Polyfidelity and monogamy

Shaya

New member
To those who have been in a polyfidelitous agreement, what similarities and differences do you see between your agreement and monogamy? <EDIT: Sentence about open polyfidelity and closed polifidelity deleted due to massive confusion resulting in the next 4 posts below. Please ignore anything up to and including post 5 below. Restart reading at post 6 please>

To clarify, when I say "what differences or similarities", I'm referring to the setup, boundaries or rules and also the mental attitude or underlying philosophy of polyfidelity and monogamy.
 
Last edited:
Is there such a thing as open polyfidelity as opposed to what I'm imagining which would be closed polyfidelity?.
I think you're going to need to define your terms, because I don't understand what you're asking here.

"Closed polyfidelity" I think I get, because it's a tautology like "wet water", but as I can't actually see what you're imagining you probably should explain it in case we're using the same words to mean different things. I really don't understand what you mean by "open polyfidelity" because on the face of it it's inherently self-contradictory.
 
Sorry for the confusion. I agree with what you said Emm about the wonky phrases I've used. Closed polyfidelity is a tautology. Open polyfidelity is difficult for me to imagine, but I didn't know if that was because of my inexperience on the subject or if it was because there is no such thing.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
What do you mean when you say "open polyfidelity"? It's hard to express an opinion about whether it exists or not when I don't know what you're asking about.

The options I've come up with are:
  1. A relationship between some combination of 3 or more people in which there are no agreements preventing any of them from seeing others, but where nobody currently has the desire to do so.
  2. ????
  3. Profit!
 
Last edited:
First, define "fidelity." Then "polyfidelity." Then "open"/"closed."

I ruffled feathers long ago telling Ryam Nearing that I saw no good reason that all the definitions of "fidelity" I heard bandied about, EXCEPT for sexual exclusivity, applied to the nonmonogamous people I knew, & therefore there was no point in setting aside "polyfidelity" as somehow different from responsible nonmonogamy.

I'm still trying to figure out if it's possible for polyfidelitous people to be swingers. :D

And, if a "fidelitous" person ever experiences even the least little attraction to a non-spouse, doesn't that mean they're no longer fidelitous, period, forever? or is there some way for them to become a born-again virgin? (How often/frequently are they allowed to break their sacred commitment & get a free pass to come back?)
 
Different people will define the label of 'polyfidelity' differently. If you consider yourself polyfidelitous, or if you have previously considered yourself as such, I'd be interested in your philosophy or thoughts on this issue of polyfidelity and monogamy: similarities and differences.
 
But in this thread you asked about open polyfidelity so you are the one who needs to define it, otherwise it'll just end up with people wasting their time answering the wrong question. When you make up your own terms you're the only one who knows what you mean.

Edit: I see you've edited your original post. If all you want now is a discussion of the similarity between polyfidelity and monogamy then I suggest you do a tag search here or a Google search more generally; you'll find plenty.
 
Last edited:
Some might be reluctant to speak to this, after another thread got kinda fierce on a very close subject, which was that Ravenscroft was of the opinion that polyfidelity is just sorta...mono with more humans. Like near-mono. Ish. Or a stepping stone for monofolk who are scared of full open, to try poly with a shit ton of rules and restrictions so they feel "safe."

But frankly I think that you do what you need to and as long as everybody is respectful, consenting, loving, and happy, then you're doing it right. His poly ain't more twue poly than your poly or her poly or their poly.

I would guess that in a polyfidelitious arrangement there is an expectation that no one is going to add more partners (just by definition) and I am not sure what a person would do if they felt compelled to do so. I'd hope that they would be able to approach their existing partners and negotiate for their needs. I would hope that a hallmark difference between the polyfi ship, and a "typical" mono ship, is that this negotiation might go over a little less catastrophically, with no one having fits of the vapors or shouting, "YOU WANT TO DO WHAT?" Like perhaps there would be less judgment in such a situation, since the others are already polying and the idea isn't necessarily foreign.
 
I am not a fan of polyfidelity being compared to/nearly equated with monogamy. (As if there's something wrong with monogamy.) I guess if we have more rules that makes us "inferior" to "true polys."

Polyfidelity seems to have at least two possible definitions, one is being closed to adding new partners, the other is being closed to sex outside the core unit, and of course it can mean both. The poly-fi unit I am in is closed to outside sex, but not closed to adding new partners.
 
I am not a fan of polyfidelity being compared to/nearly equated with monogamy. (As if there's something wrong with monogamy.) I guess if we have more rules that makes us "inferior" to "true polys."

Polyfidelity seems to have at least two possible definitions, one is being closed to adding new partners, the other is being closed to sex outside the core unit, and of course it can mean both. The poly-fi unit I am in is closed to outside sex, but not closed to adding new partners.

Definitely.

And I wonder too, how it is when you take into account the way a relationship anarchist might view even friendships as equal to or greater than sexual relationships. Because it is mostly along those lines of how I view certain friendships, that I continue to keep a toe in the poly pool even though I am sexually monogamous at the moment.

So my brand of fidelity was to agree not to have sex with other dudes.
If I wanted to change that, I'd have to try and negotiate it with Zen. He probably would not be too happy about that, and I don't feel any need to go there, so it's not really an issue. But if I wanted to have sex with another woman, I would still run it by him, and keep him very informed at every stage, and if it were a particular person that he objected to for some reason, I would give his input a LOT of weight in deciding if I would proceed.

But I retain the right to have nonsexual BDSM play scenes with anyone I want, and to have my flirtatious and affectionate friendships, and even if one of those friendships evolved to take up more dedicated time, so long as it did not cross the "genital contact" threshold, I would expect to be able to continue with it freely...well also, so long as it did not compromise the time and energy I am able to give to Zen too much.

But in these ways, even if I'm not really doing poly, I'm still doing something that is not typical of monogamy, from what I've seen of many mono couples.
 
When our household began trying to formally analyze nonmonogamy (back ~1982), we insisted on clear, brief definition of all terminology. One of the few words that baffled us was fidelity. And when we asked others (including PEP) to help us to clarify, the response was always "well, everyone knows what THAT means!!"

...which to us kinda highlighted that they didn't. :rolleyes: And I still don't have a good, clear definition of the term. And it seems that nobody else does either... yet it keeps getting bandied freely about as though it's a simple, clear, obvious concept that applies equally wherever used.

We took "fidelity" to mean a constant push toward clear, open, honest, thorough, often blunt communication. Therefore, we felt the term was redundant with core principles of polyamory, thus at best obfuscating.

If "fidelity" is equated to "sexual exclusivity," then it's really little more than a weasel word.

In either instance, I'd contend it should be left behind as an artifact of arm-waving Monogamism, creating more misunderstanding than clarification.

Is there a third path I'm just not getting?
 
Ravenscroft, I think the biggest crime where the word fits in with "arm-waving Monogamism" or whatever the hell most Americans are out there trying to do, is that most people DON'T talk about or define it in a relationship. They bring their own idea of what it means, and they assume that their shiny new mate person has the same mental picture of the word that they do.

Which probably is part of the reason that we've got a fairly high divorce rate in our culture, and have for quite a long while.

Bob understands "fidelity" to mean a man and woman who not only are sexually exclusive, but who are extremely jealous, territorial, and even controlling. That if someone flirts with your Person at the bar, you should punch them in the face, and then your Person will look to you with hearts in their eyes as their Savior or something. That when a couple goes out, the partners should spend most of their time watching one another like a well trained dog watches its master. Bob argues that even being friends with someone of the opposite gender is a form of cheating, since men and women CAN'T be platonic friends anyways.
(That was my ex, and his name isn't Bob.)

Sue understands "fidelity" to mean more like what we consider "couple privilege." That maybe your relationship could include agreements to have intimacy or sex outside of it, but you won't escalate to life planning or family creation with any of the extramarital partners. Your Person has exclusive access to your estate planning, reproduction, financial benefits, etc. And maybe they could make agreements where that sort of "fidelity" includes more than two humans.

Jim understands "fidelity" to simply mean that your ship has rules where each person has to put forth any proposal to include another sex, love, romantic, or intimate partner, and give the others a chance to veto it if they need to.

Jane understands "fidelity" to mean that you save yourself for your husband and only have sex with the blessing of the lord in the sanctity of holy matrimony, and never with another for so long as you live.

Frank understands "fidelity" to mean that you keep your affairs very casual and extremely discreet, so as not to upset your wife or shame your family.

For some, fidelity cannot by definition include more than a dyad.
For some, fidelity might allow for extramarital sex, but no feelings.
For some, fidelity might allow for extramarital feelings, but no sex.


Etc.

The main thing where I think someone must strive to do better than this, when stepping outside of the mindset of Monogamism, is to actually have discussions with one's partner(s) where everyone explains what they mean and they come up with some agreements about the language being used.

For me, fidelity is very simply not cheating on agreements, and an honest, good faith endeavor to operate in ways that are loving and respectful and genuine to everyone's needs. If I coerced a partner to an agreement that I knew they hated and would cause them pain, even if I adhered to it to the letter, I am still not being fidelitous to that partner any longer. (EDIT: Though on further contemplation, perhaps I am being more fidelitous to MYSELF in that situation.) If I keep my thing with a partner so casual that they have no right to any agreements at all, like "you are just my fuckbuddy and get no say in anything else I do with anyone" then I don't consider there to be a fidelitous arrangement happening there. It's lacking in the agreements area, due to lack of investment...which is not a moral or ethical judgment. It's just how some would choose to operate in certain interactions. It is fine, but no fidelity was offered to that partner.

But those definitions are only MINE and I'd never presume to say they should apply to anyone else, nor expect them to without some serious discussion first.
 
Last edited:
For me, fidelity is very simply not cheating on agreements, and an honest, good faith endeavor to operate in ways that are loving and respectful and genuine to everyone's needs.

If I keep my thing with a partner so casual that they have no right to any agreements at all ... then I don't consider there to be a fidelitous arrangement happening there. It's lacking in the agreements area, due to lack of investment.
Totally liking this. Not how I (we?) would've phrased it, yet entirely compatible with our sentiments then & now.
________________

Now that I think of it, I wonder how many monogamous/monogamish people could adequately define "cheating," or even understand the necessity of defining it for themselves, & ensuring that they're actually on the same page with their supposed life-partner. Is the fact that such discussions are hardly commonplace due to a fear that discovering actuality might show incompatibility?

If so, why so much fear of actually talking to one's "other half" & getting this stuff figured out BEFORE it can cause problems?

And if people don't possess the drive to dig out those speedbumps -- & in fact even in the relative safety & stability of Monogamist culture have for years been conditioned to avoid as little as thinking about achieving the potential to do so -- how is it that these powers magically appear when they decide to become nonmonogamous?
 
So I googled fidelitous and the definition is "faithful". Of course, that is open to interpretation as well. I guess I agree that it is not a very good word. It all depends on one's agreements.

On the surface, cheating seems pretty straight forward, but there is room for interpretation there as well, especially for people who have discussed agreements. For instance, I don't get the concept of an "emotional affair", yet some people seemed crushed that their partner had one.

Even "open" and "closed" can have different meanings, depending on agreements.

It seems "agreements" is the operative word. I think Ravenscroft is onto something. People avoid talking about agreements because they are just trying to get by...maybe.
 
I have seen infidelity (or affair if you prefer) defined as any emotional or sexual intimacy that violates trust.

I like this definition. It works because it is subjective and every couples' definition will vary, but this short definition has the capacity to change its meaning depending on the monogamous couple. I am less sure if the definition still holds in polyamory.
 
Part of the issue as I see it is a concept that I've harped on before, which is an excessive mentality that the Truth as one human sees it, is The Objective Truth, and only "those wrong, sick, or messed up, immoral people" live any other way.

I have never understood why so many cling to this, it seems like it would be a massive headache to constantly have to judge everybody who shows even the slightest diversity of thought or aberration of behavior, but apparently that's what folks do.

My ex was one who was obsessed with the notion that his partners would always cheat eventually, somehow, and was on guard, paranoid, on the lookout for it. He will say that he is THE paragon of virtue when it comes to loyalty, honor, and integrity, and no one can match him in this, ESPECIALLY not a woman. So years and years ago, I had an interaction with a young man who was a bajillion miles away and across an ocean, online, where I was mostly exercising my brain in writing smut for him to enjoy, while trying to also boost his confidence in himself so he'd go out and make more music and make more human connections. That was classed as an emotional affair and caused a massive explosion where he tried to put me out of the house, and required a huge display of contrition and for me to take his (rather abusive) "punishment" and not be trusted for a period of time, for him to come to grips with the whole thing. I had to heavily explain, justify and disclaimer every conversation or interaction with any other male in the world for him to be accepting that I was not about to stray.

But I was "allowed" to have as much sex as I wanted with another woman if I so chose, because women "didn't count." So he said.

And this was "duh of course" to him. It was just something that, had I the proper amount of moral fiber, I would just know, without needing it explained to me. That was how "fidelity" was defined to him. He also believes that jealousy is a natural, proper part of any relationship. He wishes that he had a partner who would get jealous of other women coming on to him. The fact that I had told him numerous times that I didn't really care if he had sex with other women, so long as he kept his major time and money investments with the family (because, children)...to him, that was proof that I didn't love him. Had I loved him, I would have been ready to fight any other woman who so much as farted in his general direction. Or whatever.

He also says that men and women cannot be platonic friends, unless the man can classify the woman as a "little sister" or unless she is ugly. What she thinks or feels in the interaction is not considered. It doesn't matter. The man's thought processes define the interaction. Because of course.

He is quick to defend and justify when men cheat, and quick to vilify women who do. He sees men as people, and women as strange and frightening "other" creatures. Not really people. I'm still recovering from the psychological harm from living with this mentality and trying to remind myself that most men don't necessarily think as he does. Although he was always quick to tell me, when we disagreed, that he talked to his male buddies and they all agree that his way is how it is.

But he is a glaring example to me of someone who brings a set of strongly held beliefs to a relationship, and simply tries to shoehorn a partner into a mold of his making. And I see lots of people, even if their mentalities aren't necessarily quite so toxic, doing more or less the same. I see this form of "fidelity" as nearly a kind of insanity...and I want nothing to do with it.
 
Hey Spork. Your ex sounds fairly narcissistic. He also seems to be rather sexist and misogynistic. I hope he's changed his thinking since you left him.

Excluding people like your ex, I still feel I like the (monogamous) definition of infidelity as any emotional or sexual intimacy that violates trust.
 
Hey Spork. Your ex sounds fairly narcissistic. He also seems to be rather sexist and misogynistic. I hope he's changed his thinking since you left him.

Excluding people like your ex, I still feel I like the (monogamous) definition of infidelity as any emotional or sexual intimacy that violates trust.

Yes. And while I know that many (most?) men don't think like him, I have seen cultural expectations of masculine behavior in other groups that call for a lot of controlling behavior, and also the Army culture was full of this kind of stuff, and it was not helpful. Those guys are downright cruel to one another sometimes though, if a guy has even a concern or a doubt about anything his wife is doing, his Army "buddies" are happy to fill his head with the worst possibilities and put fuel on the fire of any fears or insecurities he's got.
 
Back
Top