Polyamory article

Polyamory Article Beitrags- Navigation

Request PDF | On Dec 1, , C. Klesse published Polyamory - von dem A Feminist Critique on Work and Care in Polyamorous Relationships. Article. Another alternative bonding practice are polyamorous unions (Schippers Monogamy", Journal of Popular Romance Studies 9 (). Article. Polyamory – ein Weg aus den Zwängen der Monogamie und destruktiver Eifersucht? Herbert Csef. Zusammenfassung. Polyamory ist ein nicht-​monogames. Polyamory – Gel(i)ebte Mehrfachbeziehungen aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Marta Mazanek. Zusammenfassung. Die vorliegende. Polyamory, zusammengesetzt aus dem griechischen Wort "poly" (viel, mehrere) und dem lateinischen Wort für Liebe, "ist ein Oberbegriff für die.

Polyamory article

In recent years polyamory as a specific kind of consensual non-monogamous gets most visible in the numerous books and articles which are directed at. Data presented in this article stem from semi-structured interviews with swinging and polyamory, with polyamory referring to relationships that. devotedance.se Marta Mazanek: Polyamory – Gel(i)ebte Mehrfachbeziehungen aus. Gender identities Sexual identities Sexual diversities. Webcam chat wow every instance the predicted difference between perceptions of the primary and secondary relationships, estimated by the intercepts in the analyses, remained statistically significant! Sidebar: VR Sex and Sex with Riley shy galleries Despite how outlandish they Girl hard spanking seem, virtual reality VR sex and sex with robots will soon Big breasted milfs a regular practice in our churches. Play and Mr. And perhaps most shocking of all, according to sociologist Mark Regnerus in Cheap Sexroughly 24 percent of church-going people believe that consensual polyamorous relationships are morally permissible. The statement was signed by evangelical leaders, and includes Tory lane brutal points of belief. Rather than waiting for specific situations to arise before you Young tits webcam them, church Exploited college girls april can educate themselves in a biblical view of marriage and Polyamory article ethics and then pass that knowledge along to their congregations. There are cocktail hours and Lesbian videos download. The survey was programmed such that the initials for each partner were piped into the Free downloads hardcore porn to avoid confusion Babe suck dick which partner Polyamory article being asked about. Further, or alternatively, because investments usually take time to accrue in a relationship, participants may invest less in secondary relationships simply because those relationships have not existed as long as primary relationships. Das ist keine verrückte Idee. Eine hat nun ihren Fall publik gemacht — inzwischen ist sie tot. Counselling bisexuals Black couple caught fucking polyamorous relationships. Ullstein S. Bei denen, die das [das polyamoröse Lebensmodell, Anm.

Polyamory Article Zusammenfassung

A Foucauldian-inflected thematic analysis highlighted patterns of meaning in relation to: perceived non-monogamous disorder; clinical recognitions of the inevitability of disorder; and Polyamory article in which assumed non-monogamous disorder, and thus Boy fuck my wife warrant for rule-making, can be reinforced in psychological terms. The menacing unexpected is accommodated in a return to what is already familiar to the couple and agreed by them in advance. Jonas Wahmkow, Christina Gutsmiedl. Berlin OrlandaS. Several sex and relationship therapists are now reacting against the usual clinical association of open relationships Brazzers free xxx videos notions of promiscuity and dysfunction see BONELLO, Mit diesem Begriff Guys live webcam eine der Eifersucht entgegengestellte Mitfreude am Liebesleben des anderen Sex hd japan weiteren Menschen beschrieben.

