One Penis Policy

[Vinccenzo]

Your choice to not have your lover touch your penis doesn't address the fact that you see her as a potential grossness sponge should she ever touch one, while not seeing your entire self as gross for being attached to one.

 

[InsaneMystic]

What makes you think that I don't consider my own body gross for this exact reason? That organ between my legs has been a pretty serious source of body dysphoria for me for decades. I do feel stuck in an icky meat prison, and yep, that organ is the most important (though not the only) reason for this icky/filthy feeling. It's the exact reason why it would, indeed, feel misogynistic to me to inflict contact with that thing on any woman (regardless of whether or not she likes said infliction)... and yeah, just generally misanthropic to inflict it on anyone, period.

That's why I don't understand hetero guys who go for an OPP. (Well, admittedly, I don't really understand heterosexuals, in general. ) If penis/semen = gross, then it's obvious that the most ethical choice for someone stuck with such an organ on their body isn't OPP, but celibacy. I can't relate to how anyone can see it as okay to inflict their own "grossery" on someone they claim to love.

Also, expressing it as "grossness sponge" doesn't address the problem that the sexual activities she'd then be actively seeking out are ones that are viscerally disgusting to me. Now, I don't know what sexual activities turn you queasy, personally... maybe bestiality or necrophilia. Would you consider it okay to leave a partner when you find out they regularly engage in sex with animals or corpses (setting legality aside for a moment; there are places on this planet where neither practice is against the law, so just imagine theoretical you living in such a country), or would leaving a partner over this mean you have started discriminating against them by seeing them as a "grossness sponge"? (Not just a rhethorical question, btw. I'm interested in the logic of your viewpoint.)


As an aside... any reason is a good enough and valid reason to end a relationship over. In my own value ranking, independence and free choice trump commitment/duty, by far; I simply wouldn't want to be in a relationship in the first place if it wasn't guaranteed to both myself and to all other people involved that each of us is fully free to leave the arrangement at any time, for any reason at all, the moment we choose to do so. Commitment, in and of itself, is of no value to me at all.

 

[Vinccenzo]

Also, expressing it as "grossness sponge" doesn't address the problem that the sexual activities she'd then be actively seeking out are ones that are viscerally disgusting to me. Now, I don't know what sexual activities turn you queasy, personally... maybe bestiality or necrophilia. Would you consider it okay to leave a partner when you find out they regularly engage in sex with animals or corpses (setting legality aside for a moment; there are places on this planet where neither practice is against the law, so just imagine theoretical you living in such a country), or would leaving a partner over this mean you have started discriminating against them by seeing them as a "grossness sponge"? (Not just a rhethorical question, btw. I'm interested in the logic of your viewpoint.)
As an aside... any reason is a good enough and valid reason to end a relationship over. In my own value ranking, independence and free choice trump commitment/duty, by far; I simply wouldn't want to be in a relationship in the first place if it wasn't guaranteed to both myself and to all other people involved that each of us is fully free to leave the arrangement at any time, for any reason at all, the moment we choose to do so. Commitment, in and of itself, is of no value to me at all.

Animals can't consent and a person using them in a sexual fashion is an implication on their character. They won't be physically infected by the act but that they forced themselves on another living being can indicate a character one might not wish to deal with. I suppose sex with a corpse would give me pause. No consent needed there. Is it safer sex? I mean we are talking about decaying matter there.

A closer analogy would be someone that finds S&M activities a big turn off while still allowing that their partner is still the same person they are fond of before and after participating in S&M activities with someone else.

Of course anyone is free to end a relationship for whatever reason. It still helps us to examine why we create the conditions for continuing or ending that relationship in the first place.

 

[kdt26417]

Are all parts of all organisms repulsive? and if not, why should some parts be more repulsive than others?

I take a very clinical/scientific/atheist view and see every part of every living thing as a step in the vast dance of evolution. And the evolution of life is, in turn, a step in the vast dance of the cosmos.

Like skin, blood, and feces: semen (and ejaculate) is just "stuff." The Universe is filled with all kinds of stuff. I place no more more value judgment on any kind of organic stuff than I do on, say, the frozen plains of Pluto. Well that's my philosophy anyway.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Animals can't consent and a person using them in a sexual fashion is an implication on their character. They won't be physically infected by the act but that they forced themselves on another living being can indicate a character one might not wish to deal with. I suppose sex with a corpse would give me pause. No consent needed there. Is it safer sex? I mean we are talking about decaying matter there.

Okay, so let's stick with necrophilia (because your point about consent certainly is valid). Would it still give you pause if the partner was consistently using condoms, disinfectants etc. when going for a romp in the morgue's sheets, and thus avoiding health-related problems? Would that be a reason for you to break up with them, and how would you think does that relate to the question of seeing them without putting evaluation on their behavior?

A closer analogy would be someone that finds S&M activities a big turn off while still allowing that their partner is still the same person they are fond of before and after participating in S&M activities with someone else.

No... that would only be true if the thought of S&M actively turns your stomach. (In which case, yeah, breaking up with a partner because they're into S&M definitely seems the smartest thing to do, IMO, and I'd advise to end the relationship sooner rather than later. You simply don't work as a couple, and the sooner you make the necessary cut, the better.) We're not just talking about "a big turnoff" here, we're talking about active, visceral disgust.

For me, personally, sex involving a penis really is much closer to necrophilia than to S&M in the strength of reaction it causes me. While S&M is really not my cuppa, it would not be something that'd gross me out to know a partner is engaging in with others. I'd basically just think of it as a hobby I'm just not into, and would give a pass in my own 'ship with them.
Penile sex is a completely different matter, for me, and whether or not it was done with a living partner or with a corpse would just be a minor difference in degree (yeah, corpse dick will be slightly more icky, but not to the point of being a fundamentally different league of grossness). For me, it's actively disturbing to be with a partner who seeks that kind of thing out, whereas S&M is a lot more of a "take it or leave it" practice.

So, clearly, a partner who really is into penile sex would be better off without me in her life complicating stuff, and I don't see any real alternative than to break up with her (or, preferrably, not ever date her in the first place), in order to maximize both her freedom and my peace of mind. Everything else would sound like an unacceptably big sacrifice either or both sides would have to make just for the sake of remaining partners. I simply don't see that work, at least not healthily and without massive suffering and resentments building up... and that's not worth bothering with, IMO. Being single is infinitely preferrable than being stuck in a miserable partnership.

I simply disagree that a someone who is into something is the same as someone who isn't. That's the actual difference here, and of course it will impact my evaluation of them as to whether or not they are an eligible partner. (In fact, I find it weird if someone wouldn't see that as relevant at all in said evaluation.) It's not about what grossness they have "sponged up", but whether their own tastes and preferences - and as such, their innate character traits - are inherently too gross for me to be able to be with them as a partner. That's as good a dealbreaker as any other, IMO.

Of course anyone is free to end a relationship for whatever reason. It still helps us to examine why we create the conditions for continuing or ending that relationship in the first place.

I'm glad we clearly agree on that first bit.

I think disgust at a partner's actions is more than sufficient as a reason... I'm not sure what deeper layer of "why" you'd need? I don't see much point in overanalyze stuff beyond that; once you've noticed that you're incompatible with someone, I think it's moot to dig for a deeper layer of why. There's no such thing as the magical answer to find that solves all the compatibility issues (I'd rate that Freudian therapy myth as so busted, lol).

Better just to call it a day, accept you're not cut out to be anything beyond platonic friends/acquaintances, and have everyone involved move on with their lives as non-partners.

Are all parts of all organisms repulsive? and if not, why should some parts be more repulsive than others?

*shrug* No idea why, it's just the way it is. Feelings aren't rational, the human mind is a weird, complex, and fallible thing, yadda yadda.

I take a very clinical/scientific/atheist view and see every part of every living thing as a step in the vast dance of evolution. And the evolution of life is, in turn, a step in the vast dance of the cosmos.

Like skin, blood, and feces: semen (and ejaculate) is just "stuff." The Universe is filled with all kinds of stuff. I place no more more value judgment on any kind of organic stuff than I do on, say, the frozen plains of Pluto. Well that's my philosophy anyway.

Heh. Funny thing is, what you call an atheist view here is what I would call "the view of god" - a completely detached, objective, unemotional, and unconditionally accepting stance. Which I, a mortal individual in a bag of meat and bones with a subjective mind, have accepted as completely unattainable during my physical life, much as I think it would be frickin' awesome.

(But I guess that's just about the maximum amount of theology this thread can handle without becoming utterly derailed... )

 

[Vinccenzo]

Okay I get it. You don't like penises. I find it odd you can't conceive of anyone being grossed out by S&M sex to the same level as your disgust of male sex parts. But that's you so - whatever.

So let's go with necro sex since you insist. I'd need to educate myself on health risks and the likelihood of legal backlash in having a partner who, without trying to convince me to participate, will be using a dead thing sexually. Since I have not been in this situation before, I can only guess what that research would yield. If it wasn't a health risk and didn't seem a thing tha would result in jail time and monetary fines, I would keep the partner if all else in the relationship was good. I just wouldn't participate. I'm not religious and bodies are just meat to me. If my primary partner of 10 years let me know not to cook the flank steak in the fridge because he intended to masturbate with it later, I wouldn't leave him over it. He is washable.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Okay I get it. You don't like penises. I find it odd you can't conceive of anyone being grossed out by S&M sex to the same level as your disgust of male sex parts. But that's you so - whatever.

