Alternatives to Monogamy Author: Self-Labeling, Sophia Kotov Actual Practice, Advisor: and Nadine Hubbs What Happens in the Second Reader: Interstices Terri Conley �1 Table of Contents Introduction p. 06 Defining Non-Monogamy p. 08 Literature Review p. 13
 Part 1 Talking the Talk: Describing One’s Self to Others Chapter 1 From the Well-Known to the Unknown: Perception Management Through Terminolog y p. 32 Chapter 2 Nature vs. Nurture: We ‘Are’, But I ‘Choose’ p. 48 Part 2 Under Pressure: Social Imperatives to Conform Chapter 3 The Monogamous Social Script p. 60 Chapter 4 Non-Monogamy as a Feminist Issue: Autonomy of Body and Mind p. 74 Conclusion p. 87 Appendices p. 90 �2 Abstract Among life’s milestones include one’s high school prom, engagement, wedding, and having children. Each of these would be vastly different in a world where monogamy was not a pervasive norm. Not only is monogamy deeply woven into the fabric of our society, it is tied closely to personal identity. This thesis explores the experiences of individuals who depart from the monogamous norm. Two overarching questions guide this exploration: 1) How do college students talk about their non-monogamous relationships? 2) What factors contribute to a college student’s decision to pursue such a relationship? For the first question, I focus on how non-monogamous individuals approach labelling their relationship, as well as if they describe their non-monogamy to be an innate characteristic or a personal choice. In answering the second question, I describe the impacts of the social pressure to be monogamous, as well as pressures produced by gendered social scripts, on college students’ decisions to be in non- monogamous relationships. �3 Acknowledgements I’d like to give the deepest and most heartfelt thanks to the individuals involved in my thesis writing journey. It takes a village to raise a child; likewise, it takes a college town to write a thesis. Nadine Hubbs — Deepest thanks go out to you for being a consistent source of inspiration (in both the academic and fashion realms) and perfect wording. Terri Conley - the first article I ever read for my thesis (back in February 2014!) was your piece: “A Critical Examination of Popular Assumptions About the Benefits and Outcomes of Monogamous Relationships.” Getting you as a second reader was an academic dream come true. Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Ruby Tapia — I think I speak for the entire cohort when I say that you are amazing. I cannot imagine a better seminar leader. You effortlessly blend compassion and no bullshit; that’s pretty inspiring. PJ McGann — Taking Soc. of Sexuality with you my freshman year changed my life. That course and the way you taught it has stuck with me more than any other course here at Michigan (just skim through this thesis if you want proof). You are a role model to me and the epitome of an amazing professor. My boss and partner in crime - Laura Alford. Thanks for taking some time away from teaching freshmen, dressing up as superheroes, and all-around slaying, to talk with me about all things related to social justice and Hamilton the Musical. My mentor, Vidal Borromeo. Your encouragement, advice, and gentle nudges have extended far past anything related to computer science. Thank you for inspiring me to listen to my instincts and pursue that which inspires me. To all members of MichMinnie’s co-op between Fall 2013 and Spring 2016. You’ve been with me every step of the way. From hearing me brainstorm, to helping me explore the topic both formally and informally, to getting me across the finish line. Special shout out to the guff bagels, co-op curry, and PBR from the beer vending machine for fueling my research and writing efforts. My two thesis cohorts - Katie Irani, Ebere Oparaeke, and McKenzie Campbell this year and Emma Maniere, Meg Scribner, Emily Preuss, Cosette Kathawa, Katie Deikman, and Haley Schreier last year. I’m so lucky to have had not one thesis family, but two. �4 To Arjun Iyer. End of sentence. To my housemates - Jake “delicate stomach” Rothenberg, Dan “I’m French, I promise” JV, Kyle “I know how to make eggs” “Finnegan”, Robin “billion dollar idea” Mehta, Michaela “adventure is my middle name” Carmein, Nate “master of disaster” Argetsinger, Mike “nice abs” Vaandering, and Joe “businessman” Lipson. Together, we’ve made our home a really special and inspirational place to write a thesis, to build cool shit, and to write a thesis. To Nadeem. You are my oldest, dearest, wisest, kindest, most compassionate friend. You are a treasure in my life. To Erik Ljungman. You are my wonder twin. To Nicole Kotov — thanks for keeping it real. You have the most random set of interests that blend together in the coolest ways. You also don’t try to be anyone but yourself. I wish I had been as wise as you when I was your age. And last, but not least, to Elvira Stesikova and Nicholas Kotov. You two have inspired in this process more than you realize. Thanks for trusting my decisions and supporting me in all pursuits I choose. Your love and respect is priceless. 
 �5 Introduction Since sexologists began to develop sexual categories, people have been preoccupied with categorizing sexual desire. Ever since we established the existence of homosexuality, and hence of heterosexuality, our society has been fascinated not only with sexual practice, but also with sexual identity. In this thesis, I expand upon these overarching concepts—identity, practice, and (self-) labeling of stigmatized sexual categories — as they relate to non-monogamy. Sociological research has shown that there exist plenty of examples of disconnects between identity and actual practice. LGBT spheres contain numerous examples of this phenomenon and studying the reasons for these disconnects reveals important truths about the society in which these disconnects are found. Sexual labels are of particular interest, as these labels are quite often incorporated in an individual’s self-construction. Labels for sexual behavior contrast against terms and identities imposed on individuals, as they are taken up by choice for the purpose of self- expression, as well as to signify where an individual positions themselves socially. In the spirit of self-labeling and the study of how individuals talk about themselves, I have two questions that guide the overarching content of this paper: 1) How do college students talk about their non-monogamous relationships? 2) What factors contribute to college students’ decisions to pursue such a relationship? �6 Given the broad nature of the questions, the following pages address only a select set of answers to these questions. This thesis contains two sections – one for each question. In the first section, I look broadly about how college students talk about non- monogamy. First, I discuss what words my participants use, don’t use, and for what reasons. Next, I look at the answers my participants gave to the question “Which statement is more appropriate: “I practice non-monogamy” or “I am non- monogamous.” I use these answers as the baseline for a discussion on whether non- monogamy is more akin to a sexual orientation, or a relationship configuration. In the second section, I explore reasons my participants gave for engaging in non- monogamous relationships. First, I discuss the strong pressure to adhere to monogamous norms and how non-monogamy relieves some of this pressure. Next, I discuss gender differences in choosing to be non-monogamous. Finally, I contextualize the practice of non-monogamy within the larger context of hook-up culture. Before delving into my findings, I will first give an overview of the many definitions that fall under the non-monogamous umbrella. This is to give a better sense of the behaviors and identities that my use of the term “non-monogamous” encompasses. I will then address the existing literature on monogamy, non-monogamy, and self-labeling, as they relate to my findings. I then use the groundwork laid out by previous scholars to contextualize and inform my own findings. Finally, I must note that the purpose of this paper is not to prove the superiority of one relationship style over another. It is simply to explore a relationship style and the experiences of individuals who choose to participate in it. �7 Defining Non-Monogamy The adjective “non-monogamy” typically takes one of three nouns - behavior, identity, or relationship. Non-monogamous behavior is the practice of having sexual or romantic relationships with more than one person at a time. The other partners involved may or may not know about the non-monogamous behavior. Without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved, such behavior is often considered to be “cheating.” Non-monogamous identity describes the state, rather than practice, of being willing to behave non-monogamously under some, though not necessarily all, circumstances. A non-monogamous relationship is an agreement between two or more people to be committed to each other while also agreeing that sexual and/or romantic contact with other individuals in some, though not necessarily all cases, does not constitute cheating. These terms describe a broad range of people and situations and, depending on the individual using the term, can take a variety of more specific definitions. One individual may define non-monogamous behavior as flirting with or even fantasizing about anyone other than the primary romantic partner while another individual believes kissing, but not fantasizing about kissing, to constitute non-monogamous behavior. Other couples may agree that sexual feelings outside of the dyad do not pose a threat to the relationship. Such couples may agree to be in a non-monogamous �8 relationship, though the limits of the relationship may also differ from couple to couple. Some couples may decide that acting on sexual feelings does not constitute cheating, but acting on romantic feelings does. Other couples may agree that having romantic feelings for multiple people is fine. And still others may agree that having penetrative sex with another person constitutes cheating, but any other sexual contact is fine. It is important to note that individuals must “opt-in” for these terms to apply. One must identify their own relationship as non-monogamous in order for it to be a “non-monogamous relationship.” Accordingly, one should be wary applying the term to individuals other than themselves and relationships other than their own. That being said, a study done by Conley et al found that 4-5% of Americans are in consensually non-monogamous relationships (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2012). Terms Describing Non-Monogamy There are a number of terms developed by individuals and by researchers of the subject to describe sets and subsets of non-monogamous behavior, identity, and relationships. In the table below titled “Terms Related to Non-Monogamy” are some of the terms I found most useful or that came up most frequently in my research. There are also a number of terms developed by individuals and by researchers to describe social phenomena that are closely related to non-monogamous relationships. The �9 terms I found most relevant to my research are also listed below in the table titled “Terms Describing Social Phenomena Related to Non-Monogamy." Terms Similar to Non-Monogamy “Any relationship arrangement in which the partners agree to have Consensual extradyadic sexual or romantic relationships (Conley et al, 2013, 2). The three Non-Monogamy CNM relationship types are swinging, polyamorous relationships, and open relationships (Matsick et al, 2013). Non-Monogamous An ongoing relationship between two or more people who have all agreed that Relationship extra-dyadic sexual contact does not constitute cheating Two people who consider themselves to be in a relationship and have agreed Open Relationship that sexual contact with other people does not constitute cheating “The philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more Polyamory than one person at a time.” - Google Dictionary Terms Describing Social Phenomena Related to Non-Monogamy “…reflects participants' somatic desires, or how many sexual partners they Desirous fantasize about having (or would desire to have if there were no social controls Monogamy on their monogamous relationships)” (Anderson, 2010, 854). “Mutual monogamy means that you agree to be sexually active with only one Monogamy person, and that person has agreed to be sexually active only with you.” (CDC, 2009) Physical “…reflects participants’ bodily behaviors, or how many extradyadic sexual Monogamy experiences the participant has had” (Anderson, 2010, 854). “…reflects participants’ desire to be thought of as monogamous by their peers Social and society more broadly - even if they are not practicing it” (Anderson, 2010, Monogamy 854). The practice of going from one long-term monogamous relationship to another Serial Monogamy with little to no casual sex in-between �10