Monopride & Polyphobia Examples in Eric Anderson's Article on Polygamy

In Mononormativity, Polypride, and the “Mono-Poly Wars,” Ferrer describes an ongoing “war” that has developed between those in favour of monogamy (monogamists) and those in favour of polyamory (polyamorists). Two opposing psychosocial attitudes have derived from each side: monopride/polyphobia and polypride/monophobia, with each claiming that their relative relationship dynamic is superior over the other. Because monogamy is the dominant and default relationship dynamic in many societies, monopride/polyphobia was the first attitude to be seen as a movement and polypride/monophobia emerged as a movement in response.

Monogamists and polyamorists often develop certain stereotypical mindsets and judgement of each other as a result. Ferrer takes a critical pluralist approach by reviewing empirical literature of psychological health and relationship quality of monogamous and polyamorous relationships. He concludes that there is no evidence of one relationship dynamic being more beneficial than the other.

In Anderson’s study titled “At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy,” interviews are conducted with 40 heterosexual male undergraduate students in England.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Polygamy

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The participants, all of whom have cheated on their girlfriend at least once, are asked about their experiences and feelings with monogamy and cheating. Anderson uses hegemony theory to explain that monogamy is the only socially acceptable relationship dynamic available to male heterosexual university students. The participants’ responses reflect that they cheated, not because of lost love, but because of their longing for recreational sex with another woman. Anderson theorizes, through cognitive dissonance theory, that their behaviours of cheating are the solution to the conflict between wanting monogamy and wanting sex outside the relationship.

Anderson also adds that other factors could be at play, such as gender roles and cultural expectations regarding monogamy. The article ends with a statement that “this research indicates the need for the cultural recognition of varying relationship models without a presumption of the superiority or morality of monogamy” (Anderson, 2010, pg. 867).

I think, originally, I held an opinion similar to the polypride/monophobia described in Ferrer’s article. Many features of non-monogamy appeal to me. I am uncomfortable with possession-based shows of affection and jealousy. However, I never thought that a mindset supporting non-monogamy could also be negative towards monogamy. I became more aware of this when Ferrer described some common perceptions that polyamorists and monogamists have about each other. For example, polyamorists are often thought of as being in social despair and isolation.In my self-exploration, I have often wondered whether monogamy was the natural relationship dynamic for human beings to be in. These articles demonstrate that relationship dynamic is likely determined by biological factors as well as cultural influences. The most important thing to keep in mind is that no relationship dynamic is generally superior to another. The relationship dynamic that is most beneficial will vary from person to person. However, there needs to be more awareness towards minority relationship dynamics so that more people can benefit from them.

These articles significantly impacted me on a personal level. For many years, I lived practicing monogamy simply because it was the only thing I knew. Throughout my childhood and adolescence, I had no exposure to non-monogamy in the way that many individuals have exposure to monogamous relationships: in the media, within our own family and friend group, through the educational system. After beginning university, I found myself in a community that was so accepting and inclusive that I felt like I was able to be more like myself, but it also made me realize that I didn’t really know myself. I was in a long-term monogamous relationship at the time. Shortly afterwards, I introduced the idea of becoming an open relationship and my partner and I agreed that we would “give it a try,” with some limitations. I believe that I was using excuses to validate my choice of wanting be non-monogamous; I just didn’t know it at the time. I would tell myself that I just wanted to explore more of my sexuality for a little while, or that I just wanted to have fun while I was still young, or that it was just a sexual fetish.

The situation I found myself in was very similar to Anderson’s interviews with the heterosexual university men. Although the participants wanted to partake in non-monogamous behaviours, they also wanted to keep the identity of being in a monogamous relationship and this caused cognitive dissonance. Their solution to the cognitive dissonance was to cheat. My solution was to make the above excuses. I didn’t follow the same route as the participants, but I will admit that there were times that I came close and it scared me. Thinking about wanting to be in a non-monogamous relationship has, at times, made me feel like I was doing something morally wrong. I don’t want to just “give non-monogamy a try” or have non-monogamy within limits. In fact, my feelings did not feel truly validated until I read Ferrer’s article, specifically the section on empirical evidence.

Ferrer explained that there was evidence for a possible biological basis leading to one’s relationship dynamic preference. When a certain section of DNA was switched out of a monogamous species of mice and implanted into a non-monogamous species of mice, the non-monogamous mice took on monogamous behaviours. An extra DNA section has also been found in human individuals who practice monogamy that is not found in polyamorous individuals. This explanation, although only a theory, has at least given an explanation for why my urge for non-monogamy seems so uncontrollable. I also realized that this feeling is similar to how queer individuals feel when they are coming to terms with a sexual orientation that may differ from the “norm.” I was privileged enough to grow up in a community that had awareness about different sexual orientations. So, when I came out as bisexual during my childhood, it was not as dramatic.

This was my first time experiencing these feelings: fear but also relief. Ferrer mentions that many individuals in the polyamorous community describe polyamory and monogamy as existing on a continuum, ranging from very polyamorous to very monogamous, like Kinsey’s scale of sexual orientation. This has made me think that one’s monogamy/non-monogamy preferences may function like a sexual or romantic orientation. However, some polyamorists argue that their relationship preferences are a choice and that it is common for women to change their preferences in various sociopolitical situations. Ferrer does not expand on this, but I wonder if this choice is made for reasons of personal safety similar to how queer individuals may choose their behaviours based on their sociopolitical environment. One criticism I have of Ferrer’s article is the choice in terminology. Ferrer chooses to compare “monogamy” with “polyamory.”

The term polyamory is usually described as involving multiple consensual affective and sexual relationships. However, this term is not inclusive of other valid types of consensual non-monogamy such as open relationships and swinging. I am unsure whether the choice has a specific purpose, but the article seemed to imply that polyamory was more valid than other types of non-monogamy. Anderson takes the opposite approach and focuses more on open relationships than any other type of non-monogamy. He suggests open relationships as a possible solution to the participants’ cognitive dissonance. Early in the article, Anderson mentions that he tells the study participants about his own personal life to gain their trust, including his own open marriage. Having personal experience himself, this might be one reason that Anderson emphasizes open relationships.