Triage (pun intended)

[Marcus]

We have something akin to an OPP in place, except that he didn't make it a rule, but a guilt-ridden request

I consider a rule to be a restriction on how someone else should behave to suit my personal preferences. "I feel fat right now so don't date anyone thinner than me" or "Have sex with whoever you want, just don't call anyone but me 'baby'." ... rules in this context are based on the idea that the people in my life should shape their behaviors to my liking to keep me from dealing with my insecurities. Tacking "please" at the end of it doesn't change it from being a rule.

I'm not saying it's logical, but it ain't misogynistic either.

It is a request that you should alter your behavior to serve his insecurity. The insecurity itself really only matters in so far as that's what he should be talking to his therapist about. In the end though, it's still a rule regarding what you should or shouldn't do in effort to enable him to avoid dealing with whatever is going on with him.

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.

I think that's splitting hairs. The issue to me has nothing to do with genitals, orientation, or gender identity, it's about people needing to deal with their own shit instead of setting up hoops for other people to jump through.

 

[Magdlyn]

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.

This is way off topic for the original poster (I wonder if she will ever be back...), but, I think this is a commonly unasked question since most people here do not ID as pansexual or genderqueer, and do not date transpeople, or genderqueers.

However, I am and do, so, here goes.

You're saying your male partner would request you not date a transman. How about if you were dating a butch female IDed person who came to the realization they were actually a man? Would your SO demand you break up with him when he transitions?

I know there are plenty of people who ignorantly mis-gender people based on that person's genitalia instead of how that person IDs themselves. It's great your bf does not. But it still begs the question of his prejudice against men in general. I know women can hurt other women and men horribly. There are some real bitches and wackjobs out there. However, I do know women, in general, are better at identifying emotions, and communicating, than men are. Sometimes I wish I was a pure lesbian. I get along with my gf so great! But dammit, I am still strongly drawn to men, the big lugs.

 

[copperhead]

... rules in this context are based on the idea that the people in my life should shape their behaviors to my liking to keep me from dealing with my insecurities. Tacking "please" at the end of it doesn't change it from being a rule.

Or they could be interpreted as "this is what you can do for me to make things easier for me, including dealing with difficult shit". And the other person is free to do the thing or not. Always hearing should is like always feeling people are blaming you for something and being defensive as a precaution. Not everything people ask for you means you have to oblige. Asking doesn't mean you expect to receive something. It's just stating a need. And someone who cares about the person asking for something might do that thing, just like fuzzzilla granted her fiancés request.

 

[Marcus]

It's just stating a need. And someone who cares about the person asking for something might do that thing, just like fuzzzilla granted her fiancés request.

I get that people are really uncomfortable with calling their "requests" that their partner take action to prevent them from dealing with their own issues a "rule". It doesn't change the nature of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

Call it a request if that makes restricting a partners behaviors in service to your [you being general, not you as in copperhead] shortcomings a bit more palatable to you. The action is the same even if we call it a more friendly word.

 

[kdt26417]

Okay so the point is that it is dysfunctional to request/demand special behavior designed to help you sweep your issues under the rug. I get that, and agree. But let's say the person-with-issues says, "Look, I want to deal with these issues and I will, but I think it would help me if I could deal with them at a slower speed." Is it then healthy or at least mostly harmless to enable a slower speed for that person? Just asking/curious about your (Marcus' and others') opinion/s.

Re (from fuzzzilla):

"Is OPP considered literal, or not?"

I reckon it is context-dependent. Most often not literal though, as I see it as a clever way to infer, "One man only."

 

[Marcus]

But let's say the person-with-issues says, "Look, I want to deal with these issues and I will, but I think it would help me if I could deal with them at a slower speed." Is it then healthy or at least mostly harmless to enable a slower speed for that person? Just asking/curious about your (Marcus' and others') opinion/s.

I think it's very healthy for people to identify that "this is too much too fast, I need to slow down", and I will comply to their request. If they need less contact with me or need to move out temporarily I encourage them to do that - because no, I'm not going to uproot important parts of who I am or how I live to serve their emotional limitations. They should indeed look out for their emotional well being and I support them in the actions they need to take to accomplish that.

I don't mean that to be sarcastic either, it truly is valuable to identify situations which are just too much for us at the time and to have the courage to step away from them or make adjustments accordingly.

Things that I *will* do are acts of support like lending a compassionate ear, driving them to therapy if their car is broken down, having lunch with them if they want to spend some time with me, go to a loud movie with them to take their minds off of their troubles... etc. Support and compassion, yes. Coddling and capitulation, no.

 

[IndieSolo]

Doesn't matter what the excuses are - a OPP is misogynistic and based in extreme insecurity and a need to control women's sexuality. No one should ever tolerate that bullshit. If a guy wants a OPP, the fact is he has a warped sense of what polyamory "should" be and, in reality, is not ready for what it truly is.

 

[fuzzzilla]

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.

You're absolutely right. That belief is misogynistic. What it is not is one of my fiancé's beliefs. He doesn't think women are sweet or innocent. He thinks women are, in general, strong, competent, reliable, honest, better in touch with their emotions, and more adept at keeping their agreements. When he encounters a terrible woman, or terrible behavior in an otherwise good woman, he does not make excuses. He calls her out on her bad behavior, and is absolutely willing to remove an awful person, of any gender, from his life. I know this because he calls me on my shit all the time. He knows I'm a good, loving woman, and he damn well expects me to act like it, whether I'm having a shitty day or not.

I consider a rule to be a restriction on how someone else should behave to suit my personal preferences. "I feel fat right now so don't date anyone thinner than me" or "Have sex with whoever you want, just don't call anyone but me 'baby'." ... rules in this context are based on the idea that the people in my life should shape their behaviors to my liking to keep me from dealing with my insecurities. Tacking "please" at the end of it doesn't change it from being a rule.

It is a request that you should alter your behavior to serve his insecurity. The insecurity itself really only matters in so far as that's what he should be talking to his therapist about. In the end though, it's still a rule regarding what you should or shouldn't do in effort to enable him to avoid dealing with whatever is going on with him.

I think that's splitting hairs. The issue to me has nothing to do with genitals, orientation, or gender identity, it's about people needing to deal with their own shit instead of setting up hoops for other people to jump through.

I see where you're coming from, but my feelings on rules vs. requests are rather different. I see rules as ultimatums: Do it my way or you don't get to do it at all/or we'll break up. As opposed to requests: This is a thing that I want/need. Do you think that's something you'd be willing to do? If not, I may not be happy about it, but I'll figure something else out. Those things feel very different to me.
Our particular situation is not so much about avoidance as it is about how new everything is. So he needs time to come to terms with the parts of this that are scarier to him. I certainly hope that he'll bring this up with his therapist, once he's dealt with the more urgent issue of PTSD, and eventually come to a place where he feels that men can be trusted exactly as much as women can. That is to say, once you've evaluated the individual person a bit and determined them to be trustworthy.
I gave our situational details as an illustration that, while many of the ideas being discussed in this thread may be true, some of the time, sometimes an OPP can be motivated by different things than were previously mentioned.
Also, I was only asking about OPP in terms of what the general consensus definition was, not seeking a value judgement on them or on mine in particular. Though I understand, of course, that this is a contentious issue.

This is way off topic for the original poster (I wonder if she will ever be back...), but, I think this is a commonly unasked question since most people here do not ID as pansexual or genderqueer, and do not date transpeople, or genderqueers.

However, I am and do, so, here goes.

You're saying your male partner would request you not date a transman. How about if you were dating a butch female IDed person who came to the realization they were actually a man? Would your SO demand you break up with him when he transitions?

