Deconstructing the Ideal of Fidelity: A View from LGB Psychology

Abstract

This commentary on The Fewer The Merrier (TFTM) adopts a lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) lens. Whilst LGB people commonly construct successful CNM relationships, and the focus on opposite-sex relationships obscured some aspects of United States society that are actively resisting the stigmatization of CNM relationships as a result. I call attention to the historic ways that 'adultery' has been legally defined in gendered terms, and argue for an analysis of social stigma that engages substantively with qualitative research about how CNM is lived among people of diverse sexualities. Author NotePlease address correspondence to Peter Hegarty, School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom, p.hegarty@surrey.ac.uk.Non-monogamous relationships are common in human societies (Murdock, 1949) but are considered problematic by many people in the United States. The Fewer the Merrier (TFTM) reports four empirical studies that draw attention to "our society's obsession with romantic ideals of fidelity," a welcome intervention "in the context of recent debates about same-sex marriage." There has been an explosion of qualitative work on non-monogamies in the past decade (Barker & Langdridge, 2010), and the quantitative studies reported here triangulate a halo effect surrounding monogamous relationships and the stigmatization of consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. In this commentary, I argue that the contribution to this paper is best measured is seen through a lens that makes same-sex relationships more central to the analysis.

Around Consensual Nonmonogamies: Assessing Attitudes Toward Nonexclusive Relationships

“…Compared to a monogamous couple, participants rated the consensually nonmonogamous couple as having a poorer quality relationship; they also rated them more harshly on arbitrary traits such as paying taxes on time. This was the first article to explicitly investigate the negative attitudes associated with consensual nonmonogamy using a vignette approach, and it generated a number of supportive commentaries, along with ideas to improve the methodology and theoretical frame of the research (Blaney & Sinclair, 2013;Day, 2013;Hegarty, 2012;Salvatore, 2013).…”

"Storming then Performing": Historical Non-Monogamy and Metamour Collaboration

“…44 Task Forces,n.d.). A significant amount of this research, as well as sexological research, focuses on gender dynamics (Abed, Schudson, Gunther, Beischel, & van Anders 2019;Barker & Langdridge, 2010;Britton et al, 1998;Carpenter, 2010;Conley, Ziegler, & Moors, 2013;Crofford, 2018;Glass & Wright, 1992;Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015;Pain, 2018;Sheff, 2005a;van Anders, 2015), physical or emotional response (Anderson, 2010;Aumer, Bellew, Ito, Hatfield, & Heck 2014;Bringle & Buunk, 2014;Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996;Buunk & Bakker, 1995;deVisser & McDonald, 2007;Flanders, Dobinson, & Logie, 2015;Hosking, 2014;van Anders, 2015; van Anders & Goldey, 2010; van Anders, Hamilton, & Watson, 2007;van Anders & Watson, 2006), contemporary LGBTQ + experiences (Cardoso, 2014;Hegarty, 2013;Pain, 2018;Richards, 2010;Santos, 2019), or relationship consequences. There is also a small group of authors focusing on legal issues (Aviram, 2005(Aviram, , 2008Aviram & Leachman, 2015;Diamond & Rosky, 2016;Emens, 2004;Goldfarb, 2020).…”

Which Partners Are More Human? Monogamy Matters More than Sexual Orientation for Dehumanization in Three European Countries

“…We also consider sexual orientation of the partners. Non-monogamy occurs among both heterosexual and same-sex partners , and researchers have called for the inclusion of the LGB lens in research dealing with non-monogamy (e.g., Hegarty, 2013). We specifically examined same-sex male couples, because gay men are often perceived as sexually permissive and non-monogamous (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007), and also as deviating from moral and normative standards (Kimmel, 1997).…”