Could consensual non-monogamy protect us from infidelity?

By Ekim Luo, University of Southern California

Monogamy, the default relationship model, has suffered from infidelity, perhaps due to the restrictive social rules imposed upon monogamous coupledom. Despite past research that emphasized various individual factors that contribute to infidelity, such as a lack of commitment, research must also examine the contextual factors that contribute to infidelity. Indeed, the prohibitive nature of monogamy on individual desire may prevent open discussions between partners, which may lead to a higher risk of infidelity. In response, psychologists have recently begun to examine the meaning and social implications of non-monogamous relationships. Evidence suggests that consensual non-monogamy (CNM) values open communication, acknowledges individual desire, and may be an alternative relationship model that protects couples from infidelity better. Given that the meaning of love is shaped by social values, becoming more accepting to CNM may promote the harmonious coexistence of love and individuality in coupledom.

---

Today, our idea of love is constrained and modified to fit a social utility. In the past, we were merely seekers of love, versus now we are seekers of eternal love with one person. Indeed, while love has embodied our basic need to seek social affiliation, evolving social values have shaped the meaning and practice of love. In fact, monogamous love has become so glorified that Laura Kipnis called for a conscious examination of love in the current cultural epoch (2003). Indeed, a piece of damaging evidence has confused psychologists and distraught many: monogamy frequently fails to protect couples against infidelity. Consequently, psychologists have begun to examine alternative relationship models, such as consensual non-monogamy (CNM) -- could it be more protective against infidelity? While opponents of CNM tend to attribute infidelity to individual factors including a lack of commitment and egocentrism, it is crucial to examine its contextual factors: the performative social expectations associated with monogamy tends to stifle the expression of extradyadic desires, while CNM invites open discussions within couples, allows room for individual desire, and potentially decreases the risk of infidelity.

Two assumptions underlie the case for any non-monogamous relationships: individual desire for extradyadic interactions is universal, and that monogamy is considered superior in our society. Indeed, proponents for CNM tend to cite the high frequency of infidelity and argue that monogamy is rigid, stifles desire, and dysfunctional. Yet, there are individual differences in desire, in that desire is not equally salient to everybody. In fact, assuming that all individuals may value extradyadic desire more than monogamous coupledom, which has the potential to be long-term and fulfilling, is equally performative. Particularly, desire in CNM is still regulated under a set of social rules, but only differs from monogamy in its specific rules. A monogamous couple may be well aware of each other’s extradyadic desires, but choose not to act on them in favor of relationship stability. Furthermore, a rejection of CNM is not an acknowledgement of monogamy’s superiority. Even though monogamy may be imperfect, the solution should be to improve monogamy rather than abolishing it altogether. Instead of acting upon individual desires, many couples discuss their desires without acting upon them -- a collectivist approach that prioritizes relationship stability over egocentric desires.

Proponents of CNM may argue that couples may still maintain relationship stability by openly communicating their boundaries. However, these boundaries may still be violated. Indeed, even if partners openly negotiate their boundaries to accommodate extradyadic desires, it remains unsure that these boundaries would stay intact. In fact, assuming that defining boundaries in CNM may protect against infidelity may be an oversimplification of relationships, given that assigning extradyadic relationships a different title does not initiate behavior change in straying individuals. For example, Esther Perel illustrated many instances in which couples in CNM violated their negotiated boundaries (2006). Moreover, given the lack of statistics on infidelity in CNM, it is impossible to draw any conclusion about its protective factor. Therefore, infidelity may have little to do with the relationship model, but attributable to individual factors.

Given that individual factors are at play, infidelity may reflect a lack of commitment in straying individuals. Indeed, several studies have confirmed that a lower commitment is related to a high risk of infidelity: dating women were 14% more likely than married women to stray (Forste & Tanfer, 1996). Moreover, married individuals, likely more committed to their relationship, viewed infidelity as a more serious transgression than dating individuals (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Also, low commitment is associated with more intimate extradyadic interactions (Drigotas et al., 1999). Among other studies, these empirical findings suggest that a low level of commitment, an individual factor, may be the culprit of infidelity. Hence, changing relationship models would be unlikely to protect against infidelity.

However, while critics of CNM tend to examine the individual factors of infidelity as a means to conserve the current relationship model, they overlook the powerful influence of social conditioning. In fact, one may argue that the current mainstream relationship model is not optimal for most couples -- not only does it stifle individual desire, it also forces a highly romanticized and restrictive relationship model that deviates from the practice of love in the past. Indeed, Brook challenges the notion that modern love entails a higher degree of freedom, and argues that it may simply provide different chains to individual sexuality (2002). Therefore, it begs the question: is monogamy mainly performative and serves a social utility? Henrich and colleagues argue that monogamy greatly contributes to social unity: since the popularization of monogamy in Europe, there has been a higher paternal investment in families (2012). Hence, monogamy may have helped the development of the current family model, which encourages an engaged father figure. However, this also illustrates the social utility of monogamy, suggesting that its dysfunction may be attributed to certain contextual factors.

Yet, to challenge monogamy is not to attribute infidelity entirely to contextual factors, such as social conditioning. Many individuals have strayed, and they may be highly egocentric or lack commitment. However, infidelity is a prevalent phenomenon that occurs in all groups of individuals -- many have strayed while being in love with their main partner, struggled with their extradyadic desires, and come to believe that they were simply inadequate lovers or morally flawed (Perel, 2006). Therefore, to truly understand infidelity as a phenomenon that affects people from diverse backgrounds and upbringing, one must examine the broader group-level factors at work. Indeed, those who deliberately commit infidelity have existed throughout history, as have individual differences in desire. Despite such individual factors, infidelity remains ubiquitous. Meanwhile, the meaning of love has evolved with social values: polyamory was the norm, then it was not; monogamy used to be one person for a lifetime, then it was one person at a time. As Perel questions, when will people realize that they were never monogamous, but only monogamous for a period of time (2006)? Attributing infidelity to individual factors, rather than truly acknowledging the larger social frameworks involved, is a convenient but inaccurate explanation of infidelity -- not to mention that this approach has failed to curb the prevalence of infidelity.

Attributing infidelity to individual factors directly contributes to the moralizing rhetoric of monogamy. Monogamy is the default relationship model, and transgressors have violated a moral code, so they must undergo a rigorous examination of who they are. Indeed, their personality traits, commitment level, childhood trauma, and attachment style shall become topics of interest, carefully analyzed by therapists and experts, eager to reach a verdict about their true character. This trend is observed in research: most studies have emphasized individual characteristics that contributed to infidelity (McAnulty & Brineman, 2007). Yet, such studies fail to consider many social frameworks, including gender norms. For example, while men are socially rewarded for philandering behavior, women face backlash for accepting casual sex offers (Conley, 2013). In other words, for the same act of infidelity, women may be punished more than men. Hence, the validity of such studies is undermined: men may have a higher incentive to over-report incidences of infidelity, while women may under-report to avoid social backlash. Consequently, these studies may have underestimated and the ubiquitousness of female infidelity, undermining female sexuality.

The moralizing rhetoric of monogamy has heavily shaped our idea of modern love: exclusivity is a foundation of modern relationship, and desire is an inconvenience. Such an idea glorifies the ironclad contract of monogamy and prevents honest, open discussions between partners -- the negotiation and defining process of their coupledom must be based upon the annihilation of extradyadic desire. Indeed, their boundaries have been predetermined by the social values that command selfish love. Considering the prevalence of infidelity, proponents of monogamy communicate the message that while love may coexist with infidelity, it may not coexist with the desire for others. This message dictates the preclusion of couple’s discussions about fantasies, desires, and sexuality. When coupledom entails compromising individuality, breaking its restrictive boundaries may appear even more inviting.

Finally, while both monogamy and CNM face risks of infidelity, the question is whether CNM may be more likely to protect couples against it. In fact, Perel provided many examples of couples who recovered from infidelity by committing to CNM instead (2006). While individuals in CNM may still stray, some individuals may be more likely to stray in monogamy. It would be premature to conclude that infidelity in CNM signaled its failure, especially since any successful relationship requires more than one open discussion about individual boundaries. Indeed, as any relationship requires a certain level of commitment to work through challenges, CNM entails an active engagement on both parties to continually discuss their desires and boundaries. Desire is fluid, and boundaries change. To draft a non-monogamous contract without future edits or careful consideration makes for a vague contract, vulnerable to potential transgressions. In the case of Perel’s examples, many couples in CNM took advantage of these loopholes. However, given that a couple not only negotiate their boundaries and discuss their desires, but also persist in doing so is an act of honesty and trust, and may even improve their emotional intimacy. It is the openness and effort entailed in CNM that makes it potentially more protective against infidelity.

Humans have sought love since the beginning of history. Yet, the chains and rules that regulated love have evolved and adapted to societal needs. While conformity may feel comforting and morally good, monogamy has not protected relationships against infidelity. Yet, past research has predominantly emphasized the individual factors that contributed to the failure of monogamy instead of critically examining the relationship model itself. With an increasing gaze on CNM, psychologists may be able to shape social values for the better. After all, love should not automatically exclude individual desires, and the resilience of couples in the wake of infidelity may suggest the malleability of modern coupledom.

---

Selected Bibliography

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples.

Brook, H. (2002). Stalemate: Rethinking the politics of marriage. Feminist Theory, 3(1), 45-66.

Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 392-407.

Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(3), 509.

Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33-47.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2012). The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 657-669.

Kipnis, L. (2009). Against love: A polemic. Vintage.

McAnulty, R. D., & Brineman, J. M. (2007). Infidelity in dating relationships. Annual review of sex research, 18(1), 94-114.

Perel, E., & Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity. Harper Audio.