Lesbian and bisexual women continue to face oppression in modern American society. The oppression can be even more intense for the subset of women who have chosen to be polyamorous. Social workers are increasingly likely to work with persons who have chosen alternative relationship structures such as polyamory. This research project was designed to examine relationship commitment and security in lesbian and bisexual women who are monogamous and lesbian and bisexual women who are polyamorous. Polyamorous is defined as choosing to live outside of the structure of monogamy with mutual consent of all partners in a relationship. A questionnaire was designed to reflect the perceptions these women have about their relationships regarding commitment and security. These questionnaires were completed by ten monogamous women and twelve polyamorous women. From this questionnaire, a quantitative analysis of the degree of commitment and security was conducted. In depth qualitative interviews were conducted with two polyamorous women. These interviews focused on their experiences and feelings towards commitment, why they have chosen to be polyamorous, and how they view polyamory within mainstream monogamous culture. Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative information provides further insight into misunderstood polyamorous lifestyles. Such information will be useful to social work practitioners by strengthening their awareness of the diversity of this unique alternative lifestyle.

Polyamory has been covered in the mainstream media. Time magazine (Cloud, 1999), the Advocate (Woog, 1998), Utne Reader (Larsen, 1998), Houston Press (Mathieu, 2000), and the San Francisco Chronicle (Marech, 2001) have featured articles on polyamory. There are guidebooks for polyamorists, abundant Internet communities, and even national polyamory conventions. However, explicit study of polyamory has received little critical analysis in academic literature. Research done on intimacy in dyadic relationships has often pathologized relationships that are outside of the monogamous norm. The terms nonmonogamy, cheating, adultery, and infidelity are often used to refer to extradyadic relationships. These are value-laden words, reflecting a monogamy-centric culture. The term polyamory will be used to refer to ethical nonmonogamy (practicing extradyadic relationships with mutual consent among those involved). The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of polyamorous relationships.

There has been theoretical debate over the institution of monogamy. Historically, women have been viewed as the property of men (Vogel, 1992). From pre-Christian Roman law through nineteenth century Napoleonic law, only women were capable of committing adultery (sexual intercourse of a married person with someone who is not the spouse). These laws and beliefs were justified, especially during the feudal era, to assure the man would have legitimate offspring. Thus female sexuality outside of a marriage was punishable by law. The lovers of these women were also subject to be sued, as they violated the property rights of another man. Currently in the United States, adultery is a criminal offense in 25 states. Ten of these laws are more than a century old, ranging from Maryland’s 1749 law to the most recent in Massachusetts (1978) (Posner & Silbaugh, 1996).

Another historical theory of monogamy posits that women have chosen to live polygamously (one man with multiple wives) when there was great resource inequality among men (Kanazawa & Still, 1999). Monogamy as an institution developed when there became less resource inequality among men. The premise is that women would rather have a half share of a wealthy man than full share of a poor man. While this is an interesting theory, it presupposes that interpersonal relationships are entirely economically based.

Overall (1998) summarized the psychoanalytic view that the ideal of monogamy is the drive to return to oneness felt during infancy with one’s mother. This state without boundaries and filled with primary love is the monogamous ideal of psychoanalytic theory. As with much psychoanalytic theory, there is little empirical evidence to validate the transference of infant methods of relating to adulthood.

Monogamy is also seen as coming from a scarcity mentality: there is only a limited amount of love to go around, and a person needs exclusivity of their partner to ensure they get enough (Overall, 1998). Overall views monogamy as a choice tied into a woman’s identity. She asserts that women develop their identity in relation to whom they are sexually intimate with. A woman who chooses to have an additional relationship expands her sense of identity. A monogamous woman with a nonmonogamous partner may feel threatened if she had no control over whom to include within her circle of intimacy.

In a feminist critique of monogamy, Robinson (1997) illustrates how serial monogamy has become a societal norm. In recounting women’s failure to achieve ‘till death do we part’ monogamy, Robinson asserts that serial monogamy is culturally seen as a problem finding the ‘one and only’, rather than as a problem with the institution of monogamy. According to Shere Hite’s research on female sexuality (1991, as cited in Robinson, 1997) most women are not monogamous, despite their belief in monogamy. Hite’s study goes to show that in the strictest sense of the word, monogamy is in fact not the cultural norm it is perceived to be, even though it remains the ideal. Robinson attributes the rise of nonmonogamy in the last several decades to the accessibility of birth control since the 1960’s.

Rust (1996) breaks from monogamy-centric views by defining polyamory for what it is in modern society; an alternative for those who do not adhere to the belief that a partner should be expected to fulfill all of one’s sexual, romantic, and emotional needs. She found that the most common polyamorous relationship type was that of an open primary relationship. This is where one partner is primary, and other partners are also concurrently acceptable. Rust continues with ideas on how counselors can be supportive of polyamorous clients by helping couples establish boundaries and guidelines common to polyamory. Kassoff (1988) provides a two by two dimensional model of nonmonogamous relationships. On one dimension is stable nonmonogamy vs. transitional nonmonogamy. The other dimension is self-oriented nonmonogamy vs. couple-oriented nonmonogamy.

A cross-cultural study has been done (Penn, Hernandez, & Bermudez, 1997) showing differing influences of religion and ethnicity on expectations of monogamous behavior. In studies of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans, despite the ideal of monogamy, extradyadic relationships were more acceptable for the men than the women in each culture. In religious contexts, monogamy is expected in both Protestantism and Catholicism, but in eastern philosophies as well as in Islam, the man is not expected to remain monogamous. Islamic polygamy is explored more thoroughly by Al-Krenawi, Graham, and Al-Krenawi (1997). They do promote more cultural sensitivity for this alternative lifestyle, yet citing personal communication rather than research as the foundation for many of their findings weakened their arguments. A comparison of Japanese and American women reinforced the finding that permissive attitudes towards extradyadic relationships were not able to predict actual instances of extradyadic relationships (Maykovich, 1976).

Gender differences have been studied for different motivations for extradyadic relationships . Glass and Wright (1992) discovered that men often justified extradyadic relationships based on sexual reasons, and women justify extradyadic relationships for emotional reasons. For men and women, involvement in extradyadic relationships were positively correlated with permissive attitudes about extradyadic relationships . Seal, Agostinielli, and Hannett (1994) found that men are more willing than women to engage in extradyadic relationships . Their findings also revealed that more liberal sexual attitudes and experiences were positively correlated with higher probability of engaging in extradyadic relationships . Men and women were less likely to engage in extradyadic relationships if the other person was involved in a relationship. A stark gender difference revealed is that while men were equally likely to engage in extradyadic relationships whether in the active or passive role, women were more likely to engage in extradyadic relationships when in the passive role.

In one study of nonmonogamy, Treas and Giesen (2000) posit twelve hypotheses. Some of the assumptions prompting these hypotheses are erroneous to polyamory. For instance, that sex outside a dyadic relationship must be undetected, and social networks should monitor behavior and impose costs for non-compliance (with the implication that any extradyadic behavior should incur costs). The data in this study were also skewed, having thrown out responses from any participant married more than once (not a model for monogamy). The results are framed by the monogamy-centrist culture, which continues to pathologize extradyadic relationships. Some of their findings were that people more interested in sex had more sexual partners. Also, people with more opportunities for extradyadic relationships also experienced more extradyadic relationships.

Another study used data on the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases to represent the population of people who have multiple sexual partners (Immerman & Mackey, 1999). This is not a representative sample because it only represents those who do not practice safer sex. Safer sex is common in ethically based polyamory (Rust, 1996). Immerman & Mackey, through secondary sources, correlated high incidences of sexually transmitted disease with high infant mortality, high rates of out-of-wedlock births, and high rates of violent crime. These statistics were used to imply having multiple sexual partners is an illegitimate relationship form.

Infidelity has also been studied by the definition of being a violation of a couple’s relationship norm that elicits sexual jealousy (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentillia, 1999). Although extradyadic emotional and physical intimacy was measured, the study provided no evidence that these occurrences violated relationship norms or elicited sexual jealousy. Therefore, the study rendered it’s own definition useless. The investment model approach was used, correlating commitment, relationship satisfaction, and investment in a relationship with fewer incidences of extradyadic involvements. The study did find that level of commitment was correlated with extradyadic relationships, but were unable to justify whether the extradyadic relationships fit their definition of infidelity.

Forste and Tanfer (1996) performed a cross cultural study in which they equated commitment with sexual exclusivity. This counters the polyamorous ideal, which allows nonexclusivity within a committed relationship. Forst & Tanfer discovered that women were more likely to have secondary sexual partners if they were cohabitating without marriage than those women who were married. The study also showed that non-Christian women were more likely to have extradyadic relationships than Christian women. Some other correlations with increased likelihood of extradyadic relationships is the number of sexual partners prior to the current relationship, and whether a woman has a higher level of education than her partner. Another interesting finding is that the longer a relationship lasts, the more likely it will not remain sexually exclusive. This was also found in Blumstein and Schwartz’s 1983 study. Blumstein and Schwartz found that nonmonogamy occurs in all types of relationships, with highest rate being for gay males. The study lacks clarity, as it does not examine bisexual men or bisexual women. In most instances of non monogamy, fewer than six outside partners were involved (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983).

The present research attempts to take an approach that is not monogamy-centric. The dimension of commitment were evaluated, through qualitative and quantitative methods. The participants were lesbian and bisexual women, and due to the fact that same-sex couples cannot marry in the U.S., there is no data differentiating cohabitating and married women. For simplicity of the project, ethnicity, educational achievement, and religious affiliation were omitted. These factors can be tackled in the future in more extensive research into polyamory.

Method

Commitment: Using a Likert scale, participants responded in regards to desire for relationship longevity, respect for partner’s boundaries, and level of honest communication engaged in with her partner. This is the first five questions on the questionnaire. (Appendix A)

Security: Using a Likert scale, participants responded based on their perception of their partner’s commitment (as operationalized above). This is the last five questions on the questionnaire. (Appendix A)

Subjects The subjects were lesbian and bisexual women who have been in a primary relationship for at least one year. The polyamorous women were contacted via the snowball method, contacting polyamorous lesbian and bisexual women, and having them refer other participants. The monogamous women were solicited at a monthly potluck held for lesbian and bisexual women in Lawrence, Kansas.

Instruments The same questionnaire was given to the monogamous and polyamorous women. They were asked their age, duration of their primary relationship, the gender of their primary partner, whether the relationship is monogamous, and their sexual orientation. The next portion of the questionnaire asked for participant’s perceptions of their commitment and security in their relationship. They responded to statements using a five point Likert scale from one (strongly agree) to five (strongly disagree).

Procedures The principal investigator explained the purpose of the research to the group of monogamous women. The prospective participants then received packets containing the questionnaire, consent form, and self addressed, stamped envelopes. The envelopes enabled participants to mail the consent form and questionnaire separately to maintain anonymity. The principal investigator explained the purpose of the research to women who volunteered to assist in the snowball technique of acquiring information from polyamorous women. Most of the polyamorous respondents emailed the principal investigator their home address, and the same packets were mailed to these women, with anonymity maintained by the same method.

The principal investigator included her phone number and email address on the consent forms, and was available to answer any questions participants had.

Subjects Participants for the qualitative portion of this study were recruited from interested parties at a potluck organized for polyamorous persons in Kansas. Separate consent forms were signed for the qualitative portion of the study.

Procedures The selected participants were contacted, and interview times were determined. The interviews took place at a location which was comfortable for both the researcher and participant. Ability to maintain confidentiality was critical in determining the location. The interviews varied between one and one and one half hours. The interviews were audio taped, with the participant’s permission.

The interview was semi-structured and focused on the women’s views and feelings regarding the commitment in their primary relationship, why they have chosen to be polyamorous, and how they view polyamory within mainstream monogamous culture.

Results

The primary focus of this study, commitment of monogamous and polyamorous lesbian and bisexual women, was examined using analysis of variance. The findings supported the hypothesis that there is no difference in the commitment level of polyamorous and monogamous lesbian and bisexual women to their primary partner, F = .95 p > .10, as shown in Figure 1. Despite the fact that the polyamorous women had significantly longer relationships with their primary partners, as shown in figure 2, F = 7.22, p < .05, differences in commitment scores of monogamous and polyamorous women again fail to reach significance even when duration of relationship is factored in as a covariate, F = .646, p > .10.

Another significant finding, as shown in figure 3, is that when sexual orientation was placed on a scale from one to ten, with one being heterosexual and ten being homosexual, the monogamous women scored significantly higher than polyamorous women, F = 81.88, p < .01. One additional significant correlation was found between level of security and level of commitment for all women, F = .47, p < .05.

The two qualitative interviews provided insights on many commonalities these women shared. Both women are Caucasian, bisexual, in their 30’s, and have been in a relationship with a male primary for more than five years.

One common theme Ruth and Jane (pseudonyms) had was reliance on the concept of time as a reflection of commitment. Not only does commitment mean staying with one person over a period of time, both Ruth and Jane emphasized setting aside time for the primary partner as being essential to commitment. Other congruencies in Ruth and Jane’s responses are that there are agreements in their primary relationship to ensure that the relationship remains primary. As Ruth pointed out, polyamorous people have the tools to negotiate even the "day to dayness" of life. Both Ruth and Jane have had secondary relationships (relationships outside of the primary bond). They differentiate between primary and secondary relationships by the amount of time spent with the person, the effort one is willing to invest in the relationship, and the influence that relationship will have in making life decisions.

Ruth and Jane also have commonalities in their histories that led them to polyamory. Jane jokingly attributed her polyamorous choices to reading "too much Heinlein as a kid." (This is referencing author Robert Heinlein’s plethora of Science Fiction novels involving alternative relationship structures.) When young, both Ruth and Jane had an intimate circle of friends who would date among and be sexual with one another. Later in their lives, both Ruth and Jane got married, and, as Ruth said, "I was automatically supposed to be monogamous." Monogamous marriage worked for neither Ruth nor Jane. After the end of their respective marriages, they each made a vow to themselves to never attempt to live monogamously again.

In asking how their bisexuality was related to their polyamory, Ruth asserted "one is who I’m attracted to, and the other is how many I want to be involved with." Jane responded to the concept of identity both as bisexual and polyamorous as a contrast from the swinger stereotype polyamorous bisexuals are faced with: "swinging is something that you do in the bedroom, and as such, it doesn’t need to interact with the rest of the world. Whereas poly[amory] is, to my mind, something you do out of the bedroom. Poly[amory] is walking down the street with a sweetie in each hand."

Both Ruth and Jane are out as polyamorous to coworkers, family, and friends. For Jane, it is "crucial to me to be able to share with the people that I love the people that I love." Ruth and Jane also share a desire for the energy that comes at the beginning of new relationships. For Jane, it is the excitement of possible futures that brings the energy to the relationship. Ruth expressed an addiction to such energy.

In regards to polyamory as a culture, Jane needed only one word: "home". It is a place to belong and be accepted, without the judgmental views of mainstream society. Both women feel they are living outside of mainstream society as it is. Neither have perceived discrimination, yet they acknowledge that societal norms are fairly meaningless to them.

Ruth summarized why she is polyamorous: "I am reminded of homosexual people that go ‘well, if I just get married to someone of the opposite gender, and believe hard enough, then I’ll be heterosexual’. It just doesn’t work that way. That’s very much how being monogamous would be for me." It’s a way of life, a way of being. One could argue that it is no more a choice than sexual orientation.

While these women had many similarities, they had differences as well. Differences that are not as easy to capture on paper as their commonalities. Some of the differences is in how they go about becoming involved in polyamorous relationships. While Ruth is more lazzei faire in acquiring new partners, Jane would be more likely to pursue a potential relationship. They also have different goals regarding building a family, Ruth not wanting kids, and Jane intending to have children. Other differences are more personality based rather than polyamory based, and not relevant to the topic of this paper.

This study was conducted to investigate the stereotype that a person who chooses to be polyamorous is less committed to their relationship than a person who chooses to be monogamous. No significant differences were found in the groups of monogamous and polyamorous lesbian and bisexual women studied. Other traits of these women are not adequately comparable due to the different sampling methods used. Every non-monogamous participant was bisexual, while only a small portion of the monogamous participants were bisexual. This could be due in part to sampling error, but it may not be entirely coincidence. As Lenore Norrgard (1991) proposes, "being sexual with women is qualitatively different from being sexual with men." Both being desirable leads to a greater challenge for bisexuals to be monogamous. Rust (1996) did find that bisexuals have higher degrees of nonmonogamy. The bisexual battle-cry has been ‘we can be monogamous!’ Feminists have begun taking the stance of validating nonmonogamy as a valid relationship choice, rather than attempting to assimilate to monogamous mainstream society (Norrgard, 1991, Murray, 1995, Halpern, 1999).

This is not meant to imply that lesbians are not polyamorous. In fact there are two books targeted exclusively at polyamorous lesbians: The Lesbian Polyamory Reader, and Lesbian Polyfidelity. Research done on lesbians supports the findings in the qualitative interviews, such as, time aspects of secondary relationships are more limited, power differentials exist between primary and secondary, and negotiation skills are actively used (Kassoff, 1988). However, Ruth and Jane’s situations don’t quite fit into Kassoff’s model because it doesn’t include a dynamic for bisexual women, and assumes that male-female nonmonogamy is not open.

The small scale of this project barely touches the surface of knowledge on polyamory. More research needs to be done in a way that is not monogamy-centric. The sampling biases evident in this study must be avoided in the future to get a more accurate glimpse of polyamorous lesbian and bisexual women.

As social workers gain knowledge of diverse cultures and subcultures, it better prepares them to value the dignity and worth of each client. Having knowledge of this alternative relationship style can enhance the competence of social workers as well. Social workers should seek to continually expand their knowledge about cultures unlike their own. Initiating the process by dispelling subconscious prejudices is a good start.

Al-Krenawi A., Graham, J., & Al-Krenawi. (1997). Social Work Practice With Polygamous Families. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 14, 445-458.

Blumstein, P. & Schwartz, P. (1983). Non monogamy: The diverse alternatives. American Couples. (pp. 267-306). New York: William and Morrow Company, Inc.

Cloud, John. (1999, November 15). Henry & Mary & Janet &.... Time 154, 90-91.

Drigotas, S., Safstrom, C., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An Investment Model Prediction of Dating Infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 509-524.

Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual Exclusivity Among Dating, Cohabitating, and Married Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58, 33-47.

Glass, S., & Wright, T. (1992). Justifications for Extramarital Relationships: The Association between Attitudes, Behaviors, and Gender. The Journal of Sex Research 29, 361-387.

Halpern, E. (1999). If Love Is So Wonderful, What’s So Scary About MORE? In Munson, M, & Stelboum, J. (Eds.) The Lesbian Polyamory Reader. (pp. 157-164). New York: The Haworth Press.

Immerman, R., & Mackey, W. (1999). The Societal Dilemma of Multiple Sexual Partners: The Costs of the Loss of Pair-Bonding. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 3-19.

Kanazawa, S., & Still, M. (1999). Why Monogamy? Social Forces 78, 25-50.

Kassoff, E. (1988). Nonmonogamy in the Lesbian Community. Women and Therapy 8, 167-182

Larsen, E. (1998, November/December). Poly Sex for Beginners. Utne Reader 90, 20-21.

Marech, R. (2001, February 9). Polyamorists swear the more, the merrier when it comes to relationships. San Francisco Chronicle.

Mathieu, J (2000, November 30). Meet Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. Jones. Houston Press.

Maykovich, M. (1976). Attitudes Versus Behavior in Extramarital Sexual Relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38, 693-699.

Munson, M. & Stelboum, J. (1999). The Lesbian Polyamory Reader. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Murray, A. (1995). Forsaking All Others: A Bifeminist Discussion of Compulsory Monogamy. In Tucker, N. (Ed.) Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions. (pp. 293-304). New York: The Haworth Press.

Norrgard, Lenore (1991). Can Bisexuals be Monogamous? In L. Hutchins and L. Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out (pp. 281-284). Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc.

Overall, C. (1998). Monogamy, nonmonogamy, and identity. Hypatia 405, 1-17.

Penn, C., Hernandez, S., & Bermudez, J. (1997). Using a Cross-cultural Perspective to Understand Infidelity in Couples Therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy 25, 169-185.

Posner, R., & Silbaugh, K. (1996). A Guide to America’s Sex Laws. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

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

Rust, P. (1996). Monogamy and Polyamory: Relationship Issues for Bisexuals. In B. Firestein (Ed), Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority. (pp. 128-148). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Seal, D., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. (1994). Extradyadic Romantic Involvement: Moderating Effects of Sociosexuality and Gender. Sex Roles 31, 1-22.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabitating Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 48-60.

Vogel, U. (1992). Whose Property? The double standard of adultery in nineteenth-century law. In Smart, C. (Ed), Regulating Womanhood: Historical essays on marriage, motherhood and sexuality. (pp. 147-165). New York: Routledge.

West, C. (1996). Lesbian Polyfidelity. San Francisco: Bootlegger Publishing.

Woog, D. (1998, June 23). One on One. The Advocate 762, p. 28-32.