Triage (pun intended)

Unless you are planning to fuck the guy your wife is dating, none of what you said about the male on male intimacy is relevant.

If you believe your lover is your property, you'd have a problem with them dating anyone. Not just another male.

But I agree that men approve of their female partner dating other women because they believe it will benefit them. Or should benefit them. When they realise that it doesn't necessarily benefit them any more than a male metamour would due to annoying things like their metamour's and/or partner's preferences and boundaries, they are not so happy.

Not all men of course, but those who favour the OPP.

I'm sorry I should have clarified. When I refer to the intimacy between men and how those men try to not get too close in our society, I wasn't implying that the two men would necessarily have sex or even emotional closeness. However when you have a romantic partner you consider that person a physical extension of yourself in some regard. Thus sharing that woman implies a certain amount of intimacy between the two men even if they rarely ever talk to each other or see each other. I think there is a large amount of discomfort about that because we are most vulnerable through our romantic partners and sharing that intimacy with another man puts us too close to that other man for comfort. The Woman in fact becomes a conduit of intimacy.
 
Um, nope. That might be a reason why you choose not to have MMF sex sessions or you choose not to hang with a metamour, but it isn't logical to extend that to your female partner having seperate relationships with men. And even if it was, it wouldn't explain why you'd feel that way about a man but not a lesbian.

The reasons why men favour are OPP are:

* all female relationships aren't real relationships so are no threat.

* girl on girl sex is hot/sexual gratification
 
Um, nope. That might be a reason why you choose not to have MMF sex sessions or you choose not to hang with a metamour, but it isn't logical to extend that to your female partner having seperate relationships with men. And even if it was, it wouldn't explain why you'd feel that way about a man but not a lesbian.

The reasons why men favour are OPP are:

* all female relationships aren't real relationships so are no threat.

* girl on girl sex is hot/sexual gratification

I'm glad you know what lies in all men's hearts better than they do. Can it be my turn now to tell you why you feel a certain way about a certain something with broad generalizations and little acknowledgement to your opinion?
 
You're free to say what you like.
 
I'm glad you know what lies in all men's hearts better than they do. Can it be my turn now to tell you why you feel a certain way about a certain something with broad generalizations and little acknowledgement to your opinion?

Sarcasm

You're free to say what you like.

Deliberate(?) obtuseness
 
I think there is a large amount of discomfort about that because we are most vulnerable through our romantic partners and sharing that intimacy with another man puts us too close to that other man for comfort. The Woman in fact becomes a conduit of intimacy.

My issue with a OPP is centered around the control aspect; regulating what a partner can and can't do in service of my own insecurities goes against my values. I am not as interested in the motivation behind such insecurity: misogyny, homophobia, short-man-complex, whatever. A rule governing the actions of our loved ones is something that will always make me vomit in my mouth a little.

Having said that, I did enjoy your description of an alternate motivation behind a OPP. While I do think that the ability to devalue a FF and therefore find it less risky is likely to be a huge factor, it also makes sense that the social stigma some men have about other men could be a noteworthy part of the issue. It's a valuable addition to the conversation and might help get into the mind of someone who would insist on this kind of restriction.

It won't matter to *me* in the end because it is still about controlling others because of our own shortcomings, but it is still good to learn more about those I disagree with. Broadening horizons and such.
 
My issue with a OPP is centered around the control aspect; regulating what a partner can and can't do in service of my own insecurities goes against my values. I am not as interested in the motivation behind such insecurity: misogyny, homophobia, short-man-complex, whatever. A rule governing the actions of our loved ones is something that will always make me vomit in my mouth a little.

Having said that, I did enjoy your description of an alternate motivation behind a OPP. While I do think that the ability to devalue a FF and therefore find it less risky is likely to be a huge factor, it also makes sense that the social stigma some men have about other men could be a noteworthy part of the issue. It's a valuable addition to the conversation and might help get into the mind of someone who would insist on this kind of restriction.

It won't matter to *me* in the end because it is still about controlling others because of our own shortcomings, but it is still good to learn more about those I disagree with. Broadening horizons and such.

thanks. FYI my wife and I are not practicing poly. I did have an OPP in the beginning but would not should we reopen our marriage. This board has helped me rationalize a lot and helped me do some deep introspection on all manner of issues.
 
thanks. FYI my wife and I are not practicing poly. I did have an OPP in the beginning but would not should we reopen our marriage. This board has helped me rationalize a lot and helped me do some deep introspection on all manner of issues.

While my core values have been more or less the same for years, how I choose to apply them to the world around me has been in a fairly constant state of flux. It's a process, in my opinion, growing and changing as our environment provides us with more information and challenges.

Good for you.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry I should have clarified. When I refer to the intimacy between men and how those men try to not get too close in our society, I wasn't implying that the two men would necessarily have sex or even emotional closeness. However when you have a romantic partner you consider that person a physical extension of yourself in some regard. Thus sharing that woman implies a certain amount of intimacy between the two men even if they rarely ever talk to each other or see each other. I think there is a large amount of discomfort about that because we are most vulnerable through our romantic partners and sharing that intimacy with another man puts us too close to that other man for comfort. The Woman in fact becomes a conduit of intimacy.


Graviton, maybe this is just something I don't get because I'm mono--

But if you're poly, don't you already have a fair bit of societal programming to shake off, in order to live the way that suits you best?

What is the problem with that "intimacy" between ends of a MFM Vee who "rarely even talk to each other or see each other" if not societal programming of exactly the sort that you're trying to get rid of, because you don't believe that society is as well equipped to determine what your needs are as you are?

Also, I was of the impression that poly people didn't see their partners as extensions of themselves, but as fully individuated beings.

Am I misunderstanding something here?
 
I realize you didn't address this post to me but I'm going to offer my opinion.

But if you're poly, don't you already have a fair bit of societal programming to shake off, in order to live the way that suits you best?

It's an ongoing process for some poly folk. Being comfortable with overcoming some societal assumptions in no way implies that a person can then overcome all of the others. Some are easier than others, and that is different from person to person.

Also, I was of the impression that poly people didn't see their partners as extensions of themselves, but as fully individuated beings.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Yes, what you seem to be saying is that there are broad sweeping assumptions regarding the emotional intelligence in common among people who self identify as polyamorous. Though some of us have certain traits in common, more frequently we find that we are all struggling with different issues in different ways. As an illustration, this board is loaded with 30 page threads in which we can't even agree on what a commonly used word means.

I personally don't consider a partner to be an extension of myself, but there are quite a few folks who still use terms like "soul mate" and "completes me" which tells me that we don't all share that trait.
 
Pretty much exactly what Marcus said, but I just gotta restate:

Re (from Garriguette):
"I was of the impression that poly people didn't see their partners as extensions of themselves, but as fully individuated beings."

LOL. In the world we all wish we lived in, that would be true. :)

To clarify: Polyamorists tend to have many (good) ideals, but in practice often discover they're unable to put their whole hearts into those ideals. This is because we live in a world of imperfect people (both mono and poly). Now can some poly people totally get on board with their partner's independence and individuation? Yes they can, and such cases are great. But other polyamorists will struggle with that issue -- and/or with any number of other poly-related issues. It's one of the reasons we have a poly forum -- so people can get help/coaching overcoming some of those issues.

---

I should add that I know we've been discussing OPP a lot and it's an important topic, but I think the OP emphasis was on this being a "polyfidelitous arrangement." Which I interpreted to mean, this guy's three women aren't allowed to date anyone, male or female. Just sayin' ...
 
I personally don't consider a partner to be an extension of myself, but there are quite a few folks who still use terms like "soul mate" and "completes me" which tells me that we don't all share that trait.

"Completes me" to me implies a sense of emptiness needing to be filled. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it would give me pause.

"Soul mates", I like, but don't think it needs to be limited to romantic partners. And I've often seen it applied in a very mono sense -- that there can only be one soul mate to a person. I don't perceive the soul mate as an extension of self, though, rather that there are some people who resonantly deeply on many levels.
 
Like as in, some people are really good matches for each other? I can get down with that concept.
 
I realize you didn't address this post to me but I'm going to offer my opinion.



It's an ongoing process for some poly folk. Being comfortable with overcoming some societal assumptions in no way implies that a person can then overcome all of the others. Some are easier than others, and that is different from person to person.




Yes, what you seem to be saying is that there are broad sweeping assumptions regarding the emotional intelligence in common among people who self identify as polyamorous. Though some of us have certain traits in common, more frequently we find that we are all struggling with different issues in different ways. As an illustration, this board is loaded with 30 page threads in which we can't even agree on what a commonly used word means.

I personally don't consider a partner to be an extension of myself, but there are quite a few folks who still use terms like "soul mate" and "completes me" which tells me that we don't all share that trait.

Marcus, thanks-- that first part makes sense to me. Presumably a person has more motivation to overcome the societal assumptions that aren't working for them than the ones that cause them no difficulty. I don't love self-interest as a motivator, but I understand it.

I think the broad sweeping assumptions I'm showing here about the emotional intelligence of poly people stem largely from seeing some-- not all, but some-- poly participants on this board treat mono people as deeply ignorant of how to identify and deal with their own emotions.

It's actually not ignorance but awareness of my own emotional and physical limitations that makes poly uncompelling to me personally. (Plus that whole actually wanting multiple partners thing. Different strokes, etc., but one person is plenty for me.) I'm here not because I want to be poly, but because I'm don't want to lose my shit when Xicot starts dating other people.

It just baffles me that someone would willingly take on a relationship configuration that requires balancing more people's needs when not seeing all of the people involved as, well, people.
 
It just baffles me that someone would willingly take on a relationship configuration that requires balancing more people's needs when not seeing all of the people involved as, well, people.

Ah, but that can happen in any and all relationship configurations. Even in non-romantic, non-sexual ones. (Family members, for example.) I don't think it is good or healthy, but it does happen.
 
Re (from Garriguette):
"I think the broad sweeping assumptions I'm showing here about the emotional intelligence of poly people stem largely from seeing some -- not all, but some -- poly participants on this board treat mono people as deeply ignorant of how to identify and deal with their own emotions."

Ohhh.

Well that would actually be an example of a *bad* attribute a polyamorist could have. At least in my opinion. No need to look down the nose at monogamists; it's not for me to know what works for them and what doesn't. Not to mention I need to "pull the beam out of my own eye" before offering to "pluck the mote out of my neighbor's eye." So, yeah, hypocrisy and all that.

Re: objectification ... yeah that's real bad, no matter who does it (mono or poly). If you're just wanting to say that polyamorists aren't nearly as perfect as they may think they are: you're probably right. Some polyamorists downright suck. [shrug]
 
I wanted to chime in with a personal situation regarding OPP, for variety. I'm a pansexual female poly newb with a straight male polycurious fiancé. We have something akin to an OPP in place, except that he didn't make it a rule, but a guilt-ridden request: Would I be okay with not pursuing romantic or sexual relationships with additional men for the time being?
I agreed that I was okay with that, because I'm mostly interested in dating women right now anyway, and because his comfort level matters to me. I did ask for him to think about and explain to me his reasons for wanting this type of arrangement, however.
The general thing is this, for him: Most of the times he's been screwed over in life, or watched loved ones get screwed over, it's been men doing the screwing. He doesn't trust men, for the most part, and he's afraid of the possibility that if I got involved with another man, that man would hurt me, or screw me over, or make some attempt to screw him over. But he adores women. Most of his dearest friends are women, most of his experiences with women have been positive, and, in general, he trusts women to be decent human beings. So he trusts that a woman I get involved with won't basically ruin everything.
I'm not saying it's logical, but it ain't misogynistic either. And based upon the details of his life experiences, it makes sense to me that he would feel this way, so it doesn't bother me. I've talked to him about getting to a better place in his head about relating to other men for his own sake, because this kind of fear isn't good for him, and he's open to that.
Also, question for the masses: Is OPP considered literal, or not? Our OPP is more of a One Male-Identified Person Policy. Genitalia are not the issue in our arrangement. Just been wondering on that.
 
You know, the idea that all men are x and all women are y plays into the issue of gender essentialism and sexism as a whole.

The thing I have found with people who find women the sweetest most innocent creatures is that they do actually know some really awful women, but they excuse the bad things they have done in a similar way that you'd excuse a toddler for naughty behaviour. It's as if they don't believe women are capable of behaving any more ethically.

That belief is misogynistic.
 
Back
Top