Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships

Abstract

We proposed that the premise that monogamy is the exemplary form of romantic partnership underlies much theory and research on relationship quality, and we addressed how this bias has prompted methodological issues that make it difficult to effectively address the quality of nonmonogamous relationships. Because the idea that consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships are functional (i.e., satisfying and of high quality) is controversial, we included a basic study to assess, in a variety of ways, the quality of these relationships. In that study, we found few differences in relationship functioning between individuals engaged in monogamy and those in CNM relationships. We then considered how existing theories could help researchers to understand CNM relationships and how CNM relationships could shed light on relationship processes, and we proposed a model of how CNM and monogamous relationships differ. Finally, in a second study, we determined that even researchers who present data about CNM are affected by the stigma surrounding such relationships. That is, researchers presenting findings favoring polyamory were perceived as more biased than researchers presenting findings favoring monogamy.

Open Relationships, Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy, and Monogamy Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior

“…We found no differences in testing and documented significantly greater condom use among participants in open relationships for anal intercourse. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, Rubel and Bogaert (2015) found that individuals in CNM partnerships tended to report equal or greater relationship satisfaction relative to those in monogamous partnerships (see also Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017). In contrast, we documented lower reported relationship happiness and sexual satisfaction among individuals in open relationships.…”

“…There is a substantial literature on other sexual minority populations, including but not limited to those in open relationships and other CNM partnerships, that indicates such effects (e.g., Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, 2005; Conley et al, 2012a, 2012b; Jones & King, 2014). Moreover, stigmatizing experiences and relationship quality vary considerably across and within different forms of consensual nonmonogamy (Conley et al, 2017). …”

Eroticism versus Nurturance: How Eroticism and Nurturance Differs in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships

“…One solution to this problem is to alter expectations about romantic relationships and outsource needs. Indeed, it has been proposed that couples could alter their expectations about relationships; that is, rather than relying on one partner to meet both erotic and nurturant needs, individuals could outsource their needs to other relationships, diversifying their need fulfilment across multiple romantic or sexual partners (Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017;Conley & Moors, 2014).…”

Reducing barriers to care for patients who practise consensual nonmonogamy

“…1,4 These individuals face great stigma and are often patholo gized based on inaccurate assumptions. 5 However, several studies have failed to find differences in relationship satisfaction and other indices of relationship functioning between monoga mous and consensually nonmonogamous relationships. 2,5 Furthermore, rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are comparable across consensually nonmonogamous and monoga mous populations.…”

“…5 However, several studies have failed to find differences in relationship satisfaction and other indices of relationship functioning between monoga mous and consensually nonmonogamous relationships. 2,5 Furthermore, rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are comparable across consensually nonmonogamous and monoga mous populations. 6 Despite this, the majority of individuals who practise consensual nonmonogamy have experienced discrimina tion, 7 a phenomenon associated with higher levels of psycho logical distress and poorer health outcomes.…”