#I am like many people a monogamous person when it gets to that

[bosjess]

The guy I had been seeing a bit told me he’s not looking for other dates right now (and at this point we had been ok with no exclusivity so it’s fine) but then goes “in a couple of months when I’m done with work I’ll be on the apps” and I’m like ??????

we discussed that we were trying to take this to somewhere serious and check in (in like a month?) so completely antithetical to that unless like he has already made up his mind to not see me anymore, knowing what I want and what we discussed, just revealed it and still had invited me over to stay anyway (so used me for sex I guess?)

I’m so tired and feel sick so I would be more upset but Jesus Christ

[astrosouldivinity]

Venus Sign Observations: 💞🤎💞

Mutable Venus Edition: ♾️

Pisces Venus: 🌊

🌊 Pisces Venus is open-minded when it comes to various love styles, which can be attributed to their mutable water nature. They possess a remarkable ability to offer unconditional love to virtually everyone they come across.

🌊 In intimate relationships, they enjoy pleasing their partners and don’t mind adapting to their partners love style/needs especially if that would make them happy.

🌊 Venus in Pisces can get obsessed with their partner too high-key. They are flighty but obsessed at the same time which can be confusing for their partner. However, I think their love can be pretty intense in general.

🌊 As loving as Pisces Venus are, I think it’s lowkey a f-boy/girl placement. They have a tendency to fall in love quickly, but they can also move on just as swiftly. However, the process of moving on can sometimes take a considerable amount of time for them as well. Their emotions can be chaotic, leading them to appear flighty in their relationships.

🌊 Pisces Venus doesn’t always want to be floating around in love. They yearn for a secure and comforting space to calm their emotional waves. Essentially, they desire a safe haven where they can find solace and relaxation in their relationships.

🌊 Venus in Pisces will love all of you even the darkness that is kept tucked away. It truly doesn’t scare them. So long as you keep up with their fantasy, don’t take advantage of them, and hurt them too many times to the point where they can’t forgive you, they aren’t going anywhere.

🌊 Venus in Pisces tend to be open-minded when it comes to relationships, they may even be open to polyamory, but they are not opposed to monogamy either. Their preference for one or the other depends on their other placements. For example, as a Pisces Venus myself, I am capable of being loyal when the situation calls for it. This ability to navigate both relationship styles can be attributed to my Taurus Sun/Mars placements, which provide stability and a sense of commitment.

🌊 Having a Gemini Moon further enhances my openness to explore different relationship dynamics. However, I will only participate in them if I am with a partner who is mature about it. I’ve been with people before that were non-monogamous but didn’t like it when I was the same way. Like, babe, I'm simply matching your energy.

Sagittarius Venus: 🏹

🏹 Sagittarius Venus is open-minded when it comes to choosing a partner. In fact, they are more likely to have a partner from a foreign country or a different cultural background. However, they do have a fear of commitment. Which often leads them to explore various relationship dynamics, as they value their freedom and independence.

🏹 In their intimate relationships, Venus in Sagittarius likes to maintain an easy-going nature. They prefer to let things unfold naturally and avoid rushing into anything. Clinginess is not well-received by them, as it gives them a sense of discomfort when their freedom is suffocated or suppressed.

🏹 They may be more inclined to explore relationship dynamics such as ethical non-monogamy or open relationships. Their love for diverse experiences extends to their romantic life, and they may find fulfillment in connecting with many different individuals.

🏹 Venus in Sagittarius’s adventurous nature and desire for new encounters can make them more open to exploring non-traditional relationship structures that allow for multiple connections.

🏹 While Sagittarius Venus have a tendency to value their freedom, they are still capable of committing to a relationship. However, it requires finding the right person. Like someone who shares their open-mindedness and free-spirited nature. They need someone who won’t restrict them.

Gemini Venus: 🦋

🦋 Gemini Venus are adaptable with their approach to love. They will adjust their mindset and actions when it comes to matters of the heart. While they may appear flighty and free-spirited in their romantic endeavors, once they make a decision to commit to a partner, they are decisive and fully dedicated.

🦋 Gemini Venus are witty and possess a great sense of humor. They enjoy playful banter and need someone who can match their energy and make them laugh overall.

🦋 Venus in Gemini values intellectual stimulation in their relationships. They seek a partner who is not only intelligent but also intriguing and captivating. They desire someone who can engage in meaningful conversations and challenge their thoughts and beliefs. The ability to broaden their perspectives is essential for them, as they thrive on continuous learning and growth.

🦋 They appreciate partners who are open to new ideas, experiences, and perspectives. Gemini Venus enjoys exploring different viewpoints and needs a partner who can also embrace diversity and adapt to new situations.

🦋 They are attracted to partners who can strike a balance between nurturing the connection and allowing each other to flourish as individuals.

🦋 Venus in Gemini values their independence and needs a partner who will respect and appreciate this aspect of their personality. It is important for them to be with someone who has their own interests and hobbies, as they believe in the importance of maintaining individuality within a relationship.

Virgo Venus: 🍃

🍃 Virgo Venus tends to approach love and relationships with a practical and analytical mindset. They value stability and reliability in their partnerships, seeking a strong foundation based on trust and mutual support.

🍃 They often have high standards in their intimate relationships, but it stems from their desire to see their partner reach their highest potential. They genuinely want their loved ones to be the best version of themselves.

🍃 In their intimate relationships, Venus in Virgo values self-improvement and personal growth. They always strive to become better versions of themselves and expect the same from their partners.

🍃 Intellectual stimulation and engaging conversations are important to Virgo Venus, as they enjoy exchanging ideas and learning overall.

🍃 Venus in Virgo has a strong desire to fix and save others, driven by their compassionate aura. However, their giving and selfless nature can make them vulnerable to being taken advantage of by others.

🍃 In their intimate relationships, they prioritize finding someone who fits seamlessly into their lifestyle and meets their high standards. However, if they genuinely love someone, they are willing to be more flexible and make compromises.

🍃 Virgo Venus values cleanliness, organization, and orderliness in their surroundings, and this preference often extends to their relationships as well. They appreciate partners who are responsible, hardworking, and self-sufficient.

🍃 Open-minded when it comes to different love styles. They are willing to try anything once, especially if it makes their partner happy. Open relationships could be a possibility for them, especially if they have other mutable placements.

[pupmkincake2000]

Characters study?

Since I play as Gale, I wanted to look at relationships from his side and from my own, since I think that Gale and I have very similar beliefs regarding relationships.

Don't get me wrong, I love Halsin,

he's an incredibly kind and caring teddy bear, but being in a relationship with him is not for everyone. And there are moments in the conversation with him that were very unpleasant for me. But I’m glad that he warned me in advance how he perceives a relationship with someone.

Yes, there are many people who are into polyamorous relationships, but I don’t think Gale is one of them, despite the opportunity to sleep with Halsin even when playing as Gale (I think that in this case some lines should not be available at all as it was with the Dark Urge, when you cannot resist your nature, even when playing a good character).

Now I will explain why.

