Despite growing mainstream familiarity with the practice of consensual non-monogamy (CNM) in the US and similar countries, CNM is still largely considered non-normative. With this comes the risk of reifying it as a ‘kind’ of sexual activity and its practitioners as ‘types’ of subjects. We explore CNM through assemblage theory, which aims to decenter the subject and emphasize affective relationships that operate through lines of force. Assemblage theory proposes that lines of force affect the capacities of persons within an assemblage to create new connections with others, ideas, and, reflexively, with themselves. We ask: how does CNM as an assemblage enhance and/or diminish practitioners’ capacities? Furthermore, we aim to highlight the utility of assemblage theory and its Deleuzo-Guattarian foundations to studying sociological phenomena. To accomplish these goals, we draw on open-ended survey responses from individuals who self-identify as practitioners of CNM.
AbramsT.SetchellJ.ThilleP.MistryB.GibsonB. E. (2019). Affect, intensity, and moral assemblage in rehabilitation practice. BioSocieties, 14(1), 23–45.
2.
AirtonL. (2018). The de/politicization of pronouns: Implications of the No Big Deal Campaign for gender-expansive educational policy and practice. Gender and Education, 30(6), 790–810.
3.
AlldredP.FoxN. J. (2015). The sexuality-assemblages of young men: A new materialist practice. Sexualities, 18(8), 905–920.
4.
ArterJ.BungeS. S. (2024). Perceived impacts of partners’ other relationships on oneself in consensual nonmonogamy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(4), 1415–1429.
5.
BergstrandC. R.SinskiJ. B. (2009). Swinging in America: Love, sex, and marriage in the 21st century. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
6.
BraidottiR. (2003). Becoming woman: Or sexual difference revisited. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(3), 43–64.
7.
BraidottiR. (2009). Animals, anomalies, and inorganic others. PMLA, 124(2), 526–532.
8.
BuchananI. (2021). Assemblage theory and method. Bloomsbury Publishing.
9.
BurnetteC. B.LuzierJ. L.BennettB. L.WeisenmullerC. M.KerrP.MartinS.KeenerJ.CalderwoodL. (2022). Concerns and recommendations for using Amazon MTurk for eating disorder research. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(2), 263–272.
10.
CarlströmC.AnderssonC. (2019). Living outside protocol: Polyamorous orientations, bodies, and queer temporalities. Sexuality & Culture, 23(4), 1315–1331.
11.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. (2019). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473.
12.
ClarkeA. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. Sage.
13.
ColebrookC. (2000). From radical representations to corporeal becomings: The feminist philosophy of Lloyd, Grosz, and Gatens. Hypatia, 15(2), 76–93.
14.
ConleyT. D.MoorsA. C.MatsickJ. L.ZieglerA. (2013). The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.
15.
DaroyaE. (2022). ‘I see nothing wrong with stealthing in anonymous sexual situations’: Assemblages of sexual consent in gay, bisexual, and other queer men’s accounts of ‘stealthing’ in an online barebacking forum. Sexuality & Culture, 26, 1732–1749.
16.
DeLandaM. (2019). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. Bloomsbury Publishing (Original work published 2006).
17.
DeleuzeG. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy (HurleyR., Trans.). City Lights Books.
18.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (MassumiB., Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
19.
de OliveiraL.ŠtulhoferA.TafroA.CarvalhoJ.NobreP. (2023). Sexual boredom and sexual desire in long-term relationships: A latent profile analysis. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(1), 14–21.
20.
FletcherJ. R. (2024). An ontological turn in the sociology of personal life: Tracing facet methodology’s connective ontology. The Sociological Review, 72(30), 475–492.
21.
FoucaultM. (1976). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction (HurleyR., Trans.). Pantheon.
22.
FoucaultM. (1983). Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (DreyfusH.RabinowP., Eds.). University of Chicago Press.
23.
FoxN. J.AlldredP. (2022). New materialism, micropolitics and the everyday production of gender-related violence. Social Sciences, 11, 1–16.
24.
FoxN. J.BaleC. (2018). Bodies, pornography and the circumscription of sexuality: A new materialist study of young people’s sexual practices. Sexualities, 21(3), 393–409.
25.
GroszE. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Indiana University Press.
26.
GroszE. (2005). Time travels: Feminism, nature, power. Duke University Press.
27.
Grunt-MejerK.CampbellC. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 45–53.
28.
HasanM. K.AggletonP.PerssonA. (2018). The making of a man: Social generational masculinities in Bangladesh. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 347–361.
29.
HaupertM. L.GesselmanA. N.MoorsA. C.FisherH. E.GarciaJ. R. (2017). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(5), 424–440.
30.
IngrahamC. (2008). White weddings: Romancing heterosexuality in popular culture. Routledge.
31.
JacksonS.ScottS. (2004). The personal is still political: Heterosexuality, feminism, and monogamy. Feminism and Psychology, 14(1), 151–157.
32.
KennedyR.CliffordS.BurleighT.WaggonerP.JewellR.WinterN. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–629.
33.
KetterlingJ. (2024). Look behind you! Playing with sexual surveillance in You Must Be 18 or Older to Enter and How Do You Do It?Surveillance & Society, 22(1), 25–40.
34.
LuryC.ParisiL.TerranovaT. (2012). Introduction: The becoming topological of culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 3–35.
35.
MazzeiL. A. (2016). Voice without a subject. Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 151–161.
36.
MontaliL.FrigerioA.SpinaF.ZulatoE. (2023). The discursive construction of polyamory: Legitimising an alternative to monogamy. Sexuality and Culture, 27, 894–915.
37.
MoorsA. C.ConleyT. D.EdelsteinR. S.ChopikW. J. (2015). Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(2), 222–240.
38.
MoorsA. C.MatsickJ. L.SchechingerH. A. (2017). Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships: A review and insights for moving forward. European Psychologist, 22(1), 55–71.
39.
O’ByrneP.HainesM. (2021). A qualitative exploratory study of consensual non-monogamy: Sexual scripts, stratifications and charmed circles. Social Theory & Health, 19, 137–154.
40.
Ó CiardhaC.IldenizG.KaroğluN. (2022). The prevalence of sexual interest in children and sexually harmful behavior self-reported by men recruited through an online crowd-sourcing platform. Sexual Abuse, 34(2), 207–226.
41.
RoodsazR. (2022). The ‘hard work’ of polyamory: Ethnographic accounts of intimacy and difference in the Netherlands. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(7), 874–887.
42.
SandbakkenE. M.SkrautvolA.MadsenO. J. (2021). ‘It’s my definition of a relationship, even though it doesn’t fit yours’: Living in polyamorous relationships in a mononormative culture. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(4), 1054–1067.
43.
SandersG.LyonsH. (2022). The sagacity of the surround: The casual sex-assemblages of young adults. Sexualities, 25(4), 424–444.
44.
SedgwickE. K. (2003). Touching feeling: Affect, pedagogy, performativity. Duke University Press.
45.
SedgwickE. K.FrankA. (1995). Shame in the cybernetic fold: Reading Silvan Tomkins. Critical Inquiry, 21(2), 496–522.
46.
ShankD. B. (2016). Using crowd-sourcing websites for sociological research: The case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. American Sociologist, 47, 47–55.
47.
SimonW.GagnonJ. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53–60.
48.
StelboumJ. P. (2010). Patriarchal monogamy. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3(1–2), 39–46.
49.
StephensA. K.Emmers-SommerT. M. (2020). Adults’ identities, attitudes, and orientations concerning consensual non-monogamy. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 17(3), 469–485.
50.
StultsC. B. (2019). Relationship quality among young gay and bisexual men in consensual nonmonogamous relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(10), 3037–3056.
51.
VilkinE.SprottR. (2021). Consensual non-monogamy among kink-identified adults: Characteristics, relationship experiences, and unique motivations for polyamory and open relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1521–1536.
52.
WilleyA. (2006). ‘Christian nations’, ‘polygamic races’ and women’s rights: Toward a genealogy of non/monogamy and whiteness. Sexualities, 9(5), 530–546.
53.
WoodJ.De SantisC.DesmaraisS.MilhausenR. (2021). Motivations for engaging in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1253–1272.
54.
ZeemanL.ArandaK. (2023). Theorising health equity research for people with intersex variance through new materialism. Sociology of Health & Illness, 45(1), 163–178.
