HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pclary@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Life does funny things sometimes
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:56:26 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

IO81409@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) wrote...
>[about her being angry about havings feelings for a man
> when she identifies as lesbian.]  (Go check out the original
> post - It's heart-rending.)

This is all to close to home for me.

Ailsa, It's ok to be angry.  And it's ok to hurt.
I'm finally beginning to really learn that hormones and feelings don't
respect politics or other standards.

You have to respect your own feelings.  You have to live with you.
When I came out as lesbian, the thing I read over and over is that
'You shouldn't have to deny your feelings.'  Later when I realized I was
bi, I kept repeating that same thing to myself again and again.

You write of your fears on no longer being welcome in lesbian space.
Whether bi-women should be "allowed" in lesbian space has been debated
ad naseum by lesbians.  The problem that I saw at least one debate 
run into is the 'what is a lesbian?' conundrum.  Is a lesbian someone
who exclusively sleeps with women, someone who has only slept with
women, someone who mostly sleeps with women, someone who has ever
slept with a woman, someone who only wants to sleep with women,
someone who is celibate but identifies with lesbians, someone who defines 
their life in terms of women, someone who spends time only with women, 
someone who participates in a community of empowered women, someone
who may be heterosexual in desires but politically identifies as lesbian,
and finally (the one that usually wins): someone who calls herself a lesbian.

Because of all this debate, I tend to try (not always successfully)
not to worry about whether or not I am 'lesbian enough' to be in
a particular lesbian space.  In many ways, I appear to be more lesbian
than many lesbians.  My primary partner is a woman, and we are very out.
In the face of hostile heteros, we are lesbians.  Women dominate (oh my!)
my perceptions, views, and desires.  However having said that, 'lesbian'
doesn't quite cover the part of me that wants to go rub my hands all
over Colin's lovely beard.  I am rarely sexual with men, yet it 
feels like I am lying to call myself lesbian.  

I know a lot of lesbians who know me and still call me lesbian.  So
far I haven't quibbled too much over this.  Why?  For a lesbian to call
a bi-woman a lesbian is denial sometimes, but other times it's a
term of respect/inclusiveness.  (Perhaps an annoying one, but still 
one nonetheless.)


Ellen

I realize that this has only replied to a portion of your post.
Please email me.
From: aag@aber.ac.uk (Angela Gilham)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Clive's Pictures of the Party...
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:02:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth

In article <1992Jul22.020323.17573@vpnet.chi.il.us> 
orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:

   In article <memo.531322@cix.compulink.co.uk> 
   cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk attempts blackmail:

   |There are three other shots that just cannot, and will not ever
   |see the light of day. I have the negatives and will hopefully be 
   |a *very* rich man as a result of it. I thought shots like this 
   |never got through photo processing, but it just goes to show that 
   |automated systems now let quite a range of pictures through these 
   |days...

Come on, Clive. Names, places, just a few hints.

Or are the intended victims just about to receive threatening letters
and 8x10 glossies under plain wrapper via the Royal Snail?

      There's only one *little* problem with that plan for wealth; 
   the person or persons who you'd be getting the wealth from would 
   need to be embarrassed enough actually pay you.

And let's face it, there was a distinct dearth of embarrassable
looking people at that party ;-)

   With some of us, this might be difficult

True. Some of us are unembarrassable and poor to boot!
   
   because we'd be asking for 8x10 glossies for our private libraries 
   and the soc.bi archives.

