HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ebrooks@netlink.cts.com (Eben Rosenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Couples with Couples
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:25:40 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA


Thanks to all who have posted in response to my problem re: polyfidelity.  
The opinions expressed were very divergent in content, but very helpful in 
my attempts to uncloud my mind on the subject.  Thanks again, the advice was 
sorely needed.

A resolution of sorts has been reached with us and the other couple.  I 
called them, talked with the woman because she and I were the most involved 
of the four of us, and said that we weren't comfortable with entering a 
relationship at this point.  To my surprise and relief, they felt the same 
way.  We're all still friends, and it is possible that some intimacy may 
occur at some point, but a polyfidelitous relationship is not being 
considered anymore.

My SO and myself are very happy, needless to say, that we have cleared this 
problem up without hurting anyone involved.

Thanks again to all.

--                    
INTERNET:  ebrooks@netlink.cts.com (Eben Rosenberger)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!ebrooks
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Subject: Re: Moment of poly self-discovery
Reply-To: glenm@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:51:34 GMT

In article <920729130432@desire.ftp.com>, fks@vax.ftp.com (Frances K. Selkirk) writes:
|> 
|>     In article <1992Jul16.212236.23390@sfc.sony.com> weaver@sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver) writes:
|>     >
|>     >I would like to ask the readers to whom it applies: What was it that
|>     >made you aware of your own polyness (or perhaps the mononess of others
|>     >and your difference therewith)?
|>     
|> I have to join the crowds who say the latter. I was a rather clueless child,
|> :-) and somehow passed off all the monogamy around me as "old-fashioned" 
|> stuff that would be immaterial once I reached the more cosmopolitan world 
|> of college. 

This is it exactly. I read Heinlein (who hasn't?) and he made a whole
lot of sense. I looked around me, and the families I saw weren't
happy. Hell, mine wasn't happy. I saw a lot of divorce, bitterness,
mistrust.

About the time I graduated from university, a student-teacher friend
remarked at how over 50% of the grade 1's she was teaching came from
single-parent families. This is not good.

I don't think polyamoury is all sweetness and light. I'm not all
mushy about it. I *do* think it is an ideal that we can strive toward.

|> Once at college, my first year was rather rough. Group
|> sex happened easily, but the group affection I expected just wasn't there.

Just so. I found myself with a 'harem' once. Interesting, but not
right on the money. Little affection, though lots of fun. 8-)

|> I've still never found that perfect group thing, though. 

Neither have I. I still hope. I still look. What can I say?

BTW, I like your words, Frances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin              Bell-Northern Research          Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Phone : (613) 763-7299   Fax: (613) 763-2626             Internet: glenm@bnr.ca
"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter; (Christian) Fundamentalism 
is the triumph of Paul over Christ." 
 - Will Durant. "The Story of civilization;  part III"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: Getting the idea across...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:30:17 GMT

I bring up the subject of love, then ask them to describe (as best as they
can; it's usually not easy) what love is, what are the (necessary or
sufficient or peripheral) features of a relationship such that it could be
called "love." Then, I do the same with "friendship." 

Whatever the results, I tell them that I consider "love" and "friendship"
to be the same thing. In the common, everyday use of those words, "love"
has a connatation of non-platonicity (plus all the baggage of marriage,
raising a family, other stuff like that), while "friendship" connotates
platonicity. At this point, the conversation may slide into a discussion
on why friendship can/cannot, should/shouldn't be platonic/non-platonic.
The object is to try to get the other person to understand my views on
such matters. Some openmindedness is really helpful here, of course--it
doesn't matter whether or not the other person agrees with those views,
but he/she must be able to empathise and (try to) understand them.

What it all comes down to is that I consider friendship and love to be
the same thing (i.e., there are, unfortunately, two different labels
for the same thing.) Just as I can be friends with more than one person
at a time, so can I love more than one person at the same time. (In
similar vein, I can have a sexual relationship with "just a friend"; in
fact, with more than one friend in the same period of time. However, this
is not quite the same thing as polyamory, so I'll leave it for now.)

What I find useful is getting across the idea that I think of "love" and
"friendship" in quite different ways from the ways in which those terms
are commonly used, i.e., although I use the same terms as other people,
they map to quite different concepts from the concepts they map to in
general. To put it yet another way, my "understanding" of those terms is
different from what most other people "understand" them to be. This
prevents misunderstandings. The idea is to try to get the other person to
see the world "through your eyes." Whether they agree with your world-view
is quite another matter, of course, and is up to the other person himself
of herself.

I use this method myself, and I find that it doesn't work too badly. Hope
the above was interesting at least, if not useful.

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.

"...with a stroke of love on the canvas of my soul, I'm painting a perfect
 world with shades of Michaelangelo. With each promise made in every heart
 that knows, we can live in a perfect world in shades of Michaelangelo."
           --Belinda Carlisle & Charlotte Calley, "Shades of Michaelangelo"
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu (Jonny Ray Purvis)
Subject: Re: scientists & polyamourity
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:59:28 GMT

In article <DAVIDR.92Jul22222202@china.mps.ohio-state.edu> davidr@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (David Rostcheck) writes:
>
>Hmm. This brings to mind a new thread, something I've been noticing
>lately. I'm a physicist and it seems that I see lots of net traffic from
>scientists who are polyamourous. In fact an early polyamourous
>lifestyle reference (brief) I stumbled upon involved scientists. The
>book was named "Emergence" by David Palmer (and it's really good); the
>reference is just in passing. But anyway, how many polyamourous people
>out there are scientists?

That depends...  are grad students real scientists yet? :-).  I'm a wildlife
ecologist/manager MS student who will eventually get a PhD and who hopes
to do seriouds research someday. I guess I qualify as a scientist; I know
I'm polyamourous by nature (not by practice, unfortunately).  I'm betting
there are a lot more polys in the 'hard' sciences than in wildlife - too
many rednecks and country boys with small minds in my major :-(.

About the number of us who read Heinlein: maybe it would be easier to count
those who haven't read him than those who have. :-)

Jon Purvis
jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: words for love
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:56:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <920717101817@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.063048.648@midway.uchicago.edu> mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures) writes:
>
>    Ken:
>    >Doesn't everyone wish there was more than one word for love in English?

	I just use the greek. Eros-sexual. Philia-Brotherly. Agape-of
mankind.
-- 
  _Sameer_Parekh_zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM_zane@infopls.chi.il.us__________________
 / STOP The War on Rights          | | Restore liberty in the United States \
 | "Specialization is for Insects" | | Vote Libertarian 1992          ______/
 \________- Robert A. Heinlein_____/ \_ap.2363@cupid.sai.com (anon)__/
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.bi
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: RFD: rmgroup soc.men & rmgroup soc.women
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:57:14 GMT

Hey, Elf?  Why not just unsubscribe?  Why suggest removing somebody
else's fun?


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Every man...  Every man for himself...
All in favour say, "Aye."
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: hello again
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:01:31 GMT

In article <BrswLF.JvK@well.sf.ca.us> jrussell@well.sf.ca.us (Jerry Russell) writes:
>
>Hello again,
>     Some e-mail that came in last night prompts me to add a few words to my
>previous post, before I get more flames.

Flames? why flames?

[...]
>     As I said in my post, I don't know what she would actually feel if I were
>involved with another woman.  However, I do know what she says she would feel.
>She says she wouldn't be angry or feel betrayed or want a divorce.  She would
>feel lonely, a little worried about disease, and concerned that I might not
>come
>back.  I wouldn't want her to feel those concerns, which is one reason I'm
>not clear on whether polyamory is right for me, at least not if it means
>leaving my wife out of things.

Show her your post (<BrswLF.JvK@well.sf.ca.us>)!

>     I don't think this whole thing is about sexual gratification.  Poly*
>people
>keep referring to Heinlein and Rimmer.  If you read them, you'll find that
>the picture is of a supportive, romantic context where everyone shares
>their lives and no one is left out, lonely or jealous.  It may well be an
>un-realizable fantasy for me in this world, but it is a concept I'm attracted
>to.

It has a greater chance of being realized when the ideas get spread around
as much as possible.  A good idea is to buy up copies of Heinlien and Rimmer
and give them to people you think may profit from them.  For a while I was
doing that with Callenbach's _Ecotopia_...
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: CD alert
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:32:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.35890
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <3759@wyse.wyse.com> jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220) writes:
+
+I always thought this song was based on _Stranger in a Strange Land_,
+paticularly the third verse quoted above.  another post said it was
+inspired/in_reference to a nash/mitchel/crosby afair, which may very well
+be.

The book had become by the mid 60's a must read for everyone who
considered themselves a 'real' anti-establishment type. The 'water
brother' reference is both a cliche, and a wish for the non-standard
relationship structure which prevades Heinlin.

I realize the origins of the 'triad'. However, it has always struck
me as ambivalent about the genders involved.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: zinzow@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark S. Zinzow)
Subject: Re: Couples with couples
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:11:21 GMT

ebrooks@netlink.cts.com (Eben Rosenberger) writes:

>My SO and I have a problem.  We are falling in love with another couple (who 
...
>we get involved, which sound good to us, too.  The problem is, they don't 
>want us to continue to have outside lovers, even during our current 
>"courtship" phase.
 Not now, or NEVER?

>Which brings us to the second problem.  How would I let them know that we're 
>not ready to commit to a four-way polyfidelitous relationship with them yet 
>still retain their friendship without it getting uncomfortable?
 If they are as interested in you as you are in them, let them know how  
important open relationships are to you and that you feel you expect to
continue to need that.

>*Sigh*  I wish someone out there would publish an instruction manual for the 
>human mind.

Me too.  People tend to resist change.  Most of us are brought up conditioned
to think in terms of monogamous heterosexual relationships.  Finding in ones
self the desire to not conform to these cultural norms is a difficult and
frightening process.  Offering to be monogamous with this couple for a period
of time may be valuable in easing their transition as long as you make it 
clear you are not comfortable staying that way.

I've had my own share of stress over non-traditional relationships.  It
is a tough call to balance different needs and desires of different people,
and it can get worse as the number grows!  Best of luck!
From: woodhous@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: I've fallen in love again!
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:10:33 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au


   First off, a quick disclaimer. I guarantee that I won't have too much
mushiness in this post.

   I've fallen in love again for the first time in maybe 2.5 years. It's
been strange, because when I was 14-18, I was falling in love with people
all the time, at the drop of a hat. Then after my most recent new True
Love (I'm still with an earlier True Love, and the first True Love left
years ago) left me, I hadn't felt *any* stirrings of that sort towards new
people (maybe with one exception that Karina's just pointed out to me, but
it didn't really happen with the person she mentioned).

   This was really odd, because I was in positions where the old me would've
fallen in love for sure - but for the wrong reasons, or just thinking I
was in love. I just thought that maybe I'd grown out of my stage of falling
in love everywhere, and left it at that.

   (Note that during this 2.5 years of no new in-love feelings, I've still
had a few new partners and sleep-together friends of various sorts).

   But just this afternoon, just a few hours ago, I fell in love again.
I'd had some feelings for a while that I thought might have been the first
stirrings, but I hadn't been sure. I spent a godawful time chatting with
this sweetie-to-be, and during this I realised I was for certain in love
with them. As it happens they fell in love with me too!! (Hooray!)

   It's good. I found that over the last couple of years I'd missed being
in love with a new person. You know those early stages - you think about
them all the time, you're over the moon, it's really scary & intense, all
of that sort of thing. I was even worried that I might falsely fall in
love with someone just to fill this blank slot I felt my life had.

   Nothing of the sort. I love this person, and I'm in love with them.
It's beautiful & simple & easy.

   (Now for the mushy bits)

   They're great, they're wonderful, they're Bi, they're Poly, they're a
bloody good conversationalist, they're funny & witty & clever & cheeky &
impish & childlike at times, and I am so in love with them that my face
*hurts* from the huge grin I find myself constantly wearing.

   (Mushy bits stop here)

   Karina, my current sweetie and my second True Love, is really happy too.
Now, we're in love with each other, she's in love with her sweetie (whom I
care for a lot, am good friends with, and sleep with too), and I'm in love
with my other sweetie too (whom Karina's friends with - although they don't
know each other too well yet)!

   *This*, more than anything else, is why I'm Poly. More good things for
more people. How can a Mono person find anything bad in this?

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: jennifer@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Subject: Re: scientists & polyamourity
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:24:05 GMT

pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
>davidr@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (David Rostcheck) writes:

>>how many polyamourous people out there are scientists?

>Aside from the fact that most of the people who are net-connected are
>either in school or in the computer industry, it would stand to reason
>that any demographic group measured here would largely consist of
>science people.

>But anyway...  I'm a Chemist, and my Primary is an Astrophysisist, but
>my other love is an Artist. My two previous loves were a Programmer and
>a Teacher.

I'm a BioPhysics grad student.  My current lovers are a Computer
Scientist, (if that counts :-) an Astronomer, a Chemist, and a
Chemical Physicist.  but then you would probably have to look at that
vs the set of my friends-who-are-not-lovers, which is also mostly
scientists, mathmeticians, and hackers.  OFten all combined in one
body. :)

-jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: johnb@math.orst.edu (John Bainbridge)
Subject: Re: Moment of poly self-discovery
Organization: Oregon State University Math Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:49:22 GMT

In article <Brw6un.85x@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.171403.4868@sco.com> daveu@sco.COM (Dave Uebele) writes:
>>
>>I really don't understand why having lunch is ok, but dinner is not
>>or shaking hand is ok, but hugs are not or kissing but not light fondling.
>>Everyone seems to have a different sense of what is the line that should not
>>be crossed. I refuse to limit physical contact with close friends just
>>because they are not my primary partner.
>>
>Those are the kind of arbitrary "group rules" that I've always had trouble 
>with.
I second THAT emotion, I've floated in and out of various groups
around the states and have come to the conclusion that if hugging
isn't a group norm I have no desire to associate with the group.

And if anyone is keeping count <grin> my background was Heinlein
influenced and my ex SO read Rimmer.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.bi
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Subject: Re: RFD: rmgroup soc.men & rmgroup soc.women
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:40:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.205159.13186@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler) writes:
>I simply laughed.  If the idea was a group 'for' men and 'for' women,
>and they need something different, why did I read the same article
>posted to both groups?

*sigh*  I'm going to show my age and insert a little net.history into the
conversation...

Once upon an idyllic age, when the net was younger, what is now soc.women
was net.women.  The group contained much pithy information from persons
of varying disciplines in this relatively new field called "women's 
studies," along with a goodly amount of questions of relevance to the 
then-much-smaller population of women reading news on the net.  We used
to have interesting interdisciplinary discussions about such things as:

	Why the length of hair is important to gender identity
	The (un)supportability of clitoridectomy in african initiations
	Management track issues for women engineers, glass cielings
	Lack of support in the community for the mourning process for
		women in the midst of divorce, women after miscarriages,...

These discussions had participants of both sexes, and were *much* more
civilized than the average newsgroup these days.  Then one unhappy day
(in 1981, I think...) someone came up with the notion that there were
things they wanted to talk about in the company of *women* only, and
there began a discussion of forming a group called net.women.only.

Now, this struck me as silly anyway, since it was *not* moderated, and 
even back then anyone worth their salt could forge mail, or just sign
"jane doe" for "john doe" if their username were JDOE.  But it became
a BIG THING.

Suddenly most of net.women was taken up with flamewars about whether 
net.women.only should exist.  Proponents were called anti-male and 
isolationist.  Opponents were called anti-female and sell-outs.  And 
worse, on both sides.  The .only group was formed, but by that time
a lot of the good people (IMHO) from net.women had fled, and as it 
turned out, net.women.only was dominated for months with a discussion
of comparisons among brands of tampons.

From this transition eventually crawled the modern soc.women, spawning
it's counterpart net.men somewhere along the way.

At least that's the way my *obviously* potentially senile mind recalls
it...;)


-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ice@netcom.Netcom.COM (I. Chris English)
Subject: Re: I've fallen in love again!
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 10:38:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Service

In article <1992Jul30.091033.3463@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
woodhous@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

   How can a Mono person find anything bad in this?

Please don't ask.  You can find this sort of abuse anywhere.  You
really don't need anyone to *post* it here do you?

I don't.  I'd rather let the "you're sick" discussions rage elsewhere
and reserve this group for "you're not alone" kinds of support.

Chris English.

I'm experimenting with aspects of poly, but the mono socialization is
still quite fresh and strong.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: brea9430@mach4.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u)
Subject: Re: Getting the idea across...
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 05:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.015529.854274@zeus.calpoly.edu> awozniak@zeus.calpoly.edu (The WOZ) writes:
>What's the best way to explain the concept of polyamory to someone
>who has never heard of the idea before?

I'd start by talking about love in general, and asking your subject (never
TELL them) if it is possible to love more than one person at a time. Of
course, you're going to get a yes here. Then maybe ask them if it's possible
to love more than one friend at the same time (the Greeks called this love
agape, and you might want to explain to them (and get their opinion on the
matter) that they (the Greeks) thought agape was the highest order of love.
Eros (physical love) was comparatively low on the scale. 
Things to mention: society's very odd use of the word "lover"--all those
sexual connotations, what are they doing there?--; the different loves we
can feel for different people at the same time; and such.

I've justified polyamory in my mind by thinking:

A. The Greeks thought agape was the highest order of love (and I agree with
them)
B. I believe I have "agape" for more than one person
C. I should then be able to love more than one person in any other way,
including eros, if we desire it.

Ken Breadner (brea9430@mach4.wlu.ca)



Newsgroups: alt.polyamory