Monthly Archives: September 2012

Guest blog from swinging expert Dr. Edward Fernandes

In response to my post about the history of polyamory in the United States, Dr. Fernandes pointed out that I had not included swinging. While swinging is related to polyamory and shares many social antecedents, it was beyond the scope of my original post so I invited Dr. Fernandes to fill in this blank. His interesting and informative post “The Swinging Paradigm: Are Swingers Freaky, Deviant Sex Predators?” does not address the history of swinging but offers a summary of some very interesting research and a profile of contemporary swingers.

**************************************************************************************************************************************

The Swinging Paradigm: Are Swingers Freaky, Deviant Sex Predators?

 Dr. Edward Fernandes

Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology

Barton College

“So, you hang out with swingers, so what are they like?”

A friend that was familiar with my research on swinging asked me that question not long ago.

“What are ‘they’ like? What do you mean, ‘they’?” I retorted…

“Well, aren’t ‘they’ weird? I bet ‘they’ have orgies all the time and can’t get enough of screwing each other…”

My friend’s perception of swinging and swingers isn’t much different from that of other non-swingers I have met throughout the years. The idea that swinging is a never-ending orgy of sweaty bodies oozing bodily fluids is alive and well in our society. Some even refer to it as just plain “sport-fucking,” which again does not reflect what swinging is all about. Moreover, the idea that swinging is part of a deviant, liberal plot devised to corrupt the morals of the country and bring civilization to perdition is alive and well and far too often endorsed by the popular media. I have heard people equate swingers with “those weirdoes that are featured on the Springer show.” Last year, on The Dr. Phil Show, swingers were portrayed as individuals whose relationships were in shambles and had resorted to “cheating” (or swinging) as a last attempt to save a moribund marriage. Of course, the good Doctor had a therapeutic fool-proof solution: to put a stop to this deviant behavior and save the sanctity of the marriage bed it was necessary for these misguided people to put a complete stop to this dysfunctional behavior…I was initially invited to participate in that show but politely declined, for obvious reasons…

“So, you hang out with swingers, so what are they like?”

In any case, let’s get back to my friend’s initial query. “Who are swingers and what are they like?” Individuals and organizations in popular culture and scientific communities have attempted to answer that question, both with a particular bias that shapes their evaluation. Swinger-friendly reports tend to show swinging in the best light possible, popular media shows the vagaries and pitfalls of swinging while the scientific/research community, which has little contact with the swinging community, really doesn’t have a clue either way.

So, let me answer the question based on in-depth, scientific research I have conducted on the Lifestyle in the last several years.

Firstly, swingers are just like anyone else. They are like you and me, our friends, our neighbors and co-workers, team mates or club friends, some are doctors, others cars mechanics, cops, nurses, physicians, librarians, politicians, accountants (yes, even those…), clergy and devout religious people, hairdressers and military; in a nutshell, swingers are not a special breed of individuals that display a membership mark that identifies them to others as “different.” Oh yes, there is something that distinguishes swingers from everyone else in our society, and that something is an open attitude towards relationship commitment and sexuality in general.

The following is a snap shot of “who” and “what” of swingers. From my experience it seems to be in line with most swingers I have met in the last twenty years. OK, here we go!

The demographic profile of the swingers suggests that they white for the most part, between 36 and 55 years of age, mostly college educated, married for at least 11 to 20 years, and with an average household income between $40,000 and $200,000. Many professions and occupations were represented from blue-collar and white-collar workers to individuals with advanced professional degrees. Some were self-employed; others worked in public organizations such as health facilities and educational institutions. The demographic findings of this study parallel, for the most part, those of previous studies.

The men in my two studies were, for the most, heterosexual, although about 20 percent did consider themselves bisexual. I know that this will come a shock to you, the reader, but there are bisexual males among the swinging masses. The majority of the women considered themselves bi-curious, with a small minority fancying themselves a pure bisexual. As we all know, for the most part female bisexuality is accepted within the swinging lifestyle; however, male bisexuality is discouraged and not welcomed. I suggest that perhaps one of the reasons why women are attracted to swinging is the opportunity to express their bisexuality in a safe and accepting environment.

Most of the swingers in my sample were married or cohabiting, the great majority had been in a relationship for well over ten years, and for most this was their first marriage. A small number had been married more than once and there were no apparent differences between men and women in the length of and frequency of marriage. Most had been swinging anywhere between three years and 12 years, which suggests that swinging, overall, adds to the longevity of the marital relationship.

