Sexual Motivation and Satisfaction Among Consensually Non-Monogamous and Monogamous Individuals

Abstract

Background Previous research has found differences in sexual motives and, separately, sexual satisfaction in consensually non-monogamous (CNM) and monogamous individuals and that these constructs are related to relationship outcomes (eg, relationship quality). Aims The present study sought to refine and expand on previous research by (i) using a more common, validated measure of sexual motives, (ii) measuring sexual satisfaction with multiple partners within CNM relationships, and (iii) examining how sexual motives are related to sexual satisfaction in CNM relationships. Methods Participants were recruited from a university and using online forums that CNM individuals frequently use (eg, reddit, Facebook). Individuals recruited included those in non-exclusive relationships with one partner (“non-exclusive single-partner;” n = 40), those in non-exclusive relationships with more than one partner (“non-exclusive multipartner;” n = 87), and monogamous individuals (n = 322). Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance and hierarchical multiple regressions. Outcomes The main outcome measures of this study are scores on the Why Humans Have Sex Scale and the New Scale for Sexual Satisfaction. Results Non-exclusive multipartner participants were more motivated to have sex for physical motivations compared with monogamous participants. Although there were no significant differences in sexual satisfaction when comparing monogamous with non-exclusive multipartner participant's secondary and primary partners, unique patterns of sexual motivations were associated with sexual satisfaction based on relationship configuration. Clinical Translation Understanding the unique sexual motives associated with sexual satisfaction in various relationship configurations may help improve clinical approaches to couples counseling for both CNM and non-CNM populations. Strengths and Limitations Data were collected from CNM participants in a variety of relationship configurations and provide analyses comparing primary and secondary partners. However, these results are limited by a small sample of CNM participants who were intentionally recruited from self-identified CNM e-forums. Conclusions These findings add further understanding to the unique traits that characterize CNM individuals and the underlying motivational framework that may encourage individuals to initiate and maintain CNM relationships.

With or Without You: Associations Between Frequency of Internet Pornography Use and Sexual Relationship Outcomes for (Non)Consensual (Non)Monogamous Individuals

“…This may be explained by the nature of the consensual agreement itself. Arguably, CNM individuals may seek other partners and alternative sexual experiences to explore their own sexual needs without damaging the primary relationship, but at the same time actively work on the sexual aspects of their primary relationship to feel emotionally connected to their primary partner and avoid any feeling that they are becoming less important in their lives (Mogilski et al, 2017;Moors et al, 2017;Rodrigues et al, 2017Rodrigues et al, , 2019Wood et al, 2018;Mitchell et al, 2020). Findings for this group of individuals clearly show the importance of accounting for relationship agreements and the use of pornography with the primary partner, rather than pornography use in itself, when examining relationship outcomes.…”

“…Several studies found that the relational experiences of monogamous individuals do not differ from those of CNM individuals (e.g., Rubel & Bogaert, 2015). For example, both groups of individuals report similar levels of sexual satisfaction with their primary partner (Conley et al, 2018;Mitchell et al, 2020) and tend to activate similar relationship protective strategies with their primary partner (Mogilski et al, 2017). Despite this lack of differences in relationship quality, CNM individuals tend to report more sex-related intrinsic motives for having sex (e.g., sexual activity enjoyment, sex drive satisfaction; Wood et al, 2018; but see Mitchell et al, 2020) and more nonsexual benefits (e.g., need fulfilment; Moors et al, 2017) than their monogamous counterparts.…”

“…For example, both groups of individuals report similar levels of sexual satisfaction with their primary partner (Conley et al, 2018;Mitchell et al, 2020) and tend to activate similar relationship protective strategies with their primary partner (Mogilski et al, 2017). Despite this lack of differences in relationship quality, CNM individuals tend to report more sex-related intrinsic motives for having sex (e.g., sexual activity enjoyment, sex drive satisfaction; Wood et al, 2018; but see Mitchell et al, 2020) and more nonsexual benefits (e.g., need fulfilment; Moors et al, 2017) than their monogamous counterparts. Accounting for extradyadic sex in monogamous relationships, Rodrigues et al (2017) found that CNM and monogamous individuals were equally satisfied with, and committed to, their relationship, whereas NCNM had the lowest relationship quality.…”

“…However, given the association between pornography use, sexual disinterest and extradyadic sex (e.g., Gwinn et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2019;Park et al, 2016;Sun et al, 2016), we expected NCNM participants to include their partner in such activity less often than monogamous individuals (Hypothesis 1). As nonmonogamy is associated with sexual exploration, intrinsic motives for having sex and need fulfilment with extradyadic partners (Cohen, 2016;Mitchell et al, 2020;Moors et al, 2017;Wood et al, 2018), but also with relationship quality and well-being (Conley et al, 2018;Rodrigues et al, 2017Rodrigues et al, , 2019, we advanced two possibilities. If CNM participants use extradyadic sex to meet their sexual needs, they may not feel the need to use internet pornography with their primary partner, thus resembling NCNM participants (Hypothesis 2a).…”

“…Based on the evidence that monogamous and CNM individuals do not differ in several relationship quality outcomes (e.g., Conley et al, 2018;Mitchell et al, 2020;Rubel & Bogaert, 2015), whereas NCNM individuals experience less relationship quality (Rodrigues et al, 2017(Rodrigues et al, , 2019, we expected monogamous and CNM participants to report similar levels of sexual satisfaction and sexual arousal difficulties with having sex with their primary partner (Hypothesis 3). In contrast, NCNM participants were expected to report lower sexual satisfaction and more sexual arousal difficulties with their partner, than both monogamous and CNM individuals (Hypothesis 4).…”