Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 57–61 | Cite as

Moving Past the Rose-Tinted Lens of Monogamy: Onward with Critical Self-Examination and (Sexually) Healthy Science

  • Amy C. MoorsEmail author
Frank’s ( 2018) narrative overview analysis of connections between collective sex and HIV/STI risk explores an increasingly relevant societal issue: shifting the risk-focused dialogue around sexual behaviors to promote sexual health. Frank takes an inclusive analytic approach by uncovering parallels across academic disciplines to understand collective sexual behavior. Through this transdisciplinary analysis, she illuminates the ways in which a risk-centered approach for promoting sexual health falls short and collective sex is unwarrantedly linked with the spread of HIV/STIs. Ultimately, Frank’s thought-provoking path is likely to have researchers question their own positionality and opinions regarding collective sex (e.g., sex at swinger events, bathhouses, private events, rest areas) and HIV/STI risk. As Frank states:

Having sex intentionally in the presence of observers or with multiple partners is widely stigmatized, pathologized, and at times criminalized; places where collective...


  1. Aguilar, J. (2013). Situational sexual behaviors: The ideological work of moving toward polyamory in communal living groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 42(1), 104–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentzen, A.-S., & Træen, B. (2014). Swinging in Norway in the context of sexual health. Sexuality and Culture, 18(1), 132–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewster, M. E., Soderstrom, B., Esposito, J., Breslow, A., Sawyer, J., Geiger, E., & Foster, A. (2017). A content analysis of scholarship on consensual nonmonogamies: Methodological roadmaps, current themes, and directions for future research. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 6(1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, E. R., & Sabik, N. J. (2009). Repairing a broken mirror: Intersectional approaches to diverse women’s perceptions of beauty and bodies. In M. T. Berger & K. Guidroz (Eds.), The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through race, class, and gender (pp. 173–192). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  8. Conley, T. D., Matsick, J., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). The Investigation of consensually non-monogamous relationships: Theories, methods and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Rubin, J. D. (2015a). Re-examining the effectiveness of monogamy as an STI-preventive strategy. Preventive Medicine, 78, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More oxygen please!: How polyamorous relationship strategies might oxygenate marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013a). The fewer the merrier: Assessing stigma surrounding non-normative romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2015b). Sexuality-related risks are judged more harshly than comparable health risks. International Journal of Sexual Health, 27(4), 508–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(6), 1559–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013b). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Copen, C. E., Daniels, K., Vespa, J., & Mosher, W. D. (2012). First marriages in the United States: Data from the 20062010 National Survey of Family Growth; No. 49. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. Day, M. V. (2016). Why people defend relationship ideology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 348–360. Scholar
  17. Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, K. (2013). Plays well in groups: A journey through the world of group sex. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Frank, K. (2018). Rethinking risk, culture, and intervention in collective sex environments. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Scholar
  20. Gama, A., Abecasis, A., Pingarilho, M., Mendão, L., Martins, M. O., Barros, H., & Dias, S. (2017). Cruising venues as a context for HIV risky behavior among men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(4), 1061–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grudzen, C. R., & Kerndt, P. R. (2007). The adult film industry: Time to regulate? PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e126. Scholar
  22. Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2017a). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43(5), 424–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haupert, M. L., Moors, A. C., Gesselman, A. N., & Garcia, J. R. (2017b). Estimates and correlates of engagement in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(3), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehmiller, J. J. (2015). A comparison of sexual health history and practices among monogamous and consensually nonmonogamous sexual partners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(10), 2022–2028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “the couple” increased over time? Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moors, A. C., Matsick, J., & Schechinger, H. (2017). Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships: A review and insights for moving forward. European Psychologist, 22(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J., & Conley, T. D. (2013). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual non-monogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newport, F., Jones, J. M., Saad, L., & Carroll, J. (2006). Americans and their pets. Gallup. Retrieved from
  31. Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity: Reconciling the erotic + the domestic. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  32. Phillips, G., Grov, C., & Mustanski, B. (2015). Engagement in group sex among geosocial networking mobile application-using men who have sex with men. Sexual Health, 12(6), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scoats, R., Joseph, L. J., & Anderson, E. (2018). ‘I don’t mind watching him cum’: Heterosexual men, threesomes, and the erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sexualities, 21(1–2), 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2017). Willingness of emerging adults to engage in consensual non-monogamy: A mixed-methods analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Scholar
  36. Stewart, A. J. (1998). Doing personality research: How can feminist theories help? In B. McVicker Clinchy & J. K. Norem (Eds.), The gender and psychology reader (pp. 54–68). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Warner, L. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59(5), 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Science Research and Evaluation ProgramPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.The Kinsey InstituteIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations