problems I see with polyfidelity

Gary said:
I agree Tinwen. I like the simpler definition of polyamory the best. Wikipedia does a pretty good job with the definition.

"Polyamory is typically the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of all partners."

For me the most important aspect of the term is having more than one partner with full knowledge and consent. In practice of course the large variety of configurations, lifestyles, open vs closed, hidden vs in the open, living together or apart, all come down to individual preference based on the needs and desires of the members of the group. I think the variations are irrelevant. I think the honesty of full knowledge and consensual is the key in whatever configuration is chosen.
Click to expand...

While I am still relatively new to poly, this thought seems to sum it up fairly well from my perspective. If there are multiple loving partners (or desire for) with the knowledge and consent of all - it is poly - by definition. As I have seen and heard many times already - there is no one right way to do poly. Granted - within the poly universe, there are varieties - hierarchical, relationship anarchy, poly-fi, closed triads and quads, etc - but - it seems to me - that they are all poly by definition. I don't know that one should be labeled "more poly" or "pure poly" either - just a matter of preference, it seems to me.
 
Re (from Ravenscroft):
"How many times have you socialized with or attended get-togethers of *only* other polyfidelitous people?"
Click to expand...

None. Though I attribute that to polyfidelity not being very common. Unless we're talking about unicorn hunters, but I consider that to be a little bit different.

Re (from Ravenscroft):
"How exactly is 'polyfidelity' different from 'group marriage?'"
Click to expand...

I don't know if polyfidelity is different from group marriage. Depending on context, maybe they are both the same. I consider the V I am in to be pretty much a group marriage, even though I refer to it more often as polyfidelity. It depends on how the people feel who are in it, if that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Polyfidelity is certainly a type of polyamory! It's both silly and condescending to declare that someone in a 4-person relationship configuration is NOT really polyamorous, or not doing "real" poly, just because the relationship(s) is (are) closed.

For me, it's useful to think of a spectrum from monogamy to polyamory.* Polyfidelity is certainly closer to the monogamy end of the spectrum. (And there's nothing wrong with that...people who thrive in monogamous relationships would want to find a form of poly that's closer to monogamy. Other people would want something farther out on the poly spectrum).

*Possibly relationship anarchy would be at the far poly end of the spectrum? (I guess that's a topic for the other thread on relationship anarchy...although I have also heard relationship described as a "third point" or third option, as a sort of triangle where mono or poly are the other two choices.)
 
MeeraReed said:
For me, it's useful to think of a spectrum from monogamy to polyamory.* Polyfidelity is certainly closer to the monogamy end of the spectrum. (And there's nothing wrong with that...people who thrive in monogamous relationships would want to find a form of poly that's closer to monogamy. Other people would want something farther out on the poly spectrum).

*Possibly relationship anarchy would be at the far poly end of the spectrum? (I guess that's a topic for the other thread on relationship anarchy...although I have also heard relationship described as a "third point" or third option, as a sort of triangle where mono or poly are the other two choices.)
Click to expand...

For me, the spectrum between monogamy and polyamory is not very descriptive. The Spectrum of Relationship Control more accurately represents the difference that I see actually being the distinguishing factor between relationship types.



That's a pretty interesting article, for anyone who hasn't read it yet.
 
Marcus said:
For me, the spectrum between monogamy and polyamory is not very descriptive. The Spectrum of Relationship Control more accurately represents the difference that I see actually being the distinguishing factor between relationship types.



That's a pretty interesting article, for anyone who hasn't read it yet.
Click to expand...

Well if that diagram is what you are using to define the spectrum, I agree it's not very descriptive.

I see the spectrum as a line between two points. That line is made up of individual points. Each point represents a "type" of non-monogamy between monogamy and what people call relationship anarchy. Using the diagram you posted, I fall on a point somewhere between egalitarian polyamory and relationship anarchy.

Currently I am solo poly. I don't see that changing. However, I can see possibly being in something that resembles polyfi in the future. I already know I have a saturation level. For argument' sake, let's make that two. So if I am in a relationship with two people who are also at their saturation level, and we all agree we are not seeking more, that is a form of polyfi. But that form isn't rooted in monogamy. That also doesn't mean I have to view one of them as an anchor partner.

As to whether polyfi is polyamory, I say it is. It doesn't really matter what it resembles. It is people who have a loving relationship with more than one person. I'm not really a person hung up on labels. I guess you could say I practice "label anarchy".
 
Thanks, Marcus! The article you linked is very interesting and articulates a lot of own thoughts about relationships (although it comes with a disclaimer stating that the author had some sort of falling-out with their "quint household" and was apparently accused of abusive behavior and sexual assault).

This part of the article in particular seems most relevant to this thread:

"I think that, when most of us get involved in the poly community, we’re looking for like-minded people who share our philosophy on relationships. The problem is that those of us on the right of the spectrum have very little in common with polyamorous people on the left of the spectrum (and actually much more in common with skeptically monogamous people on the right of the spectrum). So long as we have no way of communicating our level of control in our relationships, these disagreements are going to continue.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s important for people to be exposed to other perspectives. Particularly, I think newer poly people (who tend to be further on the left of the spectrum) benefit enormously from the perspectives of more experienced poly people (who tend to be further to the right on the spectrum). It’s important for people to see examples of sustainable relationships and how they operate. I’m also not a fan of exclusion, so I’m not advocating forming communities that keep anyone out."

The writer is arguing that our disagreement about whether polyfidelity is a type of polyamory or not, is actually based in a lack of a rich enough vocabulary to describe various relationship styles adequately.

That makes a lot of sense to me--the problem is not "labels," but that there aren't ENOUGH different or adequate labels.
 
MeeraReed said:
The writer is arguing that our disagreement about whether polyfidelity is a type of polyamory or not, is actually based in a lack of a rich enough vocabulary to describe various relationship styles adequately.

That makes a lot of sense to me--the problem is not "labels," but that there aren't ENOUGH different or adequate labels.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting article and it links out to a couple of other great articles.

Personally I take out of it that, the issue with our disagreement about "what is poly" and those types of conversations is that we are framing the question incorrectly. We're trying to put relationships on the monogamy-polyamory spectrum, and it's just not a helpful way to consider the differences between relationships. How many partners a person has says far less about their relationship style than some other factors (control being primary among them).
 
Marcus said:
For me, the spectrum between monogamy and polyamory is not very descriptive. The Spectrum of Relationship Control more accurately represents the difference that I see actually being the distinguishing factor between relationship types.



That's a pretty interesting article, for anyone who hasn't read it yet.
Click to expand...

Personally, I find the proposal to make a blanket statement that traditional monogamy is only one step removed from a master-slave model to be a simplistic, condescending judgmental stereotype, and insulting to all those monogamous couples who make the choice for monogamy and are together because of mutual love and respect. Control and jealousy are not necessarily implicit in monogamy. I personally know a number of couples in a healthy monogamous marriages where control and jealousy are not an issue on either side - fidelity is a mutual decision.

The rest of the spectrum - absent equating monogamy with the master/salve model - seems to make sense from my perspective.
 
Al99 said:
Personally, I find the proposal to make a blanket statement that traditional monogamy is only one step removed from a master-slave model to be a simplistic, condescending judgmental stereotype, and insulting to all those monogamous couples who make the choice for monogamy and are together because of mutual love and respect. Control and jealousy are not necessarily implicit in monogamy. I personally know a number of couples in a healthy monogamous marriages where control and jealousy are not an issue on either side - fidelity is a mutual decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks for saying that :)

It's actually the same we're discussing here with polyfidelity - does it grow out of insecurity and controll, or is it a lifestyle choice for everyone involved? Two different things, and it's stereotyping at best to assume the first option always.
The rest of the spectrum - absent equating monogamy with the master/salve model - seems to make sense from my perspective.
Click to expand...
To me, it doesn't. I'm fairly convinced there are people who are more "monogamish" in terms of allowing outside romantic feelings, but not sex. There's not really a reason to put polyamory further away from monogamy then swinging.
I've seen someone here propose a two axis graph - sexual openness and romantic openness - which makes slightly more sense to me.
The "control involved" axis doesn't speak to me much (but that's just me).
 
Al99 said:
Personally, I find the proposal to make a blanket statement that traditional monogamy is only one step removed from a master-slave model to be a simplistic, condescending judgmental stereotype, and insulting to all those monogamous couples who make the choice for monogamy and are together because of mutual love and respect.
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with your statement that this is what the diagram is attempting to do, it does bring up the point that there could easily be improvements made to the idea. Granted, this diagram isn't trying to list out every possible entry on the spectrum (obviously), but more trying to get the idea across and using the commonly accepted generalizations.

Personally if I decided to recreate the diagram, I would build off of this initial premise by listing sets of behaviors instead of relationship types. This way it would be more concise, and wouldn't cause distracting arguments about which configuration is better than the other.
 
Re (from article):
"I think newer poly people (who tend to be further on the left of the spectrum) benefit enormously from the perspectives of more experienced poly people (who tend to be further to the right on the spectrum)."
Click to expand...

I guess I'll probably outgrow polyfidelity once I become more experienced. Not sure long that'll take, I've been polyfidelitous for a little over twelve years so far. Maybe I'm a slow learner? [/sarcasm]
 
I'm sure someone who's been practicing RA for a couple of weeks would be happy to talk you through it if you ask.
 
kdt26417 said:
Re (from article):

I guess I'll probably outgrow polyfidelity once I become more experienced. Not sure long that'll take, I've been polyfidelitous for a little over twelve years so far. Maybe I'm a slow learner? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I saw that too. It's unfortunate that perspectives like that drip into what could otherwise be a very constructive conversation. I'm sure this guy thought he was being perfectly reasonable, even though he was straight up slamming people who have exclusivity agreements.

I guess we can't help ourselves, I'm sure I've done it too. Perspective is a powerful thing; can make us careless.
 
@ ArtemisHunt ... I'm not sure what you mean?

Re (from Marcus):
"I'm sure this guy thought he was being perfectly reasonable, even though he was straight up slamming people who have exclusivity agreements."
Click to expand...

-- Thank you.
 
I'm thinking mostly of the difference between a group that does not set their relationship structure as fidelity by mutual agreement but just happens to be functioning that way in practice and a group that officially structures and arranges their group as fidelity/makes a fidelity agreement
 
I'd say my V pretty much officially has a fidelity agreement, although the agreement is easy to honor and you could almost say we just happen to function that way. (Hopefully that answers your question from my end.)
 
Pretty much.

I ask because I often hear that "fidelity is natural for us" and I can't help but think, "If that's the case, why the need for an agreement? Wouldn't it just happen naturally in the absence of an agreement?"

Functionally it may be the same, but in my mind I see a big difference in formalizing a fidelity agreement as a plan for relationship structure and naturally occurring fidelity, and have a hard time buying the argument that "we have the agreement because we would do it naturally"
 
Ah, I see your point. Why do I (we) have a formal fidelity agreement? Tricky question. We like the benefits of fidelity but maybe the formal agreement nudges us onto the same page. We are reassuring each other of what we can expect from each other.

Hopefully that helps, though I have to admit I'll have to think more about your question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top