As Ontario government sells off the north to international mining companies, communities in crisis are demanding safety and healing instead
Ontario Provincial Police arrested two suspects on Thursday following a two-day, shelter-in-place order in Ginoogaming First Nation and the neighbouring town of Longlac. OPP charged them with second degree murder in the shooting death of Ginoogaming man Sebastian Towegishig. Another victim has been transported 300 kilometres west to Thunder Bay to receive intensive care for gunshot wounds.
First Nations across far northern Ontario are now calling on Canada and Ontario’s governments to make a priority of ridding their communities of illicit drugs, some making public safety a prerequisite to conversations about mining.
Ginoogaming has been under a state of emergency since May 2024, when Chief Sheri Taylor and her council called for a full-time police presence to contend with drugs and gangs. She reiterated that state of emergency, claiming Canada and Ontario need to support her beyond “band-aid” solutions.
its hot as dick and balls, everythings pissing me off, and i clocked in for an 8 hr💔.
what is my life.
OH ALSO! why my ex said when she gets off of work she gonna come see me at my job… BRO I LOOK CHOPPED FUCKING CHEESE AT WORK AND ITS SO HOT THAT MY HAIR LOOKS PUFFY IN THIS FUCKASS PONYTAIL!!
LIKE TF SHE TALKIN BOUT AND THEN SHE GON SAY “i’ve seen you in all forms, you never once looked chopped so stop.”
GIRL PLS STFU U ALREADY PISSING ME OFF!
TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, THIS BIG BACK ASS CUSTOMER JUST ORDERED THE WHOLE FUCKING MENU AND IS RUSHING ME AS IF I MAKE THE FUCKING CAKES!! BITCH I JUST TAKE YOUR ORDER AND UR MONEY!! LIKE BRO GO FOR A FUCKING WALK AND THEY’LL BE READY! NOBODY TOLD UR GOOFY ASS TO ORDER 2 DOZEN CUPCAKES AND 2 FUCKING CAKES!
lemme take a deep breath today is going great! and its only 1:30!😀😀FANTASTIC!!
Hey there followers old and new! This post is part of a series called Wordy Wednesday, where I write a bit about non-monogamy jargon!
This week's word is OPP.
Without looking it up, what do you think "OPP" means?
Over-Populated Polycule
One Pizza Party
Old Poly Person
One Penis Policy
Voting ended onMay 13
Answer below the cut!
One Penis Policy or OPP (noun) is "an arrangement where a male/female couple is sexually open, but the woman is not allowed to date other men". This term and the "policy" it describes are cisheteronormative and widely considered problematic in the non-monogamous community.
It's likely that the term was commonly used in non-monogamous and polyamorous circles by the mid to late 2000s. The earliest set of forum posts I could find were on Polyamory.com, and they're actually a great place to start unpacking the terminology.
In December 2009, forum user cApNhOwDy posted in the Glossary and Definitions thread asking if there was a term to describe "an 'open' relationship where there is a bisexual woman and a heterosexual man who are romantically involved, and the bisexual woman is allowed to date other women, but not allowed to date other men". Guest user Ceoli replied, "This is commonly referred to as a one-penis policy (OPP). It's often the source of much debate."
The next day, cApNhOwDy returned to the forum with a post titled "Seeking relationship advice". To sum it up, Howdy (as I'll call him) was a straight man in a relatively new relationship with a bisexual woman, Pardner (as I'll call her). Several months into their relationship, Pardner developed feelings for another woman and asked to open their relationship to pursue those feelings. Howdy had no qualms about this, except: He didn't want Pardner to date or have sex with other men... even though he himself would be allowed to date other women. He claimed he would "refuse to accept a relationship with multiple men", but Pardner was "pretty stubborn about having the option available". Full of heartache, Howdy approached the forum for advice: Should he and Pardner break up now, knowing that they were incompatible, or should they continue dating "in hopes that she doesn't find a new male partner that she's interested in"?
The responses to this post were quite thoughtful and mellow, at least compared to most of the present-day discourse about the One Penis Policy. (It was 2009, after all.) Ultimately Howdy decided to break up with Pardner, acknowledging that their relationship needs simply weren't compatible and he had no hard feelings towards her.
Flash forward: it's 2026. How many things did you count wrong in the above picture?
I'll start with the idea of the "policy" itself: That a particular individual in a relationship is "allowed" to do some things and not "allowed" to do others. The non-monogamous community has largely moved away from encouraging these sorts of "rules", and moved towards the idea of setting boundaries. The 2009 forum responses sort of get at this in a roundabout way; the issue with Howdy and Pardner wasn't that Pardner wasn't willing to "follow the rules", it was that their relationship needs were incompatible. Howdy had drawn "a line in the sand" and Pardner had expressed that she couldn't fulfill this expectation of no other men; therefore, it made no sense for their relationship to continue. Most present-day polyamorous folks would describe this as setting and enforcing boundaries.
...Which is all well and good. But the One Penis Policy is one particular boundary that has drawn quite a bit of criticism. Why is it so common, and why is it so controversial?
Assuming that everyone involved is perisex and cisgender, many heterosexual men past and present have insisted that their partners only partner up with other women; the jealousy of imagining their girlfriend or wife with another man is simply too much to bear. But what of the bisexual woman who must slice her dating pool in half while watching her boyfriend or husband partner with as many women as he wants? For some individuals in specific dynamics, maybe this is fine. But it's definitely not fine for everyone.
What's worse are the sociological origins of the "policy". Why would a heterosexual man be so jealous of other men but not women? Well...
Toxic masculinity pits men against each other; if one man isn't enough to satisfy a woman, he must be lacking something. But if a woman wants relationships with other women, they're no threat because they "can't compete" with a man. In other words: Men have something to offer that women don't have.
Women dating women, or women having sex with women, is highly fetishized. A man can still get something out of seeing his female partner with another woman if he finds himself turned on by it. In this way, a male partner can benefit from his female partner's other female partners. But a heterosexual man is far less likely to get the same enjoyment out of seeing his female partner with another male partner.
The above reasons were enough to make the One Penis Policy controversial by the late 2000s, and largely considered unacceptable today. But since awareness of trans and intersex issues have risen over the past decade and a half, the terminology itself now draws rightful criticism.
When transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals are considered, the idea of "One Penis" being sufficient for one non-monogamous relationship is even more unethical. Some folks, such as relationship coach Magenta Brooks, consider the One Penis Policy to be an "umbrella" of sorts that covers any sort of dynamic that restricts the type of person that someone in an ENM relationship can pursue. Others refer to ideas such as the "One Vagina Policy". It's true that there are people out there who place all sorts of restrictions on the people their partners are "allowed" to date, and those norms can certainly be unpacked.
But the fact of the matter is, many cisgender men in non-monogamous relationships still try and apply the OPP to their partners even when gender-diverse individuals are involved. Obviously, this leads to a lot of misgendering and invalidation.
How do you apply a One Penis Policy to a trans woman? Do you choose to include or exclude her based on her medical transition status, or is she an "exception" to your rule? (Do you really see her as a woman?)
How do you apply a One Penis Policy to a trans man? Is he "man enough" to be excluded from your partner's dating pool, or is he a lesser threat to your masculinity? (Why would that be?)
How do you apply a One Penis Policy to a nonbinary person? Do you reduce them to their chromosomes, or include/exclude them arbitrarily? (See how convoluted this "policy" is getting?)
How do you apply a One Penis Policy to an intersex person? Apply some or all of the above lines of questioning. (Why is it your business who has a penis and who doesn't? Why are you reducing people to their penises or lack thereof?)
Now, I won't pretend that I think this is a major issue on Tumblr Dot Com. A brief glance over my list of followers shows that nearly all of us are some flavor of queer or gender-diverse ourselves and wouldn't think to impose such a policy on our partners. However, it's important to be aware of the kinds of toxicity that exist in the ENM community. First, because being tapped into the conversation is important! And second, equally important, because you (or someone you know) could find yourself on the receiving end of such a policy.
It's okay to stand your ground. It's okay to say "no". It's okay to refuse an unreasonable request. And it's okay to break up if you don't think your relationship needs or desires are compatible.
This has been, I think, the longest edition of Wordy Wednesday so far. Hopefully I didn't bore you! Tune in next week for something more lighthearted.
(Sources: Discovering Polyamory, Polyamory.com Glossary Thread, cApNhOwDy's Seeking Advice Post, Magenta Brooks' Medium Post)
