| Chapter 1: | Operationalizing Fidelity |
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
or bonded to another person” or as “adherence to promises or duties” in this study.3 A key finding here is that fidelity, even more than monogamy, is individually tailored to fit the needs of today’s intimate relationships. This is especially apparent among those who negotiate multiple partners.
Coordinating Sex, Love, and Fidelity with Multiple Partners
Most previous research on multiple partners has invoked a framework of deviance, examining, for instance, nonmonogamists’ psychological development (O’Neill and O’Neill 1972; Ryalls and Foster 1976) or the counseling implications of nonmonogamy (Peabody 1982; Ziskin and Ziskin 1975; Constantine et al. 1985; Davidson 2002; Charles 2002; Emens 2004). Some studies suggest that nonmonogamists are somehow psychologically “different” (Buunk 1980; Murstein et al. 1985; Kurdek and Schmitt 1986) and experience more marital instability (Gilmartin 1977; Paulson and Paulson 1970; Cole and Spanier 1974; Rubin and Adams 1986) than their monogamous counterparts do. Few have recognized (in either samples or theorizing) those who choose to structure their intimate lives around multiple sexual partners.
Such literature on secretive extramarital interactions inevitably forms a basis for theorizing and assessing consensual nonmonogamy. First, research shows a distinction between emotional and sexual components of intimacy (Thompson 1984). Second, gender remains an important predictor of rates, intentions, and reactions to extradyadic interaction (Atwater 1982). In addition, the stigma of extramarital sex is mitigated by mononormative expectations of sexual fidelity (e.g., those who cheat are deviant; extradyadic behavior stems from dyadic problems or inadequacies). Therefore, nonmonogamists experience social stigma even though they consent to their multiple partners.