groves 9453087.0005.001 in
« Prev section Next section »

Chapter 5: Consideration of the Benefits and Drawbacks of Alternate Relationship Paradigms for Sexual and Gender Minority Clients

Jeni Wahlig
Suzanne Mueller Sherman
Resonant Relationships

Acknowledgements
I (Jeni) would like to acknowledge my wife, Stephanie, for walking down this poly path with me, and for being so committed and supportive when relationships get hard and messy.

Introduction

Sexual and gender identities intersect to inform the way people perform relationships, particularly partnered or intimate relationships. In the dominant sexuality and gender paradigms (read heterosexual, male-female sex/gender binary) the performance of partnered relationships is well-scripted. For example, it is easy to imagine, solely based on knowing that someone identifies as a heterosexual man, how he might act on a date, engage sexually (and with whom), and create a family. For sexual and gender minorities, however, such assumptions are not so easily made. Dominant discourses rarely offer clear scripts for the performance of sexual or gender identities that exist outside of the heteronormative cisgender boxes, to say nothing of how these identities might intersect to influence how one engages in relationships.

In the dominant paradigm, sex and gender (which are presumed to be the same thing) organize sexuality (van Anders, 2015). If you are a man attracted to a woman, you are heterosexual. If you are man or woman attracted to someone of the same sex/gender, you are a homosexual. However, the reality is that gender and sex are neither synonymous nor dichotomous. Being born male, for example, does not guarantee how one will come to identify with or express one’s gender. In fact, the ways in which people today are identifying and expressing gender are constantly expanding, as terms such as genderqueer, trans* or transgender, gender fluid, genderful, agender, bigender, androgynous, and two-spirit illustrate. In the dominant paradigm, where the sex/gender of each partner dictates sexual orientation, one can no longer draw easy conclusions about the sexual orientation of, say, a genderfluid male who partners with an agender trans* man. Nor can clinicians draw easy conclusions about how such a couple might engage in relationship with one another.

Sexual identities are also far more complex than the dominant discourses typically allow. For example, the idea of sexual orientation, which tends to group people into categories based on the sex/gender binary (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual), makes no space for the diversity of experiences of attraction within the intersection of sexuality and gender (van Anders, 2015). As van Anders (2015) illustrates, “It fails to account for heterosexual men interested in feminine women versus those aroused by breasts, vulvas, or vaginas, regardless of gender” (p. 1180). Similarly, the term lesbian assumes a woman who is attracted to women, but it does not differentiate between women who are attracted to butch women versus those attracted to femme women. Additionally, sexuality and attraction are not limited to one’s sex characteristics or even gender identity or expression. By assuming that a person’s sexual attraction is based solely on the sex characteristics or gender identity of a partner, one denies many other aspects of a person’s sexuality. Sexual attraction can, and often does, involve things like intelligence, physical characteristics, personality traits (Horncastle, 2008), spiritual connection, or romantic affection. Like gender identities, ways that people understand and describe their sexual identities continue to expand and might include labels such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, asexual, aromantic, demisexual, skoliosexual, gynesexual, androsexual, and kinky (see Killerman, 2017, for an easy online reference to many of these and other terms). Finally, van Anders (2015) argues that preferred and actual number of sexual partners is also an important part of exploring and understanding one’s sexuality. Indeed, for many people, a polyamorous identity—identifying as someone who can and does love and engage in relationships with more than one person—is an important sexual identity location.

As people affirm and express identity locations that are more complex, fluid, and multi-faceted, the dominant discourses directing the performance of relationships, and even of self within relationships, no longer apply. Sexual and gender minorities are left to explore and navigate uncharted territory. The intersection of a person’s queer sexual and/or gender identities with how they engage in relationships can become complicated and unclear. It is likely that many will attempt, perhaps unconsciously, to perform relationships based on the expectations set forth by dominant discourses. For some, this will work, but for others, doing so may result in a denial of parts of their identity

Clinicians have recently been called to apply an intersectional lens to their work with clients (Addison & Coolhart, 2015; Harris & Bartlow, 2015). “The power of an intersectional lens is the way it frames individuals’ experiences of identity and power as complex, dynamic, subjective, and specific, rather than as single-axis, static, autonomous, and generalized” (Addison & Coolhart, 2015, p. 440). In applying such a lens, sexual and gender identities are often considered. However, relationship orientation or paradigm is rarely, to our knowledge, called out as an identity location for consideration in intersectionality. Although the intersection of sexual identity, gender identity, and relationship orientation is a part of all of clients’ experiences, it may be especially important to attend to when working with sexual and gender minorities, particularly if there is a conflict, tension, anxiety, or mismatch between the authentic expression of a person’s identity locations and their internal or relational systems.

In considering how to support clients through these challenges, helping professionals have begun to turn their attention to the value of critically questioning, expanding, deconstructing, and queering one’s understanding of sexual and gender identities. Although we believe that this attention to sexual and gender identity locations is necessary, it may not be enough for all clients. Living authentically as a sexual or gender minority may require not only a deconstruction and reconstruction of the dominant discourses surrounding how a person performs their sexual or gender identity, but also how they perform relationships.

Monogamy is the dominant paradigm for how to perform partnered relationships, and it is so deeply ingrained and normalized that it is rarely questioned, nor are alternate relationship paradigms considered—a phenomenon which feminists have termed compulsory monogamy (Willey, 2015). Both clients and therapists alike are subject to this internalized monogamy paradigm, or mononormativity (Cohen, 2016; Finn, Tunariu, & Lee, 2012). Furthermore, dominant discourse tends to stigmatize alternate relationship paradigms, as pathological, problematic, and even immoral (Conley, Moors et al., 2013). Even reportedly poly-friendly therapists are not immune to perpetuating the internalized discourses that suggest monogamy is the preferred and healthier relationship paradigm and that engaging in alternate relationship paradigms is indicative of some underlying issue (Finn et al., 2012, Weitzman, 2006). When alternate relationship paradigms are neither considered nor explored, options for how to perform self, relationships, and even family become limited to what is acceptable within the monogamy paradigm. Thus, the beauty, complexity, and sophistication one might otherwise identify in a myriad of sexual and gender identities and relationship paradigms are instead viewed as “other”, abnormal, and undesirable (Horncastle, 2008). For sexual and gender minorities in particular, this may mean that parts of one’s identity have to be denied—personally, relationally, socially, and politically.

We believe that helping professionals have a responsibility to support their clients in understanding and considering as many options as possible for how to live most authentically in all of their identity locations. To do that, however, helping professionals need to have awareness that other options are available and of the benefits and drawbacks of those options. This includes a consideration of alternate relationship paradigms. Because of their queer identity location(s), we believe that a consideration of alternate relationship paradigms is especially important in their work with sexual and gender minorities. In writing this, we do not intend to take the position that alternate relationship paradigms are at all superior for sexual and gender minorities. Indeed, they may not work for a majority of queer clients! Rather, we are attempting to bring a critical lens to assumptions about monogamy and to highlight both the potential benefits and drawbacks of alternate relationship paradigms to sexual and gender minorities. Although we do not explore or explain all of the different kinds of non-monogamous paradigms that may be available, we challenge clinicians to consider their role in bringing these considerations into the therapeutic dialogue and supporting clients who may be interested or are already engaging in alternate relationship paradigms. It is also essential that clinicians bring critical consciousness to their own biases and beliefs regarding relationship paradigms, and we offer suggested questions for this reflective practice.

A Note About Language

In this article, we will often use the term poly to denote alternate relationship paradigms. To say “alternate relationship paradigm” is to point to the reality that people have choices in the ways in which they perform relationships; aside from monogamy, there are a number of other, or alternate, paradigms from which one might choose, to say nothing of the unlimited unique ways in which a person can negotiate and co-create relationships within or outside of any paradigm. The drawback of solely using the language of “alternate relationship paradigm”, or of using other common terms, like consensual non-monogamy, is that we risk further privileging the expected normativity of monogamy by naming what a relationship is not (Horncastle, 2008). Non-monogamous paradigms become othered; they are the “other” or “alternate” choices. The term polyamory is often used as an umbrella term that captures the more defined alternate relationship paradigms, such as open relationships, group marriage, and swinging (Munson & Steboum, 1999). However, it could be validly argued that polyamory is its own relationship paradigm (and identity location), and one that is importantly distinct from other types of consensual non-monogamy (Sheff & Tesene, 2015).

For these reasons, we chose to use the term poly as an overarching umbrella term that captures the myriad of choices available to people in the performance of partner relationships. This term is a reference to what Anapol (1997) named new paradigm poly. Halpern (1999) summarized the idea of new paradigm poly well:

New paradigm poly appears to assume a basic respect for all forms of expression of sexual-loving feelings in ways that facilitate individual growth, with the assumption that there can be no a priori limitation placed upon the number or nature of intimate relationships among consenting individuals. (p. 161)

As an affirming term for what alternate relationships are, we thought Anapol’s (1997) concept of new paradigm poly, or poly as we will refer to it, was a fitting choice.

Similarly, we will often use the word queer to refer to sexual and gender minority identities so that we may point toward and affirm what these identities are—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning intersex, asexual, pansexual (LGBTQQIAP) and so on—rather than what they are not—heterosexual and cisgender (the majority).

Monogamy—The Traditional Relationship Paradigm

Monogamy, it seems, is a difficult term to find defined in literature, perhaps because it is assumed to be inherently understood. Monogamy might be defined as a relationship paradigm wherein a person is expected to partner with (mate), and remain mutually sexually and romantically exclusive for life. Dominant discourse suggests that monogamy is the preferred, best, pervasive, and most natural way of being in relationship (Conley, Ziegler et al. 2013). However, when more closely examined, these beliefs come into question. Globally and historically monogamy is not as normative as one might think. Research estimates that 4% to 5% of American people are in poly relationships (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013). Lifelong monogamy—staying with only one sexual partner for life—is actually quite rare. Instead, many people engage in what is sometimes referred to as serial monogamy, or engaging in sexual exclusivity with one partner at a time, but still changing partners throughout one’s life. Furthermore, even within reportedly monogamous relationships, sexual exclusivity is not often the case. An estimated 25% of married men and 15% of married women have at least one affair during their lifetime (Blow & Harnett, 2005). Given the stigma around infidelity, and potential differences in how cheating is defined, it is likely that these numbers are underreported (Sheff & Tesene, 2015).

With divorce rates climbing higher and increased reports of marital affairs (Taormino, 2008, p. xvi), trusting a partner to be faithful can be anxiety provoking, and then emotionally devastating, when not upheld. Anapol (2010) writes that

...most observers agree that traditional marriage is floundering... rising divorce rates, declining marriage rates, and the skyrocketing incidence of infidelity on the one hand and sexless marriage on the other hand have many people concerned about their prospects for marital bliss. (p. 2)

The increase in cohabitating unmarried couples further suggests that people may no longer feel as comfortable settling into a commitment to one life-long partnership (Anapol, 2010).

Despite these realities, monogamy is so entrenched that most people rarely question it (Perel, 2006). Perel (2006) describes monogamy as a “ship sinking faster than anyone can bail it out” (p. 178) and notes that most people “would rather kill a relationship than question its structure” (p. 177). The idea that a monogamy paradigm might not be as sound and beneficial is somehow terrifying. The beliefs that monogamy is inherently superior, more beneficial, and is more likely to work are widely held (Conley, Moors et al., 2013). According to Conley, Ziegler et al. (2013) the perceived benefits of monogamy include an improved sex life, decreased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), improved relationship quality, greater commitment and less jealousy, benefits to the family, and the social acceptability of this form of relationship. Although it is likely that many couples experience these benefits from a monogamous relationship paradigm, a more critical examination of monogamy suggests that this paradigm may not be as indisputably beneficial as most would assume (see Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013 for a review).

Alternate Relationship Paradigms

Although we choose to use the term poly to refer to alternate relationship paradigms, other frequently used terms include “open” relationships, consensual non-monogamy, and polyamory (Benson, 2017). On the surface, poly may be understood as in opposition to monogamy; where monogamy is commitment to one person, poly is an openness to more than one (Anapol, 2010). Although true, this simple contrast does not capture the complexity and diversity for engaging in relationships that poly paradigms offer. Poly relationships include ways of connecting to multiple partners that “may encompass many elements, including love, friendship, closeness, emotional intimacy, recurring contact, commitment, affection, flirting, romance, desire, erotic contact, sex and a spiritual connection” (Taormino, 2008, p. 71). Anapol (2010) asserts that engaging in poly can also include “freely chosen monogamy” (p. 230), or monogamy that is desired and wanted. In a poly paradigm, this means that those who choose to have a monogamous relationship would do so because it fits and that the relationship agreement does not necessitate a strict agreement of only engaging in a monogamous relationship for the entirety of the relationship.

The underlying essence of alternate relationship paradigms is to allow for conscious, consensual, ethical, and authentic choices, rather than cultural, religious, or discursive prescriptions, to dictate the form and flow of a relationship over time. It is critical to recognize that poly relationships do not imply permission to have affairs (Taormino, 2008). Rather, the form and boundaries of each relationship are openly discussed, developed, and agreed upon by those involved. Each partnered configuration may come up with their own rules and ideals for expectations, but they are clearly defined, not assumed, and they can be renegotiated as people, lives, and relationships change.

Within the overarching construct of a new poly paradigm (Anapol, 1997), it is important to recognize that there are many different relationship configurations from which a person might choose. Some of these include: monogamish, polyfidelity, solo polyamory, open, swinging, and primary/secondary polyamory (see Veaux, 2017a for definitions of these and other poly terms). These relationship paradigms may be an important resource for clients looking to better understand the options available to them, as they offer a framework for what a relationship within that paradigm might look like. Although a discussion of each of these types of poly relationships is beyond the scope of this article, clinicians should educate and familiarize themselves with these, and other, ways of engaging in relationships. (Helpful starting resources might include: Sheff & Tesene, 2016; Taormino, 2008; Veaux, 2017b, or Weitzman, 2006) At the same time, it behooves clinicians to remember that there is no one way to do poly relationships, even within a particular paradigm. The gift, and challenge, of poly relationships is that they allow for a space for people to ethically perform relationships in ways that feel authentic and affirming of one’s multi-faceted self.

Considerations for Sexual and Gender Minorities

Alternate relationship paradigms are not for everyone, but they may offer important benefits and solutions to queer clients. In order for clinicians to be most effective in supporting queer clients in exploring alternate relationship options, clinicians need to be aware of both the benefits and the drawbacks that they may experience.

Benefits

Poly relationships offer numerous benefits to anyone who chooses to engage in them. For sexual and gender minorities, however, some of these benefits may be particularly relevant, and others may be unique to queer identities. Benefits of poly relationships to sexual and gender minorities include self-actualization, healthy and fulfilling relationships, sex and sexual satisfaction, and expanded family.

Self-actualization. Engaging in a poly relationship paradigm can facilitate an acceleration of personal and spiritual growth (Anapol, 2010; Taormino, 2008). Because of its very nature, a successful poly relationship demands the development of many beneficial personal qualities and relationship skills, including communication skills, self-awareness, radical honesty, the ability to set and respect boundaries, trust, fidelity, and commitment (Taormino, 2008). New relationships also bring new experiences and can facilitate a sense of personal freedom (Cohen, 2016; Taormino, 2008). Additionally, poly relationship can bring forth the best in a person, illuminate areas of personal growth, and facilitate self-discovery (Richards, 2010; Weitzman, 2006). Poly paradigms may allow for expressions of different facets of self, sexuality, and gender, which may facilitate further revelations of one’s authentic self (Richards, 2010). The more relationships in which one engages, the more parts of one’s self that a person gets to identify, experience, explore, and grow. This benefit may be especially relevant to the queer community, as the constraints and stigmas within the dominant discourses can stunt one’s ability to identify, articulate, discuss, and represent the wide array of authentic sexual, gender, and relationship experiences (Horncastle, 2008).

For example, consider the potential benefits of poly relationships for trans* individuals, whose gender and sexualities may change throughout their identity actualization and potential gender transition. “Polyamory opens up extra spaces within a trans person’s intimate relationships for the comfortable foregrounding of various genders at various times, which in turn opens up opportunities for further growth and exploration of gender and intimacy” (Richards, 2010, p. 132). Furthermore, trans* bodies do not fit the dominant sex/gender paradigm, but poly relationships can provide a space to identify and create a self where dominant heteronormative and binary gender discourses do not necessarily exist. There is a tendency to experience greater acceptance of differences in body types and sexual expressions within poly paradigms (Weitzman, 2006). These multiple opportunities to perform gender in different relationships can allow for a richer exploration of one’s own self and thus result in greater opportunities for self-actualization (Richards, 2010).

Similarly, for sexual minorities whose identities include an attraction to more than one expression of sex/gender, such as bisexual and pansexual, poly relationships allow for the full expression and experience of sexual attraction and desire. Weitzman (2006) asserts that poly paradigms offer these folks the benefits of not needing to eliminate partners based on gender, greater freedom to speak about one’s attractions and fantasies, the ability to form relationship configurations of any gender combination, being able to enjoy the differences in genders, the transcendence of gender, and greater visibility of one’s sexual identity.

Although poly may be a way for many sexual and gender minority clients to affirm other parts of their identities, it is important to recognize that people choose poly for a number of reasons. For example, a bisexual person may not choose poly just to be able to date both men and women. Instead, they may choose it because a poly paradigm offers other valuable factors or because being poly simply fits their authentic self and the way they understand and perform love and relationships (Halpern, 1999; Weitzman, 2006). For people whose identity includes being poly, engaging in poly relationship paradigms may feel necessary to their full self-actualization.

Healthy and fulfilling relationships. Alternate relationship paradigms allow for many relationship characteristics that hold the potential for healthy, satisfying, high quality relationships. Indeed, one study found that people in alternate relationships identified feeling fulfilled and closer to their partner as some of the benefits of their relationship paradigm (Cohen, 2016). Conley, Ziegler et al. (2013) report evidence from research that suggests that folks in poly relationships “report high degrees of honesty, closeness, happiness, communication, and relationship satisfaction” (p. 133). A study of gay male couples suggests that agreed upon poly contracts helped to facilitate deepened trust, emotional bonds, and boundaries in the relationship (Hoff & Beougher, 2010).

Poly paradigms allow for greater flexibility, enrichment, and fulfillment in relationships. They allow for an openness to loving (Benson, 2017) and the ability to experience connections as deeply and authentically as it feels right to (Blasband & Peplau, 1985). As mentioned previously, successful poly relationships require the development of important relationship skills, such as the ability to communicate around relationship needs and boundaries (Weitzman, 2006). The communication, boundaries, and support may lead to increased trust and security. Poly relationships encourage mutual support of one another’s authentic experiences and commitment to work through jealousy and other difficult feelings (Weitzman, 2006). Poly relationships benefit those involved by offering a sense of unity, the ability to forgive, an increase in consciousness, and altruism (Anapol, 2010).  It requires a conscious commitment to intentional unselfish love within relationships. As Anapol (2010) writes, “Polyamory breaks down cultural patterns of control as well as ownership and property rights between persons and... [replaces] them with a family milieu of unconditional love, trust, and respect...” (p. 239). Poly relationships, therefore, can be a “training ground for unconditional love” (Anapol, 2010, p. 237).

Although dominant cultural discourse suggests that love and relationships should feel like a Hollywood romance—exciting, passionate, connection with a soul-mate who provides one everything a person could ever want in a life-partner—this narrative is far from reality. Perhaps more than ever before in history, people are relying on their spouses to fulfill all kinds of roles—lover, friend, confidant, fellow-adventurer, co-parent, income-earner, household maintainer, fulfiller of dreams, and so-on. It is rare, however, that any single person could successfully fulfill all of these roles. Poly paradigms take the pressure off of one person having to meet all of another person’s needs (Bettinger, 2005; Weitzman, 2006). It allows for each person to enrich and fulfill the lives of one another, without the demand that they be everything.

Although it is still possible to experience infidelity within an alternate relationship paradigm, the openness and consensual permission for romantic or sexual engagement with other partners likely minimizes this risk. Jealousy often arises in response to fears around what is not allowed, such as having sex with another person (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013). Thus, it is unsurprising that jealousy, if present at all, tends to be less of an issue and better managed in poly relationships than in monogamous ones (Conley, Moors et al., 2013). Furthermore, engaging in poly relationships allows for the experience of compersion, which can be understood as the opposite of jealousy (Taormino, 2010). Compersion is essentially experiencing one’s own personal joy in response to a partner’s pleasure or happiness with others (Taormino, 2010), and it can be a beautiful and connecting experience between partners.

There may also be additional benefits of alternate relationship paradigms to relationship quality for sexual and gender minorities. Poly relationships may be particularly beneficial to people who identify as asexual, for example, because they invite new, not necessarily sexual, ways of performing relationships, understanding intimacy and connection, and meeting needs (Scherrer, 2010). Munson and Steboum (1999) suggest that poly relationships may also be particularly relevant to lesbians, because they could offer solutions to some of the stereotypical relationship challenges that lesbian couples might encounter, such as moving in with one another too quickly, merging identities, and experiencing a decrease in sexual involvement. She argues that these challenges arise, in part, because of internalized messages to women about what it means to have good sex, be in a good relationship, and be a good partner. Although it could be validly argued that these stereotypical “challenges” are unnecessarily pathologized (e.g., Iasenza, 2002), it is nevertheless possible that, for lesbian-identified women who are reporting such challenges in their relationships, a poly relationship could open doors to greater relationship satisfaction and well-being.

At the very least, an exploration of the potential for poly relationships is likely to open discursive doors that critically examine the internalized messages about how one should be, act, and feel in the performance of relationships. This process may be especially important for sexual and gender minority clients, whose identities already position them in ambiguous territory when it comes to the intersection of these identities within relationships. The discursive exploration of the performance of self within relationships and the availability of more choices for authentic living allows for increased opportunities to co-create mutually healthy and satisfying relationships.

Sex and sexual satisfaction. Some people may choose an alternate relationship paradigm for the benefit of experiencing greater sexual satisfaction, (Cohen, 2016; Sheff, 2005; Taormino, 2008), agency (Sheff, 2005), and fantasy fulfillment (Taormino, 2008). To be sure, many poly relationship paradigms allow for the opportunity to engage in sexual relationships with more than one person. For members of the queer community, this opportunity may be especially important.

Some sexual and gender minorities do not recognize that they are queer until they are already partnered in a relationship with someone whose sexual or gender identity is not the right fit for them. In a monogamy paradigm, this often means that the relationship ends, or that neither partners engage in sexual activity (Wolkokmir, 2009). The most obvious example of this situation is a presumed heterosexual relationship in which one partner later comes out as gay or lesbian (Wolkokmir, 2009). However, this may also occur in any partnering configuration when one partner discovers that their sexual or gender identity is somehow different from what they originally believed, such as when one recognizes that they are trans*, asexual, or kinky. Engaging in an alternate relationship paradigm, then, offers a solution for such couples to be able to continue their relationship while also meeting each person’s sexual needs.

Furthermore, people’s sexual behaviors, desires, and fantasies change over time (Devor & Dominic, 2015). In such cases, limiting one’s self to one partner would then require that aspects of one’s sexuality may never be explored or expressed, unless, both changed together or the relationship ended. For trans* people, particularly those who undergo transition, this may be especially so, both because of the effects of hormone treatments and because of the psychological effects of living and being perceived as their authentic gender (Devor & Dominic, 2015). It is not uncommon for trans* people to find that their sexual attractions change as their gender identities change. When this occurs within an established monogamous relationship, it is likely to cause problems and may necessitate that the sexual relationship between partners shifts, becomes nonsexual, or ends. The benefit of a poly paradigm is that there is room for these changes to occur and for the all partners to be able to explore and fulfill their sexual desires, with less likelihood for relationship distress or dissolution (Devor & Dominic, 2015; Wolkokmir, 2009).

Literature suggests that many gay men may prefer being in open relationships (e.g., Adam, 2010; Bettinger, 2005; Martell & Prince, 2005), perhaps especially for couples who have been together longer and have already established security and confidence in their relationship (Adam, 2010). This highlights the importance of recognizing and being open to talk about alternate relationship paradigms with gay couples in therapy; assuming a mononormative experience may deny, albeit unintentionally, an important aspect of a gay couples’ relationship. Although engaging in casual sexual relationships with multiple partners is often presumed to be an expectation of gay lifestyle (Adam, 2010), gay couples negotiate poly relationships in many ways. In one study, gay men who struggled with the limitations of monogamy dealt with it by having sex together with a third man; others developed open relationships with a primary partner which distinguished between sex-as-play and sex-as-love (Adam, 2010).

Bauer (2010) argues that queer folks who identify as kinky or whose sexual proclivities include BDSM practices may also benefit greatly from poly relationships, as these sexual desires are often diverse and specific, and one person is not likely to be able to meet all of those needs. In fact, there are many skills needed to be successful in the kink/BDSM community, such as communication, negotiation, considering ethics, exploring new ways of relating, and greater comfort with behaving in socially frowned upon ways, that make for greater success in both the kink/BDSM world and poly relationships (Bauer, 2010).

Expanded family. Relationship paradigms are about more than sex and sexuality, of course; they are about how one understands and performs interactions with other people (Scherrer, 2010). Munson and Steboum (1999) note that “a sexual connection is not necessary for passionate love to exist” (p. 4). Indeed, poly relationships can include nonsexual partnerships. Poly households may experience several benefits, including greater financial (Bettinger, 2005; Weitzman, 2006), physical, and emotional resources (Weitzman, 2006). Even when partners in a poly relationship do not live together, they experience the benefit of an expanded kinship network, which can help provide support with things like chores, child care, and pet sitting (Weitzman, 2006). Because of their sexual and gender identity locations, many queer people experience rejection from their families of origin and an overall lack of social support. In response to this, many queer individuals create a family of choice (Green & Mitchell, 2008). These relationships, although rarely framed as such, could already be considered part of an alternative relationship paradigm (Bettinger, 2005).

Poly relationships bring the added benefit, for many queer individuals, of being able to become a parent or caregiver to children. Because of their sexual or gender identity locations, it is difficult for many queer people to bring children into their lives. For example, same-sex couples cannot procreate together, and trans* folk who transition using hormone replacement therapy will likely lose their ability to reproduce. Options for bringing children into the family for such folks in a monogamous paradigm are limited and often challenging and expensive (Goldberg, 2010). Certain poly relationships, however, can open new avenues of being or becoming a parent or caregiver.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that poly relationships are detrimental to children (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013; Sheff, 2010), and in fact may be beneficial (Sheff, 2010). One study found that poly relationship may provide important benefits, including more emotionally intimate relationships between children and caregivers and more access to resources (Sheff, 2010). Children may benefit from individualized time with adults, less time in day care, exposure to diverse skills and hobbies, learning to be sex positive, and seeing their parents as people (Sheff, 2010). Furthermore, the additional healthy attachments to adults whose availability to offer support, supervision, and play is likely to benefit children’s intellectual and emotional growth (Halpern, 1999).

Drawbacks

Although they offer many benefits, alternate relationship paradigms also come with their own set of challenges, particularly for sexual and gender minorities. Drawbacks include increased stigma, a lot of work, and ambiguity.

Increased stigma. Research shows that alternate relationship paradigms are highly stigmatized (Conley, Moors et al., 2013). Common misperceptions and stigma associated with poly relationships include beliefs that poly individuals are experiencing psychological problems, have difficulty with or fear of intimacy or commitment, are confused, are promiscuous, are prone to cheating (Taormino, 2008), or that poly relationships are only about having permission to have sex with other people. Thus, social disapproval, discrimination, and lack of support and acceptance from family, friends, and social institutions are very real drawbacks of engaging in an alternate relationship paradigm (Anapol, 2010; Benson, 2017; Cohen; 2016).

For sexual and gender minorities, whose identity locations are already highly stigmatized, and for whom social support may already be limited, the added stress of engaging in another socially stigmatized location may not be worthwhile. Bisexuality, for example, is often discriminated against not only by heterosexuals but also by other queer folks and by monogamists (Horncastle, 2008; Weitzman, 2006). In our current cultural climate, trans* or nonbinary gender identities are under a cultural and political spotlight and have fewer protections under the law (Addison & Coolhart, 2015). These individuals may therefore be even more susceptible to the internal, social, legal, and safety consequences of participating in another stigmatized identity location, particularly if they are out about it. Being “monogamous and stable” (Horncastle, 2008, p. 45), therefore, may seem like a socially safer option.

For those who do engage in poly relationships, coming out about their poly relationships may be challenging, should they choose to come out at all. A queer person who comes out as poly may invite further judgment and discrimination (Conley, Moors et al., 2013; Rambukkana, 2004). Furthermore, Rambukkana (2004) suggests that “To come out of the closet as poly is to risk alienating oneself from the straight (-edged) world, but perhaps also from the sex-radical community” (p. 149), perhaps because becoming visible as a poly person makes alternate relationship paradigms seem too mainstream. Additionally, one person’s coming out as poly risks outing other members of the poly relationship. This is not only problematic because it discloses a person’s engagement in an alternate relationship paradigm, but also because it may out a person’s sexual identity. For sexual and gender minorities, whose minority identity locations may not yet be disclosed nor affirmed in some of their personal circles, being outted as polyamorous could be detrimental (Halpern, 1999).

Creating a poly family risks having to experience stigma, discrimination, and exclusion, even from close family and friends, for everyone involved (Halpern, 1999). This is one of the major drawbacks of poly relationships that involve children (Sheff, 2010). For kids whose parents or caregivers are also sexual and gender minorities, the misunderstandings, discrimination, and lack of family representation may be even more challenging.

A lot of work. Alternate relationship paradigms can be a lot of work; there is “a lot of emotional work, time, and energy being expended on more than one partner” (Benson, 2017, p. 36). Successful poly relationships require informed consent, a lot of communication (Benson, 2017; Sheff & Tesene, 2015), and relationship skills (Bettinger, 2005). There is often constant negotiation around identity, behaviors, relationship dynamics (Benson, 2017), emotions (Sheff & Tesene, 2015), and the practicalities of being in relationship with multiple people (Anapol, 2010). Such practicalities include negotiating how the limited resources of time, energy, and attention are managed, and coordinating schedules and a variety of individual needs, preferences, and dreams (Anapol, 2010). Some of the relationship skills that one needs to employ in successful poly relationships include respect, time management, boundaries, communication and assertiveness, relationships with other members of the system, honesty, honoring of commitments, a sense of one’s own needs, and a nonjudgmental attitude (Bettinger, 2005). Many of these skills require learning, expending emotional energy, engaging in personal growth, being vulnerable, practicing, and repairing, all of which can be challenging and feel like too much work for many people.

Poly relationships can also bring up fears, insecurities, jealousy, and possessiveness, which take emotional energy, communication, and relationship skills to successfully navigate (Bettinger, 2005). A person may come up against internalized beliefs that there is something inherently wrong with them for not being able to fit the monogamy paradigm (Halpern, 1999). As a society, people are conditioned to believe that the monogamous marriage, and its success, is a sign of personal success or failure (Block, 2008). Furthermore, monogamy is often deemed to be morally right, especially within most contemporary religions, thus risking a moral dilemma should one want to engage in a poly relationship (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013).

Queer people often struggle with similar internal struggles as it relates to their queer identity locations, thus risking a compounding of self-doubt, criticism, loathing, or even shame. For example, for some sexual minorities, dating an opposite-sex partner can isolate a person from queer discourses and spaces (Rambukkana, 2004). Halpern (1999) asserts that in poly relationships where one or more member identifies as bisexual, additional fears may come up as they relate to myths about what it means to be bisexual. Some of these myths include: that bisexuality is not real, bisexuals just cannot decide, bisexuals just want to have it both ways, bisexuals do not want to give up heterosexual privilege, and bisexual women are “not feminists because they sleep with the enemy” (Halpern, 1999, p. 162). For women in particular, when a female bisexual partner engages in a relationship with a man, this may bring up fears around one’s worth and feelings around the privileging of heterosexuality. Being involved with a man may feel threatening to a relationship that previously only included women.

People who are in an initial monogamous relationship but who want to shift into an alternate relationship paradigm may also encounter fears that the addition of a new partner will break or take away from the initial pair bond (Halpern, 1999). For many people, fear of loss and abandonment can be the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of poly relationship paradigms (Halpren, 1999). This loss may feel especially threatening for queer individuals, whose pool of and access to potential partners may be limited. Although jealousy and trust issues may be generally less or more manageable in poly relationships, they still occur (Cohen, 2016), especially initially, and are challenging experiences to walk through. As a whole, poly relationships bring a lot of emotional complexity; thus, much of the communication needs in poly relationships centers around emotional experiences (Sheff & Tesene, 2015). However, communication (Cohen, 2016) and emotional awareness, expression, and regulation are skills that many may find challenging.

Because poly relationships tend to be a lot of work, they can also increase stress (Anapol, 2010) and may be especially difficult to manage when other life stressors are also occurring. It takes a certain amount of privilege to be successful in alternate relationship paradigms; members need access to time, opportunities to learn, resources, and support to manage stigma and stress (Sheff & Tesene, 2015). Thus, the more layers of marginalization one adds—sexuality, gender, race, class, education, spiritual background, ability, community environment—the more difficult polyamory may be (Noël, 2006).

Greater ambiguity. Although not necessarily always beneficial, dominant discourse around sexuality, gender, and relationships offer people a set of expectations for who and how to be. Few such expectations can be found when engaging in an alternate relationship paradigm. Poly relationships do not necessarily have a clear or standard trajectory, or even sometimes a clear beginning or end (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013). For children, the dissolution (Sheff, 2010) and presumably also the ambiguity around the creation and meaning of multiple relationships may be challenging, although these challenges may also be present in serial monogamy paradigms (Sheff, 2010). There are many ways of engaging in poly relationships, and each partner’s expectations and desires for what the relationship will look like may differ (Benson, 2017). Additionally, poly relationships often change over time and are not always consistent across partners (Benson, 2017). Those who choose a poly relationship also face a profound lack of role models for their relationship (Anapol, 2010).

Benson (2017) warns that “It is very easy for polyamorous people to posit polyamorous relationships as a kind of queer ideal and utopian option” (p. 36), but that this is not the case. Poly relationships are full of ambiguity (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013) and require that one must let go of the safety and familiarity of their previous scripts and relationship conditioning (Anapol, 2010). This may be difficult for many people, particularly those who prefer clarity or see the world in more black and white terms (Conley, Ziegler et al., 2013). Furthermore, queer people already lack clear scripts and strong role models for their sexual and gender identity locations. For queer people, then, the intersection of sexuality, gender, and poly relationships may become a very murky and gray location in which to exist.

Clinical Considerations

Clinicians need to prepare themselves for the potential of working with queer clients who may benefit from, who are interested in, and who are already engaging in alternative relationships paradigms. Because of the stigma that surrounds poly relationships, and the pervasiveness of mononormativity, it is possible that many queer clients are already engaging in alternate relationship paradigms, but their clinicians simply do not know about it (Barker, 2005; Hegarty, 2013). Hegarty (2013) states “LGB [lesbian, gay, and bisexual] people could be described as leading in the deconstructing of the ‘halo effect’ surrounding monogamy in the United States society” (p. 32).

We believe clinicians have a responsibility to ask about engagement in alternate relationship paradigms. For those monogamous clients who are struggling with aspects of their sexual or gender identities, especially as they intersect with relationships, we believe clinicians have a responsibility to present the subject for exploration. Therapists can wonder, consider, suggest, provide psychoeducation, and support clients in exploring the potential of alternate relationship paradigms to benefit their lives. Some individuals will be most comfortable with monogamy, and others will need support on their quest towards engaging in healthy and positive poly relationships. As clinicians, however, it is important to be aware that some clients may not even recognize that poly is an option for them.

If clinicians themselves are not aware of the possibilities offered by alternate relationship paradigms, however, they cannot hope to be successful in offering them to their clients. Although this paper presents a consideration of benefits and drawbacks of poly relationships to sexual and gender minorities, clinicians must go beyond this information to further educate themselves about the types, experiences, and needs of poly relationships. Clinicians must also become aware of the dominant discourses that saturate their own and their clients’ assumptions about identity and relationships so that we might examine, deconstruct, and reconstruct them in a more life-affirming way. Finally, in order to be truly effective in supporting their queer clients in the exploration, negotiation, and navigation of poly relationships, it is critical that clinicians examine their own ideas, biases, and prejudices.

Supporting poly clients. There are several important ways that clinicians can support their queer poly clients. One of the most important is to know what poly is and to treat it as a choice as equally viable as monogamy (Finn et al., 2012; Herbert & Zika, 2014). Often, problems that arise within a poly relationship are assumed to be caused by the poly relationship (Anapol, 2010; Finn et al., 2012). Instead of suggesting a return to monogamy as a solution to their challenges, clinicians can support clients in exploring options for engaging more successfully in their chosen poly relationship paradigm. Herbert and Zika (2014) recommend that therapists go a step beyond this by recognizing and affirming the courage that it takes to search for and live a type of relationship outside of the social norms. For sexual and gender minorities, whose lives and identities already exist outside of social norms, this courage is magnified, and certainly deserves recognition and affirmation.

For clients who are just beginning to consider or explore alternate relationship paradigms, clinicians can play an important role in helping them to identify what kind of poly relationship might work best (Weitzman, 2006). Clinicians can then help clients to negotiate initial expectations, rules, boundaries, choosing partners, sex, privacy, balancing of multiple needs, and management of time around this (Weitzman, 2006). When clients begin their journey into alternate relationship paradigms from an established monogamous couple relationship, clinicians should also bring attention to supporting the initial couple system or primary partners to rekindle the spark, keep perspective, and stay healthy in their relationship (Weitzman, 2006). It is important to recognize that partners in an initial couple system may be in very different places in terms of their orientation toward poly relationships. Sometimes, one partner may be interested in changing the status of their relationship paradigm, but the other partner is not. Poly/mono relationships, as they are often called, add additional challenges to the relationship (Veaux, 2017), and clinicians can play a critical role in helping these partners to explore their options, negotiate compromises, and manage difficult feelings so that the relationship can work.

Clinicians should also be mindful of other intersecting identity differences within client systems (Addison & Coolhart, 2015), as these can and do affect partners’ experiences of poly relationships (Noël, 2006). Racial, cultural, class, age, (dis)ability, sexual identity development, gender identity development and other differential developmental differences between partners in poly systems are likely to affect experiences of power, safety, comfort, stigma, and needs within relationships. For example, differences in coming out, generational stages, and relational stages have been identified as challenges for same-sex couples (Connolly, 2004). By adding additional partners to the picture, these differences, and their effect on relationship dynamics, are likely to multiply. Applying a broad intersectional lens can help to bridge connections and facilitate bonding between partners over their shared experiences without disregarding any differences, advantages, or disadvantages that partners may experience (Addison & Coolhart, 2015). Clinicians should therefore address identity location and developmental differences openly in therapy, so that they may support clients in understanding and navigating challenges and identifying strengths that these differences present within their poly relationships.

Other ways one can support clients in alternate relationship paradigms include assisting them with things like coming out (Herbert & Zika, 2014; Weitzman, 2006); choices around how to involve multiple partners in different aspects of life; coping with stigma, judgment, discrimination, and exclusion, as well as internalized judgments and fears; and navigating the ongoing process of negotiation, communication, and decision-making with partners (Herbert & Zika, 2014). Finally, clinicians can help clients remember to slow down and proceed with caution (Weitzman, 2006). “The reality of polyamory is more complicated than the theory... [and] should be embarked on as a very slow process” (Weitzman, 2006, p. 155).

Sometimes, clients may need support for poly relationships ending. These relationships can end for all of the same reasons as monogamous ones, and they are likely to need the same kind of support. What may be different, however, is the possible experience of shame around not being able to make the relationship work or fear that others will judge the dissolution as evidence of poly’s inferiority to monogamy (Weitzman, 2006) or as indicative of the wrongness of one’s sexual or gender identity. Furthermore, clinicians should be aware that a shift in relationship status for poly folks may not look like the same kind of break up as in monogamous relationships (Weitzman, 2006). In poly relationships, staying together or breaking up are not the only options. This may be especially so for some sexual and gender minorities, as they may be more inclined to maintain friendships with their ex’s.

Identifying, examining, and deconstructing dominant discourses are important ways that clinicians can support queer poly clients. Many of the struggles, fears, biases, and challenges that queer poly clients experience are likely a result of internalized and externally reinforced discourses about who and how a person should perform sexuality, gender, and relationships (Finn et al., 2012; Halpern, 1999; Hegarty, 2013). Hegarty (2013) asserts “An analysis of the stigma of CNM [consensual non-monogamy] will be strengthened by keeping the deep-rooted historical reasons for that stigma in view, and their relationship to long-standing heteronormative constructions of gender differences” (p. 33). Similarly, Finn et al., (2012) suggest that clinicians can more effectively support clients by better understanding the contextually situated nature of their identities, exploring different aspects of themselves and their identities through alternate relationship paradigms, and “actively affirming ambiguity over the ostensible stability and coherency of a politically conducive mononormativity” (Finn et al., 2012, p. 213). The contextually situated location of a sexual and/or gender minority engaging in alternate relationship paradigms is one that is loaded with powerful and often oppressive discourses. Identifying and exploring these can open up much-needed space for affirming authentic expressions of self and relationships.

Self-examination. Without critical examination of one’s own internalized beliefs, one is at risk of unintentionally upholding mononormative performances of identity, sexuality, and relationships (Finn et al., 2012). It is therefore vitally important for clinicians to consider their own biases, fears, assumptions, and attitudes about poly relationships.

Herbert and Zika (2004) offer many helpful questions for such self-reflection, which we have modified and added to here as a starting point for clinicians:

  • What are my beliefs and assumptions about monogamous relationships?
  • How much do I really know about alternate relationship paradigms, such as polyamory, swinging, open relationships, group marriage, solo polyamory, don’t-ask-don’t-tell, or nonsexual marriages?
  • What are my beliefs, assumptions, or preferences about alternate relationship paradigms as a whole and specific forms of poly relationships in particular?
  • What are the dominant discourses that inform my beliefs? Where do such beliefs come from, and how might they be informing the work that I do with clients, and sexual and gender minority clients in particular?
  • How might my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about different forms of relationships interfere with my therapeutic work, especially if I am working with someone who is or wants to engage in an alternate relationship paradigm?
  • Which of my personal beliefs about the performance of relationship do I want to let go of? Of those that I choose to hang on to, how might these affect my potential as a clinician?
  • How might my current forms, practices, theories, and interventions be perpetuating limiting mononormative discourses, and how might I shift these?

Conclusion

Just as clinicians do for sexual and gender minority locations, they also have a responsibility to be informed, respectful, and culturally sensitive to alternate relationship paradigms, regardless of one’s own feelings about them. For clients who struggle with issues such as infidelity, commitment issues, or experiencing romantic or sexual feelings toward multiple people, and perhaps especially for queer clients whose identity locations may be, in part, denied within the monogamous paradigm, knowledge of the benefits and drawbacks of alternate relationship paradigms, and a critical examination of one’s role and one’s biases, can help clinicians to support their clients in finding unique solutions.

References

  • Adam, B. D. (2010). Relationship innovation in male couples. In M. Barker & D. Langridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 55-69). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Addison, S. M., & Coolhart, D. (2015). Expanding the therapy paradigm with queer couples: A relational intersectional lens. Family Process, 54(3), 435–453.
  • Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  • Anapol, D. M. (1997). Polyamory: The new love without limits: Secrets of sustainable intimate relationships (Revised Edition). San Rafael, CA.: Intinet Resource Center.
  • 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.
  • Bauer, R. (2010). Non-monogamy in queer BDSM communities: Putting sex back into alternative relationship practices and discourse. In M. Barker & D. Langridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 142-153). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Benson, K. L. (2017). Tensions of subjectivity: The instability of queer polyamorous identity and community. Sexualities, 20(1–2), 24–40.
  • Bettinger, M. (2005). Polyamory and gay men: A family systems approach. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(1), 97.
  • Blasband, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Sexual exclusivity versus openness in gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14(5), 395–412.
  • Block, J. (2008). Open: Love, sex, and life in an open marriage. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
  • Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A methodological review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2), 183–216.
  • Cohen, M. (2016). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality & Culture, 20(2), 295–315.
  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.
  • Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Rubin, J. D. (2015). Re-examining the effectiveness of monogamy as an STI-preventive strategy. Preventive Medicine, 78, 23–28.
  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141.
  • Connolly, C. (2004). Clinical issues with same-sex couples: A review of the literature. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 3(2/3), 3–12.
  • Devor, A. H., & Dominic, K. (2015). Trans* sexualities. In J. DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 181–199). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Green, R.-J., & Mitchell, V. (2008). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Minority stress, relational ambiguity, and families of choice. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed.) (pp. 662–680). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Halpern, E. L. (1999). If love is so wonderful, what’s so scary about MORE? Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3(1–2), 157–164.
  • Harris, A., & Bartlow, S. (2015). Intersectionality: Race, gender, sexuality, and class. In J. DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 261–271). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  • Hegarty, P. (2013). Deconstructing the ideal of fidelity: A view from LGB psychology. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 13(1), 31–33.
  • Herbert, M., & Zika, E. (2014). Why (not) simply loving? Polyamorous reflections. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, (3), 17–20.
  • Hoff, C., & Beougher, S. (2010). Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 774–787.
  • Horncastle, J. (2008). Queer bisexuality: Perceptions of bisexual existence, distinctions, and challenges. Journal of Bisexuality, 8(1/2), 25–49.
  • Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Killermann, S. (2017). Comprehensive* list of LGBTQ+ vocabulary definitions. Retrieved from: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.pr0qJ70u.dpbs
  • Martell, C. R., & Prince, S. E. (2005). Treating infidelity in same-sex couples. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(11), 1429–1438. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20192
  • Munson, M., & Steboum, J. P. (1999). Introduction: The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3(1/2), 1.
  • Noël, M. J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering issues of diversity. Sexualities, 9(5), 602–620.
  • Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity. New York, NY: Harper.
  • Rambukkana, N. P. (2004). Uncomfortable bridges: The bisexual politics of outing polyamory. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(3/4), 141–154.
  • Richards, C. (2010). Trans and non-monogamies. In M. Barker & D. Langridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 121-133). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3), 251–283.
  • Sheff, E. (2010). Strategies in polyamorous parenting. In M. Barker & D. Langridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 169-181). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Sheff, E., & Tesene, M. M. (2015). Consensual non-monogamies in industrialized nations. In J. DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 223–241). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  • Scherrer, K.S. (2010). Asexual relationships: What does asexuality have to do with polyamory? In M. Barker & D. Langridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 154-159). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Taormino, T. (2008). Opening up: A guide to creating and sustaining open relationships. San Francisco, CA: Cleis Press.
  • van Anders, S. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213.
  • Veaux, F. (2017a). Glossary of poly terms: Learning the lingo. Retrieved from https://www.morethantwo.com/polyglossary.html
  • Veaux, F. (2017b). More than two: Franklin Veaux’s polyamory site. https://www.morethantwo.com
  • Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1/2), 137–164.
  • Willey, A. (2015). Constituting compulsory monogamy: Normative femininity at the limits of imagination. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(6), 621–633.
  • Wolkomir, M. (2009). Making heteronormative reconciliations: The story of romantic love, sexuality, and gender in mixed-orientation marriages. Gender & Society, 23(4), 494–519.
« Prev section Next section »