OPP, unicorns, and derogatory poly terminology

This thread has a very sad overtone that I just figured out. There are a lot of women who feel they have very little power in this society...and it's not the women who have agreed to OPPs...it's the ones that can't accept that some women can do it willingly by their own choice. Compromise is not a sign of weakness...it's a sign of reality and self assuredness.

I'm glad to be surrounded by empowered women...which makes me privileged and honored.

I'm always surprised when a guy is surprised that women still feel oppressed in our society. Even though a woman does feel empowered in her own life, the overtones of oppression are still everywhere we look, whether it's about what we wear, what career we choose, where we can walk alone without fear, or how many sexual partners we have. So, yeah, the women who go along with policies they don't want may not feel empowered enough to ask for what they do want, but it's because those messages hit us hard every day and many women just have not been trained or experienced enough in standing up for ourselves. Often when you do step into your own power as a woman, you know you will be alone because many of the people (especially men) who say they want that for you are full of shit when it actually comes to fruition, and they suddenly disappear. It is not easy to break out of preconceived societal roles that are pushed on us all the time.
 
Last edited:
If people didn't judge all the time, every day, we wouldn't know when to cross the street or how to dress properly for bad weather. Judgment is a natural, essential aspect of being human.

Another person who doesn't consider the difference between making a judgement and being judgemental. If judgement is natural and human, then why have 41% of transgender people attempted suicide? (as just one example). Do you think it might have something to do with the the prejudice they face, caused by judgemental people? The fact is, while JUDGEMENT is a natural, essential aspect of being human, being JUDGEMENTAL of others' choices is a totally different thing, which causes a great deal of stress and harm to others.

Stop confusing JUDGEMENT with JUDGEMENTAL. The two are entirely different things.
 
This thread has a very sad overtone that I just figured out. There are a lot of women who feel they have very little power in this society...and it's not the women who have agreed to OPPs...it's the ones that can't accept that some women can do it willingly by their own choice. Compromise is not a sign of weakness...it's a sign of reality and self assuredness.

I'm glad to be surrounded by empowered women...which makes me privileged and honored.

I don't consider compromise to be weakness at ALL. I think it's the only way people can be in loving relationships and try to have things work out the best they can for both parties, which means sometimes someone will have to compromise, and sometimes the other person will. I do it all of the time and I don't feel less because of it.

However...

in my reality, I have most often been the one making compromises for somebody else and having them unwilling to compromise even in the slightest for me.

That's where my sadness lies. Not that I should think compromise is bad, or that people shouldn't do it, but I have never seen it returned to me, nor to many (actually most) of the other beautiful women I know.

That has been my experience over the past 30 years. I have no doubt that my own choices in who I have chosen to be with play a large part in that dynamic and I'm definitely working on that right now.

Mono-- yes you are surrounded by beautiful and empowered and strong women. The difference is... you appreciate that and return it in kind. I wish more men were like that...
 
Stop confusing JUDGEMENT with JUDGEMENTAL. The two are entirely different things.
I'm not confused. No need to take a condescending tone toward me. You come across as really angry.

Part of the problem people have is that we want others to stop judging us. That's just unrealistic, we judge ourselves and other people all the time. The trick is to rise above it. We have a choice in how we let judgments affect us.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of women who feel they have very little power in this society...and it's not the women who have agreed to OPPs...it's the ones that can't accept that some women can do it willingly by their own choice. Compromise is not a sign of weakness...it's a sign of reality and self assuredness.

??

I really don't see that any of the women who are posting here are saying that women can't willingly choose to accept OPPs. In fact, my perception had been that everyone is saying essentially the same thing -- that rules like OPP can be problematic but can also make sense for some people in some scenarios, and that it's good to be able to describe things but bad to use language to pre-judge women as necessarily being victims or men as necessarily being bad guys with no sense of the nuance in a given situation.

Where we're exploring and discussing these issues is around how we describe things, how we negotiate things, and why things may take on one configuration more than another. Saying you don't like something is not the same as saying that anyone who accepts it is powerless. I don't like OPPs, but I accepted one for a time and I understand fully that I did that out of love and healthy compromise (by some people's definition I guess that makes it not, actually, an OPP? it's hard to discuss things when we're using language differently...). I've also seen other scenarios described by new female posters on this board where an OPP was *not* their choice and they did *not* feel they had the say they wanted in that area. Acknowledging that doesn't invalidate my experience or rory's experience.

Are you really seeing anyone who's posting here say or imply that they can't accept that some women enter OPPs willingly, or am I misunderstanding your comment?
 
@ AnnabelMore
Yes, I agree with a lot of what you said. While “terms don't insult people, people insult people” may be true, I would argue that when these terms are repeated pejoratively, we find they lose their original quality over time and, in fact, become insulting by default via the euphemism treadmill.

Should people be pre-judged, informed that they may well be unicorn-hunters just because they outwardly present as such? Well, the fact is that any bi woman they might approach will probably do just that if she has any experience in poly at all. So, I don't see introducing them to the term as mean, but rather as a reality call -- "whether or not this describes you ( and does it, by the way?) you should be prepared to overcome this preconception." Again, this is not the term's fault, it's the fault of the concept and how it is applied by far too many inexperienced couples. And, again, the negative connotation is there in terms of heteronormativity for the same reason that it is in OPP (unicorn-hunting naturally incorporates OPP).

I wish I had put it the way you have here. I don't have a problem with bringing up the possibility that they may not have thought things through. I take issue with giving them the label as a type of stigmatic stamp...especially when no clarification has been sought.

this makes MY blood boil.... this to me is all the difference between unicorn hunting and searching for a triad opportunity. The woman doesn't *join* anything. You become three. Look at it the other way around, you are *joining* her also. I find this explanation the key to the issue. People in triads are not a couple and their other, they are all three independent and autonomous people. The fact that two are married becomes irrelevant and a triffle in the end. This is what is not understood most of the time.

I suppose I need some clarification. Did my post make your blood boil or are you talking about something else? I don't recall saying anything about a partner pecking order. If my relationship configuration changes from 2 people to more people, don't we need to consider terms such as primary and secondary? Don't terms like these help define how each person in the relationship interacts with the others as far as decision making and life plans are concerned? In my 7 posts to date, I don't think I have said very much about any of this. Isn't the point of this thread to help with doing away with some of the assuming and encourage more clarification? I wish you would have asked me to explain a little more.

Redpepper, maybe I am wrong, but I got the feeling that you added some sub-meanings to my words when you read my post. I was talking about my experience and ideas but I didn't put a lot of detail in with it all. My wife and I are really sorting out our ideas and hopes with a potential new relationship. I never knew anything about how asking someone to “join us” would cause such a reaction. Is this a typical phrase in the community which should be considered taboo? It certainly was not my intent to provoke and I do try to consider all sides of a situation. For me “joining us” or “joining them” has more to do with the speaker's physical point of view and logistics rather than expecting one person to be how another person (or people) demand(s). Would you be equally pissed if a single woman asked my wife and I to join her?

I would say that my wife and I are very open to whatever ideas may come our way and however things would work out with three or more people involved. If someone joins us or if we join someone is all the same in my opinion. To use what I understand to be your definition of joining someone, it could happen either way depending on who we might meet, what we might learn about one another and how we all would decide to proceed with our lives from that point. For me that's all a long way down the road.

This is a forum. On forums we talk about stuff, push each others boundaries of knowledge and understanding, and hopefully do that with a bit of caring and consideration for the person struggling. If a person comes here and tells their story expecting that they will just have it read and not responded to that is ludicrous and they likely shouldn't be here. If they don't like the response they get then its usually because they were hoping everyone would agree with them and are struggling with the FACT that not everyone does and sometimes no one does...

Of course this is a forum and we can talk about things. What I was getting at was in reference to the OP. One of my first impressions on this forum was when a polynewbie got one of these labels slapped on him when he was just getting to know the community/lifestyle/figuring things out. It was not very friendly or inviting. He was just judged with no further inquiry into the details of his situation. I wonder if he ever came back. I'm not into naming names otherwise I would consider posting a link if I could even still find the thread. (I honestly don't remember who it was.) But the thing is, the wise experienced practicing polyamorist(s) just kinda threw a label out and seemed to walk away chuckling.

Speaking again as a newbie on this forum and to this lifestyle, I think it would be very beneficial to other newcomers to give them the benefit of the doubt before assigning labels or ridiculing their early thoughts/erroneous terminology on the topic. Couldn't we just ask or prompt them to clarify what they mean? This community has some special vernacular to be sure and I understand that some of it may be playfully tongue-in-cheek. A bit of tact is always greatly appreciated!
 
My wife and I are really sorting out our ideas and hopes with a potential new relationship. I never knew anything about how asking someone to “join us” would cause such a reaction. Is this a typical phrase in the community which should be considered taboo? It certainly was not my intent to provoke and I do try to consider all sides of a situation. For me “joining us” or “joining them” has more to do with the speaker's physical point of view and logistics rather than expecting one person to be how another person (or people) demand(s). Would you be equally pissed if a single woman asked my wife and I to join her?

The issue is that so-o-o-o many MF couples say, "We're looking for a woman to join us," to "add to our relationship," to "complete us," and so on. The main words that are annoying are not just "join" but "us." It is quite simply, an insulting stance to take because it presents the couple as a whole (rather than two individuals) and the woman they are seeking as basically an appendage to their already established relationship. They say, "We have such a beautiful relationship and we want to share it with the right girl," like that "girl" should feel so lucky and grateful that they have now deigned her worthy of sharing their bliss. Keyword: THEIR.

What RP reacted to is the negation of seeing the three people in that situation as THREE PEOPLE. There will be four relationships in that scenario: husband + wife, husband + girlfriend, wife + girlfriend, and all three people relating together. The common thing is that the couple only sees it as US + ONE, and that the additional person is there to augment the couple's relationship. And that is the aspect that boils one's blood. What of the woman's needs, wants, desires, and expression of her individuality? And then when they want her to move in with them and be totally exclusive to them, on call for fucking and housework, but without any say as to how the household is run or whether they can see other people on their own time, you can see how fucking unreal this "unicorn hunting" is, and why people get irritated whenever anyone says "we're looking for someone to join us."

Speaking again as a newbie on this forum and to this lifestyle...
Well, okay, since you used the words "this lifestyle," here is another discussion of that terminology for you. Maybe you will find this interesting also:
What is this "lifestyle" you mention?
 
Last edited:
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.
So it's ok for one person to give more freedom to their partner than what they themselves need (mono/poly), but it's not ok if the person giving more freedom is a female whose male partner wants OPP (or other variants of this phenomenon)?

I think the difference is that in mono/poly, we tend to assume that the monogamous partner is monogamous out of preference, whereas in OPP (or its less common but equally problematic cousin OVP) we tend to assume that the partner with the gender constraint is not acting out of their preference, but rather out of deference to their partner's needs/fears/etc. The former is generally a configuration with no explicit rule behind it, the latter is by definition a rule.

Note that I'm not at all saying that a bi woman in an m/f couple who chooses to seek a female partner must really want another man more or even at all, nor am I saying that it's not her free choice to agree to the OPP rule/boundary/agreement/what-have-you. However, I do believe that in the vast majority of cases, all things being equal, most poly bi women would not choose to say, with no input from their partner, "Y'know, I think I want to agree that I won't ever pursue another male partner." Some may, but I really wouldn't guess that most would -- the women who are in OPP relationships on the whole, I would assume, agree to it (some freely out of love, some because they feel coerced) for the sake of their male partner, not purely from preference. Certainly that was the case for me.

What about mono/poly on the other hand? My observation is that most monos in mono/poly relationships are expressing their personal preference. My bf, for example, is mono because he doesn't want to form a romantic partnership with anyone but me, nor does he think he even *could*. We don't have a rule about it just like we don't have a rule about him sleeping with men. If he changed his feelings and wanted to do either of those things we would talk about it and I certainly hope I would make space for him to have that, and I hope and believe that most polys in mono/poly setups would do the same.

In the less-common (to my observation) case that mono/poly is *not* the preference of the mono partner, but rather something agreed to at the behest of the poly partner, then I think most poly people would consider that quite problematic, probably even moreso than OPP. Now I'm certain that there could be, and are, circumstances like that where the relationship is still healthier that way than it would be otherwise (such as if there are compelling reasons to believe that the partner following the mono rule would be really bad at being poly and both partners agree that he/she should stay away from it), but in most cases a mono requirement on one partner and not the other would come off like something that might be ok as a temporary, opening up measure, but which is not ok as a long-term strategy due to its inherent unfairness.

Every relationship is different, every relationship is nuanced. We may have positive or negative feelings about certain configurations or rules, but as most of us have said at this point, each relationship should be judged on its own merits in the end and I think on this board they generally are. Some relationships have more explaining to do than others, so to speak, because of people's prejudices, but I don't really see how we get past that when those prejudices are often based on real things, other than to point it out when they're not.

If we're not saying the terms need to be discarded or redefined (*are* we saying that?) then the issue is just in how they're used. I know that we've said it may not be helpful to redirect the conversation back to the other thread that started this whole thing, but I do think it matters that Mags has apologized. I see her mistake not as being in using the term OPP but in using the word "imposed", which I took from the wording of her apology to be how she saw it too. That was taking (implied) assumptions too far, perhaps -- had that not yet been addressed? What are we discussing at this point? I'm not against further discussion, just curious.
 
I probably coulda managed to say all that in a lot fewer words... :p
 
Speaking again as a newbie on this forum and to this lifestyle, I think it would be very beneficial to other newcomers to give them the benefit of the doubt before assigning labels or ridiculing their early thoughts/erroneous terminology on the topic. Couldn't we just ask or prompt them to clarify what they mean? This community has some special vernacular to be sure and I understand that some of it may be playfully tongue-in-cheek. A bit of tact is always greatly appreciated!

I think that most of the time, most people are very good about not sticking a label on a person, but asking them the questions that they may not have thought about. I have seen people mention to the couple that they may want to search the forum for "unicorn" so that they can read previous threads regarding this topic to gain some understanding and perhaps spark some conversations amongst the couple. I don't see that as labeling, though, but as trying to be helpful and informative.

I know there are probably a few people that are just burnt out, as just in the 9 months I've been on this board I've seen 10-15 couples come on and post their "searching for a third" post, and that's just the ones I've read, I usually skip those at this point. I'm thinking there have been quite a bit more, maybe at least one a week? And I can see that sometimes after having the save conversation and posing the same questions it can get a bit much.

And I do agree with NYCindie that MOST (not all but most) couples do come on here using the Us +1 terminology, not seeing how that is not taking into consideration they are looking to date a real life human person with wants, needs and fears.

And lastly... I've been involved with online forums for many years, and I've always found that taking a look around the forum, doing some reading and seeing what the atmosphere is like, reading on subjects I'm personally interested in to gain more information and generally getting a feel for the subject BEFORE posting to be very beneficial.

I do think it's good to be gentle in asking questions and to not label people, but I also feel it behooves people to do some legwork and not just blindly post their declaration to "add a third, find another couple that they will switch with equally and all will love each other equally, have a harem" whatever they're desire may be.

I find people often come here and post expecting a certain response and are disappointed and sometimes defensive when instead they are met with thoughtful and in-depth questions asking them to do a little introspection.

And lastly, this is an online forum. If you don't like the responses from a particular person, you're always free to ignore them. Not everybody's personalities can get along, and that's O.K.
 
Another person who doesn't consider the difference between making a judgement and being judgemental. If judgement is natural and human, then why have 41% of transgender people attempted suicide? (as just one example). Do you think it might have something to do with the the prejudice they face, caused by judgemental people? The fact is, while JUDGEMENT is a natural, essential aspect of being human, being JUDGEMENTAL of others' choices is a totally different thing, which causes a great deal of stress and harm to others.

I've gotta say, I don't think this comparison makes any sense in this context. Trans is something you are whereas opp or mono/poly or unicorn-hunting or whatever are things you do. Unicorn-hunters aren't wired that way and I don't think our judgments put them in any danger whatsoever of self-harm. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, I just think that comparing the terrible prejudice a group of people faces just for being who they are to some posters having a negative reaction to some relationship configurations is over the top in a way that really obscures your point...
 
While “terms don't insult people, people insult people” may be true, I would argue that when these terms are repeated pejoratively, we find they lose their original quality over time and, in fact, become insulting by default via the euphemism treadmill.

This is a good point and, indeed, I think that both of the terms that started this discussion are in fact meant to sound a little insulting or at *least* silly -- unicorn-hunting (silly and delusional sounding) and one penis policy (silly and officious sounding) describe concepts that people legitimately have problems with and the wording reflects that. If we use them we should understand that they probably will souns like insults... cuz they kinda are, even if only mild ones when divorced from the context of strong feelings some people have built up around them.

Still, even without the terms, prejudice is there, as you're seeing in this very thread with the comments directed at you. It's funny, you're experiencing in micro just what we're discussing in macro. It's a tough issue. You haven't said anything negative and yet people are directing a lot of unhappiness at you. It has nothing to do with you personally, people just get so tired of seeing the same sentiments expressed in the same way in situations that are generally leading to nothing good. You say that you're open to whatever comes, which makes you totally *not* a unicorn hunter in my book, but because you happened to use a phrasing they often use the frustration boils over in your direction.

I think much the same thing happens with OPP... people get so angry on behalf of the women upon whom it *is* actually being imposed that they react negatively whenever the subject comes up. I blame the couples and men who behave badly and give others a bad name far more than I blame the people (me at times being one of them) who get a little tetchy when certain things come up. I can see that it would be way disconcerting for a new person, though.

Of course, sometimes certain ways of talking about things DO reveal problematic mindsets... I don't think there's reason to assume that in your case, but at least now you know how you might sound to some folks.

Speaking again as a newbie on this forum and to this lifestyle, I think it would be very beneficial to other newcomers to give them the benefit of the doubt before assigning labels or ridiculing their early thoughts/erroneous terminology on the topic. Couldn't we just ask or prompt them to clarify what they mean? This community has some special vernacular to be sure and I understand that some of it may be playfully tongue-in-cheek. A bit of tact is always greatly appreciated!

I agree that we should try to err on the side of kindness. I can't bring myself to assume the best a lot of the time... there are too many bad examples out there... but I can at least endeavor to control myself and give a person a chance to explain, and try to remain sympathetic to the fact that new people who are doing messed up things truly just don't have the experience or perspective to understand why something might be a problem.

It's just so, so, so frustrating sometimes!! It's funny, women who are in the position of being treated like a unicorn understand immediately why things are problematic when it's explained to them, whereas unicorn-hunting couples rarely/never get what you're trying to say. I guess people may just have to learn from experience. I can't "save" them from their mistakes and trying to do so just annoys them and frustrates me. I think I'm going to take a page from Minx's book and try to engage less when that particular topic comes up.
 
I tend to think that OPP policies are often based on the male feeling out of control of the situation, that he is the only man for his partner, his manliness and his fantasy about his wife with a woman jeopardized, other men are a threat, and his need for everything to slow right down so he can think and catch up with all that. Sometimes that means "nope, not looking at it, I am the man and you will obey" and sometimes it means that they were or are blindsided by the situation and need time. In the latter case I think that the female would do best for herself and her partner by going at his pace and working at it slowly. The feelings he is having can be gotten through.

If a man says that he essentially the woman will obey and the woman shrugs and says "whatever, I want a relationship with a woman in my life anyway" then it would seem that the problem is solved. I don't think it really is however. The man seems to have just been given a pass to not work on anything, breath a sigh of relief and think that its all easy peasy now so he can sit back in his chair with his hands behind his head. In the time I have been here and experienced this scenario through other means, it usually catches up with him as it becomes evident that really ANY relationship is going to pull his woman away from him sexually, emotionally intimately and in terms of time. It becomes evident a lot of the time that it makes no difference whether or not the partner is male or female in this way.

Sometimes the situation evolves to a point where by the woman decides that she would like a male lover and he is forced to work on it all any way...

As far as I can tell an OPP is a description of a male that is coming from the place of fear and ignorance around what is achievable in poly. It is HIS policy, not the woman's. It is not a compromise or a boundary to me, its more like a veto of the woman's right to create her own path/journey, have her own independence, and empowerment.

Most men don't like the feeling they get when they know they have taken someones power away from them through and OPP (known or unknown)... I truly believe that in this day and age. It just doesn't sit right and from that movement and progress can be made to come out of that uncomfortable place... I think a woman would be wise to leave if this is not the case.

A woman with a man sitting uncomfortably in his OPP I think should allow her man to sit in that uncomfortable feeling for a bit and stew in it because it is a powerful feeling that I think brings about change. I would wager that a woman that keeps expressing how reigned in she feels and doesn't let up on her open and honest communication about how the OPP is affecting her is going to eventually see her man begin to move out of his OPP into something with comprises, then boundaries and then maybe complete freedom to follow her heart.
 
this makes my blood boil.... This to me is all the difference between unicorn hunting and searching for a triad opportunity. The woman doesn't *join* anything. You become three. Look at it the other way around, you are *joining* her also. I find this explanation the key to the issue. People in triads are not a couple and their other, they are all three independent and autonomous people. The fact that two are married becomes irrelevant and a triffle in the end. This is what is not understood most of the time.

i suppose i need some clarification. Did my post make your blood boil or are you talking about something else? I don't recall saying anything about a partner pecking order. If my relationship configuration changes from 2 people to more people, don't we need to consider terms such as primary and secondary? Don't terms like these help define how each person in the relationship interacts with the others as far as decision making and life plans are concerned? In my 7 posts to date, i don't think i have said very much about any of this. Isn't the point of this thread to help with doing away with some of the assuming and encourage more clarification? I wish you would have asked me to explain a little more.

Redpepper, maybe i am wrong, but i got the feeling that you added some sub-meanings to my words when you read my post. I was talking about my experience and ideas but i didn't put a lot of detail in with it all. My wife and i are really sorting out our ideas and hopes with a potential new relationship. I never knew anything about how asking someone to “join us” would cause such a reaction. Is this a typical phrase in the community which should be considered taboo? It certainly was not my intent to provoke and i do try to consider all sides of a situation. For me “joining us” or “joining them” has more to do with the speaker's physical point of view and logistics rather than expecting one person to be how another person (or people) demand(s). Would you be equally pissed if a single woman asked my wife and i to join her?

I would say that my wife and i are very open to whatever ideas may come our way and however things would work out with three or more people involved. If someone joins us or if we join someone is all the same in my opinion. To use what i understand to be your definition of joining someone, it could happen either way depending on who we might meet, what we might learn about one another and how we all would decide to proceed with our lives from that point. For me that's all a long way down the road.

this is a forum. On forums we talk about stuff, push each others boundaries of knowledge and understanding, and hopefully do that with a bit of caring and consideration for the person struggling. If a person comes here and tells their story expecting that they will just have it read and not responded to that is ludicrous and they likely shouldn't be here. If they don't like the response they get then its usually because they were hoping everyone would agree with them and are struggling with the fact that not everyone does and sometimes no one does...

of course this is a forum and we can talk about things. What i was getting at was in reference to the op. One of my first impressions on this forum was when a polynewbie got one of these labels slapped on him when he was just getting to know the community/lifestyle/figuring things out. It was not very friendly or inviting. He was just judged with no further inquiry into the details of his situation. I wonder if he ever came back. I'm not into naming names otherwise i would consider posting a link if i could even still find the thread. (i honestly don't remember who it was.) but the thing is, the wise experienced practicing polyamorist(s) just kinda threw a label out and seemed to walk away chuckling.

Speaking again as a newbie on this forum and to this lifestyle, i think it would be very beneficial to other newcomers to give them the benefit of the doubt before assigning labels or ridiculing their early thoughts/erroneous terminology on the topic. Couldn't we just ask or prompt them to clarify what they mean? This community has some special vernacular to be sure and i understand that some of it may be playfully tongue-in-cheek. A bit of tact is always greatly appreciated!
So you are looking for a woman to join you as your secondary in your poly lifestyle.... it seems pretty clear to me by the words that you use what you are hoping to achieve. I am only reading your words.

Yes they make my blood boil. And yes they would be considered taboo. Not because they are from you in particular as I indicated in the first lines of my last post, but because they indicate a complete lack of thought about who you think you are going to get to become your secondary. Quite frankly I get sick of hearing such blatant disregard for others... whether the person means to be disregarding or not.

For the record I have never heard a single woman ever say that she would want a couple to "join her." I assume because she is excited about the idea of having two separate love relationships that would also include her together with them, not a conglomerate made up of two that will assimilate her because they are looking for a secondary to "join them" in THEIR lifestyle.

Please don't assume that this forum is entirely made up of newbie haters. I don't think it is at all fair to judge an entire forum on the remarks of one person. I suggest that you decide to take on a more positive approach to this forum as it can be a great resource and of great help if you are open to it. It seems you have decided that you are not going to be helped, that you will be scoffed at and have already decided to leave here saying "I told you so" before even getting started.... we were all new here and new to poly at one time, we know where you are coming from, but a lot of us are not new now and are only here out of our love to help others. No other reason... I would be taking advantage of that rather than trying to provoke agreements that we all suck.

Your response in this thread is not much different than most people who hunt unicorns to me. I'm sorry you feel like you were "slapped with a label." If you don't like it then I suggest changing your language to something along the lines of "I am a man who has a wife and we are looking to form a triad with a woman who is equal to us in every way because she is just as valuable to the relationship as either of us would be." If you disagree with this statement I gave you as an option then I would wonder if you are a unicorn hunter.... that is not meant as derogatory, its a term commonly used for people who tell their story (however brief) as you have thus far.

I, for one, am not interested in clarification of your story as I have read like stories over and over again. If you care to tell it I will read it (perhaps you have already elsewhere), but please understand when given the information you gave us here about finding what seems to be a unicorn to join you in being your secondary so you can have the poly lifestyle you are trying to have most of us that have read thoroughly, been here forever, or have been poly forever will likely not ask for details.

I hope I said this in the nicest way possible as you seem to be easily offended. :p Its not my intent to offend (as I have said before), I am just saying it like it is for myself and as others have had similar responses you might want to look at that :)
 
In the less-common (to my observation) case that mono/poly is *not* the preference of the mono partner, but rather something agreed to at the behest of the poly partner, then I think most poly people would consider that quite problematic, probably even moreso than OPP. Now I'm certain that there could be, and are, circumstances like that where the relationship is still healthier that way than it would be otherwise (such as if there are compelling reasons to believe that the partner following the mono rule would be really bad at being poly and both partners agree that he/she should stay away from it), but in most cases a mono requirement on one partner and not the other would come off like something that might be ok as a temporary, opening up measure, but which is not ok as a long-term strategy due to its inherent unfairness.

I feel a bit funny even bringing this up because it was such a short period of time that we had this policy in the beginning, but yes, what you describe above is what we had. Even though my husband gave me the freedom to sleep with women and didn't expect the same for himself, it didn't mean that he wouldn't have wanted it.

I think I might have a different perspective on this because me and my husband did this opening up thing maybe a bit differently than many people. We started giving each other freedoms in turn without expecting things for ourselves. It was really a step at a time process (and still continuing). So there were times when the boundaries were equal and there were times when they were unequal to one of us. The thing is neither has "allowed" the other to do anything they didn't feel comfortable with just because they wanted it to themselves. I mean, fairness is not all there is. I agree that OPP/OVP is not fair per se, but what are the options if you want to be fair? To be completely monogamous or to force the more insecure one to accept other penises/vaginas? If a man feels he doesn't want his female partner to sleep with other men, but the woman has no problem with the man sleeping with other women, should she forbid him just because she's not getting the same thing? This is where some of us might disagree.

If we're not saying the terms need to be discarded or redefined (*are* we saying that?) then the issue is just in how they're used. I know that we've said it may not be helpful to redirect the conversation back to the other thread that started this whole thing, but I do think it matters that Mags has apologized. I see her mistake not as being in using the term OPP but in using the word "imposed", which I took from the wording of her apology to be how she saw it too. That was taking (implied) assumptions too far, perhaps -- had that not yet been addressed? What are we discussing at this point? I'm not against further discussion, just curious.

I think this has been a very interesting conversation and if people still have things to say about the terminology and its usage, I don't see how Magdlyn apologizing in the other thread has anything to do with the continuation of this one (although I think it's cool that she did). These are two separate threads. I see quite many different definitions to OPP here which I think is interesting. For example nycindie's definition is different from the others and makes many people who thought they had OPP not to have it after all. I guess that's one thing to discuss. When people say OPP, they mean different things.
 
On the question of "joining", I think that being in a couple and only wanting a single person naturally comes with that connotation, that she (it could be someone of either gender, but since couples are more often seeking women I'll use the feminine pronoun) will be the one doing the joining and not being the one joined. I see that desire, for a couple to find a single person, and it seems natural to assume that the purpose of her being single is that it'd be easier for her to adapt to the seekers' existing, coupled life rather than them having to re-shape their lives in some way around her and her existing partnership(s)/marriage/house/kids/etc. Why else would someone poly desire only someone single if not to keep things as simple as possible -- in other words, in order to have to do the least changing? So, right off the bat it looks a little suspect, a little lop-sided.

People often don't realize that for a single person to integrate into the lives of an existing couple, which is what is often meant by her joining them, is a tremendous feat and brings a lot of attendant insecurity. I don't even mean the questioning, not-sure-of your-place insecurity, though there's certainly that, but literally lack of security -- if, say, the new person, whether in a triad or a vee, moves in with an existing couple and then it doesn't work out, she's the one out of a home, not them. In almost every case, she's also the one without the benefit of a legal marriage. It's also much easier to ask/require a single person to be exclusive with her new partner(s), which can further create a lop-sided dynamic. Now, such single-joining-couple scenarios *can* work great (see Phy's story for a beautiful example), but not, in my experience reading here, if they're specifically sought, rather only if they naturally happen to take that form.

This is all part of why what we call unicorn-hunting, generally held up as the ultimate example of couples being selfish without realizing it, has amongst its main requirements that the mythical woman be single -- because it really does come off as selfishly-motivated to seek that exclusively.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on you or your wife, PD, like I said I appreciate you saying that you're open to what you find (that's the most important thing for success and equity in my book, to go for quality over preconceived structural requirements), and I know that you've said it's your wife who likes the idea of a single woman, not you per se, I'm just exploring why certain word choices might bring up for us certain conceptions and trying to unpack all the stuff surrounding the terminologies and their attendant realities...
 
We started giving each other freedoms in turn without expecting things for ourselves. It was really a step at a time process (and still continuing). So there were times when the boundaries were equal and there were times when they were unequal to one of us.

This process sounds really lovely and healthy to me, actually. :)

When you're still in the opening up phase of figuring out what you can deal with and stretching yourself I feel like there are no right or wrong answers as long as everyone is respected. I think it really is ok to go at the slowest one's pace on any given issue. It's only when one partner is badly chafing against a particular unequal boundary, or when "it makes me uncomfortable so you have to deal with this unequal boundary" is the *end* of the discussion and the less secure partner has no interest in *trying* to aim for parity that it's really not cool... and even then, it's probably better to take it case by case before making the assumption that anyone's situation is necessarily unhealthy.

It's just that we do see a lot of unhealthy relationships here, sadly -- it is largely an advice board after all, people often come when they have problems -- so it's not surprising at all that people are on the lookout for unhealthy things and might be extra quick to identify potential problems.

If a man feels he doesn't want his female partner to sleep with other men, but the woman has no problem with the man sleeping with other women, should she forbid him just because she's not getting the same thing?

I don't think so, no, that'd be kinda petty. But if he's not doing so already, she may want to ask him to think about *why* he feels that way and whether it's something he could work on getting over. Now, why should she bother doing that if she truly has no desire to pursue relationships with other men? I dunno, I guess unequal situations and gender-based rules just irk me and seem like something we should all endeavor to rise above if we can. I suppose it's an idealistic thing. Or is it too condescending to say that it might be good for the man's soul to work on finding it in himself to give his partner the same thing she's giving him and to release his fears in due time?

Plus, I feel like, in choosing poly, we open our minds and hearts to the idea of multiple love in a way that mono folk might not, and that therefore forming unexpected emotional/romantic connections with others (who could turn out to be men!) is more likely, so it's to our advantage to be as flexible as possible so that we can handle whatever comes. Is that crazy? I don't mean to discount polyfidelity or to say that poly people can't control their emotions, just theorizing here.

As for the question of why we're having this discussion, I agree that it's interesting for its own sake, I'm not really sure what I was going for there, just trying to see if anyone had a particular desired resolution in mind I suppose.

I feel kinda ridiculous for having posted so intensely in this thread. I just love language, so these terminology questions fascinate me. I almost chose linguistics as my major in college, but downgraded it to a minor in writing instead so that I could focus on other stuff.
 
So you are looking for a woman to join you as your secondary in your poly lifestyle.... it seems pretty clear to me by the words that you use what you are hoping to achieve. I am only reading your words.

Yes they make my blood boil. And yes they would be considered taboo. Not because they are from you in particular as I indicated in the first lines of my last post, but because they indicate a complete lack of thought about who you think you are going to get to become your secondary. Quite frankly I get sick of hearing such blatant disregard for others... whether the person means to be disregarding or not.

For the record I have never heard a single woman ever say that she would want a couple to "join her." I assume because she is excited about the idea of having two separate love relationships that would also include her together with them, not a conglomerate made up of two that will assimilate her because they are looking for a secondary to "join them" in THEIR lifestyle.

Please don't assume that this forum is entirely made up of newbie haters. I don't think it is at all fair to judge an entire forum on the remarks of one person. I suggest that you decide to take on a more positive approach to this forum as it can be a great resource and of great help if you are open to it. It seems you have decided that you are not going to be helped, that you will be scoffed at and have already decided to leave here saying "I told you so" before even getting started.... we were all new here and new to poly at one time, we know where you are coming from, but a lot of us are not new now and are only here out of our love to help others. No other reason... I would be taking advantage of that rather than trying to provoke agreements that we all suck.

Your response in this thread is not much different than most people who hunt unicorns to me. I'm sorry you feel like you were "slapped with a label." If you don't like it then I suggest changing your language to something along the lines of "I am a man who has a wife and we are looking to form a triad with a woman who is equal to us in every way because she is just as valuable to the relationship as either of us would be." If you disagree with this statement I gave you as an option then I would wonder if you are a unicorn hunter.... that is not meant as derogatory, its a term commonly used for people who tell their story (however brief) as you have thus far.

I, for one, am not interested in clarification of your story as I have read like stories over and over again. If you care to tell it I will read it (perhaps you have already elsewhere), but please understand when given the information you gave us here about finding what seems to be a unicorn to join you in being your secondary so you can have the poly lifestyle you are trying to have most of us that have read thoroughly, been here forever, or have been poly forever will likely not ask for details.

I hope I said this in the nicest way possible as you seem to be easily offended. :p Its not my intent to offend (as I have said before), I am just saying it like it is for myself and as others have had similar responses you might want to look at that :)

RP - I realize that you are burnt out by reading posts from couples looking for unicorns, but I don't believe that PD is a unicorn hunter nor do I believe that he was saying that they are looking for a single woman to join them, specifically. He never mentioned looking for her to be their secondary either. It seems that in his reading, he read that when their relationship moved from 2 to more than 2 they would need to think about terms like secondary and primary.

PD - My advice to you is to continue to stay open minded and realize that you are not required to add the labels of primary and secondary to your relationship, whatever form it takes. Many people consider themselves to be their own primary and everyone else is secondary.
 
RP - I realize that you are burnt out by reading posts from couples looking for unicorns, but I don't believe that PD is a unicorn hunter nor do I believe that he was saying that they are looking for a single woman to join them, specifically. He never mentioned looking for her to be their secondary either. It seems that in his reading, he read that when their relationship moved from 2 to more than 2 they would need to think about terms like secondary and primary.
*shrug* that isn't what I read, but whatever, point taken... I don't have time to go back and look for where he said what. Besides, I think he has already decided I'm an asshole and is sticking to it. :D ;)

I'm not burnt out actually. Where did anyone think that? Maybe I was tired that post or something. :confused:
 
Last edited:
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?).

I have to pipe in.

I had a self-imposed OPP when I started building my relationship with my now-husband. He was 100% fine with me sleeping with whomever I wanted, but I did not personally feel right having coitus with another male until we had solidly established our foundation.

I also had some bothersome feelings at the time where I did not want him having coitus with another woman. I was fine with him putting his fists in them, spanking them, etc. But I did not feel comfortable with his penis getting involved.

He was ok with that (i.e. agreed vs imposed) as he was really more interested in the BDSM side of non-monogamy at that time, and wasn't really big into coitus or blowjobs anyway.

But it's no news to me that we're a weird couple. My husband has probably had sex with more men than I have.

I have since gotten over whatever issues were causing me to feel that way, and now it's wide-open across the board. But for the record, it was a "policy" more than an agreement, because he "agreed" to let me have sex with whomever I wanted, and I imposed upon myself a "policy" not to.
 
Back
Top