Halsin honestly admits that monogamy is not for him. He considers us someone special, in fact, declares his love, but immediately says that we are not that special at all and he, even having entered into a relationship with us, will still be free to sleep with other people.

His words are not a lie, but they seem to contradict each other.

That is... there are more people who want to be something special, who want exclusivity from those they are dating than those who would prefer polyamory, I believe. In the case of Halsin, you will simply be just one of his huge number of lovers, and, perhaps, in another couple of decades, he will say those words about love and specialness to someone else, as he spoke to us. It's not mine cup of tea, to be honest. I am a selfish person, and I would like to be special for someone I love. And I really didn’t like that Halsin, without even knowing whether such a relationship suits me, says he hopes to sleep with the person I am dating too. This remark made me understand that although Halsin is still my type of men in appearance and character, he absolutely does not fit into my understanding of relationships, love and specialness. Let me remind you, I play Gale's origin and I am sure that Gale would also refuse and be disappointed.

Just like Astarion. And I will now explain why.

Literally Gale's entire problem and trauma is based on the fact that he wants to be loved,

he wants to be cared for, seen, considered special (which in the case of Halsin will be impossible), he wants to be visible and significant. I know that playing his origin you are still able to choose any lines but... if you play Tav and romance him, Gale does not agree to share his love with someone else and does not agree to be shared too. I believe that Gail is monogamous, and not just monogamous, but he won't allow the thought that his loved one could be with someone else or that he himself could be with someone else while already being in a relationship. Such people rarely fall in love, they are like the wolves Halsin spoke about, who choose a lover for the rest of their lives. And no, I don’t think Mystra was such a lover. I'm sure Gale wants in a relationship not so much exclusivity, but to have something of his own. Something that no one can take away from him. Someone only his.

The same story with Astarion.

He hasn’t had anything of his own for 200 years, and despite his mannerisms and flirting with everyone, he also wants to have something of his own, something that no one will take away from him, and something that will belong to him and to no one else. He is also desperately looking for someone who will be his. Only his. Yes, he agrees to a threesome, he agrees to share his lover with Halsin, but he clearly does not want this and agrees only because he is afraid of losing his love. He refuses to have sex with the drow twins, and if you agree, he will most likely end the romance with you. He is very afraid of not satisfying his lover; he wants to be desired and loved. He and Gale are very much alike when it comes to the relationship, although their reactions are different. Both want exclusivity. One speaks about it directly, the second one shouts about it with his behavior and body language.

I think that's why I love the ship so much.

They both want the same thing, they just express their desires differently.

[allisondraste]

I’ve seen various different posts on the website formerly known as Twitter and this one right here, discussing Gale’s behavior in romance as obsessive, possessive, and possibly codependent. And while I support everyone having their own interpretations and opinions, I do disagree, so I want to talk about it!

First— it’s so important to acknowledge that Gale is strictly monogamous. He is not someone who is comfortable with a partner having other partners. This is fine, and not inherently indicative of any unhealthy attachment styles. Wyll, Karlach, and Lae’Zel are also monogamous in a relationship.

Gale does struggle with some insecurity that at times bleeds it’s way into his romantic relationship, but isn’t a product of the relationship itself. His biggest insecurity is feeling like he isn’t enough (in general, not just for a romantic partner). Mystra had a way of making him feel like nothing he did was ever enough, he always needed to do more, to be more, and when he tried, when he made mistakes, she abandoned him.

Those are wounds that do not heal quickly, and so he needs quite a bit of reassurance from both friend and lover PCs that he’s fine just the way he is and that he doesn’t have to try so hard or pretend to be fine when he’s not.

He’s lonely. Due to his condition, Gale, who is an incredibly social person, had to hermit himself away from his friends and colleagues for over a year. Mystra was no longer interacting with him, and he was afraid to be around his mother because he didn’t want her to worry. His only company was Tara, and as much as he loves her, shes not a replacement for human or humanoid connection. Usually with folks who struggle with codependency and insecure attachment, there are long patterns of each of those things in all of their other relationships, but Gale seems to have had pretty healthy relationships, the Mystra situation being the exception, not the rule.

It excites him when he gets to travel with a group, have friends. It’s even more exciting to him when he finds someone who makes him forget the hurt Mystra has caused. Yet he still has to withdraw from even that because he does not want to put their life in danger. It is not until act 2 after Elminster has cast the incantation to calm the orb that Gale feels comfortable enough to give in to his feelings. And yeah! He comes in strong because he’s been holding it in. He’s been pining away, sad that he can’t let himself so much as kiss Tav or else he quite literally explode.

When you talk to Gale after his romance scene in act 2, you’re able to confront him about his feelings for Mystra, and he is very direct, stating that he does still have complicated feelings for her. Which makes SENSE. The game and Gale himself try to minimize Mystra as just his ex, but she is more than that. She is his groomer and abuser. Gale is traumatized, and it will likely take him the rest of his life to get over that. It’s not something that more time alone is going to heal. He needs a support system to help him. He needs his mom, his friends, and maybe even his new partner.

You can also ask him if he meant it when he said he loved you, and his answer is “I am many things to many people, but I am never one to throw the l-word around lightly.” He didn’t just say it on a whim. He thought about it, probably extensively. Judging from the dialogue we get, he’s aware that he is rushing to say it, and admits that it’s because he’s scared that he’s going to literally die tomorrow. It’s not a love bomb. It’s an “I need you to know this, just in case something happens to me.”

Once he doesn’t die in act 2, he simmers down. He becomes more concerned with curing his condition, he faces Mystra, he accepts that he doesn’t need to have godly power to be worthy of love and respect.

At the end of the game, he asks you if you’ll come back to Waterdeep with him, which is his way of proposing more or less, but its more that he wants to be home and he wants the person who has become so important to him to come with him, to meet his mom, to see his hometown. He wants them to want that too.

He’s a grown man, mid to late 30s, not a naive young person. He knows what he wants. He’s thought about it, extensively.

In my opinion, there’s nothing possessive, obsessive, codependent, or unhealthy about any of that.

[autistichalsin]

When considering Halsin's polygamy, do you think it is just his way of coping with the scars and traumas of his past? He does admit that monogamy is acceptable, but not for him, and he often talks about roaming. However, the more I play this game, get to know him better, and analyze his character, the more I start to doubt that polygamy is not truly what Halsin wants. He has been through so much - pain, suffering, and torture. What if his polygamy is a shield he uses to protect himself from further pain? Perhaps he has realized that he's fallen in love with Tav and now he is afraid of losing them. Just as you mentioned in your previous post, he is afraid of being alone, rejected, and abandoned.

Just a note- it's polyamory, not polygamy. Polygamy refers specifically to marrying more than one woman.

I absolutely do not in any way, shape, or form, think that he's only polyamorous because of his trauma. Polyamory is who Halsin is. There's a devnote in Halsin's scene that says "sincere- this is a core belief of his."

Wood elves are polyamorous by default. The entire cultural belief is that jealousy is a waste of time, and exploring multiple relationships, as long as all people involved consent, is only natural. That is how he was even before becoming a druid.

This isn't an attack against you, anon, I know you were asking a genuine question in earnest, but I am so beyond tired of people trying to reinterpret all of the polyamorous characters in this game as actually monogamous people who are afraid/broken. Why do people insist on doing this? Is it that hard to conceive of a character with an alternative sexuality who actually is happy that way?

Let's just set aside the characterization reasons and look at it from a pure logical perspective. Halsin is the one to bring up polyamory with the player. He is the one to say this is a fundamental part of who he is. If the player answers that they don't have the same nature as he does and don't want a polyamorous relationship, the relationship doesn't progress. If Halsin was actually just pretending to be poly to avoid being abandoned, why would he not jump in at that point and go "oh, actually I'm okay with a monogamous relationship too, please don't leave?" Why would he be okay with the player leaving over this part of himself if it wasn't actually part of himself, just a lie he told to avoid being left alone? Because poly is who he actually is, not a lie he tells himself to engage in emotional self-harm.

Further, if he was so desperate not to be alone that he would deny who he is, he would actually be more likely to lie about being monogamous, not the other way around. Most people will flat-out refuse poly relationships (because it's not for them) and even call poly people perverts or cheaters. Halsin has probably forewent many other relationships before just because of this fundamental incompatibility. If he was scared of being alone, he would be far likelier to pretend he was happy with one person, so that he would be able to find a partner without navigating that situation, than he would to pretend to be some identity that already makes it harder to find a partner to begin with, and that often causes intense strain on relationships when mismanaged to the point that it can easily be the cause of many relationships ending.

Being poly isn't something you lie about because you want not to be alone- being poly makes it infinitely harder to find a relationship just by its nature.

Halsin is "poly and traumatized" not "poly because he's traumatized." It is absolutely absurd to deny his repeated statements that this is who he is and what he wants. Again, no offense, anon, and I hope this doesn't upset you, but I really have no patience for attempts to dismiss a core part of Halsin's identity as a maladaptive coping mechanism.

[crimeronan]

one big thing about polyshipping for me is, like. you know how some people will have their eyes opened to homoerotic relationships in media bc they'll realize, "wait, if these people were two different genders, i'd 100% assume they're into each other. i have a double standard that i never noticed"?

there's a polyamorous equivalent in certain media that's basically just. "if you didn't assume this character is monogamous, you would 100% believe they have crushes on & are dating all of their friends." OR, "if this character wasn't dating somebody else already, you would 100% interpret this new friendship of theirs as a crush/budding romance."

usually the creators of the media aren't thinking about polyamory when they make it! usually the creators of the media are thinking "i want this character's friends to be as important to them as their romantic partners, we don't get enough of that in media," which is great and true and also EXACTLY WHY IT WORKS AS A POLY NARRATIVE. people will be like you don't Have to polyship why can't you just let platonic relationships be important ugh 🙄 & i'm like i did my years in the "why can't two men just be friends why does everything have to be gay 🙄" trenches. you're not doing this to me. we're not doing it about polyshipping. we're skipping over that whole discourse cutscene because i am Too Tired For It. don't even start

sometimes characters are so full of love and affection and joy for so many people that i start gnawing off my hands about how polyamory isn't normalized. because i'll watch/read certain media and i'll be like. listen. this is a polycule. i know you don't know this because your creators don't know this and that is totally okay but you are a Wildly polyamorous person who's ambiguously trapped in the 2000s/2010s with Big Monogamy psyops eating your brain. please let me free you. please i can give you Everything .

PLEASE KISS YOUR FRIENDS

[polyamorousmood]

Have you ever felt guilty about being polyamourous despite knowing deep down there's nothing wrong with it, but you're overthinking everything??

getting a little personal here

I've been struggling a lot with it lately, being attracted to another person while currently dating someone, knowing it's okay and its an open relationship, and it's just been spiraling so much in my brain as guilt for no reason i hope I'm not alone in that

of course, though mostly when I was in monogamous relationships, if I'm being honest. I still get twinges on occasion, butbone of my greater strengths is stopping my brain from spiraling into self-loathing. So. Not a huge problems from me. I do have tips though! Some from recognizing what I do and some from various readings. There's not an order, some of them are incompatible with each other, try a couple and see what works

Affirmations to help you internalize things like "I believe in this as a right for all people, and that has to include myself"

Reframings. So when you catch yourself going "waah! My pArTnEr WiLl fEeL bAd!" You can maybe be like "my partner is my equal. If I hold myself to a ✌ higher ✌ standard than them, I am treating them as an inferior, which is unfair, and will make them feel bad" or you know. Whatever. Frame Polyamory As A Good Thing So That It Can Be One, basically. What does your partner GAIN from polyamory? How is your life BETTER from polyamory?

Politely detach from the spiral. You're not stopping it, necessarily, but it's not you. It's that toddler that lives in your brain having a temper tantrum, and you're the favorite babysitter standing non-judgementally to the side, waiting it out, and saying "wow, that was a lot. Are you okay? Do you think that's all true? Do you think that's all fair? Do you think a juice box or a nap would help you feel better?" once the waterworks have ended.

Check in regularly with your partner, and trust them. Make a space for them to say something they appreciate and soemthing you could have done differently, take them at their word, and use those words later. I have literally gritted my teeth at myself like like "she SAID the only thing I should do different is text her when I'm coming home. Am I calling her a LIAR? Is that what I've come to?"

Literally say when you're being dumb. "Well. I guess that could be true, in a hell world where Nixon Jr is president and we're all idiots, but I don't think that's the world I'm living in so it really doesn't apply here" and drop it

thank our feelings. You feel strongly about it because you want to do right by your partner! That's good! Thank it for trying to make sure you do that, and explain to your guilt that you have things under control, in so many words. "Thank you, guilt, for trying to make sure I don't betray [partner]'s trust, but they know about it and said it's okay, so you can take a day off"

All very effective. I encourage anyone else who has experience with this to weigh in

[beta-therapy]

You are not Entitled to Sex

Society has made massive strides in allowing women to be sexually free, the most important of which being the development of effective technology for contraception and female reproductive health, as well as the large-scale social destigmatization of public displays of female sexuality. Although this societal transformation is only just getting started, we are now at a point where women in Western countries can dress how they want in public without getting judged (for the most part; misogyny still exists but more and more people are taking a stand against it). We are at a point where women can have sex without having to worry about getting pregnant. As such, the downsides of sexual promiscuity have been eliminated, and women are no longer required to constrain themselves to a monogamous relationship in order to have sex. They are free to have sex with whoever they want without being forced to settle for a man who will actually dedicate himself to a long-term relationship.

And we are all familiar with the main result of this sexual liberation: a small minority of hyper successful men get to experience the vast majority of sexual encounters, and if this is not you, then you either remain a completely sexless virgin, or you have to fight for crumbs of attention from older, less attractive, or “ran-through” women who don’t respect you and will cheat on you in a heartbeat. After all, women fantasize about sexual encounters with hyper successful men, and in modern times they are free to act out this fantasy without having to worry about whether the man will stick around or not. We as a society have outgrown the “ideal” from ancient times of a 1-1 male to female pairing where sex is practically guaranteed to anyone willing to commit to a relationship. Now, your mere willingness to commit to a woman does not make you worthy of sex. Society is now embracing the fact that not all men are meant for sex.

For many men, this is a tough pill to swallow: that just being a good guy with a decent personality does not mean that you are entitled to sex. It can feel quite frustrating when you see women in public dressed in a way that flaunts their sexuality, but you also know that this display is not for you. Furthermore, any attempt you make at flirting or trying to make a sexual advance on these women is met with extreme social blowback. Who do you think you are? Trying to “pick up women?” They’re not just sexual objects for your disgusting pleasure, perv. Learn to respect people’s boundaries. Women should be able to exist in public life without getting harassed by lonely horny men who think their provocative outfits are an invitation to disturb them. The toughest pill to swallow is the fact that yes, staring is harassment, and if you get caught making a woman uncomfortable with your inappropriate glances, you deserve to get kicked out of whatever place you’re in, and you likely will.

“But she’s asking for it, right? With what she’s wearing, she’s advertising her sexuality on purpose! How am I supposed to completely avoid looking at her or getting an erection/orgasm?”

By learning to be an ally to women instead of a misogynist. Learn to have empathy. Does she want some creep approaching her and asking if she’s single? Or would she rather you keep your head down and mind your business? Yes, in modern times there are lots of beautiful women showing a lot of skin in public. You must learn to control yourself around them. If that’s too much for you to manage, you don’t belong in public at all.

“But then how am I supposed to meet a woman? When I approach them in public, it’s like they can smell the virginity on me, and they always reject me. And I can’t secure any dates online either. What am I supposed to do? Just respect their decision to reject me and stop creeping them out with my unwanted advances?”

Exactly. We aren’t living in the 1900’s anymore. Just being a nice, respectful guy doesn’t give you the right to sex. The men who get all the sex have been doing so since high school. They have very large social circles, which function almost like a funnel that brings them more women to fuck, thereby increasing the scope of their social circle even further. They have social media accounts that illustrate their social dominance. After all, it’s 2024 and one of the main ways people meet their hookup partners nowadays is through Instagram DM’s or dating apps. There certainly is a positive feedback loop causing the male social elites to have sex with more and more women, whereas for a male virgin, one reason women avoid him is specifically due to his lack of experience, thus perpetuating his sexlessness.

[partialbirthabortion]

Whenever I talk about abuse being something specific (behaviour that is physically or sexually violent, dominating, controlling, degrading, humiliating, or violating) people always say “What about emotional abuse?” And I have to ask these people to be more specific, and many of them get angry that I ask them to be more specific. Not all abuse is physical, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean that anything that hurts you or doesn’t meet your needs is abuse. When my ex partner told me I’m a disgusting slut who no one will ever love, that’s emotional abuse. When my ex partner stole my keys and my phone, that’s emotional abuse. When my ex partner insisted I keep the house spotless and exploded at me when I didn’t, that’s emotional abuse. But I had another partner at another time in my life who I was very unhappy with, who scrolled their phone while we were at dinner and flirted with other people online when we were monogamous and largely left me feeling sad and unwanted, and that, as much as it sucks, is not emotional abuse or abuse of any kind.

I am tired of tiptoeing around this and so I’m just going to come out and say it: the conversation on abuse prevention and supporting survivors is being dominated by people who are not survivors because the situations they are alluding to are not abusive. I have read entire ‘call outs’ that loudly proclaim a person is an ‘abuser’ who must be outed for community ‘safety’ and then go on to list things which are clearly conflicts, mismatched needs, and hurt feelings. I have watched people be humiliated, slandered, isolated, controlled, and robbed of everything meaningful in their life when what they are being accused of is not abuse, and what is happening to them is.

[polyamzeal]

Polywise Review

When I first learned of non-monogamous, I seeked out as many resources as possible to learn if I really was it. Some of the most important resources were a few books. The communities I found made it seemed like you were not even allowed to have a license to be polyamorous unless you first read certain books. At that time, the holy bible of polyamory was More Than Two and before it was The Ethical Sluts. These were the books everybody recommended as a must-read if anybody wanted to learn more about polyamory, no matter what aspect of polyamory they wanted to learn more about. These books were hyped up like they would cover everything. Those books have fallen out of favor now a days and are hardly ever recommended and when they are people are quick to jump in to talk about their controversies as a reason why nobody should read them for them anything. So a new book had come along to become the new holy bible of polyamory. That book was Polysecure by Jessica Fern. How do I feel about Polysecure? I think it is a good book that is over-rated and over-recommended. Unlike the previous bibles, I do not see Polysecure as a polyamory 101 book. It does not get into the very basics of polyamory at all. It is much more of a polyamory 102 book, a book to read once you are ready dig deeper and study the more advanced topics. I think it is great we have 102 books! I am glad that every polyamory book out there is not just an introduction to polyamory. I often mention that "Love's Not Colorblind" by Kevin Patterson is a fantastic polyamory 102 book! Polysecure feels more focused on attachment theory than polyamory honestly to me. It is really interesting stuff to read but I never really felt like it applied much to my relationship, I rarely felt insecure in my relationships. I had other problems that needed working on in different ways.

So all that to say that Jessica Fern had a second book come out. And despite having some issues with the community worshipping the first book, I was ready to give the author another chance. It sounded like this book was going to be more of what the community makes Polysecure out to be. And yeah, I am happy to say it is accurate. Now I still don't think this is quite a polyamory 101 book. If you want an introduction to polyamory that covers all the basics there are other books I would recommend like "The Smart Girl's Guide To Polyamory" by Dedecker Winston or "Ready For Polyamory" by Laura Boyle. But Polywise is more of a 101 book than Polysecure is. Maybe Polysecure is really a 103 book with Polywise being 102.

Whhat do I have to say about the contents of Polywise? Honestly not much despite everything I prefaced it with. The book is good and i liked quite a bit! But like the last book, it is meaty intellectual topics that make your brain think. Which makes it a bit hard to summarize and untangle in a simple review without going page by page. I do like how much focus is put on how many little tiny things change when going from monogamy to non-monogamy that you wouldn't think of or plan for. Also the whole book has an angle of not just monogamy to non-monogamy but also one form of non-monogamy to a different form of non-monogamy. It is very thought-provoking. From my favorite chapter was on codependency & differentiation. It was amazing to have words for these phenomenons I had personally observed serveral times but didn't know what to call it. I feel like that chapter in particular will be really useful to a lot of people. Finally there was a lot of unpacking old habits that were once useful but are now harmful. It really shines a spotlight on the shift to non-monogamy being a really big change that I don't think a lot of newbies often understand.

I highly recommend Polywise: A Deeper Dive Into Navigating Open Relationships by Jessica Fern & David Cooley. I think it is a better book than Polysecure. My caveat is I don't know if it should be the very first book you read about Polyamory.

[kitsu-katsu]

I was talking with someone about just how canon the ineffable husbands are in good omens and I brought up how Gaiman said that what they have is canonically a love story (which is really reflected in the show, with their moments of vulnerability towards the other, their despair at the thought of losing one another, their comfort with eachother, the way they stick together through millennia even when they're never trying to, etc), but they don't have labels, as they don't have genders and the human conception of intimacy eludes them as ethereal beings that aren't human

And the complications with that

Because this person I was discussing with is not as versed in fandom discourse, and so they're only now finding the vocabulary of "queer baiting" to talk about that Sherlock show

And so they're like "I hope I see Crowley and Aziraphale absolutely eat eachother's mouths, it has to be canonized" and I'm standing here like. It is canon though. Like they won't add some "hetero romance" cop-out last minute. They are canonically in a love story. What's interesting is how the label-less queerness of it can also explore non-binary aspects and an aroace perspective on what "love" is

And they're bummed out because if they don't "absolutely eat eachother's mouths" it doesn't feel as canon to them. And I'm still standing here in aroace like. Bro. There are so many forms of relationships. A kiss on screen doesn't have to make it any more or less canon

But at the same time, from the amatonormative perspective, I get how the kiss on screen is seen as the end all be all. Because in general media, the main pairings will have the kiss at the end. And they will live happily ever after with that

Before the kiss it is only as canon as the kiss is predictable, and after the kiss, you can point to that one scene as "the moment it was canonized for realsies despite even people in the show making constant remarks about this being an obvious thing"

And I kinda hate it

I just wish the whole community wouldn't have to keep its guards up like this so much to discern whether something is coming from a genuine place of wanting to tell a story for a queer audience or about a queer subject or if it's all just a ploy to get our money, spit in our faces, smile at the traditional homophobic crowd and fund some conservative party with it

Because then we wouldn't have to play it by the boring straight rules. If everything points to it being obvious, then why is an intense kiss necessary? Why is it all you want? Why can't this represent a qpr? Or a loving relationship where intimacy in the form of a kiss just isn't something the characters want? Or a more open thing instead of being a purely monogamous arrangement? Or something completely new, a dynamic you can only describe in an essay lest you don't make their chemistry justice?

Aren't all of those just a much more under-thought about queer dynamics than what "I want these characters to kiss eachother until they can't remember their names on screen or else it isn't canon enough" can convey?

But at the same time, without something as concise and strong in media language, how do you make sure it won't all stay in just subtext and the reason it looks like clear text to you is because you're starved for queer stories and have become way too accustomed to reading between the lines?

I mean, it's also been proven to not be an absolute in instances where the text goes ham in letting you know what it's saying, when it's not implying, it is just telling. For one, Rose and Pearl in Steven Universe never did share a kiss on screen, and nevertheless we all know what was going on there

Idk, it's complicated and it's 1am, and this is all just a ramble, but I am in my aroace hating amatonormativity mood and the sentiment that characters being a canon thing without an explicit kiss bums someone out to the point they say "ok, ok, I get the whole nb ace ethereal beings that aren't human idea, but I want something more explicit because it doesn't feel canon enough" when that isn't strictly necessary for the story to get it across just got me in a weird mood and this is about so much more than good omens, I needed to try and word it out and might as well put it out there

Just. Why does queerness have to be allonormative and also amatonormative to be valid in the eyes of the queer masses necessarily? You'd think we'd figured out that queerness goes beyond just the L, G, B and binary T by now

[cmrosens]

Worldbuilding notes for queer normative fantasy societies... I have a lot of thoughts about this so here are some notes and questions around 3 of the main ones I have been thinking about recently.

1. How many different structures of formally recognised relationships are there outside of the monogamous spouse version?

If you want a society where relationships themselves are queered, moving away from a monogamous default, think about different forms of union and commitment and whether these can be legally recognised and what the legal/civil ramifications are.

Who recognises these relationships? What is the legal process to get them recognised? If there is no legal process then are we looking at a society where taxes are a communal responsibility and not levelled at individuals?

Is there freedom of movement and if so how much is affordable and feasible - does this have a bearing on queer people even in a queer normative world? What happens if the village is very small and has 3 queer people in it none of whom really like each other? Where do you go to find a partner if you can't travel far?

If the society thinks arranged marriages are normal and there is no concept of marrying for love, and no expectation of attraction only reasonable companionship, and you can have multiple spouses/formal partners for political reasons and to unite families (perhaps to formally team up and spread the cost of those communal taxes, etc) then you may end up with the situation of lots of different relationship structures and someone married off finally coming out as straight, and their formal partner wingmanning them to find someone else to be with.

2. Inheritance law and family connections

In a queer normative society, it would make sense for both biological kids and adopted or fostered kids to be equally accepted and no distinction drawn between them. This has extensive knock-on effects for how society is structured and

Legitimacy may not even mean anything in a society with multiple relationship structures. So how does this all work legally and socially and culturally and politically and economically?

First off: does it matter who your parents are and whether you have a firm grasp of your personal genealogy, or would people just give up on all that because it gets so muddy.

E.g.::::

"I am Bran son of Brom" means nothing when you actually mean, "I am Bran, my mother Ceris was the wife of Carl and she carried me to term and Brom didn't impregnate her, that was Roan, partner of Brom, but to be fair it might also be Carl because we can't really be sure on the timing there, and then Ceris and her other partner Sara both nursed me as a baby and then as a kid it was decided I would have more opportunities in life if I went to live with Brom and Roan and learned their trade, and then Brom as the higher earner and the one contributing most to the communal taxes thought he should be the one to formally adopt me, even though I still mostly lived with Ceris and Carl and Sara until I was 16, because then I would inherit more and be able to pursue a different career path and have money to travel, so when I say I am Bran son of Brom I mean only in the technical legal sense".

It also makes no sense here to say, "I am Bran son of Brom" and erase Ceris, Sara, Carl and Roan from that picture of yourself, particularly if the society is not patriarchal and therefore less likely to reckon lineage in a strict patrilineal way.

In this example, the implications of saying, "I am Bran son of Brom" are that you don't KNOW who your other connections are and you have had a childhood lacking in all the other communal connections others have had. You only know Brom. Were you hermits, living apart from society in a lonely, mountainous region somewhere? That would make sense. But people might still look at you once you say "I am Bran son of Brom" and wait a bit and then be like, "...Brom, and...??"

Like you wouldn't say that. You would instead say something like, "I am Bran of Seven Oaks" because the place is what everyone has in common, or you might say "I am Bran, of the Seven Oaks community" if the people are more important than their location.

Or would communities like this have their own assigned name, if not based on location, then on something else? A symbol or glyph that represents different groups and people adopt this glyph when they enter into a new community, but keep records of the previous ones they have been connected to until there is a whole string of glyphs after their name as a shorthand record of their entire network of relationships? Is this marked on their skin or on some item they wear? Formally inscribed in ledgers and public records?

Do these glyphs appear as a straight line, a row or column, or is there a cobweb or star shape with different sections/points meaning different things, and these symbols/glyohs/letters or whatever are placed in the web or star points?

That might be a cool item of jewellery with things carved on beads and beads added to it, or a massive back tattoo that gets added to all the time until for some it covers their whole body like a map of all the people they have connected with in some official way through their entire lives, especially if you adopt a kid and add in that kid's connections that are now connected to you.

How would people react to those with very few beads and few connections? Would they treat them with pity or with suspicion? What is the story of "Bran son of Brom"??

3. Patriarchy vs Matriarchy vs ....????

First, let's not pretend Matriarchy is a utopia. It is the same thing as patriarchy except women are in charge, and is equally as toxic in terms of structure. A society where 50% of citizens are subject to gender-based power structures is not a good one regardless of which gender is in charge.

Also, this still presents the normative of a gender binary, so you would still have structural oppression of genders who do not conform to or are perceived to undermine that binary. Up to you if your society is like that, but one to consider.

Also if we are talking about a queer normative society with one of those "gender plague" situations so everyone with an X or Y chromosome is dead, trans people and non binary people would still exist, still presenting in the applicable way. Intersex people would still exist, and people who present as "the sex that doesn't get the plague" may still contract it and die of it if you have it linked to chromosomes, because unless you do chromosomal testing you won't always know to look at someone what they have. So there is all that to think about.

Eliminating all cis men from a society doesn't actually get rid of men or masc-presenting people, but it does open things up for a less binary society in general.

If we aren't playing with dodgy science, and we have a queer normative society but you do want to explore some hierarchical structures within it, there are lots of other ways you can do that unrelated to gender.

In fact it doesn't make sense for this fantasy society in the "Bran son of Brom" example to have "gender roles" at all, so what is the internal family structure like in terms of power balance? Is this more about dominant personality vs democracy (just because you agree one person is in charge means nothing in practice if there is a more charismatic option that undermines this elected choice). Is it to do with earning power? If things are decided at communal meetings, who chairs them and why? What is the knock on logical effect on society on a larger scale?

So much stuff to think about there tbh

[thatonefandomjumper]

I feel like a big part of Heroes of Olympus was influenced by audience reaction. 

I don’t think I’m grasping at straws here. I genuinely just don’t get why some decisions were made if this wasn’t the case.

The plot of the books themselves has always felt very muddled to me and that’s why it always feels like it’s supposed to be a story about characters and relationships, but it just kind of isn’t. Sure, on a surface level, yes, and we get some very lovely character dynamics, but it also feels slightly artificial in a way? The plot was built first and the characters thrown into it, but there wasn’t much thought given too how the characters should be with each other. Even the romantic ones.

Though I feel that I could tie this idea into pretty much every part of the books, there are two things that I personally think of the most while discussing this idea.

For one, there’s Octavian’s entire character.

I have always been confused as to what exactly Riordan wanted from Octavian. He really feels like a plot device most times, made solely for the purpose of stirring conflict between the Greeks and Romans. He as an individual never really mattered. Now, there are some very cool people on this website that have managed to squeeze a decent character out of the scenes we got, but with the way he was written, that in itself is a challenge, as post SoN, it feels like the only intent behind his character was to make him as unlikable as possible. He really was a real character in SoN, despite weird decisions here and there (The killing Gwen scene for example was purely to establish that the doors of death weren't working, and to make Octavian unlikable, but Octavian himself really didn’t have any motive for the killing. It benefitted him in no way.)

In SoN, Octavian is manipulative and well spoken, but after that, he is portrayed as some sort of dim witted idiot, clouded by his desire for personal glory.

The only way I can rationalize this shift in character is in the truly visceral reaction the then fanbase had to his character. They loathed him, taking not a second to rationalize his actions, but simply hate. It also made it so Octavian became the but of a lot of jokes. Those jokes characterizing him as his idiot and megalomaniac that it he shown as in Mark of Athena, House of Hades and Blood of Olympus.

I always suspected Octavian was supposed to serve some sort of grander purpose, or his role in HoO was supposed to be at least a little more dignified or dare I say sympathetic, but there really was no turning back with how hated he was, making Riordan embrace it rather than giving him actual human qualities.

Then on the other hand, there’s also Leo and his relationship with romance in general.

I’ve touched upon it in my Caleo essay (That I kind of wanna redo with more points and evidence to back up my claims, because I am unhappy with certain aspects but I still stand by all I said) that Leo is a character that was written in such a way that getting a romantic partner before resolving certain things would actively detriment the development of his character, including healing from his trauma. The way he was written was just not meant for romance and I will take this to my grave. I’m not saying there was no room for romance, but the way they went about it was... very bad. (A girlfriend will fix my problems. That is his mindset. But he doesn’t grow out of it. Instead he gets a girlfriend. A girlfriend that he treats as a fix to his problems when she is not. A girlfriend that is bad to and for him in so many ways.)

But it is very interesting to note, that especially after Mark of Athena, the speculations and demands for Leo’s future girlfriend went absolutely crazy. I can’t speak from experience but from the tweets from Riordan and fanarts from that time that I've seen it was at least to the point that he took active notice of it. 

Besides Nico and Reyna, there weren’t really any other characters just lying around to pair Leo monogamously up with (I doubt Riordan be willing to make any characters besides Nico explicitly queer at the time and then in the next book he decided to pick up one of the background characters and said, you will do, when pairing Nico up with someone. )

There are many more examples I could go into. The universe suffered in many ways from this. Sure, it’s not the only problem that were detrimental. I believe Riordan had a plan from the beginning with all the main plot points of the series, but I feel he didn’t exactly know where he was going with the characters besides the basics. Don’t get me wrong, I love all the HoO characters. That is why I spend so much time talking and thinking about them, but the issues with the series and characters are so many that it’s borderline ridiculous.

[mossypidder]

If you click the names of the birds below, you will find photos of the actual birds I’m referring to; mostly provided because the second two are morphs

EDIT: So honestly. Contrary to final poll results and my initial lean toward the grosbeak, I think I might just go with the crow. The design’s grown on me and in the last week I’ve collected many bones and observed many local crows and found myself just quietly very drawn to them. Nothing’s set in stone, but. . . It feels more right than the grosbeak- there are still things that draw me to the latter, and I still really love them and might switch in the future, right now I relate more to crows I think.

Rose Breasted/Cutthroat Grosbeak (female)

Similarities (between myself and the bird) - small and chunky - eats mainly seeds, fruits, and nuts - elusive and relatively solitary aside from nesting season - very intricate, unique nest type - monogamous - take care of young for a month after fledging (which is longer than quite a few birds) - dwells mainly in deciduous forests - I honestly think I do look a bit like a grosbeak overall - there is limited information on them (which is obnoxious, but kinda goes with my aesthetic honestly)

Things I Like About Them - very pretty markings, especially on face which makes for fun character design - they were my favorite bird as a child and I would get so excited during the brief period that they would be at our feeder

Differences - females don’t sing as much as males - I am very much a mimic- I echo other people’s words as well as animal noises a lot, mostly without thinking, and grosbeaks do not mimic. The males learn songs from their fathers, but that’s different, and I’m not male anyway.

Black Billed Magpie (cinnamon)

Similarities - eat a lot of fruit and grain - they are skilled mimics - mate for life something I aspire to achieve one day - have only been seen in Michigan ten times in the last hundred years, so it fits the “elusive bird who’s sightings should be documented” narrative - parents allow their young to stay with them as long as needed, sometimes even years - males and females are both very vocal and sing, talk, and chatter quite often - wary of new things and will shy away from bright colors and flashing lights (yes, that includes shiny things) - many widely believed myths spread about them (such as tendencies to thievery, attraction to shiny objects, and hoarding things tho I am guilty of that last one)

Things I Like About Them - Gorgeous wings and tail (though rather plain facial markings which is sad) - they’re just nice, funky little guys and they were one of my favorites when I was younger as well

Differences - not a bird I’d really call chunky lol - they eat meat (mostly bugs) and meat is not my favorite honestly - while some do only stay in groups of two, many others have tribe of up to twelve

Common Crow (cinnamon)

Similarities - will bring people they like random bits of things such leaves, rocks, lost keys, and bones, as gifts - stops for roadkill (though I don’t eat it, I’m just there to steal feathers or check opossum pouches for potential surviving babies) - bones is good, we like bones - also talented at imitating human speech, other animals, and just random noises they find intriguing - mate for life - very family oriented and good at taking care of each other. They’ve even been known to adopt unrelated fledglings - stay in the nest up to forty days after hatching and often remain with a family group for two years, helping their parents look after younger siblings - males and females are very vocal - wants to eat rocks - scavengers - likes fruits, nuts, and seeds - seen as weird or gross by the majority - slow to trust humans, but is very loyal once they do - could be considered chunky - cinnamons tend to have blue or silver eyes

Things I Like About Them - they are just. very good. - wing markings of cinnamons are very interesting, and while I’d like more intricacies to work with for facial markings, they’re still good and simple

Differences - they are very social birds (but most of that social time is spent with their family, which is where most of mine is spent as well, so I’m not sure this is a true difference) - consumes a lot of meat (which, as stated, is not my favorite) - they are very common in Michigan and easy to spot almost anywhere

[justanotherhh]

@girlbossradiodemon: Queerness as an insight into humanity. I am curious what that means.

heya, hope it's ok to move your question to a new post, because it gave me an opportunity to ramble about something I've been thinking about -- so we'll call this post:

hazbin hotel, aroace alastor, and complicating redemption

cannot remember how i phrased it in the original post, but the main crux of the idea about queerness as humanising is "when does horror and villainy use queerness as a shorthand for Other/deviant and when are those thing subverted"

in terms of alastor specifically, aspec identity (especially the kind that is on the repulsed side of things) is often used -- without people knowing they're even describing real experiences and identities -- as a way of describing a lack of feeling, a lack of empathy, a lack of connection with other human beings, as a way of signposting "this is going to be a Bad Guy, look at this person who can't engage in the Universal Human Experience Of Love (sometimes with the prerequisite desire for sex, and sometimes it's the just-wanting-sex-but-not-love that's the Evil Code)"

note here, of course, that a lack of empathy also shouldn't be a shorthand for evil! the word "psychopath" generally needs to be put on a high shelf for anyone writing anything unless they can prove they know what in the world they're talking about!!

with alastor, when reading with the aroace hat on, we get an insight into how he does relate to other people. rather than going "he's so evil he can't love," it's opening up questions about what sort of connections he does form with people, and how those are complex, and possibly there's a lot of backstory there -- that's part of the whole story we're seeing with pretty much all the main characters: "misfits who have struggled to form connections because of their specific brands of Weirdness (and also they're in hell)"

now something im interested in with him being aspec, is how the show also to an extent deconstructs the ideas that being alloromantic and allosexual are necessarily indicators of goodness, and could go a lot further in future, if it wanted to -- this works better because almost all the characters in this show are queer (and tbh, until niffty is confirmed to be allorom, i am hc'ing her as aro), and so there's much less risk of falling into the trap of "deviant sexualities vs normal sexualities" that even some shows with queer characters fall for, because they still set up monogamous, allosexual relationships as More Correct vs Other Kinds Of Queerness That Is Bad

in the hellaverse, being kinky isn't semiotics for evil, being poly isn't semiotics for evil, being arocoded isn't semiotics for evil, etcetc.

being aspec is a difficult pill for a lot of people to swallow, including other queers, especially aromanticism, and so it's neat to consider the potential of portraying depictions of love and sex that are healthy (charlie and vaggie, pentious and cherri bomb, etc) next to depictions of love and sex that are unhealthy/toxic/abusive (valentino's and vox's ways of interacting with these things) next to depictions of not-love and not-sex that are complex and (i hope) indicators of how to get to know a character better, rather than villainising or simplifying a character. that maybe initially a character like charlie (amongst others) might not get it, but that's something she needs to sort out, not alastor

it's another way the show could go a step deeper into deconstructing how we take in ideas about "goodness" in narrative and in life based on simple clichés, for example the idea that "love redeems you" -- well, what if you don't love? and what if you do love, but that's not an indicator of goodness at all? is "love" in fact an all-encompassing positive force in the first place? why do we place it on this pedestal?

in many ways the potential of alastor through being aroace, reminds me a little of how we see angel in season 1. he's introduced a Certain way -- as shallow, as someone who doesn't put the work in, as someone who "doesn't care," -- and these narratives are enforced diagetically and non-diagetically by showing that he's an addict and a sex worker. a lot of the scenes related to drugs and sex work and kinky sex are funny (crack is expensive), and/or are met with disgust by the main characters (the sex dungeon), are considered things he needs to overcome in order to be worthy of redemption (the roleplay with sir pentious)...

and then those things are pulled apart, and both narrative and characters go: "what's wrong with being a sex-worker? what's wrong with being an addict? hell, what's wrong with liking sex???" and through that "why does he need to prove himself to be redeemed?" and i predict, eventually, already heading in that direction "why even need to be redeemed when the problem is the black-and-white morality of pure goodness/badness to begin with?????"

and i think alastor being aroace could play a cool part in that. it's not love that makes alastor human, and it's certainly not sex. it's how he interacts with not fitting into those normative boxes, and how other characters, hopefully, eventually, will learn to see things from his perspective (at least, in this case)

the whole the idea of "queerness as an insight into humanity" is something both hazbin and helluva do really well, because of their portraying queerness as a given, as the thing that it simply is how these characters interact with the world -- whether good or bad or somewhere in between, the characters' queerness invites us to ask questions about them, and i think some characters offer that opportunity even more starkly than others...

i mean alastor of course. keeper of the aroace Themes.

so yeah. aroace as humanising. love doesn't mean goodness. what even does redemption mean?

[polyamorousmood]

Opinions on "one penis policies" and how to address and deconstruct them?

Oh lawdy.

So I am generally leery of one penis policies. They are both predisposed to and often arise from unhelpful beliefs, which means one penis policies in practice are often a little fucked up.

But❗ I don't think people asking for them are irredeemable assholes, and I think there may even be some ways to do it that are sensible.

Very long post, so

First, for this post from this point forward, OPP is short for "one penis policy"

For those who don't know OPPs are exactly what they sound like. The stereotype is that a cis bisexual woman in a committed relationship with a cis (straight) man will approach him about opening the relationship. He is sympathetic and wants to let her explore her bisexuality, so he allows her to see/fuck/date other women only, figuring that he should be enough to satisfy whatever she'd be interested in doing with men. But it should be noted that the inverse can also be true. This post, while talking about it in terms from this stereotype for simplicity, can apply to a variety of situations with the appropriate swaps of genitalia and pronouns.

Why I'm leery:

As with most things that get into sketchy😬 territory with polyamory (and nonmonogamy more broadly), OPPs almost exclusively arise from insecurity. And the thing about insecurity is that for most people, the more you concede to it, the worse those insecurities get, which can snowball later down the line. Having a rule the protects some of those insecurities can encourage people to neglect working on them through other means, and opens the door for the man to feel betrayed if it later becomes important for the woman to pursue another man for any reason.

In polyamory especially (as opposed to other forms of non-monogamy) where at least one goal is to fall in love, they're really restrictive for the woman -- how many gay women down with polyamory are there? That rarity means it may take years to find a suitable partner. And it puts a heavy burden on the woman not to catch feelings for any other men, which can be really hard and heartbreaking in the same way it can be really hard and heartbreaking to be stuck in a fully monogamous relationship as a poly person.

Its kinda sexist? Often, it arises from the belief that penis-in-vagina is Real Sex and anything the woman does with another woman can be therefore written off. Inversely, sex with another man might "taint her" in his mind more than another woman for the same reason. Here there's an intersection with the insecurities in that a lot of men seem to think their "dick game" is the most important thing to their partners (when most studies show things like foreplay are usually more important), so our example man fears the direct comparison of penis size 🍆 and other masculinity things that could never possibly come up with women (incorrect, but more on that later).

Or, the straight man here could be fetishistic about lesbians and thinks its hot his lady is fucking other women🥵, so that's why its fine.

There are particulars that are ambiguous, and these can often cause problems if encountered. How do trans people factor into this? What if our woman gets with a woman who prefers sex with a big strap? Is that fine cause its still a woman, or will the man still feel betrayed because its "basically a penis"? Does this not call into question the validity of the whole rule to begin with? These things are rarely considered ahead of time.

In short, they often are formed for shitty reasons and put an undue burden on the woman. The consent of it feels less than authentic on both sides -- if he were really okay with it, why would he restrict her and if she only wanted to date other women it wouldn't be a "rule" she had to maintain.

Why then, do I not denounce all OPPs?

Let's consider some examples of pure intentions that could result in an OPP. Or at least, not-fucked intentions like above.

I think its really natural to want to have something special between yourself and your partner. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting there to be something only you can provide your partner. Its very common to have certain activities, acts, terms of endearment, etc. reserved for a particular partner in non-monogamous relationships! Why should "PiV sex" be treated with such hostility, but "watching our favorite TV show" be seen as a reasonable thing to disallow your partner from doing with someone else?

The man is trying to be supportive and flexible. He genuinely feels he can offer anything she might need sexually/romantically with a man, because polyamory is new to him, and because she's still offering him everything he needs sexually/romantically. The simplest explanation is that its the immutable fact of his gender that's causing the dissatisfaction, and he's very sympathetic to that! In this example, he's a little confused, but he's got the spirit. Non-monogamy is a big thing to most people, and allowing it -- even with restrictions -- should be recognized as the monumental step it generally is.

With that in mind, maybe our man even recognizes this is a big insecurity of his, and wants to work on it. Maybe he plans to address these insecurities, but knows this will take time, and is allowing her as much as he can without it being too much for him. Should he not be allowed some space to adjust, to work on those things? Should we not admire him for trying to broker a compromise🤝 rather than shutting down the woman's desires?

The woman might be okay with it.👍 She may feel she primarily wants to date/fuck other women, so a OPP is a small concession to make for her partner's comfort and reassurance.

There's kink things. I know I said lesbian fetishization was a negative just a moment ago, but even with that there are ways to do it respectfully. I'm not going to kink shame. If our theoretical couple finds it hot for him to put restrictions on what she can do sexually even when he's away -- who am I to stop them? Or any other number of kinks could play a part here! "I'm your only Daddy, but I'll let you go on playdates with other little girls" is not my kink, but I think it should be allowed for the people that are into it. 🤷‍♀️Idk, I admit this is probably my least well explained paragraph but basically it being a kink thing may be a sort of shortcut which circumvents some of the earlier concerns about authentic consent -- maybe they're just freaks who like it like that.

So then. About that question of deconstructing them.

Careful examinations of motives and feelings of all parties is required to know whether any one OPP holds up. There needs to be a lot of work put into the conversation, preferably before the relationship is actually opened. Its going to be personal between those two people, and -- like literally fucking everything with polyamory -- its going to require a lot of introspection🤔 and good communication🗣️.

If you find yourself in a OPP you feel is too constraining, you're gonna have to make a lot of time to talk through it. Be prepared to explain in detail and several times why its problem to you, while reassuring your partner its not because you find him unsatisfactory in some way. Be committed to hearing him out and taking his concerns and insecurities seriously. I recommend making a point to let everyone air their grievances before working on problem solving any of them. As always, avoid blaming.

Then, here are some ideas I think could you could try to help ease some of the insecurities and issues a OPP protects:

Shift the special thing to something other than PiV sex. Make it something else meaningful to you both. It could be some other sex thing😏, it could be the restaurant you went to on your first date🍽️, it could be listening to certain songs🎼, it could be ballroom dancing💃, it could simply be a day of the week 📅you only focus on each other, it could be anything you both value, and it could even be several things!

It may feel more reasonable to allow your partner other guidelines instead of gender. This can fall into many of the same pitfalls of a OPP, but it can also be a good middle ground if negotiations are tough. Maybe she can only date/fuck people shorter than he is, or with a smaller dick, or who makes less money than he does. Maybe she can see other men as long as they don't fuck in the bed he shares with her. Maybe any number of other things would help reassure him while being less burdensome on her.

Offer a lot of reassurance🤗. This is hard and scary! If he is willing to work with you, you better be working with him, too! Tell him you missed him and shit. Tell him how valuable he is to you because he allows you this freedom. Help him see things from a better framework when he's struggling. Do all this even when he doesn't ask for it.

It may help to give him something in return.🎁 Like, don't get me wrong, a very transactional relationship is rarely the most satisfying one. But a simple "I recognize how much work this will be for you, and to show you I also willing to put in work for your sake, I'm willing to try [something important to him]" isn't unreasonable. I think its easy and kinda fair for him to grow resentful if he's asked to accept everything she wants without her giving him anything he values.

If he's trying but still genuinely struggling, put a specific time-delay on when things will take effect. This allows him to prepare for it mentally (without it being something that will maybe happen some day, and thus not soemthing he needs to worry about right now). It gives him time to mull things over, so he can come to her with any concerns before they're already in the thick of it. The length of time will vary based on the situation, but I think something measured in weeks would probably be fair.

Seriously consider anything else he asks for that would make it easier for him.

Best of luck out there! Go live your best, most free lives babes!!