HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:37:35 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   Well, as half of the alt.polyamory creative team, I gratefully and
>>gracefully accept these accolades... 8->
>
>Half? What am I, chopped liver?

   Oh ho! Another Poly guru comes out of the closet! 8->

   OK, OK, a certain naughty redhead failed to mention your input to
the process of creating the group - I'm afraid you'll have to chastise
her yourself.

   But I'm still the only Southern hemisphere Poly guru we've seen so
far posting to the group!!! 8-P


>No, don't answer that.

   Oops! 8->

Joe.

PS - a special hello to my friend in Stanford who stayed up late to talk to
     me. Hi! 8->

  / 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: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Polyamory and Marriage
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:23:23 GMT

In article <171lanINNeof@agate.berkeley.edu>
     mshort@minestrone.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Short) writes:

>Personally, my history of relationships has been strictly monogamous, and
>so a lot of what's posted here is new to me. -Excuse me please- since this 
>group is 'polyamory', 'monoamory' would be the proper opposite; though I've
>read several posts which seem in the 'monogamous vs. polyamorous' vein. Or
>is there any real distinction between these words (topic for another thread!)

   "Monogamy" is associated with the socially acceptable concept of
"marriage."  Since we're here to challenge the concept of one-on-one
marriage, I use a word-- 'amory'-- to distinguish between emotional
love and socially descripted marriage.

>Did a state of polyamory happen only after your marriages? Or was it more a 
>recognization of a 'First among equals'?  Are all of you polygamist/
>polyandrous?  Or something else?

   Muffy... didn't we have this discussion a few month ago?  Anyway...
the concept of 'First of among' equals was well discussed earlier this
season.  I posed the question... "Do we rank our lovers?  Is there a
primary, then secondaries, tertiaries, ect., ect.?"

   I do; my wife comes first, unquestioningly.  My lover comes second,
but it's a very close second, and in the _must be there_ scenarios that
often come up between lovers, I doubt both would pull that card at the
same time.

>Another question: for the few polygamists I've met, polygamy usually meant
>several women being monogamous to the same man. Is that your experience also?
>(I mean outside of novels/fiction.)

   Nope nope nope.  _My_ polyamory at the moment consists of me, my
wife, and a boyfriend (I'm male... that's not always obvious with a
name like 'Elf.').  I have friends who form working quads of two men
and two women, and another of four women (and a gaggle of kids).

   And polyamory doesn't _always_ mean comittment; at the moment, it
does for me.  But there are people here who prefer their sexuality
without romance and all that mushy stuff.

>thanks again for the group.

   We are trying!

            Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
From: mshort@minestrone.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Short)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Polyamory and Marriage
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:44:39 GMT
Organization: ERL, University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: minestrone.berkeley.edu

Greetings to the Group!

I'm a new reader here (just getting my net access back this month after being
without it for two years), and its been a joy to share in the openness and
respect that's being shown here.

Personally, my history of relationships has been strictly monogamous, and
so a lot of what's posted here is new to me. -Excuse me please- since this 
group is 'polyamory', 'monoamory' would be the proper opposite; though I've
read several posts which seem in the 'monogamous vs. polyamorous' vein. Or
is there any real distinction between these words (topic for another thread!)

Please forgive, then, the obviousness/naivete of a question I have.

Several of the posters in various threads have mentioned being married. 
In my own mind, this has nothing to do with the presence/absence of a piece of
paper, but rather a connectedness in feelings and desires.

OK, given that (and I may already be far off the mark), what is it that led
to those being married to _chose_ to do this? (shotgun weddings don't count!)

Did a state of polyamory happen only after your marriages? Or was it more a 
recognization of a 'First among equals'? Are all of you polygamist/polyandrous?
Or something else?

Another question: for the few polygamists I've met, polygamy usually meant
several women being monogamous to the same man. Is that your experience also?
(I mean outside of novels/fiction.)

thanks again for the group.


==============================================================================
Michael Short
mshort@CS.Berkeley.edu
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:09:57
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Aug16.051922.5107@la <1992Aug18.004839.16323@nwnexus.WA.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: elf@halcyon.com's message of Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:48:39 GMT


In article <1992Aug18.004839.16323@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
   In article <1992Aug17.003906.26312@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
       woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
   >>   And BTW - I'm currently reclaiming the word "slut". I'm here, I'm a
   >>slut, get used to it! 8->
   >   You're a little late; I've been a slut since November of last year,
   >and damned proud of it too.  There's nothing wrong with being a slut!

  A little off the poly thread, perhaps, but perhaps not.  What does
"slut" mean to you?  Traditionally, I suppose, it referred to a woman
who had or enjoyed (gasp!) sex with multiple (male, of course) partners,
perhaps without much emotional (e.g. love) attachment to the same, or,
in a more direct way, a woman who had sex with lots of people -- but not
you.  *smile*

  So what does it mean when you say you're a slut?  Does it matter that
you're using it (apparently) in a polyamorous context?

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:26:38 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>>I'd like a "jealousy" defense
>>>to be considered in the same class as the "Twinkie defense" : ie. a pretty
>>>lame legal trick.
>>
>Jealousy as an excuse for violence is simply reprehensible and it astounds 
>me that so called "normal" people condone it.  Understandable?  Not by me.  
>Sure, Jealousy is an emotion that we all have felt (some of us less than
>others), but to even hurt someone because of it deserves punishment. 
>Or perhaps treatment, if it's possible to do that.  But to consider it
>"normal" is terrible.

   Uh, when my sweetie read this, they said "...*all* of us have felt?".
They say they've just never felt it once. And can't understand it at all.
(Me, I'm not so enlightened, I was a very jealous 14-year-old. 8->).

   And "deserves punishment" is perhaps a bit strong. Certainly it shouldn't
be considered a mitigating circumstance! And I'd like to see more general
an admission that gnawing jealousy is a pretty disabling state of mind,
but I'm not about to electroshock someone *just* for feeling jealous. 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: whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock)
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:55:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.194106.8279@bnr.ca> Cynthia Nolan writes:
>
>In article <whitlock.71.0@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu>
>whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock) writes:

>>
>>My experience (in two open marriages) was that much of the "work" involved 
>>explaining to the "others" who were not necessarily "poly" just how our 
>>marriage worked.

>I guess I sort of look on the whole thing as spreading the good news, so I
>attack these explanations with a missionary-like zeal and enthusiasm,


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. This group 
has lots of glossy magazines chock full of smiling naturists showing the 
reader (who is presumably, in 99% of cases, another naturist!) just how 
much "fun" it is to prance around with one's clothes off. Most of the photos 
show in the background other naturists --- not those who are the principal 
subjects of the frames --- clicking photos of these or yet other naked 
bodies. 

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 mention all this to perhaps stimulate some reflection in the poly 
community as to whether similar patterns of behavior, group-ism and 
prosletyzing are likely, and if so, whether this is healthy.

I was pleased to hear from Ms. Nolan, and do not mean to "pick" on her 
comment. But that one part struck a negative chord for me and I wanted to 
explore it further with others.

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.

Reid
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:48:38 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.194106.8279@bnr.ca>, Cynthia Nolan writes:
> In article <whitlock.71.0@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu>
> whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock) writes:
> >My experience (in two open marriages) was that much of the "work" involved 
> >explaining to the "others" who were not necessarily "poly" just how our 
> >marriage worked.
> 
> Reid, my husband and I have had the same experience.  Once we worked things out
> for ourselves and realized that we could make our marriage whatever we wanted
> it to be it's been mostly a matter of just being honest and kind to each other.
>  But it's the business of clarifying it to others that is still the most
> difficult.  Potential lovers, as you mentioned, (unless they've already been
> "poly-ized" through other experiences) seem to have a real struggle with the
> concepts. 

My wife and I came out to some people (my twin sister, and a buddy of mine and
his wife) who we thought would have about the same reaction.  Boy, were we ever
wrong.  My sister's first reaction was to think that we were breaking up or
having a hard time in our marriage (the furthest thing from the truth :) ).  I
think that she has recovered from the shock now... but I'll never tell anyone
about our marriage over the phone again.

Our friends, we told in person while at a nightclub/bar.  Their reaction was
completely opposite to what we expected... there was no reaction.  Well, that's
not completely true, they did say, "That's neat." or something similar. :)
They were more interested in how my wife came to the decision that she was bi.
All in all, it was the easiest coming out we've had so far... hopefully, the
others will end up being just as painless.

>  I've often thought I'd like to put together a small brochure, so I wouldn't
> have to go through the whole thing over and over.  You know, with a definition
> of terms, and FAQ section and a sort of "so you think you might be polyamorous
> too..." section, and just hand it to the person! (in fact, maybe I will - I'll
> post the draft here first for comments - ;)  )

I'll take a copy... might make an interesting insert for the Xmas cards. ;)


Ciao,

      __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
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: THANKS - YOU GUYS ARE GREAT!!
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:00:37 GMT
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6


In article <1992Aug14.214154.1607@bnr.ca>, Cynthia Nolan writes:
> Well, Hello all you polyamorous folks out there!  

Hi C, and welcome!

> I've just discovered this group, and I wanted to say thanks to you all.

I remember when this group started... it's been a great place to hang out.

> Polyamory has been a part of our marriage for over 10 years and has made our
> lives richer and more complete.

I wish I could say 10 years too, but for a 1-1/2 years it is made us happier.

> All the best, to all of you, and have a great week-end.

The weekend was great. ;)


      __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

PS: Oh cool!  I just noticed we work for the same company. :)  I wonder
    how many other BNR's will eventually show up here. ;)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Cynthia Nolan
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:58:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.024217.5844@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au
(Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>   Let's turn the tables. Do you really feel that no matter what the 
>circumstances, and no matter how you're feeling (maybe both parents just
>died, your cat was run over, you lost your job and one of your testicles
>just fell off), you have an obligation to be sexually available to your
>partner, even if only grudgingly via a hand- or mouth-job?!? ...


I agree wholeheartedly with you on this, Joe.  One of the attitudes that being
poly has really developed in me is an understanding that I can't (indeed,
mustn't) take the responsibility for another person's physical or emotional
well-being.  

This is not to say that in any loving relationship, both partners won't
continually work to care for each other in physical and emotional ways, but by
the same token one does no favours to a lover by sublimating one's own rights
or feelings to theirs. 

I think the most important responsibility we have to partners is to be honest
with them, and to expect and encourage the same honesty from them, about our
needs and our feelings.  And to not play rotten little "you owe me" games with
each other. 


>   Christ, just carve yourself a hole in the mattress or something. You
>*do* have your own resources, even if monogamous.

EXACTLY!!  I would think that one would have to be very unimaginative if a
partner was always required for physical satisfaction. 

>...it makes sense to fight attitudes that promulgate a notion of sexual
>obligation under *any* circumstances?
>
>   If somehow I've misread you, my apologies.

Me too.  I came into this thread after it had started, so I hope I haven't
misinterpreted it.  I'd say my view of sexual obligation in any relationship -
mono or poly, is, to paraphrase the great Eric Gill, "look after truth and
goodness, and *satisfaction* will look after itself"

C.



Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: FORWARDED : Ayn Rand's Contribution to Poly-ness?
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:23:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug16.025122.2167@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
+   Another forwarded post for Jim Baranski, who's not allowed to post
+       BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL
+
+How many people have read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", or "The Fountainhead",
+or know much about objectivism.  While Ayn Rand and objectivism are pretty dry

Or her eugenics...

We already have 'ideal' capitalism so why bother with enlightend
capitalism. Neather fills the bellies of the needy, except as
required to keep them in check.

+and emotionless, they helped me form a resolve to try to look at life
+objectively. To define who and what I am, and not to accept other people's

There is no objectivity. No 'super ego' which will merely record the
'system' state, which could be the only 'objective' identification
of the 'self'. My preceptions of 'myself' and my 'identity' are by
definition subjective. It may be that some other, outside my self,
that can 'approximate' a objective observer, but even then that
person will interpret the record 'subjectively' as will anyone else
who may read it.

+labels or characterization of me.  To think of what I think and Feel, and not
+allow others to say what I think and feel. (some small credit to the women's
+movement).  To think about what in life is important to me, and cling to that.

Oh, give me a break! Read Abram Maslow, Eric Fromm, and a few other
'jewish' writers, which would make Ayn roll over in her grave.
The 'women's' movement applied these principles very well to move
women from the state of having to 'validate' their actions with some
'man'.

+Does this ring a bell with anyone?
+
+While objectivism has a soiled reputation from people using it to justify an
+attitude of 'What I want is the only important thing'; hurting or abusing other
+people, and doing whatever the hell they wanted; I do not believe that is it's
+message.  Nor do I take it overboard and think that there is only one way to

Neither was Jesus's message 'go and kill somemore'.. But that did
not stop the developments over the last 2 millenia. This not to say
that there was some other crowd of peace-niks, as to say that almost
any philosophy can be adapted and agumented to justify being brutal
towards one's fellow human beings. 'Objectivism' really is nothing
new and does not really forcefully have a 'peaceful' coexistence as
its goal.

(Of course how can you have peace if the other guy is trying to kill
you, we all need a living room you know).

Personally, I dislike Rand's books, although the one play I saw by
her was interresting in incorporating the audience in the jury(can't
recall the name). The plot was to review the 'evidence' of a murder
and determine if the defendant was guilty or not.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.154311.28492@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <BsvBEt.KIo@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>>In article <72810002@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> ronw@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Ron Whitetree) writes:
>
>>But that was before we'd even heard of AIDS.  It wouldn't be funny
>>now.
>
>VD existed before AIDS. VD will exist even if AIDS ceases to be a
>threat.

Back then (the 60's and 70's) "nice" people didn't have VD.  Of course
that is a totally asinine statement, but that's what we believed.

Herpes?  Never heard of it.  Syphilis?  Sure, if you went with some
low-priced prostitute.

But would the kind of people I'd even talk to have VD?  Of course not.

Young and stupid.  Ayup.

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: cd975@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Daniel K. Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: alt.personals and enforced monogamy
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:28:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Why is it that this person can make a moral judgement about a 
married person, but yet post an add for a crossdresser in Canada,
not that that's wrong, wanting to entertain other gentlemen.

I know.....morals is relative.

Dan

-- 
Dan Holmes
cd975@Cleveland.Freenet.edu   "Wisdom is the diversification of
                               Knowledge"--Anonymous
From: ronw@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Ron Whitetree)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:09:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy (LONG)
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory


Joe Woodhouse and Karen Macarthur write:

>macarthr@dae.Princeton.EDU (Karen M. Macarthur) writes:
>> [excellent wisdom deleted]
>>Hmmm... I think I'm going to start a flame war because of all the
>>flagrant morality judgements I just made.  At least it should
>>lead to some highly interesting discussion of perspectives!

>...since mine seems to be just about exactly like yours. 8->

>   They may have been flagrant morality judgements (didn't push any of
>my buttons, though), but I think they were each and every one of them
>*my* flagrant morality judgments too.


I want to second Joe's comments. Karen, as usual, says it all for me 
as well!

And she doesn't even know ;) 


Ron
Does this mean I can't just lurk anymore?


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Subject: Re: "poly" label and other people
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:33:37 GMT

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


>If you don't have the time or occasion to go into it in detail (after all,
>have often do you get into discussions of your relationships with casual
>aquaintances?) there's always the "drop it in" method. For example, I
>might try:

>	"Once, at this very good sushi bar - we'd gone there with my
>	husband's girlfriend and her housemate - we were discussing..."
>	(amusing story follows). 


	Oh my!

	I'm so famous!

>--

>Frances Kirk Selkirk		 fks@ftp.com	           (617) 246-0900
>FTP Software, Inc.		 26 Princess Street, Wakefield, MA  01880


	Annemarie, Francie's husband's gf's housemate
	asuccop@u.washington.edu