  the following example applies to rational people who are acting
| in their own self interest.  In this context, the notion of rights is an
| objective absolute)

Nonsense.  If "rights" are an objective absolute then you ought to be
able to generate an algorithm to determine if <x> is a good or a right.
Is breathable air a good or a right?  Also, can you make an objective
definition of "rational" and "self interest"?

Anyways, here is my take on the subject...

When someone does something to you that you do not like, you can choose
your responses among the broad categories of submission, resistance,
flight, and subversion.  This is true whether the other party is a single
assailant or a squad of police.  In some situations, sometimes, you have
the fifth option of persuasion.  None of this has *anything* to do with
anything called "rights".

A notion of "rights" has its sole utility in the belief structure of the
antagonist.  In this sense, a belief in "rights" is quite analogous to the
"bullet-stopping" magical concoctions that some African tribes tried during
the European conquest -- they would only work if the people with the guns
believed in them and didn't shoot.

Believing in "rights" can cloud your brain and slow your responses when you
should be either reloading or packing your bags.

Yes, this all translates to "You get what you settle for.". 

|   Rights are the moral
| guidelines by which rational people interact in society.  

I have a posting from Joe Buehler (I keep it in my "bozo" mailfolder) in
which he carefully defines "rights" as the "right to obey God".  Obviously,
his concept of absolute rights and yours would have a fairly small 
intersection.

|   Also, animals are incapable of recognizing
| and respecting rights (nor do they participate in a society), so the
| concept of rights does not apply to them.

Please define "society" in such a way as to make it not apply to the
social structures of other primates.

And, by the way, in case this was too acrimonious -- *hug*.  We really
are on the same side.

   Fritz
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: So, you're straight... so far. (was Re: Why are you straight?)
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:38:16 GMT
	<1992Oct1.005204.19721@nwnexus.WA.COM>
	<lcm4m7INNl5q@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<whelan.718156583@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: whelan@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu's message of 3 Oct 92 23:56:23 GMT


In article <whelan.718156583@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> whelan@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (John T. whelan) writes:
> [...]
>   The difference is that I have yet to hear a good reason other
> than personal taste not to have sex with another man, whereas there
> are good arguments about consensuality by which one can rule out
> bestiality and pedophilia in the abstract.

  I'd like to hear these good arguments, if you would.  Or even some of
them... I tend to think that they are delicate situations, but not
something that you could automatically rule out (not that I'd care to do
either one of them, but I'm into personal freedom.)

 -- d
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:29:33
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep29103638@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep30.130934.24980@tfs.com>
	<MUFFY.92Sep30081222@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<KAYVAN.92Oct12135034@satyr.Rational.COM>
	<ldllerINNi3g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 13 Oct 92 13:57:47 GMT

In article <ldllerINNi3g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article <KAYVAN.92Oct12135034@satyr.Rational.COM> kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) writes:
>>I'm really not very flattered or turned on by someone's interest when
>>their focus is *only* sexual (or only trait X).
>I guess I can't help wondering why you _need_ to be flattered.

Well, what we've been talking about is why people might be "turned off"
on discovering that you're interested in them solely because of some
characteristic.  This is why...as Kayvan says, it doesn't turn us on.

>This topic came up in some other newsgroup some time back about
>how fewer women were able to have sex for sex's sake than men.

It may be "fewer," but most women can do this.  It's called
"masturbation," and many of us do not feel that it is necessary to use
an entire other person in this exercise.  Of course, if they *want* to
watch or help, that is fine...but a lot of people find being asked to be
a masturbatory accessory to be less than attractive.

>[...]  The fact that you are unable to enjoy sex for sex's sake
>and have no other 'strings' attached is your choice.

I enjoy it quite a lot, actually...but, once again, I can do it for
myself.  If I'm going to do something with another person, I want to do
it with a *person*, not a human sexual accessory.

This may not be everyone's experience, but perhaps you could simply
accept this as a possible motivation (*not* the only one) for people
losing interest when they're treated this way and give up on this
thread.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: thom@access.digex.com (The Elf-Lad)
Subject: Re: Door into Sunset *SPOILER*
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:03:18 GMT

bml@athena.mit.edu (Larry J Lennhoff) writes:

From _Door into SUnset_
>   "The seven took the vow, to share bodies and thoughts as pleasure and 
>trust prompted, to live for and with one another and their children, to love
>while life lasted, though liking might come and go, and to do right by one
>another."

Yes, I loved this bit (especially regarding the 8th who also marries 
in [and She knows who She is]). As a polyamorous, homosexually oriented,
pagan being, I love Diane's world. When I first read Sunset last month,
I shared that same quote with all of my friends. It still makes me
warm inside. 

I was especially intrigued by the section, "though liking may come and
go." In this age of instant gratification, when so many people leave
relationships at the first sign of coolness, that's a wonderful
thing to think on.

>"What are you Doooooooooing?" - Herewis' father in The Door into Fire
:) What, you're not going to give Herewiss' and Freelorn's response? :)

-- 
Thom Watson, the Elf-Lad         elf-lad@access.digex.com <-----preferred
                                 elflad0@aol.com         elf-lad@glib.org
                                 GEmail=T.WATSON7
"What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?"--U.K.LeGuin
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com
Subject: Re: So, you're straight... so far. (was Re: Why are you straight?)
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:07:47 GMT

In article <Bvt7CC.MFC@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
     idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:

>There is no "good" reason
>(except that it pleases me, thee, or WeThe People) to entertain
>any notion of consensuality - "good", that is, in any positive,
>demonstrable, objective sense.  Subjectively, yes; but subjectivity
>is just opinion, not fact.

   *Smooch* Kay.  Just thought I should add that before we get to the
meat of the subject, and 'cause I haven't flirted in a long time.

   It's true, essentially, that there is no "good" reason to believe
in consensuality in a morally relativisitic universe, but I tend to
think that, even from a Darwinian or Sadein point of view, we can't
afford to live in a completely morally relativisitc universe.  There
has to be a minimum set of standards.  Where consensuality is optional
for everybody (and hence a matter of personal "taste,") we end up with
a decadent and degenerate society, and the power to be nonconsensual is
rapidly taken away from the majority population by those most
sociopathically capable of taking power for themselves.

>I don't like my argument, but I can't fault it.

   I don't like the argument either.  And I think we can pretty much
agree that you, and I, and most of the people here, on alt.sex.bondage,
and soc.bi and everywhere else we tend to associate, will agree that
there we have a moral set of standards, affirming the power of the
individual rather than the group.  Consensuality, Contract, and What
'No' Means are at the heart of our morals.  They work _for us_.

>            Kay

         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: anonymus+423@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (nobody)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Gals....
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:28:32 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

If you like pina coladas.
And getting caught in the rain.
If your not into health food.
If you have half a brain.
If you like making love at midnight.
By the dunes of the cape.
I'm the guy that you've looked for.
Write to me and escape.
-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: FYI
From: anonymus+1237@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:47:32 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

Hello,

I enjoyed reading Mark O. Zorro's Vignettes and after reading his
personal decided to contact him.

We communicated via e-mail and then met in person.  He is an
intelligent, witty, non-judgmental, gracious person and I would highly
recommend getting to know him.

Too often, we are reluctant to try new things or experience possible
new phases of our lives for various reasons; I am very pleased that
I took the "risk" and now have a new and dear friend.

    

-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+<name.of.news.group>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		<user's alias>@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
From: kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM (Kayvan Sylvan)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
	<MUFFY.92Sep29103638@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep30.130934.24980@tfs.com>
	<MUFFY.92Sep30081222@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:50:34 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep30081222@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

   Yeah, Eric, we've heard it all before.  You think that any woman you are
   interested in should be grateful for the privilege and you can't
   understand why they aren't.

   I am not at all uncomfortable about being desirable; in fact, I enjoy it
   quite a lot...when it is *me* that the person desires.  When it is
   someone like yourself, who will take the first female that holds still
   long enough, I find it extremely repellent, and I do not feel that they
   are making any statement about my desirability, but only about their
   desperation.

I echo Muffy's feelings here.

I'm a man who sometimes feels that the only reason women want to be
with me is because of my body... I've actually had a woman take me off
to her bed within an hour of our meeting. It was fun, in a way, but
not fulfilling. I didn't do that again.

I'm really not very flattered or turned on by someone's interest when
their focus is *only* sexual (or only trait X).

Sounds funny coming from a man, huh? Fuck stereotypes.

			---Kayvan
--
--
| Kayvan Sylvan, Expert Support, Consulting for Rational, C++ Development     |
| kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM  === W: (408) 496-3847 === H: (408) 978-1407      |
| "Dubito ergo sum --- I doubt, therefore I am." "Why say why?"               |
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory