Monogamy Doesn't Make Sense, According to Science. So Why Aren't We More Polyamorous? [WATCH]
Photo by Armen Poghosyan. Design by Sam Donndelinger.Subscribe nowIn the United States, nearly one in five people have explored consensual non-monogamy, the practice of openly seeing multiple partners with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Despite this, those venturing into non-monogamous relationships often find themselves with more questions than answers, navigating a cultural landscape that still privileges monogamy and stigmatizes other relationship structures.So when five clients approached Jessica Fern in the same week a few years ago, each expressing a desire to open their relationship, she knew something deeper was happening. Fern, a psychotherapist and the author of Polysecure and Polywise, has since become a guiding voice in the evolving dialogue around ethical non-monogamy.We wanted to speak with her to understand how polyamory is connected to attachment theory and how she helps her clients build secure, emotionally connected relationships, regardless of how many people are involved.Watch the full interview above or read the transcript here:Spencer Macnaughton: Hi, everyone! I'm here today with Jessica Fern, a psychotherapist, author and educator specializing in trauma, attachment and non-monogamy. Jessica, thanks so much for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today.Jessica Fern: Yes, thank you for having me.SM: Great! Well, let's get right into it, cause you specialize in polyamory. For those listening who have never heard that term, what is polyamory?JF: Yes. So its one term under the umbrella of consensual non-monogamy. So let's define that first. Consensual non-monogamy is having more than one lover or romantic partner and everyone knows. Its not cheating; its not secretive. And then polyamory is kind of one way of doing it that really is focused more on the falling in love piece. So having full-on multiple relationships, whereas some people have different styles that might be more casual or more sexual-focused and so on.SM: And does polyamory always mean, like, I'm a gay man, I would have two boyfriends? Is that how it works?JF: It really does span, but yes, polyamory would usually mean I have multiple partners that I'm in real, full-on relationships with.SM: And what got you into studying that? Why, what drew you to it?JF: It really came to me as a psychotherapist working in Boulder, Colorado, where all of my couples clients in one week literally brought up the topic of opening up their relationship. And so as I realized I got to get to the books or figure this out, my personal experience isn't enough. I need more academic understanding or clinical understanding. There just wasn't a lot out there and so that got me sort of digging for more and then eventually creating things to support people in this process of opening up.SM: And what do we know about humans and wanting to be non-monogamous? Because we grow up learning about monogamy as the only way.JF: Thats right.SM: Till death do us part at the altar, right?JF: Yes.SM: Is that reflective of what science says about how humans wanna be?JF: It's not reflective and there are debates around this, but when we just look at statistics, we see that even larger percentages of people that identify as being queer more actually identify as being non-monogamous in some way at some point in their life. And younger people right now are more likely to even identify as starting from being non-monogamous instead of being monogamous as the standard. But what we see too with people who identify as monogamous, the statistics of cheating are horrible. So people might espouse monogamy, but behaviorally that's not actually what the norm is a lot of the time.Subscribe nowSM: Why do you think, given we know this about humans, there's still such a discrepancy between people actually going for it?JF: Yeah, because there is probably still so much stigma. You know, the nuclear family, the patriarchal marriage that has been in our history and so people are afraid to deviate from what has become the norm, even if it's not what is actually, behaviorally, what people are inclined to do all the time.SM: And I live here in Hell's Kitchen, New YorkJF: Yeah.SM: in a zip code where most gay guys are in open relationships and I think, from my general understanding of the world, gay men are significantly more likely to be in open relationships than heterosexual couples and even same-sex female couples. Is that correct, based on your research?JF: That is what I've seen. I mean, I have seen them even generalize, though, that queer folks, whether you're male, female or non-binary, are more likely to be practicing non-monogamy. But yes, I think gay men are ahead of the curve there, or the pioneers in this in many ways.SM: Yeah, so explain that out. What makes gay men the pioneers?JF: I grew up in New York City on off-Broadway. My mom was a theater person, so I actually grew up with gay men culture a lot. And my experience personally and professionally is you all are embracing sex positivity. And yet when you get into primary relationships, there is just a human acceptance that your sexuality might include more than one human. And so I think you all have really done a good job of embracing both.SM: Why gay men and not as much gay women? Why do you think it was men who became the pioneers?JF: Yeah, because I think, in our culture, men are allowed to be sexual, and men are, we narrate it, as men have more of a primal sexual instinct. I don't think that's actually true, but that's what you're gifted as men. That's one of your privileges, is you're allowed to, you know, if a woman is sexual, she's a slut. If a man is sexual, he's just being a man. So you put two men together, and they're, yeah, we're men. And men are sexual. So I think it just kind ofone plus one becomes two. This is the bulk of my couple practice is the couple where one person it initiating it and the other one is really hesitant, would never have thought to do this on their own, would never have initiated it. And it is a hard dynamic to explore, but its possible. And so, going slower, you cant go at the speed of the person who wants to open up. And yet, the person who is reluctant, we cant just say you get to go at the speed too, so theres really kind of an art of helping people, couples, go at a pace thats fast enough for the person who wants to try this and, you know, not traumatizing the one that is more reluctant.SM: And how do you do that as a psychotherapist? What are the tools you use to help these couples navigate through that?JF: Yeah, one of the tools, a lot of times we need to do individual work and couples work. And so with the more reluctant client, let's say a lot of tools would be IFS [Internal Family Systems] work, parts work and helping them sort through the parts of them that are really struggling with this, the monogamous parts of them, and then even helping them dialogue with the parts of them that are curious. And helping them get into more of a wise self connection that can answer the question, like am I willing to try this or is this truly I just know this isn't good for me? So I'm really vetting that consistently and repeatedly along the way that someone is not just doing this to fully appease their partner, but they're doing it in a phase. So another tool would be actually to create containers of experimentation. We're gonna try these things out for the next six months. It's not forever. Now this is how we are. Let's really try it as an experiment and each put our best foot forward with certain agreements in place, right? And then assess, is this working or not? Do we wanna keep going?SM: That's so interesting. And what would an example of a six-month container experiment be?JF: It could be that we're going to play with people together and we're not going to date separately, but we're gonna experiment with having threesomes, or going to clubs, or bringing people, you know, home, or dating other couples. Or it could be we're each gonna just date one person in this period. Or we're just gonna go on dates without having sex. Right, or something like that, it could be phasing into it. And everyone is different. Some people struggle with the more emotional side. Some people are fine with that and they struggle with the sexual side. It's like, you know, they're each thresholds to pass through in partnership. So you have to figure out what that is together.SM: We're taught, you know, that infidelity is the worst thing ever, which creates a system where, A, you disrespect or hate people for being not faithful, but also creates a system where you feel like you must be intensely jealous. How does jealousy play into all of this?JF: People are really afraid of jealousy is true. And in non-monogamy, this is a paradigm of relationship that embraces jealousy. It says, yes, it's a thing, and we don't have to be so afraid of it, right? Instead of fearing it or feeding into it too much, we embrace it as like, this is an important messenger. It's telling us something that needs tending to.SM: Do you think all humans are capable of getting past that and enjoying consensual non-monogamy or do you think many, its just never an option for them?JF: People on both sides say the exact same thing. They say, this is how I'm wired to be, whether that's monogamy or non-monogamy. And then there's a lot of gray area in the middle. It does almost seem like a certain wiring where they're just not as jealous. And certain people are more jealous and there's nothing wrong or better about either one, but there are people who get really turned on and excited by their partner being with someone else.SM: How important is it when you are really coaching and counseling folks on open relationships for there to be rules? Do you find it super important or varied?JF: Yes, the word rules doesn't bode well. People want to avoid that word of rules, but more about agreement. And what I really want to get to is, you know, cause we can have the technical agreements and then someone's always going to find their technical way around them. It's moving back and it's about an attitude of care and consideration. Right? And when we can be rooted in, yes, I want my freedoms, but I also am holding the care and consideration of my partner, then it's easier to make agreements. Yes, on a work night, we're just both going to be home by 10 because it's stressful for the household if someone's showing up at one in the morning. It's not a rule, it's just a consideration. Then on the weekends, yeah, stay out later. Right? Even small things like that. I think having clear agreements is very important, yes.SM: And for people who are watching this thinking, what the heck is a clear agreement? Can you give examples?JF: Some of them become more about, like, when we put our phones away and we're not messaging, you know, other people when we're in bed with each other or we're not constantly messaging other people when it's our quality time or our date. Right? It also is sexual agreements. Right? What's on the table? What's off the table? What are our safe sex practices together? When are we getting tested? What barriers do we use or not use? And when that shifts.SM: When you're working with people in open relationships, my thought could be it's gonna take away or destroy the sex life of the primary relationship. What do you find there?JF: I find that's not necessarily the case. Often the opening up process creates this resurgence of sex in that original couple because there's something very liberating about like, wait, we're not obliged to be together? And like we each have this freedom? And they will feel this heightened sexual stage for a while. It doesn't last, but it's almost like a new NRE, a new relationship energy that the original couple has and they're having usually better, hotter sex. Usually, in the opening up process, you also are exploring your sexuality in new ways, right? It's not the same with every person or there's different types of styles or kink that's now showing up in your experience and that's coming back into that original bedroom. Of course there are people who weren't satisfied with their sex life and now they're going and having better sex with other people or different sex, it's not always better, and that can be a strain on the relationship, of course, if the original relationship can't evolve sexually together. So I think if we see this as an opportunity to evolve our sexuality, then that's what you're going to yield, right? But if it's just about this fear of you're going to have better sex with someone else and leave me, that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.SM: I do think there's a huge, huge percentage of the population who have these itches, that they just push, push, push, push, push down. What is your advice to those people who might be thinking it, but would never say it to anyone and not even a therapist?JF: Right, yeah, I would say just start allowing it in your own consciousness. You don't have to take behavioral steps yet, but just admitting, even if it is, yes, of course I'm attracted to other people. I mean, the research on even monogamous people, the research on their own sexual fantasies is of threesomes, even if they don't behaviorally ever have a threesome, right? But their sexual fantasy is of non-monogamy. Great, right? So just allowing that and normalizing attraction to more than one person or emotional attraction and spark and polarity to more than one person is okay, you don't have to behaviorally act on it. I always say, start with your partner that you're not saying, Hey, I've made a decision. Just say, Hey I just want to explore this like theoretically. That's a much safer way to go into that conversation than Hey, I'm saying I actually want to do this and this is what we're doing now.SM: Your work focuses on non-monogamy and polyamory but also the intersection it has with attachment theory. Can you explain that connection a little bit more?JF: Yeah, so in the process of working with clients and seeing what their struggles were, one of the things I noticed was, oh, they're having, like, attachment anxiety or attachment ruptures. But the process of opening up is changing their attachment experience is how they would describe it. And so when I started to kind of treat the attachment system, wow, things got easier.SM: I think a lot of people would think, okay, adding another person into a relationship, that would create more stressors on attachment and it could actually cause, you know, greater turmoil.JF: So yes, it can, right? That when there's more people, there is more complexity. And sometimes that increase in complexity means more activation, more triggers, more stress, more drama. It also means more opportunities, that there's certain ways that being non-monogamous can activate our attachment system that monogamy never did and so it heals more things. It's pretty amazing. So it can become this opportunity for heightened healing. There's also a way where you can have new partners that meet attachment needs you've never had met before. And there's actually more healing that happens through having multiple people in your life. Because it's similar, like we're saying about the research, like, we all know one human cannot meet the entirety of our needs, but we pretend to function that way. So in non-monogamy, it's like, wow, you can get more of your attachment needs met. And that can be quite beautiful. But yeah, it can be also difficult and complex.SM: How does it, in the best case scenario, enrich people's lives when you notice them being able to have love with multiple people or sex with two sexy people, even though they're in a relationship, you know?JF: Yeah, right. People experience more need fulfillment, not just sexually, but of non-sexual needs, more like interest fulfillment, multiple people to share their hobbies and interests with. There's more love, there's more support. If people are bringing families together, then we have, like, more financial resources, more parenting resources at the table, more people to raise children together, even though it might not be easy when people are really doing it, its quite beautiful.SM: When you say you're working with people on kind of attachment issues, I guess, what does that mean when you're healing wounds?JF: Right. We can explore, okay, what is the wound that's coming up? Okay, let's say it's this fear of abandonment or fear of rejection. Well, what part of you is holding that? When did that begin, right? Oh, yeah, I was 7 years old and, you know, there's always a history that's there. We can go back and do the work of healing those parts of us that went through those experiences.SM: How much do you think religion comes into play, in America, as it relates to our conception of monogamy or being non-monogamous?JF: I think it has a huge, you know, impact. I mean, even like, you know, the Madonna whore complex, like you're either the virgin mother or you're a whore, right, that shows up fromfrom religion. Many of my clients are dealing with body shame and sexual shaming that came from their religious experience, their religious upbringing. The fact that you could go to hell, like those kind of stories and narratives have an impact, that if you were to do certain things, right, whether it's not being straight or not being monogamous, of course it has an impact.SM: Do you see 10 years from now us being way less monogamous? Do you imagine a change? Because I really think, why hasn't it happened now? We have this science, we're, you know, a progressed society.JF: Yeah.SM: Whats the hold up in a way, you know?JF: Yeah, totally. We can have a lot of info and knowledge, but it takes time for structures, social structures, to adapt and change because there's just, there's more rigidity and bureaucracy in place and custom and culture in place. But it's happening. There are cities in the US that are acknowledgingtheyreso people who are polyamorous are not a protected class. You can get fired at work because you're polyamorous. You could have challenges in the legal system with custody. You could be denied housing because you are polyamorous. Right? And people actually experience this.SM: Wow.Subscribe nowJF: And there's places like in Massachusetts, it's Cambridge and Somerville, and then in California, it's Berkeley and there's a few other cities that are passing laws to have polyamorous people be a protected class. So it's happening, right? The legal system is starting to say, oh, we need to have this.SM: I think it's easy to talk about, but it is so scary, because it could jeopardize, in a lot of people's minds, I think, their home, their family, their security, their everything. How do we get beyond that? Because it feels, I think to so many people, like a literal mountain to get beyond.JF: Yeah, I think there's a lot of parallels with coming out as not straight, right, as queer, and then coming out as polyamorous. So I think when we get in touch with, you know, this is who I am, or this is how I want to live, or these are my values, it does, it takes the risk and the leap with courage to say, okay, I'm going to start being this way in the world and speaking about it in the world. So instead of though, this like, I'm gonna come out all at once. I'll talk with people about, well, who do you need to come out to first? Or who do you want, where is it safe to come out? Where is it safe to start a conversation? Like which friend or which family member can you just start to share this with?SM: What can we do, everyday people, non-monogamous or monogamous, to create a space where non-monogamous people, polyamorous people, feel more accepted?JF: Yeah. I think just allowing like, you know, oh, are you married? Like that kind of question that we might just lead when we meet a stranger, right? I'm just like, oh tell me about your relationship structure. Imagine if we just asked that, like what's your relationship style? Or, oh, do you have any partners? Allowing the plurality of it, or the multiplicity of it, in when we're meeting new people, I think would open the door to such interesting conversations, or for people to feel safe to reveal.SM: Is there a country leading the way or are there regions in the world where this is more common? And do you have any theory as to explain out why they might be more common in Region X?JF: Yeah, that's a great question. I think in liberal cities, I think in Canada, there has been laws passed that actually allow three different adults to be on the birth certificate of a child. When I talk about the nuclear family, like this is a structure that isn't working. We're not meant to be in this contained, siloed family system. We're meant to be with multiple generations and multiple families and more of a communal type of supportive environment. The village is what we're supposed to be experiencing. And people are like, yeah, like they get it. Right? There's a lot around in our current family and relationship systems that isn't working and people are suffering.SM: I have a friend, you know, down the street that's a throuple and there's just less systems in place to support these types of relationship dynamics too at this point, isn't there?Subscribe nowJF: Right. There's less systems, whether it's health insurance, inheritance laws. Is the bed big enough? Right? Is, like, is the apartment suited for more than two people in the house? Yes. Is the sidewalk big enough for three people to walk together? I mean, there's so many ways we don't think about, you know, and the classic plus one invitation, right, that a wedding or a work event, thatyeah.SM: Sociologically, every institution is totally made up just for monogamous relationships.JF: For monogamy, right, tax benefits, all of it.SM: Wow. You have made me think a lot today. Jessica Fern, thank you so much for your time and for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today. This was a really rich conversation.JF: Thank you, Spencer. Yeah, it's been great.If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:Donate to Uncloseted Media
Help Center
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
