RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-2339-4107
Facetten von Intimität in konsensuell nicht-monogamen Liebesbeziehungen. Eine qualitative Interviewstudie
Facets of Intimacy in Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships. A Qualitative Interview Study
Zusammenfassung
Einleitung Bedürfnisse nach Autonomie und Verbundenheit stehen im Kontext romantischer Beziehungen in einem spannungsreichen Verhältnis. In polyamoren Beziehungsmodellen herrscht im Vergleich zu monogamen Partnerschaften eine hohe sexuelle und romantische Autonomie. Gleichzeitig muss dort Intimität trotz Nicht-Exklusivität hergestellt werden.
Forschungsziele Wir explorieren die Alltagspraxis der Intimität in konsensuell nicht-monogamen Liebesbeziehungen. Wie erleben polyamor lebende Menschen ihre Simultanbeziehungen in Hinblick auf (1) Facetten von Intimität wie Selbstoffenbarung und emotionale Verbundenheit sowie (2) emotionale Distanz? Zeigen sich jeweils Unterschiede zwischen den verschiedenen Partnerschaften?
Methoden Mittels halbstandardisierter Leitfadeninterviews wurde eine Gelegenheitsstichprobe von 20 polyamor lebenden Individuen (M Alter = 33.15, 70 % weiblich, 35 % bisexuell, 30 % pansexuell, 70 % kinderlos) befragt. Verglichen wurden Facetten von Intimität und Distanz (1) in der Beziehung zu der engsten Bindungsperson (operationalisiert als Partner*in, der*die im Falle einer persönlichen Krise als Erstes kontaktiert werden würde) und (2) in der zweitwichtigsten Liebesbeziehung. Die Auswertung erfolgte mittels qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse mit induktiver Kategorienbildung. Zusätzlich wurde Bindungssicherheit im Selbstbericht erfasst.
Ergebnisse Die Teilnehmenden wiesen insgesamt eine hohe Bindungssicherheit auf und beschrieben ein hohes Maß an emotionaler Verbundenheit mit ihren Primärpartner*innen, während sich bezüglich dieser Merkmale bei Sekundärpartner*innen ein differenzierteres Bild ergab. Bezogen auf emotionale Distanz zeigten sich in der Primärpartnerschaft mehr Absprachen und Regeln, aber auch mehr offene Kommunikation über Konflikte und Eifersucht. Sorgen bezüglich einer übermäßigen Distanz traten sowohl in Primär- als auch Sekundärpartnerschaften vielfach auf.
Schlussfolgerung Polyamorie bietet Potenzial für ein hohes Maß an Intimität in simultanen Liebesbeziehungen, setzt jedoch ausgeprägte Kompetenzen in der Selbstregulation und Kommunikation voraus.
Abstract
Introduction In the context of intimate relationships, needs for autonomy and connectedness exist in constant tension. Polyamorous relationship models are characterized by a high degree of sexual and romantic autonomy compared to monogamous partnerships. At the same time, intimacy must be established in the face of non-exclusivity.
Objectives We explore everyday practices of intimacy in consensual non-monogamous relationships. How do polyamorous people experience their simultaneous relationships in terms of (1) facets of intimacy, such as self-disclosure and emotional closeness, and (2) emotional distance? Do they perceive differences between their relationships with regard to each of these aspects?
Methods A convenience sample of 20 polyamorous individuals (M Age = 33.15, 70 % female, 35 % bisexual, 30 % pansexual, 70 % childless) was interviewed using a semi-structured format. Respondents were asked to compare experiences of intimacy and emotional distance in relationships with their closest attachment partner versus a secondary partner. We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis in an inductive category building process. Furthermore, we assessed self-reported attachment security.
Results Overall, the participants reported high levels of attachment security. They described high levels of emotional closeness with their primary partners, while a more nuanced picture emerged for secondary partners. In terms of emotional distance, the primary partnership involved more negotiated rules but also more open communication about conflict and jealousy. Concerns about becoming too distant were widespread in both relationships.
Conclusion Polyamory offers the potential for high levels of intimacy in romantic relationships. However, this relationship style requires advanced self-regulation and communication skills.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
05. August 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
Literatur
- 1 Ainsworth MD, Blehar M, Waters E. et al. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. 1.. Auflage Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978
- 2 Balzarini RN, Campbell L, Kohut T. et al. Perceptions of Primary and Secondary Relationships in Polyamory. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0177841
- 3 Balzarini RN, Dharma C, Kohut T. et al. Comparing Relationship Quality across Different Types of Romantic Partners in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships. Arch Sex Behav 2019; 48: 1749-1767
- 4 Baumgartner R. ‘I Think I’m Not a Relationship Person’: Bisexual Women’s Accounts of (Internalised) Binegativity in Non-Monogamous Relationship Narratives. Psychol Sex Rev 2017; 8 (2) 25-40
- 5 Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E. Passion, Intimacy, and Time: Passionate Love as a Function of Change in Intimacy. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1999; 3: 49-67
- 6 Baxter LA. A Dialogic Approach to Relationship Maintenance. In: Canary D, Stafford L. Hrsg. Communication and Relational Maintenance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994: 234-254
- 7 Birnbaum GE, Reis HT. Evolved to Be Connected: The Dynamics of Attachment and Sex over the Course of Romantic Relationships. Curr Opin Psychol 2019; 25: 11-15
- 8 Bowlby J. The Bowlby-Ainsworth Attachment Theory. Behav Brain Sci 1979; 2: 637-638
- 9 Bricker ME, Horne SG. Gay Men in Long-Term Relationships: The Impact of Monogamy and Non-Monogamy on Relational Health. J Couple Relatsh Ther 2007; 6 (4) 27-47
- 10 Bröning S, Mazziotta A. Konsensuelle Nicht-Monogamie. In: Eck A, Büttner M. Hrsg. Sexualität und Integrative Sexualtherapie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta; im Druck
- 11 Cardoso D, Klesse C. Living outside the BOX: Consensual Non-Monogamies, Intimacies, and Communities Notes on Research and Terminology. In: Vaughan MD, Burnes TR. Hrsg. The Handbook of Consensual Non-Monogamy: Affirming Mental Health Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2022: 15-49
- 12 Conley TD, Matsick JL, Moors AC. et al. Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships: Theories, Methods, and New Directions. Perspect Psychol Sci 2017; 12: 205-232
- 13 Conley TD, Ziegler A, Moors AC. et al. A Critical Examination of Popular Assumptions about the Benefits and Outcomes of Monogamous Relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2013; 17: 124-141
- 14 Cubells-Serra J, Sánchez-Sicilia A, Astudillo-Mendoza P. et al. Assumption of the Myths of Romantic Love: Its Relationship with Sex, Type of Sex-Affective Relationship, and Sexual Orientation. Front Sociol 2021; 6: 621646
- 15 Deri J. Love’s Refraction. Jealousy and Compersion in Queer Polyamorous Relationships. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2015
- 16 DeWall CN, Lambert NM, Slotter EB. et al. So Far away from One’s Partner, Yet So Close to Romantic Alternatives: Avoidant Attachment, Interest in Alternatives, and Infidelity. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011; 101: 1302
- 17 Ehrenthal JC, Dinger U, Lamla A. et al. Evaluation der deutschsprachigen Version des Bindungsfragebogens „Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised“ (ECR-RD). Psychother Psychosom Medizinische Psychol 2008; 59: 215-223
- 18 Fairbrother N, Hart TA, Fairbrother M. Open Relationship Prevalence, Characteristics, and Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Adults. J Sex Res 2019; 56: 695-704
- 19 Farrell RM. Polyam Affect: Working with Emotions in CNM. In: Vaughan MD, Burnes TR. Hrsg. The Handbook of Consensual Non-Monogamy: Affirming Mental Health Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2022: 47-96
- 20 Fern J. Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Nonmonogamy. Portland, OR: Thorntree Press; 2020
- 21 Ferreira LC, Narciso I, Ferreira NR. et al. Predicting Couple Satisfaction: The Role of Differentiation of Self, Sexual Desire and Intimacy in Heterosexual Individuals. Sex Relatsh Ther 2014; 29: 390-404
- 22 Flicker SM, Sancier-Barbosa F, Moors AC. et al. A Closer Look at Relationship Structures: Relationship Satisfaction and Attachment among People Who Practice Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Polyamory. Arch Sex Behav 2021; 50: 1401-1417
- 23 Fraley RC, Shaver PR. Adult Romantic Attachment: Theoretical Developments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions. Rev Gen Psychol 2000; 4: 132-154
- 24 Fuß S, Karbach U. Grundlagen der Transkription: Eine praktische Einführung. Leverkusen: Budrich; 2014
- 25 Garner C, Person M, Goddard C. et al. Satisfaction in Consensual Nonmonogamy. Fam J 2019; 27: 115-121
- 26 Helfferich C. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. 4.. Auflage Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2011
- 27 Herbert M, Radeva A, Zika E. Polyamorie: Warum (nicht) einfach lieben?. Systeme 2013; 27: 29-53
- 28 Hnatkovičová D, Bianchi G. Model of Motivations for Engaging in Polyamorous Relationships. Sexologies 2022; 31: 184-194
- 29 Katz M, Katz E. Reconceptualizing Attachment Theory through the Lens of Polyamory. Sex Cult 2022; 26: 792-809
- 30 Kauppi M. Polyamory: A Clinical Toolkit for Therapists (and Their Clients). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2021
- 31 Klesse C, Rothschild L, Walker J. Queer(ing) Consensual Non-Monogamies. Queering Therapy: Queer Intimacy, Kindship, and Experiences of CM in LGBTQIA + Lives. In: Vaughan MD, Burnes TR. Hrsg. The Handbook of Consensual Non-Monogamy: Affirming Mental Health Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2022: 180-213
- 32 Kruse J. Qualitative Interviewforschung: Ein integrativer Ansatz. 2.. Auflage Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa; 2015
- 33 LaGuardia JG, Ryan RM, Couchman CE. et al. Within-Person Variation in Security of Attachment: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Attachment, Need Fulfillment, and Well-Being. J Soc Pers Soc Psychol 2000; 79: 367-384
- 34 Mayer G. „… auch wenn da jetzt nich’ ihre Gene drinstecken.“ Zur Bedeutung biologischer und sozialer Elternschaft in polyamorer Familienplanung. In: Teschlade J, Peukert A, Wimbauer C. et al. Hrsg. Elternschaft und Familie jenseits von Heteronormativität und Zweigeschlechtlichkeit. Gender 2020. (Sonderheft; 5). 28-43
- 35 Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 12.. überarbeitete Auflage Weinheim, Basel: Beltz; 2015
- 36 Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Adult Attachment Orientations and Relationship Processes. J Fam Theory Rev 2012; 4: 259-274
- 37 Mitchell ME, Barholomew K, Cobb RJ. Need Fulfillment in Polyamorous Relationships. J Sex Res 2014; 51: 329-339
- 38 Mogilski JK, Memering SL, Welling LLM. et al. Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy. Arch Sex Behav 2017; 46: 407-417
- 39 Moors AC, Conley TD, Edelstein RS. et al. Attached to Monogamy? Avoidance Predicts Willingness to Engage (But Not Actual Engagement) in Consensual Non-Monogamy. J Soc Pers Relatsh 2015; 32: 222-240
- 40 Moors AC, Ryan W, Chopik WJ. Multiple Loves: The Effects of Attachment with Multiple Concurrent Romantic Partners on Relational Functioning. Pers Individ Differ 2019; 147: 102-110
- 41 Morrison TG, Beaulieu D, Brockman M. et al. A Comparison of Polyamorous and Monogamous Persons: Are There Differences in Indices of Relationship Well-Being and Sociosexuality?. Psychol Sex 2013; 4: 75-91
- 42 Muise A, Laughton A, Moors AC. et al. Sexual Need Fulfillment and Satisfaction in Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships. J Soc Pers Relatsh 2018; 36: 1917-1938
- 43 Neff KD, Harter S. Relationship Styles of Self-Focused Autonomy, Other-Focused Connectedness, and Mutuality across Multiple Relationship Contexts. J Soc Pers Relatsh 2003; 20: 81-99
- 44 Parsons JT, Starks TJ, DuBois S. et al. Alternatives to Monogamy among Gay Male Couples in a Community Survey: Implications for Mental Health and Sexual Risk. Arch Sex Behav 2013; 42: 303-312
- 45 Pieper M, Bauer R. Polyamorie: Mono-Normativität – Dissidente Mikropolitik – Begehren als transformative Kraft?. J Psychol 2012 22. 01 [Als Online-Dokument: https://journal-fuer-psychologie.de/article/view/321 ]
- 46 Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am Psychol 2000; 55: 68-78
- 47 Schmitt DP, Alcalay L, Allensworth M. et al. Patterns and Universals of Adult Romantic Attachment across 62 Cultural Regions: Are Models of Self and of Other Pancultural Constructs?. J Cross-Cult Psychol 2004; 35: 367-402
- 48 Sheff E. Polyamory Is Deviant – But Not for the Reasons You May Think. Deviant Behav 2020; 41: 882-892
- 49 Statista Research Department. Umfrage zu polyamoren Beziehungen in Deutschland im Jahr 2017. Hamburg: Statista GmbH; 2018. [Als Online-Dokument: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/744920/umfrage/umfrage-zur-beziehung-mit-mehr-als-einem-partner/ ]
- 50 Treas J, Giesen D. Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans. J Marriage Fam 2000; 62: 48-60
- 51 Vaughan MD, Burnes TR. Hrsg. The Handbook of Consensual Non-Monogamy: Affirming Mental Health Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2022
- 52 Wetzel D. Polyamouröse Beziehungen als gelingende Lebensform? Resonanz- und anerkennungsanalytische Reflexionen. Working Paper der DFG-Kollegforschergruppe Postwachstumsgesellschaften, Nr. 08. / 2014
- 53 Wosick-Correa K. Agreements, Rules and Agentic Fidelity in Polyamorous Relationships. Psych Sex 2010; 1: 44-61