Originally Posted by Mya
Also, I'm wondering why the OPP is the only bad thing among all the agreements people can make.
So for a while in the beginning we had a.. OPP for me and monogamy for him. How unfair to him! After a while we started opening up much more, but one step at a time. I haven't seen much criticism for situations like that, where it's the woman who has more freedom than the man. Or is there plenty that I just don't see?
I think there are plenty of other agreements people make that others would agree often come from a problematic place. DADT, for example. Most either just aren't common enough to have gotten cute nicknames or else no one smart has come up with one yet. I'd say another example of an agreement that tends to be met with scoffing is "sex is ok but love is not" -- I guess you could just call that swinging, but not all people do.
As for where you and your husband started, that does have a name, mono/poly, and no one here is against it because we understand that monogamy is right for some people. It can go either way, gender-wise, for het couples.
As for why the term one-vagina-policy or some variant isn't in common use, I think it's just that it's much rarer in comparison. My observation is that we have many more bi women here than bi men, so the opportunity for poly to exist without it being absurd under a one-vagina-policy is much less (you can ask a bi woman to just sleep with women, but how do you ask a straight man to just sleep with men?).
One agreement that we see sometimes that has no gender bias, no nickname, and that people find problematic, is when both partners in an m/f couple are bi and they agree to both an opp and an ovp -- in other words, each can pursue same sex partners but not opposite sex partners.
Now I've said above that I personally accepted a de facto opp in my relationship, and I would do so again if my bf needed it -- I love him, and it's not a big sacrifice. I accept that it serves a needed purpose for some people... whether that's because of cultural or biological imperatives I couldn't say. But ALL gendered rules bug the heck out of me, each and every one and I would *rather* they didn't have to exist. It doesn't make any sense to me on a personal level. People are people, bits are bits, hearts are hearts.