HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From:  orc@sybase.com (Orc)
Subject: Re: Gripe: soc.motss
Reply-To: ss19@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Ambiguity
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:24:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.000051.10916@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
[regarding the different atmosphere of soc.bi and soc.motss]
>
>I might add that the worst soc.bi generally has to deal with are the
>clueless straight boyz who Just Want to Watch.  Over in soc.motss, we
>get to defend all of queerdom from the real hard-core net.phobes.  Makes
>a bit of difference in our attitudes, no doubt.

   Ellen is right, as usual.  A lot of the fluffiness here is
enabled by not having the likes of C*****n C****r spewing their
filth around here.  The times that soc.bi has had the invasion of
the Clueless Fuckheads, the atmosphere has taken a severe turn to
the serious.  And soc.bi only gets vermin on a 3-4 month cycle;
soc.motss has to call in the exterminators almost daily.  (And
after 8-9 years of dealing with idiots, your patience is worn
pretty near wafer thin.)

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ Who remembers, but never posted to, net.motss
                  \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: DICKSONE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Ellen)
Subject: Re: Why I won't "dance" (was Re: Why I read a.s.a.r.)
Organization: Queens University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:46:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.163438.17846@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
st891487@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
 
> In school I always found that when I attended parties there would be a number
>of (usually) loud and obnoxious people in the middle of the floor "partying",
>and there would be a few individuals sort of washed up along the sides of the
>room. The latter were always more fun to be with and talk to. I still talk to
>some of them. Don't really remember who was in the middle anymore.
>
>  -Ximena
    I happen to LOVE dancing!  I hope you don't think me loud and
    obnoxious because of this.  I divide my time when I go out
    "partying" between dancing and chatting on the sidelines.  I
    don't think people who don't dance are geeks, they just don't
    like dancing.  Course, considering that the way I dance has been
    compared to an amoeba trying to mate, I can see why some would not
    want to dance with me.  :)
 
-El
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
|"I shall surpress my every urge."                                      |
|      -The Tick, when asked to act `normal' when Arthur's sister visits|
|"Then again, maybe I Wookie." (apologies to Judy Blume & George Lucas) |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters)
Subject: Re: question about the triangle         
Reply-To: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:21:00 +0000

             __
Drewcifer on \/riangles:

>To add something to this whole triangle discussion, I've been told by
>someone that the triangle specifically relates to AIDS when right-side up,
>and represents "taking back the language" or some such PC agenda like that
>when upside down.

 /|                                          |\
< |  What's this "right side up" business??  | >
 \|                                          |/

<grin>

Sounds terribly phallocentric to say that only triangles "pointing" up are
the right way, while triangles that look like a common pattern for female
pubic hair aren't...

  //\/\/  iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
          who would like to do a few more angles,
          but the ASCII character set lets him down.

>>>MATRIX version  1.21e
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bisexuality and androgyny
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:03:03 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting moragw@castle.ed.ac.uk (Alloy Serving Woman) in article <30921@castle.ed.ac.uk>:
>
>IAN!!!!!!  Bloody hell, what a week!!
> He he, just wait until _Paul_ gets hold of you, you little ex-muffin you.

*I* have been fluffing his newly-shortened hair all afternoon... Ian is
a cute fluffly bunny rabbit, and not a sarcastic git at all, no.  I
taunted him at great length about being a muffin yesterday... I'll have
to fluff his hair some more now.

>Not to mention certain _other_ people !!!

Until I get hold of certain other people or certain other people get
hold of Ian?  <grin>
  __                                  _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \X/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kkr42091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (QUEEN ZENOBIA!)
Subject: Re: Gender and Bi Groups
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:22:38 GMT

st891487@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>In article <1993Jan19.182411.13079@icd.teradyne.com>, bryant@icd.teradyne.com (Wayne Bryant) writes:
>>
> [Oodles of stuff deleted]

>> I've had sex with people of three genders.  Does that make
>>me trisexual?  Perhaps the older (now archaic?) ambisexual was more
>>properly descriptive.

