The good, the bad, and the ugly:

Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory

Léa J. Séguin

Léa J. Séguin, MSc Family Relations and Human Development

PhD Candidate, Department of Sexology
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
455, René Levesque Est, room W-R270
Montréal (Québec) H2L 4Y2
seguin.lea@courrier.uqam.ca

Biographical note: Léa Séguin completed a BA in Psychology at the University of Ottawa before
completing an MSc at the University of Guelph in Family Relations and Human Development,
where she conducted research on individuals’ motives for pretending orgasm. She is currently
pursuing doctoral studies in Sexology at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM) under
the supervision of Martin Blais. Her research interests include sexual meanings and motives,
orgasm-simulation, relationship quality, and consensual non-monogamies.

1
Abstract

Although consensual non-monogamies have grown in exposure and popularity among both the

public and academics, they remain largely marginalized and stigmatized. While some research

examined individuals’ perceptions of non-monogamies as a whole, few have focused specifically

on perceptions of polyamory. The aim of this study was to explore and render explicit such

attitudes and perceptions using an inductive approach to research. Online unsolicited narratives

were sought for the purpose of this study. A total of 482 comments posted in response to three

articles on the topic of polyamory were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis. Five

overarching themes were identified: polyamory as 1) valid and beneficial; 2) unsustainable; 3)

perverse, amoral, and unappealing; 4) acceptable; and 5) deficient. The findings provide insight

on individuals’ reactions to polyamorous relationships and beliefs surrounding monogamy, and

are further discussed in light of previous research on stigma, and of contemporary discourses on

relationships, love, and commitment.

Keywords: attitudes, polyamory, stigma, consensual non-monogamy, qualitative

2
 The good, the bad, and the ugly: Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory

Although consensual non-monogamies (CNMs; i.e., relationships in which partners have

openly agreed to emotional and/or sexual non-exclusivity; e.g., Conley, Zeigler, Moors, Matsick,

and Valentine, 2012), have grown in exposure and popularity among both the public and

academics (Barker and Landridge, 2010), they remain largely stigmatized and misunderstood

(Conley et al., 2012; Young, 2014). There are strong norms against non-monogamy (Anderson,

2010), as well as strong opposition and negative reactions to the concept of polygamy or plural

marriage in Western cultures (Barnett, 2014; Saad, 2011). CNMs are also generally negatively

portrayed, and have been described as psychologically damaging, immature, and unethical in

several media sources (e.g., Salmansohn, 2009; 2010; Slick, 2010). Further, mononormativity

(Pieper and Bauer, 2006), the dominant discourse of monogamy which is reproduced and

perpetuated in everyday conversation and saturates mainstream media depictions, also perpetuates

a language of partnerships, infidelities, and jealousy that further constrains and misrepresents

CNMs (e.g., mistress, “the other woman”, cheating, etc.; Ritchie and Baker, 2006). In view of

better understanding the different forms of stigma surrounding polyamory and those who practice

it, the present investigation sought to explore and define individuals’ attitudes and perceptions of

polyamory, using an inductive approach to research.

Defining Consensual Non-Monogamies

Existing research on CNMs illustrates their extensive variability and diversity. Several

types of CNMs involving some form of romantic relationship commitment have been identified

and examined in previous research. Specifically, open relationships are those in which both

partners can engage in extra-dyadic sex but maintain emotional (i.e., romantic) monogamy (e.g.,

Adam, 2010; LaSala, 2004). Similarly to open relationships, monogamish (Parsons and Grov,

3
2012) or threesome-only (Hosking, 2013), and swinging relationships (e.g., Jenks, 1998) imply

emotional, but not sexual monogamy. However, unlike open relationships, partners in the latter

types of relationships have an agreement to have sex with others only while together (i.e., both

partners present). As for swinging relationships more specifically, sex with other people tends to

be restricted to social settings, including swinging parties or conventions (Jenks, 1998). Lastly,

polyamorous relationships distinguish themselves from other CNMs in that they are explicitly

grounded in emotional non-monogamy, which may or may not also include sexual non-monogamy

(e.g., Sheff, 2005; 2014). Elizabeth Sheff (2005) describes individuals who practice polyamory as

having multiple romantic and/or sexual partners with whom they focus on building commitments,

sharing intimacy, and establishing honesty. All of the aforementioned relationship configurations

involve some level of relationship commitment, unlike casual sexual relationships such as “one

night stands”, “friends with benefits”, “fuck buddies”, and “booty call” relationships (e.g.,

Wentland and Reissing, 2011).

Attitudes, Perceptions, and Stigmatization of Consensual Non-Monogamies

While few studies examined individuals’ attitudes and perceptions of CNMs, academic

interest on this topic has grown in recent years. Monogamy is often perceived as having several

benefits, including an improved or enhanced sex life (e.g., increased frequency and quality of sex),

a lower or non-existent risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, and an increase in

relationship quality (e.g., reduced jealousy and increased trust and satisfaction), and these benefits

are perceived to be threatened or abolished when non-monogamy is practiced (for a review, see

Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, and Valentine, 2012). Some research investigated differences

between individuals’ perceptions of monogamy and different CNMs. For instance, in an online

American survey study involving a sample of 1,101 individuals, participants rated monogamous

4
relationships significantly more favourably than CNMs on many relationship dimensions

including levels of trust, intimacy, respect, honesty, and closeness (Conley, Moors, Matsick, and

Ziegler, 2013). In another online American survey study, participants perceived swinging

relationships as less responsible and moral, and ‘dirtier’ than polyamorous relationships (Matsick,

Conley, Ziegler, Moors, and Rubin, 2014). Other studies examined associations between personal

characteristics and attitudes toward polyamory. For example, in a recent American scale validation

study in which two online and one university sample completed an online survey assessing

personality traits, sociodemographic background, and attitudes towards polyamory, Johnson,

Giuliano, Herselman, and Hutzler (2015) found that several sociocultural factors including

political conservatism, religious fundamentalism, and favourable attitudes toward monogamy

were negatively associated with positive views of polyamory. These findings suggest that people

who hold more traditional values and who endorse more conventional relationship structures (i.e.,

marriage or exclusive dating) feel more negatively about a relationship type that conflicts with

their values and conventional social norms. Likewise, in another online survey study involving

two online American samples, participants who reported higher levels of political conservatism

and religiosity reported more negative attitudes toward polyamory (Hutzler, Giuliano, Herselman,

and Johnson, 2015). However, participants with prior exposure to polyamory reported more

positive perceptions than individuals who had never been exposed to polyamory (Hutzler et al.,

2015). Thus, while endorsing traditional values seem to be consistently associated with negative

attitudes towards polyamory, these findings suggest that such attitudes may be amenable to change

through exposure to polyamorous relationships and individuals. Similarly to exposure, love was

also found to play a significant role in individuals’ perceptions of polyamorous people (Burris,

2014). In a Canadian study in which undergraduate students read vignettes about a person involved

5
in a committed relationship who had met someone with whom they wanted to be sexually involved,

participants rated them as more loving, warm, sensitive, and needy when they were described as

being in love with both their committed partner and the other person, compared to when love was

not mentioned (Burris, 2014).

Negative societal attitudes toward CNMs have led to the stigmatization of CNM

behaviours and relationships, and of individuals who engage in CNMs. Specific to polyamory,

some studies found that polyamorous individuals face misconceptions and stigma outside of their

communities, including from family, friends, therapists, and employers, due to their choice of

relationship configuration (e.g., Nearing, 2000; Sheff, 2014; Weitzman, 2006; Young, 2014).

Further, such stigma seems to be more pronounced in cases where children are living with

polyamorous parents and their partners (e.g., Sheff, 2014). Stigma of polyamory, and of CNMs in

general, may be attributable to the finding that sex with more than one partner, regardless of

context or relationship status and configuration, is highly stigmatized both in the context of

committed relationships (“cheating”; e.g., Mint, 2004) and casual sex scenarios (“hooking up”;

e.g., Hamilton and Armstrong, 2009). This attitude is further illustrated by the sheer number of

studies investigating attitudes toward sexual and emotional non-monogamy (i.e., infidelity), which

are grounded in the premise that such behaviours are inherently upsetting to the other partner (e.g.,

Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Carpenter, 2012; Schützwohl and Koch, 2004; Shackelford, LeBlanc, and

Drass, 2000, etc.). Further, most of these studies are conducted from an evolutionary psychology

perspective, which posits that human emotions such as jealousy and attachment are the products

of successful survival and reproduction over the course of human history (Buss, 1995). Needless

to say, such a standpoint may contribute to or exacerbate the stigma surrounding non-monogamy,

whether consensual or non-consensual, by portraying jealousy as not only a normal and natural

6
response to a partner experiencing love and sex with an outside partner, but also as playing a

functional role within relationships.

The Present Research

Existing research examining attitudes and perceptions of CNMs often have not

distinguished between its various forms (e.g., open relationship as opposed to polyamory; e.g.,

Conley et al., 2013), or have used quantitative methods utilizing researcher-, rather than

participant-generated attitudes and perceptions (e.g., Burris, 2014; Hutzler et al., 2015; Johnson et

al., 2015; Matsick et al., 2014). Consequently, existing knowledge of public perceptions of specific

forms of CNMs, such as polyamory, is very limited. In addition, the lack of participant-generated

attitudes and perceptions may mean that some aspects of the stigma surrounding polyamory are

missing from the current literature. Given its relative underrepresentation in CNM research despite

its growing exposure in the public domain, and because polyamorous people report experiencing

stigma and discrimination due to their choice of relationship style (e.g., Nearing, 2000; Sheff,

2014; Weitzman, 2006; Young, 2014), it may be beneficial to focus on polyamory specifically,

from both a research and social justice standpoint. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore and

render explicit perceptions and attitudes, including different forms of stigma toward polyamorous

relationships, using online, publicly accessible qualitative data.

Methods

Data

The internet provides qualitative researchers the opportunity to conveniently access a wide

range of narratives from a variety of sources (e.g., web pages, blogs, newsgroups, bulletin boards,

chatrooms etc.; Mann and Stewart, 2000). For the purpose of the present investigation, I sought

unsolicited narratives (Robinson, 2001) on the internet. As the term suggests, the narratives are

7
unsolicited in that they are volunteered, without being prompted by a researcher. Online research

using unsolicited narratives involves the application of participant observation in the real world

(Ellen, 1984) to the online setting, with the researcher’s involvement in the group, forum, or

discussion board varying on a continuum from fully involved (i.e., as an insider), to an uninvolved

observer (i.e., as an outsider; Evans, Elford, and Wiggins, 2012). In the present investigation, an

outsider position was assumed during data collection and analysis, in that I did not comment on

the selected articles, did not interact with the commenters, and did not get involved in the

discussion threads. Unsolicited narratives from the internet have been utilized in previous research

examining, for example, how individuals use pro-anorexia websites and how it relates to

disordered eating (Mulveen and Hepworth, 2006), and the role of the internet in the lives of people

who stutter (Stoudt and Ouellette, 2004). More recently, Sisask, Mark, and Värnik (2012) explored

individuals’ public attitudes toward a particular suicide case reported in the Estonian media, by

collecting and analyzing spontaneous comments posted to online articles.

For the present study, comments posted to three online articles on the topic of polyamory

were collected and analyzed. Several online articles discussing polyamory were initially found

with a general search on Google.com. Articles targeting the general population, rather than the

polyamorous community, that were informative and/or educational, and to which many comments

were posted (at least 100 comments), were then selected for analyses. Also, the articles were each

selected from different websites in order to reach a certain degree of readership diversity, thereby

potentially capturing a larger picture of individuals’ attitudes and perceptions of polyamory and

polyamorous people. In order to capture lay attitudes and perceptions, articles that were not

included in the analyses included those posted on websites catering to polyamorous communities

and individuals (e.g., www.morethantwo.com). Further, to maximize the likelihood that

8
comments were relevant to polyamory specifically, articles in which polyamory or polyamorous

concepts were inaccurately defined or portrayed, and articles that did not specifically address

polyamory, such as those discussing non-monogamies more broadly, or those discussing other

topics in addition to polyamory, were not considered. Lastly, articles devoid of comments or with

few comments were not included. According to article 2.2 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement

(TCPS2; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research

Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2014), given

that all three websites were publicly accessible, were not password protected, and that individuals

who posted comments on these websites had no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., the

collected data was not found in an Internet chat room, community, or group with restricted

membership), this study did not require the approval of a research ethics board. The first article,

“Compersion: A Polyamorous Principle That Can Strengthen Any Relationship” by Gracie X, was

published on The Huffington Post on March 6th 2015. The Huffington Post

(www.huffingtonpost.com) is an American online news aggregator and blog, covering a wide

variety of topics including, but not limited to, politics, business, popular media, and culture.

Almost three-fourths (69.9%) of its readership is American (Alexa, 2016a) and, although it skews

towards a liberal sociopolitical standing, (60%, compared to 23% mixed, and 17% conservative;

Pew Research Center, 2014), close to one-fourth (27%) also visit conservative blogs (Wainwright,

2008). Moreover, women Huffington Post readers between the ages of 18 and 49 make up 34% of

its readership, which is a higher proportion than that of the general internet population (27%; The

Nielson Company, 2011). Collected comments from this article were all posted between March 6th

and 8th 2015, inclusively. The second article, “Five Things You May not Know about Polyamory”

by Deborah Anapol, was published on The Good Men Project on April 11th 2013. The Good Men

9
Project (www.goodmenproject.com) is a website that collects and shares men’s stories about the

defining moments in their lives. Some of the main issues covered on this website include the

stereotyping of men and boys, relationships, and gay, bisexual, transgender, and gender issues.

Contrary to The Huffington Post which has an overrepresented female readership relative to the

general internet population (The Nielson Company, 2011), approximately 72% of The Good Men

Project’s readership is male (The Good Men Project, 2011). Age groups tend to be variable, with

50% of readers being over the age of 40 (The Good Men Project, 2011). Collected comments from

this article were written inclusively between April 11th 2013 and November 17th 2014. Lastly,

“Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You” by Stephanie Pappas, was published on

Live Science on February 14th 2013. Live Science (www.livescience.com) is a website that offers

coverage of scientific news in relation to health, environment, animals, technology, and space. In

terms of nationality, Live Science’s readership is more diverse than The Huffington Post’s, with

48.4% American (compared to 69.9%), 12.8% Indian, and 2.2% Pakistani, among others (Alexa,

2016b). Male and female readers are represented in similar numbers (Alexa, 2016b). The collected

comments on this article were written between February 14th 2013 and November 27th 2014.

Together, a 482 comments written by 224 individuals were collected and analyzed for the purpose

of this study. The number of words per comment ranged from one to 900. Although most

commenters’ names were hyperlinked to their Facebook profiles, which therefore provided some

demographic information (e.g., gender, age, geographical location, relationship status, etc.), the

privacy settings on many profiles rendered such personal information unavailable. Thus,

sociodemographic data was not collected. A few sources, however, indicate that the readerships

of the selected websites tend to be Western, middle-class, and highly educated (Alexa 2016a;

10
2016b; The Good Men Project, 2011; The Nielson Company, 2011), which may potentially have

an impact on the way opinions are expressed in the comments.

One issue with the use of written qualitative data concerns the veracity of the materials.

Robinson (2001) suggests considering the following questions in order to assess the data’s

trustworthiness and to establish scientific rigour: “[1] Do these data make sense when compared

with data collected by other means? […] [2] Where (on the Internet) were these data found? [3]

Does the site where they were found encourage postings from only one perspective? [4] Was the

material posted in response to posted comments? [5] What were those comments? [6] Are postings

to the site submitted to some review procedure, or are items simply posted at will?” (p.712).

Relative to the present study, the data could only be assessed in relation to data collected by other

means after data analyses were complete, when results could then be triangulated with existing

study findings on attitudes and perceptions of polyamory. The data was collected from three

different news websites, and, by gathering information on their readerships’ demographics, it was

possible to assess their diversity on some aspects (e.g., sociopolitical standing, gender), and

similarities on others (e.g., education, income). In addition, no particular perspective seems to be

favoured or encouraged on either of the targeted websites; different perspectives are openly shared

and discussed. Among the total number of collected comments, many were posted in response to

other comments, and all were accessible. Whenever a finding was primarily derived from

responses to certain comments, it was considered during analyses and made explicit when writing

the results. Lastly, on all three websites, comments could be posted without being subjected to

some review procedure. All comments were posted freely, without being filtered. By fulfilling

Robinson’s (2001) criteria, the present study’s data reaches a satisfactory degree of trustworthiness

and scientific rigour.

11
Analysis

I analyzed the data using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis. An inductive

approach (i.e., a “bottom-up”) to data coding and analysis was used, that is, the codes and themes

were derived from the data themselves, rather than from pre-established concepts and ideas (Braun

and Clarke, 2012). Coding and analysis were guided with the general question “How do people

view polyamory?” With this question in mind, I first read the texts several times in order to

familiarize myself with the data and get an overall understanding of individuals’ perceptions of

polyamorous relationships. While doing the initial readings, I engaged in note-taking to capture

initial reflections and document interesting or puzzling ideas regarding the data. I then proceeded

to generate initial descriptive codes, which identify and provide a label for the feature of the data

that is potentially relevant to the research question (Braun and Clarke, 2012). These codes provided

a concise summary of segments of the collected comments, and were generated in close relation

to the content of the data and the commenters’ meanings. I then reviewed the codes to identify

areas of similarity and overlap, after which my analysis shifted to theme-making. A theme

“captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents

some level of patterned response or meaning within the dataset” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.82).

The generated themes were reviewed in relation to the data in order to ensure that they adequately

reflected them. Finally, the reviewed themes were defined and named. Throughout the following

sections, the themes developed from the individuals’ comments are elaborated on, and further

discussed in light of past research. In order to protect the commenters’ identities, all names were

replaced with pseudonyms.

Results and Discussion

12
 Five themes were developed to illustrate the commenters’ attitudes and perceptions toward

polyamory: polyamory as valid and beneficial; unsustainable; perverse, amoral, and unappealing;

acceptable; and deficient. Each theme is analyzed and discussed in light of previous research on

stigma, and contemporary discourses on relationships, love, and commitment. The themes are

presented hierarchically in terms of their overall prevalence throughout the comments, from most

to least prevalent.

“Open Minds and Big Hearts”: Polyamory as Valid and Beneficial

Rather than using the term ‘polyamory’, it was very common for commenters to use other

non-monogamous relationship terms in their comments such as “open relationship”, “swinging”,

“polygamy”, or “friends with benefits”, despite the fact that polyamory was explicitly defined and

discussed in all three articles. The interchangeable use of these terms when discussing polyamory

illustrates the dichotomous construction of relationships as either monogamous or non-

monogamous, the latter of which encompasses all and any type of CNM, which are perceived to

be similar or synonymous to one another. Given that polyamory’s nature and goals differ from

those of other non-monogamies (e.g., Taormino, 2008), many participants felt the need to clarify

their differences and distinctiveness. In response to confusion and antagonism toward polyamory

throughout the comments, not only did many participants feel the need to define polyamory, but

also to defend its validity as a viable and beneficial type of relationship. In order to do so, many

participants drew examples from direct and indirect experiences. As Kevin illustrated:

My best friends are a polyamorous couple who were married over 40 [years] when she died

and they were poly the entire 40 [years]. I've been poly for 30 [years] and in a poly marriage

for 12, we have a great marriage, as did my best friend. I know LOTS of people for whom

it works great! But it's not for everyone, just like marriage. One size does not fit all!

13
Many commenters also offered general information in relation to polyamorous relationships in

order to counter the adversity and to rectify some of the misconceptions voiced throughout the

comments. In these comments, participants described polyamorous relationships as loving and

committed, egalitarian, involving much open and honest communication between all partners

involved, and as consensual and therefore devoid of “cheating”. As Tim clarified, “Polyamory is

not about 'screwing around’. It's about having honest, open, loving relationships with several

people instead of just one. It's like having several kids – you can still love each new one without

rejecting those you already have”. In addition, polyamory was also described as requiring a lot of

work, effort, and as challenging in terms of jealousy and insecurity management.

The polyamorous concept of compersion, a term coined as the opposite of jealousy, and

defined in one of the articles as “the joyful feeling that a polyamorous person has when his or her

lover or spouse walks through the door after spending the afternoon making love to his or her new

girlfriend or boyfriend” (X, 2015), was also described positively as a valid and essential

component of polyamorous relationships. As Erik relates:

While we are socially conditioned to be monogamous in a relationship/marriage, that isn't

necessarily human nature. To be happy that your partner had an enjoyable sexual encounter

away from you is even less socially acceptable. Yet, to me, it is probably the most sincere

form of unconditional love.

The experience of compersion was regarded as possible when a person is able to love their partner

in the absence of entitlement and ownership of their bodies and sexuality. The ability to experience

this kind of “unconditional love” was understood to necessitate a certain level of maturity.

Finally, many commenters spoke positively of polyamory by enumerating many of its

benefits. For instance, many participants mentioned that feelings of intimacy would increase as a

14
result of the high frequency of open and honest communication that commonly takes place

between polyamorous partners. Others alluded to the growth, both on a personal and relationship

level, that could be fostered by proactively managing and reflecting on negative emotions such as

jealousy and other feelings of insecurity. As Taylor put it, “Poly folks do experience jealousy,

quite regularly in fact. They just use it as a tool to figure out why they're feeling that way and how

to get what they want or need”. Tara illustrated the concept of growth and solidification as well:

It's very easy to avoid difficult conversations, or sensitive subjects – or just ignore how you

are really feeling. I've certainly had that happen to me in the past. Being proactive in your

relationships, avoiding assumptions, digging deep into how you are feeling even if those

feelings are icky – are all things that will improve the quality of your relationships (with

your lovers, or anyone else for that matter).

This conceptualization of jealousy and other feelings of insecurity as not only manageable, but

also as a source of personal growth, is also reflected in polyamory literature (e.g., Anapol, 1997;

Easton and Liszt, 1997; Taormino, 2008; Veaux and Rickert, 2014).

Other benefits listed by participants included an increase in financial and material resources

shared within a household, the alleviation of financial burdens, the fact that it provides

polyamorous parents with additional support for childrearing, and that it provides children of

polyamorous parents with more support, guidance, and adult supervision. These benefits were also

identified in polyamory research (e.g., Bettinger, 2005; Sheff, 2010; 2014).

“Someone Is Bound to Get Hurt”: Polyamory as Unsustainable

Many commenters believed that polyamory is neither a valid or sustainable type of

relationship, and that such relationships are therefore inherently temporary and destined to fail.

More specifically, a number of commenters perceived polyamorous relationships to be

15
unsustainable because their very nature and structure was understood to foster instability and a

range of negative emotions such as insecurity, resentment, and pain. From this perspective,

polyamory was constructed as harmful rather than beneficial to relationships and to the individual

partners involved. As Terry wrote:

FantasyLand is what it's called. NO ONE, including [the author] here, can TRULY believe

that, at some time or other, even if not immediately or short-term, "the chickens won't come

home to roost" in resentment, feelings of inferiority, unfulfillment [sic], etc.

Opening up a monogamous relationship to include additional partners was seen as threatening to

relationships, and as an affront to the other partner. The experience of jealousy, in particular, was

conceived not only as an inevitable occurrence in polyamorous relationships, but also as too

challenging to manage, as causing conflict, and therefore, as leading to relationship dissolution.

Here, Josie warns:

It is an illusion for anyone to think that they can be in a committed relationship and have

multiple lovers because humans being humans are always prone to jealousy, and when full-

blown, you cannot imagine how much evil this emotion can cause.

This finding is congruent with newspaper journalism on polyamory which concludes that ‘there is

no getting around the ultimate problem of jealousy’ (e.g., Coren, 2005; Leath, 2006; Salmansohn,

2010). In the context of intimate relationships, jealousy is generally perceived as a problem for the

partner, and for the relationship as a whole. The person experiencing jealousy often, if not usually,

blames the jealousy on their partner’s actions, or on the third person, thereby shifting responsibility

outward, towards someone who is not experiencing the jealousy (White and Mullen, 1989). The

partner of the jealous person is then expected to modify his or her behaviour (e.g., breaking off

contact with the third person) to appease the jealousy. Actions that would normally be considered

16
unreasonable and antisocial, such as monitoring their partner’s behaviour, cutting their partner off

from other people, or threatening to break up, are considered to be understandable, if not normal,

when a person is jealous (Mint, 2010). Jealousy can therefore act as an intrarelationship control

mechanism (Mint, 2010). The findings yielded from the present study reflect this construction of

jealousy as an inevitable and universal response to the involvement of a third person in a pre-

existing dyad, and as an unmanageable emotion.

Finally, in suggesting that polyamory was unsustainable, other participants mentioned that

it is generally too challenging, demands too much work, and presents too many disadvantages

(e.g., that it is time-consuming, increases the likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted

infection, etc.), for it to be successful. Here, Rachel expresses this sentiment:

Anyway, it would be too much work to keep track of; handling just one unique being is

enough for me. Not to mention I would be terrified of contracting an STD from a stranger

that my partner had slept with. No thank you.

In other words, the disadvantages and burdens that participants perceived to result from engaging

in polyamorous relationships outweighed its potential benefits.

“Spreading their Perverted Lifestyles”: Polyamory as Perverse, Amoral, and Unappealing

The belief that polyamory inevitably causes, or leads to, relationship dissolution was

closely tied to the perception that it causes unstable or “broken” homes, and is thereby detrimental

to the children of those engaged in such relationships. As Emily explained:

There is over 25 years of hard data proving that children have the best outcomes when

raised in intact homes. Anything that promotes the destruction of the family should be of

grave concern from a sociological perspective because children from broken and single-

parent homes are far more likely to become engaged in violent crime, perform poorly

17
 academically, become impoverished as adults and for girls specifically, are 75% more

likely to end up divorced themselves, thus perpetuating the cycle.

The association of polyamory with divorce and the breaking down of families was also closely

linked to the belief that polyamory is harmful to the very fabric of society. As the intact nuclear

family was viewed by many commenters as the building blocks of a healthy society, their erosion,

which was perceived to inevitably occur among polyamorous couples and families, would lead to

a number of societal ills and chaos. The concept of amorality, in which some commenters

perceived polyamorous relationships to be grounded, was sometimes addressed and described as

the main cause of the downfall of society, should most individuals espouse this type of relationship.

For example, Tom explained:

When I use the word amoral, I mean that morality cannot be derived from an

evolutionary/atheistic worldview. [...] When we remove God from the equation, ethics and

morality is a free for all. Each to his own. There is no absolute right and wrong, ethical or

unethical. [...] This type of ‘hook up with whoever you want to whenever you want to’

attitude will damage families. Of course there is no law against it so it is legal, but that does

not mean it is right, helpful to society, or even beneficial to the people involved. God has

a reason for revealing moral standards to us and it is not to keep us from having fun. God's

morality protects us from harm and brings blessing and are given out of love and concern

for us. He gives His blessing on the gift of sex He has given to us, but as anything, it can

be misused and turn into a curse. [...] Costs to society from polyamory could include more

divorce, more [sexually transmitted infections], an overall weakening view of marriage and

family in society, as well as a continuing moral breakdown in individuals.

18
Through a religious lens, polyamory was also constructed as defying god’s definition of marriage,

and as “destroy[ing] the foundation of marriage”, as Lisa said.

Those involved in polyamorous relationships were perceived as active participants in the

promotion of polyamory, and therefore of the disintegration of society. More specifically, they

were described as arrogant and condescending, and as trying to “recruit” people by talking about

their perspectives and “pushing their views” on others. Abigail noted:

I have noticed that the media has been relentless in promoting this lifestyle of late. I have

to say that no matter how aggressive they get in trying to ram it down our collective throats,

I will never accept this lifestyle. It’s unethical no matter how much they try to rationalize

it. Not falling for the propaganda, sorry.

In many ways, the tone and vocabulary used in the comments to describe polyamory and

polyamorous people closely resembled those which are commonly used in homophobic discourses,

which portray homosexual individuals as shoving their lifestyles down other people’s throats

(Morrison and Morrison, 2002), as inappropriately flaunting their sexuality (Anderson and Kanner,

2011; Currie, Cunningham, and Findlay, 2004), as perverse and disgusting (Herek, 1994), and as

endangering the institution of the family and contributing to the deterioration of morality on a

social level (Kite, 1996). Patrick’s comment further illustrates the parallel between common anti-

LGBT discourses, and that of emerging discourses against polyamory and non-monogamies:

Every few generations, societies "experiment" with "alternate lifestyles" that eventually

lead to societal problems. "Polyamorists" can do as they please, but really should stay in

their "closet". As it is, most people do not and will not be willing "polyamorists", and it is

really better for society to stay that way. What is disturbing about this article is that it seems

to be encouraging and celebrating something that does not work for most people.

19
Similarly to religious discourses on homosexuality (e.g., Hicks, 2003), commenters often spoke of

polyamory as an unnatural practice, and therefore, as something that should be avoided. However,

unlike individuals supporting religious discourses, participants from this study grounded their

arguments in evolutionary theory, insisting that humans evolved to be monogamous, thereby

implying the primitiveness or unnaturalness of multi-partnered relationships. Furthermore, some

commenters argued that jealousy is an emotion that had evolved over time to monogamize

relationships. This sentiment is strongly reminiscent of evolutionary psychology and its conception

of jealousy as natural, and as playing an important role in relationship maintenance (e.g., Buss and

Schmitt, 1993). As Abigail further argued, “Whatever argument can be made that lifetime

monogamy is not natural, I would say that it’s even MORE unnatural to think that humanity can

just subdue their natural instincts towards sexual jealousy with few problems”.

Finally, polyamorous people were generally perceived as unappealing. More concretely,

many commenters portrayed them as possessing a number of problematic and unattractive

personality traits, including immaturity, selfishness, narcissism, unintelligence, and a lack of

dignity and self-respect. In addition, people who practice polyamory were also perceived to be

obsessed with sex, of spreading sexually transmitted infections to their partners, of being

unattractive, of being unwilling to work on their [primary] relationships, and of rationalizing their

unfaithfulness. As Sam wrote, “Just another study from some scientist who got caught with panties

in the glovebox. ‘No honey, everyone is doing it, it's OK’”.

Rubin’s (1984) concept of sexual hierarchy, represented by the Charmed Circle of

sexuality, accurately illustrates this theme. More specifically, the Charmed Circle speaks to the

notion that, on a sociocultural level, different sexual acts and sexualities are attributed different

value, with privileged sexualities situated within the Charmed Circle (e.g., heterosexuality,

20
monogamy, private, in a relationship, etc.), and all other sexual acts and sexualities, positioned on

its margins, and therefore, in opposition to it (e.g., homosexuality, multi-partnered, public, casual,

etc.). This theme clearly situates polyamory in opposition to monogamy, the socioculturally

privileged form of sexuality and relationships.

“Live and Let Live": Polyamory as Acceptable

While some commenters celebrated polyamory and spoke positively about it, others

expressed their acceptance of polyamory much more subtly by voicing a more neutral “live and

let live” attitude. Commenters espousing this point of view would often state that individuals

should choose to engage in the type of relationship that is right for them, whether monogamous or

non-monogamous, based on personal needs and values, and that such a personal choice does not

warrant external judgement as long as the relationships are ethical. In addition, polyamory was

often compared to monogamy, not in an effort to highlight their differences, but to attempt to

normalize it. As Sara succinctly said, “It’s not more mature, it’s not better. It’s just different and

it works for some people”. Similarly, others expressed that neither type of relationship was better

or worse than the other, and that all kinds of relationships have their own costs and benefits. As

Casie explained:

There is no one perfect style to fit everyone. Insecurities, competition, security, STD's and

more, all have a say in how well any relationship works. I wish there was a one size fits all

and a sure way to keep relationships energized for everyone, but there isn't. That is the

wonder of being human and having our own ideals and values.

Relationship structures and agreements in general were further described as evolving in tandem

with the perpetually changing sociocultural climate in which they take place. Thus, neither

21
monogamy nor polyamory were perceived as “natural”, and were instead understood as complex

sociocultural products.

“It’s not Real Love”: Polyamory as Deficient

Many commenters shared the impression that couples come to consider polyamory as a

viable option only when something is amiss or “broken” in their relationship. While the elements

“missing” from these relationships included passion, intimacy, and feelings of attraction for one’s

partner, polyamorous relationships were most commonly construed as lacking “real” love and

commitment. From this perspective, individuals in happy, satisfying monogamous relationships

would not feel the need to transition to polyamory. In fact, some commenters argued that if

polyamory “works”, it is because the relationship had already failed in some respects. Non-

monogamy, whether sexual or emotional, was understood to be incompatible with “real” love and

commitment. As Max asserted, “No, if you were committed to one person you would not be having

sex with someone else”; and “Well if you do not love the other person, then sure it would work”.

The sentiment that love and commitment are irreconcilable with non-monogamy is also illustrated

in the ways that such constructs are defined and even operationalized in relationship research. For

example, while relationship commitment has been constructed as the deliberate choice to love

someone and to maintain that love over time (Acker and Davis, 1992), or as the intent to persist in

a relationship (Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew, 1998), questionnaire items measuring commitment

often have a pro-monogamy bias, for example “It is likely that I will date someone other than my

partner” (Rusbult et al., 1998); and “I think a lot about what it would be like to be married to, or

dating, someone other than my partner” (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman, 2011).

Moreover, some research also found that monogamy is often seen as a commitment in and of itself

(i.e., monogamous commitment), and often assumes sexual exclusiveness as the foundation of

22
commitment (e.g., Worth, Reid, & McMillan, 2002). In an interview study among gay men, Worth

and colleagues (2002) found that all participants defined monogamy and commitment in terms of

sexual exclusivity, emotional exclusivity, or both. None of the men framed commitment as being

part of a relationship in which both emotional and sexual monogamy were not required. Similarly,

in their research among committed couples, in this case measured in terms of marital and

cohabitation status, Treas and Giesen (2000) found that 99% of participants expected sexual

exclusivity from their partner, and assumed that their partner had the same expectation of them.

From the viewpoint that “real” love and commitment are antonymous to non-monogamy,

many commenters understood compersion as further evidence that these types of relationships are

devoid of love and commitment. As Emma related, “When I feel happy about the idea of my

husband ‘banging’ someone else, I will know it’s dead – all the love and passion, and I would let

him go”. In contemporary Western cultures, where monogamy remains the reified norm (Finn and

Malson, 2008), and where love, sex, and commitment are constructed as interrelated and contained

within the boundaries of monogamous relationships (Abbott, 2010; Bozon, 2001), there is no room

for the experience of compersion, the opposite of jealousy, as a valid emotion within relationships.

Therefore, lacking love and commitment in one’s relationship was not only viewed as enabling

individuals to seek additional partners, but also as rendering the experience of compersion

possible.

Furthering the conception of “real” love and commitment in opposition to compersion,

commenters often questioned or dismissed its validity as a genuine emotion altogether. In one of

the articles, the author described her own experience of compersion upon being told by her husband

that he had just had sex with another partner (X, 2015). When the author’s compersion was

perceived by commenters as genuine, her relationship with her husband was described as deficient

23
and unfulfilling. On the other hand, when her love and commitment was perceived as sincere,

participants viewed her experience of compersion as a form of submission, rationalization, or as

the masking of pain. Thus, polyamorous people expressing compersion were perceived to be lying

to themselves and to others regarding how they truly felt about their relationship agreement, and

that they are genuinely unhappy and unsatisfied with it. Lastly, commenters seemed to believe that

the expression of compersion occurs usually, or almost exclusively, among women. As Rick

pondered:

Interesting . . . though I find it of no coincidence that the author is a woman, which makes

her declarations seem less a product of enlightened thinking and more like submissive self-

abnegation disguised as radical egalitarianism. Polyamorism [sic] in an unequal society

means this ‘love partnership’ is, in actuality, more akin to some polygamous Mormon sect

than anything else. I wonder how much ‘compersion’ her husband would feel if he – after

wondering for years whether his wife had a sex drive – had been subject on some sunny

afternoon to his wife's gleeful recount of getting it on with a new man.

As Rick’s comment illustrates, the expression of compersion was understood as being gendered

and asymmetric in the context of heterosexual relationships, with women being more likely to

express it, and therefore, to rationalize their relationship agreement, and hide their discontent,

compared to men.

Conclusion

The present study explored individuals’ attitudes and perceptions of polyamory,

simultaneously shedding light on social constructions of “normal” and “healthy” relationships and

on the different forms of stigma surrounding polyamory and other non-monogamies. Moreover,

this study’s findings were also tied to discourses of jealousy (Mint, 2010) and sexual hierarchy

24
(Rubin, 1984). This study is also among the first of its kind, in that its analysis focused specifically

on perceptions of polyamorous relationships, rather than non-monogamies as a whole, and that it

was achieved with the use of online unsolicited narratives. Some of the results derived from this

study (i.e., the theme Polyamory as Valid and Beneficial), suggest that polyamory as a relationship

structure and agreement is not only unique in relation to other forms of non-monogamies, but also

valid and beneficial to those who choose to practice it, which contributes to a limited, but growing

body of literature reaching similar conclusions (e.g., Morrison, Beaulieu, Brockman, and

O’Béanglaoich, 2013; Sheff, 2014). Many other attitudes and perceptions of polyamory found in

this study parallel those assessed through other means (e.g., “Polyamory is harmful to children”,

“Polyamorous relationships spread sexually transmitted infections”; Johnson et al., 2015), thereby

fulfilling Robinson’s (2001) data triangulation criterion for assessing online data validity. That

most commenters voiced their negative reactions to polyamory, with three out of the five

developed themes illustrating rather negative attitudes and perceptions, even after having

presumably read articles that aimed to inform readers about the dynamics of polyamory and dispel

common misconceptions, suggests that individuals’ beliefs and understandings of relationships,

love, commitment, sex, and monogamy, are interconnected, deeply ingrained, and resistant to

change.

Although this study captured a rich account of individuals’ attitudes toward polyamory and

those who engage in this type of relationship, some limitations are to consider. While online

unsolicited narratives can provide a candid illustration of people’s feelings and opinions on a given

topic, they present some challenges. Firstly, the degree of anonymity provided by computer-

mediated communication may instill a sense of impunity from being held accountable for

antisocial online behaviour, including impoliteness and rudeness. Thus, it is possible that some of

25
the voiced opinions in the present study were more representative of extreme and negative

comments (i.e., “trolling”), rather than of actual attitudes (e.g., Hardaker, 2010). Furthermore, the

data collection method used in this study does not provide researchers with the same advantages

as other sources of qualitative data. For instance, conducting interviews provides researchers with

the flexibility to adapt their questions throughout the interviewing process in order to reach a better

understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Moreover, if a participant’s account is unclear,

conducting interviews, as opposed to collecting written unsolicited narratives, allows researchers

to ask further clarifying questions. Also, the data collection method employed in this study did not

permit me to access important sociodemographic information including, but not limited to, gender,

sexual orientation, and religious affiliation. The results of this study could therefore not be

analyzed in relation to contextual, sociocultural, or other personal factors, which may impact one’s

perceptions of polyamorous relationships. The fact that the majority of The Huffington Post’s

(Alexa, 2016a), The Good Men Project’s (The Good Men Project, 2011), and Live Science’s

(Alexa, 2016b) readers are middle-class, Western, and highly educated signifies that the attitudes

and perceptions documented in the present study may not be representative of those of the general

population. In addition, although the selected articles explicitly discussed the topic of polyamory

rather than CNMs in general, many comments pointed to a lack of understanding regarding the

distinctiveness of different types of CNMs, as illustrated by commenters using terms such as

“friends with benefits”, “swinging”, and “open relationships” interchangeably with “polyamory”,

as though all terms were synonymous. Thus, while the present study’s analyses were grounded in,

and guided by the question “How do people view polyamory?”, some of this study’s results may

still only reflect individuals’ attitudes toward CNMs generally, rather than polyamory specifically.

Therefore, in terms of stigma and discrimination, some of the current study’s findings have legal

26
and social implications for individuals who practice non-monogamies more broadly, in addition to

those who practice polyamory. Relative to polyamory specifically, Weitzman (2006) found that

some polyamorous individuals believe that therapists attribute their problems to their relationship

agreement, rather than to dynamics specific to their dyad (or triad, quad, etc.). Likewise, in her

analysis of discussion board posts among online polyamorous communities, Young (2014) found

that polyamorous individuals manage their stigma in a number of ways, including imposing

ultimatums to family members, thereby assuming a risk of losing them in the future, and “passing”

as monogamous either by passively letting people believe they are monogamous, or by actively

pretending to be. Children living in polyamorous families also passively “pass” as being part of a

“normal” family, and polyamorous parents and their partners take precautions to ensure that their

relationship configuration remains hidden in view of protecting their children and the intactness

of their families (Sheff, 2010; 2014). Further, in a large online study of polyamorous persons,

25.8% of respondents indicated having experienced discrimination within the last ten years for

being polyamorous (Cox, Fleckenstein, and Bergstrand, 2013), illustrating a lack of legal

protection for individuals in non-normative relationship styles. While there is a paucity of studies

examining the impact of stigma and discrimination on polyamorous individuals’ health, research

examining this issue among other sexual minorities (i.e., bisexual, gay, and lesbian persons) found

that such groups tend to report significantly higher rates of mood disorders and suicidal ideation

(e.g., Fergusson, Horwood, Ridder, and Beautrais, 2005; Steele, Ross, Dobinson, Veldhuizen, and

Tinmouth, 2009), and substance abuse (Marshal et al., 2008) compared to their heterosexual

counterparts. Thus, the present study has implications on a therapy, legal, and public health level

for polyamorous individuals, and inadvertently, people who practice CNMs more broadly.

27
 Moreover, by indirectly demonstrating attitudes about monogamy and monogamous

individuals, the present study also has implications for the general Western population by

confirming cultural anxieties and beliefs surrounding relationships, and by pointing to normative

notions and values that shape relationship definitions and guidelines. Understanding collective

beliefs and perceived benefits of monogamous relationships will allow researchers and the general

population to examine their validity. Lastly, by defining and making explicit individuals’

stigmatizing views of polyamory, and incidentally, CNMs, this study promotes an awareness and

a deeper understanding of such stigma, which can lead and contribute to social and legal change.

Increased consideration of these particular perceptions, as well as the concepts of

mononormativity, stigma, and stigma management strategies in future polyamory research may

contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding polyamory.

References

Abbott E (2010) A History of Marriage. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Acker M and Davis MH (1992) Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic

relationships: A test of the triangular theory of love. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 9: 21-50.

Adam BD (2010) The power mechanisms of jealousy. In: Barker M and Langdridge D (eds)

Understanding Non-Monogamies. New York: Routledge, pp.201-206.

Alexa (2016a) Site overview: Huffingtonpost.com. Available at:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/huffingtonpost.com

Alexa (2016b) Site overview: Livescience.com. Available at:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/livescience.com

Anderson KJ and Kanner M (2011) Investing a gay agenda: Students’ perceptions of lesbian

28
 and gay professors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41(6): 1538-1564.

Anapol D (2013) Five things you might not know about polyamory. The Good Men

Project, 11 April. Available at: http://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/brand-five-

things-you-might-not-know-about-polyamory/

Anapol D (1997) Polyamory: The new love without limits: Secrets of sustainable intimate

relationships. San Rafael, CA: IntiNet Resource Centre.

Anderson E (2010) “At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy”: Cheating and

monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 27(7): 851–872.

Barker M and Langdridge D (2010) Whatever happened to nonmonogamies? Critical

reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 3: 748–772.

Barnett JP (2014) Polyamory and criminalization of plural conjugal unions in Canada:

Competing narratives in the s.293 reference. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 11(1):

63-75.

Bettinger M (2005) Polyamory and gay men: A family systems approach. Journal of GLBT

Family Studies, 1(1): 97-116.

Bozon M (2001) Orientations intimes et constructions de soi. Pluralité et divergences dans les

expressions de la sexualité. Sociétés Contemporaines, 41-42: 11-40.

Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3: 77-101.

Braun V and Clarke V (2012) Thematic analysis. In Cooper H (ed) APA Handbook of

Research Methods in Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

(APA), pp. 57-71.

29
Burris CT (2014) Torn between two lovers? Lay perceptions of polyamorous individuals.

Psychology and Sexuality, 5(3): 258-267.

Buss DM (1995) Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science.

Psychological Inquiry, 6(1): 1-30.

Buss DM and Schmitt DP (1993) Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on

human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2): 204-232.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (December

2014) Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans

Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf

Carpenter CJ (2012) Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to sexual versus emotional

infidelity: Men and women are more similar than different. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 36(1): 25-37.

Conley TD, Ziegler A, Moors AC, Matsick JL and Valentine B (2012) A critical

examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2): 124-141.

Conley TD, Moors AC, Matsick JL and 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.

Coren V (2005) Queen of Swaziland? Let me join the queue. The Observer, 5 June. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.co.uk/theobserver/2005/jun/05/features.review7

Cox DW, Fleckenstein J, and Bergstrand CR (2013) ‘What do polys want?: An overview of

30
 the 2012 Loving More Survey’. Loving More Magazine. Available at:

http://www.lovemore.com/ polyamory-articles/2012-lovingmore-polyamory-survey/

Currie MR, Cunningham EG and Findlay BM (2004) Examination of the factorial

structure of a new measure of internalized homophobia. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 64(6): 1053-1067.

Easton D and Liszt CA (1997) The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities. San

Francisco: Greenery Press.

Ellen RF (1984) Introduction. In Ellen EF (ed) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General

Conduct. London: Academic Press, pp. 1-12.

Evans A, Elford J and Wiggins D (2008) Using the internet for qualitative research. In Willig C

and Stainton-Rogers W (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in

Psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 315-333.

Fergusson DM, Horwood J, Ridder EM, and Beautrais AL (2005) Sexual orientation and

mental health in a birth cohort of young adults. Psychological Medicine, 35: 971–981.

Finn M and Malson H (2008) Speaking of home truth: (Re)productions of dyadic-containment in

non-monogamous relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3): 519-533.

Hamilton L and Armstrong E A (2009) Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds

and flawed options. Gender and Society 23(5): 589-616.

Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user

discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research. Language,

Behaviour, Culture, 6(2), 215-242.

Herek GM (1994) Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review

31
 of empirical research with the ATLG Scale. In Green B and Herek GM (eds) Lesbian and

Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage, pp. 206-228.

Hicks S (2003) The Christian right and homophobic discourses: A response to ‘evidence’ that

lesbian and gay parenting damages children. Sociological Research Online, 8(4): 1-9.

Hosking W (2013) Agreements about extra-dyadic sex in gay men’s relationships: Exploring

differences in relationship quality by agreement type and rule-breaking behavior. Journal

of Homosexuality 60(5): 711-733.

Hutzler KT, Giuliano TA, Herselman JR and Johnson SM (2015) Three’s a crowd:

Public awareness and (mis)conceptions of polyamory. Psychology and Sexuality. Epub

ahead of print 30 January 2015. DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2015.1004102.

Jenks RJ (1998) Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(5):

507–521.

Johnson SM, Giuliano TA, Herselman JR and Hutzler KT (2015) Development of a brief

measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychology and Sexuality, 6(4): 325-339.

Kite ME and Whitley BE Jr (1996) Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,

behavior, and civil rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 336-353.

LaSala MC (2004) Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and

nonmonogamous relationships. Families in Society 85: 405-412.

Leath W (2006) Welcome to the world of polyamory. The Observer, 9 July. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2006/jul/09/familyandrelationships2

Mann C and Stewart F (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook

for Researching Online. London: SAGE Publications.

32
Marshal MP, Friedman MS, Stall R, King KM, Miles J, Gold MA, … Morse JQ (2008) Sexual

orientation and adolescent substance use: A meta-analysis and methodological review.

Addiction, 103: 546-556.

Matsick JL, Conley TD, Ziegler A, Moors AC and Rubin JD (2014) Love and sex:

Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open

relationships. Psychology and Sexuality, 5(4): 339-348.

Mint P (2004) The power dynamics of cheating: Effects on polyamory and bisexuality. Journal

of Bisexuality, 4(3-4): 55-76.

Mint P (2010) The power mechanisms of jealousy. In M Barker and D Langdridge (eds)

Understanding Non-Monogamies. New York: Routledge, pp.201-206.

Morrison MA and Morrison TG (2002) Development and validation of a scale measuring

modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2):

15-37.

Morrison TG, Beaulieu D, Brockman M and O’Béanglaoich C (2013) A comparison of

polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship

well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology and Sexuality 4(1): 75-91.

Mulveen R and Hepworth J (2006) An interpretative phenomenological analysis of

participation in a pro-anorexia internet site and its relationship with disordered eating.

Journal of Health Psychology, 11(2): 283-196.

Nearing R (2000) Polyamory demography – the ‘Loving More Magazine’ study. Bloomington,

IN: The Kinsey Institute. Available at:

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/Nearing.html

Owen J, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, and Markman HJ (2011) The revised commitment

33
 inventory: Psychometrics and use with unmarried couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32(6):

820-841.

Pappas S (2014) New sexual revolution: Polyamory may be good for you. Live

Science, 14 February. Available at: http://www.livescience.com/27129-polyamory-good-

relationships.html

Parsons JT and Grov C (2012) Gay male identities, desires, and behaviors. In Patterson CJ

and D’Augelli AR (eds) Handbook of Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Pew Research Center (2014) Where news audiences fit on the political spectrum. Journalism and

Media, 21 October. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-

polarization/outlet/huffington-post/

Pieper M and Bauer R (2006) Polyamory and mono-normativity: Results of an empirical study

of non-monogamous patterns of intimacy (unpublished article).

Ritchie A and 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.

Robinson KM (2001) Unsolicited narratives from the internet: A rich source of qualitative

data. Qualitative Health Research, 11(5): 706-714.

Rubin G (1984) Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In PM Nardi

and BE Schneider (eds) Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader. New

York: Routledge, pp. 100-133.

Rusbult CE, Martz JM, and Agnew CR (1998) The investment model scale: Measuring

34
 commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.

Personal Relationships, 5: 357-391.

Saad L (2011). Doctor-assisted suicide is moral issue dividing Americans most. Gallup

Politics, 31 May. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147842/Doctor-Assisted-

Suicide-Moral-Issue-Dividing-Americans.aspx

Salmansohn K (2009) Prince Harming Syndrome: Break Bad Relationship Patterns for Good.

Long Island City, NY: Langenscheidt Publishing Group.

Salmansohn K (2010) Do open marriages work? CNN, 23 March. Available at:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/03/23/o.open.marriages.work/index.html

Schützwohl A and Koch S (2004) Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and

emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution

and Human Behavior, 25(4): 249-257.

Shackelford TK, LeBlanc GJ, and Drass E (2000) Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cognition

and Emotion, 14(5): 643-659.

Sheff E (2005) Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3): 251-283.

Sheff E (2014) The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and

Families. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Sheff E (2010) Strategies in polyamorous parenting. In Barker M and Langdridge D (eds),

Understanding Non-Monogamies. New York: Routledge, pp.169-181.

Sisak M, Mark L, and Värnik A (2012) Internet comments elicited by media portrayal of a

familicide-suicide case. Crisis, 33(4): 222-229.

Slick M (2010) What is polyamory? Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, 2 May.

35
 Available at: http://carm.org/polyamory

Steele LS, Ross LE, Dobinson C, Veldhuizen S, and Tinmouth JM (2009) Women’s

sexual orientation and health: Results from a Canadian population-based survey. Women

& Health, 49: 353-367.

Stoudt BG and Ouellette SC (2004) Making room for words: People who stutter on the

internet. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1: 175-194.

Taormino T (2008) Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships. San

Francisco, CA: Cleis Press Incorporated.

The Good Men Project (2011) The good men project magazine media kit. Available at:

http://goodmenproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Good-Men-Project-Media-Kit-

031011.pdf

The Nielson Company (2011) Audience analysis behind the aolhuffingtonpost deal. Available at:

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2011/aol-huffington-post.html

Treas J and Giesen D (2000) Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62: 48-60.

Veaux F and Rickert E (2014) More than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory.

Portland, OR: Thorntree Press.

Wainwright M (2008) Huffington post readers: More diverse than you think. Complete Pulse, 22

May. Available at: https://blog.compete.com/2008/05/22/huffington-post-clinton-obama-

mccain/

Weitzman G (2006) Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of

Bisexuality, 6(1-2): 137-164.

Wentland JJ and Reissing ED (2011) Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of

36
 casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(3): 75-91.

White G and Mullen P (1989) Jealousy: Theory, Research, and Clinical Strategies. New York:

The Guilford Press.

Worth H, Reid A, and McMillan K (2002) Somewhere over the rainbow: Love, trust and

monogamy in gay relationships. Journal of Sociology, 38(3): 237-253.

X G (2015). Compersion: A polyamorous principle that can strengthen any

relationship. The Huffington Post, 6 March. Available at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gracie-x/compersion-a-polyamorous-principle-that-can-

strengthen-any-relationship_b_6803868.html

Young JM (2014) ‘“We are pioneers”: Polyamorists’ stigma management strategies’, Masters

thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Available at:

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1686&context=gs_rp

37