HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: LSELL@MSU
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: What polyamory is to me.
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:23:10 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

I agree with your sentiments for the most part, however, I believe we can have
a polyamorous relationship that includes deep emotional, spiritual, personal
intimacy, and does not include sex. Sex may become a natural extension of
most such relationships, but it is not assumed nor inevitable.

I tend to establish all of the other intimacies first, and then deal with sex.
Too often, for one person or the other, premature sexual relations dampens
the ability to grow and develop other important aspects of the relationship...

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------

Forgive me folks, but I have lurked around here for long enough.

I think a few folks that are posting around her are seeing polyamory as
a excuse to be free to have sex with anyone they damn well please. And I
am sure that I am over-simplifying it, but that is what it is reading
like here for the majority of the posts.

Well, that is NOT what it is to me. I am a male in a 2 males, 1 female
equalateral triangle relationship. Unlike some triangles we do not
have any one person that acts as the "holding it all together" person.
We all have shared that spot in the little over a year that this
relationship has been recognized trio.

What polyamory means to me is that you are allowed to LOVE more than
just one individual other person more that you love any others in the
whole of the universe. That like the ideal "mainstream" idea of a marriage,
you will be by that person's side mentally, even when not physically,
and desire that other person's company over that of others in general.

Why should that which is sometimes called "True Love" be restricted to
only pairs. Can not three (or more) individuals love each other or share
a love in common with that strength?

It does NOT mean, to me anyway, that I am free to go screw anyone I want
just because I get a boner and my mates will not care if I do so. It means
that all the same levels of respect and trust and caring and etc that goes
into a two-person relationship is being applied to a three or more person
relationship. Polyamory is not, to me, a excuse for swinging, or swaping,
or all those things. It means that my heart, my soul, has been captured
not by one solitary other person, but that there are two (or more) others
that are a part of me.

Understand, that the above is MY idea of Polyamory. I do NOT desire to
force this definition of it on others. As I have seen time and time again,
a polyamorous relationship is not always possible for everyone in the manner
that I define it. And the word means different things to different persons.
I will not step on someone else's beliefs any more than I have done in this
posting. I just felt that my "version" of it is valid too, and I saw too
many folk perhaps perceiving Polyamory, from reading this newsgroup, to
being a "free love" type of area.

Feel free to flame me about this if you wish, but it is the way *I* feel.
And I believe my SOs feel the same.

-starcat
starcat@netcom.com
From: LSELL@MSU
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Sleeping arrangements
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:06:14 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

I and two companions (MFM) in the beginnings of a poly relationship, trying
to sort out our needs, and boundaries, etc.. My companions were in a long-term
monogamous (6+ years) relationship until this triune relationship developed.
I'll refer to him as M1, me as M2, she as F.

As we begin to broaden this relationship, we're finding various truths and
preferences. For instance, M1 and F have long slept together - literally,
and for rest, primarily. Cuddling and physical closeness are not really a part
of their sleeping arrangements. M1 is uncomfortable with physcial intimacy.
On the other hand, when M2 and F sleep together, or make love, they've found
cuddling and closeness to be important and needed.

We haven't yet tried all of us sleeping (literally) together.

The point of this is to poll y'all on your sleeping arrangements. How have
some of you handled the arrangements, or what advice do you have??

Thanks!!!

Leo
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.couples
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:20:18 GMT


In article <NANPB96M@dri.com>, cmclark@dri.com (Chip Clark) writes:
> Commitment  is the heart of a relationship.  Regardless of the reasons, if 
> feels good to work through difficult periods and still be attached to each 
> other.  It makes the bond even stronger.  It is the loss of this urge for
> commitment that I feel has encouraged the divorce rate to climb.  

I would tend to disagree with this.  In most cases of divorce that I've seen
and in all successful marriages that I've seen, the key factor has been
communication.  I'm not just talking about verbal communication, there is 
also non-verbal communication that is extremely important.  Without
communication, you can't work through the difficult periods and you can't
realize that both partners are still committed to the relationship.  Any
marriage counsellor that I've chatted with has said that the biggest problem
with most seperated/near-divorce couples is that they have stopped
communicating, even though both still feel commitment and love.

Seems reasonable to me that if you can't communicate your feelings or thoughts
to those close to you (ie. lovers, spouses, etc.) then how can you build
trust, commitment, love, caring,... all the things that make a relationship
strong.  Whether you're committed to one person, or many people, with
open and honest communication, everyone involved knows where they stand.

Just my 2 cents,

      __o       Brad Booth                |  
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |  "He doesn't need a motive.
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |   He's a psychopath."
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  ... Tony Scalli, The Commish
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Announcing alt.personals.poly
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:27:49 GMT


In article <4194@n7kbt.rain.com>, john@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
> The newsgroup alt.personals.poly has been created.  I will fire up the a.p.p
> anonymous contact service in a day or two, to allow the newgroup message time
> to propagate.

And a cheer was heard throughout poly.land, "Hooray!"  Long live the ACS. :)
Three cheers for John!!


    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:01:16
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<l90cmuINN5p3@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<1992Aug18.150437.2667@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<l9l9lmINNl27@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<MUFFY.92Aug26161045@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9psd6INN7sh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Aug27.163
	<l9t0ihINNjos@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 28 Aug 92 19:45:21 GMT

In article <l9t0ihINNjos@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article <ZEN.92Aug27111152@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>just being mean, that might be coercion... but when do you call it a
>>compromise and when is it being coercive?  Seems very situation
>>specific.
>Exactly.  Yet the impression I got from some people was that if
>it involved sex, and if I expressed I wanted a sexual relation, and
>the other person stopped wanting that, that for me to express that
>the relation could be coming to an end (wasn't working for me), because
>of the lack of sex, *would* be coercive, and was even compared to
>rape by one individual.  

It sounds like you read a different article than what the rest of us are
responding to.  The idea in the article that I objected to said that AT
ANY TIME, if a person was in a monogamous relationship, they were pretty
much REQUIRED to provide sex, since they were denying the other person
the opportunity to get sex elsewhere.  This does not have to be part of
some pattern of not having sex.  What it seemed to me, to me, was, if I
am in a monogamous relationship and I go home tonight and I want to go
to sleep, but my partner wants sex, I am required to have sex, right
then and there.

Clearly, if you want a sexual relationship and your partner does not,
then it would make sense to end the relationship.  However, if you want
a sexual *encounter* one day and your partner does not and you therefore
threaten to end the relationship (really to get sex, rather than because
you have any reason to end things), then I think you are being coercive.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~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: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:13:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.131303.10622@amhux2.amherst.edu>
     twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Alan Hardy) writes:

>I've only ever heard four (now five) people express this sentiment
>before, and all four were attractive, personable women in
>male-dominated professions.  They apparently believed that one doesn't
>need to make an active effort to look for potential partners---you
>just run into them all the time.  I suspect that that's exactly the
>world they experience.

   Dunno, Alan; this sort of expresses the way my world operates, too.
Part of that, I'm sure, is my USENET vocality; I can often be seen
making noise on a dozen newsgroups, some of which (bondage, bi, motss,
polyamory) are very likely to have me rubbing shoulders with like-
minded and probably personally interested people.  The same is true of
my hanging out with the BiNet or C-Space or just the plain BBS crowd
out here in Seattle.  I don't actually think of this as looking for new
lovers; just a natural urge to congregate.

>--Alan Hardy

   Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
From: woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:24:02 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>+   ie. while my drive towards having sex often overlaps with my
>+desire to have relationships, I don't believe either has a hand in
>+causing the other.
>
>Look Ma no hands... Well, at least you won't grow hair in you
>palms.

   But what with all the e-sex I've been getting into with my latest love,
I wouldn't be surprised to find hair growing on my keyboard...

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!)
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1068 alt.sex:27688
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Date: 26 Aug 1992 20:15:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <BtK9DA.Hxs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bdienes@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Bruce Dienes) writes:
>
>The discussion along this thread has, at times, seemed to me to be about
>keeping the source of supply of the drug (sex) open, not about close
>human contact and mutual respect.
---

	In a later note in the same string, I said that the 'requirements
of monogamy' could be extended to any area.  My comment was where
do you draw the line.  You seem to imply that close human contact might
be an 'ok' requirement, but sex is not?  Mutual respect is something I
can have for a friend, but that is not a sufficient condition for me to
want them as a lover.  I can have mutual respect for alot of people -- even
close physical contact (if hugging counts?), but those are not
indicators of whether or not I would call a person a lover or S.O.

	To put it in another light: various studies have been shown that those
who are 'touch' deprived suffer negative personality changes.  Can I 
expect a ration of 'hugging' or 'cuddling' from a partner in
a monogamous relation -- is that a 'requirement'?  If it isn't, does 
that mean I can go outside the relationship and get it?  Is this
coercion or is this getting one's needs met.

	Also the argument about sex not being a biological need is specious.
Having a roof over your head isn't a biological need either, but _I_
very well might not stay with someone if they required I live on the
streets -- is that coercion?

-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.
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:32:55 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
<Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
>   Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
>wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.

>   Karina had to be restrained from making a scene. If it hadn't been
>a good friend's birthday, we would've had a huge fight over it. 8->

To tell the truth, I don't see (from the description I deleted) why
Karina was so upset.  Surely the person has a right not to be
interested?? (and don't call me Shirley!)  
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:52:03
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Aug26092636@remarque.berkeley.edu> <mary.714960472@ossi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mary@ossi.com's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:07:52 GMT

In article <mary.714960472@ossi.com> mary@ossi.com (Mary Seabrook) writes:
>>Muffy writes:
>>>Alan Hardy writes:
>>>I've only ever heard four (now five) people express this sentiment
>>>before, and all four were attractive, personable women in
>>>male-dominated professions.

>>Well, I do not think that this describes me very accurately.  I am
>>indeed in a male-dominated profession, but that's about it.

>Humm, I think you are putting yourself down unnecessarily there, Muffy.
>I have rather vivid recollections of how difficult it was to have 
>a conversation with any of the males at the Anaheim USENIX conference dinner
>two years ago. It got worse when I mentioned that yes, I was aquainted with
>that stunning person over there. Attractive is definately appropriate.

*SMILE*...hi, Mary!  And thanks...but that wasn't quite what I meant.
Note that not one of those males ever *talked* to me.  (Nor any females,
other than you...*smile*.)  In fact, only *one* man came over to talk
to me that evening, which was my SO (well, he wasn't my SO at the time,
of course).  Attractive but too scary to approach isn't much use in
terms of forming relationships.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~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: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.couples
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:18:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug27.132018.5527@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
+In article <NANPB96M@dri.com>, cmclark@dri.com (Chip Clark) writes:
+> Commitment  is the heart of a relationship.  Regardless of the reasons, if 
+> feels good to work through difficult periods and still be attached to each 
+
+I would tend to disagree with this.  In most cases of divorce that I've seen
+and in all successful marriages that I've seen, the key factor has been
+communication.  I'm not just talking about verbal communication, there is 

Communication only is labeled 'good' as long as the parties say each
repective person wishes to hear. Say something out of that bound, and
communication stops. 


As in,
"Gee Dear I really think your friend X is pretty interesting,
and kind of sexy",

"What!  Are you saying that I'm not good enough for you?",

"No, Dear, I was just telling you about my internal state at this moment,
to keep you abreast via my open and honest communication channel",

"No, I don't think so at all, you really want to just screw X,
and keep me here as well".

"Well, if I'm going to be accused and assumed guilty then I might as
well have the memories as well"

"I knew it, you been screwing X all along! Where'd you do it. Was it
when I went to that conference on 'Maned Space Flight to Uranus'?"

"No, I haven't screwed X nor am I saying that I will, but if I get
this much shit for stating my internal feelings to hell with stating
them at all".

"Oh, so now you not going to communicate with me, so what other acts
are you hiding?"


-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:38:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug28.172643.29689@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
+
+I guess I look at it this way... it's impossible to tell someone you love
+them, unless you communicate it.

Unfortunately, there's the 'cruques' of the problem. A simple or two
may not communcate anything. The word love has been overburdened
with meaning so that one's loves one's icecream as well as one's
spouse.

Sure one can spend a lot of time explaining, clarifying,
demonstrating, but in some cases the receiver of the communication
does not 'undterstand' at the emotional level. It is my belief that
there is a 'head' knowledge and a 'gut' knowledge and the two are in
many cases different. This need not be so, but often is the case.

In the case of a non-poly person confronting a poly person, the gut
tells the non-poly person that some other will come along and
compete for the affections of the 'loved one'. If such a person also
has a hardwired definition that 'love == exclusivity' and
'demonstration' of a poly relationship necessarily implies less
exclusivity and hence less 'love'. So in this situtation I don't 
believe any amount of communiction will alter the definition 'love
== exclusivity'.

This brings up the point of at least two of the several reasons for
'communication' in the first place. One reason is the give
indication of one's internal state. The other is to encourage
participation, or altering behavior. Some of the post that I've seen
seem to have the 'behavior altering' motive in the communcation. 

There also seems to be the idea that 'unless behavior is altered,
communicaiton hasn't occured'. 
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogomy and Sexual Addiction...
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:51:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BtK9DA.Hxs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bdienes@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Bruce Dienes) writes:
+
+Sex is not required for survival or health, either emotional or
+physical.  The biological imperative for sex is for the continuation of
+the species, not for the survival of the individual.  However, like

There are more reasons for sex in higher primates than just
'continuance of the race'. There are chemical and behavioral changes
during sex which promote a sense of well being in the participants
(presuming mutual interrest, not coercive). There can be 'addictive'
behaviors which may cause the individual socialization problems.
However, sex is not the only activity which produces the 'sense of
well being' and may be addictive. Running for the endorphin high is
also 'addicitive', socially problematic, and only laughingly
censured.

With sex, addictive behaviors are seen as validation for strict
control. One could transpose the moral dictums to 'runing' such as
'thou shalt run only once a day for no longer than 10 minutes', and
comedy results. One could use the same argument above, in this
modern society, no one really has to run for 2 hours, one need only
run for 15 minutes at elevated heart rates to gain the benefit of
running, so a limit would prevent those poor deluded souls from
their addiction.

I don't particularly advocate spending all one's time to sex. I
don't think many who advocate polyamory do either. However, to
criticise the frequency of sexual acts and the number of partners
based on one's own needs is faulty. Yes, increased sexual activity
with multiple partners increases the risk of transmitting disease.
Yes, more sexual activity may have some impact on behavior and may
lead to socialization problems. Yes, when one is use to a certain
sexual outlet rate and it is changed, the person experiences
anxiety. But then in some people just going on a vacation and not
having the usual things around them, causes them anxiety. Should we
implement moral prohibitions against travelers? Or, force people to
travel to overcome their anxieties?
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory