HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: you know, it always seems... was Re: phrases and sex roles
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:53:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <93022.125804HOLTONS@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Psycho!! <HOLTONS@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.165404.4070@lclark.edu>,
>tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis) says:
>>
>>it always seems that when i log on to my account that there are
>>invariably 69 articles to read in soc.bi.

>   Gawd help us if you come across a news group with 666 entries to read...

The last (positively the last!) time I resubscribed to soc.motss,
I got this message:


   There are still 4444 unread articles in 4 groups


(I nearly expired; fortunately, a few thousand articles beat me to it.)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, | "You'd better hope there's somebody
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |  walking around out there with a
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |  bollock transplant card."
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |           --  from  _Rab C. Nesbitt_
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Elizabeth Holden)
Subject: Ottawa Bi Dinner
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 08:08:16 EST

Well, we met at Maxwell's again and I don't know about everyone else but 
*I* had a great time.

We're scheduling again for Sunday, Feb. 28 at 6 p.m.  Maxwell's Bistro on 
Elgin street.

Namaste,
Elizabeth

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: litterst@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Stephen Litterst)
Subject: Re: soc.bi Frequently Answered Questions (FAQ)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:07:25 GMT

In article <1joat3INNj11@morrow.stanford.edu> alpha@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Alpha Schram) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.063428.17656@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian) writes:
>>
>>I call myself a dyke these days.  Maybe one day I'll call myself bisexual,
>>but not today.  I doubt I'll ever identify as being straight.  
>>So now you know - I'm not bi, yet I post here :)
>>
>Hmmmmm--I bi, yet I refer to myself as a dyke.  Seems to fit.
>
>Alpha
>

I've got to get to Cally.  This "dyke" (her phrase, I was gonna say "woman")
is far too interesting.  

				Steve L.
-- 
| Stephen C. Litterst           |*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*|  
| kyraan@bach.udel.edu          |       More man than you'll ever be...   |
| litterst@pecan.cns.udel.edu    \   More woman than you'll ever get.     |
|_guido@gnu.ai.mit.edu____________\ ______________________________________|
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: A philosophical question...
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:51:33
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1993Jan19.224648.28279@lclark.edu>
	<1993Jan19.235647.4459@news.columbia.edu> <C17JrB.86y@newcastle.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 21 Jan 93 14:18:47 GMT

In article <C17JrB.86y@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>>Here we see the *true* advantage to polyamory: When you dump your SO, both
>>you and sie know that it's because there was something wrong/uncomfortable
>>about the relationship between the two of you alone, not that 'there was
>>someone else'...

Unfortunately, being polyamorous doesn't actually make people any more
sensible...*wry smile*.  When someone is upset or hurt because someone
has left them, they'll come up with whatever explanation they want.  If
they are in a polyamorous relationship and the person continues some
outside relationship(s), they might well decide that they were "left for 
the other person/people."  This is more patently silly in a polyamorous
relationship, though, since you don't *have* to leave to be with the
other person.

Still, in my experience, it is very rare for anyone (monogamous or not)
to "leave someone for someone else."  However, it is very common for
someone to form a new relationship before leaving an old one - sort of
like if you hate your job, you'll generally still try to find a new one
before leaving the old one.  Of course, non-polyamorous people are
sometimes *forced* to leave a relationship because they love more than
one person and one of those people tells them they have to choose.  Even
then, though, I would not say it was accurate to say they left the one
for the other.

>I would have thought the real advantage was that you have someone else to
>support you when you're involved in a relationship breakup?

Not necessarily.  I have lots of friends to support me through breakups.
My SO and I were both involved with a person and when we broke up with
her, we had a tendency to keep upsetting each other by each feeding in
how upset we were.  (Then, of course, each of us got upset with the
person we'd split up with for hurting our partner, etc.  Very messy.)
Talking to friends was a lot easier.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      |~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            | but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   | light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.| somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: alpha@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Alpha Schram)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: SF Bay Area Get Together - 1/27/93
Date: 26 Jan 1993 07:50:16 GMT
Organization: Stanford University Amateur Radio Club, California USA
Distribution: net
NNTP-Posting-Host: w6yx.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan26.003715.7962@pony.Ingres.COM> becki@squid.ingres.com (Rebecca E. Tants) writes:
>
>	Who:   Mike Lloyd, Becki, and js, and you of course!
>	What:  Dinner and a Movie for as many people as we can get
>	When:  Wednesday night, January 27th, 7:30 pm 
>	Where: Yenching Resteraunt, 2017 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley
>	Why:   js is in town, and we want to see Body of Evidence. 
>
>
>An RSVP would be highly appreciated:  we won't wait for you if we don't know
>you're coming!
>
Is there anybody going to this from the Palo Alto/Stanford area who might
be able to give me a ride?  Arrrrrrrrrgh!

