Abstract
Academic research and popular writing on nonmonogamy and polyamory has so far paid insufficient attention to class divisions and questions of political economy. This is striking since research indicates the significance of class and race privilege within many polyamorous communities. This structure of privilege is mirrored in the exclusivist construction of these communities. The article aims to fill the gap created by the silence on class by suggesting a research agenda which is attentive to class and socioeconomic inequality. The paper addresses relevant research questions in the areas of intimacy and care, household formation, and spaces and institutions and advances an intersectional perspective which incorporates class as nondispensable core category. The author suggests that critical research in the field can stimulate critical self-reflexive practice on the level of community relations and activism. He further points to the critical relevance of Marxist and Postmarxist theories as important resources for the study of polyamory and calls for the study of the contradictions within poly culture from a materialist point of view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Christian polygynists in the USA and Canada usually distinguish their agenda from that of polyamory communities. The latter, too, tend to emphasise differences between the approaches (Stacey and Meadow 2009). However, in comments to the debate on legal marriage reform, conservative journalists have frequently conflated the concepts. The most common argument is that the legislation of same-sex marriage will lead—in a slippery slope—to the cultural acceptance of multiple marriage of both polyamorous and polygynous kinds. If same-sex marriage has not yet done it already, this will finally undermine the traditional values of marriage (see, for example, Kurtz 2005; for a similar argument in a different context, see Duncan 2010). In many cases, these arguments are presented with an explicitly racist slant, conjuring up the spectre of hyperpatriarchal Muslim polygyny at the heart of a nation defined as Christian (Denike 2010; Rambukkana 2013).
BDSM stands for Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission and Sadomasochism.
These are the degree categories used in Weber’s (2002) survey.
Hall suggests that race and class need to be examined in their interconnections, but rightly assumes the relative autonomy of each division: “combined and uneven relations between class and race are historically more pertinent than their simple correspondence” (1980, p. 339). Yet he insists that race is the “modality in which class is ‘lived,’ the medium through which class relations are experienced, the form in which it is appropriated and ‘fought through’” (p. 342).
Some media articles talk of 17 children, however, the judge referred to 18 in court (Philpott jailed for life 2013).
This does not mean to argue that domestic violence does not take place in poly relationships and families. Yet it highlights that the problem in the Philpott case was domestic violence and not polygamy or polyamory.
On a deeper level, envy and contempt may—paradoxically—also meet. A good example is the role of straight envy in the culture of homophobia. Bronski (1999) argues that gay men are frequently hated not only because they are allegedly immoral and perverted, but also because they are believed to have a lot of pleasure and unrestrained sex.
Neoliberal urban regeneration has gone hand in hand with processes of desexualisation in some settings (such as, for example, gentrification programmes in New York throughout the 1990s), but not in others (such as, for example, development in the London Vauxhall area in the new millennium), where capital has provided for a strongly commercialised club-based public sex culture (see Andersson 2011; Warner 1999).
References
Adam, B. D. (2010). Relationship innovation in male couples. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 55–70). London: Routledge.
Anapol, D. (1997). Polyamory: the new love without limits. San Rafael: IntiNet Resource Center.
Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Anderlini-D’Onofrio, S. (2009). Gaia and the new politics of love. Berkley: North Atlantic Books.
Anderlini-D’Onofrio, S. (Ed.). (2004). Plural loves. London: Harworth Press.
Anderson, B. (2000). Doing the dirty work? London: Zed Publishers.
Andersson, C. (2007). Non-coupled cohabitation – the case of polyamory. [Conference paper]. http://www.enhr2007rotterdam.nl/documents/W18_paper_Andersson.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2012.
Andersson, J. (2011). Vauxhall’s post-industrial pleasure gardens: ‘death wish’ and hedonism in 21st-century London. Urban Studies, 48(1), 85–100.
Aviram, H. (2010). Geeks, godesses, and green eggs: political mobilization and the cultural locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco bay area. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 87–93). London: Routledge.
Badgett, L. M. V. (1997). Beyond biased samples. Challenging the myths on the economic status of lesbians and gay men. In A. Gluckman & B. Reed (Eds.), Homo economicus (pp. 66–71). London: Routledge.
Badgett, L. M. V. (2008). Gender, sexuality, and sexual orientation: all in the feminist family? In J. Jacobsen & A. Zeller (Eds.), Queer economics (pp. 19–37). London: Routledge.
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2011). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.
Bassi, C. (2006). Riding the dialectical waves of gay political economy: a story from Birmingham’s commercial gay scene. Antipode, 38(2), 213–235.
Bauer, R. (2010). Non-monogamy in queer BDSM communities: putting the sex back into alternative relationship practices and discourse. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 142–153). London: Routledge.
Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (2nd enlarged edn). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bedford, K. (2009). Developing partnerships: gender, sexuality and the reformed World Bank. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bedford, K. (2010). Promoting exports, restructuring love: the World Bank and the Ecuadorian flower market. In A. Lind (Ed.), Development, sexual rights and global governance (pp. 99–114). London: Routledge.
Benson, P. J. (2008). The polyamory handbook. Bloomington: Author House.
Bergeron, S. (2010). Querying feminist economic’s straight path to development: household models reconsidered. In A. Lind (Ed.), Development, sexual rights and global governance (pp. 54–64). London: Routledge.
Bhattacharyya, G. (1998). Tales of dark-skinned women. London: UCL Press.
Binnie, J. (2009). Envisioning economic and sexual justice spatially. S & F Online, 7(3). http://www.barnard.edu/sfonline/sexecon/binnie_01.htm.
Binnie, J. (2011). Class, sexuality and space (comment). Sexualities, 14(1), 21–26.
Binnie, J., & Skeggs, B. (2004). Cosmopolitan knowledge and the production and consumption of sexualized space: Manchester’s gay village. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 39–61.
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives. Glencoe: Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–259). London: Greenwood Press.
Boyd, N. A. (2005). Wide-open town: a history of queer San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bronski, M. (1999). The pleasure principle. New York: St. Martins Press.
Butler, C., das Nair, R., & Thomas, S. (2010). The colour of queer. In L. Moon (Ed.), Counselling ideologies (pp. 105–112). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Byrne, B. (2006). White lives: the interplay of ‘race’, class and gender in everyday life. London: Routledge.
Carabine, J. (1996). Heterosexuality and social policy. In D. Richardson (Ed.), Theorizing heterosexuality (pp. 55–74). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home. London: University of Chicago Press.
Chasin, A. (2000). Selling out: The gay and lesbian movement goes to market. New York: Palgrave.
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: gender, urban culture, and the making of the gay male world, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.
Cohen, C. J. (2001). Punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens. In M. Blasius (Ed.), Sexual identities, queer politics (pp. 200–227). Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Combahee River Collective. (1979). A black feminist statement. In G. T. Hull, P. B. Scott, & B. Smith (Eds.), All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave (pp. 13–22). New York: The Feminist Press.
Cooper, D. (1993). An engaged state: sexuality, governance and the potential for change. In J. Bristow & A. R. Wilson (Eds.), Activating theory (pp. 190–218). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Delphy, C., & Leonard, D. (1992). Familiar exploitation. Oxford: Polity.
Denike, M. (2010). What’s queer about polygamy? In R. Leckey & K. Brooks (Eds.), Queer theory, law, culture, empire (pp. 137–154). London: Routledge.
Dolan, A., & Bentley, P. (2013) Vile product of Welfare UK: Man who bred 17 babies by five women to milk benefits system is guilty of killing six of them. Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303120/Mick-Philpott-vile-product-Welfare-UK-Derby-man-bred-17-babies-milk-benefits-GUILTY-killing-six.html.
Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality? Boston: Beacon Press.
Duncan, W. C. (2010) The more the merrier? Challenging the illegality of consensual polygamy. The American Spectator. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/02/the-more-the-merrier.
Easton, D., & Liszt, C. A. (1997). The ethical slut. San Francisco: Greenery Press.
Emens, E. F. (2004). Momogamy’s law: compulsory monogamy and polyamorous existence. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 29(2), 277–376.
Erel, U. (2010). Migrating cultural capital: Bourdieu in migration studies. Sociology, 44(4), 642–660.
Erel, U., Haritaworn, J., Gutiérrez Rodríguez, E., & Klesse, C. (2011). On the depoliticisation of intersectionality-talk. Conceptualising multiple oppressions in critical sexuality studies. In Y. Taylor, S. Hines, & M. Casey (Eds.), Theorizing intersectionality and sexuality (pp. 56–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ertman, M. M. (2005). The business of intimacy: bridging the private-private. In M. A. Fineman & T. Dougherty (Eds.), Feminism confronts homo economicus (pp. 467–500). Cornell: Ithaca.
Escoffier, J. (1997). The political economy of the closet: notes towards an economic history of gay and lesbian life before Stonewall. In A. Gluckman & B. Reed (Eds.), Homo economicus (pp. 123–134). London: Routledge.
Evans, D. T. (1993). Sexual citizenship. London: Routledge.
Felmlee, D. (1994). Who’s on top: power in intimate relationships. Sex Roles, 31(5/6), 275–295.
Ferguson, A. (1988). Blood at the root. Motherhood, sexuality & male dominance. London: Pandora.
Finn, M. (2010). Conditions of freedom in practices of non-monogamous commitment. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 225–236). London: Routledge.
Floyd, K. (2009). The reification of desire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glenk, A., Hapke-Kerwien, B., Hartrampf, K., Kraus, A., Krutisch, D., & Richards, H. (2010). Das Kommunefrauenbuch. Lich: AV Verlag.
Glucksmann, M. (2005). Shifting boundaries and interconnections: extending the ‘total social organisation of labour’. In L. Pettinger, J. Parry, R. Taylor, & M. Glucksmann (Eds.), A new sociology of work? (pp. 19–36). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Gutiérrez Rodríguez, E. (2010). Migration, domestic work and affect. New York/London: Routledge.
Hall, S. (1980). Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. In UNESCO (Ed.), Sociological theories: race and colonialism (pp. 305–345). Paris: UNESCO.
Hallam, C. (2013). Don’t use Mick Philpott’s case as a stick to bash polyamory. The New Statesman. [Web log comment]. http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/04/dont-use-mick-philpotts-case-stick-bash-polyamory.
Hardisty, J., & Gluckman, A. (1997). The hoax of ‘special rights’: the right wing’s attack on gay men and lesbians. In A. Gluckman & B. Reed (Eds.), Homo economicus (pp. 209–222). London: Routledge.
Haritaworn, J., Lin, C. J., & Klesse, C. (2006). Poly/logue: a critical introduction to polyamory. Sexualities, 9(5), 515–529.
Heckert, J. (2010). Love without borders? Intimacy, identity and the state of compulsory monogamy. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 255–266). London: Routledge.
Heddle, J. (1999). The politics of poly love. In Merrick (Ed.), Sexyouality. Challenging the culture of monogamy (p. 49). Leeds: Godhaven INK.
Hennessy, R. (2000). Profit and pleasure. New York: Routledge.
How to Find Housing for the Poly Family (2004). Polyfamilies. Polyamory for the Practical. [Web log comment]. http://www.polyfamilies.com/polyhousing.html. Accessed May 24, 2013
Jackson, S. (2011). Heterosexual hierarchies: a commentary on sexuality and class. Sexualities, 14(1), 12–20.
Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2004). The personal is still political: heterosexuality, feminism and monogamy. Feminism & Psychology, 14(1), 151–157.
Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity.
Kennedy, E. L., & Davis, M. D. (1993). Boots of leather, slippers of gold: the history of a lesbian community. New York: Penguin Books.
Klesse, C. (2005). Bisexual women, non-monogamy, and differentialist anti-promiscuity discourses. Sexualities, 8(4), 445–464.
Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its “others”: contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583.
Klesse, C. (2007). The spectre of promiscuity. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Klesse, C. (2010). Paradoxes in gender relations: [Post] feminism and bisexual polyamory. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 109–120). London: Routledge.
