HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:48:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>  I understand that rejection is hard to take, but to pass up on someone
>because you think that they will reject you completely before they even
>get a chance to look or talk or find out who you are seems... well, why
>do you think that anyone would want you, then?  Very attractive people
>want the same things that everyone else wants, as far as I can see.

This is a very good point.  In general, people want acceptance, so the person
you approach will also be afraid of you in some way.  They breathe the same
air you do, eat food like you do, have other bodily functions like you do
(trying not to be too blunt, but you get the picture), and have the same
psychological needs for acceptance and companionship that you do.  In short,
throw caution to the wind and go for it.  Another way to look at it is to be
bold for ten seconds - then when the ten seconds are up you can return to your
normal self - by then, you'll be over the hump.

Jon

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:26:43 GMT


In article <37377@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
> Communication only is labeled 'good' as long as the parties say each
> repective person wishes to hear. Say something out of that bound, and
> communication stops. 

IMHO, communication cannot be labelled as "good" or "bad," because
communication is not a judgement call... either there is communication
or there isn't.  I think that the *forms* of communication can be
considered good or bad (you're example is a good representation of
a bad form of communication).

> As in,
> "Gee Dear I really think your friend X is pretty interesting,
> and kind of sexy",
> 
> "What!  Are you saying that I'm not good enough for you?",
> 
> "No, Dear, I was just telling you about my internal state at this moment,
> to keep you abreast via my open and honest communication channel",
> 
> "No, I don't think so at all, you really want to just screw X,
> and keep me here as well".
> 
> "Well, if I'm going to be accused and assumed guilty then I might as
> well have the memories as well"
> 
> "I knew it, you been screwing X all along! Where'd you do it. Was it
> when I went to that conference on 'Maned Space Flight to Uranus'?"
> 
> "No, I haven't screwed X nor am I saying that I will, but if I get
> this much shit for stating my internal feelings to hell with stating
> them at all".
> 
> "Oh, so now you not going to communicate with me, so what other acts
> are you hiding?"

Actually, your above example is very close to a conversation that I had
with my wife prior to our marriage (only the first 4 lines though).  She
used to be extremely jealous of me being around other women.  Only
through heart-to-heart conversations were we able to work through her
jealousy.  Only through communication could I reinforce that I was
committed to her, that I loved her and that I cared for her.  Only 
through communication, were we able to discuss our having an open-marriage
and its implications.  I haven't always told my wife what she wanted to
her, but by talking things through we've always been able to work things
out.

I guess I look at it this way... it's impossible to tell someone you love
them, unless you communicate it.


      __o       Brad Booth                |  
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |  "He doesn't need a motive.
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |   He's a psychopath."
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  ... Tony Scalli, The Commish
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:08:09 GMT

In article <whitlock.74.0@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu> whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock) writes:
>One of the things that concerns me, and I'd be interested in the views of 
>others, is how one "markets" the polyamorous lifestyle. I find myself quite 
>turned off, for instance, by the approach of the naturists (nudists), who 
>also have an "alternative lifestyle" by common societal norms. 
[...]
>The missionary zeal and enthusiasm of this group seems to center on being (
>A) a formal group --- with norms, magazines, events, etc... (B) being 
>public (in their own company) and (C) documenting just how fun and great 
>their lifestyle is. Why are they so interested in "converting" others? If 
>that is not their intent, why do they expend so much energy on documenting 
>their "fun". Who is it for?
[...]
>I think the quiet, private, labor-intensive one-on-one discussions with 
>which many of us are familiar, are part of what makes us review for 
>ourselves on a regular basis what we believe and why, and this is very 
>healthy. Zealous outreach usually involves pre-packaging, sloganeering and 
>finally demagoguery (e.g. "my poly faction is more correct than yours").
>
>I think the idea of a FAQ pamphlet is actually a very good one, and I'd be 
>happy to comment on any text made available to the net. I'd like to hear 
>what the "next step" in zeal and enthusiasm IS.

I suspect the reason nudists (or bisexuals or neo-pagans or ...) "market"
their lifestyle is a combination of networking and public relations --
rather than any strong interest in "converting" people.

On one hand one wants to connect with like-minded people, on the other
hand, our society is so dedicated to uniformity that there are plenty
of myths and misunderstandings about any "deviant" group.

If society had a greater appreciation of diversity a lot of these
movements would not need to exist.

For a FAQ blurb I would suggest trying to write up some "myths" and
rebuttals. (I've done this for bi issues, and I think it has some 
merit in other contexts.)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bdienes@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Bruce Dienes)
Subject: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:34:21 GMT


From the "sexual implications of monogamy" thread:

>	There is no coercion involved.  If I am in a monogamous relation, and
>sex gets interrupted for some period of time, unless there are
>extenuating circumstances, I will consider the relationship as open or
>ending.  This is a black and white -- not coercion.

>	If someone, however is in a polyamorous relation, and 1 person
>in the group opts for no sex, it only immediately has to affect the one
>person -- in the sexual dimension.  Of course if there are other reasons
>why sex has been halted, there may be other problems -- but still in
>a poly situation, tensions may be less than in a mono situation.  
>I know from close friends and from personal experience, when people who
>are used to getting sex on a regular basis get it interrupted, it causes
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>stress and increased irritability.

>-wat-

Sex is not required for survival or health, either emotional or
physical.  The biological imperative for sex is for the continuation of
the species, not for the survival of the individual.  However, like
some substances, and some activities that generate chemical responses in
the body (e.g eating hot peppers releases endorphins into the system),
sex can be addictive, physically and emotionally.  The stress and
irritability could be construed of as withdrawal symptoms, similar to
how someone behaves when they begin to quit smoking.  

The issue here is that, if we are addicted to sex, it is easy to become
consumed with our sexual addiction, to the point where we sexually
objectify, not only our partners, but everyone we see on the street,
work with, etc.  The danger is that we will see our relations with
others primarily in terms of sexual energy and innuendo, and other
dimensions of human contact and sharing will be diminished, if only
because we are choosing to pay less attention to them.  

The discussion along this thread has, at times, seemed to me to be about
keeping the source of supply of the drug (sex) open, not about close
human contact and mutual respect.  I think we need to examine our
addiction (it seems clear to me from looking at popular culture that
most North Americans are sexually addicted) and decide how we can get
rid of the addiction, without getting rid of sex.  How can we have warm
sexual connections with our friends and lovers without the sense of
compulsion and desperation which I don't believe is inherent?  

Has anyone else been thinking along these lines?  I would appreciate
your comments.   

Bruce





Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:50:25 GMT

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>Communication only is labeled 'good' as long as the parties say each
>repective person wishes to hear. Say something out of that bound, and
>communication stops. 


>As in,
>"Gee Dear I really think your friend X is pretty interesting,
>and kind of sexy",

>"What!  Are you saying that I'm not good enough for you?",

>"No, Dear, I was just telling you about my internal state at this moment,
>to keep you abreast via my open and honest communication channel",

>"No, I don't think so at all, you really want to just screw X,
>and keep me here as well".

>"Well, if I'm going to be accused and assumed guilty then I might as
>well have the memories as well"

>"I knew it, you been screwing X all along! Where'd you do it. Was it
>when I went to that conference on 'Maned Space Flight to Uranus'?"

>"No, I haven't screwed X nor am I saying that I will, but if I get
>this much shit for stating my internal feelings to hell with stating
>them at all".

>"Oh, so now you not going to communicate with me, so what other acts
>are you hiding?"

Or as Tom Lehrer put it:
   What we see today in movies and books, and in real life too I might
   add, are people spending hours bemoaning the fact that they can't
   communicate.  I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very
   least they can do is to SHUT UP!!

So keep the comm channels open, even if you don't like what you're
hearing.
-- 
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: reactions to polyamory
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:36:08 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
><Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
>>   Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
>>wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.
>
>To tell the truth, I don't see (from the description I deleted) why
>Karina was so upset.  Surely the person has a right not to be
>interested?? (and don't call me Shirley!)  

   OK, I didn't indicate the dripping malice in their tone well enough.
It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
very far away from them indeed.

   So it wasn't just that they "weren't interested" - they were
extremely offended, and quite rude about it. Karina & I were offended
that they were so offended. Would they have said it the same way if
I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
or something else they simple weren't interested in?

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: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:09:05 GMT


In article <l9t0rkINNjpv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
> 	But -- and here is a semantic point -- does the fact that the
> other person may perceive it as coercion mean that _I_ am being 
> coercive? 

If the other person was to tell you that they feel like they are being
pressure or coerced, then you will know that your actions are being
perceived as coercive.

> Or do _I_ have to have intent to be manipulative.  If
> I am stating my needs and this doesn't work for the other person, then
> I can't see it being the right course of action for me not to 
> relate my needs.

I agree that if you are not intending to be manipulative, then you are not
trying to coerce.  But it is such a fine line to tread, that it would depend
on the people involved and their situation.  In a relationship where A is
more dependent on B, a change in the relationship by B could perceived as
coercion by A.  In everyday life, IMHO everyone tries to coerce others...
what is important, is whether or not the coercion is detremental to the
others.

> 	True -- but finding 1 person that satisfies all my needs may be
> more difficult than if I have more than 1 person around.  I've often
> thought that the best person for myself would be myself -- but I haven't
> found a way to produce a female clone of myself yet...  I'm pretty
> unique.  

Yeah, we're all pretty unique.  I, myself, married someone who was the
opposite of myself, but who complemented me.  I have other people around
to fill in the gaps that exist in my "primary" relationship.

Brad

"If somebody feels really good about who they are, they don't feel
 threatened by what other people are." ... Dr. Maggi Rubenstein, BAON
From: woodhous@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: bounced email
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:32:47 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au


   Hi. Sorry to consume everyone's bandwidth, but I've tried to return
someone's email and it keeps on bouncing.

   I can't mention their name (for good reasons), but can the person
who'd been "lurking in alt.polyamory since the first post", who had
the "touchy situation" that meant they couldn't post *please* get in
touch with me?

   (See? That's surely evasive enough to protect your interests. 8->)

   Apologies to the rest of you for being so mysterious! 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: gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 07:10:34 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Aug24155151@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Anyway, so...I'd like to hear from people who actively seek out
>relationships, particularly when you are already in one.  It is
>something that I don't understand very well and I'd like to get some
>insight into it.  I guess I feel (purely a feeling, not based on any
>actual information) that seeking relationships is not something that
>works very well.  I also wonder if it isn't something of a stress on
>existing relationships, especially if it is the case that the new
>relationship is being sought specifically because there is something
>lacking in the existing one.  That is, I think it would be very hard on
>my SO if I said "I'm looking for someone else because you don't satisfy
>me in <x> area," as opposed to "I just met this really neat person and
>want to spend time with them."
>
>Muffy

 Well. INHO, I suggested an open realtionship to my SO to fufil what I thought would be an interesting kink in our sex life. We wre clearly both deeply in love
with one another, and she had a hard time accepting why I wanted her to do it.

 She has been in countless, affairs with others, and I have met a few myself.
And it has enriched our sex lives greatly. And at the request of either one of
us we will call it all to a quit.

 If this is the relationships you speak of.. thats it in a nutshell.
I have never really desired another of what I have with my SO. There was
one woman I was seeing off an on that wanted it to go deeper that it was.
 She asked me to move in with her.. But I was already living with my SO, and
to tell the truth broke it off with her because she wasin too deep..
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:38:03 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>	I've had a few partners in the past who actually were uncomfortable
>with and/or got mad if I admitted to masturbating (which I did about
>twice a day).  They felt I was cheating on them.  

   Yeah, I've heard of this quite a lot.

   It's part of why I suspect many people's objections to polyamory rests
not so much on the idea of "their" partner being with other people, but
"their" partner just not being with *them*.


>So it comes down to "who's standards do we go by?"

   Just generally speaking, when I'm forced to choose between 2 opposing,
but otherwise basically equal systems of thought, I go by the one that
involves less "objectionable" coercion.

   "Objectionable" coercion is something along the lines of sexual
harassment, or smoking near babies, or the like. "Non-objectionable"
coercion is the prevention, possibly coercively, of "objectionable"
coercion. Of course, it doesn't always work as simply as that, I'm
just trying to capture quickly the essential differences. My point is
that not all coercion feels the same to me.


>To deny yourself constantly for another person can't
>really be considered healthy, can it?

   I don't tend to think so, no.

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: john@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: alt.personals and enforced monogamy
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:17:54 GMT
Organization: Two strange people in Forest Grove, OR

In article <1992Aug24.140342.19767@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>
>Starting a second posting service for the same newsgroup would be
>possible and spends less net recources than a new group.  If people
>don't want to see it they can add it to their kill file.

Assuming that the same number of poly-oriented postings appear regardless of
whether a new newsgroup is formed or a second anonymous server is set up in
alt.personals, the network load (measured in kbytes) would be identical.

The only additional resources taken up by a separate newsgroup would be an
additional directory in /usr/spool/news.

Throwing human nature (and the observed behavior of a few folks in a.p) into
the equation, I suspect a separate poly group would generate *fewer* kbytes
of traffic as the monos won't have us in their faces and thus won't be tempted
to play Flame-the-Polys.

If I decide to host a poly-oriented ACS, I will first create a new newsgroup
for it, probably called alt.personals.poly.

So far, the e-mail I've been getting has been uniformly in favor of a poly
ACS.  However, there hasn't been much of it, so I wonder if the demand is
truly there.

-- 
John Opalko

john@n7kbt.rain.com  -or-  wi.5327@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
From: paradis@sousa.ltn.dec.com (Jim Paradis)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: newspaper personals and enforced monogamy (was alt.personals...)
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:26:06 GMT
Reply-To: paradis@tallis.enet.dec.com (Jim Paradis)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


>Here in San Francisco, the Bay Guardian has all these sections and
>more, most notably "Either/Both/Couples".  It seems to contain a
>plurality of couples seeking bi-women.  This section has been growing.

Last time I checked into the Boston Phoenix, they also restricted the
personals section to "monogamous singles only".  If you wanted something
*else*, you could advertise in the "Entre Nous" section along with the
escort services and phone-fantasy lines.  Not surprisingly, "Entre Nous"
cost about three times as much as any of the *other* classified sections...

You might say that they have their customers by the short-and-curlies,
and they know it (*ouch!*) 8-)

--
Jim Paradis (paradis@tallis.enet.dec.com) 
Working for DEC, speaking for myself.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory