SHRINKITOUT

CLICK
ME

Consensual Non-Monogamy

Demi Anagnostouli
|
February 14, 2022


“Liberating ourselves from the traditional structures of marriage altogether, and/or transforming those structures to include all of us -- gay, feminist, career-focused, baby crazy, monogamous, non-monogamous, skeptical, romantic, and everyone in between -- is the challenge facing this generation. As we consciously opt out or creatively reimagine marriage one loving couple at a time, we'll be able to shift societal expectations wholesale, freeing younger generations from some of the antiquated assumptions we've faced (that women always want to get married and men always shy away from commitment, that gender parity somehow disempowers men, that turning 30 makes an unmarried woman into an old maid).”

Courtney E. Martin, Do It Anyway: The New Generation of Activists (taken from goodreads.com)


The article will cover the following topics:

  • Consensual Non- Monogamy is…?
  • Stigma of CNM
  • Why to engage in CNM relationships
  • 6 Themes of CNM
  • Types of CNM (and some more research)
  • Towards Open Marriages


It is surely true that monogamy ain’t for everyone. Monogamous relationships exist more often in Western cultures where love revolves around family formation, as an ideal for the purpose of humans. Monogamy, however, was not always favored, and the existence of prostitutes or mistresses even from the ancient years may suggest this. Yet, since Western societies were strictly promoting the ideals of monogamy, they penalized prostitution exactly because it violated the famous pattern of love existing only between two people (an established couple) devoted to love. Thus, when a third person entered this bond, it was considered and perceived as a threat, and was often punished. A logical conclusion following these considerations is that non-monogamous relationships were considered a taboo; fidelity was (is still at times) a synonym for love, romance and of course marriage.


Consensual Non- Monogamy is…?

Here I would like to introduce to you the existence of an alternative to monogamous relationships, that of consensual non-monogamy (CNM). Consensual non-monogamy can have many definitions, but here we will use the following: a CNM relationship refers to any relationship in which partners agree to have extradyadic sexual or romantic relationships [1]. Therefore, exclusivity (in a sexual or romantic sense) is not a feature of this type of relationships.

The prevalence of CNM, according to Conley et al,. (2012) [1], is interestingly around the same as that of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals: around 4% of the population. This is a significant number, and these people share the same rights to express their sexual preferences when it comes to the formation of romantic relationships. With these numbers, civil rights should also be established for this group, although this is not the case yet. Let’s hope for the better.

When we think of infidelity, we most often define it in terms of monogamy. Agreeing to be monogamous, and then one of the partners “breaking” this agreement is infidelity. But CNM is different, as there is consent to be non-monogamous between partners.

There are of course numerous consequences of being involved in a CNM relationship, from societal to legal. For example, if a person is openly addressing the fact that they are CNM in their working environment, they might suffer from some kind of discrimination without the possibility of being protected, as there are no laws in this regard. Because open (not secretive) CNM relationships are fairly “new”, research is still very unclear, making it a challenge to form new laws.


Stigma and CNM


In general, it is not difficult to assume that CNM relationships are valued less than monogamous ones, and so that they are surrounded by a stigma. Most theories of romantic partners are based on the fact that ‘’normal and healthy developmental transformations in one’s life are due to monogamous dyadic partnering’’ [1].

One interesting study investigating CNM vs. monogamy placed the latter on a superior level for many aspects. One benefit I want to report is that of sexual benefits: monogamous relationships are considered better, with exaplantions such as ‘’not having to use condoms, being comfortable with your partner, and having a source of steady sex’’ [1].


Why people engage in CNM


Something interesting to address would be the motivations/reasons of why people engage in multi-partner relationships. Many people mention the advantage of relational well-being as a benefit of CNM relationships, even though it is still challenged by many researchers [2]. Some even support that people engage in this type of relationships because they desire to fix a problematic relationship that already exists or because they are mentally unwell!

However, CNM relationships are a fruitful environment where partners cultivate relational motivation and well-being together with multiple partners [2]. Because this happens with more than one person at a time, there can be additional opportunities for self expansion and enhancement of autonomy. People in CNM relationships explain a diversified need for fulfillment as primary motivator. Research in CNM relationships suggested that many people, for example had their nurturance needs met by a primary partner and erotic needs met by a secondary partner. These partners fulfill the wide spectrum of a person’s needs, something that increases their well- being and satisfaction [2]. This contrasts the view of one person having to fulfill all your needs, as this is often harder to reach.


6 Themes of CNM


In a study by Wood et al., (2021) [2] researchers performed a thematic analysis to find the themes and subthemes that represent participants’ reasons for engaging in CNM. I will present the figure below [2] that reveals these themes.


As you can see there are six main themes, namely: autonomy, sexuality, relationality, pragmatism, belief systems and growth and expansion [2].


Participants admitted that engaging in CNM relationships made them feel authentic and the formation of these relationships felt natural.

  1. Belief systems factor - stands for the ideas of the participants reflecting the constraints felt between monogamy and the possibilities offered by CNM together with ideas on how personal and interpersonal needs should be fulfilled.
  2. Relationality - revealed that participants valued CNM not only for the formation of sexual/ romantic relationships but also for friendships, to built community and create their own families.
  3. Sexuality - refers to the sexual autonomy that CNM relationships offer in that sexual identities, expressions of sexuality, variety, novelty and excitement are more free and sexual discrepancies between partners are managed better.
  4. Growth and expansion - were also reasons why people were motivated to engage into CNM, as explained above.
  5. Finally, Pragmatism - talks about how CNM relationships felt more practical for participants than monogamy and fit with their current lifestyle and lifestage.


Types of CNM (and some more research)


I know that you have already read the word CNM many many times.. But just a little more! We have already mentioned that CNM stands for Consensual Non-Monogamy and that people belonging to this group are basically a minority. A research by Conley et al., (2018) [3] identified three types of CNM:


  1. Swinging - in which people mutually engage in extradyadic sex usually at parties or other social settings;
  2. Polyamory - in which partners may have loving, romantic relationships with more than one person simultaneously;
  3. Open relationships - in which members of a couple independently pursue sex-based relationships outside of their primal dyad [3].


In this specific study they wanted to investigate if CNM relationships are associated with more sexual satisfaction or more frequent sex than their monogamous equivalent. Their findings sum that CNM individuals reported higher levels of sexual satisfaction (in orgasm) but not in sexual frequency [3]. The stereotype that monogamous people have more frequent sex was not true since the levels were overall similar between them and CNM people [3]. Actually, among swingers, sexual frequency was higher than among monogamous individuals [3].

Still, a lot more research is needed in the CNM field.


Towards Open Marriage


Open marriage as a term was first introduced by O’ Neill and O’ Neill in their book Open Marriage: A New Lifestyle for Couples [4]. Their definition is: ‘’An honest and open relationship between two people, based on equal freedom and identity of both partners, involving a verbal, intellectual and emotional commitment to the right of each to grow as an individual within the marriage’’ [4].

Open marriages became notorious with the idea that traditional marriage poses a big drawback: the unrealistic expectation that one partner is able to fulfill all of an individual’s needs, promoting personal and interpersonal growth while keeping the marital relationship unharmed. We have seen before in this article how CNM contributes to a larger variety of needs [2,3].

Although this differs from polyamory (read our article here, listen to our podcast here), the concept of honesty is also very central. The fact that there are partners outside of the married dyad that offer sexual/ romantic and/or emotional fullfilment to each partner of the couple is not something hidden from the other person nor a reason to feel guilty or shy. Instead, it is a known fact shared by both and something that they should be proud about since it is their choice and it contributes to the enhancement of one’s personal and interpersonal growth [4].


In their paper, O’ Neill and O’ Neill propose three ways in which social change will occur through CNM [5].

  1. Overcoming the common conception that when problems occur between a couple, they should split. Instead they propose that open marriage gives more meaning to shared commitment. This can happen by finding ways to resolve differences, cope with change and to find greater challenges in sharing life together;
  2. The second reason is that children of open marriages will tend to be more responsible, confident, and self- reliant. Since the two partners have already learned how to cultivate “emotional maturity and have formed a relationship of equality, respect, mutual problem solving through consensus and supporting love, these values can be transmitted to the child’’;  
  3. Finally, couples that have chosen an open marriage may be more open with other people and other families, to a point where they can relate to other families and explore intensification of humanness with others.



Additional Sources:

  • In Praise of Love (book) written by Alain Badiou https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13611056-in-praise-of-love
  • Changing the Way We Think About Consensual Non-Monogamy (TEDxTerryTalks) by Nirel Marofsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_3ZHePuZ9U
  • There are many videos on YouTube as well with people talking about their experiences with open marriages, their ground rules and many more :)



References


[1] Conley, T.D., Moors, A.C., Matsick, J.L. and Ziegler, A. (2013), The Fewer the Merrier?: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13: 1-30. https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x


[2] Wood, J., De Santis, C., Desmarais, S. et al. Motivations for Engaging in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships. Arch Sex Behav 50, 1253–1272 (2021). https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01873-x


[3] Conley, T. D., Piemonte, J. L., Gusakova, S., & Rubin, J. D. (2018). Sexual satisfaction among individuals in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743078


[4] Duggal, C. (2013). Negotiating an Open Marriage in Couple Therapy. Psychological Studies, 59(1), 76–81. doi:10.1007/s12646-013-0212-z


[5] O’Neill, N., & O’Neill, G. (1973). Open Marriage: Implications for Human Service Systems. The Family Coordinator, 22(4), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/583317