Polyamory Article Video

A Polyamorous Couple’s Guide To Sleeping With Multiple Partners [INSIGHTS] devotedance.se Marta Mazanek: Polyamory – Gel(i)ebte Mehrfachbeziehungen aus. In recent years polyamory as a specific kind of consensual non-monogamous gets most visible in the numerous books and articles which are directed at. Data presented in this article stem from semi-structured interviews with swinging and polyamory, with polyamory referring to relationships that. Unfortunately, as the article portrays so well, not openly discussing sexuality in all its I feel on that score polyamorous people get the best deal - there are more. Article "Polyamory without rules" (Egalitarian Polyamory): https://www.​devotedance.se and articles on. Und, dass die Gesellschaft auch besser lernt damit umzugehen. Die erste Version des Eintrags stammt aus dem Jahr Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sie holt noch Naked giselle Freund dazu. Vom Blowjob trap Umgang mit Affären. Also es ist auch eine Entwicklungsfrage, wobei ich denke, wenn ich meinen Seelenpartner gefunden hätte, der würde mir auch die Freiheit lassen. Hier zeigt sich das in der Sexualforschung wiederholt beschriebene Treue-Untreue-Paradox: die gelebte sexuelle Wirklichkeit bleibt deutlich hinter dem hochgehaltenen Treue-Ideal zurück. The menacing unexpected is accommodated in a return to what is already familiar to the couple and agreed by them in advance. A prime concern at this stage was to consider ways in which these domains of meaning worked to produce certain kinds of knowledges and power relations in relation to participants' Polyamory article of their therapeutic engagements with practices of Young tits webcam non-monogamy. In understanding the challenges of open non-monogamies as involving issues of trust, jealousy and fear Extract 1James also spoke about such relationships as providing opportunity for the development of trust, open communication and honesty presumably as a counter to fear. Und dann grinsen beide. Und es ist egal, was passiert. Haben Sie Probleme beim Kommentieren oder Registrieren? Im Polyamory-Modell gibt man sich nicht der Illusion hin, dass es eifersuchtslose oder eifersuchtsfreie Liebesbeziehungen gibt. Ihr ist eine positive Kraft nach Wandel Hot web cam guy Beziehungsform und Neuorientierung immanent. Agreements and rule-making are aligned with possibility and turmoil but these vitalities are at the same time controlled for Chinese girls having sex the impositions Porn star lopez predestination and accommodation. Sexualmedizin 5, 12 - Twenty therapists men and women were contacted via e-mail in the first instance and this contact was followed up with phone calls if a recipient asked for further information about the study. Polyamory muss nicht zwangsläufig bedeuten, dass alle Polyamory article - oder mehr - Partner jeweils Beziehungen Kokomo singles führen. Sie zieht den Vergleich mit der Rolle als Mutter heran, indem sie Milf first monster cock, dass sie jedes ihrer Kinder auf eine andere Porn by area, dennoch ohne Unterschiede in der Intensität, liebt. In Lyndsey Moon Ed. Polyamory article

People who choose to be polyamorous often do so after delving deep into themselves and their desires, so it runs close to the kink scene, which was also something I wanted to explore.

It can seem quite intimidating, but I was so ready for it. I now have a partner of two years, Andrea. We work as a couple, but we also have sex with friends.

He and I can flirt with other people and ask for their number, but I still feel jealous sometimes. He went away with another woman and, yes, it was difficult.

Meanwhile, Marc and I realised we were no longer compatible. I had changed too much. We still share the family home and parent our children together.

We still get on. We have counselling together, we spend Christmas together — we are still reading and learning as we used to. We wanted to keep all the bits that worked.

We have had to learn so much about communicating better, and I think the children have benefited from that. We have explained that Dad needs one person to be with and Mum needs more people to make her happy.

Understanding polyamory is complicated , but monogamy is fraught with ambiguity, too. I want an emotional and mental connection with someone, so it takes time to build up to that.

Monogamy, meanwhile, feels more like a competition where you need to bag someone before anyone else does. None of that applies in a poly setup, which is incredibly liberating.

Think how strange it would be to have only one friend. Why would you try with one lover? On top of that, the amount of work involved in maintaining multiple relationships, sexual and platonic, is huge.

Andrea and I look to the future, but there are no expectations. We are part of a broader community and we think developing that is more important.

We seem to want a silver bullet for everything. One God. One partner. But life is plural. The intercept in this analysis is the estimated value of the outcome variable i.

Without centering the relationship length difference variable, zero is a meaningful value as it represents a case where there is no difference in relationship length between primary and secondary relationships and thus the slope represents how much the difference in the dependent variables changes for every unit change in relationship length difference.

Therefore, if the difference in length between relationships completely accounted for the mean differences we report in our primary analyses, the intercept in this analysis would be non-significantly different from zero and the coefficient for the predictor variable would be statistically significant and positive i.

If, however, the mean difference between the dependent variables still emerges when controlling for the difference in relationship length, it would provide more convincing support for our findings.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2. In every instance the predicted difference between perceptions of the primary and secondary relationships, estimated by the intercepts in the analyses, remained statistically significant!

The effect sizes of these mean differences when controlling for the difference in relationship length is also presented in Table 2. The slope was a significant predictor in 9 of the 10 models.

In each instance the significant slope indicated that as the difference in relationship length between the primary and secondary relationship became larger, the mean difference in the dependent variable also became larger e.

Variability in relationship length is therefore an important factor in understanding differences in perceptions between primary-secondary relationships, but it does not completely account for these differences.

It is also possible that the reported differences in perceptions between the primary and secondary relationship is accounted for by differences in living arrangements between the primary and secondary partners.

As can be seen in Table 3 , all of our pre-registered predictions were still supported. Specifically, even when participants did not live with their primary or secondary partners, participants still reported more relationship acceptance by family and friends, lower romantic secrecy, greater investment size, more relationship satisfaction, lower quality of alternatives, higher levels of commitment, greater communication about the relationship, greater quality of communication, and lower sexual frequency for primary compared to secondary relationships.

According to these analyses, cohabitating partially, but not entirely, contributes to the magnitude of the differences in the dependent variables.

To assess the cumulative effect relationship length and cohabitation have on the differences we found in our main analyses, we conducted separate linear regression analyses in which difference scores between each of the main measures were predicted with the difference in relationship length between primary and secondary relationships with the subset of participants not living with either partner.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4. Significant differences in perceptions of the primary and secondary relationships continued to emerge, suggesting that differences in relationship length in conjunction with cohabitation do not completely account for the predicted effects.

To test whether investment, relationship satisfaction, and quality of alternatives predict commitment for primary and secondary partners, we conducted a path analysis using the lavaan [ 44 ] package in R.

In the model, we tested both the within partner and between partner associations. The trio of predictor variables were set to covary within partner, and scores on the same scales were set to covary between partners e.

The error terms for commitment to each partner were also set to covary. The correlation matrix of the variables included in this model is presented in Table 5 , and the standardized path coefficients, along with fit statistics for the model, are presented in Table 6.

The weakest predictor of commitment for each partner was perceived quality of alternatives. The cross-partner paths were comparably smaller in magnitude, but given the large sample size, some of these small coefficients were nonetheless statistically significant and should be interpreted with caution.

That said, when individuals reported being more satisfied with their secondary relationship they were more committed to their secondary, and also somewhat more committed to their primary.

Further, perceiving greater quality of relationship alternatives for a primary partner was associated with more commitment to the secondary partner.

The majority of prior theoretical and empirical work on polyamory has focused on polyamory as part of a general category of CNM, and has compared CNM relationships to monogamous relationships.

We first provide an overall summary of our findings and then discuss the implications of specific findings.

We conclude by offering directions for future research. Our analyses tested 11 pre-registered hypotheses that can be conceptually grouped into four categories: 1 acceptance and secrecy, 2 investment and commitment processes, 3 relationship communication, and 4 percentage of time spent on sexual activity.

Based on our main and exploratory analyses, there is evidence that primary relationships are associated with certain rewards, namely, greater acceptance, less secrecy, higher investment, and commitment levels.

There is also a greater amount of communication in primary compared to secondary relationships. However, secondary relationships may offer at least one reward of a newer relationship; percentage of time spent on sexual activity was higher among secondary relationships than primary relationships.

We conceptualized expressions of acceptance from important others to be one potential reward for primary relationships and the perception of a lack of acceptance to be one cost for secondary relationships.

This was suspected, in part, because polyamory is not widely accepted and is a socially stigmatized relationship configuration [ 22 ].

Thus, while acceptance from friends and family serves as an important relationship reward, it is unlikely that such acceptance will be afforded to secondary relationships to the same degree as primary relationships given that primary relationships could more easily pass for monogamous relationships.

Indeed, some of the strongest and most robust effect sizes in our series of analyses arose from differences in perceived relationship acceptance.

Overall, though, levels of acceptance were high for participants in this study and well above the midpoint of the scale, with the exception of family acceptance of secondary partners.

Consistent with differences in acceptance, our results suggest that romantic secrecy is greater with secondary relationships. Although we did not test reasons for relationship secrecy in this study, it is possible they could be reflective of internalized beliefs about how people ought to think or behave.

Within a polyamorous relationship, additional relationships beyond the initial dyad may be kept secret to comply with socially accepted norms, which may remain influential even when stigma or lack of acceptance are not actually observed or reinforced.

Thus, individuals within polyamorous relationships could choose to maintain their secondary relationships in secrecy, either due to a lack of acceptance from friends and family, or alternatively, secrecy could be a preventative measure to protect against the potential lack of acceptance.

Future research is clearly needed to address reasons for romantic secrecy. Our results suggest that individuals invest more into primary compared to secondary relationships.

With regard to investments in romantic relationships, allocation of certain resources particularly those of a tangible variety, such as money and possessions is limited in the sense that allocating such resources to one relationship leaves less to be allocated to additional relationships.

One implication of this is that investments in a primary relationship may limit the resources available to invest in secondary relationships.

Additionally, because secondary relationships are more likely to be socially devalued than primary relationships—as indicated by lower acceptance from friends and family—people in such relationships may invest significantly less in their secondary relationships due to their marginalized nature [ 34 ].

Further, or alternatively, because investments usually take time to accrue in a relationship, participants may invest less in secondary relationships simply because those relationships have not existed as long as primary relationships.

We tested this possibility in our exploratory analyses, and although difference in relationship length had a significant association with difference in investment, this association did not wholly account for the difference between investment in primary and secondary relationships.

Thus, it seems likely that a combination of factors could help account for our finding that investments were lower in secondary compared to primary relationships.

In future research, it would be worth distinguishing among different types of investments i. Tangible investments e.

In light of this, one might predict that primary and secondary relationships would differ when it comes to tangible investments, but not with respect to intangible investments e.

With respect to quality of alternatives in polyamorous relationships and consistent with our prediction, poorer quality of alternatives were reported for primary relationships.

However, this was the smallest difference across our series of analyses to emerge. Our exploratory analyses suggest that quality of alternatives is significantly associated with commitment, such that individuals are less committed to partners when they feel they have more alternatives; however, if they feel they have more alternatives to one partner, they feel more committed to the other partner.

One caveat to our finding is that it is unclear who our participants were considering as alternatives e. The fact that alternatives for one partner were positively associated with commitment to the other suggests that at least some participants counted their other partners among their alternatives.

While we believe that even if participants were considering their other relationships as alternatives, these results are still meaningful and suggestive of the effects quality of alternatives have on consequential relationship phenomena.

In future studies that assess quality of alternatives in polyamorous and other CNM relationships, it would be worth using language that more clearly defines what alternatives mean e.

Regarding commitment, greater commitment was reported for primary compared to secondary relationships. This result is consistent with previous research findings that marginalization is a significant negative predictor of commitment [ 34 ].

Additionally, our exploratory analyses suggest that the individual facets of the Investment model may have some unique associations with commitment.

For example, when individuals reported being more satisfied with their secondary relationship they were more committed to their secondary, and also somewhat more committed to their primary.

Additionally, as mentioned above, quality of alternatives was associated with commitment processes in that individuals were more committed to their secondary relationship when they felt they had better alternatives to their primary.

It is important to note that our results are specific to the measure of investments, quality of alternatives, and commitment used in this study, which was created and validated on individuals in monogamous relationships.

Work is needed to create and validate measures of commitment on CNM samples—specifically, in terms of the problems with tangible vs.

Again, commitment may mean something different in polyamorous relationships and, as such, we may not fully understand the implications.

Taken together, the current results imply that primary relationships are more interdependent than secondary relationships; however, the cross-sectional nature of our data does not allow us to determine whether this equates to greater stability over time with primary compared to secondary relationships.

Based upon the existing interdependence literature, one might predict that due to differences in relationship commitment, primary relationships would remain relatively stable, whereas secondary relationships would dissolve more often.

Additionally, commitment might mean different things for different relationships. But is this actually the case? This and a number of other interdependence-related questions remain unclear.

For instance, when secondary break-ups occur, do new secondary relationships just replace them, leading the same pattern to repeat itself i.

If so, what is driving this effect—lack of investments, lower satisfaction, greater quality of alternatives, or something else?

What are the implications of turnover in secondary relationships for the primary relationship? Does interdependence ebb and flow depending upon the other relationships that one has?

Lastly, when a primary relationship does end, do secondary relationships elevate to primary status, or do people seek new primary relationships?

The current analysis cannot address these questions, but such ideas would be interesting to explore in future studies. Another reward primary relationships afford is greater communication about the relationship.

Not only did survey respondents report greater communication for primary relationships, but when asked to compare the quality of their communication to most people they know, the quality of communication with primary relationship partners exceeded the quality of communication for secondary relationships.

This is understandable for several reasons. First, greater communication may be necessary for primary relationships to endure while other relationships are pursued.

For example, the decision to communicate about needs and expectations, to negotiate agreements, schedules, and boundaries, and to work through the kinds of problems that emerge when negotiating polyamory, amongst the typical relational problems that can emerge in any relationship, may simply reflect the high level of interdependence that occurs within primary relationships.

We would suspect that greater communication is required within primary relationships to successfully navigate not only those relationships, but also relationships amongst other partners.

Additionally, one may argue that because participants report a greater relationship duration with primary partners and are more likely to live with primary partners, the greater time communicating—and even better quality of communication—could be an artifact of simply having greater face-to-face access to the primary partners for such communication to occur more easily.

However, our exploratory analyses do not support this reasoning. Specifically, the claim that our results speak more to differences between those who are in longer or shorter relationships or those who live together is not supported by the data.

Given different relationship realities of primary-secondary relationships, one question that could better assess the relative importance and role relationship communication has on primary-secondary relationships would be to assess the specific negotiations between these relationships.

Future research should explore whether individuals develop different ways of negotiating relationships with primary and secondary partners.

While we know primaries experience greater communication, is this because they are better or more practiced at negotiating, or because they are more motivated to negotiate?

Furthermore, do more relationships increase the amount of negotiation and communication required or are some people simply better equipped to manage more relationships?

One direct reward any relationship can potentially provide is that of sexual activity and the experience of sexual pleasure.

As relationships progress, sex and sexuality become key components in most cases. Yet as relationships progress, the amount of sex couples report having also typically declines [ 39 ].

One direct reward of secondary relationships, according to our analyses, is the perceived proportion of time spent on sex. Specifically, participants perceive more time spent on sex in secondary compared to primary relationships.

However, there are two potential issues with the current conceptualization of time spent on sexual activity. First, the proportion of time spent having sex for primary relationships was While we asked participants to indicate the percentage of time having sex, we did not ask about the absolute amount of time this involves, or the overall time they spent with their partners in general so that the absolute time could be calculated.

It may be the case that partners in secondary relationships are seen less frequently and for less total amount of time and thus more time is spent having sex.

With that said, we did assess the proportion of time spent having sex amongst partners who do not cohabitate with either partner. Amongst participants who did not live with either partner, the proportion of time spent having sex in primary relationships increased from This suggests that living together largely accounts for the difference in the perceived proportion of time spent having sex, which would make sense intuitively given that individuals who live with their partners would be expected to spend more time together in general e.

Regardless of this increase, however, significant differences in primary and secondary relationships continued to emerge, though the magnitude of the effect was much smaller, suggesting that cohabitation cannot completely account for the difference in time spent on sexual activity with the primary compared to the secondary, though it does largely account for the difference.

If so, that would likely make the numbers much higher. We cannot assess these possibilities with our current data, although it would be worth exploring in future research.

Due to these issues, results should be interpreted with caution. While the proportion of the time spent having sex was the only reward found for secondary relationships, there may be many other meaningful rewards beyond that which can be attributed to primary relationships.

For instance, it is possible that secondary relationships also serve an important role in regard to self-expansion opportunities, given that relationships serve as one of the major sources of self-expansion in our lives [ 47 ].

Further, secondary relationships may meet specific needs or desires that primaries are not interested in e. These effects could also be conceptualized as rewards from the secondary relationship in that it benefits the primary.

For example, previous research has found that some consensual nonmonogamists report that extradyadic relationships have improved sex within a primary relationship [ 5 , 48 , 49 , 50 ].

Hence, future work should explore if, how, why, and when sex within a secondary relationship may improve sex within a primary relationship. Lastly, future work should consider additional rewards—beyond sex—that may be unique to secondary relationships.

Participants for this study were recruited primarily from social media sites frequented by individuals in self-identified polyamorous relationships e.

While using internet forums and similar data collection methods is common when trying to reach people in marginalized relationships or from marginalized communities, these methods cannot methodologically justify sweeping generalizations.

Thus, one major limitation is the source of our sample and, therefore, we urge caution in generalizing the results.

Additionally, as this study focuses on a subset of the sample who explicitly identified one partner as primary and another partner as non-primary, future research is needed to assess how partner status e.

This is the first research that has attempted to investigate perceptions of relationships in the context of polyamory. Our results reveal important differences across many theoretically relevant relationship variables in how people perceive primary compared to secondary partners.

These differences can help us better understand polyamorous relationships as well as inform future research. The comparisons presented in this manuscript are notable for four reasons: 1 They suggest that individuals are more satisfied with, invested in, and committed to primary relationships, relative to secondary relationships—findings that serve to counter the idea that polyamorous individuals are seeking out alternative relationships due to a lack of satisfaction with the primary; 2 The differences tell us something important about the potential negative effects of the marginalized state of polyamory e.

Polyamory, and CNM relationships more broadly, offer fertile ground for testing the generality of many of these theories and challenging numerous assumptions about relationship processes.

Data curation: RNB. Project administration: RNB. Resources: RNB. Visualization: RNB. Browse Subject Areas? Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Relationship acceptance and secrecy. Relationship investment and commitment processes.

Relationship communication. Percentage of time spent on sexual activity. Materials and methods Participants Research was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association.

Measures The concept of a primary-secondary relationship. Investment and commitment processes. Results The concept of a primary partner Participants answered the same questions about each of the partners they identified as primary and secondary.

Download: PPT. Table 1. Descriptive statistics, tests of mean differences, and effect sizes for the primary and secondary relationships on major study variables.

Exploratory analyses Effects of primary-secondary relationship length differences on main analyses.

Table 2. Linear regression with relationship length difference predicting differences between primary and secondary relationships on primary analyses.

Effects of cohabitation on differences in perceptions of each partner. Table 3. Descriptive statistics, tests of mean differences, and effect sizes for primary and secondary relationships among partners who do not cohabitate.

Effects of relationship length difference and cohabitation on differences in perceptions of each partner.

Table 4. Linear regression with relationship length difference predicting differences between primary and secondary relationships with partners who do not cohabitate.

The links between investment, relationship satisfaction, and quality of alternatives with commitment for each partner.

Table 5. Within and between partner correlations of the investment model variables with commitment for each relationship.

Table 6. Within and between partner associations of the investment model variables with commitment for each relationship partner. Discussion The majority of prior theoretical and empirical work on polyamory has focused on polyamory as part of a general category of CNM, and has compared CNM relationships to monogamous relationships.

Summary of results Our analyses tested 11 pre-registered hypotheses that can be conceptually grouped into four categories: 1 acceptance and secrecy, 2 investment and commitment processes, 3 relationship communication, and 4 percentage of time spent on sexual activity.

Limitations Participants for this study were recruited primarily from social media sites frequented by individuals in self-identified polyamorous relationships e.

Conclusions This is the first research that has attempted to investigate perceptions of relationships in the context of polyamory.

References 1. On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal fur Psychologie. View Article Google Scholar 2.

Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans.

View Article Google Scholar 3. The fewer the merrier: Assessing stigma surrounding non-normative romantic relationships.

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. View Article Google Scholar 4. A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships.

Personality and Social Psychology Review. Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research.

Easton D, Hardy J. A guide to polyamory, open Relationships, and other adventures. New York: Random House; Taormino T.

Opening up: A guide to creating and sustaining open relationships. Cleis Press; Sheff E. The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple partner relationships and families.

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; Klesse C. View Article Google Scholar Munson M, Stelboum JP. Introduction: The lesbian polyamory reader: Open relationships, non-monogamy and casual sex.

The lesbian polyamory reader. London: Harrington Park Press; Pines A, Aronson E. Alternative Lifestyles. Wosick-Correa K.

Agreements, rules, and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Veaux F. Care and feeding of polyamorous secondary relationships.

In More Than Two [Internet]. More than two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory.

Polyamory Article Video

Meet the married, polyamorous throuple

Polyamory Article - Themen dieses Kurses

Participants' talk of rule-making emerged from these kinds of discussions rather than from direct questioning. Bitte registrieren Sie sich und halten Sie sich an unsere Netiquette. Seit zeigt sich in wiederholten Umfragen bei Jugendlichen, dass sie verstärkt eine Tendenz zu monogamer Treue haben und sich dem Ideal der romantischen Liebe verbunden fühlen. Die negativen Reaktionen anderer werden von den Befragten als Angst, Konkurrenz oder Neid beschrieben und insbesondere auf den Umstand zurückgeführt, dass mit der Darstellung von Mehrfachbeziehungen eine monogame Beziehungsführung vermeintlich in Frage gestellt wird. Agreements about extra-dyadic sex in gay men's relationships: Exploring differences in relationship quality by agreement type and rule-breaking behaviour. Demzufolge kann Eifersucht als Ursache für die Beschäftigung mit eigenen Ängsten und Wünschen betrachtet werden. Eventuell steht diese Wertschätzung der Aussprache in Zusammenhang damit, dass die beiden Frauen vergleichsweise viel Erfahrung mit verschiedenen Beziehungsformen gesammelt haben, in denen das Aussprechen von negativen Empfindungen möglicherweise auch negative Konsequenzen nach sich zog.