We haven't discussed that specific scenario (though I now plan to; thank you!), but my feeling is he would not ask me to break up with my newly male IDed partner. We have exceptions in our agreement already for the possibility of certain men that we already know well, who we both trust implicitly. So my guess is that, since this would be an established relationship, with trust firmly in place already (I would not continue to see anyone I didn't trust, after all), that the trust we had for this specific person would override his fears about men in general.

Okay so the point is that it is dysfunctional to request/demand special behavior designed to help you sweep your issues under the rug. I get that, and agree. But let's say the person-with-issues says, "Look, I want to deal with these issues and I will, but I think it would help me if I could deal with them at a slower speed." Is it then healthy or at least mostly harmless to enable a slower speed for that person? Just asking/curious about your (Marcus' and others') opinion/s.

Re (from fuzzzilla):


I reckon it is context-dependent. Most often not literal though, as I see it as a clever way to infer, "One man only."

Thank you for bringing this up. That's much closer to what our particular situation is like, and at least for me, it feels healthy and reasonable.

Oy, this is long. More replies in another post. I hit the limit, apparently, eek!

 

[SchrodingersCat]

I get that people are really uncomfortable with calling their "requests" that their partner take action to prevent them from dealing with their own issues a "rule". It doesn't change the nature of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

Call it a request if that makes restricting a partners behaviors in service to your [you being general, not you as in copperhead] shortcomings a bit more palatable to you. The action is the same even if we call it a more friendly word.

It's not what you "call" it that matters. What matters is what your intention is behind it, and intention absolutely changes the nature of the conversation, especially if you're in a relationship where you both understand the difference between requests and demands, and you can trust that your partner will say No if they don't want to do something.

A "request" (whatever you call it) means "I am willing to hear NO and I will deal with that if I do. It would be nice if you do it, but if you'd prefer not to because it impinges on meeting your own needs/desires, then I'll accept that with compassion and be pleased that you're considering your own needs."

A "demand" (or rule or ultimatum) means "I'm not willing to hear NO. I will argue and beg and plead and threaten until I get my way. If you still don't give me my way, I'll make you wish you had."

Sure, "restricting" someone puts it in "demand" zone. But requesting is not the same as restricting.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

Gralson has expressed a "discomfort" with the idea of me having sex with other men. He's never dared suggest that I can't, or even requested that I don't, so it's not a "control" thing because he's never suggested anything like a OPP. What he has said is that it would be really weird for him, and he would have some inner work to do around that if it happened.

Now, I don't see him as a misogynist. Gralson loves women. All his best friends are women, and have been since childhood. He's never been that close to guy friends. When he was a kid, boys used to beat him up, and his dad beat him up, so basically, to him, men aren't trustworthy: they'll fuck you up.

He's a railroader, runs a crew of 41 men and 1 woman. These past 3 weeks, he's been fighting for her, risking his job even, because his supervisor wants him to give her a menial job, and he thinks that's sexist and bullshit. He's printed her out the harassment form to file against his supervisor, offered to help her fill it out, involved the union rep to make sure they're aware of what the supervisor's trying to do as well as what he's risking to stop it from happening... So yeah, basically not what you would expect from a misogynist.

Anyway, he happened to phone just as I was reading this thread, thinking about what he would have to say for himself regarding his discomfort surrounding me and other penises. So I read him London's comment and here's his response:

"In a nutshell, no. I would be... hehe... I would be more surprised if you left me for a man than a woman. (Not you speficially, that's just anybody, maybe at some point you will meet Prince Charming Man who is perfect, and then that will be that). But uhh... I don't think that I see... there's... there's definitly been a thought, there's definitely a perception ... and it's not even a sexual thing, it's a mental thing. I think that a lot of guys have a thought, so I don't disagree with what she says, for many guys... Yeah, I can remember having many conversations with guys, [them:] "yeah I want to be with two girls" [him:] "Oh, so you don't have a problem with bi girls?" [them:] "Oh no, bi girls are disgusting." [him:] "So... what are they doing together?" [them:] "They're doing...stuff..." [him:] "Uhhh, that makes no sense to me." And oddly enough, that's not an uncommon conversation to have in that area... so, I don't know."

He never really got clear on what "the thought" was. I asked him to clarify:

Him: "I don't necessarily think she's wrong. I don't really know, it just goes into the whole jealousy thing, is what I've come up with it. Yeah, I think it's just jealousy."

Me: "Like, fear of losing, you mean?"

Him: "I... don't... know. Possibly, I guess. I don't really know what it is. I don't know. What was that word she said? The M-word?"

Me: "Misogyny?"

Him: "Yeah. What does that man?"

Me: "Hatred of women."

Him: (thinks) "No, I wouldn't say that's what it is. I don't hate women. I just, I don't know, I think guys are more threatening."

So that's one man's take on it. He doesn't hate women, even subconsciously (in my subjective opinion), but he thinks men are more threatening. He definitely believes that males and females are socialized differently (can't argue with that) and that there are also some inherent biological differences (can't argue with that, either). But we've talked a lot about sexism and "guy things" because he does use that excuse a lot, and I call him on it... "Oh, it's just a guy thing." "No, he's being an asshole. It's not a 'guy thing' to be an asshole. It's an asshole thing." I'm trying to break him of the belief that being socialized one way excuses behaviour.

But I really and truly don't believe he's a misogynist, i.e. that he hates women or thinks they're inferior. I just don't see it, not in the way he treats me or his daughter or the one woman on his male-dominated team. I mean, how many misogynists would risk their jobs to prevent a woman from doing menial tasks? He's always encouraged his daughter to speak up, stand up for her beliefs, not to take no gruff from her boyfriends. He doesn't have any close male friends, but his female friends can't tell me enough stories about all the times he's stood up for them, helped them out, been there just to listen...

But maybe that's also what makes the difference between "I would feel uncomfortable about it" vs "I'm asking you not to do it." I mean, just feeling uncomfortable about something doesn't make someone controlling, obviously. Telling your wimmins what to do is what makes you controlling...

 

[fuzzzilla]

Or they could be interpreted as "this is what you can do for me to make things easier for me, including dealing with difficult shit". And the other person is free to do the thing or not. Always hearing should is like always feeling people are blaming you for something and being defensive as a precaution. Not everything people ask for you means you have to oblige. Asking doesn't mean you expect to receive something. It's just stating a need. And someone who cares about the person asking for something might do that thing, just like fuzzzilla granted her fiancés request.

Thank you, so much. This is pretty much exactly how our conversation went, and I really appreciate those who are able to see the difference. <3

I get that people are really uncomfortable with calling their "requests" that their partner take action to prevent them from dealing with their own issues a "rule". It doesn't change the nature of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

Call it a request if that makes restricting a partners behaviors in service to your [you being general, not you as in copperhead] shortcomings a bit more palatable to you. The action is the same even if we call it a more friendly word.

The difference is that a rule MUST BE obeyed, and that a request MAY OR MAY NOT be granted. Also, and again this speaks only to our personal situation, this is not a way for him to avoid working on his issues, it is a way to take a big change in manageable bites, so the issues CAN be dealt with.

Doesn't matter what the excuses are - a OPP is misogynistic and based in extreme insecurity and a need to control women's sexuality. No one should ever tolerate that bullshit. If a guy wants a OPP, the fact is he has a warped sense of what polyamory "should" be and, in reality, is not ready for what it truly is.

Forgive me, but I don't like being told what I should or should not do. That may sound contradictory to you, because it seems like you think my fiancé is telling me what I should do and that I've just capitulated, but that is not the case. He exerted no control over me. He exposed a vulnerability, mentioned an option that felt like a good starting point to him, and I decided whether I was comfortable with it. I was, and am. And I have every right to be.
I was under the impression that polyamory truly is loving more than one person at a time with the awareness and consent of all involved, in whatever ways work best for all involved. Am I wrong? Is there a one true way?

I put my first post in this thread. I felt compelled to do that because I've been reading these forums for months, joyfully devouring so much information, and mostly feeling incredibly grateful that such a place exists. But every time I read the vitriol surrounding OPPs, it hurt. It hurt to see people saying that the person I love most in the world is misogynistic, controlling, insecure, and unwilling to work on his issues. It hurt to see people saying that I'm doing it wrong, that something that doesn't bother me at all is a thing I should never, ever do. It hurt even though, at the time, no one was saying these things to me directly.
I wanted to offer up a different scenario, and see if there was room for nuance here, because I like this community, and it is valuable to me, but I've always felt unwelcome. Like if I ever brought up my own situation, I and my partner would be judged.
I appreciate all of your thoughtful replies, and I apologize sincerely to the original poster for contributing to the hijacking of her thread.

 

[Marcus]

Sure, "restricting" someone puts it in "demand" zone. But requesting is not the same as restricting.

Requesting that they restrict their behavior in service of my shortcomings is the problem, in my opinion. It is projecting responsibility for ones issues onto someone else. "I can't/won't fix this thing, so do me a big fav and just stop doing anything which challenges my delicate sensibilities"

The intent is the same. The distinction you are making is between a mature person making a request and an immature person making a request - I don't see any change in the issue at hand, however.

I know I'm in the minority on this particular discussion so I won't belabor the point any further. I just like to get it out there to make sure folks know that there is another way to look at it.

The difference is that a rule MUST BE obeyed, and that a request MAY OR MAY NOT be granted. Also, and again this speaks only to our personal situation, this is not a way for him to avoid working on his issues, it is a way to take a big change in manageable bites, so the issues CAN be dealt with.

And you are well within your rights to disagree with me, as many do. If it works for you then do it, but folks who disagree on a discussion forum are likely to express their opinion as well. Granted, some of us a bit more "spirited" than others

 

[london]

Gralson has expressed a "discomfort" with the idea of me having sex with other men. He's never dared suggest that I can't, or even requested that I don't, so it's not a "control" thing because he's never suggested anything like a OPP. What he has said is that it would be really weird for him, and he would have some inner work to do around that if it happened.

Now, I don't see him as a misogynist. Gralson loves women. All his best friends are women, and have been since childhood. He's never been that close to guy friends. When he was a kid, boys used to beat him up, and his dad beat him up, so basically, to him, men aren't trustworthy: they'll fuck you up.

He's a railroader, runs a crew of 41 men and 1 woman. These past 3 weeks, he's been fighting for her, risking his job even, because his supervisor wants him to give her a menial job, and he thinks that's sexist and bullshit. He's printed her out the harassment form to file against his supervisor, offered to help her fill it out, involved the union rep to make sure they're aware of what the supervisor's trying to do as well as what he's risking to stop it from happening... So yeah, basically not what you would expect from a misogynist.

Anyway, he happened to phone just as I was reading this thread, thinking about what he would have to say for himself regarding his discomfort surrounding me and other penises. So I read him London's comment and here's his response:

"In a nutshell, no. I would be... hehe... I would be more surprised if you left me for a man than a woman. (Not you speficially, that's just anybody, maybe at some point you will meet Prince Charming Man who is perfect, and then that will be that). But uhh... I don't think that I see... there's... there's definitly been a thought, there's definitely a perception ... and it's not even a sexual thing, it's a mental thing. I think that a lot of guys have a thought, so I don't disagree with what she says, for many guys... Yeah, I can remember having many conversations with guys, [them:] "yeah I want to be with two girls" [him:] "Oh, so you don't have a problem with bi girls?" [them:] "Oh no, bi girls are disgusting." [him:] "So... what are they doing together?" [them:] "They're doing...stuff..." [him:] "Uhhh, that makes no sense to me." And oddly enough, that's not an uncommon conversation to have in that area... so, I don't know."

He never really got clear on what "the thought" was. I asked him to clarify:

Him: "I don't necessarily think she's wrong. I don't really know, it just goes into the whole jealousy thing, is what I've come up with it. Yeah, I think it's just jealousy."

Me: "Like, fear of losing, you mean?"

Him: "I... don't... know. Possibly, I guess. I don't really know what it is. I don't know. What was that word she said? The M-word?"

Me: "Misogyny?"

Him: "Yeah. What does that man?"

Me: "Hatred of women."

Him: (thinks) "No, I wouldn't say that's what it is. I don't hate women. I just, I don't know, I think guys are more threatening."

So that's one man's take on it. He doesn't hate women, even subconsciously (in my subjective opinion), but he thinks men are more threatening. He definitely believes that males and females are socialized differently (can't argue with that) and that there are also some inherent biological differences (can't argue with that, either). But we've talked a lot about sexism and "guy things" because he does use that excuse a lot, and I call him on it... "Oh, it's just a guy thing." "No, he's being an asshole. It's not a 'guy thing' to be an asshole. It's an asshole thing." I'm trying to break him of the belief that being socialized one way excuses behaviour.

But I really and truly don't believe he's a misogynist, i.e. that he hates women or thinks they're inferior. I just don't see it, not in the way he treats me or his daughter or the one woman on his male-dominated team. I mean, how many misogynists would risk their jobs to prevent a woman from doing menial tasks? He's always encouraged his daughter to speak up, stand up for her beliefs, not to take no gruff from her boyfriends. He doesn't have any close male friends, but his female friends can't tell me enough stories about all the times he's stood up for them, helped them out, been there just to listen...

But maybe that's also what makes the difference between "I would feel uncomfortable about it" vs "I'm asking you not to do it." I mean, just feeling uncomfortable about something doesn't make someone controlling, obviously. Telling your wimmins what to do is what makes you controlling...

I think that is the key difference. There are several things my partner might do that is out of my comfort zone due to a multitude of reasons, but even when that reason is autism, I have to tred carefully in order to make sure I'm not putting (too much) of my shit on him.

However, if you'd not protect a male in the same way you'd protect a female who was in some sort of trouble, that is something motivated by sexism and gender essentialism. You're saying that men are always less vulnerable etc than women.

 

[london]

@fuzzzila

If your partner needs a female partner who only dates other women, he should seek a bisexual woman who only wants one man in her life. That would be the ethical thing to do. Then you wouldn't need a rule to enforce it, what you're doing would already be her preference and what she was seeking.

Polyamory is about loving more than one person. You don't need to coddle someone's insecurities in order to love them. Some would profess you're doing quite the opposite, in fact.

And yes, I can say with 90% certainty that any thread you posted about a relationship issue with your partner would come back to the fact he is being permitted to act out of insecuriy and misogyny instead of being guided into examining his beliefs and understanding why they are both illogical and unreasonable.

You may not realise this but what you've done is sort of like this:

A is from a multicultural, cosmopolitan background where as B's only experience with people who aren't Caucasian have been when they have been committing crime, begging, drunk or generally being anti social.

Due to B's insecurities, B says zie doesn't want anybody who isn't Caucasian to be in their home or around their families. Now A has friends from other ethnicities, even some family members, but zie understands that B has had only negative experiences with non Caucasians, so thinks that zie should agree to keep them away until B can somehow get over their insecurity.

Now, most people would think that despite B's negative experiences, A should not agree with a rule that is essentially racist because racism is universally wrong. Ostracising non white people from your life is not conducive to getting over your racism. So why would a restriction on your female partner having other male partners in your polyship be a way of getting over sexism and misogyny?

