HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbt@cellar.org (Marquis de Freud)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Ambiguity
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:03:14 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

To add my 20 millibucks: Language is inherently ambiguous. Many linguistic 
philosophers have described language as extended systems of metaphors. 

F'rinstance, I prefer to keep firmly in mind that in a world with 5 billion 
individuals, that there are 5 billion "ogamies" -- at *least*.

Still, it's practical to use terms like "monogamy" or "polygamy" or 
"polyamory", provided one understands that most people don't conform 
precisely to spec.

"Monogamy", I think, originally meant mating with one partner for the entire 
duration of one's reproductive cycle (the term was biological). Nearly ALL 
people who claim to be monogamous actually proactice what sociologists now 
call "serial monogamy". The infamous, much- hated "'70s bed-hopper" would be 
practicing serial monogamy at a rather high baud rate.

What *I* dislike about protestations of *monogamy* is that the word usually 
means, "I'm sexually active but virtuous. I screw only according to the 
socially accepted rules". This may seem a bit harsh, but I have heard this 
protestation often voiced with a certain smugness. The day comes that the 
monogamous saint gets involved with a second partner, and of course, the 
facade falls away hard. Frequently, such a person doesn't develop a self- 
consistent poly attitude and lifestyle, but just becomes a power- tripper, 
feeling hip about doing two (or more) partners at one time.

It's harder to break from one's society than one's lover, as a rule. Even 
when one's lover isn't enforcing the social rules, the influence is very 
strong. It does tend to make one feel humble, though. "Monogamy" no longer 
means simply "mated with one other person", but "the system of sexual and 
courtship rules we enforce that USED TO mean 'mated with one other person'".

I realize this is probably a well-worn path, but we may have to just think of 
new ways of talking about love and sex, entirely. "Ogamies" are appearantly 
becoming insufficient.

MdF aka dbt@cellar.org

------
dbt@cellar.org (Marquis de Freud)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:24:23 GMT
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11122227@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.193751.24150@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:
>
>>As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the "rest of the world".  And
>>my being out includes setting the likes of you straight about my life.
>
>Indeed?  Well, I guess it isn't working.  All you've done, especially
>with your definition of polyamory (you haven't addressed that yet), is
>shown me that you are trying to redefine the word monogamy, apparently
>because you like the idea of monogamy better than the idea of polyamory,
>but can't quite manage to practice it.  Let me know when you convince
>the rest of the world that "monogamous" means "having two partners at
>the same time," and I will be "set straight."

Given that I, and others in this group, have agreed that an acceptable
usage for "monogamous" is "preferring to have only one lover under most
conditions" I think it's a little unfair of you to keep harping on this
one point.

Can't we go on to other subjects?
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:34:33
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec14.233228.13409@u.washington.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Dec14180752@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec15.133957.15688@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: aahz@netcom.com's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:39:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.133957.15688@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
   In article <MUFFY.92Dec14180752@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
   >
   >Any word can be misused.  That doesn't make it ambiguous (are you *sure*
   >you're a native speaker of English? - that's *two* words you don't seem
   >to know the meanings of).  Here are the definitions received so far for
   >monogamy:

   Why don't you tell people you got these definitions out of soc.couples,
   Muffy?  Do you have something to hide?

I already *did*, when I posted the first definition.  Don't blame *me*
if *you* can't keep up with the conversation.

Muffy
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: sthor@ctp.com (Sarah Thornburg)
Subject: Re: The TRUTH about Mormons (was Re: "infidelity")
Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:20:12 GMT

Okay, here's a rather burning question, so i'm delurking as well.

Are any of you Utah types out there actually Mormon???  I know a fair amount
about the Mormon church as my fiance is Mormon, and I was seriously
considering converting, but have, for a number of reasons, have decided that
much as I like the church, and have a very strong faith etc.etc., I can't
convert.  Now, if any of you can set me straight on some of this, maybe I
can.  By the way, my relationship does *not* depend on whether or not I
convert - he is a rather relucant member for the same reasons I feel that I
can't convert and be *honest* in that committment.  So here goes nothing.


I know the church used to practice polygamy - I didn't know it still existed
out there.  I assume that the church definition of polygamy was one male
having several female wives, but sexual relations between them were one on
one.  I haven't heard of one female with several male husbands, or sexual
relations involving some or all of the partners at the same time.  I guess
this is where I get into difficulty due to wording and definitions, and I
know it's still being fought out here, but what does the church say?  It 
seems to me that the missionaries are very intent on monogamy issue now - 
or at least that was the way I interpreted the whole remaining
faithful to my husband etc.  I can promise to love my husband to be from now
until eternity, but I cannot promise that he will be the only man i ever
sleep with from our marriage onward (or before).  Leaving aside questions of
pre-marital sex (it's irrelevant in this situation I think) can I justify
the fact that I *am* bisexual, that I *will* have other relationships with
women, and that on occaision I *will* have sexual relationships involving more
than one other person at a time.  How do I reconcile this?  What does the
church allow, and what doesn't it?  What about if the other people I am
involved with I also make some kind of life long pact of love with?  (I
don't think that's realistic either in my case, but I'm throwing out
suggestsions.)  I'm not into *casual* sex, one night stands, etc. for the
most part, and the people I hav slept with and intend to sleep with are
considered close friends, people I truly love and care about in a real way.
However, Ic an't guarantee that they will be a part of my life forever,
either.  Only my finace can I guarantee that with.

I don't know if I made any sense at all.  I'm just very desperate for some
real knowledge on the subject, and I don't feel comfortable asking the
sister missionaries, having to come out to them only for them to possibly
tell me i am sinful and can't possibly be accepted into the church without
repenting, etc.  And I can't.

Any replies would be appreciated.

Thanks
*Sarah*  :)
-- 
Sarah Thornburg                    | "Love that dirty water.... 
Cambridge Technology Partners      | Boston you're my home." 
sthor@ctp.com                      |   
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: HeroSoftware@cup.portal.com (Bits of Magic)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Could anyone be poly?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:00:33 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec12.232400.7483@u.washington.edu>

Omaha sez:
>	I say that I am a jealous person when my SO jumps into bed(or
>any other place) with one or more other people and I am not involved.
>The reason I am jealous: I can't be there to enjoy the fun. However, it
My term for this is "Envy", as in "I want to be doing that".  Jealousy
implies, to me, "It's my RIGHT, not theirs, to be doing that".

evan
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jessica@wrs.com (Jessica Hart)
Subject: Advice wanted
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:02:49 GMT


I just posted a request for advice about approaching a new guy.
I also just realized this guy has a news feed and it is quite
possible he reads alt.polyamory. Well, it could happen! How
embarrassing.

I already got some very helpful response. Thanks. If anyone else
is thinking of giving some advice, you may also like to know that
the guy does not work where I work. 

One person sent me the "golden rules of polyamory" and they were
all perfectly applicable to ANY kind of relationship, I thought.
Only more so! Especially worthy of emphasis was to avoid people
who are not honest.

The trouble sometimes is figuring out who those people are
before it's too late.

:-(

jessica@wrs.com
Jessica Hart

(but I'm only a contractor so don't blame wrs!)


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: cyberoid@stein.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:16:27 GMT


Regarding getting involved with someone in a "long-term relationship,"
it was such an involvement - with me as the person in the long-term
relationship - that catapulted me out of an impossible and largely
unsatisfactory marriage, many years ago.  My new lover did have to
live with a certain amount of self-imposed guilt, but this became
submerged over the next couple of years that we spent together:  our
love was extremely pleasurable and opened new doors for me.  She did
me a decided favor.  On the other hand, this was a most difficult 
time for my former wife.  Human affairs are sticky; there are no per-
fect situations.  We do the best we can.

Bob
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Golden Rules of Polyamory
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:17:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Jessica posts three golden rules of polyamory:

> 1) Avoid people who work where you work.
>  
> 2) Avoid people who are in a long-term monogamous, or
> advertised as exclusive, or legal relationship, lest you
> end up as the evil person who tried to break them up.
>  
> 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).

I'm no expert but want to comment on these.  (This is usenet,
after all...)

(1) Is sound advice, but is overly general, and I don't
think is qualifies as a "golden rule" in the same sense
that avoiding dishonest people is a golden rule.
You're obviously better off getting involved with an honest
coworker than a dishonest non-coworker.

(2) Needs serious qualification.  I agree with avoiding those
"advertised as exclusive", but not with the "long-term-monogamous".
There are many people who do not have great numbers of sex partners
in their lives, and in my opinion, just because someone
has had say only 3 partners lifetime total and only one
in the last five years, does not mean they are any less
qualified to be your partner than somebody who is actively
bed-hopping.  So long as they are honest with both you
and their primary partner I don't see their monogaminity
as a problem.  You could expect a different emotional
quality to the relationship, but that could be what
all concerned are looking for.

And as for avoiding people in a "legal relationship", which
I assume means married people or domestic partners, many
such individuals are polyamorous and I don't see anything
wrong with that.

I completely agree with the first 2/3 or (3).
By all means avoid dishonest people.  But as for the last phrase:
I do NOT assume those who "are not sure what they want"
are "not being honest with themselves".  This could
just as easily go the other way -- someone who seems
convinced of what they want might very well be dishonest
with themselves about this.  There a difference between
being uncertain and being dishonest.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:35:55

In article <keithd.724471530@cluster> keithd@stallion.oz.au (Keith Duddy) writes:
> >> I guess because SO is a pretty recent term -- I've been using 
> >> it for about a year & it doesn't connote a very strong, or 
> >> commited, or whatever relationship -- I like it mostly
> >> because it's gender nuetral.
> 
> That's strange, because the way I use and have heard this term
> used is quite the opposite. When I first heard the term (4 or 5
> years ago) it was used by married people to describe their spouse
> in terms that could be interchangeably used by de-facto married

I started hearing SO in the seventies, back when divorce rates had 
suddenly peaked. At that time, it seemed to be used mainly by people
who were living together, but could not (seperated but not divorced people,
homosexual couples), or weren't quite confident enough to (divorcees, 
children of divorcees, college kids) marry. Now, usage seems to vary 
from that (the truly significant live-in lover) to someone with whom 
one is, in quaint old terms, "going steady," :-) but who may be gone 
in a month or two. (I have no idea if this is representative of the 
rest of the country (or state) or of other social groups. Your 
milage may vary. :-)

"Lover" seems to have an even wider range, from people who use it for
primarily physical relationships, to those who will use it only when 
"in love." 

I once had a girlfriend who considered both terms frivolous in conotation,
and always refered to me as her "sweetheart." :-) I found it jarring at 
first, but I got used to it. It's especially cute in ASL! :-)


--
Frances K. Selkirk		fks@ftp.com		(508) 685-3600
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Lacey, this is Rick, my, uh... um..."
"Your young man, dear."
"Um, right - my young man."
"Someday they'll have a name for it, dear."			-G.B. Trudeau

Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: an3096@anon.penet.fi (lazlo)
Subject: conversation stimulation
X-Anonymously-To: alt.polyamory
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:59:54 GMT


Hello everyone.  I have decided to brave the flames and delurk (albeit partially).  
I have posted here before using another anonymous service, which bit the dust due 
to certain legalities with which I am not familiar.

My present situation is somewhat confusing.  I have become very close to a woman I 
met earlier this year.  During the time that I have known her, I have seen several 
other women, but these other r'ships didn't become very serious.  I have always 
been completely open with my SO, because we have always been able to speak our minds 
with each other.

My dilemma is that even though I occasionally see two other women,  I am in a monogamous
relationship with my SO.  With one exception, I have been in a sexually monogamous r'ship 
with her for the past 9 months.  I have discussed the idea of polyamory with her and
she has told me that while she doesn't mind if I see other women, she isn't interested 
in meeting other men. (We are both basic vanilla heteros. Well, maybe vanilla swirl. ;)
When I pressed further, she said she might become jealous if I had sex with another woman.
She knows about the one exeption in which I _did_ sleep with another woman, but 
apparently she doesn't feel threatened since this other r'ship went down in flames.

The point to which I am converging is that as I become closer to my SO, I find that I am 
becoming more and more monogamous.  The idea of monogamy is not itself a bad thing, but 
I would like to have the freedom to explore other people.

What does everyone think?

Sorry to be posting anonymously, but I work at a certain institution in a certain state 
may not be very tolerant of alternative life styles.

laz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: terms for SO, lovers, ect
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:16:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.154756.8133@bcrka451.bnr.ca> 
 bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
>
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> The phrase "significant other" has an undercurrent of "this 
>> person is important to me, but..."
>
>This is quite the opposite for me.  To me, the significant part
>of SO means that that person plays a significant role in my life.
>I use SO to describe my spouse because it isn't gender specific,
>yet let's me declare that I see this person as important in my
>life.  

I recently coined the acronym "ISO" ;) for InSignificant Other -- the
content being referring to a friend, with whom I had no sexual 
relationship, who I was inviting to a party as a guest.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:04:28
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Dec11.194314.14772@microsoft.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec11202447@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec12.085113.3303@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: philipla@microsoft.com's message of 12 Dec 92 08:51:13 GMT


  Not a fun thing to post about, but hell, I hate people getting things
wrong, especially when they're persecuting someone.

In article <1992Dec12.085113.3303@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <MUFFY.92Dec11202447@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >[...]
> >Now you are lying, or maybe you have just been misled by Vicka's claims
> >of what I have said.  Show me this text where I "called her
> >relationships a cruel lie."

> In article <MUFFY.92Dec7140555@remarque.berkeley.edu> you said:
> >>What exactly 
> >>do you think is the lie, and to whom do you imagine it's been told?
> >The lie is that you're monogamous and you seem to be telling it to
> >everyone.
> ...
> >>"The one who thinks a thing is impossible 
> >>should get out of the way of the people actually doing it...."
> >It's not "impossible," it's just cruel.

  Ok, let's look at this.  She said that she says that vicka is saying a
lie.  In the second part she was talking about how it is cruel to be
poly while preferring monogomy.  She hasn't said that vicka's lying is
being cruel here... let's go to your next example:

> In article <MUFFY.92Dec8150841@remarque.berkeley.edu> you said:
> >I haven't used either of these arguments.  Also, I do not think that
> >monogamy is cruel at all, I think that claiming to be monogamous but
> >then not acting that way (in other words, lying to yourself and your
> >partners) is.
> ...
> >I don't lie to myself or my partners.  Whatever lifestyle someone
> >chooses, if I see them lying, I will think that that is wrong.  A poly
> >person who lies is equally cruel, or even more so, since they don't have
> >nearly as much pseudo-justification for it.

  And here, she says that claiming to be mono and not acting that way is
cruel.  She then says that lying is cruel, no matter what your lifestyle.

> Would you like me to go back and find even more examples?

  One would be nice.  The fact that she uses both "cruel" and "lie" in
her posts doesn't mean that she is saying that vicka's relationships are
a "cruel lie".

> Do you read the stuff you write, Muffy?

  Well, it's obvious that you don't.  Why are you being such an asshole?

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney)
Subject: Re: About Mormons...
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:46:50 GMT

> There is also
> prohibitions about sleeping with both the mother and daughter, when
> adultery would not become operable for the mother or daughter.
> (These are in Deuteronomy).
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Clark
> jclark@ucsd.edu

Just a comment: The prohibitions against marrying a mother and a daughter
(where the husband is NOT the biological father of the daughter) and
the prohibition against marrying sisters are is dispute.  There is reason
to believe that qualifiers exist which can make them "not optimal"
rather than prohibited.

--
[] SEANEWS [] Seattle Public Access Usenet News + Mail [] +1 206 747 NEWS []
finneyk@seanews.akita.com
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:22:27
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec9.220500.9510@u.washington.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Dec10002029@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.193751.24150@u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: vicka@wrq.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:37:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.193751.24150@u.washington.edu> vicka@wrq.com (the Littlest Orc) writes:

>> What I'm talking about is what it seems to me that "outness" is all 
>> about - how the *rest* of the world perceives you.

>As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the "rest of the world".  And
>my being out includes setting the likes of you straight about my life.

Indeed?  Well, I guess it isn't working.  All you've done, especially
with your definition of polyamory (you haven't addressed that yet), is
shown me that you are trying to redefine the word monogamy, apparently
because you like the idea of monogamy better than the idea of polyamory,
but can't quite manage to practice it.  Let me know when you convince
the rest of the world that "monogamous" means "having two partners at
the same time," and I will be "set straight."

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