And some of us are both unembarrassable and voyeuristic . . . for
which some others of us are truly grateful ;-)

		    __
      david parsons \/ "It's shameless the way those queers carry on!"

And then, of course, some of us didn't do anything that could be used
for blackmail  . . . <fails dismally in attempt to look innocent>

Ang
--
Angela Gilham.                 \ aag@aber.ac.uk \ "You should have fallen in
Department of Computer Science  \                \ love with a happy man, if 
University of Wales, Aberystwyth,\ +44 970 622433 \ you wanted happiness. But
Penglais, Aberystwyth,            \                \ you fell for the breath-
SY23 3BZ. United Kingdom.          \                \ taking beauty of pain."
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: Look who's back - (was Re: Coming Out)
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:00:55 GMT

In <1992Jul25.173335.19460@rat.csc.calpoly.edu>
pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>Oh gawd - the vodka/cream/bbq-ripple/chocolate-whatever-it-was slurping
>navel monster and foot lavisher extraordinare is baaaaaak!
>
>You certainly did take the long, circuitous route home.  Care to share details?
>(Then again maybe you shouldn't.)

I had a note book with me on my travels (from Edinburgh onwards) into
which I scribbled random thoughts as they occured to me. I hope to
eventually put finger to keyboard and write a lengthy posting about
what has been the best holiday of my life. But don't expect that for
another few days/weeks.


<> "But there *must* be homosexuals who date women?"
<> "Yes. They're called lesbians."
<> --- NBC tv sitcom "Golden Girls" (1991)

Ciaran.
-- 
Ciaran McHale                                                             ----
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.       \bi/
Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-772204 email: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: what's been happening (subtitle: is this unusual?)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:39:18 GMT

In article <3546@cs.rit.edu> kdc5072@cs.rit.edu (Kevin D Colagio) writes:
>The problems are manyfold (I want him, can't have him, etc...) but the
>biggest thing that is messing me up now is wondering about myself.  I have
>been comfortable with the idea of being a bi-sexual since the age of 16,
>but since the 4th, things have been thrown into the twilight zone...
>
>I am not sure of what I want...although I do have an idea of what I would
>like....
>
>    Kids...I definately want to have kids (my own, or maybe adopted)
>	a partner...I do NOT want a wife, or a husband, but rather a partner to
>          go through life with
>    a relationship...not something that will desolve overnight, but that
>          will last for years
>    to be happy...a good job, someone to spend time with, people to pass
>          what I have learned onto...

And I have to ask (seriously) how this is in conflict with being a bisexual?
I didn't see anything in the rest of your post that implied that you'd have
to choose between the two.

>Part of the problem is the old hormones...they are saying "go haave sex,
>doesn't matter with who, but do it..." but at the same time, my rational
>part of the gray matter is saying "wait for a while, for a VERY good
>possibility to come along"
>
>So what happens?  I meet someone, and I start appraising them as a sexual
>partner (even if I know they are straight...) I try and control that, and I
>start to act clinically...(read clinically: cold, proper terms for things,
>etc...)

This last part was especially confusing, just because I lost your train of
thought.  I really don't know what you are trying to express.

>p.s. I am now 22....

And maybe rushing things a bit?

>|   Kevin Colagio

As a happy married person and happy bisexual, I might have something to say,
but I also have to admit I couldn't really sort your post out clearly.  The
feelings, in being new, also seem to be underdeveloped and confused.


Brad
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Electronic Matchmaker
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:40:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <4864@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes:
+spoken to over the net?  People are pairing off all the time via the
+nets, because you get to know if you'll like someone by reading their
+postings for ages, not by filling out some dumb questionaire.

Not to mention the driver's license number, social security number,
bank credit references, former partner letters of recommendation.

Then there's the required statement, "I am not now, nor have I ever been a
member of the porcelain shopping party".
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Subject: Re: Bi-fun in L.A. and Seattle
Keywords: cheesecloth whip bit of string ladle
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:05:03 GMT


	well, there's seattle bi men's union, but of course i don't
	have their number w/me.  they meet every other sunday & i *do*
	have their number at home.

	& thursday nights at the rebar downtown is queer disco night;
	bispace if i ever saw it.  it gets quite crowded late, & crowded
	w/a great gay/het male/female white/asian/black mix of ppl.

	& bi folks hang there, too.

	any place in capitol hill is queer friendly, & the seattle queer
	scene in general seems fairly bi-open to me.

	elf sternberg might have better specifically bi recommendations;
	not sure.

	good luck & have a nice visit!

	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu
From: sj1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sherrianne M. Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: 'women's' vs 'lesbian'
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:09:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.YeR9tFq00WBKA6RnRh
	<1992Jul25.173949.1279@amhux2.amherst.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Agg!  What a horrible .sig messup!  Ignore that .sig!  :)

sher
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU
Subject: Re: all you fags out there!!!!
Reply-To: elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:55:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.225754.4694@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler) writes:
>
>In a previous article, harrist@seq.uncwil.edu (Trey Harris) says:
>
>>
>>
>>Which one of you big handsome men wants to go out on a flaming gay
>>date with me and my sheep "Pee Wee" ? Pee Wee is very talented...
>
>Is this a de-muffining?

If it is, then WELCOME.... 8-)

Just curious, why did you name your sheep 'Pee Wee'?  Does it masterbate
in Adult Theatre?  c(-8   (Sorry, but I just had to say it.)

Hug and Grin and ........  you finish it up.

Ken  elee74l@jetson.uh.edu
From: jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Breeders and other epithets
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:18:15 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.155512.7693@amhux2.amherst.edu>,
twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

> In article <1992Jul21.160750.19179@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> 
> >Bi the way, has anyone ever known a "bisexual" who is primarily
> >homosocial (if you will)?  Every bisexual I know has a MOTOS on
> >hir arm but also professes interest in MOTSS. :-)
> 
> (Interesting ... a lot of people I know would have that quote the
> other way around.)

Hm.  I conducted careful field-work at Dave Berry's party
in Edinburgh last week (attended by several dozen, um,
fairly relaxed bisexuals of various nationalities and
genders).  The evidence did not seem to me to bear out
either position.

What's interesting to me, having had a fairly recent run-in
with Strange Ideas About Bisexuals, is that the same people
can simultaneously say:

   "Bisexuals are all Really Straight, they just want a bit
   of fun before they settle down into conventional married
   life"

   and

   "Bisexuals are all Really Gay/Lesbian, they're just
   frightened to admit it"

--John
From: sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bi Edinburgh (was Re: Another newcomer...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:58:10 GMT
Organization: News Addicts

osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith) writes:
>short at Cambridge too - about 8.5 weeks. Cambridge is actually quite a
>small place - on size terms it certainly doesn't merit the title of City.

So is Edinburgh; although it is the capital city of Scotland people have
a tendency to call it a town.

>I'm currently trying to find non University orchestras and role playing
>groups. No luck yet. I suspect you'll be disappointed with Cambridge after
>Edinburgh. Oh yes, Oxford and Conventry may be physically nearer but the
>roads going East are pretty poor, at least until they finish the A1-M1 link
>road. Rail is not much better - you either travel slowly on branch lines or
>go via London. The main rail routes are all North-South.

Although I agree that Edinburgh is definitely a better place than
Cambridge (bi-ased, me?) I can assure you that it's a whole lot easier
to travel between Oxford and Cambridge than it is to travel between
Edinburgh and Oxford.  Believe me.

Sara
-- 
 >{8-)     Sara Hopkins     (-8}<              _____^__
 Geography Dept.  Edinburgh Uni.  Drummond St. \ OOO/ / The Thing
 Edinburgh,  EH8  9XP,  UK. +44 (0/31) 650 2662 \++/ /   From
 >{8-) sara@geovax.ed.ac.uk (-8}<                \/\/ The Swamp
From: tdober@llnl.gov
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: hmmm...ANOTHER test...
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:00:09 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul22.000851.3295@ncsu.edu>, revanbus@eos.ncsu.edu (RONALD E
VAN-BUSKIRK) writes:
> 
> test...please ignore...
> 
> ok...where's the .sig?


It was delicious.

Thank you.


TDO <burp>
From: pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Edinburgh soc.bi party
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:02:49 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA - aka Barnum & Bailey

iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Iseult White) wrote...
>pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
>
>>iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Iseult White) wrote...
>>>tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
>>>I plan on getting my hands on cutie-pie Ellen and her photographs, so 
>>>I expect I will hear all the sticky, sweaty secrets.
>
>>Oh Dear.  I will be seeing Iseult tomorrow.  I'm not sure if I can
>>hold out against her firm but insistant "questioning." 
>
>I think it was really mu helpless beseeching look that she couldn't
>hold out against.  

Actually she offered the Sinbin episode in trade...

Ellen
From: porsupah@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Touching and the party
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:32:05 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1992Jul21.064428.18334@ddsw1.mcs.com>, zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>
> 	I have a touching problem. I don't think it's the type you are
> discussing though, but it applies... I like to be touched.  Some people
> around me I love (philia) like to be touched. I would like to hug them, etc.
> But I *can't*.  It's a problem.
> 	(X anyone? :-)
> 

 *grin*  Seconded. I'd dearly love to be able to hug and be hugged by my SO in
particular, but he's still very uncomfortable with the idea of any PDA. (Which
hasn't stopped the very occasional discreet *hug* :)  *heavy sigh*  Such is
liff..

-- Porsupah
From: cullen@tree.egr.uh.edu (Caleb Cullen)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: The War Between Us (Long)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:10:10 GMT
Organization: University of Houston

In article <1992Jul30.222514.20964@reed.edu> eparish@reed.edu (Elizabeth  
Cameron Parish) writes:
>
>	(hameless plea for hugs:  somebody congratulate me!  I just 
>	fshed my marine bio final!)

Oooh.  <hug-HUG-hug>  <slurp>  There you go.  I *enjoy* this...

>	(On the other hand, maybe if you look _really_ naive you will
>induce a flood of deflowers-of-innocents....ye gods, they're already
>lining up to deflower you, aren't they?  *grin*  )

<SMILE>  Really?  Oh, goodness....

>  But, you know, I wouldn't call 1-2 Kinsey people het,
>  esp. not in this homophobic world.  Even when my Kinsey
>  rating hits bottom, I still feel pretty darn bi; and I
>  know a couple of low-Kinsey-number people who identify
>  as bi or as 'non-heterosexual, non-gay, sorta-bi, but
>  mostly just none-of-the-above'.

Depends on the person.  I know a couple of heterosexuals who often agree  
with me when I point out someone I'm attracted to (all of the people I'm  
talking about now are same sex).  They can't convince me that they aren't  
-slightly- attracted to other people of their own gender.  But does this  
make them bisexual?  I don't think so.  I don't believe that just being  
able to appreciate someone else's physique makes one bisexual.

>  And anyway, why decide what you're going to call yourself
>  based on how other people think the Kinsey scale maps to
>  group affiliation?  Anybody who wants to call
>  himself/herself bi IS bi, as far as I'm concerned, but
>  I know other people feel differently.  *sigh*

That's not how I decided.  What I meant to indicate is that saying simply  
"I'm bi" doesn't tell enough of the story (especially to homosexuals) when  
I'm interested in someone.  "Bisexuals" as a group vary -widely- in  
orientation and degrees of orientation.  I don't want to scare off  
prospective motss partners just because their idea of bi's is totally  
opposite from my own orientation.

But then, perhaps I worry too much.

>  Cam Parish

-----
Caleb Cullen
cullen@tree.egr.uh.edu
I know I'm a silly person; you don't have to tell me specifically!
(Unless you feel strongly about it...)
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Breeders and other epithets
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:12:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


	um elf, are u telling his potential gf that she's being pimped
	for college money?

	i mean, i'm not above exploiting manipulative parents, but w/
	consent, man, w/consent.

	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: quinnb@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Life does funny things sometimes
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:42:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.021921.3331@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mvsaf1@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steve-o) writes:
> 
> 	So I'm guilty of lurking while trying to resolve my feelings, what are
> 	ya'll going to do about it?  Hug me? B^)

YAY!!!! STEVE!!! *HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG* 
Welcome!!!! :-)
*SNUGGLE*CUDDLE*HUG*

So how've you been since I last talked to you?

*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*HUG*
			-Brendan
-- 
******************************************************************************
* Disclaimer: The opinions *   Brendan E. Quinn KSC  * Questions are a burden* 
* expressed here are pure  *                         * to others, answers a  *
* Balderdash...            *          fnord?         * prison to oneself.    *
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.bi:9704 soc.motss:32846
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: The War Between Us (Long)
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:52:03 GMT
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ

In article <Bs402B.CCD@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>
>Please re-read.  I'm inclined to think that since others in soc.bi and
>soc.motss heard the message, that perhaps you misconstrue me.

Perhaps, but the point is so obvious, that I fail to understand what you're
trying to say.  Its like walking up to me and telling me that the sky
is blue and that this sepArates you from space, and how this causes you pain.  

Either you're repeating the obvious as if its profound and new, or you've
got some subtle point that you're trying to make, that I don't get, hidden
behind all this.

So again, what's so new or interesting about this reality?  Was the sky
green yesterday and I missed it?  Did there not used to be issues that
seperated the Gay/Lesbian issues from Bisexual issues?

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bi Edinburgh (was Re: Another newcomer...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:33:22 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <39975@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> db@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) writes:
>>I'm not at all convinced that there is a gay pub in Cambridge,
>
>There's at least one, I've been there.  It's a bit delapidated compared to
>the Edinburgh scene, but it beats Edinburgh gay pubs by having a pool table :-)

*WHERE*???  I know *all* the pubs in Cambridge with pool tables.  Unless
it's less that 2 years old.  Oh, you're not thinking of the redesigned
loco are you?  can't be.  I give up.  Describe where it is if you were
sober enough to remember.  Alex, do you know perhaps what he's thinking of?

G
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kts@philabs.philips.com (Kimberley T. Smith)
Subject: Re: Marraige and Apartheid
Summary: the government and revolutionary plotting 
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, New York
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:35:19 GMT


Okay, okay.  I wasn't gonna get involved but here's my two cents (maybe not
even worth that):

yes, the economical structure we live in in the States is muchly geared
towards benefitting married couples rather than unmarried couples.  As far as
I know, there is no place in the United States where motss marriage is
federally acknowledged if legal.  

i personally fear the institution of marriage (inherently heterosexual) since
i might venture into something i don't want to be in and tolerate purely for 
financial reasons.   

The government, by giving special benefits and bonuses to married couples, is
advocating heterosexuality and conversely ignoring or disdaining
homosexuality/bisexuality.  

To address the idea of individual protests (by not marrying) accumulating
until it cannot be tolerated by the government:  I don't know.  it sounds like
a good idea, but then, so did democracy.  If married couples benefit
financially from the present economic system, that means the government makes
less money off of them.  Therefore, the government must make more money off of
people who are not married.  If the number of marriages decreased steadily
over the years, wouldn't the government just be getting more money to put into
funds of its choosing, including upping the bonuses married couples get?

The most effective method of changing the system is to start infiltrating the
government.  I've been thinking, if there was an organization of non-hetero
friendly people who taught politics/government to those who are interested and
began creating opportunities for non-hetero-friendly to obtain government
positions (i wouldn't want to, but other's might -- or maybe with the ulterior
motive i would...), slowly increasing the percentage of non-hetero-friendly
people in the government while remaining sexually incognito, until a certain
day, when slowly their non-hetero-views start emerging and passing or not
passing certain bills, proposing new ideas, presenting excellent arguments to
push their ideologies, etc. etc.  that might do something.  (sorry, i know
that was a very long, not especially grammatically correct sentence.)
Eh, that would take years of planning and participants willing to hold the
beans for as long as it would take... probably not a realistic goal, huh...
oh well, at least we can keep dreaming until we come up with something good...

--kim
-----------
e-mail c/o: philabs!nrh@uunet.uu.net
school e-mail: KSMITH@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU  (starting september)

Newsgroups: soc.bi