HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:02:41 GMT

In article <921110174648@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.233544.2675@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>
>>     Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>  children for granted.  They can't afford to.
>
>Also, since child-rearing is not a standard social role for gay couples,
>they only have children if they want them enough to really fight for it. 
>A lot of heterosexual couples still have kids without really thinking
>it over, simply because that's what straight couples are expected to do.
>
>Definitely parental involvement is very influential in a child's education!
>
>
>Frances Kirk Selkirk		 fks@ftp.com	           (508) 685-3600

So I guess that is to say that gay individuals have never slept w
the opposite sex to have a baby.
 
Frances meet Elf. Elf meet Frances. The founding whatevers of 
generalisers.r.us
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - I set'r free.Nyuk
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: men talking it out?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 13:52:36 -0600

 WMR> In article <1992Oct27.033927.1302@tcsi.com> 
 WMR> miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) 
 WMR> writes:
 WMR> >
 WMR> >At some men's gatherings in California, there have 
 WMR> been meetings
 WMR> >where they attempted to avoid the following topics 
 WMR> and still have
 WMR> >conversations: work, politics, cars, sports, 
 WMR> hobbies, and women.  (I
 WMR>                 
 WMR> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 WMR> What else is there!? :-)


  Faster modems, bigger hard drives, and more lubricant.
 
   ;-}
 

 * Origin: Mammals' Melting Point <Stipple City, MN> (1:282/341.19)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: 24-hour notice: anonymus@godiva going down
From: anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kleinpaste, ACS administrator)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:14:28 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

You have mxsst1@vms.cis.pitt.edu, aka anonymus+1118, to thank for this.

It seems that "the red flag is raised."  Whereas local facilities
staff had previously been aware of, and (perhaps grudgingly) condoned
the existence of, anonymus@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (I mean, crud, the
local Manager of Systems Programming had given his "seems innocuous
enough" about it)...

As of this morning, and due specifically to complaints about the
above-named user, facilities staff have gained an entirely new
awareness and perspective, being an utter distaste for the service's
existence.  Godiva has (rather abusively, in my opinion) been forced
into standards compliance with the rest of cs.cmu.edu, and I have been
ordered to dismantle the system.

You have 24 hours in which to contact correspondents and either
exchange real email addresses or else find other means by which to
remain in contact.

Apologies to the vast majority of legitimate, decent users of the
system, some 3068 people.  And may the few abusers of it, who managed
to be its downfall even being such a minority, just rot in hell.

I want to know something REALLY IMPORTANT...  Has pitt.edu got some
sort of hammerlock on the "Highest Population Density of Publicly
Abusive Email Users" award?  Between this jackass and our good friend
of the alt.personals photo fiasco, not to mention a couple of private
complaints I've had, you'd think nearly the entire population of the
world's email morons lived about 5 blocks from where I now sit.

Eight weeks, birth to death.

-- 
No test posting.  To use this service, mail to (note misspelling, "anonymus"):
Anonymous posting:	anonymus+name.of.news.group@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Anonymous mail:		user's-alias@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Test path/get alias:	anonymus+ping@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Assign nickname:	anonymus+nick@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(in Subject:)
Anon administrator:	anonymus+0@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(anonymously)
			anonymus+admin@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu	(non-anon)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: ccamfiel@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Camfield)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:31:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.213242.1989@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>   Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>children for granted.  They can't afford to.
>>
>>            Elf !!!
>
>#1 dumbest post of the month.
>Congratulations you have posted the hands down stupidist post for the
>month of November. You may print this award, roll it into a dunce
>cap and parade around in public. It couldn't hurt your image.
>Congratulations.

Actually I would have said this flame, which says absolutely nothing,
to be the stupidest post for November.  Then again, what I'm posting
is pretty stupid too :)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: Falling in Love
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:08:13 GMT


In article <Bx6zHq.Ar7@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
> 
> Monogamy   Mild Polygyny   Moderate Polygyny   Extreme Polygyny
> Gibbons    Humans          Gorillas            Elephant seals
> 1:1        1.2:1           2:1                 3:1
> 

I can't tell the difference between one seal and another either!

Kev.

--
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:25:49 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <0ey6zvK00iUyM7FYlT@andrew.cmu.edu> "Sherrianne M. Johnson" <sj1s+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Lubosh writes: 
<stuff deleted>
>Boy, this sounds rather harsh...I guess I'm just fed up with gay/les/bi
>discrimination, and I'm pissed about the Colorado loss on #2.
I'll second that.
>
>Ob. pagan content:  Wow, there's been a lot of talk about cats
>lately...but what would you all suggest for someone (me!) who's so
>allergic to cats that they can't touch them?  I guess I could have a
>bird around (I really love them)...I wonder if they like rituals?
>
>Any ideas?  (we might want to make it a separate thread)

Wellll, you could spray the cat with cheap hair spray, and they could
clean up all the lint around the house, as well....

	(B^}
>
>Sigh....and hello to everyone.  I guess I'm leaping out of the
>non-posting closet and into the fray.  I'm a beginning pagan who's
>started a group on my campus, Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh,  for
>alternative belief and practice discussion called ESG (Eclectic Studies
>Group).  How are you all?
>
Hi, and be well come.

	mark
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:43:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.002333.5329@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov7.233544.2675@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg>) writes:
>
>>>>     Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>>>  children for granted.  They can't afford to.
>
>>>Definitely parental involvement is very influential in a child's education!
>
>>So I guess that is to say that gay individuals have never slept w
>>the opposite sex to have a baby.
>
>>Frances meet Elf. Elf meet Frances. The founding whatevers of 
>>generalisers.r.us
>
>   Somehow, I think James missed a good chunk of this conversation.  We
>were specifically talking about openly gay parents, especually those
>living with their same sex partners.  "Sleeping with" a member of the
>opposite sex does not mean they live with or raise those children.
>
>   The major crux of the conversation centers around the rights of
>adults _known to be homosexual_ to keep those children.
 
I disagree the crux of both your posts was to insinuate that homosexual
parents are better then het parents.
 
>
>   Pay attention, james.
>
>   Elf (There will be a quiz next period) Sternberg

Nice job on the creative editing Elf. 
 
Lets look at Elfs post:
>>>>     Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>>>  children for granted.  They can't afford to.
 
I guess I'm just sensitive when I take this as an attack on hetero's.
Now here's Frances delightful post that Elf mysteriously deleted out:
 
>Also, since child-rearing is not a standard social role for gay couples,
>they only have children if they want them enough to really fight for it. 
>A lot of heterosexual couples still have kids without really thinking
>it over, simply because that's what straight couples are expected to do.
>Frances Kirk Selkirk		 fks@ftp.com	           (508) 685-3600
>
 
Nothing derogatory about hetero's here. You guys are so cutting edge. So
magnanamous. Please post some more open minded, enlightening thought
provoking literature if you will. Elf pay attention to what you wrote.
What do you guys see when your admiring yourselves in the mirror?
 

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: Alexx@world.std.com (Alexx S Kay)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Poly breakups?
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:40:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>What happens when part of a poly relationship breaks up?  I've seen or
>thought of some examples:

[...]

>  A primary relationship breaks up, but one of the members has a
>  secondary relationship.  How does this secondary relationship change
>  with the loss of the primary?  Is it likely to become a primary, or
>  will the person find some other primary and keep the secondary as is
>  (I know either is possible, but what have people seen happen?)

Something very like this happened to me a few years ago.  I was at the time
an on-and-off secondary to a close friend of mine who was married.  After a
few years, sie discovered that hir spouse had been cheating on hir, and the
marriage ended, rather messily.  My relationship with hir (which had been in
an "off" phase) rekindled, as she leaned on me for emotional support.  After
a few months however, sie "fell out of love" with me.  The best theory I've
heard so far is that my relationship with hir was so connected with hir
relationship to hir spouse that in getting over the one, sie got over the
other as well, unintentionally.  I admit to still feeling somewhat hurt
and betrayed by the whole affair.

Of course, this was all rather complicated by the fact that I had just
gotten a primary of my own when hir marriage broke up, and I found myself 
with a very confused set of priorities...

Digression:  As I said above, hir spouse was cheating.  I used that word 
deliberately, in the sense of "breaking contract".  I am also still
bewildered by the fact that hir spouse did so.  They had had a fairly
standard contract, "open relationship, full disclosure, veto power", tho
as far as I know, neither of them ever used (or even threatened) to *use*
the veto.  And yet, this person (we found out much later) habitually
slept around without informing hir spouse.  And they weren't people that
sie *would* have vetoed if she'd known, even...

Confused,
Alexx

Alexx@world.std.com
"KEY GRIP (1 hr -- Drama) Part three of Patrick McGoohan's `John Drake' 
 Trilogy.  Series security prohibits any information release prior to 
 broadcast.  (Emph: the struggle for individualism)."
[From Matt Howarth's WRAB: PIRATE TELEVISION]
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1735 alt.romance:13851 soc.singles:30253 alt.sex:35524 alt.pagan:12647
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:22:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov10.105000.16862@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>Having raised a child, and being a male, part student, part engineer,
>and all house-husband and chief parent of the two of us, (my wife just
>never took to the job), I would say that anyone who tries to raise a
>child well by themselves will not succeed without a lot of other help,
>welfare, several helpful relatives, and no job till the child is
>school age or beyond. There just isn't time. I would never for a
>minute put down all the single parents out there, as they have little
>recourse, but it is simply not the best. As for the asshole above, who
>undoubtedly has never done cloth diapers by the six dozen in an old
>roller-wringer washer and hung them on the line, let alone clean a
>kid's butt till it smelled as normal as any other smell, I would say
>Problem: It's the only way they can get the whole picture and have a
 
<a bunch of insane crap deleted>
 
>chance to understand how to fix it later. Single-parent children I
>have known are clueless well into middle-age about a whole set of
>things they didn't get, whether they had only a mother or a father.
>They have no over-view and cannot seem to grasp the possibility of
>change without distorting it. I know few people with two intact
>parents that can't see through the superficiality of pc-ism, for
>example, or the impenetrable stupidity of the version of radical
>feminism that is out in the ozone like Dworkin and McKinnon. This
>territory seems to be virtually saved for clueless people walking
>around with half a set of values, from having half a set of parents.
>- Steve Walz

Proof positive that single parent families can be healthier.
Steve was obviously raised in a two parent family and look how he turned
out.

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - I set'r free.Nyuk
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1759 alt.romance:13920 soc.singles:30480 alt.sex:35902
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:14:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov7.233544.2675@nwnexus.WA.COM
	<1992Nov12.002333.5329@nwnexus.WA.COM>
	<1992Nov12.155341.13314@specialix.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kamal@specialix.co.uk's message of Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:53:41 GMT

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. 

Ummm...that's not just "GAY adoptive parents," that's *any* adoptive
parent.  Also, friends of mine have participated in births that were not
of their children, and they seem to get quite a lot out of the
experience...so I don't think anyone has to *completely* "miss out on"
this experience.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.pagan
From: corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:28:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.183147.11795@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>
>In article <Bx91tI.AxL@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com
>(Corun MacAnndra) sez:
>>But men and women DO have distinct roles in society. There are things that
>>women can do that a man can't, and vice versa.
>
>Uh huh.  And there are things that white people can do that black people 
>can't, and vice versa.  And tall folks can do stuff that short folks can't,
>but they have a harder time fitting into the back seats of Hondas.

Depends on the kind of Honda, but you get my point. Never at any time did
I say that women make better parents, or men should be the money earner.
Nor did I ever say that the partners involved in raising a child had to be
opposite sex, married, sexually involved, or even living together. Nor did
I say that there should only be two of them.

>> Children need role models, male and female. All children, male and female.
>
>Children do need role models.  But why stop at male and female?  Why 
>not insist that every child needs a black parent and a white parent
>(oops, not to mention an Asian, and a Native American, and....) so that
>they'll get the full perspective?  And oh -- doesn't every child need
>a straight parent and a gay one, too, so that they'll be guaranteed an
>appropriate role-model for their upcoming orientation?  (Oh, my goodness --
>what if that child grows up to be attracted solely to puppydogs?  We had
>better make sure to include a role-model for that....)

Why not simply foster children out to live with various group homes
throughout their development years? Say, six months with the biological
parent(s) and six with a group family. Unless of course the bio-parent(s)
is/are already living is a group family.

