Ultimately, this book is dated. Polyamory, as a general relationship model has progressed and an ethical foundation has been defined that is being adopted. This book is sort of training-wheel mode and I think could teach bad turns of thinking when applied to romantic relationships, rather than just erotic ones.



At the time of its publishing, this book was more current and, in my opinion, provided a better tone than Ethical Slut, even though the content of the two are very similar. However, at thi

Ultimately, this book is dated. Polyamory, as a general relationship model has progressed and an ethical foundation has been defined that is being adopted. This book is sort of training-wheel mode and I think could teach bad turns of thinking when applied to romantic relationships, rather than just erotic ones.



At the time of its publishing, this book was more current and, in my opinion, provided a better tone than Ethical Slut, even though the content of the two are very similar. However, at this point in time, it just can’t compare with More Than Two by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert. Opening Up is ethically pedestrian in comparison.



I’m going to start with the book's strong points:



• The details around swinging are well detailed and very accurate. Tristan’s depiction of swingers and poly's are kind and positive and insightful. The description of polyamory, while a little basic, hits the point. Although I would argue the her initial definition of "sexual and loving" is hard to accept in the face of the burgeoning asexual community. Polyamory, ultimately, is really about an emotional connection, swinging about an erotic one. It's amusing that she does go into great detail about nonsexual poly relationships, but this didn't affect her definition.

• I appreciate the depth in which she discusses Mono/Poly relationships. She provides many examples with a great deal of variety, and tackles emotional and ethical issues surrounding this configuration that are valuable discussion points.

• The section on NRE is strikingly good.

• The chapter on coming out is pretty good, more detailed than what is provided in More Than Two, actually. In particular, some of the common questions or responses that one might receive when coming out as nonmonogamous. The chapter on coming out to children is also very good, detailed with a lot of examples.



Next, the weak points:



• The "One partner can't meet all your needs" motto that is repeated throughout the book really bothers me. It’s not singular to this book, it’s actually common poly phrase. However, for the reader coming to this type of book in search of help because their partner is saying they need a new option, other than monogamy, this statement is a slap in the face and it’s BS. Ok, one partner can't meet all your needs, sure, neither can two, or twenty. Partner's aren't need filling machines. All you're saying to this person in search of help is "you aren't enough" which is the message they're already telling themselves, they need someone to tell them a new message instead.

• Suggestions that someone should "give up" one of their partners for another shows a lack of understanding that the feelings of everyone involved have equal value. It treats the partner to be "given up" as an object rather than a person and invalidates the feelings of the person expected to do the "giving up". Ideas of "Honoring your primary" relationship are similarly stunted thinking and lack universal meaning. This, in part, is where my interpretation that the book is focused on erotic connections outside of one single romantic relationship, is founded.

• In the chapter on Polyamory, the author discusses "Primary" and "Secondary" partnerships, prioritizing one relationship (person) over another as a default - ethics check, and suggests that because there is no established model for "Secondary" relationships that they must be defined and a consensus made. But I would argue that assuming a "Primary" relationship doesn't need that is a very traditionally monogamous way of thinking and is fallacy, and risks introducing problems to that relationship that could have been avoided by approaching all relationships the with the same perspective. The examples given in the "Negotiations and Potential Issues" section of the Polyfidelity chapter are similarly ethically shocking with descriptions of people giving up their agency and rights to their partner's judgment.

• She confuses the terms V and Triad, choosing to call them a "V Triad". This might be a product of the age of the book and an evolution of terms, but a V and a Triad are two very different things.

• The chapter on Designing Your Open Relationship is a difficult read. The suggestions the author makes aren't about personal boundaries, many of them are around controlling your partners, and disregarding their partners as people. The implication is that you own your partner, your partner's activities and how they conduct themselves. The author also supports the fallacy that you can define a relationship, build a box for it, before it exists and that it will fit into that box and never grow and that it's not allowed if it doesn't fit into that box. It's a terrible way to approach relationships, emotional or erotic.

• In the jealousy chapter, there's a sense that "some people don't feel jealousy" that is a dangerous precedent to set with readers.

The author's unwrapping of the concept of jealousy is stunted and incomplete.

• This next one was shocking to me. I had to stop and look through the book to make sure I wasn’t mistaken or jumping to assumptions. … The story about Samiya on page 214 has a weird insertion of her race that most other stories in the book don't have, and is completely irrelevant to her story. Gabrielle's story on the next page depicts her race as well, again for no reason. I saw nowhere in the book where someone's story was describing them as white or Caucasian.

• On that note, Gabrielle's story on page 215 is a terrible example of moving from non-monogamy to monogamy. Or, actually it's a great example but the author used it horribly. This woman dumped her secondary partner so that she had leverage to make her primary partner dump the woman he was seeing, so they could become monogamous and rebuilt trust in their relationship. She complains that their poly community ostracized them for not being non-monogamous anymore. What both she and the author are failing to see is that she treated her secondary partner, whom she admits she had deep feelings for, as an object to be summarily dismissed rather than a human being with feeling who she (ostensibly) cared about. THAT's why they were ostracized, they demonstrated that they were unpleasant people and no one wanted to be involved with them.

• The chapter on STI's has some inaccurate information. Not out-dated, but wrong at the time the book was written as well. It's not wholly inaccurate, but has some inaccuracies sprinkled in. Suggesting that condoms protect against HPV but not completely against HSV is silly and odd. They are passed very similarly. Both can pass through infected or shedding sites not covered by a condom. Additionally, the author seems to be confused about the difference between HSV1 & HSV2, describing that a partner with an oral HSV1 outbreak can infect their partner with genital HSV2 by performing oral sex. They are two distinctly different viruses; that's not possible. A partner with an oral HSV1 outbreak could infect their partner with genital HSV1, but not with genital HSV2. The number does not indicate the location; it indicates which strain of the virus it is describing. The website her statement references does not appear to hold any such mis-information and is a herpes specific website so I can only guess that she misinterpreted what she was reading and read only one resource.