In Defense of Polyamory

            From the structural diversity approach to family, families are socially constructed and historically changing. Family diversity is produced by the same structures that organize society as whole. The approach considers how families are embedded and shaped by structures of inequality; acknowledges how family diversity is shaped by the actions of family members themselves; and charges us to understand families by challenging the monolithic concept of what family is or is supposed to be. Polyamory, by its existence itself, is one example of a familial arrangement that challenges the monolithic concept of what family should look like. The public’s awareness of polyamory has increased especially since the 1960s. Now we can see major news sites publish articles on polyamory such as Vice, CBS, Fox News, The New York Times, and others. The publicity anything receives can be beneficial or disadvantageous regarding public opinion. Especially so if that something is a lifestyle or familial arrangement that seeks legal recognition. So, the role of media in presenting polyamory to the public is to be investigated. On the other hand, how researchers present the topic of polyamory in contrast to the media is to be investigated as well.

            Beginning with clarification, polyamory can be defined as a consensual relationship wherein all the individuals involved agree to extradyadic sexual, romantic, and/or emotional relationships (Johnson, Giuliano, Herselman, and Hutzler, 2014; Williams and Prior, 2015; Ziegler, Matsick, Moors, Rubin, and Conley, 2014). Sometimes the terms nonmonogamy, consensual nonmonogamy, or ethical nonmonogamy is used synonymously with polyamory, though it leaves ambiguity between the differences of open relationships, swinging, and polyamory. Differentiating open relationships from polyamory is difficult as both arrangements can involve extradyadic sexual, romantic, and/or emotional ties. As one article suggests, open relationships tend to be sexually extradyadic (Naftulin, 2019). Swinging, however, is often solely sexually extradyadic. As consensual nonmonogamy opens the door for the discussion on relationship arrangements separate from polyamory, I will avoid using the term consensual nonmonogamy synonymously with polyamory. However, because research in polyamory tends to fall under research in nonmonogamy, the term of nonmonogamy will mentioned—albeit, sparingly—throughout this essay.

            News articles on the topic of polyamory can range from sensational coverage, celebrity talk, activism, explanations, arguments for, arguments against, to simply interviews that show polyamorous couples without bias and more. However, the odds are that a curious individual looking into polyamory will run into, say, a pro and con article about polyamory. One common con often stated is that jealousy is often a problem in polyamory. Especially when a primary partner begins to feel secondary (Mann, 2019). However, a piece on The Atlantic cites a study that suggests levels of jealousy are lower in nonmonogamy than monogamy (Khazan, 2014). The problem of jealousy and how prevalent it is within polyamorous arrangements is difficult to determine from news articles. An article by Cohut (2019) features an interview of someone within a polyamorous arrangement. This person alludes to the fact that her jealousy or negative emotions stem not from polyamory or that their primary partner is seeing someone else but the feeling of being alone. In an academic journal, however, both those participating in monogamy and nonmonogamy are reported to having a similar level of jealousy; but, the perspective on jealousy by those in monogamy and nonmonogamy may differ (Rubel and Bogaert, 2015). This difference in perspective may account for why those in extradyadic relationships sometimes find joy in learning that their partner is happy with another partner. This is a part of what is normally called “compersion” in polyamorous circles.

Further, those in polyamorous arrangements tend to adapt to the feeling of jealousy and see it as a personal fault and not the fault of their partner (Khazan, 2014). Or, because polyamorous relationships naturally allow the possibility of one’s primary partner having a secondary partner, the people involved already know what they are getting into and those that are prone to jealousy will phase out of such a relationship arrangement. A person Khazan (2014) interviews states that the ground rules in polyamory include “I care about and I also care about this other person, and that doesn’t mean I care less about you.” This creates a foundation in which the people involved in a polyamorous arrangement need not to feel jealous. Other portrayals of polyamory or nonmonogamy include the stereotype of the relationship arrangement being “one big orgy” (Kegu and Silverstein, 2019).  

            Many news articles focus on portraying polyamory as it is through interviews or personal accounts. Others try to dispel common myths about polyamory. Kegu and Silverstein’s (2019) article mentions that polyamorous relationship arrangements take a lot of work but carries a lot of stigma; that multiple partner marriages still remain illegal, no laws protect polyamorous peoples from discrimination, and no legal framework aids such peoples in sharing finances or solve custody rights of children and the likes. As the article mentions, some people have lost their jobs after their employer found out someone was in a polyamorous relationship. Some people, like one of the interviewees, had to divorce his wife and marry his second partner because of her immigration status. Now, he faces the issue of now not being able to benefit from his previous wife’s health insurance despite them being together in a relationship. Another interviewee points out that being in a polyamorous relationship is not all about sex. Instead, polyamorous relationships do not function much more differently than monogamous relationships. Nonetheless, despite efforts to dispel myths about polyamorous relationships, there are articles that argue against legal recognition of polyamorous relationships.

            In The Atlantic, Friedersdorf (2015) argues against plural marriage and counters statements put forward by a blogger that is in favor of plural marriages. One of his first arguments is founded in a utilitarianism. He states, “the strongest argument against state-sanctioned group marriage is” based on how there are reports and studies about how group or plural marriages in other countries correlate with (sexual) violence. His argument also includes the positive correlation of monogamous marriage and child welfare and negative correlation of (sexual) violence and things such as economic productivity. Without getting into the philosophical arguments for and against utilitarianism as a basis for morality, it should be noted that correlation does not always equate to causation. Further, as the author alludes to, what occurs in one culture does not imply it would occur in another such as the United States. The next argument makes a claim that plural marriage is bad for low-status men and for women in general. This claim is based on the likelihood of high-status men taking multiple wives. This could theoretically leave less women available to lower status men and increase the competition between wives. However, this argument ignores the possibility of women having multiple husbands as would be possible with the legalization of plural marriages. The practice of multiple partner relationships is not illegal either despite plural marriages being illegal. So, regardless of the legal status of plural marriages, those willing to partake in a plural relationship will. Other objections to plural marriages mentioned by the author include plural marriages not being a human right; logistical issues such marrying to confer citizenship, and the sharing of insurance.   

            Similarly, another article on a Christian news site tackles the topic of polyamory. The theme of the article revolves around the discussion of whether polyamory is good or bad for women and children. The author wonders as to how such family arrangements will handle children, whether paternity tests will be routine, whether males would care of another male’s children, and how inheritance will work (Horton, 2019). The author points out situations in which it seems difficult or confusing as to how issues will be solved. So, in short, the author believes that polyamorous relationships “are too complex to regulate into marital equivalence” (Horton, 2019). Pardi (2019) argues against polyamory in a similar fashion. She compares humans to other animals in an effort to argue that humans, with their physiology, are more suited toward monogamy. The hormones secreted during sex establish ties between partners and because of this, she implies that humans are “meant” to make sentimental bonds with their sexual partner instead of parting with their sexual partner as if no bond was made. This argument could be used against casual sex or one-night stands. She continues, “polyamory leads to repeatedly creating and then cutting sexual ties” (Pardi, 2019). She references a doctor’s explanation of defensive attachment which suggests that multiple failed sexual relationships may lead one to experience a numbness towards passion and emotional closeness. Other arguments put forward by her include the idea that monogamy offers societal (and evolutionary) advantages, the conferring of sexually transmitted disease and accidental pregnancy, and that “polyamory gets old.” Other news articles may praise polyamory as, for example, Elf Lyons (2017) writes.

            Those who praise polyamory may sometimes claim that polyamory empowers women by giving them more autonomy than a monogamous relationship would give them and Lyons (2017) makes such a claim. She describes polyamory as a philosophy in which polyamory is a sort of affirmation or understanding that it is possible and natural for some people to fall in love with more than one person. Some articles suggest either polyamory leads to more sexually satisfying relationships or not. Cassie Weber (2017) writes an article that features a poll that suggests people in open or polyamorous relationships report double the amount of unsatisfactory sexual satisfaction when compared to monogamous couples. 71% of people in polyamorous relationships reporting satisfactory sexual satisfaction and 22% reporting dissatisfaction; and 82% of people in monogamous relationships reporting sexual satisfaction and 11% reporting dissatisfaction. Zachary Zane’s (2018) article focuses on how the polyamorous lifestyle is not practiced solely by (affluent) “white liberals” as many may believe. This article also cites a study finding that 4 to 5 percent of people in the United States practice polyamory. Zane (2018) cites a study that suggests polyamorous people tend to identify more often as bisexual/pansexual, divorced, and make less money than monogamous couples. Regarding political affiliation, the study found that polyamorous people tend to stray from the normal Democrat or Republican. This trend in different political ideologies may have been picked up on by Olivia Goldhill (2018) with her article being titled “Polyamorous sex is the most quietly revolutionary political weapon in the United States.” The article notes that the polyamorous community has changed since the 1960s and 1970s. During these times, along with the hippy movement, polyamory was often politically charged. Back then, the most open polyamorists were living out in communes in an effort to reject the hegemonic ideals associated with the United States’ capitalism.

            However, as time went on, many of these communes fell apart. Instead of practicing polyamory on communes, polyamorists now practice polyamory in the same environment monogamists practice monogamy. The article written by Goldhill (2018) features interviews with polyamorists. One polyamorist describes one form of polyamory and polyamory politics as a sort of libertarian socialism in which there is a “respect for a non-hierarchical society that values collective, community decision-making” and the ability for people to live their lives without government interference. Goldhill claims that many polyamorists now believe that polyamory is inherently political as they also see monogamy as tied politics. Goldhill’s claim is backed by the 1960’s feminists’ argument that the “personal is political”. Further, as the practice of joining a commune to practice polyamory has decreased, polyamorists now essentially hide in public or in the “mainstream” and this allows polyamorists to “surreptitiously” alter the definition of normal from within, Goldhill suggests. One aspect of family life polyamorists may be able to help alter is the traditional heterosexual family dynamic, Goldhill further suggests.

            To contrast what media outlets have to say about polyamory, I will cover research articles that touch on the topic of polyamory. Conley, Moors, Matsick, and Ziegler (2013) take a five-prong approach. First, they contextualize the reason for their study, and this includes a literature review of past research that summaries media portrayals of consensually non-monogamous relationships. The rest of the prongs include studies conducted by the researchers. Second, is a study that asks participants what the benefits of monogamy is. Third, fourth, and fifth further investigate the opinions participants have towards monogamy and consensually non-monogamous relationships. Study one suggests that participants believe monogamy is better at fostering positive aspects of a relationship such as commitment, health, trust, and meaningfulness when compared to consensually non-monogamous relationships. Study two assesses whether consensually non-monogamous relationships are stigmatized. The results suggested that they are as participants answered in such a way that suggested monogamy holds a halo effect. The halo effect, as the researchers suggest, is the idea that monogamy is held culturally superior, dominant, and more favorable than non-monogamy. Study three’s results suggest that people often view non-monogamy as sexually risky, that monogamy is more acceptable, natural, and more successful than non-monogamy. Study four has similar results with participants suggesting that monogamous couples love each other, respect one another, show kindness to one another, among other traits more so than people in non-monogamous relationships. As the researchers hypothesized, consensually non-monogamous relationships would be valued less because it is a nonnormative relationship orientation and that monogamous relationships have a halo effect. Similar findings are replicated in the study by Johnson, Giuliano, Herselman, and Hutzler (2015).

            Their research was partially inspired by the increasing popularity of the polyamorous relationship style as well as the trend of researchers investigating the attitudes toward polyamory. The findings of their study found that attitudes held toward polyamory were negatively related to traditional values, political conservatism, religious fundamentalism, emotional jealousy, and positively related to sensation seeking and sexual sensation seeking. Ziegler, Matsick, Moords, Rubin and Terri Conley (2014) make use of a literature review to combat misinformation about non-monogamous relationships with a feminist lens. Because of habituation, the notion that monogamy will provide a lifetime of “exciting sex” is “empirically unfounded”. Further, polyamorous relationships provide women the ability to exert sexual autonomy without stigma. Polyamory emphasizes the equality between partners. Jealousy is not absent in monogamous relationships and women experience repercussions more of then than men by means of domestic violence and sexual assault. The researchers suggest that polyamory “is founded” on minimizing jealousy held and the consequences of jealousy. While jealously maintains the social order of monogamy and monogamy reinforces women’s dependence on men. Historically, monogamy has restricted the autonomy of women. Polyamory does not have that sort of history. The article goes on to suggest that women in polyamorous relationships can take on different roles with their higher degree of autonomy and have better access to resources.

            Amy C. Moors (2017), using the data Google provides, was able to measure search queries to see if there has been a rise of interest in polyamory. She found that Google searches for polyamory and open relationships have increased from 2006 to 2015. This suggests that more people are looking into different relationship orientations apart from monogamy despite its halo effect. Mitchell, Bartholomew, and Cobb (2014) investigate how fulfilling polyamorous relationships may be. Their findings suggested that polyamorous relationships are often fulfilling and that by having multiple significant others does not detract from how fulfilling the relationships may be. In “Polyamorists Next Door” by Elisabeth Sheff shares her research and experience within polyamory. Problems such as breaking up, co-parenting, divorce, complexity, drama, unpredictability, stigma, and legal recognition are some of many problems polyamorous individuals may face. As for the children that have polyamorous parents, it is only when they reach the tween and teen years do they notice their parents have different than normal relationship orientation. A part of the book is dedicated to how tweens and teens talk to their peers about how their family dynamics work. Some children prefer not to say anything at all about their family. Sometimes because they simply do not want to or because they are afraid of their peers being judgmental. The polyamorous family dynamic seems to have no overt affect on the children in terms of development. Some of the children do wonder if they will prefer having multiple partners or partake in monogamy. Further, most of the children tend to shield themselves from knowing too much about what their parents do with other partners as most children shield themselves from knowing too much about their parents’ sex lives.

            Having detailed what news articles and research articles have to say about polyamory, the negative aspects of polyamory portrayed in news articles are exaggerated when compared to what the research has to say. Polyamorous families exist and they function despite being complex. The kids are raised and operate not much differently from the kids in monogamous relationships as far as we can tell. A lot more research is warranted in the field of polyamory. Whether children of polyamorous families have more or less self-esteem, confidence, honesty, and the likes should be looked into as has research into the children of same-sex couples have been done. The research done so far, however, suggests that polyamorous relationships can be just as fulfilling as monogamous relationships. Though, the stigma and lack of legal aid does render some problems for polyamorous families, and this is highlighted in both research and news articles. In summary, polyamory is likely going to increase in popularity and more research is likely to come. There are likely more benefits than disadvantages in partaking in polyamory, but polyamory is not for everyone. So it is not likely that polyamory will overtake monogamy, but it is a viable alternative for those willing.

Resources:

Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2019. “Polyamorous families face stigma during pregnancy and birth.” Medical Xpress, October 15, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019 (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-10-polyamorous-families-stigma-pregnancy-birth.html).

Cohut, Maria. 2019. “Polyamory: Beyond the confines of monogamous love.” Medical News Today, July 26, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325880.php#1).

Conley, Terri D., Amy C. Moors, Jes L. Matsick, and Ali Ziegler. 2013. “The Fewer the Merrier?: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 13(1): 1-30.

Friedersdorf, Conor. 2015. “The Case Against Encouraging Polygamy.” The Atlantic, July 9, 2015. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/case-against-polygamy/397823/).

Goldhill, Olivia. 2018. “Polyamorous sex is the most quietly revolutionary political weapon in the United States.” Quartz, December 20, 2018. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://qz.com/1501725/polyamorous-sex-is-the-most-quietly-revolutionary-political-weapon-in-the-united-states/).

Horton, Joseph. 2019. “Is Polyamory good for women? What about children?” The Christian Post, September 10, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.christianpost.com/voice/is-polyamory-good-for-women-what-about-children.html).

Hutzler, Kevin T., Traci A. Guiliano, Jordan R. Herselman, and Sarah M. Johnson. 2016. “Three’s a crowd: public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory.” Psychology & Sexuality 7(2): 69-87.

Johnson, Sarah M., Traci A. Giuliano, Jordan R. Herselman, and Kevin T. Hutzler. 2015. “Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory.” Psychology & Sexuality 6(4):325-339.

Kegu, Jessica, and Jason Silverstein. 2019. “Not Just “one big orgy”: Fighting the stigma of consensual non-monogamy.” CBS, October 24, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polyamory-relationships-not-just-one-big-orgy-stigma-of-consensual-non-monogamy-cbsn-originals/).

Khazan, Olga. 2014. “Multiple Lovers, Without Jealousy.” The Atlantic, July 21, 2014. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/multiple-lovers-no-jealousy/374697/).

Lyons, Elf. 2017. “A new way to love: in praise of polyamory.” The Guardian, July 22, 2017. Retrieved December 7, 2019. (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/23/polyamory-new-way-to-love-men-women-sex-relationships-elf-lyons).

Mann, Jenn. 2019. “The Pros and Cons of Being in a Polyamorous Relationship.” InStyle, September 4, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.instyle.com/lifestyle/hump-day-polyamory-pros-cons).

Mitchell, Melissa E., Kim Bartholomew, and Rebecca J. Cobb. 2014. “Need Fulfillment in Polyamorous Relationships.” Journal of Sex Research 51(3): 329-339.

Naftulin, Julia. 2019. “Being in an open relationship isn’t the same as being polyamorous. A sex researcher explains the difference.” Insider, November 16, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.insider.com/difference-between-polyamory-open-relationships-swinging-2019-11).

Pardi, Elizabeth. 2019. “No, Human Being Aren’t Happier When We Ditch Monogamy For Polyamory.” The Federalist, November 15, 2019. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/15/no-human-beings-arent-happier-when-we-ditch-monogamy-for-polyamory/#disqus_thread).

Sheff, Elisabeth. 2013. The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and Families. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Werber, Cassie. 2017. “Turns out open relationships aren’t the most sexually satisfying.” Quartz, June 8, 2017. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://qz.com/1001468/research-finds-that-open-relationships-arent-more-sexually-satisfying-than-monogamy/).

Zane, Zachary. 2018. “Who Really Practices Polyamory?” RollingStone, November 12, 2018. Retrieved December 7, 2019(https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/polyamory-bisexual-study-pansexual-754696/).