Since swingers are often characterized as having a more permissive attitude towards sexuality, a characteristic often associated with individuals who hold liberal social views, one would expect the swingers would be more “liberal” in their social and political affiliations. But now, hold on….my data suggests swingers’ political views that run the gamut of the political spectrum. It seems that swingers are not a politically homogenous group. Rather, swingers hold disparate political ideology, from social conservatism to liberalism and socialism with a certain percentage holding no political views at all. However, interesting to note that of all political categories Republicans held the majority! Remember that when you watch your favorite Republican politician go on and on about “family values.” Who knows, he/she could be a fellow swinger.

Perhaps my findings are counter-intuitive since Conservative individuals espouse strict sexual morality and monogamy, which contrasts the non- monogamous sexual behavior of swingers.

Now, I was also interested in finding out just how religious the swingers in my study professed to be. Well, the swingers in my studies reported being somewhat religious, about a quarter of the respondents claiming to have no religious affiliation at all. It appears that swingers’ religious affiliation do not interfere with their willingness to engage in the swinging lifestyle. Religiosity may not be associated with monogamy when it comes to this lot!

Following my friend’s interest about swingers, I decided to find out where “they” lived. For the most part swingers live in urban and metropolitan communities with populations between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. But swingers are no longer restricted to urban communities, it seems that they have migrated to suburbia and even rural communities as well. About one-fourth of the respondents reported living either in a rural setting or in a community with less then 50,000 people.

It seems that since swingers have become part of mainstream society and are indistinguishable from other individuals in the general population they could be your next-door neighbors or a co-worker.

In my studies I also explored how swingers felt towards their swinging activities, and what made them decide to take this step into the realm of “deviant” society. As I mention before herein, it had been suggested that swingers were mostly middle-aged men that subjugated their apathetic wives into the fiendish world of sexual “sick” fantasies and depravity.

Thus, I was interested in finding out, from a research perspective, what prompted individual couples to enter the swinging lifestyle. In addition, what happens once an individual/couple starts swinging? Well, it seems that the vast majority of the people in my studies reported entering into the swinging lifestyle at the suggestion of the couple’s male partner (those horny husbands…) About two-thirds of the men reported having suggested swinging to their female partner. Less than one-forth of the women admitted to having done so. Knowing the rationale for an individual’s involvement in the swinging lifestyle contributes to an overall understanding of the swinging experience. Also, the most cited reason given by both men and women for continuing with their swinging lifestyle was firstly pure sexual variety, sexual enjoyment and personal fantasy. Regarding common swinging sexual activities, most individuals reported engaging in partner swapping and group sex activities. However, a small number of the respondents reported never swapping partners. There are always voyeurs in the crowd, I guess.

Other sexual activities involved woman-on-woman sex, but the most reported sexual activity in both studies was….are you ready?….sure you are?…ready…? Man-woman-Man threesomes. I guess the ladies do get all the attention.

The majority of the people who participated in my studies reported enjoying their swinging experience. There was no difference between the levels of swinging satisfaction of men and women.

And by the way, in my studies I also found that swingers are very happy in their marriages and have strong emotional bonds with their spouses, strong family units, and aren’t looking for additional emotional connections or trying to replace the ones they currently have. Moreover, my respondents claim that their spouses are able to satisfy them sexually: Swinging to them is a way of j adding spice and variety to the marriage itself, sort of the “icing on the cake” (some even referred to swing as “team sport”, or “the couple that plays together remains together”).

Let me finish by suggesting that all of the information contained in both my studies was plenty enough to answer my friend’s questions. No, I didn’t make him sit and read from this treatise, I just told him the gist of it.

Although there is still a strong societal disapproval of swinging and a belief that swingers have unsatisfactory marriages and are unhappy with their primary relationships, there is no evidence to support such a claim. My research suggests that perhaps we are witnessing a new social paradigm regarding the dynamics of marriage and consensual extra-marital sex. It is possible that swinging is bringing about a re-definition of marriage and a change in the traditional expectation of marital monogamy. Future research on this topic is warranted and necessary to understand the changing dynamics of marital relationships.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Polyamory: Exploring the ins and outs of multiple partners

This article in the Canadian news outlet Globe and Mail provides a great over view of poly relationships, and author Jeff Fraser’s emphasis on my research findings was refreshing.

2 Comments

September 24, 2012 · 11:42 pm09

Mixed Results on The Ricki Lake Show

My appearance on The Ricki Lake Show was educational, more so for me (unfortunately) than for the viewers. In discussions with producers before the show, the focus had always been on my research. With all the discussion of my findings and publications prior to taping, I had assumed Ricki Lake’s questions during the show would also center on my research findings, and that the editors would show my name and title on the screen. Instead, they introduced me only by my first name and the interview was an awkward melange of Ricki trying to ask me about my personal relationships and me trying to redirect the conversation to the research findings. She was clearly frustrated and I was mystified, resulting in most of the interview getting cut from the show. The snippet they did use did not include any discussion of research findings and seemed out of place.

I have a lot of respect for Ricki Lake. She has been a voice of sex-positivty and acceptance of sexual minorities for years, and I trust that she intended to craft a show that presented polyamory factually. In the future, I hope to have an opportunity to appear on the Ricki Lake Show again to discuss my research. For now, I have learned to ask many more questions and insist on research focus at every stage, in every conversation with every producer. Hopefully my own learning curve can translate to public education regarding polyamory and sexual minorities.  

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

See Dr. Elisabeth Sheff on the Ricki Lake Show TODAY 9/18

See Dr. Elisabeth Sheff on the Ricki Lake show today 9/18. Ricki Lake returned to daytime television this fall, and in the episode entitled “Let’s Talk About Sex,” Ricki talks with the poly folks from the show “Married and Dating,” and Dr. Sheff appears via Skype after their segment.

To find the station near you showing the Ricki Lake Show, use the “where to watch” link on her website http://therickilakeshow.com/

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Three Waves of Non-Monogamy: A Select History of Polyamory in the United States

While polyamory is a sub-category of non-monogamy and the two are not synonymous, they are closely linked enough to share a common history in the United States. Polyamory is a fairly recent addition to a litany of non-monogamous relationships, some of which have directly influenced the evolution of polyamorous communities. In this post, I divide non-monogamy and polyamory in the Unites States into three “waves” occurring in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries.

FIRST WAVE: NINETEENTH CENTURY TRANSCENDENTALISM

Polyamorous identity did not exist during the nineteenth century, but this initial expression of non-monogamy had a profound influence on later poly/non-mono thinking and communities. There were several groups of people who practiced a multiple partner relationship style in the United States in the mid-to-late 1800s, most influenced by the Nineteenth Century transcendental movement (Hutchins, 2001). Brook Farm was an “experimental free love community” (Hutchins, 2001:72) populated by “Quakers, Shakers, Mormons, and other charismatic leaders who roamed up and down the east coast preaching” a doctrine that “challenged conventional Christian doctrines of sin and human unworthiness.”

John Humphrey Noyes founded the Oneida community in 1848. Noyes established a system of “complex marriage” in which “each male was theoretically married to each female, and where each regarded the other as either a brother or a sister” (Muncy 1973:160). This rejection of monogamous marriage was intended to offer an alternative to “the monogamous relation [which] fostered exclusiveness and selfishness, and worked to counter communism” (Muncy 1973:168). Children similarly lived together in a communal children’s house. Parents were not permitted to show special affection to their own children, but were instead mandated to treat all children of the community equally.

Finally, Nashoba was a free-love community established in 1862 by Frances Wright, a wealthy Scottish immigrant (Hutchins 2001:72). Wright formed a large communal farm “bringing together both free blacks and whites to work and make love.” She opposed the racist trend at the time, and declared “sexual passion the best source of human happiness” (Hutchins 2001:72).

 

SECOND WAVE: TWENTIETH CENTURY COUNTERCULTURES

The 1960s and 1970s represented an important period in the evolution of identities that allowed increasing sexual and gender latitude. Feminists included sexual issues such as the repeal of abortion laws and access to safe, legal birth control to their larger agenda of gender equity (Hutchins, 2001). Gays and lesbians began to question the hegemony of heterosexuality (Weeks, 1985), and, together with feminists, exposed gender roles as socially constructed. Transgendered people began to emphasize the performative nature of gender (Bornstein 1994; Butler 1990). Bisexuals further destabilized the blend of gender and sexuality by minimizing the importance of their romantic partners’ genders (Udis-Kessler 1996). Finally, social and economic conditions contributed to an increase in autonomy for women and sexual minorities, especially gays and lesbians. Industrialization, shrinking families, and the separation of sexuality from procreation enabled women to bear fewer children and gays and lesbians to develop urban enclaves (D’ Emilio 1983; Weeks 1985). Polyamory evolved as a direct result of the sexual revolution and intertwined with the alternative sexual forms previously discussed, especially the bisexual and free love movements. Like other aspects of polyamorous community, the history of the movement has some points of contention.

Communes

One form of countercultural group was the commune. The community movement, which had declined in the United States during the late nineteenth century, re-emerged in the form of communes in 1960s and ‘70s. This second iteration maintained a focus on creating a chosen family for people who were “…establishment dropouts, disillusioned with the dominant lifestyles in America; they are people who believe they can find a better way of life in a group living experience with like-minded persons” (Stinnett and Birdsong 1978:104). Communes often emphasized the value of intimate relationships, personal growth, spiritual rebirth, and cooperation over competition, return to nature, and rebellion against the establishment. Many communities included some form of atypical sexuality, from celibacy to free-love (Stinnett and Birdsong, 1978:107), though only a minority of contemporary communes endorsed sexually nonexclusive relationships (Buunk and van Driel, 1989:134).

“Multilateral” Marriage and Swinging

Two more countercultural groups involved “multilateral” or group marriage and swinging. Research into these non-monogamous relationships peaked in the early 1970s. By that time, the sexual revolution had popularized sexual experimentation, and the concepts of open and group marriages had gained notoriety. American culture was more sexually permissive than ever before, and the specter of AIDS had not yet destroyed the playful sense of sexual experimentation. Researchers such as Constantine and Constantine (1973:49) studied those involved in “multilateral marriages,” which they defined as “three or more partners, each of whom considers him/herself to be married (or committed in a functionally analogous way) to more than one of the other partners.” Smith and Smith (1974) compiled studies of “sexual alternatives in marriage” in an edited collection that examined such diverse topics as co-marital sex (the open incorporation of extramarital sex into marital unions) (Smith and Smith, 1973), group sex (Bartell, 1970), infidelity (Bernard, 1972), and group marriage (Ellis, 1970).

Research on swinging similarly flourished in the sexually adventurous 1960s and 1970s, documenting new trends in extra-marital or co-marital sexual involvement (Bartell 1971; Breedlove and Breedlove 1964; Denfield and Gordon 1972; Fang 1976; Henshel 1973). Studies examined swingers’ race and ethnicity (Bartell 1970; Jenks 1985), social class (Flanigan and Zingdal 1991), education (Gilmartin 1975; Jenks 1985, Levitt 1988), and political perspectives (Bartell 1970; Jenks 1986). This research created a profile of a swinger as a “White, middle to upper middle class person in his or her late 30s who is fairly conventional in all ways except for her or his lack of religious participation/identification and participates in swinging” (Jenks, 1998:507). Once the sexual revolution collided with the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in the 1980s — a time that Peterson (1999) characterized as “the great repression” — research on sexually non-exclusive relationships dwindled. Although very few such studies were published during the 1980s and 1990s, the practice of non-monogamous relationships endured.

Polyamorous Communes

Specifically polyamorous communes evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s. John and Barbara Williamson established the Sandstone community in Los Angeles after the Kirkridge Sexuality Conferences which “served to network polyamorous clergy, researchers, writers, and artists on the East coast” (Anapol, 1997:97; see also Francoeur and Francoeur, 1974). Sandstone was “the encounter-group oriented love community in Topanga Canyon,” California, and included such eminent counterculturalists as Betty Dodson and Sally Binford (Hutchins, 2001:82).

Kerista, possibly the most influential non-monogamous, proto-polyamorous intentional community, was based in the San Francisco Bay Area between 1971 and 1991. Strassberg (2003:457) noted:

During the twenty-year existence of the community, the approximately twenty-five adult members lived either in separate group marriages or in a single group marriage … [Kerista] was based on an experimental lifestyle that included group marriage, shared parenting, total economic sharing, a group growth process, and a utopian plan for improving life around the world by replicating their model of community living.

Members owned and operated a computer sales business. During her tenure there, Ryam Nearing reported living in a community that attempted to provide emotional support for everyone. Nearing participated in seeking a Keristan vision which, “started with twelve but later amped it up to twenty-four adults per family in their ideal – the goal they wanted to aim for” (Nearing, personal communication, 2003).

Support Groups

Informal and organized proto-typical polyamorous support groups began to spread in the 1970s, the best known of which were Family Synergy in Los Angeles and Family Tree in Boston. Inspired by Heinlein’s (1961) Stranger in a Strange Land, Oberon Zell founded the Church of all Worlds and its related Ravenheart clan, still influential in the polyamorous movement today. Individuals started organizations focused on polyamory or polyfidelity, such as Ryam Nearing’s Polyfidelitous Educational Productions (PEP), a group in Denver called “Beyond Monogamy” that met regularly and published an edited volume, and Deborah Anapol’s IntiNet. Nearing and Anapol later teamed up to create Loving More magazine (which subsequently became Nearing’s solo project and has since then transitioned through several editors) that published articles, poetry, and personal advertisements for, by, and about polyamorous people.

 

THIRD WAVE: IMPACT OF THE INTERNET

 

Contemporary research (Bargh and McKenna, 2004; Jenks 1998; Wellman et al. 1996) indicates that alternative sexual styles such as polyamory have increased with the advent of Internet technology, which facilitates communication between geographically disparate people seeking support for alternative relationships. In recent years, the Internet has proved an especially important site for community building among marginalized populations. Sexual non-conformists have populated the Internet in droves, forming personal and sexual connections online (Bargh and McKenna, 2004). The impact of the worldwide web on the polyamorous community would be difficult to overstate. From dating, to discussing jealousy, to asking for advice, much polyamorous relating occurs “online.” The extensive network of Internet communication spawned an impressive number of polyamorous websites, some of which I list at the end of this piece.

In addition to providing polys with a convenient way to create community, give each other advice, and find partners, the Internet has also significantly impacted how polys interact with other sexual minorities. Specifically, polyamorists intersect significantly with bisexuals and kinksters, or people who practice BDSM (formerly known as sadomasochism), and overlap with both groups online and in person. Where most second wave polyamorists tended to have a more singular identity focused on “swapping” within heterosexual relationships, third wave polys tend towards bi/multisexual relationships that involve not only non-monogamy, but sometimes other forms of unconventional sexuality like BDSM as well. My own research (Sheff and Hammers 2011) indicates that if someone is both poly and kinky then their dominant identity is likely to be that of a kinkster, whereas someone whose is poly but not kinky will tend to have polyamory as their dominant sexual identity.

Polyamorous Websites

While polyamorous websites are too numerous to adequately list here, I have included some of the more important ones as examples of online community. Lovemore.com is Loving More magazine’s website. It includes not only a bulletin board, but also a chat room, frequently asked questions (FAQ), stories, advice, events, “the love list” (a summary of conversations that transpired on the electronic discussion board that was emailed to list subscribers), and personal ads for those seeking others to engage in polyamorous relationships. Yahoo lists over 100 polyamorous groups by region and interest, accessible through their “romance and relationships” section or simply by entering the key search word “polyamory.”

Alt.polyamory contains an extensive list of polyamorous information including six different FAQ pages, a glossary of acronyms, abbreviations, and new words found on polyamorous sites, a list of polyamorous resources including fiction, non-fiction, music, movies, “poly-friendly” professionals such as mental health counselors and ministers willing to perform group marriages, art, and paraphernalia such as T-shirts and mugs. Alt.polyamory also hosts numerous topical email lists for specific sub-groups including activists, parents, triads, and those seeking intentional community. Those who wish to post or read personal ads are directed to alt.personals, soc.personals, or alt.personals.poly. The “poly ring” is for members only, and links diverse polyamorous sites across the web. PolyMatchMaker.com lists personal ads for those seeking polyamorous relationships. It too is open to members only, though memberships are free. Finally, numerous polyamorists’ personal web sites include stories of their polyamorous lifestyles, links to other pages, pictures, poetry, journal entries, artwork, information about upcoming events, and calls to activism.

Polyamorists also linked to other related, but not explicitly polyamorous, websites. Janesguide.com, a guide to alternative sex-oriented sites on the web, is a favorite among web-savvy polyamorists, as is LiveJournal.com – a free site that allows writers to create journals online and choose to make their writing available to select others or to anyone visiting the site. LiveJournal lists over 100 relevant “community” matches, and over 1300 users interested in polyamory. Sites that contain information about swinging may overlap with polyamorous sites, and the communities share personal ads at http://www.altdot.com. The polyamorous presence on the web is diverse, and serves as a vital component of community formation and participation.

 

 

References

 

  • Anapol, D. 1997. Polyamory The New Love Without Limits: Secrets of Sustainable Intimate Relationships. San Rafael, CA: IntiNet Resource Center.
  • Bargh, J. and McKenna, K. 2004. “The Internet and Social Life” Annual Review of Psychology. 55:573-90.
  • Bartell, G. 1970. “Group Sex Among the Mid-Americans” Journal of Sex Research, 6:113-130.
  •                . 1971. Group Sex: A Scientist’s Eyewitness Report on the American Way of Swinging. New York: Van Rees Press.
  • Bornstein, K. 1994. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge.
  • Breedlove, W. and Breedlove, J. 1964. Swap Clubs: A Study in “Contemporary Mores.  Los Angeles: Sherbourne Press.
  • Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.  London: Routledge.
  • Buunk, B. and van Driel, B. 1989. Variant Lifestyles and Relationships. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  • Constantine, L. and Constantine, J. 1973.  Group Marriage: A Study of Contemporary Multilateral Marriage.  New York: Collier Books.
  • Denfield, D. and Gordon, M. 1972. “The Sociology of Mate Swapping: Or the Family that Swings Together Clings Together” In DeLora and DeLora (Eds.) Intimate Lifestyles: Marriage and Its Alternatives. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.
  • D’Emilio, J. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Ellis, A. 1970. “Group Marriage: A Possible Alternative?” Otto, H. (Ed.) The Family in Search of a Future. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Fang, B. 1976. “Swinging: In Retrospect.” The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 12, August.
  • Flanigan, W. and Zingdale, N. 1991. Political Behavior of the American Electorate. (7th Ed.) Washington DC: CQ Press.
  • Francoeur, A. and Francoeur, R. 1974. Hot and Cool Sex: Cultures in Conflict. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.
  • Gilmartin, B. 1974. “Sexual Deviance and Social Networks: A study of Social, Family, and Marital Interaction Patterns among Co-marital Sex Participants” In Smith and Smith (Eds.) Beyond Monogamy: Recent Studies of Sexual Alternatives in Marriage. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
  • Henshel, A. 1973. “Swinging: A Study of Decision Making in Marriage” American Journal of Sociology, 4:885-891.
  • Hutchins, Loraine. 2001. Erotic Rites: A Cultural Analysis of Contemporary US Sacred Sexuality Traditions and Trends. Unpublished dissertation for the Cultural Studies Department, Union Institute Graduate College.
  • Jenks, R. 1985. “A Comparative Study of Swingers and Non-swingers: Attitudes and Beliefs” Lifestyles: Journal of Changing Patterns, 7:5-20.
  •               . 1986. “Swinging: A Test of Two Theories and a Proposed New Model” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14:517-527.
  •               . 1986. “Swinging: A Review of the Literature” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(5):507-522.
  • Muncy, R. 1973. Sex and Marriage in Utopian Communities. Bloominton, IA: Indiana University Press.
  • Sheff, Elisabeth and Hammers, Corie. 2011. “The Privilege of Perversities: Race, Class, and Education Among Polyamorists and Kinksters” Sexuality & Psychology 2(3): 198-223.
  • Smith, J. and Smith, L. (eds.) 1974. Beyond Monogamy: Recent Studies of Sexual Alternatives in Marriage. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Stinnet, N. and Birdsong, C. 1978. The Family and Alternate Lifestyles. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  • Strassberg, M. 2003. “The Challenge of Post-modern Polygamy: Considering Polyamory” Capital University Law Review. Vol. 31, No. 3:439-563.
  • Udis-Kessler, A. 1996. “Identity/Politics: Historical Sources of the Bisexual Movement” Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology. New York: New York University Press.
  • Weeks, J. 1985. Sexuality and it’s Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.
  • Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. 1995.  “Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities.” Paper presented at the American Sociological Association session on “Reinventing Community,” Washington, D.C.
  • Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., and Haythornwaite, C. 1996. “Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community” Annual Review of Sociology, 22:213-38.

 

 

14 Comments

Filed under Polyamory