When discussing polyamory, either in current media or in personal exchanges, there’s often the question of what does polyamory look like? Unfortunately, there’s a lot of media that elevates a very specific image of polyamory: A triad consisting of three young adults, two of which are a married couple of a heterosexual man and a bisexual woman, and the third being a young bisexual woman. It’s also common for everyone to be white, liberal, and cisgender. While this demographic exists within the polyamory community (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with it), it doesn’t adequately capture the wide expanse of polycule configurations or the diversity of individuals who make up the broader polyamorous community. While stigma related to polyamorous and consensual non monogamy (CNM) practices mean that few surveys are conducted to better understand the composition of the polyamory demographic, there are some existing sources we look at to start to answer these kinds of questions.

 

How Many People Have Been Poly

 

One of the first questions a person may ask is “How many people have engaged in polyamory in their lifetime?” A 2016 article in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy utilized US Census data to estimate that 1 in 5 study participants engaged in CNM at some point in their life. While polyamorous individuals are a subgroup within this number, this gives us a place to start at. The same study found that ~20% proportion held up across age, education level, income, religion, region, political affiliation, and race. This means that the CNM community, and the subset of polyamory people within that community, are more diverse than depictions in popular media might suggest. Results did show some differences across gender and sexual orientation. Men were more likely than women to report engaging in CNM at some point in their life. Similarly, self-identified members of the queer community more frequently indicated participating in CNM at some point in their lives compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

 

How Many People Are Active In Poly?

 

The next logical question might be “Okay, but how many people ACTIVELY engage in polyamory?” Again, due to limitations in polyamory specific surveys, we’ll need to turn to research regarding CNM in general to estimate that number. A 2018 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior indicated that, based on data from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, roughly 4% of study participants were actively engaging in CNM. A prior 2014 study in the Journal für Psychologie, reported results in the same 4-5% range. While these two studies are specific to US populations, another 2019 publication in the Journal of Sex Research estimated a similar proportion of Canadians participate in open relationships. As another frame of reference, that 4-5% range is greater than the amount of U.S. citizens who self-identify under the LGBTQ+ umbrella (i.e. ~2%).

 

More About The Numbers

 

A reported 4-5% of the population actively participating in CNM may seem like a small number. However, consider that the estimated U.S. population in 2019 was 328.2 million . Even if we only consider adults ages 20+, that’s still 246.57 million people. If we assume that 4% of those individuals are practicing CNM, that means 9.86 MILLION people practice CNM in one form or another.  Among that group of 9.86 million are polyamorous people. Unfortunately, it’s hard to say what percentage of that population are polyamorous individuals versus swingers versus open relationships since available demographic studies with that level of detail are few and far between, but looking at how many people practice general CNM is a great place to start.

 

A 2019 Study On Polyamory

 

While we can’t speak to what percentage of the CNM identifies as polyamorous, a 2019 study published in the Journal of Sexual Research attempted to understand the demographic of the polyamory community specifically. Researchers collected and compared demographic information from 2,428 polyamorous individuals and 539 monogamous individuals. The results suggested that, as with the studies analyzing CNM more broadly, polyamorous people were more likely to identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community than monogamous participants. While age distributions among the two groups were similar, polyamorous participants were more likely to indicate being in a civil union, being divorced, and earning an annual income <$40,000 per year. Lead researcher, Balzarini, made clear that she didn’t believe this trend was a result of more unstable relationships among polyamorous people, but rather that they were more likely to divorce to enable multiple relationships to exist on equal legal terms or because participants realized polyamorous leanings post-marriage. In the case of other factors, such as race, political affiliation, and religious leanings, participants in both groups overwhelmingly identified as white. While polyamorous folks identified as liberal/Democratic, the monogamous participant group also tended to indicate left leaning political affiliations. Finally, individuals who self-identified as Christians were more likely to be monogamous. However, researchers also noted that polyamorous study participants were more likely overall to select “Other” when prompted for demographic characteristics. The overall outcome of the study suggest that statistics indicated that there was no significant difference between polyamorous and monogamous groups in terms of several metrics. What differences did exist suggests that polyamorous individuals tended to be white, make less money, and reject conventional labels and options common to demographic studies.

 

Do The Statistic Underestimate The Real Numbers?

 

Something important to keep in mind when considering all these numbers and statistics is that they likely underestimate the actual proportion of people who practice CNM and, specifically, polyamory. While polyamory is occupying increasing space in the public sphere, it isn’t a legally protected group. People who are openly polyamorous face risks of losing their jobs, being evicted from their homes, and losing child custody if raising a family. Consequently, people might be less inclined to respond honestly to questions and surveys out of concern for their professional and personal lives. Further, studies are likely to be skewed towards white participants simply due to what channels they rely on for recruiting study participants, so certain racial groups are likely to be underrepresented as well. Hopefully a day will come when people feel safe to disclose their status, but in the interim, we have to work with the numbers we have when underscoring statistics involving CNM and polyamory.

 

In Summary

 

To summarize, when we think about poly by the numbers, research indicates several different things:

1) An estimated 20% of the US population engaged in CNM at one point in their life.

2) Approximately 4% of the U.S. population actively participates in CNM.

3) When we break down the demographic of those millions of people who engage in CNM, the numbers evenly break down across different categories of age, education level, income, religion, region, political affiliation, and race.

4) Limited studies aimed at evaluating the demographics of polyamory specifically suggests individuals more likely to be white, queer, and in lower income brackets.

5) These statistics likely underestimate the actual proportion of the population that participates in CNM and polyamory.

So when you picture what both polyamory and CNM looks like by the numbers, don’t let your mind default to the demographic pop media presents as the “norm.” Instead, walk confidently forward knowing that the individuals who are a part of the polyamory and CNM community are as diverse as the people in a New York subway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>