HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: love and freedom (was Re: poly-wired?)
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:20:54
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<ZEN.92Aug10193530@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Aug18.020106.4114@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au's message of 18 Aug 92 02:01:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.020106.4114@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>> Monogamy is about declaring to
>>> a partner "No matter how much you love me, you are *not allowed* to love
>>> anyone else without getting in heaps of trouble and probably breaking
>>> up with me". Not a very loving thing to say, is it?
>>  To some people it's about the most loving thing you can say to another
>>person.  Don't forget that freedom of partner(s) (or many other things)
>>is not a prerequisite for happiness for many people
>>I guess I must be reading this the wrong way.

>>My first reaction on reading this is to jump up and down and exclaim
>"surely you can't be serious"! (But stop calling me Shirley...sorry 8->).

>>I'll try to explain this. "The most loving thing one can say to another"
>is "too bad, only one love at a time for you"?!? It's loving to say "Your
>freedom is *not* an issue for me"?!? 

That isn't how those people see it, though.  For the seriously
monogamous people I have talked to, the *mutual* agreement to monogamy
is an essential part of "love."  I think the idea is that you are saying
"you're enough to satisfy all my needs, I don't want anyone else" rather
than "I want to restrict your freedom."  It's a different point of view.
I have even met people who feel that if their partner does not get
jealous of them then they cannot possibly love them.  I don't think that
any of these people would agree with your definition of monogamy,
because they simply do not think of it in terms of freedom, but rather
in terms of "commitment."  In fact, though, those people who expect
their partner to be jealous would probably feel that someone who made
your statement to them loved them very much.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 25 Aug 1992 21:31:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Aug18.124405@kuttner.sfc.sony.com> weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver) writes:
>That said,  I also encounter times when either my wife or I "need sex" for
>some reason, mostly either cyclical tension or severe cuddle deficiency, and the
>other is not  terribly inclined towards it.  Usually we do it anyway, because
>we love each other and it's the sort of caring we hope for from each other.
>If one is REALLY disinclined, we don't, but at least hug real good.
>-- 
>Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
---

	This is where the no expectation of sex from monogamy breaks down.

	If I am in a relation and want a cuddle, or a backrub, or want to
play a game of chess, and the other person doesn't feel like it --
or perhaps hates chess, then where does one draw the line -- is finding
another person to play chess with 'ok', how about a backrub?  A cuddle?
A kiss?  Sex?

	I've had some discussions about this recently, and one person
thought it was unfair to go outside the relationship to fulfill needs
if they didn't want to fill those needs themselves.  Coming from a
conservative background, I *understand* (though dunno if I agree) this
attitude towards sex, but how about other things -- like movies one person
likes but not the other, or any number of semi-intimate, or more
intimate matters.

	I suppose you could answer -- each situation is different with
different rules -- but if that it is true, then there will be people
for whom "a demand of X within the relationship, or let me fulfill
it elsewhere" where X="sex" is valid.

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
From: bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Woody and Mia
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:02:10 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


They are just seeing who is the most neurotic and who has the
meanest lawyer. Ain't divorce grand?
-- 
Ted....
From: woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:22:45 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>Would they have said it the same way if
>>I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
>>or something else they simple weren't interested in?
>
>Well, people round here can be pretty religious about this Coke vs Diet-Coke
>issue ;)

   Heh heh...it was a deliberate choice of words...

>(Let us not say how we deal with people who drink caffiene free diet p**si..)

   Oy! We're here! We drink Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi! Get used to it!

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: phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips)
Subject: Re: reactions to polyamory
Organization: Elec Eng, Univ of Western Australia
Date:  3 Sep 92 12:21:54 GMT

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:

>   OK, I didn't indicate the dripping malice in their tone well enough.
>It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
>very far away from them indeed.

depressing.

>   So it wasn't just that they "weren't interested" - they were
>extremely offended, and quite rude about it. Karina & I were offended
>that they were so offended. Would they have said it the same way if
>I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
>or something else they simple weren't interested in?

Well, people round here can be pretty religious about this Coke vs Diet-Coke
issue ;)
(Let us not say how we deal with people who drink caffiene free diet p**si..)

--
Christopher Jam	__________________________________________________
phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au			c64 forever!!!!
300,000 c64's were sold in the fiscal year ending June 1991 :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand, Open vs. Closed Polyamory
Date: 04 Sep 92 00:12:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <baranski.19920902091533@veamf1> Jim Baranski <BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL> writes:
| 
| 
| "However, all the "you are responsible for your own actions" part aside, dunno
| how applicable polyamory is to Rand, or vice versa.  I can't think of any
| healthy polyamorous relationships in her books; Dominique gets raped and likes
| it..."
| 
| Agreed...  Now supposedly, the rationale behind this is that these 'highly
| principled' people go to extreme lengths for things/principles that are
| important to them.  *I* think they're screwed up.

Hi, Jim.

I think one of the problems is Rand's "romantic ideal".  You are supposed to
find this one person who is the embodiment of your "highest ideals".  Of
course, when person B comes along who embodies your ideals a delta closer
than person A did, then you are supposed to dump A like yesterday's fish
and go with B (cf. Dagny's serial monogamy in Atlas Shrugged).  Personally,
I think things would have gone better if Francisco, Hank, John, and Dagny
had jumped into a large bed together.

  Fritz
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Sleeping arrangements
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:30:06 GMT
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6


In article <1992Sep2.133140.9034@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, LSELL@MSU writes:
> The point of this is to poll y'all on your sleeping arrangements. How have
> some of you handled the arrangements, or what advice do you have??

I'm assuming M1 and M2 don't sleep together... at least, you didn't mention
that they did.  So, *my* solution would be to buy 3 beds.  One big one (king/
queen) for F and who ever she is sleeping with that night (or she may decide
to sleep alone), and one for each of the M's.  OR, you could have a "playpen"
bed which is only used for sex and have others available for sleep.


Gambatte kudasai,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:42:46 GMT


In article <l9q5tvINN8vc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
> >By this definition (from Webster's), if you threaten to end a relationship
> >due to your partner not wishing to have sex, then you are performing an
> >act of coercion.
>     You are not threatening to end a relationship.  You are simply
> stating a fact that the relation will end or be *open*.  This could be
> perceived as a joyous event by the other partner or a threat depending on
> their interpretation.

Isn't that what I said?  I think we have agreement on this... just different
slants/views.

> I had a relation where sex had stopped for a period
> of 2-3 months.  I finally said, since we were no longer sleeping together,
> I though we should not consider ourselves boy/girl friends anymore.  She
> said 'oh, ok'.  It wasn't a threat -- it was a natural consequence.  

Agreed... no threat.

> 	True, some people say if you don't like the United States the way
> it is, you should just leave.  Others believe there may be things 
> of value and/or worth saving.

I wouldn't know... I don't live in the US. :)

> >True... but it's how you react to this change that counts.  If the relation-
> >ship is unsuitable, then end it, but don't try to coerce the other into 
> >performing your wishes or desires.
> ---
> 	I don't believe it is coercion -- they still have a choice.  I
> don't believe in walking out of a relationship if something is wrong.  I
> feel it is first profitable to try to address the problem.  If it is
> still unaddressable, then things may be unsalvagable.  The fact of
> leaving is not a 'threat' -- it is a promise -- a *fact*.  As such,
> it doesn't qualify as force or threat -- just fact.

To you it may be a fact... but if by chance it's seen by the other person
as a threat, then coercion enters the playing field.  I don't disagree that
you should state how you feel, but in stating it, you may make the other
person feel like they are being coerced.  Whether or not you're trying to
coerce that person, if they feel it then it exists.  N'est pas?

> 	In any event -- this is where monogamous relationships seem more
> unstable/unsatisfying than non.  If you have more people you can
> address to meet your needs, it seems the configuration of people would
> be more stable.

Things could be just as stable in a monogamous relationship, if you picked
someone that truly addressed your needs.  There's plenty of happy, stable
monogamous relationships out there.


Playing devil's advocate, ;)

      __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: richh@netcom.com (richh)
Subject: "Love is  Not a Pie"
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:44:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 



It's a story by Amy Bloom in the anthology "Best American Short Stories
1991".

Good polyamory tale.

RICHH
--well, she never had my saltgirl's mom's pecan pie...
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:13:03 GMT

You know the routine.

Muffy says:

> relationship.  I'm curious about this, particularly because I have never
> sought out people for relationships.  I discussed this with my lovers

I've only ever heard four (now five) people express this sentiment
before, and all four were attractive, personable women in
male-dominated professions.  They apparently believed that one doesn't
need to make an active effort to look for potential partners---you
just run into them all the time.  I suspect that that's exactly the
world they experience. (A world which, by the way, I don't envy.  If a
bigshot in my field says they want to talk about my research over
dinner, I can be confidently proud in my work, rather than having the
naggy, unhappy worry that they're really trying to get in my pants.)

> Anyway, so...I'd like to hear from people who actively seek out
> relationships, particularly when you are already in one.  It is

Well, there's a bunch of issues here, including:

   1. How one meets new people, including people they potentially will
get involved with: what recreational activities you're involved with,
how gregarious you are with strangers when waiting in lines, your
body language, etc., etc.
   2. How conscious you are that your choices (conscious or
unconscious) from the above affect your odds of meeting people, and
how much you tune your choices to improve those odds.
   3. How much your distinguish between the things you do to meet
new friends and the things you do to meet new lovers. 

For me, I'm almost always very conscious of when I'm doing things that
will help me to meet new people or further a potential relationship.
It's just the way I'm wired.  Re 3., it used to be that I interacted
with single women rather differently than I did with everybody else in
the world.  Since coming out to myself as bi and poly, this difference
has lessened---now I'm aware of the potential for lusting after
anyone I meet!

As for why I look for people for other relationships when I'm already
in a close relationship, that goes to the heart of what polyamory is
all about for me.  I don't want to ramble on, so I'll just say that
I've found concentrating all my sexual and romantic and affectional
interest in one person doesn't lead to happiness for me.  So I'm
looking for more than one.  There's also an element of sheer interest
in sexual variety there too. 

--Alan Hardy

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:04:18 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Aug27185203@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:


>                  In fact, only *one* man came over to talk
>to me that evening, which was my SO (well, he wasn't my SO at the time,
>of course).  Attractive but too scary to approach isn't much use in
>terms of forming relationships.
>

Well, here's what it looks like from the other side of the fence:

I see an attractive woman.  I think, "Maybe I'll go talk to her", but
I have to watch a while to see if she's "with someone" (monogamy is
everywhere!).  (long pause) OK, she's not.  But she's obviously too 
attractive NOT to be involved.  Better think about this.  (pause)

Oh, gee, this *is* a technical conference.  She's probably super bright.
Probably a lot brighter than I am.  Wouldn't be interested in me.  (long
pause)

Gosh, she is attractive. But, she's probably monogamous, or Born-Again 
or who knows.   Let's try to eavesdrop for a minute...

Well, she *sounds* ok.  But she probably wouldn't want to talk
to me.  It's just a waste of time.  She's too attractive and too smart and
I'm not very interesting anyway, and she'll just think I'm some
horny asshole out to screw around on his wife, and ...

So I wander away and don't talk.


At least that's what I used to do :-)

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:23:59 GMT
	<MUFFY.92Aug27185203@remarque.berkeley.edu> <Btp2z7.Eou@world.std.com>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: apl@world.std.com's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:04:18 GMT


In article <Btp2z7.Eou@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
   In article <MUFFY.92Aug27185203@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >                  In fact, only *one* man came over to talk
> >to me that evening, which was my SO (well, he wasn't my SO at the time,
> >of course).  Attractive but too scary to approach isn't much use in
> >terms of forming relationships.
> >
> Well, here's what it looks like from the other side of the fence:
> I see an attractive woman.  I think, "Maybe I'll go talk to her", but
> I have to watch a while to see if she's "with someone" (monogamy is
> everywhere!).  (long pause) OK, she's not.  But she's obviously too 
> attractive NOT to be involved.  Better think about this.  (pause)

  I hear this kind of thing all the time... why don't you just go up and
*talk* to her?  You're not going to know if you want a relationship with
her until you talk a bit anyway (I hope!), and if she's "involved", or
"brighter", or some other undesireable feature (although why being
smarter than you would mean that she wouldn't be interested in you seems
a bit odd), then it's no big deal -- she (or he) might be a really neat
person (at least, the odds seem to be as good as with a not-so-attractive
person), and you might get a friend out of it.  Heck, if you're really
interested in Relationships (with a capital R), either now or in the
future, it never hurts to be friendly with some attractive people.  If
you're *only* interested in relationships, then... well, then you're on
your own, I guess :-)

  Personally, I very much like talking and being with very attractive
people, and go out of my way to approach them.  They have some
interesting insights in the world that us mortals sometimes don't
possess.  And if you're not trying to get them into bed immediately (and
sometimes if you are...) and treat them like a normal person, then it
usually works out pretty darn well, or at least as well as with anyone
else.

  I understand that rejection is hard to take, but to pass up on someone
because you think that they will reject you completely before they even
get a chance to look or talk or find out who you are seems... well, why
do you think that anyone would want you, then?  Very attractive people
want the same things that everyone else wants, as far as I can see.

 -- d
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:45:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <ZEN.92Aug27111152@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>just being mean, that might be coercion... but when do you call it a
>compromise and when is it being coercive?  Seems very situation
>specific.
>
---
	Exactly.  Yet the impression I got from some people was that if
it involved sex, and if I expressed I wanted a sexual relation, and
the other person stopped wanting that, that for me to express that
the relation could be coming to an end (wasn't working for me), because
of the lack of sex, *would* be coercive, and was even compared to
rape by one individual.  

	I suppose that is what raised my hackles the most.

william
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.