Wikipedia

Draft:Non-monogamous Intimacy

Non-Monogamous Intimacy

edit


Non-monogamous Intimacy can be defined as feelings of closeness and connection within interpersonal relationships that involve more than two individuals.[1] These consensual relationships are characterised by a negotiated dynamic where multiple partners engage sexually and romantically, fostering a sense of shared emotional intimacy among all partners involved.[1] "Consensual Non-monogamy" (CNM) serves as an umbrella term for various structures and frameworks of relationships, including polyamory and polygamy, which each express intimacy in their own unconventional way.

Conley and Moors[2] proposed that there are three kinds of CNM relationships that individuals can engage in: polyamory (there are more than two individuals in the relationship who engage with each other both romantically and sexually), swinging (individuals in the relationship engage with others sexually, often together as a couple), and open relationships (individuals in the relationship are allowed to engage with others outside of the relationship sexually).

Models of Non-monogamous Intimacy

edit

While models of monogamous intimacy have been thoroughly researched, studies into non-monogamous intimacy remain relatively new and recent, leaving many gaps in our understanding. Current research, however, has begun to introduce models of intimacy that are specific to the dynamics observed in non-monogamous research.

Intimate Agency

edit

Eda (2012)[3] proposed the concept of 'Intimate Agency' to describe the unique dynamics of intimacy in those engaged in CNM relationships. This model describes the ability of individuals to openly communicate and define their own relationship norms, which are essential in developing trust and intimacy within these partnerships. It emphasises the process of fluidity in these relationships, and how conventional boundaries are able to change in order to suit the needs of the individuals. Eda argues that this process of intimate agency not only assists in intimacy building, but also promotes individual autonomy and freedom, benefitting all involved and serving the needs of intimacy in the relationship.[3]

Anarchy of Nomadic Boundaries

edit

Heckert introduced the concept named "anarchy of nomadic boundaries" as a key aspect of intimacy in CNM relationships; this identifies the importance of the openness to discuss, define and redefine your own personal boundaries, and allow them to be 'open to change'.[4]

Heckert's theory explores many different dimensions of relationships, one of which being the capacity to love multiple people simultaneously. He argues that since individuals experience multiple different types of love in their lifetime, it is not unreasonable to suggest that these loves can coexist. By accepting ideas such as this that deviate from our societal norms, Heckert believes that intimacy can develop more strongly in CNM relationships.[4]

This model of intimacy highlights the importance of deeper intimacy, communication and adaptability in negotiating boundaries within CNM relationships. By integrating fluidity into discussion, intimacy is allowed to develop and strengthen further. Embracing non-traditional values of love can strengthen partnerships and emotional bonds between those sharing a romantic connection.[4]

Degrees of Openness

edit

Following the trend of intimacy in CNM relationships, Haag (2011, as cited in Ferrer, 2017) emphasised the importance of mutually-agreed upon varying degrees of openness.[5] Haag proposed the non-monogamous concept of the 'fifty-mile rule', a framework designed to sustain and support relationships. According to this rule, partners within the relationship are permitted to engage in other relations outside of their primary partner when they are beyond the predetermined radius from home.[5] This is particularly beneficial for those who travel for work, as the level of fluidity helps to reduce conflict between one's non-monogamous needs and desires, and the traditional rules and expectations of monogamy (Pallota-Chiarolli, 1995, as cited in Ferrer, 2017).[5] Varying the degrees of openness by introducing flexibility into relationship boundaries helps alleviate tension and conflict within CNM relationships, and assists in strengthening intimacy.[5]

Relationship Quality

edit

Power Dynamics and Conflict

edit

One of the most significant catalysts of conflict in relationships is infidelity. Cheating often occurs due to a power imbalance, where both partners agree to a monogamous relationship, but one may not adhere to the commitment.[6] In such cases, the individual who cheats exerts power over the situation, leaving the other partner in a position of powerlessness. Allen and Atkins argue that infidelity is more prevalent in those who are in monogamous relationships in comparison to CNM relationships, largely due to differing power dynamics and power inequity.[6]

Sheff (2020) argues that power inequity tends to be lower in CNM relationships in comparison to monogamous ones.[1] CNM relationships promote honesty and openness in communication within the relationship and allows conversations surrounding the possibility of there being multiple forms of relationship structures.[1] This flexibility in defining intimacy reduced the likelihood of conflict in CNM as they become more adaptable to different situations. Consequently, partners in CNM relationships may experience lower levels of conflict than those in monogamous relationships, as they have a sense of shared agency and an environment that allows for open and constructive conversation.[1]

Monogamy vs Non-monogamy

edit

General trends in current research indicate that individuals in CNM relationships experience similar psychological well-being and relationship quality compared to those in monogamous relationships.[7] Additionally, a study focusing on gay men found that there was no difference in psychological adjustment between monogamous and CNM relationships. These findings challenge general public assumption that those engaging in CNM relationships are leading a less accepted and poorer lifestyle compared to socially normalised monogamous relationships.[8]

Emerging research further suggests that there are potential benefits related to engaging in CNM relationships. For instance, those engaging in these relationships tend to report having a better relationship quality in comparison to individuals in monogamous relationships.[9] In one questionnaire-based study, non-monogamous couples reported lower levels of relationship tension in comparison to their monogamous counterparts.[10] This highlights that the practice of intimacy in CNM relationships can contribute to healthier relationship outcomes.

Mental Health Implications

edit

Social Stigma

edit

Monogamy and marriage are widely viewed as being the social norms in Westernised societies. There is an implicit assumption that all relationships are both monogamous and heterosexual.[8] This perspective perpetuates the notion of compulsory heterosexuality, and aids in the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes. A study by Conley and Moors demonstrated these stereotypes by conducting a questionnaire-type study, where they found that CNM relationships are often perceived as having a higher sexual risks and are rated lower on an acceptability scale in comparison to monogamous relationships.[8]

However, research into benefits of CNM relationships reveal that those engaging in these relationships types may actually involve lower sexual risk, as discussion within these relationships emphasises openness and honest communication. [9]

Despite these potential benefits, due to the negative stigma surrounding CNM in Westernised societies, it is possible that individuals who engage in these relationships experience psychological distress. For example, Borgogna et al. found that those who actively practice CNM are more likely to be depressed than those who engage in monogamous relationships.[11] These finding demonstrates the need for future research into CNM relationships to challenge stigma and address stereotypes surrounding these relationship structures.

Clinical Implications

edit

Social stigma and stereotypes surrounding CNM relationships are not only harmful to the general public but can also have serious implications in clinical settings.[12] Previous research indicates that stigma and bias are prevalent amongst clinical therapists, with the prevalence of a predominantly negative attitude towards unconventional relationships.[12][13] This bias poses challenges for patients involved in CNM who are seeking therapy, as they may be subject to judgement or misunderstanding from clinicians who disagree with their lifestyle choices.

For example, Hymer and Rubin[12] found that the general consensus amongst therapists was that swinging was perceived as "pathological," reflecting a broader trend of pathologizing CNM relationships which are not regarded as traditional or acceptable. The potential clinical implications of this is misdiagnoses of personality disorders and neurotic tendencies.[13] This highlights the potential need for increased awareness and training for clinicians in order to reduce the interference of personal biases with therapeutic care for clients. Further research into CNM relationships may help to challenge the biases that are integrates into daily life.

Limitations in Research

edit

Intersectionality

edit

One of the limitations in regard to research into CNM is the lack of intersectional research. Generally speaking, most existing studies predominantly focus on White, middle-class male participants, many of whom identify as gay, leaving gaps in understanding into how CNM relationships intersect factors such as race, class, gender and disability.[14] These factors are likely to influence perspectives on intimacy within CNM relationships, as cultural and societal contexts play a substantial role. For instance, in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), polygamy was widely practiced and considered the norm, as it was believed to bring followers closer to god.[15] Due to this being a largely unexamined area, future research should prioritise examining these varying factors when exploring CNM relationships such as polyamory in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of these relationship structures.

Research Samples

edit

Research into CNM often faces challenges related to participant recruitment. They typically rely on volunteer participants, as there is an inability to select these individuals using other sampling methods (such as random sampling) due to their limited prevalence in the population.[16] Due to this approach, it may be true that participants recruited are motivated to provide socially desirable answers and present their relationships in a more positive light.[14] This has implications for the findings of CNM research as it may not accurately reflect the challenges and experience of individuals engaging in these relationships.[14] These biases may limit the reliability and generalisability of these findings to the general population, demonstrating the importance for future research to utilise strategies to reduce social desirability biases within these CNM samples.

The prevalence of those within consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships is increasing in contemporary society, although the numbers still remain relatively small.[16] Recent surveys have found that, in both Canada and the U.S., only around 2-5% of individuals are currently in CNM relationships.[16][17] This has implications for further developing our understanding of CNM relationships, as creating large, representative sample sizes for research is difficult.

Despite these challenges, the prevalence of those within CNM relationships appears to be growing in recent years. A Canadian study administered in 2017 reported that 12% of respondents identified open relationships as their ideal relationship type, and 2.4% reported currently being in an open relationship.[16] Although the prevalence of individuals currently engaging in open relationships remain low, also found that respondents expressing interest in some form of CNM was comparatively higher. Similarly, a U.S. study found that more than 1 in 5 adults have engaged in some form of CNM in their lifetime.[18] This highlights the importance of integrating CNM into relationship research more frequently, due to its evolving role in modern relationships.

Social Stigma

edit

The general societal assumptions that monogamy and heterosexuality are the norms for relationships significantly influences research into CNM.[8] Due to these societal stereotypes, research into CNM may be inadvertently affected by researchers may share these cultural contexts where they carry similar stereotypes.[14]

Conley highlights that researchers conducting CNM relationship studies often originate from Westernised societies, which predominantly views monogamy as the standard relationship model. As a result, it is likely that these researchers would hold implicit biases surrounding the relationship models that are promoted in their societies.[14] Such biases may influence the research process of studies into CNM relationships, impacting the reliability of the findings as the way in which CNM is studied may not account for its diversity and varying degrees of monogamy.

In order to address these biases, future research should aim to include researchers from a wider range of societal and cultural backgrounds to counteract the strict stereotypes of monogamy being the standard and produce more balanced insights into CNM relationships.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Sheff, E. (2020). Polyamory Is Deviant – But Not for the Reasons You May Think. Deviant Behavior, 41(7), 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1737353
  2. ^ Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More Oxygen Please!: How Polyamorous Relationship Strategies Might Oxygenate Marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2014.876908
  3. ^ a b Eda, H. (2012). Intimate agency: A radical sexual revolution. Retrieved from  http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/edagpaper.pdf
  4. ^ a b c Heckert, J. H. (2010). Love without borders? Intimacy, identity and the state of compulsory monogamy. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jamie-heckert-love-without-borders-intimacy-identity-and-the-state-of-compulsory-monogamy?print
  5. ^ a b c d Ferrer, J. N. (2017). Beyond the non/monogamy system: fluidity, hybridity, and transcendence in intimate relationships. Psychology and Sexuality, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2017.1400459
  6. ^ a b Allen, E. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2005). The multidimensional and developmental nature of infidelity: Practical applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(11), 1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20187
  7. ^ Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2014). Consensual Nonmonogamy: Psychological Well-Being and Relationship Quality Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722
  8. ^ a b c d Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2012). The Fewer the Merrier?: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non‐monogamous Romantic Relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x
  9. ^ a b Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2012). A Critical Examination of Popular Assumptions About the Benefits and Outcomes of Monogamous Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312467087
  10. ^ Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship Quality of Gay Men in Closed or Open Relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v12n02_06
  11. ^ Borgogna, N. C., Aita, S. L., & Aita, L. J. (2021). Minority stress in consensually non-monogamous individuals: mental health implications. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 39(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2021.1959545
  12. ^ a b c Hymer, S. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1982). Alternative Lifestyle Clients. Small Group Behavior, 13(4), 532–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648201300408
  13. ^ a b Knapp, J. J. (1975). Some Non-Monogamous Marriage Styles and Related Attitudes and Practices of Marriage Counselors. The Family Coordinator, 24(4), 505. https://doi.org/10.2307/583034
  14. ^ a b c d e Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616667925
  15. ^ Krakauer, J. (2004). Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. Anchor.
  16. ^ a b c d Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A., & Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open Relationship Prevalence, Characteristics, and Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667
  17. ^ Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open Relationships, Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy, and Monogamy Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1439–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7
  18. ^ Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2016). Prevalence of Experiences With Consensual Nonmonogamous Relationships: Findings From Two National Samples of Single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(5), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2016.1178675
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Non-monogamous_Intimacy&oldid=1262673871"