Well, I haven't yet - to my knowledge, at least - met anyone who was. From what I can tell, S&M seems a lot more acceptable in the general populace than penile sex is to me, personally. *shrug*



As for the rest of the post... I can just say this sounds like you're remarkably chill and open-minded. Which is cool, and I guess you have me clearly beat in that respect.

I just don't think this should be expected as standard. It's perfectly okay to be disgusted by whatever it is that disgusts you, and to take steps to avoid the disgusting stuff in your life... it only becomes a problem once you feel tempted to police others into not doing stuff you personally find disgusting. As long as that problematic step is not taken, the feeling of revulsion by itself deserves respect. People have a right to be disgusted, and I don't think it's okay to ever shame anyone for feeling it.

 

[Vinccenzo]

Socrates said a life unexamined isn't one worth living. I think that's a pretty bold statement but I could see how it could make for a life full of confusion and fear. I can't even begin to guess why you feel the way you do about the things you've shared so its very easy to insensitively tell you to just get over it. I can only say there are things I've had negative feelings about that I know would still exist if I had just avoided them entirely. I'm glad to no longer have those negative feelings.

 

[Magdlyn]

Insane Mystic is actively repelled by all sex. Obviously he is an anomaly in the mammal kingdom. Asexual people can't reproduce (without artificial insemination) so therefore if we all were ace, there would be no more us in a generation. Whether he was traumatized or born that way... If it's due to trauma, perhaps therapy could help. If it's some kind of neurological/hormonal thing, meds? Or just be fine living that way, as he seems to be, certainly a valid option.

Poly men who have an OPP are conditioned by a patriarchal/misogynistic (women=property) and homophobic (sex with men=disgusting) culture. Being sexist and a homophobe is really not acceptable anymore.

I think we are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Insane Mystic is actively repelled by all sex.

There actually is a small range of sexual activities I'm fully okay with. The only part of that range I myself am physically capable of (for anatomical reasons) is giving - definitely not receiving - a one-sided handjob to a woman.

Or just be fine living that way, as he seems to be, certainly a valid option.

Yup. It's why I consider myself lucky being ace, and think I'd be far worse off if I was sexual. If I actually felt a desire to have partnered sex, but would be stopped from having it by my repulsion, my life would be a lot more stressful. Seeing as I don't have the desire to start with, it's all fine and dandy - there's simply no "suffering pressure" that'd make therapy necessary for me.

Of course, not feeling entitled to a relationship with anyone, and being at ease with the fact that compatible partners are likely to be as rare as ca. one in a hundred thousand, is another of the reasons why there's no such suffering for me.

Poly men who have an OPP are conditioned by a patriarchal/misogynistic (women=property) and homophobic (sex with men=disgusting) culture. Being sexist and a homophobe is really not acceptable anymore.

I think we are comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed. It's why I've already said that I find it hard to relate to why a heterosexual guy would insist on an OPP, and doubt that there would be a scenario where I wouldn't find it an ethically shady thing to ask for.

 

[Memorandum]

My goodness you have the elitist type of ace attitude. I was debating even calling that out. Lucky because you're ace? Please get over yourself. You find it hard to relate, I have to ask why you even bothered with the mini series tirade.

I'm ace but come on .
I'd have just left it alone if I was that bent over the issue.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Elitist attitude?? Not at all. Whatever gives you that impression?

If it's "elitist" to consider oneself lucky not to be in a situation that creates unneccessary harm to oneself and others, I'd say anyone who isn't "elitist" in that way has massive self-worth issues and should seek professional help (maybe medical, of the antidepressant kind). Luckily, the overwhelming majority of people of this planet are mentally healthy enough to be "elitist" in this way. (Do you prefer to live in a country that allows you to express your opinions publicly on an internet messageboard? If so, you're totally an elitist by your own standards. )

Not being ace would ruin my personal life quality - that's a plain and simple fact, just accept it and get over it. That fact does not make me in any way better than any other people. Like, at all. Maybe you should stop looking for things to get offended by that nobody ever said or implied at all?


The main reason why I posted in this thread is because I disagree with the idea that the view "penis = icky" were inherently misogynistic. I still don't see the logic behind that, and thus consider the statement wrong.

Having penile sex with a woman while holding that view - that, indeed, is misogynistic, and that certainly is one of the problems with heterosexual guys going for OPPs.


Oh, btw, just for the record... I consider myself sex-positive. I guess your mind just got blown, eh?

 

[kdt26417]

Come to think about it, we generally allow people to have their own sexual/romantic tastes for whatever reason and don't badger them about it. Am I gay? Then people (hopefully) won't ask me what's wrong with my psyche that repels me from having sex with women. Am I into a certain kind of kink? People (hopefully) won't ask me why I'm so obsessed about it, not even if I wouldn't enjoy sex without it.

So I guess if someone has, shall we say, a thing for avoiding penises, then that's their sexual preference and I hope we wouldn't treat it like a mental illness or something. To each his own, people have all kinds of "strange" and that's fine as long as they respect each other's autonomy and treat each other nicely and fairly. We're obviously not obligated to want *every* kind of sex with *everyone.*

And I guess you could go a step farther and say, maybe someone has a thing for their *own* penis, plus a thing for completely avoiding all other penises, and maybe that's a sexual preference to them and thus not mine to question. It would be hard to prove that someone's "OPP fetish" was an "OPP hang-up."

Of course we can say that *if* something (be it an OPP or whatever) is misogynistic then it's symptomatic of some kind of (mild to severe) psychological problem. We could also say that if someone has a "thing" for OPP dynamics, then they should give their potential partners fair warning about that ahead of time.

That's all I'm sure about at the moment.

 

[InsaneMystic]

@kdt... Well put, one of those moments when I wish there was a "like" button.

The one problem I still see there is the question how someone can respect a partner's autonomy and freedom while making rules that limit their choice in other partners and behavioral expression. That's what just rubs me wrong about OPP arrangements (and veto rights, and heck, monogamy in general); you interfere with the partner's personal choice of how they wish to lead their life, thus impeding their rights. I'd see myself consistently preferring to just break up instead of imposing limits on a partner - and vice versa, if a partner tried to impose limits on me, I'd remind them that they're always free to leave if they can't/won't accept my behavior.

I couldn't deal well with the sheer feeling of guilt about making someone sacrifice a part of their life for the sake of keeping up our relationship... if that's how it would be for them, I'd feel that they're clearly better off without me. If the sitch was vice versa, I would definitely consider myself better off without them in my life.

I guess I'm pretty much at an extreme end of the autonomy vs. symbiosis scale... and it's not the symbiotic one. Even as partners, maybe especially as partners, I feel that everyone should stick to their own business and not meddle in that of others.

 

[kdt26417]

Re:

"The one problem I still see there is the question of how someone can respect a partner's autonomy and freedom while making rules that limit their choice in other partners and behavioral expression."

Well, I would say that in that case, they're not respecting their partner's autonomy. Though it might be worth noting that no one can really limit someone else's choices -- unless they use some kind of physical force. What one can do is refrain from saying stuff like, "I forbid you to do this or that," instead saying something like, "I can't promise you I'll always be in this relationship with you, but I can promise I'll honor your freedom and autonomy." The only kind of rules we should try to impose on each other are stuff like, "Don't rape, don't mug, don't steal, don't murder, etc."

OPP's seem excusable to me as long as fair warning is given about them ahead of time, and as long as they're then implemented not as a rule, but as a condition for continuing that particular relationship. "MPP's [M for Multiple] aren't my cup of tea, so if you want an MPP you can have one with my blessing, but we'll still have to transition from a romance back into a platonic friendship."

But as you indicated, some people are relatively symbiotic and would rather make some sacrifices (small or great) to maintain the (otherwise enjoyable) relationship. [shrug] That's part of people's right to freedom too. They get to decide how much (if anything) they're willing to give up for a relationship.

 

[InsaneMystic]

[...] as long as they're then implemented not as a rule, but as a condition for continuing that particular relationship. "MPP's [M for Multiple] aren't my cup of tea, so if you want an MPP you can have one with my blessing, but we'll still have to transition from a romance back into a platonic friendship."

Yup, that actually sounds perfectly fine to me.

I'd think at this point it stops being a rule within the relationship, but a condition to be fulfilled to even be in that ship in the first place.. but that may well be just a case of the old "potayto, potahto" depending on what viewpoint one comes from.

But as you indicated, some people are relatively symbiotic and would rather make some sacrifices (small or great) to maintain the (otherwise enjoyable) relationship. [shrug] That's part of people's right to freedom too. They get to decide how much (if anything) they're willing to give up for a relationship.

Oh, they are, and I don't want to interfere with it. I'll just make it crystal clear to "symbionts" that they have no chance in Hell getting me on board of the kind of ship they prefer, so in return I won't try to coax them aboard an Autonomy Class Vessel. *geekily running with the metaphor*

As long as they abide by the rule of "count me out of that", they are free to do whatever they please, and should remain to be so without my or anyone else's interference.

 

[kdt26417]

Sounds like a plan, Stan.