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!

First, you’ve probably guessed by now that I’m not the kind of blogger who writes in intimate detail about my daily life. I’ve never quite understood why some people want to do this – it’s just not my thing to reveal so much to the whole world. One reason is that Anna is my real name, so I can’t hide behind a pseudonym. But I will reveal bits of my life as we go along, when they are relevant to what I’m trying to say.

Some basic facts: I live in London, UK; I’m in my mid-30s; I am a bisexual woman. I am in a long-term open relationship; I am good friends with my previous long-term partner, with whom I also had an open relationship. I’ve been researching ethical non-monogamy since 2004. I am a Quaker. I am very lucky to be part of a close family that have supported this project from the beginning.

Personality-wise, I’m a bit of an intellectual: sometimes I’d rather retreat into a book than deal with the world around me, but sometimes I think I can be intellectual in a useful way. I have been accused of being tactless, though I can be sensitive too. I have lots of good acquaintances and just a few very close friends. I can bluff proficiently in geek, but I’m not really a geek (I’m on the edge – see below). I like personality tests, so for those who are interested in them too, I am a type 5 on the Enneagram and INTJ in Myers Briggs. Oh, and a Capricorn if you believe in that stuff too – the bit about being down to earth seems right, anyway. I value free time over possessions and comfort over beauty. I’m a fan of Terry Pratchett, Heroes, OpenOffice and David Attenborough.

One thing I’ve realised is that I’m someone who feels comfortable on the edge of groups of people. Most relevant to this blog is that I’m on the edge of the bisexual community. I am sometimes attracted to women as well as men, and I’ve been to events such as Bicon and London bisexual groups (BU and LBWG) for ten or so years. But for most of that time my primary partner has been a man and I find I fit well enough into the mainstream heterosexual community. Well, mostly: I’ve always had a problem with marriage and the assumption of monogamy, so I knew I wasn’t going to settle down and be a good wife, even if I did find one man I wanted to stay with. This led me to the polyamory community, which I suppose I am part of, though I sometimes get the feeling I’m ‘not poly enough’.

Through the bi and poly communities I’ve met quite a few people who are into BDSM (Bondage and Discipline (BD), Dominance and Submission (DS), Sadism and Masochism (SM); see this useful article for a fuller definition). I’ve discovered that the BDSM community is a thriving one that overlaps with the bisexual community. This is particularly important here, because although I’m only on the very edge of the BDSM community, I have learned quite a bit from them about negotiation, about being straightforward and upfront about the kind of relationship and/or sex and want, and about going out to find someone who wants to offer you that. It is the antithesis of the hetero romantic ideal of just waiting for someone special to come along and then sticking with them even if you find they can’t turn you on. I find this a refreshing way of thinking and I would like to help those not in the BDSM community to hear more about it.

So that’s an advantage of being on the edge: you can help one group to understand and learn from another, while not being so deeply involved in either group that what you say isn’t heard by the others. Of course the risk of being on the edge is that you can be accused by both groups of not knowing the full story!

Another group I’m on the edge of is ‘religious people’. I am part of the British tradition of liberal unprogrammed Quakerism, which I see as sitting on the liberal edge of Christianity, and perhaps even on the edge of religion altogether, which allows Quakers at times to help nonreligious people to understand why the concept of God is useful to some, and to help religious people to understand why it is less useful to others. You won’t see much about religion in this blog, but Quakerism has very much influenced my ethical principle, and particularly my willingness to question assumptions about morality.

Finally, I am also on the edge of the ‘scientists’ group. I studied biology, did a PhD in evolutionary biology and did a research job for a couple of years, became an editor on several biology journals and then went freelance – moving one step away from scientists and then another but still reading research as part of my job. I’m hoping that in the Open Fidelity project I can use the scientific way of thinking and apply it to human relationships, in so far as it can be applied to such complex systems. For example, I like to state my assumptions, put forward hypotheses, look for evidence, and question any conclusion that lacks strong evidence. I also like the way that scientists criticise each other’s ideas as ideas, usually managing not to make criticisms personal. I hope you will criticise my ideas in the same spirit.

I hope this helps you feel you know me, at least a little. In the next post I promise I’ll start on the real-life stories of Open Fidelity without further delay!

[Edited 2009 to remove surname]