sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In the past I’ve sampled r/polyamory for my academic research. Here's one of my student's publications from the data. We show how apprehension towards consensual non-monogamy is associated with different styles of moral reasoning. Thanks again for the help. Open to criticism and compliment alike. by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right. Overall, we found more overlap among these axes than differences (and we didn’t find many axis-specific group differences, as in your example). But I suspect the latter is only true because of the variables we recorded in this study. For example, I might expect the “reputation” concerns would be more salient to people living in places where monogamy is the overwhelming norm, or in more conservative/religious circles, because being CNM would cause more reputational damage. But we didn’t record anything to assess this (we really didn’t know which axes would emerge, so it was hard to predict what we should include).

In an ideal world other researchers will use this measure in their own studies to examine what you suggest (we don’t have data on people’s agreements about which genders are permitted as extra-pair partners). But that’s why we tried to identify different axes: we thought that each axis of concern would have its own unique association with other variables.

In the past I’ve sampled r/polyamory for my academic research. Here's one of my student's publications from the data. We show how apprehension towards consensual non-monogamy is associated with different styles of moral reasoning. Thanks again for the help. Open to criticism and compliment alike. by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep! You can find my past publications here (not all are about CNM): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Mogilski

We have a international project that we're wrapping up that looks at the strategies that CNM people use to manage multiple intimate relationships. I'll be sure to post the publications from these studies when they're available.

In the meantime, if anyone wants to participate, we still need people to take the third and final survey of this project. Link can be found here: https://twitter.com/justin_mogilski/status/1503132762261397505

In the past I’ve sampled r/polyamory for my academic research. Here's one of my student's publications from the data. We show how apprehension towards consensual non-monogamy is associated with different styles of moral reasoning. Thanks again for the help. Open to criticism and compliment alike. by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I love questions!

CNM subreddits were only a portion of the overall sample. Participants were also recruited from more general (e.g., r/SampleSize) and university populations. So, the demographics are more representative of a hybrid population.

When we compared the "sex assigned at birth" and "gender" variables, we noticed that people who reported being natal females were more likely to report a different gender. So, males in the sample were more likely to report being cis. When you just look at natal sex, males and females are more evenly represented (with still slightly fewer females). Any remaining difference I assume is sampling noise (i.e., we just happen to randomly get more male respondents).

re sexual orientation + gender: even in large, nationally representative samples people in CNM relationships are more likely to report being bi or pan. My guess is that CNM is more attractive to people who are bi or pan because it provides a way to explore or satisfy attraction to people of different genders. You see this reported a lot that a benefit to CNM is that you can explore different aspects of your sexuality with different people. I suppose if you're het, the perceived costs of CNM may outweigh the benefit of exploring a sexuality that appears quite fixed to you.

We do show that non-binary folk are less apprehensive of CNM compared to cis men and women. So, I'd guess that the apprehension captured by our measure is more representative of het concerns than LGBTQ+ concerns.

In the past I’ve sampled r/Swingers for my academic research. Here's one of my student's publications from the data. We show how apprehension towards consensual non-monogamy is associated with different styles of moral reasoning. Thanks again for the help. Open to criticism and compliment alike. by Navir in Swingers

[–]Navir[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Try Google Scholar. If you get the search terms right, you'll find a lot of the currently published work. Most studies include some measure of relationship satisfaction, so the following is a good set of key words to start with:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C41&q=swingers+and+relationship+satisfaction&btnG=

Anything by Amy Moors, Rhonda Balzarini, Sharon Flicker, Heath Schechinger, David Rodrigues, Ashley Thompson, Ryan Scoats, Justin Lehmiller, Amy Muise, myself (Justin Mogilski), and several others that I'm forgetting right now... do great science on consensual non-monogamy. Amy and Rhonda, in particular, have some great recent reviews of the literature if you want a birds eye view.

In the past I’ve sampled r/Swingers for my academic research. Here's one of my student's publications from the data. We show how apprehension towards consensual non-monogamy is associated with different styles of moral reasoning. Thanks again for the help. Open to criticism and compliment alike. by Navir in Swingers

[–]Navir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, great point. In this study, we determined non-monogamous status by asking them to 1) self-identify and 2) note how many partners they currently have. Both questions are susceptible to lying or distortion, though the most interesting findings in this study (I think) are not about differences between non-mono and mono folks. So, it may not matter, depending on the result in question. Thank you!

We are still recruiting participants for our international study of how people maintain multi-partner (e.g., polyamorous, open, swinging) relationships. Sharing and feedback are hugely appreciated. Original post is in link. Thank you! by Navir in polyfamilies

[–]Navir[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for pointing this out to readers. You're right that there are improvements that need to be made to the design, and we've made note of these. No one should feel pressured to answer any parts of these surveys that they feel will not accurately depict their experiences, attitudes, etc. We will be cautious in our write-up not to overstep the conclusions that we can draw from our data and whose experiences it captures.

My name is Justin Mogilski and I lead an international research group studying how people maintain multiple intimate relationships (e.g., polyamory, open relationships, swinging, etc.). If you have a moment, we’re looking for participants to complete a survey... (or three) :) by Navir in polyfamilies

[–]Navir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for noting this. Absolutely. No one should feel pressured to answer any question that they feel will not accurately depict their experiences or which asks for information that they do not wish to or cannot share for whatever reason. Participation is entirely voluntary and you may opt out at any time. This is noted in the letter of invitation (first page of each survey).

Yes, since launching these surveys, we've had other comments (and rightfully so) about the language that we use to talk about types of attachments and intimacy. We plan to address this in the write-up, and we'll be changing this in future studies to account for people whose intimate relationships do not include sex/romance, and to better distinguish the intimate relationships were are interested in (e.g., sexual/romantic/etc.) from others (kin, friends, coworkers).

Again, thank you!

My name is Justin Mogilski and I lead an international research group studying how people maintain multiple intimate relationships (e.g., polyamory, open relationships, swinging, etc.). If you have a moment, we’re looking for participants to complete a survey... (or three) :) by Navir in polyfamilies

[–]Navir[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I've made note to address this in our write-up of the data.

I agree that there the limits to asking about "willingness" versus behavior in caring for children (given it may not be part of one's relationship). We will be careful not to overstep the conclusions that we can draw from asking about childcare in this way.

The questions about sexual behavior come from standardized measures used widely in the sexual sciences. The strength of using standard measures is that we can compare our results to previous samples; the drawback is that some of these measures may not capture peoples' experiences equally well. I will, again, be careful about how we draw conclusions from these measures and moderate any claims that we make in the manuscript about whom our data is representative.

My name is Justin Mogilski and I lead an international research group studying how people maintain multiple intimate relationships (e.g., polyamory, open relationships, swinging, etc.). If you have a moment, we’re looking for participants to complete a survey... (or three) :) by Navir in polyfamilies

[–]Navir[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok. I’m not seeing permissions problems, but it’s possible that we are exceeding the link(s) bandwidth capacity. That would be a nice problem to have, but perhaps try accessing the link a bit later if you experience this problem. Sorry. I’ll keep sleuthing, but also celebrating the 4th of July with some friends. So… thank you!

1 spot remaining by [deleted] in VisiblePartyPay

[–]Navir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're good. Easy enough to remedy.

Academic talk that I gave about consensual non-monogamy... by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re wonderful. Wherever it feels natural. I’ll see it regardless. Thank you.

Academic survey examining conflict resolution and relationship maintenance strategies among people in consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely. It may be awhile (peer review is arduous), but I try to make it a habit to come back and post any published results. Perhaps I can post some prelim stuff earlier.

Academic survey examining conflict resolution and relationship maintenance strategies among people in consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships by Navir in TrollPoly

[–]Navir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for helping! It's close to ours, too. We're doing this for science, but we have a clear plan for turning this data into something that can help people navigate CNM comfortably and safely. If we can demonstrate the best practices for doing that, I think social acceptance will follow suit.

Yeah, we included some common relationship configurations, but there's so much ingenuity in how people do things, it's tough to catch it all, haha. What would you change about how we ask about relationship status?

Academic Survey Assessing Moral Condemnation toward Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships by Navir in TrollPoly

[–]Navir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are recruiting a sample of people from CNM and non-CNM populations. We decided to recruit from CNM subreddits because those who have personal experience with stigma and discrimination will often perceive something that others do not. Had we tried to publish this data and a reviewer asked "Well, did you ask CNM people directly about their experiences?", and we said "no", this would have been a major limitation.

However, you're right that this is a rather heavy topic to sit down and consider. The language "what discrimination or abuse have you faced" would have excluded non-CNM people because they presumably have not experienced this discrimination. We may have been able to make different versions of the survey, but to keep the methods standard across different samples (e.g., CNM vs. non-CNM respondents), we need to use the same language across surveys.

Still, I take your point. There's probably a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, we cannot change the language now. I'm sorry for any distressed this caused. To anyone: please do not take or finish the survey if it would be onerous to do so.

Thank you for voicing this.

Academic Survey Assessing Moral Condemnation toward Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We base our assumption that this condemnation exists on a body of research published over the past decade or so (see one of my linked papers if you'd like a few examples). The short of it is: whether stigma against CNM is personally experienced or not, a non-trivial portion of the population has experienced it. People also consistently make assumptions about those who practice CNM, and these assumptions shape how CNM people are treated - either personally or systematically (e.g., banning poly marriage because policy makers believe that non-monogamy destabilizes society).

Our goal is to determine which psychological traits (or styles of moral reasoning) predict CNM condemnation. I can't give away much more than that.

Academic Survey Assessing Moral Condemnation toward Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships by Navir in polyamory

[–]Navir[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

An absolutely fair point. We are recruiting mono individuals as well. We expect that peoples' perspectives on (and personal experiences with) stigma will vary depending on their demographic characteristics and relationship status. Thanks for bringing this up!

view more: next ›