the "one-penis policy" thread

Spork, I feel you are speaking from a completely personal POV. Your ex husband was a patriarchal douchebag, anyone who reads your blog knows this. You still have PTSD from the whole shit show.

Your current bf was a 50 year old virgin, untried in the ways of kink, much less poly, living in his head, and reading only, not practicing either kink or poly.

You seem to feel you are not polysexual, barely bi-curious, no interest or energy for sexual relations with anyone other than your bf. So, you can let your bf rest easy in his emotional insecurities you'd leave him for another man if you fucked one.

I still assert my theory his insecurities result from 5000 years of the patriarchy having formed his mindset. I don't blame him. It's unconscious. White males don't know they are privileged, by and large. Just like whites don't need to think about racism. He can live, privileged in his maleness, comfortably with you, since you have no interest in pushing against his boundaries.
 
I love Magdlyn's post. Great reminder of history.

Most people, unless they have taken women's studies courses, don't need to be reminded... they need to be made aware. It's not well known, the information about the time pre-patriarchy.

Even Jews and Christians, who should have read their Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, are mostly ignorant of the reporting all through the Tanakh, about how "Yahweh," that is, the nobility known as the Levites, and the prophets, the ones pushing a male dominated monotheism on the native people of Canaan who were clearly worshipers of the Goddess Astarte, the Queen of Heaven, skim over those parts. The people were outright ordered to smash her altars, cut down the sacred trees and images, burn everything, and pile the dead bodies of the "priests" (actually priestesses) of the Goddess, on the broken altars, to also be burnt and shit upon. Yes, they made of her temples latrines. It's all in there!
However, I'd like to support the point that it's not always about patriarchal beliefs.
It doesn't have to be all about ownership or fear of women's power.
Could be about competition. Could be about territoriality (that's the feeling you get when there's no way that woman is gonna use your kitchen).

That woman? Well, now you're talking about a OVP, which is off topic. Also something to be explored, but not the subject of this thread.

Could be about feeling safe/unsafe around a certain sex.

Who is feeling unsafe around which sex? Women feel unsafe around men. Men molest and harass women, as our current events show. They do this because they can, and the patriarchy supports it and covers it up. Women are nearly powerless to fight it. We are only now working on this problem.

I think the reason why OPP is a thing but OVP (one vagina policy ;)) is as much due to the double standard we have towards guy-guy or girl-girl homosexual relations as due to patriarchy and tradition.

Homophobia is also a result of the patriarchy and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). People constantly trot out the Bible to support their homophobia! Surely you know this.
Take patriarchy and disrespect out of it, get to the bottom of the feeling and the same-sex vs. opposite-sex dynamics, and you get examples like Spork's. I think it's pretty ok.

But he feels that way because of male privilege.
 
However, I am really baffled as to where the patriarchy is.

As Madelyn already said and from my personal experience, it’s extremely hard for men to see patriarchy because they have practically never been mistreated. I’m exaggerating to make a point. It is accepted from our society for thousands of years apparently, that men own women. This of course favors men, correct? That is patriarchy. Men accepting, cultivating and perpetuating behaviors that favor men and getting away with it because they are physically stronger (I think it all boils down to that).

The simplest example that can help someone see how patriarchy applies to OPP Is this: whenever a man hits on a woman, the fastest way of getting out of it is to say “I have a boyfriend”. If she says “ I am sorry. I am not interested”, they continue to pursue her. Men instinctively respect other men. Instinctively: 5000 years of patriarchy. It grows on you.
OPP, another way of not giving away your goods.

Yes I know, not all men.
 
I think a problem in talking about this realistically for me lies in the basic fact that logic and feelings don't always cooperate. Logically I can explain to my lover why a male metamour should affect him no more than a female metamour would, and he ought to feel just as comfortable with one as the other. But telling someone how they should feel, because, logic... It's like someone telling me I should really enjoy salad because it's nutritious. It does not magically make me like salad, because I know full well that it would be good for my body to eat it. Or to simply stop smoking because it is so incredibly bad for me and expensive and horrid...an addict is not cured of an addiction simply because they are given a lot of factual arguments that they must completely agree with. You can think one thing, and yet be unable to help yourself from feeling another.

