HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Tom Smith (yech!)
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:47:11 GMT
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Blech!
I just read that book "Half Straight: My Secret Bisexual Life" by 
Tom Smith (pseud) [Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1992, ISBN =
0-87975-734-5].

He's the evil man that appeared with Charles Haynes and Lorraine
Hutchins on that Geraldo show on bisexuals.  The book is poorly written 
and poorly edited, the guy rambles in non-sequitur paragraphs, contradicts
himself in countless places.  Fortunately, I didn't have to pay for it,
we got a review copy for a campus paper.  But that means I have to review 
it.

What I'm considering doing is talking about why the author wrote the thing,
and (even more interesting to me) why the publisher published it.  
All I know about Prometheus is that they seem to be mostly interested in
attacking Christians, New Agers, and various occultists.  But this book
is part of a series they've entitled, "New Concepts in Human Sexuality".
Among the other books is Magnus Hirschfeld's 1910 book on transvestites,
a book on female prostitution, and a book condemning "irrational,
dogmatic views of sexuality".  The series editor is Vern L. Bullough, PhD.

Something about this smells like a pseudo-scientist of a particular
sort, the kind that believes in Science with a capital "S" as the cure for
Superstition (again, capital "S").  I wonder if the people at Prometheus
still believe in 1920s-style "scientific" psychology, and hope that 
these "scientific" views of sexuality will replace old "irrational and
dogmatic" ones.

There was nothing to replace old "irrational and dogmatic" beliefs about
bisexuals in this particular book.  The guy mouthed every stereotype 
you could think of!

What I'd like to know from you guys is whether anybody here knows anything
about Prometheus Books, or Vern L. Bullough, PhD.

Thanks!

-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:05:16 GMT

In article <jrk.721054751@zen.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk 
(Richard Kennaway) writes:
>"Altruism": viewing another person's welfare as an essential part of
>one's own.
>"Selfishness": being indifferent to another's welfare.

I can't accept those definitions.  The dichotomy itself is unclear because 
of the use of words.  The proper antonym of "Altruism" is "Egoism".  The
opposite of "Selfishness" is "Selflessness".  I think the whole discussion
would work a lot better if y'all would be a bit more careful with these words.

"Altruism" and "Egoism" are moral codes.  "Selfishness" and "Selflessness"
are best used to describe particular actions.  Yes, yes, I read Rand, no
flames please.  Anyhow, I think if the people arguing would stick to 
"selflessness" and "selfishness", they might communicate a little better.

Optional definitions:

Selfishness:  the state of acting in one's self-interest
Selflessness:  the state of not acting in one's self-interest

Note that "giving" in a relationship that one is interested in sustaining
is acting in one's self-interest and is therefore "selfish".  The problem
with the words "selfishness" and "egoism" is that they've picked up a
rather nasty connotation (quickly becoming a denotation!) of "acting without
respect for others".  This is contradictory to the actual definition of
"selfishness" since acting without respect for others may be and often is
acting against one's self-interest.

Somebody recently posted a CFV for talk.philosophy.objectivism.  If it
passes, you may want to post some excerpts of this discussion there.

Steve
"I will liberate you for food!"
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gustav@netcom.com (Robert Fries)
Subject: Re: friends and politics
Organization: ...decreasing day by day....
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:00:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.210454.8709@meaddata.com> markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson) writes:
>Also, some will have supported Measure 9 not because of the so-called
>religious/moral reasons that get the most attention, but because they
>see laws that enforce rights as being government intervention in their
>right to think what they want and do with their property what they
>want.

I understand and even have some sympathy for legalizing private
discrimination.  I was all for it back in my Libertarian days.  I still
am, in theory.  I just don't think we can get there from here.

>
>I don't know your friend's reasoning - is he in favor of
>legislated discrimination or opposed to enforced tolerance?  That can
>affect how he views Measure 9.  (The question on PUBLIC housing
>notwithstanding.)

I think he feels that no private or special interest groups should be
subsidized by public funds. i.e. no St. Patrick's or Chinese New Years
parades as well as no Pride Day.  I can accept this.

However, the ends never justify the means in my book.  The measure was not
intended promote the intellectual concept of private/public seperation,
it targeted specific groups with the justification of morality (read: hate).

Also, no amount of intellectualizing can justify denying someone
public funds based on sexual orientation...that is simply punishment
unless you exempt them (us) from the taxes that pay for it.

>
>Mark
-- 
____
\  /__   Robert G. Fries
 \/  /  gustav@netcom.com               "It's pronounced freeze." -- me
   \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:37:29 GMT

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
>are free.  Agreed.  I say there are people who cannot say this, and we
>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
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
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
--
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:29:42
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Oct14211849@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BwBpo5.7B1@newcastle.ac.uk>
	<MUFFY.92Oct23103547@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BwqMF6.GGw@newcastle.ac.uk> <MUFFY.92Nov4084700@remarqu
	<Bx8ty5.HoK@newcastle.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 5 Nov 92 12:42:04 GMT

In article <Bx8ty5.HoK@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>So altruism is actually impossible, I see.

Yup.

>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>  Well, I believe that it is *possible* to do
>>something which is good for someone else but not for you,

>You just said "it is impossible to do anything to improve the world without
>benefitting themselves by doing so". Now you say it is possible. You seem
>confused.

Not at all.  I would have thought this was easy to understand.  For
example, I could insure my life in favor of you and then kill myself.
You would benefit, but it wouldn't be too good for me, eh?

That is exactly why I think that altruism "should never be attempted"
(as you put it).  Any action I can imagine which would *not* benefit me
in any way would almost have to be in some way destructive of me (I
suppose it could be absolutely neutral to me, but I have not found such
an action so far).

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
From: fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: a tiny bit more out
Date: 8 Nov 92 05:23:09 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1992Nov4.213850.19519@ctp.com>, sthor@ctp.com (Sarah Thornburg) writes:
> This is my first post here, but I've been reading for a while, and finally
> felt the urge to express just a little thought. 

 Hi! Welcome to soc.bi!

 **hugs, snuggles, and greetings**

> I am not I guess what people would consider
> really out.  If anyone asks, or it comes up in a discussion, I don't hide
> it, but I don't ever wear pins or T-shirts or whatever to advertise my own
> bisexual pride.  I am what I am and I'm damn happy about it.

 Wow. Someone else -- I was beginning to think I was the only person reading
this group that wasn't constantly going around outing themselves to all and
sundry. (okay, so that's an exaggeration, but that's the impression I get at
times)

 I'm not quite sure why this is the way I do things -- I suppose the best I can
come up with is that my sexuality's never really been a part of my self-image
that I particularly want to 'force' on people. Well, not so much force,
perhaps, but for instance, I'm happpy to wander around juggling, and thus
impose my juggler-ness on people, but I'd feel somewhat uncomfortable doing the
same with the fact that I'm bi.

 Strange, really; I went on the Pride march, go (occasionally) to the bi
meetings in the area, and such, but that's being forcibly out to people who're
likely to, oh, not necessarily be interested in that fact, but at least in some
ways be prepared for people to be noticeably out.

> But I am curious what other people expect when they do wear their pins or
> Tshirts or whatever?  Before I even considered the fact that I was bisexual
> myself I would see people wearing shirts or pins, openly proclaiming their
> sexuality, but it wouldn't occur to me even now to go up to them and
> say,"hey, I notice you're wearing a bisexual pride Tshirt?  Are you bi?" Or
> to tell them that I respected them for wearing it?

 And this might well be part of the reasoning -- even if I /did/ go around in
general being out, then there'd be less bi-invisibility, yes, but Oxford's
fairly well informed in the first place, so I don't feel guilty on that front.
It's not that I expect recognition if I were to wear 'bi pride' t-shirts and
suchlike, but more that there's other things I'd rather foist upon people as
their first impression of me. (like just how skinny my legs are, as evidenced
by these leggings.. <grin> )

 Well, that's my 2p-worth, at least.
-- 
Daniel Mitchell = Fenthe Marten = fenthe@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu =
m91djm@ecs.ox.ac.uk = dmitchell@cix.compulink.co.uk = bi furry juggler
Snailmail: 18, High St // Earls Colne // Essex CO6 2PA // ENGLAND
From: thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu (Thom Cleland)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: friends and politics
Date: 8 Nov 1992 05:58:57 GMT
Organization: Tenuous at best
NNTP-Posting-Host: crayfish.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov8.034151.16870@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>
>The Oregon Libertarians say they had been pretty active in opposing Measure
>9, not because of the discrimination bit but because it attempted to 
>legislate morality by condemning LGB sexuality and because it also proposed
>some sort of anti-LGB "education" in public schools.
>
aye, it would write into state law the testament that homosexuality is
"unnatural, perverse, and wrong" and require all public schools to teach
that as fact.

Oregon #9 was no friend of liberty.  

>Steve
>sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Thom!
tcleland@ucsd.edu

-- 
Thom Cleland     \ /^^/  >Neural systems/network physiology< >Amigaphile<  
(619) 453-7516    \OO/  >Aoinagi Shito-ryu == bend, and the wind passes <
tcleland@ucsd.edu  ++  >B3 f cdv g++ k+(+) m s+ r+ p growl+ purr++ zzz- <
"Wild magic is graven in every rock, every tree, in every blade of grass"
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk (Clive Grace)
Subject: Re: New Age bisexuals
Reply-To: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:05:00 +0000


>         Small quiet voice speaks up --
> 
>         There should have been a smiley after the raspberry on my
> last post.  I really don't mean to sound angry with people
> like Elf and Graham, both of whom I like though haven't met...
> just a disagreement.

AAAAWWWWWW! That is just *too* cute, tell me, were you looking under 
your fringe when you said that and were you pouting just a little?

I hope Elf gets that message before he responds to your raspberry.

<hugs>
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| "When I grow up, I want to give up being  |cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk|
| a Journalist and learn how to write..."   |cliveg@cix.compulink.uucp |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
From: pfieland@citron.sw.stratus.com (Peggy Fieland)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:47:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1ddgn3INNkoh@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>
>I talked with my mom for the first time in a month yesterday.
>Frankly, being closeted to my parents is hurting our relationship, because I
>feel that I need to hide from them ... hide myself, hide my activities, hide
>my friends.  And I'm tired of it.  It's hurting me, because I want to talk
>with them, and it's hurting them because they worry about me.
>
>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
>   ("Oh, and so I met him, and he's _so_ cute ...")
>B) Sit them down for a talk
>   ("Mom, dad, sit down please....")
>
>Any suggestions?

Well, my personal preference is for (B), but that's partly because I'm
sure I couldn't carry off (A). No way I'd be cool enough to bring up
being bi in a casual conversation to a close relative I wasn't out
to already -- I'm sure I'd choke up and not be able to say a word.
But then I have a long history of avoiding the whole issue.

The people I've come out have been either on the phone or in person,
"I have something to tell you...".  I still get nervous thinking of
the remaining friends/relatives I'm planning to tell.  Ulp.

>
>I have this vague premonition coming out to my parents may precipitate my
>first "please hug me" post ... But a mammal's got to do what a mammal's got
>to do ...

Yes, I've found coming out to be a big relief.  The less energy I have
to expend on being closeted, the more I'll have to get on with my life.

>
>God, I'm scared.  I hope I don't lose my guts by the time thanksgiving comes
>around the corner ...

Other people have said this, but remember that your folks' initial reaction
may not be their final one.  Acceptance can come with time.  Still, it
really hurts when it happens.

Good luck.  And we're here when you need us.  Please let us know how it
goes.


>
>-roy
>

Peggy
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Subject: Re: Time (Was: Family Values (long))
Reply-To: orc@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Catastrophes
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:25:28 GMT

In article <vashti.720097091@concave> vashti@concave.cs.wits.ac.za (Vashti Galpin) writes:
|In <1992Oct23.000602.6777@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
|>Mike, kinda enthralled by this thread, and thankful he has the time to
|>read it.
|Time---where did you get it and do they deliver?

   You get time as a gift from an unknown admirer.  It's delivered,
but you'll never know when it'll be sent.


| I'm so busy and
|stressed that my libido has gone on holiday. Dave Parsons (OK, so beat
|me if I got the wrong person) talked about the problems of staying above 
|a Kinsey 0; in my current state I can't comprehend what the Kinsey scale
|means.  Why on earth would anyone what to do anything as silly as sex?

   (Sounds rather familiar.  It was me, btw, and I was going
through my normal stress reaction of first losing interest in men,
then losing interest in women.  It's better now; a few days out of
the country, followed by an evening in the country, has done
wonders for lowering stress <slow lazy orcish grin>)  Fleeing is
always a good way to deal with a stressful situation, if you can
get away with it.  Other ways of relieving stress are to chop
mercilessly at your list of things to do until you're down to the
bare minimum, then flee for as much time as you've freed up.


|This may all sound like a blatant play for sympathy - it is.

   This is something that's rather easy to resolve.  Would you
prefer your sympathy in the traditional ehug package, or would you
prefer to select another variety from the catalogue?
                ____
  david parsons \bi/ "Purity 45% and falling"
                 \/
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: my roomie
Date: 13 Nov 1992 22:45:00 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <1992Nov13.144859.29873@vpnet.chi.il.us>, orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:
|> In article <1duu44INNt0f@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
|> |In article <BxMFyt.F45@news.udel.edu>, seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore) writes:
|> ||> In article <1992Nov10.233242.22537@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
|> ||> >               ____
|> ||> > david parsons \bi/ shy and demure, but still shameless, e-slut
|> ||> >                \/
|> ||> Shy? Demure?  I just don't see it but hey maybe I'm missing something.
|> ||> 
|> ||> From the man who is just bubbling with liberation(you were right muffy)
|> |
|> |Very Evident.  And Very Fun, Indeed. REAL e-sluts don't advertise.  they don't 
|> |*have* to.
|> 
|>    Hate to have to point this out to you, but advertising is an
|> *essential* part of sluttishness.  (And, for that matter, people
|> started calling me an e-slut *before* I changed my resume.)  You
|> don't get results if you don't advertise, as you may learn in the
|> fullness of time.
|> 
|>                 ____
|>   david parsons \bi/ genuine faux e-slut
|>                  \/

Point taken.  BUT, my momma always warned me about the nice Catholic boys...

Ever considered "ee-slut" or "ca-slut" or "me-slut"?

What do you think about "whore-dog"?  I rather like it myself.  A somewhat nutty
flavor with a noticeable aftertaste, once it's aired of course.

in a slut-down, you are fighting an unarmed man...
*hug* *hug* *hug*
js
From: rcharles@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Oxford bi info
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:47:33 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

A big hello out there to all like minded folk.

I'm the female bi officer for the Oxford Uni LGB soc, and in conjunction with
my counterpart, Richard the male bi officer, we are trying to produce an "info
pack' for next term. The general idea is that these can be available from our
SU, or from the LGBsoc committee if anyone is interested in finding out more
about bisexuality. We would greatly appreciate any info that people on the
network could provide.  At the moment the idea is to produce a series of
'reading lists' for books, films, etc..  It would be useful to have any
bi-groups addresses or contact numbers in the U.K. for example.

We are both working 'in the dark' as before we started on the committee the
posts had been vacant for quite some time, and somewhere along the line the 'bi
officers file' which contained lots of useful info (or so we are told)
vanished.
Any help or constructive suggestions would be most welcome.

Ruth.

RCHARLES@UK.AC.OX.VAX
From: orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:19:35 GMT
Reply-To: orc@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: Department of Catastrophes

In article <1992Nov9.010156.25009@leland.Stanford.EDU> mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:
|orc@amber.uchicago.edu (David Parsons) writes:
|:    If you need more, just let me know and I can make the
|: appropriate deliveries when I return from my next trip to the
|: UK. 
|David!  I'm amazed you think I was only referring to the tangible assets
|accrued during your visit!  *incredible innocent grin*  Or perhaps you
|didn't, and you're saying you won't be through again until you next
|bounce over the pond :-(

   Tangible assets?  (blink)  Oh, *that*.  Well, um, yeah, I can
stop at the duty-free on the way back too, if you'd like ;-)  Since
I'm going back to the UK in, umm, two weeks and one day, it'll be
rather difficult for me to visit before then (and there's the wee
tiny problem of such matters as flats, and finding same, so I can
have a place to live in when I return, which have the potential of
eating up all my free weekends until then...)

   (Eeek, december is starting to look busy, now.  I'll have to
call my airline and push off my return to fit over the weekend of
the 10-11th, then, and schedule a bit of a layover in NYC in
addition to (hopefully!) a trip to the wilds of Pennsylvania...

|: (And for the life of me, I don't know what became of that
|: catalogue; I don't appear to have it, and if you don't have it, I
|: suppose we must have left it in the pub when we left on Tuesday...)
|*LAUGH*  Now >THAT'S< a political action; leaving a vibrator catalog
|lying around in a straight pub/restaurant for some unexpecting vanilla
|het to stumble over!  I feel like a Gideon ... :-)

   A vibrator catalogue with a preliminary list of fun toys to buy,
at that ;-)

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ orc@sybase.com, if the office hasn't burned down.
                  \/
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: Anarchocapitalists (was: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals)
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:46:11 GMT

In article <BxGupL.7y1@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>There are several subjects such that everyone *thinks* they understand
>them, however little they actually know.  Among them is evolution,
>feminism, and Marxism.

Among them is evolution, feminism, Marxism, and grammar?

				Kay


-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: soc.bi