Polysecure

by Jessica Fern

  Why Nonmonogamy?

  Whenever I have an individual or a couple who are either already practicing CNM or about to begin their CNM journey in my office, one of my first questions is always “why?” I ask this to gain deeper understanding and in order to provide meaningful support, because as Simon Sinek advises,48 it is through knowing our why for doing something—not just what we are doing and how we do it—that leads to success in our endeavors. My experience with nonmonogamous clients has shown me that the people who articulate their deeper purpose—that is, their why for being nonmonogamous—are then better able to navigate the ups and downs that lie ahead. When the waters of CNM begin to pick up and the emotional rapids of opening up your relationship begin, having your why to remember and return to can serve as the needed life jacket that keeps you and your relationship afloat. However, although two or more people want to practice CNM together—even two people in the same marriage—they may not have the same reasons for being nonmonogamous. Knowing why you want to practice nonmonogamy and how that might be similar to or different from your partners’ reasons can better inform exactly what your version of nonmonogamy looks like together, including the agreements you make with different partners, and how you go about enacting CNM for yourself.

  Moors, Matsick and Schechinger explored the different relationship motivations and perceived benefits for people who engaged in CNM compared to people in monogamous relationships.49 Both groups had the relationship benefits of family, trust, love, sex, commitment and communication, regardless of whether they were in a monogamous or nonmonogamous relationship. However, people in CNM relationships additionally expressed having the distinct relationship benefits of increased need fulfillment, variety of nonsexual activities and personal growth. Instead of expecting one partner to meet all of their needs, people engaged in CNM felt that a major advantage of being nonmonogamous was the ability to have their different needs met by more than one person, as well as being able to experience a variety of nonsexual activities that one relationship may not fulfill. The other notable relationship benefit unique to people in CNM relationships was personal growth—people reported feeling that being nonmonogamous afforded them increased freedom from restriction, self and sexual expression and the ability to grow and develop. The authors of this research state that people in monogamous relationships may also experience such benefits, but these three benefits were mostly highlighted by people in CNM relationships, offering some potentially interesting insight into their motivations for participating in CNM.

  When I ask my own clients why they are either considering CNM or already practicing nonmonogamy, most, if not all of them, respond in a way that agrees with these findings. They declare that they seek to have greater need fulfillment, want greater expression of themselves through the experiences and activities that will come from having multiple partners and say that they are interested in the personal growth and development that nonmonogamy inevitably catalyzes. Many people want to give and receive the additional love and support that come with having multiple partners. In addition to these reasons, I also see people consistently offer three other reasons for being nonmonogamous: sexual diversity, philosophical views and because CNM is a more authentic expression of who they are.

  Let’s explore these three reasons, starting with the sexual. It’s not uncommon to hear someone who is trying to describe nonmonogamy to their family or friends, or speak about it in a professional or public setting, emphasize that CNM not just about the sex, but rather about the increased love, support and connection that come from having multiple partners. While this may very well be true, for many people, nonmonogamy is at least partly about the sex. And there’s nothing wrong with that! I think that it’s both well-intended and understandable that people say it isn’t about sex, since research has shown that people tend to be significantly more uncomfortable with the idea of CNM relationships that emphasize sex over love than they are with CNM relationships that are based more on romantic and emotional connections.50 We also intuitively know that telling our friends, parents or colleagues that we are in it for the love will probably fare better than telling them that we are in it for the sex. To me, this is an unfortunate symptomatic expression of our sex-negative culture that shames us for our basic human needs, desires and sexuality. There are people who genuinely need and want sexual diversity and it is not because they are sexually deviant, avoidantly attached, addicted to sex or noncommittal. Instead, they are people who embrace their sexuality and the diverse desires and expressions that it may encompass and require. There are also many couples who love each other deeply and have a wonderful partnership, but may have very different sexual needs. Perhaps they have different sexual styles, one partner being kinkier or more into BDSM than the other, or divergent sex drives or anatomical incompatibility. Some people find themselves in one of these situations and conclude that there is no reason to dismantle their entire life and give up their meaningful relationship because they want or need different things than their partner in the bedroom.

  For people whose reason for engaging in nonmonogamy is philosophical, often this outlook arises from their readings or inquiries into the history of monogamy and its connection with patriarchal control over women’s sexuality. These people feel that participating in such a relationship structure would be out of integrity with their values. Similarly, there are people who critically question traditional marriage and the imbalanced societal and cultural privileges it provides. They also report disliking the ever-increasing and impossible expectations that are placed on a life partner and that set many couples up for failure. Like the group of CNM people in the Moors et al. study who questioned if it is possible for one person to meet all of their needs, people are also questioning whether the institution of marriage is realistic and sustainable for them, with nonmonogamy stepping in as a preferable alternative.

  The final motivation I see in my nonmonogamous clients is that people practice CNM because it just feels like this is who they are. For these people, nonmonogamy is not so much a lifestyle choice, as it is for some people, but rather an expression of their fundamental self. This group is more nonmonogamous as orientation than nonmonogamous as lifestyle. People who identify as nonmonogamous by lifestyle step into nonmonogamy as an intentional choice. They are often proud of and committed to this choice, but nonmonogamy in their case might be something that comes and goes depending on the partner or partners they are with, the phase of life they are in or their overall life circumstances. People who identify as nonmonogamous as orientation describe their nonmonogamy not as a choice, but as who they essentially are and how they are fundamentally wired. I often hear these people say that they feel most themselves when they are with multiple people, be it sexually or romantically. Some people who identify as nonmonogamous by orientation are fortunate enough to have been nonmonogamous from the time they started dating or being sexual. But many people come into their nonmonogamy orientation a bit later, often after having suffered from the belief that they are broken or defective in some way after struggling to be faithful to their partners or feeling that monogamy was never fully right for them.

  The Different Types of Consensual Nonmonogamy

  There are numerous ways that people practice non-monogamy and for every person, couple, triad, quad or polycule that says they are practicing a certain type of CNM, there are manifold ways that their version might be enacted. Even when people tell me the specific style of nonmonogamy they practice, I still ask, “what exactly does that look like for you?” There is no one right way to practice CNM and it is more of a “create your own relationship” than a one-size-fits-all approach, but there are still certain distinctions in the ways that people practice CNM that are important to name.

  Each different style of CNM or CNM relationship structure will have different degrees of openness to sexual and/ or emotional engagement with others, as well as different types of relationship agreements or rules. In Figure 4.1, I plot some of the main relati
onship structures or styles within CNM based on the two dimensions of emotional exclusivity and sexual exclusivity. On the horizontal axis, we find high emotional exclusivity on the left and low emotional exclusivity on the right. The vertical axis has high sexual exclusivity at the top and low sexual exclusivity at the bottom. Please note that these two dimensions are not the only way to comprehend the different types of CNM, so please take what helps and dismiss the rest. Additionally, although I place certain types of CNM in specific regions on this graph, there will always be exceptions to where someone else would plot their own version of that same type of CNM.

  FIGURE 4.1: The different types of nonmonogamy.

  Upper Left Quadrant

  Monogamy: Monogamy is found in the upper left quadrant because it is traditionally high in both sexual and emotional exclusivity. Some couples that consider themselves monogamous do vary on how emotionally open or closed they are to people outside of the relationship, but it is common for monogamous couples to consider each other as their only sexual partner and emotional primary. In monogamous couples, a partner is usually considered to be cheating if they engage sexually with another and/ or if they share deep or romantic emotions with others.

  Monogamish: Coined by sex columnist Dan Savage, this term refers to couples who are mostly sexually and emotionally exclusive, but periodically engage in extramarital or extra-relational sex or sexual play. These exceptions might include occasional one-time hookups, sex with others while traveling apart, or even kissing other people at certain types of events.

  Polyfidelity: A romantic or sexual relationship that involves more than two people, but these people are exclusive with each other. This could include a group relationship of three or more people that is closed to any additional outside partners, or it could be a person who has more than one partner and their partners are not dating each other, but they are also closed to additional relationships.

  Lower Left Quadrant

  Swinging: The practice of couples engaging in sexual activity with other couples, individuals or groups. The focus of those encounters is primarily sexual rather than romantic or emotionally intimate and couples who consider themselves as swingers typically sexually play with others while they are together in the same room or at the same event, rather than completely separately from each other. In my practice, I’ve encountered many swingers who do want to feel some level of connection with the people they are swinging with, but often prefer to keep emotional involvement to a minimum in order to maintain the emotional primacy of their marriage or primary relationship.

  Open Marriage/Relationship: A relationship where one or both partners in a relationship have sexual or romantic relationships outside of their primary partnership. Open relationships tend to be more focused on having sex and limiting the degree of emotional involvement with others in order to keep the primary, dyadic relationship as the first priority.

  Lower Right Quadrant

  Polyamory: The practice of having many (poly) loves (amory), where everyone involved is aware and consenting of partners simultaneously having multiple romantic and sexual relationships. People who identify as polyamorous tend to focus on the falling in love part of being nonmonogamous, where the intention of having multiple partners is to be in love and have multiple emotionally invested relationships. People practicing polyamory can differ in the degree to which they implement hierarchy in their different relationships.

  Hierarchical Polyamory: A subset of polyamory where there is a ranking system among romantic/sexual relationships and some relationships are considered more important than others. A person’s primary partner(s) would be at the top of this ranking system since primaries usually cohabitate, share resources, make decisions together and organize their schedules so that they are spending the most amount of time together. Hierarchical relationships tend to use the terms primary, secondary, and sometimes tertiary, describing various levels of importance, commitment and who has the rights to create relationship agreements. Typically, the people in a primary relationship with each other set the rules for all subsequent relationships, which might include restrictions on certain recreational or social activities, limits on certain sex acts or on how strong, deep or invested other relationships can become. Many polyamory experts caution against hierarchical relationship structures that create asymmetrical balances of power in which people in secondary or tertiary positions have little or no say about how their relationship unfolds, or are subject to vetoes or rules from their metamours.

  In More Than Two, Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert make the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive hierarchy.51 Prescriptive hierarchy occurs when a couple predetermines that their status as primaries will not change and all future relationships will be subordinate to theirs. All of the relationship styles in the lower left side of this chart could be described as being hierarchical forms of consensual nonmonogamy and in the upper left quadrant, hierarchy would be assumed. Descriptive hierarchy is less about a given relationship prescription for the future. The term describes a hierarchy that might include several primaries that have emerged more organically and have become more domestically, financially or emotionally entangled than other relationships, but there is still an openness to things changing or new people entering the hierarchy.

  Nonhierarchical Polyamory: The practice of having multiple simultaneous relationships without imposing hierarchies. This means that there is no ranking system of primary and secondary. It means that no one person has extra influence over a person’s relationships, including veto power or more privilege because they live together or have been together longer. All important people get a seat at the table and everyone gets to have a voice. Each relationship is allowed to grow into what it naturally wants to be. In some cases, nonhierarchical polyamory may include prioritization of certain relationships in instances where people have children together or live together, but the nonhierarchical structure does not endorse power differentials and allows for more flexibility in how relationships can change and evolve over time.

  Solo Polyamory: An approach to polyamory that emphasizes personal agency. Individuals do not seek to engage in relationships that are tightly couple-centric or financially and/or domestically entwined. People who identify as solo poly emphasize autonomy, the freedom to choose their own relationships without seeking permission from others, and flexibility in the form their relationships take. It is a common misconception that people practicing solo polyamory are either more casual or less committed in their relationships, but this is not necessarily the case. Solo poly folks can be deeply emotionally involved and committed in their relationships, but they typically choose not to take on the traditional roles that some partners assume like living together, having shared bank accounts or doing each other’s laundry (at least not as a relationship obligation). One principle of solo poly that I think everyone can benefit from is the notion of being your own primary partner and prioritizing your relationship with yourself first and foremost.

  Relationship Anarchy: This type of CNM falls at the very end or even off this chart completely. The term was first coined in 2006 by Andie Nordgren,52 who applied political anarchist principles to interpersonal relationships. Relationship anarchists seek to dismantle the social hierarchies dictating how sexual and romantic relationships are prioritized over all other forms of love, and so people who identify as relationship anarchists make less distinction between the importance or value of their lovers over their friends or other people in their life, and they do not only reserve intimacy or romance for the people they have sex with.

  Upper Right Quadrant

  Poly Intimates: I’ve started to use this term for people who are sexually exclusive with one partner, but who are not emotionally exclusive with that partner in ways that a traditional monogamous relationship would typically disallow, be suspicious of or characterize as emotional cheating. Poly intimates might share varying degrees of romance and emotional intimacy with more than just the person they are s
exually exclusive with. Poly intimates might be nonsexual partners who live together, travel together, raise children together or share other aspects of life, where the level of investment and involvement does not fit the conventional notion of friendship.

  Polyamorous and Asexual: People who identify as asexual do not experience sexual attraction to others and they do not engage in sex with others, but they still experience romantic attraction to people, and there are asexual people who are romantically polyamorous.

  In this chapter, I acknowledged that nonmonogamy is not a new form of relationship, but that it is currently becoming more common. I examined the reasons why people engage in nonmonogamy based on survey research and what I’ve also seen in my own psychotherapy and coaching practice. I also covered the different ways that people can express being nonmonogamous based on how sexually exclusive or sexually nonexclusive they are intersecting with how emotionally exclusive or emotionally nonexclusive they are. After reading this chapter, which of the reasons for being nonmonogamous resonate with you? Do you have reasons for being nonmonogamous that weren’t mentioned here? In looking at the different types of nonmonogamy, what did you learn about yourself or your partners? And are there other ways that you would define your version of nonmonogamy?