>> Children need role models, and those models should provide
>> the widest set of experiences for the growth of the child.
>
>Gender isn't the only distinction around in our society.  Kids grow up
>fine in families of one race, one socioeconomic status, one kind of sexual
>orientation.  No reason they can't grow up fine in families with parents
>of only one gender, too.

It's true. It broadens the experiences of the child. Personally, I see
the greatest amount of growth in racially mixed families. Some of the 
most beautiful (physically and mentally) kids I've seen came from a racially
mixed union. You gotta admit that it certainly broadens the gene pool.

Bb,
Corun




-- 
===========================================================================
    Corun MacAnndra    |    My opinions *are* those of my boss, because
  Dark Horde by birth  |   he is me, and I am he, and we are all together.
    Moritu by choice   |                 Coo coo cachoob.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Need opinions/advice...
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:20:59 GMT


shalimar wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is my first post to this group, though I have read it religiously
> since day one!

Hi!  And welcome. :)

[text deleted to save space]

LDR (long distance relationships) can be really hard.  The only advice I
think I could offer is for you and Bill to discuss how you're feeling and
where your relationship is going.  LDR's put a strain on a relationship,
because it's impossible to communicate properly.  If you felt that Bill
should have stayed and talked to you, instead of going and seeing Ann, then
maybe that should have been expressed to him.  It also sounded to me that
you wanted to find a lover because Bill has one and you don't, therefore
you feel lonely... a lover may fill the gap, but might not make you feel
any better.

I'll relate a LDR experience that I've had... my SO and I were seperated
for 4 months during which time we only saw each other once.  After about 
the first month, she became worried that I would find someone else and not
want to return to her.  She expressed this fear to me and to help alleviate
it we decided to write each other every day (the post office loved us *grin*).
The fear never completely went away, but the letters helped us to express
things that we would normally not say over the phone or in person.  Four 
years later and we're still together.

> Sorry if the tone of this post is dark and depressing, but I'm depressed
> and feeling so lonely lately.  :-(

Thanks understandable... HUGS!


Opinions of,

    __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
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.romance,soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.sex
From: mwasserm@diana.cair.du.edu (MARC Y. WASSERMAN)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 06:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.173125.11737@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM> jdm@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Moore) writes:
>radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (T. O. Radzykewycz) writes:
>
>>> I'm pissed about the Colorado loss on #2.
>
>>OK, I heard that Oregon defeated Prop 9, but did Colorado actually
>>get it's version passed?  Gaack!
>
>I'm extremely ashamed to report that Colorado did pass state Amendment 2.
>And the damn thing was drafted by a group called "Focus on the Family"
>right here in Colorado Springs (Ack!). 

Yes, but Amendment 2 was much more reasonable that Oregon's "ban
homosexuality" stupidity.

>Boulder and Denver had put local laws on the books to spell out the
>fact that people cannot be the target of discrimination due to sexual
>preference. Amendment 2 makes it illegal to pass anti-discrimination
>laws that single out homosexuality as an official group to be protected.

Which, if you look through that, really doesn't change much.  All it
does in Boulder, Denver, and Aspen, is repeal that anti-bias law
and replace it with something that says that homosexuality is not
a group to be protected with special rights.  Fine.  They still have
equal rights; nothing has really changed.

>This renders the existing laws void and this is sure to be challenged
>in the court system. I think it is ludicrous that such a law was 
>even up for popular vote as this is clearly an individual rights issue
>that should not be part of the democratic process. 

Actually, CFV (Colorado for "Family Values" (I find that distateful
too)) did run it through several congressional types.  They all
said it was constituitional.  What will probably happen is that
it will be repealed.  I don't think it will cause any trouble.
Even before Amendment 2, there were no lawsuits in Colorado based
on somewhat not being hired for being gay or fired for being gay.
Colorado is largely a democratic, reasonable state.  Amendment 2
isn't going to cause that much harm; nothing like Amendment 9
would have in Oregon.

>My favorite bumper sticker to come out of this morass:
>
>	"Focus on your own damn Family"

Cute.

>Jim Moore
>SunSoft, Colorado Springs

Marc Wasserman
University of Denver
mwasserm@diana.cair.du.edu

-- 
"So you're choosing to run from your own people in a rackety old TARDIS?"
		     D  O  C  T  O  R     W  H  O
				30 Years
"Why not?  After all, that's how it all started!"
Organization: Junior, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA