Fulfilling needs unmet in monogamous relationships

19 Drawing on Maslow's (1943) hierarchy of needs, Finkel et al. (2014) argue that Americans currently place unreasonable demands on their marriages, requiring their partner to fully meet their physiological needs as well as their need for security, belonging and love, recognition (self-esteem) and self-actualization. According to Finkel et al. this leads to a sense of suffocation by the fact that these needs cannot be met in a dyadic (monogamous) relationship. Consequently Finkel et al. believe that although CNM conflicts with the cultural values associated with monogamy, engaging in multiple relationships may help individuals resolve this dilemma of suffocation in monogamy. Some individuals engaging in CNM even report that it is impossible, in their view, to expect all a person's needs could be met in a single relationship and so they believe monogamy is a myth (Sheff, 2014; Wood et al., 2021). In CNM relationships, different needs can be shared among multiple partners, potentially reducing the expectation that one romantic partner has to meet all or most of the needs in a relationship.

20 Mitchell et al. (2014) have examined how the capacity for diverse needs to be fulfilled by multiple partners affects relationship quality in polyamory. They describe three models: (1) additive, (2) contrasting and (3) compensatory. Having multiple, “equal” romantic partners in a polyamory network may help individuals achieve greater fulfilment of diverse needs, which may result in increased quality for all members of the polyamory network (additive effect/model). Second, individuals can compare the extent to which diverse needs are met; thus, if one (primary) partner meets (some) needs to a greater extent than another partner, a hierarchy of preferences emerges in the network (contrast effect/model). In the third model, if some needs are not met by one partner but are met by another partner in the network, this may compensate for the quality of both relationship satisfaction and the emotional bonding in the primary polyamorous relationship (compensatory effect/model). However, Mitchell et al. found that the contrasting model seemed to be the least relevant – people engaging in polyamory are more likely to perceive their relationship arrangement as rewarding because engaging in multiple relationships gives non-monogamous individuals the opportunity to have their various needs met. Thus, in contrast to the stereotypical monogamous normative view of polyamory, people do not appear to engage in polyamory because of low need fulfilment from their primary partners (Mitchell et al., 2014).

21 Research by Moors et al. (2017), starting from a feminist platform, explored the benefits of CNM and found diversified need fulfilment by multiple intimate partners was the key motivation for engaging in CNM. They showed that the structure of multiple relationships enables fulfilment of diverse needs and thus contributes to relational satisfaction and subjective well-being. This tendency to spread the fulfilment of diverse needs across multiple concurrent relationships also proved key in later research led by Wood et al. (2021). An online survey of lived polyamorous partnerships showed that primary partners mainly satisfy care needs, whereas erotic needs are more likely to be met by secondary partners (Balzarini et al., 2019). Other research has found that secondary partners are rated as more adventurous compared to primary partners (Mogilski et al., 2017). This finding was also supported by research by Wood et al. (2021), in which participants reported that the decision to engage in CNM was preceded by the identification of expectational differences in sexual desire and sexual experiences in previous monogamous relationships.

Personal growth and autonomy

22 Another key motivation for engaging in polyamory identified in the psychological and the ethnographic research is personal growth and support for autonomy (Aguilar, 2013; Moors et al., 2017; Sheff, 2014; Wood et al., 2021). These studies found that individuals opt for CNM in order to satisfy their need for personal growth. The earliest research-based argument for personal growth and support for autonomy motivation in non-monogamy dates back to 1976, when Knapp examined “open marriages”. He found that in “open marriages” the sense of freedom resulting from the non-monogamous engagement is obtained in combination with the sense of security obtained from being in a marital union, which is a relational benefit that non-monogamous individuals gained only when transcending monogamy and consensually engaging in non-monogamy (Knapp, 1976).

23 Many consider CNM to be a relational structure that provides autonomy and freedom. In research by Wood et al. (2021), both relational and sexual autonomy were shown to be a central value and motivation for individuals opting for non-monogamy. Participants in their research reported how important it was for them to engage within a relational structure that was congruent with their authentic self. The authors relate this motivation to self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) and self-expansion theory (Aron et al., 2013).

24 Webb (2017) states that encouraging (public) discourse about polyamory supports individuals engaging in non-monogamy to develop their authentic self. By authenticity, Webb means freedom from the constraints arising from the hegemonic power of monogamy. She describes the authentic self as a process of “being oneself” that is fuelled by engaging in multiple relationships. Webb's approach shows that we need to accept that there are two diametrically opposed conceptualizations of self/authenticity in psychology today. Ryan and Deci's (2000 – see above) theory contrasts with the social constructionist understanding of autonomy. Barker (2005), trying to answer the question “What is our true self?”, seeks a response in defining the self as a plurality of multiple voices – the self as a community of multiple selves – or a set of multiple subselves connecting to the core self that we construct in our social interactions with multiple people. Many of her research participants’ experiences were proof that polyamory is not just a temporary sexual behaviour but can be long-lasting and is the declared (psychological) identity of polyamorous individuals (Barker, 2005).

25 Self-determination theory is related to self-expansion theory. Wood et al. (2021) show how self-expansion theory is relevant to CNM. The theory holds that CNM engagement may be motivated out of a need to expand, by gaining lived experience of non-monogamy. According to the authors of the original theory, self-expansion and expanding one's level of self-efficacy is achieved by engaging in new activities, acquiring new skills, broadening one's perspective (learning to view things from different perspectives) and expanding access to resources (Aron et al., 2013). Relational satisfaction is enhanced as partners engage in exciting activities and take on challenges together, helping to facilitate further opportunities for expansion (Aron et al., 2013). However, the participants of the CNM research (Wood et al., 2021) indicated that non-sexual experiences were another reason for engaging in CNM: they were motivated to learn new skills and acquire new hobbies through having multiple partners, and this contributed to their personal growth. As Moors et al. (2017) found, CNM may allow some individuals greater flexibility in their range of non-sexual activities. Several scholars have highlighted the fact that non-monogamous individuals talk more frequently about their non-sexual activities (expanding their experience and skills repertoire) than about their (expanding) sexual experience repertoire (Moors et al., 2017; Sheff, 2014).

Identity development and polyamory

26 Another motivation for engaging in polyamory is the need for identity achievement, which (temporarily) polyamory can contribute to.

27 Aguilar's (2013) ethnographic research has produced complementary findings to what Barker (2005) has identified as a tendency for a more permanent polyamorous identity. Aguilar argues that polyamory is a form of CNM that is more likely to take place over a certain period of time and that polyamorous behaviour is highly dependent on the person's social influences and context. In polyamorous communities, Aguilar (2013) observed that individuals who are monogamous by nature become a member of these communities and adopt polyamorous behaviour for a certain period of time only. Such “situational polyamory” only occurs when the individual is in the community. Many individuals who leave the polyamorous community report that the need to become part of the polyamorous community was linked to their need to experience an alternative lifestyle and that being in the polyamorous community was a phase in their “turbulent youth” that they needed to “get through” and that helped them transition into adulthood. Many leave these communities because they want to “settle down” and lead a traditional life, start a family and develop their career.

28 In terms of developmental psychology then, CNM can also be understood in the context of the psychosocial moratorium that individuals go through that Erikson (1968) characterizes as a period of social, cognitive and sexual maturation: it is a period in which the individual postpones major life decisions about commitment. Erikson (1968, p. 135) further argues that individuals who are unsure of their identity either avoid interpersonal intimacy or, conversely, seek to maximize some level of intimacy, which may manifest in the compensatory need to engage in promiscuous (but not deeply intimate) relationships. The key question is whether polyamorous relationships come into play here. Another way of looking at the sequence of identity completion is through the theory of “liminal hotspots” (Stenner et al., 2017). Engaging in polyamory could be an example of a liminal hotspot. Stenner et al. (2017) defines liminal hotspots as events during which individuals feel that they are stuck in a state of “in-betweenness” – a state of suspension in a particular transitory period characterized by feelings of ambiguity and uncertainty. For polyamorous individuals, this may manifest as feeling neither monogamous nor polyamorous, or both monogamous and polyamorous, if they remain in this “in-between” state for a prolonged period (Domínguez et al., 2017).

29 Conley et al. (2013a) argue, pragmatically, that engaging in CNM in young adulthood can provide opportunities to explore diverse partners within a particular space of time, enabling the individual to compare partners without being pressurized into developing a long-lasting bond. Thus, for some individuals CNM may serve as a transitional period before settling down in a life-long monogamous relationship.

Expression of political values

30 Polyamory enables individuals to express their autonomy and in some non-monogamous individuals it is related to the expression of political values and rebellious values as part of a struggle against social conventions (Moors et al., 2017; Sheff, 2014). Schwartz et al. (2014) and Caprara et al. (2017) show that the political values that guide individuals are related to general human values. Aguilar (2013), for example, found that some members of polyamorous communities practice non-monogamy as a means of expressing feminist ideological positions. Similarly, Kolm (2003) identified “political lesbianism” in women who choose to live with a woman not primarily because they are lesbians but because they are feminists first of all and so it is quite natural for them to become lesbians.

31 Polyamory began to be discussed in the 1990s, facilitated by several “waves” of feminism, heteronormativity and, at one point, monogamy. Monogamy as a normative form of male dominance through the institution of marriage, began to be questioned (Haritaworn et al., 2006). Feminist critiques of monogamy and the institution of marriage emphasized (1) the implications of men's “ownership” of women, (2) the institutionalization of rape and domestic violence against women, and (3) the maintenance of patriarchy, at least in the domestic sphere (Robinson, 1997). Robinson (1997) argued that institutionalized monogamy privileges men's interests, masked by exclusivity, the need to ensure property is handed down, and jealousy being a natural emotion. All of this is presented through the lens of romance. Robinson also states that non-monogamy is a means of responding to changing social trends and re-evaluating social arguments. The idea that non-monogamy can liberate women is integral to the ideology of “sexual liberalism” and has been raised within political debates by many social movements (Haritaworn et al., 2006).

Exploration of minority identities (sexual fluidity and bisexuality)

32 Another key reason for individuals choosing non-monogamy is the desire to explore and express minority sexual identities (Mogilski et al., 2017; Moors et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2021). CNM provides opportunities for individuals to escape polarizing dichotomous sexualities (homo vs. hetero, masculine vs. feminine) by creating a new relational structure that supports fluid (non-binary) sexual expression. Diamond's (2008) notion of sexual fluidity refers to situationally contingent flexibility in sexual responses. In her longitudinal study, she operationalizes fluidity in sexual responsiveness, which can also manifest in changes in sexual orientation identity. According to Diamond, for example, while sexual orientation may be stable, sexual attractiveness may change as the individual develops and is more subject to change than sexual orientation. Research also supports the assumption that sexual fluidity is more prevalent in women than men (Diamond, 2008; Savin-Williams et al., 2012). Higher rates of sexual fluidity in women than in men can be put down to evolutionary arguments, as willingness to engage in bisexuality may have a greater evolutionary advantage for mothers in terms of mutual childcare (Toates, 2014). However, socio-cultural factors may have an effect. For example, sexual fluidity may be a response to the effects of cultural restrictions throughout history that have served as a means of suppressing female sexuality (Diamond, 2008). Also, attitudes towards bisexual men are more negative than attitudes towards bisexual women, gay men and lesbians (Eliason, 2001). Therefore, we can surmise that if women want to explore their bisexual tendencies, it may be easier for them to engage in non-monogamy than it is for men.

33 Sexual minorities appear to engage in CNM more frequently than heterosexuals do (Haupert et al., 2017), and there is evidence that although heterosexual individuals report sexual fluidity, they do so at a lower rate than sexual minorities (Savin-Williams et al., 2012).

34 Various research has shown non-heterosexual individuals prevail among polyamorics [1].

35 The opportunity to explore minority sexual identities is a “resulting benefit” of CNM, as shown by Moors et al. (2017) in their research. They found that engaging in CNM not only enables individuals to explore different sexual identities, but they can do so in a transparent and “ethical” manner. Participants in the research by Wood et al. (2021) reported that CNM allowed them to connect with parts of their self that they had not had access to prior to acknowledging and engaging in non-monogamy. Wood et al. also found that the desire to live a non-monogamous life is related to the desire to explore BDSM and other unconventional sexual practices (so-called “kinky sex”), as CNM is presented and perceived by its adherents as a lifestyle that provides greater opportunities for the exploration of these sexual practices.

Desire for sexual diversity

36 Research participants have reported that gaining new sexual experiences was one of their motivations for engaging in CNM (Moors et al., 2017; Sheff, 2014; Wood et al., 2021). These experiences were gained together with a partner (engaging in sex with multiple partners together), or separately, but with the partner's support and full transparency. Their descriptions of these experiences contained references to feelings of excitement, fun and an increase in subjective well-being as well as relational well-being. Participants in the research by Wood et al. (2021) reported relational benefits in addition to the personal (intrapsychic) benefits derived from gaining new sexual experiences based on sexual bonding. For example, having sex with someone outside the monogamous partnership can infuse the relationship with new sexual energy, reviving passion in a relationship of many years. The “recasting” of this newly acquired sexual energy flowing from new sexual relationships into the existing partnership is referred to as “new sexual energy” by polyamorous individuals (Mitchell et al., 2014).

37 From an evolutionary perspective, males, relative to females, are hardwired to engage more in short-term mating strategies to increase the potential for offspring (Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972). This is empirically supported by research showing that men score significantly higher than women in the number of partners they sexually desire (Schmitt, 2003) and men report a higher number of sexual partners than women (Sprecher, 2013). van Anders et al. (2007) even found that both men and women in polyamorous relationships have higher testosterone levels compared to participants in monogamous relationships.

38 Individuals who have been in a relationship for a long time may feel the need for sexual variety and that may motivate them into engaging in CNM (Berscheid and Walster, 1978). This is about an increase in sensitivity to sexual stimuli per se, rather than a specific need for a “different” sexual object.

39 Willingness to engage in promiscuity (but not necessarily polyamory) is also socioeconomically conditioned. This has been shown in cross-cultural research in which socioeconomic parameters were triangulated with sociosexual indicators: individuals living in more affluent settings with lower mortality rates tend to be more promiscuous–they can access sex more quickly and have sexual encounters where there is less relational closeness and emotional intimacy (Schmitt, 2005).

40 Recent evolutionary research into striving for partner variety indicates that CNM satisfies a similar preference structure than infidelity in formally monogamous relationships does: enabling multi-partner mating with the aim of providing intimate partner variety. Testing the mate-switching hypothesis (Buss et al., 2017) that lies behind this expectation, Mogilski et al. (2021) found that “People who reported more attentiveness to alternative partners, relatively higher mate value than their current partner, and less investment in their current partner were more willing to engage in CNM. Our findings suggest that CNM becomes more attractive when the cost of partner divestment is low and mate switching is favorable”. Multi-partner mating, thus, remains a “benchmark” that can be approached via various alternative trajectories.

The need to belong to a community

41 Another important motivation for engaging in polyamory is the desire to belong to a community (Aguilar, 2013; Moors et al., 2017; Sheff, 2014; Wood et al., 2021). According to this research, individuals join or form communities in order to meet people who share the same values and the same attitude to forming relationships. Adler (1931) noted that the need to belong is a basic motivation in human beings. Because polyamorous individuals differ from monogamous individuals in their attitude to forming relationships, they may have an amplified need to form their own community in which they can experience feelings of belonging. Meyer (2003) found that among gay men the most effective strategies for dealing with the negative effects of minority stress is socialization within the larger gay community. In a parallel to CNM, Sheff (2014) argues that because polyamorous individuals feel stigmatized, the need to form such a network or family is a frequent (secondary) reason for engaging in polyamory. Aguilar (2013) found that some polyamorous communities are geographically isolated so as to protect the individuals from the potential stigma associated with alternative ways of forming romantic relationships. She also argues that by functioning within a community, members are less exposed to the cultural and social pressures of hetero- and mononormativity and so have greater scope to adopt non-monogamous practices.

42 There are also individuals who join polyamorous communities for “political” egalitarian reasons, such as sharing their salary with the collective (Aguilar, 2013).

43 Aguilar (2013) also found that community life appeals because it provides physical social contact (not necessarily sexual) with other community members. Aguilar argues that members may seek out these communities because they live far away from their primary families or do not have a partner relationship, and that they join such communities because they can be physically close not just to their primary partner but to multiple individuals.

Psychodynamic reasons

44 One of the most popular theories on romantic relationships is attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969). Initially, attachment was described in the context of the relationship between the infant and the primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1969), but later this concept was applied to partner relationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987). According to attachment theory, partner relationships are highly influenced by early childhood experiences, and specifically by how the individual internalizes the objects of their parents: whether or not these objects were experienced as creating a sense of security (Bowlby, 1969). According to research, individuals with secure/safe relational attachments tend to form happy, healthy, sexually satisfying long-lasting romantic relationships (Butzer and Campbell, 2008). Compared to individuals with insecure attachment, they engage in less infidelity and derive greater pleasure from the sexual activities they practice in dyadic partner relationships (DeWall et al., 2011). Clinical psychotherapist Linda Chernus (1980) has corroborated this claim through her research. She found that individuals who have extradyadic relationships outside marriage have memories of unhappy childhood. These individuals reported having either an extremely rigid, conservative, even hyperprotective parental upbringing or an unstable upbringing in which they were neglected by their parents. These are suboptimal conditions for successful separation-individuation and consequently these individuals did not succeed in identity achievement in late adolescence. This manifests later in marriage, and extradyadic relationships become the dysfunctional “cure” for an unhappy marriage.

45 It has been suggested that individuals with avoidant anxious attachment may find CNM appealing (Moors et al., 2015; O’Connor, 2019). Also, individuals with avoidant attachment tend to psychologically distance themselves from their romantic partner, thereby protecting themselves from the attachment they intrinsically fear. These individuals tend to minimize expressions of intimacy, which can be challenging in a monogamous relationship, and these individuals may therefore be attracted to CNM as it allows limited emotional closeness with a specific partner. However, a later study by Moors et al. (2019) found that individuals engaging in CNM have some relational attachment to all the partners with whom they have been in a relationship. Therefore, it is important to note that the findings on insecure attachment cannot be generalized to all individuals engaging in CNM; CNM appears to attract both individuals with insecure attachment and individuals with secure attachment.

46 O’Connor (2019) argues that “improperly” implemented polyamory (in the sense that it is not satisfactorily consensual for all involved and does not respect the needs of all involved) may appeal to narcissistic individuals. O’Connor argues that their deep need for admiration and control over relationships manifests in a lack of sincere concern for other people.

47 Aguilar (2013) found that individuals reporting a fear of loneliness join polyamorous communities as they represent an opportunity to find a partner; some individuals find it easier to find a partner through polyamory than monogamy. In this context, we can think of polyamory as an effective adaptation technique. Moreover, polyamory can be seen as a means of avoiding retraumatization – typical among individuals who have experienced difficult partner breakups or infidelity and want to avoid similar retraumatization. Polyamory can also help individuals find themselves by fostering sexual behaviour. This applies to individuals with vulnerable self-esteem; sexual expression may be a way of treating insecurity (Goldberg, 1975; Kohut, 1977). For example, Goldberg (1975) described how perverse sexual activities can serve as a compensatory mechanism for masking feelings of inadequacy and provide a sense of internal psychological stability. Kohut (1977) wrote extensively about sexuality as a means of overcoming inner feelings of emptiness and apathy in male and female patients who lacked adequate mirroring in childhood and so failed to develop authenticity. Titl (2013) argues, based on his therapeutic practice, that one can observe the difficulty men and women have integrating love and sexuality into the partner's person. In this case, for example, a woman may be frigid with a partner she loves, yet sexually attracted to men she does not love or even despises. According to Titl, this relates to the supposedly unconscious taboo of having sexual desires towards a beloved parent. He further argues that the stricter prohibition, the greater the devaluation of sexuality, the more dramatic the disparity between love and sexuality. This can lead to the person unconsciously (sometimes even consciously) experiencing sexuality as something dirty, and therefore the need to keep it away from beloved “pure” objects. Polyamory may be an adaptive solution to this dilemma.

48 The need to engage in polyamory for a time may also be associated with the need to test one's romantic partner. According to Titl (2009), this involves introducing the partner to parts of the actor's personality that tend not to be positively evaluated, whereby the actor observes how their partner understands and reinterprets them, if they are able to accept what others reject, and so on. Unexpected understanding can lead to a deep emotional response – to falling in love. If the partner “survives” this, the actor may feel accepted, loved. Titl goes on to say that until individuals test their partner, they cannot be sure they can share a previously ignored part of their self with them. The consequence is an inability to trust, to show certain emotions and a vague sense of dissatisfaction stemming from the need to control oneself. In a relationship this is experienced as a degree of alienation (Titl, 2008). As long as the partner is able to accept their spouse's interests (e.g. polyamorous motivation), or even take pleasure in them, this will bring the partners closer together and the test is passed. According to Titl (2009), the test should be seen as a constructive attempt to improve the situation in the relationship in a mutually beneficial way.