Arabella Williams

 

 

Introduction

​

Consensual non-monogamy, often shortened to CNM, is a form of relationship wherein individuals agree on having multiple sexual or romantic partners (Sheff, 2020). Polyamory, a specific type of CNM, “assumes that it is possible [and acceptable] to love many people and to maintain multiple intimate and sexual relationships” (Sexualities, 2003, p. 126, as cited in Barker, 2005). Though forms of CNM have existed in the United States since its creation, it was not until the 1900’s that these relationships received significant academic and media attention (Trahan, 2015). In the past couple of decades the study of polyamory has proliferated, with an abundance of literature published examining polyamorous orientations (e.g., Barker, 2005; Haritaworn, Lin, & Klesse, 2006; Klesse, 2014). In this surge of attention, academic literature and lay discourse have depicted polyamory in a number of ways. As explained by Trahan (2015):

​

“the term [polyamory] has been described variously as a sexual orientation (Klesse, 2012), a relationship orientation, a relationship history, an identity, a politics, a cultural movement, a lifestyle, a lovestyle, a healing art (Anderlini-D’Onofrio, 2009), a romantisexual label (e.g., “I’d like you to meet my poly partner”),

a type of event (e.g., “please come to my poly potluck”), a stance (e.g., “are these folks poly-friendly?), an ethical or philosophical worldview, and a general theory for living and loving” (p. 3, emphasis in original).

​

Needless to say, polyamory is a complex and multifaceted subject. Among the numerous conclusions made regarding polyamory in the last couple of decades, various themes have become evident. In particular, literature on polyamory has frequently discussed different forms of polyamorous relationships, the discrimination faced by polyamorists, whether polyamory is a sexual orientation, polyamory’s inherent rejection of mononormativity, and even polyamory’s social and political entanglements.

​

Forms of Polyamorous Relationships

​

In any discussion of polyamory, it is important to consider consensual non-monogamous relationships as a whole. CNMs take many different forms: open relationships, swinging, and threesome-only (Seguin, 2019). Polyamorists may engage in any of these CNMs, but partaking in CNM does not necessitate being polyamorous. This is because polyamory is based in emotional (and sometimes sexual) non-monogamy, while other CNM relationships may expect or require emotional monogamy (Seguin, 2019). As a form of CNM, polyamory is estimated to have a lifetime prevalence of 2-23%, and a population of at least 1.44 million U.S. adults (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020). Though, it is important to note that due to the usage of a convenience sample, this approximation may not be entirely accurate (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020). 

​

As discussed by Labriola (2003), polyamorous relationships typically take three forms: the primary/secondary model, multiple primary partners model, and multiple non-primary partners model. The primary/secondary model most closely resembles monogamous relationships and is the most commonly practiced form of open relationship (Labriola, 2003). This model involves a “couple relationship”, which is primary to any other relationships and includes swinging relationships as well as any couple who has agreed on having outside sexual relationships (Labriola, 2003). The multiple primary partners model consists of polyfidelity and open models. In a polyfidelitous relationship, more succinctly described as a group marriage, multiple partners are committed to each other and nobody else. These individuals create an intentional and closed community in which they are all equal partners. Depending on the sexual orientations of the various partners, these relationships may have all participants be sexual partners. The open model is much less restrictive, and may involve seeking and taking on new partners. Each participant in this model is seen as belonging to a basic family unit but are not restricted in whom they pursue sexually or romantically. They are empowered to make their own decisions and have a right to find new lovers without approval from partners. The multiple non-primary relationships model is a distinct system in which no explicit commitments are made, such that an individual can be part of more than one relationship without prioritizing any of them. These relationships are good for people who have serious commitments and may lack the time to properly manage a committed primary relationship. 

​

Due to the broad variety of polygamous relationships, different relationships will maintain trust in different ways. For some, boundaries or contracts can help place explicit rules in a relationship (Barker and Langridge, 2010). As some forms of polyamorous relationships may change quickly, “the aim of such [rules and] arrangements is to ensure the stability and security of the relationships and to minimize painful emotions, notably jealousy” (Barker and Langdridge, 2010, page 18). Some polyamorists reject the idea of contracts altogether and forgo prescribing particular rules and behaviors for partners (Finn, 2010, as cited in Barker & Langdridge, 2010). 

​

Polyamory as a Sexual Orientation

​

Much like many identities on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, there remains considerable academic and lay discourse surrounding how polyamory should be best classified, and if it may be considered a sexual orientation. Having polyamory as a form of sexual orientation (like heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc.), would likely make polyamory more comprehensible to prevailing legal and political understandings of sexual diversity (Klesse, 2014). This may make it easier for polyamorists to receive legal protection against workplace discrimination, as it would fall under laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation (Tweedy, 2011, as cited in Klesse, 2014). Moreover, this classification may actually reflect some polyamorists' self-descriptions. Klesse (2014) stated that “it is not uncommon for poly-identified people to refer to polyamory as a ‘hard wired’, durable disposition, which deeply informs their sense of selfhood” (p. 2). In fact, approximately 44% of polyamorists describe polyamory as being innate (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020). This aligns with many previously established definitions of sexual orientation, which may serve as an argument in favor of classifying polyamory as a sexual orientation.

​

However, many scholars and polyamorists have rejected the notion that polyamory is a sexual orientation (e.g., Klesse, 2014; Rubel & Burleigh, 2020; Trahan, 2015). As put by Klesse (2014): 

​

“the equation of polyamory with sexual orientation may undermine the disruptive potential of the category polyamory, achieve only selective protection under the law, obstruct the ability of poly movements to purse broader alliances, and foster a politics of recognition at the expense of a more transformative political agenda” (p. 17-18).

​

Similarly, Rubel and Burleigh (2020) asserted that classifying polyamory as a sexual orientation may impede polyamorous social movements, undermine gender and sexual minorities, and threaten polyamory’s more radical beliefs. Many queer scholars have also contended that the notion of sexual orientation in general fails to represent the sexual fluidity individuals often experience over their lifespan (Trahan, 2015). Many polyamorists (66%) insist that polyamory is actually a set of beliefs, which strays from common definitions of sexual orientation (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020). 

​

Considering this, it is not yet explicitly clear if polyamory is a sexual orientation or not. Rubel and Burleigh (2020) reject the notion that there needs to be one single answer, and instead “argue for the advantages of a multiplicity of definitions, and for honoring the ways that polyamorous individuals define their own experiences of polyamory” (p. 23). This assertion transcends the categorical nature of sexual orientation, mirroring the diversity of classification present in many modern models of sexuality (e.g., Sari van Anders’ Sexual Configurations Theory). 

 

Discrimination Against Polyamorists

​

While academic interest in polyamory has increased considerably, polyamorists as a whole face significant

discrimination in contemporary Western society. Polyamory is seldom depicted in mass media, and when it is, it is rarely in positive light (Barker, 2005). Scholars have attributed this to the presence of larger cultural forces that normalize monogamous orientations and view anything that strays from them as deviant (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). A common term used by academics to describe this phenomenon is mononormativity, defined more specifically as: 

​

“[A] complex power relation, which (re)produces hierarchically arranged patterns of intimate relationships and devalues, marginalizes, excludes and ‘others’ those patterns of intimacy which do not correspond to the normative apparatus of the monogamous model. Mono-normativity is based on the taken for granted allegation that monogamy and couple-shaped arranged relationships are the principle of social relations per se, an essential foundation of human existence and the elementary, almost natural pattern of living together. From this perspective, every relationship which does not represent this pattern, is being ascribed the status of the other, of deviation, of pathology, in need of explanation or is being ignored, hidden, avoided and marginalized” (Bauer, 2010, p. 145, as cited in Trahan, 2015).

​

Mononormativity thus serves to create a climate that does not welcome polyamorous identities, experiences, or relationships. This is often perpetuated by depictions of polyamory in the mainstream media, wherein non-monogamy is largely portrayed as being riddled with infidelity and jealousy (Barker, 2005). Partners in these relationships are rarely characterized as equal; there is always the ‘other woman’ (Seguin, 2019). 

​

Some scholars have made efforts to examine the impacts of mononormativities on popular opinions of polyamory. In particular, Seguin (2019) analyzed unsolicited comments and opinions regarding polyamory posted on various internet communities. Out of the five common themes they discovered in these unsolicited opinions, three were reflective of significant discrimination against polyamorous orientations). These themes included beliefs that polyamory is unsustainable, perverse, or deficient. Many commenters expressed that polyamory is doomed to failure, incapable of overcoming the negative impacts of jealousy and/or power imbalances. Some individuals viewed polyamorous relationships as too much work for little gain, while many others polyamory as deficient, not ‘real love’. Numerous commenters also cited religious reasons for their opposition to polyamory, stating that polyamorous relationships go against religious definitions of marriage and thus are an offense against god. However, it is important to consider that Seguin’s findings may represent a more extreme subset of the public opinion on polyamory. Study researchers particularly warned that:

​

“the degree of anonymity provided by computer-mediated communication may instill a sense of impunity from being held accountable for antisocial online behavior… Thus, it is possible that some of the voice opinions in the present study were more representative of extreme and negative comments (i.e. ‘trolling), rather than of actual attitudes” (p. 684)  

​

As such, public opinion on polyamory may be more positive than Seguin’s (2019) findings suggest, though further research is necessary to determine if that is the case. Despite this limitation, other researchers have agreed with the claim that public opinion on polyamory is largely negative (e.g., Sheff, 2020; Manley et al., 2015). Some of these researchers have reasoned that this bias is likely due to individuals being introduced to polyamory via the internet or reality television, rather than interacting with polyamorists in real life (Conley et al., 2013a; Ferrer, 2018, as cited in Sheff, 2020). 

​

Regardless of the exact intensity of this discrimination, scholars have argued that these prejudices against polyamory have harsh consequences. In fact, it has been proposed that “many polyamorous people are at least somewhat closeted, because stigma and discrimination have had demonstratably devastating effects on other polyamorous people, and community wisdom suggests caution when considering coming out.” (Sheff, 2013, as cited in Sheff, 2020, p. 885). These experiences reveal the real-world consequences of mononormativity and reflect the necessity of academics to continue legitimizing polyamorous orientations. 

​

Polyamory as a Rejection of Mononormativity

​

While polyamorous practices are often subject to discrimination at the hands of mononormativity, some scholars have argued that an engagement with polyamory actually serves to counter these norms. Literature on polyamory posits that the mere existence of polyamorists is enough evidence that experiences of normative monogamy are not exhaustive. Barker (2005) suggested that “polyamory contests the ideal of the monogamous relationship... and in some cases the idea that relationships should be between only two people'' (p. 4). She proposed that polyamorous orientations challenge psychological theories that presume monogamy as a ‘natural’ and inherent aspect of human development. Haritaworn et al. (2006) further argued that polyamory offers ethical guidance for relationships and lifestyles that transcend compulsory monogamy. They contend that non-monogamy can “provide novel insights into the social construction and organization of kinship, households and the family, parenting practices, sexual identities and heteronormativity” (p. 518), and that these insights may allow for the creation of sex-positive understandings of eroticism, sexuality, and relationships. Some scholars even contend for polyamory’s potential to destabilize not only mononormativity, but norms surrounding sexual orientation and gender. Klesse (2014) argued that polyamorous practices create sexual and intimate possibilities that go beyond gender/sex and homosexual/heterosexual binaries. As such, polyamory may challenge both compulsory monogamy (Haritaworn et al., 2006) and compulsory heterosexuality (Klesse, 2014). 

​

Language created to reflect polyamorous lifestyles has also served in rejecting mononormativity. In specific, Trahan (2015) argued that the usage of polyamorous terminology aids in legitimizing polyamorous orientations, asserting nonmonogamy’s place in society, and challenging notions that monogamy is the only or ideal form of relationship. Some terms that have been created to explain polyamorous phenomenon and experiences include metamour (one’s partner’s partner), wibble (nervousness about a partner’s relationship with another person), and compersion (happiness about a partner’s intimacy with another person) (Ritchie & Barker, 2006, as cited in Trahan, 2015). Labels like metamour replace standard monogamy-centered terminology (like ‘mistress’ or ‘the other woman’), and frame those involved in polyamorous relationships as valuable, trustworthy, and loved (Trahan, 2015). Terms like ‘slut’ have even been reclaimed by the polyamorous community (Klesse, 2006b, as cited in Trahan, 2015). The Ethical Slut (often termed the ‘poly bible’) has aided in this process, disputing the negative mononormative associations surrounding the word ‘slut’ and converting the term into a positive identity label (Trahan, 2015). 

​

Some polyamorists have even gone as far to suggest that CNM and polyamory are superior to monogamy, flipping the roles imposed by mononormativity (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). A participant in Barker’s (2005a) research explicitly stated that non-monogamy is “much simpler than Western conventional monogamy…[which] is all very contradictory and cruel” (p. 81), countering mononormative views that CNMs are unreasonably complicated (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). Such viewpoints challenge the assumption that monogamous relationships are inherently better, and may aid in changing negative perceptions of polyamory.

​

Social and Political Implications of Polyamory

​

Considerable literature and lay discussion has addressed how polyamory may be implicated in the social and political realms (e.g., Haritaworn et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2015; Klesse, 2014; Trahan, 2015). In fact, “one of the most recurrent themes [in the literature] is the persuasive appeal that poly writings and poly philosophies needs to take a more political focus” (Trahan, 2015, p. 54). This aligns with Wilkinson’s (2010) political framework in which personal lives are not private, but a means for resistance (Trahan, 2015). Under this framework, someone's sexual identity plays an important role in challenging power hierarchies. Interestingly enough, there are even associations between one’s beliefs regarding polyamory and political conservatism. Johnson et al. (2015) determined that there is actually a negative correlation between positive attitudes toward polyamory and political conservatism, suggesting some link between one’s acceptance and exposure to polyamory and their political beliefs. 

​

Klesse (2014) argued that the “promotion of essentialist models of poly as a socio-political and legal strategy is likely to reinforce an even stronger identity-focused political orientation of the poly movement, which is likely to work against broaded alliances in the politics around non-monogamy” (p. 21). Essentially, this suggests that sexual orientation models of polyamory will actually impact the political discourse surrounding polyamorous identities. However, Klesse suggested that this will largely result in a depiction of polyamory as “one-dimensional”, thus undermining its “disruptive potential” (p. 18). 

​

This potential for disruption advocated for by Klesse (2014) exists primarily because polyamory intrinsically challenges norms surrounding relationships, love, and sexuality. These norms are deeply embedded into our social, political, and cultural frameworks, and thus it is no surprise that polyamory has significant implications in all these realms. In the future, scholars suggest that willing polyamorists and researchers of polyamory should take full advantage of this potential (Trahan, 2015). Polyamorous social and political efforts may contest mononormative forces, allowing the possibility of a world where polyamorous identities are understood, accepted, and included. 

 

 

​

References

​

Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner, and this is my...partner's partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), 75-88. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1080/10720530590523107

​

Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748-772. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1177/1363460710384645

Haritaworn, J., Lin, C., & Klesse, C. (2006). Poly/logue: A critical introduction to polyamory. Sexualities, 9(5), 515-529. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1177/1363460706069963

​

Johnson, S. M., Giuliano, T. A., Herselman, J. R., & Hutzler, K. T. (2015). Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(4), 325-339. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1080/19419899.2014.1001774

​

Klesse, C. (2014). Polyamory: Intimate practice, identity or sexual orientation? Sexualities, 17(1-2), 81-99. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1177/1363460713511096

​

Labriola, K. (2003). Models of Open Relationships. http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef/Poly/Labriola/open.html. 

​

Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(2), 168-180. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1037/sgd0000098

​

Rubel, A. N., & Burleigh, T. J. (2020). Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities, 23(1-2), 3-27. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1177/1363460718779781

​

Séguin, L. J. (2019). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory. Sexualities, 22(4), 669-690. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1177/1363460717713382

​

Sheff, E. (2020). Polyamory is deviant – but not for the reasons you may think. Deviant Behavior, http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1080/01639625.2020.1737353

​

Trahan, H. A. (2015). Relationship literacy and polyamory: A queer approach (Order No. AAI3671794). Available from APA PsycInfo®. (1735929590; 2015-99210-258). https://search-proquest-com.oca.ucsc.edu/dissertations-theses/relationship-literacy-polyamory-queer-approach/docview/1735929590/se-2?accountid=14523

​

​

​

​