Study: Consensual Nonmonogamous Relationships Work Well

“Overall, the outcomes for monogamous and consensual nonmonogamous participants were the same—indicating no net benefit of one relationship style over another,” says Terri Conley, associate professor of psychology and women’s studies at the university, and the study’s lead author, in the news release.

Yet when it came to matters of jealousy and trust, the researchers found people in open relationships actually exhibited lower levels of jealousy and “significantly” higher levels of trust than their counterparts. This finding goes against a number of recent studies that found the average person believes monogamous relationships are more satisfying, trusting, passionate, and less jealous than other types of relationships — which led the researchers to believe a bias is held against nonmonagamous people.

According to the study, prior research shows that about 20% of Americans have been in a consensual nonmonogamous relationship at some point in their lives. As many as 5% of people in relationships identify as being swingers.

Click to expand...

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Hawkeye10 said:

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Click to expand...

My partner and I have toyed with the idea, but we never get anywhere with it.

CLAX1911 said:

My partner and I have toyed with the idea, but we never get anywhere with it.

Click to expand...

Pretty common and sometimes even just that tends to juice up the relationship.

Hawkeye10 said:

Pretty common ans sometimes even just that tends to juice up the relationship.

Click to expand...

Well, if we get to that point where it isn't talk anymore than we'll take that step.

Hawkeye10 said:

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of a study that only asks one side of the story. I wonder how many of their partners are satisfied with open arrangements and, more importantly, whether that satisfaction is sustainable over a long term.

The act of sex necessarily produces feelings of love. We do not have a separation between these things in our brain. If your partner is falling in love with other people, how can you trust that they'll stay with you...?

Absentglare said:

I'm skeptical of a study that only asks one side of the story. I wonder how many of their partners are satisfied with open arrangements and, more importantly, whether that satisfaction is sustainable over a long term.

The act of sex necessarily produces feelings of love. We do not have a separation between these things in our brain. If your partner is falling in love with other people, how can you trust that they'll stay with you...?

Click to expand...

Good point.

Hawkeye10 said:

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Click to expand...

Swinging in my opinion is just russian roulette with your junk. The more sexual partners you have or your partner has increases your risk of catching a lovely gift, some of them never go away. So, maybe for "trusting" people it works on an interpersonal level, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna risk my health like that.

Hawkeye10 said:

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Click to expand...

With this, people should also not confuse swinging with polyamory. Swinging is about sex, and poly is about relationships. Not to say one can't do both. I am both a swinger and poly. I am part of a quad poly unit as well as myself and one of the wives being swingers. But for both communication and trust are essential.

Absentglare said:

The act of sex necessarily produces feelings of love. We do not have a separation between these things in our brain.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While I won't engage with someone physically without a certain minimum level of friendship present, sexual activities with then do not produce the same feelings of love that I hold for my spouses. And I have frequently observed individuals who hold no feeling of love with their sex partners. Additionally, isn't that lack of love alongside sex a Hugh part of the whole hooker/john dynamic?

If your partner is falling in love with other people, how can you trust that they'll stay with you...?

Click to expand...

If your parent is having another child, how can you trust that they will keep you? The whole concept of there being only one type of love that cannot be shared by more than two people is absurd. In all of our other relationships, we don't worry about a "partner" finding another type of that relationship and leaving. So why would the love of spouses/significant others be any different?

Absentglare said:

I'm skeptical of a study that only asks one side of the story. I wonder how many of their partners are satisfied with open arrangements and, more importantly, whether that satisfaction is sustainable over a long term.

The act of sex necessarily produces feelings of love. We do not have a separation between these things in our brain. If your partner is falling in love with other people, how can you trust that they'll stay with you...?

Click to expand...

By this notion, mothers and fathers are pedophiles. Seriously flawed logic you got there.

Abbazorkzog said:

By this notion, mothers and fathers are pedophiles. Seriously flawed logic you got there.

Click to expand...

No, not really. It has long been established that there are different kinds of love. The Greeks had at least three words for it: agape, filia(sp?) and eros. So while he does have a logic error, as I demonstrated above, this was not it.

maquiscat said:

I disagree. While I won't engage with someone physically without a certain minimum level of friendship present, sexual activities with then do not produce the same feelings of love that I hold for my spouses. And I have frequently observed individuals who hold no feeling of love with their sex partners. Additionally, isn't that lack of love alongside sex a Hugh part of the whole hooker/john dynamic?

Click to expand...

Research indicates that there's overlap:

Psychologist Jim Pfaus and his research team sought to discover where feelings of love and of sexual desire originate in the brain. To do that they reviewed 20 past studies that scanned men’s and women’s brains with fMRI machines. They found that love and lust, two supposedly separate emotions, actually originate in the same location in the brain — the insular cortex (insula) and striatum, reported MSNBC. That doesn’t mean love and sex are the same thing, just that they’re not as separate as “The Rules” might have you believe.

Click to expand...

From Sex To Love: Emotional Attachment And Sexual Desire Originate In Overlapping Parts Of The Brain (STUDY) | The Huffington Post

maquiscat said:

If your parent is having another child, how can you trust that they will keep you? The whole concept of there being only one type of love that cannot be shared by more than two people is absurd. In all of our other relationships, we don't worry about a "partner" finding another type of that relationship and leaving. So why would the love of spouses/significant others be any different?

Click to expand...

It does seem to pretty much mean that the child will not be able to have as much individualized attention from the parents.

The fear is that the partner will leave. If they're still searching for others, they can find some else whose interests they prioritize. The big risk is doing this in secret, imo. I don't really have any objective disagreement with polyamory, but i'm not personally interested in that relationship dynamic.

Absentglare said:

Research indicates that there's overlap:

From Sex To Love: Emotional Attachment And Sexual Desire Originate In Overlapping Parts Of The Brain (STUDY) | The Huffington Post

Click to expand...

Still doesn't mean that they are not separate per se. We have many parts that serve multiple functions. A penis is used for both liquid waste disposal, as well as procreation. The mouth and tongue are used for both eating and speaking. So having a single part of the brain producing the feelings of both love and sexual desire no more links them than urinating and procreation are linked.

It does seem to pretty much mean that the child will not be able to have as much individualized attention from the parents.

Click to expand...

As to whether that is bad or good is subjective even to the offspring. The child might fear the loss of that attention, or they may welcome it as it allows them more freedom and less smothering (as they see it). But the presence of another child does not mean (usually) that the previous child(ren) will be left or loved less by the parents. The same principle applies with the love between spouses. Just because there is another spouse, yes there might be less individual attention from the one (again subjective to whether this is good or bad depending on the individual), that doesn't automatically mean that there is less love, or that the spouse will leave the first to be only with the second.

Now let me add that we do see this a lot, but how much of that is because we have gotten into the learned mindset that we can have only one spouse, and to have a second means leaving the first?

The fear is that the partner will leave. If they're still searching for others, they can find some else whose interests they prioritize. The big risk is doing this in secret, imo.

Click to expand...

The fear is that the parent will leave. If they are still having other children, they can find someone else whose interest they prioritize. See how ridiculous that sounds? Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen between parents and children, but it is a relatively rare thing. And as for spouses/SO's yes doing so in secret is a big risk to the relationship. But that does not negate the fact that one can love multiple people in the manner of a spouse/SO in the same way they can love more than one child of theirs (birthed or not), or multiple close friends, etc.

I don't really have any objective disagreement with polyamory, but i'm not personally interested in that relationship dynamic

Click to expand...

And no one should be pushing you towards that. Some people simply are not capable of doing that. But that doesn't mean that it is not possible to hold multiple intimate relationships at the same time without causing harm to the partners, or wanting/needing to leave any. Which is my point.

maquiscat said:

I disagree. While I won't engage with someone physically without a certain minimum level of friendship present, sexual activities with then do not produce the same feelings of love that I hold for my spouses. And I have frequently observed individuals who hold no feeling of love with their sex partners. Additionally, isn't that lack of love alongside sex a Hugh part of the whole hooker/john dynamic?

Click to expand...

I don't believe his argument was that sexual intimacy produces the same feelings of love you have for another person. So I think you're misrepresenting the argument.

Further loving two different people the same way normally doesn't work out. Different individuals require different things in a relationship.

If your parent is having another child, how can you trust that they will keep you? The whole concept of there being only one type of love that cannot be shared by more than two people is absurd. In all of our other relationships, we don't worry about a "partner" finding another type of that relationship and leaving. So why would the love of spouses/significant others be any different?

Click to expand...

Because most poeple aren't polygamist. It may work wonderfully for you, but have you ever thought that you might be the exception? Does everybody feel jealousy the exact same way as you do?

I think you're filtering this through your own biases.

CLAX1911 said:

I don't believe his argument was that sexual intimacy produces the same feelings of love you have for another person. So I think you're misrepresenting the argument.

Click to expand...

Misunderstanding, maybe, it I wouldn't go with misrepresenting. That would seem to imply a sense of intent to change the argument. However, his argument seems quite clear to me. "The act of sex necessarily produces feelings of love." Somehow I doubt that he is referring to any kind of love that would occur between family members, nor as we would have for pets. Maybe we could be talking about the love one feels for a friend or even for humanity. But given the context of the thread, it seems pretty clear AG is referring to the feelings one has for a significant other.

Further loving two different people the same way normally doesn't work out. Different individuals require different things in a relationship.

Click to expand...

We certainly can say this about any type of love. A parent loving two different children the same way normally doesn't work out. But we do groups how we love people into overall groups. So we can look at how parents love different children as a single type of love, even as they hold different relationships within that context. The same can be said of the love of a significant other. There is nothing to show that as humans that we can hold those feeling for more than one person at a time.

Because most poeple aren't polygamist. It may work wonderfully for you, but have you ever thought that you might be the exception? Does everybody feel jealousy the exact same way as you do?

Click to expand...

Polys are the exception in the same way that left handedness is the exception. Even among those that prefer monogamy no one feels jealousy the same way as everyone else. Pretty much all emotions are unique in that we all filter them through our own biases. And how we all handle them will be different. Sure we can groups things by similarities, but we could also point out differences.

I think you're filtering this through your own biases.

Click to expand...

You mean like those who think only monogamy works filter through their own bias?

maquiscat said:

Misunderstanding, maybe, it I wouldn't go with misrepresenting. That would seem to imply a sense of intent to change the argument.

Click to expand...

You did change the argument.

However, his argument seems quite clear to me. "The act of sex necessarily produces feelings of love." Somehow I doubt that he is referring to any kind of love that would occur between family members, nor as we would have for pets.

Click to expand...

Now you're misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say anything about that. But I agree, having sex does produce feelings of love. It may not be equal to a partner but the fact that it's there at all may cause issues.

We certainly can say this about any type of love.

Click to expand...

We absolutely can. In fact I was going to point out how children need love differently than their siblings from their parents or even other siblings.

Polys are the exception in the same way that left handedness is the exception. Even among those that prefer monogamy no one feels jealousy the same way as everyone else. Pretty much all emotions are unique in that we all filter them through our own biases. And how we all handle them will be different. Sure we can groups things by similarities, but we could also point out differences.

Click to expand...

I can use a general guideline. Open romantic relationships normally don't last.

You mean like those who think only monogamy works filter through their own bias?

Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly like that. I never said it would make me jealous therefore it would make everybody jealous. It simply has a tendencies to make people jealous. You said it yourself, polyamorus people are the exception. I agree.

Participants were polled on areas including “satisfaction, commitment, trust, jealousy and passionate love, which is the intense love feeling often described in new relationships,” according to a university news release.

Click to expand...

Those in CNM relationships were found to be equally satisfied as those who enjoyed monogamy.

Click to expand...

"Overall, the outcomes for monogamous and consensual nonmonogamous participants were the same—indicating no net benefit of one relationship style over another," said Terri Conley

Click to expand...

Personal gratification is not the only measure of how beneficial one relationship style is to another. Health and family stability are important considerations to take into account and those questions apparently were not asked.

Equal level of commitment between monogamy and non-monogamy is... impossible.

Yet when it came to matters of jealousy and trust, the researchers found people in open relationships actually exhibited lower levels of jealousy and “significantly” higher levels of trust than their counterparts.

Click to expand...

The two groups have different value systems and thus two different standards for what is or isn't a breach of trust. The fewer boundaries a couple has the less possibility for their boundaries to be violated, thus less jealousy in open relationships makes sense to me.

However, the more boundaries a couple has the greater level of commitment is necessary to maintain the relationship, thus open and closed relationships possessing a roughly equal level of commitment is... irrational.

Scenario #1a. John is with Jane.
Scenario #1b. Jane is with John.

Scenario #2a. John is with Jane, April and Ashley.
Scenario #2b. Jane is with John, Mike and Max.


It is impossible that John and Jane are just as committed to each other in Scenario #2 as they are in Scenario #1. Why? Because there is a limited amount of time in the day and a limited amount of focus/energy in people. The more time and energy John has to divide between women the less is available for any of them individually.

If the monogamous and non-monogamous people are claiming to feel equal levels of commitment then they are either lying to themselves or have such radically different definitions of "commitment" that comparing their responses to each other is meaningless.

Hawkeye10 said:

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Click to expand...

I was wondering about the duration component, but the 20 years you site seems to address that.

Lax said:

Equal level of commitment between monogamy and non-monogamy is... impossible.

Click to expand...

Equal level of commitment between a single child and multiple children is....impossible. Therefore, by your implied logic, raising a single child, or at least one child at a time, is far superior to having multiple children.

The two groups have different value systems and thus two different standards for what is or isn't a breach of trust.

Different monogamous couples have different value systems and thus different standards for what is or isn't a breach of trust. And by noting monogamous, that wouldn't include outside lovers. And for that matter even different groups of polys have different values. This is before noting that both polys and monogamous couples can have similar values as well.

The fewer boundaries a couple has the less possibility for their boundaries to be violated, thus less jealousy in open relationships makes sense to me.

However, the more boundaries a couple has the greater level of commitment is necessary to maintain the relationship, thus open and closed relationships possessing a roughly equal level of commitment is... irrational.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that you are working with subjective values. There is no objective measure of trust or commitment or jealousy that can be applied the same to everyone.

Scenario #1a. John is with Jane.
Scenario #1b. Jane is with John.

Scenario #2a. John is with Jane, April and Ashley.
Scenario #2b. Jane is with John, Mike and Max.

How convenient of you to over look other possibilities that disprove your concepts.

Scenario #3a. John is with Jane, Joan and Jack
Scenario #3b. Jane is with John, Joan and Jack
Scenario #3c. Joan is with Jane, John and Jack
Scenario #3d. Jack is with Jane, Joan and John

It is impossible that John and Jane are just as committed to each other in Scenario #2 as they are in Scenario #1. Why? Because there is a limited amount of time in the day and a limited amount of focus/energy in people. The more time and energy John has to divide between women the less is available for any of them individually.

Click to expand...

This same argument could be used as why not to have kids, or even friends outside the marriage. Additionally, there are those who want less time and focus of others, even their spouses, than others do. There's is no set rule on to how much time and focus constitutes a relationship, or even if there would be some left over to allow for other relationships.

If the monogamous and non-monogamous people are claiming to feel equal levels of commitment then they are either lying to themselves or have such radically different definitions of "commitment" that comparing their responses to each other is meaningless.

Click to expand...

When you are talking about such subjective values, neither is lying to themselves and really there are radically different meanings of "commitment" among the monogamous group by itself, yet alone among both groups.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Equal level of commitment between a single child and multiple children is....impossible. Therefore, by your implied logic, raising a single child, or at least one child at a time, is far superior to having multiple children.

Click to expand...

You know what? That's an interesting perspective. I had not previously considered the idea of parental love being roughly interchangeable with romantic love.

But upon reflection... it's not interchangeable enough to make an appropriate analogy because their roles in life are too different in relation to each other. Parents and their children aren't peers, the parent is the guardian of the child until they've developed enough to take care of themselves. There's an obligation or duty element mixed into the relationship, a parent can't just leave a child if they dislike them and the children didn't pick their parents and aren't free to leave.

That and a low birthrate will eventually be a survival issue for humanity as a whole between homosexuality, death and infertility. We need to pump out more than one or two.

Plus, whatever downside there is to having 5 kids by 1 woman is far less than having 15 kids by 3 women.

Different monogamous couples have different value systems and thus different standards for what is or isn't a breach of trust. And by noting monogamous, that wouldn't include outside lovers. And for that matter even different groups of polys have different values. This is before noting that both polys and monogamous couples can have similar values as well.

Click to expand...

The article at one point labels them as "monogamous and nonmonogamous people", it offers no other differences in values.

One group is okay sleeping with multiple people, the other is not. It's much easier to not feel jealousy when the wife is supposed to be sleeping with multiple men than when she's not. There are less boundaries available to violate.

The problem here is that you are working with subjective values. There is no objective measure of trust or commitment or jealousy that can be applied the same to everyone.

Click to expand...

Time and distance are objectively measurable and provide challenges. A man can't spend as much time with 4 women as he could with 1. If the women live in different houses it's even worse and it splits his focus which is exhausting long-term.

How convenient of you to over look other possibilities that disprove your concepts.
Scenario #3a. John is with Jane, Joan and Jack
Scenario #3b. Jane is with John, Joan and Jack
Scenario #3c. Joan is with Jane, John and Jack
Scenario #3d. Jack is with Jane, Joan and John

Click to expand...

It's not that I overlooked it so much as the possibilities are nigh-endless. What if Jack also has Betty and Jessica on the side? And then Jessica has Otto and Kevin? What if Betty is only pretty enough to get Jack but everyone else has at least three? The non-monogamus potential for dsyfunction is much greater.

Elaborating as you suggest helps my argument but I don't think it's necessary.

This same argument could be used as why not to have kids, or even friends outside the marriage. Additionally, there are those who want less time and focus of others, even their spouses, than others do. There's is no set rule on to how much time and focus constitutes a relationship, or even if there would be some left over to allow for other relationships.

Click to expand...

I get that some people have a preference to be non-monogamous. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that there's "no net benefit of one relationship style over another". That is not true, monogamy is inherently more likely to be stable than non-monogamy just by the different ways the two are constructed.

When you are talking about such subjective values, neither is lying to themselves and really there are radically different meanings of "commitment" among the monogamous group by itself, yet alone among both groups.

Click to expand...

A monogamous couple has more commitment to each other because they are willing to forsake all others.

I am more likely to be committed to Mcdonald's if that's the only restaurant I'm willing to eat at. If I'm willing to eat at Mcdonald's, Wendy's and Burger King then my committment to Mcdonald's will be less because I've got more options I'm willing to pursue.

Yes and this is what the 'breakup' looks like:

"You're no longer my #3!"

Hawkeye10 said:

https://www.studyfinds.org/monogamy-open-relationships-happiness/

Having been a swinger for nearly 20 years this is exactly what I would expect to find. Those who do this lifestyle have to be trusting of their mates, because if that is not there everything blows up fast.

WARNING STATEMENT: Those who dont have the trust and the communication functioning should most certainly stay away, those of us who do this dread running into people who should not be doing it.

Click to expand...

Along with government not being able to tell you who you can or can't marry, I don't think government has any business in telling anyone how many. There were times in my life where I had two or three gals and would stay with one one night and the other the next. But at the time none of us were thinking marriage.