And I don't know that there is an enlightened state of human perfection whereupon one can expect one's thoughts and feelings (emotions?) to be in perpetual harmony.

When they're not, then there is dissonance, discomfort, and a personal struggle. People who embrace polyamory, if they are the sort to yet have such struggles, have consented to manage this and work through it, believing strongly enough in the benefits that outweigh the difficulties.

But if the situation is such that no one perceives enough of a benefit to make it worthwhile...it's not something a person needs to undertake, to fight this fight, merely on principle, or because other people think it's the best way. Just as I might think that BDSM is the most fulfilling thing in my world, that doesn't mean that everyone I know needs to fight their way through any mental discomforts and see it my way, especially if there is no real benefit to them to do so.

Spork, as I showed upthread, your bf can rest comfortably in his limitations because you feel he is a good man, the best you ever had, and his limitations don't limit you, since you don't WANT another man.

Yes, logic can't magically make emotional difficulties go away. But it can, over time, change people's mindsets when they are ready. Or it can happen suddenly. A man can think, Good god, I've been a dick! Of course, it's not fair for me to have gfs and say my bi female partner can only fuck other women, when she is also attracted to men. Then he might give his consent, and get over his insecurities as he sees reality. A partner may just as soon leave another for a woman as a man. It's not about gender at all.

But your bf isn't poly... and you aren't polysexual, so it's all moot. You have his consent to do kink activities with others, and that is what is really important to you. Some kinky people do NOT have consent to do kink with others, however, so they would find your situation enviable.
 
Unproven conjecture (though I'd enjoy seeing the footnotes :D).

Read When God Was A Woman and The Hebrew Goddess.

It certainly doesn't align directly with the people who've claimed that MFM vees are much more stable than FMF vees. I've always felt that, once guys achieve stability with a situation, they remain okay with it.

MFM V's being a possibility at all, are a result of feminism. They do seem more stable in our current poly culture, which is woman led. Women make better hinges, since we are more adept at social skills, perhaps biologically, perhaps partly as a defense mechanism we use to covertly claim some power, safety and security as second class citisens in the patriarchy.

While history is certainly interesting, & can sometimes provide a pattern for forward movement, the problem remains what to do next. Sure, there was evidence of matriarchy, though I can't recall reading where societies with women in power were particularly superior.

I don't want to put value judgments on it, such as superior and inferior, but surely you know the American continent was relatively unspoiled when the patriarchal white men came and raped, enslaved and killed the native peoples, and started raping the environment.

You know white men from England invaded and virtually killed Africa. You might not know Aryan tribes (who already had a male religion and the closely held secret of smelting iron) in the 15th century BC invaded India, established rule, changed the religion to reflect male superiority, etc., etc., making their pale skin "good" (white=good) and the dark skin of the native peoples "bad" (black=bad). But if you'd like to read the first book I mentioned above, you could learn.

but THEN what happens? Anyway, you might be interested in Pink Samurai: Love, Marriage & Sex in Contemporary Japan; it's a bit scattered, but goes deeply into religious roots.

Buddhism?

I was kinda waiting for someone to bring up the OVP. There have been fewer examples, but there was a thread here a month (or so) ago where F declared that since she was spending so much of her time with New Girl, then M was totally free to do similar to fill his time... namely find himself a boyfriend, knowing full well he'd never expressed even a passing interest in guys. :(

I think one vagina policy is SO much rarer, beyond a passing glimpse at it, it doesn't fit on this thread. But you're the OP, so you can muck up the waters as you see fit.

Though I am no fan of OVP/OPP/etc., I'm saying it CAN serve a functionalist purpose.

Only if the woman has absolutely no desire, nor develops one, for exploring a second MF relationship, and not just exploring FF ones. If she has no desire, it's not really a policy, it just is a fact. All kinds of scenarios can and do develop in real life, as anyone who's been reading here for a while knows. She might "discover" she's really a lesbian and leave her male partner for another woman or women. She only partnered with men in the first place because society expected and pressured her to do so.


