HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:32:28 GMT

Muffy sez:
>> As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the "rest of the world".  And
>> my being out includes setting the likes of you straight about my life.
>
> Indeed?  Well, I guess it isn't working.

I'm willing to lead the horse to water; an IV may surpass the call of duty.

> All you've done, especially with your definition of polyamory (you
> haven't addressed that yet)

Haven't I?  It hardly seemed relevant, but here goes: Polyamory (n) 1:
the notion of multiple simultaneous romantic relationships.  When used
in reference to relationships, reflects a romance in which more than two
people may take part, whether collectively or in intersecting pairs; used
of individuals, it reflects a preference for polyamorous situations.

> shown me that you are trying to redefine the word monogamy

My use of the term is a natural use by a native speaker, and is apparently
acceptable and comprehensible to many of those who have participated in 
this discourse.  If you can't hack it, perhaps language therapy is in order,
or at least a course in tolerance and understanding.

> apparently because you like the idea of monogamy better than the
> idea of polyamory [...]
> It might be that she chooses to avoid the poly label because she feels
> that monogomy is somehow superior, or perhaps she just wants to believe
> that she is monogmous, for whatever reasons.

Actually, I quite like the idea of polyamory; it's simple and has a nice
symmetry to it.  However, I like the *practice* of monogamy better.  As
I've stated before, I don't consider it an issue of right-or-wrong or
moral superiority in either direction.

> I've never met anyone who found the term "monogamous" ambiguous.  Again,
> please tell me how it is that it is ambiguous.

Apparently, some folks (me, Phil, Aahz) can use it one way, and other
folks (you, dan) only want to use it a different way.  (Without, I 
might add, offering some term you'd find acceptable for what Phil and
Aahz and I are talking about.)  This seems to indicate some ambiguity.


Matt Ryan (who calls me Vicki, but that's okay, my mom
           used to call me that :) sez:
> She has described to her lovers better than she has to us how she
> is about things.  (right, Vicki??)

Well, actually, I've tried pretty hard to describe it to you folks, too.
But my lovers do all seem to get the point :)


cheers,
--vicka							vicka@wrq.com
	    "I'm okay.  You're okay.
	     The cat's a little weird, but that's okay."
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:2092 alt.feminism:5877 soc.women:21373 soc.men:21004
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The TRUTH about Mormons (was Re: "infidelity")
Summary: the *truth* ???
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:12:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: UUSERV.jay.22.724101122
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

>> 
>> How do you know?  I live in Salt Lake, and can give you the TRUTH about 
>> "the Mormons in Utah"!  They instituted the practice of polygamy just prior 
>> to their pioneer trek in 1846-47, and ended it prior to the state being 
>> admitted into the Union in 1896.  So as you can see, their biggest problem 
>> for about 100 years has been statements like the one above!  There are non-
>> Mormon polygamists here, but it's still against the law.
>
>Oh please.  I grew up in Utah, not far from Salt Lake City.  Several
>well known polygamist families lived nearby.  Perhaps the "official"
>posture of the Mormon church is anti-polygamist, probably done just to get
>statehood, but I never *once* heard of the laws being enforced.  The
>TRUTH, my friend, is that polygamy is still a relatively frequent
>form of marriage in the Beehive state, regardless of what you or the law
>maintain.

Another good perception, but you missed the point.  My ONLY point was in 
response to the statement, "Mormons have a problem with Utah over 
polygamy".  They issued a manifesto prior to 1896 stopping the practice, in 
response to the [then] government delaying statehood.  If you feel a need to 
flame someone, stick to the CONTEXT of their point!

--Jay
From: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: The TRUTH about Mormons (was Re: "infidelity")
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:04:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Dec14.192012.9560@ctp.com> sthor@ctp.com (Sarah Thornburg) writes:
+Okay, here's a rather burning question, so i'm delurking as well.
+
+I know the church used to practice polygamy - I didn't know it still existed
+out there.  I assume that the church definition of polygamy was one male

Mormonism has several 'branches', only the group which came to Utah
practiced polyamy. The polygamy practiced is technically called
polygyny, multiple women and one man. The purpose of the
relationship was to produce children and not satisfy any 'earthly
erotism', as a matter of fact if it were not know that a woman was a
member of a polygynous marriage, one could not have told the
difference between her and her monogamous victorian counter part.
The reaction to polygamy in the society at large in the 1800's was
more to the fantisies of the moralistic protestants who were worried
about the teachings of Joseph Smith, and 'protecting' their women
from the 'cult'. Of course there was quite a lot of condemnation
about fornication but in reality the bible never really comes out a
absolutely condemns polygyny ('Thou shalt not commit adultery', only
refers to sex with individuals who are married to others, it never
says in a difinitive way how or how many women may marry a man).

+sleep with from our marriage onward (or before).  Leaving aside questions of
+pre-marital sex (it's irrelevant in this situation I think) can I justify
+the fact that I *am* bisexual, that I *will* have other relationships with
+women, and that on occaision I *will* have sexual relationships involving more
+than one other person at a time.  How do I reconcile this?  What does the
+church allow, and what doesn't it?  What about if the other people I am

Sex is a 'problem' for mormons. The problem is that sex is pretty
much for the purpose of procreation, and oh by the way, a
legitimatly married couple may have 'fun' doing it, but not too
much. Any sex which does have the potential for procreation is
frowned upon at best, and out right condemned or prosecuted at
worst. Sex which is 'frowned' upon include use of contraceptives, or
'non-vaginal' sex amoung heterosexual married couples. Sex which is
condemned is sex between same sex partners. (Sex between
heterosexual unmarried partners is frowned upon and with the
eventual marriage of the couple give a marginal 'we'll ignore that'
attitude).

I would not recommend adopting the mormon faith if you have these
feelings about relationships. You well find very littly support and
a whole lot of agressive mind control to change your attitudes. (Of
course that's what they'll call 'support').

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:25:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.045056.14010@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     soc.couples is hardly the place to get a representative sample
>of definitions for "monogamy", wouldn't you agree?

Actually, it probably is the best place to ask. One of the reasons
that this group was created was that soc.couples is *extremely*
mainstream, to the point that we thought that polyamory-type
discussions would get a lot of flames from the monogamous types.
Asking them about monogamy is asking the experts.

But, don't let me interrupt your meaningless flamewar. Carry on.

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: an1691@anon.penet.fi (Christina)
Subject: terms for SO, lovers, ect
X-Anonymously-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:19:26 GMT

Sorry to be using an anon posting service -- I'm basically just doing it 
because I can only read news through a friend's UNIX account and she 
doesn't want me posting things that have her name attached to them & I
can post through anon services from my normal VMS account.

I've been reading alt.polyamory for a few months now -- I posted a while
back -- I think I was using the name "Lisa" -- I was much more uncomfortable
in my polyamory at the time than I am now, hense the psuedonym.

I've just basically got a question -- in a thead Poly=different people 
were using SO & lover as different kinds of relationships -- and I was
curious as to their general definitions.  I guess because SO is a pretty
recent term -- I've been using it for about a year & it doesn't connotate
a very strong, or commited, or whatever relationship -- I like it mostly
because it's gender nuetral.

I have used/heard 'lover' for a longer period of time & it was often used
to mean a significant partner -- one lived with & commited to (often 
monogamously) I usually heard the term among lesbians -- and since I was
raised among lesbians, it was my basic term for relationships (yes I used
husband/wife/spouce -- but they connontate legal/religious marriage & 
mainstream, heterosexuality)

I myself have a lot of difficulty in figuring out which terms to use when
and such.

-christina
~~______________________________________________________________________________
Christina M. Pierce           I Any real change implies the breakup of the world
Oberlin College               I as one has always known it, the loss of all that
scp8340@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu I gave one an identity, the end of safety.
an1691@anon.penet.fi          I                                 --James Baldwin
~~______________________________________________________________________________
              I'd rather question my sexuality than not have it.
________________________________________________________________________________


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:48:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>[speaking about Vicka again]
>
>Aah.  Perhaps this is the problem, then.  I do not believe that she is
>being dishonest with her current lovers.  Indeed, we have heard from one
>of them that she is not.  What I'm talking about is what it seems to me
>that "outness" is all about - how the *rest* of the world perceives you.

     Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?  Are you suggesting
that all those people who were going to be "hurt" by Vicka's relationships
are complete strangers?


>For example, if I was a lesbian, that would presumably not be a surprise
>to my lovers, but if I spent all my time in public being affectionate
>with men, then the people around me would not *see* me as a lesbian.

    So?  I know people who are emphatically not heterosexual that
live their public lives as such - who are they being cruel to?  Who
is being "hurt" by their actions?  Or do you see closeted GLBs as
somehow doing harm to society?


>Similarly, if I show up at the office Christmas party with two or more
>lovers (or with interchanging lovers from one event to the next), then
>my coworkers are going to see me as polyamorous (or whatever their term
>for it is), not monogamous.

    You make love at the office Christmas party?  If I showed up
with multiple guests, my coworkers would probably think I just brought
friends along.  If I really wanted them to understand my relationship,
I expect I'd have to sit down and explain it to them.  Slowly.
    Which brings up yet another point probably worth discussion:  The
vast majority of the people in the U.S. have no idea what polyamory is,
and the thought of someone having multiple lovers would either disturb
them or never even cross their mind.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: an1691@anon.penet.fi (Christina)
Subject: accepting poly* in partner means being poly?
X-Anonymously-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:36:57 GMT

This is something that has confused me a lot.  The idea that accepting a 
poly partner/SO/lover/whatever means that you yourself are poly.  I guess
because I am in a relationship with someone who considers hirself to be
monogamous.  I wasn't totally aware of or dealing with or accepting my
polyness when we got involved -- but we had a sort of openish kind of
relationship -- like some sex play outside the relationship would be okay
but no real 'relationships'.

S/he has pretty much come to accept that I am poly, we haven't talked about
it enough I know, but s/he can deal with it --  more on an intellectual level
than on an emotional level.  But both of us still consider hir to be basically
monogamous & doesn't want more than one 'relationship' at a time (i'm not
sure quite what words to use -- I guess maybe sexual/romantic relationship 
would be the best).  I don't think of hir as poly, s/he doesn't think of
hirself as poly....but it seems like because s/he is willing to accept my
polyness (although we are both aware that my being involved with someone
else could make hir uncomfortable enough that s/he would leave our 
relationship)

I don't know...it just confuses me to think of someone who can deal with
polyamory in a partner, but not for one's self as poly.

(sorry I still don't have an intro here yet -- just not feeling up to it)

-christina
/_______________________________________________________________________________
Christina M. Pierce           I Any real change implies the breakup of the world
Oberlin College               I as one has always known it, the loss of all that
scp8340@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu I gave one an identity, the end of safety.
an1691@anon.penet.fi          I                                 --James Baldwin
/_______________________________________________________________________________
              I'd rather question my sexuality than not have it.
/_______________________________________________________________________________


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:15:46 GMT
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus

In article <MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Aah.  Perhaps this is the problem, then.  I do not believe that she is
>being dishonest with her current lovers.  Indeed, we have heard from one
>of them that she is not.  What I'm talking about is what it seems to me
>that "outness" is all about - how the *rest* of the world perceives you.
>
>For example, if I was a lesbian, that would presumably not be a surprise
>to my lovers, but if I spent all my time in public being affectionate
>with men, then the people around me would not *see* me as a lesbian.
>
>Similarly, if I show up at the office Christmas party with two or more
>lovers (or with interchanging lovers from one event to the next), then
>my coworkers are going to see me as polyamorous (or whatever their term
>for it is), not monogamous.

I see your point, and even agree with it to a certain extent.  However,
there are some problems with it.  For example, my ProblemOlderWoman has
taken a different person to her company's holiday party for the last
four years; does that make her non-monogamous?

In Vicka's case, neither of her two relationships appear to be anywhere
near a full-time relationship.  It seems to me a closer model would be
the "dating" one, where it is acceptable to a large portion of the
population to meet with multiple people concurrently whilst conducting
the Search.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Llew Roberts <llew@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Could anyone be poly?
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:14:11 GMT
X-Xxdate: Fri, 18 Dec 92 20:14:09 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A757711102010021@agony.apple.com>
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Subject: Re: Could anyone be poly?
From: Bits of Magic, HeroSoftware@cup.portal.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:00:33 PST

Evan sez:

>Omaha sez:
>>	I say that I am a jealous person when my SO jumps into bed(or
>>any other place) with one or more other people and I am not involved.
>>The reason I am jealous: I can't be there to enjoy the fun. However, it

>My term for this is "Envy", as in "I want to be doing that".  Jealousy
>implies, to me, "It's my RIGHT, not theirs, to be doing that".

I find it interesting that, although the terms are different, the
emotions and feelings that characterize envy and jealousy (in the above
context) are exactly the same for me.  So are my automatic, internal,
reactions to them. 

I easily mistake one for the other, and it's not until I back off and
actually *think* about what's happening that I can tell which one I'm
feeling.

Even then, that only gives me recognition on an intellectual level (i.e.
I *still* cannot differentiate between jealousy and envy emotionally.) 
But, once I've identified the feelings, I know what I can do about them,
instead of reacting to them on an emotional level.

So, I guess my point in all of this is: When it comes up (less and less,
as I actually learn to deal with it,) and until I actually think about
it, jealousy == envy == jealousy == envy for me.

Another afternoon shot to hell, while I consider the implications of that
statement!  *grin*


Llew Roberts - delurking at last...
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures)
Subject: Re: Could anyone be poly?
Reply-To: mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Universtiy of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:19:53 GMT

What do I myself believe?  I basically disbelieve in absolutes.  

I believe that there are many people who right now and for the
forseeable future are naturally monoamorous.  By this I mean, many
people naturally function on a one-at-a-time romantic continuum. (not
trying to export definitions here, YMMV.)

I also believe in change.  Not that all changes are inevitable, but that
there will be growth, and new discoveries, in everyone.  Some mono-
amorous people will discover that they've become poly.  Some polyamorous
people will discover that they've become mono.  A few people will no
doubt discover that they're some other Way in the relationship-space
that neither mono or poly can be fruitfully stretched to describe.  I
can't imagine such a Way, but someone will.

Some people will learn how to separate feelings of jealousy from the
ways they want to act and live.  Some will make other changes that for
reasons of emotional-logic just drain away the ingredient of jealousy in
their lives.  Some will discover that when they look jealousy in the
eye, accept it totally, and let it say everything it needs to, it
completely goes away.

Some people will discover that for them jealousy is really a kind of
fear.  Others, a kind of distrust.  Or possessiveness.  Or deja vu.  Or
just a raw emotional color.


I say very few things of "everyone".  Here's two important ones:
Everyone makes internal sense.
You can't know the internal sense that someone makes, or the ways that
they can be or become, if you don't actually know the person.


-Matt Ryan, this is what philosophy will do to you,
mb-ryan@uchicago.edu                Curious Of All Natures
==================================  ====================================
If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. You'll never see the end of the road
If I'm awake, never let me sleep.   When you're traveling with me.
               -old chinese fellow                        -Crowded House     
==================================  ====================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart)
Subject: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:13:10 GMT


Several people have emailed asking for the Golden Rules
of Polyamory that I mentioned earlier. These were emailed
me by a kind person who may or may not wish to have
their name mentioned. So I will just summarize:

1) Avoid people who work where you work.

2) Avoid people who are in a long-term monogamous, or
advertised as exclusive, or legal relationship, lest you
end up as the evil person who tried to break them up.

3) Avoid people who are not honest; who claim one thing
and act another; who are not sure what they want (not
honest with themselves).

I especially liked number 3. Of course, they all apply
to any kind of romantic entanglement. But #3
is especially important in an arrangement where society
is actively against it and many people feel it is wrong
or must be kept hidden, even if they personally are
interested in it.

I encountered this. I was interested in a married man
(I was single at the time) and finally we discussed things.
He revealed that, if I had not wanted to tell his wife,
that is, if I was more comfortable believing we were having
a secret affair, he and his wife had agreed to let me think
that. Meanwhile, of course, he would be telling his wife
everything. Why wasn't I immediately clued in that they were
NOT HONEST PEOPLE ??????

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:56:28

In article <1goketINN5iu@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

> By all means avoid dishonest people.  But as for the last phrase:
> I do NOT assume those who "are not sure what they want"
> are "not being honest with themselves".  This could
> just as easily go the other way -- someone who seems
> convinced of what they want might very well be dishonest
> with themselves about this.  There a difference between
> being uncertain and being dishonest.

And it can be rather hard to figure out what you want in a vacumn, eh?
This makes the last bit of #3 rather like "never hire anyone without
previous experience..."

					-Francie

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"There is nothing in life so complicated that a Microsoft manual can't
make it completely incomprehensible."			-Douglas Adams