Trainee Prize in Counselling Psychology 2009 (Runner-up)

Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex:

A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature
Kristoff Bonello

Background and objectives: The issue of gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex has challenged
heteronormative relationship conventions for decades and controversial research findings have been widely
cited. This paper reviews a small but meaningful body of theoretical propositions and empirical evidence
that looks at monogamy and nonmonogamy in male couples and the functions of extra-dyadic sex.
Method: Papers were retrieved through searches in a range of sources and were sifted for relevance to this
review. Data were synthesised using meta-ethnographic procedures (Noblit & Hare, 1988) in order to
provide an interpretative representation of the literature. Critical appraisal of the literature is given
throughout and a discussion of the implications for psychotherapeutic practice is also presented.
Recommendations for future research are formulated in conclusion.
Results: Most couples established non-monogamous relationships for reasons of sexual variety and were
equally adjusted and functional as their monogamous counterparts. Non-monogamy in gay-male couples
does not inevitably conflate with relationship dissatisfaction in such dyads. Monogamy was sustainable for
many but not for others who broke their original agreements. The sparse coverage of LGB issues in the
literature coupled with the shortage of robust empirical evidence on gay male coupledom signals psychologys
need to address this area further in its research.

S SEXUAL NON-MONOGAMY, adopted however, argued that non-monogamous gay

I by gay male couples, a sign of relationship

dysfunction? Sexual exclusivity in gay male
relationships, or the lack thereof, has been
subjected to polemical research findings for
decades. Whilst monogamy remains inextri-
cably equated with commitment, intimacy
and stability in most heterosexual relation-
ships (Reiss et al., 1980), sexual non-
monogamy in gay male couples has often
been depicted as a symptom of dyadic malad-
justment, dysfunction or pathology (Bell &
Weinberg, 1978; Peplau & Gordon, 1983).
Bowenian family theory holds that couples
who experience conflict and tension within
their relationships often seek out a third
person, e.g. a sexual partner, in order to
deflect anxiety. This, however, results in symp-
tomatic emotional triangles that are thought
to have adverse impacts on the couple (Kerr
& Bowen, 1988). Recent research has,
relationships are compatible with mental
health and equally conducive to satisfactory
and functional committed relationships
(Bonello & Cross, in press; LaSala, 2004a/b).
Over the years, evidence has consistently
shown that a sizeable majority of gay relation-
ships were sexually non-exclusive (Advocate
Sex Poll, 2002; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984).
It has been argued that men, in contrast to
women, are better able to separate sex from
emotion, in a process termed compartmental-
isation, and may, therefore, offer an explana-
tion for the large number of gay men who
establish sexually non-monogamous relation-
ships (Banfield & McCabe, 2001; Bonello &
Cross, in press; LaSala, 2004b, p.3).
Conversely, it has also been posited that some
gay men may not have adequate emotional
skills required to preserve long-term intimate
relationships (Brown, 1995) yet such a

Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009 51

The British Psychological Society ISSN 0269-6975
Kristoff Bonello
conclusion seems reliant on a position of
assumed isomorphism between heterosexual
and homosexual relationship structures
(Coyle & Kitzinger, 1995).
Most research conducted in the field of
gay relationships has notably been placed in
the context of the AIDS pandemic. Some
research has inferred that increases in
monogamy amongst gay couples were precip-
itated by a fear of HIV and, therefore, a
protective measure to preclude infection
(Berger, 1990). Other findings have contra-
dicted this position concluding that gay men
have not modified their relationship styles for
sexual health reasons (Davidovich et al., 2001;
Halkitis et al., 2004). There has been renewed
interest in the sexual behaviour of gay men in
recent years. Some authors have pointed out
that psychologys concern with gay sexual
behaviour has been linked to epidemiology
and thus increasingly focused on health
promotion and disease avoidance (e.g.
Flowers et al., 1999). Health psychology has
been at the forefront of such research and has
formulated theoretical foundations that are
derivative and based on in situ prevention
methods, sexual decision making and safe-sex
practices (Flowers et al., 1999). Gay men have
been found to be at higher risk of contracting
sexually transmitted diseases, e.g. HIV, due to
increased sexual contact with sero-unknown
and sero-discordant casual partners (Sigma,
2004). Such findings continue to drive world-
wide bans on blood donations from gay men,
the removal of which could increase transfu-
sion-transmission of HIV by 60 per cent in the
UK (Soldan & Sinka, 2003). Despite a need
for health promotion programmes aimed at
targeting high-risk groups, research has
shown that gay men who engage in casual sex
outwith the primary relationship often do so
after safe-sex practices are agreed within the
dyad (Bonello & Cross, in press; LaSala,
2004b). Such findings may, therefore, be
indicative of different sub-groups within gay
culture and possibly draw distinction between
those gay men in non-exclusive unions and
their single counterparts who might not be
similarly bound by safe-sex rules. However,
52 Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
other research has called into question the
democratisation of gay relationships which
were found to be wrought by silence rather
than honest communication about extra-
dyadic sexual activity (Worth, Reid &
McMillan, 2002). Research has shown that
sexual exclusivity is an issue some gay couples
struggle with at some point in their relation-
ships and its negotiation may possibly be a
source of conflict for some (Silverstein, 1981;
Greenan, 2003). This may account for the
disjunction between what is pledged and what
is actually honoured within some monoga-
mous couples.
Despite the extensive literature
evidencing few significant differences in
psychological functioning and adjustment
between heterosexual and homosexual indi-
viduals (e.g. Coyle, 1993; Gonsiorek, 1991;
Pillard, 1988), lesbian, gay and bisexual
(LGB) people have often been reported to
show higher than average rates of access to
psychotherapeutic services (Bell & Wein-
berg, 1978; Liddle, 1997; Morgan, 1992).
Relationship issues have been found to be a
high mental health concern for gay men,
and lesbian women, who sought therapy with
clinical psychologists (Murphy, Rawlings &
Howe, 2002) and disagreement over sexual
exclusivity was cited as a frequent presenting
problem in male couples (Greenan, 2003).
Furthermore, a recent randomised survey of
APA-member licensed psychologists who
treated LGB clients in the US (N=378) found
such clients to be a significant part of the
average caseload of these practitioners
(Murphy, Rawlings & Howe, 2002, p.187).
Such findings might, therefore, indicate the
importance for practitioners to have a
thorough understanding of gay relationship
structures in order to assist gay couples effec-
tively, yet extant literature raised concern
over psychologists knowledge and training
on LGB issues (cf. Division 44/Committee
on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns
Joint Task Force on Guidelines for
Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay and
Bisexual Clients, 2000). Psychologists atti-
tudes toward LGB populations continued to

improve and less practitioners viewed homo-
sexuality as pathological (Kilgore et al.,
2005). Notwithstanding, formal education in
LGB issues remained inadequate amongst
professionals and graduate trainees (Kilgore
et al., 2005; Murphy, Rawlings & Howe,
2002). Furthermore, it has also been found
that some psychologists refrained from
working with gay clients since they felt ethi-
cally compromised in light of insufficient
training and competence (Murphy, Rawlings
& Howe, 2002). Sexual satisfaction versus
staying sexually exclusive was one specific
issue that surveyed psychologists listed as an
area in which they required formal training
(Murphy, Rawlings & Howe, 2002, p.186). It
has also been evidenced that insufficient
knowledge and training on LGB issues
precipitates heterosexist bias amongst
mental health providers (Garnets et al.,
1991; Phillips, 2000) and may, therefore,
lead to the framing of gay relationships
within heterosexual models. It appears
evident that research investigating gay male
relationship styles is, therefore, of para-
mount importance. Research in this field
may help in avoiding harmful heterosexual
prescriptions that propagate poor practice in
therapies offered to LGB populations.
The focus of this review is on the theoret-
ical and empirical evidence pertaining to gay
male monogamy and extra-dyadic sex as
reported in the literature to date. It synthe-
sises the data from a small but meaningful
number of papers to provide a critical and
interpretative representation of the evidence.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to eval-
uate any of the broader issues outlined above
and it, therefore, does not review the litera-
ture pertaining to the sexual health of gay
men, psychologists competence and training
or the AIDS epidemic. The objective is to
answer the questions: (a) Is the sexual non-
monogamy adopted by gay male couples a sign of
relational dysfunction? (b) For what reasons do
gay men establish sexually non-exclusive unions?
and (c) How do monogamous and non-monoga-
mous couples compare on relationship quality and
psychological adjustment?
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
Method
Studies were located by undertaking
searches in a range of sources: PsychInfo,
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
Ovid Medline, reference lists, websites (e.g.
Google Scholar) and grey literature
sources. Searches yielded a vast amount of
abstracts pertaining to the broad search
terms applied (e.g. gay relationship; homo-
sexual; monogam, same-sex relationship;
extra-dyadic; casual sex; non-monogam;
sexual exclusives). These were then sifted for
relevance to the objectives of this review and
inclusion criteria were applied thus elimi-
nating those studies which focused on male
coupledom in the context of sexual health
or HIV infection (Attree, 2004). A total of
nine papers, published from 1985 onwards,
were selected and retrieved for inclusion in
this review (four empirical studies, four theo-
retical studies and one case-study). Table 1
summarises the main characteristics of the
reviewed studies.
Data from the empirical and theoretical
studies were synthesised using meta-ethno-
graphic methods (Noblit & Hare, 1988) in
order to construct an interpretative repre-
sentation of the evidence rather than an
aggregative map. Data synthesis, through
meta-ethnographic means, involves making
a whole into something more than the parts
alone imply (Noblit & Hare, 1988, p.28).
Synthesis was achieved by identifying and
comparing key themes and concepts across
the studies whilst retaining the authors orig-
inal terms and metaphors. This allowed for
the reciprocal translation of findings
(Noblit & Hare, 1988). The latter process
served to identify gay couples patterns of
relating, it documented the process by which
couples manage outside sex and it allowed
for the recognition of gaps in the evidence
(Attree, 2004).
Studies were critically evaluated for the
quality and robustness of their methods of
enquiry. This was done by following conven-
tional review guidelines as set out by the
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS
CRD, 2001). Unfortunately, there seems to
53
 Table 1: Summary of studies characteristics.

54
Adam (2006) Blasband & Greenan (2003) Kurdek & Schmitt Kurdek & Schmitt LaSala (2004a) LaSala (2004b) Worth, Reid & Yip (1997)
Peplau (1985) (1986a) (1986b) McMillan (2002)

Methodology Theoretical Empirical Case-Study Empirical Empirical Empirical Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical
Kristoff Bonello

Aim of Study To investigate Gay male Case-Study Comparing Relationship Comparing Exploration of gay To shed light on To determine how
male couples relationship styles, reporting clinical relationship quality of male relationship mens reasons for monogamy, trust sexual exclusivity
agreements of sex boundaries and work with a gay quality of couples in sexually quality of sexually non-monogamy and sexual is defined by gay
outside the quality differences couple negotiating Heterosexual exclusive and non- monogamous and and its effects on behaviour in gay male couples
primary between open and sexual exclusivity Married, exclusive unions non-monogamous the primary male couples
relationship closed Heterosexual male couples relationship
relationships Cohabiting and
Gay and Lesbian
Relationships

Sample no 70 80 1 couple 185 132 121 65 20 60

Ages (Mean = 34) (Median = 31) Early 30s Individual group- (Mean = 33.92) (Mean = 43; (Mean = 43; (Mean = 36) (Mean = 42.9)
means reported SD =11.26) SD = 11.65)

Data Interviews Questionnaires Case-Study Questionnaires Questionnaires Questionnaires In-depth In-depth Semi-structured
Interviews Interviews Interviews

Measures None Love Scale (Rubin, None Symptom Checklist Dyadic Adjustment Dyadic Adjustment None None None
1973); Self-Rating 90 (Derogatis, Scales (Spanier, Scales (Spanier,
Scales 1977); 1976); Love/Liking 1976, 1989)
Relationship Scales (Rubin,
Beliefs Inventory 1970)
(Eidelson &
Epstein, 1982);
others

Outcomes Monogamy No significant Recommendations No differences in Groups equivalent No significant Non-monogamous Monogamous Inconsistencies
common amongst differences in for clinical work psychological on demographics; differences in couples found to relationships between
younger gay men relationship with gay couples adjustment Open couples lived relationship be compatible marked by expectational and
or men new to quality between experiencing between all groups together longer quality between with functional infidelity anxieties behavioural
relationships open and closed relationship than closed open and closed relating exclusivity
couples conflict around couples; No couples
exclusivity differences in
psych. adjustment

Context Canada USA USA USA USA USA USA New Zealand United Kingdom

Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009


be no scientific consensus over what consti-
tutes good qualitative research (Sandelowski
et al., 1997). For the purpose of this review,
qualitative papers were appraised using
earlier developed protocols of assessment for
such studies (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1992;
Mays & Pope, 2000; Popay et al., 1998).
This paper will first report on the synthe-
sised findings of monogamous couples which
will be followed by those of open couples as
well as comparative findings between these
groups. A discussion of the appraisal of all
the reviewed papers and a concluding discus-
sion will be presented thereafter.
Gay monogamous couples:
Beliefs and values
Cultural ideals and historical norms have
endorsed sexual exclusivity, and rejected
non-monogamy, amongst heterosexuals for
many decades (Reiss, 1980). However, it has
long been argued that gay men do not share
similar historical and cultural baggage, the
absence of which has led gay couples to
construct their own unique relationships
using a trial-and-error approach (Harry &
DeVall, 1978). Notwithstanding, as is evident
in the reviewed studies, it would be a mistake
to assume that all gay men enter sexually
non-exclusive unions or that indeed their
monogamous relationships are destined to
fail. In all the synthesised studies some gay
men were found to establish monogamous
relationships which were largely described as
rewarding, lasting and successful. Mono-
gamy was sustainable for most but not for
others who eventually agreed to open up
their relationships to outside sex (Blasband
& Peplau, 1985) or who had broken their
original agreements (LaSala, 2004a/b).
Settling for monogamy
The topic of intimacy, fidelity and trust was
central to gay mens perceptions of a
committed relationship which was distinctly
equated with sexual exclusivity. The men in
these studies established the ground rule of
monogamy from the outset of their relation-
ships and associated the transgression of
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
sexual exclusivity with infidelity or
cheating. Monogamy was openly discussed
and agreed on by most couples yet some
men were reported to have merely acqui-
esced to their partners requests. Two studies
(e.g. Adam, 2006; LaSala, 2004b) found
some gay mens choice of monogamy to be
based on the heterosexual models of relating
in which they were socialised during their
formative years and with which they closely
identified. For example:
Its monogamous and its a trust thing
and its off limits. You know my parents
are married for 35, I dont know, 40 years
or whatever and my mom still looks at
guys and my dad still looks at women and
its just, its off limits.
(Adam, 2006, p.11)
Well I wanted someone special to share
my life with, one person to be with, share
happy times, sad times, grow old
together. [Monogamy] is a natural thing.
If youre sharing your life with one
person, its natural. Its a physical
commitment as well as emotional.
(LaSala, 2004b, p.7)
However, LaSala (2004b) found that some
gay men recognised a propensity for jealousy
within themselves which appeared to moti-
vate these men toward monogamy. These
findings also accord with empirical findings
that demonstrated jealousy to be a
common reason for the choice of exclusive-
ness (cf. Blasband & Peplau, 1985). Other
couples settled on monogamy for fears that
their sexual health might be compromised
by outside sex (LaSala, 2004b) yet such
concern did not preclude others from
discarding monogamy scripts altogether,
which is discussed in the section on non-
exclusive couples. Empirical evidence across
all the studies showed that frequencies of
couples who self-identified as sexually
monogamous were comparable to those who
were non-monogamous. However, some of
the men who agreed on monogamy had
broken their agreements by having outside
sex at least once (LaSala, 2004a; Yip, 1997).
In this regard, the latter men who broke
55
Kristoff Bonello
their agreements might constitute a
different sub-group within monogamous
couples. Unfortunately, as discussed later,
some empirical studies failed to control for
this subgroup in their statistical analyses
when comparing open and closed couples
on several variables (e.g. Blasband & Peplau,
1985; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986b). Further-
more, one study, which indicated 52.9 per
cent of the sample (N=60) to be behav-
iourally exclusive (Yip, 1997), sampled gay
men solely from Christian movements. Such
men may have, therefore, been more likely
to uphold conservative sexual ethics than the
men in the other studies which failed to
report on religious affiliation. For example:
Christians should really stick with one
partner Its something that affects who
we are and the people we grow into. It
has something to do with the fact that we
are made in Gods image and that we are
capable of faithfulness.
(Yip, 1997, p.294)
Dyadic communication and trust
Reading across the studies a theme of uncer-
tainty and underlying distrust about pre-
established monogamy emerged. Some men
were found to be in relationships charac-
terised by anxieties over whether sexual
exclusivity was in fact sustainable over time
(e.g. Worth, Reid & McMillan, 2002). In this
regard, despite that monogamy was agreed
between the dyads, some men doubted
whether their partners were in fact
upholding their agreements or whether they
themselves were happy to remain sexually
exclusive. Moreover, it appeared that these
men were reluctant to initiate communica-
tion about the possibility of opening up the
relationship to outside sex since they feared
their partners would terminate the relation-
ship. Such findings seem to infer that some
male couples, who establish monogamy at
the outset of their unions, begin to progress
toward seeking outside sexual contact due to
their innate desire for sexual variety. This
theoretical discourse has been proposed by
several investigators in the past (e.g. Saghir
56 Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
& Robins, 1973; Warren, 1974) but empirical
evidence over the last 20 years has contra-
dicted such a trend (Blasband & Peplau,
1985; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986b; LaSala,
2004a; Yip, 1997).
I also know, being a man myself, that I
have to try really hard not to have sex
outside the relationship. I have a real
need to do that sometimes Its a reality
of being sexual people, sexual beings.
(Worth, Reid & McMillan, 2002, p.247).
At times we all, and I think this also
applies to heterosexual couples, have a
mutual sexual attraction with someone
other than your lover. It is nice to have
the attention, to have a conquest to boost
ones self-esteem and just have sex with
someone new.
(Blasband & Peplau, 1985, p.403)
Despite that some men experienced diffi-
culty in initiating discussions with their part-
ners around boundary renegotiation it
seemed their unhappiness with monogamy
did not inhibit them from secretively
breaking their original agreements (Adam,
2006; LaSala, 2004b; Worth, Reid &
McMillan, 2002). However, the reported
dissatisfaction was not associated with the sex
they had with their primary partner but was
related to the issue of sexual exclusivity
(LaSala, 2004b).
Im actually trying to work out staying
monogamous with him as much as I can
I would like to be monogamous. I have
sex outside the relationship even though
I havent told him I sort of understood
that he doesnt want to know anything
about any details.
(Adam, 2006, p.13)
Not all monogamous relationships were
marked by infidelity anxieties, underlying
distrust and secretiveness (Worth, Reid &
McMillan, 2002, p.237). Other monogamous
couples in the reviewed studies were not
reported to experience conflict over sexual
exclusivity but maintained satisfactory
committed relationships over time (Adam,
2006; Kurdek & Schmitt 1986a/b; LaSala,
2004a/b; Yip, 2006). However, it should be

noted that that all qualitative studies in this
review utilised convenience samples which
might signify that couples who experienced
dyadic conflict, at the time the studies were
in progress, could have self-selected out.
Equally, those not experiencing conflict
could have self-selected in thus over-repre-
senting that sub-group. However, the empir-
ical research carried out by Blasband &
Peplau (1985) found consistency between
partners agreements about sexual exclu-
sivity and their actual behaviour (p.407).
These findings were later contradicted by
Yip (1997).
From all the synthesised studies it
appears that monogamy within gay relation-
ships can be a sustainable option for some
couples over time. Notwithstanding, this may
not be the case for others who prize sexual
variety. These men faced communication
barriers around boundary re-negotiation for
fears of losing their partners. It should be
noted that the latter men were not seeking
to terminate their relationships to which
they were emotionally committed.
Non-monogamous gay couples:
Emotional fidelity vs. sexual exclusivity
In all the synthesised studies many couples
had mutually agreed to be sexually non-
exclusive. Unlike their monogamous coun-
terparts, these men generally disassociated
outside sex from infidelity and articulated a
need for emotional monogamy within their
relationships (Adam, 2006; LaSala, 2004b;
Yip, 1997). In this regard, outside sex was not
perceived as an act of cheating or a threat
to the dyad but, to the contrary, it reinforced
dyadic commitment in some couples
(LaSala, 2004b). Most men described a pref-
erence for sexual variety, personal freedom
and egalitarianism in their relationships and
explained their ability to avoid becoming
emotionally involved with casual partners
(Blasband & Peplau, 1985; LaSala, 2004b;
Yip, 2007). Such findings seem to concur
with theories purporting men to have a
propensity for compartmentalisation and
hence to seek out extra-marital encounters
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
for reasons of sexual pleasure rather than
emotional bonding (Banfield & McCabe,
2001; Townsend, 1995). Central to these
mens stories across the studies was the clear
distinction between recreational sex and
emotional commitment. The evidence
showed that sexual variety and the avoidance
of possessiveness over ones partner were
important themes in the choice of non-
monogamy which did not detract from their
feelings for their partners (Blasband &
Peplau, 1985). For example:
It enables us to be mostly monogamous
by choice, to preserve feelings of
autonomy and personal freedom along
with commitment. It maintains
perspective e.g. I just love him, I dont
own him!
(Blasband & Peplau, 1985, p.403)
The fact that I have sex outside the
relationship and he may or may not have
sex outside the relationship, in absolutely
no way takes away from the fact that we
are completely and totally committed to
each other and totally in love and we will
spend the rest of our lives together and
we both know it I consider sex outside
the relationship to be completely, 100
per cent recreational.
(Adam, 2006, p.19)
LaSala (2004b) also found that 10 of his sub-
sample of non-monogamous men (N=28)
viewed non-exclusivity as having both posi-
tive and negative effects on the primary rela-
tionship, the latter effects being jealousy.
Moreover, most men in this study experi-
enced positive impacts on their relation-
ships, e.g. improved sex life, which is
discussed shortly.
Rules and boundaries in non-monogamous
couples: Protecting the primary relationship
So how do gay couples who endorse extra-
dyadic sex manage their relationships? Across
all studies it was invariably reported that
these men had established clear rules and
boundaries that regulated outside sex in
regard to health and emotional commit-
ment. Most couples had agreements
57
Kristoff Bonello
regarding the practice of safe-sex with
outside partners in order to prevent the
cross-transmission of disease and, ultimately,
to protect the dyad (LaSala, 2004b). Safe-sex
signified the use of prophylactics when
engaging in anal intercourse with casual part-
ners or complete abstinence from this form
of sex. Unprotected oral sex was not reported
to be of concern in any of the studies.
Furthermore, jealousy still permeated some
mutually agreed non-exclusive unions
(Adam, 2006; LaSala, 2004b) but further
boundaries were developed to assuage such
feelings. Common amongst some gay men
was the agreement to circumscribe outside
sex through the practice of threesomes only
and, therefore, individual encounters with
others were proscribed (Adam, 2006; LaSala,
2004b). In this regard, outside sex was only
allowed when a third person was invited to
join the dyad. Moreover, some men had
further prescripts in place to avoid both
displacing the other partner and the forma-
tion of triads, e.g. not bringing casual part-
ners into the couples home or not using the
couples bed with them (Adam, 2006). Such
boundaries served to uphold partner primacy
and to preclude the formation of emotional
bonds with others, a key factor for non-exclu-
sive couples.
Most men in these studies reported
outside sex to have positive effects on the
primary relationship with particular refer-
ence made to the couples sex life (Blasband
& Peplau, 1985; LaSala, 2004b). For
example:
Generally, its always been a pretty
positive area, simply because after every
person we have sex [with] outside the
relationship, we always realise the sex we
have with each other is better we
always come to the conclusion that the
sex between us is always better.
(LaSala, 2004b, p.14)
I meet lots of new people. I learn a lot
about myself. I get fantasy material so
when I have sex with my lover, it is better
than it would otherwise be.
(Blasband & Peplau, 1985, p.403)
58 Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
As reported earlier, gay men who were non-
monogamous were able to cognitively sepa-
rate outside sex from their emotions. The
primary function of this compartmentalisa-
tion was described as a way of protecting the
couples relationship and hence avoiding
what Bowenian family therapists termed
troublesome emotional triangles (Kerr &
Bowen, 1988; Yip, 1997).
We are both very sensitive to the threat of
other men forming emotional bonds
with us that we neither invite nor want
If a [an outside] partner makes
statements that indicate the development
of an unwanted emotional bond, we cool
off sexual activity with that guy.
(LaSala, 2004b, p.13)
However, pragmatic rules were also devel-
oped to complement their cognitive efforts.
In this regard, non-exclusive couples who
engaged with casual partners individually
(e.g. anonymous sex and visiting sex clubs)
delimited their encounters by establishing
sexual curfews, for example, not engaging
with the same partner twice, avoiding
extended periods of contact, not engaging
socially with a sexual partner and always
returning home rather than spending the
night away (Adam, 2006; LaSala, 2004b).
The overall theme emergent from the
synthesised studies suggests that whilst many
gay men prized sexual variety, emotional
commitment was a fundamental principle of
their relationships which they valued and
affirmed. For most men, the need for sexual
openness was not about unhappiness with
their primary relationship but a preference
for sexual experimentation with others.
Notwithstanding, these findings should not
be assumed to apply to all male couples who
seek outside sex. As reported earlier, some
men merely acquiesced to their partners
request for an open relationship. Some men
may be reluctant to oppose their partners,
in order to avoid conflict or relationship
dissolution, and therefore such reticence
could be a sign of power imbalances within
the couple (cf. Case-Study by Greenan,
2003). Furthermore, outside sex may also be

a manifest symptom of emotional disconnec-
tion or a fear of intimacy, by one or both
partners, i.e. a defence. Such defensive
behaviour, although not overtly evident in
the reviewed theoretical and empirical
evidence, has, however, been documented in
clinical populations (Greenan, 2003).
Psychological adjustment, relationship
satisfaction and longevity
Comparing monogamous and non-monogamous
The shortage of published empirical
research comparing monogamous and non-
monogamous couples renders a discussion
on differential variables between these
groups limited. To date, the available
evidence reviewed in this paper has
suggested no significant differences between
open and closed male couples on demo-
graphic characteristics (Blasband & Peplau,
1985; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986b; LaSala,
2006a). Such findings demonstrated that
demographic factors (e.g. age, income, and
education) do not prescribe the type of rela-
tionship into which gay men enter, whether
open or closed. However, recurrent across
the studies was a lack of important demo-
graphic information reported (e.g. ethnicity,
religious affiliation and religiosity), the
implications of which are discussed shortly.
Research conducted in the 1980s found
comparable levels of relationship quality
between sexually exclusive and non-exclusive
male couples (Blasband & Peplau, 1985) but
Kurdek and Schmitt (1986b) concluded that
monogamous couples reported higher levels
of relationship quality than their open coun-
terparts. When gay couples were compared
to lesbian couples and to heterosexual
married couples no differences were found
on relationship quality (Kurdek & Schmitt,
1986a). However, the latter study failed to
include non-monogamous gay couples in its
sample. Furthermore, empirical evidence, 20
years on, suggested male couples in both
relationship types to enjoy comparable levels
of relationship quality (LaSala, 2004a).
Empirical research has not demonstrated
any significant differences in overall rela-
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
tionship satisfaction (Blasband & Peplau,
1985) and psychological adjustment (Blas-
band & Peplau, 1985; Kurdek & Schmitt,
1986b) between open and closed male
couples, or between monogamous gay
couples and heterosexual married couples
(Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986a). However, intra-
couple comparisons from one study
suggested that those men who originally
pledged monogamy but subsequently broke
their agreements were less adjusted and
satisfied than the couples who remained
monogamous or who had discussed outside
sex (LaSala, 2004a, p.405). Such findings,
based on very small sub-sample sizes (N=4),
should, however, be interpreted with caution
despite that instruments with sound psycho-
metric properties were reportedly used
(LaSala, 2004a). Furthermore, Yip (1997)
concluded that couples who were expecta-
tionally and behaviourally monogamous
showed higher levels of relationship satisfac-
tion than those who were sexually non-exclu-
sive. Such conclusions were drawn from a
self-report measure requiring participants to
rate their levels of satisfaction. Absent,
however, was any discussion of the reliability
and validity of this measure and, therefore,
these results remain inconclusive.
All studies reported on relationship dura-
tion in the demographic information they
provided. Furthermore, three of the four
empirical studies carried out statistical
analyses that compared relationship dura-
tions between monogamous and non-
monogamous couples. One study reported
that open couples lived together for longer
than those who were in sexually exclusive
unions (Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986b). In Blas-
band & Peplaus (1985) study, no significant
differences in length of relationships were
found between these two groups. However,
as the latter authors themselves acknowl-
edged, the men in monogamous relation-
ships were more likely to engage in
extra-dyadic sex the longer their relation-
ships lasted. Unfortunately, no statistical
analysis controlling for this subgroup was
provided and, therefore, it remains unclear
59
Kristoff Bonello
whether their findings of no differences are
as accurate as purported. LaSalas (2004a)
findings were consistent with those of Blas-
band & Peplau (1985) thus concluding that
no significant differences were found in rela-
tionship duration between open and closed
couples. Again, since broken agreement
couples were not statistically controlled for
on measures of relationship duration, it is
unclear whether exclusive couples are truly
comparable to open couples in this regard.
In light of these divergent findings and the
lack of robust empirical research, a clear
picture of how relationship duration is
related to sexual exclusivity remains elusive.
Summary of studies samples, methods
and measures
This section discusses the quality of the empir-
ical and theoretical studies reviewed in terms
of their samples, methods and measures.
Summary of studies samples
Some of the studies authors have argued
that obtaining genuine random samples of
gay men is virtually impossible. This argu-
ment has been put forward by many scholars
in the past particularly since this group
represents a partially hidden community
(Flowers, et al., 1999; Morin, 1977). Notwith-
standing, the issue of sample bias merits
attention. None of the reviewed studies
made use of randomised samples which was
generally acknowledged by investigators. It
should be noted that most studies attracted
relatively small homogenous samples which
were predominantly composed of affluent
white men who may, therefore, not be repre-
sentative of the diversity amongst gay men.
Unfortunately, only half of the studies
reported on ethnicity, by providing percent-
ages or numbers, and just two studies
reported on the religious denominations of
their participants. Ethnicity may impact on
how gay men value openness and exclusivity
in their relationships (Wagner et al., 2000)
and, therefore, the absence of such demo-
graphic information precludes any broader
interpretation of those findings to gay
60 Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
couples in wider LGB populations. All
studies, however, addressed the ages of their
participants by reporting a mean or a
median. Two, also provided standard devia-
tions (LaSala, 2004a/b). Sample sizes across
the empirical studies were generally very
small. This, therefore, restricted further
analyses when different sub-groups were
identified within the main sample pool. For
example, when analyses of monogamous
couples revealed that some men broke their
agreements by engaging in extra-dyadic sex
(LaSala, 2004a), these men comprised very
small sub-sample sizes (e.g. N=4). As a result,
these small groups rendered further analysis
a difficult feat and their results inconclusive
or possibly unreliable.
Although the generalisability of findings
from the synthesised studies is of limited
utility, they may still be of scientific and
clinical value to those researching or
assisting gay men.
Summary of studies methods
All theoretical studies utilised structured or
semi-structured interviews as a data collec-
tion method. A discussion of the interview
protocols used was mostly omitted except for
two studies which briefly mentioned the
topics addressed (e.g. LaSala, 2004b; Yip,
1997). Moreover, further methodological
limitations were identified owing to a lack of
transparency over the procedures used in
the studies analytic strategies. Of the four
theoretical papers, only one discussed how
the data were analysed and the steps taken to
counteract researcher bias, for example, the
use of validation methods (LaSala, 2004b).
The remainder either failed to address data
analysis altogether or provided very limited
information. For example, Adam (2006)
merely stated that transcribed data were
organised using QSR N6 software. When
conducting qualitative research it is essential
that authors provide sufficient information
about their data analytic procedures in order
for their readers to evaluate the quality of
their findings. In the absence of this infor-
mation it is impossible to discern how

authors have moved from data to interpreta-
tion (Popay et al., 1998). Furthermore, when
considering that researcher bias is a widely
held criticism of qualitative research
(Henwood & Pidgeon, 1992) the impor-
tance of investigator reflexivity is paramount.
Only one study (LaSala, 2004b) included a
reflexive statement that allowed its reader-
ship to frame the authors position in rela-
tion to the study.
Summary of studies measures
The reviewed empirical studies assessed
participants on several variables including
relationship quality, relationship satisfaction
and psychological adjustment. Statistical
analyses were carried out to compare open
and closed couples on these variables. All the
studies generally made use of standardised
measures that had sound psychometric prop-
erties whilst some also used instruments that
were constructed by the investigators them-
selves (e.g. Blasband & Peplau, 1985; Kurdek
& Schmitt, 1986b). LaSala (2004a) assessed
participants on relationship quality using the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), developed
by Spanier (1976), and reported on its
psychometric integrity, for example, excel-
lent internal consistency (=.91). However,
no mention of this instruments validity was
made. The DAS was also used in other
studies, e.g. Kurdek & Schmitt (1986a/b).
Furthermore, Blasband & Peplau (1985)
used Rubins (1973) Love Scale, which has
well established reliability, and also used a
self-rating scale. Again, no discussion of the
validity of either of these measures was
presented.
One theoretical paper, reported meas-
uring differences in relationship satisfaction
between closed and open couples (Yip,
1997). As aforementioned, a self-report
measure was administered to the sample in
order to assess relationship satisfaction. This
instrument asked participants to rate their
level of satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10.
Unfortunately, he does not report on the
reliability and validity of this instrument and
a very small sample size was used (N=30).
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
Discussion and implications for
psychotherapeutic practice and
research
Perhaps one of the most striking conclusions
that can be drawn from the reviewed studies
is the rich variety of relationship configura-
tions that gay men construct. Although, at
the surface, outside sex in committed rela-
tionships might generate doubt as to
whether such unions are sustainable,
reviewing the scientific evidence reveals the
complex processes that operate within the
infrastructures of some gay relationships.
Irrespective of relationship type, whether
open or closed, a common goal for these
men was to maintain functional and
committed unions over time rather than
entering multiple cursory relationships. It
would therefore be premature to assume
that sexually non-monogamous couples
maintain dysfunctional or unsatisfactory
relationships, as has been reported (Bell &
Weinberg, 1978; Saghir & Robins, 1973).
Contrary to what Bowenian family theory
purports about couple conflict and resultant
emotional triangles (Kerr & Bowen, 1988),
the open couples in these studies prized
partner primacy and upheld emotional
commitment. Several studies have shown that
the presence of outside sex does not auto-
matically result in depleted relationships but
reinforces dyadic commitment in some
(LaSala, 2004a/b). As discussed in the intro-
duction of this review, men are able to cogni-
tively separate sex from love (LaSala, 2004b,
p.3). Recurrent across all the synthesised
studies was the distinction made between
recreational sex and emotional fidelity by
open couples. In this respect, it appears
evident that extra-dyadic sex seems to
comprise a fundamental constituent of some
successful unions. Furthermore, the theoret-
ical studies reporting directly from gay
couples experiences may lend important
information to those assisting gay couples.
For example, an understanding of the intri-
cate processes these men adopt in managing
outside sex effectively, such as boundary affir-
mation and emotional monogamy, could be
61
Kristoff Bonello
of valuable help. Whilst the findings in this
review might challenge heteronormative
relationship conventions, it would be
prudent to consider that the core values
which these men espouse often differ from
most heterosexuals beliefs about what a rela-
tionship or marriage should, or should not,
constitute. As a result, mental health
providers might need to consider and assimi-
late such findings in their work with this
group. Furthermore, empirical evidence,
although mostly limited and dated, has
suggested comparable relationship satisfac-
tion and psychological adjustment between
open and closed gay couples and also
between male couples and their heterosexual
counterparts (Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986a/b;
LaSala, 2004a). Again, these findings suggest
no evidence that sexually non-exclusive gay
relationships are unsustainable.
Although it is clear that some couples
adopt and manage monogamy scripts
successfully, it is also evident that others
experience difficulty with sexual exclusive-
ness over time. Despite that the evidence
reviewed herein contradicts earlier reported
trends of natural progression from exclu-
sivity to openness, some couples demon-
strably become unhappy and unsatisfied with
their original agreements (Worth, Reid &
McMillan, 2002). Through the synthesis of
several theoretical studies, we can learn of
the micro-dynamics that furnish such diffi-
culties rather than drawing blanket conclu-
sions of dysfunction. As the studies have
shown, communication barriers were largely
responsible for these mens difficulties whilst
their emotional commitment was not
afflicted by the desire for outside sex
(LaSala, 2004b). Interpreting the aforemen-
tioned difficulty of staying exclusive through
heterosexual models of relating may serve to
diagnose underlying dysfunction or, at worst,
even pathology. However, when drawing on
the available evidence from their non-exclu-
sive counterparts it is evident that non-
monogamy does not automatically conflate
with dysfunction. It is this confluence,
prompted by heterosexist bias and igno-
62 Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
rance, that may propagate poor practice in
therapies with gay couples. These findings
may, therefore, point to the importance for
therapists to facilitate dyadic communication
when male couples present with problems
around monogamy. However, notwith-
standing this evidence, gay men are not
asymptomatic of, or immune to, underlying
emotional difficulties. It is clear, from
clinical populations, that for some men the
difficulty with staying sexually exclusive may
be related to deeper self-issues such as a fear
of intimacy or abandonment (Greenan,
2003). The exploration of such possibilities
in a helping setting should, therefore,
neither be ignored nor hastily labelled as
heterosexist bias. Rather, what seems
important, owing to gay mens variety of rela-
tionship styles, is practitioners flexibility and
openness to both monogamy and non-
monogamy as a therapeutic option.
There are limitations to this review. The
generalisability of the empirical evidence is
largely limited due to the non-random
sampling procedures adopted by the studies.
Although obtaining this type of sample when
studying gay populations is difficult, some-
times prohibitively so, several measures can
be taken by future studies to increase the
generalisability of their findings. Firstly, the
collection of more encompassing demo-
graphic information would be of help in
extending interpretation to other LGB
populations. None of the reviewed studies
directly investigated how ethnicity and/or
religious affiliation affects the type of rela-
tionship into which gay men enter. Research
in this area, both empirical and theoretical,
is needed and may shed light on the cultural
contexts in which these men function.
Secondly, the use of significantly larger
sample sizes would improve the quality of
results and would also be more permissive of
sub-sample analyses when these are
required. Furthermore, most theoretical
papers, which explored important aspects of
male couples, were methodologically flawed
often owing to a lack of transparency in the
reporting of their analytic procedures.

Qualitative studies with optimum designs
and robust methodologies are much
needed. Despite these limitations, the
authors of these studies should be
applauded for their groundbreaking work in
this under-researched area of gay male
coupledom.
The shortage of empirical and theoret-
ical studies investigating gay relationship
patterns and processes indicates
Psychologys need to address this area
further than it has. Most of the available
empirical research originated from the US
and is mostly dated. On the other hand,
research carried out in the UK has been
largely focused on the sexual health and
safe-sex practices of gay men (Flowers,
1999). It has been clear for many years that
the question of functional vs. dysfunctional
has been adequately answered and, there-
fore, research that transcends both singular
and dichotomous representations of gay
experience is overdue. To date, many impor-
tant questions remain unanswered. We still
do not know much of how gay couples in the
UK establish relationships and how these
advance over time. Empirical and theoretical
evidence in this regard is both necessary and
timely owing to the current political climate
of civil partnerships and adoption laws. Also,
cross-cultural studies that look at gay mens
relationship patterns are largely unavailable
or otherwise limited to the demographic
information embedded within other studies.
Furthermore, it would also be interesting to
see sound research designs that compare gay
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
relationships in rural areas to those in
urbanised settings where sexual opportuni-
ties are comparatively plentiful and easily
accessible (Bonello & Cross, in press).
Finally, studies that investigate psychologists
attitudes, training and therapeutic
approaches to LGB clients in the UK remain
mostly absent.
The psychology profession espouses to
examine human behaviour and experience
across all of its diversity. However, the sparse
coverage of LGB issues in non-specialist
journals continues to neglect the gaps in
knowledge about this group. Such a paucity
in the psychological literature therefore
questions the commitment of the profession
in this regard.
Acknowledgement
Sincere thanks to Malcolm C. Cross, PhD
(Reader in Psychology, City University), for
supervising this work.
The author
Kristoff Bonello, DPsych, is a Chartered
Counselling Psychologist working in the
NHS.
Correspondence
Dr Kristoff Bonello
Department of Psychology,
City University,
Northampton Square,
London EC1V 0HB.
E-mail: fotsirk@btinternet.com
63
Kristoff Bonello
References
Adam, B.D. (2006). Relationship innovation in male
couples. Sexualities, 9(1), 526.
Attree, P. (2004). Growing up in disadvantage.
A systematic review of the qualitative evidence.
Child: Care, Health and Development, 30(6),
679689.
The Advocate Sex Poll. (2002, 20 August).
The Advocate, 869/870, 2843.
Banfield, S. & McCabe, M.P. (2001). Extra relation-
ship involvement among women: Are they
different from men? Archives of Sexual Behaviour,
30, 110142.
Bell, A.P. & Weinberg, M.S. (1978). Homosexualities:
A study of diversity among men and women. London:
Mitchell Beazley.
Berger, R.M. (1990). Men together: Understanding
the gay couple. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(3),
3049.
Blasband, D. & Peplau, L.A. (1985). Sexual
exclusivity versus openness in gay male couples.
Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 14, 395412.
Bonello, K. & Cross, M.C. (in press). Gay monogamy:
I love you but I cant have sex with only you.
Journal of Homosexuality.
Brown, L. (1995). Therapy with same-sex couples:
An introduction. In N.S. Jacobson & A.S.
Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy
(pp.274291). New York: Guilford Press.
Coyle, A. (1993). A study of psychological well-being
among gay men using the GHQ-30. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 32, 218220.
Coyle, A. & Kitzinger, C. (1995). Lesbian and gay
couples: Speaking of difference. The Psychologist,
8(2), 6469.
Davidovich, U., de Witt, J., Albrecht, N., Geskus, R.,
Stroebe, W. & Coutinho, R. (2001). Increase in
the share of steady partners as a source of HIV
infection: A 17-year study of seroconversion
among younger and older gay men. AIDS, 15,
13031308.
Derogatis, L.R. (1977). SCL: Administration, scoring,
and procedures manual for the revised version.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University School
of Medicine.
Division 44/Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Concerns Joint Task Force on
Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay,
and Bisexual Clients (2000). Guidelines for
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual
clients. American Psychologist, 55, 14401451.
Eidelson, R.J. & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and
relationship maladjustment: Development of a
measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50,
715720.
64 Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Flowers, P., Hart, G. & Marriott, C. (1999).
Constructing sexual health: Gay men and risk
in the context of a public sex environment.
Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 483495.
Garnets, L., Hancock, K.A., Cochran, S.D.,
Goodchilds, J. & Peplau, L.A. (1991). Issues in
psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men:
A survey of psychologists. American Psychologist,
46, 964974.
Gonsiorek, J. (1991). The empirical basis for the
demise of the illness model of homosexuality.
In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homo-
sexuality: Research implications for public policy
(pp.15136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenan, D. (2003). Do open relationships work?
Gay couples and the question of monogamy.
Psychotherapy Networker: Washington. Retrieved
10 May 2007, from:
www.psychotherapynetworker.org
Halkitis, T., Zade, D., Shrem, M. & Marmor, M.
(2004). Beliefs about HIV non-infection and
risky sexual behaviour among MSM. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 16, 448458.
Harry, J. & DeVall, W.B. (1978). The social organisation
of gay males. New York: Praeger.
Henwood, K.L. & Pidgeon, N.F. (1992). Qualitative
research and psychological theorising. British
Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 97112.
Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation:
An approach based on Bowen theory. New York:
Norton.
Kilgore, H., Sideman, L., Amin, K., Baca, L. &
Bohanske, B. (2005). Psychologists attitudes and
therapeutic approaches toward gay, lesbian and
bisexual issues continue to improve: An update.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
42(3), 395400.
Kurdek, L.A. & Schmitt, J.P. (1986a). Relationship
quality of partners in heterosexual married,
heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 711720.
Kurdek, L.A. & Schmitt, J.P. (1986b). Relationship
quality of gay men in closed or open
relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 8599.
LaSala, M.C. (2004a). Extra-dyadic sex and gay male
couples: Comparing monogamous and non-
monogamous relationships. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 85,
405412.
LaSala, M.C. (2004b). Monogamy of the heart: Extra-
dyadic sex and gay male couples. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Social Services, 15, 124.
Liddle, B.J. (1997). Gay and lesbian clients selection
of therapists and utilisation of therapy.
Psychotherapy, 34, 1118.

Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in
qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 330,
5052.
McWhirter, D.P. & Mattison, A.M. (1984). The male
couple: How relationships develop. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morgan, K.S. (1992). Caucasian lesbians use of
psychotherapy: A matter of attitude? Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 16, 127130.
Morin, S.F. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psycho-
logical research on lesbianism and male
homosexuality. American Psychologist, 32, 629637.
Murphy, J.A., Rawlings, E.I. & Howe, SR. (2002).
A survey of clinical psychologists treating lesbian,
gay and bisexual clients. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 33(2), 183189.
NHS CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination)
(2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research
effectiveness: CRDs guidance for those carrying out or
commissioning reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews
and Dissemination. York University.
Noblit, G.W. & Hare, R.D. (1988). Meta-ethnography:
Synthesising qualitative studies. London: Sage
Publications.
Peplau, L.A. & Gordon, S.L. (1983). The intimate
relationships of lesbian and gay men. In E.R.
Allegier & N.B. McCormick (Eds.), Changing
boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behaviour.
Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Phillips, J.C. (2000). Training issues and
considerations. In R.M. Perez, K.A. DeBord &
K.J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counselling and
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients
(pp.337358). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Pillard, R. (1988). Sexual orientation and mental
disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 18, 5156.
Popay, J., Rogers, A. & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale
and standards for the systematic review of
qualitative literature in health services research.
Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341351.
Reiss, I.L., Anderson, R.E. & Sponaugle, G.C. (1980).
A multivariate model of determinants of extra-
marital permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 395411.
Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4, November 2009
Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
104117.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to
social psychology. New York: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston.
Saghir, M.T. & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female
homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. & Emden, C. (1997).
Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques.
Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 365371.
Sigma Research (2004). The boys in the backroom:
Anonymous sex among gay and bisexual men.
Silverstein, C. (1981). Man to man: Gay couples in
America. New York: Morrow.
Soldan, K. & Sinka, K. (2003). Evaluation of the de-
selection of men who have had sex with men
from blood donation in England. Vox Sanguinis,
84(4), 265273.
Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment:
New scales for assessing the quality of marriage
and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 38, 1528.
Spanier, G.B. (1989). Manual for the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale. North Tonowanda, NY: Multi-Health
systems.
Townsend, J.M. (1995). Sex without emotional
involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of
sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 24,
173206.
Wagner, G.J., Remien, R.H. & Carballo-Dieguez, A.
(2000). Prevalence of extra-dyadic sex in male
couples of mixed HIV status and its relationship
to psychological distress and relationship quality.
Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 3146.
Warren, C.A.B. (1974). Identity and community in the
gay world. New York: John Wiley.
Worth, H., Reid, A. & McMillan, K. (2002).
Somewhere over the rainbow: Love, trust, and
monogamy in gay relationships. Journal of
Sociology, 38(3), 237253.
Yip, A.K.T. (1997). Gay male christian couples and
sexual exclusivity. Sociology, 31(2), 289306.
65
Copyright of Counselling Psychology Review is the property of British Psychological Society
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.