HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:21:37 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sexual consent (Was: Roy's "consenting" slave)
 <1992Dec20.195448.27957@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
 <1992Dec21.025425.2302@midway.uchicago.edu> <1h3qciINNb4c@agate.berkeley.edu>


How to say 'no' - works out of thinking that you *can* say 'no', which
means being comfortable with the idea that what you want *for you* is
more important than what the other person wants for you.  Affirmations
('I have a right to define my own space') can be very helpful for this,
after you get over choking on them.

LeGuin and Emma Bull are two authors who have some very good bits of
myth about how to see yourself as defining yourself without being agressive.

Graydon
From: C.G.C.vanDijk@IO.TUDelft.NL
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: YES!  It works!!!
Date: 24 Dec 1992 05:04:01 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Hi everybody,

After one-and-a-half years of holding my breath: I am here, and with
this post I just stopped being a muffin!

For any welcoming hug (shy smile, quickly evolving into shameless begging)
please hug Kay too, who found this way of posting for me.  I have really
felt bad about not being able to post for all this time, all you nice
people flirting and we poor muffins-against-our-will being on the
side line.  But no more :-) :-) :-)

Unless you think the volume of soc.bi was getting too large already, in
which case you should spank Kay, I'm afraid.

Love,
              Casper

Casper G.C. van Dijk               "Broken words,
Delft University of Technology      never meant to be spoken"
the Netherlands                                    Bob Dylan

PS: With regard to recent postings on net.personality: I'm mid twenties,
bitter funloving cynic idealist, 6'2", blue eyes, and at the moment,
I wear my hair like Jesus wore it (Halleluja I adore it).

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:11 GMT

In article <85883@ut-emx.uucp> robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:
:	F <____________> M <____________> F          (polyamorous male)
:
:	I'm not going to say much about this because 1) It's not really bi-
:related, and 2) It would seem the females are getting the shaft.
:
:	F_____________F           It is this situation that mandates the 
:	  \         /             bisexuality of the F's, in order to complete
:	    \     /               the emotional loop and raise all three
:	      \ /                 to a sum greater than the individual totals.
:	       M                  Perhaps this symbol has something to do with
:	                          the standard 'bi-triangle'?

This reminds me - someone recently pointed me at a site of 'bi gifs' - and
I'm intrigued as to what exactly the site maintainer considers to be
particularly bi erotica.  (I can't fetch the damn stuff to check because
I can't do gifs on this grotty display).

I have a suspicion that by 'bi erotica' (on a GB archive) he means 'poly'
or some combination of M+F.  I just have difficulty imagining what is
specifically bi that didn't come from a source that thought it was either
gay or het or poly.  Maybe it's just facesaver gifs of you folks :-)

G
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Questionnaire for HIV-negative people
Keywords: HIV negative AIDS safer sex psychology gay bi
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:14:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.130922.6072@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian) writes:
:Ends up he went and had the test, and it came up negative.  But that's not
:really what this guy (the dude thinking of writing the book) is on about,
:Graham!  
:He's talking about the feelings, the emotions, the stresses, anxiety and
:frustration that comes with having HIV tests.

If that's what he was talking about, I take it back.  It sure looked to me
like he was talking about the stress and guilt of being found HIV- when
your friends are HIV+.  While I understand the psychology of this (like
major accident/war survivors who need psychiatric help to readjust, asking
themselves why their friends and 'better people than me' suffered while
they survived), I don't think it applies to HIV+ when 99.9999% of the
world's population are 'survivors'.

He didn't seem to be talking about the stress of not knowing your HIV
status, or the decision to take a test or not.  This is incidentally
something I know a little about, both personally and because it's one
of the major topics in the AIDS and Psychology journals we publish
at the place I work.  (One good question is when are Govts going to
legislate about the questions insurers ask: over here we have people
avoiding HIV tests because if they apply for insurance, the indicator
insurance companies use for 'at risk' is 'have you ever taken an HIV
test?' - with the result that people *aren't* taking tests)  The psychology
of taking HIV tests couple with people who insist on taking risks even
when they are aware of the dangers and know the precautions is an area
most certainly deserving of study, yes.

G
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17108 soc.motss:53348
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:15:17 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:

 >I think I agree with what I think Mara is trying to say, though I would put
 >it thus:

 >A) Feminism, as a long-term goal, involves the empowerment and equality of 
 >   women.
 >B) While this goal _may_ be possible without the support of any man, it, 
 >   IMHO, will benefit if men support it.
 >C) In order to support it, men need to be educated to know what it is and how
 >   it benefits them.

This isn't anything at all like what I said.  I think I said what I
was trying to say, but thanks so much for all your kind help.
-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: coming out to family??
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:28:08 GMT

In article <BzDwGy.3so@cscns.com> rks@cscns.com (gisle j benediktsson) writes:
>I guess I really don't consider my lifestyle to be any of my family's
>business. It is not up to them to 'accept' me. They have two options in
>my own view: they can either accept it or they can fuck off. (That is 
>assuming that I have a piece of information that I may choose to share
>with them.) 

hmmm.... 
i don't consider bisexuality to be my "lifestyle".  it is
a part of who i am, and i am not comfortable being secretive
about who i am with people who are much less significant in 
my life than my family.  to hide this from them feels distinctly
dishonest.  

the word "lifestyle" conjures up images of a chosen way of
living.  i didn't choose this.  i have yet to find out what
the "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual" (let alone "queer"!) 
"lifestyle" is!  it does seem that often the only thing the 
queers i know have in common is their sexuality, just like
straights.  

if you don't want to share your lifestyle, what ever it may
be, with others, no problem.  i don't really care what you 
do behind closed doors.  but in our culture, sexuality is
no more a lifestyle than is gender or ethnic make-up.  it is
a part of who you are.  and that is another matter altogether.  

also, for me being out means being out.  it's a matter of 
personal dignity. i also agree with the earlier posting 
(i forgot who) who wants to turn his family from potential
'phobes to lgb friendly folks.  i want to be accepted for
myself, for my younger sister (also a lesbian), for my kids
who may or may not be queer.  

call me an assimilationist.  
;)

>It really bothers me that people seem to be bothered about this?Why in
>the world do we have a tendency to give these people so much power? 

your family of origin already has power. they are a part of
of who you are, and helped form your personality, if we are to
have any faith at all in modern psychology.  <grimace>  

however, it seems to me that by hiding things from them, you 
are potentially giving them *much* *much* more power.  being
forcibly or unpleasantly outed is no fun.  if you come out 
to your parents, then *you* have some power and control over
the circumstances.  and then you don't have to hide or worry 
anymore.   

of course, if the religious right is correct, and what queers
want is to destroy famili, then we should all just cut our f
families off and go off into our queer lifestyle and never speak
to any of them again.  

some of us end up doing that because we have no choice.  <sigh>  
but every person (families included) educated, clued in that 
lbg's are *people*, people they know, love, and want to have 
around is one less 'phobe or potential 'phobe.  and are less
likely to tolerate 'phobes, and 'phobic laws, customs, etc.  

i guess i'm an idealist, too.  <sigh> 

peg-
ranting again...
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sharon Stone
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:18:04
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<BzM6Az.1IKM@austin.ibm.com> <1992Dec21.202850.16957@vpnet.chi.il.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us's message of Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:28:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.202850.16957@vpnet.chi.il.us> orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:
>In article <BzM6Az.1IKM@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>|Speaking of Sharon Stone, does anyone have any comments on herm?
>|Other than the notion that, "gee, I'd like to have her" (which
>|is so patently obvious as to be beyond discussion :-)

>Umm, er, actually, "bleah" is more my reaction.  Lovely body, I
>suppose, and her face is moderately goodlooking, but, it's, well,
>too much long hair and makeup.

I didn't think much of her, either.  I don't go by bodies as much; I
didn't really like her face at all.  I love long hair (also short hair,
these days - the cute woman from my Philosophy class who cut her hair is
coming over for dinner tomorrow!), but that didn't help.  Of course, it
might have been the personality of the character (in Basic Instinct).
People become much less attractive to me if I don't like who they are.

Muffy


--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Selective Memory?
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:51:34 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

In <BzL1F1.Bqv@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>After running through this batch of soc.bi, I feel compelled to comment
>about the general tone of the group [being quite negative]

The prevaling "mood" on soc.bi changes all the time. Sometimes it is
predominately fluffy; other times it seems to be swamped with serious
discussions; and other times it seems to be full of flames. I agree with
you that at the moment it seems to quite flamey, but I imagine that this
will soon pass. I think one reason for the general heat is that feminism is
being discussed. It seems that a discussion of this topic on soc.bi
generates a certain amount of heat. Another possible reason is that it
is approaching Christmas and this might be causing extra stress in the
lives of some folk here.

>It's an honest question, asked for purely selfish reasons.  It's
>because I can't see investing energy into anything that isn't giving me
>any pleasure, satisfaction or feeling of self-worth.  Not that it is owed,
>it just naturally used to be part of the experience of visiting here.

My advice is to post the type of articles which you want to see.
Hopefully these articles will generate followups and before you know
it, the prevaling mood of soc.bi will have shifted to something which
more fully satisfies your needs better.


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
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17239 soc.motss:53594
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Selective Memory?
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.191327.20983@netcom.com> 
 solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>In article <BzL1F1.Bqv@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> 
 dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>>Weren't we once better than this?  Didn't we once make a lot more effort at
>>liking each other?  Or is it possible, that being in a different situation,
>>I'm more sensitive to things I used to filter out?
>
>I think most of the worst cases are cross-posts from soc.motss
>(except for the "slave" thread and its spinoffs).
>
>The problem is that soc.bi and soc.motss have similar areas of
>interests but very different cultures. In particular, the level
>of free-floating hostility is much higher on soc.motss. One
>antidote is to put a lot of soc.bi ESacharine in the crossposted
>threads (you know, ESnuggles, ENibbles, etc.). That should drive
>off most of the chronically angry.

I agree, that cross-posts between soc.bi and soc.motss can be
a problem.  I don't automatically killfile them, because I don't
want to lose the threads with useful queer news. But as you
say, they have different cultures, and at this point different
histories, personalities and things taken for granted.

(I do kill cross-posts to most other groups.)

I would encourage people to be aware of cross-posting and try to
either remove the less important newsgroup, or set Followup-To:
one or the other. (I've configured trn to set Followup-To:
whatever group I'm reading to reduce the risk of perpetuating
cross-posted flame wars.)

I suspect that soc.motss is as chagrined when one of our hugfests
gets cross-posted as when the flame wars spill over.

There are some fine folks in soc.motss and soc.bi both, but we
function better in the clearer content of one group at a time.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sexual consent (Was: Roy's "consenting" slave)
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:09:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <BzL29H.CAw@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:

>[...] Whether I agree or disagree
>with Gus is hardly an issue, given that this little piece of eloquence wiped
>away a large part of the black depression reading soc.bi has given me today.

I've removed some depression? Removed? Depression? Me?

[Falls over, in a dead faint. The walls shake.]

>*hugs*, Gus

[Revives.]

That gave me a shiver! (A nice little shiver, I hasten to add.)

>Hopefully I'll hear more of your voice and balanced reason in the future.

You mean *un*balanced, surely.

[Falls over again, to demonstrate.]
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |      personal choice" 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |             -- TV advert
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright)
Subject: Re: LesBiGay and Transgender Glossary (long)
Organization: The Cabal
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:51:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.233342.24896@osf.org> alan@ninja.osf.org (Alan 
Hamilton) writes:
...
>Camp: To exaggerate _feminine_ behaviors, usually for others'
>entertainment.  Also, to _camp it up_.  (See _butch it up_.)
...

Actually, "camp" is a form of humor, in which one makes fun of one's
oppression by taking on and exaggerating stereotypes which the oppressor
projects on to the oppressed.  Thus homosexual men "camping it up" are
involved in exaggerating feminine behaviors because the stereotype of
gay men is that they are "effeminate."  Camp makes fun of the
stereotype and laughs at the sting of the oppression.  

The key is in the exaggeration and actual employment of the stereotype.

Camp is most closely associated with the gay subculture, but it need not
be.  A black person who for purposes of a joke, calls another black person 
"nigger" is engaging in camp humor.  If you are interested in this topic,  
see Susan Sontag who has published on this subject.

-Tom Albright

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
|                                   \                                         |
| INTERNET: albrigh@ucs.indiana.edu  \    I believe in reincarnation, and     |
|   BITNET: albrigh@iubacs           /\   I'm coming back as a pansy.  AGAIN! |
|                                   /  \                                      |
(-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-:
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17370 soc.motss:54019
From: d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: _Details_ magazine
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:54:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <1hprvvINNhvv@cuda.add.itg.ti.com>, winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.180959.13281@bsu-ucs>, d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
> |> In article <1hn2i8INNd6u@cuda.add.itg.ti.com>, winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
> |> > In article <1992Dec24.200952.13271@bsu-ucs>, d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
> |> > |> Gosh, EXACTLY that much of the song appears in the Jan 1993 issues of
> |> > |> _Details_ magazine.    Love my _Deatials_ -- it's a very gay-postitive
> |> > |> magazine. In fact, I'd argue that it purposely goes out of its way to
> |> > |> accomodate LGBO readers.
> |> > Please elaborate - I'd like to know
> |> > exactly *what* subliminal techniques worked on me, since I never noticed
> |> > a bent, other than NONE at all.
> |> john, here are a few examples. I'll use the Jan 1993 issue (the only on I have
> |> that hasn't been hacked to pieces [journalism student that I am])
> [copious examples ad infinitum.....]
> 
> gosh!  
> I didn't realize that I trod upon a sacred cow of some sort.  Sorry.  :-)

Not a sacred cow inasmuch as my favorite magazine. ;)


> 
> I don't feel like I've been flamed, just soundly beaten over the head with
> what I never noticed.  I *just* found my Jan 93 issue, by the way.
> (And you didn't notice the boxer-shorts ad, David?  tsk tsk tsk.)
> 
Oh? (David flips through pages and finds page 11....)

[about three hours later]

*blush* sorry..  I try to avoid that add. I lose track of time.

> On more praise of _Details_, I absolutely loved the interview with Brad Pitt.
> Especially the part where the author #included an embarrasing moment to 
> himself (trying to male-bond and Pitt snuffing it).
> 
> BTW - a man wearing a flowery shower cap *does not* a crossdresser make.

I know...  It could be a woman with facial hair.... ;-)

David Speakman
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17107 soc.motss:53345
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:43:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec21.224309.16295
Followup-To: soc.bi
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <BzMn4B.yMI@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>>Any philosophy that excludes nearly half the human race is,
>>>by my definition, untenable.  
>>
>>Why do you think empowering women excludes men?  
>
>Sigh.  I didn't say it, Melinda and Mara did.  PLEASE only attribute
>to me what I say.  Its quite enough having to defend THAT, thank you!

They most certainly did NOT say that, you fatuous, clueless moron.
Now fuck off and keep your whining out of soc.motss.

And don't let the door hit you on your way out.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Throwing Christians to the Bunnies (was: Understanding)
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 05:53:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.051651.363@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> 
 arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>[...]
>I don't even know if I'm a "pagan" [is the term more specific than "non-
>Christian"?]; but I do believe that all Christians are anti-non-
>Christians; so I could reasonably be accused of being bigoted against
>Christians.
>
>My impression is that all Christians assume that Christianity = Absolute
>Morality; and therefore they believe that all non-Christians are guilty
>of something; and they don't scruple to play on any sense of guilt that
>any particular non-Christian may have.

Well, I would not, in general, call myself a Christian, but I am a participant
in a Christian congregation full of people who don't fit the statements above.

I would regard excessive dogma, and zeal against the "un-Christian"
as commonplace in Christian churches, but not universal. In particular,
I do not conceed to the conservatives the sole right to define
what constitutes "Christianity".

(If you want to see a more expansive view of Christainity, I would recommend
such writers as John Spong, Matthew Fox, or Rosemary Reuther.  I'm not
saying you *need* this, I just am pointing out that it exists.)

In my opinion, one of the characteristics of religous dogma and orthodoxy
that makes them problematic is the tendency to focus on what is *distinctive*
about a particular tradition at the expense of what is *important*.

This is related to the tendency to "draw the line somewhere". As I said
in a sermon (as a lay preacher), "If they want to draw the line it will
likely be down my middle." ;)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Summary: Massive topic-drift here..
Organization: Department of Atomic Text Units
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:04:37 GMT

In article <C0549I.Fsw.1@cs.cmu.edu> pooh+@cs.cmu.edu (Will Timmins) writes:
|Re three way interaction:
[overly complicated relationship description]

|Why all this nonsense? Just a thought experiment. This is the best argument 
|against polyamory- things get TREMENDOUSLY complex very quickly.

   Not necessarily so.  It's not necessary for all of the people in
a polyamourous tangle to be intimate with each other.  If I was to
use, for an example, my current situation, I'm got three distinct
couple relationships, none of which interact that much.  (Mind you,
considering that each of these people have other relationships too,
it gets very complicated, but only in a topological sense; from my
viewpoint, the relationships are (Orc,A), (Orc,B), and (Orc,C), and
they all function more-or-less independently (as well they should,
because none of these people live within 500 miles of me!)

   Now, if you also include the people I've *slept* with, well,
yeah, at that point it gets *very complicated.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ "Probably just as well that I'm not sleeping with
                 \/   anyone in chicago, though..."
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss