Triage (pun intended)

[LoveBunny]

Trust me, strap ons are fun, but it's ridiculous to say it's the same thing. As a straight woman, are you turned on by a woman with a strap on? I guess you must be, right? Because it's the exact same thing as a man?

Saying "what's between a person's legs doesn't matter" is a lovely concept, but then, I guess no one would be homosexual or heterosexual. Otherwise, you wouldn't have people who feel they were born in the wrong gendered-body. Granted, much of this is societal, but we have to be honest that men and women are different, and people are attracted to or repulsed by these differences.

 

[london]

just don't understand why you'd be mad insecure about one gender and not the other. I can understand not wanting your partner to have anyone else, but not gender based distinctions.

 

[Magdlyn]

My husband says the reason he is more comfortable with me being with women is NOT because he finds women "less threatening." In fact, if the past is any indication, I'm more likely to fall hard for a woman than a man. It is more that he understands that a woman is giving me something he can't (soft skin/breasts/vagina etc.) It is harder for him to wrap his brain around me wanting other men because he thinks, "But I'm already providing those things (penis, harder body, larger size, etc.)."

I don't have much BSDM experience, but I imagine it's similar to someone who is vanilla feeling comfortable with their s.o. having a dom or a sub, but chafing at the idea of their s.o. having another vanilla relationship. I even think I read that in one of the poly books, I forget which, and it stuck with me: that most poly relationships are about seeking "other,"or seeking "more."

That being said, I vetoed my personal OPP, and, it IS thought-provoking how rarely Other Vagina Policies seem to come up....

I have heard a few women express their discomfort at their male, bisexual partner getting involved with other women.

Yeah, that would be me. When Ginger started dating a year ago, the first person he was interested in was male, and since he's bi but never actually been with a dude, I was all for it. But since then he's dated women, and I do get the (irrational) thought, "But I've got the soft skin, higher voice, breasts, vag, emotional intelligence," like other women. Why does he need more?

Of course, just because we are all women doesn't make us identical! We are taller, shorter, fatter, thinner, different ages, hair color, interests, experiences to share, different sexual styles, senses of humor, etc etc.

It's a struggle for me! I never thought I'd have anything in common with OPP type poly guys, but it seems I do. It's humbling.

 

[Marcus]

It is more that he understands that a woman is giving me something he can't (soft skin/breasts/vagina etc.) It is harder for him to wrap his brain around me wanting other men because he thinks, "But I'm already providing those things (penis, harder body, larger size, etc.)."

Makes sense. He wanted you to not date men so that he didn't have to deal with his insecurity based competitive view of other men in your life. It's all the same thing in the end "I don't have the emotional maturity to handle this and I don't want to be put in a situation where I need to grow past this in order for you to live the life you want to live". Unfortunately instead of adjusting their own lives to figure out how to live with their insecurities they request other people to do it for them.

I just think it's the opposite of a constructive approach to dealing with emotional issues.

That being said, I vetoed my personal OPP, and, it IS thought-provoking how rarely Other Vagina Policies seem to come up....

I think what we generally see in this case on these boards is a woman who isn't ok with their male partner seeing anyone, male or female. It might also be related to the number of bisexual men involved with women who are insecure about other women but not men... it doesn't seem to be as common for women to make that kind of distinction.

 

[london]

My trouble with women boils down to the fact that I find them much harder to predict/read than men. There are a subset of men who I feel behave/communicate "like women" (effectively rendering any gender based distinctions I used to make, moot) and I find them very difficult to tolerate too.

My partner is bisexual. A partner I had a year or so ago was also bisexual. During these relationships, I also discovered that I am far more comfortable with male metamours and would prefer my partners to only date other men. Acknowledging that preference isn't an issue, in my opinion. It's an issue when you a) don't examine why you have certain preferences and b) turn these unexamined preferences into rules.

 

[Garriguette]

Gralson has expressed a "discomfort" with the idea of me having sex with other men. He's never dared suggest that I can't, or even requested that I don't, so it's not a "control" thing because he's never suggested anything like a OPP. What he has said is that it would be really weird for him, and he would have some inner work to do around that if it happened.

Now, I don't see him as a misogynist. Gralson loves women. All his best friends are women, and have been since childhood. He's never been that close to guy friends. When he was a kid, boys used to beat him up, and his dad beat him up, so basically, to him, men aren't trustworthy: they'll fuck you up.

...

Anyway, he happened to phone just as I was reading this thread, thinking about what he would have to say for himself regarding his discomfort surrounding me and other penises. So I read him London's comment and here's his response:

"In a nutshell, no. I would be... hehe... I would be more surprised if you left me for a man than a woman. (Not you speficially, that's just anybody, maybe at some point you will meet Prince Charming Man who is perfect, and then that will be that). But uhh... I don't think that I see... there's... there's definitly been a thought, there's definitely a perception ... and it's not even a sexual thing, it's a mental thing. I think that a lot of guys have a thought, so I don't disagree with what she says, for many guys... Yeah, I can remember having many conversations with guys, [them:] "yeah I want to be with two girls" [him:] "Oh, so you don't have a problem with bi girls?" [them:] "Oh no, bi girls are disgusting." [him:] "So... what are they doing together?" [them:] "They're doing...stuff..." [him:] "Uhhh, that makes no sense to me." And oddly enough, that's not an uncommon conversation to have in that area... so, I don't know."

He never really got clear on what "the thought" was. I asked him to clarify:

Him: "I don't necessarily think she's wrong. I don't really know, it just goes into the whole jealousy thing, is what I've come up with it. Yeah, I think it's just jealousy."

Me: "Like, fear of losing, you mean?"

Him: "I... don't... know. Possibly, I guess. I don't really know what it is. I don't know. What was that word she said? The M-word?"

Me: "Misogyny?"

Him: "Yeah. What does that man?"

Me: "Hatred of women."

Him: (thinks) "No, I wouldn't say that's what it is. I don't hate women. I just, I don't know, I think guys are more threatening."

SC, do you have a sense of whether he feels that guys are more threatening to him (e.g., likelier to display some sort of aggression or hostility toward him)?

That guys are more threatening to you and that he's worried about your physical or emotional safety?

That guys are more of a threat to the relationship that you share (e.g., the cowboy problem-- I'm guessing this is not what he means, since he has said he thinks you'd be likelier to leave for a woman)?

Those are very different kinds of perceived threat.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from Marcus):

"I don't mean that to be sarcastic either, it truly is valuable to identify situations which are just too much for us at the time and to have the courage to step away from them or make adjustments accordingly."

Okay cool, so you support the idea of "taking it slow if needed," and will do some things (and encourage some things) to help, just so it's not to the point where you're making fundamental compromises that would stifle your own life. I think that's what you meant. (If so, then it seems pretty reasonable to me.)

Re: OPP based on the mistrust of men and the trust of women ... actually almost works for me ... except for one issue that just now struck me. Presumably the man is the party requesting the OPP, and so ... if he requests it because he doesn't trust men ... does he then also mistrust himself? cause if so, then he should also be excluding himself ... (i.e., a ZPP: Zero Penis Policy)

Just sayin'.

Re (from fuzzzilla):

"We have exceptions in our agreement already for the possibility of certain men that we already know well, whom we both trust implicitly."

Ahh -- that actually answers my question. So it's not a ZPP and it's not an OPP ... it's an SFPP (Select Few Penises Policy). Well, it is ...

Re:

"Oy, this is long. More replies in another post. I hit the limit, apparently, eek!"

Haha, welcome to my exclusive club! I can't remember if I've done a four-post post yet, but I know I've done a three-post post (or three).

And as for men being more physically dangerous/violent (than women)? I'm afraid I think so -- in statistical terms. And due to a few unpleasant anecdotes of my own. But I should add that I've also known more than a few men in my day who were/are *always* as gentle as a Summer breeze. Not to mention a few marquee names that come to mind, such as Mr. (Fred) Rogers ... Mahatma Gandhi ...

My bottom line re: OPP ... is similar to my bottom line re: DADT. I don't generally recommend it, but I do try to make room for exceptions once I've learned more of the details of a particular situation.

@ fuzzzilla ... your situation seems fine to me, I'm not worried about it. Sorry if you ended up in the midst of a feeding frenzy, that does happen sometimes (on this forum and others) and it's not cool when it does. Why does it happen? I don't know. I guess people get so caught up in ideologies that they forget about people.

 

[IndieSolo]

I have prejudices and insecurities. We all do. Why is it that people get so bent out of shape when someone tells them they, or a partner of theirs, seem insecure and/or prejudiced (which simply means they are pre-judging someone before knowing them)? It's not an insult. If someone points out my insecurities and prejudices to me, I may not like it, but I try not to run away screaming "How dare you!" If someone sees some behavior, way of thinking, belief system, and so on that I am operating out of and calls me on it, ultmately I am grateful even if they are off-base or I resist the idea at first, because it gives me something to examine about myself or the impression people have of me.

 

[kdt26417]

Re:

"If someone sees some behavior, way of thinking, belief system, and so on that I am operating out of and calls me on it, ultmately I am grateful even if they are off-base or I resist the idea at first, because it gives me something to examine about myself or the impression people have of me."

Heh, that's probably how well I do during my finest hours. LOL, during, well, other hours, I tend to think to myself, "Screw you! I didn't do anything wrong." My bad.

But hey, I, too, am able to see where I was a little short-sighted, given a few years to think about it.

 

[fuzzzilla]

I offered several caps and described what people I feel fit into which particular cap. Now I do not know you or your partner, yet you've come in and taken general comments and applied them to your relationship simply because you know you have a OPP (except if my partner thinks they're a nice guy) in place.

If your partner doesn't fit the misogyny cap, good for you, know you have my validation (since that's what you seem to be seeking here), if not, it's up to you whether you think these issues are a) important and 2) applicable to you and yours. If not, go along your merry way.

I'm not going to stop thinking that his insecurities are founded in misogyny and you enable it, though. But that's what I think about all gender based distinctions. It's about sexism and usually of the misogynistic variety. You cannot politely request I stop thinking that in order to keep within your comfort zones.

I was (attempting anyway) to reply to the comments you directed at me. (@fuzzzilla, quoted posts)
I have not been seeking your validation. My initial post was to show a possibly different motivation behind OPP, and to see if this was a community I could interact with at all. I think that, despite the "feeding frenzy", it is. Subsequent posts were clarifications and trying to be heard. What I was seeking from you, if anything, was whether or not you had read/acknowledged information I had already given which seemed to me to have been missed/ignored. I apologize if I did not make that clear.
I'm not asking you to stop believing any of your beliefs. They are yours to believe. I am asking, in general, to be heard out. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing. I like to expand my comfort zone.

Re: OPP based on the mistrust of men and the trust of women ... actually almost works for me ... except for one issue that just now struck me. Presumably the man is the party requesting the OPP, and so ... if he requests it because he doesn't trust men ... does he then also mistrust himself? cause if so, then he should also be excluding himself ... (i.e., a ZPP: Zero Penis Policy)

Just sayin'.

Re (from fuzzzilla):


Ahh -- that actually answers my question. So it's not a ZPP and it's not an OPP ... it's an SFPP (Select Few Penises Policy).

And as for men being more physically dangerous/violent (than women)? I'm afraid I think so -- in statistical terms. And due to a few unpleasant anecdotes of my own. But I should add that I've also known more than a few men in my day who were/are *always* as gentle as a Summer breeze. Not to mention a few marquee names that come to mind, such as Mr. (Fred) Rogers ... Mahatma Gandhi ...

My bottom line re: OPP ... is similar to my bottom line re: DADT. I don't generally recommend it, but I do try to make room for exceptions once I've learned more of the details of a particular situation.

@ fuzzzilla ... your situation seems fine to me, I'm not worried about it. Sorry if you ended up in the midst of a feeding frenzy, that does happen sometimes (on this forum and others) and it's not cool when it does. Why does it happen? I don't know. I guess people get so caught up in ideologies that they forget about people.

Haha! That makes for an interesting dilemma, doesn't it?
But yes, it's less of a complete and universal mistrust of all men everywhere, and more of a mistrust for 1) men he knows to be untrustworthy (obviously) and 2) unknown men, who have the potential to do a lot of harm before their trustworthiness can be determined.
I agree on the statistical dangerousness of men (Louis C. K. has a pretty spot on bit about that), and I've had personal experiences with the nasty sort of men AND women. I think the reason I don't have any fear-based gender biases is that my screwers-over have been pretty balanced, demographically speaking. I'm a little afraid of everybody, haha. And I've also known preternaturally kind and gentle people on both sides of the gender fence, and a few who straddle it.

I have prejudices and insecurities. We all do. Why is it that people get so bent out of shape when someone tells them they, or a partner of theirs, seem insecure and/or prejudiced (which simply means they are pre-judging someone before knowing them)? It's not an insult. If someone points out my insecurities and prejudices to me, I may not like it, but I try not to run away screaming "How dare you!" If someone sees some behavior, way of thinking, belief system, and so on that I am operating out of and calls me on it, ultmately I am grateful even if they are off-base or I resist the idea at first, because it gives me something to examine about myself or the impression people have of me.

I definitely appreciate being guided to question my position on things. As you say, even if it's not correct, it's food for thought. However, there is a big difference between pointing out that something/someone seems a certain way and absolutism. (i.e. "Doesn't matter what the excuses are - a OPP is misogynistic and based in extreme insecurity and a need to control women's sexuality. No one should ever tolerate that bullshit.") I respect that this is your opinion. That's fine. But it seems disingenuous to present that as having said that it seems like so-and-so is motivated by XYZ. But it's possible that I've missed something and am way off base.
I felt more control over my sexuality being exerted in your statement than I did by my partner's request. (I am aware that such was not your intent, but it's food for thought, no?)

Also, I have discussed with him the theoretical of a partner discovering their maleness and undergoing transition mid-relationship, and I am happy to report that my gut feeling was correct! That partner would foremost be a human being who we both already know we can trust, so gender-related worries would be moot. The specific trumps the general, huzzah!

 

[kdt26417]

Re:

"The specific trumps the general, huzzah!"

It bodes well for the future.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

It hurt to see people saying that the person I love most in the world is misogynistic, controlling, insecure, and unwilling to work on his issues. It hurt to see people saying that I'm doing it wrong, that something that doesn't bother me at all is a thing I should never, ever do. It hurt even though, at the time, no one was saying these things to me directly.

It's natural to feel hurt when someone denigrates your relationship style or partner without even knowing them. But try not to take it personally. People can make generalizations, but that doesn't make them true about particular people they've never met.

I think the critical difference is that you don't have a OPP. You made an agreement not to have sex with other men, willingly and of your own volition. That's different from your partner saying "Use mah wuhmin, and das mah pussy, and only mah penizs goes in ure pussy, bitchz!" In other words, agreement != control.

However, if you'd not protect a male in the same way you'd protect a female who was in some sort of trouble, that is something motivated by sexism and gender essentialism. You're saying that men are always less vulnerable etc than women.

I agree. It's not the case here. He routinely gets between his team members and his supervisors. It's the main reason his supervisors want to see him gone, because he's a major pain in the ass for people who just want to boss everyone around and throw their power trip temper tantrums. I just highlighted this particular instance because a sexist misogynist would be happy to give the woman the menial task, for having the audacity to try and work a man's job.

My trouble with women

Just for the record, anything including the phrase "my trouble with women" is also sexist.

SC, do you have a sense of whether he feels that guys are more threatening to him (e.g., likelier to display some sort of aggression or hostility toward him)?

That guys are more threatening to you and that he's worried about your physical or emotional safety?

That guys are more of a threat to the relationship that you share (e.g., the cowboy problem-- I'm guessing this is not what he means, since he has said he thinks you'd be likelier to leave for a woman)?

Those are very different kinds of perceived threat.

Hmm... I would have to say the third, with maybe a hint of the first.

Basically, I think it's something like this... Because of childhood (adoption) abandonment issues, he's insecure and worried that I'll leave him as soon as I get my PhD. Also, on some level, he's always suspected that I'm secretly a lesbian. Apparently I look and act like a stereotypical butchy lesbian, plus I'm emotional and I enjoy emotional intimacy, which he struggles with, so that's why he thinks I'm more likely to leave him for a woman. But he perceives men "themselves" to be more threatening, so even though I'm "secretly a lesbian," a man would be more likely to try and stir shit up. Uhm, I think also in his early years of dating, he did his share of stealing women from their boyfriends, so there's that too...

Until I dated Auto, I think he was insecure and threatened by any other relationship. When I didn't leave him for her, he was able to get over it for girls. He's very much an "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of guy.

 

[london]

That's why partial quotes are often unhelpful. I went on to say I have the same trouble with some men, so any gender based distinctions I used to make are moot.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

That's why partial quotes are often unhelpful. I went on to say I have the same trouble with some men, so any gender based distinctions I used to make are moot.

"Some men" being the men whom you said communicate "like women." But you know, keep digging.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I've got some sexist beliefs floating around in my head. Everyone does. We were all raised in the same society, it would be impossible not to absorb some of those attitudes, no matter what your upbringing was. It's more important to acknowledge them and accept them, in order to try and work past them... than to pretend they don't exist, and thus perpetuate the problem. It's not that I think men or women are better or worse, but I definitely make assumptions about men and about women, often without knowing them. I'll say that someone does something because they're a man or a woman, without knowing their real thought pattern and whether they'd do it if they were another gender.

And honestly, sometimes they're true. Men and women do have different brains and different biochemistry. That's just a fact. Ask any trans person who's gone on and off their hormone treatment, how much their personality changes with their levels of estrogen or testosterone. So saying "Men and Women are equal" doesn't make it true that "Men and Women are the same." Socialization aside (and that socialization is pretty deep), we're very very different. And frankly, I think that's cool. I would be very interested in some unbiased studies on what patterns there are in the ways women and men think differently, how they behave in different situations, from a purely biological perspective. I don't know how you'd do it, without clouding the results with socialization, but it would be really interesting to see.

 

[london]

My trouble with women boils down to the fact that I find them much harder to predict/read than men. There are a subset of men who I feel behave/communicate "like women" (effectively rendering any gender based distinctions I used to make, moot) and I find them very difficult to tolerate too.

My partner is bisexual. A partner I had a year or so ago was also bisexual. During these relationships, I also discovered that I am far more comfortable with male metamours and would prefer my partners to only date other men. Acknowledging that preference isn't an issue, in my opinion. It's an issue when you a) don't examine why you have certain preferences and b) turn these unexamined preferences into rules.

This was my entire post. When you don't purposely try and take it out of context because of repressed rage, you'll see that it was about my discovery that my problem with women wasn't a problem with women at all, it was a problem with people. When I first started to meet men who communicated in this undesirable way, it was "dude, you're like a chick". Then, I realised that gender based distinctions muddy the waters. And that's why I used to make distinctions like this but don't anymore. Like I said in my post above.

I still find more women communicate in this undesirable way than men, but it isn't something inherently female.

But you know, SC, keep digging. I enjoy answering pms about why you consistently take what I say out of context and try to reframe what I'm saying. I enjoy people's perspectives on what exactly your problem with me is about. I think this is another classic example of your wee fixation on me. It's cute.

 

[Devirajni]

One Vagina Policy (OVP)

This may warrant a new thread, but I'll leave it to the moderators.

I have a One Vagina Policy in place with Hinge. I am fine with him having sex with his husband, even insisting that he saves something for Mike rather than go another round with me the day before Mike visits; Hinge went "clubbing" in the city near us a few weeks back and I kissed him goodbye and told him to have a good time even though I sensed that he was going to go and have anonymous sex in gay clubs; when he goes to conferences out of town I don't mind the idea of conference hookups with other men. The anonymous sex of the sauna and hotel rooms doesn't mean anything to him, or to me.

Marcus is going to freak out here, but Hinge and I have two "rules". One is that he is in contact with me once a week no matter what is going on or where we are (right now, I am in Asia and he is in Latin America, with a time difference of 11 hours, but we're still in touch), and the other is that there are no other girls. Now, this might seem repressive of me, but I told him outright when we got serious that I had to be the only girl, and if he didn't feel like he could abide by this, then we should stop seeing each other. He chose to accept it. Similarly, when we got together, he informed me that he would never leave his husband. I accepted THAT. I also accepted not being able to meet his family, put photos of us on social media, and other things that come with being respectful of the primary relationship while our own is still in the early stages.

The OVP extends to transitioning and fully transitioned M2F trans* folk. The reason for this is that the way I am special to Hinge is my femaleness. I am soft, small, round, lighter-voiced. The way Mike is special to Hinge is his status as long-standing partner with all the history and sweat equity, and, of course, the legal standing of being the married partner. Hinge can have another male partner who may be special in another way, like having a hard body, a passion for salsa, and red hair, none of which Mike and I have, but I have the "female" niche occupied.

A lot of advice on this forum for people experiencing jealousy with regard to sharing their partner revolves around thinking of all the ways you are special to your partner, ways that you fulfill them that nobody else can. In our case, it is because I am feminine. If we were younger with more time on our hands, maybe that category could be broken down into more nuanced sections, like I could be "blonde, French-speaking sex kitten feminine" and someone else could be "brunette, soulful jazz-singing gamine feminine". But Hinge doesn't have the time to invest in more than two or at the most three relationships. So the feminine category is going to have to stay un-nuanced, and my vagina is in possession of the space. If he feels that he really needs another vagina in that space, then mine will have to move out.

I did not trick him into a relationship then impose these conditions; these were discussed before we decided to get serious, and we agreed that they were acceptable. So far, he hasn't felt like he is being oppressed

 

[london]

What about if he meets an "effeminate" male? You know what? Forget it. Listen, dude, if acting out of insecurity works for you, great. The thing with me is that even if I found someone who was willing to coddle my insecurities, I couldn't be in a relationship where there was those kind of restrictions. Especially if I knew it was me with the insecurities. I couldn't live thinking that the only things that make me special to my partner is the fact I'm female and the stereotypes that come with being female. But you can, obviously, great.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

A lot of advice on this forum for people experiencing jealousy with regard to sharing their partner revolves around thinking of all the ways you are special to your partner, ways that you fulfill them that nobody else can. In our case, it is because I am feminine.

Wow. You must be incredibly dull if your only special feature is that you have a vagina.

Being female isn't a "niche." Niche means something special and unique that almost no one else can do. Like, being the species of caterpillar that's host to a specific species of parasitic wasp. Being female is easy... over half the world's population is doing it.

 

[Marcus]

Marcus is going to freak out here

Because you have a rule in place that your partner must restrict their love life to suit your insecurity? I don't know why that would command any special emotional response on my part... it's exactly the same rule that we've been discussing.

As far as I can tell there is nothing different or interesting about your situation than any other couple who agrees to make sacrifices to keep each other from having to deal with reality.

I did not trick him into a relationship then impose these conditions; these were discussed before we decided to get serious, and we agreed that they were acceptable. So far, he hasn't felt like he is being oppressed

If that's what works for you then do it; no one is telling you otherwise. We are simply discussing the validity and constructive qualities (or lack thereof) inherent in such an arrangement.

 

[Devirajni]

Wow, way to get personal. Why attack me? I'm not incredibly dull - are you incredibly shortsighted? I was posting what worked for US. I'm a mono in a relationship with a poly, and no, I don't feel that my simply saying what are dealbreakers for me makes me a terrorist. He had a choice to be with me or not. I had a choice to be with him or not. We looked at what was required by way of compromising our individual desires, for monogamy and/or boundaries, and we agreed it was worth it. It is OUR relationship. I am not saying everyone should be like this; but other people out there might see that you don't have to accept situations that aren't to your liking, that it is acceptable to say "Hey, maybe later, but for now I am comfortable with X."

It is funny to see how the same things that have me applauded for being brave on mono/poly groups have me vilified on poly ones. But so many poly people ARE in relationships with mono people, and so many monos come to this site in search of answers, that it seems appropriate for a plurality of perspectives to be voiced.