No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Swings and roundabouts: Management of jealousy in heterosexual ‘swinging’ couples
Abstract
Swinging involves consensual mutual involvement in extra-dyadic sex. Jealousy in swinging couples is an interesting topic for social psychological research, because it is a common and acceptable response to a romantic partner's real or imagined infidelity. This qualitative study examined the management of jealousy among four active heterosexual swinging couples living in southern England. Participants highlighted the importance of discussion and negotiation to develop a shared couple identity and shared rules and boundaries that allowed them to manage jealousy so that they could better enjoy swinging. Rather than seeking to eliminate jealousy, swingers may manage their feelings of jealousy in order to increase sexual excitement and arousal. This study adds to our understanding of jealousy among swingers and the broader issue of jealousy in intimate relationships.
... The premise that a person would consent to their partner's extradyadic sexual and romantic activities runs contrary to a general assumption underlying many theories in social and relationship psychology which project that, if one truly loves their partner, such activities must incite jealousy or negative emotional reactions (e.g., Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017). Yet, past work has shown that people in polyamorous relationships report relatively high levels of relationship quality, low levels of jealousy (Conley et al., 2017;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Mitchell et al., 2014;Ritchie & Barker, 2006), and, in some instances, actually report experiencing positive emotions in response to a partner's extradyadic relations (Aumer, Bellew, Ito, Hatfield, & Heck, 2014;Deri, 2015;Mogilski et al., 2019). That is, although people in polyamorous relationships do at times experience jealousy (Deri, 2015;Visser & McDonald, 2007), they also report experiencing compersion, or positive, joyous feelings in response to a partner interacting romantically or sexually with someone else (Ritchie & Barker, 2006). ...
... Yet, past work has shown that people in polyamorous relationships report relatively high levels of relationship quality, low levels of jealousy (Conley et al., 2017;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Mitchell et al., 2014;Ritchie & Barker, 2006), and, in some instances, actually report experiencing positive emotions in response to a partner's extradyadic relations (Aumer, Bellew, Ito, Hatfield, & Heck, 2014;Deri, 2015;Mogilski et al., 2019). That is, although people in polyamorous relationships do at times experience jealousy (Deri, 2015;Visser & McDonald, 2007), they also report experiencing compersion, or positive, joyous feelings in response to a partner interacting romantically or sexually with someone else (Ritchie & Barker, 2006). ...
... Indeed, other researchers have described compersion in terms independent of jealousy, as the feeling of joy one feels knowing that their partners are sharing joy and love with others (Ritchie & Barker, 2006), and suggest that individuals may experience compersion as an emotion, like the happiness one generally feels when their partner receives recognition at work, or accomplishes something important to them (Sheff, 2013). Research on compersion has been sparse so far but suggests that people in polyamorous relationships (compared to those in monogamous relationships) experience higher levels of compersion and lower levels of jealousy (Mogilski et al., 2019), and although individuals in polyamorous relationships do still report jealousy (Deri, 2015;Kohut, Balzarini, Lehmiller, Harman, & Holmes, 2016;Visser & McDonald, 2007), they report being able to navigate and manage their jealousy through communicating with their partners openly about their experience and negotiating boundaries and agreements that help protect their relationship (e.g., Deri, 2015;McLean, 2004;Ritchie & Barker, 2006;Rubinsky, 2018;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Wolfe, 2003;Wosick-Correa, 2010), and in doing so, are able to capitalize on the positive aspects of their partner engaging in extradyadic relations. If that is the case, then perceiving someone to be romantically interested in one's partner may upset a person, please them, or invoke mixed emotions, and we may expect these reactions to be predicted by one's relationship orientation, with those who are polyamorous experiencing more positive responses, or compersion, in response to a partner's extradyadic relations, and less negative reactions, or jealousy, compared to people in monogamous relationships. ...
Emotional reactions to a partner’s extradyadic romantic interests are assumed to be negative and characterized by jealousy, an emotional state that arises over a perceived threat to one’s relationship. Yet, reactions may also be positive, and involve compersion, or taking joy in one’s partner’s pleasure in other sexual and relational encounters. Although some have argued that compersion is the opposite of jealousy, research suggests that compersion and jealousy may not be opposing constructs, despite being treated this way in both theoretical and empirical research. Using a convenience sample of polyamorous (N = 3530) and monogamous (N = 1358) individuals, we draw on theories of jealousy, emotional ambivalence, and emotional forecasting to examine people’s anticipated affective responses to hypothetical situations involving a partner’s extradyadic relations and assess whether experience with having a partner engage in extradyadic relations was associated with anticipating less jealousy and more compersion. Results suggest that people in polyamorous relationships report less jealousy and more compersion with their partners, and that personal experience involving a partner’s extradyadic romantic interests predicted more compersion and less jealousy, with experience predicting greater increases in compersion among monogamous than polyamorous participants. Finally, while anticipated compersion was associated with greater relationship satisfaction, neither jealousy nor ambivalence was associated with relationship satisfaction. These results further demonstrate that individuals can experience both positive and negative reactions to a partner’s extradyadic relations, both based on actual experience and projection of responses to future events, and that real-life experiences are important in anticipating these emotions.
... The premise that a person would consent to their partner's extradyadic sexual and romantic activities runs contrary to a general assumption underlying many theories in social and relationship psychology which project that, if one truly loves their partner, such activities must incite jealousy, or negative emotional reactions (e.g., Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017). Yet, past work has shown that people in polyamorous relationships report relatively high levels of relationship quality, low When Jealousy-inducing Situations Don't Just Induce Jealousy 4 levels of jealousy (Conley et al., 2017;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Mitchell et al., 2014;Ritchie & Barker, 2006), and, in some instances, actually report experiencing positive emotions in response to a partner's extradyadic relations (Aumer et al., 2014;Deri, 2015;Mogilski et al., 2019). That is, although people in polyamorous relationships do at times experience jealousy (Deri, 2015;Visser & McDonald, 2007), they also report experiencing compersion, or positive, joyous feelings in response to a partner interacting romantically or sexually with someone else (Ritchie & Barker, 2006). ...
... Yet, past work has shown that people in polyamorous relationships report relatively high levels of relationship quality, low When Jealousy-inducing Situations Don't Just Induce Jealousy 4 levels of jealousy (Conley et al., 2017;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Mitchell et al., 2014;Ritchie & Barker, 2006), and, in some instances, actually report experiencing positive emotions in response to a partner's extradyadic relations (Aumer et al., 2014;Deri, 2015;Mogilski et al., 2019). That is, although people in polyamorous relationships do at times experience jealousy (Deri, 2015;Visser & McDonald, 2007), they also report experiencing compersion, or positive, joyous feelings in response to a partner interacting romantically or sexually with someone else (Ritchie & Barker, 2006). ...
... Indeed, other researchers have described compersion in terms independent of jealousy, as the feeling of joy one feels knowing that their partners are sharing joy and love with others (Ritchie & Barker, 2006), and suggest that individuals may experience compersion as an emotion, like the happiness one generally feels when their partner receives recognition at work, or accomplishes something important to them (Sheff, 2013). Research on compersion has been sparse so far but suggests that people in polyamorous relationships (compared to those in monogamous relationships) experience higher levels of compersion and lower levels of jealousy (Mogilski et al., 2019), and although individuals in polyamorous relationships do still report jealousy (Deri, 2015;Kohut, Balzarini, Lehmiller, Harman, & Holmes, 2016;Visser & McDonald, 2007), they report being able to navigate and manage their jealousy through communicating with their partners openly about their experience, and negotiating boundaries and agreements that help protect their relationship (e.g., Deri, 2015;McLean, 2004;Ritchie & Barker, 2006;Rubinsky, 2018;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Wolfe, 2003;Wosick-Correa, 2010), and in doing so, are able to capitalize on the positive aspects of their partner engaging in extradyadic relations. If that is the case, then perceiving someone to be romantically interested in one's partner may upset a person, please them, or invoke mixed emotions, and we may expect these reactions to be predicted by one's relationship orientation, with those who are polyamorous experiencing more positive responses, or compersion, in response to a partner's extradyadic relations, and less negative reactions, or jealousy, compared to people in monogamous relationships. ...
Emotional reactions to a partner's extradyadic romantic interests are assumed to be negative and characterized by jealousy, an emotional state that arises over a perceived threat to one's relationship. Yet, reactions may also be positive, and involve compersion, or taking joy in one's partner's pleasure in other sexual and relational encounters. Although some have argued that compersion is the opposite of jealousy, research has shown that compersion and jealousy are not opposing constructs, despite being treated this way in both theoretical and empirical research. Using a convenience sample of polyamorous (N = 3,530) and monogamous (N = 1,358) individuals we draw on theories of jealousy, emotional ambivalence, and emotional forecasting to examine people's anticipated affective responses to hypothetical situations involving a partner's extradyadic relations, and assess whether experience with having a partner engage in extradyadic relations was associated with anticipating less jealousy and more compersion. Results suggest that people in polyamorous relationships report less jealousy and more compersion with their partners, and that personal experience involving a partner's extradyadic romantic interests predicted more compersion and less jealousy, with experience predicting greater increases in compersion among monogamous than polyamorous participants. Finally, while anticipated compersion was associated with greater relationship satisfaction, neither jealousy nor ambivalence were associated with relationship satisfaction. These results further demonstrate that individuals can experience both positive and negative reactions to a partner's extradyadic relations, both based on actual experience and projection of responses to future events and that real-life experiences are important in anticipating these emotions.
... For example, different forms of consensual non-monogamy are concerned about different aspects of monogamy. Swinging and open relationships, for instance, often attempt to restrict the level of emotional involvement with those outside of the 'main' relationship (Bringle & Buunk, 1991;De Visser & McDonald, 2007), thus reinforcing the norm of emotional monogamy. Even within polyamory, where emotional monogamy is often not a requirement, relationship hierarchies referring to primary and secondary partners may still put a greater value on particular relationships over others (Mogilski, Memering, Welling, & Shackelford, 2017). ...
... Looking at those engaged in consensual non-monogamy we see a similar pattern of people opening up their relationships once the romance phase has passed. For example, De Visser and McDonald's (2007) study on swingers found that all the couples opened up their relationship after two to four years of monogamy. Similarly, Adam (2006) found with gay male couplings, sexual exclusivity was most commonly found among those still in the first two years of their relationship. ...
... A key difference for those in consensually non-monogamous arrangements that is often neglected, however, is that those involved often acknowledge jealousy and take active steps to address it (De Visser & McDonald, 2007;Robinson, 1997). De Visser and McDonald (2007) describe swinging couples as acknowledging the presence of jealousy at times, but through communication were able to alleviate these feelings. ...
... Social cognitive models propose that, rather than being a hard-wired sexually-dimorphic response, jealousy is influenced by social and cultural factors. Such models help to explain observed (sub-)cultural differences in men's and women's responses to jealousy-evoking scenarios (de Visser & McDonald, 2007;DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002; Green & Sabini, 2006;Harris, 2003a;Sabini & Green, 2004). For example, a meta-analysis revealed that the effect size for cultural differences between men living in different countries was of a similar magnitude to the effect size of sex differences between men and women (Harris, 2003a). ...
... Social cognitive models argue that jealousy is influenced by social and cultural factors and that it only arises if personally-valued entities are threatened (DeSteno et al., 2002;Green & Sabini, 2006;Harris, 2003a;Sabini & Green, 2004). They are therefore better able than DSEMs to explain how people in non-procreative or nonmonogamous relationships avoid jealousy by giving different meanings to sexual and emotional exclusivity (de Visser & McDonald, 2007;Ritchie & Barker, 2006;Rodrigues, Lopes, & Pereira, 2016;Rodrigues, Lopes, & Smith, 2017;Rodrigues, Lopes, Pereira, de Visser, & Cabaceira, 2019). Gay men and lesbian women need not worry about the procreative repercussions of extra-dyadic sex, and this is likely to affect their responses to potentially jealousy-evoking scenarios. ...
... Similarly, in the context of swinging couples, it has been noted that agreements and expectation about what can be shared with other couples (i.e., sexual intimacy) and what cannot (i.e., emotional intimacy) shape jealousy responses (de Visser & McDonald, 2007). ...
Whereas sexually dimorphic evolutionary models argue for clear sex differences in responses to jealousy-evoking scenarios, social cognitive models emphasize the importance of other factors. This paper explores variables associated with responses to a commonly-used jealousy-evoking scenario in a population-representative sample. Data from 8,386 Australian men and women aged 16-69 were weighted to match the population. The results provided some support for evolutionary models among heterosexual respondents, but findings contrary to evolutionary models were found among non-heterosexual respondents. Support for social cognitive models was provided by the identification of six variables that had significant independent multivariate associations with jealousy: sex, age, education, lifetime number of partners, relationship status, and attitudes toward infidelity. The results suggest that although men and women may tend to respond differently to sexual or emotional infidelity scenarios, the anticipated experience of jealousy in each context is strongly influenced by biographical and cultural factors.
... These relationships comprise two or more individuals who explicitly agree that there is nothing morally inappropriate (i.e., condemnable; DeScioli & Kurzban, 2009 about their partner(s) having sex or falling in love with another person. Although sexual or emotional relationships with others are not prohibited within CNM relationships, individuals may still experience jealousy (Deri, 2015;Visser & McDonald, 2007), restrict their partner(s)'s extradyadic behaviors (Wosick-Correa, 2010), or otherwise engage in mate guarding (i.e., behaviors that thwart partner defection; Mogilski, Memering, Welling, & Shackelford, 2017). ...
... Extant research on how individuals within CNM relationships experience and navigate romantic jealousy (e.g., Deri, 2015;McLean, 2004;Ritchie & Barker, 2006;Visser & McDonald, 2007;Wosick-Correa, 2010) finds that CNM individuals often report experiencing jealousy, but process and manage this jealousy by communicating openly with their partner(s) about these experiences and negotiating agreements about what types of extradyadic sexual or romantic behaviors are acceptable. For example, Wosick-Correa (2010) used survey and interview data to identify variation in how CNM individuals regulate their partner's sexual behaviors, negotiate romantic boundaries, and form rules about what information is expected to be shared among partners. ...
... This policy of open information exchange may promote intimate discussion about extra-pair attractions and thereby diminish jealous anxiety. Indeed, CNM individuals report greater partner intimacy (Morrison, Beaulieu, Brockman, & Beaglaoich, 2013) and communication than monogamous individuals, and honest discussion about relationship boundaries reportedly helps CNM individuals manage feelings of jealousy (Visser & McDonald, 2007). In this way, establishing explicit consent and open discussion may dampen negative emotional or cognitive experiences that are typically associated with discovery of a partner's romantic involvement with another person or with jealous rumination. ...
Evolutionary psychological research has studied romantic jealousy extensively within monogamous relationships, but has largely ignored jealousy among partners who mutually consent to forming extra-pair relationships (i.e., consensual non-monogamy; CNM). We examined monogamous (n = 529) and CNM (n = 159) individuals’ reactions to imagining their romantic partner(s)’s extra-pair involvement. For each romantic partner, men and women completed measures of relationship jealousy and reacted to scenarios of their partner’s extra-pair emotional and sexual involvement. Scenarios prompted participants to indicate which type of involvement would be more distressing and more enjoyable. They also described whether or not participants had consented to their partner’s extradyadic relationship. Monogamous men were more distressed by a partner’s extradyadic sexual versus emotional involvement (and a partner’s emotional involvement was more enjoyable) whether the scenario was consensual or not. Monogamous women were more distressed by a partner’s emotional versus sexual involvement (and a partner’s sexual involvement was more enjoyable) for consensual, but not non-consensual, scenarios. There were no gender differences among CNM participants. Monogamous individuals reported greater emotional distress toward a partner’s imagined extradyadic involvement, whereas CNM individuals reported thinking about their partner’s extra-pair relationships more frequently. Monogamous (vs. CNM) individuals reported greater confidence that their partner would never cheat on them (i.e., enter another relationship without their consent), and CNM participants were more confident that their primary versus secondary partner would never cheat, although this effect was stronger among CNM women. Moreover, CNM participants rated that it was more important that their primary versus secondary partner did not cheat, and reported greater distress imagining that their primary versus secondary partner had cheated. Women in CNM relationships rated it more important that their partner did not cheat sexually than emotionally. Finally, we replicated previous research showing that monogamous individuals mate guard more than CNM individuals, who mate guard their primary versus secondary partner more frequently. Future directions for developing evolutionary and romantic relationship research on CNM are discussed.
... A presumption of elevated jealousy is often a reason why people do not consider consensual non-monogamy a viable alternative to monogamy (Aguilar 2013;Conley et al. 2012;LaSala 2004). Missing from this assumption however, is a consideration of the different ways in which jealousy can be conceptualised (Ritchie and Barker 2006) or worked through (De Visser and McDonald 2007) so as to minimise, or even neutralise its negative impact. Related not only to jealousy but other issues as well, those engaging in consensual non-monogamy have been found to adopt a range of communicative strategies, rules and arrangements that help their relationships function (LaSala 2004;Philpot et al. 2017;Wosick-Correa 2010). ...
... In contrast to monogamous relationships, consensual non-monogamy often includes proactive discussions around issues like jealousy -acknowledging it as a potential problem and taking active steps to address the emotion (De Visser and McDonald 2007;Robinson 1997). Giving specific examples, De Visser and McDonald (2007) describe swingers alleviating feelings of jealousy through communication, or even manipulating it so as to foster sexual arousal or excitement. ...
... In contrast to monogamous relationships, consensual non-monogamy often includes proactive discussions around issues like jealousy -acknowledging it as a potential problem and taking active steps to address the emotion (De Visser and McDonald 2007;Robinson 1997). Giving specific examples, De Visser and McDonald (2007) describe swingers alleviating feelings of jealousy through communication, or even manipulating it so as to foster sexual arousal or excitement. Using a similar approach, jealousy can also be re-contextualised through the creation of new terms such as 'compersion'-whereby someone derives pleasure from seeing (or knowing of) their partner enjoying themselves with another (Ritchie and Barker 2006). ...
Drawing on findings from interviews with 28 men and women, this study explores experiences related to communication and jealousy in mixed-sex threesomes. Findings suggest that those in relationships often experience feelings of exclusion when engaging in threesomes, although open communication is a method by which the negative effects may be mitigated. Some couples agree on particular rules during their threesomes, symbolically demonstrating the specialness of the relationship as well as protecting it from further progression into non-monogamy. Although communication appeared less important for those having threesomes when not in a relationship, it still played a role in determining participants’ use of contraception whether the threesome occurred while in a relationship or not. Study findings are contextualised using the concept of monogamism, with it being suggested that threesomes involving romantic couples can serve to help maintain institutional monogamy, rather than trouble it.
... That is, rather than hide extra-pair attractions, they acknowledge them, allowing partners to discuss and negotiate the boundaries of their relationship. Researchers and practitioners have noted that the relationship maintenance practices of CNM, such as communication and honesty about extra-pair attraction and jealousy (de Visser & McDonald, 2007;McLean, 2004), sexual health practices (Conley et al., 2012;Lehmiller, 2015;Rodrigues, Lopes, & Conley, 2019;Rodrigues, Prada, & Lopes, 2019), and friendliness among romantic partners (Al-Krenawi, 1998), may help minimize the harmful or unpleasant consequences of multipartner mating (see Mogilski et al., 2020). For example, Cohen (2016) found that those practicing CNM consider lying or withholding information to be more indicative of infidelity than extra-pair interactions that have been discussed explicitly. ...
... For example, Cohen (2016) found that those practicing CNM consider lying or withholding information to be more indicative of infidelity than extra-pair interactions that have been discussed explicitly. Open communication between partners promotes perceptions of equity in the relationship and trust in one another and commitment (Hangen et al., 2020;McLean, 2004;Moors, Matsick, & Schechinger, 2017a) is helpful in processing jealousy (de Visser & McDonald, 2007) and may help people feel more comfortable discussing the terms of their relationship agreement (e.g., Philpot et al., 2018). Brooks et al. (2021) likewise found that people practicing CNM reported using compromise and negotiation to address relationship conflict more often than those in monogamous relationships. ...
Evolutionary social science is having a renaissance. This volume showcases the empirical and theoretical advancements produced by the evolutionary study of romantic relationships. The editors assembled an international collection of contributors to trace how evolved psychological mechanisms shape strategic computation and behavior across the life span of a romantic partnership. Each chapter provides an overview of historic and contemporary research on the psychological mechanisms and processes underlying the initiation, maintenance, and dissolution of romantic relationships. Contributors discuss popular and cutting-edge methods for data analysis and theory development, critically analyze the state of evolutionary relationship science, and provide discerning recommendations for future research. The handbook integrates a broad range of topics (e.g., partner preference and selection, competition and conflict, jealousy and mate guarding, parenting, partner loss and divorce, and post-relationship affiliation) that are discussed alongside major sources of strategic variation in mating behavior, such as sex and gender diversity, developmental life history, neuroendocrine processes, technological advancement, and culture. Its content promises to enrich students’ and established researchers’ views on the current state of the discipline and should challenge a diverse cross-section of relationship scholars and clinicians to incorporate evolutionary theorizing into their professional work.
... Consensual nonmonogamy (CNM; Conley et al., 2013) is an increasingly visible practice among US adults (Barker, 2005;Ritchie, 2010). Qualitative research suggests that CNM relationships are often stable over long periods and that individuals in CNM relationships generally view their relationship practices and outcomes in positive ways (e.g., Barker, 2005;Barker & Ritchie, 2007;Cohen, 2015;de Visser & McDonald, 2007;Klesse, 2011;Sheff, 2016). There are also indications that CNM is associated with happiness, life satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction on par with monogamous relationship practices (Conley et al., 2017;Parsons et al., 2012;Fairbrother et al., 2019;Fleckenstein & Cox, 2015;Moors et al., 2017a;Morrison et al., 2013;Rubel & Bogaert, 2015) and that CNM is associated with some specific positive outcomes such as a greater likelihood of safer-sex practices (Conley et al., 2012;Lehmiller, 2015). ...
... Others did have preferences; 9 stated that they preferred poly or polyamorous, 6 stated that they preferred nonmonogamous, and 1 stated that they preferred relationship anarchist; 7 were not asked about their preferred terminology. No participants chose the term "swinger," and no participants' descriptions of their relationship practices were aligned with the practices often described using this term (i.e., extra-dyadic sexual activity in the context of emotionally exclusive dyadic relationships; Balzarini et al., 2020;de Visser & McDonald, 2007). ...
Introduction
Consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) is a form of relationship practiced by many despite widespread stigma against it. In this study, we explore evidence of strong, persistent desire for CNM among some individuals, and look for commonalities among these individuals.
Method
Between February 2019 and June 2020, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 51 US adults who had practiced CNM for between 3 and 50 years, recruited via community contacts and snowball method. Participants reported a broad diversity of sexual orientations and gender identities; 62.7% reported European/white ancestry. We conducted thematic analysis to examine evidence of strong, persistent desire for CNM and common characteristics and experiences among participants.
Results
We describe 7 sub-themes that suggest a strong desire for CNM, such as pursuing CNM early in life, experiencing difficulties in attempts at monogamy, and describing one’s desire for CNM as enduring or unchangeable. We then describe 9 characteristics and experiences that were common among participants, such as a preference for autonomy, not experiencing categorical distinctions among relationships, desiring to make life plans with multiple adults, and exposure to communities whose norms do not assume monogamy.
Conclusions
Our data indicate a pattern of desires, life choices, and self-perceptions suggesting that some individuals strongly desire and persistently pursue CNM (whereas others appear to be comfortable with both CNM and monogamy).
Policy Implications
Our results suggest that some individuals consistently desire and pursue CNM relationships, and therefore would benefit from efforts toward destigmatization and reduction of institutional disadvantage against the practice of CNM.
... This allows researchers to move away from the potentially limiting nature of one-dimensional accounts and is useful for research questions that have a strong social and relational dimension [32]. Dyadic data has previously been analysed through an IPA lens with a focus on the pair as a pair [34,35] and at a group level [36,37]. Combining these approaches, an idiographic IPA approach was applied to each transcript individually, looking for emerging themes from the shared experiences within each dyad, before each dyad's emerging themes eventually being integrated and analysed to generate superordinate themes across the group. ...
Background
Despite increasing evidence to support an overlap between autism and anorexia nervosa (AN), underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Social and sensory factors have emerged as promising targets in both autism and AN, however there remains scope to compare these differences across autistic and non-autistic experiences of AN. Drawing on dyadic multi-perspectives, this study explored experiences of social and sensory differences in autistic and non-autistic adults and their parents and/or carers.
Methods
Using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), dyadic interviews were conducted with 14 dyads, with seven autistic dyads and seven non-autistic dyads. Data analysis was subjected to a triangulation of interpretations: (1) the participants themselves; (2) a neurotypical researcher; (3) and an Autistic researcher with lived/living experience of AN.
Results
IPA identified three themes in each group, with similarities and differences between autistic and non-autistic dyads. Similar themes were identified regarding the importance of social connectedness and socio-emotional difficulties, as well a common lack of trust in the social and sensory self and body. Autism-specific themes centred on feelings of social ‘defectiveness’, disparities between sensing and expressing certain cues, and lifelong, multi-sensory processing differences. Non-autistic themes reflected social comparisons and inadequacy, and sensitivities to the learning of ideals and behaviour through early experiences.
Conclusions
While similarities were observed across both groups, there appeared to be notable differences in the perceived role and influence of social and sensory differences. These findings may have important implications on the delivery and modification of eating disorder interventions. Specifically, they suggest that while treatment targets may look similar, subtle differences in underlying mechanisms and approaches may be required for Autistic individuals with AN across sensory, emotion and communication-based interventions.
... However, those results do not indicate any relation between actual feelings of compersion and attachment styles. Some ndings indicated that CNM people report relationship bene ts similar to those reported by secure individuals (Barker, 2005;Bonello & Cross, 2010;de Visser & McDonald, 2007). Other researchers (Balzarini et al., 2017; found that people engaged in CNM report high-quality relationships, open communication, honesty, trust, intimacy, and less jealousy, qualities linked to a secure attachment style (Feeney, 2008). ...
Compersion is a positive emotion experienced in relation to one's partner's relationship(s) with other partner(s). Experiencing it is highly desired in communities practicing consensual non-monogamy (CNM), especially polyamory. This article presents the results of a study on compersion on Polish CNM individuals. The main goal of the study was to adapt to the Polish speaking population the COMPERSe (Classifying Our Metamour/Partner Emotional Response Scale; Flicker et al., 2021), the rst standardized quantitative scale designed to measure compersion. The analyzes were performed on data obtained from 211 individuals in CNM relationships and on comparative group of 169 people in monogamous relationships. The results of the factor analyzes suggested that the 3-factor model of the original COMPERSe version did not t well, leading to further revisions that resulted in a 7-item, 2-factor solution with excellent t, excellent internal consistency, strong divergent and convergent validity, and excellent test-retest stability. The CNM individuals were found to have higher scores on compersion and cognitive empathy and were also less jealous than the monogamous participants. Furthermore, polyamorous individuals experienced more compersion and less aversion to partner's autonomy than people in open relationships. It was also revealed that compersion indirectly predicted relationship satisfaction by decreasing jealousy and that compersion was, in turn, predicted by cognitive empathy. However, when polyamorous and open relationships were analyzed separately, compersion predicted relationship satisfaction directly, but only in polyamorous relationships; meanwhile, in open relationships, satisfaction was directly predicted by cognitive empathy.
... Qualitative studies of various CNM relationships report low degrees of jealousy (e.g., Barker, 2005;Bonello & Cross, 2009;De Visser & McDonald, 2007). Jealousy has a biological basis in motivating protection of interpersonal relationships against perceived threats (Mogilski et al., 2019). ...
This study used a mixed methods design to explore characteristics associated with attitudes towards counselling, and perceived priorities for therapists, among consensually non-monogamous (CNM) adults. Data were collected via an anonymous online survey from an international sample of 318 adults currently or previously interested or engaged in CNM. There were small to medium significant and positive correlations between accepting attitudes of CNM and both attitudes towards seeking counselling (ρ = .19, p = .003) and self-reported likelihood to seek relationship/partners/couples therapy for CNM-related concerns (ρ = .12, p = .029). There were no significant correlations between accepting attitudes of CNM and self-reported likelihood to seek individual therapy (ρ = .09, p = .114) or family therapy (ρ = .04, p = .514) for CNM-related concerns. Reflexive thematic analysis suggested (a) it is helpful for therapists to be non-judgmental, non-directive, and familiar with CNM; (b) it is unhelpful for therapists to pathologize CNM, be dismissive, or make assumptions; (c) it is important to consider attachment theory, how each relationship is unique, other types of diversities, and access to CNM-affirmative therapy; and (d) possible reasons for seeking therapy include concerns not related to CNM, discrimination and stigma, changes in relationships, communication issues, and issues regarding relationship quality. The results were integrated to assess convergence, and discussed. The results are formatted into two manuscripts: an empirical article and a summary of implications. There are numerous practical steps therapists can take to better support CNM clients, and reduce barriers they face when seeking counselling.
... Anecdotal evidence supports the existence of negotiated nonmonogamous sexual relationships among married couples in Western societies (Jamieson, 2014). Similarly, there is negotiated sexual nonmonogamy among "swinging" couples in these societies (De Visser & McDonald, 2007). In addition to existence of nonmonogamous relationships among heterosexual partners, some homosexual couples also report negotiated nonmonogamous sexual relationships (LaSala, 2004). ...
This chapter highlights the variations and diversity of human mating systems and cultural differences and similarities in the nature of and attitudes toward infidelity. Altogether, this chapter reviews and shows what is constituted as infidelity in one culture might not necessarily be considered as infidelity in another culture. While there has been some cross-cultural research to evaluate differences and similarities across societies and populations in infidelity, the literature still lacks proper research on what is considered as infidelity in different cultures, societies, and traditions. The current issues of research such as lack of diversity, (i.e., sample limitation to heterosexual, middle-to-upper-class, white, undergraduate students, from Western and industrialized societies, majority from the United States) are noted. Moreover, this chapter argues that the intense interest among behavioral researchers in identifying a universal sex difference in distress over sexual and emotional aspects of infidelity has resulted in neglect of exploring the nature of infidelity and the cultural variations in the attitudes toward infidelity. Finally, by signifying a limited research that employed a behavioral ecological approach, this chapter calls for cross-cultural research based on a behavioral ecological approach on cultural differences and similarities in the nature of infidelity.
... For example, polyamorous individuals have multiple partners and agree to not have exclusive access to them. However, studies have found that although people in polyamorous relationships experience jealousy, it is more manageable than jealousy in monogamous relationships (de Visser & McDonald, 2007), and that the frequency of jealousy in polyamorous relationships is actually lower than in monogamous relationships (Pines & Aronson, 1981). Therefore, it is important to remember that, although having exclusive access to one partner matters for the majority of people, it is not important for everyone. ...
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91861/1/lritchie.pdf
... Though many CNM individuals report high levels of relational well-being (Conley, Mastick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017;Conley, Piemonte, Gusakova, & Rubin, 2018;de Visser, & McDonald, 2007;Mitchell, Bartholemew & Cobb, 2014;Moors, Conley, Edelstein, & Chopik, 2015;Morrison, Beaulieu, Brockman, & O'Beaglaoich, 2013;Muise, Laughton, Moors, & Impett, 2019b;Séguin et al., 2016;Wood, Desmarais, Burleigh, & Milhausen, 2018), stigma and negative portrayals of CNM relationships persist (Conley et al., 2013a, b;Rubel & Bogaert, 2014;Séguin, 2019). It is often assumed that CNM individuals are motivated solely by the desire for "promiscuous" sex, to "fix" a problematic relationship, or because they are mentally unwell (Rubel & Bogaert, 2014;Samuels, 2010). ...
Sexual, romantic, and intimate relationships provide opportunities for individual and interpersonal fulfillment and the enhancement of well-being. Though research has identified that consensual non-monogamy (CNM) offers unique relational benefits, little work has examined why individuals pursue CNM relationships. Both self-determination theory and self-expansion theory provide frameworks for understanding the range of intra- and interpersonal motives for choosing or negotiating a multipartnered relationship. We explored the reasons for which people engage in CNM and discuss how motivations for CNM might be linked to well-being and need fulfillment. Our study used a qualitative approach to examine the motivations individuals report for engaging in CNM relationships. As part of a larger online survey, participants completed open-ended questions examining motivations for, and experiences of, CNM relationships. Data from participants who indicated that they were currently in a CNM partnership was selected for the analyses (n = 540). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, within a critical realist framework. Motivations were organized into six interconnected themes: reasons related to autonomy, beliefs and value systems, relationality, sexuality, growth and expansion, and pragmatism. Individuals reported diverse reasons for engaging in CNM relationships; reasons addressed both individual and relational needs and well-being. Findings contrast with stereotypic views of CNM relationships as unstable/unfulfilling or that individuals engage in CNM because of relationship problems. The findings may facilitate therapeutic interventions for counselors working with individuals who are in the process of negotiating or re-negotiating relationship boundaries.
... Numerous studies have examined people's experiences of jealousy and the verbal reactions which they adopt to manage these feelings of jealousy (Wegner et al., 2018). A generally accepted jealousy management from a discursive perspective has not yet been advanced, and therefore linguists, psychologists and sociologists have approached jealousy management from a number of different perspectives, including a psychological approach (Choudhary and Thapa, 2012;Kellett and Totterdell, 2013;Thompson et al., 2017), a sociological approach (De Visser and McDonald, 2007;Ellis and Weinstein, 1986), an anthropological approach (Mogilski et al., 2019;Quinn et al., 2018;Vecchio, 2000) and a pragmatic approach (Kizelbach, 2013). Since jealousy is a common phenomenon in psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic research, the study of jealousy management is widespread in psychology and sociology. ...
Existing studies stop short of discussing how jealousy can be managed in Chinese-speaking contexts by adopting a discursive approach. This paper aims to examine how jealousy management is interactionally realized in Chinese-speaking contexts, how jealousy management contributes to (dis)harmonious interpersonal rapport management in Chinese scenarios, and how rapport-oriented jealousy management intersects with face/(im)politeness toward responses elicited by jealousy. Discourse analysis indicates that jealousy management, as a complex interactional practice, succeeds in achieving harmonious interpersonal relations through inclusion-oriented discourse (e.g., silence and topic-shift), and control-oriented discourse (e.g., self-deprecation and others-approbation), whereas affection-oriented discourse (e.g., induction and counterattack) leads to disharmonious interpersonal relations. We propose that the various interactional practices that are undertaken by interlocutors when managing jealousy reflect that politeness is closely linked to jealousy, interpersonal behavior, and (dis)harmony orientation. It is hoped that this study will demonstrate how, in Chinese communication contexts, jealousy management has implications for interpersonal communication.
... Transgression from heteronormativity involves temporary and not usually deliberate departure. A couple, for example, may occasionally enjoy 'swinging' relationships where they have sexual relations with other partners, without this challenging their otherwise conventionally heterosexual relationship in which they privilege emotional connection to each other (Visser and McDonald 2007). ...
Internet Dating deals primarily with the experiences of UK and Australian daters, examining their online accounts to see what kinds of narratives, norms, emotions and 'chemistry' shape their dating. Has the emergence and growth of internet dating changed the dating landscape for the better? Most commentators, popular and academic, ask whether online dating is more efficient for individuals than offline dating. We prefer a socio-political perspective. In particular, the book illustrates the extent to which internet dating can advance gender and sexual equality. Drawing on the voices of internet daters themselves, we show that internet dating reveals how social change often arises in the unassuming, everyday and familiar. We also pay attention to often ignored older daters and include consideration of daters in Africa, Scandinavia, South America, Asia and the Middle East. Throughout, we explore the pitfalls and pleasures of men and women daters navigating unconventional directions towards more equitable social relations.
... Considering relationship type, we showed that individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships report lower jealousy levels than single and monogamous individuals, and also lower sexual than emotional jealousy. This indicates that in their relationships nonmonogamous individuals are more concerned with emotional bond while they negotiate extra-pair sexuality, and jealousy can even be transformed into sexual arousal toward the partner (De Visser & McDonald, 2007). Still, some degree of sex difference in sexual versus emotional jealousy was maintained, although it did not reach statistical significance among CNM men and women (see Mogilski et al., 2019, for similar results). ...
Jealousy is supposed to secure the relationship against a third party. Both partners face significant potential costs in case of the partner desertion caused by an extra-pair liaison. However, studies systematically find higher emotional and overall jealousy among women. Interestingly, sex differences in jealousy do not appear among non-heterosexual or consensually non-monogamous (CNM) individuals. We aimed to investigate effect of gender, sexual orientation and type of relationship on several measures of jealousy. A large Brazilian sample of 5,230 men and women (Mage = 28.3) responded to demographic questions, relationship status and type, Reactive Jealousy Scale, Sexual Jealousy Scale, Self-reported Jealousy, and the Kinsey Scale of Sexual Orientation. Participants were classified as singles (N = 2,253, 43%), those in monogamous (N = 2,578, 49%) and CNM relationships (N = 400, 8%). Women reported higher overall and emotional jealousy than men, but these sex differences did not apply to non-heterosexuals or CNM individuals. CNM individuals reported lower overall and sexual jealousy. This supports the notion that specific individual (e.g., gender, sexual orientation) and social (e.g., relationship status and type) factors influence the psychological trait of jealousy.
... Sexual ethics within CNM communities, including effective birth control methods, may help manage and diminish the traditional costs of competitive, high-risk, promiscuous mating environments. CNM individuals take precautions to attenuate distress caused by a partner's extradyadic involvement (Jackson and Scott, 2004;McLean, 2004;Visser and McDonald, 2007). Those in CNM relationships are just as (or more) likely to practice safe sexual practices than people in monogamous relationships (Conley et al., 2012(Conley et al., , 2013bLehmiller, 2015). ...
Life history theory (LHT) predicts that individuals vary in their sexual, reproductive, parental, familial, and social behavior according to the physical and social challenges imposed upon them throughout development. LHT provides a framework for understanding why non-monogamy may be the target of significant moral condemnation: individuals who habitually form multiple romantic or sexual partnerships may pursue riskier, more competitive interpersonal strategies that strain social cooperation. We compared several indices of life history (i.e., the Mini-K, the High-K Strategy Scale, pubertal timing, sociosexuality, disease avoidance, and risk-taking) between individuals practicing monogamous and consensually non-monogamous (CNM) romantic relationships. Across several measures, CNM individuals reported a faster life history strategy than monogamous individuals, and women in CNM relationships reported earlier pubertal development. CNM individuals also reported more social and ethical risk-taking, less aversion to germs, and greater interest in short-term mating (and less interest in long-term mating) than monogamous individuals. From these data, we discuss a model to explain how moral stigma toward non-monogamy evolved and how these attitudes may be mismatched to the modern environment. Specifically, we argue that the culture of sexual ethics that pervades contemporary CNM communities (e.g., polyamory, swinging) may attenuate risky interpersonal behaviors (e.g., violent intrasexual competition, retributive jealousy, partner/child abandonment, disease transmission) that are relatively more common among those who pursue multi-partner mating.
... In an analysis of CNM research, Barker and Langdridge (2010) identified several themes within the literature, such as a tendency for research to polarize monogamy and CNM as either overtly positive or negative. For example, research in this area often critiques monogamy as inherently patriarchal and capitalist, or natural and healthy while presenting CNM as a display of agency and liberty, or alternatively as an act of infidelity or deviance (Barker & Langdridge, 2010;De Visser & McDonald, 2007;Heaphy, Donovan, & Weeks, 2004;Jackson & Scott, 2004;Mint, 2010;Munson & Stelboum, 1999;Phillips, 2010). ...
This study considered the connection among aspects of emerging adults’ identities and their relational and sociosexual orientations as well as their attitudes toward consensual non-monogamy (CNM). Results indicate significant relationships among individuals’ collective and social identity aspects, as dictated in the AIQ-IV, and how emerging adults label their relational orientations (e.g., strictly monogamous, monogamish, open, and polyamorous). Additionally, findings demonstrate that the salience/importance of social categories, roles, and reputations in one’s identity is associated with how individuals choose to label their relational orientation, their attitudes toward non-monogamy, and their orientation toward uncommitted sex (sociosexual orientation). Discussion, implications, and future directions follow.
... 60 Conley et al. also cite a case study of a small group and a meta-study about extradyadic jealousy. 61,62 Both hold that jealousy remains in non-monogamous relationships, but that it tends to be more manageable. As Bringle and Buunk note, "jealousy is a persistent phenomenon, even in couples who are open to extra-marital relationships". ...
Harry Chalmers argues that monogamy involves restricting one’s partner’s access to goods in a morally troubling way that is analogous to an agreement between partners to have no additional friends. Chalmers finds the traditional defenses of monogamy wanting, since they would also justify a friendship-restricting agreement. I show why three traditional defenses of monogamy hold up quite well and why they don’t, for the most part, also justify friendship-restricting agreements (and why it doesn’t seem to matter when they do). In many cases, monogamy can be justified on grounds of practicality, specialness, or jealousy.
... Although as many as 20% of individuals engage in open sexual relationships at some point in their lives (Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher, & Garcia, 2016), the reality of maintaining a healthy relationship with a nonmonogamous relationship structure can be challenging (Denfeld, 1974). Such couples must navigate the introduction of new sexual partners into their relationships in the context of a monogamy-focused culture, and would need to protect one another from possible feelings of jealousy and the judgment of others (e.g., Denfeld, 1974;De Visser & Mcdonald, 2007). Although previous work in this area (see Barker & Langdridge, 2010;Moors, Matsick, & Schechinger, 2017;Rubel & Bogaert, 2015 for reviews) has provided a foundation for understanding how non-traditional relationship structures can potentially benefit and harm romantic relationships, it has been limited by discrepancies in how these relationship structures are assessed and categorized across studies. ...
To gain insight into the mixed findings surrounding Consensual Nonmonogamy (CNM), this study developed the Triple-C model of commitment, conceptualizing relationship structures with three key dimensions: mutual consent, communication, and comfort. Latent profile analyses in an online sample (N = 1,658) identified five classes of relationship structures: two monogamous groups (68%; representing earlier- and later-stage relationships), CNM relationships (7.7%, marked by low interest in monogamy and high levels of mutual consent, comfort, and communication around commitment and EDSA), partially-open relationships (13%, with more mixed attitudes toward monogamy and lower consent, comfort, and communication), and one-sided EDSA relationships (11%, in which one partner desires monogamy while the other partner engages in EDSA with low levels of mutual consent, comfort, and communication). The monogamous and CNM groups demonstrated high levels of relationship and individual functioning, whereas the partially-open and one-sided nonmonogamous groups demonstrated lower functioning. These findings highlight the diversity of nonmonogamy that likely exists within self-report classifications like “swingers” and “open relationships,” providing a possible explanation for the mixed findings in previous work. Decision tree analyses identified a 4-item algorithm (COMMIT4) that classifies individuals into these groups with 93% accuracy, offering a tool for incorporating relationship structure diversity in future work.
... For example, opposite-gender couples organize housework or childcare in less equitable ways than same-gender couples do (Kurdek, 2005;Patterson, 1995), and are less able to combine non-monogamy with intimacy and relationship longevity (McWhirter & Mattison, 1984;Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Further, individuals in consensual non-monogamous relationships have been found to manage jealousy in creative and innovative ways (De Visser & McDonald, 2007) and communicate more with their romantic partners (Ho, 2006). Research has suggested that consensual non-monogamy provides opportunities for couples to deconstruct the concepts of love and commitment and redefine them in more creative ways (Gould, 1999). ...
Since 1970, research on romantic relationships has burgeoned, but its theories and methods were shaped by a heteronormative cultural context. Heteronormativity is an ideology that implicitly holds that heterosexuality is, and should be, the only, dominant, or taken-for-granted sexuality for all. The movement towards sexual equality, particularly legal recognition of equal marriage, now allows psychologists to investigate romantic love in a more equal manner than ever before. To orient psychology towards less heteronormative theories of love, we make explicit how researchers in the past have (a) defined love and relationships as heterosexual, (b) presumed heterosexual patterns of love generalize to all, (c) used methodologies that introduce heterosexual bias, and (d) located differences in same-gender couples rather than between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. We conclude with recommendations on how critical thinking at all stages of research can make the difference between heteronormative and inclusive research on romantic love and relationships.
... When the MF literature is discussed alongside that on MSM or gay men, it becomes easier to see the different research trajectories that have evolved due to disciplinary idiosyncrasies, theoretical preoccupations, or historical factors that impact the questions that researchers ask. Meunier et al. (2018), for example, pointed out that "although the literature on heterosexual swingers has often looked at how couples negotiate committed relationships and collective sex (de Visser & McDonald, 2007;Harviainen & Frank, 2016), little has been done in the same vein for gay men." On the other hand, the MF swinger literature repeatedly tackles questions about jealousy and power relationships between men and women, while barely acknowledging how physical environments or atmospheric influences shape sexual practices. ...
... The phenomenon is also located within the accounts of other people who belong to the "lived world" of the person with the diagnosis, such as his or her partner, children, friends, and colleagues. A number of studies (on topics as diverse as experiencing psychiatric hospitalisation, interpreting genetic tests, understanding foster placement breakdown, coping with Parkinson's disease, and participating in nonmonogamous relationships) have used IPA to explore complex experiences from more than one perspective (e.g., see Dancyger et al. 2010;Rostill-Brookes et al. 2011;Smith & Shaw 2016;de Visser & McDonald 2007). Our aim here is to show how an overarching view of these innovative studies can open up new ways of thinking about the potential of IPA research. ...
Researchers using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) within applied research typically use homogenous samples exploring shared perspectives on a single phenomenon of interest. This article explores the challenges and opportunities involved with developing rigorous and epistemologically coherent research designs for capturing more complex and systemic experiential phenomena, through the use of multiple perspectives to explore the same phenomenon. We outline a series of multiple perspective designs and analytic procedures that can be adapted and used across many diverse settings and populations. Whilst building upon existing approaches within qualitative methods and IPA, these designs and procedures are intended to scaffold clear routes to practical application, psychological intervention, the design of behaviour change interventions, and other recommendations for policy and practice. We discuss a variety of conceptual antecedents which situate these designs within phenomenology, pluralistic idiography, qualitative psychology, and wider debates within psychology and other social and behavioural sciences.
... CNM appears to carry unique bene ts that are less common in monogamy, including sexual variety, large social networks, feelings of compersion (an emotion described as the opposite of jealousy), and personal growth (Schechinger & Moors, 2014). Moreover, individuals in CNM relationships report that they are happy, satis ed, committed, and in love (de Visser & McDonald, 2007;Jenks, 1985;Ritchie & Barker, 2006). However, CNM is certainly not without challenges, especially given the fear of stigmatization based one's non-normative relationship . ...
"Admit it: We have crushes, we have sexual fantasies, and sometimes we want to act on them—even when those crushes and fantasies aren’t about our current romantic partner. Most of the time, we ignore these crushes and our fantasies go unfulfilled. For some, cheating seems like an option. However, for others, it is totally okay to pursue these crushes and fantasies outside a relationship. Welcome to the emerging movement to rewrite the rules of romance: consensual non-monogamy."
... Although swingers, like other practitioners of consensual nonmonogamy, may be less likely to experience jealousy (Jenks, 1998), the management of emotions among swinging couples likely requires careful intention and communication. In one of the few explicit studies on swinging since Jenks's (1998) review, de Visser andMcDonald (2007) studied the management of jealousy among four active heterosexual swinging couples in England. Through in-depth couple and individual interviews, they discovered specific strategies couples used to manage their emotions. ...
Recognition of sexual and gender diversity in the 21st century challenges normative assumptions of intimacy that privilege heterosexual monogamy and the biological family unit, presume binary cisgender identities, essentialize binary sexual identities, and view sexual or romantic desire as necessary. We propose a queer paradigm to study relationship diversity grounded in seven axioms: intimacy may occur (1) within relationships featuring any combination of cisgender, transgender, or nonbinary identities; (2) with people of multiple gender identities across the life course; (3) in multiple relationships simultaneously with consent; (4) within relationships characterized by consensual asymmetry, power exchange, or role-play; (5) in the absence or limited experience of sexual or romantic desire; (6) in the context of a chosen rather than biological family; and (7) in other possible forms yet unknown. We review research on queer relational forms, including same-sex relationships; relationships in which one or more partners identify as transgender, gender nonbinary, bisexual, pansexual, sexually fluid, “mostly” straight, asexual, or aromantic; polyamory and other forms of consensual nonmonogamy; kink/fetish relationships; and chosen families. We argue that a queer paradigm shifts the dominant scientific conception of relationships away from the confines of normativity toward an embrace of diversity, fluidity, and possibility.
... Presumably, by having established clear boundaries regarding their extradyadic interactions, individuals who decide to move forward with this new relationship agreement are also motivated to stay together because of their dedication and dependence (i.e., attraction forces), and not because they feel constrained by external or internal barriers (e.g., psychological contract or obligation to stay with the partner) that prevents relationship ending. Hence, for these individuals, relationship quality together with sexual satisfaction (both with the primary and with extradyadic partners) may be the main driving forces behind relationship quality and well-being (Velten & Margraf, 2017) and ultimately in the decision to maintain the relationship (see also de Visser & McDonald, 2007). ...
Research has typically shown that unrestricted sociosexuality is negatively associated with relationship quality and that relationship quality is positively associated with quality of life (QoL). However, these findings may be restricted to individuals in monogamous relationships, especially those with prior extradyadic interactions (i.e., non-consensual non-monogamous; NCNM). Indeed, individuals in consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships have more unrestricted sociosexuality and are also more satisfied with and committed to their relationships. Still, little research has examined whether both relationship agreements are associated differently with attraction forces (wanting to be) and constraining forces (having to be) in the relationship and how they are related to QoL. We conducted a cross-sectional study with 373 heterosexuals (73.2% men, Mage = 41.15, SD = 10.18) registered on Second Love, a dating Web site for romantically involved individuals. Results showed differences in the hypothesized model, according to relationship agreement. For individuals in CNM relationships, unrestricted sociosexuality was associated with stronger attraction forces, which were then associated with greater QoL. The opposite pattern was found for those in NCNM relationships. Furthermore, and regardless of relationship agreement, unrestricted sociosexuality was associated with weaker constraining forces, which were associated with greater QoL. These results make a novel contribution to the literature on relationship agreements and how they relate to QoL.
... Although not synonymous with polyamory, relational partners who swing, a consensually extradyadic romantic practice, also manage experiences of jealousy. Qualitative research on four swinging couples in England found that they did not seek to eliminate the experience of jealousy, but instead emphasized managing the feelings of jealousy to encourage satisfying sexual relationships (Visser & McDonald, 2007). This demonstrates that people with multiple consensual sexual partners may also need to discursively manage the emotional experience of jealousy in ways they consider constructive for their relationship(s). ...
This paper presents a qualitative analysis of 423 open-ended survey responses from 141 individuals involved in polyamorous intimate partnerships. Grounded in literature on jealousy and polyamory, this analysis offers a reinforcement and extension of romantic jealousy. Participants described how jealousy is conceptualized and discussed within polyamorous relationships. Conceptualizations of jealousy primarily involved jealousy as an umbrella term for insecurity, possessiveness, or needs not being met. Participants discuss jealousy within the context of partner agreements to add or remove another partner, to explicitly seek validation and acknowledgment, and less frequently meeting negative reactions. Importantly, results indicate that within polyamorous relationships, feelings of jealousy are usually communicated, and for the purpose of seeing affirmation and validation, not with the goal of behavior change.
... More recently, public sex with strangers has been documented in toilets, bathhouses and saunas, primarily constituting sexual relations between gay men (Humphreys 1975;Church et al. 1993;Frankis & Flowers 2005;Keogh and Holland 1999). Other forms of sexual practices, such as swinging and polyamory, have been explored within domestic and heterosexual relationship contexts (de Visser and McDonald 2007;Heckert 2010;Klesse 2014). Interestingly, dogging attracts much media attention, with news reports often framing it in terms of perversion, risk and danger (Hennelly 2010). ...
Whilst online dating has witnessed a dramatic rise in popularity as a form of dating, the incredibly fast rise of mobile applications points to a new method of relationship initiation. This chapter explores the accounts of 15 heterosexual young men aged 18–24. Using Tinder as a case study, this chapter argues that the affordances of the app create the possibilities of how mobile romance is experienced. The chapter begins by documenting these affordances that include Spatial Blurring , the Democratization of dating, Multimodal dating and Accelerated Elongated dating. The chapter then explores the interplay between these affordances and masculinity, first by highlighting how patriarchal norms become articulated through the marketization and gamification of dating and second, by exploring young men’s management of dating failure through self-sabotage and effortless achievement, personal branding and Facebook stalking. The chapter concludes by arguing that Tinder and mobile dating apps more broadly are relatively new practices and that young men and women will continue to learn how to use them and continue to develop their impact on gender relations.
... More recently, public sex with strangers has been documented in toilets, bathhouses and saunas, primarily constituting sexual relations between gay men (Humphreys 1975;Church et al. 1993;Frankis & Flowers 2005;Keogh and Holland 1999). Other forms of sexual practices, such as swinging and polyamory, have been explored within domestic and heterosexual relationship contexts (de Visser and McDonald 2007;Heckert 2010;Klesse 2014). Interestingly, dogging attracts much media attention, with news reports often framing it in terms of perversion, risk and danger (Hennelly 2010). ...
At a time when traditional dating practices are being replaced with new ways to meet potential partners, this book provides fresh insights into how are men responding to new ways of dating. Drawing upon original research, this book examines a wide range of contemporary dating practices that includes speed dating, holiday romances, use of dating apps, online sex seeking and dogging. It reveals the ways in which men draw upon traditional models of masculinity to negotiate these changes; but also, the extent to which men are responding by elaborating new masculinities. Through an investigation of the dynamics of heterosexuality and masculinity, this book highlights the importance attached to authenticity, and the increasing marketization and commodification of dating. It argues that in a post-truth world, men must also come to terms with a post-trust dating landscape. Combining rich empirical material with keen theoretical analysis, this innovative work will have interdisciplinary appeal for students and scholars of sociology, media studies, cultural studies, and gender studies.
... More recently, public sex with strangers has been documented in toilets, bathhouses and saunas, primarily constituting sexual relations between gay men (Humphreys 1975;Church et al. 1993;Frankis & Flowers 2005;Keogh and Holland 1999). Other forms of sexual practices, such as swinging and polyamory, have been explored within domestic and heterosexual relationship contexts (de Visser and McDonald 2007;Heckert 2010;Klesse 2014). Interestingly, dogging attracts much media attention, with news reports often framing it in terms of perversion, risk and danger (Hennelly 2010). ...
Drawing upon the semi-structured interviews with 15 men aged 30–54, this chapter explores men’s experiences of speed dating. Beginning with theories of partner choice, the chapter engages with the ways that men navigate speed dating events by focusing on their anxiety and vulnerability. This provides a pretext for the articulation and demonstration of particular speed dating masculinities. On the one hand, there are men who take up a predatory heterosexual script. On the other, there are men who use speed dating events as a means to find a long-term partner. Interestingly, men looking for partners make up the majority of those who attending speed dating. Such men had a number of strategies that they would draw upon to choose a potential partner, or in their words, ‘the right kind of woman’. These strategies involved reviewing and evaluating women’s appearance and manner and establishing whether the women that they were meeting were ‘telling the truth’. Thus, men would use such strategies to evaluate the quality of the date. The chapter concludes by suggesting that although men in this sample tended to hold onto traditional gendered attitudes, it was clear that the speed dating event exacerbated men’s insecurities and anxieties.
... The risks that gay men perceive when going to a sex party include those of being turned away at the door, of not being able to find sex partners, or of being excluded from social interactions (experiences that further carry psychological risks). Further, although the literature on heterosexual swingers has often looked at how couples negotiate committed relationships and collective sex (de Visser & McDonald, 2007;Harviainen & Frank, 2016), little has been done in the same vein for gay men. There is an emerging literature on gay men's non-monogamous arrangements (Adam, 2006;Mitchell et al., 2016;Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, & Grov, 2012;Philpot et al., 2017), but we still have much to learn about how they try to reconcile relationship desires with the sexual adventurousness provided by collective sex culture. ...
In this commentary to Frank’s (2018) Target Article, we further emphasize the importance of rethinking risk, taking gay men’s collective sex practices in New York City as example. Although we agree with Frank that, in the abstract, collective sex is not inherently riskier than dyadic sex in private, we believe the extant literature and existing interventions have not paid enough attention to the specific context and features of sex in collective environments. We identify four areas needing more attention in public health research on collective sex: a) situating HIV risk practices in their specific historical, structural, legal, and cultural context; b) paying attention to other forms of risk than HIV; c) theorizing group sex as group behavior; and d) paying more attention to intraventions (i.e., forms of sexual health promotions emerging from within collective sex cultures).
... Limited quantitative data with swinging couples support this conclusion. For example, swinging couples expressed that being able to engage in swinging with their partner increased their sexual fulfillment (de Visser & McDonald, 2007). In older research, swingers reported more liberal sexual attitudes and believed they were more satisfied with their sex lives than non-swingers (Dixon, 1984(Dixon, , 1985Jenks, 1985). ...
Monogamous individuals are believed to have better sex lives than those who are consensually non-monogamous (CNM). We compared the sexual satisfaction of CNM and monogamous individuals and also considered the relationship satisfaction of participants utilizing a non-targeted sample of CNM participants. We found that monogamous people reported slightly lower sexual satisfaction and lower orgasm rates than those who are CNM. Moreover, the type of CNM in which a person engages is important: swingers consistently reported higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous individuals, whereas those in open relationships had equivalent levels of satisfaction to those in monogamous relationships. Relationship satisfaction did not differ between CNM and monogamous groups. These findings do not support the perception that people in monogamous relationships have better sex than CNM individuals.
The last literature review on swingers was written by Richard J. Jenks in 1998, and for the past 25 years, no review has been published with a focus solely this group. Some individual studies have analysed swinging together with other consensual non-monogamies, while other research has looked at swinging in the context of sexual health. This paper presents early and recent literature on swinging, highlighting some of the directions taken in swinger research, and addressing the challenges of finding a theoretical framework suitable to explain swingers, swinger settings, and swinging.
Although there is abundant research regarding group sex between men, much of the current literature constructs group sex as homogenous and overlooks the nuance of how and why men engage in particular sexual behaviors. Accordingly, this research expands our understanding of group sex by focusing on a specific type of sex: the threesome. The results demonstrate how perspectives on threesomes may develop over time; at first appearing exciting before becoming relatively normalized and indistinct from dyadic sex. Encounters and exposure are fostered through the sexual opportunities available, in particular, geo-social networking apps. Despite their normalization, threesomes are not necessarily viewed as risk free. Thus, this research offers insight and understanding into how gay men engage in group sex and the contextual factors which make it possible.
Studies have documented gay men’s engagement in collective sex (e.g., group sex in public or commercial environments) but little attention has been paid to these men’s relationship desires or agreements. We report on qualitative interviews with 20 gay men who attended private sex clubs in New York City, asking how participants navigated sometimes conflicting desires for collective sex and committed relationships. Participants felt that collective sex was either a) incompatible with relationships, which should be monogamous; b) complementary to a primary non-monogamous relationship; or c) at least as important as relationships. Gay men attending sex clubs attribute different value to collective sex and to committed relationships, and experience different challenges in satisfying their desires for intimacy. Resources could help gay men navigating these apparently conflicting desires and making suitable choices regarding their relationships and/or sexual agreements.
We present the results of an investigation into the biographies, letters, and archives of approximately 50 well-known figures in Western intellectual and artistic history in the post-Enlightenment era. In this article, in the interest of space, we have limited our remarks to the biographies and partners of Virginia Woolf, Frida Kahlo, Max Weber, Edna St. Vincent Millay, William Moulton Marston, Erwin Schrodinger, and Victor Hugo. While some of these non-monogamous relationships are well known, some of the evidence of their existence has been ignored, misrecognized, or intentionally obscured. The results of this survey demonstrate that contemporary patterns of non-monogamies are deeply rooted in historical precedence. Our hope is that by outlining some of the themes in our historical findings we can help modern researchers better interpret their own quantitative and qualitative research. Additionally, we look particularly closely at relationships between metamours. A great deal of previous psychological and sexological research has focused on competitive behavior in sex and relationships, particularly competition between rivals. However, relatively little attention has been given to collaborative (or symbiotic) behavior. Our research has located a wealth of examples of metamours supporting one another in material, social, and psychological ways throughout their lives. Furthermore, we suggest that while our existing societal and social-scientific norms primarily focus on competitive sexual behaviors, much can be learnt from historically documented practices of consensual non-monogamy. These practices—however flawed—point to potentially emancipatory ways of living, loving and building relationships, families, and communities—as some contemporary research has demonstrated. Moreover, a future world might benefit from a turn to far more collaborative relationships—and such behavior is well within the realm of possibility.
A comparative case-study method grounded in phenomenology with the use of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) demonstrated similarities and differences between two men’s experiences with engaging in extramarital affairs who were married to women in either a monogamous or a non-monogamous union. Despite the difference in their marital arrangements, both men were unfaithful to their wives and demonstrated similar themes in their lives, which included religious obligations, communication conflicts, loss of connection in marriage, deception, sexual restriction, absent fathers, compartmentalization of sexual behavior, guilt, and addiction. Differences included how men created boundaries, emotional connections with affair partners, power differentials, and sexual experiences.
Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) relationships have increased in recent years. CNM is likely related to sociosexual behavior and attachment yet research is limited on these predictors and the interactions between them. Participants were 140 general population adults recruited via social media. Participants completed the Experience in Close Relationships Inventory, Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, Attitudes toward CNM scale and Willingness to Engage in CNM scale. Moderation analysis was conducted using Hayes’ SPSS Process software. It was found that sociosexual behavior predicted attitudes toward CNM and this was moderated by avoidant attachment. This suggests that when individuals have low or moderate levels of avoidant attachment (i.e., are securely attached) then the relationship between sociosexual behavior and attitudes toward CNM is strengthened. It was also found that sociosexual behavior predicted willingness to engage in CNM, but anxious attachment did not moderate this relationship. Discussion includes whether secure attachment allows individuals to engage in CNM.
American culture reveres monogamy, holding it up as an ideal moral standard, as a kind of Holy Grail for intimacy, and as a cornerstone for establishing normative social interactions. Monogamy, as often practiced, also prescribes and reproduces binary and hierarchical gender relations. Given these interconnections, how do people in non-monogamous relationships conceptualize gender? To explore this question, this study examines how people experience two varied forms of non-monogamy—swinging and polyamory. A comparative analysis of data from in-depth interviews with 22 swingers and 23 polyamorists illustrates how discrediting varied aspects of monogamy can alter gender power dynamics and, under certain circumstances, substantially erode gender hierarchy.
When measurement models are not replicable and/or generalizable, clinical assessments become of questionable utility, and unreplicable findings from studies using those measures will follow. Inspired by recent examinations of measurement in neighboring fields of psychology, we propose a Registered Report, in order to evaluate the replicability and generalizability of 20 well-known and emerging measures assessing elements of romantic relationships and sexuality. After collecting a large sample of that is both sexually and relationally diverse, we will evaluate the taxometric structure, measurement model replicability, reliability, and generalizability of each measure across a multitude of theorized sources of noninvariance. Our results are likely to be of high value to clinical researchers and practitioners alike, as we identify which measures can produce credible assessments, while simultaneously revealing measures with limited replicability and/or generalizability, as well as relational and sexual concepts for which groups may have radically different mental constructions.
This study sought to examine the self-esteem of individuals involved in a consensually non-monogamous relationship, the swinging lifestyle. Utilizing the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the self-esteem of swingers was quantified and compared to a general sample. The results reveal that swingers have higher self-esteem. However, gender differences emerged in post hoc analyses whereby men who engage in swinging have higher self-esteem, but women who engage in swinging have self-esteem comparable to others. Results are discussed in terms of evolutionary and clinical importance. Limitations and future directions are also discussed.
Researchers studying consensual non‐monogamous relationships have traditionally used theoretical lenses that were based on heteronormative, monogamous couples’ experiences. An exception to these theoretical models was a grounded theory formed by Kimberly and Hans (2017) that explored how swinging relationships were initiated and maintained. This study further tests this theory by having 273 self‐identified swingers complete a quantitative, online measurement based on the model’s concepts and themes. Results further supported that theoretical model with two notable exceptions: participants disagreed with having high self‐esteem prior to entering the swinging lifestyle and that men (rather than women) screened potential partners. Nevertheless, therapists can use the measurement as a tool to guide dialogue with couples that are interested in or are currently participating in a non‐monogamous relationship.
This research aims to investigate the characteristics of the modern heterosexual swinger couple. In particular, it seeks to explain which factors influence the negotiations of the couples regarding the prevention of STDs/Aids. Swinging, also known as comarital sex, is considered one of the possible non-exclusive sexual experiences in the marital relationship. In the practice of swinging, the partners aloow, by mutual agreement, sexual intercourse involving third parties, preferably in shared rooms. The establishment of swinging as a lifestyle is the main premise of its practitioners. On the basis of ethnographic observations on swingers’ parties held in a club located in the West of the city of Rio de Janeiro, and by means of the analysis of couples’ speeches and of researches on swinging conducted in Brazil, Europe and the United States, it was possible to outline considerations concerning this group’s sociocultural peculiarities, as well as to apprehend the set of values that guide swingers. The trajectories of the subjects, since they have come upon swinging until their real engagement with this universe, are also discussed in this essay. Finally, it intends to comprehend the main aspects in the matter of the swingers’ sexual conducts – and their relations with the use or not of preventive strategies – in order to raise reflections that may contribute to the debate on prevention of STDs/Aids among swingers.
Practice theories of our equipped and situated tacit construction of participatory narrative meaning are evident in multiple disciplines from architectural to communication study, consumer, marketing and media research, organisational, psychological and social insight. Their hermeneutic focus is on customarily little reflected upon, recurrent but required, practices of embodied, habituated knowing how-from choosing 'flaw-free' fruit in a market to celebrating Chinese New Year Reunion Dining, caring for patients to social media 'voice'. In ready-to-hand practices, we attend to the purpose and not to the process, to the goal rather than its generating. Yet familiar practices both presume and put in place fundamental understanding. Listening to Asian and Western consumers reflecting-not only subsequent to but also within practices-this book considers activity emplacing core perceptions from a liminal moment in a massive mall to health psychology research. Institutions configure practices-in-practices cohering or conflicting within their material horizons, space accessible to social analysis. Practices theory construes routine as minimally self-monitored, nonetheless considering it as being embodied narrative. In research output, such generic 'storied' activity is seen as (in)formed, shaped from a shifting hierarchy of 'horizons' or perspectives-from habituated to reflective-rather than a single seamless unfolding. Taking a communication practices route disentangles and avoids conflating tacit and transformative construction of identities in qualitative research. Practices research crosses discipline. Ubiquitous media use by managers and visitors throughout a shopping mall responds to investigating not only with digital tracking expertise but also from an interpretive marketing viewpoint. Visiting a practice perspective's hermeneutic underwriting, spatio-temporal metaphorical concepts become available and appropriate to the analysis of communication as a process across disciplines. In repeated practices, 'horizons of understanding' are solidified. Emphasising our understanding of a material environment as 'equipment', practices theory enables correlation of use and demographic variable in quantitative study extending interpretive behavioural and haptic qualitative research. Consumption, Psychology and Practice Theories: A Hermeneutic Perspective addresses academics and researchers in Communication Studies, Marketing, Psychology and Social Theory, as well as university methodology courses recognising philosophy guides a discipline's investigative insight.
Sexual behaviors and other dimensions of sexuality (e.g., sexual desire, sexual satisfaction) are integral components of a special type of close relationship, the romantic pair bond. Over the years, there have been calls for more research that examines how sex influences the development, maintenance, and ending of relationships (e.g., Berscheid, 1988; Diamond, 2013; Sprecher, Christopher, & Cate, 2006). Such calls appear to have been heeded. Research that links sexuality with relationship phenomena (e.g., satisfaction, love) can be found in journals published in both the sexuality and the close relationships fields – distinct, interdisciplinary scientific areas. In fact, our literature searches led to so many empirical articles relevant to the topic of relational sex that it was challenging not only to narrow the topics but also to narrow the literature discussed within each section.
In this chapter, we introduce conceptual and theoretical issues pertinent to the study of sex within a relational context. Second, we discuss attitudes and beliefs about sex in several relational contexts ranging from casual relationships to extramarital relationships. We then discuss the ways in which sex is implicated in attraction and the development of relationships as well as the degree to which sex is predictive of and intertwined with interpersonal processes and outcomes in developed relationships. We also focus on the challenges of sexual jealousy and aggression and discuss how family and peers affect sexuality at the individual and dyadic levels. We end with suggestions for future research that can advance our understanding of sexuality in a relational context.
CITATION: Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., Regan, P., Orbuch, T., & Cate, R. M. (2018). Sexuality in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 311-326). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
This article centralizes the importance of studying touristic aspects of ‘porn cultures’ and expanding the meanings of ‘sex tourism’ to include porn culture. We do so by drawing from a survey of 481 individuals attending the 2009 Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, NV, USA. Using multivariate analyses and logistic regression, we examine how two dimensions of a relationship – relationship status (monogamous, open, or single) and travelling with your partner – affect attendees’ interests in engaging in sexualized activities outside the event: visiting a strip club, visiting a swingers club, meeting someone for sex, and paying someone for sex. Respondents who indicated they were in a non-traditional open relationship or simply not in a committed relationship were more likely to show interest in these activities. We conclude that fans’ sexualized consumption both inside and outside the expo highlights the intersections of porn and tourism.
This chapter provides an insight into the sexual world of ‘dogging’; that of anonymous sex between men, men and women usually carried out in car parks. Drawing upon interviews with 12 men who engage in dogging practices, this chapter provides insights into the micro-negotiations of the dogging encounter and men’s masculine subjectivities. The chapter begins by exploring the reasons for dogging and then details how dogging takes place. By understanding the sexual etiquette of dogging, we are able to capture the different kinds of masculinities that may be involved in negotiating the sex. However, as men in dogging encounters reject both gender and sexual identity categories, the chapter explores the notion of de-subjectification. Furthermore, with men explaining their sexual experiences through bodies and pleasure, the chapter ends by examining how men position women as being in control of the sexual encounter.
The current study constitutes a qualitative investigation of experiences with and perceptions of consensual non-monogamy (CNM) among a sample of 21 bisexual and plurisexual women with different-gender partners. Participants from Massachusetts, USA, and Toronto, Canada were interviewed four times during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Using an inductive qualitative approach, we found participants were selective about CNM disclosure, and generally apprehensive about stigma surrounding CNM involvement. Additionally, results emphasize the importance of communication, and highlight the range of barriers to and benefits of CNM endorsed by these parents. Directions for future research and implications for practitioners are discussed.
This chapter attempts a ‘thematic decomposition” of text taken from taped interviews I have conducted on the topic of jealousy with a soon-to-be-married couple, Jim and May (these are pseudonyms). It is a much condensed version of a wider research project (Stenner, 1992). A ‘thematic decomposition’ is a close reading which attempts to separate a given text into coherent themes or stories. This approach informed by the idea that discourse does not simply express or reflect meanings, rather, meanings are constructed through discourse (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). These constructions are useful and have ‘cultural currency’ inasmuch as they are social and enable a share understanding. They should not, therefore, be considered as the product of any given individual. We use and adapt stories with narrative themes which have already been arranged for us (Sarbin, 1986). Such ‘socially sedimented’ (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) stories can well thought of as trans- individual, historically localized, culturally specific formations of language-in-use. My approach is also informed by the post-structuralist concept ‘subject position’.
The concepts of agency and communion have been used to describe sex differences in vulnerability to specific stressor domains. This study examined blood pressure and heart rate responses of 60 married couples to experimental manipulations of disagreement (i.e., communion stressor) and achievement challenge (i.e., agency stressor). Consistent with predictions, disagreement elicited heightened cardiovascular reactivity among wives, but not husbands. In contrast, the achievement challenge elicited heightened cardiovascular reactivity among husbands, but not wives. Participants' responses to a circumplex measure of interpersonal appraisal were consistent with the interpretation of differential responses to agency and communion stressors. Results are congruent with a situational approach to sex differences in cardiovascular reactivity and illustrate the utility of interpersonal methods in the explication of psychosocial risk for cardiovascular disease. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Sado-masochism (SM) is described as a pathology in current psychological and psychiatric textbooks, and is often discussed alongside behaviours such as child sexual abuse and rape. Individuals who engage in SM are invariably positioned as experiencing intra-psychic conflict ameliorated through the displacement of the sexual drive. This is a limited and one-dimensional analysis of a complex phenomenon. This article presents the results of an in-depth qualitative study designed to further our understanding of the psychology of SM consistent with a social constructionist approach. Twenty-four self-identified sadomasochists, recruited through SM clubs and agencies and informal social networks, were interviewed. Thematic discourse analysis was used to generate a four-factor definition of SM: consensuality, an unequable balance of power, sexual arousal and compatibility of definition. Participants positioned SM variously as dissidence, as pleasure, as escapism, as transcendence, as learned behaviour, as intra-psychic, as pathological and as `inexplicable'. The research findings, their relevance to our understanding of SM sexualities and the limitations of the methodology and subsequent formulation, are discussed.
Two studies are presented that challenge the evidentiary basis for the existence of evolved sex differences in jealousy. In opposition to the evolutionary view, Study I demonstrated that a sex difference in jealousy resulting from sexual versus emotional infidelity is observed only when judgments are recorded using a forced-choice response format. On all other measures, no sex differences were found; both men and women reported greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity. A second study revealed that the sex difference on the forced-choice measure disappeared under conditions of cognitive constraint. These findings suggest that the sex difference used to support the evolutionary view of jealousy (e.g., D. M. Buss, R. Larsen, D. Westen, & J. Semmelroth, 1992; D. M. Buss et al., 1999) likely represents a measurement artifact resulting from a format-induced effortful decision strategy and not an automatic, sex-specific response shaped by evolution.
The study of young men's health-related behaviour offers an opportunity to examine the links between masculine identity and social behaviour. This article presents a case study of a 19-year-old man living in London, who describes himself as different to his peers on several important dimensions, including his engagement in health-related behaviours. The case study demonstrates the importance of health-related social behaviours such as drinking, drug use, physical activity, sport and sexual behaviour in the construction of a masculine identity. This case study also reveals that the way in which men position themselves in relation to different discourses of masculinity can have important implications not only for their masculine identities, but also for their health-related behaviour.
Two studies are presented that challenge the evidentiary basis for the existence of evolved sex differences in jealousy. In opposition to the evolutionary view. Study 1 demonstrated that a sex difference in jealousy resulting from sexual versus emotional infidelity is observed only when judgments are recorded using a forced-choice response format. On all other measures, no sex differences were found; both men and women reported greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity. A second study revealed that the sex difference on the forced-choice measure disappeared under conditions of cognitive constraint. These findings suggest that the sex difference used to support the evolutionary view of jealousy (e.g., D. M. Buss, R. Larsen, D. Westen, & J. Semmelroth, 1992; D. M. Buss et al., 1999) likely represents a measurement artifact resulting from a format-induced effortful decision strategy and not an automatic, sex-specific response shaped by evolution.
Objective: To describe numbers of opposite-sex partners, experiences of different heterosexual behaviours, and recent heterosexual experiences among a representative sample of Australian adults. Methods: Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed by a representative sample of 10,173 men and 9,134 women aged 16-59 years from all States and Territories. The response rate was 73.1% (69.4% among men and 77.6% among women). Results: Men reported more sexual partners than women over their lifetime, in the past five years and in the past year. 15.1% of men and 8.5% of women reported multiple sexual partners in the past year. Reporting multiple opposite-sex partners was significantly associated with being younger, identifying as bisexual, living in major cities, having a lower income, having a blue-collar occupation, and not being married. All but a handful of respondents' most recent heterosexual encounters involved vaginal intercourse and condoms were used in one-fifth of these sexual encounters. Anal intercourse was very uncommon during respondents' most recent heterosexual encounters. Conclusion: Patterns of heterosexual experience in Australia are similar to those found in studies of representative samples in other countries. Implications: There may be a need for interventions targeted at people with multiple sexual partners to promote safer sexual behaviour and to reduce the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
No review of the topic of swinging has been done in the last 20 years. This review is intended to update the literature. Studies estimating the incidence of swinging, the demographic and personality characteristics of swingers, along with how swingers are perceived by nonswingers are reviewed. Numerous theories explaining this behavior have been presented with a social psychological model being the primary focus here. Major reasons for getting involved in swinging, initiation into the lifestyle, effects on marriage, and dropping out of swinging are also covered. Finally, the literature dealing with some of the major problems with swinging, focusing on AIDS, are also discussed, along with the current state of swinging and suggestions for future research.
I. Jealous and Envious Thoughts and Feelings 1. The Emotional Experiences of Envy and Jealousy, Parrott 2. The Organization of Jealousy Knowledge: Romantic Jealousy as a Blended Emotion, Sharpsteen 3. A Cognitive Theory of Jealousy, Mathes 4. Envy and the Sense of Injustice, Smith II. The Experience of Jealousy in Close Relationships 5. Psychosocial Aspects of Jealousy: A Transactional Model, Bringle 6. Developmental Correlates of Jealousy, Clanton & Kosins 7. Jealousy in Close Relationships: An Exchange Theoretical Perspective, Buunk 8. Modes of Response to Jealousy-Envoking Situations, Bryson III. Family, Systems, and Culture in Jealousy and Envy 9. Jealousy: Its Conceptualization, Measurement, and Integration with Family Stress Theory, Hansen 10. Self, Relationship, Friends, and Family: Some Applications of Systems Perspectives to Romantic Jealousy, White 11. The Motive for the Arousal of Romantic Jealousy: Its Cultural Origin, Hupka 12. Envy and Jealousy: Self and Society, Salovey & Rothman
This report does not allow a rejection of the optimistic view of swinging, but does, however, raise some questions as to the extent of positive outcomes and portrays some of the problems associated with the consensual exchange of marriage partners. Previously, problems of swinging received little attention because only successful swingers were likely to be included in the research studies. There is also the posssibility that some swinging researchers have been 'swinging' researchers and advocates, sometimes with a missionary zeal, of swinging as a positive activity. The delineation of problems may add some balance to the understanding of swinging. It is clear from marriage counselors' reports that many couples left swinging hurt and psychologically damaged. The positive image previously presented may have encouraged couples to engage in swinging. The indications are that some couples are not emotionally capable of or prepared for swinging. Knowing these things should give pause to anyone who is inclined to recommend or imply that swinging will help a coule's marriage. The results of the reports also challenge the argument that swinging demonstrates the realization of equality of the sexes. Husbands often forced wives into swinging and wives were more dissatisfied with swinging and more frequently initiated the dropping out. Rather than being equalitarian, swinging is more likely to be a truly 'sexist' activity.
This paper introduces interpretative phenomenological analysis (PA) and discusses the particular contribution it can make to health psychology. This is contextualized within current debates, particularly in social psychology, between social cognition and discourse analysis and the significance for health psychology of such debates is considered. The paper outlines the theoretical roots of PA in phenomenology and symbolic interactionism and argues the case for a role for PA within health psychology. Discussion then focuses on one area in the health field, the patient's conception of chronic illness and research in medical sociology from a similar methodological and epistemological orientation to PA is introduced. The paper concludes with an illustration of PA from the author's own work on the patient's perception of renal dialysis.
The results of a national on-line survey of 1092 swingers are discussed. Questions from the General Social Survey are used to compare political, social, and sexual attitudes of swingers with the general population in the U.S. Measures of marital and general life satisfaction from the G.S.S. are also used to compare the groups. A preliminary attempt is also made to determine the level of childhood abuse and family dysfunction in the backgrounds of swingers. It is concluded that swingers surveyed are the white, middle-class, middle-aged, church-going segment of the population reported in earlier studies, but when it comes to attitudes about sex and marriage they are less racist, less sexist, and less heterosexist than the general population. Swinging appears to make the vast majority of swingers' marriages happier, and swingers rate the happiness of their marriages and life satisfaction generally as higher than the non-swinging population. Implications of the study and its limitations are also included.
Three studies examined possible effects of jealousy evocation and jealous expression in romantic relationships. In Study 1, we used an indirect method to examine subjects' motivations for evoking jealousy in their romantic partners. Students' attributions for ambiguous interactions suggest that jealousy evocation is goal specific and that it is primarily used for mate retention. A majority of Study 1 participants also reported that they had previously attempted to evoke jealousy in a romantic partner to accomplish relationship goals. In Study 2, we examined the expected effect of jealousy evocation, from the perspective of the jealous partner. Here, results suggest that jealousy evocation is unlikely to produce immediate relationship benefits; in fact, it seems more likely to provoke fighting between romantic partners. Finally, in Study 3, we examined the longitudinal association of jealousy with relationship stability. Although there was a positive lagged correlation between participants' partners' jealousy and relationship stability, this association was not significant when participants' prior relationship commitment was controlled. This suggests that while jealousy itself is not causally related to relationship stability, a person's reactions to their jealous partner may be.
By regarding jealousy as a discursively constituted manifold of understandings it becomes germane to explore that multiplex through pattern analysis. In the reported Q methodological study 10 orthogonal, alternative constructions of self-generated jealousy scenarios are reported and interpreted. Implications for jealousy research and the study of accounts of experience in general are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
discusses the importance of norms and rules in generating romantic jealousy / argues especially that understanding when jealousy is likely to be provoked will be facilitated by a theoretical perspective emphasizing the exchange of rewards and potential rewards in romantic relationships / suggests that Kelley's interdependence theory provides a particularly useful vantage point (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Providing an important advance, this groundbreaking volume is the first to offer a comprehensive review of modern research on romantic jealousy. It offers a conceptual framework for ordering past research, an up-to-date review of the literature from diverse sources and fields, and useful clinical strategies for practitioners and clinicians in training.
This volume concentrates on romantic jealousy, which the authors define as neither an emotion, a state of mind, nor a way of behaving, but rather as a multisystem phenomenon involving personality, relationships, culture, and perhaps biology.
The book opens by presenting a model of romantic jealousy that integrates research and clinical phenomena. It then offers analyses of several different perspectives including: sociobiological and personality approaches; ways in which relationship characteristics and dynamics contribute to jealousy; gender differences; and cultural and social factors that affect jealousy. Chapters on clinical concerns focus on violence, psychopathology, and the assessment and treatment of normal, reactive, and symptomatic jealousies. Specific strategies are provided with clinical, real-life, and cross-cultural case examples used throughout. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Four studies examined sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of rival characteristics. Study 1, among 130 undergraduates, made an inventory of all relevant rival characteristics that were spontaneously mentioned when asked about a rival to whom one's partner might feel attracted. On the basis of these findings, in Study 2, among 240 undergraduates, a questionnaire was constructed, containing 56 rival characteristics. A factor analysis distinguished five dimensions of rival characteristics, i.e. Social Dominance, Physical Attractiveness, Seductive Behaviors, Physical Dominance, and Social Status. In line with the predictions, men reported more jealousy when a rival was high in Social Dominance, Physical Dominance, and Social Status, whereas women reported more jealousy when a rival was high in Physical Attractiveness. Study 3 largely replicated these findings in a community sample of 144 heterosexuals. Study 4 showed that gay men (n = 80) reported more jealousy than lesbian women (n = 73) when the rival was high in Physical Dominance, and more jealousy than heterosexual men when the rival was high in Social Dominance. Lesbian women reported more jealousy than heterosexual women when the rival was high in Physical Attractiveness. In Studies 2–4, favorable rival characteristics evoked more jealousy among those high in Social Comparison Orientation, particularly among women. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Polyamory is an emerging sexual story that troubles mononormativity: the dominant discourse of monogamy which is reproduced and perpetuated in everyday conversation and saturates mainstream media depictions. Through an analysis of online discussions, websites and self-help books, this article explores the ways in which members of polyamorous communities construct their identities through language. We argue that the potentials of polyamory are, to some extent, constrained by the conventional mononormative language of partnerships, infidelities and jealousy. However, alternative languages are emerging which offer new discursive possibilities for the development of polyamorous identities, relationships and emotions
This essay discusses jealousy in the context of couple relationships. Jealousy in couples is a common problem encountered in therapy settings, especially in marital counselling and sex therapy. The literature on the subject is small but growing. There is a need to clarify definitional and phenomenological issues. In this essay, an attempt is made to clarify some of the these, drawing on the literature and on clinical data. A brief exploration of clinical assessment is also undertaken. Finally, a treatment strategy is proposed, and specific treatment techniques that might be considered are briefly commented on.
Several theorists have claimed that men are innately more upset by a mate's sexual infidelity and women are more upset by a mate's emotional infidelity because the sexes faced different adaptive problems (for men, cuckoldry; for women, losing a mate's resources). The present work examined this theory of jealousy as a specific innate module in 196 adult men and women of homosexual and heterosexual orientations. As in previous work, heterosexuals' responses to a forced-choice question about hypothetical infidelity yielded a gender difference. However no gender differences were found when participants recalled personal experiences with a mate's actual infidelity. Men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, on average focused more on a mate's emotional infidelity than on a mate's sexual infidelity. Responses to hypothetical infidelity were uncorrelated with reactions to actual infidelity. This finding casts doubt on the validity of the hypothetical measures used in previous research.
The specific innate modular theory of jealousy hypothesizes that natural selection shaped sexual jealousy as a mechanism to prevent cuckoldry, and emotional jealousy as a mechanism to prevent resource loss. Therefore, men should be primarily jealous over a mate's sexual infidelity and women over a mate's emotional infidelity. Five lines of evidence have been offered as support: self-report responses, psychophysiological data, domestic violence (including spousal abuse and homicide), and morbid jealousy cases. This article reviews each line of evidence and finds only one hypothetical measure consistent with the hypothesis. This, however, is contradicted by a variety of other measures (including reported reactions to real infidelity). A meta-analysis of jealousy-inspired homicides, taking into account base rates for murder, found no evidence that jealousy disproportionately motivates men to kill. The findings are discussed from a social-cognitive theoretical perspective.
To describe selected characteristics of Australian adults' regular or ongoing sexual relationships.
Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed by a representative sample of 10,173 men and 9,134 women aged 16-59 years. The overall response rate was 73.1% (69.4% men, 77.6% women). Respondents indicated how often they had sex in the past four weeks, contraceptive use, their own and their partners' expectations about having sex with other people during their relationship, whether they had discussed these expectations with their partners and whether they had an explicit agreement about sex with other people.
85.3% of men and 89.5% of women were in a regular heterosexual relationship, among whom 81.4% of men and 89.3% of women reported contraceptive use. Men and women who had a regular partner for the past 12 months had had sex with their partners an average of 1.84 times per week in the four weeks before interview; younger people had sex more often. Most respondents expected themselves and their partners to not have sex with other people, although men were less likely than women to have discussed these expectations with their partner. Bisexually identified men and women were significantly less likely than heterosexually identified men and women to support having sex only with their regular partner. Only 4.9% of men and 2.9% of women in regular heterosexual relationships had concurrent sexual partners in the past 12 months.
Australians' attitudes to not having sex with people while in a regular relationship are highly consistent with their behaviour.
To describe social attitudes towards sex of Australian adults and correlates of a scale of sexual liberalism.
Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed by a representative sample of 10,173 men and 9,134 women aged 16-59 years. The overall response rate was 73.1% (69.4% men, 77.6% women). Respondents were asked about their agreement with nine attitude statements. Factor analysis and examination of internal consistency resulted in a six-item scale of liberalism. Correlates of attitude statements and the liberalism scale were examined.
Most people agreed that premarital sex was acceptable, that oral sex was considered 'sex', that sex was important for a sense of well-being and that extramarital sex was unacceptable. Men were more likely (36.9%) to disapprove of sex between two men than women were to disapprove of sex between two women (25.1%). Higher levels of education were associated with increased liberalism for men and women, as was speaking English at home, identifying as homosexual or bisexual, vaginal intercourse before age 16, having had more than one sexual partner in the year before interview, having had heterosexual anal intercourse, having no religion or faith, smoking tobacco, and drinking more alcohol.
Sexual attitudes of Australians largely support a heterosexual paradigm with no sex outside the relationship. High levels of approval of premarital sex are consistent with decreasing age of first intercourse in Australia. Higher levels of liberalism were associated with greater sexual adventurism and health risk taking.
In three studies (total N = 619), the authors tested an evolutionary hypothesis: Men are more bothered by sexual than emotional infidelity, whereas the reverse is true of women. More diverse samples (in age) and measures than is typical were used. In Study 1, the authors found across gender, sample, and method that sexual infidelity was associated with anger and blame, but emotional infidelity was associated with hurt feelings. The evolutionary effect was replicated with undergraduates but not with the nonstudent sample. In Study 2, narrative scenarios were used; it was found that nonstudent men and women were more hurt and upset by emotional infidelity but were made angrier by sexual infidelity. In Study 3, using Likert-type scales, scenarios, and a nonstudent sample, it was found that both genders were more upset, hurt, and angrier about sexual than emotional transgressions when rating one kind without hearing the opposite type. The implications for how emotional responses evolved are discussed.
In a classic study, Buss, Larson, Westen, and Semmelroth reported that men were more distressed by the thought of a partner's sexual infidelity (sexual jealousy) and women were more distressed by the thought of a partner's emotional infidelity (emotional jealousy). Initially, Buss and his associates explained these results by suggesting that men are concerned about uncertainty of paternity, that is, the possibility of raising another man's child while believing the child is their own. However, later they explained the results in terms of men's preference for short-term sexual strategies. The purpose of this research was to test the explanation of short-term sexual strategies. Men and women subjects were instructed to imagine themselves in a relationship which was either short-term (primarily sexual) or long-term (involving commitment) and then respond to Buss's jealousy items. It was hypothesized that, when both men and women imagined a short-term relationship, they would be more threatened by a partner's sexual infidelity, and, when they imagined a long-term relationship, they would be more threatened by a partner's emotional infidelity. Support was found for this hypothesis.
This study examined relationships among couple communication, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction in 387 married couples. Regression analyses demonstrated that communication and sexual satisfaction independently predict marital satisfaction. However, there is a significant interaction between communication and sexual satisfaction; if couples are successful at communicating constructively, sexual satisfaction fails to contribute to marital satisfaction. Alternatively, if couples have difficulty communicating but are sexually satisfied, they will experience greater marital satisfaction than if they have a less satisfying sexual relationship. Thus, sexual satisfaction may partially compensate for the negative effects of poor communication on marital satisfaction.
The authors propose that gender-differentiated patterns of jealousy in response to sexual and emotional infidelity are engendered by the differential impact of each event on self-esteem for men and women. Study 1 demonstrated that men derive relatively more self-esteem from their sex lives, whereas women's self-esteem is more contingent on romantic commitment. Based on terror management theory, it is predicted that if gender-differentiated responses to infidelity are motivated by gender-specific contingencies for self-esteem, they should be intensified following reminders of mortality. In Study 2, mortality salience (MS) increased distress in response to sexual infidelity for men and emotional infidelity for women. Study 3 demonstrated that following MS, men who place high value on sex in romantic relationships exhibited greater distress in response to sexual infidelity, but low-ex-value men's distress was attenuated. The authors discuss the implications for evolutionary and self-esteem-based accounts of jealousy as well as possible integration of these perspectives.
The transformation of intimacy
- A Giddens
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge: Polity.
Sexual deviance and social networks
- B Gilmartin
Gilmartin, B. (1974). Sexual deviance and social networks. In J. Smith & L. Smith (Eds.), Beyond
monogamy (pp. 291-323). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Emotions and sexuality
- J Delamater
DeLamater, J. (1991). Emotions and sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in
close relationships (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Libertarian Alliance
- London
London: Libertarian Alliance. Available at www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin028.pdf (last accessed 1 November 2004).
The role of theory in sex research Today's alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers
- J Bancroft
- C Bergstrand
- J Williams
Bancroft, J. (Ed.). (2000). The role of theory in sex research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bergstrand, C. & Williams, J. (2000). Today's alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 3. Available at: www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/-body.htm (last accessed 1 November 2004).
Related to bigotry: The repression of swingers in early 21st century Britain. London: Libertarian Alliance
- M Roberts
Roberts, M. (2003). Related to bigotry: The repression of swingers in early 21st century Britain.
London: Libertarian Alliance. Available at www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin028.pdf
(last accessed 1 November 2004).
Mister in-between: A case study of masculine identity and health-related behaviour
- Visser
de Visser, R. & Smith, J. (2006). Mister in-between: A case study of masculine identity and healthrelated behaviour. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 685-695.
Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations
- J Bryson
Bryson, J. (1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178-207). New York: Guilford.
Sexuality London: Routledge. Jealousy among swingers
- J Weeks
Weeks, J. (2003). Sexuality (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jealousy among swingers 475
Self, relationship, friends, and family: Some applications of systems theory to romantic jealousy
- G White
White, G. (1991). Self, relationship, friends, and family: Some applications of systems theory to
romantic jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 231-251).
New York: Guilford.