HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 15 Nov 92 07:21:47 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Nov12.155341.13314@specialix.co.uk> kamal@specialix.co.uk (Kamal Mortoza) writes:
>
>	I frankly don't see what the respective genders of parents has to
>	do with raising healthy (in mind and body) kids. Sadly, though,
>	most gay adoptive parents will have missed out on the totally
>	mind bending experience of watching and helping your child being
>	born. I have never looked at the world the same way again since
>	holding my eldest ( now fifteen) in the first moments of his
>	life. 
>	Kamal
-------------------------
Kamal,
        Where did you get the idea that gays must adopt to have
children? The ones I know were made at home the old fashioned way. I
know four groups of gay and lesbian people who banded together with
either plain old sex or a kitchen baster to make babies. There are
five children now that I know of from gay parents, and none were
adopted. Women also slide back and forth across the lesbian/het
barrier a bit easier it seems, and may do that several times in their
life. My last SO's mom was gay and then she wasn't and had a guy
again for the last few years. Some lesbians are just female humans who
happened to wind up in love with another female first. Gay men seem to
me to have a harder time going both ways. I have seen a gay man get
his lover erect to have sex with a lesbian who wanted to have a child
with them. I tend to think the chicken baster may be urban legend, but
I didn't witness the fertilization of the other four kids, and they
won't tell me who or how.:)
- Steve 

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ESMITH@SUVM.SYR.EDU
Subject: Government involvement, kids and relationships
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 12:50:33 EST

 
>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting,
>and one on relationships.
>
>        mark
 
   *BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!* Sorry, but I will have to respectfully
disagree with the above. The mere fact that we're posting here and expousing
the ideals of n>2 households places many of us towards one end of the bell
shaped curve as far as societal norms go.
 
   I want absolutely no government involvement in what I should believe are
proper family values, relationships, childrearing techniques, etc.
I *KNOW* I'm not a perfect parent, and I know that when my kids were born
I didn't know diddlysquat about *being* a parent, but if you're willing to
observe and learn you can do quite well. This goes for relationships too.
 
   Government is already telling me I can't have more than 1 wife, or be
married to another male. I don't want them mucking around in what I teach
to my children, or give them any opportunity to say, "Nope, you failed
the test, you can't get married. You can't have children. Try again next
year."
 
   The concept is just too scary for me.
 
   As Always,
     Gene
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1815 soc.singles:31078 alt.pagan:12973
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Monogamy, Polygamy, and raising children (Was: Falling in Love
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:25:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov17.232521.1302
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

fks@vax.ftp.com (Frances K. Selkirk) writes:

>I have to chime in with the folks who say that divorce is not as
>detrimental to kids as a bad marriage. When my parents were getting
>divorced it was very upseting (I was 11-13), but when the divorce was
>finalized everything became a lot better. The two years of litigation
>were pretty awful, but even that wasn't as bad as the fighting the
>year before they decided to divorce.

Mine stayed together for the same reason, me. They did not split up
until i left at 17. For me when I was 8 or 9, I 'went and found'
another set of parents, a family that lived down the street. If
it wasn't for them I would more scrweed up than I was (am).

-pete
petel@sequent.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:27:54 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <BxyvEz.GpE@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>S. Wukovitz <SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com
>>(markbr) says:
>>>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>>>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting,
>>>and one on relationships.
>
>It might help but will not solve in my opinion. I know from my own experience
>that nothing would have prepared me for dealing with the problems that my
>wife and I went through and survived and nothing would have prepared us
>for how to deal with our kids effectively.
>It all has to do with personalities and `change'. I/we have had to learn
>to keep communicating, keep evaluating, and keep adjusting to the
>changes that we and the kids go through. I don't think a `curse' could
>be inclusive enough to cover all of the situations that can arise due
>to a gezillion different variables in relationships.
>
>>(besides, I don't agree even in the relationship case...
>>I suspect that the people who would already be good at
>>communicating and resolving differences would benefit,
>>and those who would not be good at it would not benefit.
>>just IMHO of course :-)
>
>Just a thought on this. I was not good at it 20 years ago, but today
>I do much better. One can learn, but life is the teacher.
>
*sigh* 
Please show where I have made *ANY* all-inclusive statements concerning
this as a cure-all. Driver ed doesn't stop acccidents, but the insurance
companies (who *surely* care, and look at their own statistics) seem to
think it cuts down on them. In the same way, it is my opinion that a
"marriage ed" course would a)cut down on child abuse, b) cut down on
unplanned pregnancies, c) cut down on divorces, esp. if they where taught
in the serious, matter-of-fact way driver courses are.

