Also, please consider the number of people in ‘monogamous’ coupling relationships where there is no sex at all, due to illness, injury, asexuality or other factors.

Surely there must be room in the definition of ‘relationship’ to include all these people, despite the fact that they are neither monogamous or poly.

Far more often in discussions with people with such a rule in place (apparently often called a “one penis policy” or OPP, kids these days with their fancy lingo) the reasons given for it are that it’s only natural for people to be threatened by similar genitalia, where entirely different genitalia are Giving Her Something I Can’t, and anyway she’s bi and already has a man, so why would she want another one? At best. (At worst it’s blatant harem-building.) It’s evo-psych! Also! If his guyfriends realised he was letting another man bang his woman he’d lose status!

There are some weird, weird ways societal misogyny crops up in the extended poly community. That’s one of the more common.

(And yeah, the fact that ‘lifestyle’ is very deliberately chosen for homophobic and otherwise derogatory effect is why I cringe at it. Well, that and the raw pedantry of “The word ‘lifestyle’ means ‘manner of living’; none of these traits actually tell you a thing about my manner of living in the first place.” I can’t hear ‘lifestyle’ directed at non-normative sexuality without hearing the social-conservative subtext of, “the way those people live is filthy, vile, superficial, trivial, and they could just give it up if they wanted to live decently.”)

I’ll say it: Rielle Hunter is not a bad person. She engaged in consensual sex. On her terms. I can see why social conservatives villify her. Obv. But what puzzles me is that she seems to be equally villified in feminist circles. How did Elizabeth Edwards become a feminist darling? Elizabeth Edwards can’t even refer to Rielle Hunter by name. Dehumanizing much? Rielle Hunter is more of a person – more of a self-determined woman – than Elizabeth Edwards will ever be.

And for the record, I’m 39 years old and going 6 years of marriage. I just happen to hold the belief that my husband is not my property, and vice versa.

I get that it’s not a sane process for everyone and that sometimes that openness hides a lot of suffering and fear of abandonnement. If he gets more women, he’ll never be alone again.

You article shows the problematic from the woman’s point of view, obliterating the idea of performance, instead putting the emphasis on the experience and the liberation, and the self-consciousness you gain from finally getting to know yourself outside of The Couple.

Many, many thanks, you’ve opened my eyes to a whole new way of seeing things. It’s been torturing me, litteraly, for 2 years straight. I could not get a grip on what it implied for a woman.

Yeah, I hate the word “lifestyle” as well, unfortunantly I haven’t come up with a better one so far. “Lifestyle choice” seems to have a lot of anti-LGBT stigma attached to it, and implies that the “lifestyle” in question is something easily chosen/discarded.

“Scene” is also icky, at least for me. “Community” might work better than either.

@ those discussing the PIV outside primary relationship issue: It can be a way of easing into things, I agree. I just haven’t generally seen it done that way. However, as a general disclaimer, I’ve mostly been around the “bad poly kids,” as it were, and it left me with a very bad taste in my mouth re: being told poly is the feminist choice and knowing *this* “poly” was not at all that way.

I agree with your first point. I don’t think it’s cynical to be skeptical of these things, I think it’s realistic. What I find problematic is when people take that cynicism and assume that the majority of couples will not do the needs balanced check. I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying at all, but that’s just what my thought was when reading your comment. Because the reactions I’ve received, and I know several others have received, assume that this is the default — that our needs will not be met and somebody will be manipulating the situation. This is no better than when monogamous folks are told by some nonmonogamous folks that they’re stupid for choosing monogamy.

And I think that there is a fear behind the negative reactions we’ve gotten to these posts and through our daily interactions with people. I think the fear is really made up of a lot of smaller concerns that build up into one huge negative reaction. Assumptions that we want to convert everyone or that we do not value monogamy or that we think they’re wrong for choosing monogamy or that we want to take advantage of other people through our nonmonogamy — these are all things I hear/read/see all of the time. I don’t think people react this way out of malice, I think it’s a combination of misconceptions and fear. I can’t express enough how painful it is to have your entire way of life, your goals and ideals, your committed relationship invalidated in one fell swoop.

Again, want to reiterate that I understand that this is not what you’re saying, it just a concern that I have that was sparked by your comment. Want to make that clear. It was a jumping off point, so this is not a direct response to your comment per se, just an opportunity I saw to explain some things I had going through my head.

This isn’t the case in our relationship, so I can’t speak to how easy or hard it is to actually live with that rule, but just saying that I understand it.