That article (linked) and the Rosin one linked within it both cite high percentages of female abusers in certain subsets of sexual assault, not of all sexual assaults as the commenter seems to indicate. I think it's a really good article, especially in raising awareness about the reality of sexual abuse of men and boys, but it does not say what that poster says it says and it's not relevant to the situation at hand as female sexual assault of prepubescent children is far less common, even over-correcting for the fact that it is likely under-reported. Though I agree with the general sentiment since a concerned parent might overlook risks to their children b/c of a false sense of faith that "women don't do that" and this goes around to increase bias and therefore reinforce stigma that keep the sexual assault of men and boys a taboo subject (and therefore underreported). But as for the statement that women account for 40% of all sexual assaults- that's a big stretch and if some new groundbreaking research is showing this, link to THAT not to studies showing that women are a high percentage of the abusers under specific subsets of all assaults.

For the One Penis Policy thing: does it work for the couple? Maybe. Should you stay away from OPP couples because they've probably got hella issues that will make them awful partners too wrapped up in their own shit to be good to any third? Most likely. If they were any way emotionally or mentally capable of dealing with an open relationship with healthy views towards same-sex relationships and secondary partners, they probably wouldn't be OPP. 10-to-1 it's a copout to help them deal with a lot of fucked up stuff that you don't want to get involved with.

Yeah, yeah, not all men/unicorn hunters/whatevers, but seriously... it's your best red flag that your relationship is gonna be a toxic mess.

Yeah what @2 said. Whether OPP is immoral and wrong, not really your concern as a third. Whether it's raising the risk of dysfunction, that's gonna be your problem.

If you just plan to get it on and get on out, sure, you can probably swing that. But if you're hoping to hang around in their blast radius, you might want to keep hunting opportunities.

@1 thank you. In addition, I noted that the article pointed out that one study considered wheedling and begging verbally sexual was considered a forced sexual encounter. If so, my husband has, apparently, assaulted me as there have been more than one time I haven’t been feeling it but he’s wheedled for it. None of this to minimize sexual assault of men which absolutely happens. I wish we didn’t giggle over the teachers taking advantage of boy/students. There have been some sick dynamics there that aren’t cool. I remember these:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau

There also was one in Georgia where the teacher married the minor under a stupid loop hole in the law. I can’t find it though

Copout? Cop out?

@1 Is that sexual assaults or reported sexual assaults?

Both, Jodo. For example, the article mentions research that looks at a subset of sexual assault: that which occurs within the context of a domestic relationship. First, the vast majority of these have women as victims, and in those cases, the perps are overwhelmingly men. Set that aside for now. The article cites research into male victims of sexual assault within a domestic context. Now, men are a minority of domestic sexual assault victims, but the researchers and the article is right to focus on them as they are a group that underreports their assaults and also that is stigmatized for doing so and that is under-researched. OK, so look at the male victims of domestic sexual assault- in the majority of those cases (around 3/4) the abuser is a woman. This is serious, but given the fact that more men are in relationships with women than with men, it would be ludicrous to conclude from this that women are more likely to be sexual assault perps in a domestic relationship than are men just because in a minority subset of domestic sexual assault victims (men), the abusers are more likely to be women. A majority of a minority is not a majority total, see.

Likewise with assault that includes penetration. That is already a subset of sexual assault (it doesn't always or even usually include penetration). The majority of sexual assaults that do include penetration, again women and girls are far more likely to be victims and men are far more likely to be abusers. However, if we look at male victims (the minority group), then the story is slightly different. Still, if the male victim is penetrated (finger, object, penis), the abusers is far more likely to be a man. However, if the male victim is forced to penetrate someone else (the abuser or a third person), then the abuser is nearly just as likely to be a woman as a man. So you could say the alarming statement that nearly half of all men victims of forced penetration of others are abused by women, and this is entirely true. Since it's an under-reported issue and highly stigmatized, it's even well and good to focus on it and raise awareness of it. However, it's bullshit to leap from there that half of all victims of sexual assault involving penetration are abused by women, that's just ludicrous.

Also when you look at prepubescent children in any category of sexual assault, no matter how you splice the data as far as I have seen, men are overwhelmingly the perps. To the point that even if you quadrupled the data (over correcting for the lack of reports due to stigma, etc) it would still be only barely approaching the lower end of the percentage that the commenter cited.

I think the more eye-opening categories are young men and teenage boys who are assaulted by adult women in situations in which the woman is in a position of authority (schools, prisons, etc). Again, if we look at this as a whole category, teenage girls and young women are far more likely to be victims and most of the perpetrators are men. However, if we look exclusively at the minority group of men and teenage boys, then women are perpetrators at a higher percentage than most of us would expect, and if you correct for the fact that it's very underreported and stigmatized, it's probably a much greater risk than most of us consider it being. In short, it's far less likely to happen to a man or boy than it is to a woman or girl, but if it does happen, it's nearly as likely that the abuser will be female as male. Likewise with cases involving sexual coercion when the victim is intoxicated, at least in early adulthood, which was the most interesting part of the study to me.

@2/Traffic Spiral: “Should you stay away from OPP couples because they've probably got hella issues that will make them awful partners too wrapped up in their own shit to be good to any third? Most likely.”

LOL. Can you make a more sweeping, less factually supported statement? Even, in arugendo, you’re correct that couples have some dysfunction, which you’re not, it’s not even logically clear why limiting a female partner’s outside sexual contact to other women will necessarily blowup on her female lover.

I won’t rehash here my comments on this subject, but I will note that one of the most laughable aspects of this discussion is how anyone doing open relationships under different rules is doing it wrong, is emotionally stunted, and/or angry and bitter, and that these views persist even in the face of hearing opposing perspectives.

@6/DarkHorseRising: “I personally would never agree to the one penis policy.” And so long as you’re upfront with your partners at the start of your relationships, you’ll have no issues later on, where female letter writers have encountered issues is after they have made a monogamous commitment, but then seek something different.

Traffic @2: Very well said, and thank you. I had thought this topic was completely played out, then you wisely decided to dissect it from the point of view of not the couple themselves but the potential third. I agree that at best, an OPP is a compromise, and most compromises are reached because neither person is entirely happy with what the other person wants. Do you really want to insert yourself into their jealousy issues? If he's jealous about other dick, TS, you're correct that it's a very good sign he's also jealous about other pussy but suppressing it, at least outwardly, and that could very well blow up in your, the innocent third's, face. (We'll leave it to Venn to dispute whether poly folks can be "innocent"; he already thinks they're no ladies...)

Dark Horse @5: Cop-out?

Does a one penis policy mean a cis woman can’t date a trans woman who has a penis, if she’s allowed to date other women? Gets real confusing.

Yeah EmmaLiz, Dan really should check the studies before putting up a letter saying women are responsible for forty percent of sexual abuse.

One penis policy, sounds batty from the outright!

Sublime @9: LOL, qualifying language like "probably" and "most likely" indicates that the statement being made is the OPPOSITE of "sweeping." Traffic even states outright that there is a one in eleven chance the couple with an OPP isn't dysfunctional. The point is to be wary, which is excellent advice.

Ms Fan - I have no fixed policy that women in poly relationships either aren't or are ladies; I consider the two matters to be totally independent of each other. Recently someone (perhaps you) called a LW a lady, an assessment with which I disagreed, and I asked for justification, but my disagreement was based on the evidence presented of the LW's character and not her choice of relationship.

At least in Miss Austen's time ("He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman's daughter; thus far we are equal.") and even Dame Agatha's ("But... she's a lady!") the L and G words had sufficiently clear meaning, indicating some quality that provided to the recipient of the label a status of being superiour to the average. At present, the G word has almost entirely disappeared, and the L word appears to be used both in quite nearly its former manner with the intent of conveying complimentary distinction AND as a generic synonym for woman with no particular meaning. I find this untenable. It's basically Ms Cute's wanting to be equal except when she doesn't.

It would be a bonus if those who use the L word intending it to be complimentary could provide their standards for the distinction.

If I had time, I'd go into the appropriation of the other G word. There are multiple words that refer to women only, but because those words don't feel like a perfect fit some women want to invade and eliminate the existence of male-specific words. (This is similar to how the G is the only letter without its own specific phobia.) Even when done with benign intent (Ms deGeneris?) I cannot really approve.

@16 vennominion did you mean Degeneres?

Did you intentionally want to make a statement, if so what?

@15 perhaps you could ask in plain English, and be a more effective advocate for your rights.

Sorry @vennominion, it’s not you, I'm just having a rough night.

Nice try, Venn @15, but I was speaking generally about women who seek permission to have extra-relationship sapphic sex, not any LW in particular:
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/11/01/34875551/the-missing-rant-the-one-penis-policy-and-the-aromantic-angle/comments/26

I used the term "ladies" instead of "women" for simple word variety. You cryptically replied, ""OTHER [l-word]s"? Assumes facts not in evidence," which I translated as meaning that any woman who wants to have sex with women who are not her husband, or who might be interested in threesomes, is no "lady."

Funnily enough, one place where the word "gentlemen" or at least its abbreviation, "gents," is still used is in the UK where it is a common synonym for the men's bathroom.

The OPP thing is a huge red herring, as the original post was from someone who didn't want ANY open relationship but was willing to allow his newly-out bisexual wife a hall pass restricted to women*, which she then turned around and abused by pursuing extracurricular activity with men. Accusing him of homophobia was way the fuck out of line.

I can't speak for the OPP OP, but if my female partner said "I need a hall pass to see what pussy tastes like" and then started dating a trans woman with a penis, I would also take that as an abuse of the hall pass.

And Dan is still obstinately refusing to get the message on AA. I'm sure a sex advice columnist with decades of experience is familiar with the Madonna-whore complex.

Thanks Chase for answering.

So we can’t use lady or chick. And calling a man a gentleman is so Jane Austen. Lady is still useful; “ listen lady don’t tell me where I can park my car..”

My “one-penis policy” is that I only have one penis. Good thing, too, because otherwise I’d be pissing on my shoes every time I take a leak (even more than I do now)

I haven't listened to the Lovecast yet this week; I sure hope Dan's initial advice to someone concerned that masturbation indicates abuse was to chill the fuck out and maybe have a conversation about social expectations around sexual privacy if the child is masturbating in public. Absent other evidence, masturbation is not abnormal behavior indicating a problem, it's normal, healthy behavior for human beings that starts as early as in utero.

@4: Yes, many of us do indeed consider repeatedly pushing against a stated boundary - wheedling, begging, denigrating someone, challenging someone's identity (e.g. "a REAL man would have sex with me," "all the cool girls give head"), threatening to withhold affection or unilaterally negate other relational norms - to be coercion, which means that sexual encounters that involve this are not entirely voluntary and are arguably assault. Your husband may have assaulted you; I'm not in a position to make that determination, but I am in a position to say that you experiencing boundary-crossing that you wouldn't consider assault doesn't mean that the same kind of boundary-crossing is categorically not assault.

Ms Fan - "Other" ladies is like the March Hare telling Alice to have some "more" wine. It implied outright that LW or the woman to whom LW referred deserved the "Lady" status. I disagreed, and did not think highly of the character of the woman in question. Other women she might or might not partner might or might not themselves be ladies.

The L word and the G word both belong only at Wimbledon, where tennis is still played on a proper surface. Hard courts, which produce far more injuries than grass or clay, should be the surface that sees the shortest amount of play per year. (I never forgave Dinara Safina, whose serve I copied, for wanting Wimbledon to pave over all the grass courts.)

What's far more common is the mixing of the L word and the M word, which is the reason I gave up watching figure skating.

Ms Lava - I'd have thought they didn't approve of ladies in Australia.

Use the word if you must; just define it. Could you, for instance, list three qualities for which you would expect anyone you'd compliment by calling a lady to meet a high and exemplary standard?

Why would that be Mr Venn?
‘ That’s why the Lady is a tramp.’ Of course we have them. Ladies who lunch.

Sorry Mr Venn, you are not the Dictonary Master of me, so no, I won’t define any qualities. Anyway, it’s a good word under different situations. A handy word to use, if the moment calls for it.
As for gentleman, that’s not the equal in meaning to Lady. And I use that word too.

I think the 40% number for female perpetrators came from the part of the article that states:
"Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”"

Chase @22: There have been several "original" posts on this topic; we can't tie all, or even most, of the comments on one-penis policies to a single letter that was a pretty clear-cut example of one person who was just being selfish. That letter, to me, did not even represent a "couple with a one-penis policy" scenario, as this term is used to describe straight male/bi female couples where both are allowed only to have sex with women. PFFT's letter wasn't an example of OPP, it was an example of polyamory under duress. TL;DR, no one was accusing PFFT of homophobia.

Donny @26: I'm glad my partners don't impose a one-dildo policy on me! :-)

John @27 re @4: Agree completely; wheedling CAN cross the line to coercion. Whether assault or just assholishness, I guess, depends on how many times one must say no to have it accepted.

Venn @28: You've missed my point; there was no woman in question. It was all a hypothetical. I was referring to ANY bi woman who sought a hall pass for other women. Your response implies therefore that ANY non-monogamously-minded bi woman is no lady. If that's your opinion, fine -- I personally think it's a form of slut-shaming for others to deem whether a woman's behaviour merits her being called a lady. If you were talking about a particular woman, please clarify who. And yeah, I too am going to continue to (sparingly) use the modern definition of lady, meaning woman.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lady

@mysterium Might be where he got it from, but that's still inaccurate. It says that of X number of people who took a survey on alcoholism, Y% admitted to having sexually assaulted a drunk person. Of Y (a number the article does not state btw so we have no idea if we are talking about five people or five hundred or five thousand), 43% were women. Also this is a self-report, an admission of being an abuser apparently. It would be interesting to see what the question was asking (also not in the article). In any case, this has nothing to do with 40% of all sexual assaults, etc except both percentages start with a 4.

BDF@34~ A “one-dildo policy” just seems cruel. So many shapes, so many vibrations. Variety is the spice of life! And don’t forget our friend, the butt plug! Just got a new remote-controlled one, can’t wait to get the GF out at a restaurant with it and press that remote!

Speaking of which, watch this hilarious video!
https://youtu.be/R3vEUQH3DAM

Ms Fan - I was referring specifically to the selfish woman who was pressuring her monogamous male partner into approving increasing amounts of unilateral freedom. When you spoke of "other" Ls she might date, that clearly invited the inference that you considered the L word to apply to her as well as hey hypothetical dates.

If you ONLY use the L-word as a generic synonym for "woman" and NEVER use it to imply a compliment or bestowal of positive distinction, that's doable, but will still fall into the category of supposedly undesired benefit on occasion.

This also reminds me of Sense and Sensibility, when Elinor claims not entirely to understand what exactly puts a man into the category of being considered a "beau".

I love the word beau.

Venn @38: In that case the confusion is cleared up; I was not speaking of her specifically, and have no sympathy for her behaviour, as I stated several times. I was speaking IN GENERAL of women who are bisexual and seek non-monogamy, at least where people of their own gender are concerned. My position was that the husbands of same might broaden their perspective on this to see other benefits to themselves beyond an opportunity to demand "fair" recompense in the form of other women for themselves, which will in most cases trigger a response of "how is that fair; in that case, I should get to sleep with women AND men," which was what got Sublime's dander up even before PFFT wrote in.