What do you think?
Rate this book
Intersections: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Genders and Sexualities
Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities
A man and woman are in an open relationship. They have agreed that having sexual partners outside of their relationship is permissible. One night, when her partner is in another city, the woman has sex with the man’s best friend. What does this mean for their relationship? More importantly, why is there such a strong cultural taboo against this kind of triangulation and what does it reveal about the social organization of gender and sexuality? In Beyond Monogamy, Mimi Schippers asks these and other questions to explore compulsory monogamy as a central feature of sexual normalcy. Schippers argues that compulsory monogamy promotes the monogamous couple as the only legitimate, natural, or desirable relationship form in ways that support and legitimize gender, race, and sexual inequalities.
Through an investigation of sexual interactions and relationship forms that include more than two people, from polyamory, to threesomes, to the complexity of the ‘down-low,’ Schippers explores the queer, feminist, and anti-racist potential of non-dyadic sex and relationships. A serious look at the intersections of society and sexuality, Beyond Monogamy takes the reader on a compelling and accessible journey through compulsory monogamy, polyamory, and polyqueer sex and relationships.
Through an investigation of sexual interactions and relationship forms that include more than two people, from polyamory, to threesomes, to the complexity of the ‘down-low,’ Schippers explores the queer, feminist, and anti-racist potential of non-dyadic sex and relationships. A serious look at the intersections of society and sexuality, Beyond Monogamy takes the reader on a compelling and accessible journey through compulsory monogamy, polyamory, and polyqueer sex and relationships.
208 pages, Hardcover
Published August 16, 2016
24 people are currently reading
203 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 13, 2016
This is possibly one of the worst books I've ever read. I had high hopes, given the title and the description, but it failed to deliver on every front.
It's fairly dense and academic, which makes it inaccessible to any lay person who might benefit from learning about how they might view their own relationships. However, that's not my biggest problem. I'm familiar with academia, so it wasn't an obstacle. It's the actual content.
This book is one very long erasure of bisexuality. For someone claiming the "queer" label (which I do not believe she should as a straight person), she certainly has no interest in actual queer people or what our relationships look like. She's incredibly judgmental about the wide variety of poly relationships which differ from her own; in particular, she is harshly critical of what she calls "MWW" relationships (a man with two female partners). She appears to believe these are based in "fake" bisexuality performed solely for the sake of the male partner, ignoring bisexual women who are, in fact, the center of the triad. In her world, the only women with genuine sexual agency are those with two male partners.
In addition, she takes the liberty of "explaining" pivotal works of Black and bisexual literature, using page after page to summarize and quote them with only brief notations of her interpretation in between. The problem is that she refuses to refer to the men as bisexual, only as "polyqueer," and her interpretation is not new--it was already in existence, claimed by the Black men for whom these books and stories are written.
Her citation of Jane Ward is highly problematic, given that Ward is a controversial figure at best among bisexual men. Ward is one of a number of references, most of which are outdated and also ignore or minimize bisexuality as a stable identity. Even her incorrect use of "mononormativity" is erasive. The word she thinks she coined was already in use by bisexual people to refer to the view of orientation toward one gender being preferable (i.e., monosexuality) over orientation toward multiple genders (i.e., bisexuality).
The erasure of women loving women, people of genders other than male/female, ignorance about the poly community, and the reduction of "polyqueer" sexuality to her particular relationship preference makes this book wholly unsuitable for anyone who wants to understand plural love and sex more fully. This book is not a starting point for a person exploring outside monogamy. It's one person's fairly narrow view. Give it a pass and find a book with broader scope and which doesn't speak over the voices of queer people.
It's fairly dense and academic, which makes it inaccessible to any lay person who might benefit from learning about how they might view their own relationships. However, that's not my biggest problem. I'm familiar with academia, so it wasn't an obstacle. It's the actual content.
This book is one very long erasure of bisexuality. For someone claiming the "queer" label (which I do not believe she should as a straight person), she certainly has no interest in actual queer people or what our relationships look like. She's incredibly judgmental about the wide variety of poly relationships which differ from her own; in particular, she is harshly critical of what she calls "MWW" relationships (a man with two female partners). She appears to believe these are based in "fake" bisexuality performed solely for the sake of the male partner, ignoring bisexual women who are, in fact, the center of the triad. In her world, the only women with genuine sexual agency are those with two male partners.
In addition, she takes the liberty of "explaining" pivotal works of Black and bisexual literature, using page after page to summarize and quote them with only brief notations of her interpretation in between. The problem is that she refuses to refer to the men as bisexual, only as "polyqueer," and her interpretation is not new--it was already in existence, claimed by the Black men for whom these books and stories are written.
Her citation of Jane Ward is highly problematic, given that Ward is a controversial figure at best among bisexual men. Ward is one of a number of references, most of which are outdated and also ignore or minimize bisexuality as a stable identity. Even her incorrect use of "mononormativity" is erasive. The word she thinks she coined was already in use by bisexual people to refer to the view of orientation toward one gender being preferable (i.e., monosexuality) over orientation toward multiple genders (i.e., bisexuality).
The erasure of women loving women, people of genders other than male/female, ignorance about the poly community, and the reduction of "polyqueer" sexuality to her particular relationship preference makes this book wholly unsuitable for anyone who wants to understand plural love and sex more fully. This book is not a starting point for a person exploring outside monogamy. It's one person's fairly narrow view. Give it a pass and find a book with broader scope and which doesn't speak over the voices of queer people.
March 6, 2018
A book that looks so promising to give a critical intersectional analysis of polyamory, open relationships, and monogamy that is desperately needed, yet falls flat on its face... then digs itself a hole.
See A.M.s review for a well-written explanation of why you probably shouldn't bother.
I'm also upset that this is the book so many non-ployam people will pick up and decide it's what all polyam relations are like when it's only one small faucet.
Upon finishing the book the main overpowering thought I had is that it's a bunch of technical jargon incorrectly thrown together that boils down to "all men are actually gay. They can live women, too, but most men are only with women for performative reasons. Also, bi-women aren't a thing either, but only perform to appeal to their male partners. By the way, I know I said hegemonic masculinity was bad, but I've continually reinforced it throughout this book. Did I mention bisexuals aren't real?"
Long story short - barf.
See A.M.s review for a well-written explanation of why you probably shouldn't bother.
I'm also upset that this is the book so many non-ployam people will pick up and decide it's what all polyam relations are like when it's only one small faucet.
Upon finishing the book the main overpowering thought I had is that it's a bunch of technical jargon incorrectly thrown together that boils down to "all men are actually gay. They can live women, too, but most men are only with women for performative reasons. Also, bi-women aren't a thing either, but only perform to appeal to their male partners. By the way, I know I said hegemonic masculinity was bad, but I've continually reinforced it throughout this book. Did I mention bisexuals aren't real?"
Long story short - barf.
June 27, 2018
This is not a light read, but it is worth it to read. I really enjoyed this book, but I already knew it was more academic so I was able to anticipate the jargon and knew I'd need more time to process it.
Beyond Monogamy explores the dynamics of Woman/Man/Man polyamorous relationships and how those relationships intersect with race, class, and gender. She does acknowledge that the scope of this book is limited because she only talks about WMM arrangements. Schippers uses examples from contemporary media and personal anecdotes to illustrate her points on compulsory monogamy and larger social structuring of relationships.
One thing that I read in many reviews was that Schippers does not talk about bisexual men in WMM partnerships enough. I understand that bi erasure (especially of bi men) is a problem, but one of Schippers' points was that the men in these relationships do not have to be bisexual in order to be in these relationships. She argued that being in a WMM polyamorous relationship does not automatically make someone gay or bisexual. They can still be straight men, but the WMM relationship creates a "queer closeness" and re-arrangement of masculinity. Additionally, Schippers references a survey of men who have sex with men that found that men of color often do not self identify as bisexual or gay because they feel those labels are synonymous with white, middle class privilege.
Beyond Monogamy explores the dynamics of Woman/Man/Man polyamorous relationships and how those relationships intersect with race, class, and gender. She does acknowledge that the scope of this book is limited because she only talks about WMM arrangements. Schippers uses examples from contemporary media and personal anecdotes to illustrate her points on compulsory monogamy and larger social structuring of relationships.
One thing that I read in many reviews was that Schippers does not talk about bisexual men in WMM partnerships enough. I understand that bi erasure (especially of bi men) is a problem, but one of Schippers' points was that the men in these relationships do not have to be bisexual in order to be in these relationships. She argued that being in a WMM polyamorous relationship does not automatically make someone gay or bisexual. They can still be straight men, but the WMM relationship creates a "queer closeness" and re-arrangement of masculinity. Additionally, Schippers references a survey of men who have sex with men that found that men of color often do not self identify as bisexual or gay because they feel those labels are synonymous with white, middle class privilege.
October 14, 2021
I take SERIOUS issue with the constant labeling of relationship between two men and one woman (all heterosexual) as queer.
I don’t believe that unconventional relationship dynamics should be given the same oppression weighted term as what same gender loving people have only recently begun to reclaim.
As a presumably straight woman, it’s not Schipper’s term to co-opt and her insistence upon doing so feel dishonest and skeevy.
The erasure of male bisexuality (which other reviews have discussed more distinctly than I can) is similarly disquieting.
I was quite excited to read this, but it ultimately fell flat because of its (admittedly) narrow scope and identity missteps.
Side note: The authors description of fanfiction culture was the most awkward thing I’ve seen in a while.
I don’t believe that unconventional relationship dynamics should be given the same oppression weighted term as what same gender loving people have only recently begun to reclaim.
As a presumably straight woman, it’s not Schipper’s term to co-opt and her insistence upon doing so feel dishonest and skeevy.
The erasure of male bisexuality (which other reviews have discussed more distinctly than I can) is similarly disquieting.
I was quite excited to read this, but it ultimately fell flat because of its (admittedly) narrow scope and identity missteps.
Side note: The authors description of fanfiction culture was the most awkward thing I’ve seen in a while.
November 3, 2017
Honestly super interesting, perhaps not what I was looking for. The books is quite academic. I felt that some of the ideas presented were fascinating but I felt like they were not fully developed. I also didn't exactly know how each part was related and how they all came together at the end. I enjoyed reading the book but was a little confused as I feel like it didn't really head in any specific direction.
The proposal for polyqueer identities was, however, quite intriguing and I hope more is published on the subject.
The proposal for polyqueer identities was, however, quite intriguing and I hope more is published on the subject.
December 4, 2022
There are helpful tidbits in here, though the organization of topics seem a bit disjointed. If one hasn't done roommates before, or lived with partners it might be more helpful than someone who has done some of these things before.
One thing that was a good frame was making the distinction between making "rules" or "guidelines" from the perspective of the individual or the community.
One thing that was a good frame was making the distinction between making "rules" or "guidelines" from the perspective of the individual or the community.
January 13, 2023
A must read for anyone interested in sexuality or nonmonogamy/polyamory. Tackles the intersection of race, gender, sexuality, class, and mononomativity. I've never read anything quite like it.
It is certainly a more academic and challenging read than The Ethical Slut or Sex At Dawn, but I think it's worth it.
It is certainly a more academic and challenging read than The Ethical Slut or Sex At Dawn, but I think it's worth it.
May 9, 2019
Rethinking the possibilities for hegemonic femininity: Exploring a Gramscian framework
Carrie Paechter for what’s next after Schippers. More inclusive. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Carrie Paechter for what’s next after Schippers. More inclusive. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
December 13, 2023
Monogamy as a power structure is definitely interesting, but I had a hard time seeing how monogamy in an of itself is racist any further than it’s role in solidifying “respectability politics.” Interesting book to think about; moderately academic
September 8, 2024
another political colonizer of sexuality. mimi does not know the people, but mimi can do a spin. at least they think so. to make things worse, the book is so disturbingly wrote moving in and out of references and valueless trivia, i started to believe that was the author's goal.
Read
August 3, 2016This was not the book that I was expecting. It was informative but not what I was really looking for.
I received a complimentary copy from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
I received a complimentary copy from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
December 8, 2023
Learned a lot from this book when I read it, but the biggest issue is there was no Queerness? Polygamy is not inherently Queer, even if it’s non traditional. Just kinda felt like a title grab.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews