HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: People are People (Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:35:07 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

dmason@plg.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Mason) writes:
>[a whole heap of good stuff]

   Dave, what a pity I didn't read your post before making my followup.
You said a lot of what I was thinking! 8->


> I guess I'm weird.  When I meet people, I find them interesting as
>people.  I don't expect to play genital games with many people, so I
>don't much worry whether they have genitals that I am interested in
>playing with.  If later on I get really close to them and they happen
>to have male genitalia, then it just removes a few things that we
>could do to pass the time & get closer.  A shame, but not really very
>important.

   Ah ha! 8->

   Not being Bi-supremist at all (I'm quite against that), but being Bi
makes it *soooo* much easier to be a slut... [grin]


>[stuff about N > 2 sex]

   All permutations are fun in the right context. Ganging up on another
is delightful. Having people have a whispered conference and then ganging
up on *me* is delightful. Having a free-for-all with everyone flailing
about & dodging elbows & knees is delightful. And simply taking a breather,
and being there while my friends and lovers pleasure each other, maybe
holding them in my arms and murmering encouragement, is delightful.

   Not that I feel there's any necessary connection between N > 2 love
and N > 2 sex. I recently told a bemused new partner that they sounded
Poly to me. "But I'm not going out with *anyone* right now", they wailed.
Hah - just like sexuality, Poly is about *inclination*, not behaviour.
Simply being open to the idea is good enough for my definition.


   But again, thanks Dave, for a right masterly reply. 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: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:59:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.223004.13179@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>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).
>
>   Well, my wife and I have been in an open relationship for nearly seven
>years now.  My last "outside" relationship lasted only 18 months, but the
>seperation was due to economic reasons (he got a good job out of state),
>and not because of any internal friction within the family.
[...]

nya, nya, elf, mines longer than yours! :) :)
- more than 20 years with Primary Partner.

I used to be in a triad but Second Partner died, so I guess that makes
me a poly-widower.  We didn't all live together but were getting toward
that state.  Never thot of it as poly (the old term I used was "group
marriage") until now, but I guess it would be.  This was about 10 years
ago.  Haven't really been in a poly relationship since then, but if the
Right Person came along, it would start -- at least I'd be open to the
possibility.  That person would very likely be an older woman.

I'm still in touch with people who were my sexual-partners/close-friends/etc.
from many years ago, but mostly they are geographically dispersed and we see
each other only once every few years, if at all.  When somebody hies themselves
to some far-off place, it ain't easy keeping in touch when one is not a
big letter-writer.  Physical proximity makes a *big* difference IMO!
It's hard to stroke a tit (or a dick) thru the mail [ double entendre
containing its own negation -- for edification of the humor-impaired
deconstructionist :) ] ...

Personally, I value stability in my relationships.  The things I like,
I want around for the long haul since they enhance my pleasure in life.
Ideally, I would want a years-long Immediatist orgy (as, perhaps, part
of a Temporary Autonomous Zone) punctuated by periods where one does
other things (visit or experience other TAZ's).  IMO the ideal form of
societal metastability might be something like a vacuum, where TAZ's are
analogous to quanta of matter/energy fluctuating in and out of existence.
Is that metaphysical or what? :)
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 Nostalgic conservatives will soon be referring to the Bush Era as
 "those Halcion days of yesteryear".
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1356 soc.women:17248 soc.men:17188
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 1 Oct 1992 14:12:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Sep30.212119.1598@trl.oz.au> wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn Wallace) writes:
>Ya know, I have this theory that it is a very common (het?) male fantasy
>to have sex with two women, prefably bi.
----
	According to a study on daydreams conducted by the University of Missouri
Men's most common daydreams:
	great legs (96%)
	kissing large breasts (91%)
	having a woman demand sex (91%)
	exciting a woman until she screams with pleasure (87%)
	having a woman say "I want your body!" (86%)
	having sex with two women (84%)
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Women's most common daydreams:
	Having clothes gently removed and making love in a secluded spot (90%)
	Being very sexy and getting it on with a hunk (71%)
	Having sex where there is risk of being caught (65%)
	Being desired by famous men at a party (64%)

----
	Interestingly enough, all of the men's top fantasies were shared
by over 80% of males, while only 1 of the women's fantasies was shared
by more than 80% of women.  

	This is consistent with the type of women men find attractive and the
type of men women find attractive.  I seem to remember that their were
fewer 'top' picks for men, but women had much more diverse picks.  I 
remember that this was said to make it alot more difficult to sell to
women than to men.  

-wat-

>
>This is in line with the theory that men are hormone filled animals, but
>then most women are too. :-)
>
>Rise above the chemicals, people! I know I wish *I* could.
>
>:-)
>
>Glenn
>
><insert witty quote from some movie (Dragnet?) about using utensils to
>eat and controling sexual urges being the only thing distinguishing us 
>from apes...>
>
>Net: g.wallace@trl.oz.au | Help me escape this country! You can't buy Jolt
>RealTime: Glenn Wallace  | here, and they don't have Tower records, or
>Work: Telecom Australia  | Fry's or anything! Argh.... Oh to be at WDW!
>      Drift Project      | I'm on the next plane outta here!


--
 --- "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: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: HIV, AIDS, and poly
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:47:44 GMT

In article <BuunAw.MFF@well.sf.ca.us> jrussell@well.sf.ca.us (Jerry Russell) writes:
>     I just received this quarter's PEP newsletter, "Loving More."  The
>newsletter contains a rather long article by Jack Johnston, M.A.,
>entitled "Debunking HIV as the Cause of AIDS."  The article correctly
>points out that AIDS is a highly complex syndrome which may
>involve other co-factors in addition to HIV.
>
>      To me, the fact that PEP saw fit to publish Johnston's article is
>perhaps symptomatic of a tendency amongst sexually active people
>to practice denial of the AIDS situation.

I don't know what PEP's motivation is (I don't even know what PEP
is!), but I think the issue of the relationship of HIV to AIDS is
important to examine critically.

If these two are NOT related, how many lives have been ruined by
testing HIV positive?  And how much research has been wasted looking
at HIV?

And what shall we make of statistics if HIV is *not* AIDS?  How
many cases of AIDS, not HIV, are there?  What's the transmission
rate of true AIDS vs HIV?  And on, and on.

>perhaps symptomatic of a tendency amongst sexually active people
>to practice denial of the AIDS situation.

And there is a strong tendency among the right wing moralists to
publish any information that indicates you should never have sex
with ANYONE.  So it balances out, I think.


		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle

Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1393 soc.men:17324 soc.women:17363
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: People are People (Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:44:09
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Oct1102623@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<DMASON.92Oct3120231@plg.plg.uwaterloo.ca> <BvL4Gp.4F@world.std.com>
	<MUFFY.92Oct4085731@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ld0m1bINNn7a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 5 Oct 1992 14:58:51 GMT

In article <ld0m1bINNn7a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct4085731@remarque.berkeley.edu> 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.
>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.

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.

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
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: sustainability of relationships
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:30:04 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).

   Well, my wife and I have been in an open relationship for nearly seven
years now.  My last "outside" relationship lasted only 18 months, but the
seperation was due to economic reasons (he got a good job out of state),
and not because of any internal friction within the family.

   The most poly folks I know have been in an open foursome (four
family members, sometimes outside lovers) since 1981.  And they're
still the sexiest folks on Earth, *sigh*.  They only have one small
problem... they don't take hints well.  Had to beat two of 'em over the
head (figuratively... with some folks on these groups you have to
specify that) to tell them "Hey, I'm interested in you..."

         Elf !!!
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:12:52 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <38859@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>In article <lcjirvINNa4j@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>+
>+	I didn't think we were talking about 'generic' -- we were talking
>+about women who were bi&poly.  That hardly qualifies as generic.
>
>Uh? "Hot bi babes" are generic, since almost all current X-films
>require a 'coda' of lesbo love, and the grand entrance of the
>ultimately satisfying male, hence poly..
---
	Fantasy material != generic.  Generic would be something that
contains the base options but no frills or options above the norm.
If you think X-films some how represent society, I would submit you have
a distorted view of the world.

-wat-
--
 --- "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: fks@vax.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 11:14:18

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).

Well, you can count me for 10 years. 


Frances Kirk Selkirk	
fks@ftp.com 		    	



Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: anonymus+987@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: sustainability of relationships
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:28:26 GMT


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).
--
To use this service, send 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)
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:24:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <lcpib4INN41b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
+---
+	Fantasy material != generic.  Generic would be something that
+contains the base options but no frills or options above the norm.

Depends on the store. The generic Ferrari is better than the generic
VW bug.

