Talk:Non-monogamy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spartandgc. Peer reviewers: SkylarSmith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Open Marriage link

The list of related articles puts the links to the Wikipedia articles at the beginning of each bullet point...with the exception of open marriage. This made it too easy to skim past the open marriage link. I just moved the open marriage link to the beginning of the bullet like all other links in the list.

Article title

I've never heard most of those called "poly relationships": I've only ever heard the diminuative "poly" used to refer to polyamory. I think the article should rather be called Nonmonogamy (or Non-monogamy if that's more correct) as that is more of a blanket term. Thoughts?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

'Poly' is also used for polygamy - see e.g. [1] and [2] for a couple of examples. I hadn't heard it used that way either until I went looking, but then I don't follow polygamy discussions as much as polyamory ones.

I've also heard "poly" used more than once as a sort of shorthand for "something similar to polyamory, only I don't want to restart the argument over what exactly counts as 'amory'".

'Nonmonogamy' is probably more common in polyamorous circles, but problematic because the -gamy weights it towards marriage (rather than love or sex, which are equally important aspects of this article); while polyamorists & related do often use it as a blanket term, that usage isn't automatically going to work for others - e.g. those to whom the 'gamy' is a crucial part of 'polygamy'. "Poly relationship" seemed like the most neutral term, if not the most often used.

But I'm not too fussed about which term is used, as long as the other redirects appropriately. --Calair 05:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. For lack of more input I'm happy to leave the status quo as-is. I'll go ahead and make Nonmonogamy into a redirect here.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:53, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I meant to do that when I created this article, but apparently I forgot :-) --Calair 21:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Etymology and Definitional Material

• I added more accurate etymology. The word poly is not a contraction of the words polygamy, polyamory, and so forth. The word poly is a contraction of polymerized plastics. Look up the word poly in dictionaries and you will find defintions related to plastics. The term poly relationship obviously refers to the prefix poly-, which is contracted by removing the dash, and comes from the Greek word polys or polus meaning many. Look up the prefix poly- in dictionaries and you will find the meaning intended in this article. Thus, the word poly does not originate etymologically from the words polygamy, polyamory and the like, but rather it originates etymologically from the prefix poly-, which is much older than the words polygamy and polyamory.
• I think all definitional material should be included close to the beginning of the article. The claim that poly applies only to relationships where the partners acknowledge nonmonogamy, and does not apply to cases of infidelity, is definitional material. This defines a whole class of relationships as being included under the blanket term poly, and it defines a whole of relationships as not being included under the blanket term poly.
• There may be better ways of describing the etymology and moving the definitional material closer to the beginning. Someone else might craft the words better. I'm concerned with concepts here, not how the concepts are worded. 74.133.218.63 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Begging to differ, but the etymology of a word is dependent on how its usage arose, not on the definitions of words. "Poly" would not ever be used in these communities if "polyamory" and "polygamy" started with a different syllable. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either. Were people talking about "poly relationships" before the term polyamory came along? Mdwh 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Here's a verifiable etymology.

• The Wikipedia article on Polyamory states: "Polyamory is a hybrid word: poly is Greek for many and amor is Latin for love." By hybrid is meant that the word combines the Greek word for many and the Latin word for love.
• The "combining form" of the Greek word for many is poly-, as stated by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (the word polygyny is even used as an example):

"Main Entry: poly- Function: combining form Etymology: Greek, from polys; akin to Old High German filu many, Sanskrit puru, Latin plenus full -- more at FULL 1 : many : several : much : MULTI- <polychotomous> <polygyny>" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/poly-)

• The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition also gives the same etymology:

"poly– PREFIX: 1. More than one; many; much: polyatomic. 2. More than usual; excessive; abnormal: polydipsia. 3. Polymer; polymeric: polyethylene. ETYMOLOGY: Greek polu-, from polus, much, many." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/96/P0419600.html)

• When you contract from the terms polygamy or polyamory, you are actually contracting the prefix poly-, which is the combining form (i.e., prefix form) of the Greek word polys or polus, which means many.
• You would not have had the words polygamy or polyamory come into use without the prefix poly-.
• How about a compromise as proposed in the text? Kelly 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I think we're all agreed that "poly" does not come from polyamory/polygamy, but the article never said that (indeed, it said "The term poly is a shortened form of the prefix poly-, which comes from the Greek word"). I think the issue is where the phrase "poly relationship" comes from. Mdwh 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the original article did say poly came from polygamy and polyamory. If you can ever verify who started using the phrase poly relationship first, then definitely include that in the article. But even the person who started using it first obtained the poly part from the prefix poly-, as there really isn't any other origin for the letter sequence P-O-L-Y in the English language (at least that I know about). Again, you wouldn't have had the phrase poly relationship without first having the prefix poly- from the Greek. I'm trying to explain my reasoning as clearly as possible, but please be aware that I am very open to compromises here (including dropping talk of etymology from the article altogether). I strongly believe in the collaborative process. The article will be stronger if we can find something that we can all live with. Kelly 14:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still very much not convinced. When someone says, "I'm poly", they're not contracting the statement "I'm poly-" but rather the statement "I'm polyamorous" or "I'm polygamous". Besides that, are you familiar with the Wikipedia:No original research policy? Combining primary sources to create a synthesis of information is far beyond Wikipedia's goals and is actually disallowed. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. The phrase poly relationship may indeed be a contraction from the words polyamory and/or polygamy, but the words polyamory and polygamy themselves have etymological histories. The words polyamory and polygamy were created using the Greek prefix poly-. The etymological history of poly relationship thus has two steps.

The first step (starting from the present and going backwards in time) is the claim that poly relationship comes from polyamory and/or polygamy. This is original research, as no one has provided any verifiable reference which claims poly relationship comes from these words.

The second step (starting with polyamory and polygamy and going backwards in time) is the claim that polyamory and polygamy were created using the Greek prefix poly-. This claim is verifiable.

1. The Wikipedia article clearly states that polyamory comes from a combination of the Greek word for many and the Latin word for love.

2. Here is a verifiable source that says the word polyamory is based on the Greek prefix poly-. "Main Entry: poly·am·ory Pronunciation: "pä-lE-'a-m&-rE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ories Etymology: polyamorous (from poly- + amorous) + 2-y : the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/polyamory) (The same definition is given in printed 2006 update of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.)

3. Here is a verifiable source showing polygamy is also based on the greek word for many. "POLYG'AMY, n. [Gr. many, and marriage.] A plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; or the having of such plurality. When a man has more wives than one, or a woman more husbands than one, at the same time, the offender is punishable for polygamy. Such is the fact in christian countries. But polygamy is allowed in some countries, as in Turkey." (Webster's 1828 Dictionary, Electronic Version by Christian Technologies, Inc. http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=polygamy)

4. Here is a verifiable source showing polygamy is based on the Greek prefix poly- meaning many. "polygamy NOUN: 1. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage. 2. Zoology A mating pattern in which a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex. ETYMOLOGY: French polygamie, from Late Latin polygamia, from Greek polugami : polu-, poly- + -gami, -gamy." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/P0424100.html) Kelly 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology doesn't work that way. It is the study of the usage of words, and usage does not skip intervening steps to base a current usage on a distant ancestor in the chain of word-ancestors.

In addition, you are right that the statement "poly is a shortening of polyamory/polygamy" is original research. However, your chain of reasoning above is also inadmissible as it is original research. Verifiable sources for a statement must say the exact thing that goes into the Wikipedia article. This prohibits a new synthesis based on research sources from appearing. Specifically, in this case you must provide a single reference to a source that says something to the effect of "the term poly is a shortening of the Greek prefix poly-". If such a source cannot be provided, does not satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or does not exist, then the article must be silent on the origin for lack of appropriate sources, or say simply that the source of the term poly is currently unknown. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read what the article actually says. I've left in the original research saying the term poly relationship comes from words like polygamy and polyamory. That claim was made by another editor. I simply claim the words polyamory and polygamy are based on the Greek prefix poly-, which is explicitly stated in the dictionary references provided in the discussion above and cited in the article. No original research is involved in saying polyamory and polygamy are based on the Greek prefix poly-. So, as soon as someone finds a verifiable source claiming the term poly relationships comes from words like polygamy and polyamory, the chain of reasoning is established with no original research (i.e., poly relationship comes from words like polygamy and polyamory, and words like polygamy and polyamory are based on Greek prefix poly- meaning many.) On the other hand, if the term poly relationship has not been previously published in verifiable sources, the use of the term poly relationship would appear inconsistent with Wikipedia policies forbidding original research. In that case the article should perhaps be renamed to nonmonogamy, a term which has been previously published in credible and verifiable sources. Kelly 22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As the original creator of the article, I think renaming is probably a good idea. I think the real verifiability weakness is not the connection of 'poly' to 'polygamy'/'polyamory' but the implication that (e.g.) group marriage, group sex, etc. etc. are also called 'poly relationships'.

What happened was that I started with the intention of, effectively, disambig-ing two things (polyamory & polygamy) that are both sometimes called 'poly relationships'. I then realised that it would be good to have pointers to other nonconventional forms, but didn't notice that the title of the article was no longer so applicable once I'd added them. Since it's basically a list of pointers to different types of nonmonogamy, I'd recommend naming it something more specific than just 'nonmonogamy' (maybe 'nonmonogamous relationship forms'?) unless somebody's willing to expand it into a discussion of nonmonogamy as a whole.

After renaming, I'd suggest replacing the etymology section with something along these lines: "Following the precedent of 'polygamy', the Greek prefix 'poly-' (meaning 'many') is often used in naming nonmonogamous forms of relationship. In informal use such names are sometimes abbreviated to just 'poly', with the rest understood from context." I'd be happier if there was better documentation for that, but I don't think it's a very contentious claim either, and it would be useful to have something to tell the reader who comes here trying to figure out what a 'poly relationship' is that it can have more than one meaning. --Calair 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very open to your suggestions. I will accept whatever changes you make. I should probably avoid making any further changes for awhile as I may be a little too biased at this point. Your objectivity is appreciated. Kelly 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved and edited. I ended up excising a fair bit of material that no longer seemed to be necessary to the article due to the shift in title - if I removed too much, please re-add. One consequence of making this 'nonmonogamy', BTW, is that it should also include 'dishonest' forms - I've added infidelity, but there are probably several more that ought to go in. --Calair 04:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Human Relationships

We should have one page related to Forms of Human Relationships that shows all of the forms, monogamous and non-monogamous. Why is there a special page for non-monogamous? Atom 14:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging. Most Western societies have cultural norms prohibiting sexually and romantically non-monogamous relationships. Consequently, people don't grow up in Western societies learning about these kinds of relationships in the same way they get to learn about "acceptable" relationships such as platonic friendships, boyfriend-girlfriend, and monogamous sexual and romantic relationships. People must learn how to have successful non-monogamous relationships as adults. It can be difficult (especially for beginners) to find all relevant information about non-monogamous relationships because these kinds of relationships don't have social approval. The lack of social support: (1) distinguishes non-monogamous relationships from many other kinds of relationships, and (2) makes it useful to have all relevant information in one place for people specifically interested in non-monogamous relationships. Kelly 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think those purposes would be served equally well (if not moreso) by making the contents of this article a subsection of a more general relationship-types article. Forms of human relationships doesn't exist; does anyone know of a good central article for subjects like this? At the very least, such an article needs a "See also" to this article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm not sure I agree with the inclusion of infidelity.

• Originally this was poly relationship - infidelity is an act, not a style of relationship.
• In general, infidelity means "doing something against the other person's wishes", not "seeing other people". Many poly people would say they are faithful, and show fidelity. Whilst I can see the point of an article grouping together different forms of poly relationships, I can't see the point of one which groups poly relationships with unfaithful monogamous ones. At worst it's pushing the POV that these two are related; but if not, I feel that poly relationships are still closer to monogamous ones than people acting unfaithfully, so if we can't agree on which methods of classification are important, perhaps it's better to just have a single "Forms of human relationships"?

How many different forms of monogamous relationships would there be, anyway? Mdwh 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a concept called responsible nonmonogamy that has been previously published in books, news articles, and academic publications (i.e., a Masters thesis). I doubt I can substantiate the etymology of the phrase responsible nonomonogamy, but I'm confident I can find verifiable sources for the term and the concept. Everything currently listed in this article except infidelity would fall into the concept of responsible nonmonogamy. The article could then grow by: talking a bit about the concept of responsible non-monogamy (from referenced sources), followed by links to main articles with short descriptions of the various kinds of responsible nonmonogamy (see Monogamy, Attachment theory, or Jealousy as examples of what this could look like), and ending with a See also section that links to other forms of human relationships. Kelly 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Easton and Liszt's The Ethical Slut might have a discussion of the term "responsible nonmonogamy" beyond a simple usage. I can look this up when I get home. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt into an old discussion. I want to note that "responsible nonmonogamy" dates back to at least 1989, encountered in an alt-living zine, so predating "polyamory" but trying to differentiate from "polyfidelity."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't trying to push the POV that poly relationships are close to infidelity, seeing as how I'm happily poly myself and certainly don't consider it to be infidelity :-) See previous section on this Talk page for some comments on the history of this article; originally it was 'poly relationship' and I didn't consider it appropriate to include infidelity for much the same reasons Mdwh gives. However, it became apparent that 'poly relationship' wasn't a good descriptor of the content, and I felt the content was more valuable than the title; I floated a title change above, didn't hear any opposition (quite possibly didn't wait long enough for people to comment), and implemented the title change.

Whether 'infidelity' should be included, IMHO, depends on the intended focus of the article. I think it is obviously relevant to forms of nonmonogamy, not directly relevant to a list of forms of responsible nonmonogamy, but should be mentioned in responsible nonmonogamy as part of a discussion on differing notions of 'fidelity'.

I think it could be worthwhile to have an article on responsible nonmonogamy - as Kelly says, it gets a fair bit of usage and should be documentable. However, I don't think this article should be made into that one simply by moving it and excising the link to 'infidelity', because several of the other concepts discussed here are not simply subsets of 'responsible monogamy'. For instance, group sex isn't inherently RM (though it certainly can be) and polygamy is often a very long way from the 'informed, consenting adults' ethos usually associated with RM.

IMHO the underlying problem here is that we have a bunch of related, overlapping but non-identical topics in this area - "swinging", "open marriage", "polyamory", "nonmonogamy", "responsible monogamy", and more. That leaves us with the choice between a bunch of related, overlapping but non-identical articles, or one great big article that attempts to cover all of them in the one place. I think the former is the lesser of two evils, although this doesn't mean every term needs its own article.

FWIW, my impression is that many monogamous folk don't understand that there is a vast difference between (for instance) 'Mormon-style polygamy' (sic) and 'polyamory', and the use of 'poly relationship' to describe both of those things doesn't exactly help. Also, many don't understand that people involved in these styles distinguish between nonmonogamy and 'infidelity'. It would therefore be useful to have some sort of disambig page for multiple-partner relationship styles. If somebody wants to do the hard work of expanding it into a list of intimate relationship styles in general and making it forms of intimate relationship, I wouldn't oppose that, but I'm not volunteering either ;-) --Calair 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that, technically, infidelity is a form of non-monogamy as the article is currently titled. Maybe under a See also section? Also, anything that puts 'responsible' in the article title will get shot down as NPOV. -- nae'blis 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how solidly it can be documented as an existing usage. We have articles on good governance, the Moral Majority, and even the War to end all wars. --Calair 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the problem is we have several overlapping but non-identical topics, and certainly they should have their own articles. But when it comes to what we should cover in a "List of" style article like this, I feel we may be better off including forms of relationship in general, because otherwise we have trouble deciding on what basis we a grouping things together.

Alternatively, we could simply trim it right back down to "poly relationship", making it a disambiguation page for polygamy and polyamory.

In its current form, it's possibly worth pointing out that all of the other forms are not examples of, and hence distinct from, infidelity? Mdwh 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to this turning into a general 'types of intimate relationship' list, if enough content can be added to do justice to that broader scope. --Calair 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if we keep this as a "List of" article, I actually think making a redirect to disambiguate "poly"... Before I finished writing that, I checked and Poly actually already disambiguates between "polyamory" and "polygamy". So nevermind! — Saxifrage ✎ 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist LDS

I've removed the "Fundamentalist" from the title of that faith; as whatever joker wrote it in surely knew that the FLDS didn't exist in the 19th century, but that it is a splinter from the LDS; it didn't exist as a separate entity from the mainstream LDS until the 1930s, and even then wasn't called the "FLDS" until modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.77 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

still needs focus

Is "non-monogamy" being presented as a practice… or a philosophy… or a worldview… or some sort of social movement… or a deviant subculture? This is entirely unclear.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Another thought (which I go into at Talk:Monogamy). In common parlance, non-monogamy is every practice that does not fit entirely within monogamy AND monoamory AND monosexuality. If taken literally — the -gamy part — "non-monogamy" would refer ONLY to the "marriage to one" part and have nothing to do with sex or love. I don't see where there's any simple way to resolve this, but it does point up difficulties such as how a married couple can claim to be monogamous even though they are active participants in a swing club, yet another couple see one partner having romantic thoughts (about someone other than their partner) be a violation even though no physical contact is sought or even desired..
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding depth and resources to Non-monogamy

Spartandgc (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I mean, really, I do appreciate your efforts, and whatever motivates you to have made them. However, a Wikipedia article IS NOT an appropriate vehicle to press a particular, subjective viewpoint, and must always strive to be informative AND thorough AND unbiased.

A common online misconception is that adding verbiage equates to adding information, to which I reply "lard is not beef, even if the portions are the same." In recent months, editors have peppered this article with changes that set a tone perhaps best described as "pro-nonmonogamy"; worse (for W'pedia's mission) is that very few of these changes offer any citation to support the stated opinion. (I do not imply that you are the only one, much less the first! It is a common Wikipedia issue.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

ish

Notwithstanding Dan Savage, I have to balk at monogamish presented as being an example of non-monogamy. Clearly, adultery, infidelity, and general cheating have been a significant portion of the "romantic" nonsense that's been part of monogamy for millennia, so the "-ish" is at best redundant, and the term is merely a cutesification of the status quo. In short, it ain't really nonmonogamy, and its practitioners dilettantes who can readily duck for cover when caught out — swingers have the dignity to take a step away from the easy answer.

Anyone who wants to preserve the term here needs to present at least one credible source — preferably scholarly rather than some HuffPo article or someone's blog or yet another self-pubbed "activist."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RadicalRelationsHeart.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

visual representation

heres an spreadsheet example of all the possible arrangements: https://ethercalc.net/tvf60jwjbq6m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.213.168 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensual non-monogamy – merge or redirect?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Ethical non-monogamy (previously known as [[[Consensual non-monogamy]] ]]) to Non-monogamy for reasons of context and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

---

As far as I can tell, this article and Consensual non-monogamy are about exactly the same topic. However, this article is a lot older and larger, and the other article a borderline stub. I think the best solution would be to merge the two articles, or to turn the other article into a redirect right away (not sure if any content is worth merging). I also wonder if Ethical non-monogamy wouldn't be the best title for this article in general, or alternatively Consensual non-monogamy, since non-monogamy is not inherently ethical or consensual. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think (as well as many people in the NM community) that both consensual and ethical non-monogamy articles should redirect to this one and that non-monogamy should be the canonical name for it.

Your argument saying that non-monogamy is not inherently ethical or consensual could be applied to monogamy as well.

It should be implied that people practicing non-monogamy do it in an ethical way, otherwise it is just cheating. For instance, we never say ethical or consensual monogamy.

Prefixing non-monogamy with ethical or consensual reinforces the idea that, by default, there is something morally wrong with non-monogamy and is reflective of the mono-normativiy of many societies. Adamspaceship (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Rename consensual non-monogamy to ethical non-monogamy. ENM became a more popular concept, not to mention it's used in apps such as Tinder nowadays.--MikutoH ^talk! 23:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I took the liberty of renaming the page to Ethical non-monogamy, based on linguistic statistics alone, before I saw this discussion. As for merging it with Non-monogamy, I don't think it's a good idea. I'm afraid the info about a narrow cultural phenomenon will get lost in the broader context of the umbrella concept. Wpn2022 (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I support merging the Ethical non-monogamy article into this one, including discussion on terminology in the "terminology" section that already exists on this page. As was mentioned above, not all monogamy is consensual (ex cheating) which is why I actually favor keeping this page. Non-monogamy is broader. Turtletwo (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 Slate article

I thought this was pertinent, plus it has links to many other sources. I do not have the time to incorporate it into this article at present, but I thought maybe some of you other editors might like do that.

• Requarth, Tim (2024-05-05). "Nonmonogamy by the Numbers: Does having multiple partners make for less-satisfying relationships? We don't have to judge—we can look at the data". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

Peaceray (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)