When loving hurts: The pervasiveness of stigma towards consensual non-monogamy

written by Stefano Ciaffoni, Yasin Koc & Silvia Moscatelli

Editorial Assistants: Sameeksha Shukla and Elena Benini.

Note: An earlier version of this article has been published in the Italian version of In-Mind.

Consensual non-monogamy is often seen as immoral, childish, or even harmful. This article reviews how stigma towards consensually non-monogamous relationships is widespread and socially shared, shaping judgments and discrimination against those who love outside monogamous norms.

Fig. 1. Some human relationships include more than two people

“I was 17 when I realized I was different. I loved an older boy who preferred a relationship without sexual exclusivity, and I, who had never experienced this before, decided to try it. Unlike him, however, who experienced sex as something separate from feelings, I soon began to feel something for the other boy I was seeing. I questioned for a long time the nature of these feelings toward my then-boyfriend and toward the other boy, and only after years of confusion, fear, and embarrassment about what I felt did I come to identify as polyamorous. People around me didn’t understand... I felt judged. Today, I no longer feel fear or inadequacy in front of those who criticise me for this. After all, what’s wrong with loving more than one person?!”
— Marco, polyamorous, 22 years old.

Having a satisfying romantic relationship has positive effects on health and well-being, addressing needs for emotional support, care, and sexual gratification [1]. However, for some, living romantically according to their own needs and values can be problematic because other people do not socially accept relational preferences that differ from traditional norms. This is the case for Marco and for all people in consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships [2].
The goal of this article is to examine this phenomenon based on the limited number of psychosocial studies conducted so far. In particular, by focusing on the stigma experienced by people in CNM relationships, we present an analysis of its possible origins and strategies to reduce it.

What are consensual non-monogamous relationships?

“Consensual non-monogamy” is an umbrella term that includes all relationship arrangements in which the people involved choose not to be sexually and/or romantically exclusive. Within this broad category, three main forms are usually identified: polyamory, in which partners agree that having multiple sexual, romantic, and emotional relationships is acceptable; swinging, in which partners engage in sexual encounters with others, typically together as a couple; and open relationships, in which partners allow sexual relations with others, usually on the condition that these extra-dyadic relationships remain occasional and do not develop into additional romantic bonds [3]. However, the boundaries between these different forms are not clear-cut, and relying too heavily on such categories can be of limited usefulness for understanding the variety and complexity of consensually non-monogamous relationships.
Research shows that non-monogamy is not unique to humans, nor to contemporary societies. Multiple animal species and many human cultures have adopted different relational arrangements across time and space [2], [4]. Monogamy should therefore not be seen as an inevitable biological outcome, but rather as a social compromise [5]. History is replete with anecdotes that demonstrate monogamy has not always been the dominant relational model. To name just one famous example, King Henry VIII of England, with his six successive wives (and numerous concubines), is a clear illustration of how people have not always adhered to monogamous ideals or practices. Consensual non-monogamy is not limited to historical figures. It is also relatively common in contemporary Western societies. Data from online surveys conducted in the United States indicate that around 5% of people are currently involved in a consensually non-monogamous relationship [6] and that approximately 20% of adults have practiced some form of consensual non-monogamy at least once in their lives [7]. More specifically, in the study by Haupert and colleagues (2016), which used two representative samples of single adults in the United States, men were more likely than women to report previous experiences of consensual non-monogamy. Similarly, people who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual reported higher rates of consensual non-monogamy than those who identified as heterosexual. At present, no comparable data are available for Italy, as similar research has not yet been conducted. Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that consensual non-monogamy is not a marginal phenomenon and may even be increasing. For example, several Italian Facebook groups dedicated to polyamory exist (e.g., Poliamore Napoli and Bologna). Among these, the group “Poliamore Roma (Eventi)” alone has around 1,100 registered members.
Psychological research indicates that individuals in consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships are just as committed to their relationships as those in monogamous ones, and that these relationships do not differ in terms of quality [8]. In other words, CNM partners are just as satisfied as monogamous partners, relationships tend to last just as long, and no differences have been found in partners’ levels of psychological well-being [9]. Moreover, CNM partners report high levels of happiness, emotional closeness, honesty within the relationship, very good communication, and low levels of jealousy [10]–[13]. Overall, the scientific literature highlights that consensual non-monogamy can be at least as functional and positive as monogamy, providing the same benefits as any other loving relationship. But if people in CNM relationships are just as satisfied as those in monogamous ones, why can having this type of relationship be problematic? According to the studies conducted so far, the answer does not lie in psychological distress experienced by the CNM group for some of its distinctive characteristics or practices, but rather in society’s reaction to non-monogamy [8].

Fig. 2. Human beyond norms

Stigma toward consensual non-monogamy: From myths to discrimination

In recent decades, media and social networks have begun to talk about consensual non-monogamy [14]. Although the topic has received positive attention from some popular media outlets [15]–[17] and from some LGBTQ+ activists [18], [19], the dominant view remains that it is childish, selfish, and psychologically harmful [14], [20]. Some scholars also argue that having sexual relationships outside a primary relationship is a sign that the relationship itself is disturbed [21], [22]. More generally, in our societies, there is a widespread belief that happiness can only be achieved through long-term monogamous relationships, which are seen as the only healthy and normal way to experience love [23].

“We listened to all those people who told us that over the years we would change, that ours was just a phase of youthful rebellion. And believe me, there were many! Paradoxically, being called childish was the nicest thing our friends said to us; after that, it turned into insults, into being defined or seen as mentally ill, or pedophiles. Giving certain explanations for something you don’t understand is quite typical — I understood this over time.”
— Anna, in an open relationship with Simone, 35 years old

As Anna’s words suggest, CNM relationships are strongly stigmatized [24]. Indeed, people tend to evaluate openly non-monogamous couples more negatively than monogamous ones [2].
One domain targeted by stigma concerns sexual health. Many people argue that consensual non-monogamy increases the risk of HIV infection [25], whereas monogamy, by contrast, drastically reduces the likelihood of contagion [26]. Although this may seem reasonable at first glance, it is not supported by a careful analysis of monogamous practices [27]. On the contrary, people in CNM relationships have been shown to engage in healthier sexual practices, at least compared to monogamous individuals who had cheated on their partner since the beginning of their relationship (and who represented more than a quarter of the monogamous sample; [2]).
The stigma associated with CNM individuals is not limited to viewing them as carriers of sexually transmitted infections but broadly affects how they are perceived. In an illuminating study, researchers presented participants with stories about individuals and experimentally manipulated the type of relationship described, which could be monogamous or CNM [2]. After reading one version or the other, participants answered a series of questions. Some questions concerned relationship-relevant traits, such as how much the partners trusted or respected each other, or whether they were jealous. Other questions concerned unrelated characteristics, such as how reliable they would be at walking a dog or taking their daily dose of vitamins. The results? Not only were CNM individuals perceived more negatively on all relationship-relevant traits, but also on unrelated dimensions. The negative perception of non-monogamous individuals, generated solely by the type of relationship they had, thus extended to other domains: in other words, CNM individuals were considered unreliable even when it came to walking a dog.
It has also been noted that, when referring to CNM relationships, terms such as “infidelity” and “adultery” are often used, thereby practically denying the possibility that extra-dyadic relationships may have been consensually agreed upon by the partners [29]. Indeed, while in a monogamous couple, having a sexual relationship with someone other than one’s partner constitutes infidelity because it violates the agreement, in a CNM relationship, such behavior is allowed by the partners themselves. It should be noted that infidelity can also occur in CNM relationships when agreements are not respected, and this may or may not involve sexual activity [30].
Moreover, the only study conducted so far that included an Italian sample shows that CNM individuals are perceived in a dehumanized way - that is, as less human than monogamous individuals [31]. Specifically, people practicing non-monogamy, regardless of their sexual orientation, were almost denied the capacity to experience complex emotions (such as guilt, love, or happiness) and were instead mainly attributed primary emotions shared with animals (such as pleasure or fear).
Finally, it is interesting to note that not all subtypes of consensual non-monogamy receive the same degree of stigmatization. Although all are perceived negatively, swinging relationships are judged most harshly, followed by open relationships and then polyamorous ones [32]. This suggests that the idea of sexual relationships occurring entirely without emotional bonds is particularly disapproved of. This interpretation is supported by a qualitative study conducted in the UK, in which even polyamorous individuals appeared to distance themselves from swingers, tending to describe their relationships as less deep [12].
Overall, stigma toward non-monogamy affects CNM individuals across multiple domains and goes beyond simply disagreeing with their romantic ideals. CNM individuals are devalued regardless, and this negative evaluation emerges in a variety of contexts. As explained by Dovidio and colleagues [33], stigma is a social construction that targets groups possessing an attribute that violates a norm (in this case, having non-monogamous relationships) and leads to their devaluation and discrimination.

Fig. 3. Polyamory as a human relational practice

The origins of stigma toward non-monogamy and strategies to counter it

What, then, might be the reasons behind the pervasive stigma affecting CNM individuals? To understand this phenomenon, it is useful to refer to an important psychological theory: the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct [34]. This theory posits that social norms are behavioral standards and rules understood and shared by group members across domains [35], ranging from social interactions (e.g., how people greet each other) to attendance in specific places (e.g., how and when people enter school), including romantic relationships.
This theory also distinguishes between two types of norms: descriptive norms, which refer to the perceived prevalence of a behavior (e.g., believing that smoking is common among adolescents), and injunctive norms, which refer to the perceived level of social approval of a behavior (e.g., believing that completing one’s education is the norm because it is a socially desired behavior; [34]). In other words, injunctive norms refer to what people know they should do, representing the moral rules of the group. For this reason, they incorporate an evaluative component and motivate action through rewards (such as social approval) or punishments (such as social disapproval or discrimination against individuals perceived as violating norms).
In this context, monogamy functions as both a descriptive and an injunctive norm in most Western societies [22]. Individuals not only perceive that most people around them are in monogamous relationships but are also aware that this is considered a moral obligation, that is, what people should strive for. This perspective provides a theoretical basis for understanding why research has consistently shown positive evaluations of monogamy and, conversely, strong stigmatization of consensual non-monogamy [2]. CNM relationships may therefore be stigmatized not only because they violate the descriptive norm of having only one relationship at a time, but especially because they challenge the injunctive norm of monogamy as morally desirable.
Although monogamy has become established as the dominant norm in most societies - and this contributes to stigmatizing non-monogamous relationships - it is also plausible that stigma varies depending on other value systems characteristic of specific cultures or subgroups. One such system is individualism versus collectivism [36]. In individualistic cultures, such as the United States, the moral imperative is to assert one’s individuality, often by standing out from others. Indeed, the well-known American saying “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” suggests that standing out is a way to receive attention and resources [37]. In collectivistic cultures, such as Japan, standing out is not rewarded; instead, recognition goes to those who conform to social rules and prioritize group needs over personal ones. A famous Japanese saying reflects this idea: “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down” [37]. Focusing on the Italian context, research has shown that Southern Italy is characterised by more collectivistic values than Northern Italy, which reflects a more individualistic cultural context [38]. Although no studies have yet examined differences in stigma toward CNM relationships across individualistic versus collectivistic contexts, it would be reasonable to expect higher levels of discrimination in collectivistic cultures, and therefore stronger stigma toward CNM relationships in Southern Italy. Similarly, research has shown that stigma is also reduced within specific minority communities, such as those composed of people with non-heterosexual orientations, possibly due to greater tolerance for deviations from heteronormative models [24].
From an evolutionary psychology perspective, monogamy may have emerged as a social norm because it facilitated the distribution of resources to the next generation [39]. For women, it may have ensured that fathers invested resources exclusively in their children, while for men, it may have guaranteed paternity, thereby allowing their lineage to continue [40]. Although conditions have changed today, the norm of monogamy - shared ideologically for so long - may have been internalized by individuals in Westernized societies and become, as noted above, a moral issue.
According to some morality researchers, including Haidt [41], moral judgment occurs primarily through intuition. When faced with a moral issue, individuals immediately form a favorable or unfavorable evaluation, and only afterwards engage in reasoning, which serves mainly to justify the intuition already formed. According to this model, moral judgment is not the result of a deliberate and analytical cognitive process, but rather occurs automatically, without awareness or cognitive effort. When reading this article, readers may have instinctively felt opposed to CNM relationships and only afterwards searched for reasons to justify this judgment. Thoughts such as “it’s childish,” “it’s not love,” or “it’s lust” may have emerged afterwards, as already discussed earlier.
This explanation not only helps clarify the origins of stigma toward consensual non-monogamy but also suggests ways to counter it. In this regard, studies by Devine and colleagues [42], [43] have shown that it is possible not only to regulate automatic prejudice processes through increased awareness and motivation to reduce them, but also to inhibit their activation through indirect control strategies, such as perspective-taking [44]–[46]. For example, a person who is aware that information about the type of relationships CNM individuals have may influence their overall judgment could correct this cognitive bias by evaluating them only based on the stimuli actually received during the interaction. Ultimately, a deeper understanding of and greater familiarity with this group may enhance motivation to counteract prejudice activation.

Conclusion

This article has addressed the topic of consensual non-monogamy. The scientific literature has disproven the belief that CNM individuals have more problematic relationships than monogamous individuals, while highlighting how easily they can become targets of stigmatization. The antecedents of this stigma may lie in the fact that consensual non-monogamy challenges both the descriptive and injunctive norms of monogamy, and that it is precisely this violation that leads people to socially punish CNM individuals. Although monogamy may have become established because it was evolutionarily advantageous in the past, these motivations no longer hold in contemporary society. Nevertheless, monogamy may have been internalized to such an extent that it has become a moral issue, leading people to automatically and intuitively express opposition to CNM relationships. For this reason, it is important to actively reflect before forming negative or discriminatory judgments toward CNM individuals. Being aware of the automatic activation of prejudice and being motivated to reduce it, as well as attempting to take the other person’s perspective, can help prevent this from happening. Each of us is free to choose to have no relationships, one relationship, or multiple relationships - and, similarly, each of us can choose not to discriminate against people based on their relationships, improving the lives of people like Marco and Anna and contributing to a freer and more inclusive society.

Marco’s and Anna’s testimonies reported in the article were taken from ad hoc interviews with consensually non-monogamous individuals recruited from social networks. Pseudonyms were used to protect the anonymity of the interviewees.

Bibliography

[1] R. N. Balzarini, C. Dharma, A. Muise, and T. Kohut, “Eroticism versus nurturance: How eroticism and nurturance differs in polyamorous and monogamous relationships,” Social Psychology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 185–200, 2019.
[2] T. D. Conley, J. L. Matsick, A. C. Moors, A. Ziegler, and J. D. Rubin, “The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships,” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2012.
[3] T. D. Conley and A. C. Moors, “More oxygen please!: How polyamorous relationship strategies might oxygenate marriage,” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 56–63, 2014.
[4] P. Vallely, “The Big Question: What's the history of polygamy, and how serious a problem is it in Africa?,” The Independent, Oct. 22, 2011. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-what-s-...
[5] D. P. Schmitt, “Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 247–275, 2005.
[6] J. D. Rubin, A. C. Moors, J. L. Matsick, A. Ziegler, and T. D. Conley, “On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships,” Journal für Psychologie, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 19–37, 2014.
[7] M. L. Haupert, A. N. Gesselman, A. C. Moors, H. E. Fisher, and J. R. Garcia, “Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 424–440, 2016.
[8] T. D. Conley, A. Ziegler, A. C. Moors, J. L. Matsick, and B. Valentine, “A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124–141, 2013.
[9] A. N. Rubel and A. F. Bogaert, “Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates,” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 961–982, 2015.
[10] M. Barker, “This is my partner, and this is my… partner's partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world,” Journal of Constructivist Psychology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 75–88, 2005.
[11] K. Bonello and M. C. Cross, “Gay monogamy: I love you but I can't have sex with only you,” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 117–139, 2010.
[12] C. Klesse, “Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy,” Sexualities, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 565–583, 2006.
[13] R. Visser and D. McDonald, “Swings and roundabouts: Management of jealousy in heterosexual ‘swinging’ couples,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 459–476, 2007.
[14] K. Salmansohn, Prince Harming Syndrome: Break Bad Relationship Patterns for Good. Long Island City, NY, USA: Langenscheidt Publishing Group, 2009.
[15] P. Haag, Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, and Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting the Rules. New York, NY, USA: HarperCollins, 2011.
[16] P. Haag, “Options for your mediocre marriage,” CNN, Jun. 2, 2011. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/06/02/marriage.with.issues/index.html...
[17] M. Oppenheimer, “Married, With Infidelities,” The New York Times, Jul. 3, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-toge...
[18] J. Lehmiller, “Polyamorists Are Secretive, Stigmatized, and Highly Satisfied,” VICE, Jun. 13, 2017. https://www.vice.com/en/article/polyamorists-are-secretive-stigmatized-a...
[19] D. Savage, “Savage Lovecast #599: Poly Town,” YouTube video, Apr. 11, 2019. Available: YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv9-SEjf4Iw
[20] M. Slick, “What is polyamory?,” 2010. https://carm.org/what-is-polyamory
[21] I. W. Charny, Existential/Dialectical Marital Therapy: Breaking the Secret Code of Marriage, no. 5. New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press, 1992.
[22] E. Perel, Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence. New York, NY, USA: Harper, 2007.
[23] D. Carl, Counseling Same- Sex Couples. London, UK: W. W. Norton, 1990.
[24] M. T. Cohen and K. Wilson, “Development of the consensual non-monogamy attitude scale (CNAS),” Sexuality & Culture, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2017.
[25] M. L. Crossley, “Making sense of ‘barebacking’: Gay men’s narratives, unsafe sex and the ‘resistance habitus’,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 225–244, 2004.
[26] J. D. Shelton, D. T. Halperin, V. Nantulya, M. Potts, H. D. Gayle, and K. K. Holmes, “Partner reduction is crucial for balanced “ABC” approach to HIV prevention,” Bmj, vol. 328, no. 7444, pp. 891–893, 2004.
[27] T. D. Conley, J. L. Matsick, A. C. Moors, A. Ziegler, and J. D. Rubin, “Re-examining the effectiveness of monogamy as an STI-preventive strategy,” Preventive Medicine, vol. 78, pp. 23–28, 2015.
[28] T. D. Conley, A. C. Moors, A. Ziegler, and C. Karathanasis, “Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals,” The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1559–1565, 2012.
[29] L. J. Young and Z. Wang, “The neurobiology of pair bonding,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1048–1054, 2004.
[30] J. Deri, Love's Refraction: Jealousy and Compersion in Queer Women's Polyamorous Relationships. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2015.
[31] D. Rodrigues, F. Fasoli, A. Huic, and D. Lopes, “Which partners are more human? Monogamy matters more than sexual orientation for dehumanization in three European countries,” Sexuality Research and Social Policy, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 504–515, 2018.
[32] J. Matsick, T. Conley, A. Ziegler, A. Moors, and J. D. Rubin, “Love and sex: polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships,” Psychology & Sexuality, vol. 5, pp. 339–348, 2014.
[33] J. F. Dovidio, B. Major, and J. Crocker, “Stigma: Introduction and overview,” in The Social Psychology of Stigma, T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, and J. G. Hull, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press, 2000, pp. 1–28.
[34] R. B. Cialdini, C. A. Kallgren, and R. R. Reno, “A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and re-evaluation of the role of norms in human behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 201–234. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, 1991.
[35] J. M. Levine and R. L. Moreland, Small Groups: Key Readings, 1st ed. New York, NY, USA and Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press, 2006.
[36] H. C. Triandis, “Individualism- collectivism and personality,” Journal of Personality, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 907–924, 2001.
[37] H. R. Markus and S. Kitayama, “Cultural variation in the self-concept,” in The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches, J. Strauss and G. R. Goethals, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 1991, pp. 18–48.
[38] G. Piumatti, M. Garro, L. Pipitone, A. M. Di Vita, and E. Rabaglietti, “North/South differences among Italian emerging adults regarding criteria deemed important for adulthood and life satisfaction,” Europe’s Journal of Psychology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 271–287, 2016.
[39] L. Fortunato and M. Archetti, “Evolution of monogamous marriage by maximization of inclusive fitness,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 149–156, 2010.
[40] L. Fortunato, “Marriage systems, evolution of,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., J. D. Wright, Ed., vol. 14. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2015, pp. 611–619.
[41] J. Haidt, “The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment,” Psychological Review, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 814–834, 2001.
[42] P. G. Devine and M. J. Monteith, “Automaticity and control in stereotyping,” in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Eds., pp. 339–360. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press, 1999.
[43] P. G. Devine and L. B. Sharp, “Automaticity and control in stereotyping and prejudice,” in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, T. D. Nelson, Ed. New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press, 2009, pp. 61–87.
[44] A. D. Galinsky and G. B. Moskowitz, “Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 708–724, 2000.
[45] K. Sassenberg and G. Moskowitz, “Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 506–514, 2005.
[46] M. Shih, E. Wang, A. Trahan Bucher, and R. Stotzer, “Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 565–577, 2009.