Unproven conjecture (though I'd enjoy seeing the footnotes
).
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.