HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:13:20 GMT


Ron Whitetree writes:
> Chris English Writes:
> >Hmm... What about opportunities that present themselves without the
> >other partner being available for discussion?  Should they be
> >declined, and thus perhaps lost?
> 
> This seems rather shallow. After all what is more important, a moment
> of excitement or your previous commitments and the feelings of those
> you ask to believe in you. I think it is the word "opportunity" that
> I am objecting to. But, any "opportunity" worthwhile will not likely
> be lost.

Well, there are some opportunities that only present themselves once.
For instance, if you should meet a person while you are travelling.  If
your partner is not available for discussion and you're worried about 
what they're going to think, then *maybe* a decline is best.  But if you
want to prevent this indecision, you should discuss this situation with
your partner before this situation presents itself.  Then you will know
where you 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: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: still more sluttishness (was Re: Monogamy manifestos)
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:23:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.015334.7370@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
     woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>>   And, under this duress :-), I seem to have the capacity to be "a
>>slut."  To stand up proudly and say in a loud, clear, voice, "I like to
>>fuck him, him, her, her, him, and, oh, yeah, er, them, too!  And when I
>>have nobody around, a couple of 'its' in my toybox, too!"

>    Ha ha ha ha ha! ROTFL! Speaking of toys, what are first the minimum,
>and then optimum, number of vibrators required to adequately service a
>FMF threesome? I have to plan my overseas trip soon, you know... 8->
>(BTW, I was thinking maybe 5, and 7, respectively 8->).

   You know, this paragraph took me nearly ten minutes to figure out!
I make a distinction between _dildo_ and _vibrator_, Joe!  I would go
with just five dildos, whether they vibrate or not.  They never taste
all that good.  As for vibrators, I would recommend _two_ wall-current
powered ones, with the 'small spot' ("For tight muscles!"  Uh-huh.
Sure it is.) attachment.

>Joe.

         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
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jrw27953@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon W.)
Subject: Re: (spoilers) FORWARDED : Ayn Rand's Contribution to Poly-ness?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:16:34 GMT

For those who are curious about Ayn Rand's affairs of the heart,
see also:  _Judgment Day_ (by Nathaniel Branden, one of Ayn's lovers), for
some of the facets of her personal life.

----Jon W.
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: sluttishness (was Re: Monogamy manifestos)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:42:12 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>  So what does it mean when you say you're a slut?  Does it matter that
>you're using it (apparently) in a polyamorous context?

   Not using it in any particular context, I think. I say I'm a slut for
sex, I'm a slut for love, I'm a slut for people. I love being involved
with people, in various types of relationships. I call myself a slut
about these things since I'm very eager to be involved with people.

   I've got a lot of room in my life for lovers. I've got a lot of room
in my heart for lovers. I've even got a fair bit of room in my bed, too. 8->

   People have asked me is there a limit to how many people I'd like to
be involved with. I'm not sure, it's a bit of a strange question, really.
Is there a limit to how many friends I'd like?

   Practically speaking, though, I suppose eventually some limits might be
reached, but that seems a long way off. Right now I've one lover I live
with and am in love with, one lover who I don't live with, don't get to
see very often, and whom I love a lot but am not in love with, and a third
lover who's halfway around the world that I'm very much in love with. I
think I could manage a few more. 8->

   So I call myself a slut since I'm gleefullly available, and nearly
always on the prowl. 8->

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: starcat@netcom.com (Solaris Gato)
Subject: What polyamory is to me.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 07:11:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

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

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.sex
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:04:37 GMT

In article <l90cmuINN5p3@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:

>If I want
>to have sex with a living, breathing human being, and my monogamous
>partner refuses to put out, I believe a problem exists.

yeah, but the only problem is in your head. learn how to masturbate
and stop coercing people.

followups to alt.sex, because this has little to do with polyamory --
it's offensive to everyone.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (was Re: "poly" label and other people)
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:43:11 GMT

In article <BsvBEt.KIo@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>In article <72810002@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> ronw@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Ron Whitetree) writes:

>But that was before we'd even heard of AIDS.  It wouldn't be funny
>now.

VD existed before AIDS. VD will exist even if AIDS ceases to be a
threat.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: THANKS - YOU GUYS ARE GREAT!!
Date: 16 Aug 92 08:34:34 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <1992Aug14.214154.1607@bnr.ca> Cynthia Nolan writes:
> [all sorts of nice things about the whole newsgroup, and all sorts of
>  sensible good things about being Poly]
>
>This sounds a little sappy, I guess, as I read it back, but mainly I just
>wanted to say I'm glad I've found you and yes, it's great and isn't life just
>the grandest game of all!  

   Not the least bit sappy, there've been mushier posts by far. (I know,
since a fair share of them have been mine... 8->).

