Firstly, if you don’t know much about Quakers, there is a great website about it here and another here. Everything I say about Quakers applies only to Quakers in Britain, and possibly in other areas with a liberal tradition – beliefs and attitudes vary a lot around the world.

Quakers believe there is something of God in everyone (though our definitions of God may vary). This means that every person is valuable and has something unique and precious to offer the world. It follows that we are generally against killing people for any reason, and Quakers have a long history of peace work.

We also have ‘testimonies’, which are principles that we try to live by (though they are not set down in any form of words). The main traditional testimonies are peace, truth/integrity, equality and simplicity, and sustainability/the environment is now becoming established too.

Open Fidelity follows naturally, for me, from the testimony to truth. One aspect of this is that being truthful means accepting the facts even when they are hard to face, and it is a fact (as I’ve said before) that monogamous relationships are difficult for many people, however one might wish they were easy. And a second, more obvious aspect is that we should be honest with our partners.

Another link between Quaker views and Open Fidelity is to take the idea of each person being unique and precious and applying it to sexuality. If we are precious, and we are sexual, then our sexuality is something to be valued and celebrated. I believe strongly that sexuality is part of being human and is thus sacred. And by sacred I don’t mean something to keep for marriage! Note that Quakers don’t often talk in these terms about sexuality in my experience, but I and many of my Quaker friends feel this way of thinking is compatible with Quakerism.

Jesus said we should love our neighbour as ourselves. I’ve heard this interpreted, including in Quaker circles, as meaning we should love ourselves so as better to be able to love others. You may or may not follow everything Jesus is reported to have said, but some of it is great stuff, including this bit. Loving yourself, truly rather than narcissistically, is the basis for being a whole human being. And if you don’t love your sexuality, it will be hard to really love yourself.

But if you value yourself and your sexuality, why should you restrict how you express this by promising to be sexual with only one person? And if you want to live honestly but don’t want to be restricted by monogamy, won’t a promise of monogamy be dishonest?

The principle of equality applies strongly to Open Fidelity. It means that if I want something (such as freedom to have other partners), I have to consider that my partner might also want that, and accept that they have as much right to it as I do. Similarly, if I think I would be hurt to think my partner had cheated on me, I must assume that they would be hurt if I did the same to them. It’s just the basic do-as-you-would-be-done-by principle, otherwise known as the Golden Rule, applied to relationships.

Equality between people of all genders and sexualities is also central to my way of thinking, and it is accepted by most British Quakers, though equality of sexuality isn’t accepted by Quakers in some parts of the world. I believe same-sex relationships to be as valuable as opposite-sex relationships. Of course you can use some of the suggestions I make if you aren’t as convinced of this as I am, but I think you’ll be missing out!

Simplicity and peace aren’t so directly linked to Open Fidelity. Simplicity includes valuing the important things in life, such as love, community, time, the earth, more than things like money, possessions, status and reputation. Open Fidelity fits with this for me – valuing people for themselves rather than their possessions or status. And if more people were sexually fulfilled and stopped fighting each other over sexual jealousy, we might have fewer wars!

The first model is a committed couple who allow each other just sex outside their relationship. For a couple like this, the primary relationship is solid and the relationships with other lovers are of much lesser importance. The ‘flings’ or one-night stands outside the primary relationship give a buzz, a bit of fun, some relief of potential boredom, or just a change.

This first model includes couples who go together to sex parties and swinger’s clubs. Or it might be that one or other of them goes to such events, while the other isn’t interested (but knows about their partner going).

A second model is a couple who are committed primary partners but also have secondary partners. The secondary relationships are romantic and loving and ongoing, but the secondary partners do not share the everyday things in life to the same extent that primary partners do. Everyone knows that the primary relationship always comes first. Sometimes, two people who both have primary partners can be secondary partners to each other.

A third model is a triad or a larger group, in which three or more people form a committed, loving relationship. In these groups, no one couple-relationship is more important than the other couple-relationships. The group usually live together, share their everyday lives and feel committed to stay together as a group.

And the fourth model is an individual who doesn’t have a primary partner but instead has a network of partners with whom they share parts of their lives. This can be like conventional dating, with new lovers coming and going, one-night stands or flings lasting weeks or months, and perhaps some ongoing long-distance lovers. The difference from conventional singles is that the person openly has more than one lover and tells all their lovers this (though they don’t necessarily give details of each lover to the others).

There are many possible variations and combinations of these models. I have come across examples of:

• two committed primary partners who are generally monogamous but to open up their relationship just once and a specific circumstances
• two primary opposite-sex couples where each man is also a secondary partner with each woman from the other couple
• a polyamorous network of partners and lovers where some people have two equal primary partners as well as several secondaries and where friendship and romantic relationships blend into one another
• a committed triad who allow each other casual lovers (as in the first model) or secondary partners (as in their second model)
• a married couple who are searching for a woman to form a triad with (this seems to be very common, though stable triads that form in this way are much rarer)
• a quad in which all members were primary partners to all other members.

Sometimes one kind of set-up will evolve into another: for instance if a secondary partner of one of a couple turns into an equal partner in a triad with both of them. Or a relationship starts off monogamous, then the couple explore opening it up but with strict rules to ensure that any ‘outside sex’ is only casual, and after a while they relax the rules and perhaps meet someone who becomes a secondary partner or form a triad.

Following on from my post on promises, it is important when making promises to work out between you which model of open relationship you would find acceptable and which you are sure you want to rule out. Remember that you and your relationship will evolve and your promises might need to reflect that possibility.

There are three main aspects:

• keeping the promises you make
• avoiding making promises that you don’t think you will be able to keep
• renegotiating your promises rather than breaking them

All three are essential.First of all, if you break a promise you’ll be hurting someone, whether it’s just by inconveniencing them or more seriously by shaking their faith in your trustworthiness. Promises between partners are particularly important because they have chosen to rely on each other more than on other people. If your long-term partner, who you’ve chosen to spend your life with, turns out to be someone you can’t trust to keep their promises, you are going to be pretty upset.

But if anyone says that you should keep every promise, whatever it was and however long ago you made it, they are being very unrealistic. A promise is a prediction of the future. It expresses an intention that you will do something or not do something. None of us can accurately predict the future, though. Circumstances change, and even if you fully intended at the time to do whatever it was, it can become impossible.

Acting honourably involves keeping your promises as far as you can. But when a promise becomes difficult to keep, what can someone do then? They can break the promise and make the excuse that it would have been too difficult to keep it. Or, better, they can renegotiate the promise: say that they are finding it difficult to keep and suggesting an alternative.

But that isn’t all. Someone who promises the world but keeps renegotiating out of their commitments just annoys everyone they deal with, even if they don’t, strictly speaking, break their promises. This situation can be avoided by not makeing promises you don’t think you will be able to keep.

Promising monogamy

This might all seem obvious. But one very common promise is to be monogamous, and we all know how often that is made and broken. It is a promise implied (and sometimes explicitly stated) in the marriage vows, and it is also often implied when two people start to go out with each other and act as a couple.

I have always found it hard to understand how people can promise to love and have sex with only one person for the rest of their lives. Only around half of the people who make this promise go on to break it according to various surveys, so why promise it?

When I was quite young I decided that I was never going to get married, and I think it was because of this issue. Why make a promise I know I probably won’t be able to keep, and thereby risk my own happiness and that of the person I promise monogamy to? I seem to be unusual in this: most people who are lucky enough to find someone they love, who loves them and whom they are legally allowed to marry seem to manage to get married. Why not just swallow my qualms and do the same, Anna?

Well, I for one don’t want to ignore my reservations. I don’t believe I should make a promise I don’t mean to keep, and I don’t think I should try to kid myself that I can definitely be monogamous forever, however wonderful my partner is.

The reason that some people get married or otherwise promise to be monogamous, I suspect, is that it is conventionally required if you want to be with the person you love, get the rights that come with legal marriage and have your relationship sanctioned by society.

But those of us who want to commit to a long-term relationship don’t have to go along with this implied requirement. You can avoid legal marriage, either by not having any kind of ceremony by having a commitment ceremony. Or, if you want to get married and your marriage vows include the word faithfulness, you can make sure it is clear in the ceremony what you mean by this and whether it includes monogamy.

A promise of faithfulness could mean that:

• you will always take your loved ones’ interests into account in your decisions
• you will be honest with them
• you will put them first
• you will tell them whenever you have difficulty keeping any agreements you have with them
• you will renegotiate rather than breaking promises
• you will listen to them, communicate with them, be tolerant and accepting, and to try your best to act lovingly.

All these are things that you can make an effort to do. But promising not to fall in love with someone else, not to be attracted to anyone else, not to fall out of love, never to stop finding your partner sexually attractive – these are things you can’t control, so any such promise

For all those readers who find monogamy difficult: will you join me in refusing to promise it? To do so will be not an admission of weakness but a statement of integrity.