problems I see with polyfidelity

Ravenscroft

Banned
Thismorning, I got curious again. Seems like every possible TLD that begins with polyamory -- like, say, polyamory.com -- has long ago been over. So, I wondered whether polyfidelity had a similar (if smaller) demand.

Turning to Google, I was floored to see, at the top of the page,
Find your Poly Threesome - Find the Love you have wanted
[Ad] www.lovemore.com/conferences/polyliving?
The East Coast's Largest Polyamory Event Is where you can meet your future.
:eek:

So, here we are, fighting against public misperceptions & pernicious stereotypes -- most of them old, tattered, & now reallyREALLY boring to many of us -- & there's Loving More paying for ads that push their "serious" conferences as hookup events for "couples seeking"...

I mean, :(.

In response, I offer the following two bits, in hopes that I've missed something vital here.
 
confusion remains

Amongst people who consider themselves polyfidelitous, I have encountered some who have stated that since polyfidelity and polyamory "are pretty much the same thing," their vision of polyfidelity therefore can be used to define others' practice of polyamory -- in at least one instance denouncing people undertaking sexual relations without intent of lifelong commitment as "immoral."

I need to push against that tide of (potentially self-serving) illogic. And I also feel that superficiality actually prevents any sort of authoritative discussion.

There are questions that may in the end be unanswerable but must in some way be at least publicly mentioned, if not discussed. For instance, is polyfidelity a practice? If so, then people who find the idea interesting but have never actually experienced even a short-lived committed triad aren't polyfidelitous; they should not in any way be considered authoritative in the discussion.

But if polyfidelity is a philosophy, then certainly it can be undertaken not just by those with no actual life experience, but indeed by those who will never actually attempt it and in fact may be purposefully committed to a way of life that explicitly prevents nonmonogamy -- for that matter, may themselves vehemently and publicly condemn all extramarital intimacy (of which sex is but a portion). After all, there's no requirement that someone who "embraces a philosophy" thereby actually applies it to daily life.

Perhaps it is a weltanschauung, a world view. But even that Underhill divides into five categories: "world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and perspective."

How are those couples who are actively "seeking" the same as those who aren't? and how is it that hopeful singles are on the same ground as a statutorially married couple? For that matter, how is it that an unattached single person can be the same as one in a "committed" and "monogamous" marriage who secretly harbors hopes of "finding a third"?

Like both polyamory and monogamy, there is no "acid test" for polyfidelity: people are free to grab hold of the term and subsequently do whatever the hell they desire -- even claim that their actions are "part of polyfidelity" -- and there is no clear common set of standards (much less some sort of Standards Committee) that can be applied to establish the utterer's credibility. There is no standardized curriculum, much less any sort of widely accepted basic seminar or such.

There is apparently no established meeting place for those actually involved in polyfidelitous relationships. This suggests a root

misapprehension that somehow polyfidelity is an all-correcting mindset, perhaps even a faith not unlike the "salvation of grace" provided by evangelicalism, but rather than coming together in mutual support and to assist one another through inevitable difficulties, those who claim polyfidelityseem dedicated against wider community with peers. As more than one couple has said, "we're only here until we find our third."

(Lacking stable definition, there can be no remotely-reliable estimates of how many people "are polyfidelitous.")

In the end, the term "polyfidelity" (and its various conjugations and alternatives) is divisive -- in my opinion, its only purpose is to somehow set it off from ''polyamory'' even though closed-boundary polyamory is apparently a perfectly acceptable definition. This seems to intentionally (if unconsciously) create an opening for moralizing and a sense of superiority, with no burden to prove any basis.
 
the "fluid bond" superstition

Years ago, a triad created an organization (Polyfidelitous Educational Products) and a newsletter (PEPtalk) as a means of supporting sales of their self-published book, originally known as The Polyfidelity Primer but also appearing as The New Faithful: a polyfidelity primer and Loving More: the polyfidelity primer.

A claim made in the books was Polyfidelity is AIDS-safe! This was in fact a section heading and appeared in page headings.

This claim was problematic, being based in multiple assumptions that have always been blatantly faulty if not outright false.

The only way that "relative safety regarding STDs" can reflect any faint reality is if two conditions are met:
(1) everyone involved has NEVER EVER been physically intimate with any other person -- for instance, even being kissed once by Grandma might have passed herpes simplex
AND
(2) none of the people involved CAN EVER be physically intimate with any person outside the relational walls.

As an old aphorism has it that "liars lie, cheater cheat." Ongoing polling by NORC finds that today "about 15% to 18% of ever-married people have had a sexual partner other than their spouse while married" and "23 percent of men [have at some point] engaged in sex outside of marriage."

There's also indication that experiencing intimacy outside of (or after) a first committed monogamous relationship will significantly increase likelihood of further (possibly secretive) explorations: "Only 10 percent of married individuals engaged in sex outside of marriage while 23 percent of remarried, 31 percent of currently divorced and 38 percent of currently separated people reported having extramarital sex."

(No, I have no idea how the numbers manage to line up, but NORC can be somewhat byzantine in its logic.)

Unless polyfidelitous people are approaching sainthood, there's little reason to believe other than that almost one-fourth of the males have had extramarital sex, therefore not only are claims to "relative safety" at best questionable, but this likelihood increases with both experience and expanded awareness.

At root, the fact remains that there is no way to establish that any person is "STD free" (consider the occasional hysteria evoked by HPV, so any such claims inherently rely upon self-reporting, and a huge amount of faith. And here a further problem arises: for a number of people (and supposedly increasing), something that is "faith based" is set up as the diametric opposite of "reality based" and in fact made superior by not needing substantiation beyond blind trust -- in a leader, brain trust of elders, ideology, etc.

Just as there are those who believe that claiming to the doctrine of polyamory automatically lends skill at ionterpersonal communication (often claimed as a core necessity of successful polyamorous relating), there are those who believe that claiming to polyfidelity grants all the benefits including utter lack of STD risk and no worries about extracurricular sex.

I cannot see where "polyfidelity" comes anywhere close to being a substantive ideology. Therefore, it is at best a poor basis for faith -- ironic, considering the term's suffix.

And if (as indicated in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere) the primary "advantage" driving people to seek polyfidelity is the belief that it's a main (the only?) route to achieve "fluid bonding" which therefore will make them all "relatively safe regarding STDs"... well, that'd be a lie.
 
addendum to previous --

I forgot to add:

Many (most?) people who seek after polyfidelity have had experience ONLY with monogamy -- rather, with monogamy-as-practiced, which is deeply flawed.

Firstly, their interpersonal communication skills are likely poor. There have in fact been studies showing that married people, particularly the males, communicate much more openly & honestly with just about anyone except their spouse.

Without experience otherwise, or any need to publicly defend this lack, I therefore feel safe predicting it'll be trucked along into nonmonogamy, along with a bunch of other failed Monogamist baggage.

Along will certainly come an inability to speak about feelings of attraction toward other people not eligible for entrance into their particular "marriage plus" situation. This will (IMO) lead to all sorts of self-doubt, guilt, resentment, acting out, etc.

And I see no reason to believe that any difficulties (such as communication) will be improved by bringing in one or more equally unskilled participants.
 
Hi Ravenscroft,
I agree that what you describe seem to be common misconceptions and common problems.

I think though, something you might be missing (or at least, isn't mentioned explicitly in your posts) is, that many people have a genuine desire for fidelity, or at least, the desire to step out of a fidelitous relationship is scarce for them. What we often get is situational polyfidelity (as opposed to actively sought out) - people meet, people fall in love, and maybe there's more than two of them. They decide to close the relationship, because they have little desire to experiment and there's life going on. Perhaps with the possibility to reconsider later. Or not, if that's what everyone desires.

There's a price to deep intimacy, and this price is real vulnerability. For some it takes genuine effort and a scarce concurrence of circumstances to fall in love and establish intimacy. Fidelity may grow out of knowing how precios the relationship is. Or of a desire to belong. Ironically, non of the above precludes the ability to be in love with two people at once.
 
Newbie 10 Cents

While I don't have a checklist of successes to back up this opinion, I agree with Tinwen. I'm going to weigh in mainly because this seems levied at people like me, dubious as that abstraction may be. Maybe some people just desire fidelity. The prevailing advice no matter where we went before my triad started was that everyone needs to establish their boundaries and expectations. This "consensus" in my opinion, is what makes a relationship consensual.

First though, let me make a clarification between extramarital affair/cheating and dishonesty. My personal preference for polyfidelity stems from a desire for honesty. Infidelity doesn't bother so much as the ship it sails on, dishonesty, manipulation. I communicate very well in a relationship, form deep connections, and treat my partners needs with the utmost respect and attention. Authenticity, what I think people truly love in another person, comes at the price of extreme vulnerability. So polyamory is also okay as long as its built on honesty and open communication.

I have this connection with one person and both myself and that person developed this connection with another person before sex was ever on the table. She falls in love with her, her falls in love with us, I fall in love with her, Us falls in love with her. When all 4 of these pieces of that equation were equal, there was an understanding that this new person in our lives belonged closer than she was.

The three of us did not fall in love easily. Maybe one day the three of us may love another in whole or part but love was immensely difficult for two of us, and felt near impossible for three of us, but it happened. The closed-boundary or "polyfidelic" relationship is just a name we put on a box. Relationships are needs based, relationships are risky at times, and because of that relationships are designed to maximize our needs and minimize our risks. We are in love, we are parents, and we are long past sewing wild oats. So for us fidelity was mutually desired by all parties. Situationally appropriate to quote Tinwen.
 
The three of us did not fall in love easily. Maybe one day the three of us may love another in whole or part but love was immensely difficult for two of us, and felt near impossible for three of us, but it happened. The closed-boundary or "polyfidelic" relationship is just a name we put on a box. Relationships are needs based, relationships are risky at times, and because of that relationships are designed to maximize our needs and minimize our risks. We are in love, we are parents, and we are long past sewing wild oats. So for us fidelity was mutually desired by all parties.

I am NOT polyfidelic, but on the surface it may seem that I am functionally so since I rarely "seek out" other partners. I, personally, do NOT fall in love easily (have done it twice in my life) although sex-without-love, preferably with attraction-and-friendship, is easy and enjoyable for me. When Lotus asked for the me-Dude-her portion of our network to temporarily "close" to new partners, it was a request that I agreed to but ONLY if it were temporary and ONLY if it could be discussed if "special circumstances" arose. It took 19 YEARS for lightening to strike a second time - I wouldn't want to miss out on the NEXT love-of-my-life:rolleyes:.

I think though, something you might be missing (or at least, isn't mentioned explicitly in your posts) is, that many people have a genuine desire for fidelity, or at least, the desire to step out of a fidelitous relationship is scarce for them. What we often get is situational polyfidelity (as opposed to actively sought out) - people meet, people fall in love, and maybe there's more than two of them. They decide to close the relationship, because they have little desire to experiment and there's life going on. Perhaps with the possibility to reconsider later. Or not, if that's what everyone desires.

There's a price to deep intimacy, and this price is real vulnerability. For some it takes genuine effort and a scarce concurrence of circumstances to fall in love and establish intimacy. Fidelity may grow out of knowing how precios the relationship is. Or of a desire to belong. Ironically, non of the above precludes the ability to be in love with two people at once.

Interesting, because, to me, the rarity of the "falling in love" is one of the reasons that I will always want "open" to be our default. MrS, I think, feels the same way. Although he has never really taken advantage of our "open and poly" marriage, he appreciates that, should the occasion ever arise, it is available to him.

(Dude "falls in love" at the drop of a hat - or her pants as the case may be - so polyfi holds ZERO attraction for him long-term - but he was more willing than I to "close" for a period of time so Lotus could adjust.)
 
Relationships are needs based, relationships are risky at times, and because of that relationships are designed to maximize our needs and minimize our risks. We are in love, we are parents, and we are long past sewing wild oats. So for us fidelity was mutually desired by all parties. Situationally appropriate to quote Tinwen.
I think this second to last sentence is part of the issue I personally have with the world view of a lot of people who are into poly fidelity (sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you Cardinal, I'm not, you just provided the words that made me think of this). Just because I don't identify as being polyfi doesn't mean I'm out there shagging anything that moves just because I can. I've been in an open marriage for a little over 8 years. I married young to the only person that I'd had PIV sex with (we both were each other's first time, though I did, while we were dating, with his knowledge and consent, have oral sex with someone else). In the past 8 years, I've added maybe 10 new partners to that list. I haven't had any new partners in the last 3 years (sexual or romantic) and right now I only have one partner that I have sex with, though I do have two romantic partners, my husband and my dom.

So this whole idea that if you aren't willing to be polyfi, you're just playing around bothers me. The worst case I've come across is a guy I went on a few dates with who later slut shamed me because on our second date we made out, most of which was him initiating it, like pulling me into his lap and pulling my top up to get better access to my breasts. When he finally told me the reason he didn't want to get together again, after months of leading me on, it was all about the fact that I am way too sexual way too early and that he just isn't into that. A few years later, he described the incident that happened on our second date on a Facebook poly group we're both on, in answer to a question about how soon you are comfortable having sex, and you'd think, from his description, that he just sat there while I essentially tried to molest him.

I've met people who are polyfi because it's what works best for them and I have no issues with that. I start having issues when polyfi becomes this philosophy of "you're not really serious about your partners and you are less evolved if you aren't polyfi."
 
Last edited:
I've struggled with the terminology since before the first time I exchanged letters with Kerista & with Ryam Nearing. :cool: Our extended community gave up on "polyfidelity," as both a word & a practice, back around 1983, preferring responsible nonmonogamy. Here's a few reasons, off the top of my head.
  • in all those years, I have yet to find a singular definition of FIDELITY that is simple, thoroughgoing, consistent, & generally accepted. As a result, people who whip it out are often speaking right past each other, & this seems to make them all self-congratulatory for no objective reason.
  • if by "fidelity" people actually mean "sexual limitation," then why not cease being mealy-mouthed about it & just SAY SO...?
  • how is it that "fidelitous" & "faithful" supposedly mean the same exact thing?
  • this "faith" stuff doesn't sit well with many Wiccans, & even some Christians have pointed out that "faith" in anything not churchly (God, Jesus, Mary, etc.) is a sin & possibly heresy. Can it be demonstrated that Jesus approves of polyfidelity...? :D
  • why is FAITH necessary at all? What's wrong with... hmm... common sense... logic... communication... self-awareness... empathy...?
  • is sex or masturbation while fantasizing about others a violation of "fidelity"?
  • what is the treatment (punishment?) for finding someone attractive without attempting to goat-rope them into the family?
  • what is attractive about a belief that -- by its very name -- claims it's somehow the ONLY way to achieve self-control?
  • how is that morally superior self-control PROVEN if there's no central regulating council or certification board or synodical government or such?
  • as polyfidelity is commonly presented as THE superior form of nonmonogamy because of the discipline required to rein in base animalistic desires for sweaty monkey SEX... then isn't polyfidelity clearly inferior to monogamy?
  • how is it that someone who's got one sexual partner, or is asexual, & really desires no one else, but claims to polyamory, is ethically (& likely morally) inferior to someone who claims polyfidelity?
  • & as more than a few polyfidelitous people have indeed had sex outside of their primary relationship(s), have they thereby forever relinquished any right to claim "fidelity"? or are they allowed to become "born-again virgins"? how often? how many times?
 
Last edited:
Abstraction

I think this second to last sentence is part of the issue I personally have with the world view of a lot of people who are into poly fidelity (sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you Cardinal, I'm not, you just provided the words that made me think of this). Just because I don't identify as being polyfi doesn't mean I'm out there shagging anything that moves just because I can.

"you're not really serious about your partners and you are less evolved if you aren't polyfi."

I read a very stirring dissertation in college about the concept of abstraction and how it was the root of all evil. For some reason, as a community, and within our communities, the human culture has this need to label things:
Gay, straight, monogamous, polyamorous, polyfidelic, trans, hes feminine, shes butch. These are merely abstractions to label things we don't understand in a way that we think we understand. By turning anything but our own complex beliefs into an abstraction it protects us from change. Human nature does not like dissonance.

On a biological level our sexual preference and our sexual identity occur on spectrums. One size does definitely not fit all. Your relationship means what you want it to mean because we tailor them that way. My needs are not your needs and your needs are not my needs.

I think the core of this problem is that there is a need for community and language needs to be universally understood for communities to thrive. You cannot arbitrarily label something as complex as relationships, sexual identity, and sexual preference. I label my triad as polyfidelic to foster understanding within it. I don't seek to impose the meaning of that label on someone else. Conversely I don't often make distinctions between friendship, relationship, girlfriend, boyfriend. We are all in a relationship with everyone around us, but I like to imagine that also occurs on a spectrum that isnt 2d and linear or easily understood. All labels are situational, all labels are abstraction. That doesn't mean they arise from a desire to marginalize others with similar beliefs but different practices, such a degradation belongs more closely with religion than biology.

I'm not going to run out and start an open boundary relationship, but I support you if that's what you chose to do because polyamory makes more sense to me than monogamy.
 
I don't see polyfidelity as being any better or worse than polyamory in general (and I do tend to think of polyfidelity as a subset).
 
So this whole idea that if you aren't willing to be polyfi, you're just playing around bothers me... I start having issues when polyfi becomes this philosophy of "you're not really serious about your partners and you are less evolved if you aren't polyfi."

And well you should have an issue with this. What fractured community exists between poly folk, can only be injured by these "that ain't REAL poly" proclamations. I don't personally feel like this is the stance that Cardinal was taking, but I see how you got there with the "sewing wild oats" comment.

Polyamory is a huge umbrella under another huge umbrella of non-monogamy. There is a lot of room for difference under it, some of the differences I respect, while some of them I think are pretty gross, but in the end it's still polyamory which means it's being done "right" within the context of the people practicing it.

I don't see polyfidelity as being any better or worse than polyamory in general (and I do tend to think of polyfidelity as a subset).

I like the hyphenated poly descriptors, it reduces the need for the afore mentioned "that ain't REAL poly" yodels.

Having said that, I for one am against exclusivity agreements on interpersonal relationships, in any form I can think of. I don't tend to seek out lots of partners so I can appear to be 'coupled up' with a person. However, this is just how it looks at the moment. Exclusivity agreements run in direct conflict with my sense of autonomy.
 
And well you should have an issue with this. What fractured community exists between poly folk, can only be injured by these "that ain't REAL poly" proclamations. I don't personally feel like this is the stance that Cardinal was taking, but I see how you got there with the "sewing wild oats" comment.

I know that Cardinal wasn't taking the stance of polyfi being the only real way to do poly, which is why I added the part about not picking on him, that his wording was what sparked the thought. However, that may have been easy to miss, since it was an aside. I have absolutely no issues with people who decide that polyfi is what works for them and allow other people to decide what works for them without judgements. I'm sorry, Cardinal, if I wasn't clear that your wording was just the jumping off point for expression of the thoughts it triggered and that I didn't feel like you fit into the group of people I have issues with.
 
The problem with poly fi is that it's monogamy with one or two extra people.

They use the same logic and arguments to justify their case. IMO it's sort of poly lite.

I'm sure I'm wrong and can't wait to ripped for my opinion....let the games begin :D
 
So I am doing poly lite because I am polyfi?

All because I have agreed not to have sex outside my marriages to my husbands. I am not being told that I couldn't seek out other partners, but I don't want to.nor do I am an urge to add more partners.

My husbands could date other people if they wanted but they dont.

So I guess the 5 years I have successfully been building an equal life with both my guys doesn't count as full poly since I don't have a revolving cast of lovers or metamours going in and out of my life. All because ai am content to be faithful to the men I love more than life itself.
 
The problem with poly fi is that it's monogamy with one or two extra people.

They use the same logic and arguments to justify their case. IMO it's sort of poly lite.

I'm sure I'm wrong and can't wait to ripped for my opinion....let the games begin :D

I've always felt similarly about the closed or highly restrictive poly styles. It seems to me to grandfather in some of the issues that made me decide I wasn't monogamous in the first place. Seems like a missed opportunity.

Granted, it doesn't matter. My opinion about poly-fi, DADT, team dating, nesting... doesn't make any difference. It's their lives so they should get busy living them /shrug.
 
So what if I am practicing "poly lite?" if it works for me? How am I bothering any of you?
 
So I am doing poly lite because I am polyfi?

All because I have agreed not to have sex outside my marriages to my husbands. I am not being told that I couldn't seek out other partners, but I don't want to.nor do I am an urge to add more partners.

My husbands could date other people if they wanted but they dont.

So I guess the 5 years I have successfully been building an equal life with both my guys doesn't count as full poly since I don't have a revolving cast of lovers or metamours going in and out of my life. All because ai am content to be faithful to the men I love more than life itself.

It could be argued that you are not "polyfi" because that isn't the relationship structure you have agreed to. It has just worked out that way, giving the appearance of polyfi.

At any rate, you don't seem to be the type of person to judge other relationships based solely on your own ideals.
 
It would definitely be condescending to dismiss the kind of relationships that Dagferi and Kevin are having as "poly lite" just because the people in them are choosing not to date outside of their respective Vee relationships.

But that's not the polyfidelity that dingedheart & Marcus, etc, are talking about. They are talking about this phenomenon:

--when newbies (especially couples) declare that they are looking for a closed triad, a closed quad, a polyfi group marriage, etc, but they haven't even met anyone to date yet and they are just imagining this is their "ideal"

--when a hetero couple has just started dating "their girlfriend" and they declare (often without actually talking to their girlfriend about it) that of course the whole triad is polyfi and of course everyone's needs are being met and of course there is no reason anyone in their triad would want to date anyone else

--when poly people in some sort of closed relationship configuration feel the need to declare publicly that they are closed & want everyone to know they practice polyfidelity because poly isn't about sex! it's about love! and they all don't need any outside sex! because love! and they don't even need any more outside love because they already have so much love!

This line of thinking is an extension of monogamous thinking: "When I meet my one true love, I won't need anyone else!" For a poly person, it's "when I meet my two/three/four true loves, I won't need anyone else, and NONE OF US will need anyone else and WE WILL ALL be very happy in a closed arrangement!"

That sort of attitude initially made me very skeptical of polyamory, until I realized there were MANY other ways of doing it.

To me, that sort of polyfidelity is based on traditional monogamy's fears. Fear of freedom, fear of your partners' autonomy, fear of STI risk, fear that people will judge you for being promiscuous. To me, that sort of polyfidelity sounds just as controlling as monogamy, but MUCH more difficult because of all the people involved. (It also seems conceptually flawed since it seems to demand fidelity IMMEDIATELY and skip over the part where people can date without expectations). It frankly makes me want to run screaming.

That is NOT how I feel about poly people who just happen to not be dating outside of their established relationships, or are "polysaturated" with their committed partners. Dagferi and Kevin, for example, often say that they/their partners could decide to seek out others if they chose to do so (and let their partners know, of course). That sounds to me more like conscious monogamy (as opposed to default, control-based monogamy), just with more people. (And it sounds perfectly fine and is definitely "real" poly, not that you need my opinion to validate your relationships!)

I personally would most likely not have the energy to sustain more than two relationships. So I might choose to stop seeking other connections if I find myself in such a situation. But I have no expectations for what my partner and my (hypothetical) other partner would want to do. Maybe everyone would choose to stop dating new people at some point--but I would never call that polyfidelity, because the concept of polyfidelity really bothers me, for the reasons stated above.
 
It could be argued that you are not "polyfi" because that isn't the relationship structure you have agreed to. It has just worked out that way, giving the appearance of polyfi.

At any rate, you don't seem to be the type of person to judge other relationships based solely on your own ideals.

Yes I did agree to be polyfi. One of my husbands have expressed that if I date or seek out others that they probably will end our relationship. Luckily I have no urge or need for other partners. He has no issues with my other husband.

You are right I could care less what others do in their relationships. People can date as many partners as they want as far as I am concerned.
 
Back
Top