I just finished up the section of my dissertation where I provide suggestions for future research on polyamory. I thought y’all might be interested in taking a peek. I have also included the full list of references that I cite for the entire chapter (Ch. 2). Please give me feedback, if you feel so inclined! Thanks!
PS: I apologize for the spacing being not-so-perfect for my references list. I spent an hour playing with it, but wordpress seems to hate me today. I have thrown my hands up in defeat, and leave it as is. I know you intrepid folks out there can make sense of it, though! I have faith!
***
The Future
A methodological problem has arisen throughout every one of the qualitative studies I reviewed: the problem of not obtaining enough participant variety. Again and again, participant groups are comprised of mostly middle-class, well-educated, able-bodied Whites. At this point, it is unclear whether attempts to obtain participants across a range of races/ethnicities and income/education levels is due more to the fact that polyamory as a practice and identity has not yet spread to those outside the white, middle-class, able-bodied categories and communities, or, if the problem instead lies with the researchers themselves not being able to put into motion the right kinds of connections, the right kinds of networks to reach other kinds of participants due to (unfortunate) racialized histories and influences. No matter the reason, however, this lack of participant variety in the qualitative data works to create a portrait of polyamory as a White, educated, able-bodied and predominantly “middle-class Western discourse” (Rambukkana, 2010, p. 238). In my own personal experience with polyamory communities, this portrait does not seem entirely accurate, however. For example, at a monthly private (invite-only) poly support/social group that I attend, at least half of the participants would be categorized as working class and have not had more than a high school education or a few years at a trade school, with many either unemployed or underemployed. There are also a number of affluent attendees (a few millionaires, in fact). Also, at this support group—which meets in rural northwest Ohio—there are a number of African American and Native American attendees, which is surprising considering the mostly White population in the surrounding towns. In addition, there are a relatively significant number of attendees who are differently-abled (either due to injuries or chronic illnesses), and many of these people cannot work typical jobs, either relying on economic support from their spouses or from government aid. Granted, my comments here are not based on any formal data; however, I do point to this out as a way to add weight to my call that researchers aim to fill the large methodological holes that currently exist in the scholarship. We need more information about poly people who are non-white, differently-abled, and from educational and class backgrounds other than the middle class.
Researchers in rhetoric and writing would do well to consider conducting qualitative work, such as ethnographic studies of polyamorous communities (both virtual and in-person), as well as publishing narratives and autoethnographic accounts of their own experiences with polyamory or other non-normative ways of doing relationships, as the “relatively unknown nature of polyamorous practices and communities makes qualitative, and especially ethnographic, research an appropriate methodological choice” (Sheff, 2007, p. 112). The pioneering autoethnographic work of Sheff, where she discusses her quite-personal involvement (both intellectually and sexually) in poly communities, can be used a model for such future studies. Significant effort must be made to contact participants and groups who are not white, not middle class, not able-bodied, and from various educational backgrounds. Key questions that could be asked of poly-identified or poly-practicing participants are: What types of people comprise your poly friends, loves, and networks? What types of people are not present in your networks, and why? In asking participants themselves to directly weigh-in on the composition of polyamorous communities (in other words, involving participants in discussions of methodological issues), we might begin to get a better picture of how knowledge of polyamory, as an option, spreads. Who knows about polyamory? How did they come to know? At what point in their life did they come to know? What blocked their knowing or subtly hindered their knowing about polyamory before they knew? How long did it take for participants to learn about poly before actively engaging in polyamorous practices or identifying as poly or coming out of the closet as poly? When participants came out as poly, what words did they use to describe themselves, and were these words intended to create a sense that, even though poly, their lives and loves were “normal”—or did participants use language to critique the dominant mandate that people should strive to be normal? In qualitative/ethnographic work, these questions can help shed light on just who comprises poly communities and how those communities came into being.
The problem of not obtaining enough participant variety is not always overlooked or hidden, though. Some researchers openly admit to these limitations in their methodology sections, and sometimes they even offer possible—often intriguing—hypotheses for their being unable to obtain a more diverse population sample (e.g., Sheff, 2006, p. 624). Future qualitative work should continue the task of attempting to find more diverse populations to study beyond simply White/middle-class/able-bodied/university educated, and in addition, should begin to work to test the available hypotheses (or even new offer new hypotheses and then test those) to explain the lack of diversity portrayed by research studies. It is entirely possible that, even if researchers tried more creative ways of creating a more diverse population sample that the portrait of poly communities would remain the same. Sheff and Hammers (2011) reminds us that “we must consider that, on some level, there might not be anything to be done about the dearth of people of colour [and people of other diverse categories] in samples of sexual minorities” because those people just might not opt to participate in public poly communities/networks and just might not self-identify as poly, even though their behaviors might be quite similar to self-identified polys (p. 217–218). If that is the case, then the research questions need to change, and we need to ask more questions about how race and class and other factors impact the way people behave or identify (or not) in poly ways. We can ask questions like: How does being Asian affect one’s choice to have multiple partners? How does notions of choice and agency relate to race/ethnicity? How does being working-class impact one’s knowledge of the term polyamory? Does education relate to one’s self-identification or one’s coming out as poly? How does being disabled affect sexual practices in dyads or groups? How might being elderly affect participation in public poly events or organizations?
Another important area for future research: poly scholars can make more explicit connections between forms of consensual nonmonogamy. Swinging, open relationships, fuck buddies, polyamory, and other variations might not be so wildly different from each other. Indeed, “There is a continued need to explore consensual non-monogamy both generally and relating to particular identities or categorizations . . . as it is indeed overlooked in much traditional sociological research on marriage” (Frank & DeLamater, 2010, p. 20). While distinctions and differences are important to point out, we often miss some common-ground-building that could happen through an attention to what people have in common rather than what they don’t. By utilizing the concept of relationship literacy as a creative force for understanding the creative ways of knowing and engaging with others, we can ask, in celebration: what are the similarities, the overlaps in ideals, practices, traditions? Here are some examples. Both polyamorists and swingers are frustrated by a very sex-negative mainstream culture, a culture that places high priority on sexual exclusivity; both swingers and polys enjoy engaging in new, exiting, free-spirited sexual acts beyond normative expectations and limits. The two groups of polyamorists and consensual polygamists both explore sexual networks and intimate connections between people in ways that break traditional boundaries of the dyad form. Along with the political theme of the need to engage in coalition-building (e.g., Noel, 2006; Haritaworn, Lin, & Klesse, 2006), it is important to remember that however important categorization is as well as the recognition of difference (made possible through the thought-vehicles of feminism, anti-racist scholarship, engaged critical pedagogies, as I will discuss in Chapters 4 and 5), it is equally important to realize when people and groups share common ground. In doing so, we feel closer to one another and feel less isolated in our quest to achieve social and individual progress.
Further, it is important to create scholarship that makes more of an effort to point out the similarities between the seemingly incompatible monogamous identities/practices and poly identities/practices. A few examples: both polyamory and traditional dyadic marriage explore connecting, loving, evolving, and relating in often profound, long-term ways. Polyamory and casual dating or fuckbudies actually have much in common too, as both are explorations of sexuality without placing limitations on the other person.
Finally, I believe that more needs to be done to focus on the sex-radical and sex-positive politics of polyamory. Both popular and academic narratives and analyses tend to focus on polyamory as an act of long-term love relationship or as an identity or kind of relationship style/orientation that is totally different from “casual,” short-term sex. This makes logical sense in that polyamory evolved from the 1960s practitioners of polyfidelity (a form of group marriage/commitment that typically emphasizes sex only inside the group), which placed greater importance on emotional relating and relationships that, ideally, last for the long-term (Wheeler, 2011, p. 23). Along with Andrew Samuels (2010), I want to question the judgment made about the value of relational time in regard to healthy, positive forms and expressions of sexuality. Samuels’ critique seems right to me—that we may begin to understand the positive aspects of sex/intimacy shared between friends, casual acquaintances, or even strangers in light of what one might call a “mystical experience” (p. 216). Taking a positive spin on the term promiscuous, Samuels has written: “There’s something numinous about promiscuous experience as many readers will know. Overwhelming physical attraction produces feelings of awe and wonderment and trembling. There is a sort of God aroused, a primitive, chthonic (that is, rooted in the earth), early, elemental God. There is an unfettered experience of the divine” (p. 216). Further, I want to challenge scholars to consider the hidden values and norms that attend thinking any kind of sex as automatically shameful, dirty, risky, problematic. The potential dangers of increased sexual activity is a valid argument against more freer forms of love—yet, as scholars such as Munson (2010) have pointed out, monogamy is not necessarily any safer than polyamory in terms of risk for STI transmission.[1] Unlike monogamous couples (where, by the way, it is entirely possible that at least one of the partners is secretly engaging in sexual acts with others—according to recent statistics, the likelihood that one spouse will have an affair over the course of a marriage ranges from 20 percent to 25 percent[2]), poly people cannot assume that they are safe. In my personal experience with a variety of online and in-person poly communities, networks, and friendship circles, I have been astounded to see new poly members (often formerly monogamous) undergo a radical, rapid education. New people in poly communities, often for the first time, begin to enact safer sex practices and create boundaries and long term planning with the health and wellbeing in mind of not just themselves, but their partners and the larger, extended networks of polys within which they engage. There are a variety of preparedness strategies that polys can take, such as implementing closed poly tribes or polyfidelitous families, weekly or monthly STI-status reports given to all concerns parties, open and honest dialogue with partners before sexual acts occur, the use of toys in place of oral or manual stimulation, and regular medical screenings.[3] In making these calls for more sex-positive understandings of sexuality, I do not wish to claim that all sex is inherently unproblematic. Sex is a sensitive and powerful issue and act. I do not, further, wish to unintentionally reify the binary of sex-as-good as opposed to sex-as-bad. What is my intention is to inspire scholars to take a more expansive approach to sexuality, approaches that take into account the possibility for sex to be a healing, connective force, rather than an automatically risky or dangerous one. Using the concept of relationship literacy, we may begin to realize how normative understandings of sexual mores place any sex outside of a long-term dyad form as inherently negative, unethical, or problematic. Revising these assumptions will open up new spaces for dialogue to occur about relationship forms, identities, and practices that begin from a place of optimism for how sex/uality can be a powerful, creative, ultimately healing and connective act. In recalling my previous comments about revising the us (safe inside) versus them (dangerous outside) mentality, we can begin to view sexuality and intimacy as energies that bring people together in love, rather than those which expose us to harm.
A related notion about time is questioning why experiments with nonmonogamy or polyamory are often tried by people but then denigrated or abandoned when relationships end. The bisexual activist Alison Rowan (1995) has convincingly written about this perplexity. Here is one particularly compelling passage: “There is one more thing that non-monogamy, or my constant defense of it, has taught me, and that is about the success of relationships. This actually came to me after running a workshop on non-monogamy where out of 30 people, at least half said that they had tried non-monogamy once, “but it had failed”. This phrase got stuck in my mind until I had to work out what was wrong with it. What did they mean by failed? What does anybody mean by the word when they’re talking about relationships? They mean the relationship ended. Which is very odd when you come to think of it. A meal is a failure because it doesn’t taste nice, not because you ran out of food to eat, but a relationship can “fail” even if it’s fun all the way through, because a meal isn’t supposed to last forever and a relationship is if you’re monogamous. But if you’re not monogamous this [theory] just doesn’t work anymore.” (p. 18)
If the time aspect of judging relational quality is exposed in further scholarship, perhaps bridges could be built between those who have (at one point in time) tentatively tried polyamory or nonmonogamy and those who proclaim a poly and nonmonogamous identity. Perhaps if we deconstruct the myth of relationships as only “successful” if they last “forever,” then more productive dialogue can be had between those who have experienced serial monogamy, swinging, and other types of adventures without necessarily choosing the label “poly” or “ethically nonmonogamous.” Along with Rowan (2010), I believe it will be incredibly productive—in ways that I cannot even begin to foresee—that “people abandon longevity as the sole measure of the success of a relationship” (p. 18).
Another important strand of thought to be pursued in research regarding human sexuality, ethics, social justice, anti-normativity, or anarchist thought is a more thorough distinction between a simple rejection of monogamy and a rejection of mononormativity. This relates to calls for more overt politicization/activism in poly writings/theory outlined in the previous section. As Wilkinson (2010) notes, a rejection of monogamy in one’s personal life is not enough—scholars need to “address the false assumption that those who practice non-monogamy will have an inherent commitment to wider political change” (p. 242). As many in the polyamory movement have attempted to portray themselves in normative ways in the popular media, in order to gain recognition and acceptance from the broader public, Wilkinson points out the flaws inherent in this approach, for such an approach fails to make societal change on a truly radical, foundational level. Along with Wilkinson, I argue that “there is a need to differentiate between a rejection of monogamy and a rejection of ‘mononormativity’ . . . By making this distinction we can begin to map out a vision of what a politics of anti-normativity could become (while separating it from the rather more ‘normative’ lifestyles of those who may simply be non-monogamous). (p. 243)
Finally, more work needs to be done to estimate the numbers of people who are in polyamorous relationships or identify as poly. Currently, researchers aren’t sure just how many poly people there are in the United States, and elsewhere. Leading poly researchers such as Meg Barker (2013), in her most recent book Rewriting the Rules: An Integrative Guide to Love, Sex, and Relationships cites sociological and psychological studies that estimate—based on somewhat limited and somewhat outdated data—that the proportion of people in openly nonmonogamous relationships vary from 15–28 percent of heterosexuals to around 50 percent of bisexual and gay men (p. 103). But we just don’t know how many poly people there are. It’s important that researchers have more concrete figures for the specific practice/identity of poly, and not just nonmonogamy. We need more statistics quantifying how prevalent open poly relationships are, as well as more subtle, closeted practices of polyamory by those who do not necessarily identify as poly. Understanding how widespread poly identities, practices, and philosophies are will help provide impetus for ongoing research. In addition, broader studies in the social sciences about love and intimacy need to begin to take into account what Hidalgo, Barber, and Hunter (2007) refer to as the dyadic imaginary, which is an “ideology or hegemonic concept that renders non-dyadic intimate and sexual relationship forms invisible and unnatural” (p. 173). Empirical studies about how people do intimacy and love must include, at the very least, nods to how those in multiple relationships might compose their lives. Multiple relationships must not continue to be invisible or portrayed as unnatural. The methodologies in these studies must, therefore, go beyond choosing just couples as research subjects.
Like the term polyamory, understanding of the term mononormativity is just beginning to blossom across the academy. In conjunction with already-existing and well-accepted terms like compulsory heterosexuality and heteronormativity, I believe the term mononormativity has the potential to be influential in spreading the word about polyamory as an ethical relationship lovestyle, as well as giving learners across disciplines some much-needed vocabulary for explorations of relationship literacy. For rhetoric and writing in particular, mononormativity helps us ask some tough questions about language. What are “relationships”? What kinds of “normal” relationships does our culture value? What is the difference between a “lover” and a “friend”? What is the difference between a “partner” and a “lifepartner” or a “girlfriend” and a “boyfriend”? Does the poly terms of “primary” partner and “secondary” partner(s) serve a practical function for organizing how one will spend one’s time and energy, or does this terminology simply reify a problematic hierarchical system? What does monogamy and polyamory have to do with eros and ethics? What is my personal definition of love and what sorts of love do I want to cultivate in my life? What are the possible options for loving? Or, as feminist Sonia Johnson (1991) has put it, “What would love look like in freedom?” (p. 113).
[1] For a compelling critique of the global “health care” paradigm that mistakenly focuses on allopathic hypotheses to explain and control conditions such as AIDS, please see Anderlini-D’Onofrio’s account (2009, pp. 59–103). Ultimately, she argues that polyamory can be seen as a healing art, and not something to be feared on account of the—as she sees it—mistaken mainstream understandings of health, the body, and ecology.
[2] For more interesting statistics and estimates such as these, please see the chapter “Communication and Marital Infidelity” (Vangelisti & Gerstenberger, 2004, pp. 59–61)
[3] For more on STI’s, safer sex issues, and navigating the health care system as poly, please see Wheeler (2011, pp. 59–60).
References
Adam, Barry D. Relationship innovation in male couples. In Meg Barker & Darren
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 55–69). New York:
Routledge.
Alexander, Jonathan. (2008). Literacy, sexuality, pedagogy: Theory and practice for
composition studies. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Alexander, Jonathan, & Rhodes, Jacqueline. (2011). Queer: An impossible subject for
composition.”JAC, 31(1–2), 177–206.
Al-Zubi, Hasan. Sweet dreams: sexual fantasies in J.K. Huysmans’s against the grain
and Leopoldo Alas’s la regent. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural
loves: designs for bi and poly living (pp. 9–27). Binghamton, NY: Harrington
Park Press.
Allegra, Donna. (1999). Foreword: Rhomboid pegs for oblong hearts. In Marcia
Munson & Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open
relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. xv–xviii). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Anapol, Deborah. (1997). Polyamory: The new love without limits. San Rafael: Intinet
Resource Center.
–––––– (2004). A glimpse of harmony. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural
Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living (pp. 109–119). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
–––––– (2010). Polyamory in the twenty-first century: Love and intimacy with multiple
partners. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. (2004). Plural loves: Bi and poly utopias for a new
millennium. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural loves: designs for bi
and poly living (pp. 1–6). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. (2009). Gaia and the new politics of love: Notes for a poly
planet. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
Anzaldúa, Gloria E. (2002). Preface: (Un)natural bridges, (un)safe spaces. In Gloria E.
Anzaldúa & AnaLouise Keating (Eds.), This Bridge We Called Home (pp. 1–5). New
York: Routledge.
Aviram, Hadar. (2007). Make love, not law: Perceptions of the marriage equality struggle
among polyamorous activists. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 261–286.
Aviram, Hadar. (2010). Geeks, goddesses, and green eggs: Political mobilization and the
cultural locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco Bay Area. In
Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp.
87–93). New York: Routledge.
Barker, Meg. (2005a). This is my partner, and this is my . . . partner’s partner:
Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 18: 75–88.
–––––– (2005b). On tops, bottoms and ethical sluts: The place of BDSM and polyamory
in lesbian and gay psychology. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 6(2), pp. 124–129.
–––––– (2013). Rewriting the rules: An integrative guide to love, sex, and
relationships. London: Routledge.
Barker, Meg, & Langdridge, Darren. (2010a). Introduction. In Meg Barker & Darren
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 3–8). New York:
Routledge.
–––––– (2010b). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent
research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.
Bauer, Robin. (2010). Non-monogamy in queer bdsm communities: Putting the sex back
into alternative relationship practices and discourse. In Meg Barker & Darren
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 142–153). New York:
Routledge.
Benson, Peter J. (2008). The polyamory handbook: A user’s guide. Bloomington, IN:
AuthorHouse.
Bettinger, Michael. (2005). Polyamory and gay men: A family systems approach. Journal
of GLBT Family Studies, 1(1), 97–116. doi: 10.1300/J461v01n01_07
Bryant, Wayne M. (2004). Bi poly cinema. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.),
Plural loves: designs for bi and poly living (pp. 219–226). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Chapman, Mim. (2010). What Does Polyamory Look Like?: Polydiverse Patterns of
Loving and Living in Modern Polyamorous Relationships. Bloomington, IN:
iUniverse.
Dal Vera, Anne. The polyamory quilt: Life’s lessons. In Marcia Munson & Judith P.
Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-
monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 11–22). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Davidson, Joy. (2002). Working with polyamorous clients in the clinical setting.
Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 5. Retrieved from
http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/polyoutline.html
Deer, Cynthia. (1999). A long journey towards polyamorous bliss. In Marcia Munson
& Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships,
non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 165–174). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Dodson, Betty. (2004). We are all quite queer. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.),
Plural loves: designs for bi and poly living (pp. 155–163). New York: Harrington
Park Press.
Easton, Dossie. (2010). Making friends with jealousy: Therapy with polyamorous
clients. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-
monogamies (pp. 207–211). New York: Routledge.
Easton, Dossie, & Liszt, Catherine A. (1997). The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite
Sexual Possibilities. San Francisco, CA: Greenery Press.
Easton, Dossie, & Hardy, Janet. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory,
open relationships, and other adventures. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Art.
Ferrer, Jorge N. (2008). Beyond monogamy and polyamory: A new vision of intimate
relationships for the twenty-first century. Revision, 30(1/2), 53–58.
Finn, Mark, & Malson, Helen. (2008). Speaking of home truth: (Re)productions of
dyadic-containment in non-monogamous relationships. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 47, 519–533.
Francis, Eric. (2004). From self to self: Masturbation as the future of sex. In Serena
Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural loves: designs for bi and poly living (pp. 167–
176). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Frank, Katherine, & DeLamater, John. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries,
identities, and fluidities across relationships. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge
(Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 9–20). New York: Routledge.
Fraser, Jeff. (2012, September 21). Polyamory: Exploring the ins and outs of
multiple partners. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/polyamory-threes-or-fours-
or-fives-company/article4560587/?page=all
Gartrell, Nanette K. (1999). If this is Tuesday, it must be Dee . . . confessions of a closet
polyamorist. In Marcia Munson & Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian
polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 23–
33). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Hall, Marny. (1999). Turning down the jezebel decibels. In Marcia Munson & Judith P.
Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-
monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 47–62). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Heckert, Jamie. (2010). Love without borders?: Intimacy, identity and the state of
compulsory monogamy. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.),
Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 255–266). New York: Routledge.
Halpern, Ellen L. (1999). If love is so wonderful, what’s so scary about more? In
Marcia Munson & Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader:
Open relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 157–164). Binghamton,
NY: Harrington Park Press.
Haritaworn, Jin; Lin Chin-ju; & Klesse, Christian. (2006). Poly/logue: A critical
introduction to polyamory. Sexualities, 9(5), 515–529.
Hidalgo, Danielle Antoinette, Barber, Kristen, & Hunter, Erica. (2007). The dyadic
imaginary: Troubling the perception of love as dyadic. Journal of Bisexuality,
7(3/4), 171–189.
Ho, Petula Sik Ying. (2006). The charmed circle game: Reflections on sexual hierarchy
through multiple sexual relationships. Sexualities, 9(5), 547–564.
Iantaffi, Alessandra (Alex). Disability and polyamory: Exploring the edges of
interdependance, gender and queer issues in non-monogamous relationships. In
Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp.
160–165). New York: Routledge.
Jackson, Stevi, & Scott, Sue. (2004). The personal is still political: Heterosexuality,
Feminism and Monogamy. Feminism and Psychology, 14(1): 151–157.
Johnson, Sonia. (1991). The ship that sailed into the living room. Estancia, New Mexico:
Wildfire Books.
Kitaka. (1999). Kitaka’s experiment; Or, why I started the ecstasy lounge. In Marcia
Munson & Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open
relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 179–184). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Klesse, Christian. (2006a). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-
monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583.
Klesse, Christian. (2006b). The trials and tribulations of being a slut: Ethical,
psychological, and political thoughts on polyamory: Christian Klesse in
conversation with Dossie Easton. Sexualities, 9(5), 643–650
Klesse, Christian. (2007). The spectre of promiscuity: Gay male and bisexual non-
monogamies and polyamories. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Klesse, Christian. (2010). Paradoxes in gender relations: [Post] feminism and bisexual
polyamory. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-
monogamies (pp. 109–120). New York: Routledge.
Konstanza. (2004). In the forecourt of paradise: A report on the possible love-erotic
future of humankind. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural loves: designs
for bi and poly living (pp. 121–132). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Labriola, Kathy. (1999). Models of Open Relationships. In Marcia Munson & Judith P.
Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-
monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 217–225). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Lano, Kevin, & Parry, Claire. (Eds.). (1995). Breaking the barriers to desire: New
approaches to multiple relationships. Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications.
Loulan, JoAnn. (1999). Lesbians as luvbeins. In Marcia Munson & Judith P. Stelboum
(Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and
casual sex (pp. 35–38). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Martin, Molly. (1999). A boomer’s view of non-monogamy. In Marcia Munson &
Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships,
non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 135–142). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
McGarey, Robert. (2004). Poly communication survival kit: The essential tools for
building and enhancing relationships. Austin, TX: The Human Potential Center.
McPheeters, Martha. (1999). Gays to marry? Let’s not! In Marcia Munson & Judith P.
Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-
monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 197–203). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Miller, Sandra A. (2010, January 3). Love’s new frontier. Boston Globe. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/01/03/love
s_new_frontier/
Mint, Pepper. The power dynamics of cheating: Effects on polyamory and bisexuality.
In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly
Living (pp. 55–75). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Mushroom, Merril. (1999). Dinah, sam, beth, and jolyn say. In Marcia Munson &
Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships,
non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 189–196). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Munson, Marcia. (1999). Safer sex and the polyamorous lesbian. In Marcia Munson &
Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships,
non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 209–216). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Munson, Marcia, & Stelboum, Judith P. (1999). Introduction: The Lesbian Polyamory
Reader: Open Relationships, Non-Monogamy, and Casual Sex. In Marcia
Munson & Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open
relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 1–7). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Noël, Melita J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering issues of diversity.
Sexualities 9(5), 602–620.
Orleans, Ellen. (1999). In Marcia Munson & Judith P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian
polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 63–
65). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Pallotta-Chiarolli, Maria. (2004). “Take four pioneering poly women”: A review of three
classical texts on polyamory. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural loves:
designs for bi and poly living (pp. 227–234). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
–––––– (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
–––––– (2010). “To pass, border or pollute”: Polyfamilies go to school. In Meg Barker
& Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 182–187).
New York: Routledge.
Pappas, Stephanie. (2013). New sexual revolution: Polyamory may be good for
you. Scientific American. Retrieved from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-sexual-revolution-
polyamory
Phillips, Shalanda. (2010). There were three in the bed: Discursive desire and the sex
lives of swingers. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding
non-monogamies (pp. 82–87). New York: Routledge.
Pieper, Marianne, and Robin Bauer. (November, 2005). Mono-normativity and
polyamory. Unpublished paper presented at the International Conference on
Polyamory and Mono-Normativity, Research Centre for Feminist, Gender, and
Queer Studies, University of Hamburg.
Pines, Ayala, & Aronson, Elliot. (1981). Polyfidelity: An alternative lifestyle without
jealousy? Alternative Lifestyles, 4(3): 373–392.
PolyResearchers (2009). Polyamory Researchers. Retrieved from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyResearchers/
Rambukkana, Nathan. (2004). Uncomfortable bridges: The bisexual politics of outing
polyamory. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural loves: designs for bi and
poly living (pp. 141–154). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Rambukkana, Nathan. (2010). In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.),
Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 237–242). New York: Routledge.
Ravenscroft, Anthony. (2004). Polyamory: Roadmaps for the clueless and hopeful. Santa
Fe, NM: Fenris Brothers.
Ray, Numa. (2004). Love is born from the pulse of god’s heart: An insight into the
polyamorous circle kamala. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural Loves:
Designs for Bi and Poly Living (pp. 133–139). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Richards, Christina. (2010). Trans and non-monogamies. In Meg Barker & Darren
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 121–133). New York:
Routledge.
Riggs, Damien W. (2010). Developing a ‘responsible’ foster care praxis: Poly as a
framework for examining power and propriety in family contexts. In Meg Barker
& Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 188–198).
New York: Routledge.
Ritchie, Ani. (2010). Discursive constructions of polyamory in mono-normative media
culture. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-
monogamies (pp. 46–51). New York: Routledge.
Ritchie, Ani, & Barker, Meg. (2005). Explorations in feminist participant-led research:
Conducting focus group discussion with polyamorous women. Psychology of
Women
Section Review, 7(2), pp. 47–57.
Ritchie, Ani, & Barker, Meg. (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), pp. 584–601.
Ritchie, Ani, & Barker, Meg. (2007). Hot bi babes and feminist families: Polyamorous
women speak out. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 8(2), pp. 141–151.
Robins, Suzann. Remembering the Kiss… In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural
Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living (pp. 99–108). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Rothblum, Esther. (1999). Poly-friendships. In Marcia Munson & Judith P. Stelboum
(Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and
casual sex (pp. 71–83). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Rowan, Alison. (1995). How to be not monogamous. In Kevin Lano & Claire Parry
(Eds.), Breaking the barriers to desire: New approaches to multiple relationships.
Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications.
Rubin, Roger H. (2001). Alternative lifestyles revisited, or whatever happened to
swingers, group marriages, and communes? Journal of Family Issues, 22(6): 711–
727.
Rust, Paula C. (2003). Monogamy and polyamory: Relationship issues for bisexuals.
In Linda D. Garnets & Douglas C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (pp. 475–496). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Samuels, Andrew. (2010). Promiscuities: Politics, imagination, spirituality and
hypocrisy. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdrige (Eds.), Understanding non-
monogamies (pp. 212–221). New York: Routledge.
Sartorius, Annina. Three and more in love: Group marriage or integrating commitment
and sexual freedom. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural Loves: Designs
for Bi and Poly Living (pp. 79–98). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Saxey, Esther. (2010). Non-monogamy and fiction. In Meg Barker & Darren
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 23–33). New York:
Routledge.
See, Sam. Other kitchen sinks, other drawing rooms: Radical designs for living in pre-
1968 British drama. In Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural Loves: Designs
for Bi and Poly Living (pp. 29–54). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Siegel, Thyme S. (1999). Matriarchal village. In Marcia Munson & Judith P. Stelboum
(Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy, and
casual sex (pp. 125–133). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Shannon, Deric, & Willis, Abbey. (2010). Theoretical polyamory: Some thoughts on
loving, thinking, and queering anarchism. Sexualities, 13(4), 433–443.
doi: 10.1177/1363460710370655
Sheff, Elisabeth. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal
of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3): 251–283.
Sheff, Elisabeth. (2006). Poly-hegemonic masculinities. Sexualities, 9(5): 621–642.
–––––– (2010). Strategies in Polyamorous Parenting. In Meg Barker & Darren
Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 169–181). New York:
Routledge.
Sheff, Elisabeth. (2007). The reluctant polyamorist: Conducting autoethnographic
research in a sexualized setting. In Mindy Stombler, Dawn M. Baunach, Elisabeth
O. Burgess, Denise Donnelly, & Wendy Simonds (Eds.), Sex Matters: The Sexuality
and Society Reader (2nd ed.). (pp. 111–118). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Sheff, Elisabeth, & Hammers, Corie. (2011). The privilege of perversities: Race, class and
education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology and Sexuality, 2(3):
198–223.
Stelboum, Judith P. (1999). Patriarchal monogamy. In Marcia Munson & Judith P.
Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-
monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 39–46). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Taormino, Tristan. (2008). Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open
Relationships. San Francisco, CA: Cleis Press, Inc.
Thich Nhat Hanh. (2005). Being Peace. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
Vangelisti, Anita L, & Gerstenberger, Mandi. (2004). Communication and marital
infidelity. In Jean Duncombe, Kaeren Harrison, Graham Allan, & Dennis Marsden
(Eds.), The state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and commitment (pp. 59–
78). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Warner, Brad. (2010). Sex, Sin, and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex from Celibacy to
Polyamory and Everything in Between. Novato, California: New World Library.
Wheeler, Sarah C. (2011). Poly-tically incorrect: Women negotiating identity, status,
and power in polyamorous relationships. (Master’s thesis.)
Willey, Angela. (2006). “Christian nations”, “polygamic races” and women’s rights:
Toward a genealogy of non/monogamy and whiteness. Sexualities, 9(5): 530–
546.
Willey, Angela. (2010). Science says she’s gotta have it: Reading for racial resonances
in woman-centered poly literature. In Meg Barker & Darren Langdridge (Eds.),
Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 34–45). New York: Routledge.
Wilkinson, Eleanor. (2010). What’s queer about non-monogamy now? In Meg Barker
& Darren Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 243–254).
New York: Routledge.
Wosick-Correa, Kassia. (2010). Agreements, rules, and agentic fidelity in polyamorous
relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 44–61.
Zambrano, Margarita. (1999). Paradigms of polyamory. In Marcia Munson & Judith P.
Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-
monogamy, and casual sex (pp. 151–155). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
