How Eroticism and Nurturance Differs in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships

Eroticism Versus Nurturance: How Eroticism and Nurturance Differs in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships. Rhonda N. Balzarini et al. Social Psychology, April 17, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000378

Abstract. Romantic partners provide both erotic and nurturing experiences, though these may emerge more strongly in different phases of a relationship. Unlike individuals in monogamous relationships, those in polyamorous relationships can pursue multiple romantic relationships simultaneously, potentially allowing them to experience higher levels of eroticism and nurturance. This research examined eroticism and nurturance among individuals in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. As expected, polyamorous participants experienced less eroticism but more nurturance in their relationships with their primary partner compared to secondary. Furthermore, people in polyamorous relationships reported more nurturance with primary partners and eroticism with secondary partners compared to people in monogamous relationships. These findings suggest that polyamory may provide a unique opportunity for individuals to experience both eroticism and nurturance simultaneously.

Keywords: polyamory, monogamy, nurturance, eroticism, relationship length



Romantic relationships are important to health and well-being (Coombs, 1991; Lillard & Waite, 1995; Putzke, Elliott, & Richards, 2001; Simon, 2002), in part because they often meet people’s needs for emotional support, care, and sexual gratification (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). However, fulfilling these needs simultaneously can be challenging, as the experience of eroticism (i.e., feeling of arousal, passion, lust, sexual pleasure) and nurturance (i.e., feelings of intimacy, warmth and love) often follow different time courses in a relationship (Hatfield, Traupmann, & Sprecher, 1984; Sprecher & Regan, 1998; Tennov, 1979; Winston, 2004). As a result, individuals in relationships are often stuck trying to balance their need for eroticism and their need for nurturance (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), as experiences of eroticism are more prominent in the early stages, and experiences of nurturance develop over time as erotic desires decline. People in polyamorous relationships – relationships that involve consensual intimate relationships with more than one partner – may seek out additional relationships in order to fulfill multiple needs by different partners. In the current research we sought to assess whether partners in polyamorous relationships differ with regard to their experienced eroticism and nurturance, and whether individuals in polyamorous relationships are able to maintain higher levels of eroticism and nurturance than individuals in monogamous relationships through having multiple relationships.

Theoretical Framework

Van Anders Sexual Configuration Theory (2015) advances that eroticism, or “aspects of sexuality tied to bodily pleasure, orgasm, arousal, tantalization, and related concepts,” and nurturance, or “warm loving feelings and closeness,” serve fundamental roles in relationships. Sexual Configuration Theory proposes that individuals may pursue some intimate relationships for eroticism, others for nurturance, and still others for both of these qualities. While van Anders (2015) provides a theoretical context for the role of eroticism and nurturance in relationships, and while research related to these concepts – such as passionate and companionate love – can help provide insight into how eroticism and nurturance may be experienced in relationships, to date it remains unclear if engaging in relationships with multiple partners results in different experiences with eroticism and nurturance. That is, do individuals who engage in polyamorous relationships and thus have multiple simultaneous partners experience higher levels of eroticism and nurturance than those who rely on one partner to meet their needs?

Passionate and Companionate Love

While the current paper seeks to assess eroticism and nurturance, the fulfillment of these needs has most often been studied in the context of love, which is frequently conceptualized as either passionate or companionate (Hatfield & Walster, 1978). Consequently, we rely on research on passionate and companionate love to serve as a proxy for what might be found when exploring eroticism and nurturance in relationships.

Passionate love is characterized as an intensely emotional state that involves longing for union with another person and strong sexual desire between partners. With companionate love, in contrast, strong sexual desire is replaced by increased intimacy (e.g., caring, understanding, attachment) that requires time to develop fully (Sprecher & Regan, 1998). Although passionate and companionate love are not mutually exclusive, they may be more prominent at different stages of a relationship. More specifically, passionate love is most closely associated with the early stages or the “honeymoon” period of a relationship (though passion can still be experienced in the later stages, it tends to decline on average), and companionate love with the later stages (Hatfield et al., 1984; Sprecher & Regan, 1998).

Outsourcing Needs in Relationships

The differing time courses of passionate and companionate love are also consistent with evolutionary perspectives about the formation of adult pair bonds. Since pair bonds require time and close physical proximity to form, the characteristics of the early stage of a relationship include an intense longing for closeness with a partner (Hazan & Diamond, 2000; Tennov, 1979). However, over time, an attachment bond is thought to form, reducing the intensity of the desire for physical proximity as the relationship becomes more predictable and familiar (Eagle, 2007). Therefore, from an evolutionary perspective, feelings of passionate love are the mechanism by which initial attraction becomes attachment, facilitating the initiation of longer term romantic relationships. Social and evolutionary psychologists even agree on a timeframe for this shift, such that passionate love is thought to last approximately 2 years, ±6 months (Tennov, 1979), while attachment bonds typically form 1.5–3 years after a relationship is initiated (Winston, 2004).

Importantly, Eagle (2007) argues the features of attachment work against erotic desire. According to Eagle, for a romantic partner to serve as an attachment figure they need to be available, familiar, and predictable. These characteristics, however, thwart feelings of sexual desire, which she argues is conversely ignited by novelty and unpredictability. If, in fact, familiarity and predictability are key features of an attachment figure and if sexual desire for a partner is diminished by these characteristics, then once an attachment bond is formed in a relationship, it is likely that sexual desire will decrease. Similar ideas are echoed by Mitchell (2002) and Perel (2007) who have independently argued that initial erotic desire – and related feelings of passion – wanes as partners impose boundaries on one-another to reduce relational insecurity, and that sexual desire can be negatively impacted by increasing closeness and familiarity. Clinical reports (Levine, 2003), along with qualitative (Sims & Meana, 2010) and quantitative research (Levy, 1994) provide additional support for these arguments, such that familiarity, monotony, preoccupation with non-sexual matters, and predictability are shown to undermine erotic desire.

To the extent that passionate and companionate love are related to eroticism and nurturance, this research and theorizing may suggest differing trajectories for the experience of erotic desire and nurturance. If this is the case, like different forms of love, it may be challenging to experience high levels of eroticism and nurturance with one romantic partner at a single point in time. In fact, this problem is likely compounded by the burden of contemporary expectations about the functions of romantic relationships. Today, it is commonly assumed that committed relationships should meet many higher order needs like happiness and personal fulfillment, while at the same time, many couples find it challenging to invest the time and energy needed to fulfill all these needs (see Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014). One solution to this problem is to alter expectations about romantic relationships and outsource needs. Indeed, it has been proposed that couples could alter their expectations about relationships; that is, rather than relying on one partner to meet both erotic and nurturant needs, individuals could outsource their needs to other relationships, diversifying their need fulfillment across multiple romantic or sexual partners (Conley, Matsick, Moors, & Ziegler, 2017; Conley & Moors, 2014).

In consensually non-monogamous relationships, all partners agree it is acceptable to have additional romantic or sexual partners (Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2013). Given that consensual non-monogamy provides the opportunity to simultaneously pursue relationships, it may be possible for individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships to concurrently experience high levels of eroticism along with nurturance through relationships with various partners. Thus, if relationships tend to decline in eroticism and increase in nurturance over time, it is possible that individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships seek out secondary relationships to experience both eroticism and nurturance.

Relationship Orientation

In the current research we focus on polyamory, the practice and acceptance of having multiple emotionally close relationships with the consent of all partners involved (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). Polyamorous relationships are particularly useful to study in this context because unlike other popular forms of consensually non-monogamous relationships (e.g., open and swinging), partners are permitted to seek both eroticism and nurturance outside of a dyad. The most common polyamorous relationship configuration is characterized by a distinction between primary and secondary relationship partners (Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018; Veaux, 2011; Veaux, Hardy, & Gill, 2014). In this configuration, a primary relationship is between two partners who have been together for a longer duration, typically share a household and finances, who are married, and who have or are raising children together (if children are desired) (Balzarini et al., 2017; Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018; Sheff, 2013; Veaux, 2011). In such arrangements, partners beyond the primary relationship are often referred to as “secondary” partners and consist of less ongoing commitments and a shorter relationship duration (Balzarini et al., 2017; Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018).

Previous research has shown that meaningful differences also emerge among partners in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. For example, Mogilski and colleagues (2017) found that individuals engage in more mate retention behaviors (i.e., public signals of possession, direct guarding) and report greater satisfaction with monogamous and primary partners compared to secondary partners. Furthermore, Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al. (2018) found that participants reported greater acceptance from friends and family, as well as higher investment, satisfaction, and commitment in relationships with monogamous or primary partners compared to secondary partners. In contrast, participants reported greater quality of alternatives, higher romantic secrecy (e.g., they hid more aspects of their relationship from others) and a greater proportion of time spent on sexual activity in their relationship with secondary partners compared to their relationships with primary partners and to reports for monogamous partners (Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018). This research suggests that primary partners resemble monogamous partners in many ways, though secondary partners seem to diverge with proportion of time spent on sex being one of the unique features that is higher among secondary partners. In contrast to Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al. (2018) findings, Mitchell and colleagues (2014) found that polyamorous individuals actually reported more sexual contact with primary partners (which could be because people tend to spend more time with primary compared to secondary partners) but greater fulfillment of sexual needs with their secondary partners compared to primary. While this research did not assess comparisons to monogamous relationships, it still provides initial evidence in support of the idea that individuals may seek out consensual extradyadic relationships in order to have diverse needs fulfilled.

Although primary-secondary relationships are the most common polyamorous arrangement (Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018), not all people in such relationships identify with this labeling, instead, some consider multiple partners to be primary (co-primary) or no partners to be primary (non-primary; Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018; Labriola, 2003). The only study to date to assess relationship quality among such configurations has found that even in co-primary and non-primary relationships, there is often a partner who can be characterized as more primary, or “pseudo-primary,” and another as more secondary, or “pseudo-secondary.” Despite the designated primary status, individuals in polyamorous relationships who reject primary-secondary status are often more inclined to live with one partner over another, and this partner is typically the individual with whom they are married to and have kids with. In such cases, participants report greater acceptance from friends and family, higher commitment, investment and communication for this partner (pseudo-primary), and romantic secrecy and proportion of time spent on sex for the pseudo-secondary partner. Balzarini and colleagues (2018) have argued that such differences may reflect the practical allocation of relationship investments imposed by a society that is not particularly tolerant of consensually non-monogamous relationships that may occur despite motivated striving for equality across partners. As such, in co-primary and non-primary relationships, the pseudo- primary partner resembles primary partners in primary-secondary configurations and we would therefore expect to find similar patterns of eroticism and nurturance across these alternative forms of polyamorous relationships.

Cross Partner Effects

If individuals in consensually non-monogamous relationships are able to experience higher levels of eroticism and nurturance through having their needs met across partners, it is possible that the diversification of needs could influence concurrent relationships. Indeed, recent research by Muise and colleagues (2018) suggests that greater sexual need fulfillment with a primary partner was associated with greater sexual satisfaction with their secondary partner, though greater sexual need fulfillment with a secondary partner was associated with less satisfaction with a primary partner. Furthermore, while research by Mitchell and colleagues (2014) found that greater need fulfillment (in some domains) with one partner was associated with less satisfaction with the other, when need fulfillment was low with one partner, having another partner meet those needs was associated with higher satisfaction with both partners. Though when need fulfillment was lower in one relationship, need fulfillment in another relationship detracted from satisfaction, resulting in lower satisfaction with the first partner. This research suggests that diversifying needs across partners can have both detrimental and beneficial effects.

Current Study

Building on previous research (Balzarini et al., 2017; Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018; Mogilski et al., 2017) assessing differences among polyamorous and monogamous partners, and drawing on Sexual Configuration Theory (van Anders, 2015), we sought to assess the extent to which eroticism and nurturance differ among polyamorous and monogamous partners. Given that primary relationships in polyamory resemble monogamous relationships and both of these relationships are characterized by greater commitment, investments, and efforts to retain a mate (Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Holmes, et al., 2018; Mogilski et al., 2017), we would expect these relationships to be characterized by greater nurturance. Conversely, most evidence suggests a greater proportion of time is spent on sexual activity with secondary partners (Balzarini et al., 2017; Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Lehmiller, et al., 2018; Balzarini, Dobson, Kohut, & Lehmiller, 2018; see Mitchell et al., 2014 for an exception) and that secondary partners provide greater sexual need fulfillment than primary partners (Mitchell et al., 2014) – which provides preliminary evidence that these relationships may be characterized as more erotically fulfilling. If this is the case, it would suggest that individuals in polyamorous relationships are experiencing higher levels of eroticism and nurturance than individuals in monogamous relationships through diversifying their needs. Additionally, we also sought to explore whether there are unique benefits diversifying needs across partners, thus we wanted to assess whether experiencing more eroticism or nurturance with one partner in a polyamorous relationship influenced a concurrent relationship. Lastly, given that previous research has shown that monogamous and polyamorous participants present important demographics differences (see Balzarini, Dharma, Kohut, Campbell, Holmes, et al., 2018 for a review) and because sociodemographic factors may influence eroticism and nurturance (van Anders, 2015), we further sought to assess how relationship orientation (e.g., monogamous vs. polyamorous), primary status (e.g., identifying partners as primary-secondary, co-primary, and non-primary), relationship length, gender, sexual orientation, and age impacted reports of eroticism and nurturance.