 

[fuzzzilla]

Requesting that they restrict their behavior in service of my shortcomings is the problem, in my opinion. It is projecting responsibility for ones issues onto someone else. "I can't/won't fix this thing, so do me a big fav and just stop doing anything which challenges my delicate sensibilities"

The intent is the same. The distinction you are making is between a mature person making a request and an immature person making a request - I don't see any change in the issue at hand, however.

I know I'm in the minority on this particular discussion so I won't belabor the point any further. I just like to get it out there to make sure folks know that there is another way to look at it.

And you are well within your rights to disagree with me, as many do. If it works for you then do it, but folks who disagree on a discussion forum are likely to express their opinion as well. Granted, some of us a bit more "spirited" than others

I appreciate differing opinions being presented; they keep me thinking and asking questions about life, and how I relate to people, and help me to be a person with integrity, which is important to me. I realize you were speaking more generally at the beginning of this post, but the thing that's bugging me is that I feel like people (not just you) are glossing over things I've already clearly stated, like the fact that this is a temporary arrangement, and that he is working on figuring this stuff out, and jettisoning ideas that are not reasonable or useful. He is challenging himself, but these things take time, and I'm okay with that. I'm terribly proud of him, actually.
And yeah, I did post this with full awareness that I would not just receive a flurry of back-pats.

If your partner needs a female partner who only dates other women, he should seek a bisexual woman who only wants one man in her life. That would be the ethical thing to do. Then you wouldn't need a rule to enforce it, what you're doing would already be her preference and what she was seeking.

Polyamory is about loving more than one person. You don't need to coddle someone's insecurities in order to love them. Some would profess you're doing quite the opposite, in fact.

And yes, I can say with 90% certainty that any thread you posted about a relationship issue with your partner would come back to the fact he is being permitted to act out of insecuriy and misogyny instead of being guided into examining his beliefs and understanding why they are both illogical and unreasonable.

You may not realise this but what you've done is sort of like this:

A is from a multicultural, cosmopolitan background where as B's only experience with people who aren't Caucasian have been when they have been committing crime, begging, drunk or generally being anti social.

Due to B's insecurities, B says zie doesn't want anybody who isn't Caucasian to be in their home or around their families. Now A has friends from other ethnicities, even some family members, but zie understands that B has had only negative experiences with non Caucasians, so thinks that zie should agree to keep them away until B can somehow get over their insecurity.

Now, most people would think that despite B's negative experiences, A should not agree with a rule that is essentially racist because racism is universally wrong. Ostracising non white people from your life is not conducive to getting over your racism. So why would a restriction on your female partner having other male partners in your polyship be a way of getting over sexism and misogyny?

Who ever said that one man and x number of not-men wasn't my preference? We were talking about poly, and my only plan thus far had been, "Dang, it would be really neat to have a D/s relationship with a submissive woman."
We did a lot of talking. He voiced that request, and I was okay with it, in no small part due to the fact that I'm very satisfied with him, but I'd like to be very satisfied with a ladyperson as well. When the whole thing came up, dating dudes was not really on my mind, and it still isn't. So it's not a strain for me to keep this agreement, because, at least at this time, it's pretty much what I want too.
When we got together, neither of us were selecting for compatible poly beliefs because neither of us were considering poly at the time. We've been together for 3 1/2 years, as a monogamish couple. This is a new development.
I find it frustrating that I keep having to repeat that he is, in fact, examining his beliefs, and he already knows that they are irrational. We are not ostracizing men from our lives. He does not universally hate or distrust all men. He has male friends and relatives who he has good, close, trusting relationships with. He is not the only man with whom I have contact, nor even the only man with whom I may have romantic or sexual contact. As I have stated, we have agreed upon particular men who we both trust who, if it comes up, would be okay for me to get involved with. We are working on this, we're just doing it in stages, because this is a large change, and those are often best dealt with in manageable steps. Not everyone wants or needs to change everything and have it be perfect instantaneously.
And for the love of all things holy, he is not a misogynist.