Is it possible that there may be enough adjectives in there (the above
paragraph) for everyone?

	a qualified re-
			mark
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:11:20 GMT

S. Wukovitz <SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com
>(markbr) says:
>>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting,
>>and one on relationships.

It might help but will not solve in my opinion. I know from my own experience
that nothing would have prepared me for dealing with the problems that my
wife and I went through and survived and nothing would have prepared us
for how to deal with our kids effectively.
It all has to do with personalities and `change'. I/we have had to learn
to keep communicating, keep evaluating, and keep adjusting to the
changes that we and the kids go through. I don't think a `curse' could
be inclusive enough to cover all of the situations that can arise due
to a gezillion different variables in relationships.

>(besides, I don't agree even in the relationship case...
>I suspect that the people who would already be good at
>communicating and resolving differences would benefit,
>and those who would not be good at it would not benefit.
>just IMHO of course :-)

Just a thought on this. I was not good at it 20 years ago, but today
I do much better. One can learn, but life is the teacher.

al

-- 
Al Aldrich	inet:aaldrich@encore.com
"..if you understood everything I said, you'd be me." miles davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY opinions are not to be construed as those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Wanted - tourist info for Chicago area
Summary: want info on chicago area
Keywords: chicago
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:01:50 GMT

Hi there!

I will be visiting the Chicago area in a few weeks time, and
wondered whether anyone out there can tell me about things to
see, things to do, places to eat, etc - anything that you think
might be helpful.

I will be there on business, and therefore working most of each
day, but my SO, who is accompanying me, will be free during that
time and so would like to know about places to visit in the area.
We will be staying somewhere between Schaumberg and Chicago, and
will have the use of a car (automobile).

Thanks!
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.callahans
From: oopcv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: Why I don't use the word "Love" very much
Reply-To: oopcv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:56:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.114740.783@midway.uchicago.edu>, mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures) writes:
>	This is very important to remember!  People do not mean the same
>thing by "love" that you do.  If someone asks "Do you love me?" and you
>answer "yes" without elaboration, they will walk away thinking you feel
>what "love" means to _them_ and they won't have learned about your own
>unique feelings and desires and beliefs.
>
Okay, so the next time someone says "I love you," should they get the third
degree?  Shall I respond with, "What do you mean by _that_?" or "How do _YOU_
define love?"

BTW, you shouldn't have to ask someone if they love you.  By asking, you're
forcing them into a corner (what are they supposed to say, no?).
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: Religious bigot ?
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:36:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.080923.400@deeptht.armory.com>, rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

|> "Bigot" COMES from people being pissed at the revival preachers
|> carrying on with the entire geneology with all the begot's in it, so
|> they started calling them bigots.

As a public service to all you Trivial Pursuit players out there (and you
know who you are)...don't ever use this as an answer!  Bigot comes from an
old French word, and has nothing to do with begat.  Sheesh, some people...

I know, I know...nobody cares...


jds

***************************************************************************
                               *
Jeff Smith                     * Can't you just graduate from junior 
smith@ecs.comm.mot.com      * college and start sweeping like the rest
                               * of your kind?  Huh, rave-boy?
                               *              - Mathew Neill Sharp
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:06:18 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Nov18.152152.14225@spdcc.com> pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.231317.809@sequent.com> petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
>>>] Ask yourself, would you like to
>>>] have been raised in a single-parent family or a multiple parent
>>>] family?
>
>>"If all are 'loving', for me as many as I can get", is what I would
>>have wanted. But for me, just ONE caring parent would have been OK,
>>my parents just did not wan't me around.
>
>This brings up a good point. Not only do all involved parents (meaning
> N parents, where N is >= 1) need to be loving, but they must -desire-
>to be parents in order to be good ones. If you don't want to do something,
>how much effort are you going to put in to it? I'm not going to get into
>what 'should' be done, I'm just looking at all the families that live in 
>the same depressed area that I do. How much good is it going to do for a
>kid to have a two parent family when the dad is a alcoholic who beats the
>kid(s) and wife, or drifts in and out of the family like a spectre?
>
>How many of you were -taught- how to parent? How many of you who have kids
>were ready for the job when you got it? I know that when my kids arrived on 
>the scene I had very little idea what I was doing. Here I was 18 with a wife
>and a kid and I knew what -images- society put forth about what parents and
>husbands should be like, but no idea how to actually fit that role and still 
>be me, and not some actor. The inability to fit those expected roles really
>messed me up personally and mentally, and put me through a real wringer.
>
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTLY!!!!! Isn't marriage & creating kids, to be inserted into
society, at *least* as requiring of training as getting a drivers' license?

I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting, 
and one on relationships.

	mark
From: jlw3y@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Friends are different from Lovers.
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:25:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

I've been doing a lot of reflecting in the past couple months on what
it is precisely that I feel for people, if there are ways to
categorize the people I am close to into natural sets, I dunno.  All
sorts of garbage grown from being alone in a place I don't like.  A
brief recent history just for reference: I moved in with Greg Lindahl
in May of 1991 after graduating from college.  I met Eric in Jan 1992
and was in love with him by March, went on a cross country motorcycle
trip with him in June & July.  I then moved to Long Island New York
to start graduate school, shortly after which I broke up with Greg.
A bit later I decided I didn't want graduate school after all, and
decided to move to California after this Christmas, and live with
Eric.

Now for the interesting bits.  First, I have been having trouble
expressing why I felt I needed to break up with Greg.  He feels (I
think, correct me if needed, Greg...  ) that since I have moved away
there really is no practical difference between being lovers & being
friends.  I do.  My feelings have changed for him.  It seems to me
that there is a certain feeling of right-ness, and I can't come up
with a better word, that distinguishes between people I want to sleep
with and people I don't.  It's independant of how much I care for
them, or find them physically attractive, or respect them, or enjoy
their company.  I can remember people that I have felt this
right-ness with whom I didn't really like as people, and conversely
people that objectively seemed perfect to me, and yet this spark
wasn't there. 

Second, I have been having shockingly monogamous feelings towards
Eric.  Not that I want him to be monogamous, I was glad when he found
someone to be with for a while, I don't like thinking of him as being
as lonely as I have been.  I just don't want anyone but him.  I've
tried, because I am very lonely here, but I haven't found many people
that have any trace of the right-ness i mentioned above, and it fades
quickly with those I have found.  I don't quite know how to interpret
this, or if it will continue when we are together...  it's all very
strange & new for me.

Any comments?

-jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Problem: the teddy-bear syndrome
From: connor@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:10:42 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I want my community to believe that I'm open to intimate,
>loving relationships, which is true.
>Somehow, society is not receiving the same signal I'm sending.


Another 'rule to live by' that you might want to add to your list is:
"Pretend you already are the person you want to be."

This has been of value to me in my own life and I just wanted to pass it along,
in case you find it to be useful too.  This allows you the freedom to make
changes in your life without worrying over "how" to change quite as much.  If
you want to be a person who acts a certain way, pretend you already are that
person.  Try the change on for size, so to speak, by playing the part.  Be a
character actor.  If the shoe fits, wear it home and forget about the old pair.

An example:  If I don't care about someone, and don't have any respect for that
someone, then I shouldn't be hurt by whatever they might think about me, right?
Well I struggled with this concept for a long time, but I finally decided to
-pretend- I don't care what those non-persons thought about me.  Well very
shortly I found that by -imagining- it to be so, by giving myself a glimpse of
the practical application of the idea, it seemed very natural and I just became
that way without conscious effort.

There is another variation of the rule that you may enjoy even more, which is:
"Pretend you already have the kind of relationship you want to have."

This one must be applied more carefully, because it involves another person, but
the principle is the same:  skip the intermediate steps, imagine what it would
be like if you had the type of relationship that you want to have, and act
accordingly.

Jennifer touched on this concept in her discussion of physical intimacy.  When
you meet someone who you want to become close friends, then -imagine it into
being- and start talking to that person as if you have known them since 6th
grade.  If you want to have a physically intimate relationship with that person,
pretend for a minute that the desired relationship is there.  Give them a hug!

This variation must be applied with caution, because most people are scared to
death of "things moving too quickly."  Use you own best judgement, and when you
question your interpretation of what you see, talk about it.  Say "I feel very
comfortable around you," or "I feel like I have known you for a long time," or
something like that.  See your partner's reaction.  Give a hug, and see if they
relax into it, or wait the obligatory 2.5 seconds and then let go.

You will get better at reading and speaking with body-language with practice.
Or better yet, pretend you are already fluent!  8-]

All my best,
Greg
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: vnoronha@dagwood.intel.com (Valerie Noronha)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:19:05 GMT
Reply-To: vnoronha@dagwood.intel.com (Valerie Noronha)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA


In article <1992Nov23.154849.17001@ttinews.tti.com>, reid@metis.tti.com
(Reid Kneeland) writes:
|> 
|> What about people who don't have the time or money to take these
|> "approved" courses?  They can't get married?  And "approved" by whom?
|> What will be the "correct" curriculum?  Who gets to decide what a
|> "correct" relationship is?  What "correct" parenting is?  I suggest
|> that these are best decided by the people involved, and not the
|> government.  You know, freedom, that silly old concept?

I agree with Reid's point concerning the problems of making marriage courses
manditory.  I think a *course* is not quite the correct term.  It implies
the handing down of instruction by *experts* and a pass/fail if you don't 
meet someone else's guidelines when the only real pass/fail is between the 
husband and wife.  I think we can all think of some couples who get along
great but whoses marital/house rules we find completely unacceptable for us. 
Just think of some of the recent disputes on the net.

Premarital *preparation* on the other hand can be extremely beneficial.  In
my church (R.C.) we had the option to take either a discussion series or 
attend an Engaged Encounter weekend.  During the weekend, several different
topics were presented to us, basically ranging from sharing who we are as
individuals, our relationships with others (family, friends, church, etc.),
and our relationship as a couple.  Older married couples volunteered to share 
their stories and then we were given a period where we would all separate 
and write in a journal (either responding to one of a series of discussion
questions or picking a related topic we wished to explore).  After this
we would exchange our journal with our fiance/e and discuss privately what
we had written (just the two of us).  The format of writing separately was
so that each person had an opportuntity to think it out on his/her own 
without tailoring the response to what we thought the other person might
want to hear of just agreeing so as not to spark disagreement.  This allows
the more reticent person to also express his/her views and the poor listener
a chance to read instead of talk.

The focus was on the couple and creating an environment where the couple
would discuss important issues relating to that relationship.  The facilitators
did not participate in the couple's discussions at all, but were available
if a couple should want an outside opinion on a thorny issue.  No outsider,
not the priest who later married us or anyone, ever knew what we had discussed
or even if we used that time to explore deeper into our dreams, goals, and
inner selves.  They just required us to attend.  As in most things, what we
got out of it was what we put into it.

Valerie Noronha
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory