One Penis Policy

[mercury]

Originally Posted by nycindie

No, I was reacting to the word LET, as if it is really up to the guy. A woman is in charge of her own vagina, her own heart. Now, if she agrees to an OPP and really wants things that way, fine. But the man dictating what the woman can and cannot do... nuh-uh.

What an OPP also does is discounts the value of a woman's love for another woman. The guys are like, "it's okay, you can be with another chick, that's hot but won't really count 'cause it isn't like you'll really fall in love and leave me for her or anything." The perceived threat of another penis is based in fantasy/illusion, but so is the idea that another vagina cannot be just as much of a threat as a penis is.

I totally agree. That's why I'm bothered by the OPP. It's sexist and implicitly says that a woman doesn't matter or "count" as much as a man.

[Glitter]

Originally Posted by mercury

That's impressive that you two are so free about it. That's how I think it should be. I like free love that's truly free love. If it's fake free love...ugh.

So how is it working out for you? I mean, you say that's your structure, but has it also manifested pretty easily as well? You're okay when he dates women and has serious interest and sex with them? And vice versa? Very little jealousy and drama?

What's strange is that I'm technically a mono person. But I think I could be poly easily. I really think I'm both. I think poly would be challenging, but I think I could do it a lot more easily than a lot of people who much more deeply and seriously claim it as an identity than I do.

Thank you It's one thing we've always been, very open and honest. Sometimes we forget and that leads to us blowing off steam and having hours long conversations. We're truly best friends first and lovers second. That sounds odd, haha!

That said, we are new to being openly poly. 6 years ago, maybe 7, we started talking about the idea of a 3rd person joining us. We rushed into the the idea and ended up with a couple of weird people trying to use us and that ended poorly. We left the idea for a couple of years, coming back to it and just talking. More recently, we've been brutally honest about our needs and wants, and realized that we both need more than each other. We can not supply 100% what we need (regardless of wants) to each other. It's not a bad thing at all. We both have always been open with crushes and attractions, so this is the most logical thing we could think of.

I have no problem with my hunny loving others, because he's such an amazingly giving, loving man. He is exceptional and I am blessed to have him in my life <3 I've even told him if he decides to father a child with another, tell me (even if it's an oops). I may have some feelings to overcome myself (having lost 2 pregnancies with him), but I want him to have that chance at fatherhood. I don't care if he's with 1 wo/man or 20, haha. As long as he is safe and happy, that is all that matters. He knows for me, I like both genders, and will be with both. Same thing, as long as I am safe and happy, that is all that matters. I guess we've always been the odd ducks among our friends, lol. We're very open to having loving relationships with other people (just not swinging, not for us)

[hyperskeptic]

Originally Posted by mercury

I totally agree. That's why I'm bothered by the OPP. It's sexist and implicitly says that a woman doesn't matter or "count" as much as a man.

I don't have chapter-and-verse evidence, but I suspect the OPP is an artifact of the property model of marriage, according to which marriage is a contract by which a man acquires exclusive access to a virgin uterus to guarantee the sons he raises, the sons who inherit his property, are really his.

It's patriarchy at it's purest.

(Well, there may be purer forms: religious versions of polygyny, which may grant or promise to certain members of a community - sheiks, bishops, martyrs, etc. - exclusive access to more than one virgin uterus.)

Traditionally, adultery was a property crime committed by one man against another, whereby the offender pollutes or sullies the uterus of another man's chattel-wife, risking the production of illegitimate spawn (which attitude also devalues children!)

Some of the more obvious aspects of the property model have fallen away - though the standard quip about the cow and the free milk seems to be another vestige of it - but the idea of the penis as an agent of pollution, as something that sullies or stains a woman's vagina on contact, seems to persist in the minds of many.

For someone stuck with the vestiges of this traditional mindset - and it is difficult to unlearn - another woman doesn't pose the same kind of threat.

[JaneQSmythe]

19 years

I don't think it is a matter of time but a matter of experience and circumstance.

When I got together with MrS I had a fair amount of sexual experiences with men but the whole emotional relationship aspect was new - so I was exploring that for the first time with him. I wanted to continue to explore my newly discovered bisexuality by pursuing sexual experiences with women, which he was supportive of.

The original OPP didn't get challenged very much or very often because, frankly, my focus has been on women and I never ran across a man who I was attracted to enough to bother seriously challenging the OPP for. Until Dude came along (19 years later)...

We had a few months of rough transition (mainly due to my own self-deception and inexperience) but made it through. MrS was able to "get over it" with this particular metamour (his best friend) at this particular point in our lives. Could he have accepted it sooner with someone else? No way to know. Now that the OPP has been broken I think his feelings are more in tune with his ideology (he always agreed with my poly philosophies in theory - it was the gut reactions that tripped him up) and if it ever comes up again (in another 19 years?) it would be less challenging.

JaneQ

[JohnnyDangerously]

Wow... This entire concept is soooo very unfair, controlling, and sexist... Not to mention the personal insecurities that it just screams about!!

And this is not a rule a truly poly person would even consider -- swinger or typical insecure & controlling male type more likely...

[ThatGirlInGray]

Wouldn't a swinger with a OPP kinda defeat the purpose of being a swinger? How would it even work??

[km34]

Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray

Wouldn't a swinger with a OPP kinda defeat the purpose of being a swinger? How would it even work??

*like*

I often feel like swingers get blamed for a lot of shit around here. lol

As for OPPs, I don't think they're inherently sexist. Insecure, sure, but maybe or maybe not sexist.

I think most people agree that men and women are, in general, different. Both naturally (men generally have more natural strength) and culturally (men are taught that it isn't as important to talk about feelings whereas women are taught to cultivate their empathy/willingness to share). So, I think it is very easy for a man to accept that a woman can offer something that he can't, whether it be an innate bond over womanhood or something more complex.

Eventually, I would hope that all men realize that every individual is different and can offer different things in a relationship, but really, isn't accepting that you aren't perfect a first step?

Now, if a man asks for an OPP because a woman loving another woman "isn't really love" - that's sexist.

On a side note, my husband and I have never limited each other on who the other could be with. Never saw the point. We knew monogamy wasn't for us, and figured if it didn't make sense to deny attraction in general, why would it make sense to deny attraction based on sex or gender? We've also never really struggled with accepting the other having an interest (romantic or sexual) in anyone else. We've somewhat struggled with schedules and making sure we set aside specific no-distractions-allowed time with each other, but nothing caused by being nonmonogamous. I guess our logic beat our envy/jealousy on the nonmonogamy front (yay!).

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by mercury

Are you saying that if a woman keeps not having a boyfriend (only girlfriends) in order to keep her husband/primary boyfriend comfortable and unthreatened, she'll eventually resent it and leave?

Not necessarily. That depends upon the woman. But, I think that any relationship where an effort is made to "change" from the "oldschool mono/control" dynamic to something different is going to fail if there is a simultaneous effort to keep the control factors in place for ONE party.

The way I understood your question was that the woman accepts a OPP in the hopes that eventually the man will open his mind to her being with another man. THAT isn't going to work imho. Because, he has no reason to open his mind to that. Now, if there was a "I will agree not to have sex with any other men for x amount of time while you get used to the idea" that might be different. But, just accepting the policy-its going to blow up. For a person to get used to something-they have to face it. They aren't going to get over their fears and insecurities regarding her being with another man-by avoiding it.

In fact, the best observation/advise I've heard/seen/read was from Mono on here and it was regarding getting over the jealousy and insecurity of your woman being with another man.

His suggestion was watch it-or be there with her a few times-so you get used to seeing her HAPPY with the other man. For starters, we become somewhat immune to the shock value of something we see often (hear about this a lot regarding teens and violent movies/games). So if you put it in your own face often enough-your mind will "normalize" the experience. Which in turn makes it less distressing.
Additionally, often times when we see that they are happy with the other-and then we experience afterward that they are still committed and happy with us-we are able to dissolve the fear that being satisfied by someone else will make them want to leave.

BUT-if we simply try to avoid facing the circumstance, we never get the chance to normalize it or to reassure ourselves. Instead we suffer in a false security.

Originally Posted by Glitter

I actually never thought about that. Hubby and I agreed to let me date who I want, and he date who he wants. Just makes sense to us. Restricting ourselves because someone is fearful is just nurturing that fear. It may not be all that comfortable in the beginning, but the positives outweigh the negatives, so it works

Agreed and GREAT JOB! Wish it had been that simple of a decision for us-but we're getting there.

[CielDuMatin]

Originally Posted by JohnnyDangerously

Wow... This entire concept is soooo very unfair, controlling, and sexist... Not to mention the personal insecurities that it just screams about!!

I think it has a lot to do with personal insecurites, but I disagree with you that the rest necessarily follows. If everyone is perfectly happy with this rule in place, then it's most certainly not inherently unfair, no more than monogamy is.

Originally Posted by JohnnyDangerously

And this is not a rule a truly poly person would even consider -- swinger or typical insecure & controlling male type more likely...

I strongly disagree with you on this one. For one, the definition of "true poly" is a very dangerous thing to try to nail down - it might not conform to YOUR ideas of what poly is, but I think we have to be careful of trying to speak for the entire poly community, and to imply that something that everyone involved may well be happy with isn't "true poly".

I don't like OPPs, and don't have one myself, but to say that those that have them aren't "poly enough" is pretty offensive.

[mercury]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

His suggestion was watch it-or be there with her a few times-so you get used to seeing her HAPPY with the other man. For starters, we become somewhat immune to the shock value of something we see often (hear about this a lot regarding teens and violent movies/games). So if you put it in your own face often enough-your mind will "normalize" the experience. Which in turn makes it less distressing.
Additionally, often times when we see that they are happy with the other-and then we experience afterward that they are still committed and happy with us-we are able to dissolve the fear that being satisfied by someone else will make them want to leave.

BUT-if we simply try to avoid facing the circumstance, we never get the chance to normalize it or to reassure ourselves. Instead we suffer in a false security.

Yep. That makes so much sense. No pain, no gain.

I think this is one reason why I feel very poly-ready; I have a high pain threshold in general (both emotionally and physically, but more so emotionally). I don't shy away from unpleasant feelings. And maybe, just maybe, I've had enough emotional pain (maybe more so than the average, even, when it comes to romance) that I feel really strong about dealing with unpleasant feelings and overcoming them. I tend to transfer my willingness to deal with pain to other people, who aren't willing. And that frustrates me because I hold people to my standards; it may not be fair, but it's only natural.

So, I'm not a guy. But I find it frustrating when guys can't or won't let themselves process the pain/jealousy that comes with a woman being with another man. Just do it. That's another thing about me; I don't very often baby step. I jump in and deal with it.

A woman may have the other man's penis in her vagina, but she also has your penis in her vagina. Things are equal. If she likes him more, she likes him more. But you can't say he has an advantage over you on any technical grounds.

The idea of 'never letting her even know' what that other man is like (even though she may want to) strikes me as living a lie. You're only "winning" by default, and it strikes me as...controlling.