 

[london]

I offered several caps and described what people I feel fit into which particular cap. Now I do not know you or your partner, yet you've come in and taken general comments and applied them to your relationship simply because you know you have a OPP (except if my partner thinks they're a nice guy) in place.

If your partner doesn't fit the misogyny cap, good for you, know you have my validation (since that's what you seem to be seeking here), if not, it's up to you whether you think these issues are a) important and 2) applicable to you and yours. If not, go along your merry way.

I'm not going to stop thinking that his insecurities are founded in misogyny and you enable it, though. But that's what I think about all gender based distinctions. It's about sexism and usually of the misogynistic variety. You cannot politely request I stop thinking that in order to keep within your comfort zones.

 

[FullofLove1052]

OP -- I would run like Usain Bolt. This chap seems like he is collecting a triple H--Happy Honey Harem. It seems as if there is nothing appealing about this situation, and if I am not mistaken, you posted before about how he prefers that you and the other ladies have sex to please him. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it seemed like you were only doing it because of him and not out of grand interest. Also, he would have been OK with a bisexual man (unicorn) that you could all have a timeshare with. I would not touch that with a 30 metre pole. If it is like this now and you have not moved in, imagine how it might be after you are there and locked into a mortgage, let, or whatever. If you move, I say move into your own flat or somewhere close. Do you even have any interest in moving? You and the other ladies might get on well, but personalities can clash when sharing a residence. If you move in, make sure you have a back-up plan and/or nest egg.

Fuzzzilla -- Do what works for you and your fiance. OPP's are not the worst thing. There are women who impose OPP on themselves or actually want one. You are in agreement, so it must be something you can live with--even temporarily. Your fiance has not put the iron fist down and commanded you to obey him like a submissive, obedient little woman. If you are happy, good for you and keep carrying on.

I have no opinion on OPP. If it works for the couple, do it and do it well. I have heard varying things. One said he was not comfortable with the potential of pregnancy, being legally recognised as the father, and having to step up, if the father did not take responsibility. Another said any other person was a turn off. I did not press for more information. I have heard women self-impose OPP without the influence of a partner. I had my own in place, but it is a moot point because if I have not met another man who could tickle my fancy in 15 years, I am not holding my breath and expecting one in the future. I am facing the music. My husband was a one-off. I doubt I would date another man, if we divorced. These days a one-partner policy works better.

 

[london]

You speak to your partner about the potential of pregnancy and what they would do if they conceived and either didn't know the paternity of the pregnancy or knew it was not yours.

 

[LoveBunny]

My husband says the reason he is more comfortable with me being with women is NOT because he finds women "less threatening." In fact, if the past is any indication, I'm more likely to fall hard for a woman than a man. It is more that he understands that a woman is giving me something he can't (soft skin/breasts/vagina etc.) It is harder for him to wrap his brain around me wanting other men because he thinks, "But I'm already providing those things (penis, harder body, larger size, etc.)."

I don't have much BSDM experience, but I imagine it's similar to someone who is vanilla feeling comfortable with their s.o. having a dom or a sub, but chafing at the idea of their s.o. having another vanilla relationship. I even think I read that in one of the poly books, I forget which, and it stuck with me: that most poly relationships are about seeking "other,"or seeking "more."

That being said, I vetoed my personal OPP, and, it IS thought-provoking how rarely Other Vagina Policies seem to come up....

As for the OP, I can't imagine being satisfied as part of a harem, or having sex with other women in the bed if I wasn't sexually aroused by the other women. Is it all about the man's pleasure? Or does the OP enjoys the feelings of "sisterhood" this situation creates? I do wonder why these women agree to live together, sleep together, and let their lives revolve around this one man, it's a bit far out of my realm of existence.

 

[london]

I have heard a few women express their discomfort at their male, bisexual partner getting involved with other women.

How does your husband know you won't simply beg your female partner to fuck you with her biggest strap on? I don't see how that would be more comfortable than a man with a real penis banging her.