Hopefully you didn't take any offense to what I said. That was not my intention. But you are right that the effort that goes into finding another person (irrespective of MFF FMF MFM) is astronomically huge.
MFM or FMF - perceptions of ease
- Thread starter Evie
- Start date
No, I don't think it's insulting to be thought of as a cuckquean, or bad to be one. I'm just not one.
As a member of the LGBTQA contingent, the MF binary is not applicable to me or my poly network either. Just saying. I know people use those categories for ease and brevity, but let's not leave out the "trans" community, especially today, when more and more people are identifying outside of strictly MF gender "norms" or roles. (And while most people do ID as either M or F, if we're talking about Vs, let's not leave out the difficulties of forming healthy FFF or MMM ones... but maybe that's off topic.)
It might be easier to form healthy poly relationships if you're neither gay nor straight, neither firmly male or female. Hmm... Okay, enough rambling.
Inaniel
Well-known member
I vaguely remember reading an old discussion about this topic here on polyamory.com. I can’t recall it in great detail, but I think it was suggested that women can apparently have endless sex, whereas men must contend with stacking erections. Therefore, an MFM configuration is naturally easier to manage from a sexual standpoint than an FMF. I’m not proposing this from personal experience, but rather offering some posterity spice to the thread.
When I try to make sense of it, I think it relates to how it has long been tolerated and even celebrated for men to have sexual relationships with multiple women. I find it pretty easy to talk to male friends about being in an FMF configuration, regardless of their relationship style or values.
To put it in perspective, when I interact with any random man my age, I don’t expect to be judged harshly if I say I’m sleeping with two women. Like, ever.
I even had a male therapist once try to give me a high five when I told him about my relationships, which I found off-putting because that’s not how I see it. Though I bring it up as an example to show how pervasive the conditioning is to cheer men on for sleeping with multiple women. Even for those who don’t actively celebrate it, it’s often tolerated or simply dismissed, even by people who claim to morally oppose it.
Would it be fair to say that men, on average, might not be as concerned about a poly relationship staining their reputation, particularly in the early stages when one might just be experimenting? I’m not sure, but I’m interested in the opinions of others.
Talking about a woman’s experience is somewhat outside my lane, but I imagine that contending with negative societal judgment might push women to seek support anonymously online in a way that men might not find as necessary or beneficial. In turn, that could lead to communities like this one having a larger or more participative female cohort. So, I lean toward an online participation bias as an explanation for why MFM might seem more common than FMF.
When I try to make sense of it, I think it relates to how it has long been tolerated and even celebrated for men to have sexual relationships with multiple women. I find it pretty easy to talk to male friends about being in an FMF configuration, regardless of their relationship style or values.
To put it in perspective, when I interact with any random man my age, I don’t expect to be judged harshly if I say I’m sleeping with two women. Like, ever.
I even had a male therapist once try to give me a high five when I told him about my relationships, which I found off-putting because that’s not how I see it. Though I bring it up as an example to show how pervasive the conditioning is to cheer men on for sleeping with multiple women. Even for those who don’t actively celebrate it, it’s often tolerated or simply dismissed, even by people who claim to morally oppose it.
Would it be fair to say that men, on average, might not be as concerned about a poly relationship staining their reputation, particularly in the early stages when one might just be experimenting? I’m not sure, but I’m interested in the opinions of others.
Talking about a woman’s experience is somewhat outside my lane, but I imagine that contending with negative societal judgment might push women to seek support anonymously online in a way that men might not find as necessary or beneficial. In turn, that could lead to communities like this one having a larger or more participative female cohort. So, I lean toward an online participation bias as an explanation for why MFM might seem more common than FMF.
tooschoolforcool
Member
Ignorant question coming up. Terminology related. Hinge* Leg* and the difference between MFF and FMF (is that like a hierarchy dynamic thing?)
If one person is dating two people, and those two people are not dating each other (extremely common, the most common arrangement in polyamory), it is called a V (or vee). The person with two partners is the hinge, or bottom of the V. The other two people are the arms or legs of the V. These two people may never meet, or they might be acquainted, or they might be friends.
I'd say it has nothing to do with hierarchy, but romantic/sexual preference.
If these are Vs (not triads) in an MFF, the middle F is the hinge, and the other F and the M do not interact as lovers.
In an FMF V, the M has the 2 Fs as lovers, but the 2 Fs do not interact as lovers.
If we are talking triads, where all 3 people are lovers of each other, a MFF and a FMF would be the same thing, sex/romance going back and forth every which way, probably including threeway sex at least some of the time.
tooschoolforcool
Member
Ahhh that was really where I felt I was missing something as I couldn't understand the difference between MFF and FMF. Thanks for clearing that up for my wee brain
We have a glossary of terms, if you're new and want to learn.
tooschoolforcool
Member
Thanks. It's just for terms I mightn't have come across. The concept is not new to me, but it'll be handy to be able to join the dots and make sense of the abbreviations, etc.
mountaingirl
Active member
sorry I'm late to the party, but I love this discussion! I would say "women are more *communicative* than men". there is plenty of evidence this is the case; female children in general have higher test scores on verbal and written tasks and have a greater vocab as children; this trend weakens but still continues thru adulthood.
mountaingirl
Active member
Have literally thought of this. esp in kitchen table polyamory, I've noticed all seems well when everyone is getting their freak on regularly, so to speak. I could see this being a problem esp for older males in FMFs. I'm a super physical/sensual human tho (touch + talking is my love language) so it could be speculation on my part; doesnt really account for asexual peeps
the dichotomy is so funny. my therapist still asks me general questions about my MFM situation almost once a session. the vibe is not high five, it's like "how are they okay with this" and general logistics questions lol but also not judgy and I'm not there for romantic relationship advice so I'm cool w it.
In my experience, yes women are often harshly judged for a MFM. or just above "average" amounts of sex with males. not a hot take. I have had girlfriends of mine keep their husbands away from me once I tell them about my relationship. so I've kinda given up on telling people since I actually do want to keep my relationships with acquaintances, in laws, coworkers, friends (outside of ride or dies who would literally help me bury the body), and thusly I am here to read other's posts and get advice. so yes that bias totally makes sense!
I also think there may be a bias for people who aren't in actual polycules, like women or men in MFMs/FMFs whose partners are monogamous. Obviously monogamous partners wouldn't really 'get' it, even if they are understanding of the situation. And neither, of course, are understanding monogamous friends and family members. Although I will say, I have a bi girlfriend who is super used to poly who is a great person to talk to when I want my relationships to feel "normal". I've hit this site up less since we became close.
LaminarFlow
Well-known member
This is largely based on social and cultural constructs, but there is some research in behavioural gender patterns in toddlers, where boys would engage in more rough and tumble play, and girls in more nurturing and pro-social play. I think the difference in these styles could transform in certain attachments, where women generally seek more loyalty, intimacy and companionship-based relationships, and men would be seeking agency and physical play (hence Inaniel's example).
Women were/are naturally and culturally more attuned to organising the social lives of a family, whereas the men are/were less prominent. MFM may seem like a larger success than an FMF structure because they could be more cooperative from the initial stages?
Women were/are naturally and culturally more attuned to organising the social lives of a family, whereas the men are/were less prominent. MFM may seem like a larger success than an FMF structure because they could be more cooperative from the initial stages?
Slugzilla
New member
Hm… honestly I find a lot of these labels to be quite odd.
As a Pansexual Poly, I guess I don’t have any “expectations” other than just love and relationships…
I agree, as a non-binary polyamorous pansexual, this whole thread makes me uncomfortable, loaded as it is with patriarchal assumptions and gender biases. Sigh...
My mother worked as a first-grade teacher for over 25 years (from about 1961-1987). She was a feminist, but in her day, she observed boys playing rough and tumble games at recess, and the girls clustering together and chatting, or playing cooperative games. She and I would have interesting discussions about nature v nurture, and she came down on the "nature" side, despite her feminism. I tended to think girls and boys are conditioned from the moment they leave the womb to act according to cultural gender stereotypes, which are extremely hard to break out of.
Nowadays, with more personal freedom, women's rights, queer rights, and much more knowledge of the human brain and how it works, hormones and their effects, etc., we are tending to recognize more than two genders. There are femme men, masc women, some may be gay, some may be straight or "bisexual." (There have always been these gender-bending people, but they've been hated, feared, abused and have hidden themselves away in defense for thousands of years.) There is also more recognition of non-binary people. Studies have shown that a good-sized percentage of teenagers today ID as non-binary. Some older people (Boomers, Millennials) scoff at this and say the teens are just being "trendy." Why is it a trend, though? I ask. Why is being NB seen as "cool"? Trans kids are still hated, being bullied daily, being murdered, committing suicide. Why would you choose to subject yourself to abuse?
Anyway, all that to say that this question about how the "two" genders view and practice polyamory might be irrelevant, or moot, if not now, in the near future, as there is a spectrum of gender identities, and very few people are entirely to the straight "male" side or "female" side. (Many pretend to be for self-protection.) Even in mainstream culture, it's not uncommon in schools to teach and encourage boys to be more sensitive and nurturing, to offer them home economics classes, and to teach girls to be more assertive and competitive, to offer them shop classes, to encourage them into STEM academics, etc. This has been common since the late 1970s, so I am not sure why we need to perpetuate the binary idea here, on a forum for an "alternative" non-mainstream way of loving.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
mountaingirl
Active member
I totally get that; my bad. when i said "women" are more communicative than men, I definitely slipped up and meant female vs male, mostly because these differences start in childhood and have to do with the way our brains develop (but like i mentioned these differences are way less prominent as we get older).
I do hope we can have discussions about the way women vs men (I do mean the genders and not the sexes this time) are perceived, since that's what I think this thread was all about. If anything the stereotypes themselves exemplify the difference in perception lol
mountaingirl
Active member
huh! I'm not sure I agree with "women are more naturally attuned to organizing the social lives of family", mostly because i see so many contradictions of this behavior, and women are conditioned to be more family oriented from a young age. But would love if you linked the research here! I'd be curious to see what ages these studies took place at.
mountaingirl
Active member
just reread and saw the toddlers part! okay so im reading that as up to 3yrs. interesting; I said something further up about language and motor skill differences in early brain development between male and female children. That could potentially affect early play styles.
I'm not certain that romantic relationship choices can be tied to differences that become much much smaller in adulthood, but it makes a lot of sense that women who have been conditioned by society to be better at anticipating the needs of others would also be more family or group-oriented as a result.
Sigh, this thread was never intended to promote heteronormativity. It was to move a discussion that was starting to hijack a thread in the advice forum and move that discussion of the subset of polyamory that is MFM or FMF V shaped relationships because that was what was mooted in the original discussion. I did not link the original discussion because it wasn't unique enough to warrant it. Perhaps a post wanting to know how to meet people to form an FMF V, or MFM V, or MFF V. Perhaps it was either yet another variant of "we opened up and my wife (f) found a man to date but I (m) can't find a woman to date" - or perhaps it was, "we opened up and my husband (m) has found someone (f) consistent to date but all I (f) can get are offers for sex." The advice forum is loaded with these types of questions and sometimes it can be useful having a thread to point people to that unpacks some of the issues that underlie the challenges. I also commented because I'm in those type of relationships and I wanted to use that to expose that we often see what we are attuned to see - I specifically mentioned this in the first post so I was exposing my own lens so that readers could be reminded that we all have them.
Perhaps we could start a thread that specifically curates information on relationship issues faced by pansexual people and polycules and the ease or difficulty of forming and maintaining them? And/or one that centres gender identity, specifically non-binary people and again, the ease or difficulty in forming and maintaining polycules. These threads could be linked to people that come in wanting advice specifically regarding those challenges. And, importantly, those threads would be commented on by those who are having that lived experience.
Perhaps we could start a thread that specifically curates information on relationship issues faced by pansexual people and polycules and the ease or difficulty of forming and maintaining them? And/or one that centres gender identity, specifically non-binary people and again, the ease or difficulty in forming and maintaining polycules. These threads could be linked to people that come in wanting advice specifically regarding those challenges. And, importantly, those threads would be commented on by those who are having that lived experience.
Then this thread simply isn't *for* you - it's for the people who are facing these issues as they navigate their own poly journey. You're very welcome to create a general discussion that will be for those who are pansexual and navigating their way through being poly and pan in this particular point in time. I don't have that floor. But anyone can start a thread on General Poly Discussions - and it would be lovely to have it started by someone who does.
Slugzilla
New member
Hm. I haven’t really thought about lot into it other than feelings
Perhaps I’ll write something nice up. I did find your post to be quite good non-the-less in many ways and I think your posts are pleasant to read—and I didn’t even know I am a “comet” until I read it.
I think you have the right idea though—so I’ll see what I can put into words as a pansexual. It’s a pretty misunderstood concept amongst many people, and I’ve found only other pansexuals just kinda… “know” i guess, for lack of a better term.