the "one-penis policy" thread

[Ravenscroft]

You've actually touched on a couple of hot buttons in your post. The first - that your wife will date other women (but presumably not other men) is often referred to somewhat derisively in the poly world as the OPP or "One Penis Policy", meaning that the husband is ok for his wife to have other sexual relationships - as long as they are only with women. This is generally frowned upon in the poly community as the restriction implies an issue of control that runs contrary to the spirit of poly - so you might receive some push back on that if you brave the waters of the poly community, unless of course, that is her preference - and she is the one who wants to restrict her other relationships to women.

I don't personally see anything inherently wrong with the socalled OPP: it recognizes the fact that not everyone getting into nonmonogamy (whether directly or due to a partner's explorations) instantly becomes some sort of emotionally super-mature being. So long as it's out in the open, not coerced, & achieved by negiotiation, what's the harm? (I knew a woman who wanted an explicit OPP in place, because she intended to explore a long-held desire to have sex with women, & didn't want to be distracted.) Sure, they'd be better off without it, but I can say the same about all sorts of rules & boundaries. If they're smart, they'll renegotiate OPP as they settle in, & discard it when it's ceased being important.

...however, as these Forums see on a regular basis, OPP presents problems. It appears fairly common that, after agreeing to an OPP "to explore her bisexuality" or some other rationale to "get my needs met," the restricted partner soon starts to realize that it's A LOT easier to find a willing "cowboy" than even meet a potential girlfriend.

There's an old truism that applies here. It was supposedly Mencken who quipped

When somebody says "it's not about the money," it's about the money.

With all the Romantic bullcrap about nonmonogamy, & despite plenty of gushiness about "it's about LOVE, not mere animal SEX!!" then soon enough someone who sets out looking for Life Partners will go a little wacky at the lack of ability to go sexually wild. A guy who wants to "open our marriage" ONLY to get involved with Linda from work (or something similar) will show signs of being dissatisfied with his previous dyad partner AND with Linda, maybe feeling like he has to "make up for lost time" for all those straitjacket mono years. And a gal who sets out to have a girlfriend soon enough is willing to expand Miss Right to include Mister Right-Now.

And as we have also seen, when people have stepped onto that slippery slope, it doesn't easily improve.

Many people SUCK at dating: they can't relax & have fun getting to know a new person, because they've bought into the Monogamist myth of mate-shopping, where the purpose of hanging out with someone can ONLY be to make either other perform like trained monkeys to determine whether Life Partner status can be proclaimed (preferably by date #4 )... though, really, after a few dates one or both will begin loosening the rules so much that pretty much ANYONE would qualify, including serial killers on Death Row.

Often, they latch onto someone handy who is emotionally unstable or addicted or neurotic or narcissistic or simply out to cowboy/-girl the couple apart & replace one dyad with another; particularly because of that latter being so common, I see the appearance of OPP as a ticking time-bomb, & therefore circumstantially anti-nonmonogamy.

Again: if OPP is necessary as part of the learning experience, then that's just hunky-dunky... but it really should be sunsetted ASAP, if instated at all.

 

[Cereal]

It goes without saying that if the P of the OPP knows he is being unfair but just wants to take it slowly, that it can be the first step to poly.

I do agree that the same applies to all rules and boundaries. I am extremely new to this lifestyle, but from I am understanding, setting rules is only to make the transition easier; or at least it should be. In the end, there should be no need for rules. Kinda like anarchism, don't you think?

 

[jayblue122]

So my issue with the one penis policy is alot more about the ideas that it tends to spawn from and promote.

- women are less threatening
- romanic relationships between women are not "real" relationships that could cause jealousy or issues

This is a quieter form of discrimination against gay/ bisexual couples that is still harmful

- the OPP oversimplifies gender and Is trans/gq-exclusionary
- double standard

Usually, the rule is made by cis-men with penises and the OPP has deep roots in toxic masculinity. Often men are allowed to sleep with any gender they want (which usually is just women) while their girlfriends can only sleep with women, despite an existing attraction to other off-limit genders

- they are controlling

One penis policies are fundamentally sexist and heterosexist. What I see as "Wrong" with OPP is the harmful attitudes it is rooted in and that it promotes.

Also there is a difference between single-gender dating naturally occurring in one’s relationship versus it being laid down as a strict policy or rule

 

[central]

It's almost inevitable that there will be rules when first easing into any form of nonmonogamy. There is going to be fear, and jealousy, and these things have to be overcome and managed, and coping methods learned so they don't cause the experiment to end before it has a fair trial.

How often does someone come to try poly because the female partner in a relationship is bi? I think this is a far more common scenario than the man (or both) being bi, so I'll only talk about M-F couples with a bisexual female. If they open the relationship, it is often solely for her to explore her interest in women. No additional penises are needed or desired. And this is especially true if the male partner isn't getting to participate with his partner's new partner. I think the unicorn hunters have a tough time of it, and couple privilege is a far greater obstacle.

The next step would be for the male partner to seek another partner as well, and that would be another female. She may not be bi, so would have no interest in his partner. At this point, everyone is getting what they set out to experience. Her female partner may have a spouse or other partner, and so may his.

It gets a lot more complicated once they try to expand from there - if they even want to. It will be much easier for her to find another male partner than for him to find another female partner - if he's even managed to find one. This is just the reality for most men (not all, of course, and not always).

Anyway, it may never be "fair." But it may come down to what each can handle, and to how much time they're willing to give up as a couple to spend with others. If one partner is spending a lot of time with others while the other has no option but to sit home, that will likely cause some problems. Is that worth it? I guess those involved get to decide how to negotiate this issue, and I would not be surprised if a OPP is agreed to for this specific set of circumstances.

As for us, we don't have a OPP. She likes men (she's not bi), and I like women. We've both managed to find other partners, often in the same general period of time, so neither of us feels left out or neglected. If we did, we'd try to find ways to handle that without imposing unpleasant limits on each other. So far, we've always managed to find a workable solution that does not add significant restrictions.

 

[Spork]

I'll speak to this since I am in a relationship that features it.

On paper, and philosophically, I completely agree with all of the arguments against the idea of the OPP.

However.

When I transitioned into more of a dyad and left my poly-quad relationships dialed back to nonsexual friendship, I asked my guy, "OK, so I've been doing this poly thing. I'm pretty flexible though, and I'm able to focus on just our relationship going forward if that's more comfortable for you. I don't truly take issue with monogamy, only with some of the common assumptions that most people bundle in with it. I definitely need unrestricted social capacity to be loving, affectionate, flirty, and friendly with anyone I please...but I don't have to have sex with others. However, I don't mind if you have sex with others, if that's what you want, as long as we've got honesty in whatever we're doing. So please tell me...what would make YOU most comfortable, in shaping our future together?"

And he said that he would prefer that I not have sex with other men. I continued the negotiations to be very specific, as I'm in the BDSM lifestyle, this does not include top/bottom play at parties for instance, but specifically and only genital contact. He said that the only way he could put his feelings into words on the subject is, if I were having sex with another man, he would fear that I'd prefer it maybe, to having sex with him. It would make him specifically feel afraid and insecure.

So I thought about it a bit. And I asked myself, "If I accept this specific restriction...what do I lose? I don't tend to notice or nurture other sexual connections much with new people when I'm in 'taken mode' and my sexual needs are very well met with this man. There is only one man I've known from before that I would even wish to have sex with, and logical reality tells me it's not only unlikely, it's unwise (he's not a very safe partner.) So...I lose pretty much nothing, here." I agreed to his request, on the condition that if I ever need to renegotiate that, I must be able to do so honestly without fear of a big crazy blowup over it. In turn, he can trust me that I WILL be honest if I need a new agreement in the future.

Thing is...while I consider myself poly-AMOROUS (love, feelings) I don't feel a big need to be poly-SEXUAL. I hunger for conversation, mental stimulation, and affectionate gestures...sexual satisfaction I have aplenty with the man I'm with. He, on the other hand, has had limited experience compared to me, and I would not begrudge him the opportunity to expand his explorations with other women (the only people he would wish to be sexual with anyhow.)

So despite my "on paper" thoughts about OPP, in a more real sense of where the rubber meets the road, I think people should ultimately do the needful introspection, examine their needs and motivations, and just do whatever works for them. Painting all such agreements with the broad brush that it is discriminatory on its face, is like saying that women should not participate in power exchange relationships as submissives, because we as a gender are trying to work for social equality and it's a step back into second class citizenship. Bullpoop! Do what fulfills YOU. Just make sure you're listening to your own authentic voice in whatever you undertake, not JUST agreeing to be agreeable.

 

[Magdlyn]

One penis policies are a patriarchal attitude. If you support it or insist upon it, you are enforcing the patriarchy. Full stop.

We have had a patriarchy in place for, more or less, 5000 years. Woman hung on to some power until about 400 AD but it was a tenuous grip, and threatened on all sides, economically, and in fear of extreme violence. I am talking murder. I am talking exile and starvation, for herself and her children.

Back before the patriarchy, during a time when things were more in balance (and we are talking for hundreds of thousands of years, prehistorically), women had economic power, they owned lands and goods, they traded, they could pass belongings down to their offspring. They had goddesses to look up to, to worship, honor, emulate. The Goddess' myths abound in early written history (see Inanna, Ishtar, Isis), in fairy tales that have escaped censorship, on ancient tombs, pyramids, steles, etc.

One important part of pre-patriarchal history was the sexual autonomy of women. They could choose their own lovers, they could, and did, choose to have multiple lovers at once. The children resulting from the MF unions belonged to the mother, to the Goddess, to the temple, to the village or town. The mother didn't depend on a deadbeat biological daddy in a nuclear family arrangement.

Holy women (mistranslated as temple prostitutes) lived at temples and received men as priestesses or representatives of the Goddess. There, among other duties, they received men sexually, in a type of sacred marriage consummation. This was an honored passage in ordinary women's lives, or a livelong occupation and privilege.

So. One penis policies, no matter the excuses made by men or "their women," are holdovers from our long sorry history of men owning women. Women for thousands of years, and still today, are seen as possessions of men. Men want to control women's sexuality. They want to raise their own biological children. Back in the day (as recently as the 19th century in Mormonism) men could have 2, 5, 30 wives, as many as they could afford. Women could only have one husband. This was so hard to force on the public, the Levites of the Bible wrote the Adam and Even myth to enforce it, masquerading as the word of Yahweh (God). The snake and tree represent the Goddess of the Hebrews, Asherah. People of the time would have recognised Her symbols of wisdom and spiritual nourishment and sexual power.

Ever since the patriarchy took hold, until very recently women HAD to hook a man to provide for and protect her, to survive, to raise her children. Nowadays, thanks to feminists from merely the last couple hundred years, women have reliable birth control, sometimes the right to abortion, sometimes can make a living wage, sometimes have some state support safety nets when Daddy cums and goes, leaving Mama with a bunch of kids.

I think it helps to spread this underlying history to understand why it is so hard for men to feel comfortable with a truly sexually open marriage.

 

[Rockit49]

What's your answer, Magdly, to

The ladies, situations, I've know of my entire life that have multiple kids from multiple daddy's that can be held financially accountable but aren't held to it? The ladies choice.. Even if that is changing to the positive now ..I would hope ( eyeroll)
And it's not one off situation...it's a Norm for however small or large a number it is.

On subject...yeah OPP is a tell of self/situation!
Can be good or down right awfull

 

[Emm]

If one partner is spending a lot of time with others while the other has no option but to sit home, that will likely cause some problems. Is that worth it? I guess those involved get to decide how to negotiate this issue, and I would not be surprised if a OPP is agreed to for this specific set of circumstances.

How does limiting the gender of the other people help in this situation?

 

[central]

How does limiting the gender of the other people help in this situation?

From many people's perspectives, it doesn't. However, it will always come down to what each person can handle, and what compromises they are willing to make to keep the relationship(s) intact. There is nothing wrong with that, even if it offends some people's sense of fairness. Life isn't fair - at best we can strive for an ideal.

We don't have a OPP. However, IF I were unable to handle her having other male partners, she could choose to ignore my feelings and do so anyway, and I could choose to leave her if she does. We are all free agents - we can choose to accept limits, or not, and either way we accept the consequences of our choices. That's simply the reality of life.

 

[Spork]

But ya know, the sometimes it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

It made all the difference in the world that, instead of saying "You can't do that" to me, as though it were some kind of RULE or ultimatum, my partner said, "Well...I won't ask anything of you, and I want you to have what you need...this is just something that would make me feel more comfortable." I then got to make the choice for myself, and offer this. If I needed to have sex with other men, I could expect him to work though his discomforts with all the help I could give him. I just don't feel that it's something I really need.

It would be a lot different if I truly WANTED to have sex with other men. I'm not really sure I even want to have sex with other women. Of course by sex, I'm only speaking of the very most narrow definition of fooling about with another human's genital parts...there are a thousand other things I can and might do with others of any gender, that bear no restrictions under the negotiated terms of my relationship, at all.

The other thing here in my case, is that I've got a guy who asks for very, very little, and is very, very giving in a great many ways. So if making his life a bit less stressful and avoiding pushing his emotional insecurity buttons in this way helps him to be happier, it is not in this case too much to ask.

However, when my ex said that I was "allowed" to have sex with other women because that didn't "count" and could only explain it by saying that a woman was not a "threat" to him... You know, the material facts of the matter might be basically the same, but the WAY the idea was communicated rubbed me completely the wrong way. And he also objected to me being friends with men, flirting with men, being affectionate to men, letting other men see me not only nude but even "dressed sexy"... Not having sex with someone is the easiest thing in the world for me, but I cannot live comfortably with a whole laundry list of restrictions that define how I've got to present myself to half of the world's population.

 

[Tinwen]

I love Magdlyn's post. Great reminder of history.

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). Could be about feeling safe/unsafe around a certain sex.
And women totally have these same traits amongst each other too.

I wonder how many women feel threatened by female metamour, but would find it kind of cute (or possibly gross but not as threatening) if their husband was to date a guy. There's just a different dynamics between opposite sexes.
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.

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.

 

[kdt26417]

I'm okay with an OPP as long as it is done with mutual consent.

 

[Emm]

From many people's perspectives, it doesn't.

It's like taking up origami because you discovered you have an allergy to nuts. The solution (restricting the gender of potential metamors) doesn't address the problem (not enough time spent as a couple). Time spent with a woman takes just as long as time spent with a man. Wouldn't a more effective reaction to being upset that your partner is out a lot be to request they spend more time at home?

 

[central]

It's like taking up origami because you discovered you have an allergy to nuts. The solution (restricting the gender of potential metamors) doesn't address the problem (not enough time spent as a couple). Time spent with a woman takes just as long as time spent with a man. Wouldn't a more effective reaction to being upset that your partner is out a lot be to request they spend more time at home?

I don't know how other people think. However, adding a second partner of whatever gender will typically reduce the amount of time spent with the original partner.

 

[Emm]

Exactly. So why place a restriction on the gender of the partner rather than on the number or duration of dates with the partner? In the example you give an OPP does nothing to help alleviate the actual problem.

 

[central]

Exactly. So why place a restriction on the gender of the partner rather than on the number or duration of dates with the partner? In the example you give an OPP does nothing to help alleviate the actual problem.

Perhaps you didn't understand the example, and I'm also making a point that there may be a place for a OPP in certain circumstances or for some period of time, if all agree. I've also seen posts where the situation is essentially a one vagina policy, or where it's okay for her to have a girlfriend, but not okay for him. If all agree, that's fine. People also have to learn how to be poly and manage their feelings. If you don't give them time and space to do that, they are likely to give up on it or walk away - that's not the outcome most want to achieve.

 

[Emm]

Perhaps you didn't understand the example

Perhaps you didn't explain the example clearly. You said (and I've bolded the part which mentioned the situation you'd understand spawning a OPP):

It's almost inevitable that there will be rules when first easing into any form of nonmonogamy. There is going to be fear, and jealousy, and these things have to be overcome and managed, and coping methods learned so they don't cause the experiment to end before it has a fair trial.

How often does someone come to try poly because the female partner in a relationship is bi? I think this is a far more common scenario than the man (or both) being bi, so I'll only talk about M-F couples with a bisexual female. If they open the relationship, it is often solely for her to explore her interest in women. No additional penises are needed or desired. And this is especially true if the male partner isn't getting to participate with his partner's new partner. I think the unicorn hunters have a tough time of it, and couple privilege is a far greater obstacle.

The next step would be for the male partner to seek another partner as well, and that would be another female. She may not be bi, so would have no interest in his partner. At this point, everyone is getting what they set out to experience. Her female partner may have a spouse or other partner, and so may his.

It gets a lot more complicated once they try to expand from there - if they even want to. It will be much easier for her to find another male partner than for him to find another female partner - if he's even managed to find one. This is just the reality for most men (not all, of course, and not always).

Anyway, it may never be "fair." But it may come down to what each can handle, and to how much time they're willing to give up as a couple to spend with others. If one partner is spending a lot of time with others while the other has no option but to sit home, that will likely cause some problems. Is that worth it? I guess those involved get to decide how to negotiate this issue, and I would not be surprised if a OPP is agreed to for this specific set of circumstances.

As for us, we don't have a OPP. She likes men (she's not bi), and I like women. We've both managed to find other partners, often in the same general period of time, so neither of us feels left out or neglected. If we did, we'd try to find ways to handle that without imposing unpleasant limits on each other. So far, we've always managed to find a workable solution that does not add significant restrictions.

Please quote the section containing the problem which would be solved by instituting a OPP or OVP.

 

[central]

Perhaps you didn't explain the example clearly. You said (and I've bolded the part which mentioned the situation you'd understand spawning a OPP):

Yes, I wasn't sufficiently clear. My follow up posts will have to suffice for now.

 

[Spork]

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.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I think it helps to spread this underlying history to understand why it is so hard for men to feel comfortable with a truly sexually open marriage.

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

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.

IME, it's the females who tend to freak out. Most times, they get along just fine in having a mutual sex partner. However, this sometimes stems from the secret notion "I am the superior one, & can reel him in at will." When momentary insecurity strikes & that cord is yanked, then any hesitation on the other end can be cause for all sorts of explosions.

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 (an exception being frontier women in the western United States in the 1800s)... 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.

I wonder how many women feel threatened by female metamour, but would find it kind of cute (or possibly gross but not as threatening) if their husband was to date a guy. There's just a different dynamics between opposite sexes.

Back in the 1980s, the few times I saw such a thing happen, the wives were dismayed; as one said, "How can I possibly compete??" Of course, that was back before bisexuality became "a thing" on its own rather than a refusal to be straight OR gay.

There were exceptions, of course. Two bi guys heading off for some alone time generally had little problem interesting one or two women in joining them... but I've also talked to women who were shocked to realize that an MFM didn't necessarily mean the "F" was actually central, & maybe hurt that the guys were as interested in each other as in her.

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.

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.

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

And, again, it looks like there's plenty of people expecting that ONLY super-mature individuals ought to be allowed to explore nonmonogamy: if they need such "training wheels," then clearly they ought to have their permit denied by the Poly Standards Committee.

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, which is why I discount such fnords:

...children in grade school are taught to be unable to consciously see the word "fnord". For the rest of their lives, every appearance of the word subconsciously generates a feeling of unease and confusion, and prevents rational consideration of the text in which it appears.

Whip out a handy emotionally-loaded word, then BAM! the irritant is pushed off the table.

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.

So, yah, 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 traning aid... so long as nobody thinks longterm reliance on such a gimmick is at all mature.