   I know I danced a jig when Jennifer Wesp said to me in email, "How would
you feel about starting up a mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup?"!
I'd felt *so* isolated, almost no-one my sweetie & I met seemed to be able
to understand, and we always got so many hurtful and clueless comments.

   So, Cynthia, since I'm in one of my "post a dozen articles in one day"
moods, let me humbly consume bandwidth to welcome you, and all other new
posters, to a Really Nice And Good newsgroup. <hugs> if appropriate.

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!)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:16:18 EDT
From: Sonja Kueppers <SEK@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Starting new relationships - intimacy problem


I don't post here much, mostly because I don't generally think of
problems that I have with polyamory that anyone else might be able to help
with.

Today, I thought of one.

Tomorrow, I'm going on a date with someone new.  Nonmonogamy is nothing
new for him, so I'm not in any trouble there.  However, I worry about
pressing anyone's limits too hard, including his.

Here's the situation.

I'm in a stable, long-term relationship.  Because of this, I tend to
want to slip into intimacy with other people faster than they're able
or willing to do so.  People get scared when I just sort of assume
that they might want to share everything emotionally right away.
I trust people with most of my fears and such pretty much immediately,
too, which compounds the problem.

In fact, even discussing this issue with someone is the same kind of
thing that I've found was frightening to them in the past.

Yet I don't want to hold back.  I don't want to dance around and
not cut to the heart of the matter.

I'm hoping that with this person it will be different.  I know
he's participated in Relationship Enhancement Therapy before,
so I know he is interested in achieving honest relationships
with people.

*sigh*

Well, anyway...does anyone have any thoughts or advice?

-Sonja
------
SEK@psuvm.psu.edu SEK@PSUVM.BITNET
Love is not enough.  It must be the foundation, the cornerstone --
but not the complete structure.  It is much too pliable, too yielding.
                                            - Bette Davis
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:27:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BtAxzJ.CsM@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
+In article <MUFFY.92Aug16194744@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
+>
+>However, this is not at all what the religions are doing.  Most of the
+>religions I know of put the same restrictions on both partners.  What
+>religion(s) did you have in mind, here?
+
+That's a pretty sweeping statement: the example that springs to mind
+is the religion of my great-grandfather, (Brethren of the Plymouth
+Landing, a christian sect) which seems to have been willing to hold
+that his happiness was extremely important but that his wife's wasn't.
+Then there are religions like the Latter Day Saints which (I believe)
+approve multi-spouses for the male but not the female.

The LDS church has not officially practiced polygyny since 1890(or
so). The president of the LDS church at the time issued the
statement that polygyny was no longer appropriate at this time. This
in effect does not take a negative stand on the type of marriage,
but defers the practice for the moment. The more cynical beleive
that this dispensation came when Utah was attempting to gain
statehood. Furthermore, it's my beleif that polygyny for Mormons is
not a 'erotic' solution, i.e. done for the 'pleasure' of the man,
since there is a domonant theme of self-denial in much of Morman
'theory'. The practice I believe is to populate the earth as quickly
as possible with Mormons. There is also a hint of re-incarnation in
Mormonism, which would also support the idea that women need to
produce more children so as to incarnate these souls.

To further counter the 'erotic' in Mormonism, most of the people
that I've talked to about the practice still maintained by some in
Utah does not give me any impression that the wives are doing more
that absolutely required for the sex act. I have never heard of a
Mormon equivalent of the 'Kama Sutra' or even Fredericks of
Hollywood being popular. So it is my impression that the women are
about as 'enthused' about sex as any victorian matron was alleged to
be. As for Mormon men, well, they also seem to be hide bound by
guilt. So they may 'enjoy' their wives but definately would publicly
denouce 'sexual displays' that some licensious critics would say
goes on in a polygynous family.

As for the general 'religious' proscriptions, while it is true that
many if not all place restrictions on sexual behavior on both
genders, the man often is not placed in the same 'jepordy' as the
woman. In the US, one can ponder the exposee's of Swagart and the
like, vs. a hypothetical case where the person was a woman, say
Beverly LaHay of Concerned Women of America. Do you think she would
have a hope in hell of being forgiven by her supporters, or only
give a 'year' censure, for sexual misconduct.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:04:15
Organization: savage hackers
	<ZEN.92Aug10234913@death.corp.sun.com> <BsxC4z.DsK@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: webber@world.std.com's message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:29:21 GMT


In article <BsxC4z.DsK@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>  In article <ZEN.92Aug10234913@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >... Anyway, what I'm after is
> >for any advice or anecdotes of others that may have gone through (or are
> >going through) similar hard times -- either with the result being that
> >you (or perhaps someone else close to you) overcame your social
> >upbringing, or that you didn't, because, perhaps, it's something
> >inherent or wired in.

> It's the part about it being wired in: the fact that you even ask
> this question makes me wonder whether you aren't looking for a reason
> to say, "Well, I couldn't do it, but it ain't natural so I'm not
> to blame."  Your other posts seem a bit defensive of the non-poly
> attitude, too.

  I feel like I'm talking with some religious fanatic -- someone who
thinks that any stray thoughts away from the ideal are grounds for
expulsion or dismissal from the fold.  Yes, I'm defensive of attitudes
other than poly -- I happen to believe that there isn't One True Way (TM)
in this world, in relationships or in other ways, and that other people
who disagree with my way of thought aren't automatically wrong.  I also
happen to believe that poly is right for me, despite the problems I'm
having, but just because poly may be right for you and lots of others
doesn't make mono or any other way of life wrong.

> And please note that I did _not_ suggest that you
> wanted to be told "what to think," just whether or not it was reasonable
> to have the feelings you do.

  You said:

# So basically you want to be told that either you're not entitled to
# your feelings or you are?"

  That sounds pretty much like you thought I wanted to be told what to
do to me.  Why don't you try to read what other people wrote and be less
condenscending of people that don't agree with what you say or think?

 -- d
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:46:30 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   Yah. Thanks, Bob.
>
>You're welcome, and I'm glad that I got that mostly right: lately
>I've started to feel as if all I can do when I post is stick both
>feet in my mouth and waltz around on my nether cheeks...

   If you can do that in RL I'm very impressed! 8->

   But no, this thread of ours has been remarkably calm so far. Thanks.


>>   Of course, these days they're almost as prolific with their partners
>>as I am, and sometimes more so. But that's neither here nor there. 8->
>
>Oh, I dunno: congratulations and hugs and happiness that someone you
>love has developed more potential for self-realisation and happiness
>at least partly thanks to you!  Seems like a positive change in the
>world, something that anyone should be happy to have accomplished.

   Oh, it was *their* victory, not mine. But they're happier now, and
that's something I've had a hand in, so yeah, I've got a bit of a glow
these days.

   Of course, they're the same about me now, ever since I fell in love
again for the first time in ages not too long ago. They and my more
recent sweetie connived together an amazing amount for my birthday
recently. Cheeky mongrels. 8->


>>   Close enough. I think love is great. I think being in love is great.
>>I don't want to be a reason for a love of mine *not* to feel these things
>>with other people. I'd like to think I've helped them along the way to
>>loving and being in love with others.
>
>My one-sentence version left out details like the fact that she was
>already interested and it seemed to be only a fear of my reactions
>that was holding her back.  I think we're pretty much on the same
>wavelength here: re-reading my post I see that could be interpreted
>as pushing another to go out and find someone, which wasn't the case.

   I didn't read it that way. You're right. We agree. Stop being so
nervous about it. 8->


>>   One of the warmest moments of my life was looking down at my bed, and
>>seeing my sweetie and *their* sweetie asleep with their arms around each
>>other, and knowing that they met each other through me. They were like
>>those photos you see in shops where some kittens are all tangled up in
>>each other. 8->
>
>Gosh, you're a sentimental one, aren't you?  It suits you well...

   Guilty as charged. I just love those little kitten photos. 8->

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Monogamy manifestos
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:21:11 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>    woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>[stuff about furthering stereotypes]
>   Fuck 'em.  Seriously, Joe, part of the les/bi/gay movement is the
>issue of human freedom.  Although maybe we want the acceptance of
>bisexuals more than we do the rest of the world, those that dislike the
>polyamorous among them are just going to have to learn.  "We're here,
>we're queer..." and all that.

   Well, part of what I'm doing is to counter the *negative* stereotypes.
People are so sure Polyamory can't work out, they're usually aghast to
hear that Karina & I have been living together since we were 16. We're
living proof that it won't necessarily all end in tatters the week after
or something.


>>"Well, it's alright for others,
>>but I'm *much* to possessive for that!", all the while staring nervously
>>at me to see if I've gotten the point...heh heh...
>   They say that as if it were a *good* thing?  Hmmm....

   Maybe not quite that strongly, but yeah, there's a feeling of "But you
can't fault me for that, it's only natural, of course I'd feel like that,
what's wrong with it?", etc.


>>   And BTW - I'm currently reclaiming the word "slut". I'm here, I'm a
>>slut, get used to it! 8->
>   You're a little late; I've been a slut since November of last year,
>and damned proud of it too.  There's nothing wrong with being a slut!

   Oy! My being out as a slut goes back several years! 8->

   I am *so* looking forward to my US tour... 8->


>>That's something I throw back in anti-Poly people's
>>faces - their stance is directly responsible for the deaths of many
>>people who's only real crime was perhaps breaking the monogamy contract
>>a bit insensitively.
>   But for the anti-poly people, murder is a viable ("if extreme")
>option to a cheating spouse.  Violating a custom or two is okay, but
>marriage is supposed to be a more', and violating those is strictly
>taboo.  'Course, it's a more' observed more in the breach, but hey...
>that's no excuse, right?

   Yah. 8-<

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)