HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships?
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:56:49 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


   Hmmm. This thread's been really intriguing me.

   I every now and again get into a state where I'm actively seeking
new relationships. I've had trouble explaining this in the past...

   It's nothing to do with feelings of dissatisfaction with existing
partner(s), for example. It's perhaps closest to something like rest-
lessness...I'm aware of my capacity to be in many relationships, and
occasionally I feel unfulfilled if I'm so obviously "working below 
capacity", as it were.

   It's actually exactly the same feeling I had when I used to be
single - I was aware I was missing out on something. I'm not obsessive
about it - I'm just as aware I'm missing out on skydiving, which I've
never done, for example - but I *am* aware of it.

   This was especially the case after the last time I'd been in love
with more than one person, maybe 3 years ago. Once the other person
left, even though I was still very much in love with my other partner,
I still occasionally had a sense of a gap. I'd had my capacity expanded,
and what had previously filled me to capacity (being in love with one)
no longer did so quite as much.

   Some may remember my gleeful post about a month ago or so where I
declared I'd fallen in love again for the first time in ages. Since
then, I've had a real sense of having "come home" - at last, I'm in
a properly acknowledged & understood Poly situation where I'm comfort-
ably in love with 2, and both in love with me.

   ...And guess what? Just in the last week, I fell in love *again*.
They're in love with me too. So now there's *three* people I'm in
love with, and it's allowed & OK! I can't begin to describe what it's
like. 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: mbuck@fibers (Michael D. Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: brochures (was Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy)
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:38:22 EDT
Organization: Allied Fibers, Petersburg VA

In article <1992Aug24.084113.20102@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

> I've just produced a Bi pamphlet recently - why not a Poly one as well!

You don't have an electronic version of that Bi pamphlet handy, do you?
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Buck                          | "Orange Juice...It's not _just_ 
UUCP: decwrl!twwells!fibers!mbuck     |      for heterosexuals anymore!"
Internet:                             |                -- Anita Bryant, 
  twwells!fibers!mbuck@decwrl.dec.com |                 in a future life
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: brochures
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:07:54 GMT

For the Poly FAQ/brochure/pamphlet/whatever, it would probably be a
good idea to, instead of having a "generic" answer to any FAQ, or a
general response/description to a particular topic, or on a particular
idea, have a sampling of answers or responses from different people.

Talk about complex sentences and mangled grammar. :)

Let me try to make that clearer. I'll use some questions (FAQs) that
were mentioned in Muffy's post (from her friend who participated in a
roundtable, and was subsequently grilled.)

> The
> questions they asked were the usual.  "Don't you worry that your SO will find
> someone better and leave you?"  "Then why get married?"  "But what about the
> third person, is that fair to them?"  "Why do you need more than one person?"
> "How can you be *in love* with more than one person?" and on and on... 

Each of these questions are questions that will often be asked of poly
types. (No doubt, many of us have had to actually handle them too.) I
very much doubt if we'll be able to agree on a "standard" answer to any
of them. Oh, we might, but it would likely have to cover so much ground
that it would be long, possibly rambling, and would include so many
points of view that it would seem like it had severe MPD.

Anyway, I think it would be better if a few people each gave their
own response to any particular question or topic. It would provide a
range of opinions; it also reflects accurately the differences in
opinion that exist among polyamorous people, even as a group. Much of
the difference in opinion, I think, arises from the different ideas
of what constitutes "friendship", "love", "a relationship", polyamory",
"marriage", "a commitment", and lots of other loaded terms, as well
as what is implied by each and/or the obligations that are required.
There is some (not all that much, but definitely some) disagreement
over such matters; this should be reflected in the FAQ or pamphlet,
whatever.

I may have missed the answer to the question I'm going to ask; forgive
me if it's been mentioned before. Who, if anyone, is "in charge" of
compiling/creating the polyamory FAQ? I think it's a great idea, but
someone's got to coordinate it at least. 

-- 
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.

"Oh yeah, I remember you...the soup girl."
"No, the *soap* girl...S-*O*-P-E."         --from "Married...With Children"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:53:26 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Aug28102359@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <Btp2z7.Eou@world.std.com>  I wrote:
>   In article <MUFFY.92Aug27185203@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> >                  In fact, only *one* man came over to talk
>> >to me that evening, which was my SO (well, he wasn't my SO at the time,
>> >of course).  Attractive but too scary to approach isn't much use in
>> >terms of forming relationships.
>> >
>> Well, here's what it looks like from the other side of the fence:
>> I see an attractive woman.  I think, "Maybe I'll go talk to her", but
>> I have to watch a while to see if she's "with someone" (monogamy is
>
>  I hear this kind of thing all the time... why don't you just go up and
>*talk* to her?  You're not going to know if you want a relationship with
>her until you talk a bit anyway 

From my original post:
> At least that's what I used to do :-)

Your advice is good.  Some of us learn it early in life, and some
(like me) learn it later.  I was well into my 30's before I "woke up"
and found out that even attractive people need friends.  I was even
more surprised a few years later when I traded my coke-bottle glasses
for contact lenses and suddenly found that *I* was one of the 
"attractive" people. 

