FMF vs MFM

This is just my 2 cents worth... so take it for whatever value 2 cents has for you...

I think that if it's true that more MFM v's are successful than FMF v's... it's likely because the two males get along better than the two females, and because of that, there's less manufactured drama in the MFM version.

Two monogamous men: one will be happy for the other if they "score" and the first one doesn't.

Two monogamous women: one will be pissed off at the other if the other "scores" but the first one doesn't.

While it's not so much about the sex and "scoring" amongst poly people... the dichotomy still remains for other areas.... and in some cases there's still at least SOME "possessiveness" even in poly circles.
 
RichardInTN said:
This is just my 2 cents worth... so take it for whatever value 2 cents has for you...

I think that if it's true that more MFM v's are successful than FMF v's... it's likely because the two males get along better than the two females, and because of that, there's less manufactured drama in the MFM version.

Two monogamous men: one will be happy for the other if they "score" and the first one doesn't.

Two monogamous women: one will be pissed off at the other if the other "scores" but the first one doesn't.

While it's not so much about the sex and "scoring" amongst poly people... the dichotomy still remains for other areas.... and in some cases there's still at least SOME "possessiveness" even in poly circles.
Click to expand...

If it's true that long-term poly vs are more likely to be MFM than FMF my gut says that it's both because women make better hinges (better communicators, better at nurturing, and better at managing the needs of both partners) AND because men are better at sharing their partner (less drama, less jealousy, and less insecurity.) My real life experience says this is true, and anecdotally there seem to be more long-term, stable MFM vs. In reality, I know that it's much more complex than that. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find out that the true likelihood for each is not statistically different. People are complex, as are relationships.
 
PinkPig wrote:
If it's true that long-term poly vs are more likely to be MFM than FMF my gut says that it's both because women make better hinges (better communicators, better at nurturing, and better at managing the needs of both partners) AND because men are better at sharing their partner (less drama, less jealousy, and less insecurity.) My real life experience says this is true, and anecdotally there seem to be more long-term, stable MFM vs. (FMF).
Click to expand...

While my personal experience is limited to just a few months as one leg of a MFM-V, my experience in that situation along with what I have read here on the forum, suggests to me that PinkPig's synopsis would be true in many cases - certainly in mine. In our V, my wife, Becky, has surprised me with how well she manages loving two men at once. To be fair, Becky's relationship with Ben is long distance and there is only one overnight a month - and maybe an afternoon rendezvous if it happens to work out - but they do text and talk daily. Nevertheless - she has succeeded in making me feel as loved, if not even more so, as she did when we were mono. I have every reason to believe that Ben feels that she loves him as well.

While Ben and I have only met once and don't really communicate, still I do find myself feeling a sense of camaraderie with him - with little jealousy even when they are together for the evening.

However, I have hesitated to take take on another partner for myself even though a fwb opportunity exists for me - as I do want to make certain that Becky and Ben are stable first (as there are some issues on occasion - mostly relating to Becky's insecurities/jealousy in regard to Ben's marriage). Those insecurities, along with Becky's recent adverse reaction to my having to have extended conversations with my ex (concerning a mutual friend) lead me to believe that she would have a tougher time with me having another partner than I have with her having another partner.

Dinghedheart wrote:
... the topic of sex and orgasm production and male recovery times as factors for the differences in V's....
Click to expand...

I know I am taking this quote somewhat out of context - but I do find some validity to that prior discussion that in strictly sexual terms - and MFM is likely to be more workable than a FMF on an ongoing basis. Admittedly, an FMF sexual threesome is a high priority fantasy/event for a lot of men (and I was even fortunate enough to have that experience once in my youth - a fond memory indeed!) - nevertheless - while it may be great for a singular event - it does present obvious sexual challenges on an ongoing basis.

Al
 
From my own narrow POV it seems to me that MFM would be more likely to work than FMF. Women make better hinges and yes, I feel territorial about other women. The house is MY domain and it would be a very, very special unicornlike woman who wouldnt inflame irritation in me. I can also take a lot more sex than any man I've come across (so to speak...) and yes, the more i have the more i want so great sex with one man would lead to better sex with the other too - everyone would benefit!!
 
If a V is any relationship where two people have a common partner?

Then I am in six Vs
I’m the hinge in three of them and an arm in the other three.

MFM
MFM
MFM
FMF
FMF
FMF

To be honest they all feel stable. Some arm connections are warmer then others. It doesn’t seem to me that gender has that much to do with it. Everything goes easier if the hinge partner is a good communicator and the arms are not territorial (also really ladies? Home design is that important? Am I the only female who missed that day in indoctrination class? Sharing my home in a warm friendly V situation was awesome! )

It seems clear to me that any and all genders can suck at any and all types of relationships.

The things that make Vs stay together are as un-gendered as the things that make couples stay together: Mutual respect, shared values, trust and good communication. Last I checked none of those things are gendered.
 
I'm just throwing in a suggestion to see what you guys think. If there are more males who are happy to do polyamory, then the configuration MFM will be more likely to happen purely due to mathematical reasons.

Does that reason ring true for you?

It's supply and demand. The female can be more picky with their males. On the other hand, the males don't have as many females to choose from. Maybe males do sometimes 'settle' in that sense. I dunno. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Shaya said:
I'm just throwing in a suggestion to see what you guys think. If there are more males who are happy to do polyamory, then the configuration MFM will be more likely to happen purely due to mathematical reasons.

Does that reason ring true for you?

It's supply and demand. The female can be more picky with their males. On the other hand, the males don't have as many females to choose from. Maybe males do have to 'settle' in that sense. I dunno. What do you think?
Click to expand...

In my relationships no one is settling. My partner who doesn't have any partners other than me at the moment (we just got out of a 7 year long triad and he is healing) wants to date and feels the pinch of being a non-monogamous person in a largely monogamous world. I think it'll be harder for him to find someone to date then it would be for me. (unless I talk him into going to burning man again this year because then he'll do just fine) But finding someone TO date is not the same thing as finding another partner.

To be honest I wouldn't be comfortable in a relationship where any partner was "settling" for polyamory. "Settling" for the amount of time and energy I can give them. "settling" for me because they simply don't think they could do better? Yikes. "settling" is something I see more often in mono situations. That narrative that being an adult or "your next step in life" is getting married. A LOT of people buy into that line of thinking and that is what makes someone "settle".
 
I'm finding this discussion fascinating as well. I wish I had some personal experiences to relate, but I'm more of a starburst person. I've never actually been part of a straight up V.

I'm not buying into the premise that MFM lasts longer than FMF. For argument's sake, I will agree to it.

A V is essentially one poly person with two monogamous, but poly friendly partners. Traditionally, women are more the nesting sort. Therefore, in a FMF there is at least one F partner who is out in the cold, so to speak. I don't think men need that sort of security as much.

In the case where all three partners live together, I think men can get along better than women. Women tend to compete more. Women also tend to want to be the ones to feather the nest, while guys just go along with it.

Of course, there are exceptions to all this, which is why I am not convinced of the original premise.
 
vinsanity0 said:
I'm finding this discussion fascinating as well. I wish I had some personal experiences to relate, but I'm more of a starburst person. I've never actually been part of a straight up V.
Click to expand...

So does a V mean two mono partners who are only with the hinge? I always thought (assumed) it was any two people who shared a committed romantic relationship with the same person but not with each other. If a V is two mono arms I've never been in one. Does it count if the arm isn't mono but is functionally mono at the moment?
 
rosephase said:
So does a V mean two mono partners who are only with the hinge? I always thought (assumed) it was any two people who shared a committed romantic relationship with the same person but not with each other. If a V is two mono arms I've never been in one. Does it count if the arm isn't mono but is functionally mono at the moment?
Click to expand...

Everything counts. I was just trying to keep it simple. I did clarify by saying "straight up V". I think most, if not all, of the V's mentioned only involve three people. For the sake of discussion I kept it to that. Start adding more people and the dynamics get complicated very quickly. For instance, in the case of a couple who each have at least one other partner, they are both hinges.
 
Shaya wrote:
I'm just throwing in a suggestion to see what you guys think. If there are more males who are happy to do polyamory, then the configuration MFM will be more likely to happen purely due to mathematical reasons.
Does that reason ring true for you?
Click to expand...

Shaya - my understanding from both this forum and various other sources is that there are more women initiating poly into relationships than there are men - and I suspect that this would hold true for the relative preference for poly between the sexes - my sense is that there are more women than men interested in pursuing poly. I believe I may have posted before that Cunning Minx of the Poly Weekly Blog / podcast (running for over a dozen years with 500+ podcasts archived) - also states that she hears of significantly more women initiating poly into relationships than men.

Just a thought on the matter. -Al
 
Al99 said:
Shaya - my understanding from both this forum and various other sources is that there are more women initiating poly into relationships than there are men
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I think you're right that in the last few months since you and I have joined the forums, there does seem to be more newbies posting for help, citing a female partner who has opened a previously monogamous relationship to polyamory. But I think this actually supports my original hypothesis that the poly world has more men than women.

I have 2 reasons.

1.
For each female who opens her previously monogamous relationship to polyamory, there is also 1 new man who is opening himself to polyamory. The paradox, Al, is that even though more women might be interested in breaking their original monogamy, the fact that they bring 2 males into polyamory, means more males end up in polyamory. If my assumptions are all true (and they may not be since we're both still quite new here) then the paradox to your statement is that this may actually result in more males in poly than females. Of course, this is not the full picture since this is not the only pathway to becoming poly.

2.
Even if there are not more males in polyamory than females, common wisdom would say that there would be more males interested in non monogamy than females who are interested.

I'm sounding really sexist here. Sorry. Not sure there's a way to talk on this subject without feeling like im going to offend someone.

In summary, I still feel there are more men than women who are interested in non monogamy. My earlier post was wondering if this imbalance in numbers might be contributing somehow to a greater number of MFM shaped polyamory. There are probably other reasons why MFM is more stable and I've seen many possible reasons discussed already, but I was wondering if you guys feel that simple maths also affects the available pool of dates?
 
Last edited:
'Common wisdom' is often wrong. This is especially true when it comes to sex, sexuality and relationships. It often means believing whatever stereotypes and presumptions one already has. Common wisdom, while we all rely on it, is dangerous.

When women feel safe about sex and sexuality, not worried about violence or being shamed, they are just as likely to want casual sex as men. The common wisdom is that men want sex more. The actual reality is that it is dangerous for women to be fully sexual beings. When they feel safe, they act similarly to men. Even when there is a hint of accuracy to common wisdom about gender behavior, there is always more underneath.

Polyamory is a movement named, organized and led by women from the beginning. This gets consistently overlooked and, as an historian, makes me nuts. This history gets buried because mainstream media have trouble fitting a female led movement into their existing stereotypes of horny men, reluctant women and the unicorns they want to screw (over).

Polyamory frequently does not look anything at all like what people expect. That's why there is always a collective groan when yet another film-maker, documentarian, or reality show producer are all excited about the edgy FMF movie they just made, the documentary centers only couples experiences and the reality show only wants a certain tiny sliver of people on the show. It gets fucking boring.

And now a bit off topic...

I realize you are writing from your own experiences, which of course we all do.

I gently suggest slightly reframing your thought. It is a fact that not everyone is straight. It is a fact that some people are cisgender (meaning that the body and assigned gender at birth 'match' what is in their minds and heads). Others are transgender. How you've framed your thought erases those people entirely. Not all cis women married to cis men, when opening a relationship, want another cis man. Or a married cis man wants to explore sexually with another man.

So instead of just writing men or women, throw in some important adjectives, 'straight women', 'cis men', 'bi men' 'trans women', etc. Those adjectives focus on who you are actually talking about (the universe of straight men and women opening up their relationship). Suddenly you are not talking about all women or men (which as described only exist as straight) but a particular group. And all those folks who were erased in the original wording suddenly exist again, even if they are never specifically mentioned. Being careful in language allows others reading your words to feel like they exist.

I know this was not your intent nor was any harm meant. I've had to learn, and relearn, this over the years. Too often I write or say something universalizing, only to realize it's really a middle-class experience, or a white person's perspective. It's rather embarrassing how often I need to remind myself of this. I also don't want you to think you should not express what you have to say. Write what you want, what you need to. I've been enjoying reading you asking questions, learning, and wanting to know more. It's been a breathe of fresh air.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss.
 
Thanks Opalescent. Polyamory obviously attracts a higher proportion of people who, for lack of a better term, 'disobey' society when it comes to defining their own sexuality and gender. People who are cis-minded like me can definitely strive to be more inclusive in our posts. Thanks.
 
Just because more women may initiate the poly dynamic (if that even true), it doesn't necessarily mean that more men in poly would be the result.

A woman could introduce poly to the dynamic to be the V between her male love and a female love. Example: heterosexual male + bisexual female + homosexual female
 
Shaya - this is an interesting discussion. I do see the logic behind your reasoning - but I have been suspecting for a while now that more women than men self identify as poly (and do please excuse the generalization) based on the impressions I have run into here on the forum and elsewhere, and expanded upon by opalescent in her post. Here is an article from last year that supports that - not definitive, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

Quoted from:
http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/1/08/polyamory-numbers

A 2012 survey of 4,062 poly-identified individuals ages 16 to 92 conducted by Loving More — a polyamory support and advocacy organization — found a number of interesting data points.

There are more women than men: Essentially half of the respondents (49.5 percent) identified as female, while only 35.4 percent identified as male. The remaining 15.1 percent either declined to choose between male and female or wrote in “third” genders such as two-spirit and genderqueer.
Click to expand...

Shaya wrote:
Even if there are not more males in polyamory than females, common wisdom would say that there would be more males interested in non monogamy than females who are interested.
Click to expand...

I do understand that the point you make here as well - although again opalescent presented an interesting take on this. Nevertheless, I have read a number of times that men (in general) might often be the instigators of couple swinging - with the idea that it is a couple activity and strictly about recreational sex (to your point). So - in that particular realm of consensual non-monogamy, I believe you make a strong argument. However, in poly - that may not be the case as men tend to go for the more strictly sexual, whereas the emotional connection of poly may be more appealing for women in general (apologies for stereotyping - but I am paraphrasing what I have read in various articles and books). It should not be surprising, I would guess, that it is not uncommon for swinging to morph into poly as emotional connections are established.

Just a few more cents worth. Al
 
@dingedheart :

Thanks, but I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. I seek to SEE the perspectives of all people and recognize when anyone is being cast unfairly, overlooked, treated badly, etc.

Which is why I find the "men are pigs" stereotypes offputting. What, for wanting sex? When I was a teenager, I wanted sex, and I chased it with a gusto that surpassed most of my male friends. Does my experience count for naught? Opalescent has it right. When women feel safe and cast aside concepts of shame, we are at least as sexual as our male counterparts. If anything, had I been a parent of a teenage girl, and a teenage boy, I'd be more comfortable with the girl getting laid. Because her available contraceptive methods are more effective, statistically, than what is available to the boy to take charge of avoiding irresponsible babymaking. One day if Vasalgel ever gets out into the wild, it'll be a game changer, if ya ask me. I've watched news of it for years. Point being though, all humans have our various struggles, and I am just as interested in the struggles of men as women, but I will certainly push back when women are commodified in a conversation to the point where their minds and motivations are seen as irrelevant. Always flip the coin, and have a look at the other side, especially if you're going to engage in generalizations...which can be problematic anyhow.

I do not think that anyone who is happy in their relationship, is "settling." It's a tall order under good circumstances, to have a happy love life that lasts a long time with the same participants involved. Nevermind how many or what genders are doing it. Happiness doesn't look like, "settling" to me.

I frankly often feel sorry for partners who get the "poly bomb" right in the face. I've never tried to open a mono relationship. I did poly, starting as poly, and then dialed it back to something more like mono. I did the opposite. As we've seen here many times...opening a mono relationship when one person is initiating and one isn't really on board, is as often as not the end of the original relationship.

@ Shaya: Regarding "supply and demand"... I know more poly folks than most people do. I have been on this forum for a while, if not as long as many, over a year. And I have a community locally that is chock full of polyamorists. And yet anything I can observe even with greater than average exposure first hand, still feels more anecdotal, than statistical.

I think that polyfolk are still a minority to the point that it's hard to paint accurate statistical pictures. And I also think that trying to see humanity in terms of reproductive strategy and evolutionary rules and stuff is oversimplification, and it's kind of silly. Humans are damned complicated. You can say that "well generally, this is true." Yeah, except for the billion times it isn't.

"Women are more emotional." Oh, good luck with that. Not in my lifetime.

"Women want committed relationships more than men." Not in my experience. My ex pushed for marriage, when I balked and kept it at bay for 10 years.

There's just too many variables in this equation. When every person is a layered stew of various motivations, it's absurd to speak of them/us in simple animal terms. You can long for a unified theory that makes human behavior easy to predict all day, but people will still surprise you.

My position is... Try to enjoy that, embrace the chaos...don't fight it. :)
 
I think it's eminently possible to be happy and settle at the same time. The question arises "could you be happier?" then the person that's happy but settled would answer "yes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top