HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cyan@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ()
Subject: Androgynous, Feminine and Masculine Bisexuals...
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:11:00 GMT

In article <yVLRTB11w165w@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca> panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Elizabeth Holden) writes:
>
>Hmmm.  Some of us like androgyny AND femininity AND masculinity.  Why 
>limit humanity to one type?  
>
>Everyone is welcome to his or her favourite styles; I wouldn't tell 
>anyone what to think.  And I like to think of myself as a bit of a New 
>Age type.
>
>Namaste,
>Elizabeth

Well said Elizabeth! *I* enjoy being masculine and feminine, although I don't
expect other bi-folk to be like me. It can be truly a pleasure identifying with
both genders, as well as a cause for extreme inner turmoil. Our culture expects
males to dress like "men" and look like  "men". Someone like me (and many
others) who like to dress and look like  women, but are unable to do so
convincingly, are subject to harrassment, derision and sometimes violence.
We can only express ourselves publicly "at our own risk". It's a damn shame
things are this way.       

Sherri
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:49:02 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

In <Bx5wpp.HyM@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk
(the Crisco Kid) writes:
>gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>kraig@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kraig Count) writes:
>>>Not all people who belive in tarot or astrology are new age 
>>>fanatics.  Granted, most of the people you run across in 
>>
>>No, but they're still raving nutters whatever brand of lunacy
>>they adhere to.
>
>Graham, dear, have you ever in your life heard me rave?

I seem to remember an occasion, ages ago on soc.bi, when somebody asked
what "raving bisexuality" looked like when it was home, and Kay supplied
details (drinking tea while curled up in front of the fire was about
the gist of it).

So there you have it: proof that Kay does rave. (When it comes to
bisexuality anyway; I'm not so sure about astrology or tarot cards.)


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Re: Tackling the Bible (longish)
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:34:46 GMT
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 13 Nov 1992 12:17:29 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11123623@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

->>Then change your definition of monogamy.
->
->To what, exactly?  Any change in the definition won't be terribly useful
->unless you can get your partner(s) to agree to it, in which case all
->you've really done is redefined the relationship to be non-monogamous.
->So, why do you think it is useful to change your personal defintion of
->monogamy?

Well, maybe one has a hangup about being monogamous, and would like that to
remain ... and with all due respect, they may not be monogamous according to
_your_ definition of the word monogamy, but according to their definition
(which is the important one), they may be.

I could very easily be monogamous within the strict sense of what the word
stands for ... one woman.

I could, given the right woman, commit to sleeping with no other women.  I
do not currently believe, in the stage of life I'm at, that I could commit
to sleeping with no men.  Am I monogamous? Depends on _my_ and _her_
definition.  Not anyone else's.

-roy
-- 
Roy S. Rapoport          rsr@soda.berkeley.edu             rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
"Letters from you make me feel good."  -Laura Creighton
"Why do you guys all have to have penises?" -anon
DISCLAIMER:  "I meant every word of it, but I doubt anyone else did."
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: This has probably already been asked...
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:30:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

This has probably already been asked and (hopefully) answered, and
I just haven't seen the answer, but here goes:

Why is the lack of acceptance from the gays as bad as the lack of
acceptance from the hets?


Without change,                         *David Barber*
   nothing can ever get better.            @}-->----

UUCP: ucsd!crash!dbarber
INET: dbarber@crash.cts.com
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: We Don't Want Quotas
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:59:21 -0500
Organization: P.L.T.S., North Plainfield, New Jersey, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: plts.uucp

In <1992Nov1.065546.27713@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:

>I know of no gay/lesbian/bisexual rights group working for hiring quotas
>and I have not heard of any such law being passed.  (And there would
>considerable practical difficulty in implementing quotas since
>sexual orientation is not always obvious.)

Someone was lobbying Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) in Washington D.C.
about trying to get him to sign onto the National Gay Rights Bill.
Well, they were talking with his assistant and he said that the senator
doesn't think the bill goes far enough and should include quotas.  This
flabergasted the lobbist!  She had to explain that that would REQUIRE
people to come out to get a job, and that is an invasion of privacy.
Well, I think she finally convinced the aide that it was a bad thing.

\begin{heavysarcasm}
Damn silly straight people!  Who do they think they are???
\end{heavysarcasm}

Tom
-- 
  "TUESDAY, NOVEMBER THIRD" is an anagram for "MANY VOTED, BUSH RETIRED!!!"
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
B0 f+ t w c- d g k+ s+ m- e++ h r-- p              Clinton '92  Clinton '92
S7/2 b+ g l+ y z- n++ o++ x++ a-- u+ v+ j+ PIG8/5  Clinton '92  Clinton '92!!
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Women and I: An Explanation?
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.175747.1243@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
>Tanaqui, acting all peeved in order to extract extra hugs |-)

Well since I unfairly used Tanaqui as a specific example in the PC
discussion, and she's probably going to be annoyed when she gets
as far as that one, I'd better get a pre-emptive cuddle in quickly :-)

Who else was it wanted to see the southern-hemisphere version of my hug-voucher?

*Hug & Enjoy*

G
===
  \                                                               /
   \  " *** One *HuG* voucher, redeemable only in person *** "   /
   |                                                             |
   |                                                             |
   /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\                                 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
  /                \                               /               \
 /                  }                             {                 \
/            )     /                               \    (            \
(        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\           /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      )
(                 }            )         (            {              )
(                             /           \                          )
(         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\      /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        )
(                 }              )    (              {               )
(                               /      \                             )
(        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~        ~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~         )
(                }            )          (            {              )
(                            /            \                          )
(       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~~~~              ~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~        )
(               }       )                      (       {             )
(                      /                        \                    )
 \  /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\   /
  ~~|                                                           |~~~
    /                                                           \
   |                                                             |
   |#############################################################|
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Reply-To: orc@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Catastrophes
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:45:44 GMT

In article <BxBM10.221@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
|Altruism is where the positive value of self-satisfaction from the act done
|outweighs the negative concrete value to yourself of the action.  I dispute
|that true altruism - where you do something to your detriment, voluntarily,
|*and feel bad about it* exists.

   Whereall does this definition of altruism exist?  This runs a
little bit contrary to what the definition I'm familiar with, which
is doing something to benefit others without necessarily benefiting
yourself.  This zero-sum you've-gotta-hurt-yourself-or-it's-not-
altruism definition is bizarre, and I think it's wrong.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ e-slut
                 \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: tackling the bible
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Distribution: soc
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:42:50 GMT

In article <1dkofaINN1c4@plts.uucp> tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
:However, after Jesus had been crucified, two disciples were walking on
:the road to Damascus where they met a man, took him home and had dinner
:with him.  After he had left, they realize that it had been Jesus.
:Jesus arose the next day.
:
:Well, if you read the passage carefully, the two diciples lived
:together.  Back then, if you lived together, you were married.  This
:begs the questions:
:
:    1 -- Was one of the diciples a female?
:   (Women can't be Catholic priests because none of the diciples were women)
:    2 -- Was this a same-sex couple?
:   (we know how the Catholic Church feels about homosexuals)

Can you give me book chapter and verse for these please?  They'll come in
handy elsewhere just now...

G
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:23:46 GMT

In article <BxIH13.87t@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
 writes:

>PC-speak might be stupid if we were all liberated, but we're not.
>What other people think about me does matter.

Then you will be oppressed by it as long as it matters to you.  You've
guaranteed your own oppression.  Have fun.

Steve
Xref: sparky soc.bi:14908 soc.motss:46897 alt.polyamory:1739
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss,alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: I'm going to be on TV Thursday night!
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: milk.warren.mentorg.com

In <1dp4g0INN26a@milk.Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>Laura (laura@plts.uucp), myself and one other person should be on a
>talk-show on CNBC Thursday night, 10pm (the time might be wrong).  The
>topic will be 3somes.

Correction:  The show is on at 10:30 PM (east-coast time).

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
   X.400 is the mail system of the future.  Let's keep it that way!
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: vashti@concave.cs.wits.ac.za (Vashti Galpin)
Subject: Re: my roomie
Organization: Wits University Electrical Engineering
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:28:22 GMT

In <maxine.721005673@camelot> latarra@camelot.bradley.edu (Lisa Ehren) writes:
>I just "came-out" to my roomie, and she's accepting...ain't she great?
><btw, I'm bisexual...:)>

Congratulations, *hugs*
                                                                ____ 
                                                                \bi/ 
Vashti                                                           \/
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vashti Galpin                      vashti@concave.cs.wits.ac.za
Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa.  Tel 27(11)716-3295 Fax 27(11)403-1926
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.233741.15028@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternber
g) writes:
>In article <Bx8o98.9E@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
>     pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>
>>I have this problem with the bi network generally; most of the people
>>around are into some form of mysticism and the ones remaining are
>>obnoxious anarcho-capitalists like Graham.
>
>   Howzabout an obnoxious anarcho-capitialist bisexual sadomasochist
>polyamorist who's actually a killer Tarot card reader?

Drooool!  Pantpantpantpantpantpant!  All that and brains, too! :-)

>         Elf !!!

Steve
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Punk Bisexual Anarchocapitalist Slam-Dancer in Central Ohio
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:37:41 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>I talked with my mom for the first time in a month yesterday.
...
>So ... now, the question is, how does one do this thing?
>I can see two main avenues:
>A) Let it drop in during a casual conversation
>B) Sit them down for a talk

Well, A worked well for me. I did it very gradually though... coming out
as bi and telling them you've got a MOTSS SO and telling them about the
BDSM is a *lot* to do at once. One thing at a time might be better. Or
it might not. All parents are different, you just have to judge it how
best to approach yours. No-one else can really make that choice for you.


/jon
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver)
Subject: Re: Women and I: An Explanation?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:20:11 GMT

 gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
>>Tanaqui, acting all peeved in order to extract extra hugs |-)

>Well since I unfairly used Tanaqui as a specific example in the PC
>discussion, and she's probably going to be annoyed when she gets
>as far as that one, I'd better get a pre-emptive cuddle in quickly :-)

Me? Politically correct? If you said this, I hope you're joking!!

Jeez, the Oxford Gayles scene would laugh their tits off at this... I know
more than on person closeted by right-on separatists.

Well, you've certainly got me acting all peeved again, even before I've found
the article. Is that politically uncorrect?

Tanaqui, who tends to isolate herself when she actually is peeved

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: polly@iastate.edu (Paula Puffer)
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:18:10 GMT

In article <BxEGII.3zC@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.044820.6874@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
>>Now, shall we try this again?  I think it is of the utmost importance to
>>be "politically" correct; that includes, as far as language goes, using
>>a form which is less oppressive, which does not reinforce the blatant
>>unfairness of the world we live in.  You appear to think otherwise.  You
>>say, correctly, that those who can say "Fuck you" to their oppressors
>>should change the way we behave because of that, be it from the personal
>>level of language through to the state level of legislative
>>intervention.  What is your argument against this, other than "doing a
>>Bush?" :-)
>
>My argument against this is: linguists have show again and again that
>language changes to suit the needs of its users - it is *not* changed
>by fiat and forced changes simply do not work.  Whereas I actually
>agree with your motives - to increase tolerance in society - I merely
>disbelieve that PC-talk will achieve it.  Worse, because it is forced
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and artificial, it makes you seem out of touch and a woolly-minded
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is part of the problem i see with trying to be Politically Correct.
in it's own way it is oppressive as the people with whom a PC person
disagrees with.  I don't like being told by anyone, what i should or 
shouldn't do.   In the US it's my choice to believe in what i want
and i resent being told i should do something/believe in something 
because it's the *right* thing to do.   

>liberal who people won't take seriously (for instance, any time Tanaqui
>does one of her ke/kir-filled posts, I delete it unread as pretentious
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have a tendency to tune ppl out when they start becoming PC on me as 
well.  It is pretenious to preach at me about what is right and what is
wrong.  And i do think Preach is the operative word here.   
talk to me like i have an opinion and like i am an intellingent human being
with her own viewsm i find i am more receptive about things this way. 


>twaddle, even though I like tanaqui and usually otherwise read her posts)
>
>There is *occasionally* a need to do the odd bit of PC-talk, or to point
>out invalid assumptions about gender etc in people's speech - but it has
>to be used lightly to preserve the effect of it, not rammed down peoples
>throats all the time.


>
>G
>
Paula 
polly@iastate.edu
From: s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: My inner man
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:32:48 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: otto.bf.rmit.oz.au

It's very interesting to read the stuff about New Agers and the men wanting
to reach their "inner woman". I don't have an inner man and have never meet
a woman that does or wants to reach it. All this smacks of sexism, ie
Men and women are "different but equal" BLAH!!!!

  The only man I have in me is when I allow my male lovers entry to 
myself ( on a different but related subject. Does anyone know of a better word than penetration? I hate that word and are continually searching for another)

Inner man. GROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok ok so I'm slighty sexist I know so don't bother telling me.
 
Vikki 
 
 
 
                     
 
 
             
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:33:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.172429.10416@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dwells@lonestar.utsa.edu (Darren . Wells) writes:
>He is.  It's possible to actually  "*believe* it" and still be sensible.
>In fact, accepting that someone with a very different belief system than
>our own can be sensible is important.  At least I think it should be, in
>this newsgroup.  Surely you can see a connection here . . .

No, that is *precisely* the sort of woolly PC thinking that has totally
disenchanted me with this group.  As Heinlein had Lazarus Long say
in one of his notebooks, 'if you meet someone who professes to be an
intellectual, ask them what they think of astrology'.  That sort of
irrational claptrap should be dismissed out of hand (along with religion
of any sort, but hey - one flame war at a time is enough no?)

I am sick of being told that because I'm a member of an 'oppressed group'
that I should automatically side with all sorts of people with whom i
have nothing in common.  I make my mind up about 'PC' issues on
each case, on its merits, not simply follow the party line.  I say
again, I have no time whatsoever for people who have the intelligence
to know better, who indulge in blatantly irrational beliefs like
dowsing maps with pendulums, predicting the future with chicken guts,
or tarot cards, or believing that the dead will rise from the grave on
the day of judgement.

I must say, I'm really impressed by the way this group has (ahem) bent
over backwards to indulge all sorts of bigots and loudmouths, but as
soon as one of your own dares to criticise you on the grounds of 'PC',
it's daggers drawn and stabs in the back.  Sheesh.  Just because I
made an innofensive joke at Ciaran's expense that I thought he would
be able to take against himself. I've said it before, I'll say it
again.  This group has lost its sense of humour and sense of proportion.

G
--
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:02:12
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov9.192631.28625@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Nov9.225742.15759@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: orc@amber.uchicago.edu's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.225742.15759@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.192631.28625@athena.cs.uga.edu> kraig@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kraig Count) writes:
>[about being hit with the common stereotypes after coming out]
>|be both Gay and Straight, and my least favorite "All You Really Need
>|is a Good Woman and you will Forget this BULLSHIT").

>[...] recently, after spending some time
>with a very nice woman indeed, I noticed my sexual orientation
>tilting in a rather non-heterosexual direction indeed.  It would be
>a wonderful way to confuse someone who tried to unload that
>stereotype on you: "All you need is a Good Woman(tm)" "Yeah, but
>whenever I fuck a Good Woman(tm), I then want to go out and do it
>with a Good Man(tm) too!" (as certain readers of soc.bi can
>probably testify about ;-)

It's not exactly this, but I have been having a very weird experience
along these lines lately.  Ever since looking into the eyes of the
beautiful woman in our philosophy class, I've been thinking about (and
lusting after) all the attractive women I have met.  Somehow, I just
seem to want "a woman."  In the past, I have wanted *specific* people,
or I have wanted "sex in general" (*grin*), but I've never had this
feeling of wanting the in-between "sex with someone of a particular
gender."

Anyone else ever run into this?  It's kind of fun, but feels very odd
all the same...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky soc.bi:14903 soc.motss:46884 alt.polyamory:1737