Comments for Open Fidelity

Comment on Kinds of Open Fidelity by AnnaS

AnnaS — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:19:30 +0000

Hi Kim

Wow, that’s an interesting arrangement! I haven’t heard of anything similar, no, and I haven’t seen it written about. Having said that, I would think that the main principles still apply, so any of the books I recommend on the right would still be useful. Anthony Ravenscroft’s “Polyamory: Roadmaps for the clueless and hopeful” has a lot of detailed discussion for people who are already in poly relationships, so that might be the most appropriate book.

Hope that helps, and good luck in managing the complications!

Comment on Kinds of Open Fidelity by Kim de Vries

Kim de Vries — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:25:46 +0000

Hi Anna,

Just found your blog and find it very interesting. I’m involved in an even more complicated model; if you know anyone who has written about the kind of network I’ll describe, do let me know where to find them!

My husband and I are involved with two other couples; one of the other men is my BF and his wife is my husband’s GF. They have a similar relationship with the third couple, and I have started developing a relationship with that fellow, and my husband and his wife are interested in each other as well. And, (if this weren’t enough) all three of us women are at least a little bi and are somewhat involved with each other, though that hasn’t gone very far yet.

Mostly it feels great, but sometimes it feels very complicated and hard to balance. Suggestions of resources would be great. Most poly books and sites I’ve looked at seem to be about the first and second models, or occasionally triads.

Thanks!

Comment on Open Fidelity and Quakerism by AnnaS

AnnaS — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:36:07 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Danny. I can’t say whether Quakerism would be right for you, but my experience in Britain is that it is more accepting of gay, bi and poly people than nearly any other religious group. Quakers do vary round the world, though, and some groups might be less accepting. In the US in particular there are liberal Quaker groups and more evangelical ones.

Good luck!

Comment on Open Fidelity and Quakerism by DannyR

DannyR — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:57:35 +0000

Hi!! Thanks for this article…

I’ve often thought about investigating whether being a Friend would be right for me… growing up I was told that they were heretics (I’m from a strong pentecostal background), however as an adult I actually met a wonderful woman named Betty through my job as a caregiver, and she was hands-down one of the the most peaceful, gentle, welcoming and considerate people I’ve ever met.

Being gay, I kind of lost my faith when religious folk told me I could only have one or the other, but Betty helped me see that it ain’t necessarily so. I’m beginning to re-examine my options, having a far better sense of myself as bisexual and polyamorous, and it’s nice to see people talking through how these things might all fit together.

Keep it up… your site rocks!!

Comment on A Creative Commons licence for blog and book by Bokomtale - Open Fidelity « Magic Penny

Bokomtale - Open Fidelity « Magic Penny — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:32:58 +0000

[...] Edit 02.07.08 PDF-filen kan lastes ned gratis på Open Fidelity [...]

Comment on Polyamory by Åpen trofasthet « Magic Penny

Åpen trofasthet « Magic Penny — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:12:21 +0000

[...] Selvmotsigende kjensgjerninger krever kanskje selvmotsigende begreper? Vel, iallfall kan “åpen trofasthet” kanskje være tingen for svært mange av disse i-pose-men-helst-litt-i-sprekk-også-menneskene. Åpen trofasthet? Hva? ENTEN er to (evt flere) partnere trofaste, ELLER de lever i et “åpent” forhold. Det er den vanlige forståelsen ja, men vi kan også beholde alle betydningene av ‘trofast’ utenom den seksuelle,og da får vi med ‘åpen trofasthet’ et samlivsprinsipp som kan passe ganske mange moderne mennesker. Omtrent denne formen for resonnement ligger bak Anna Sharmans introduksjon av begrepet ‘open fidelity’: [...]

Comment on Polyamory by Ordliste « Magic Penny

Ordliste « Magic Penny — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:03:25 +0000

[...] Åpen trofasthet *) (Open Fidelity) Ærlig, åpen og ansvarlig ikke-monogami med utgangspunkt i ett primært forhold. Samlivet med primærpartneren har førsteprioritet, og er i utgangspunktet på noen måter unikt, men det er full åpenhet omkring eventuelle forhold til andre partnere. Grensen mellom åpen trofasthet og polyamori kan være noe flytende i de tilfellene der et forhold til en annen partner utvikler seg mot et mer komplett kjærlighetsforhold som består over tid. (Begrepet Open Fidelity av Anna Sharman.) [...]

Comment on About Open Fidelity by Polyamorøs informasjon, psykologisk synsing « Magic Penny

Polyamorøs informasjon, psykologisk synsing « Magic Penny — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:07:42 +0000

[...] artikkel siterer også forfatteren til boken “Open Fidelity”;dr. Anna Sharman. Sharman er ingen hvemsomhelst innen poilyamori;hun har forsket på polyamorøse forhold i flere [...]

Comment on Polyday in London 13-14 September by anna

anna — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:53:21 +0000

wish i were a londoner. (is that what it’s called even?) i was in london once. not long enough though.

Comment on Kinds of Open Fidelity by Dana

Dana — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:40:32 +0000

This is an interesting thing, and something I struggle with with my poly husband, who is type 4 of your definition, an open network person who doesn’t think of anyone as primary. You’ve said elsewhere that part of your definition of fidelity is putting your partner first, and that’s what I, as a hardwired monogamous person, want most from my husband. But as a type 4 person, he of course doesn’t put me first, because all his partners are equal in his own mind. He looks at each situation and does his best to put whoever first that he judges most needs to be put first in that particular situation. That leaves me feeling deeply unloved. As a monogamous person, I want to be put first every time, by default, unless I myself agree to waive my “firstness” out of consideration for the other people in the situation. For me, being put first by default is what commitment means, by definition. For me, love implies devotion, not just warm feelings, and commitment implies prioritization.

In addition, I feel it’s deeply disrespectful and highly controlling for my husband to decide who is going to be his priority in any given situation, without me (or the other women involved) having anything to say about it. For me, such behavior would show that he has no fidelity or commitment to any of us.

What’s your take on reconciling type 4 people with your definition of fidelity?