But, telling people they should go for it is one thing, and getting
them to start doing it is something else.  It's about useless to remind
them that everything gets easier with practise; and I guess it's about
useless to try to tell anyone anything!

All I was trying to do was to explain to Muffy that many of the men who 
seemingly ignored her might have been going through some real torturous
thought processes.

		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: rethinking polyamory
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:09:31 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

One of the contributors asks whether we have seen cases of SO's balking
at polyamory until they get a chance or an interest to have an outside
relationship themselves.  I have two relevant comments:

1) I have seen cases in which an SO agreed to polyamory, but only really
accepted it when the individual had a chance to test the arrangement
personally.  I know that, were I a woman aware of the double standard
(i.e. males could fool around but women couldn't), I would be suspicious
of a man who proposed polyamory until I had evidence that things really
were going to work both ways.  One method with which to integrate a
resistant partner into polyamory might be to be patient, and wait for
him or her to get the urge...

2) If some people are "brought into the fold" through a positive
experience, some are converted through a negative experience.  In my
case, a girl dumped me in high school because I couldn't accept the
concept of polyamory.  I thought about things afterward, and realized
I couldn't come up with a logical justification for my refusal.  Also,
I know people who "converted" after an experience with parental divorce.
They saw parents who loved each other driven apart because of sexual
indiscretions that had very little to do with real spousal loyalty.

steve
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date:  4 Sep 92 13:39:14 GMT

woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>   No doubts about that! We did regret not politely & simply asking them
>if they were bigotted about other issues too...

I suppose a good response to "*I* would have no interest at all in
*that*!" would be: "Don't worry, we wouldn't ask *you*!".  Delivered
in a similar tone of voice.  Just insulting enough to get your point
across (not that the closed-minded ever notice that sort of thing), 
but low-key enough not to disrupt the party.
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:43:09 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>I don't particularly advocate spending all one's time to sex. I
>don't think many who advocate polyamory do either.

   Yah. For me, sex drive and polyamory are two overlapping, but
essentially independent, issues.

   ie. while my drive towards having sex often overlaps with my
desire to have relationships, I don't believe either has a hand in
causing the other.

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: ljt3@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU (Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Sleeping arrangements
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:31:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

In article <1992Sep2.133140.9034@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> LSELL@MSU writes:
>The point of this is to poll y'all on your sleeping arrangements. How have
>some of you handled the arrangements, or what advice do you have??

As the M in a FMF relationship, here's what's happened:

We're all the cuddly snuggly type.  F1 is my girlfriend-of-record, and F2
was introduced later in the relationship.  Things have worked suprisingly
well.  I don't think that the two of them have slept together (yet), but
every other combination has been tried.  with 2, it's like a standard 
relationship.  With 3, when one gets up in the middle of the night, the
other 2 just roll toward the wall, and the 1 slips in on the side.  Order
has never been a concern.

We all live separately at present, F2 about 30 miles away from F1 and I 
(we live about 4 blocks apart).

Jealousy?  (stop laughing, dear...)  none to speak of, except that F2 is
a bit jealous of the fact that F1 can sleep with me on a daily basis.
--
  Lewis Tanzos - ljt3@cs1.cc.lehigh.edu - LJT3@PL122.eecs.lehigh.edu
   "Under heaven, all can see beauty only because there is ugliness.
       All can know good as good only because there is evil."
I AM HAVING PROBLEMS RECEIVING MAIL.  IF THE FIRST BOUNCES, TRY THE SECOND!
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,wpi.students.voxhumana
From: mwheeler@parker.WPI.EDU (Michael J. "Landshark" Wheeler)
Subject: Love Allows
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:44:24 GMT

Love Allows
Music and Lyrics by Sean Mulcahy
Love Allows by Lightbearers


Don't look back.  Past is past.
Things do change.  They always do.
Who's to blame?  No one is.
Still love you.  I always will.

Much was learned, thanks to you.
No regrets, nothing less.
Feel no guilt.  Erase the pain.
You're free to go, no strings attached.


Chorus:
	Love allows.        That's how I shall love you.
	Love never crowds.  That's how I shall love you.

Broken heart, can't describe.
Crushed inside, I'm all alone.
Where to go, I don't know.
Still in shock, I love you so.

Must let go, can't control.
You're free to choose the life you live.
Can't explain all the pain.
Why me?  I loved you so.

Chorus.

Don't look back.  Past is past.
Things do change.  They always do.
Who's to blame?  No one is.
Still love you.  I always will.

Much was learned, thanks to you.
No regrets, nothing less.
Feel no guilt.  Erase the pain.
You're free to go, no strings attached.

Chorus.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: rethinking polyamory
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:13:22 GMT


zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> Have other people seen this, especially WRT poly attitudes? 

Oh yeah!  People's first interpretations are based on what they are
used to in society, and the way they have lived their lives.  The
first reaction they have to something they never thought existed or
didn't think was really practiced is a state of shock.  =8-| => sort
of like that.  I think of it as like getting out of a warm cozy bed
and jumping into a freezing cold shower... same sort of reaction.