Declarations of "patriarchy" & "sexism" & "exclusionary" are specifically ways to STOP a conversation; a form of shaming, maybe so that some cherished prejudice isn't examined too closely...

Uh huh. If a man is confronted with the information he is a product of 50 centuries of assumed male superiority and great power, he will run from that fact and hide in his household and beat his wife. Is that what you're implying?

So Al Franken didn't apologise and step down??

Let's seek absurdity & parse it out a little. Maybe two women are involved in a closed relationship, which they decide to open. One insists on asymmetric OVP because she believes that while she is "mature enough" to date other women without abandoning the couple, her partner isn't. (She might also know that her partner isn't particularly interested in men.)

I see insecurity, sure; worse, I see enshrining that insecurity, giving it more weight than the dyad dynamic. And (like so much other passive-aggressive Monogamist claptrap) it's maybe being foisted off as somehow central to polyamory, therefore either dishonest or ignorant.

However, I am really baffled as to where the patriarchy is.

That is because you've shifted the goal posts, my friend. Lesbian relations are seen as unthreatening by men, so whatever they do, monogamous or polyamorous, have no value and pose no threat. Lesbians can easily "pass" in society unless they really push it in your face. Women are allowed to "love" each other and express affection quite visibly and publicly. Lesbian love, in public, can easily pass as platonic.

So, yeah, by all means, point out that OPP/OVP & such controls cut into the "communication" part of polyamory, & as well protect one or more partners from some degree of introspection & emotional growth (thus further militating against full-on poly). There's no shame in starting out with a training aid... so long as nobody thinks long term reliance on such a gimmick is at all mature.

I am sorry if you or anyone else felt shamed by me presenting a very small simple example of how the patriarchy impacts modern polyamory. It was my intent to inform, not to shame. Although it is shameful history. It has hurt millions of women and people of color, and continues to do so, even to the current president Trump, and the VP and Bannon and his minions. Let's not go back to the 14th century. What to do next? Don't repeat history, to put it in a nutshell.
 
Last edited:
Spork, as I showed upthread, your bf can rest comfortably in his limitations because you feel he is a good man, the best you ever had, and his limitations don't limit you, since you don't WANT another man.

Yes, logic can't magically make emotional difficulties go away. But it can, over time, change people's mindsets when they are ready. Or it can happen suddenly. A man can think, Good god, I've been a dick! Of course, it's not fair for me to have gfs and say my bi female partner can only fuck other women, when she is also attracted to men. Then he might give his consent, and get over his insecurities as he sees reality. A partner may just as soon leave another for a woman as a man. It's not about gender at all.

But your bf isn't poly... and you aren't polysexual, so it's all moot. You have his consent to do kink activities with others, and that is what is really important to you. Some kinky people do NOT have consent to do kink with others, however, so they would find your situation enviable.

Yep. Quite.

And ya know though, as I tried (clumsily) to express earlier too, it makes a difference to me that it's not about him IMPOSING this limit on me. It's me choosing to abide. So if I told him that I really needed to have sex with another guy and that it was something I wasn't going to back down on, I needed this...he might want STI testing and a talk about safer sex and whatever but ultimately, I don't think he'd sooner end the relationship than "let" me do such a thing. In fact, it's not a matter of anyone letting anyone do anything. That's what makes it different. If anything I feel protective of him. I feel protective of him and of his comfort and his emotional safety. I could simply not pursue sex with other guys because I don't feel like it, but actually having given him an undertaking that I won't (without prior renegotiation of our agreements) is me expressing, in a way, that concern and protectiveness for him.

Probably a lot of his discomforts (and those of some men in these situations)...I would lay odds that the roots are embedded in the toxic masculinity grounds of "patriarchy" more so than just the male privilege ones. The sense that men have to be in competition with other men, and that exposing your feelings and vulnerabilities with another guy around is...well, scary, and just not done. That sharing "your" woman makes you less valid as a man. Things like that.

Oh, and in fact, it's not just or primarily kink with others that is what I really want...it's the social and intellectual stuff. That's what really jazzes me most. I think I'm probably more sapiosexual than anything, since I don't even find someone attractive unless we've connected intellectually. So the social flirting, conversations, etc. That's really ~where it's at~ in my world. As long as that wasn't restricted (and I fought my ex over that constantly) I knew I'd be just fine.

But of course there are situations where the directive is more about control and what people are not being "let" to do, that maybe they actually want to do, people agreeing to things under a sort of duress... I've seen where for instance a woman goes along with her man wanting other women, or even claims a bisexuality she doesn't truly feel, just to "be cool" but feels she must accept that she's not allowed to be with other guys, because "that's how it is"... That whole THING...yeah. Very much everything you're saying, Magdlyn, and I've seen it in action.
 
However, I'd like to support the point that it's not always about patriarchal beliefs.
It doesn't have to be all about ownership or fear of women's power.
Could be about competition. Could be about territoriality (that's the feeling you get when there's no way that woman is gonna use your kitchen).
That woman? Well, now you're talking about a OVP, which is off topic. Also something to be explored, but not the subject of this thread.
Magdlyn, my point was exactly that some relevant sentiments - like territoriality - are not gender specific (although commonly associated with men). I gave an example I know.

Who is feeling unsafe around which sex? Women feel unsafe around men. Men molest and harass women, as our current events show. They do this because they can, and the patriarchy supports it and covers it up. Women are nearly powerless to fight it. We are only now working on this problem.
Believe it or not, I know women, who feel unsafe around women. And men who feel unsafe around men, but also men who feel unsafe around women. Again, my point is, that this doesn't have to be rooted in patriarchy in all cases.

Homophobia is also a result of the patriarchy and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
Ok, possibly.
 
Magdlyn, my point was exactly that some relevant sentiments - like territoriality - are not gender specific (although commonly associated with men). I gave an example I know.

Believe it or not, I know women, who feel unsafe around women. And men who feel unsafe around men, but also men who feel unsafe around women. Again, my point is, that this doesn't have to be rooted in patriarchy in all cases.

OK, point taken. Some women feel unsafe around other women. Usually they had an abusive mother/sister/cousin or were bullied in school. I've experienced the mistrust when my ex husband and I first opened our relationship as stupid newbie unicorn hunters, back in 1999. He fell in love with a woman who pretended to be bi to hook him. He said, after 3 months with seeing her long distance, he wanted to move her in with me to be his second wife. I had 3 kids, and I didn't want her help in raising them. She had betrayed me by lying in the first place about wanting to have sex with me. I didn't trust her.

(As an aside, my ex husband wanted an OPP, until his gf said it was unfair. I had said it first, he didn't agree. When his gf said it, he supported her opinion. Ah, NRE.)

She didn't trust women/me, since she was abused by her mother... indirectly. Her mother turned a blind eye when her own father, who had sexually abused her, went on to sexually abuse her own daughter, my husband's lover. So... gosh, it sounds kinda like the patriarchy all over again!

Ok, possibly.

There is a case in the US Supreme Court as we speak, brought by a married male couple against a "Christian" baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for them. The baker cites religious freedom.

And of course there are doctors and pharmacists who refuse birth control to women citing religious freedom as well.
 
Last edited:
Hey Magdlyn, I fucking love you. Keep fighting the good fight.

It's so disappointing when non-monogamy ends up STILL following patriarchal lines. And the OPP is a symptom of that.

My first attempt at an open relationship I offered my boyfriend (at 16) that we both could have sex with other women... because I thought that was an easy way to open up. He saw right though it and told me he didn't want an open relationship. So I cheated on him. (yay 16!)

Now? I find OPPs creepy. Grow up. Do the work. Don't limit your partner because of your insecurities. That's what I do for my partners and it's what I expect from them. Granted I've been doing this for awhile.

It just still floors me that people are okay limiting the people they love because of their insecurities. You can fix it. Our shitty culture has instilled so many horrible irrational ownership beliefs into romantic relationships and it poisons us.

Sorry...rambling....

Turns out it's a fun topic... so not what I would suspect from a OPP thread.
 
Thanks, rosephase. Love you back!
 
It's so disappointing when non-monogamy ends up STILL following patriarchal lines. And the OPP is a symptom of that.

I find OPPs creepy. Grow up. Do the work. Don't limit your partner because of your insecurities. That's what I do for my partners and it's what I expect from them. Granted I've been doing this for awhile.

It just still floors me that people are okay limiting the people they love because of their insecurities. You can fix it. Our shitty culture has instilled so many horrible irrational ownership beliefs into romantic relationships and it poisons us.
Oh, really, I don't disagree at all!!

However, the "poly community" is so deeply vested in being inclusionary of everyone who believes that what they (think that they) WANT to do is "polyamory" that we twist ourselves around to fit them in & thus inherently -- & (clearly) WILLINGLY -- dilute what we ARE.

Pretty soon, we'll start hearing nonsensical garbage like "polyamory is whatever you WANT it to be!!"

Oh... wait a minute...

:mad:

The (to me) sad fact is that we are stuck NEEDING to deal with what IS rather than what OUGHT TO BE.

The OPP is part of the IS.

Now, if people want to stand up & clearly say the OPP (or variant thereof) is NOT polayamory, period, then I am totally down with that.

Until that happy day, the clear FACT is that this site is regularly called upon to fit the IS into the ideal. All I'm proposing is a way to rationalise that, albeit at the expense of the OUGHT TO BE.
 
Oh, really, I don't disagree at all!!

However, the "poly community" is so deeply vested in being inclusionary of everyone who believes that what they (think that they) WANT to do is "polyamory" that we twist ourselves around to fit them in & thus inherently -- & (clearly) WILLINGLY -- dilute what we ARE.

Pretty soon, we'll start hearing nonsensical garbage like "polyamory is whatever you WANT it to be!!"

Oh... wait a minute...

:mad:

The (to me) sad fact is that we are stuck NEEDING to deal with what IS rather than what OUGHT TO BE.

The OPP is part of the IS.

Now, if people want to stand up & clearly say the OPP (or variant thereof) is NOT polayamory, period, then I am totally down with that.

Until that happy day, the clear FACT is that this site is regularly called upon to fit the IS into the ideal. All I'm proposing is a way to rationalise that, albeit at the expense of the OUGHT TO BE.

And I'm on the other side of this ideologically I guess, or it feels that way to me, because I'm not interested in telling people what "ought" to be, I do think people should do what seems to fit for them, call it what seems to make sense to them. I'm interested in the million shades of variance that human happiness and fulfillment can take, and while I think we get some generally agreed-upon concepts into terminology so we've got the language to discuss stuff...the ideas and intentions are valuable as well.

I mean, is it polyamory if you're only having intercourse with one person?

Some, looking at what I'm doing, especially since a lot of "monogamy as practiced" folks would say I shouldn't be allowed, then, to get nude and be set on fire, or having my upper torso caressed, or have "feelings" or be affectionate, or kiss, with other men... Yet some would say if I'm "committed" to only one penis, then I'm monogamous. Like there is no definitional grey area between a strictly controlled proprietary monogamy situation, and an unrestricted and utterly open "have sex with anyone you want" arrangement.

I, on the other hand, think it matters a great deal what the ideologies and mindsets are behind the choices we make. I'm more like, "do what you want, call it what you like, but please make sure it's your authentic desire and not acquiescence to an assumed ideal or partner control behavior."

I certainly question my own poly-ness...but despite your position, Ravenscroft, I am glad I haven't been "kicked out of the club" so to speak. Because ultimately I feel that the ideas that people use to discuss and govern relationships in poly, have a lot to teach people who just want to have healthy relationships regardless of their shape or definition.
 
Spork, your points are again, personal. I do not disagree with much of what you said.

However, I see you both have consent to be massaged or massage the breasts of others at your kink club.

I wondered about that when I read on your blog how a private party turned into an orgy and your bf was rubbing another woman's breasts! I call that sex, since I think sex includes any activity that can bring an orgasm. Women can quite commonly cum from breast stimulation. It certainly causes us to have yummy endorphin release at least. I think you're so outside the mainstream you aren't aware that you and bf are sexually open to others, by many peoples' definition.
 
Spork, your points are again, personal. I do not disagree with much of what you said.

However, I see you both have consent to be massaged or massage the breasts of others at your kink club.

I wondered about that when I read on your blog how a private party turned into an orgy and your bf was rubbing another woman's breasts! I call that sex, since I think sex includes any activity that can bring an orgasm. Women can quite commonly cum from breast stimulation. It certainly causes us to have yummy endorphin release at least. I think you're so outside the mainstream you aren't aware that you and bf are sexually open to others, by many peoples' definition.

Oh, I am aware of that (speaking to your last sentence.) I feel like we're just sort of making it up as we go, and it's neither one thing nor precisely another. Ever read a story about like a half-elf who feels like he doesn't fit with either culture? Or something? I feel like we don't fit with most monogamists I know, but we also don't exactly fit with what most polyamorists are doing either...but it's still all good, because both of us are pretty content with it.

And yeah, I'm speaking from my own personal perspective for sure. Guess I'm only trying to say that I think there is room for people to not be quite black & white about things. Sometimes I think that it's "not fair" about the fact that the only restriction is on me and other men and genital contact specifically. Like he can play with other ladies' lady parts if he wants, but I can't play with other men's man-parts, and that isn't fair. But then I am like..."OK but what do you want though?" Because he doesn't play with other men either, but it's because he doesn't WANT to...and frankly, I don't really WANT to either... Mostly, I want to play with the minds of others, and perhaps occasionally the bodies if it's a matter of just being affectionate/sensual...not necessarily stimulating someone genitally. Am I getting what I need and want? Yeah. I am. Now, Zen doesn't get a ton of opportunities to play with other women's ladybits anyways, but if he did...he might want to. And he could have that. Both of us can have what we want and need. So not that much of a sacrifice really.

Realizing that I'm about as enthusiastic about playing with the junk of other men, as HE is, really takes the wind out of my sails when I contemplate whether our arrangement is unfair. lol We are both doing and getting what we want. With the minor caveat that I miss the Worm King. But I know he's a bad idea for other reasons. If anything maybe our agreement prevents me from doing something stupid, if it's just one more reason not to.
 
And I'm on the other side of this ideologically I guess, or it feels that way to me, because I'm not interested in telling people what "ought" to be, I do think people should do what seems to fit for them, call it what seems to make sense to them.
I don't find anything incorrect about anarchism, & have a strong current of it in my personal outlook. But (IMNSHO anyway) they aren't thereby free to impose their freedom upon others. When any word can be redefined, communication fails.
 
Interesting discussion. I have a close friend (Jasper) who has to be away from his wife (Moon) for a while and they agreed that she could have relationships with other women (she’s bi) while he’s away as long as it’s only women and if he’s included in the relationship once they’re reunited. As far as I’m aware, before this they were simply mono.

He’s asking himself a lot of questions about his own insecurities, possible homo-undervaluing (as in, does he feel like a relationship between women is less valid/threatening?). It makes me really hopeful that his automatic method is to dig into the “why do I feel less threatened by the thought of her being with a woman? Am I harboring prejudices I need to examine? Is this about my insecurities?”.

I didn’t want to beat him over the head with poly theory I’m mostly only theorectically aquatinted with anyways, so I focused on the part about this imaginary second woman (let’s call her Jane) being required to have a relationship with him in order to maintain a relationship with Moon. I don’t think he quite gets why this is a big problem yet. He says he doesn’t want it to be coeresive, and Jane would get a say, but I get the sense Janes relationship with Moon would either suffer or just get cut off if Jane and Jasper didn’t manage to get a relationship rolling as well. Which, to me, seems like a big old problem.

I feel like part of this discussion is about what does and does not count as poly. I’m not seeing any hard lines here, but I do feel like there are uniting understandings that people are responsible for their own choices, set boundaries, have a right to safety, say what they want/need, etc... and for me- and I suspect a lot of you- these principals come from a lot of reading/writing/discussion. I think Jasper and Moon dont have that exposure and I think they’ve been making up their own rules to meet needs/feel safe. Which is good discussions to have except that their rules have requirements for a hypothetical lady of the future. And they’re on the young side and I feel like they don’t know their own strength yet. Does anyone have any advice on explaining this?
 
To me it sounds like Jasper, Moon, and Jane will have to learn the hard way. It should be self-evident how unfair it is for Jane to have to break up with Moon unless she adds Jasper to the relationship. Sounds like couple privilege.
 
Recent developments I find kind of interesting, that bear upon this conversation...

One bit of my arrangement with Zen that brings me some personal discord, is the notion that it's on me to find a woman who is: bi, attractive to both of us (which is difficult since I prefer older and he prefers younger partners, for one thing) and perhaps most difficult of all, willing to engage on some level sexually with us both. I'm the extrovert, he's the one who has struggled to find a partner for various reasons. I've been a good "wingman" for male friends in bars in my youth. I should be able to attract a perfect woman for both of us to play with. And the fact that this idea stresses me out and feels almost impossible to me, makes me feel like a failure, which makes me feel like a disappointment to Zen, which pushes my "avoid this!" button, and makes me not want to try.

I've felt all sorts of difficulty contemplating engaging in activity with another woman, and I've been frustrated with myself over it. And concluded that while I definitely want "BFF" style friendships, and friends that I even go on dates with, I'm just not sure I really want to be sexual with other people.

When I expressed this to Zen, the said that the main reason he assumed I would want to have sex with other women, is that I was poly before we got together, and while he believes he can fill my "dick needs" (lol wtf?) there would be things that a woman could give me and he could not.

I had this moment of utter absurdity over this, because that is not how any of this works. It's not that I've got a tab, but now I need a slot, I mean...seeing humans as like...mechanical pieces or something, I don't even know, it's so weird to me. Every person, every partner, is completely different. A different experience, at least as far as energy is concerned. Except for the ones that are "much alike" and therefore not really worth having anyhow (like the young men I was with as a teenager, who followed such a predictable pattern of how they did sex that the whole thing was often boring.) Basically anyone I want to have around, let alone have sex with, is probably so unique, people...men, women...just aren't fungible like that. And more significantly I explained to him, it isn't that he's meeting my "dick needs" (lol!) it's that he is meeting my sex needs right now.

I told him, ultimately, my mind is open to possibilities, but I'm not really looking for another partner just to have some generic need for sex with women met. I plan to attend an "All Women" play party going on in late January, because I'm curious if much of my hesitations would still be there, if no men are around. I suspect that having the men in the quad around, probably made me feel inhibited about what I was doing with Fire when we were together...I always felt like I had to perform, or do this, for the appreciation of the men. I only ever had a couple of girlfriends when I was much, much younger that I had sex with, with no males in the picture...it was definitely different, then. But that was like over 20 years ago.

I think that the presence of a man in a thing I'm trying to have with a woman, probably changes how I feel about it, the whole dynamic, quite a lot, and not in good ways. But I've always felt like denying a man I care about access to that, at least "to watch" as they always say, would hurt their feelings. But I don't think I want them there. It has to do with the sense of owning my own sexuality, or feeling like a man owns it.

Thoughts, anyone? I'm still trying to figure all this out.
 
I definitely get this. I've ended up in several triad/quad type relationships but never really had a girlfriend who was only involved with me; it's one of the few reasons I vaguely keep a dating profile up is that I think the energy would be different and I'd like to experience that. But yes, the presence of male energy there does change that - even the few times I went on solo dates / had 1:1 sex with triad/quad partners were a VERY different vibe than group activities.

I _wish_ there was such a thing as an all-female play party 'round here... went to a femme-identified-only cigar social while I was at a localish kink event but I have no game, LOL.
 
Back
Top