Talk:Polyfidelity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Pros and Cons?????[edit]

Why is there a Pros and Cons section? Is there a Pros and Cons section in the page on monogamy? (No.) Pros and cons are always relative to one's purpose or perspective. They are not universal. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps the information could be rephrased in neutral term?

DBooth 03:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Lifelong intent"[edit]

I removed the phrase "with a lifelong intention of relationship" from the definition, because fidelity is about faithfulness. It does not necessarily mean a lifelong intent of relationship.

DBooth 03:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A 2nd opinion[edit]

Not noticing this "Talk"/comments section, on my last visit I edited the "Polyfidelity" item. (Since then, it's been largely restored by someone else.) Although that effort went well enough, I'd have rather used this comments space for my opinions --which are intended to be supplementary, rather than corrective, and which require simply talking about my own experiences (which doesn't make a good Wikipedia entry).

  • Most people and most polyamorists define "faithfulness" by the negative consideration of not sharing intimacies outside of a given set of relationships. Maybe I'm alone in my opinions now, but once upon a time my (then) lady and I advocated for a polyfi which defined faithfulness positively --in terms of the keeping, holding and loving of one's others. That assurance of holding on to each other worked well for us as we attempted to develop other relationships, even though our poly/communitarian efforts ended up bitter disappointments.

I hope we can agree that avoiding/minimizing STDs is much more a matter of prudence than it's any kind of a basis for bonding with another person (or not). Let's save that for other practical discussions, like birth control, financial matters, and such.

209.181.51.133 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, STDs are probably the reason why this type of relationship isn't the norm. Most "morals" and societal patterns like this evolved out of practical difficulties so long ago that everyone's forgotten the original reasons.
Compare and contrast with polyamory and fluid bonding. 141.155.10.134 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I don't understand this comment. Polyfidelity *reduces* the risk of STDs (in comparison with non-fidelitous polyamory). "Morals and societal patterns" like polyfidelity evolved out of practical difficulties? Practical difficulties with what, monogamy? "Original reasons" for what? Are you trying to say that polyfidelity is not the norm because of STDs? And that morals and societal patterns evolved out of practical difficulties with polyfidelity? -- DBooth 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Polyfidelitous"?[edit]

The adjective form of "fidelity" is "faithful". Why are we using the ugly and roundabout "polyfidelitous" rather than the elegant and more correct "polyfaithful"? 216.52.69.217 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, "216--217", for "polyfaithful", which I've already started using. Somehow, perhaps because of the heavy influence of Kerista, that term simply didn't occur to me --these past 40 years. Be my guess, it didn't occur to Brother Jud (Jud Presmont) either. / I send a warm embrace to all who enjoy, who have enjoyed, and who've struggled with the poly experience. Such issues of intimacy are at the heart of "intentional community" efforts, whether they're adequately addressed or not. There's no higher calling than enacting a design of how we should live and relate. Craigthing (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fluid Bonding?[edit]

Is this a euphemism for something? At the moment it just redirects to Polymer science. 154.5.119.176 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the problem. I looked it up and it is indeed a euphemism for unprotected sex, per here and here. (Actually, I'm not sure what the non-euphemism would be...) The Wikipedia articles on the topic was recently deleted due to a chronic lack of sources. If some reliable sources could be found then the article might be undeleted. In the meantime, I've added a link to bareback sex and removed the mislinked "see also" entry. We can add more here if there's anything about it in the sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)