What if many of our clinical and educational frameworks are too small for the sex lives that people actually live?
Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) is no longer specialized. At least 1 in 20 people in the US are in a non-monogamous relationship—and some recent estimates suggest it can be as high as 1 in 4depending on definitions and sampling. It is interesting that TThese numbers have remained stable for over a decade and limits age, education, income, religion, region, political affiliation and race.
Where do the differences appear? Gender and sexual orientation.
Rethinking the ‘Gold Standard’
Monogamy, long considered the default relational structure, involves sexual, romantic, and intimate exclusivity with one partner.
Consensual non-monogamy (CNM), on the other hand, is a general term for relationship configurations where everyone involved agrees that multiple sexual or romantic connections are acceptable.
Research consistently shows that people in both monogamous and CNM relationships report similar levels of love, commitment, and relationship satisfaction. However, the stigma persists –Many assume that CNM relationships are less stable, less fulfilling, more jealous, or dangerous to sexual health.
But science tells a very different—and far more interesting—story.
More Than “Open”: Explaining Relationship Constellations
CNM is not one thing. It is a spectrum:
Open Relationships: sexual openness, romantic exclusivity.
Swing: cooperative love affairs.
Polymetry: creating multiple love, romantic bonds.
Relationship Anarchy: rejecting predetermined norms and building personalized relational structures.
Many CNM structures are hierarchical (with a “principal” partner), while others are completely non-hierarchical, something that research is just beginning to fully explore.
CNM’s not-so-secret superpower: Sexual Satisfaction
Regarding sexual orientations, CNM participants, particularly swingers and polygamists, reported higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous adults.
Why?
Need fulfillment: Higher-order psychological, emotional, sexual, and autonomic needs are often best met by multiple partners.
Innovation: More opportunities for self-discovery and new sexual experiences.
Different love experiences: Needs can be met by different partners in different ways.
But nuances matter. Open relationships, when considered separately, sometimes they show less positive results partly due to:
lower communication quality
more extrinsic incentives to enter CNM
less clarity around boundaries
The bottom line: sexual satisfaction is multidimensional, and monogamy is not the universal benchmark.
Jealousy: The Plot Twist
Jealousy is the first concern many people have about CNM, and one that is often misunderstood.
Research shows:
Why?
Because CNM people discuss, negotiate and deal with extra-dual entanglement more directly. Thoughts about a partner’s activity do not necessarily cause emotional distress.
For sexual health professionals, we need to stop treating jealousy as one thing.
It can be affective, cognitive, situational or hypothetical and often functions as a skill rather than a pathology.
Satisfaction: It’s complicated—and weird
So how did this study compare to others?
Relationship Satisfaction
Heterosexual CNM individuals reported similar satisfaction to monogamous individuals.
LGBQ CNM participants reported slightly higher relationship satisfaction, especially in swinging and polyamory.
Sexual Satisfaction
Across genders and orientations, CNM groups reported higher sexual satisfaction than monogamous individuals.
Among LGBQ participants, sexual satisfaction was higher in swinging and polyamory—not in open relationships.
Jealousy
The message: Sexual orientation and the structure of relationships intersect in important ways, and we shouldn’t collapse queer experiences into heterocontexts. And most importantly, we need more research to understand how these patterns play out across different LGBQ identities because the findings are likely not uniform for everyone.
Need Fulfillment and Communication: The Real Engines of CNM Thriving
Two key predictors of relationship satisfaction across relationship types:
Need Fulfillment: CNM often allows more needs—emotional, practical, psychological, sexual—to be met by different partners.
Communication: Effective communication (or lack thereof) explains a large part of the relationship satisfaction among CNM forms.
Open relationships consistently showed less effective communication than swing or polyamory groups.
Before assuming risk or instability, sexual health professionals should first assess needs and communication patterns.
Metamours: The Third Who Helps (Not Hurts)
Metamour is your partner’s partner.
And it turns out… metapartitions matter.
This contrasts with the narrative that “the other person” is a threat. For many, additional partners create a stronger sense of community, support, or relationship security.
Sexual health professionals should seek to understand the dynamics of trans and not just binary functioning.
Why clinicians need to move beyond dyads
Many CNM relationships are simply not built around primary partnerships. However, most clinical models, assessment tools, and treatment frameworks assume binary pairs.
CNM adults often report that:
their relationships become pathologized
their providers communicate discomfort or moral judgment
some therapists refuse therapy because of the structure of the relationship
To effectively serve sexual and relational health, we need to expand our frameworks to recognize:
relationship structures based on constellations
multiple forms of attachment and support
different communication standards and needs
the ways in which different aspects of identity (ie sexuality and gender) and CNM intersect
Relational diversity is not a niche issue. it is an essential part of modern sexual health.
Practical advice for sexual health professionals
Take a comprehensive sexual and relationship history
Reframing by asking about relationships. Better ask who your customer is connected to, not just their “primary partner.”
Clear up jealousy
They are:
sensitive
cognitive
Situation
hypothetical
…or something else entirely?
Identify unmet needs.
Needs can be distributed across multiple partners. don’t assume one partner = one source.
Assess your communication style
How do partners negotiate, set boundaries or express concerns?
Avoid reinforcing uninormality
Even the terms surrounding CNM have been criticized as mononormative by associating monogamy as the central, normative expectation. We must continue to ensure that all constellations and relationship configurations are included and normalized.
The future of sexual health is multi-partner, multi-layered and multi-dimensional
As relationships continue to evolve, so must our clinical frameworks, research, and theories. CNM Research is not a specialized plugin. it is an essential lens for understanding modern sex life.
That’s where SHA shines. SHA’s sex-positive, nonjudgmental, and evidence-based programs—particularly celebrity couples and sex therapy training—give clinicians the knowledge, tools, and confidence to work effectively with clients of any relationship structure. From cutting-edge courses to expert-led certification pathways, SHA equips professionals to stay informed, competent and truly affirmed in their practice.
The science is clear:
People can and do love, desire and thrive in more than one relationship.
It is time for our clinical practices to reflect this reality—and SHA is here to help you get there.