Everytime i see the phrase ambisexual, i think of am bisexual.
As in, I am bisexual.... dunno why *grin*

-kimberli roan

-- 
Kimberli K. Roan
kkr42091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 		"Monolingualism is curable."
kkr42091@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: smoir@world.std.com (Scott A Moir)
Subject: Re: Clueless hetboys and bi's
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:15:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.234036.12906@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dms4s@helga13.acc.Virginia.EDU (Sailor on the Seas of Fate) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.225716.21801@reed.edu> tjewell@gluttony.reed.edu (Teresa Jewell) writes:

>>    Straight boyz Just Want To Watch, but don't want to support queer  
>>rights or lesbigay friends is what I believe the poster referred to.
>>
>>T Jewell
>
>   Hmmm being new to this group I'm curious as to how many other
>straight guys are out there reading this who really give a damn about
>the issues and feelings expressed here?  I first read this group when
>a dear friend told me she is bisexual.  I was concerned about her and
>the emotional time she was going through.  I was curious about the
>type of lifestyle she was turning towards. 
>   I am very glad that I read this group.  I have discovered here a
>network of truly caring and loving people. I am constantly reassured
>that my bi friend is a member of good company.
>   And yes, i admit, I would like to watch sometime :).
>
>*HUG*s all around
>
>Dave

*clears throat*

"Your honor, I present exhibit #1, a Clued Straight Boy."


Scott


-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
smoir@world.std.com            \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
Also: pentangl@ursa-major.spdcc.com   # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbsl
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: smoir@world.std.com (Scott A Moir)
Subject: Re: phrases and sex roles
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:26:26 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan19153402@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.194712.20454@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>>In article <16B5B9FC9.ESMITH@SUVM.SYR.EDU> ESMITH@SUVM.SYR.EDU writes:
>>>In article <MUFFY.93Jan18235429@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>Further on sex roles: doesn't the notion of two roles per relationship
>>>>get in the way of multi-person relationships?  
>
>>>>OK, I don't want to start an argument but it appears you're assuming
>>>there are two roles per relationship.
>
>>Um... It looked to be as if Muffy was *questioning* the notion that there
>>are two roles per relationship, not *assuming* it as a given.

There are two roles in a realtionship.. a -two person- relationship. There
are the same number of roles as there are people. There are also a generic
set of tasks that are required to run a household, and those tasks get
split up among the respective members. Because the default in our society
is a relationship of two, it sort of falls into the 'two-role-model'.

>Yup. More generally, I believe that these roles *exist*; they are
>defined by our society.  It seems to me that, even in a two-person
>relationship, these roles are somewhat oppressive, and that in
>multi-person relationships, the acceptance of these two roles as being
>"the parts of a relationship" is actively detrimental.

It would be detrimental only if you attempted to apply a two-person model
to a three person relationship. I don't think that this is as much a
problem for the people in a poly relationship as it is for people outside
trying to look inside and understand. Especially if they aren't poly. 

Scott



-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
smoir@world.std.com            \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
Also: pentangl@ursa-major.spdcc.com   # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbsl
From: akhanna@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: GRAHAM! Re: NEW GIRL post!! not a baked good.***
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:32:48 GMT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu

In article <9301211050.AA27420@pizzabox.demon.co.uk>, gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> :ps. If I sound defensive or offish it's cause I'm a little suspicious of 
> :groups.  In general I'm not a "group" person.
> 
> Ah, I think I'm in love, you sweet little non-pastry thing, you.
> 
> G

What?

--Avani
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Orc's visit. FUN!FUN!FUN!
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:20:57 GMT

In article <C1DzyC.DFK@news.udel.edu> seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore) writes:
:endangered him.  The climate in this town is not conducive to being percieved
:as queer.  If someone read this group and got a list of names it would be
:easy to have some people included who did not want to be.  That has been
:facilitated by the last couple of posts.  No more.  Do you remember how
:nervous you were the first time you posted?  You made his decision for him.

I second what he says.  Not everyone is as out as the people in this group,
and it's their right not to be and that should be respected; likewise there
are people out in this group who aren't out everywhere to the same extent,
eg I'm pretty well known as bi on words-l, and to some extent on alt.usage.
english, but not as far as i know on comp.sys.acorn (for example) for
reasons that are nobody's business but my own.  (This was the reason I
was furious at Ciaran some time back, incidentally, for quoting me in
his sigs (now forgiven, Ciaran, I'm just using it as an illustration of
how people might be accidentally outed, not trying to start a flame war))

I posted here once before about how I feared muffins would be shy about
posting because there was pressure here to be good queerspace citizens
and flaunt our pink triangles.  Well, I think Jim has shown here why
that can be a bad idea.  Don't force people further out than they want
to be, even if you personally feel that they're copping out or letting
the side down.  Personally I suspect the 'queer politics pressure' is
keeping a lot of potential posters muffined.  To a lot of us our sexuality
is only a very small part of how we define ourselves, and we don't want
it to be made a major issue when there's the rest of life to cope with
too.

G
From: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Are most of us Hetero guys really that insensitive?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 02:46:35 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

dms4s@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Sailor on the Seas of Fate) writes:
[the above subject line]

Yes.

Whether you are is a separate issue.  You also raise some complex issues
about a woman's attitude to you, and male het attitudes about non-het
females.  I haven't time to spew a classic Lloydian diatribe on that
right now [:-)]; perhaps later.  Still, most hetero guys don't have clue
one about anything outside their culturally assigned roles.  That's
partly the nature of human group identity, and partly the current
western male role: deeply insensitive and with far more emphasis on
power than understanding.

It's as true as it ever was: a good man is hard to find.

Mike, feeling some of the poignancy of that statement just now.
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: going to the bar;1st time
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:13:59 +0000

:opportunity here. Of course, then I was even more confused than I am
:now, as I didn't know I could call myself bi, but I was attracted to
:women. All those interesting women, and I'm too timid to approach
:them - it's not fair.

If you want to mail me a postal address, I have a badge you might like:

   "So many women, so little nerve"

It's not so appropriate for me as it used it be :-)

G
(I mean I have more nerve nowadays, not that there are fewer women)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From:  orc@sybase.com (Orc)
Subject: Re: gratuitous mumbling
Reply-To: ss19@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Ambiguity
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:31:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.000624.3130@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
>(Orc) ss19@midway.uchicago.edu discusses the exclusion zone:
>>   david parsons \bi/ Who's gonna have one hell of a moral dilemma if I
>>                  \/  do get that transfer to the UK, where everyone
>>                      I fancy there would be _comfortably_ within the
>>                      exclusion zone.
>
>Mm. We don't have sensible plane shuttles, so you could do lots of
>trainspotting
>
>Sufficient consolation?

   I think I'd have to just reduce the exclusion zone to London and
it's immediate suburbs via a O(1) reduction of the zone from 500 to
50 miles.

   And, hell, if I _lived_ in the UK, that would allow me the
opportunity to fit a little bit of trainspotting around the other,
ahem, interesting stuff, which is now taking up all of my time when
I visit...

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ orc@sybase.com
                  \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi,alt.sex.motss
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: What the Hell am I?
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:10:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.070602.21972@fuug.fi>
     an7591@anon.penet.fi (Orlando) writes:

>Hi all... This is my first post, and I want to know if my feelings are
>at all common.

   Yes.  

>I have had exclusively hetero relationships throughout my life, all of
>which I have found quite satisfying.  Yet I've found myself, on
>occasion, drawn to other men in a very specific sexual way.  I want to
>be dominated. I have no hesitation sucking a cock or being fucked, but
>the thought of kissing a man, or having any emotional ties to one
>whatsoever positively repulses me.

   Well, to be honest, you're drawing an unneccesary line that you're
going to butt up against the moment you start trying to live your
fantasies.  *Someone*, someone male, is going to have to fulfill your
desires, and you'll have to look into that face and talk about what you
want.  No matter what, some kind of emotional tie, more intimate than
anything you can presently imagine, is going to come of that.  

   You are, however, not uncommon.  I used to be exactly like you in a
lot of ways; having nameless and faceless men toss me around as a sex
object was (and still is) top of my sexual fantasy list.  To call
yourself bisexual is something only you can choose to do; when I was
like you, before I stared realizing that my feelings for men were small
and limiting and I *already* possessed the physical and sexual capacity
to be intimate with them so why not love them as well, I didn't think
of myself as bisexual.  I was a straight man who took what he wanted
from men who were taking what they wanted.  It was a fair and equitable
arrangement.   I recommend you read "Urban Originals" by Geoff Mains, a
wondrous book on the gay male leathersex subculture.

   Good luck in your quest.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: dwells@lonestar.utsa.edu (Darren . Wells)
Subject: Re: Orc's visit. FUN!FUN!FUN!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:45:27 GMT

In article <C1DMou.C83@news.udel.edu>
 kyraan@bach.udel.edu (Stephen Ch Litterst) writes:
>
>Well, I have to relate at least some of the events and quotes from this week-
>end (or at least Sat. night) as well as my impressions of the man.

[Steve's story deleted for space]

*pout*    I am jealous.
I guess that'll teach me to keep up with things on the net . . .

Darren
(who thinks this country is just too fucking BIG)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: daveb@harlqn.co.uk (Dave Berry)
Subject: Re: Gender and Bi Groups
Organization: Harlequin Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:35:39 GMT

erover@panix.com (Elizabeth Rover) writes:
>Just my long-winded way of saying that I agree; we are all sexual.

But what does this mean?  Aren't heterosexual and homosexual people
also sexual?  How does "sexual" get across your attraction to more than
one sex?  I'm not being rhetorical (well, a little, I suppose), I really
have problems understanding what is the attraction of this phrase.

Dave.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Introducing myself
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 12:44:07 +0000

From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)

:In article <1993Jan19.221256.20831@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (CAT LOVER) writes:
:->
:->Is losing your bi-virginity called demuffining, because I just lost mine
:->this 

:Pardon me, but what exactly is your bi-virginity?

:Is that like, when you meet your first bisexual?

:Or finally have sex with a person of the 'second' sex?

:Or somehow 'practice bisexuality?'

Very encouraging post, Roy.  Nice way to welcome a coming out story.

G
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: soc.bi Frequently Answered Questions (FAQ)
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:38:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>->	You do not need to be bisexual to post here and be welcomed.
>->Indeed, several of the frequent posters to soc.bi are straight; some
>->others are lesbian or gay. However, if you are straight and post here
>
>Oh, really? Didn't know about them.  Who are they?

I consider myself straight and I've been reading and posting here
a lot lately.  I started reading when I became involved with a bi
girlfriend, to learn more about the culture and attitudes of others.
I'm not with her anymore, but I stick around here because it's a
pretty open, friendly and tolerant croud.

That's much the same reason I hung out with the stoners in my high
school.  I didn't smoke pot, but they didn't care.  They basically
accepted whomever accepted them, unlike the more cliquish jocks and
rich kids and other groups.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: an2839@anon.penet.fi (Archer)
Subject: Polyamory and friendships
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: soc.bi
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:29:59 GMT

This is not exactly related to bi in general, but is not very
tangental for me, and I've come to respect some of your opinions.

(hey!  hey!  stop with the mushy stuff... yeah, yeah, I know.  I like
you too, now go away ;)

Please don't change the Subject line unnecessarily, because I'm having
trouble keeping up with soc.bi (CC me if you want)


I have two good friends here at school who have been dating for a year
(yea! :).  Both are mostly straight, and we all get along fine.  The
female (we'll call her Debbie) is interested in spending some time
with other people (not in a sexual manner in all cases, but in a few).
The male (Dave will do) is less interested in doing so (slightly
insecure and clingy), though there has been limited exploration in
this area for him.

Now, ever since we had a threesome a few months ago (he initiated it,
but we all had been discussing it, if that is relevent), Debbie and I
became a bit more interested in exploring things together (before this
the relationship was entirely plutonic).  Dave for some reason began
percieving me as a threat, though intellectually he knows that is not
necessarily the case (all three of us still get along, BTW).  To
complicate things, Debbie and I once let our self control slip and
kissed, which added to the warning lights in Dave's subconscious.
Dave still is my best male friend here on campus, and I am still his.

Both are trying to accomidate the other, but there is an inherent
conflict here (if only he was bi :( ).  Is there any way to allow Dave
to "get used" to the idea of Debbie and I exploring together without
causing problems?  Our idea was to gradually increase the amount of
physical contact betwen Debbie and I around David, but this could
backfire.

We are all trying our best to keep communication, and keeping their
relationship together is my primary concern.  I can't see how this can
easily be done when she wants more freedom and he wants her close.
Not involving myself would be the best solution, but wouldn't be fair
to her (or me).

Oh, and if you haven't guessed, I'm mostly polyamorous, and possibly
bi.  And yes, I think Dave is cute.

-"Archer"
  Send hugs if you got 'em
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Ethics...
From: cvadrgih@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:29:58 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadrgih

In article <1993Jan25.222318.19365@reed.edu>, tjewell@gluttony.reed.edu (Teresa Jewell) writes:
> In article <1993Jan23.232911.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>  writes:
>> Is it ethical to one day just stop talking to a friend (permanently),  
> and to 
>> NEVER even try to explain why?
>> 
> 
> Ethical or not, it doesn't seem particularly polite.  And this person is a  
> friend?
> 
> T Jewel

     This person was thought to have been a friend, I guess not though...
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kay@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Kay Dekker)
Subject: Re: Realisation.
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:18:20 GMT

In article <1k81ft$kd6@agate.berkeley.edu> kerry@soda.berkeley.edu (Kerry S. Brodt) writes:
[much happy stuff]

There are few joys so sweet as the happiness of one's friends.

Congratulations, Kerry.

			Megamegahugs...
			Kay

-- 
the Crisco Kid: quiet, shy, mono, Armani-suited.  Not.  idx009@uk.ac.cov.cck
Newsgroups: soc.bi