-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
We’ve watched it happen more times than we can count. A polyamorous relationship — one of ours or someone else’s — hits a rough patch or ends, and suddenly the people who once seemed so open-minded have a lot to say.
People are quick to dissect the arrangement itself. Of course there was jealousy. Of course there was drama — what did you expect? Or so the assumptions go. The breakup is treated not as a relationship between imperfect humans that ran its course, but as a verdict on polyamory itself.
It’s time to admit that polyamory’s biggest obstacle has never been jealousy, logistics or commitment, as popular culture might have one believe. It’s instead the societal presumption that nonmonogamy is inherently suspect.
We call this “the poly presumption”: the belief that the nonmonogamous structure is to blame in any breakup or conflict and the burden is on the people in the relationships to prove otherwise. As queer polyamorous people, we’ve spent years tracing the roots of this presumption, and what we’ve discovered is that it operates at a systems level.
Polyamory has more visibility today, more legal recognition and more cultural legitimacy than at any point in modern Western life. More people are open about practicing it. Popular television shows and podcasts are slowly moving on from treating polyamory as a punchline. Some even embrace it. Cities are extending legal protections to multi-partner relationships. And, increasingly, people will tell you they don’t care what relationship structure or style you choose.
Yet beneath this well-meaning desire to be accepting, a double standard persists.
This double standard exists because Western society has created, enforced and normalized monogamy as the only acceptable relationship structure — much as marriage between two straight people once was. Monogamy is treated as the default setting for intimacy, and the preference for monogamy lives in everything from health insurance policies and tax law to apartment leases and invitations that simply offer a plus-one. Social and professional life is all quietly organized around the belief that legitimate intimacy comes only in pairs.
When something is as deeply ingrained in society as monogamy, the failures that people experience when attempting it are interpreted as individual failures, not structural ones. Polyamory, and nonmonogamy more broadly, does not receive that grace. When a polyamorous dynamic experiences conflict, the burden is always on the polyamorous people to prove that the entire nonmonogamous structure isn’t to blame.
Take jealousy. In monogamy, it’s treated as a normal human emotion. But in polyamorous relationships, jealousy is immediately read as proof that nonmonogamy isn’t viable. The same logic applies to the perception that polyamorous relationships are inherently unstable.
Pop culture often portrays polyamory as chaotic, messy and too emotionally demanding to last. The 2025 film “Splitsville,” for example, treats instability as nonmonogamy’s natural state: A monogamous couple on the verge of divorce turns to nonmonogamy as a last resort, and, predictably, everything falls apart. These portrayals have real consequences. When a polyamorous relationship ends, that stereotype is confirmed. When a monogamous one does, it’s just a breakup.
The irony is seen in how often research cuts against the poly presumption. A 2025 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Sex Research, the largest assessment of its kind, considered data from 35 studies that included nearly 25,000 people and found no significant differences in relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfaction between purportedly monogamous people and those who consider themselves nonmonogamous. Additionally, a 2024 scoping review published in the Journal of Family Theory & Review found that people in polyamorous relationships report less jealousy than those in monogamous couplings.
Research also suggests that infidelity affects one in four married couples in the United States. So, the assumption that monogamy is simply the more stable, more fulfilling way to pursue intimate relationships turns out to be a myth.
This myth forms the narrative foundation of modern legislation and continues to guide polyphobic and homophobic legislative decisions, such as Indiana’s and Tennessee’s recent declarations that now mark June as Nuclear Family Month. It also fuels inequities, with people in polyamorous relationships more likely than those in monogamous ones to earn under $40,000 a year.
None of this suggests that polyamory is beyond criticism. Like monogamous relationships, polyamorous relationships can be unhealthy, manipulative and even emotionally destructive. The goal is to ensure that people are not judged, marginalized or denied their rights simply because they choose a different path.
That starts with recognizing the poly presumption in the stories we tell, the jokes we laugh at and the media narratives that portray polyamorous people as dysfunctional, selfish or doomed. It means questioning our own biases about nonmonogamy and about what ultimately makes a relationship legitimate.
Until we challenge the poly presumption, the cultural jury will continue to mistake difference for dysfunction — and return a guilty verdict before anything goes wrong.
Christina Fialho is an attorney and the founder/president of Rewrite the BiLine. Megan Burke is a philosopher and the author of three books, including “Becoming a Woman: Simone de Beauvoir and the Politics of Trans Existence.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that polyamorous relationships are judged under a pervasive “poly presumption,” meaning any conflict or breakup is routinely blamed on nonmonogamy itself rather than on the ordinary imperfections that affect all relationships.[9][10][13]
Building on this idea, the piece contends that Western culture is structured around monogamy as the only legitimate form of intimacy, embedding two‑person couple norms in law, policy, and everyday social life—from marriage statutes and tax codes to housing, benefits, and social invitations.[2][6][8][14][17][18]
Moreover, the article suggests that because monogamy is treated as the default, its failures are individualized (“this couple didn’t work out”), whereas difficulties in polyamorous relationships are interpreted as evidence that consensual nonmonogamy itself is inherently flawed.[9][10][13]
To challenge this double standard, the column points to a growing body of research showing that people in consensual nonmonogamous relationships report similar levels of relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and psychological well‑being as those in monogamous relationships, undermining the notion of a “monogamy‑superiority” myth.[1][5][9][13][21][24]
In addition, the article highlights studies indicating that, for many people who choose polyamory, jealousy can be lower and emotional needs can be met across multiple partners, countering stereotypes that nonmonogamy is uniquely unstable or jealousy‑driven.[4][9][13]
The piece emphasizes that stigma and misperceptions remain widespread: surveys find that people uninterested in polyamory often view it as immoral, low in relationship quality, and harmful to children, despite empirical evidence that polyamorous relationships can be loving, committed, and emotionally secure.[9][11][13]
Furthermore, the article argues that legal and political systems still encode mononormative values, noting that U.S. marriage law universally restricts legal unions to two people and that partners in polyamorous relationships lack clear protections around housing, employment, custody, and benefits.[2][6][8][14][17][18][20][22]
The column connects this legal marginalization to broader patterns of discrimination and economic precarity, pointing out that people in polyamorous relationships can be fired, denied housing, or stripped of parental rights precisely because relationship structure is not a protected class.[6][8][13][20][22]
At the same time, the article acknowledges that polyamory is not beyond criticism, noting that polyamorous relationships, like monogamous ones, can be unhealthy or emotionally harmful, and arguing that the core issue is whether people are judged or denied rights simply for choosing nontraditional forms of intimacy.[4][9][13][21]
Ultimately, the piece urges readers to examine jokes, media narratives, and everyday assumptions that portray polyamorous people as selfish, chaotic, or doomed, and calls for a cultural shift that recognizes consensual nonmonogamy as a legitimate relationship option rather than treating difference as dysfunction.[9][10][11][13][15][21]
Different views on the topic
Many legal analysts and policymakers defend the law’s exclusive recognition of monogamous marriage, arguing that polygamy and plural unions raise risks of fraud, coercion, social instability, and complex disputes over property, benefits, and parentage; they contend that limiting civil marriage to two people protects public order and keeps family law administrable.[2][3][14][16][18]
In addition, some legal commentary stresses that U.S. family law has historically reflected Christian‑influenced norms that only recognize dyadic, heterosexual marriage, and asserts that expanding recognition to multi‑partner relationships would undermine the traditional nuclear family model that recent initiatives—such as “Nuclear Family Month” proclamations—are designed to reinforce.[2][6][15][23]
From a clinical perspective, research on therapists’ attitudes shows that many practitioners still interpret clients’ interest in polyamory as evidence of psychological defects, irresponsibility, or a cover for sexual promiscuity, suggesting that nonmonogamy is inherently unstable or pathological.[11]
Furthermore, public‑opinion research indicates that a majority of people who are not personally interested in polyamory hold negative views of it—often seeing polyamorous relationships as immoral, low quality, and harmful to children—reinforcing the belief that nonmonogamy is socially damaging even when practiced ethically and consensually.[13]
Opponents also invoke longstanding sexual double standards, arguing that women who participate in nonmonogamous or polyamorous arrangements violate social norms and therefore merit less respect or are seen as irresponsible, unintelligent, or undesirable, a pattern documented in broader research on gendered judgments of sexual behavior.[12][19]
Some commentators focus on the practical challenges of multi‑partnering—such as resource allocation, childcare, potential for partner rivalry, and disease transmission—and maintain that these structural complexities make polyamorous arrangements more prone to conflict and instability than monogamous pair bonds.[7]
Moreover, critics of legal recognition for polyamorous families argue that extending formal status and benefits beyond two adults would strain existing systems for taxation, inheritance, welfare, and health insurance, and could invite exploitation or abuse of marital and family benefits.[2][3][14][16][18]
Religious and socially conservative voices often frame monogamy as divinely ordained or “natural,” describing polyamory as a taboo practice that violates moral teachings and erodes community standards; these perspectives emphasize preserving traditional marriage as a cornerstone of social stability.[2][6][15][23]
Finally, some family‑law practitioners and judges maintain that because polyamory is not a protected class, employers, landlords, and courts must retain discretion to treat nonmonogamous relationships differently—especially in child‑custody and employment cases—arguing that this flexibility is necessary to prioritize children’s welfare and institutional reputations.[6][8][14][17][20][22]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Kim, an attorney and former San Francisco supervisor, is running against State Sen. Benjamin Allen for the role of running California’s long-beleaguered Department of Insurance. In this episode she talks to Rebuilding L.A. host Kate Cagle about why she should get the job.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
