Verified by 
Key points
- Discussions of non-monogamy clarify and define boundaries and behaviors for all types of relationships.
- Effective parenting in non-monogamous relationships is achieved through honesty and appropriate transparency.
- Reimagining conventional relationships can provide healthy alternatives for marginalized communities.
In earlier blog posts, I explored the joys and complications of practicing non-monogamy and the therapeutic perspectives that help non-monogamous relationships thrive. Both posts are based on the distinctive expertise of therapist Sarah Stuteville, whose practice specializes in therapy with LGBTQ+ and non-monogamous populations and whose popular podcast “Mistakes Were Made” explores relationships, family systems, polyamory, and her own non-monogamous marriage.
The following interview with Stuteville focuses on the wider familial and societal implications of non-monogamy.
Robert Kraft: What are the benefits of discussing non-monogamy, regardless of the relationships people are in?
Sarah Stuteville: Most of us enter into—or are conscripted into—monogamous relationships without ever examining what monogamy means to us and whether or not it’s the relationship style or practice that we want for ourselves. We live in a culture that assumes monogamy for all relationships, while also leaving monogamy ambiguous and easy to betray.
.jpg?itok=iu0uIctt "Kampus Production/Pexels")
For example, what does monogamy say about staying friends with an ex? What does monogamy say about having crushes on people other than our partner? What does monogamy say about looking at porn? Or masturbating? Or having cross-gender relationships (if you’re straight)? Or cuddling with friends while watching TV?
In keeping monogamy as a moving target, we’re always potentially in breach of it. I think the culture of conscripted monogamy encourages people not to communicate with each other about what relationship they want to create together, no matter if they’re having sex with one person or more than one person.
When talking about what we need for relationships to feel safe, transparent, and expansive, we should include an explicit discussion of what constitutes loyalty and betrayal, or honesty and dishonesty—independent of the relationship style.
RK: What are the implications of non-monogamy for parenting?
SS: My perspective is that non-monogamy is not inherently difficult for children, as long as there is developmentally appropriate transparency and honesty about polyamory and other intimate relationships among parents.
When I tell someone I’m non-monogamous, the most common concern I hear is for the children growing up in polyamorous families. And my response to this concern is to emphasize what we know about healthy and unhealthy families. And what we know is that most of the damage within families arises from shame, secrets, poor communication, and relational dissatisfaction—not a particular relationship structure or style.
When we consider the rates of infidelity (hovering somewhere around 50 percent reported infidelity), we realize that many children live in families with secret extramarital relationships and that dishonesty, obfuscation, and betrayal accompany these secret relationships.
My own children know that my husband and I are non-monogamous, like the parents of some of their friends. Their knowledge of polyamory changes over time and in accordance with their development, but we make sure to be honest with them and encourage them to ask questions.
Being different in this way can be challenging, with the challenges intensifying as children grow up. I don’t presume to say that being raised in a non-monogamous family won’t come with challenges. But I prefer to show acceptance and celebration of our differences, instead of prioritizing conformity because we fear judgment.
RK: Consensual non-monogamy has been around for a long time, but this year it’s caught the attention of mainstream media.1 What do you think of this popular interest in the practice of non-monogamy?
SS: I’m torn. On one hand, any cultural exploration of different and nontypical relationships and relationship structures is beneficial. It pushes all of us to think about what we really want in our relationships and about the cultural, social, and political forces that may keep us from that vision. Personally and professionally, I believe that while non-monogamy doesn’t work for everyone—or even most people—everyone benefits from exploring the option and talking about it with their partner.
On the other hand, a lot of this recent, breathless coverage centers on white, wealthy, cis, and straight people. In doing so, I worry that it risks erasing the long history of nontraditional and non-monogamous relationships within queer, poor, working-class, and historically marginalized communities.
I also worry that centering more “mainstream” polyamorous folks can potentially sterilize the practice. And in doing so, we may risk losing some of the best, most challenging aspects of non-monogamy, such as nonhierarchical relationships, mutual aid, community living, and structures that challenge oppressive and exploitive systems.
I think we need to be mindful of all of this tension as polyamory moves through the spotlight. People who’ve practiced polyamory for many years have told me that it predictably cycles through the popular press every 10 years or so. It’ll be interesting to see if non-monogamy remains in the mainstream consciousness or if the spotlight moves on.
RK: What should we know about the practice of non-monogamy in the LGBTQ+ communities?
SS: LGBTQ+ communities have been actively pushed out of more conventional relationship structures, like marriage and the nuclear family. Many queer people—like myself—have experienced traumatic severing with their families of origin because of homophobia and transphobia. This has resulted in the development of relationship styles and ways of living that work around the conventional relationship norms that have harmed us. One example is the chosen family, in which a group of friends functions with the intimacy and commitment of a blood-related family. Another large example is non-monogamy and polyamory.
It’s worth noting that systems of capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy promote individualism—to isolate people and discourage them from forming communities. Many marginalized people recognize this and cultivate alternative collectivist values and practices.
I believe polyamory is an expression of queer creative collectivism in the face of systems that have rejected and harmed us. It's also a way of developing our own values and morality around sex, relationships, and intimacy, instead of trying to conform to the cis/hetero/monogamous-normative scripts that have excluded and pathologized us.
RK: Given the national political climate, what’s next?
SS: I say we need creative collectivism now more than ever. In the face of violent, conformist movements that attack vulnerable populations and erode our sense of trust in each other, it’s necessary to support our own systems for building community—caring for and gathering together for each other. Non-monogamy contributes to developing those collectivist systems, but so can communal housing, group living, intergenerational living, and mutual aid. Anything that encourages us to divest from exploitive and isolating systems and invest in our communities and each other will help us weather the politics of exclusion.
References
Note 1. New York Magazine published a widely discussed interview in January and the New York Times presented an elaborated interview in April, entitled “Lessons from a 20-person Polycule.”