Alpha

-- 
Alpha Schram	alpha@w6yx.stanford.edu*################15################
1974 CB360 (Sexy Sadie)		       *#########Molly Goodenbour######### 
"It's not a big motorcycle,	       *####Stanford Women's Basketball###
just a groovy little motorbike..."     *---------ROMANI ITE DOMUM---------
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: eowyn@ravel.udel.edu (Zoe Antonia Velonis)
Subject: Re: Anyone read Sandman?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:43:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.003604.5145@midway.uchicago.edu> ss19@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <C19zME.483@news.udel.edu> eowyn@chopin.udel.edu (Zoe Antonia Velonis) writes:
>[e-flirting]
>>I meant where (portion of anatomy) not, where (location in the Real World)
>>Although I notice that *you're* on the same continent....
>>Wanna a warm-up?
>>
>>Zoe
>>(hoping to get a rep. as a shameless e-flirt)
>
>   9.2
>
>                 ____
>   david parsons \bi/ canary?  *what* canary?
>                  \/

Well thank you....
and I think *I* know what canary...but I ain't tellin'....
you cat you
(-:

Zoe
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Scorpii)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bi-wariness
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:12:32 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1k0cin$3o9@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:

>Well, I have no idea what my Kinsey rating is ... it seems that emotionally
>I'm more attracted to women, but physically and sexually I'm more attracted
>to men (aren't cocks just absolutely wonderfully beautiful?).

Well, some are and some aren't.  I like mine, though...:)

>Let me put it this way: I recently went to bed with two people who I had
>known for something like 3 hours or less.  One was male, one was female.  I
>knew them equally well, I interacted heavily with the man, and didn't
>actually touch the female.  Wasn't really comfortable with it.

>So ... am I a K2 or a K4? 

>Doesn't matter :)

True. :)

>And no ... not all bifems are K4.5+ ... I used to think that, but I know too
>many who are not.

Yay!

>Quite a few of them will perhaps prefer women aesthetically, but again,
>emotional relations are different ... 

>I know quite a few bifems are are _not_ heavily much more into women ...
>some of them may have a slight preference, but some of them also just like
>to go to bed with women for the sex ... 

>I suspect you just happened to go through a streak :)

I sure hope you're right!  Thanks.  

>-roy
>-- 
>Roy S. Rapoport     internet: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu      bitnet: rsrsoda@ucbocf
>anonymous mail: wi.5836@n7kbt.rain.com        androphile, gynophile, kerryphile
>"What I used to think is me / is just a faded memory." -NIN
>"No mayonnaise in Ireland"

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: pash@chopin.udel.edu (Pasua L'Gem Ellison)
Subject: Re: Blatant birthday information! :-)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:55:07 GMT

     I                  
       Love it when people are blatant.  Life is too short to be subtle
  	(to coin a phrase from Jim)!


	Happy Birthday! (Hughughughughugsqueezehughughughug)

-------
Pash@brahms.udel.edu| What if the hokey-pokey really _is_ what it's all
			About? 

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Talking about sex (was Re: Party Face, Net Face)
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:48:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.040631.12858@midway.uchicago.edu> ss19@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.145815.27594@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>
>>As for trying to tell people I'm a virgin (aaarrrrggghhh! the V-word!)
>>I sometimes get the impression that people would be happier hearing
>>that I'm Jack the Ripper.  I'm not asking them to do a conversion
>>job on me, just to accept the simple fact, but for some reason
>>people find it difficult to deal with.  And yet I didn't *choose*
>>to be a virgin, it just happens to be the default...
>
>   Perhaps there's a certain amount of discomfort because those
>people feel that they can't adequately describe their experiences
>to someone who hasn't been sexual?  

Careful!  I said I was a virgin, not that I hadn't been sexual.  (Here
I go, fending off all the old misconceptions again... sigh...)

Obviouly people are going to get fairly blank looks from me if they
start trying to describe things I've no experience of, just as other
people sometimes give me blank looks when I talk about (say) radio
comedy.  But I don't go all uneasy if someone says to me "I've never
listened to radio comedy".  Why should other people be uneasy if
I tell them I've never had sex?

>I know that during the
>intervals when I was celibate, and, for that matter, before I
>started becoming an e-slut, I would get rather uncomfortable
>listening to people discuss their sexual experiences, et alii, and
>it might work in reverse.

Yes -- it's very easy to think they're trying to intimidate you,
or show they're better than you in some way.  I'd expect to feel
excluded if I latched onto a group of people who were discussing
their sexual experiences.  On the other hand, I wouldn't expect
to feel excluded in a one-to-one conversation with someone
who was sexually experienced, since I'd expect them to be able
to make allowances for the person they were talking to.
Unfortunately, it seems that many people can't.

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: litterst@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Stephen Litterst)
Subject: Re: soc.bi Frequently Answered Questions (FAQ)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:10:08 GMT

In article <9301210952.AA27168@pizzabox.demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>:>14a.	Are threesomes really that good?
>:>
>
>:I'm a bit reluctant to encourage the myth that threesomes are a part of
>:bisexuality in general... what do other people think?
>
>I dunno, worked for me last week :-)
>
>Maybe we should have a quick straw poll just in case it turns out
>threesomes *are* a big part of bisexuality in general... :-)
>
>G

Dunno, never tried one.   I have a friend at UMD who's coming out was triggered
bi an unexpected threesome.  Mind you, my lack of experience is not necessarily
my choice... but these things are kind of hard to arrange if your group of 
friends happens to be monogamous and conservative.

					Steve L.
-- 
| Stephen C. Litterst           |*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*|  
| kyraan@bach.udel.edu          |       More man than you'll ever be...   |
| litterst@pecan.cns.udel.edu    \   More woman than you'll ever get.     |
|_guido@gnu.ai.mit.edu____________\ ______________________________________|
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: litterst@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Stephen Litterst)
Subject: Re: Are most of us Hetero guys really that insensitive?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:43:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.052706.8291@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dms4s@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Sailor on the Seas of Fate) writes:
>
>       But I've been thinking about why she would ask, and I've come to the
>conclusion that maybe she thinks men are only going to be interested in 
>a woman if there is a chance the woman will be interested in him. What
>I'd like to know, is this a common perception of the hetero male?  Are most 
>hetero men seen as only being comfortable with relaitionships with other
>heterosexuals? I feel kind of embarrassed that my friend would even have
>to wonder why I was willing to remain her friend.
>
>Later daze,
>
>Dave

Ran into a similar situation a few years ago.  Maryn and I had been getting
very close and were about to start dating when I went to England for a week
with the Wind Ensemble. While I was gone, she picked up a guy at a party and
they started going out.  When I got back, she had left me a note saying that
she knew I wouldn't want to see her anymore and she understood why our 
friendship can't continue.  For some reason, most women (that I run into, at
least) Assume that all guys want is a relationship and that we can't develop
a close friendship until after the breakup.  Now, I've gotten some good friends
this way but it's a stupid attitude to have.  
	Incidentally, Maryn and I went on to become better friends because of
this.  Unfortunately she moved last year and didn't tell me this so I have no
way of contacting her.  The first person I ever really loved and I've lost her
completely.  *sigh*

				Steve L.

-- 
| Stephen C. Litterst           |*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*|  
| kyraan@bach.udel.edu          |       More man than you'll ever be...   |
| litterst@pecan.cns.udel.edu    \   More woman than you'll ever get.     |
|_guido@gnu.ai.mit.edu____________\ ______________________________________|
From: tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: you know, it always seems... was Re: phrases and sex roles
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:54:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1993Jan22.165404.4070
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

it always seems that when i log on to my account that there are
invariably 69 articles to read in soc.bi.





































D amazing...

tonyd

D
A
A
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Biphobic girlfriend!?!
Keywords: help!
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:02:31 GMT
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <9302314.5274@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> bhat@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Timothy Alan Heath BELL) writes:
>
>After going out with my girlfriend for six weeks (my first girlfiend -- I'd
>only had boyfriends before), I'm now realising how biphobic she is. I've
>told her that I'd previously been out with guys, and she was fairly ok with
>that. We agreed that I wouldn't go chasing them while I was in a relationship
>with her (i.e. monogamy, not polyamory. 
>
>This is how it all came up: I was planning to compete in the Australian
>Gay Games tomorrow, and she was upset at this. I pointed out I wasn't going
>there to pick up, but because I wanted to participate in a gay-community-type-
>thing. She wondered why I still wanted to associate with gays, and I said that
>I wasn't straight, and I wasn't gay, but I still felt a bond to the gay
>community (a bit, anyway). Then she said I couldn't be both, and I realised
>where she really was: i.e.: not understanding really the idea of bisexuality.
>She'd been thinking that by going out with her I'd decided to reject my gay
>side and turn het (or something like that).
>
Is there a bi group nearby you could take her to?  Does she have access to
soc.bi?  Maybe you could get ahold of "Bi Any Other Name" or "Bisexual Lives"
for her.

>	- she's not well versed in feminism: I was trying to persuade her that
>	  she does have a say in our relationship, and that I didn't want her
>	  to agree to things without mentioning her opinion.
>	- she is important to me, and I do want to make this work.

It's important for both people to have a say in a relationship, and that means
you have a say as much as she does.  If you end up always being the one to
accomodate, then you'll get resentful.  I speak from experience :-(

>Thanks for being there, all you imaginary (? :) people out there!
>
>Tim.

You're welcome, imaginary person.



-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: stupid sex question
Date: 24 Jan 1993 17:49:53 -0500
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: galapagos.warren.mentorg.com

In <1993Jan24.184623.21778@midway.uchicago.edu> h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair) writes:

>Do people with long fingernails abstain from such sexual practices?

I actually think they do refrain from certain kinds of sexual practices
(manual penetration, etc.)

If you watch porn flicks, you can tell the real lesbians from the ones
that are "just acting" by nail length.  At least that's the joke I
used to make.

When Laura and I were on CNBC's "Real Personal" show, we made sure all
the women clipped their nails right before the show so that's they look
like "real bi-dykes".

>Do they wear latex gloves?  Do they have partners who are looking for 
>consentual cuts?

I clip my nails the day before any day I think I'm going to have sex.
A day of wear really works them smooth.  It's not always easy to plan
ahead like that, however.

Gloves?  I use gloves 100% of the time as part of my safer sex ritual.
Try them, you'll like them!  They add tons of interesting things to
your sexual repertoire.

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)

Unix is a trademark of, WHATT????
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Subject: Re: soc.bi Frequently Answered Questions (FAQ)
Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Glad to be Sad
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:16:31 GMT

In article <1k5hf0$4rn@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.072136.5508@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>->the first part of that statement.  My guess is that attitudes about
>->sex (be in threesomes or whathaveyou) have more to do with self-esteem 
>->and personal comfort levels than orientation.  
>
>Pardon me, Ellen, but I have some questions/misgivings about this statement.
>

>How do you think that self-esteem and personal comfort levels make a
>difference in ones attitude about sex? Are you saying that more self-assured
>people will tend to be easier WRT sex (easier here not used in a negative
>way, of course), or that they will be more choosy?
>
I would have thought that, in general, less self-assured people would have
more misgivings about sex (in any numerical combination) simply because
they are less confident about themselves, and have doubts about whether
sex would be worth it for/with them.  Um, I'm not expressing myself too
well, but it's one of those things that is so blindingly intuitively
obvious to me that I wouldn't expect to have to explain it.

--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk | "Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for
        ___         |  some people it is a complete substitute for life."
        \X/         |     -- Andrew Brown, The Independent
From: orc@sybase.com (Orc)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Nick's back
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:57:28 GMT
Reply-To: ss19@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Ambiguity

eowyn@brahms.udel.edu (Zoe Antonia Velonis) elaborates on her description:
>>*floodingromance* *pomp'n'intellect* *ardour* *unrequitedness* *cafe's*
>>*toriism* *didsomeonesay"threesome"?* *ardour* *fresheyesonworld* *love*
 [...]
>you forgot...*redheads*  I *like* redheads....
>and *apttoquoteanykindofobscurepoetryuntilababewalksby*

   .... and then tends to lose track of the conversation and start
drooling.  The unfortunate side-effect of only being a neophyte
e-flirt; you can't drool and talk at the same time :-)

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ orc@sybase.com
                 \/
From: dwells@lonestar.utsa.edu (Darren . Wells)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lovely film, I cried
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:01:12 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1993Jan26.173618.14838@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
 MJW19@phx.cam.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.001323.28763@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
 dwells@lonestar.utsa.edu (Darren . Wells) writes:
>>
>>I may be in the states, but thanks to the wonders of Cable TV (on
>>someone else's TV, of course) I recognize the name Rowan Atkinson.
>>I think he is quite funny.  :)
>
>Quite? Quite? QUITE!
>
>Humph.

I apologize for the lack of emphasis.  *meek look*

>What exactly did you see on cable then? NTNoN? Blackadder? Mr. Bean?

Blackadder and an hour-long special where he performed several skits.

>Mike.

Darren
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Ethics...
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:39:01 GMT
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan23.232911.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvadrgez@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>Is it ethical to one day just stop talking to a friend (permanently), and to 
>NEVER even try to explain why?
>

Probably only if the "friend" is a physical danger to you.  I did this myself
when I was a freshman to my roommate because she had said one too many
homophobic, erotophobic and generally bossy conservative things.  I should
have told her why I was upset, but I felt so alone and unsupported in a
seemingly hostile place, that I couldn't talk.  I was very very angry 
and it was hard to admit the depths of my feelings.  But it wasn't the
right thing to do.

And I've had somebody do this to me.  A woman I was in love with who was
running off with my (then) boyfriend.  Nothing would have hurt more than
this being cut off.  I've recently begun speaking to my ex-boyfriend again,
but I don't know if I'll be able to speak to her.

In other words, I don't recommend the practice either on ethical or
prudential grounds.




-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu