HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Advice Wanted
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:35:06
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<MUFFY.92Dec10103358@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec14.011546.9438@netcom.com> <BzBLtz.CKB@wrs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jessica@wrs.com's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:46:46 GMT

In article <BzBLtz.CKB@wrs.com> jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart) writes:
>I would like some advice on how to approach a new person for a possible
>polyamorous affair.

>I am a woman married to a man. We have no other lovers at this time, but
>my husband knows I am interested in polyamory and, while he doesn't
>seem as interested, he says it's OK.

>There is a guy I am interested in. This guy is our age, and is engaged
>to a girl. [I'm very attracted to him and we're all friendly.]

>The problem: I spoke with the fiancee a bit [...]
>We talked about lots of things, including my interest in polyamory [...]
>She did not act shocked [...] but she said they do NOT practice polyamory.

>Any advice on what to do? I'm not sure I can stand to just
>do NOTHING. After all, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Well, for all I know, you've already done something, since it's been two
weeks...*smile*.

However, from what you say, I think there are two things which are
important.

First, work out the "rules" with your husband.  Does he want to hear
about what's going on?  Does he have any feelings about the amount of
time you spend with other people?  Does he want you to sleep at home
every night?  Is he comfortable being around you and a lover?  Are you
going to have a "veto," and if so, what kind?  Etc.

Second, talk to the fiancee again before starting anything serious with
him.  Since she has already told you that they are not poly, he would
have to renegotiate their relationship before doing anything with you.
Since you have already talked to her about this, it would be good for
you to talk to her again and confirm how *she* feels about the change in
the relationship.  In general, I think it's good to talk to the partners
of prospective partners, but in this case it's particularly important,
since you've already included her and you know that she does not
currently see their relationship as poly.

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
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:55:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.132049.23736@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <1hqik4INN7ns@bang.hal.COM> landman@hal.COM (Howard Landman) writes:
>>I'm not so sure.  Many songs in "women's music" warn about the dangers of
>>intercourse.  Take, for example, Chris Williamson's "Twisted Love":
>>
>>	Twisted love, hard on the spirit
>>	Twisted love, don't let me near it
>>	Only one drop, can poison the water hole.
>>
>I will raise some questions about this interpretation -- there is nothing
>in the song that is gender-specific, and at the time Cris W. came out with
>the album she got some reaction from would-be fans that it was not 
>lesbian-oriented enough. So I doubt there is an anti-male or anti-het 
>message in this song; I think she's just talking about messed up relationships
>generically.

As a sometime fan of hers, I'd have to concur.  Maybe I'm being dense, but
I thought those were lyrics that could speak to anyone....
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com
From: ESMITH@SUVM.SYR.EDU
Subject: Unlearning jealousy? Perhaps.
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08:18:29 EST

Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise) says, then asks:
 
>   Well, first off, congratulations and way to go!  Sounds good. Sounds real
>good.
>   Could you elaborate on what you learned?  I'm interested in the concept of
>how jealousy is unlearned, and in how people experience secure rather than
>insecure feelings in relationships.  What in you changed?  And (how) are the
>people you are picking these days different?  Do tell, please.  Thanks.
 
   Elise, those are tough questions to answer. Perhaps the best answer is
two answers that work for me. First, I've matured. I really no longer give
too much thought to what people around me think of me. I feel that I am
essentially a good person, with alot to offer others. That, however, does
not make me without fault. I have plenty. Only now I recognize most of them
and do my best to minimize them.
 
   The second answer is that (in a large degree because of maturing) I'm
not insecure with myself or where I'm going any longer. The relationship
I'm in right now may go down the tubes tomorrow. I'm going to work damn
hard to see that it does not. However, if it does, I will be hurt, alone,
but I will continue on. It will not be the end. I guess you can say that
by not fearing loss, I can concentrate on making the relationship work. I
can communicate freely, discuss my know faults as they arise, discuss the
faults of my lovers (yes, they have some too) and do so knowing full well
that these are not attacks meant to harm, but comments meant to
strengthen.
 
   When you're unsure of yourself this point is hard to understand.
 
   As for choosing my partners, well, to be honest, I'm not sure I did.
I mean, I did, but I can't even begin to tell you how. I have not been at
this very long, yet I seem to have been at it all my life. I guess it a real
confused way I choose people to be around that I'm comfortable with. It's not
a surprise then when these people turn out to share many of the same ideas
that I do, including polyamory. Wow, I hope that makes some sense to someone.
 
