Chapter 7

REPORTING AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DATA

Information on the respondents' background characteristics is to be found in Table 2.

To summarize the sample, the total number of respondents to the questionnaire was 352. There were 167 males and 185 females. Approximately half the group went to college and/or obtained graduate degrees; 30% of the women and 54% of the men characterized themselves as in either professional/ technical or managerial occupations, and only 24.9% of the women were out of the work force. Close to half of the respondents (44%) were Protestant, while 20% indicated no religion at all; 68% were considered to be unreligious in practice, as they indicated attending services only "rarely" or "never." Although no questions specifically geared to measuring sexual liberality were included in the survey, the method of data collection via Forum suggests that it may be a characteristic of this sample.

PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR

In attempting to determine trends in the respondents' monogamous and extra-monogamous sex (EMS) behavior, it is most instructive to begin with a consideration of their EMS rates in relationships prior to their current one.

SEX

Table 3 represents the behavior of those 293 respondents who reported previous relationships, that is 87% of the women and 78% of the men in the total sample of 352.

Table 3: Past Behavior/Sex

While the 46% EMS figure for men does coincide with Kinsey's 1948 estimate, it is indeed higher than any other subsequent survey's results. Athanasiou's liberal young population yielded a rate of 40% for men, versus Johnson's Midwestern 20% and Hunt's 40%. It is speculated that the high percentage in this survey may be reflective of the sexually liberal bias of the sample, rather than of any change in the population. As Athanasiou has noted, the variable of liberality is a crucial one in determining willingness to go beyond established norms in all types of sexual behavior.

The differences between the sample here and others were more visible in the case of women; their rates for past EMS were higher than any other studies. Kinsey recorded 26% twenty-six years ago, Wardell Pomeroy estimated 40% in his article in Forum, April, 1980, while somewhat later Athanasiou's liberals rated 36%, Johnson's conservatives 10%, Hunt 18%, Bell 26% and Levin 30%.

These figures probably reflect the sexually liberal nature of the sample, but they do seem to imply that among this group, the sexual revolution has led to a considerable liberalizing of behavior. The point has now been reached, among this sample at least, where women are approaching equal EMS rates with men. If it is considered that 50% of Levin's Redbook population anticipated EMS at some point, the approximation of this rate here in actual practice suggests that the EMS behavior of female Forum readers may reflect desire (as for men), rather than the effects of social prohibition.

Although the questions included variables such as religion and age, they elicited information on the readers' status at the time of the survey rather than at the time of the previous EMS behavior. An examination of some correlations does provide insights into their earlier patterns.

AGE

As seen in Table 4, the percentage of age 35+ respondents who indicated that they had had a previous relationship was 76%, compared to an average rate of previous relationships for all age groups of 83%. This higher percentage of reported lifetime exclusivity to one partner among the older cohort would seem to place this group among the more sexually conservative of the sample. This speculation is strengthened by a 38% rate of previous EMS for those 35+ who had had a relationship, versus an average of 43% in Table 5.

Table 4: Past Relationship/Age

Table 5: Past Behavior/Age

Age as a factor in EMS rates is a complicated issue. On the one hand, greater age today means that the individual was socialized during a time which reflected an older morality. Women, especially, would be subject to the prohibitions against EMS so much more in force then. On the other hand, some studies have shown that greater age leads to more EMS, as marital dissatisfaction -- a crucial variable -- rises in proportion to the length of time married. Since among the respondents the variable of age seemed to work against past EMS, it can be postulated that for this sample, at least, the prohibition factor may have been operating more strongly than the dissatisfaction one.

RELIGION

Respondents who attended religious services one or more times per month have lower than average rates of both previous relationships (63% versus 83%), and of past EMS (37% versus 43% - Table 6).

Table 6: Past Behavior/Religious Practice

These data appear to bear out the Kinsey et al (1948) observation that sexual conservatism is associated with religious practice. He states:

To judge from those few groups on which religious data are available, extramarital intercourse seems to occur much more frequently among those who are less actively concerned with the church.

Furthermore, in Kinsey's view, the combination of age and religious beliefs is especially likely to lead to conservatism:

The lowest incidence of extramarital coitus had occurred among those who were most devoutly religious, and the highest incidences among those who were least closely connected with any church activity ...The differences in incidences were well enough marked in the younger age group, but they become even more striking in the older Protestant group.

It is worth noting in this connection that 50% of the least EMS active 35+ group also attended services more than once a month, and thus would fall into Kinsey's "high monogamy" category.

Although a connection may be postulated between religious attendance and monogamy, nominal religion also appears to have had some effect on previous EMS rates. Those indicating no religion at all, for example, had lower monogamy rates than the respondents designating themselves Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. In addition, they had lower rates than the overall average (Table 7).

Table 7: Past Behavior/Religion

Some possible implications of data breakdowns for nominal religion will be discussed under the section on current behavior and religion.

EDUCATION

The variable of education seems to have had little effect on previous EMS rates (Table 8).

Table 8: Past Behavior/Education

While Athanasiou (1970) found that greater education is positively correlated with sexual liberality, the small differentiation here between high school or less and college groups suggests that the relationship between the two variables may be more intricate than proposed by other researchers.

CURRENT MARITAL STATUS

Table 9 presents the breakdown of previous monogamy or EMS by marital status at the time of the survey.

Table 9: Past Behavior/Marital Status

The most liberal group appeared to be those respondents currently living together, with a 66% past EMS rate versus the average of 43%. It can be speculated that those individuals' present adoption of an open lifestyle may be a continuation of a pattern of sexual experimentation that had begun at some earlier point in the past. In contrast to those living together, the highest percentage of previously monogamous behavior comes from individuals now single (72%),.or divorced, separated or widowed (70%).

Reasons for Previous Behavior

As considered earlier, other researchers have tried to identify motivations, or predisposing factors, for the monogamy or non-monogamy of their samples. Among the variables discussed have been marital satisfaction (Bell, 1974; Glass and Wright, 1977; Knapp, 1976; Johnson, 1970); romanticism (Athanasiou, 1970); alienation (Whitehurst, 1969; Maykovich, 1976); search for variety ( Bell, 1974); and strength of conscience (Neubeck, 1962). While these factors are important, what has been researched in the respondents' behavior here was rather the role of the old ideal of monogamy as the only appropriate sexual mode in committed relationships such as marriage or durable coupling. The question was then two-fold:

- first, how many people previously believed in this identification of monogamy and commitment?

- second, how may people allowed this belief to constrain their behavior?

One method of trying to define the respondents' attitudes in these regards would have been to include independent scales to measure them as a part of the questionnaire. To avoid the limitation of a forced choice of pre selected attitudes, and to facilitate spontaneous rationale for their behavior, the free response format was chosen. This choice had the negative effect of making data more difficult to collect and tabulate, but did lead to respondents giving direct statements of their own beliefs and reasons.

In order to tabulate the free expressions of the sample, the replies were coded into various categories for those monogamous and non-monogamous in past relationships. These groupings were based on typical themes brought out by the respondents. Table 10 summarizes the results for those individuals who gave reasons for being monogamous in previous relationships.

Table 10: Monogamists' Past Attitudes

Although it is a temptation to declare that all those individuals actually practicing monogamy were thus allowing their beliefs to dictate their behavior, the role of opportunity in determining EMS behavior (Levin, 1975; Johnson, 1970) indicates that attitude cannot automatically be deduced from practice. For this reason, it cannot categorically be stated that the 57% of our sample who had past monogamous relationships were really committed to monogamy as being necessary to those relationships. Only 70% of those monogamous in past relationships chose to share their reasons for monogamy, and it is that group which is examined here.

Of the 70% who offered explanations, it is noteworthy that 36% stated "marriage" (category one) as their reason. For this group, at least, marriage by definition seemed to be considered an adequate reason for monogamy. These individuals then, probably did adhere to the traditional idea of monogamy as being inseparable from the commitment to live and work together that is the other element of such relationships.

Another 20% in category two (in love) cited the "romantic" reasons of going steady or being in love as their motivation for past behavior. Again, while a marriage per se was not involved, the feeling of being a "couple" appeared for this group to necessarily involve an obligation to be sexually exclusive. This same disposition was actually directly stated by the 11% who explained plainly that they believed in sexual commitment to one person only (category three).

It is in the small percentage of answers (6%) in categories four (urges to cheat) and five (unhappy but monogamous) that perhaps the strongest commitments to monogamy as a code of behavior could be discerned. These individuals responded that they were monogamous in spite of temptation or dissatisfaction, indicating strong motivation to maintain it as a pattern.

Respondents in category six (monogamous in past) indicated that they had at some point believed in monogamy, but had changed. As the concern here is with past behavior at whatever time, this 14% was included in the grouping of those who at one time both believed and practiced monogamy. The remaining 13% (category seven, other reasons) had such different reasons for monogamy that it was impossible to make any general statement about their behavior, or to include them in the "believers" grouping.

To summarize the results of those non-EMS individuals who gave reasons for their past behavior, approximately 90% indicated motivation by the traditional ideal of monogamy as being an automatic expression of commitment in a relationship. As a percentage of the total previously monogamous population, this group is 63%, with the other 37% as unknown rather than definitely unmotivated by the ideal.

Table 11 represents the motivation categories of the 74% of individuals non-monogamous in the past, who gave reasons for their behavior.

Table 11: Non-monogamists' Past Attitudes

In category one, "Cheated" during marriage, the 9% of the answers belonging here all included reference to the fact that the EMS behavior was a violation of the marriage contract. For these individuals, the equation of sexual exclusivity and marriage was clearly still the norm, even if they chose not to follow it.

Similarly assuming referent of marriage equaling monogamy are the 11% of the answers placed in category two, Not married. These people were careful to indicate that the reason for non-monogamous behavior was that they were outside a married state, that is, either divorced or single. The most direct statement of failure to live up to the monogamy norm can be found in category three, where the individuals stated that they "tried and were unable" to remain monogamous {8%). This type of response suggests that the individual was holding monogamy as the preferred model of behavior.

In contrast to the above 28% of our EMS group, who by their reasons could be considered as still adhering to monogamy as an ideal, were the over 60% who indicated simply that their behavior had almost always been non-monogamous (categories four, polygamous, and five, needed other partners). The lack of reference to exclusivity in any form characterized this segment as one probably having a low attachment to sexual monogamy as a model for their own behavior. These individuals were thus consistently non-monogamous in both attitudes and behavior, and represent that portion of the sample for whom the monogamous relationship identification had either broken down or never existed.

The answers given by the remaining 5% who volunteered their reasons (category six, other reasons) were like those of some monogamists, too diverse for any generalizations about their beliefs.

In summary, of the 74% of those non-monogamous in previous relationships who indicated their motivations, a little less than a third were probably believers in monogamy even at the time that they were not practicing it. (This figure represents about 22% of the total non-monogamous group.) Those non-monogamists who, on the other hand, rejected the sexual exclusivity ideal included 60% of those answering the question of why (or 48% of the total past EMS group).

Over the entire sample of both past monogamists, and non-monogamists who indicated reasons, 42% of the respondents indicated that they had held monogamous ideals at the time of previous relationships. In contrast, the reasons given by about 22% implied that these individuals had been in the past relatively comfortable with non-monogamy within the context of a relationship.

Tables 12 and 13 provide a breakdown of the sample's attitudes to past behavior by sex.

Table 12: Monogamists' Past Attitudes/Sex

Table 13: Non-monogamists' Past Attitudes/Sex

In interpreting the different percentages for men and women, the traditional social attitudes towards monogamy for males and females should be considered.

EMS for the male has largely been regarded with indulgence, female EMS, on the other hand, has been treated with greater censure. It has already been discussed how the actual EMS rates reflect this to a certain extent, and given women's stronger socialization towards monogamy, it could be postulated that more females than males would adhere to belief in monogamy as essential to a committed relationship. In addition, it might be supposed that more women than men would give self-explanations that exhibit conflict or guilt over their ideals versus their behavior. In light of this background, it was therefore surprising that the total figures for male versus female believers in monogamy were not more divergent. Among all those previously monogamous, 62% of the men as compared to 65% of the women may be viewed as holding monogamy as part of a committed relationship.

Among the EMS group giving reasons, 26% of the men and 29% of the women seem to have nonetheless considered monogamy the ideal (categories one, two and three). The relative equality of men's and women's attitudes in this area is shown as well, when the percentages of both EMS and non-EMS males and females holding monogamist attitudes are figured for the total sample of those who gave reasons for previous relationships -- 41% for men and 44.5% for women. This suggests that among our liberal population, at least, the traditional posture of women as greater believers in monogamy than men has probably eroded in the same way as their traditional reluctance to indulge in the practice of EMS. That the gap between them has not totally equalized, however, was seen in the percentage responses of men and women in the various categories that manifest conflict or guilt about monogamous ideals.

Categories four (fought urge to cheat) and five (unhappy monogamy) for the monogamists have already been described as indicating "discontented" monogamy. The percentage of men versus women giving these responses was 4% and 10% respectively. That three times as many women as men showed willingness to remain faithful despite urges to the contrary, may be an indication of the residual strength of the traditional socialization of women even among our sample.

A similar manifestation of this process may be reflected in the percentages of male/female responses falling into category one of the EMS group, Cheated during marriage. Over twice as many women as men (12% versus 5%) chose to mention their violation of the sexual exclusivity contract they felt was inherent in marriage.

Another component of the traditional attitudes towards male and female EMS behavior is also reflected in the survey. Men have long been seen as craving a number of sexual partners, in or outside of marriage. In Kinsey`s words (1948):

Most males can immediately understand why most males want extramarital coitus. Although most.of them refrain from engaging in such activity because they consider it morally unacceptable or social undesirable, even such abstinent individuals can usually understand that sexual variety, new situations and new partners might provide satisfactions which are no longer found in coitus which has been confined for some period of years to a single sexual partner.

In contrast to this, women have usually been looked upon as "naturally" less interested in variety, and thus inherently monogamous. If this were true, the rates for those individuals who engage in polygamous relationships (categories four and five) should have been sharply lower for women than for men. As polygamists among those EMS respondents giving reasons were 69% male and 65% female, the relative closeness of these two percentages suggests inadequacy in these older ideas, at least as applied to this liberal population.

As was the case in the discussion of past behavior, attempts to correlate background variables with previous attitudes were complicated by the nature of the questionnaire. The questions on age, education, occupation, etc., related to the respondents' status at the time of the survey, which might have changed from the time of their previous EMS. Nonetheless, a few observations were made which may indicate that tendencies noted in the behavior of different groups also held true in their attitudes. The correlations are presented in Tables 14 and 15.

For example, the most liberal individuals in their past behavior were those who were currently partners in an unmarried couple situation. Their self-explanations confirmed this impression of openness to experimentation, as 36% of them indicated that they had always been comfortable with polygamy in the past. This rate was double the 18% average for the rest of the sample.

Table 14 Past Polygamy/Marital Status

The lowest rates of expressed satisfaction with polygamy (12%) came from the 35+ cohort. This finding supports the earlier speculation that the older part of the sample was the most conservative in behavior. A correlation of youth with sexual liberalism was suggested by the data that 27% of the 18-24 cohort were polygamous versus the 18% average.

Table 15: Past Polygamy/Age

Profile of Past Attitudes and Behavior

Of those survey respondents who reported previous relationships, 40% of the women and 45% of the men indicated that they had been nonomonogamists during that relationship. The figures for men are somewhat higner than those of other surveys conducted in the Sixties (Johnson, 1970-20%; Athanasiou, 1970-40%; Hunt, 1974-40%) and Seventies, although they are similar to Kinsey's 50% results of a generation earlier. For women, the rate is also higher than that found by other studies (Athanasiou, 36%; Hunt, 18%), and in addition represents an increase over Kinsey's 26%. A liberalizing trend of the last few decades is suggested more by the behavior of our female sample than by the male.

Among our entire group, those individuals having the lowest EMS rates in previous relationships were 35+ and/or attending religious services regularly. Respondents who at the time of the survey were engaging in the non traditional lifestyle of living together had the lowest monogamy rate in previous relationships -- 34% (66% EMS).

The traditional social expectation that women believe more in monogamous ideals is not strongly suggested by the responses of the sample on their past beliefs and behavior; 41% of the men versus 45% of the women were seen to have pre­viously equated sexual exclusivity with committed relation-ships such as marriage.

The findings on previous articles and beliefs summarized above served as a foundation for the seccnd part of the research -- the outline of the same individuals' current attitudes and behavior. By comparing the past and the present, trends in the sample's patterns of monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships were noted.

Current Behavior

The EMS rates of individuals who are currently involved in a couple relationship were observed. Looking at the basic data, 345 individuals, or close to 100% of the survey respondents, reported a current relationship. Table 16 presents a summary of their current monogamous or non-monogamous behavior.

Table 16: Current Behavior/Sex

The sample's high rates of previous EMS behavior had already characterized them as being a group less subject to sexual exclusivity than found by any other published survey. In comparing their past rates (Table 17), it can be seen that among men there has been a 7% drop in monogamy and a 7% increase in EMS. For women there have been somewhat bigger changes -- a 9% decrease in monogamy, with a 10% upsurge in EMS.

Table 17: Past and Current Behavior/Sex

AGE

Table 18 represents a comparison of current and past non-monogamous behavior broken down into age groups.

Table 18: Past and Current Behavior/Age

As we can see above, the EMS age curve appears to have turned around. The formerly most monogamous group, the 35+ (38% EMS), has suddenly become the most non-monogamous (54% EMS).

In seeking an explanation for this change, it was necessary to consider the various factors coming into play in the EMS/Age relationship. As discussed earlier, the two mediating variables were increased desire for EMS due to marital dissatisfaction and reluctance to engage in EMS due to traditional values. Other surveys have shown that greater age yields greater marital dissatisfaction, which in turn leads to greater desire for EMS. The counter-force to this in terms of behavior is the fact that older individuals grew up conditioned by the traditional sexual mores of their youth and are most subject to the constraints of anti-EMS tradition. It can be conjectured that change for this group would reflect a relaxation of traditional monogamous ideals and/or a willingness to behavioralize EMS desires.

In the case of Forum readers, the data suggested that this was what happened to the 35+ respondents. Somewhere in between the dates of their past and current relationships, the negative force of tradition seems to have been overcome, and their desire for EMS has been translated into action. This can be described as the liberalization of a sexually conservative sample, and suggests that sexual openness can, in fact, penetrate into the more tradition-bound segments of society.

The increased EMS rates for the middle cohort indicated that a similar liberalization of behavior had taken place amongst this group. Still to be explained, however, was the stability of the non-monogamy rate of the youngest (18-24) cohort in the sample.

According to this researcher's view of changing social mores, this group has always been the closest in time to changes in sexual behavior standards, and the furthest away from traditional values. It could be hypothesized that it is less an instance of their changing from conservative, older sexual patterns to newer liberal ones, as one of having grown up with liberality. Since they had less negative socialization to overcome, they would be among the first to manifest the new idea of sexual openness in their behavior. This may explain the early high rates for this group; unlike their older counterparts, their behavior from the first reflected desire for EMS undiluted by social constraints.

What was especially interesting was that there had been little change in the young group's behavior over time. This suggests that their desire for non-monogamy remained relatively stable. To put it another way, it may be said that the percentages of young individuals wanting EMS and acting on it appear to have reached their peak at some point in the past, and to have increased no further. As will be seen later on in this discussion, this is one of the few indications the data give to support the hypothesis that sexual behavior may have built-in limits, and that EMS rates will not continue to rise indefinitely.

Marital Status

Table 19 below shows the monogamy/EMS rates for groups practicing different lifestyles.

Table 19: Current Behavior/Marital Status, in %

One way of looking at these data is to see them as manifesting the relative strength of the respondents' equations of monogamy with various types of relationship According to traditional social patterns, the commitment to love and work together also carries along with it the idea of monogamy as the embodiment of that commitment. In "non-live-in" arrangments, the idea of monogamy would probably be seen as less crucial. That distinction can be seen in the above breakdown of EMS rates. The most monogamous groups were the married and living together, with more liberal practices reflected among the divorced and single.

What these data suggest is that while our sample practiced monogamy (even among the married) less than any other surveyed group to date, liberality had not totally erased their monogamy/commitment identification. It was unfortunate that it was not possible to compare this EMS-rates/marital-status correlation with the results of any other published survey. However, the concept of testing extramarital sex and extra relationship sex is important in view of the growing percentages of Americans with unmarried lifestyles, and merits further investigation by other researchers.

The comparison of the EMS rates for the two "live-in" relationship groups - the living together and the married revealed surprising similarities. The living together were even slightly more monogamous than the married individuals (56% versus 53%). They were a group of people who were non-traditional in the sense that they did not marry, but relatively traditional in their conformity to the monogamous norms associated with marriage. These data suggest that what was important in determining their behavior was not the legal form of marriage, but the sexual commitment going along with a "live-in" arrangement. The often repeated remark that "getting married is just a piece of paper" thus appeared to be true for the living together segment of this sample.

While the direct equation of non-monogamy with instability in a relationship cannot be supported, data from other studies such as Johnson (1970a), Bell (1974), and Levin (1975) have suggested that EMS does reflect some level of dissatisfaction within a partnership. The similar current EMS rates for the married and living together in this study may then indicate that both types of relationships tended to satisfy, or dissatisfy, in similar measure.

Looking at the EMS rates for singles versus the separated or divorced, the latter group was currently the most non-monogamous (66%). Something can be postulated in this by considering that the now separated had previously been one of the most monogamous groups. There is a distinct impression of a "breaking out" taking place in the interval, and while there are no data specifically placing this behavior change at the time of the termination of the marriage, one-half of the divorced respondents did explain that they had been monogamous when married.

The high level of EMS in the divorced and separated group suggests several implications for future research. First of all, as more and more people divorce in society, non-monogamous behavior in relationships might rise overall. Secondly, as will be discussed shortly, this survey's data suggest that marriage has not effected a decrease in individuals' EMS rates. At this point it is an open question whether this observation might apply to second marriages of the divorced.

To chart the groups among which sexual liberality (in the form of EMS) is spreading, Table 20 correlates current and past behavior with marital status.

Table 20: Past and Current Behavior/Marital Status

That those respondents currently single increased their EMS rate from 28% to 60% was highly suggestive of a liberalizing trend in the behavior of unmarried members of the sample.

However, the most interesting findings in the comparison of past and present was the drop in EMS among those currently living with someone -- from 66° in previous relationships to 44% at the time of the survey. It can be hypothesized that, having experienced EMS for some period of time, these individuals subsequently decided to make a monogamous commitment.

The EMS rates of currently married respondents have, on the other hand, remained the same between past and present relationships. This observation does not seem to mesh with the one made earlier that many of the married were still comparatively constrained by the monogamy/committed relationship identification. One explanation for this seeming discrepancy may be found by considering that those remaining unmarried increased their EMS over time, whereas the married merely maintained their older patterns.

What will happen to married EMS rates in the future, however, is an open question. Speculations are complicated by the higher EMS rates of those individuals who are currently single. If they marry at all, will this change in status fail to constrain their EMS, as it has already failed to affect the currently married cohort? If this is the case, it can be anticipated that the future rate of marital EMS might rise much higher than it is today.

The strong behavior change toward curbing EMS of those who were currently living with someone represents an interesting contrast with the failure to change observed in the legally married. It is tempting to suggest that the reason for this difference is that the "live-in" arrangement is one of ongoing decision, not legal contract. The element of constantly renewed free choice may have had a positive effect on the willingness to change more monogamous patterns, or these simply may have been shorter-term relationships.

The former argument is typical of the apologists for this lifestyle, but the position here will be to maintain that there are so many factors involved that it is impossible to draw such a conclusion on the basis of the data we possess from this research. If we consider, with Kinsey, that the length of marriage correlates with more EMS, the relative newness of many "live-in" arrangements would tend to mitigate against EMS at the time of the survey. There is no way of judging from our data the proportion of new marriages to new living-together couples, except to observe that 61% of the live-ins are under twenty-four years of age. What is really needed to test out monogamy rates of legal marriage versus living together is to compare two samples whose other variables are held constant.

To summarize the results of these observations on marital status and EMS, it can be said that the traditional idea of monogamy as a concomitant of committed, "live-in" arrangements is still present in this sample. This was visible not only in the differing percentages of current EMS for different groups, but in the fact that those involved in "live-in" arrangements appeared to have either dropped their non-monogamous behavior at the time of their formation, or (in the case of the married) at least not have increased their rates the way the singles and divorced did. Nonetheless, that the currently married did not decrease their EMS between previous and current relationships suggested a need for study on whether the current higher EMS rates of the single and the divorced will be continued after marriage.

EDUCATION

Although there did not seem to be a strong correlation between previous practice of monogamy and the amount of education completed, distinctions in current behavior appeared between those with high school or less education, and those with some college or more. Table 21 presents the data.

Table 21: Past and Current Behavior/Education

The most important observation to be made here was that the college educated had both a higher rate of current EMS (54% versus 47%) and a greater increase over past practice (+8% versus +2%). Cuber and Harroff (1965) and Athanasiou and Shaver (1970) hypothesized that sexual trends first appear among college educated groups. It is then possible that liberalizing of EMS behavior suggested by the data on this college educated cohort may spread to other segments of society.

RELIGION

The hypothesis from the literature that the practice of religion is an especially important factor in monogamous behavior was born out by both current and past EMS rates. Table 22 lists the comparative data for the variable of attendance at religious services.

Table 22: Past and Current Behavior/Religious Practice

Those attending religious services have maintained themselves as a more conservative than average group. Both their current rates and their increase in EMS from the past have been lower than the overall rates. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that there was, in fact, some decrease in their reported monogamy. That a sense of being able to sexually experiment had penetrated even into this highly resistant segment of society is a further indicator that such ideas have the ability to effect broad social change.

As discussed earlier, attendance at services is usually seen as a more important variable in determining EMS than is religious affiliation. When the current behavior of this sample was cross-referenced with denomination, the results indicated that for Catholics and Protestants, there was an average 9% decrease in monogamy and a 7% increase in EMS (Table 23). These rates were equivalent to the overall average, and thus suggest only that there was no special influence at work. What had changed, however, was the percentage of Jewish respondents who reported EMS.

Table 23: Past and Current Behavior/Religion

There seems now to have been a strong upsurge in EMS among the Jewish segment. Their 67% EMS rate was higher than any other correlation except among the divorced. In searching for correlates for this phenomenon, it was noted that the background variables distinguishing this group were that 80% of them are college educated, and two-thirds were women. These proportions compare to a norm for other religious groups of 50% college educated, and 50% women. Although the size of the Jewish sample (23) is so small that conclusions are impossible, it can possibly be suggested that the distinguishing variables of sex and education level may play a role in the EMS rate of this group.

In the section on past behavior and religion, it was noted that those respondents who indicated no nominal religion had both lower monogamy rates than the average (48% versus 57%) and lower rates than those designating a denomination. This distinction continued in the data on current practices, but the gap between the two groups has lessened. As mentioned above, the Protestant and Catholic groups both showed at least the average 8% increase in EMS. For the areligious, the increase was only from 51% in the past to 55% now. This group, in the past, had one of the higher EMS rates (52% versus 43% average); that there has been only a slight increase over time is perhaps an indication of a "bottoming-out" in behavior shifts. A similar lack of change among the youngest (18-24) cohort was noted, and it was hypothesized that they had not altered their practices perhaps because the new sexual ideas had already penetrated to their fullest extent. The same reasoning may be applied to the areligious. These individuals, from the beginning being less subject to traditional beliefs, would perhaps have been among the most receptive to liberalization of sexual behavior. Most of those who were subject to change at all might have already done so by the time of their previous behavior. What is again suggested is that the only slight increase in their EMS rates may indicate that there is a limit among this group (as for the young) to the possible growth of non-monogamy. This issue of maximization of sexual liberality will be considered further under the section on current beliefs.

Profile of Changes in Behavior

To summarize the trends in behavior changes and background variables that have been noted throughout the section, it is most useful to scale the various groups in order of past sexual liberality, and then examine what has happened to them (Table 24).

Table 24: EMS Behavior Changes

In terms of their previous behavior, groups with the highest EMS rates were those 18-24, those with no nominal religion, and those currently living with someone. In each of these cases, the rates of EMS have either gone up less than average or even decreased.

Those groups previously manifesting lowest EMS rates were those attending religious services, those over 35, the now-divorced and the singles. With the exception of those attending services, each of these groups has shown a higher than average upswing in EMS rates over time. In the case of the former there was also an increase, but it was less than average.

Those segments of the sample whose earlier behavior hovered around the norm were: males (slightly more previous EMS than average), females (slightly less EMS than average), those with religious affiliation (less EMS than average), the various education levels (average EMS), and the currently married (more past EMS than average). Changes in these groups, with the exception of the Jewish participants, have also been in the average range.

It appears from Table 24 that with the exception of those determined to be the most highly traditional group -- the devoutly religious -- the greatest rises in EMS rates took place among the formerly low EMS groups. The rate of change for the previously high EMS groups was comparatively less. These data indicate that the earlier wide differentiation in behavior among various social groups has begun to equalize over the intervening time. That those groups previously high in EMS behavior have not continued to greatly increase their rate of change also suggests that there may be a possible limit on the extent to which individuals will engage in EMS behavior. This limit, if it exists, is undetermined.

Some previously low EMS groups (the divorced and the single) have increased their rates to a level beyond the current average, and are more EMS active than the formerly most EMS active segments. What may be envisioned for the future in this case is the possibility of stable EMS percentages which are somewhat different for various groups in society.

In conclusion, it can be said that the sexual revolution continues in the sense that sexual attitudes about EMS and monogamous behavioral constraints are relaxing, even in the more traditional segments of American society. Our data suggest that this liberalization of attitudes and behavior may be self-limiting.

Reasons for Current Behavior

In the section on the respondents' reasons for their past behavior, the data were examined for evidence of the identification of monogamy with a committed relationship. Among the findings was that individuals behaving non-monogamously were not always free from a feeling of violating the traditional value of sexual exclusivity by their EMS behavior. The conflict between behavior and attitudes appears to have been a characteristic of the past, since present EMS behavior seems to be accompanied by a consonant attitude.

Tables 25 and 26 list those response configurations found typical of monogamous and non-monogamous respondents. The categories were based on the types of answers actually received from the respondents and thus the absence of categories used in this survey for past reasons, such as "Cheated during marriage" and "Was monogamous, but made me unhappy", was a reflection of the sample's failure to indicate such ideas in explaining their current behavior. While it would have been useful to be able to directly compare the respondents' present and past attitudes on monogamy using similar categories of reasons, the nature of the data themselves makes this approach difficult.

Table 25: Monogamists' Current Attitudes

Reasons given for Monogamy. N=99, in %

An area where it was possible to make direct comparison between past and present reasons was in the number of respondents indicating marriage, specifically, as their justification for their current monogamy, 26% mentioned marriage. This represents a drop of 10% from the 36% of the respondents who had listed marriage as a reason for their previous monogamy. If, as hypothesized earlier, those offering this reason were thereby indicating a belief in the automatic equation of marriage with monogamy, there has been some erosion in the number of people making that identification.

Table 26: Non-monogamists' Current Attitudes

Reasons given for EMS. N=164, in %

A loosening of monogamous beliefs was also suggested by the number of individuals reporting nonjudgmental attitudes towards their current EMS. Included in this type were responses in categories one (sex with partners other than regular), two (open marriage), three (swingers), four (need other partners), six (variety means excitement), and seven (bisexuality). Seventy-five percent of the current non-monogamists' self-explanations fell into these categories, and reveal an increase of 27% over the 48% of EMS individuals in our survey responding non-judgmentally about their previous EMS.

That we did not include category five (when regular partner is away) among the non-judgmental responses can be explained by considering that these individuals' specific mention that their EMS took place in the absence of their normal partners may possibly indicate a need to justify their behavior.

Since no further direct comparisons between the respondents' past and current behavior justifications were possible, the data were examined for insight into the reasoning of non-monogamous groups with different background characteristics. In the section on current behavior, it was noted that those respondents currently single changed over time from a highly monogamous group with exceptionally low EMS rates (28%) to one with the second highest current EMS practices (60%).

When the EMS singles' self-explanations for current EMS were compared in various categories to the overall EMS average (Table 27), it emerged that 45% of them fell into category five (when regular is away). As noted above, this type of response may possibly contain an element of needing justification for their behavior. It may not be too much to speculate, therefore, that the overwhelming behavior change of this group did not result in a complete erasure of their earlier value system. This possibility has the important implication of suggesting that when and if this group marries and comes more directly into confrontation with their previous monogamous tendencies, the idea postulated earlier that they might continue their current EMS rates (as have those currently married) may not hold true for everyone involved.

Table 27: Non-monogamists' Current Attitudes/Low Past EMS Groups

Some similarity to the singles' pattern can also be seen in the responses of the currently divorced group (Table 27). These individuals, too, shifted radically from high monogamy to high rates of EMS. Moreover, like the singles they have a higher-than-average percentage of responses in category five (48%). This may indicate a similar possibility that if this group marries again, or settles into a "live-in" arrangement, some of them will return to their earlier monogamous behavior rather than continue with their current EMS.

One important difference between the singles and the divorced, however, is that more than twice as many of the latter indicated that the reason for their non-monogamy was "variety means excitement" (category six). Their percentage in this category is also twice as high as the overall average (19% versus 9%). This finding lends credence to the earlier speculation that part of the impetus for the currently divorced' behavior change may have come from a reaction against the constraints of marital exclusivity.

The answers for the only segment of the sample who had both low EMS in the past and at the time of the survey, that is, the highly religious, indicated that those who did indulge in EMS had with one exception fairly average justification patterns. This unusual result was that a far lower percentage than average (5% versus 13%) indicated that they had an "open marriage" situation. That these tradition oriented individuals did not indulge in such a radical marriage patterns came as no surprise; however, 16% of them (the average rate) also responded that they engaged in swinging. This corresponds with the observations of Apanier and Cole (1975) and Gilmartin and Kusisto (1973) and that swingers are traditional in all but their swinging, but the seeming contradiction between a high rate of swinging and a low rate of open marriage within the same segment was puzzling.

One explanation lies in the observation by a number of researchers on comarital sex (Knapp, 1976; Bartell, 1972) that the reason swingers declare their activities to be nonthreatening to their marriage is that both partners participate together. Open marriage, on the other hand, carries with it the implication that the partners are free to indulge in sex with other people on an individual basis. This type of contract may be viewed as more in violation of marital togetherness, and hence seem too threatening to this essentially traditional group.

That the highly religious EMS population had in most respects a typical self-explanation pattern is of itself noteworthy. Based on the data for other former conservatives it might be expected that these individuals, too, would have shown a higher-than-average percentage of responses indicating possible ambivalence about their EMS. One speculative explanation for their failure to do so is that those few religious individuals who did manage to overcome what was probably the highest reluctance to engage in EMS of any segment of the sample must have been strongly motivated. They were hence perhaps less subject to doubts once they actually did take the decision to behave nonmonogamously .

To summarize, it can be said that with the exception of the most traditional group (the religious), not all formerly low EMS individuals who liberalized their behavior patterns seemed to also manage a complete change from their traditional attitudes. This has been indicated by the observation that the self-explanations of such groups as the now-divorced and the single contain a higher proportion of ambivalent responses than do those of other groups. Among those attending religious services, however, this was not the case. We have accounted for this difference by suggesting that those few devout individuals who did change only arrived at the decision to engage in EMS behavior after putting ambivalence firmly behind them.

A similar tendency towards increasing sexual openness was noted among the non-monogamists of another sexually liberal group who did not greatly expand their EMS practices, the areligious. They had both a higher rate of open marriage than average (17%) and, like those living with someone, a lower percentage of possibly ambivalent answers in category five (when regular is away) -- 33%.

It was among the married EMS population, however, that the greatest percentage of answers indicating sexual liberality was observed, where 40% of this group's responses fell into either the swinging or open marriage categories (two and three), versus an average of 29%. Since both of these patterns are associated with marriage, it was not surprising that the great majority of those practicing them at all should be married; but it was noteworthy that so many of the married respondents opted for these particular forms of EMS.

What distinguishes these practices from other types of extra-monogamous sex is that they are consensual. The married respondents in this sample, rather than engaging in clandestine affairs, have chosen instead to be open with their spouses about their EMS activities. In the case of swinging, the partners even decided to participate together in EMS. As other researchers have pointed out, the honesty involved in this type of behavior reflects the participants' feeling that it is the deception, rather than the act itself, which is the relationship damaging aspect of conventional EMS. Consensual non-monogamy avoids the problem of betrayal by a separation of exclusivity and commitment which is acknowledged by both parties. It is, in fact, a full separation of the traditional marriage equation.

That this type of sexually open behavior should have been present in comparatively high proportion in both the married and unmarried respondents was not surprising. As early as 1970 Athanasiou and Shaver reported a strong trend among his respondents in favor of consensual EMS, and the sample here, drawn from Forum readers, is likely to contain an even higher percentage of sexual liberals. The practices of swinging and open marriage were not, however, evenly distributed among all groups in this survey.

As seen in Table 28 below, the highest rates of swinging and open marriage fell into the middle age group, the 25-34. Their rate was 37%, while the 18-24 cohort had by contrast the below average rate of 23%. The oldest cohort, the 35+, was the most average with a figure of 28%.

Table 28: Consensual EMS by Age

The factors most likely to be involved in these results are the same ones that affect all the EMS/Age relationships that have been discussed previously: sexual liberalism versus increasing dissatisfaction with monogamy with age. If the middle cohort's position at the conjunction of these two variables is considered, it can be seen that they are ideally predisposed to comarital sex. They are, first of all, young enough to be disposed towards sexual openness, and at the same time old enough to chafe under the increasing restrictions of long-tern monogamy. The older group, by contrast, would be more likely to follow the more traditional lines of clandestine affairs, while the youngest would still be exploring the conventional relationship patterns.

As a basis for speculation on future trends in consensual EMS, correlations can be viewed similarly to the EMS/Age relationships previously discussed. If the present trend continues, it might be expected that as the liberally disposed middle cohort ages, more and more of them would turn to both consensual and nonconsensual EMS, and hence raise the later rates of the 35+ group. As the now young grow older, they will begin to enter the high consensual EMS brackets, and thus should maintain (or even increase) the current high percentages there. The combined effect of both these trends may be to increase the overall frequency of swinging and open marriage over time, barring a religious/conservative backlash.

As mentioned earlier, one of the standard observations made about swingers is that they are in all other things middle-of-the road. The results did not fully bear this out, for as already observed, a high proportion of the areligious and of those living with someone did engage in this activity. Nonetheless, the background data gathered indicated that swinging did often occur in high frequency among those groups who might otherwise be considered as having sexually conservative tendencies.

The clearest example of this is the nominally Catholic segment (Table 29). This group had only a small rise in EMS rates over time, and scored higher than average in ambivalence towards EMS (38%). In addition, the proportion who wrote that they experienced swinging is 23%, compared to an overall average of 16%. A possible reason may be deduced in a comparison of these figures with the open marriage rate for these same individuals.

Table 29: Consensual EMS/Catholics, in %

The open marriage rate percentage was 7%, lower than the 13% average. This discrepancy was similar to that found among the religious, and may be again explained by considering that swinging is the least marriage threatening EMS behavior. The problem of deception is eliminated by comarital sex in general, but, in addition, the simultaneous participation of the two partners in group sex ensures that both are guaranteed knowledge of the extent of the other's activities.

A similar pattern of swinging being unusually more popular than open marriage was also found among those with a high school or less education. The group as well had only a slight increase in EMS over time, and may be placed among the more sexually conservative. Their current consensual sex practices are summarized in Table 30.

Table 30: Consensual EMS/High School Education, in %

What is interesting about this comparison is that the high school or less group's overall rate of EMS was lower than average, but they had higher rates of consensual non-monogamy. This may be accounted for by observing that consensual EMS represents a potentially less marriage-threatening alternative than clandestine EMS, and thus may appeal to groups generally more interested in maintaining strong committed relationships.

To summarize the findings on consensual EMS, it can first be said that one quarter of the currently EMS active sample engaged in it in some form. That swinging and open marriage should be especially prevalent among such liberal groups as the areligious, the 25-34, and the living together, is not surprising. What is more complex, however, is why more conservative individuals such as the high school or less educated and the Catholic should find these patterns exceptionally appealing. It is in considering the nature of consensual sex as being the the least relationship threatening form of EMS that a possible explanation has been suggested. The more traditional individual finds in these forms of EMS a way of acting out a variety of sexual desires without breaking the first bond of a committed relationship.

In discussing the future of consensual EMS, it was hypothesized that it may spread further in the population at large. These practices are currently at their height among the 24-35 year age group. It is projected that as these individuals age they will continue their rates of consensual EMS as one solution to increasing marital dissatisfaction. In addition, the appeal of the consensual pattern among both liberal and more conservative groups indicates that it meets important needs of various segments of society. These ideas may thus meet little resistance as they follow in the wave of the general liberalization of sexual attitudes.

Profile of Reasons for Current Behavior

The general trend towards the separation of sexual exclusivity and primary relationship commitment that was noted in our respondents' current behavior was also suggested by their self-explanations for their practices. There was an absence of direct mention of such concepts as "cheating" on sexual exclusivity obligations, or of responses which specifically mentioned guilt about non-monogamous practices. In addition, fewer respondents offered the idea of marriage as an automatic justification of monogamy, and a greater percentage responded non-judgmentally about their EMS behavior.

That the liberalization trend has probably not reached out to totally dominate the respondents' thinking, however, was also indicated by their self-explanations. An underlying conflict of older attitudes versus more open behavior was postulated among those groups who had most radically increased their EMS over time -- the now divorced, the singles, and the Jewish. In the case of the first two, the percentage of possibly ambivalent attitudes caused the question as to whether the high rates of non-monogamy they were currently exhibiting would lessen if they were to face the exclusivity obligations of more traditional "live-in" relationships than they currently had.

In contrast to the above, non-monogamous individuals in those groups who were sexually liberal in the past continued to exhibit a higher percentage of open attitudes. Both those living together and the areligious showed, for example, a less than average rate of ambivalent responses, and a greater than average willingness to practice open marriage and swinging.

The area of "consensual EMS ", i.e. open marriage and swinging was not present in responses on the sample's past behavior, but appeared only in their self-explanations on current behavior. The respondents' answers showed an overall rate of indulgence in these practices which is higher than that found by past surveys (13% of our total sample versus 5% average in other research). The even higher rates among the married respondents in this survey were seen as suggestive of the extent to which the monogamy/marriage identification had broken down for this sample.

Consensual practices were also especially popular among those between 24 and 35 years of age. This was viewed as reflective of the fact that this cohort is the one most likely to be motivated by both dissatisfaction and sexual liberalization.

What was particularly noteworthy in the results was that groups whose behavior as a whole was more traditional than average -- the Catholics, those attending religious services, and the high school or less educated -- also had either an average or higher than average rate of consensual EMS. This was explained by the nature of those more open EMS practices as being less threatening to a committed relationship than is clandestine EMS. This view is especially applicable to swinging, the preferred behavior in most cases.

The ability of consensual EMS to penetrate into a crucial age group, and into both sexually liberal and more traditional segments of the sample, suggested that it is a practice which may continue to spread throughout society as more and more groups expand their general sexual options.

Of the groups whose previous behavior was the most liberal, it is the living together who most changed their EMS practices. As mentioned earlier, many of these individuals seemed to have embraced monogamy once they settled into a committed "live-in" relationship, causing a sharp drop in their EMS rate. For those who continued their non-monogamous behavior, however, an examination of their reasons revealed a pattern of continued above-average sexual openness (Table 31).

Table 31: Non-monogamists' Current Attitudes/ High Past EMS Groups, in %

Almost one-third of this group (33%), for example, responded that they practiced swinging or threesomes. This compared with an average rate of only 16% among the entire EMS segment, and a rate of only 5% for such activities found by other surveys (Athanasiou and Shaver, 1970; Hunt, 1969; Bell, 1974). In addition, the below-average percentage of this group giving responses in the "ambivalence" category five {13%) suggested that the great majority of the living-together EMS segment was non-judgmental about their EMS behavior.

An examination of the behavior of the total living together group over time points to the hypothesis that the formation of a committed relationship caused the majority to reassume the traditional norm of the monogamy/commitment identification, while the remainder continued on a road of greater and greater sexual liberality.

Current Beliefs on Monogamy

Throughout this report it has occasionally been suggested that there may be possible future limits on different groups' desire to engage in non-monogamous behavior. Such an idea was proposed in connection with the failure of male EMS frequencies to rise substantially over the last few decades, and in conjunction with the most sexually liberal segments' lack of increase in EMS rates over time. In addition, the possibility of a behavior/attitude conflict in the current non-monogamy of such groups as the singles led to the question whether these individuals would desire such high amounts of EMS under all circumstances.

The notion of a maximum EMS desire for different groups was explored via the respondents' answers to questions 10 and 11 in the survey. These two questions invited Forum readers to report their beliefs on the viability of monogamy both for themselves (No. 10) and for society at large (No. 11), and were intended to measure the sample's level of commitment to monogamy. After examining the percentages of "yes" and "no" answers for various groups and the reasons given, the results were compared with hypotheses proposed earlier in this report to obtain a clearer picture of the sample's beliefs and attitudes.

Table 32 sets out a comparison between various groups' responses to questions 10 and 11 and their actual current monogamous practices.

Table 32: Practice versus Beliefs in Monogamy

The almost identical percentages between beliefs for self and current EMS practice for many of our groups bore out the earlier picture that the sample's attitudes and behavior were generally more consonant at the time of the survey than they had been previously. Nonetheless, among some segments there were significant discrepancies between practice and belief, notably among the Catholic, the Jewish, and all the lifestyle groups (Nos. 13-16).

For the Jewish, the single, and the divorced, the behavior/attitude split was in the direction of believing in monogamy more than they practiced it. It will be remembered that some ambivalence was already suggested by their self-explanations of current behavior. The data here serve to strengthen the earlier speculation regarding the singles and divorced, namely that their current EMS rates were so high because they lacked a current committed relationship. Following this line of reasoning it was speculated that these groups' formation of a "live-in" relationship might then cause them to decrease their high EMS rate, their showing possible future upward trends in married and "live-in" EMS. For the married, the living together and the Catholic segments, however, opposite results were obtained -- these individuals practiced monogamy more than they seemed to believe in it. This phenomenon suggests that there is room for continued liberalization of sexual behavior among these segments. How high the EMS rates for these groups might go may be estimated on the basis of their responses to questions No. 10 (belief in monogamy for self), that is, between 44% and 47% monogamy, or between 56%-53% EMS.

Possible future trends towards increased EMS rates were also suggested by the respondents' answers to question No. 11 (belief in monogamy for society). Table 31 demonstrates that the overall tendency was for fewer individuals to believe that monogamy is viable for society as a whole (43%) than for themselves (46%). While these results may reflect this sample's perception of the sexual liberalization around them, their expectation of lower monogamy rates from their neighbors also leads to the speculation that under certain circumstances, e.g., marital dissatisfaction, they might apply the same standards to themselves.

An examination of the respondents' expositions of their ideas regarding the viability (or non viability) of monogamy for themselves provided some support for the hypothesis presented earlier that EMS rates may not continue to rise indefinitely. Their answers were grouped into categories, and are presented in Table 33.

Table 33: Reasons for Belief in Monogamy for Self

It is important to note that reference to outside traditional moral standards was made by only 5% (category 4), with the remainder of the respondents remarking instead on their internal commitment to either monogamy or non-monogamy for reasons of love, loyalty, fulfillment, and security (categories one to three, five to seven). These individuals seemed to have felt free to choose between monogamy and polygamy based on their own feelings, rather than on outside dicta.

That 42% of the respondents were currently freely selecting monogamy suggests that it has personal value to them as a life pattern. It evidently still meets the needs of large numbers of individuals in their relationships, and thus there is no reason to expect monogamy to disappear as a sexual option in the foreseeable future.

Chapter 8

CONCLUSION

In summarizing the material presented in this report, the outlines of a pattern emerge, not only for this sample, but for society at large.

The traditionally post-World-War-II attitude towards monogamy was that it was the automatic expression of a committed relationship. Extra-monogamous sex was considered a violation of the marriage exclusivity contract, although, according to Kinsey, a violation far more permitted for men than for women. The result of these norms was to inhibit both males and females in their expression of polygamous desires, with the latter group being the more suppressed.

Beginning with Kinsey's more liberal population and moving through other more conservative groups, the various statistical surveys of the Fifties and Sixties in general bore out this impression of the then-current EMS standards of society. As the Seventies arrived, however, work started to indicate that important changes were taking place. The rate of EMS had begun to rise both among such formerly more traditional groups as women, and also among the young and liberal. These results have been considered here as a signal that a breakdown of the traditional monogamy/commitment equation was slowly spreading as a consequence of the sexual revolution.

In order to investigate whether this process would continue to expand further, the monogamous practices and attitudes of the readers of Forum magazine were examined here. This sexually liberal group represents the vanguard which has in the past frequently led the way for later changes in the rest of society.

The results of this research indicated that for these individuals, an opening up of EMS attitudes and behavior had indeed still been continuing in the recent past. Most of the subgroups showed an increase in EMS over time, with the more traditional segments generally experiencing the greatest rise. This suggested that there was a strong likelihood that non-monogamy would continue to penetrate into both the liberal and more conservative sectors of society, with less threatening consensual EMS having a special appeal for the latter.

That the rise of non-monogamy would not continue indefinitely, however, was also suggested by the findings. The current attitude towards monogamy of this sample indicated that while different segments have more or less rejected the hold of the traditional obligation towards sexual fidelity, close to half of the individuals of all types are still freely envisioning monogamy as a way of life for both themselves and for others.

In conclusion, the research suggests that the day will eventually come when society as a whole will have achieved a state where its adults are free to choose a mode of sociosexual behavior which will meet their personal and combined needs.

Chapter 9

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

A number of opportunities for further investigation have been suggested by the findings of this study. First, there is a need for research on all the sexual behaviors of partners in primary relationships who are not legally married. If these lifestyles continue to spread throughout society they will become an important presence about which not enough is known.

In the area of extra-monogamous sex, the lack of any broad based survey since Athanasiou (1970) on the behavior of males has already been noted. While the behavior of women has been investigated more recently than that (Bell, 1974a; Levin, 1975), there is nonetheless a need for confirmation of this survey's findings that the EMS rate among sexually liberal females is approaching the average male rate.

Also in need of further investigation are the relationships of various background variables to EMS behavior among both men and women. The research here has suggested that changes in status such as marriage, divorce, or moving in with a mate have effects on extra-monogamous behavior, but exactly how these alter established patterns in individuals has not been determined. Among the specific questions that have arisen are the effect of second marriage on high EMS among the divorced; whether the EMS rates of couples living together are lower than the average married couple's due to the length of the relationship or to the absence of a legal bond; and whether the current high EMS patterns of singles will be lowered by subsequent marriage.

In addition, the EMS/Age relationship needs more exploration. That the 18 to 24 year old cohort here did not increase their EMS over time is suggestive that a limit may have been reached for this group. Research is called for, however, to determine whether higher rates will be realized for these individuals as they age, as has been the experience of other young cohorts in the past.

What remains to future research is also the effects of increased penetration of liberal sexual practices, such as clandestine EMS and consensual sex, into more traditional segments of society such as the over 35 year olds, and the religious. This survey has suggested that their rates are increasing over time, but how fast and how high they will rise is as yet unknown.

It has been speculated here that there may be (undetermined) limits to rises in EMS rates for various groups. Work in this area can be done only in time, as the same segments of society are carefully examined to yield accurate historical data. The information gathered can then be compared by future researchers to reveal the changing patterns of sexual behavior in our society.

Bibliography

Return to Front Page