recurring patriarchal problem

MsEmotional

New member
The idea that in any poly relationship, a man could "replace" a man or a woman could "replace" a woman is ludicrous. What are we, clones?

Just because 2 partners have a penis or a vagina doesn't mean one can replace another. The 2 same gendered people look different, sound different, their faces are different, their penises or vaginas are different, their heights are probably different, their hair is different, their family backgrounds are different, their hometowns are different, their hobbies are different. Even if their penises or vaginas are the same shape and size, or their breasts, ass, etc. (which is highly unlikely), they have different sexual skills. Sure, one man might have a better sexual skill set. But a woman might have a BETTER sexual skill set than a man, since she doesn't rely on PIV to get a person off.
.

I didn’t mean that two people with same type of biology were actually directly interchangeable. Rather, it is more likely that someone might be concerned that their partner is trying to replace them with a “better” mate with an equivalent package. People are used to comparing their attributes to others of the same gender identity -- "s/he's stronger/curvier/prettier/funnier/more charming than I am." Of course someone of the opposite sex might have more desirable qualities, but from a very young age we are just more used to comparing/ranking ourselves to our peers of the same gender.

Also, an aside..... I am surprised at all the generalizations that men rely on their dicks to get women off, or are unconcerned with women’s pleasure as a whole. Is that really still common? I had read the research that Ravenscroft had mentioned (about intercourse lasting 2.5 minutes), but figured (1) That has never happened to me, but if it did it wouldn't be a cause for complaint. I would actually love to have a partner who orgasmed on the early side during PIV instead of fucking me forEVER and making me sore and exhausted in the process; (2) Why does it matter to women if PIV is short? It's the other stuff that usually is more fun for women anyway.... (3) It's gotta be old research, right? I mean, don't people (both men and women) understand so much more about the science of the female orgasm than they used to? Even an inexperienced guy knows it's important.....Again, it totally surprises me that there are men out there who would cum first and then just roll over and sleep. Literally, even the guys who were kind of assholes in other departments have been super focused (hyper-focused, in fact) on making sure I get off.
 
Last edited:

jamesgleason

New member
Re:

Guys, I suppose that two people with same type of biology are actually directly interchangeable.
 

Dagferi

Active member
So why the push to have women with multiple men?

Because there are heterosexual poly women like myself who enjoy the company of men.

I do not find women attractive at all. And I have a sex drive the average man in my age group can not keep up with long.

My friends have been mostly male over the years. I do not enjoy activities most women enjoy. God forbid I prefer the company of men.
 

Magdlyn

Well-known member
I didn’t mean that two people with same type of biology were actually directly interchangeable. Rather, it is more likely that someone might be concerned that their partner is trying to replace them with a “better” mate with an equivalent package. People are used to comparing their attributes to others of the same gender identity -- "s/he's stronger/curvier/prettier/funnier/more charming than I am." Of course someone of the opposite sex might have more desirable qualities, but from a very young age we are just more used to comparing/ranking ourselves to our peers of the same gender.

True. And yeah, some non poly women might be married or long termed partnered, and be looking to "trade up." After all NRE is a lure. And men looking to get laid by a new woman might be keeping themselves in better shape, than an old husband who takes the wife for granted after X amount of years, and has gotten boring and out of shape, and stopped with romantic gestures.

But actual poly women are not using "poly" as a false euphemism for "soft breakup with something better on the near horizon." They do NOT stop loving or desiring their longer term partner just because they fall in love with another man.

Not surprisingly, many men whose wives express a desire to transition to polaymory, do start to sit up and take notice, ask wife on dates more, provide better sex, and even start working out to get in better more attractive shape, or exploring new hobbies which make them more interesting intellectually. Sometimes a little competition is a good thing. Read the book Sex at Dawn for more on this (sex in prehistoric "pre-civilized," pre-patriarchal times) for more on this.

Also, an aside..... I am surprised at all the generalizations that men rely on their dicks to get women off, or are unconcerned with women’s pleasure as a whole. Is that really still common? I had read the research that Ravenscroft had mentioned (about intercourse lasting 2.5 minutes), but figured (1) That has never happened to me, but if it did it wouldn't be a cause for complaint. I would actually love to have a partner who orgasmed on the early side during PIV instead of fucking me forEVER and making me sore and exhausted in the process;...

I agree. I'd consider 2.5 minutes to be pre-ejaculation. I was with one guy in recent years who would do a good 30 minutes or more of kink/foreplay with me, but then take to fucking and cum in a minute or 2. I used to be disappointed because I do orgasm well from fucking. But my 2 most recent male lovers (early to mid 40s), oddly never or rarely even came. They had various explanations for this opposite problem. And older men (late 50s-60s) might enjoy sex (intercourse or outercourse) very much but also be entirely unable to ejaculate. I'm not sure who all these 2.5 minute guys are. Although I suspect they are very young males who are used to masturbation and getting it over with as quickly as possible to avoid detection by parents or roommates. Maybe the studies were done at colleges.

(2) Why does it matter to women if PIV is short? It's the other stuff that usually is more fun for women anyway.... (3) It's gotta be old research, right? I mean, don't people (both men and women) understand so much more about the science of the female orgasm than they used to? Even an inexperienced guy knows it's important.....Again, it totally surprises me that there are men out there who would cum first and then just roll over and sleep. Literally, even the guys who were kind of assholes in other departments have been super focused (hyper-focused, in fact) on making sure I get off.

Yeah... I'm 62 and I've been with men of all ages since age 15... I can't think of one who used me only for his own satisfaction without being interested in my pleasure. Well, except for the guy who raped me.

Oh, I was with one guy about 3 years ago who was only into missionary intercourse. He kissed me and touched my breasts for like 2 minutes and then got on top sawing away... came twice and kept going. It was boring as hell after the first few minutes. He had 2 dates with me and then I was done with that bs! lol (He only get a 2nd chance because he was hung like a horse and really good looking. But that's a whole 'nother topic!)
 

vinsanity0

Active member
I am kind of chuckling at the way this conversation is going. When I first started dating Cat she was married. They had an open marriage. After about 6 months she broke up with him due to his increasing drug habits. Then I became her primary. The funny thing is we, he and I, were very similar in appearance. Both with long blondish hair, nearly same height and weight, facial hair. We even had the same birthday and both hailed from small town Ohio. When we decided to open up our marriage, the only guy I was really jealous of was a guy who had a similar appearance to me. The other guys she dated were nothing like me and I did not feel threatened by them.
 

lunabunny

New member
I question the necessity of the male libido for sexual pleasure. I guess some people prefer that "male energy" but I actually don't care for it. I find the female touch plenty effective. I think our view of sexuality differs quite a bit. I see male sexuality in terms of procreation, and female sexuality in terms of pure pleasure. Ever notice how so many women complain that their men just aren't good at it? Standard PIV sex just doesn't do it for 80% of the female population.

Guys, I suppose that two people with same type of biology are actually directly interchangeable.

Because there are heterosexual poly women like myself who enjoy the company of men.

I do not find women attractive at all.
And I have a sex drive the average man in my age group can not keep up with long. God forbid I prefer the company of men.


MajorMerrick, don't you think this is because - by your own admission - you're way more attracted to women/basically lesbian, with the exception of Ares who's the only man you've ever been attracted to?

Men are more than just dicks, what they can do with their dicks, how long their erections can last, and the viability of their testicles' product.

I am a (mostly) hetero cis female who happens to have both a female AND a male partner. If I were to break up with either or both of them and beginning dating anew, I can say with 90+% certainty that I'd be far more inclined towards dating another man or males in general, simply because I'm oriented that way.

What would be so hard to understand about wanting to date and have sex with BOTH:

a.) A tall, thin, dark guy, who is intellectual, loves music and is a great conversationalist, is vanilla but can last forever... AND
b.) A short, stocky, pale redheaded builder dude, who loves animals, cooking, and is skilled at oral sex and rope play?

After all, I am 50 years old and my children are grown. I am not looking for a father for my children OR someone with whom to procreate - those years being behind me, for one thing.

Yes, I love my female partner, and yes, she is loving, is a fantastic kisser and we have a wonderful time both in and out of bed. She is an attentive lover, my best friend and we have tons in common. That said, she is the ONLY female I've ever felt this strongly about, physically and emotionally.

And, like Magdlyn, below, I do enjoy "male energy" - which is NOT confined strictly to the male penis, intercourse or sexuality in general.

I enjoy the feel of a man's body, (sweeping generalisations here) the deeper tone of their voices, smell, their strength, the banter/humour and often more practical approach to problem solving. Yes, men come in all shapes and sizes and have different skills, because they're human beings, but overall there is a different vibe to being with a man than a woman... and that isn't solely dependent on them having a penis.

In any case, the males I've had relationships with have known quite well what to do with - not only their penis - but their mouths, hands, fingers and other objects. My ex-husband was one of those who absolutely insisted on satisfying me several times before HE got off, and as I have no trouble orgasming via any of the above means, I was invariably left as happy and satisfied as I am with my female partner. And the same goes for the boyfriend I had when I was 18, as well as Jester who is in his late 50s. Idk, maybe I got lucky in that department...

The idea that in any poly relationship, a man could "replace" a man or a woman could "replace" a woman is ludicrous. What are we, clones?

Just because 2 partners have a penis or a vagina doesn't mean one can replace another. The 2 same gendered people look different, sound different, their faces are different, their penises or vaginas are different, their heights are probably different, their hair is different, their family backgrounds are different, their hometowns are different, their hobbies are different... they have different sexual skills. Sure, one man might have a better sexual skill set. But a woman might have a BETTER sexual skill set than a man, since she doesn't rely on PIV to get a person off.

Also, an aside..... I am surprised at all the generalizations that men rely on their dicks to get women off, or are unconcerned with women’s pleasure as a whole. Is that really still common? I had read the research that Ravenscroft had mentioned (about intercourse lasting 2.5 minutes), but figured (1) That has never happened to me, but if it did it wouldn't be a cause for complaint. I would actually love to have a partner who orgasmed on the early side during PIV instead of fucking me forEVER and making me sore and exhausted in the process; (2) Why does it matter to women if PIV is short? It's the other stuff that usually is more fun for women anyway

***************

Having said all that... I am in a closed "V" that essentially has a OPP.

My partner Jester is not normally a jealous, possessive person, and was perfectly happy for me to be with Boho, when I sought his consent to date her (Jester and I had already been together a year at that point) - though he admitted that he would feel more threatened if I'd wanted to date another guy.

He also acknowledged that his attitude was somewhat sexist... and this, despite the fact that he'd displayed no real jealousy toward me being with my husband, who I'd been separated from, but still occasionally sleeping with when Jester and I first began.

I think he accepted the situation with Red because it was a pre-existing situation he was aware of from the beginning... whereas his negative feelings about any potential "new guy" (partially) stem more from the fact that Jester, Boho and I are/were aiming for a poly-fi V, and anyone else would be an unknown quantity.

Human feelings and relationships are complex. Sometimes we don't really know or understand WHY we feel the way we do... yet it's almost always worth taking the time to explore and analyse the reasons, if a reaction is extremely negative or seemingly without reasonable basis.
 
Last edited:

KC43

New member
I'm a heterosexual, cis-gender woman. I have never had a sexual experience with another woman, nor have I ever had any desire to, so I can't speak to what sex with a woman is like.

I can, however, speak to what sex with a man is like, and why I prefer having multiple male partners.

For starters, it isn't only about sex. For my entire life, I've gotten along far better with boys/men than girls/women. That's partly because the abusers in my early life were women, and the bullies I have encountered in my life (including as an adult, sadly... sad because I feel sorry for women in their 40s and 50s who still act like junior high mean girls) have overwhelmingly been female. I prefer spending time with guys. My dad, grandfathers, and uncles were the closest I had to "safe people" when I was growing up, and my dad took care of me far more than my mother did, so men, particularly those with certain personality types, cause me to feel safe and cared for. I do have female friends nowadays, but it's a lot more difficult for me to trust women than men. And I require a fairly high level of trust to have a relationship with someone.

It could be said, and I've speculated, that the reason I'm not attracted to women is because of this past experience, rather than because I'm 100% straight. But I don't feel the need to examine my reasons too thoroughly.

Obviously a romantic relationship doesn't *have to* include sex in general, but for me *personally*, it does. Forming connections with people isn't easy for me; sex is my primary means of connecting with someone with whom I'm interested in a relationship. And I enjoy sex. Of the sexual partners I've had, I can only think of one with whom I never enjoyed sex; unfortunately, I was married to him for fourteen years. (Divorced in 2007.)

Which brings up the next point. I enjoy sex with partners who are interested and invested in my pleasure, as I am in theirs. And the men I've had sex with, particularly those I've been in relationships with as opposed to it being just a "hey, we're friends, we're bored, let's fuck," have all provided pleasure to me. Not every single time we have sex; I'm not sure that would be possible, because some external factors impact sexual enjoyment. (If my depression is at a low, for example, I still might like having sex, but my head isn't entirely in the game, so I don't enjoy it as much.)

I love the feeling of having a penis inside me. And I come far more easily through penetration than any other means. I know that isn't true for all women, maybe not even for most, but that's how it is with me. It's very rare for me to have a sexual interaction where I don't have multiple orgasms, and they're nearly all caused by penetration.

I don't think anyone is "pushing" for women to have multiple male sex partners. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with more than one man, or with any men at all, that's entirely her thing, whether orientation or choice. But if a woman *does* want to have sex with more than one man, condemning her for it, considering her "damaged goods" or acting like it's a personal affront to her husband or any other man in her life, is bullshit. I think the "push" is for people to *accept* that some women want sex with more than one man, to respect that, and to stop acting like it makes the woman "less than."
 

MeeraReed

Active member
You make excellent points, Ms, but I think it is the underlying issues that Meera is addressing. Not the thought one would be replaced, but the thought that a woman is somehow unclean if she participates in anything with another man. Like, how do these guys find all these virgins? Or does their ownership somehow cleanse them?

Mary's husband is one of those guys. It pisses me off. Not because we can't have a full on sexual relationship, but because I think she deserves better. Misogynists don't treat their women very good.

Yes, thanks, vinsanity! That is indeed the discussion I was hoping to have...about how men's revulsion of a woman having another male partner is rooted in the idea that a woman becomes unclean from a(nother) penis.

I think men often struggle with this aspect of polyamorous sexual relationships. Even well-intentioned, happily non-monogamous men may have this idea at the bottom of their psyche. (Women, too--I had to get over a feeling of shame/guilt that I should not be enjoying sex with multiple men!)

I think a lot of men come here for help with this kind of issue, not quite knowing what's at the root of it, but we (on this forum) rarely offer advice about confronting unconscious misogyny.
 

Ravenscroft

Banned
I really am enjoying -- for lack of a better word :eek: -- this thread. In particular:
For my entire life, I've gotten along far better with
boys/men than girls/women. "
Right at this particular moment, that is exactly right for me to hear (well, read :eek:). Thank you.

Not dissimilarly, most of my "best buddies" are women, almost half totally gay. I very much enjoy hanging out with them, because there's a decided lack of a sense of competition. A handful I truly love, with no... risk? opportunity? hope? -- of sex. I can be totally just myself without ANY "dick-sizing" games.
 

lunabunny

New member
Okay, after going off on a little tangent above, sparked by MajorMerrick's statement about not understanding why females would want/need more than one male lover... here is what I think about the OP's major point:

True, there are some genuinely misogynistic men out there who really believe another man's penis will render "their" wife/girlfriend unclean, a slut, or somehow "less than".

However in general, I don't think men's and women's attitudes on this subject are so totally different, even when the scenario is reversed.

A lot of it boils down to a sense of competitiveness (as Ravenscroft and others alluded to), as well as insecurity and the notion that, as a man (or woman) we "should" be able to provide everything our lover needs from someone of our particular sex/gender.

In contrast, many people (though by no means ALL) accept that someone of a different sex/gender may be able to provide a different kind of experience that we cannot, and therefore the opposite sex lover is not viewed as quite as much of a threat to our own sense of self-esteem and identity, i.e. masculinity/femininity.

A lot of us fall into this trap. I freely admit I've been there... insofar as I feel less threatened by the possibility of my female partner being with another MAN than I would if she took another woman as a lover. Similarly, I feel more jealous at the thought of my partner Jester (M) wanting to share intimacy with Boho (F) than I do when Boho expresses a desire to be physical with Jester. (Still, within the confines of our closed FFM "V", an unofficial OPP has been adopted.)

Thus, though the intrinsic feelings of insecurity/jealousy may be very similar between men AND women in this situation... women are socialised from a young age - by family, societal and cultural expectations, even religion - to be more compliant; to silently accept their lot in life; to accede to their male partner's wishes, even if that includes having to accept another lover, a mistress, wife or wives.

Men, on the other hand, are generally socialised to be protective and possessive of "their" property. It wasn't many decades ago that women and children were still considered chattels of the "man of the house" - a cultural hangover that plays into contemporary attitudes even amongst the supposedly more enlightened. Men are taught that it is emasculating to "allow" their wife/girlfriend to be with other men sexually, and that it's within their rights - even expected - to vehemently oppose any suggestion of such a thing. Whilst women are taught that "boys will be boys", "that's just the way men are, dear", and that we must "keep him happy in the bedroom" if we don't want him looking for pussy elsewhere.

***********

There is another possibility I thought of just now... a purely physical/biological/visceral one, that MAY help explain why SOME men view women who sleep with more than one male at a time as "unclean":

While bodily fluids related to sexual activity are not unique to the male of the species... men are the only ones who physically "inject" their emissions INTO their partner's body (assuming no barriers are used). The female egg/ovum however, remains firmly in its place during sexual intercourse. Even with the woman on top or in a more dominant position, she is still the "passive recipient" of her partner's sperm.

A male who knows his female partner is having sex with multiple other males, and envisages the act, may therefore feel "his" partner is somehow tainted by the fact that another man may have ejaculated within her body shortly beforehand. The possessive, misogynistic or squeamish male may have a strong negative reaction to such a mental image, even if intellectually, he knows the woman has washed, cleaned herself or is using protection with her other partner/s.

Of course, the basis of the man's negative reaction stems from the milleniums-old biological impulse to ensure HE father's his mate's children... however, in contemporary society, this knowledge only exists subconsciously.
 

Magdlyn

Well-known member
Good points, MsEmotional. When you get into sexual politics, and the idea of our adoption of basically a slave/Master situation going on between the sexes for 2 or 3 thousand years, almost worldwide, it's a lot of work to get our society to break that expected mold.

There was a time, and still is in pockets of the world, where science had not discovered that men and women both contributed DNA to a pregnancy. Originally it was believed women conceived on their own, and so they were extremely powerful, thought of as life bringers or life givers. They gave birth according to the whims of the gods. They breast fed and nourished the young as well. The most important gods were female, reflecting women's high status.

Patriarchal beliefs were the exact opposite. Women were merely fertile fields, men had the baby in miniature in their balls and just needed a field to plant it in. Female deities were wiped out by violent means. Their worship was punishable by death. (Check the Bible, the sad history of that is all in there.)

So now we at least have the equality in place, that both men and women are responsible for bringing a new life into the world. Women are still more vulnerable though, since men often add their contribution to a pregnancy, and then fuck off leaving women holding the bag. This situation is a crime, and can still lead to illness, starvation and death for mothers and children.

At least until very recently, men were taught to marry a virgin. There were girls you fucked and girls you married. Women were taught to hold on to their virginity, or they would be tainted goods and unmarriagable. (Only sluts and whores had sex without a marriage license.) This did lead to some degree and guarantees for the safety of the (married) woman and her children. But she was beholden to one man, just as Eve was cursed in Genesis. And pregnant unmarried women's children usually died.

Safer is when all children are thought of, as in matriarchal days, and in some traditional societies still today, as the responsibility of the entire tribe or village. Then, if a bio father fucked off, or died, or was too ill to work, the women of child-bearing age, and their offspring, would be emotionally and financially provided for as a matter of course. The kids would even call all the adults in the tribe, directly related or not, mother or father, aunt or uncle.

Virgins were not desired by males for marriage. A woman who had already gotten pregnant and given birth was most highly sought after. Virgins could be of low fertility, perhaps, and so not proven marriage material.

Everyone who is interested should read Sex at Dawn for a pretty good window into prehistoric sex practices, where promiscuity was expected. They put forward really interesting theories in that book. (Even the shape of a human male's penis and testicles is compared to the genitals of other apes, in relation to its function. The human penis glans is more of a squeegee to scrape out the ejaculate of another man from the vagina, as compared to the gorilla or chimpanzee glans.)

I know it's a lot to ask a man to understand that his rage or disgust at "his" woman having sex with another man is related to the idea he deep down has been trained to think: his female mate is his actual property. She is his slave. And how that relates to the workings of patriarchal farm, ranch or village life. In my day (I was born mid 50s) it was always assumed the man was the head of the household. That term has gone out of fashion. It's high time to let go of the idea of a promiscuous, sexual woman as a slut (tainted goods, dirty, gross) and a virgin or married or mono or even non-sexual woman as a good girl. You don't even need to be poly to understand how this idea degrades women.

A MFM V or triad, where a woman is having unprotected sex with both men when they agree it's time to make babies, and it is unknown who is the bio dad, protects the vulnerable pregnant, or nursing woman and the baby, twice as much as if the father was only invested in supporting his own bio child. In a way it protects both fathers more too. Say one is sterile or of low fertility, and there are several children conceived in the V. The father with lower fertility still gets the status of being a father, and the privilege of working to support the children considered just as much his as the actual bio father's.
 

vinsanity0

Active member
You'll see me calling this the ownership mentality. I did indeed struggle with it a little myself. It was weird because when Cat and I first started seeing each other we were non-mon. I had zero problems with her sleeping with other men. Then she decided she wanted to be mono with me and I agreed. After many years we talked about opening up the relationship again. Suddenly I was confronted with these weird feelings. Luckily I was able to work it out fairly quickly.
 

Ting42

New member
For starters, it isn't only about sex. For my entire life, I've gotten along far better with boys/men than girls/women. That's partly because the abusers in my early life were women, and the bullies I have encountered in my life (including as an adult, sadly... sad because I feel sorry for women in their 40s and 50s who still act like junior high mean girls) have overwhelmingly been female. I prefer spending time with guys. My dad, grandfathers, and uncles were the closest I had to "safe people" when I was growing up, and my dad took care of me far more than my mother did, so men, particularly those with certain personality types, cause me to feel safe and cared for. I do have female friends nowadays, but it's a lot more difficult for me to trust women than men. And I require a fairly high level of trust to have a relationship with someone.

It could be said, and I've speculated, that the reason I'm not attracted to women is because of this past experience, rather than because I'm 100% straight. But I don't feel the need to examine my reasons too thoroughly.


I relate to this and almost EVERY word in your post. I was raised by my father and I have spent ALL of my life feeling more comfortable with males. I have only 1 female friend, and she is very very tom boy and displays little typical female behaviors. Right now is not a good time for me to really discuss my budding poly nature or even put into words clearly what I am experiencing, but I am truly feeling a deep sense of comfort reading about others who are thinking and feeling similar things to what I am feeling...it makes me feel a little less crazy.

Thank you for sharing!
 

Dagferi

Active member
No abusive women in my life.

No mean girls or etc in my life. I do not give two craps about what others think of me never have. I was known for stuffing bullies in lockers and dumpsters in high school. I cannot stand folks who bully those weaker than themselves.

I have always enjoyed activities that attacted a more male crowd. I played hockey. I shoot archery and guns. I enjoy old muscle and antique cars. Love metal and punk music. I prefer to rock a hoodie, jeans, and my Doc Martens.

I also have no time for drama or idle chit chat.
 

Sentinel

New member
Ummmm ... so some history, there was lava, and then there was algae and then there was humans.

Among,the humans, the only reason we have monogamous societies is that men worked it out among themselves, in different places and at different times, that collectively they would be better off if they stopped killing each other over mates and enforced monogamy instead.

You may wish that the men weren't powerful enough as a group to enforce monogamy, and you may wish that men individually are good enough not to practice monogamy. But perhaps you see that these forces are in stark contradiction: that in the years before laws and courts and police and freedom, that both practicing and enforcing monogamy were a big part of being a man.

So when my wife has sex with another man I'm okay with that because I trust her and also have faith in paternity testing, that I won't be on the hook for the cost of raising another man's child. I actually am happy for her, but it's a balance of all of those issues.

So when you simplify it all and say you are sick of Men ranting about these things, I don't disagree, but I do suggest that we are all biological creatures.
 
Last edited:

AutumnLeaves

New member
I always roll my eyes when armchair anthropologists come out of the woodwork with their pseudobiology gender essentialist theories. There are so many different cultures, historically and present day, with different ideas on mating, raising children, gender, etc., that these theories tend to collapse under the slightest critical scrutiny based in actual anthropology. Latching on to a theory because it makes sense to you does not make your theory real, or the sun would revolve around the earth.

Regardless, I don't think it matters. I reject your "but biology!" excuse. First, because that's, just, like, your theory, man. And second, because it doesn't matter why you might be inclined to treat people poorly, what matters is that you examine your initial feelings and biases and DO BETTER. If you claim to love a woman and now you're conflicted because she kissed another man? That's a YOU problem, that's not a HER problem. And it isn't immutable, either. Do some work on yourself. Your first THOUGHT might be out of your control, but how you ACT (toward a person you claim to care about, no less) is fully within your control.

I expect modern people to think about their own internalized misogyny. Period. I don't care what why you think society got to be the way it is. Society can and should be better. Ideas rooted in the ownership of women or other romantic partners period, ideas around slut shaming, ideas that are irrationally phobic and shaming of sex work, are antiquated and wrong. Do some critical self-examination and fix yourself instead of crutching on excuses to explain to yourself why your behavior is out of your control.

If monogamy is your security blanket, fine. But if you blame your bi/pan spouse for engaging or wanting to engage in a hetero relationship after you've left monogamy behind, you're wrong. People are not things. It's wrong to try to control others rather than set your own boundaries, and it's both foolish and impractical to try to control who other people are attracted to.

(Any use of "you" is general throughout, this is not directed at one specific post or poster.)
 

opalescent

Active member
*slow claps for AutumnLeaves*

You said what I was getting around to write. All of these 'scientific' theories are put put there to 'explain' the way people think men and women should be. And they are all bunk. There is no science, no 'natural' way of being a man or a woman. We are social creatures, our society, our environment, our family all contribute to how we act out 'man', 'woman'. None of this is natural or innate.

Using a scientific or natural or biological explanation is a refusal to deal with one's own bullshit. It's a refusal to face one's own complicity in treating others as lesser human beings. (And yes I include myself as complicit. I'm trying to expunge the racism I was brought up in.)
 

sexyserb

Member
If a woman doesn't want to have sex with more than one man, or with any men at all, that's entirely her thing, whether orientation or choice. But if a woman *does* want to have sex with more than one man, condemning her for it, considering her "damaged goods" or acting like it's a personal affront to her husband or any other man in her life, is bullshit. I think the "push" is for people to *accept* that some women want sex with more than one man, to respect that, and to stop acting like it makes the woman "less than."

Exactly, and well said. But how come this does not apply to men. Why is the constant narrative here for some that any man who does not want to participate must be "damaged good" , controlling, sexist and a victim of history and in need of therapy to enlighten him.
 

Ravenscroft

Banned
any man who does not want to participate must be "damaged good" , controlling, sexist and a victim of history and in need of therapy to enlighten him.
I figure it's difficult for people to break loose from binary thinking, & takes practice. (Like, given only two choices, if one is "good" then the other MUST be "bad," or if one is "bad" then the other MUST be "good." Such blindering leads to many learning opportunities IRL. What if there's a dozen actual paths but only those two "normal" choices are allowed?)

Personally, I doubt that history or biology figure into it at all directly. However, such bases contributed to the "common wisdom" we've inherited. It makes little sense to hold individuals responsible for the rules they've been inundated with life-long. In that sense, I'd have to say they ARE "victims of history," but if that's how they are truly happiest, then maybe it's not up to someone else to damn them for doing what apparently works for them.

In therapy, there's a rule of thumb: "If it's not causing problems, it's not a disorder." Conversely, if "normal" is causing problems for someone, then that person may desire change in order to rectify the problems (or in extreme cases might need to have change imposed) but just as easily they could work with a therapist to redefine the "normal" that they need in order to be happy, or understand themselves better & see that they actually function just fine.

(That last has been on my mind. I have a new friend who doesn't believe she's attractive, though I disagree strongly. Her outlook affects how she interacts with people, sometimes leading her to drive others away because she can't trust their motivations for "lying" to her. I let her have her space as she needs, but make clear that I'm always pleased to have her companionship.)

If someone is a "non-sharing" person, then (IMO) they ought not force themselves to remain involved with someone who wants multiple sexual partners. Should ending the relationship be more unnerving than exploring options for personal change, then by all means assistance should be found to help with healthy change. If the relationship should end, a therapist can help with that as well.

The danger of damning a non-sharing person outright is that it sets up nonmonogamy as morally superior to monogamy, something I don't agree with. And, FWIW, I don't see it as "patriarchal" or "a guy thing": there are certainly women who don't want "their man" to have sex with others, though this might be disguised as heightened fear of STDs or intrusion into personal space or undercutting relations with kin.
 
Last edited:

vinsanity0

Active member
*slow claps for AutumnLeaves*

You said what I was getting around to write. All of these 'scientific' theories are put put there to 'explain' the way people think men and women should be. And they are all bunk. There is no science, no 'natural' way of being a man or a woman. We are social creatures, our society, our environment, our family all contribute to how we act out 'man', 'woman'. None of this is natural or innate.

Using a scientific or natural or biological explanation is a refusal to deal with one's own bullshit. It's a refusal to face one's own complicity in treating others as lesser human beings. (And yes I include myself as complicit. I'm trying to expunge the racism I was brought up in.)

Yes and no. Humans are animals. We have instincts. We have also developed social rules, some good, some bad. It helps to understand where the feelings come from in order to stop bad behavior. What is wrong is trying to hide behind it to justify one's actions. Science isn't bunk.
 
Top