What Did She Say

This research paper was authored by Jacki Yovanoff (me), December 2015 at University of Waterloo, as part of the Sexual Ethics course in the Sexuality, Marriage and Family Studies program. It’s being made shareable here, including references.

When discussions arise about consensual non-monogamy (CNM), one of the common concerns is its effect on the children. One of the first, and highly emotional, criticisms that emerges when speaking of any type of relationship other than our society’s heteronormative “ideal” of monogamy is the exclamation, “What about the children?!” We see this when speaking of same-sex families, trans parents, even families of divorce and single parents. Some of the fears that are cited include lack of stability, confusion, unhealthy emotional development, abandonment and attachment issues, erosion of family values, and that parents are being selfish by putting their own desires ahead of those of their children. Existing research examines the various myths surrounding consensual non-monogamy, including the idea that it is harmful to children, and compares that with results garnered from various studies. Polyamory involves having multiple romantic/emotional and sexual partners, whereas open relationships and swinging tend to focus on mulitple sexual relationships. Polyamory and its effects are important to the topic of sexual ethics as 4-5% of the population self-identify as polyamorous when given the opportunity, which is comparable to those who identify as gay, lesbian, and bisexual in those same samples, as well as other studies (Conley, et al, 2013, p. 3). About half of polyamorists have children, so this is an area of great interest (Hill 1997, via Pallotti-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 167; Anapol, 2010, p. 129). Polyamory has seen increasing academic interest as well as media attention, giving rise to more awareness. Polyamory was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2006 (Barker, 2013).

I intend to argue that children are not harmed by healthy polyamorous relationships, and there may, in fact, be benefits (Sheff, 2013; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Veaux & Rickert, 2014). The alleged disadvantages tend to not be unique to polyamory, however, the benefits cited do seem to be (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 172; p. 177; p. 242). Results seem to indicate the panic about exposing children to CNM relationship styles is predominantly unfounded. Almost all of the purported harms of polyamory are unsupported by what limited research there is available. The media, by and large, reflect society’s perceptions of CNM, and plays into the moral panic regarding the effects of non-heteronormative relationships on children, and even the thinking that children should not be exposed to sexuality at all. There is some research about concerns with children in same-sex families that we can extrapolate from (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Richardson, 2000; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013), since the families are also viewed by society to be outside Rubin’s (1984) Charmed Circle.

One obstacle with compiling a robust body of research on CNM is the hidden nature of these relationships. It is difficult to find a representative sample when those people are concerned with avoiding possible negative impacts of stigma. This paper will discuss stigma and myths surrounding children raised in consensually non-monogamous households and compare those with the research available regarding the realities of children in polyamorous families, including findings from a longitudinal study (Sheff, 2014). One of the challenges when gathering accurate data is the possible desire for those in CNM relationships to counter the existing stigma and present an overly positive picture for researchers (Sheff, 2014.) As PolyMomma (2012) puts it, “I worry sometimes that we who practice polyamory and advocate for its acceptance perhaps paint too rosy a picture of polyamory.” There may also be a bias in the current research results since it may be those who are most functional and feel they have nothing to hide are those who participate in research. As Pallotti-Chiarolli (2010) stated:

This strategy of … perfect parenting was also utilized by many poly families in order to prevent any perceived deficit or dysfunction in their family being used to justify, explain, or exaggerate negative assumptions about their families, instead ensuring that they would appear “not only normal … but beyond normal, beyond fault (p. 214).

Another reason many poly families put an emphasis on outwardly appearing healthy and functional, and may have greater involvement in the school community, which schools are grateful to have, is to not attract scrutiny. This approach only works when the child is happy and healthy. “Any problem, even if it is not connected to family structure, would be seen as sufficient cause to problematize and pathologize the family” (Pallotti-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 176). “We fear normal won’t be good enough, so we strive for perfect” (Pallotti-Chiarolli, 2010. p. 215). Poly parents may also worry about coming out to their children because of the invisibility of their family style. Even though there may be an inclination to present an optimistic front, it is shown in the research that polyamorous families are no more dysfunctional in nature than monogamous families (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 195).

Many of the alleged harms of polyamory on children are drawn from harms purported to be part of the nature of polygamy. When speaking of polyamory, there tends to be an inclination to conflate it with polygamy and polygyny, and collapse the terms into one category, even by lawyers and scholars (Goldfeder & Sheff,  2013.) While they do all fall under the umbrella of non-monogamy, they are very different. Even when there is a distinction made, the structure of polygamy itself is not the source of the alleged harms. When the term polygamy is used, it is generally the extreme patriarchal polygamy that is being referenced. Because of a lack of societal and media visibility, that type of polygamy is what many think of when they hear polygamy or even polyamory (CPAA). This media representation of polygamy as non-monogamy and silence about other forms of CNM help perpetuate the ignorance and stigma surrounding polyamory (Pallotti-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 42). Some harms cited by the courts (BCSC, 2011) have been emotional, behavioural, physical problems and lower educational achievement, which are “likely the result of higher levels of conflict, emotional stress and tension.” Many of these same arguments were used when speaking of no-fault divorce or same-sex marriage (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 169). We hear the same things every time the “institution of marriage”, meaning the hetero- and mononormative version of marriage, is “under attack.” Early marriage for girls is also cited in the 2011 B.C. Supreme Court ruling. Those harms, however, are not due to the relationship style itself, but of the dysfunctional nature of individual relationships, or specific communities (Southey, 2011; Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 182). Studies looking at Jordan, Tanzania, and Iran regarding polygamy and its affect on the family and children have not turned up harms based on the structure of the relationship itself (Khasawneh, et al, 2011; Lawson, et al, 2015; Tamini & Kahrazei, 2010). Much of the harm cited in legal circles when arguing to keep polygamy illegal is already covered in other laws (Southey, 2011).

The bulk of the research available on children in consensually non-monogamous arrangements tends to focus on polyamorous relationship styles rather than swinging or open relationships (based on their narrow definitions.) This may indicate polyamory is more palatable for us to consider children being a part of because the perception is that its focus is on love relationships rather than sexual relationships. Swinging is on the opposite end of the stigmatized spectrum, since the impression society has about swinging is that it is just about sex rather than emotion and love. To tease that out further, this may have to do with our society’s fear of children’s sexuality and the perception that any exposure to sex and sexuality is detrimental, that it will rob them of their innocence (Angelides, 2004, p.154). Polyamory is certainly not an accepted relationship style, but it is the least demonized under the umbrella of consensual non-monogamy.

Polyamory has a focus on open and honest communication within relationships. That mindset and value are practiced not only with the adults in polyamorous partnerships, but it also translates into the communication style the adults take with their children (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Sheff, 2014). The priority put on openness, honesty, and emotional literacy can foster an environment where children develop a tendency for higher emotional intelligence (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013 p. 186). It also helped children “feel connected to their parents in a way they did not witness among their peers” (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 213). Children growing up in poly families have more tools available to them to be able to look at social scripts and question the hypocrisy of them. As Alan, an eighteen-year-old child of poly parents says, “You can do adultery and affairs, but not honest polyamory” (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 11). Another teen of poly parents said, “You don’t realize, Mum, how different our family is to other families and other kids don’t have the freedom to think, but we do” (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 179). Polyamorists lend a lot of importance to emotional work, and focus on social constructions and “undoing” our socialization. Many mindfully question the perceptions society may hold about certain feelings such as jealousy, or romantic myths, such as there is “one person” for everyone, or we should be searching for “the one” (Aguilar, 2013). In fact, when children are raised in poly families, concepts in the media such as romantic jealousy may confuse them. (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 189). This can lead to higher levels of critical thinking not only in the adults but in the children, as well. “Yuki is thankful she was raised with parents who, together with learning critical literacy skills at school, taught her how to deconstruct normative romance narratives and scripts” (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 194). Adults who had grown up in polyamorous families, and had to remain closeted, believed the positives outweighed the negatives. Some stated that being raised in the margins provided them with a unique perspective and enabled them to question the “taken-for-grantedness” of the inner circle. They grew up knowing they had a choice. Even young children have shown benefits of this particular way of thinking. Michelle of Left at the Fork (2015) recounts a situation where her kindergarten-aged son come home distraught about liking a girl in his class that his friend also liked. From what he sees in movies and tv, hears in stories, and is picking up from society, he doesn’t believe he and his friend can both like the same girl and, as a result, they can’t be friends anymore. His mom reminds him of their family dynamic and how you don’t have to “choose between” people.

The next day, he came home so proud. He talked to the girl and asked her if she would consider like both him and his friend which she thought was a great idea! “I’m so happy mom because now we are all great friends” (Mann, 2015).

Previous research in the 1970s found other benefits for children in polyamorous families such as a higher degree of maturity, self-confidence, self-reliant, as well as having great interpersonal skills (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 165). Other benefits include more adults in the children’s lives who can offer them greater variety of strengths, interests, and areas of expertise, more help with homework and personal issues, and more “ride availability” (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 208). In multiple-partner homes there is also a greater chance of more income coming into the home, and less need to for daycare since they may be able to better afford one parent to stay home. Increased resources, including more personal time for adults and more attention for children, are a benefit to the whole family (Sheff, 2010).

The main concern about children in polyamorous families comes not from within the home, but from outside. Parallels can be drawn to children raised in gay and lesbian families, where the stress comes mainly from negative comments from friends or schoolmates, and the stigma many people hold. The fact that CNM is used as a “slippery slope argument” against right for LGBTQ communities suggests “an extremely high level of antipathy toward CNM” (Conley, et al, 2013, p. 7). Not all poly parents come out to their children, or come out to their communities because they fear negative repercussions and ramifications in the form of social ostricization of their kids (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 170). Even if children do deal with being stigmatized studies have shown that through coping with such discrimination, children actually come out stronger and with more social sensitivity. Children themselves report more benefits than problems when dealing with discrimination. They report a “greater understanding of prejudice, feel free to change and have choices, and are more tolerant of differences and intolerant of discrimination” (Buxton, 1999 via Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 170).

Poly families have the benefit of being able to blend in more easily to mononormative society because of the prevalence of stepfamilies and other blended families. It is not uncommon for a child to have multiple parental figures involved in their lives and even schools. Poly families are often able to choose what strategy they are going to employ. Pallotta-Chiarolli (2010) breaks these down into three approaches; passing, bordering or polluting. Many families choose to use the “passing” strategy and assimilate. These families would appear monogamous within their community. Some choose to “border” and negotiate the boundaries between private home and public realm of school. The third way Pallotta-Chiarolli posits that poly families operate is by “polluting,” where they would be out to their community and school and intentionally be non-compliant. However, even when families choose to “pass” and conceal the CNM nature of their relationship, concealable stigmas are also a source of negative health outcomes (Conley, et al, 2013, p. 6).

Another potential disadvantage that is touted is that children in poly families will have increased chance of developing attachment issues due to adults coming in and out of their lives. While there may be adults that children get attached to, they don’t necessarily see them as parental figures. Children tend to see these people more as aunts or uncles, or close friends. We can compare this to any relationship style. Adults come in and out of a child’s lives regardless of the structure of the relationship. There may be some sadness and feeling of loss, but this seems to be mitigated by the strong relationships children have with their primary caregivers. Children mentioned missing people that were in their poly families, but also mentioned missing people who had moved away, or died. The loss children feel is not something unique to polyamory (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 222). “While we don’t yet know how polyamory impacts the rate of divorce, the little data we have suggest that it doesn’t” (Anapol, 2010, p. 242). Many polyamorists approach relationships in a different way and look them as “transitioning” rather than ending. One parent stated that she and a partner had broken up, and while the romantic relationship had ended, they were still good friends. Her daughters didn’t seem to notice. Things remained pretty much the same for them (Goldfeder & Sheff, 2013, p. 202). “We cannot avoid how relationships – be it romantic or otherwise – evolve. It is how we approach that evolution that lays the groundwork for healthy relationships for our children” (Mann. 2015). Parents felt teaching their children how to deal with the end of relationships and loss as an inevitable feature of life was a valuable skill (Sheff , 2010). A complaint that emerged in Sheff’s (2013) research is that teens had numerous adults in their lives, hampering their plans to sneak out or skip school, or “maintaining a coherent lie” (p. 230). “Sometimes it was a huge drag – I couldn’t get away with anything!” lamented one teen.

Not only is polyamory, and CNM in general, stigmatized but monogamy has a halo effect – “a trait that is socially extolled or desired imparts an (often unwarranted) overall positive impression of a person who possesses that trait (Conley, et al, 2013, p. 6). When asked to rate couples in monogamous and non-monogamous relationship styles, overwhelmingly respondents rated those in monogamous relationships higher on “relationship qualities” and even in “arbitrary qualities” such as “is reliable at daily dog walking” or  “promotes paying taxes on time”. Even those who self-identified as happily CNM rated monogamous folk better on these scales, even when those engaged in CNM were explicitly happy, (Moors, et al, 2013, p.4) indicating these stigmas and halo effect are very deeply engrained and internalized. System justification theory suggests “members of marginalized groups find reasons to support the very social structures that oppress them” (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004, as cited in Conley, et al, 2013, p. 11). As Conley et al (2013) discuss, as CNM is a nonnormative sexuality, it makes sense that CNM is valued less than monogamy. The researchers, however, were surprised at the “depth and pervasiveness of the bias and stigma” (p. 23). Because many of those in CNM relationships are quiet about it, there is a lack of visibility. Those who have never engaged in CNM have a difficult time imagining any benefits. Even trying to imagine benefits of a “relationship structure that deviates from monogamy generally elicited disgust and moral anguish” (Moors, et al, 2013, p. 8). “Although often invisible, there is substantial cultural privilege attached to normative forms of intimacy” (Rambukkana, 2015, p. 4). When looking at the hierarchal view of styles of CNM it seems there is a ‘polynormativity’ emerging, echoing mononormativity (Barker, et al, 2013, p. 190), placing polyamory as superior to other forms of non-monogamy “that emphasize more strongly the pursuit of sexual pleasure” (Klesse, 2006, p. 578).

Not only is monogamy exalted over any style of non-monogamy, types of non-monogamy and those who participate in them are subject to their own hierarchy of more and less favourable. Swinging is perceived signficantly more negatively than polyamory or open relationships, with open relationships falling in the middle of the stigma-scale (Matsick, et al, 2013, p. 1). Not only do those outside CNM relationships hold these beliefs, but people in other types of CNM also uphold society’s negative views toward swinging (p. 4). Those in polyamorous relationships were seen the most favourably. Of course, these are still viewed much more negatively than monogamous relationships. When relationships prioritize love over sex, they are seen more positively. This is in line with a 1977 study by Hartnett, Mahoney, & Bernstein that showed people who cheat (not CNM) were viewed more positively when the affair involved love rather than just sex (Matsick, et al, 2013, p. 8). These results jibe with a study that looked at sexuality-related risks and comparable health risks (Conley, et al, 2015). People judged behaviours that were related to sexuality much more harshly, and disproportionately.

This topic is important to the study of sexual ethics and should be a focus of further research because one of the main, real concerns with children in polyamorous families is the potential negative ramifications of stigmatization those families, including the children, face. Stigma affects reactions toward social groups, including in the legal domain. As mentioned earlier, laws and precedents “have the ability to mark a certain class or group of people as immoral or unworthy, by fact of unequal protection” (Conley, et al, 2013, p. 5). By showing that the reasons for the stigma are unfounded, we can help families, individuals, and children feel more of a sense of belonging to their community, rather than being ‘othered’ and feeling as if they need to remain hidden. Continued research and more empirical evidence may help encourage and help sculpt laws that protect various relationship styles. Having the protection of the law will be an important step in fighting our societies unfounded stigma toward polyamory (Ahmed, 2014, p. 6; Moors, et al, 2013, p. 15). Ahmed (2014) goes a step further and argues that it is the criminalization of polygamy that is causing harm as it violates the Charter, including by infringing on individual security and causing “serious psychological interference.” Ahmed (2014) also points out that when a spouse has an adulterous affair, the people involved are seen as autonomous individuals and have no restrictions imposed on them. If they, however, want to give their relationship recognition and respect through marriage, the legal system prohibits that action (p. 32). Also, women and children are more open to harm when polygamy is unlawful since they aren’t as able to seek help in cases of domestic abuse since their lifestyle is criminalized (Ahmed, 2014, p. 32.) The crux of Ahmed’s argument is the main harm comes from criminalization, not polygamy itself. It looks as if laws are beginning to shift toward an acceptance of polyamory, if not polygamy. Even though the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of polygamy in 2011, John Ince, the lawyer for the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, called it a win for polyamorists. Ince stated the judge interpreted the “law against polygamy narrowly so that it only criminalized non-monogamous relationshps that are a) institutionalized b) marriages” (CPAA). Paragraph 1036 of the Reasons for Judgement states

“… properly interpreted, s. 293(1)(a) prohibits practicing or entering into a “marriage” with more than one person at the same time, whether sanctioned by civil, religious or other means, and whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage.”

However, paragraph 1037 follows that up with

“The offence is not directed at multi-party, unmarried relationships or common law cohabitation, but is directed at both polygyny and polyandry. It is also directed at multi-party same sex marriages” (BCSC, 2011).

Incidentally, Bill 137 passed its second reading in the Ontario Legislature on December 10, 2015. The next step will be to make it law. It removes gendered wording to make birth registration more inclusive for LGBTQ parents. It also does not restrict the number of parents a child has on their birth registration; this is aimed as assisted reproduction, but could arguably pertain to polyamorous arrangements, as well. The Bill, in part, deals with “rules respecting persons who enter into agreements respecting parentage, whether the birth of the child is as a result of assisted reproduction or not.” Under section 8.1 (2) 4, the Bill states: “The person was living with the child’s birth parent in a marriage-like relationship within 300 days before, or on the day of, the child’s birth.” Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia already have updated parental recognition laws (CBC, 2015.)

 As Anapol (2010, p. 156) concludes, it is not polyamory or monogamy or the relationship structure that influences the health and well-being of the children in those families, but the extent to which those families are child-focused. Those that feel they belong are happier, healthier members of society. Some of those ways we can support those in CNM relationship to feel as if they belong are conducting further research in this area, avoid assuming that sexual exclusivity is a marker of a healthy relationship, and separating deceit from desire when discussing infidelity (Moors & Schechinger, 2014, p. 476). Security of relationships may have more to do with abiding by the rules of the relationship than sexual exclusivity (p. 478). One of the common concerns is that CNM is harmful to children, but that is far from the truth. In fact, as stated in this paper, there may be benefits to polyamory that monogamy does not afford. The harms that are often cited when speaking about polyamory, or even polygamy are not inherent to those structures and not unique to them, however the benefits seem to be. Polyamory may not necessarily be better for raising healthy children, but there are reasons to think polyamory is at least as good as our “ideal” of monogamy.

References

Ahmed, W. (2014). Criminalization of Polygamy in Canada: Historical, Legal and Sociological Analysis. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper 7.

Aguilar, J. (2013). Situational Sexual Behaviors: The Ideological Work of Moving Toward Polyamory in Communal Living Groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Vol 42(1): 104-129.

Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners. Rowman and Littlefield.

Angelides, S. (2004). Feminism, Child Sexual Abuse, and the Erasure of Child Sexuality. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. Vol 10(2): 141-177.

Barker, M., et al. (2013). Polyamorous Intimacies: From One Love to Many Loves and Back Again. In T. Sanger & Y. Taylor (Eds.), Mapping Intimacies: Relations, Exchanges, Affects (190-208). Palgrave MacMillan.

Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association. The Poly Majority. Retrieved from http://polyadvocacy.ca/majority/

Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association. Be An Advocate. Retrieved from http://polyadvocacy.ca/how-can-you-help/advocating/

CBC News. (2015, December 10). Same-sex couples watch Queen’s Park as parental  recognition bill debated. CBC News Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cheri-dinovo-private-members-bill-1.3357386

Conley, T., et al. (2013). The Fewer the Merrier?: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Vol 13(1): 1-30.

Conley, T., et al. (2015). Sexuality-Related Risks are Judged More Harshly than Comparable Health Risks. International Joural of Sexual Health.

Goldfeder, M. & Sheff, E. (2013). Children of Polyamorous Families: A First Empirical Look. LSD Journal, Vol 5: 150-243.

Khasawneh, O. M., et al. (2011). Polygamy and Its Impact on the Upbringing of Children: A Jordanian Perspective. Journal of Comparative Famliy Studies. Vol 42(4): 563-577.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘Others’: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy. Sexualities. Vol 9(5): 565-583.

Lawson, D., et al. (2015). No evidence that polygynous marriage is a harmful cultural practice in northern Tanzania. PNAS.

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. (2015). Bill 137, Cy and Ruby’s Act (Parental Recognition), 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=3554&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill

Mann, M. (2015, May 25). The Kids are Alright. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from https://leftatthefork.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/the-kids-are-alright/

Matsick, J., et al. (2013). Love and sex: polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology and Sexuality.

Moore, M. R., & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, M. (2013). LGBT Sexuality and Families at the Start of the Twenty-First Century. The Annual Review of Sociology. Vol 39: 491-507.

Moors, A., et al. (2013). Stigma Toward Individuals Engaged in Consensual Nonmonogamy: Robust and Worthy of Additional Research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.

Moors, A. & Schechinger, H. (2014). Understanding sexuality: implications of Rubin for relationship research and clinical practice. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. Vol 29(4): 476-482.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border Sexualities, Border Families in Schools. Rowman and Littlefield.

PolyMomma. (2012, July 3). Have I been a Poly-anna? Some thoughts on Deborah Anapol’s article in Psychology Today. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from http://polymomma.com/2012/07/03/have-i-been-a-poly-anna-some-thoughts-on-deborah-anapols-article-in-psychology-today/

Rambukkana, N. (2015). Fraught Intimacies: Non/Monogamy in the Public Sphere. UBC Press.

Richardson, D. (2000). Constructing sexual citizenship: theorizing sexual rights. Critical Social Policy, Vol 20(1), 105-135.

Sheff, E. (2014). The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple Partner Relationships and Families. Rowman and Littlefield.

Sheff, E. (2010). Strategies in Polyamorous Parenting. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding Non-Monogamies. Routledge.

Southey, T. (2011, Nov 25). We have as many double standards on polygamy as Solomon had wives. The Globe and Mail.  Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-have-as-many-double-standards-on-polygamy-as-solomon-had-wives/article4184302/

Supreme Court of British Columbia. (2011, Nov 15). Reasons for Judgement. Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588. Retrieved from http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark3714

Tamini, B. K., Kahrazei, F. (2010). General Health and Life Satisfaction of Students in Polygamy and Monogamy Families. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. Vol 36(2): 307-310.

Veaux, F. & Rickert, E. (2014). More Than Two. Thorntree Press.