   As Always,
     Timber Wolf
 
   As an aside. For those of you who have known me on the lists for years,
I have gone under the names of Timber or sometimes Tmbrwolf. I have used
these monikers for quite some time. In an attempt to go back to some of my
own native american roots (admittedly 2 generations back) I am taking steps
this year to legally change my name to Timber Wolf. Again, I'm confident
enough with myself now to do this and take the wondering stares that I know
I'll receive from co-workers. A few years ago that wouldn't have been the
case. It would have been much easier to avoid that than to do what I
*TRULY* want to do. Maybe knowing what you want is most of the battle?
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: (lazlo) changing relationships
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:02:17 GMT
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: an3096@anon.penet.fi's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:36:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.155516.12097@penet.fi> an3096@anon.penet.fi (lazlo) writes:
>>Muffy sez
>>>In article <1992Dec18.025935.29601@penet.fi> an3096@anon.penet.fi (lazlo) writes:
>>> When I pressed further, she said she might become jealous if I had sex
>>> with another woman.

>>Did she say that she therefore did not want you to do that?

>No, she did not say she didn't want me to have sex with other women.
>But she did say that she can be very jealous and I don't want to hurt
>her.  I suppose that my problem is that I am too worried about losing
>her.  

What is "too worried"?  Do you mean that you are going against what you
really want, in order to maintain the relationship?  If you are losing
your "self" in the relationship, then you may well be "too worried."
However, good relationships *are* worth a lot of effort.

>>>Now, it sounds like your SO is okay about the emotional involvement with
>>>others, just (perhaps) not sexual.  Is the problem that you also want to
>>>have sex with people other than your SO?

>Bingo.  My SO has not said she wants me to maintain an emotional
>distance from all others.  She hasn't even told me she doesn't want me
>to be sexually monogamous.  She just told me she doesn't know how she
>would handle it if I had sex with another woman.  Because of this, I
>have kept myself sexually monogamous while I try to decide if
>satisfying my lust and love for another woman is worth possibly losing
>my SO.

It sounds like your SO is at least trying not to restrict you.  As
another poster has pointed out, it may be that she cannot handle the
prospect of you with someone else at all.  Or, it may be that she is
willing to negotiate this with you.

It doesn't sound like you had any initial negotiation as to whether or
not this was a monogamous relationship; rather, it has just been
assumed.  Nonetheless, the lack of negotiation is still a form of
agreement.  So, it seems to me that you really need to talk to your SO
about this, and about maybe negotiating some new rules for the
relationship.  If you keep working it all out in your head, you might
even decide you have to leave her, even though you don't want to, when
in fact she might be ready to give polyamory a try, if it's what you
really want.  Keep in mind that it is her relationship, too, and that
she also has a stake in making it work out.

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: wa137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (john e. clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Ambiguity
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:03:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BzJKA7.IAn@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
+Do you suppose it's possible to have safe sex discussions without
+talking in conundrums?

Conundrums should always be used for safe sex. Boy, where hav you
been in the last ten years... 
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: siobhan@microsoft.com (Siobhan Harper)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:38:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec17.073920.26845@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>3) Avoid people who are not honest; who claim one thing
>>and act another; who are not sure what they want (not
>>honest with themselves).
>...
>     The last part, though, needs some qualification - not
>everyone who isn't sure what they want is being dishonest with
>themselves - some people just don't know.  And some of those
>people might find themselves very happily polyamorous, if someone
>were kind enough to suggest it to them.

When I first read this rule in Jessica's post, I took it to mean
"someone who is not sure of what they want can end up hurting you."
Perhaps the writer of the rules did mean literally "avoid", in 
which case I would disagree with the first and second as well. I
just think that the "rules" delineate three kinds of situations
where the potential for getting hurt exists. If, knowing that, you
make an informed choice to take that risk, at least you do so in
understanding. And, as you pointed out, it's not at all a certainty
that you will get hurt; you might find the risk to be pleasantly
rewarding. I would interpret those situations as ones to be careful
of and informed about, not necessarily literally to be "avoided".

--Siobhan

From: Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: I feel like I'm listening to a cat fight
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:48:02 -0600

 E>    Yes, I know I made almost every mistake that can be 
 E> made. Hell, if there was a textbook bad example, I was 
 E> it. I'm very familiar with the emotion of jealousy and 
 E> it isn't a good feeling. I learned quite a bit from 
 E> those relationships and I have to say that I'm now in a 
 E> polyamorous relationship with a wonderful couple and a 
 E> sometimes third, with no feelings of possession, being 
 E> left out, being ignored, feelings of being a fifth 
 E> wheel, and all of the other wonderfully useless 
 E> feelings that accompany fits of jealousy. I've gone so 
 E> far as to invite these folks to share my home with me. 
 E> Yeah, I'm in love with them big time. *grins*

   Well, first off, congratulations and way to go!  Sounds good. Sounds real
good.
   Could you elaborate on what you learned?  I'm interested in the concept of
how jealousy is unlearned, and in how people experience secure rather than
insecure feelings in relationships.  What in you changed?  And (how) are the
people you are picking these days different?  Do tell, please.  Thanks.

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:00:20 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec22124315@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> I believe you are "as clear" with your lovers as you are with
> us.  That does not mean that I believe you are being very clear.

And yet you claim to agree with Frances' statement that I was "so
very clear from the beginning"?  Make up your mind.

> Why not "polyamorous"?  

Because the term misses a Very Important Point: that I don't *like*
having multiple simultaneous relationships, and that I prefer my
lovers one-at-a-time.  This is exactly the phenomenon for which I
use the term "monogamous": to call myself "polyamorous" hides the
fact.

> In fact, you *are* polyamorous, according to *your* definition ("max
> number of acceptable lovers > 1").

Note one more time: that is not my definition.  I cancelled the article
that contained the "max number of acceptable" phrase, replacing it with 
the term "simultaneous-number-of-lovers" as part of one's preferences.  

> Also, according to the "societal" definition of monogamy you made ("max
> number of acceptable lovers = 1"), you are not monogamous.

My current relationship-status is not monogamous, nor have I ever claimed
that it is.  (I've gone into some detail about the particular circumstances
that allow me to conduct my simultaneous relationships just now.)  My
preference is *still* for a single lover at a time, and has been since
I began my sex life some ten years ago.

> Nope, it is within the limitations as it is used by all the other people
> in our society that I have encountered, other than you and your two or
> three lovers and/or defenders.

There have been at least five people in this thread who agreed that my
use of the word fit their definition; I've never even met some of them.
You've had exactly one supporter in this newsgroup, if you want to do
it by poll.  In *my* experience (and I daresay I've spent more time 
talking over definitions of "monogamy" than you have, since it's a word 
I use for myself), most people don't have a problem in dealing with it 
in reference to a preference for having one lover.


cheers,
--vicka							vicka@wrq.com
		
		  "Empty hands and open minds"
From: ambar@cygnus.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:34:07 GMT
Organization: Redheads Anonymous


   woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
   :    That's very contrary indeed to my experience, and also seems very
   : counterintuitive. I'll outright ask people - does it really not seem 
   : worthy of comment at least for someone to say "Yes, by my own choice
   : I have more than one partner, but really, I'm monogamous, I am, since
   : I'd *prefer* having only one"?

I do not think this is any more remarkable than those people who say 'I
am polyamorous by preference, but am currently being monogamous with my
lover, because (for any number of reasons) I have promised them that I
will do so.'

Really, is this such a reach?  I think most of the flaming that's been
provoked is because buttons have been pushed regarding lying to people
about one's *actions*.  If one keeps the notion of preference--what I'd
have or do, ideally--separate from action--what I am doing RIGHT NOW,
all would be calmer.

And knowing both Vicka and Muffy as I do, I think this is all truly
silly.

				AMBAR
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:23:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.011416.6712@netcom.com> weissman@netcom.com (Bob Weissman) writes:
>In <1992Dec30.170528.16344@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>
>>I've had my fair share of sex, vaginal and otherwise, and I've enjoyed it.
>>But I've never completely understood what the big deal is.  I've understood
>>the problems intellectually.  But I've never had a corresponding emotional or
>>empathetic understanding.  It's just a totally foreign concept to me to see sex
>>as anything really more then a basic biological function ranking up there with
>>eating, sleeping, and taking a shit.
>
>Whew.  If you find taking a shit as satisfying as having sex, I pity you.

Heh.  I was originally going to follow up on Chris's post, but this is a
much more appropriate place for it:

If you think that sex is better than shitting, try going for a whole
week without a shit.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 1 day and counting
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:15:13 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

I am really amazed at how this thread has degenerated into nitpicking, 
contradicting, insulting, dredging up and re-interpreting the past, and
dragging in the opinions of uninvolved third parties in attempts to gain 
authority. It's a perfect example of how *not* to conduct an argument with 
a lover...

Surely the folks posting to this thread know that there is a point beyond 
which nitpicking someone's words becomes destructive. And that when 
complex concepts are being discussed, two people can't always agree on 
what a particular word connotes. (So you describe what you mean instead,
and discuss that, instead of fighting over what word to use.)

I'm surprised that people who've written marvelously insightful
things in this newsgroup and elsewhere have gotten sucked into this. 
Yes, I know, it's The Net, and flamewars happen. Yes, I know, I am a 
lurker here, and I have no right poking my nose in where it doesn't 
belong. Yes, I know, I could kill the thread. But BLECH! Personally, 
I would rather y'all were spending your energy dispensing wisdom about 
other topics.
-- 
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:52:57 GMT


AWWWWRIGHT, Vicka, now you and Muffy go into this small room and
settle this like... like... um... like USENET readers (gasp!).

When you say "I'm monogamous" you seem to mean it in a way that is
more subjunctive than indicative, i.e. you would PREFER to be monogamous.
The fact that you have two lovers means you're poly *at this time*, 
like it or not.

The way I describe myself is "poly minded but mono married" and that's
pretty succinct.  Maybe you could say you're "poly involved but mono minded."
That's even shorter than "a monogamous person who presently has two
lovers"!  :-)

[Don't have mosquitos?   Try Fairbanks in the Spring!]

-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.011416.6712@netcom.com> weissman@netcom.com (Bob Weissman) writes:
>In <1992Dec30.170528.16344@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>
>>I've had my fair share of sex, vaginal and otherwise, and I've enjoyed it.
>>But I've never completely understood what the big deal is.  I've understood
>>the problems intellectually.  But I've never had a corresponding emotional or
>>empathetic understanding.  It's just a totally foreign concept to me to see sex
>>as anything really more then a basic biological function ranking up there with
>>eating, sleeping, and taking a shit.
>
>Whew.  If you find taking a shit as satisfying as having sex, I pity you.

I didn't say sex was as satisfying as taking a shit (or vice versa).  I said that
as biological functions go, I don't seem that as any more inherently special
then the other.

>The reason sex is more satisfying than the activities with which you compare it
>is that it involves intimacy with another person.  I would have thought this was
>obvious.

Then what about masturbation?  I consider that sex, yet it involves only myself.

Sex, as a biological function, has nothing to do with intimacy.  Intimacy is a
feeling which two or more people feel tworads each other irregardless of the
actually activity which they are performing together.  I am away from my wife
right now, but I feel very intimate with her just the same.

Sex *with* intimacy is a great thing, but that doesn't mean that the sex act
itself requires intimacy.  Nor does it mean that sex without intimacy cannot
be a pleasurable thing.

I'm very much a proponent of purposefully giving into my animal self (when
prudent) every now and then and completely shucking the additionaly layers
of emotional intimacy that many people seem to require in the act of sex.
I think its healthy.  If for no other reason then it gives your higher
level brain functions a vacation.

For those who are wondering, I am not arguing for sex without love.  I'm
simply arguing that love and intimacy can as easily get in the way of
enjoying sex as it can actually make it better.

I'm just suggesting that a plain old fashioned screw now and then could
do wonders for the general disposition of the populace.

>>I've often thought that the world might be a better place if people just had
>>more sex (and enjoyed it for what it is).
>
>Now there's a statement I can agree with.

Glad to see I'm in good company. :-)
-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: off (was Re: Intro to me and question for all)
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:43:28
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec22.230020.7673@u.washington.edu>
	<1992Dec24.131206.482@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
	<1hra19INNt22@shelley.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: vicka@wrq.com's message of 30 Dec 1992 04:54:01 GMT

In article <1hra19INNt22@shelley.u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
[It doesn't really matter.]

Well, that's it.  I'm tired of being attacked by Vicka.  I'm
unsubscribing.  Anyone who wants to respond to any of my recent posts,
please email me.

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