Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consensual Non-Monogamies in Industrialized Nations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

Abstract

Consensual non-monogamies (CNM) include relationship practices that allow individuals to openly have multiple partners. In this chapter we introduce and describe the diverse forms of CNM, distinguishing them from more prominently known forms of multiple partner relationships such as polygyny and cheating. This chapter explores the various types of CNM that are practiced in industrialized nations today, such as swinging, polyamory, open relationships, relationship anarchy, and monogamish relationships. We highlight the commonalities among these variations of CNM, specifically the importance of honesty, open communication, and negotiation, which serve CNM practitioners in crafting guidelines to structure their personal relationships. We close with a discussion of the theories and methods popular in CNM research, as well as recommendations for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The polyamorous community and academic groups that have discussed secondary status include Polyfamilies, PolyResearchers, Lovingmore, More Than Two, Fetlife, and LiveJournal at the minimum and probably many, many more.

  2. 2.

    The GSS Non-Monogamies Collective submitted a module to the General Social Survey for the 2016 survey. While the module was not selected for inclusion in the GSS, researchers are attempting to pilot-test it online and eventually establish its reliability in order to resubmit it to additional surveys. Please contact Elisabeth Sheff at drelisheff@gmail.com for more information.

References

  • Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century: Love and intimacy with multiple partners. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, P. (2014). How gay men make decisions about the place of extra-relational sex in their committed relationships. Psychotherapy in Australia, 20(3), 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, E. (2005). Coming out as “we 3:” Using personal ethnography and the case study to assess relational identity and parental support of gay male three-partner relationships. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(2), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autumn. (2014). Relationship anarchy is not polyamory. Multiple Match: Create Your Open Relationship. http://www.multiplematch.com/2013/12/relationship-anarchy-is-not-polyamory/. Accessed 22 June 2014.

  • Babbie, E. (2013). The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M., & Landridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartell, G. (1970). Group sex among the mid-Americans. Journal of Sex Research, 6(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartell, G. (1971). Group sex: An eyewitness report on the American way of swinging. New York: Wyden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrand, C., & Sinski, J. (2010). Swinging in America: Love, sex, and marriage in the 21st century. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrand, C., & Williams, J. (2000). Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 3 http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/bo dy.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2014..

  • Block, J. (2008). Open: Love, sex, and life in an open marriage. Berkeley: Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, K. (1994). Gender outlaw: On men, women, and the rest of us. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64, 333–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. (2012). Becoming sister wives: The story of an unconventional marriage. New York: Gallery Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, E. (1979). Traditional marriage and emerging alternatives. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterworth, M. (2009). Attachment and polyamory: The attachment hierarchies of adults with multiple romantic partners (Doctoral dissertation). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D. (2010). Cheating hearts. Contexts, 9(3), 58–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly non-monogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(6), 1559–1565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantine, L., & Constantine, J. (1973). Group marriage: A study of contemporary multilateral marriage. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, E. S. (2005). Commitment in polyamorous relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). Denver: Regis University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossman, B. (2006). The new politics of adultery. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15, 274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosswell, M. (2014). Relationship anarchy basics. The Good Men Project. http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/relationship-anarchy-basics-jvinc/. Accessed 22 June 2014.

  • Dalton, J., & Leung, T. C. (2014). Why is polygyny more prevalent in Western Africa? An African slave trade perspective. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 62(4), 599–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M. (1985). Beyond God the father: Toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denfeld, D., & Gordon, M. (1970). The sociology of mate swapping: Or the family that swings together clings together. The Journal or Sex Research, 6(2), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deri, J. (2015). Love’s refraction: Jealousy and compersion in queer women’s polyamorous relationships. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S., & Barta, W. (2001). The cheating heart: Scientific explorations of Infidelity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 177–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Bois, S. (2013). Examining partnership and health in multiple samples of gay and bisexual Men (Doctoral dissertation). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2011). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships, and other adventures. Random House, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (1970). Group marriage: A possible alternative? In H. A. Otto (Ed.), The family in search of a future. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ember, M., Ember, C., & Low, B. (2007). Comparing explanations of polygyny. Cross-Cult Research, 41, 428–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, B. (1976). Swinging: In retrospect. Journal of Sex Research, 12(3), 220–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M., & Hess, B. (1994). Controversy and coalition: The new feminist movement. Boston: Twayne-G.K. Hall & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, E. (2009). The swinging paradigm: An evaluation of the marital and sexual satisfaction of swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 12. http://www.ejhs.org/Volume12/Swinging2.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2014.

  • Fierman, D. M., & Poulsen, S. S. (2014). Open relationships: A culturally and clinically sensitive approach. In T. Nelson & H. Winawer (Eds.), Critical topics in family therapy: AFTA monograph series highlights (pp. 151–161). Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, M. (2010). Conditions of freedom in practices of non-monogamous commitment. In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 225–236). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanigan, W., & Zingdale, N. (1991). Political behavior of the American electorate. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K. (2013). Plays well in groups: A journey through the world of group sex. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, A. (2010). Polygamy in America: How the varying legal standards fail to protect mothers and children from its abuses. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 54, 967–1439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (2011). Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmartin, B. G. (1975). That swinging couple down the block. Psychology Today, 8, 54–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfeder, M., & Sheff, E. (2013). Children of polyamorous families: A first empirical look. Journal of Law and Social Deviance, 5, 150–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. (1987). When brothers share a wife. Natural History, 96(3), 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, T. (1999). The lifestyle: A look at the erotic rites of swingers. Buffalo: Firefly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grov, C., Starks, T. J., Rendina, H. J., & Parsons, J. (2014). Rules about casual sex partners, relationship satisfaction, and HIV risk in partnered gay and bisexual men. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(2), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassinger, B., & Kruger, D. (2013). The polygyny paradox: Several male biased populations exhibit a high prevalence of polygyny. Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 5, 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidalgo, D. A., Barber, K., & Hunter, E. (2008). The dyadic imaginary: Troubling the perception of love as dyadic. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3-4), 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckert, J. (2010). Love without borders? Intimacy, identity, and the state of compulsory monogamy. In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 255–266). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henshel, A. (1973). Swinging: A study of decision making in marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 4, 885–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, W. (2013). Satisfaction with open sexual agreements in Australian gay men’s relationships: The role of perceived discrepancies in benefit. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1309–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, P. S. Y. (2006). The (charmed) circle game: Reflections on sexual hierarchy through multiple sexual relationships. Sexualities, 9(5), 547–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2003). Whatever happened to feminist critiques of monogamy? In H. Graham, A. Kaloski, A. Neilson, & E. Robertson (Eds.), The feminist seventies (pp. 112–134). York: Raw Nerve Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, R. (1985). Swinging: A replication and test of a theory. Journal of Sex Research, 21(2), 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, R. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(5), 507–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klesse, C. (2005). Bisexual women, non-monogamy and differentialist anti-promiscuity discourses. Sexualities, 8(4), 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klesse, C. (2012). The spectre of promiscuity: Gay male and bisexual non-monogamies and polyamories. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labriola, K. (1999). Models of open relationships. In M. Munson & J. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 217–225). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labriola, K. (2013). The jealousy workbook: Exercises and insights for managing open relationships. San Francisco: Greenery Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, E. (1988). Alternative lifestyle and marital satisfaction: A brief report. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 455–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marso, L. J. (2003). A feminist search for love: Emma Goldman on the politics of marriage, love, sexuality and the feminine. Feminist Theory, 4(3), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsick, J. L., Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., & Rubin, J. D. (2013). Love and sex: polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, (ahead-of-print), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, B. (2014). Utah to appeal ruling in ‘Sister Wives’ case. Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/25/utah-to-appeal-ruling-in-sister-wives-case/ Accessed 1 Jan 2015.

  • McLean, K. (2004). Negotiating (non) monogamy: Bisexuality and intimate relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1–2), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mint, P. (2014). The power dynamics of cheating: Effects on polyamory and bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(3-4), 55–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moller, N., & Vossler, A. (2014). Defining infidelity in research and couple counseling: A qualitative study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 11, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraga, C. (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. New York: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2008). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, M. B. (2009). Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Human Nature, 20(2), 130–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munson, M., & Stelboum, J. (1999). The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • North American Swing Club Association. (2014). North American Swing Club Association FAQs. The Lifestyle Organization. http://www.nasca.com. Accessed 27 June 2014.

  • Nelson, S. (2013). ‘Sister Wives’ defeat polygamy law in federal court. US News. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court. Accessed 27 June 2014.

  • Noël, M. J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering issues of diversity. Sexualities, 9(5), 602–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordgren, A. (2006). The short instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy. The Anarchist Library. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andie-nordgren-the-short-instructional-manifesto-for-relationship-anarchy. Accessed 22 June 2014.

  • Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Race, internet usage and E-commerce.” The Review of Black Political Econmy, 30 (Winter), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, N., & O’Neill, G. (1972). Open marriage: A new life style for couples. New York: M. Evans and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. T., & Starks, T. J. (2014). Drug use and sexual arrangements among gay couples: Frequency, interdependence, and associations with sexual risk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(1), 89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., Gamarel, K. E., & Grov, C. (2012). Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 669–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., DuBois, S., Grov, C., & Golub, S. A. (2013). Alternatives to monogamy among gay male couples in a community survey: Implications for mental health and sexual risk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(2), 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. (2007). There were three in bed: Discursive desire and the sex lives of swingers (Doctoral thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland: New Foundland and Labrador, Canada).

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, K. (2011). The Labeling perspective forty years on. In H. Peters & M. Dellwing (Eds.), Langweiliges Verbrechen: Warum KriminologInnen den Umgang mit Kriminalität interessanter finden als Kriminalität (pp. 83–101). Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Politi, D. (2013). Federal judge effectively decriminalizes polygamy in Utah. Slate. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/15/federal_judge_effectively_decriminalizes_polygamy_in_utah.html. Accessed 27 June 2014.

  • Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960–1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3), 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambukkana, N. (2010). Sex, space and discourse: Non/monogamy and intimate privilege in the public sphere. In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 237–242). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, A., & Barker. M. (2005). Explorations in feminist participant-led research: Conducting focus group discussion with polyamorous women. Psychology of Women Section Review, 7(2), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). “There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up:” Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 584–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. (1997). My baby just cares for me: Feminism, heterosexuality and non-monogamy. Journal of Gender Studies, 6(2), 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogness, K. Z., & Foust, C. R. (2011). Beyond rights and virtues as foundation for women’s agency: Emma Goldman’s rhetoric of free love. Western Journal of Communication Studies, 75(2), 148–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. (1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove & M. A. Barale (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 3–44). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, D. (2011). Monogamish. The Stranger. http://www.thestranger.com. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Schippers, M. (Forthcoming). PolyQueer: Compulsory monogamy and the queer potential of plural sexualities. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, D., & Willis, A. (2010). Theoretical polyamory: Some thoughts on loving, thinking, and queering anarchism. Sexualities, 13(4), 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2005). Gender, family, and sexuality: Exploring polyamorous community (Doctoral dissertation). Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2007). The reluctant polyamorist: Auto-ethnographic research in a sexualized setting. In M. Stomber, D. Baunach, E. Burgess, D. Donnelly, & W. Simonds (Eds.), Sex matters: The sexuality and society reader (2nd ed., pp. 111–118). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2011). Polyamorous families, same-sex marriage, and the slippery slope. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(5), 487–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2013). Solo polyamory, singleish, single & poly. Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201310/solo-polyamory-singleish-single-poly. Accessed 6 Jan 2015.

  • Sheff, E. (2014a). The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple partner relationships and families. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2014b). Not necessarily broken: Redefining success when polyamorous relationships end. In S. Newmahr & T. Weinberg (Eds.), Selves, symbols and sexualities: Contemporary readings (pp. 201–214). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheff, E. (2014c). The future of (non and serial) monogamy. Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201404/the-future-non-and-serial-monogamy. Accessed 6 Jan 2015.

  • Sheff, E. (2014d). How many polyamorists are there in the United States? Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201405/how-many-polyamorists-are-there-in-the-us. Accessed 11 Jan 2015.

  • Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: Race, class, and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(3), 198–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., & Smith, L. (1974). Beyond monogamy: Recent studies of sexual alternatives in marriage. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethinking family values in the postmodern age. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talese, G. (1980). Thy neighbor’s wife. New York: Dell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taormino, T. (2008). Opening up: A guide to creating and sustaining open relationships. San Francisco: Cleis Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trahan, H. A. (2014). Relationship literacy and polyamory: A queer approach. Dissertation, Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, D. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62(1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevithick, A. (1997). On a panhuman preference for monandry: Is polyandry an exception? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 28(3), 154–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veaux, F., & Rickert, E. (2014). More than two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory. Portland: Thorntree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warf, B., & Grimes, J. (1997). Counterhegemonic discourses and the internet. Geographical Review, 87(2), 259–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, A. (2002). Survey results: Who are we? And other interesting impressions. Loving More Magazine, 30, 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, J. (1985). Sexuality and its discontents: Meanings, myths, and modern sexualities. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich, J. (1997). Strange bedfellows: Homosexuality, gay liberation, and the internet. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 22(1), 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1/2), 137–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, E. (2010). What’s queer about non-monogamy? In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 243–254). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey, A. (2006). “Christian nations,” “polygamic races” and women’s rights: Toward a genealogy of non/monogamy and whiteness. Sexualities, 9(5), 530–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D., & Nichols, R. C. (1980). A life perspective comparison of married and divorced persons. The Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 413–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology, Oglethorpe University, 30319, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Elisabeth Sheff

  2. Sociology Department, Georgia State University, 30302, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Megan M. Tesene

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Sheff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan M. Tesene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Sheff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    John DeLamater

  2. Department of Sociology, Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, USA

    Rebecca F. Plante

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sheff, E., Tesene, M. (2015). Consensual Non-Monogamies in Industrialized Nations. In: DeLamater, J., Plante, R. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation