Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01788-7

SPECIAL SECTION: IASR 2018 SYMPOSIUM ON CONSENSUAL NON-MONOGAMY

Fantasies About Consensual Nonmonogamy Among Persons

in Monogamous Romantic Relationships
Justin J. Lehmiller1

Received: 18 February 2019 / Revised: 6 May 2020 / Accepted: 29 June 2020 / Published online: 29 July 2020
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The present research explored fantasies about consensual nonmonogamous relationships (CNMRs) and the factors that
predict such fantasies in a large and diverse online sample (N = 822) of persons currently involved in monogamous relation-
ships. Nearly one-third (32.6%) of participants reported that being in some type of sexually open relationship was part of
their favorite sexual fantasy of all time, of whom most (80.0%) said that they want to act on this fantasy in the future. Those
who had shared and/or acted on CNMR fantasies previously generally reported positive outcomes (i.e., meeting or exceeding
their expectations and improving their relationships). In addition, a majority of participants reported having fantasized about
being in a CNMR at least once before, with open relationships being the most popular variety. Those who identified as male
or non-binary reported more CNMR fantasies than those who identified as female. CNMR fantasies were also more com-
mon among persons who identified as anything other than heterosexual and among older adults. Erotophilia and sociosexual
orientation were uniquely and positively associated with CNMR fantasies of all types; however, other individual difference
factors (e.g., Big Five personality traits, attachment style) had less consistent associations. Unique predictors of infidelity
fantasies differed from CNMR fantasies, suggesting that they are propelled by different psychological factors. Overall, these
results suggest that CNMRs are a popular fantasy and desire among persons in monogamous romantic relationships. Clinical
implications and implications for sexual fantasy research more broadly are discussed.

Keywords Sexual fantasy · Consensual nonmonogamy · Polyamory · Swinging · Open relationships · Cuckolding ·
Infidelity

In a consensual nonmonogamous relationship (CNMR), Americans found that 48% of male respondents and 31% of
partners permit one another the opportunity to have more female respondents said that their ideal relationship would
than one concurrent sexual and/or romantic relationship. be nonmonogamous to some degree (Moore, 2016).
Interest in this type of relationship appears to be on the While these findings point to significant interest in
rise. For example, searches related to polyamory and open CNMRs, it remains unclear which CNMR structures people
relationships have increased on internet search engines over find most attractive (e.g., polyamory vs. swinging vs. open
the past decade (Moors, 2017). At the same time, “how to” relationships vs. cuckolding) and whether different types of
books and guides to CNMRs have begun to proliferate, and people might be drawn to different kinds of CNMRs. The
increases have occurred in both popular media depictions goal of the present research was to assess CNMR interest
and coverage in mainstream news outlets. Public opinion and the factors that predict it among persons who are cur-
polls suggest that this surge in interest goes beyond mere rently involved in monogamous romantic relationships. This
curiosity and, for many, reflects a desire to practice con- was accomplished through an exploration of monogamous
sensual nonmonogamy. For example, a recent YouGov poll individuals’ fantasies about various forms of consensual
featuring a demographically representative sample of 1000 nonmonogamy. Fantasies were the focus because they often,
but not always, reflect people’s sexual desires and are some-
* Justin J. Lehmiller times used as a way of planning future sexual encounters
[email protected] (Lehmiller, 2018). Fantasies do not always have a deeper
meaning and, of course, many of us have fantasies that we
1
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Lindley Hall 428, do not wish to act on (e.g., Bivona & Critelli, 2009; Joyal,
150 S Woodlawn Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2800 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

Cossette, & Lapierre, 2015); however, research suggests indicate that approximately one in five Americans have been
that sexual fantasies have the potential to provide important in a sexually open relationship at some point (Haupert, Ges-
insight into people’s future plans, goals, and ideals. selman, Moors, Fisher, & Garcia, 2017). A nationally repre-
sentative Canadian study yielded an almost identical figure
(Fairbrother, Hart, & Fairbrother, 2019). The prevalence of
Types of Consensual Nonmonogamy specific forms of CNMRs in the general population is cur-
rently unknown, but these findings suggest that CNMRs in
CNMRs can take many different forms, but the most common general are not uncommon.
varieties typically described include the following. All defini-
tions below were adapted from Lehmiller (2017):

• Polyamory involves having multiple sexual and/or Fantasies About Consensual Nonmonogamy
romantic relationships at the same time with the consent
of everyone involved. Polyamory is often distinguished Consensual nonmonogamy is not just popular in Google
from other types of CNMRs in that participants may have searches (Moors, 2017) and the media; it also appears to be
several love-based relationships simultaneously. Various a recurring theme in many people’s sexual fantasies. A quali-
configurations exist and one partner may or may not be tative analysis of 4175 American adults’ favorite sex fanta-
considered primary (Balzarini et al., 2019a). sies published in Lehmiller’s (2018) book Tell Me What You
• Open relationships typically involve having a primary Want revealed that being in a sexually open relationship was
partner, but some degree of permission to have outside one of the seven most common themes to emerge. Likewise,
sexual (but usually not romantic) involvements. The regardless of whether this was their favorite fantasy, a major-
rules of open relationships vary considerably (e.g., “play ity of those who participated in this survey reported having
together” vs. “play separately,” open disclosure vs. “don’t had some type of CNMR fantasy before. Fantasies about
ask, don’t tell”) and are customized to the needs of the open relationships were most common, followed by fanta-
partners involved. sies about polyamory, swinging, and cuckolding. Lehmiller’s
• Swinging is usually defined as a temporary swapping or sample, though not representative of the U.S. population,
exchange of partners among couples. This often takes drew participants from all 50 states and was demographically
place in the context of marital relationships, and com- diverse (age range 18–87; 28% sexual minority; 21% racial
monly occurs at clubs and private parties. minority; 49% male-identified, 46% female-identified, 5%
• Cuckolding (sometimes referred to as troilism; Lehmiller, non-binary). Lehmiller explained the popularity of CNMR
Ley, & Savage, 2018) is usually defined as an arrangement fantasies through the lens of both the Coolidge effect (the
in which one person watches their partner have sex with idea that humans experience a habituation of arousal to the
someone else. It is distinct from swinging and other forms same sexual stimulus over time; Dewsbury, 1981; see also
of CNMRs in that there is often an element of BDSM in Hughes et al., 2020) and Self-Expansion Theory (the idea
cuckolding scenarios. The partner taking on the voyeur- that people have a basic need to continually grow and expand
istic role may engage in submissive and masochistic prac- the self; Aron & Aron, 1986).
tices, while the partner taking on the exhibitionistic role In general, men were more likely to report CNMR fanta-
may engage in dominant and sadistic acts (Ley, 2009). sies than were women in Lehmiller’s (2018) survey, as were
older adults, sexual minorities, and self-identified Republi-
All of the above types of CNMRs are distinguishable from cans. This survey also revealed that fantasies about CNMRs
and not to be confused with nonconsensual nonmonogamy, were related to personality, attachment style, and relation-
also known as cheating or infidelity. The defining element of ship satisfaction. Specifically, people were more likely to
any CNMR is that the rules for sexual partnerships beyond fantasize about most forms of consensual nonmonogamy to
the dyad are mutually agreed upon by all parties, while cheat- the extent that they were high in extraversion (i.e., being
ing involves someone being left out. That said, nonconsen- outgoing and sociable), openness to experience (i.e., being
sual nonmonogamy can still occur within a CNMR to the willing to try new things in general), erotophilia (i.e., hav-
extent that one violates the rules of a relationship agreement. ing a tendency to respond positively to sexual cues), sexual
Research with online convenience samples suggests that sensation seeking (i.e., having a preference for risky and
approximately 5% of respondents are currently in some type thrilling sexual encounters), and unrestricted sociosexuality
of CNMR (Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Conley, 2014); (i.e., being comfortable with casual sex and having an easy
however, it appears that far more people have experience with time separating sex from emotion). Moreover, people were
consensual nonmonogamy than this. Results from a demo- less likely to fantasize about CNMRs to the extent that they
graphically representative sample of single adults in the U.S. were high in attachment anxiety (i.e., fear of abandonment)

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812 2801

and neuroticism (i.e., having difficulty dealing with stress), are not desires; likewise, people can have desires that they
but low in relationship satisfaction. do not fantasize about. Furthermore, fantasies and desires do
not necessarily always lead to specific sexual behaviors, and
people can engage in sexual behaviors that they have never
Research Questions and Hypotheses before fantasized about or desired. Put simply, fantasy, desire,
and behavior are overlapping, but distinct constructs and an
The following research questions and hypotheses were effort was made in this study to highlight these distinctions
advanced in the present study in order to replicate and extend and avoid conflating them.
Lehmiller’s (2018) findings. These ideas were tested in a RQ 1: How many people in monogamous relationships
sample of people who were currently involved in monoga- report that being in a CNMR is part of their favorite sexual
mous relationships with the goal of better understanding how fantasy of all time? How many of them wish to act on this
people in monogamous relationships feel about CNMRs and fantasy (i.e., for whom is this a desire?) and how many have
also who is most interested in consensual nonmonogamy. actually acted on this fantasy previously? For those who have
Although people may entertain CNMR fantasies regardless acted on it, what were their experiences like? For those who
of relationship type and status, the present research focused have not acted on these fantasies, what are their reasons for
specifically on persons involved in monogamous relation- not wanting to act on them?
ships. Monogamy is the predominant relationship structure RQ 2: Which types of CNMRs (swinging, polyamory,
in the West and is widely presumed to offer the most satisfy- cuckolding, open relationships) are most likely to appear in
ing arrangement (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2013); the sexual fantasies of people in monogamous relationships?
consequently, focusing on those in monogamous relation- How often do people in monogamous relationships fantasize
ships provides an opportunity to examine whether monogamy about CNMRs relative to infidelity?
is as optimal as it is widely assumed to be. To the extent that H1: People in monogamous relationships will be more
CNMR fantasies are common in this group, exploring the likely to fantasize about being in a CNMR to the extent that
factors associated with such fantasies can help us to better they identify as male and/or as non-heterosexual. Likewise,
understand the function they might serve in monogamous age will be positively correlated with CNMR fantasies.
relationships, as well as when and for whom exploring such These predictions were based on previous research finding
fantasies might result in positive versus negative outcomes. that persons who practice consensual nonmonogamy are
The present research offers an opportunity to build on more likely to be male than female (Rubin et al., 2014) and
Lehmiller’s (2018) work and expand the literature on consen- are disproportionately likely to have minority sexual and/
sual nonmonogamy and sexual fantasy more broadly. First, or gender identities (Balzarini et al., 2019b). Men’s greater
given that we are in the midst of a “replication crisis” in scien- interest in and openness to CNMRs is theorized to have a
tific research (Maxwell, Lau, & Howard, 2015), replications basis in evolutionary psychology. Reproduction requires a
have taken on high importance. The present research offers lower parental investment from men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993);
an opportunity to test Lehmiller’s claims not only about the as such, a mating strategy that involves consensual nonmo-
prevalence of CNMR fantasies, but also about other key fan- nogamy may offer men more opportunities for reproductive
tasy themes as well (e.g., multipartner sex, BDSM, taboos). success than it does women. Older age was expected to be
Second, CNMRs, and fantasies about CNMRs in particular, linked to more CNMR fantasies given that older adults are
are an understudied topic. In fact, many studies employing more likely to be in long-term, monogamous relationships.
fantasy checklists have not included CNMRs at all, and even Sexual satisfaction tends to decline over time in such rela-
those that have done so have typically only focused on one tionships (Schmiedeberg & Schröder, 2016) due, in part, to
variant of consensual nonmonogamy, most commonly swing- the Coolidge effect, which may stimulate increased interest
ing (e.g., Joyal et al., 2015). The present research therefore in departures from monogamy. The Coolidge effect refers to
aims to provide a more comprehensive analysis of CNMR the well-documented phenomenon that habituation of sex-
fantasies. Finally, sexual fantasies in general are an under- ual arousal to one stimulus can be reawakened with a novel
studied topic in several respects. For example, whereas there stimulus (Dewsbury, 1981).
are multiple publications exploring the content of people’s H2: People in monogamous relationships will be more
sexual fantasies, next to no research has explored the link likely to fantasize about being in a CNMR to the extent that
between fantasy and reality: What kinds of experiences do they are high in extraversion, openness to experience, erot-
people report when they share and/or act on a sexual fan- ophilia, sensation seeking, and unrestricted sociosexuality.
tasy with a partner? The present study offers a much-needed These predictions were based on previous findings indicating
glimpse into what happens when fantasy becomes reality. that people who are outgoing and sociable, are open to trying
Although fantasies are the focus of the present research, new things, hold positive attitudes toward sex, enjoy thrilling
it is important to reiterate that people can have fantasies that and exciting sexual encounters, and see sex and emotion as

13
2802 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

distinguishable tend to have more fantasies about consensual Procedure

nonmonogamy in general (Lehmiller, 2018). Further sup-
port for these predictions comes from research finding that Data were collected online between 2016 and 2018. Follow-
extraverts are more inclined to pursue extradyadic sex, while ing the collection of informed consent and basic demographic
persons high in openness have more active imaginations and information, participants were prompted with the following
fantasize more about almost everything (Allen & Walter, information: “Now we would like to ask you some ques-
2018). Likewise, supporting the erotophilia, sensation seek- tions about your sexual fantasies. For purposes of this study,
ing, and sociosexuality predictions, research has found that ‘sexual fantasies’ refer to mental images you have while you
persons with more permissive attitudes toward casual sex are awake that you find to be sexually arousing or erotic. Sex
(something all of these traits predict) tend to be more open dreams that you have while sleeping do NOT count here.”
to CNMRs (Sizemore & Olmstead, 2017). The operational definition of a sexual fantasy used here was
H3: People in monogamous relationships will be less derived from previous research on sexual fantasies (Leiten-
likely to fantasize about being in a CNMR to the extent berg & Henning, 1995). This definition was utilized in order
that they are high in attachment anxiety, neuroticism, and to ensure participants understood what a sexual fantasy was
relationship satisfaction. These predictions were based on and was not when completing this survey. Following this,
Lehmiller’s (2018) findings indicating that people who fear participants completed a battery of questionnaires about
being abandoned by their partner, do not handle stress well, their sexual fantasies, their personalities, and their relation-
and are happy in their current relationship tend to have fewer ships. This research was approved by the Institutional Review
fantasies about any type of consensual nonmonogamy. While Board at Ball State University (the author’s academic affili-
the attachment prediction was considered tentative in light ation at the time of data collection) and was conducted in
of a different study finding that attachment anxiety (at least accordance with all institutional ethical standards and the
among women) is linked to fantasizing more about someone American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines.
other than one’s partner (Birnbaum, 2007), other research
exists to support the relationship satisfaction prediction: per-
sons who are more satisfied in their relationships are more Measures
likely to fantasize about their current partners (Birnbaum,
Kanat-Maymon, Mizrahi, Recanati, & Orr, 2019). Demographic characteristics In addition to standard demo-
graphics (gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity,
nationality, education level, and age), participants were asked
Method about their current relationship status and whether their rela-
tionship (if they have one) is sexually exclusive or open.
Participants Favorite sexual fantasy Participants were asked to
describe in open-ended narrative form their favorite sexual
An online survey was conducted in order to test the above fantasy of all time. On the next page of the survey, they
research questions and hypotheses. The final sample con- were given a checklist of seven potential fantasy themes that
sisted of 822 adults who reported current involvement in a might characterize the fantasy they just described (i.e., their
monogamous romantic relationship. This study was adver- favorite fantasy of all time). These themes were derived from
tised as a “survey of sexual fantasies” and did not mention Lehmiller (2018) and included: (1) sex with multiple partners
anything about CNMRs specifically so as not to induce a at the same time (e.g., threesome, orgy), (2) BDSM (bondage,
selection bias in favor of consensual nonmonogamy. Partici- discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism), (3)
pants were recruited through various social media channels novelty or having new or exciting sexual experiences, (4)
(primarily Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook pages related to breaking a taboo or doing something forbidden by your soci-
the psychology of sex and sexuality) as well as the Social ety, culture, or religion, (5) being in some type of sexually
Psychology Network. open relationship or practicing nonmonogamy, (6) passion,
A total of 3141 people began the survey; those who were romance, or intimacy, and (7) experimenting with your gen-
excluded from the present study (1) reported current involve- der identity or role, or your sexual orientation. Participants
ment in a sexually open relationship (n = 220), (2) reported were asked to select all that applied but were also given the
that they were not currently in any kind of romantic relation- option to indicate “none of the above.” Only the theme(s)
ship (n = 506), (3) did not describe their current relationship participants selected were analyzed below; the fantasy nar-
status or provide enough usable data for inclusion (n = 1434), ratives themselves were not a focus of the present research
or (4) did not make it past the first question, which required and are not discussed further here.
that participants meet the minimum IRB age requirement of Following this, participants were asked whether or not
18 (n = 159). they wanted to act on their favorite fantasy in the future,

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812 2803

whether they have ever shared these fantasies with a partner Analytic Strategy
and—if so—how their partner reacted, as well as whether
they have ever acted on these fantasies and—if so—what In order to assess participants’ favorite fantasy themes, their
the experience was like and how it affected their relation- experiences sharing and acting on their CNMR fantasies, and
ship. For those who had not acted on their favorite fantasy, the prevalence of specific types of CNMR fantasies (Research
they were given a checklist of possible factors that might Questions 1 and 2), descriptive statistics are reported, along
be preventing them from doing so and were asked to select with a series of chi square tests and MANOVAs to explore
all that applied. Response options included: “it is physi- potential differences based on gender identity. In order to test
cally impossible to do,” “it is illegal,” “I could potentially the hypotheses about how CNMR fantasies are connected to
be harmed,” “someone else could potentially be harmed,” demographic and individual difference factors, a series of
“my partner would disapprove,” “my family and/or friends multiple regression analyses were performed.
would disapprove,” “it is taboo in my culture or society,”
“it is against my religious or moral beliefs,” “I am afraid to
try it,” “I don’t have a willing partner,” and “I don’t know Results
how to go about it.”
CNMR fantasies Participants were separately asked how Below, demographic information is presented for the final
often they fantasize about several specific types of CNMRs sample. Following this, the research questions and hypoth-
on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often): “being poly- eses are tested in turn through the analyses discussed above.
amorous (i.e., having several consensual romantic and sexual
relationships simultaneously),” “being in an open relation- Sample Demographics
ship (i.e., the ability to have sex outside of your primary
relationship without cheating),” “visiting a swinger’s club,” Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77 (M = 38.20,
“being cuckolded (i.e., watching your partner have sex with SD = 13.84), they were predominately from the United States
someone else),” and “cuckolding your partner (i.e., having (75.5%), and most identified as White (81.7%), with the
sex with someone else while your partner watches).” Partici- remainder identifying as Hispanic or Latino/Latina (4.7%),
pants were also asked how often they fantasize about cheating Asian (4.2%), Biracial/Multiracial (3.5%), Black (2.8%), or
on a romantic partner. For comparison purposes, participants other races (2.4%). A majority identified as male (60.1%),
were also asked how often they fantasize about being in a with 37.3% identifying as female and 2.6% identifying as
monogamous relationship (i.e., being romantically and sexu- non-binary (e.g., agender, bigender, genderqueer, transgen-
ally involved with only one person). der). With respect to sexual orientation, most participants
Personality, individual differences, and relationship identified as heterosexual (76.2%), bisexual (11.4%), gay/les-
characteristics Participants completed the short-form ver- bian (5.9%), or pansexual (3.4%) with the remainder report-
sion of the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale in ing other sexual identities (3.1%).
order to measure attachment anxiety and avoidance (α = .71
and .72, respectively; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, RQ1: How Many People in Monogamous
2007). They also completed the 10-item version of the Big Relationships Report That Being in a CNMR is Part
Five Personality Inventory, which captures the personality of Their Favorite Sexual Fantasy?
dimensions of openness to experience, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism (Rammstedt & Nearly one-third of participants (32.6%) indicated that being
John, 2007). The nine-item Revised Sociosexual Orientation in some type of sexually open relationship was part of their
Inventory was administered as well (α = .87; Penke & Asen- favorite sexual fantasy of all time. A chi square test revealed
dorpf, 2008). In addition, abbreviated versions of the follow- that men (41.4%) and non-binary persons (38.1%) were more
ing scales were completed (these scales were shortened to likely to report that this was part of their favorite sexual
reduce participant burden and to enhance survey completion fantasy than were women (18.3%), χ2 (2, N = 820) = 45.99,
rates): five items from the Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale p < .001. For a comparison of how common this fantasy
(α = .73; Kalichman, 2013), six items from the Sexual Opin- theme was relative to other potential fantasy themes, see
ion Scale to measure erotophilia (α = .71; Fisher, 1998), and Table 1.
two items each to assess relationship satisfaction (α = .86) Of those who said that being in a CNMR was part of
and sexual satisfaction (α = .86). The satisfaction items were their favorite sexual fantasy, 80.0% said that they want to
derived from the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, act on this fantasy in the future (i.e., this fantasy is a desire),
& Agnew, 1998). All of the above measures were completed compared to 20% who said they did not ever want to act on
on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly this fantasy. Results of a chi square test indicated that men
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). (82.0%) and non-binary persons (100.0%) were more likely

13
2804 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

Table 1  Themes in participants’ favorite sexual fantasies

Fantasy theme Overall Self-iden- Self-identi- Non-binary (%)
sample tified men fied women
(%) (%) (%)

Sex with multiple partners at the same time (e.g., threesome, orgy) 47.9 56.4 34.3 52.4
BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism) 41.8 34.5 51.6 71.4
Novelty or having new or exciting sexual experiences 61.1 66.5 53.6 47.6
Breaking a taboo or doing something forbidden by your society, culture, or religion 57.3 63.5 47.1 66.7
Being in some type of sexually open relationship or practicing nonmonogamy 32.6 41.4 18.3 38.1
Passion, romance, or intimacy 46.2 41.4 54.2 42.9
Experimenting with your gender identity or role, or your sexual orientation. 27.0 30.0 19.9 61.9
None of the above 2.4 1.8 3.3 4.8

Percentages reflect the number of participants who indicated that each theme was a part of their favorite sex fantasy. Participants were able to
select as many themes as applied, which is why the numbers within column add up to more than 100%

to want to act on this fantasy than were women (69.2%), χ2 would disapprove (54.1%), one’s partner would not be willing
(2, N = 260) = 6.27, p = .044. In addition, most participants (49.6%), not knowing how to go about it (39.6%), social net-
(60.8%) who said this was their favorite fantasy had shared work disapproval (25.4%), and being afraid to try it (22.8%).
it with a romantic partner before. Of those who had shared
this fantasy, most (64.6%) reported that their partner had a RQ2: Which Types of CNMRs do People
positive reaction; the remainder reported neutral (15.6%) or in Monogamous Relationship Fantasize About Most
negative reactions (19.8%). Often?
Overall, 20.1% of participants reported that they had acted
out their favorite fantasy previously, regardless of what that A majority of participants reported having previously fanta-
fantasy was; however, of those who specifically said that sized about at least one type of CNMR, with open relation-
being in a CNMR was part of their favorite fantasy, 12.4% ships being the most common variety. This was followed
had enacted this fantasy before. Of those individuals, 96.9% by polyamory, swinging, and cuckolding (see Table 2). A
reported that the experience was as good as or better than MANOVA revealed that persons who identified as male
expected; just 3.1% reported that it did not meet expectations. and non-binary reported more frequent fantasies about
Likewise, most (51.8%) reported that it had a positive impact virtually all forms of CNMRs than self-identified women,
on their relationship; the remainder reported that it had no Wilks’ λ = .797, F(14, 1314) = 11.27, p < .001, partial eta
effect (33.3%) or a negative impact (14.8%). squared = .107. The one exception to this was fantasies about
Among those who said that being in a CNMR was part of cuckolding one’s partner (i.e., taking on an exhibitionistic
their favorite fantasy and that they had never acted on it, the role in which you have sex with someone else while your
most commonly perceived obstacles were that one’s partner partner watches); this was the sole CNMR fantasy for which

Table 2  Fantasies about specific Type of fantasy Overall sample Self-identified Self-identified Non-binary (%)
types of CNMRs, infidelity, and (%) men (%) women (%)
monogamy
Open relationship 67.9 77.8 51.2 73.7
Polyamory 57.1 69.2 36.9 68.4
Swinging 56.5 67.5 38.7 52.6
Cuckolding (exhibitionistic 51.3 55.1 44.5 57.1
role—being watched by a
partner)
Cuckolding (voyeuristic 49.6 63.5 27.4 52.4
role—watching a partner)
Infidelity/cheating 56.8 63.4 45.6 61.9
Monogamy 71.8 70.9 73.4 68.4

Percentages reflect the number of participants who reported having ever had each type of fantasy. Each fan-
tasy was rated on a frequency scale of 1–4 (never to often). The percentages in this table therefore reflect
the number of participants who chose a response option greater than 1

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812 2805

there was no gender difference. In addition, this analysis ophilia (b = .24, p < .001), and sociosexuality (b = .30,
revealed that men had more frequent fantasies about non- p < .001). Specifically, those who identified as male, were
consensual nonmonogamy (i.e., infidelity) than did women, non-heterosexual, had positive attitudes toward sex, and
whereas women had more frequent fantasies about monog- who saw sex and emotion as separate had more frequent
amy than did men. fantasies about open relationships.
See Table 2 for the percentage of the sample (overall and • Polyamory fantasies The overall regression model was
by gender) who reported having had each type of CNMR fan- significant and explained approximately one-quarter of
tasy, as well as fantasies about infidelity and monogamy. Of the variance, R2 = .26, F(12, 637) = 18.99, p < .001. Sig-
note, the numbers in this table indicate that women were the nificant predictors in this model were gender (b = .16,
only gender group that had a higher prevalence of monogamy p < .001), attachment anxiety (b = .10, p = .010), erot-
fantasies than CNMR fantasies. In addition, while the most ophilia (b = .18, p < .001), and sociosexuality (b = .28,
popular type of CNMR fantasy was consistent across gender p < .001). Specifically, those who identified as male, were
(i.e., open relationships), the other types appeared to vary. high in attachment anxiety, had positive attitudes toward
In particular, whereas polyamory fantasies were almost as sex, and who saw sex and emotion as separate had more
common as open relationship fantasies for men and non- frequent fantasies about polyamory.
binary individuals, they were notably less common among • Swinging fantasies The overall regression model was
women. Cuckolding fantasies were the next most common significant and explained approximately one-third of the
type of CNMR fantasy behind open relationships for women; variance, R2 = .31, F(12, 638) = 23.96, p < .001. Signifi-
however, this was only true when taking on the exhibitionistic cant predictors in this model were age (b = .16, p < .001),
role. When it comes to cuckolding, women appear far more erotophilia (b = .32, p < .001), sociosexuality (b = .13,
likely than men to fantasize about having sex while their p = .006), and sensation seeking (b = .11, p = .006). Spe-
partner watches them than to fantasize about watching their cifically, those who were older, had positive attitudes
partner have sex with someone else. toward sex, saw sex and emotion as separate, and had a
preference for thrilling sexual encounters had more fre-
H1–H3: Predictors of CNMR Fantasies quent fantasies about swinging.
• Cuckolding fantasies (exhibitionistic role) The over-
Next, demographic and individual difference predictors of all regression model was significant and explained
CNMR fantasies were assessed through a series of multi- approximately one-fifth of the variance, R2 = .19, F(12,
ple regression analysis. Separate analyses were performed 656) = 13.10, p < .001. There were just two significant
for each type of CNMR fantasy, as well as fantasies about predictors in this model: erotophilia (b = .25, p < .001) and
infidelity and monogamy. In each analysis, the predictor sociosexuality (b = .22, p < .001). Specifically, those who
variables were: gender (dichotomized as male and female), had positive attitudes toward sex and saw sex and emotion
sexual orientation (dichotomized as heterosexual and non- as separate had more frequent fantasies about having sex
heterosexual), age, relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfac- with someone else while their partner watches.
tion, attachment anxiety, extraversion, openness to experi- • Cuckolding fantasies (voyeuristic role) The overall regres-
ence, neuroticism, erotophilia, sociosexuality, and sensation sion model was significant and explained approximately
seeking. one-quarter of the variance, R2 = .28, F(12, 658) = 20.90,
Bivariate correlations between each fantasy and predic- p < .001. Significant predictors in this model included
tor variable are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Inspection of these gender (b = .20, p < .001), sexual orientation (b = .14,
correlation matrixes offer support for most hypotheses, p < .001), age (b = .20, p < .001), neuroticism (b = − .09,
with CNMR fantasies tending to be more common among p < .024), and erotophilia (b = .22, p < .001). Specifically,
men, non-heterosexuals, and older adults, as well as those those who identified as male and as non-heterosexual,
who were high in openness, erotophilia, sensation seeking, were older, were low in neuroticism, and had positive
and unrestricted sociosexuality, but low in neuroticism and attitudes toward sex had more frequent fantasies about
sexual/relationship satisfaction. Contrary to predictions, watching their partner have sex with someone else.
however, both extraversion and attachment anxiety were not • Infidelity fantasies The overall regression model was
correlated with CNMR fantasies at the bivariate level. significant and explained approximately one-third of the
variance, R2 = .33, F(12, 655) = 26.34, p < .001. Signifi-
• Open relationship fantasies The overall regression model cant predictors in this model included sexual satisfaction
was significant and explained approximately one-third of (b = − .10, p = .015), sociosexuality (b = .48, p < .001),
the variance, R2 = .32, F(12, 636) = 24.68, p < .001. Sig- and sensation seeking (b = .09, p = .021). Specifically,
nificant predictors in this model were gender (b = .12, those who were less sexually satisfied, saw sex and emo-
p = .004), sexual orientation (b = .09, p = .012), erot- tion as separate, and had a preference for thrilling and

13
 2806

13
Table 3  Bivariate correlations between sexual fantasies, demographics, and relationship variables
Open Polyamory Swinging Cuckolding— Cuckold- Infidelity Monogamy Gender Sexual orienta- Age Relation- Sexual satisfac- Attachment anxi-
relation- exhibitionistic ing— tion ship satis- tion ety
ship voyeuristic faction

Open relation- – .70** .55** .40** .44** 42** − .21** .29** .17** .25** − .16** − .19** .00
ship
Polyamory – .51** .35** .35** .35** − .17** .30** .11** .23** − .16** − .15** .03
Swinging – .38** .47** .29** − .12** .29** .08* .29** − .11** − .13** .00
Cuckolding - – .44** .33** − .12** .08* .07 .10* − .09* − .02 .03
exhibitionistic
Cuckolding - – .25** − .20** .38** .13** .36** − .14** − .14** − .06
voyeuristic
Infidelity – − .19** .16** .08* .13** − .25** − .23** .03
Monogamy – − .17** − .06 − .21** .24** .24** .08*
Gender – − .11** .48** − .06 − .21** − .14**
Sexual orienta- – − .07* − .06 − .07* .05
tion
Age – − .19** − .22** − .13**
Relationship – .63** − .13**
satisfaction
Sexual satisfac- – − .08**
tion
Attachment –
anxiety

**Designates p < .01; *designates p < .05. Gender coded as 1 = female; 2 = male. Sexual orientation coded as 1 = heterosexual; 2 = non-heterosexual
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812
 Table 4  Bivariate correlations between sexual fantasies and personality
Open Polyamory Swinging Cuckolding— Cuckold- Infidelity Monogamy Extraversion Openness Neurotic. Erotophilia Sociosex. Sensation seeking
relation- exhibitionistic ing—
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

ship voyeuristic

Open relationship – .70** .55** .40** .44** 42** − .21** .03 .09* − .10** .44** .46** .25**
Polyamory – .51** .35** .35** .35** − .17** .05 .12* − .14** .37** .42** .22**
Swinging – .38** .47** .29** − .12** .06 .03 − .13** .47** .40** .32**
Cuckolding - exhibi- – .44** .33** − .12** .04 .02 − .08* .35** .35** .28**
tionistic
Cuckolding - voyeur- – .25** − .20** .01 .06 − .17** .38** .31** .21**
istic
Infidelity – − .19** .09* .03 − .14** .27** .53** .35**
Monogamy – .05 − .01 .10* − .17** − .29** − .09*
Extraversion – .08* − .29** .04 .15** .16**
Openness – − .01 .12** .17** .05
Neuroticism – − .06 − .16** − .12*
Erotophilia – .49** .36**
Sociosexuality – .53**
Sensation seeking –

**Designates p < .01; *designates p < .05. Gender coded as 1 = female; 2 = male. Sexual orientation coded as 1 = heterosexual; 2 = non-heterosexual

13
2807
2808 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

risky sexual encounters had more frequent fantasies about Discussion

cheating.
• Monogamy fantasies The overall regression model was These findings offer insight into the popularity of CNMR
significant and explained approximately one-seventh of fantasies and their underlying psychology in a sample of
the variance, R2 = .14, F(12, 637) = 8.84, p < .001. Sig- persons involved in monogamous relationships. CNMR
nificant predictors in this model included extraversion fantasies were common, especially among persons
(b = .08, p = .047), sexual satisfaction (b = .11, p = .023), identifying as male, non-binary, and/or non-heterosexual,
and sociosexuality (b = − .23, p < .001). Specifically, consistent with previous research on the demography of
those who were more extraverted, more sexually satis- persons practicing consensual nonmonogamy (Balzarini
fied, and saw sex and emotion as going together had more et al., 2019b; Rubin et al., 2014).
frequent fantasies about monogamy. Most who reported that being in a CNMR was part of
their favorite sex fantasy had shared it with a partner, while
only about 1 in 10 had acted on this fantasy before. This gap
Additional Exploratory Analyses between fantasy and reality is consistent with other work on
sexual fantasies, which suggests that although most people
For exploratory purposes, the Big Five personality factors of want to act on their favorite fantasy, the vast majority have
agreeableness and conscientiousness, as well as attachment not yet done so (Lehmiller, 2018). Notably, the gap between
avoidance, were tested for bivariate associations with CNMR, fantasy and reality appears larger for CNMR fantasies than
infidelity, and monogamy fantasies. No significant associa- it is for other types of fantasies.
tions emerged for conscientiousness, while the only associa- Among those who shared and/or acted on their CNMR
tion for agreeableness was that it was linked to fewer infidel- fantasies, most reported positive experiences that improved
ity fantasies, r(698) = − .12, p = .001. Attachment avoidance their relationships. Thus, contrary to common stereotypes
was linked to more fantasies about infidelity, r(698) = .18, about consensual nonmonogamy as being unhealthy and
p < .001, open relationships, r(698) = .09, p = .018, polyam- dangerous (Conley et al., 2013), CNMRs have the poten-
ory, r(698) = .11, p = .004, and being cuckolded, r(698) = .12, tial to be positive and mutually satisfying. This conclusion
p = .002, but fewer fantasies about monogamy, r(698) = − .20, is bolstered by a recent literature review concluding that
p = .001. relationship quality is similarly high for monogamists and
Education level was also tested as a potential fantasy cor- persons in CNMRs (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015).
relate. Advanced education was linked to more fantasies The fact that persons who communicated about their
about open relationships, r(684) = .20, p < .001, polyamory, CNMR fantasies tended to report positive experiences is
r(685) = .14, p < .001, swinging, r(686) = .20, p < .001, being consistent with the broader literature on sexual communi-
cuckolded, r(708) = .12, p = .001, and committing infidel- cation, which finds that sharing one’s likes and preferences
ity, r(706) = .11, p = .003, but fewer fantasies about being in general is linked to better sexual functioning (e.g., Mal-
monogamous, r(686) = − .13, p < .001. lory, Stanton, & Handy, 2019). Although communicating
Finally, the bivariate demographic and personality cor- about one’s fantasies appears likely to confer benefits on
relates of CNMR fantasies were tested on the subsamples of average, there are potential challenges and risks that must
participants who reported current involvement in a CNMR be weighed, including jealousy and conflict.
as well as those who reported being single in order to deter- Open relationships were the most fantasized about
mine whether the general pattern replicates across relation- CNMR in general, while fantasies about other kinds of
ship type and status. For the most part, the correlates were CNMRs varied considerably. Across the board, however,
identical, including links between CNMR fantasies and age, women reported fewer CNMR fantasies than did men on
gender, sociosexuality, sexual sensation seeking, and erot- average. Some might interpret this through the lens of
ophilia. The main differences that emerged were as follows: evolutionary theory and research, such as the relatively
among those in CNMR relationships, CNMR fantasies had consistent finding that men tend to report more desire for
no link to sexual or relationship satisfaction, and a negative variety in sexual partners than do women (Schmitt, 2003).
association with attachment anxiety. Among those who were Alternatively, however, it may be that women are less
single, there was no link with sexual satisfaction, but a posi- likely than men to view CNMRs as prioritizing their own
tive association with extraversion. Overall, singles reported pleasure.
the lowest incidence of fantasies about consensual nonmo- People high in erotophilia and those with an unrestricted
nogamy in general, and the highest incidence of fantasies sociosexual orientation had more CNMR fantasies of every
about monogamy; by contrast, those currently in CNMRs type, consistent with prior research finding that persons
reported the highest incidence of CNMR fantasies and the with more permissive attitudes toward sex tend to be more
lowest incidence of monogamy fantasies.

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812 2809

open to consensual nonmonogamy (Sizemore & Olmstead, fantasies (except polyamory). Thus, differences in sample
2017). Beyond these variables, the unique predictors of composition appear to explain the inconsistency; perhaps
CNMR fantasies varied. For example, being older predicted those high in extraversion and low in attachment anxiety dis-
fantasies about swinging and being cuckolded, but not fan- proportionately self-selected out of the monogamous sample.
tasies about other types of CNMRs. Likewise, the only
CNMR fantasy uniquely predicted by sensation seeking Multipartner Sex Fantasies versus Consensual
was swinging, which was somewhat surprising in light of Nonmonogamy Fantasies
previous work finding that sensation seekers tend to report
elevated interest in CNMRs in general (Lehmiller, 2018). Multipartner sex (e.g., threesomes, orgies) was among the
Also, unexpectedly, the only CNMR predicted by neuroti- most popular fantasy themes that emerged in this study (see
cism was being cuckolded. While broader associations with Table 1) and it is often considered to be a form of consen-
other CNMR fantasies were expected for these traits based sual nonmonogamy (e.g., Scoats, 2019). If you lump together
on Lehmiller (2018), differences may be due to focusing those who reported multipartner themes with those who indi-
only on persons in monogamous relationships, who may cated CNMR themes in their favorite fantasy, the prevalence
have different levels of sensation seeking and neuroticism of CNMR fantasies is even higher than reported above. How-
on average to begin with. ever, it is important to note that a substantially higher number
It is also worth noting that, while most participants of participants reported multipartner themes than reported
reported having had CNMR fantasies, most reported fanta- CNMR themes, which suggests that many people view these
sies about infidelity and monogamy, too. However, infidelity as qualitatively different. In fact, among those who said that
and monogamy fantasies had a somewhat different pattern multipartner sex was part of their favorite fantasy, only about
of predictors than fantasies about CNMRs. Notably, low half (55.1%) also said that their favorite fantasy involved
sexual satisfaction was linked to more fantasies about infi- being in some type of sexually open relationship. Thus, a
delity while high sexual satisfaction was linked to more fan- large number of people who fantasize about multiple partners
tasies about monogamy; sexual satisfaction was not related do not necessarily fantasize about being in a CNMR. Thus,
to CNMR fantasies, though. This suggests that there may be while multipartner fantasies do reflect a form of consensual
important differences in the factors that motivate fantasies nonmonogamy, it is important to distinguish them from fan-
about cheating compared to the factors that propel fantasies tasies about being in a sexually open relationship, which is
about consensual nonmonogamy. While both were related why they were treated separately in the present investigation.
to having an unrestricted sociosexual orientation, cheating
fantasies were specifically linked to sexual dissatisfaction Clinical Implications
whereas consensual nonmonogamy fantasies were linked to
having a positive attitude toward sex to begin with (i.e., high The present research confirms the important distinction
erotophilia). between sexual fantasy and sexual desire in that not every-
Although the bivariate correlations presented in Tables 3 one wanted to act on their favorite sexual fantasy of all time.
and 4 signaled support for most hypotheses, predictions for This suggests that fantasies may serve different functions
extraversion and attachment anxiety did not replicate previ- for different people. In the case of CNMR fantasies, they
ous work (Lehmiller, 2018). It was expected that high extra- may simply be the product of an active imagination or high
version would be linked to more CNMR fantasies; however, sex drive for some people; for others, however, they may
that was not the case. It was correlated with more infidelity represent a way of introducing novelty and excitement when
fantasies, though, consistent with previous studies (Allen & passion has declined, or perhaps fulfilling unmet emotional
Walter, 2018; Lehmiller, 2018). Likewise, it was expected or sexual needs. In clinical settings, it is important to recog-
that high attachment anxiety would be linked to fewer CNMR nize that different people can arrive at the same fantasy for
fantasies; however, the results did not support this, either. different reasons.
Instead, attachment anxiety was correlated with more monog- That said, this research does indicate that a large num-
amy fantasies in the bivariate analyses, and more fantasies ber of people in monogamous relationships have CNMR
about polyamory in the regression analyses. Again, sampling fantasies and want to act on them. However, among those
differences and the focus on persons in monogamous roman- for whom this is a desire, few have made it a reality. This,
tic relationships may account for this. When the associations coupled with the finding that fear and lack of knowledge are
between extraversion, attachment anxiety, and CNMR fanta- among the biggest perceived obstacles to enacting CNMR
sies were calculated for the excluded participants (i.e., those fantasies, speaks to the importance of destigmatization of
who were currently single or involved in CNMRs), extra- consensual nonmonogamy. Deviations from monogamy tend
version was indeed linked to more CNMR fantasies of all to be looked down upon (Conley et al., 2013) and this appears
types, while attachment anxiety was linked to fewer CNMR to be one of the major inhibiting factors when it comes to

13
2810 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

exploring CNMR fantasies and desires, given that fear of they differed from other genders in that they had the highest
disapproval was among the most common reasons reported rates of fantasies about BDSM and experimenting with their
in this study for not acting on one’s CNMR fantasies. gender role and sexual orientation.
These findings also speak to the need for support and These results also offer insight into how fantasies are
resources for those practicing consensual nonmonogamy. related to age, which has rarely been considered in sexual
Therapists and mental health care professionals receive lit- fantasy research (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). Most prior
tle training relevant to CNMRs (e.g., Weitzman, 2006), and work has focused on college student samples; as a result, lit-
research exploring clinical practice with this patient popula- tle is known about how sexual fantasies develop and change
tion is scarce. Consequently, patients who are in CNMRs over the lifespan. In the present study, age was related to
may have difficulty accessing culturally competent care more CNMR fantasies of all types in bivariate analyses, and
that addresses their unique relationship and health needs. uniquely predicted swinging and cuckolding fantasies in
Research has begun to explore helpful and harmful thera- multiple regression analyses. It is possible that these results
peutic practices with persons in CNMRs (see Schechinger, indicate a shift in sexual fantasies with age, but they do not
Sakaluk, & Moors, 2018), but more work is needed and this rule out the possibility of generational or cohort effects. It
research must be integrated into counseling programs so that could also be that older age is confounded with relationship
mental health care workers can effectively assist patients who length and that these effects have more to do with being in
are practicing consensual nonmonogamy or who are thinking a long-term relationship than they do with age per se. More
about exploring it. research on sexual fantasies and aging is needed to tease apart
This research highlights another specific reason that these competing explanations.
clinical training on consensual nonmonogamy is important: Finally, this study is consistent with a growing body of
many couples appear to disagree over whether and how to research finding that fantasies about BDSM and taboo sexual
open a previously monogamous relationship. Partner disap- activities may be normophilic rather than paraphilic (Joyal,
proval was the most commonly reported reason in the present 2015; Joyal et al., 2015; Lehmiller, 2018). Some sexual
study for not acting on one’s CNMR fantasies. Counselors fantasies have been labeled “paraphilic” or “unusual” in
and therapists must therefore be equipped to provide couples the absence of evidence that those interests are statistically
with the resources necessary to resolve such disagreements uncommon; however, many of these “paraphilic” fantasies,
in a productive fashion. such as sadism and masochism, are actually quite common
in non-clinical samples.
Broader Implications
Strengths and Limitations
This research has implications for our knowledge of sexual
fantasies in general. For example, Lehmiller (2018) per- Strengths of the present study include the fact that it con-
formed a qualitative analysis of the sexual fantasies of more sisted of a large and relatively diverse sample of adults, which
than 4000 adults and suggested that there are seven distinct allowed for exploration of how sexual orientation, gender
themes that characterize sexual fantasies. These seven themes identity, and age were linked to CNMR fantasies. This study
(listed in Table 1) captured 97.6% of participants’ favorite was also able to delve into different forms of CNMRs rather
sexual fantasies in the present study, which offers compel- than looking at consensual nonmonogamy broadly or only
ling support for this categorization method. The two most considering one variety, as many previous studies have done.
common thematic elements appear to be sexual novelties and In addition to making several novel contributions to the litera-
taboos, and most people’s fantasies appear to reflect more ture, this study replicates previous work on sexual fantasies
than one major theme. Thus, while CNMR fantasies are quite (much of which has been based on small student samples),
popular and were the focus of this paper, they are not neces- which is especially important in the midst of the current
sarily the most common type of sexual fantasy. “replication crisis” in psychology and science more broadly
Results largely replicated previous work on gender dif- (Maxwell et al., 2015).
ferences in sexual fantasies, with men having more fantasies That said, there are some important limitations. For exam-
about group sex, nonmonogamous relationships, and sexual ple, analyses consisted of a series of uncorrected bivariate
taboos, and women having more fantasies about BDSM and comparisons based on correlational data; consequently, we
passion/romance (e.g., Lehmiller, 2018; Leitenberg & Hen- are unable to make statements about cause and effect. Also,
ning, 1995). However, this study extends our knowledge of the sample was not representative of the population. Cer-
gender and sexual fantasy by considering the types of fanta- tain groups (e.g., Whites) were overrepresented, while other
sies reported by non-binary individuals. Non-binary partici- groups (e.g., racial minorities) were underrepresented.
pants reported levels of group sex, nonmonogamy, and taboo It is also important to note that while the fantasies of per-
fantasies that were similar to self-identified men; however, sons who identified as gender non-binary were considered

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812 2811

in the interest of inclusivity, the percentage of non-binary and monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48,
participants was small and not representative of the broader 1749–1767. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​8-019-1416-7.
Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Campbell,
non-binary population. Caution should be used in interpret- L., Lehmiller, J. J., & Harman, J. J. (2019b). Demographic com-
ing the non-binary results and future research should make parison of American polyamorous and monogamous individuals
an effort to replicate these findings in a larger non-binary from two online convenience samples. Journal of Sex Research,
sample. 56, 681–694. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​499.2018.14743​33.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Beyond the borders of reality: Attachment
Finally, single-item measures were used to assess fan- orientations and sexual fantasies. Personal Relationships, 14(2),
tasies about different types of CNMRs. While these items 321–342.
were carefully worded to have face validity and to distin- Birnbaum, G. E., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Mizrahi, M., Recanati, M., & Orr,
guish between different forms of consensual nonmonogamy, R. (2019). What fantasies can do to your relationship: The effects
of sexual fantasies on couple interactions. Personality and Social
future work would benefit from multi-item measures, espe- Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 461–476.
cially measures that go beyond assessing fantasy frequency Bivona, J., & Critelli, J. (2009). The nature of women’s rape fantasies:
to consider other dimensions of fantasies (e.g., intensity). An analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents. Journal of Sex
Research, 46(1), 33–45.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,
Conclusions 100(2), 204–232.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The
Among persons who are currently in monogamous romantic fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually
relationships, fantasies about practicing consensual nonmo- non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.
nogamy appear to be quite common. For many people, these Dewsbury, D. A. (1981). Effects of novelty of copulatory behavior: The
fantasies are not just arousing thoughts—they are also plans Coolidge effect and related phenomena. Psychological Bulletin,
or goals for the future of their relationship. Despite the popu- 89(3), 464–482.
larity of this relationship interest, most people have not pur- Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A., & Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open relationship
prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally repre-
sued CNMRs due to fear of disapproval, lack of knowledge, sentative sample of Canadian adults. Journal of Sex Research,
and other perceived obstacles. These results highlight the 56(6), 695–704.
need for additional research on CNMRs, as well as training Fisher, W. A. (1998). The sexual opinion survey. In C. M. Davis, W. L.
opportunities for healthcare providers that emphasize diverse Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook
of sexuality-related measures (pp. 218–223). Thousand Oaks, CA:
relationship structures. Sage.
Haupert, M., Gesselman, A., Moors, A., Fisher, H., & Garcia, J. (2017).
Prevalence of experiences with consensual non-monogamous rela-
Funding None. tionships: Findings from two nationally representative samples
of single Americans. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43,
424–440.
Compliance with Ethical Standards Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, & Gallup, G. G.,
Jr. (2020). Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans.
interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​8-020-
01730​-x.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human Joyal, C. C. (2015). Defining “normophilic” and “paraphilic” sexual
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- fantasies in a population-based sample: On the importance of con-
tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki sidering subgroups. Sexual Medicine, 3(4), 321–330. https​://doi.
Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. org/10.1002/sm2.96.
Joyal, C. C., Cossette, A., & Lapierre, V. (2015). What exactly is an unu-
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual sual sexual fantasy? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(2), 328–340.
participants included in the study. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12734​.
Kalichman, S. C. (2013). Sexual sensation seeking scale. In T. D. Fisher,
C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of
sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 564–565). New York:
Routledge.
References Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality (2nd ed.).
Oxford, England: Wiley.
Allen, M. S., & Walter, E. E. (2018). Linking big five personality traits Lehmiller, J. J. (2018). Tell me what you want: The science of sexual
to sexuality and sexual health: A meta-analytic review. Psychologi- desire and how it can help you improve your sex life. Boston, MA:
cal Bulletin, 144(10), 1081–1110. DaCapo.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Under- Lehmiller, J. J., Ley, D., & Savage, D. (2018). The psychology of gay
standing attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere. men’s cuckolding fantasies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4),
Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Campbell, L., Lehmiller, J. J., 999–1013.
Harman, J. J., & Holmes, B. M. (2019a). Comparing relationship Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological
quality across different types of romantic partners in polyamorous Bulletin, 117(3), 469–496.

13
2812 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020) 49:2799–2812

Ley, D. (2009). Insatiable wives: Women who stray and the men who Schechinger, H. A., Sakaluk, J. K., & Moors, A. C. (2018). Harmful
love them. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. and helpful therapy practices with consensually non-monogamous
Mallory, A. B., Stanton, A. M., & Handy, A. B. (2019). Couples’ sexual clients: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Consulting and
communication and dimensions of sexual function: A meta-anal- Clinical Psychology, 86(11), 879–891.
ysis. Journal of Sex Research, 56(7), 882–898. Schmiedeberg, C., & Schröder, J. (2016). Does sexual satisfaction
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suf- change with relationship duration? Archives of Sexual Behavior,
fering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” 45(1), 99–107.
really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498. Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual
Moore, P. (2016). Young Americans are less wedded to monogamy variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Jour-
than their elders. YouGov. Retrieved February 1, 2019 from https​ nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104. https​://
://today​.yougo​v.com/topic​s/lifes​tyle/artic​les-repor​ts/2016/10/03/ doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85.
young​-ameri​cans-less-wedde​d-monog​amy. Scoats, R. (2019). Understanding threesomes: Gender, sex, & consen-
Moors, A. C. (2017). Has the American public’s interest in information sual non-monogamy. London: Routledge.
related to relationships beyond “the couple” increased over time? Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2017). Willingness to engage in
Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 677–684. consensual nonmonogamy among emerging adults: A structural
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual equation analysis of sexual identity, casual sex attitudes, and gen-
orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and der. Journal of Sex Research, 54(9), 1106–1117.
its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007).
Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113. https​: //doi. The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form:
org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113. Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00223​89070​
minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory 12680​41.
in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and
203–212. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001. polyamorous. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1), 137–164. https​://doi.
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psy- org/10.1300/J159v​06n01​_08.
chological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal
of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
(2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensu-
ally non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22,
1–23.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment
Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level,
quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relation-
ships, 5, 357–391. https:​ //doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb001​
77.x.

13