HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnb@math.orst.edu (John Bainbridge)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: Oregon State University Math Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:29:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.130934.24980@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
><her perspective>
>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
<stuff deleted>
>>>ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes:
<stuff deleted>

Although I'm not sure if Eric necessarily addressed the issues Muffy
was raising I must say I agree with his perspective.

I find it ironic that frequently women (and men too for that matter)
complain that men don't express their emotions/thoughts enough but
when they do it's freqeuently found offensive <smile>.




Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: pascale@cs.ruu.nl (Pascale van der Put)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:19:28 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <39044@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.143008.10158@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>+
>+   Do we really suggest that banks are "financially provocative" and
>+should take responsibility for armed robbery because of all that
>+money they keep there?!?
>
>Banks take incredible caution in displaying said money. There are
>armored cars, TV cameras, exploding money. ...  This does not stop
>robbery, it deals with the situation with a view to current human
>behavior regarding money. A guard who fails in his vigalence is fired,
>or killed by criminals.
>
> ... I do not believe in a 'basically good human soul, twisted by fate
>to evil". ... I think there is an evil(very societally defined in many
>cases) which is in most humans. ...
>
>Now for a different analogy. I walk into a gay bathhouse(a vanishing
>species) and wear a sexually provocative pair of underwear. I'm
>'assaulted' by a rather forceful individual who has bad breath and
>smells like he hasn't bathed in years. I'm offended that of all the
>nice fellows, this is the one who sees fit to 'respond' to my
>provocative attire. I fight but to no avail, no K-Y jell, and my ass
>is sort as hell.

>Well, my analysis requires that I personally take
>responsibility for 1) being there 2) being provocative 3) accept that
>individuals not to my liking may respond. ...  Now, as I file my
>assualt charge, the police are definately going to question the
>'victim'. They will ask if I 'wanted to be assaulted' and a whole line
>on the 'provocativeness' of my behavior. On each question, I would
>have to answer 'yes I was being sexually provocative', until Mr
>Badbreath showed up, he just didn't take 'No to mean NO!'. ...
>
>John Clark
>jclark@ucsd.edu

- It could be argued that people take caution as well (eg. by not
  walking alone at a dark street late at night).
- The fact that people take caution does not imply that they should
  take caution. If people did not assault other people, if people did
  not rob banks, if people did not make wars then "caution" was not
  necessary.
- The sad fact that people do assault/rob/make war does not imply that
  the "victims" are provocing these assaults/robberies/wars.

I wonder how a person who seems to visit a bathhouse often manages to
smell like he hasn't bathed in years. :-)

- I think that the greater majority of adults knows that 'No means
  No'. Adults may be expected to behave accordingly.

Pascale (pascale@cs.ruu.nl)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.men,soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: People are People (Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:22:08 GMT

>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Once again, just to make my position clear, what I have been talking
>>about all along is the incredibly nasty idea that women will "make
>>something scarce" as soon as they find out that someone else wants it.

>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>I got the following email -- they didn't have time to write
>>a postable version, but I got permission to put an edited form here:
>[email message supporting his assertion]
>>> It isn't just an incredibly nasty idea Muffy, it's a reality for alot
>>of men and women.

>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Well, heck, if an email message proves anything, I can post some from
>>people who agree with me.  Just because you know someone who thinks this
>>is true does not prove anything; in particular, it does not prove that
>>this is a common characteristic of women.

Just because you think it is false, and can have people post here who agree
with your point of view, does not make *your* assertion true either.

I know about that behavior, because I have experienced it firsthand on more
than one occasion. No theory or point of view you put forward can refute my
direct personal experience. I wouldn't characterize all women as being that
way, but it's certainly silly to deny that both men and women have abused
people with that mechanism. Case closed.

A person who has Venus in Scorpio, as you do, should work on owning themselves
first. Other people and their ideas are not your property to manipulate at
will, as seems your style. This is something I've had to learn through much
painful interaction with people - on both ends of the equation. One hopes you
might spare yourself and those around you further needless pain and anger.
I am not free from poor behavior, but I at least try to recognize and correct
it. I could never have begun to heal without admitting my behavior to myself.
You can do this too.

-ecsd
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:59:01
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<lcm2sgINNl0n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<MUFFY.92Oct1102623@remarque.berkeley.edu> <BvH8tF.2Cq@world.std.com>
	<lcpj85INN44e@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 2 Oct 92 22:28:21 GMT

In article <lcpj85INN44e@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Oct1102623@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>Aha! You have finally hit it.  "minimum but not sufficient."  When it
>>>*is* sufficient that, for example, I am female, then I *do* feel that
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>the person is NOT ATTRACTED TO *ME*, and I do not find *that*
>>>attractive. ...
>Sufficient for what?

Either having sex or starting "a Relationship."  I generally find this
to happen more with people who are looking for sex, but they also seem
to tend to want to then turn that into "a Relationship" to insure a
steady supply of sex.

>This
>should not be sufficient for someone to be interested in you?

Should not be?  That's up to them.  However, *I* will not find *them*
interesting if they find that sufficient to want to have sex with me.

I'm not saying how people *should* act, I'm saying that if they *do* act
in a certain way, I will not be interested in them.  More specifically,
I am saying that the loss of interest is quite real, and not just
"depriving them of what they want because they expressed an interest."

>>> One of the
>>>NECESSARY qualities for me to be attracted to someone is that they are
>>>interested in me, personally.  If I find out that they'd take anyone
>>>with a certain quality that I have, then I no longer believe that they
>>>are interested in me personally, so I am no longer attracted to them.
>---
>Gee, suppose they were interested in anyone who had your fingerprints?

That would be a little too kinky for me, I'm afraid...*grin*.

>Um...what do you consider 'you' personally?

To put it simply, everything about me.  That does not mean, as was
suggested in another post, that they have to find out all about me on
the first meeting.  However, they *can* indicate interest in finding it
all out, as my current lovers have.  My SO talked to me for 5-6 hours
the day we met.  Now *that* is what I find interesting in a person.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:10:52 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Oct4.001219.15499@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>	I suspect that if they had not had the rigid structure within the
>family and has simply enjoyed relaxed relationships among themselves, hetero
>AND bi in nature, they would still be going strong.
---
	Does anyone know the reasons why they broke apart?  Amicable or 
not?  Did several couples which to pair bond off?  or what?...

thanks...
william
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bml@athena.mit.edu (Larry J Lennhoff)
Subject: Door into Sunset *SPOILER*
Summary: Polyamory in fiction 
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:38:38 GMT

    I just finished reading Diane Duane's latest in her 'Tale of the Five'
(also known as the The Door ..series). The first two books, The Door into
Fire and the Door into Shadow established the universe as one where procreation
recreation, and marriage were three different things.  In the latest book
7 characters of varying sexes and species form a group marriage.  I thought
the marriage oath might be of interest:
   "The seven took the vow, to share bodies and thoughts as pleasure and 
trust prompted, to live for and with one another and their children, to love
while life lasted, though liking might come and go, and to do right by one
another."

I'll save my comments for a subsequent post.

        Larry J Lennhoff
"What are you Doooooooooing?" - Herewis' father in The Door into Fire
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:30:51 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <MUFFY.92Sep29105031@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
+
+Why is this wrong?  It may be pretty silly, not to mention frustrating,
+but what makes it *wrong*?  If I am attracted to men taller than myself,

It is 'wrong' in the sense of limiting or placing limitations on
oneself. It is 'wrong' in the sense of if one conditions one's
'appreciation' to only that as advertized in the popular media, then
one is tied to being directed from the outside as to one's own
tastes.

The individual does not stand 'alone' and so is influenced by
culture. But with mass media the identification of 'the standard' is
so all pervasive that it seems to swamp out local variations. The
media image becomes the 'global' norm. I find this uniformity at
best benignly unpleasant, and at worst insidiously crushing.

I have not objections to whom you are attracted. I can however
'pass judgement', which of course has no real meaning, on types of
behavior which the 'I like big boobs (and oh ya I guess I'll take
the rest of the woman too)' type of person exhibits. Well, heck I'm
an American so I like big boobs and the women wearing them as well.
And even more to the heck, I don't particularly care for sculptured
muscle men, actually the Olympic mens swim teams looked pretty good,
a bit softer than the 'roided' body builders but nice muscle
development; Blond hair is definately out, unless of course it's
'natural'(an investigating the veracity is so much fun)... Love blue
eyes.. Ambivalent about penis size, but do like large thighs on women...
(Thigh thigh..).. love black hair... and well, heck anything that
moves.

I don't particularly subscribe the acquisition of these
'requirements' from popular media, which would eliminate any same
gender items and narrow down the acceptable of the 'other' gender to
an rather narrow spectrum of types.

Of course if one defines 'wrong' to be a 'fall from grace' then well
there is nothing 'wrong' or 'right', i.e. there is no 'grace' to
fall from.

Speaking of the Olympics, who was, there was a pre-contest
background on one event where a certain American Sommer Sanders and
a Chinese Lou Li. The American woman was shown in glowy sensual
glamour shots and the Chinese woman was shown in almost masculine body
punishing preliminary exercise activities. Well the Chinese woman
won the event.

I think it was a classic of 'sexuality as hyped by media for the
appropriate physiotype'. The camera crew could not seem to 'see' Sanders
as hard core athlete nor Li as sexual woman. Or maybe they didn't want
to bother.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1344 soc.women:17217 soc.men:17142
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:45:03 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article   fks@vax.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk) writes:
>Like most people, I'm
>not interested in being treated as a generic. That's what Palmer is
>talking about.
---

	I didn't think we were talking about 'generic' -- we were talking
about women who were bi&poly.  That hardly qualifies as generic.

-wat-
--
"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,soc.women,soc.men
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:59:13 GMT



>In article <lcgqg3INNrlb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>---
>>	Why is there this tendancy in humans, but it seems, especially in
>>women, that as soon as they find out you want something, they are
>>likely to withhold it or raise the price?
>>


	why is there this tendency in humans, but it seems, especially
	in men, that as soon as they find out you are/have something,
	they are likely to assume it is there *for them*.

	the only time it bugs me that guys' *only* interest in me is
	my bisexuality and/or polyamority is when they're sleazeball
	pigs about it.

	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:47:01 GMT
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: anonymus+987@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu's message of Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:28:26 GMT


In article <BvE80z.5o1.2@cs.cmu.edu> anonymus+987@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
> I don't get a sense from reading the postings in this group how durable
> poly relationships are.  Is there anyone here who's been in a poly
> relationship with the same SO for more than, say, 15 or 20 years, especially
> someone with kids?  Or is a polylifestyle one of those "excesses of
> youthful experimentation"? (no flame intended).

  I don't think it's necessarily a "youthful experimentation", but I
would suspect that on the net there aren't a lot of people that have
been in a mono relationship for that long either, since there are so
many younger types around and with the state of long term relationships
these days.  I was in a mono relationship for a bit over 11 years, and
am currently in a poly relationship that looks healthier than my last
one and has been going on for over 2, for all it's worth (it's worth a
lot to me, mind you :-))  No kids, though.

 -- d
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1335 soc.women:17191 soc.men:17105
From: mprice@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Dr Dr)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:08:44 GMT
Reply-To: mtpmd@uiuc.edu
Organization: Medical Scholars Program, U. of IL @ Urbana-Champaign

In article <920929160343@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
  "[....]
  "It's quite appealing when a man wants me particularly, and it will
  "usually increases my interest.
Agreed, for most people, I think, if you make the statement gender-neutral. 

  "When, on the other hand, a man wants
  "any woman who will do x (for pretty much any value of x) and has
  "decided I probably will, his appeal plummets. Like most people, I'm
  "not interested in being treated as a generic. That's what Palmer is
  "talking about.  
But when someone posts a personal to the effect of "looking for x", while the
above may be true, I think it's equally likely that the poster is looking for
a *pool* of people who will "do x", as a first "cut" in a selection process,
and from which they can then choose that (those) particular individual(s) in
whom they find they have a particular interest based on other characteristics.
If one wants to be involved w/a bi-female (or whatever the criterion is;
insert non-smoker, vegetarian, whatever, if that makes it clearer by
bypassing the sexual loading), and says so, this doesn't necessarily imply
that anyone and everyone who meets the criterion is the person sought, any
more than the stereotype that bisexuals have sex with anyone and everyone,
"because they're bi -- they don't care" is true.  And it makes sense to ask for
what you want; it gets you less of what you don't want, and fewer false
starts, to be up front about it.

-- 
Michael Price, M.D.   (mptmd@uiuc.edu)

"I wonder, therefore I might be." -- Descartes before de hearse....
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:51:02 GMT

In article <asuccop.717874898@milton> asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop) writes:
>apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>
>>In article <asuccop.717814753@milton> asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu
> (Annemarie Succop) writes:
>
>>>	the only time it bugs me that guys' *only* interest in me is
>>>	my bisexuality and/or polyamority is when they're sleazeball
>>>	pigs about it.
>
>>All men are sleazeball pigs.
>
>	yes, and all women are shy quiet flowers of the night.
>
>	believing & encouraging this kind of garbage isn't going
>	to get you too far w/me; all men rape, too, right, tony?
>

Ow! Ouch!  That hurts!

Gee, did I need more smileys, Annemarie???

Sorry if I hit a nerve:  I was kidding.

Maybe it's not funny because you've known too many sleazeballs?

How about "All men are sleazeballs in somebody's opinion"?



		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Summary: mv net.idiot /dev/null
Organization: Ministry of Skritching
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:19:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.130934.24980@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
|[Flot]

  Oh, lord, not *here* too!!


  *plonk*
                ____
  david parsons \bi/ "Who finds it extraordinarily amusing that he's
		 \/   demuffining with a *plonk* into the killfile"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:03:06 GMT

In article <920929160343@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
>
>> In article <1a8ub3INNt3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes:
>>         Why is there this tendancy in humans, but it seems, especially in
>> women, that as soon as they find out you want something, they are
>> likely to withhold it or raise the price?
>
>It's quite appealing when a man wants me particularly, and it will
>usually increases my interest. When, on the other hand, a man wants
>any woman who will do x (for pretty much any value of x) and has
>decided I probably will, his appeal plummets. Like most people, I'm
>not interested in being treated as a generic. That's what Palmer is
>talking about.
>

Up until I was well into my thirties, the "will do x" was my paramount
interest in any woman, and I truly didn't care about anything else.

Pretty horrible, but that was the way the hormones tumbled :-)

Now, pushing low forties, who and why and every other question in the
world is so much more important.  And becomes more so every year.

Probably this is a natural progression that every man goes through.

As to "withholding":  chasing is more fun than getting, anyway :-)


		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:06:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BvE80z.5o1.2@cs.cmu.edu> anonymus+987@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
+
+I don't get a sense from reading the postings in this group how durable
+poly relationships are.  Is there anyone here who's been in a poly
+relationship with the same SO for more than, say, 15 or 20 years, especially
+someone with kids?  Or is a polylifestyle one of those "excesses of
+youthful experimentation"? (no flame intended).

The the preceived durability factor is in direct relationship with the
openness of the relationship to the public and the number of such
relationships which are open.

What the hell does that mean? I feel that the combination of the
negative view held by society, i.e. no support for multipartnered
relationships and the participants dislike for public censure kept
most 'successful' relationship out of the public view. It seems that
the only ones which became public were ones which were
disintegrating. Since the 70's there has been an opening of many
multipartner relationships and a more stable support provided. So
I'll predict that longer public relationships are possible, and I
have met some individuals who are in 10-15 years or greater category.

However, just as dyads are pulled by social forces, the polyads are
too. One long term group collection call Kerista disintegrated into
monads, dyads, and polyads. I don't know the details, just gossip.

'Excesses of youthful experimentation' include joining the army,
peace corp, going to collage, getting strung out on drugs, becoming
a hardend criminal, or stolid citizen. I think getting married at 18
is equally foolish as some think multipartner relationships. Why
does god waste youth on the young. I think life in general should be
more of 'excesses of experimentation' and less 'cold calculated
results'. But then my philosophy wouldn't have gotten humans to the
moon, maybe not even out of caves.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu