by Jessica Fern
CHAPTER FIVE
ATTACHMENT AND NONMONOGAMY
ATTACHMENT RESEARCH AND RESOURCES for consensually nonmonogamous relationships are scarce. It is safe to say that the field of attachment theory is highly mononormative. The overwhelming majority of research conducted to understand adult romantic attachment is undertaken with monogamous couples, and advice about how to establish a secure attachment either assumes monogamy or outright prescribes monogamy as a necessary precondition for establishing safety and security. Moors, Conley, Edelstein and Chopik state that “attachment theory presumes that healthy, satisfying relationships are, by definition, dyadic.”53 Authors on attachment theory will assert that being pair-bonded is the prototype for attachment in adulthood, that couples need to create a couple bubble around them in order to ensure security, and that your partner needs to be the one, single or main person that you emotionally depend on. I question if these criteria are even healthy from a monogamous standpoint (a considerable amount of the mono-romantic ideal can actually be codependency in disguise), but at the very least we can see how these ideas and assumptions within the field of attachment are excluding people in CNM relationships.
What attachment researchers say about the relationship between sex and attachment creates another mononormative problem for people in CNM relationships. Attachment literature unquestionably has important insights into how the different attachment styles experience and relate to sex.54 Differences in motivation and experiences are to be expected and are not inherently a problem, but some behaviors such as casual sex, one-night stands, sex outside of marriage, multiple sexual partners, partaking in bondage, voyeurism, exhibitionism and even sexting are all associated with insecure attachment. The problem gets even bigger when people then take these research findings a step further and conclude that since these sexual behaviors are the types of behaviors that non-monogamous people participate in, then nonmonogamy must in and of itself be an expression of insecure attachment. Just to be clear, I am not saying this and, as you will see below, the current research on CNM relationships does not support this, but many of my clients have unfortunately heard previous therapists equate being CNM with attachment insecurity and pathologized them for their lifestyle and sexuality. In such cases, it is important to distinguish between the intentions behind specific sexual behaviors instead of just looking at the sex act itself. If someone is pursuing multiple partners to avoid intimacy or using sex in an attempt to secure intimacy when they feel insecure, then in those cases such behaviors can be seen as an expression of insecure attachment. But many people engage in these very same behaviors from a secure place, where they are able to have multiple sex partners, one-night stands or BDSM play in intentional, highly attuned, connected and meaningful ways.
When we start to dig into the current research on CNM and attachment, we find the research is extremely limited. As I write this book in 2020, there are less than a handful of studies that examine the relationship between attachment and CNM. From a research perspective, this is insufficient. The good news is that what little research has been done thus far demonstrates that people in CNM relationships are just as likely to be securely attached as people in monogamous relationships. In a survey conducted with over 1,300 people, Moors, Conley, Edelstein and Chopik examined whether there were any differences in attachment styles for people who were either in monogamous, swinging or polyamorous relationships.55 They found that there was no difference in attachment anxiety levels between people who were monogamous versus those that were CNM, and that people in CNM relationships were actually lower in attachment avoidance than the people in monogamous relationships were. This research suggests that people in CNM relationships exhibit characteristics of secure attachment, maybe even more so than people in monogamous relationships. A smaller study of 179 gay men similarly found no difference in attachment styles between the participants who were in in monogamous relationships and those in nonmonogamous relationships.56 A 2014 doctoral dissertation investigated whether there was any difference in the attachment styles of people who identified as polyamorous compared to people who identified as monogamous and found that there was no statistically significant difference in attachment-related anxiety or avoidance between the two groups.57
In a 2019 study, Moors, Ryan and Chopick examined the attachment styles of over 350 polyamorous people who were currently in at least two different relationships.58 They found that people practicing polyamory exhibited secure attachment styles with both of their partners and, interestingly, having more of an insecure style with one specific partner did not affect the attachment functioning of their other relationships. Similar to how a child can be securely attached to one parent, while simultaneously insecurely attached to another parent, polyamorous adults can have different attachment styles with different romantic partners that are independent of each other. While the current research on CNM and attachment is encouraging, the shortage of studies to reference creates a massive gap in the current attachment literature, as well as many unanswered questions about the relationship between attachment and CNM.
When it comes to advice on how to cultivate secure attachment in nonmonogamous relationships, the literature is practically nonexistent. Some nonmonogamous bloggers and podcasters have used their platforms to educate audiences about the different attachment styles as something beneficial to be aware of in nonmonogamous relationships, but the conversation usually ends there. The only literature I could find on anything related to how to create a secure attachment in CNM relationships is an online article by Clinton Power titled “How Secure Functioning Can Help Polyamorous Couples.”59 The article is geared towards therapists working with polyamorous couples and it explains how to work with these couples based on Stan Tatkin’s Psychobiological Approach to Couple Therapy (PACT). The PACT method is well-researched and has been designed to help adult romantic relationships securely function. In the article, Power uses a case example of a married heterosexual couple in an open marriage. The wife is struggling because the husband is experiencing an increase in feelings and intensity with his secondary partner. Power proposes that the couple is struggling because they are breaking several of the secure functioning PACT principles, which advise us that CNM couples should:
Put your primary relationship first before all other relationships.
Have clear relationship boundaries that support the health of the primary relationship.
Go to your primary partner first with important news or life events.
Manage thirds (meaning the third person, or in this case the secondary partner) to protect the primacy of the main relationship.
Never threaten the security of the primary relationship.
Resolve conflict by finding solutions that work for both partners.
When I present the suggestions from this article to an audience at CNM conferences, the room usually starts to rumble with disapproving laughs, grunts and even boos. Before offering my own opinion, I ask the audience to tell me what they think about these suggestions. The first critique that people usually offer is that this article promotes a very hierarchical version of polyamory that puts the couple in a position of power over the secondary partner, who would have no rights or say in the boundaries that were set or the solutions that were created, even though they directly impact her and the relationship she is in. People in the audience are often also irritated by how this article only speaks to one version of CNM, which might work for people practicing hierarchical polyamory or open marriage, but that completely overlooks people who are solo poly, nonhierarchical polyamory or relationship anarchist. When the audience contains experienced therapists or coaches who work with nonmonogamous couples, they will also often add that part of the issue here is that this couple is functioning from two different forms of nonmonogamy (the wife wanting more of an open marriage style of nonmonogamy and the husband being more polyamourous in his approach), and that the article is encouraging them to take on her style over his without deeper discuss
ion.
In addition to the feedback that the audience has to offer, my critique of this article is that it is relying too much on the structure of the relationship to ensure and safeguard secure attachment instead of the quality of relating between partners to forge secure attachment. When we rely on the structure of our relationship, whether that is through being monogamous with someone or practicing hierarchical forms of CNM, we run the risk of forgetting that secure attachment is an embodied expression built upon how we consistently respond and attune to each other, not something that gets created through structure and hierarchy. Secure attachment is created through the quality of experience we have with our partners, not through the notion or the fact of either being married or being a primary partner. The narratives people have about love, marriage, primary partnership and how to achieve relationship security are powerful, so much so that just the idea of being in love, married or in a primary partnership can lead us to think we are experiencing attachment security when in reality we might not be. We often assume that having more structural ties in a relationship means more security. In some cases it does, but as the high rates of divorce and cheating demonstrate, even a monogamous marriage that typically represents the pinnacle of relationship security is not necessarily any more secure than other forms of relationship. People can commit to being married for life, but still feel universes away from the person they share a bed with. Two people can consider each other primary partners but still experience relational neglect even though they might technically be able to wield veto power over other partners or have first choice on how holidays are spent. Relationship structure does not guarantee emotional security.
I’ve witnessed many couples who have measured their sense of personal and relationship security based on the fact of having shared finances, being legally married, running a business together, co-owning a home or how many carats the engagement ring has. These more structural demonstrations of security can be signs of genuine commitment and they undoubtedly make it more difficult for someone to just pick up and leave one day, but they do not ensure the high-quality attunement, presence and responsiveness that foster secure attachment at the interpersonal level. Here are some signs that might indicate that you are relying more on the structure of your relationship for your attachment and security than the emotional experience of your relationship:
You theoretically know your partner loves you and is ultimately committed to you, your marriage and/or your family, but you don’t feel personally valued, seen or cherished.
You share many forms of structural commitment with your partner, but don’t have emotional or sexual intimacy (and one or both of you is not OK with that).
When you ask your spouse or partner for more of their time or affection they get defensive and point out all of the professional, financial or domestic things that they do to show their commitment.
You often feel alone in your relationship even though you live together or are around each other a lot.
You or your partner defer to gender stereotypes to make the absence of certain forms of emotional or sexual connection more tolerable, such as “that’s just how men are” or “well you know how women can be.”
In your relationship, the ideal of the marriage or the greater purpose of the family have become more important than the direct experience of how you treat each other.
You’re married or in primary partnership, but feel like you’re always getting the short end of the stick when it comes to your spouse or partner’s time, affection and attention.
You know your partner is committed to you, but you don’t know if they actually like and enjoy being with you.
If you experience any of these things I suggest working with your partner or partners to strengthen the emotional experience of your secure attachment, which is covered in Part Three. As I address in the next chapter, I’ve seen the dangers of people depending on the structure of their relationship to feel safe together. When they change that structure, either through opening up from monogamy or transitioning to a less hierarchical form of CNM, it can expose relational insecurities that were disguised by the pseudo or contrived security acquired from the previous relationship structure. The takeaway message here is not to abolish all relationship hierarchies or shared bank accounts, but instead for people to procure secure attachment from their relational experiences instead of their relationship structures. Allow your direct experience with a partner to be the vehicle to secure attachment instead of having certain relationship concepts, narratives or structures be the vehicle. When our experience with a partner is the route to secure attachment, we might still want certain relationship structures, benchmarks and milestone experiences, but the urgency at which we define, solidify or need to nail things down can relax and occur more organically.
Current research and resources about attachment and consensual nonmonogamy are scarce and at an embryonic stage. I am hopeful that more research and resources will continue to crop up as awareness and acceptance of nonmonogamy continues to grow, but for many people it will not be soon enough. Part Three is designed to walk you through the different components of secure functioning, not based on your relationship structure, but based on the behaviors that you can apply to any of your CNM relationships in which you seek to deepen polysecurity.
CHAPTER SIX
THE IMPORTANCE OF ATTACHMENT IN CONSENSUAL NONMONOGAMY
TO START, LET ME SAY that secure attachment with multiple romantic partners is possible. Honestly, it’s really a necessity to do CNM well and thrive, but we’ll get to that. Just as children do not only bond with one attachment figure, adults do and can have multiple securely attached relationships. When secure functioning is at play within CNM relationships, partners communicate well, trust each other, stick to their agreements and discuss wanted changes. They tend to have more compersion for their partners, they act respectfully towards their metamours and while they still do experience jealousy or envy, they are also able to support each other in the process. Jealousy becomes an opportunity for increased clarity and connection and it doesn’t take them or their relationships down. When I talk to CNM folks who are securely attached, they may admit that their relationships require work and acknowledge that they are not always easy (more people means more complexity, and scheduling is always going to be an issue), but they also describe an underlying sense of ease within and throughout their relationships. When people are securely attached, they enjoy each other and the process of living as consensually nonmonogamous.
My experience with CNM clients has taught me an enormous amount about how and why understanding CNM through an attachment lens is so important. As CNM individuals and couples began to seek my counsel, I began to notice two distinct camps: those who were mostly thriving and those who seemed to be barely surviving. For those who were thriving, our work was often short-term. As these people entered into a new relationship paradigm, they reached out to me for some support, guidance and perspective. They usually quickly expressed that they had got what they came for. Now better able to implement their CNM journey, they moved merrily along their way. Every few months, I’d even receive a text or email with photos of their entire smiling polycule around a kitchen table (I kid you not!). These people still reached out for therapy or coaching sessions once in a while due to breakups, STI scares, uncharted CNM situations to figure out and relationship transitions to process, but overall, CNM was working for them. They expressed feeling secure, and from my perspective they were enacting their multiple romantic partnerships, as well as their metamour relationships, from a place of secure functioning.
I call these people who thrive with their multiple partners polysecure. This is the state of being both securely attached to multiple romantic partners and having enough internal security to be able to navigate the structural relationship insecurity inherent to nonmonogamy, as well as the increased complexity and uncertainty that occurs when having multiple partners and metamours. More succinctly, being polysecure is having
secure attachment with yourself and your multiple partners. Polysecure people are functioning securely both interpersonally and intrapersonally, both of which will be examined in more detail in Part Three.
There may be some people who enter nonmonogamy and are able to be polysecure right off the bat, but for many people this is not the case. All of my clients want to be secure within their selves and with their partners, but often the reality of nonmonogamy is too complicated, painful, dramatic, confusing and even traumatizing. These people transition to nonmonogamy and feel more polyinsecure than polysecure. For some of the individuals and couples I’ve worked with, their CNM struggles mirror the relationship challenges they encountered when previously monogamous, but many people are surprised, even shocked, by the issues they face because they are so unlike their monogamous past. Among couples who transition from monogamy to polyamory, many had healthy, secure monogamous relationships together and can’t make sense of why they are now having so many communication problems, misunderstandings or fights despite their best efforts to be clear and loving with each other. Some of these couples feel as if they are falling apart at the seams. For many, the transition to poly (whether solo or with a partner) brings up forms of insecurity, anxiety and even panic attacks that they may not have experienced before. It is not uncommon for me to hear people say that they theoretically want to be poly, but emotionally they don’t know if they can do it because they feel like they are losing their mind.
People struggling with a transition from monogamy to CNM may also find themselves without practical support from their friends, family and community. Sometimes, the people closest to them, even therapists, advise these struggling couples or individuals to go back to being monogamous. I have heard such couples receive advice that sounds something like, “Well, if you’re struggling more in your relationship or with yourself now that you’re polyamorous, you should just go back to being monogamous and everything will be OK again.”