CW/TW: misogyny, transmisogyny, sexism, cisnormativity, heteronormativity.
This post will be an introductory discussion and unpacking specific gendered language commonly seen and used in our polyamory communities. It will be fairly basic and cover only a few things - as there is simply no way for us to address it all at once, there’s just too much.
A term I have seen with some frequency is: One Penis Policy (it’s hypothetical opposite being One Vagina Policy). The term is generally defined as where one man is in a polyamorous relationship with multiple women, but the women are not permitted any other partners who are men.
Let’s start here: it’s cisnormative. Not all men have penises, and not all women have vaginas. Beyond that, genitals do not define nor equate to gender. Gender and sex are not binary. The terms and phrasing of “One Penis Policy” erase non-binary peoples, undermine and invalidate transgender peoples, and is incredibly enforcing of the gender binary. As this space is inclusive and a safe(r) space for many of us who do not “fit” many of the other local spaces - it is important we recognize all of this and do our best to unlearn and unpack.
What stands is this: no one can assume who has what genitals, and genitals do not determine gender (or sex). It is also why I, personally, prefer to use language such as men and women instead of male or female - as it has a historical and social context based in basic knowledge of biology (but it gets complicated). Just bear in mind this is an inclusive space, there are more than two genders, and what many know as sex is not the be all nor the end all.
I can provide resources and such regarding gender and sex; as needed/requested.
The phrase upholds that penis orifice sex as the ‘One True Sex’, which is both heteronormative and cisnormative. Not all peoples in a poly dynamic or in the relationship(s) may not necessarily be heterosexual. To force partners involved to match or meet a standard for sexuality is erasive and revokes consent.
The next part of this that I want to approach: the entire basis of the “One Penis Policy” is sexist and misogynistic. Reducing anyone and their identity to their genitals is harmful, but especially when done to women who already deal with constant sexism and misogyny, and are regularly reduced to what genitals they have. Women are not objects to collect for sex, are not just intended to be partners to only men or just one man, are equal and should be given the same opportunities and treatment as any polyamorous man. To be clear, this isn’t to say that such does not happen to non-men, or that similar (but never exactly) the same things can happen to men (though this is where it would get complicated). A lot of this ties in to some of the same ideology that the friendzone has.
The base definition, roots, and phrasing of the term are prescriptive to the relationships being about sex - which we all know better. Not all poly relationships are about sex and that stigma is a part of a lot of the hate and discrimination that polyamory receives. So as long as we are not reducing people to their genitals and seeking only sex, I believe we can find better wording for this.
Of course, the right of individuals, partners, and polycules to use this terminology for themselves and amongst themselves is reserved. We cannot tell you not to abide by the dynamic or ‘policy’, and no one has to full agree or understand. But in this space, it would preferred that we find better wording and be as inclusive as possible. Noting that this isn’t to say you (royal you) must take an interest in everyone or be receptive you everyone, we can’t tell you who to be attracted to. Just be mindful.