3 Beyond Monogamy: Allyship and the Exploration of New Frontiers in Relationships
Melissa Murphy Thompson, MSW, LCSW, OSW-C
Sophia and I were having our monthly lunch when she shared something with me. “I’m happiest when I am in a polyamorous relationship. I want to be open with you about this part of my life. We are such close friends that keeping this important part of who I am from you seems disingenuous. But you have to understand, the rejection and questions I experience when I’ve shared my relationship choice often become another way to hurt those in my community, and potentially hurting others that I love. This is what has kept me from sharing this with you. I’ve faced a lot of rejection when sharing this with those I thought would support me. You are one of my closest friends, and I want you to know about all of me.”
To say I was surprised by this would be an understatement. To know that Sophia was fearful of my judgment of whom she loved and how she loved not only surprised me, but it made me quite sad. For Sophia, not for myself. How hard must it have been for her to hold such a meaningful part of her life in secret? What level of stress were Sophia and those in her relationship experiencing living a hidden life? As our meals arrived and we ate our lunch, I listened to Sophia share how she came to discover that this relationship structure fulfilled her in ways that monogamy just couldn’t. Her face lit up as she shared stories about how she met her current partners and the peace and joy that life with them brought to her. As we ended our lunch, I thanked Sophia for trusting me. And then, my work began.
Allyship in a Monogamous World
When you are an ally, it is your role to do the work to understand the experiences of inequality and injustice experienced by those whom you stand in support of. It is unfair to ask people such as Sophia and other members of minoritized groups to do emotional and cognitive labor for you. It was now my role to read, listen, learn, and deepen my understanding of polyamorous relationships if I was going to support Sophia and others who found relationship fulfillment in relationships outside monogamy. Oftentimes, this type of learning by allies requires us to go through the “knowing and unknowing process”. What do we know about the realities facing those we stand in allyship with? What do we have to unknow to be an effective ally? As a social worker and a scholar, I was off to research and learn, know, and unknow.
My first discovery was coming to understand Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM), since polyamory falls under this relationship umbrella. Beazer and Simpson (2022) share that CNM includes any intimate, sexual, or romantic adult relationship that, with the consent of all parties involved, is not exclusively limited to two people. Further, polyamorous relationships are not sexually and/or romantically exclusive to two people and emphasize the creations of lasting romantic and family relationships (pp. 99). Morrow and Messinger’s (2006) seminal work on sexual orientation and gender expression provides an even more explanation, sharing that polyamory meets the needs of people who do not find all their sexual, romantic, and emotional needs met by one partner. They point out that “some people of all orientations have found that they need more than one person in their lives to meet their needs” (pp. 247). They also reminded me that words with “non” in front them can represent stigmatization; for example, the word “non” in front of “monogamous” signals the centering of monogamy as the relationship standard in a society. In response to this, Rust (1996) coined the term ‘polyamory’ to emphasize the strengths of this relationship structure, in the hopes of replacing the stigmatizing term nonmonogamy. Finally, Macedo (2015) shares that those who are involved in polyamorous relationships define them as “multi-partner relationships unburdened by patriarchal gender roles, heterosexual constraints, or monogamous exclusivity” (pp.149).
Living in a Mononormative World
In much of the Western world, we live in communities and societies that are averse to difference. There is a dominant culture with expectations surrounding what is normal, acceptable, and right. The beliefs of the dominant culture are rooted in white supremacy and heteronormativity; they drive our understanding of what is ‘normal’ behavior and often benefit white, affluent, masculine members of our society (Cardoso & Kesee, 2022). Monogamy is one example of this. In Western societies, there is the social expectation that adults will build long term relationships with one partner of the opposite gender. This places monogamy in the position of the healthy and appropriate relationship status. Clearly this is a socially constructed position of intimate relationships (Rubin, 2007). It serves an important purpose: it centers the dominant concept that the only moral way to have sex is through participation in monogamous relationships. This is where I came to learn the language surrounding this dominant, socially constructed view of relationships. This is where I understand that this social bias about emotional and sexually committed relationships had a term and that term was mononormativity. (As I progressed in my knowing and unknowing work, mononormativity was not the only new term I discovered. See Appendix C for more terminology to be used in polyamorous relationships.)
Cardosos and Kese (2022) provide a clear understanding of the expectation that relationships be mononormative and how this is centered in many societies. Social, legal, and economic pressures allowed the social construction of monogamy to flourish as the expectation of primary social relationship. This construction of mononormativity is built on cultural and religious interpretations of ethics and of morality related to coupled centered relationships. While today many in the dominant group would point out that monogamy is based on choosing the partner that you love, this is short sighted and dismisses the history of monogamous relationships and deviant behavior. Monogamous relationships meet the expectations of couple normativity. That is, they focus heavily on heterosexual partner choice, procreation, and family formation. Built on religious interpretations of moral relationships, monogamy is the foundation of what, when considering sexual relations, is considered promiscuous vs. non-promiscuous behavior. (Sandbakken, Skrautrol, & Maddsen, 2022).
Mononormativity’s Roots: Morality and White Supremacy
Patriarchy, as a form of white supremacy, plays a significant role in shaping societal attitudes and norms surrounding polyamory. White supremacy perpetuates power structures that prioritize and center the experiences, perspectives, and desires of white, cisgender, heterosexual men, often at the expense of marginalized communities. Obadia (2020) points out that, from a historical perspective, not only is monogamy in the United States based on patriarchal Christian foundations and beliefs, it was also created to uphold white supremacy. They share, “Norms around domesticity, civility, sexuality and race organization were significantly shaped within colonial homes saturated by anxieties about primitive sexuality, contagious evolutionary degradation and the management of mixed-race children” (paragraph 19). In their article, “The Racialization of White Man’s Polygamy,” Denike (2020) expounds on monogamy’s role in upholding white supremacy. Interracial marriage was seen as a threat to the “natural racial hierarchy” by infecting the purity of blood related to being fully white (Denike, 2020). The dominant group – wealthy, white Americans – wanted to be sure to protect the origin story of the United States by ensuring anyone with citizenship status was white. Anti-miscegenation laws – laws that ban interracial marriage and procreation were passed across the country. These laws were finally challenged in the US Supreme Court in 1967 when the Loving vs Virginia case came before the court. The court ruled that these laws were upholding racial discrimination and white supremacy by preventing white and Black Americans from marrying (Oyez Law Project).
Another threat to mononormativity in the United States was polygamy. Polygamy is a form of marriage where an individual has multiple spouses simultaneously. It encompasses various practices, including polygyny, which involves one man having multiple wives, and polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands. In polygamous unions, the dynamics, roles, and responsibilities among the spouses focus on one partner in the position of dominance and others subordinates (Macedo, 2015). Historically, polygamy has been practiced in various societies worldwide and is still observed in some cultures today. In the United States, this practice had often occurred in a religious context within the fundamentalist practice of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) faith. Polygamous relationships have been associated with instances of abuse, coercion, and exploitation, particularly when it comes to underage marriages or situations where youth are not of legal age to give consent. We can see again, as we look through the lens of history, how the practice of polygamy in Mormon communities threatened monogamy and the well-being of underage partners. It is not legal in the United States but is still practiced in some communities (Macedo, 2015). While polygamy shares similarities with polyamory, it is crucial to distinguish between the two, as polygamy specifically pertains to marriage or committed partnerships with multiple spouses whereas, polyamory encompasses consensual non-monogamous relationships that may or may not involve marriage.
Polyamory’s Rise
Polyamory as a modern relationship structure gained prominence in Western societies in the latter half of the 20th century. This relationship structure is often understood by viewing polyamory through the lens of queer theory. Queer theory helps us understand that gender is socially constructed, and how we come to understand our roles in binary genders happens through social interactions and expectations in a society that centers itself on heterosexism (Wilchin, 2004). The impact of this type of gender socialization leads to performative roles of self-expression that society demands of us (Arguello, 2021). As we consider relationships through the lens of queer theory, polyamory can be seen as a form or resistance to heteronormativity which invades every system in Western society. As Macedo (2015) points out, these multi-partner relationships do not hold socially constructed gender roles or the expectation of heterosexual relationships. Neither did the LBTQ+ movement and the relationships within that movement, which was gaining visibility in the latter half of the same century.
Queer theory would challenge how we view this visibility and the resulting advocacy surrounding equal access to marriage for people in the LGBTQ+ community. Recent events in the US, specifically the legalization of same-gender marriage, affirm the significant impact of the dominant view of marriage as normal and not deviant. In 2015, the US Supreme Court released the Obergefell decision, which led to the legalization of same-gender marriages throughout the United States. Here again, we see the role of monogamy and heteronormativity play in the acceptance of sexual and romantic behavior. For decades, members of the LGBT community were seen as sexually deviant, hypersexual, unhealthy individuals that practiced unhealthy and unsafe sex (Alexander, 2022). The acceptance of same-gender marriages affirm that assimilating into the dominant culture’s view of two partner marriage centers sexual and romantic relationships in the monogamy framework. This is referred to as homonormativity which focuses on the belief that, “queer people want to be like their heterosexual counterparts. Moreover, it is a politics and practice that does not contest heteronormativity; rather, it upholds and sustains both its privileges and stigmatizations, cultivating a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in protected domesticity, (neoliberal) consumption, marriage, military patriotism, undergirded by the promise of rights and access” (Arguello, 2021, p. 15). Again, my research continued to reveal that, to be accepted by those in power, to access social capital, you must embrace the cultural norm of monogamy.
Data and Minority Status
Understanding the stigma and minority status that Sophia and her partners faced from the social normalization of monogamy, I was curious to know how many people found satisfaction in polyamorous relationships. As I searched for this information, it became clear that research on this relationship structure and other forms of CNM is very limited. Ongoing discrimination, rejection and prejudice keeps those in polyamorous relationships hidden; this impacts research on the experiences of those in these relationship structures (Witherspoon andTheodore, 2021). I also had to consider the potential bias of researchers related to polyamory. Andres, who specializes in working with adults experiencing identity and sexuality concerns, shares that for those who work in the mental health profession, polyamory can cause professionals that participate in monogamy to feel defensive about their own relationship choices when working with those that do not practice monogamy (Andres, 2021). If dominant cultural norms and values of Western societies, which have been influenced by colonialism and Eurocentrism, can also influence mental health professionals, then surely they can impact research agendas. This bias may lead to research focused on certain relationship structures or perspectives while overlooking others that exist in different cultural contexts. Was that the issue or was there so few CNM relationships that research didn’t seem warranted?
Rodrigues, Lopes and Hulc (2019) share that the issue is larger than simple bias; there are likely multiple factors at play including the fact that those who find satisfaction in their relationships through polyamory are heavily stigmatized and stay hidden. They even go so far to point out that those in polyamorous relationships are dehumanized, seen as amoral and abnormal in their sexual practices. The experiences of people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds within polyamorous communities may also experience additional minority stress due to the impact of intersectional identities that they hold. Unfortunately, intersectional considerations are not always adequately addressed in research, leading to an incomplete understanding of the diversity within polyamorous experiences. Considering this in tandem with white supremacy, we can understand why Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) practicing polyamory may not be willing to be part of research that is so white centered. Participants in one study shared that the decision to reveal their relationship structure depended upon whether “they were in the right state of mind to handle possible confrontations, stereotypes and prejudice” (Sandbakken et al, pp. 1060).
Acknowledging the impact of their invisible minority status, Clardy shares that “Approximately 4-5 percent of adult romantic relationships in the US involve CNM” (pp 116). Witherspoon and Theodore (2021) provide more insight into this, sharing that “20% of adults report previous experiences with CNM in their lifetime” (pp 1367). Gay, queer, and bisexual people are the largest sexual minority group found in studies of CNM; there is little available research regarding those who identify as transgender or non-binary who participate in polyamorous relationships (Alexandar, 2022). Additional gaps in this research are evident as several researchers emphasize that there is little to no quantitative research that has been published on the lived experience of those in polyamorous relationships due to participants fear of stigma and discrimination (Hnatkovicova & Bianchi, 2022; Sandbakken, Skrautvol and Madsen, 2022; Witherspoon and Theodore, 2019). A final data collection consideration in North American countries includes the limits of their censuses; there is not an option for someone to report their relationship status as polyamorous (Beazer, Cameron, and Simpson, 2022). Beyond a doubt, we must consider Sheff’s (2011) research on race and polyamorous relationships, as they keenly point out that most study populations in academic research contain approximately 75-85% white people.
Understanding Lived Experience: Polyamorous Relationships
Having learned about mononormativity, demographics, and minority stress experienced by those living in polyamorous partnerships, I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of these consensual non-monogamous unions. At its core, polyamory entails the capacity and desire to love multiple partners simultaneously in an open and honest manner. It is essential to differentiate polyamory from other non-monogamous relationship structures, such as swinging or open relationships, as each embraces unique principles and dynamics. Open relationships are not exclusive to one person romantically or sexually. Swinging is less focused on finding affective connection and more on sexual connection (Beazer et.al, 2022). Polyamorous relationships can meet the unique affective and sexual needs of all partners involved (Hnatkovicova and Bianchi, 2022).
Communication stands as the foundation of polyamorous relationships, underpinning their success and longevity. Open and transparent dialogue is paramount. This includes strengths in abilities to self-advocate, negotiate, set boundaries, and obtain explicit consent from all parties involved. By cultivating strong lines of communication, partners can navigate challenges and foster emotional and physical intimacy within the context of their relationship. Woods (2021) emphasizes that, while sexual autonomy and satisfaction were part of the central values of those who consider polyamory, the ability to meet full relational needs was centered and valued just as much as sexual satisfaction. Sheff (2015) shares that the ability to be “social equals” as another key factor in the decision to be part of a polyamorous relationship.
Relationship Structures
For those from minoritized groups, being social equals in their polyamorous relationships has the potential to mitigate some experiences of oppression by the dominant culture and reinforces self-determination and personal agency. Polyamory accommodates diverse relationship configurations, catering to the unique needs and preferences of individuals, giving all members of the relationship voice and choice. What is meant by relationship configurations? This is where it was essential that I learn about poly geometry. Poly geometry (Sheff, 2015) helps us understand the number of people involved in a relationship and how they interact with each other. Triads, quads, and networks, represent some of the numerous relationship configurations within the polyamorous spectrum. Key here is to keep in mind the diversity of polyamory as each relationship is defined by the needs of those participating in it. As I continued on the path of knowing and unknowing, something stood out to me: Polyamorous communities reflect the rich tapestry of human diversity. Intersectionality, encompassing factors like race, gender, and sexual orientation, influences the experiences of individuals within polyamorous relationships in unique and beautiful ways. For those of us who are working to be allies, we must keep our focus on intersectionality. Centering intersectionality in our understanding of polyamorous relationships is essential so we can recognize and support the unique challenges and triumphs experienced by diverse members of the polyamorous community (De Las Heras Gómez, 2018). The richness of the diverse experiences centered in polyamorous relationships is also evident in its feminist disregard for patriarchal relationship practices.
Relationship Anarchy
Understanding the concept of relationship anarchy (RA) is also pertinent in a discussion focused on diversity within the polygamous community. Along with polyamorous dynamics, advocating for relationships devoid of hierarchies and labels, where each connection is given equal weight and importance, are practices encompassed in relationship anarchy (De Las Heras Gómez, 2018, pp.644). This paradigm discards hierarchical status to any one relationship within the polyamorous relationship system. For example, those in monogamous relationships place the greatest value on romantic, sex-based relationships, and therefore position those as most important in their life. RA “questions the idea of love as a limited resource that only becomes authentic if shared with one person” (De Las Heras Gómez, pp. 646). Relationship categories, such as spouses and friends, are rejected to honor and validate the emotional bonds contained within each relationship in the polyamorous centered system. RA discards couple normativity and the exclusivity that Western societies have afforded these relationships.
Polyamorous relationships are intended to be egalitarian in nature; therefore, we must be mindful that those involved in the relationship are self-determined members of a chosen relationship who can define and describe their relationships in ways that are most authentic to them. A queer feminist approach clarifies that historically. Members of the queer community have been defining and creating family outside of the heteronormative and monogamous structures for decades. As De Las Heras Gómez (2018) reminds us, RA “decentralizes romantic bonds as the only way to build a family structure, provides a framework from which to resist and to think of other bonds able to maintain a family unit and affective and caregiving networks………it allows us to think of a diverse family structure” (pp 653). The case study below can help clarify how relationship anarchy is implemented within a polyamorous relationship.
Case Study: Embracing Relationship Anarchy: Sarah, Alex, and Jamie’s Journey
Introduction
In this case study, we delve into the lives of Sarah, Alex, and Jamie—a polyamorous triad who have chosen to practice relationship anarchy within their polyamorous dynamic. Their journey helps us to understand how relationship anarchy occurs within a polyamorous relationship. This case study exemplifies the power of consent, autonomy, and egalitarian principles in polyamorous relationships.
Background
Sarah, Alex, and Jamie identify as queer individuals and were drawn to polyamory as a means of challenging traditional relationship norms. Each partner had previous experiences with monogamy, but they sought a different approach—one that valued individual autonomy and dismantled societal expectations of what loving relationships looked like. Together, they embarked on a relationship anarchy journey. Sarah, Alex, and Jamie have a unique connection with one another, encompassing romantic, sexual, and affective dimensions.
Relationship Formation and Connections
Sarah and Alex: Sarah and Alex are romantically and sexually involved partners, sharing a deep emotional bond and engaging in intimate physical connections. Their romantic and sexual relationship served as the foundation of the triad.
Sarah and Jamie: Sarah and Jamie share a romantic and affectionate bond, characterized by emotional intimacy and a strong affectionate connection. Their relationship was built on mutual respect, care, and support, fostering a profound emotional connection that was distinct from the sexual and romantic aspect of her relationship with Alex.
Alex and Jamie: Alex and Jamie have an affectionate and loving bond that was primarily non-sexual and non-romantic. They developed a close emotional connection and a deep friendship within the triad.
In the absence of hierarchical distinctions, their connections are valued for their uniqueness and the fulfillment they brought to everyone’s life. By embracing the relationship anarchy model, they allowed their connections to evolve organically, free from prescribed labels or expectations, thus deepening their intimacy and emotional bonds. The trust, communication, and understanding they nurtured within the triad contributed to a harmonious dynamic, enabling them to navigate moments of jealousy and embrace the transformative potential of their relationship structure.
Embracing Relationship Anarchy
In their relationship anarchy journey, Sarah, Alex, and Jamie discarded conventional designations of “primary” and “secondary” partners. Instead, they encouraged open communication and supported each other’s connections without ranking them. Their mutual agreement embraced the idea that love is not finite and can be shared abundantly.
Finding community support for their relationship was essential for the triad. They joined local polyamorous meetups and engaged with online forums, connecting with other individuals practicing relationship anarchy. These networks offered valuable insights, advice, and validation, reinforcing the validity of their chosen relationship structure.
Working Through Jealousy
Several factors contributed to moments of jealousy within the triad. One significant factor was the societal conditioning and monogamous norms ingrained in their upbringing. Sarah, Alex, and Jamie were exposed to societal expectations of exclusivity and possessiveness in relationships, which occasionally triggered feelings of insecurity when contemplating their partners’ other connections. This was especially true when one of the partners had spent time with their family members who practice monogamy and challenged how it felt to be “second best” or “not someone’s one and only.”
When experiencing feelings of jealousy or insecurity, Sarah, Alex, and Jamie utilized open communication to reframe their emotions and experiences. Instead of viewing jealousy as a threat or a sign of inadequacy, they approached it as an opportunity for self-reflection and growth. By acknowledging their feelings without judgment and discussing them with compassion, they sought to understand the root causes and underlying needs behind their jealousy. This reframing process allowed them to transform jealousy into a catalyst for compersion, a positive emotion experienced when witnessing their partner’s joy and fulfillment in other relationships (Farrell, 2022).
Consent, Autonomy, and Egalitarianism in Sarah, Alex, and Jamie’s Relationship:
Consent as a Foundation: In their relationship, Sarah, Alex, and Jamie practiced ongoing consent. Before embarking on new connections or making significant decisions, they engaged in open discussions, ensuring that all parties were fully informed and comfortable with the direction their relationship was taking. This approach empowered each partner to have agency over their experiences, fostering trust and emotional safety within the triad.
Autonomy and Personal Growth: Embracing relationship anarchy allowed Sarah, Alex, and Jamie to explore personal growth and individual passions freely. Sarah, an artist, dedicated time to her craft without guilt, while Alex pursued additional studies to further their career. Jamie, an avid traveler, embarked on solo adventures. By supporting each other’s autonomy, they not only deepened their connection but also enriched their lives with diverse experiences by sharing their experiences with one another.
Egalitarian Decision-Making: In the absence of rigid hierarchies, decisions in the triad were made collectively, ensuring each voice was heard and respected equally. From everyday choices to long-term plans, they weighed opinions and preferences, valuing all perspectives. This egalitarian approach empowered each partner to feel valued and appreciated, strengthening their sense of belonging within the relationship.
Transforming Jealousy into Compersion: As they navigated the complexities of multiple connections, the triad faced moments of jealousy and insecurity. By adhering to their principles of consent and autonomy, they reframed jealousy as an opportunity for personal growth and introspection. Through open dialogue, they transformed moments of discomfort into opportunities for compersion, experiencing joy and happiness in each other’s loving connections.
Supporting Each Other’s Relationships: Sarah, Alex, and Jamie actively supported each other’s external relationships. Whether their partners were new acquaintances or long-standing connections, they offered encouragement and celebrated the love and happiness found outside the triad. This support strengthened their bond and fostered a profound sense of trust among them.
Challenging Societal Norms: Sarah, Alex, and Jamie’s relationship anarchy challenged traditional societal norms around monogamy and exclusivity. By openly embracing a non-hierarchical structure, they pushed back against the idea that love and commitment must fit within predefined constructs. This act of resistance empowered them to live authentically and authentically advocate for alternative relationship models. It also allowed them to celebrate living life committed to feminist principles that were important to each of them
Social Justice Allies
As I’ve come to learn, the realm of polyamory expands beyond romantic partnerships to embrace chosen families and interconnected communities. Navigating family dynamics and societal norms can be challenging for those who discard what those in societal power deem as “normal”. I have been reminded that the key to understanding the role of heteronormativity plays in our acceptance of loving adult relationships is the power it holds and the oppression it causes (Arguello, 2021). Considering the legal complexities and challenges faced by polyamorous families, it becomes essential to create practical agreements and arrangements to ensure the well-being and protection of all involved parties. This also means it is important for allies to consider the policy implications for those who live in polyamorous relationships. What does it mean to be an ally to those in polyamorous relationships? People in polyamorous relationships are part of the social fabric of the communities they belong to, however, due to the nature of their relationship, they cannot access some of the benefits afforded to others.
From a social justice framework, advocating for rights for those in polyamorous relationships is an essential response to the power, privilege and oppression placed on those who chose to live outside mononormative relationship parameters. We must acknowledge what we know from the experiences of being socialized in a heteronormative, monogamous culture and then focus on unknowing it so that communities and societies can establish what they define as normal and healthy to be inclusive, fair, and equitable to all. Arguello (2021) proposes that those of us working towards social justice take time to practice queer self-reflection which involves orienting our reflection to be socially centered. Why? Because that is the lived experience of those who are not privileged in a heteronormative society. They go further, “People who walk in the world who are other than heterosexual arrived at that place through a continual social reflection on the stakes, privilege, and oppression exacted by a cis-heteronormative (and intersectional) regime. To exist and dare to live in that regime out of the bounds of binarized gender and charmed heterosexuality demands challenging common sense notions at every turn” (pp.20).
I began this work towards understanding polyamorous relationships to position myself as an ally for Sophia and others who find their lives full and satisfied in this relationship structure. Accordingly, it is important that I commit to the type of social reflection Arguello encourages. Appendix A includes social and personal reflection prompts you can utilize to evaluate where you are and what might impact your social justice work. Appendix B includes a “Social Justice Ally” toolkit you may find helpful.
Conclusion
As I reflected on Sophia’s brave revelation during our monthly lunch, I couldn’t help but be struck by the weight she had carried, hiding an essential part of herself from even her closest friends. Her fear of rejection, judgment, and the potential to hurt others she loved highlighted the very real challenges faced by those in polyamorous relationships. It was a wake-up call for me to recognize the significance of being a social justice ally for individuals like Sophia. Listening to her share the happiness and fulfillment she found in polyamory, I understood the importance of creating spaces where people could authentically express their identities and relationship choices without fear of discrimination or violence. The joy on her face as she spoke of her partners demonstrated the power of love in its myriad forms and the potential for multiple relationships to flourish harmoniously.
As our lunch concluded, I couldn’t help but feel deeply moved by Sophia’s trust in confiding in me. I knew that my role as an ally was not just to listen and support her but to actively challenge the stigmatization and misconceptions surrounding polyamorous relationships. Sophia’s experiences highlighted the pressing need for a more inclusive and understanding society, where diverse relationship structures are accepted and respected. With determination, I have committed myself to fostering a deeper understanding of polyamory and advocating for social justice within non-monogamous communities. I seek to educate myself and others, engage in meaningful conversations, and challenge biases and stereotypes that perpetuate discrimination.
By sharing Sophia’s story and experiences in this chapter, I aimed to humanize the realities of those in polyamorous relationships, dispelling myths and misconceptions that have perpetuated prejudice. My work as an ally would extend beyond our lunch table, into conversations with friends, family, and even my academic and professional circles. Sophia’s trust in me had led me to evaluate just what I believed when I espoused, “Love is love”.
The intertwining of sexuality and social justice is a complex and multi-faceted realm that requires diligent examination and active intervention. Throughout this textbook, we explore various aspects of sexuality, gender, relationships, and identity, recognizing the importance of promoting inclusivity, equity, and respect for all individuals. However, we cannot discuss sexuality and social justice without acknowledging the pervasive impact of white supremacy on these intersections. White supremacy, both historically and in contemporary times, has perpetuated systems of oppression that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
The historical legacy of colonization, racism, and discrimination has left indelible marks on the experiences of individuals of color, who often face compounded barriers when it comes to sexual health, relationship recognition, and societal acceptance. The experiences of queer people of color, trans individuals, and those at the intersections of multiple marginalized identities underscore the urgency of addressing the impact of white supremacy in the realm of sexuality.
As we strive for social justice in the context of sexuality, it is imperative to center the voices and experiences of those most affected by systemic inequality. By amplifying the narratives of marginalized communities, we can begin to dismantle the power structures that perpetuate oppression and move towards a more equitable society.
Educators, researchers, policymakers, and activists all play a critical role in the pursuit of social justice. We must continue to question our assumptions, confront our biases, and commit to understanding the interconnections between race, sexuality, and social justice. Essentially, we must commit to the lifelong practice of “knowing and unknowing” if we want a more just and inclusive society – one where sexuality and social justice are intrinsically linked, and every individual is celebrated and respected for their unique experiences and identities. As we continue this journey, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to dismantling the impact of heterosexism, white supremacy, and the patriarchy as we work to realize a more compassionate, equitable, and affirming world for all.
Names used in this paper are pseudonyms to protect privacy.
Appendix A: Social and Personal Reflection Prompts
Social Prompts
How have mainstream media and societal norms influenced your understanding of relationships and the concept of monogamy? How might these influences impact your ability to be an ally for those in polyamorous relationships?
Reflect on any stereotypes or misconceptions you might hold about polyamory and non-monogamous relationships. How can you challenge and unlearn these biases to foster a more inclusive and supportive environment?
Consider the cultural and historical context of non-monogamous relationships. How have colonialism, religion, and societal norms contributed to the stigmatization of polyamory? What actions can you take to address and dismantle these harmful narratives?
Examine your privilege and how it might affect your understanding and support for polyamorous individuals. How can you use your privilege to advocate for more inclusive spaces and better representation for those in polyamorous relationships?
Reflect on the impact of intersectionality within the polyamorous community. How do race, gender, sexual orientation, and other identities intersect with non-monogamous experiences? How can you be mindful of these intersections in your allyship efforts?
Explore policies that dictate the types of relationships people in your state can participate in? What organizations are doing local work to challenge policies focused on heteronormativity? Next, reflect on these same prompts at the national level.
What organizations in your state or community support those in polyamorous relationships? What organizations do this work at the national level? Transversely, which organizations are working to harm or oppress those in polyamorous relationships at the local, state and national levels?
Personal Prompts
Consider your personal beliefs and values about love, relationships, and commitment. How do these beliefs influence your ability to support and respect those who choose polyamory as their relationship structure?
Reflect on any personal experiences or encounters with individuals in polyamorous relationships. How have these experiences shaped your perceptions and attitudes towards non-monogamous unions?
Examine any feelings of discomfort or unfamiliarity you may have about polyamory. What are the root causes of these feelings, and how can you work to address and overcome them in a non-judgmental manner?
Reflect on your communication skills and how they might impact your ability to be an ally for polyamorous individuals. How can you practice active listening and open-mindedness to better understand their perspectives and experiences?
Consider the language you use when discussing polyamorous relationships. Are you using inclusive and respectful language that validates the experiences of those in non-monogamous unions? How can you adjust your language to be more supportive and affirming?
What is my definition of a poly ally? What does that look like for me? Where are my strengths as an ally? Where do I need to improve? What work do I need to do surrounding “knowing and unknowing”?
Appendix B: Social Justice Ally for Polyamorous Relationships Toolkit
This Social Justice Ally for Polyamorous Relationships Toolkit equips individuals with the tools to challenge stigma, foster empathy, and advocate for inclusivity within the realm of non-monogamous relationships. By actively engaging in education, reflection, and advocacy, allies can play a vital role in creating a more affirming and supportive environment for those in polyamorous unions, contributing to the broader vision of social justice and inclusivity within the sphere of sexuality.
Educate Yourself
Read Books and Research: Familiarize yourself with books, research articles, and reputable resources that explore polyamorous relationships. Gain insights into the diverse experiences and challenges faced by those in non-monogamous unions.
Here is a list of books that can get you started in understanding non-monogamous unions and polyamorous relationships. Note that the research and writing about these relationships is evolving quickly. Do consider doing research on your own too!
Books
The Ethical Slut by Janet Hardy and Dossie Easton
More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert
The Game Changer: A Memoir of Disruptive Love by Franklin Veaux
Love’s Not Color Blind: Race and Representation in Polygamous and Other Alternative Communities by Kevin Patterson
The Handbook of Consensual Non-Monogamy: Affirming Mental Health Practice. Edited by Michelle D. Vaughan and Theodore R Burnes
The Routledge International Handbook on Social Work and Sexualities. Edited by S.J.Dodd
This Heart Holds Many: My Life as a Non-Binary Millennial Child of a Polyamorous Family
Attend Workshops and Webinars: Participate in workshops and webinars facilitated by experts and community leaders in polyamory. Engage in discussions to deepen your understanding and challenge any preconceived notions. Below you will find a list of organizations that provide training and educational opportunities regarding polyamory and non-monogamous relationships:
Training and Educational Resources
The Affirmative Couch offers training for therapists who want to develop their skills to provide affirmative mental health care LGBTQ+ clients and those in consensual non-monogamous relationships. You can find more information about this organization here
The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom has created a downloadable guide for psychology professionals: “What Psychology Professionals Should Know About Polyamory”
The Green House at Life Works offers clinical supervision for those beginning to work with clients in polyamorous relationships. You can learn more about this supervision here .
The Modern Sex Therapy Institute provides webinars, workshops, and certification opportunities. You can learn more about this organization and their offerings here.
Examine Personal Biases
Reflect on Prejudices: Engage in self-reflection to identify and address any personal biases or misconceptions you may hold about polyamory. Be open to unlearning harmful stereotypes and embracing new perspectives.
Check Language and Assumptions: Be mindful of the language you use when discussing polyamory. Avoid assumptions or judgments that may perpetuate stigma or invalidate non-monogamous relationships.
Listen and Learn
Center Marginalized Voices: Seek out and prioritize the voices of individuals from marginalized communities within polyamory. Listen to their experiences and amplify their perspectives.
Practice Active Listening: When engaging in conversations about polyamory, practice active listening without interrupting or dismissing the experiences of others. Seek to understand before offering opinions or advice.
Supportive Advocacy
Respect Privacy: Understand that individuals may choose not to disclose their relationship status openly. Respect their privacy and do not pressure them to share details about their personal lives.
Challenge Stigmatization: Speak up against stereotypes, discrimination, and stigmatization of polyamorous relationships. Advocate for inclusive and respectful language in public and private discussions.
Allyship within Communities
Create Safe Spaces: Foster inclusive environments within your social circles and communities where individuals in polyamorous relationships can feel safe and supported.
Acknowledge the Impact of Intersectionality: Recognize the impact of intersectionality on non-monogamous experiences and work to address the unique challenges faced by individuals with intersecting identities.
Advocacy Beyond Personal Circles
Support Non-Profit Organizations: Contribute to and promote non-profit organizations that advocate for the rights and well-being of polyamorous individuals and families. A few that can help you get started are included below:
Non Profit Organizations
The Chosen Family Law Center: Poly Families Project
Engage in Activism: Join or support advocacy efforts working towards legal recognition and protection for non-monogamous unions. Collaborate with social justice movements to promote inclusivity within non-monogamous spaces.
Appendix C: Polyamorous Relationships Language and Terminology Glossary
This glossary provides a guide to the language and terminology commonly used in the context of polyamorous relationships. Understanding these terms fosters respectful and inclusive communication and promotes a deeper appreciation of non-monogamous unions. This glossary was inspired by the work of many whose work is referenced throughout this chapter.
Polyamory: A consensual and ethical approach to non-monogamous relationships, where individuals have multiple romantic or intimate connections simultaneously with the knowledge and consent of all parties involved.
Polyamorous/Poly: Refers to individuals who practice polyamory or are involved in polyamorous relationships.
Consensual Non-Monogamy: (see also Ethical Non-Monogamy) An umbrella term that encompasses all consensual and honest non-monogamous relationship structures, including polyamory, swinging, and open relationships.
Monogamy: The practice of having only one romantic or intimate partner at a time.
Triad: A polyamorous relationship involving three individuals who have mutual romantic connections with one another.
Quad: A polyamorous relationship involving four individuals who have mutual romantic connections with one another.
Compersion: A feeling of happiness and joy experienced when witnessing one’s partner(s) in a positive and fulfilling relationship with someone else.
Metamour: A person’s partner’s partner, with whom they may or may not have a direct romantic or intimate connection.
Primary Partner: A term used to describe a person’s most significant or central partner in a polyamorous relationship, often involving shared living arrangements or major life decisions.
Secondary Partner: A term used to describe a person’s additional partner(s) in a polyamorous relationship, with whom the level of commitment or time investment may be lower compared to primary partners.
Hierarchical Polyamory: A form of polyamory that involves structuring relationships with primary and secondary partner designations, creating hierarchies of importance.
Relationship Anarchy: A philosophy that rejects hierarchical structures and labels within relationships, emphasizing individual autonomy and mutual respect among all partners.
Ethical Non-Monogamy: (see also Consensual Non-Monogamy) An umbrella term that encompasses all consensual and honest non-monogamous relationship structures, including polyamory, swinging, and open relationships.
References
Alexander, A. (2022) Intersectionality in CNM Relationships. In M. D. Vaughan & T. R. Burnes (Eds.), The Handbook of Consensual Non-monogamy Affirming Mental Health Practice, (pp. 15–38). Rowman & Littlefield.
Andres, M. (2021). What the Heart Wants: Polyamory, Compersion an Monogamish Arrangements. In S. J. Dodd (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work and Sexualities. Routledge.
Arguello, T. (2021). Heteronormativity and Social Work In S. J. Dodd (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work and Sexualities. Routledge.
Beazer, K., Cameron, E., & Simpson, S. (2022). “Put Bluntly”, We Need to Contemplate Polyamory. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 41(1), 99-122.
Cardoso, D., Pascoal, P. M., & Rosa, P. J. (2020). Facing polyamorous lives: Translation and validation of the Attitudes Towards Polyamory Scale in a Portuguese sample. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1549361
Cardoso, D., Pascoal, P.M. & Maiochi, F.H. Defining Polyamory: A Thematic Analysis of Lay People’s Definitions. Archives of Sexual Behavior 50, 1239–1252 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y
Cardoso, D., & Kese, C. (2022). Living Outside the BOX: Consensual Non-Monogamies, Intimacies and Communities Notes on Research and Terminology. In M. D. Vaughan & T. R. Burnes (Eds.), The Handbook of Consensual Non-monogamy Affirming Mental Health Practice, (pp. 15–38). Rowman & Littlefield.
Clardy, J. L. (2023). Why It’s NOT OK for Liberal States to be Monogamous. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 116–144). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375036-5
De Las Heras Gómez, R. (2018). Thinking Relationship Anarchy from a Queer Feminist Approach. Sociological Research Online, 24(4), 644–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780418811965
Denike, M. (2010). The racialization of white man’s polygamy. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 25(4), 852–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01140.x
Dentato, M. P., Arguello, T. and Smith, M. (2018). Dating, Relationships, and Family Issues. In Social Work Practice with the LGBTQ Community: The Intersection of History, Health, Mental Health, and Policy Factors (pp. 159–196). Oxford University Press.
Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 45–53.
Hamilton, L., De Santis, C., & Thompson, A. E. (2021). Introduction to the special section on Consensual Non-Monogamy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02055-z
Kean, J. J. (2018). Sex/love skirmishes: “Swinging”, “polyamory”, and the politics of naming. Feminist Media Studies, 18, 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1393760
Macedo, S. (2015). Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of marriage. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB29351085
Morrow, D. F., & Messinger, L. (2006). Bisexual relationships and families. In Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice: working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. (pp 243-262). Columbia University Press eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA76355186
Normalizing Non-Monogamy (2023, July 5) Swinging, Polyamory, and Beyond: An Introduction. https://www.normalizingnonmonogamy.com/intro-to-swinging-and-polyamory
Obadia. (2020). Responsibility, Respectability, Recognition, and Polyamory: Lessons in Subject Formation in the Age of Sexual Identity. Feminist Studies, 46(2), 287. https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.46.2.0287
Oyez Law Project (n.d.). Loving v Virginia. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
Rubin, G. (2007). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Culture, Society and Sexuality A Reader. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966105-21
Rubin, J., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the Margins: Considering Diversity among Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships. Journal Für Psychologie, 22(1). https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=psychology_articles
Rust, P. C. (1996). Monogamy and polyamory: Relationship issues for bisexuals. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 127–148). Sage Publications, Inc.
Sandbakken, E. M., Skrautvol, A., & Madsen, O. J. (2022). ‘It’s my definition of a relationship, even though it doesn’t fit yours’: living in polyamorous relationships in a mono normative culture. Psychology and Sexuality, 13(4), 1054-10–67.
Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241604274263
Sheff, E. (2011). Polyamorous Families, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Slippery Slope. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(5), 487–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241611413578
Travers, C. L. (2022, March 30). Why you should drop the ‘e’ in ethical non-monogamy. Medium. https://clairelouisetravers.medium.com/why-you-should-drop-the-e-in-ethical-non-monogamy-32069e129df1
Wilchins, R. A. (2004). Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An instant primer. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA86527302
Witherspoon, R. G., & Theodore, P. S. (2021). Exploring minority stress and resilience in a polyamorous sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1367–1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01995-w
Wood, J., De Santis, C., Desmarais, S., & Milhausen, R. R. (2021). Motivations for engaging in consensually Non-Monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1253–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01873-x