But then 'generic' means general attributes, which are fantasy, or
well based in fantasy. The 'Virtuous Woman', the "GentleMan" equally
fantastic.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:24:35 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

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?
>
Don't know why it is there.  But I do know what it is called. 
Capitalism.  I don't think women are the best known practitioners of 
this little economic enterprise, either.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:02:17 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <38936@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>No you can't 'know the whole person' ever. The point is the most
>people don't wish to be 'sperm spitoons', definately not because of
>some particular feature or featurette. (Sex industry workers do get
>some remuneration for the 'one' feature).
---

	Most men don't want be dicks either.  Most men don't want to be
wallets either.  That's not the point though.  The point was if 
person F was attracted to person M, and the person F found out that 
person M was not just casually interested, but really interested when
they found out that 'F' was bi & poly, -- why is it that many 
person 'F's would then use that information to either a) extracted
some higher payement from M, or b) become uninterested.  Just because
M is interested in the bi/poly 'feature', doesn't mean they might
not be interested in other things.

	There is no argument in that if that is all M is ever interested
in, there is probably little basis for any lasting relationship, but
by the same token, if M expresses interest in bi/poly, it is not
an indication that he is not interested in others features of F.

-wat-
--
 --- "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
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: kids 'n' poly
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:06:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <Buun5B.ME0@well.sf.ca.us> jrussell@well.sf.ca.us (Jerry Russell) writes:
| 
| Until our daughter was three she was still breastfeeding and she slept
| in our bed.  Now she mostly sleeps in her own room but she visits
| us in our bed from time to time.  She knows what her mom & dad
| look like without their clothes on, and she gets plenty of hugs and
| kisses.    I imagine some people might think this is close to
| pedophilia, but we don't think so.  The things we *won't* do
| are (1) any contact with her genitals, or any
| other behaviors that might arouse her;  (2) any use of her body to
| arouse us, and (3) anything non-consensual  (sometimes she
| appreciates a hug, sometimes she doesn't.)

This is almost an echo of our family, except that we have three
kids, 5.5 years, 2.5 years, 7 months.

|   Lots of kids are in cribs in
| separate bedrooms starting when they're a month old.   To me this
| approach would seem unnecessarily cold and lonely for the child.

Children have many fears, and are expected to want to sleep alone.
Adults are big and strong, and are expected to want to sleep in groups.
It is a puzzlement.

| I hope we're doing the right thing by letting our little girl understand so
| much at such a young age.

You are.  Look at other primates.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:39:16 GMT

In article <JEW.92Sep25150649@venus.venus.sunquest.com>
     jew@venus.sunquest.com (Ward... James Ward) writes:

>My wife and I are poly-interested and experienced.  My wife has bi
>tendencies and is slightly interested in additional male or female
>partners to play with.  I am not interested in other males however.  I
>feel kinda guilty limiting the posibilities.

>Am I right?  Am I wrong?  Should I try it?  Is it scary?

   So, you're not interested in men?  So what?  The reason you and your
wife are poly-interested, I would hope, is because that's what you want,
that's what you like to be, that's what you enjoy.  Doing this for any
other reason is, IMHO, rather foolish.

   If you're not intersted in men and wouldn't enjoy sex with them,
then there's no point in your trying.  If you want to try it, I would
say go for it.  But apparently you're not.  Forcing yourself into a
bisexual experience is a sure way of scaring yourself, but otherwise
it's not scary, if that's what you're asking.

         Elf !!!
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:59:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <lchii7INN1d9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
+In article <MUFFY.92Sep29103638@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
+>
+>It is not the "indicating interest" that causes women (or anyone, I
+>would think) to be "put off," it is the fact that the interest is in a
+>single feature, rather than the whole person.
+---
+	But does anyone really 'know' a whole person?  The real issue is
+that I have to be interested in some arbitrary set of features chosen

No you can't 'know the whole person' ever. The point is the most
people don't wish to be 'sperm spitoons', definately not because of
some particular feature or featurette. (Sex industry workers do get
some remuneration for the 'one' feature).
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1343 soc.women:17214 soc.men:17139
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:41:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.asuccop.717874898
Organization: University of Washington

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?

>		Tony

	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: blink@carson.u.washington.edu (Folded Pliers)
Subject: Re: sustainability of relationships
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:54:20 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).
It seems like any relationship will have a greater rate of breakups the more poeple who are in it. If there a six people, the odds are higher that one of them will get a cool job elsewhere or get out for some other reason. However each individual may actually be spending the same amount of time in a relationship setting as they would if in paired relationships. Does that make sense? On the other hand, there could be a greater or lesser stability to the actual form of the relationship, like if there are ext






ra solutions or problems in poly relationships.



Newsgroups: alt.polyamory