It's amazing though, after time and thinking and pondering the whole
idea, most people seem to be able to comprehend that there's nothing
deviant about poly behaviour.  Sort of like if you stay in the shower
long enough the water doesn't feel as cold... I guess we just have to
be a cold shower for people and numb their senses. ;)


    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: brochures
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:33:50 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

mbuck@fibers (Michael D. Buck) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>> I've just produced a Bi pamphlet recently - why not a Poly one as well!
>
>You don't have an electronic version of that Bi pamphlet handy, do you?

   Not an ASCII version, no. I've got a couple of hard-copy versions left,
and I *could* move the original MS Word (version 4) file onto the net, if
you can handle Mac-format Word files...

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: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Date: 2 Sep 92 06:53:22 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


   On a related note, I was at a party last weekend where I happened to
run into someone who's fairly prominent on another newsgroup. This got us
talking about newsgroups, and I happened to mention that I'd been involved
in setting up a group earlier in the year.

   "Which one", they asked.

   "Alt dot polyamory".

   Mistrustful look. "What's *that*?"

   "Well, definitions differ, but basically I guess it's about non-
monogamy, but it's a nicer way of saying it that doesn't define it in
terms of a negative".

   Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.

   Karina had to be restrained from making a scene. If it hadn't been
a good friend's birthday, we would've had a huge fight over it. 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: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Third Person
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:00:26 GMT

Jim Baranski <BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL> writes:
< Somebody else's quote >
>"There is a saying that what other people think of you is none of your
>business. The real issue is how you feel about yourself."

>Well, I don't know about you, but it does matter to me what other people think
>about me, and it's something that I'm concerned about.  Are you implying that
>we should not be concerned about what other people think about us?  Why?  Other
>people can have quite an impact on you lives.  This sounds like rather cold,
>uncaring advice to me...

The opinions of those you care about matter a great deal; the opinions
of strangers matter very little.  I have found that if you try to modify
your opinions, beliefs, behavior, goals, etc. to satisfy the opinions of
everybody then you won't get anything done.  What's important is to 
decide who *you* are, and what *your* opinions and beliefs are; then be
true to that regardless of the opinions and beliefs of others.  This
is not to say that you can't change, but the changes should not be made
solely because someone else thinks your current persona is inadequate
or wrong.  Your friends and lovers will accept you for what you are;
folks who don't accept you are sort of irrelevant.

>Jim.
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: despair@netcom.com (Scott Hanson)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships?
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 22:08:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <something> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>I've seen a couple of postings here from people who are currently in a
>relationship and are looking for or asking how to look for an additional
>relationship.  I'm curious about this, particularly because I have never
>sought out people for relationships.  [some material omitted]

For me, my current relations are extremely important and valuable.  There is,
however, something very enjoyable in new experiences.  This is often 
misinterpreted as a desire to conquer, which is completely wrong.  I am
the same way with my non sexual relations, with my solitary interests, even
restauraunts, music, etc.  It is reassuring to have something I am very
familiar with (in any of these cases) but the exiliration of discovery is
irresistible.  It is not any lack in what I currently have, it is a desire for
something unexperienced.  Also I learn about myself and how I relate to others
every time I observe how things evolve.  So far I do not seek this consciously
but I presume as I age it may become more difficult.

Regards.

-- 
Scott Hanson		This has been a recording.
despair@netcom.com
From: Cynthia Nolan
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: What polyamory is to me.
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:08 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <dd-nwp+.starcat@netcom.com> starcat@netcom.com (Solaris Gato)
writes:

> 
>What polyamory means to me is that you are allowed to LOVE more than
>just one individual other person more that you love any others in the
>whole of the universe. That like the ideal "mainstream" idea of a marriage,
>you will be by that person's side mentally, even when not physically, 
>and desire that other person's company over that of others in general.
> 
>Why should that which is sometimes called "True Love" be restricted to
>only pairs. Can not three (or more) individuals love each other or share
>a love in common with that strength? 
> 
 Polyamory is not, to me, a excuse for swinging, or swaping,
>or all those things. It means that my heart, my soul, has been captured
>not by one solitary other person, but that there are two (or more) others
>that are a part of me.

Well, Solaris, I have to say I agree with you on this definition.  But I think
that what you would happily call polyamory, realizing that it involves hearts
and souls as well as bodies, would often be called swinging by a lot of people,
so that's something you'll have to get used to.  Also, people are so different,
aren't they, and they require different levels of intensity in their
interactions.  Some very happy polys take a more carefree (for want of a better
word at such short notice) approach to it all, as perhaps they do in all
aspects of their life, and that's why they come across seeming a bit more
rollickingly enthusiastic about getting laid whenever they get a boner.  It
seems, though that the difference between a poly (of whatever type) and a mono
out for a bit of naughty "cheating" fun on the side, is that polys are straight
up about it - it's what they are and they way the operate, while sneaky monos
looking for extra screwing don't like to admit what they really want.  If we
had to take the broadest possible definition of polyamory, could it be
something like this:  Could it be that polyamorous people understand and affirm
the possibility and the potential for true love and desire with more than one
other person?  and then the rest of it is really just an individual's own
general attitude about relating.

C.