Klesse, C. (2011). Notions of love in polyamory—elements in a discourse on multiple loving. Laboratorium. Russian Review of Social Research, 3(2), 4–25.
Klesse, C. (2012). Telling personal stories in academic research publications: reflexivity, intersubjectivity and contextual positionalities. In S. Hines & Y. Taylor (Eds.), Sexualities: reflections and futures (pp. 68–90). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Klesse, C. (2013). Polyamory—intimate practice, identity or sexual orientation? Sexualities (in press).
Kollman, K. (2009). European institutions, transnational networks and national same-sex union policy: when soft law hits harder. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 37–53. doi:10.1080/13569770802674204.
Kurtz, S. (2005). Here comes the brides. Plural wedding is waiting in the wings. The Weekly Standard 11(15). http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp.
Langdridge, D., & Barker, M. (Eds.). (2007). Safe, sane and consensual. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lano, K., & Parry, C. P. (1995). Preface. In L. Kevin & C. Parry (Eds.), Breaking the barriers to desire (pp. v–vi). Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications.
Law, I., Turney, L., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2004). Institutional racism in higher education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Press.
Lowbridge, C. (2013). Philpott fire deaths trial shines light on polyamory. BBC News. Derby. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21753195.
Mason, G. (2002). The spectacle of violence. London: Routledge.
McDermott. (2011a). Multiplex methodologies: researching young people’s wellbeing at the intersections of class, gender, sexuality, gender and age. In Y. Taylor, S. Hines, & M. Casey (Eds.), Theorizing intersectionality and sexuality (pp. 235–254). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McDermott, A. (2011b). The world some have won: sexuality, class and inequality. Sexualities, 14(1), 63–78.
Mick Philpott case: George Osborne benefit comments spark row. (2013). BBC News. UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035.
Mick Philpott. (2013). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott. Accessed April 27, 2013
Monro, S. (2010). Sexuality, space and intersectionality: the case of lesbian, gay and bisexual equalities initiatives in UK local government. Sociology, 44(5), 996–1010.
Mosse, G. (1985). Nationalism and sexuality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Munson, M., & Stelboum, J. P. (Eds.). (1999a). The lesbian polyamory reader. London: Harrington Park Press.
Munson, M., & Stelboum, J. P. (1999b). Introduction: the lesbian polyamory reader: open relationahips, non-monogamy and casual sex. In M. Munson & J. P. Stelboum (Eds.), The lesbian polyamory reader (pp. 1–10). London: Harrington Park Press.
Neate, P. (2013). Reports of Mick Philpott’s awful crime omit the phrase ‘domestic violence’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/04/domestic-violence-mick-philpott.
Nestle, J. (1996). A restricted country. Documents of desire and resistance. London: Pandora.
Noël, M. J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: considering issues of diversity. Sexualities, 9(5), 602–619.
Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2006). Polyparents having children, raising children, schooling children. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 7(1), 48–53.
Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Peller, B. (2013). Polyamory as a Reserve Army of Care Labor. [Web log comment]. http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/polyamory-as-reserve-army-of-care-labor.html.
Peplau, L. A., Venigas, R. C., & Miller Campbell, S. (1997). Gay and lesbian relationships. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays and bisexuals (pp. 250–273). Orlando: Hartcourt Brace and Company.
Philpott jailed for life—judge’s sentencing remarks in full (2013). The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-jailed-judge-.
Phoenix, A. (1994). Practicing feminist research: the intersection of gender and ‘race’ in the research process. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 49–71). Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.
Pieper, M., & Bauer, R. (2005). Polyamory und Mono-Normativität. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie über nicht-monogame Lebensformen. In L. Méritt, T. Bührmann, & N. B. Schefzig (Eds.), Mehr als eine Liebe—Polyamouröse Beziehungen (pp. 59–69). Berlin: Orlando.
Polyamory. (2007). The Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://dictionary.oed.com/. Accessed June 8, 2007
Polyamory. (2013). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory. Accessed April 27, 2013
Rambukkana, N. (2010). Sex, space and discourse: non/monogamy and intimate privilege in the public sphere. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 237–242). London: Routledge.
Rambukkana, N. (2013). Non-monogamies in the public sphere. Vancouver: UBC Press (in press).
Reay, D. (2005). Beyond consciousness? The psychic landscape of social class. Sociology, 39(5), 911–928.
Reekie, G. (1998). Measuring immorality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riggs, D. W. (2010). Developing a ‘responsible’ foster care praxis: poly as a framework for examining power and propriety in family contexts. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 188–200). London: Routledge.
Ritchie, A. (2010). Discursive constructions of polyamory in mono-normative media culture. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 46–50). London: Routledge.
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’: constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 584–601.
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2007). Hot bi babes and feminist families: polyamorous women speak out. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 8(2), 141–151.
Roseneil, S. (2004). Why should we care about friends: an argument for queering the care imaginary in social policy. Social Policy and Society, 3(4), 409–419.
Sargant, L. (Ed.). (1981). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism. London: Pluto.
Scherrer, K. S. (2010). Asexual relationships: what does asexuality have to do with polyamory? In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 154–159). London: Routledge.
Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3), 251–283.
Sheff, E. (2006). Poly-hegemonic masculinities. Sexualities, 9(5), 621–642.
Sheff, E. (2010). Strategies in polyamorous parenting. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 169–180). London: Routledge.
Sheff, E. (2011). Polyamorous families, same-sex marriage, and the slippery slope. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(5), 487.
Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: race, class and education among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(3), 198–223.
Sigusch, V. (2005). Neosexualitäten. Frankfurt and Main: Campus.
Sigusch, V. (2011). Auf der Suche nach der Sexuellen Freiheit. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of class and gender. London: Sage.
Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.
Song, S. (2012). Polyamory and queer anarchism: Infinite possibilities for resistance. In C. B. Daring, J. Rogue, D. Shannon, & A. Volcano (Eds.), Queering anarchism (pp. 165–172). Oakland: AK Press.
Stacey, J., & Meadow, T. (2009). New slants on the slippery slope: the politics of polygamy and gay family rights in South Africa and the United States. Politics & Society, 37(2), 167–202.
Taylor, Y. (2007). Working-class lesbian life: classed outsiders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor, Y. (2011). Introduction: sexualities and class. Sexualities, 14(1), 3–11.
Tweedy, A. E. (2011). Polyamory as a sexual orientation. University of Cincinatti Law Review, 79(4), 1461–1515.
Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal. New York: The Free Press.
Weber, A. (2002). Survey results. Who are we? And other interesting impressions. Loving More Magazine, 30, 4–6.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same-sex intimacies. London: Routledge.
Weiss, M. (2011). Techniques of pleasure: BDSM and the circuits of sexuality. Durham: Duke University Press.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
White, M. (2010). Is polyamory revolutionary? [Web log comment]. https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/polyamory-revolutionary.html. Accessed April 27, 2013
Wilkins, A. C. (2004). ‘So full of myself as a chick’: Goth women, sexual independence, and gender egalitarianism. Gender and Society, 18(3), 328–349.
Wilkinson, E. (2010). What’s queer about non-monogamy now? In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 243–254). London: Routledge.
Willey, A. (2006). ‘Christian nations’, ‘polygamic races’ and women’s rights: towards a genealogy of non/monogamy and whiteness. Sexualities, 9(5), 530–546.
Willey, A. (2010). ‘Science says she’s gotta have it’: reading for racial resonances in woman-centred poly literature. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 34–45). London: Routledge.
Wilson, A.M. (2013) Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born out of welfare dependency. Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Mick-Philpotts-story-shows-pervasiveness-evil-born-welfare-dependency.html.
Woltersdorff, V. (2011). Paradoxes of precarious sexualities. Sexual subcultures under neo-liberalism. Cultural Studies, 25(2), 164–182.
Wosik-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 44–61.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Chiara Addis, Jon Binnie, and Susie Jacobs, who have given me important feedback and stimulating ideas after reading previous drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klesse, C. Poly Economics—Capitalism, Class, and Polyamory. Int J Polit Cult Soc 27, 203–220 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9157-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9157-4