I. Introduction: A Shifting Landscape of Love

What is marriage for—and who gets to decide? In a time when nearly every institution is up for renegotiation, marriage has not been spared the cultural remodeling. Once seen as a lifelong covenant, often framed in spiritual or communal terms, marriage is now increasingly viewed as a customizable arrangement. Much like assembling a character in a video game or crafting a ship in Starfield, people want to choose the components that suit their unique quests.

The “traditional” idea—one man, one woman, for life, primarily oriented around children and mutual support—has been met with suspicion, even outright rejection in some circles. In its place, we now see the rise of what might be called designer marriages. These include configurations like open marriages, throuples, polycules, and even term-limited unions. In these arrangements, marriage is no longer a fixed point of orientation—it’s a modular lifestyle choice.

This shift raises profound questions. Not just “Can we do this?”—the answer to that is clearly yes—but “Should we?” and “To what end?” When we reconfigure marriage, are we adapting to the realities of human flourishing, or are we indulging a culture of infinite choice that ultimately undermines stability?

Well, you might say, “Isn’t love the only essential thing?” But love, in its richer form, has always been more than desire or compatibility. It is about covenant, mutual sacrifice, and the long arc of becoming—not just as individuals, but as families and societies. In this light, marriage has always had a public dimension, not just a private one.

And then there’s the question of government. Should the state have a role in defining or endorsing marriage at all? As we’ll explore in later sections, the state’s involvement has historically brought both benefits and dangers—benefits like legal protections and social recognition, and dangers like the temptation to define marriage according to political convenience.

This post isn’t a theological treatise (though that shadow looms large). Instead, it’s an invitation to consider where we are, where we’re going, and what we might be leaving behind. As with many things in culture today, the danger isn’t just that we are changing the form, but that we may be forgetting the function.

Like the Goonies wandering through a maze of booby-trapped tunnels, we may be stumbling through the cultural caverns of relational innovation without knowing whether the treasure we seek is real—or whether, like Chester Copperpot, we’ll be found later, clutching a map and crushed by the weight of untested dreams.

So, before we move further, let’s pause and consider: What do we think marriage is, and why does that matter?

II. Government and Marriage: Should the State Be a Matchmaker?

Let’s suppose you design a machine—carefully, lovingly, for a purpose. Now imagine someone else, a committee perhaps, comes along and begins modifying its gears to suit their own ends. They might still call it your machine, but the purpose has changed. This is, perhaps, how some feel about marriage when the state becomes its chief custodian.

The relationship between government and marriage is complex, and growing more entangled. At its best, the state’s involvement in marriage has provided social order: tax incentives, legal rights, inheritance law, child protection. But at its worst, it becomes a tool of coercion, defining marriage not to reflect reality, but to mold it.

Some might argue, “But without the state, how do we ensure justice in relationships?” That’s a fair point. But the deeper question isn’t whether the state should acknowledge relationships—it’s whether it should define their essence.  Historically, marriage existed before governments did, rooted in kinship, religion, and tribal contracts. The state entered the scene not as the author of marriage, but as a registrar—a keeper of records and enforcer of contracts. Somewhere along the way, though, the role shifted from recording reality to shaping ideology.

We saw the beginning of this slope with legal recognition of same-sex marriage—not merely an expansion of rights, but a redefinition of the institution’s core. And now, we find ourselves further down the trail: throuples seeking legal recognition, marriage contracts written for renewable terms, even conversations around AI companionships and digital vows.

When the government defines marriage, it defines not just legality but legitimacy. And when legitimacy is decided by those in power, marriage becomes whatever serves their interests, not necessarily yours. Think of it like the Federation Council in Star Trek: noble in theory, but often compromised by political pragmatism.

Well, you might say, “Isn’t this just progress?” Maybe. But progress implies movement toward something better. Are we actually improving the institution—or just making it more convenient? The danger isn’t that people are experimenting with relationships—that’s always happened. The danger is when government takes those experiments and stamps them with the authority of normativity. Once the state becomes the matchmaker, the divorce lawyer, and the philosopher-king, we have not liberated marriage—we’ve nationalized it.

Which brings us to a sobering thought: If something as intimate as marriage can be bent to the political will of the moment, what else can be?

Government Without a Telos: Instability by Design

If marriage is a sacred bond or even just a deeply personal commitment, then assigning its definition to a shifting institution like government is—at best—reckless. At worst, it’s a recipe for cultural erosion.

The first problem is philosophical: the state has no unified telos—no coherent vision of what marriage is for. A society with a transcendent moral framework might define marriage in terms of virtue, responsibility, or the common good. But a pluralistic state, caught in the competing currents of ideologies and identity politics, cannot agree on a stable purpose for marriage. Today’s justification might be equality; tomorrow’s might be economic stability; next week’s could be environmental partnership agreements (yes, that’s a real proposal).

The result? Marriage becomes a vessel for whatever ideology happens to be in vogue. It’s not that governments are actively malicious—it’s that they are structurally incapable of stewarding something that requires moral coherence. Like the Council of Elrond trying to agree on the fate of the One Ring, they cannot help but fracture along the lines of their own conflicting values.

Secondly, this leads to constant instability. Laws and definitions change as swiftly as public opinion. What was celebrated one decade is scorned the next. This is not merely a political inconvenience—it’s a cultural earthquake. Family units, built on a supposedly stable foundation, suddenly find themselves out of step with the new orthodoxy. Legal benefits evaporate. Social stigmas return. Schools, courts, and media shift their messaging. And in the middle of it all are children, spouses, and communities trying to build something lasting on ground that won’t stop moving.

You might say, “But flexibility is good—marriage should evolve!” True, perhaps, but there is a difference between organic evolution and ideological mutation. Evolution implies continuity. What we’re witnessing today is something else entirely—a series of abrupt redefinitions that risk tearing the fabric rather than adapting it.

Consider: if the government can redefine marriage to include or exclude based on political fashion, what happens to those already inside the institution? Are their bonds less legitimate tomorrow than they were yesterday? What if their structure is legally valid but culturally vilified?

We are already seeing this unfold. Definitions are expanding, yes—but also fragmenting. And in this fragmentation, the state’s involvement shifts from support to surveillance, from enabling union to enforcing conformity.

In a world where the rules change with every new election cycle, how can permanence be promised, let alone protected?

III. Case Study: The Throuple That Wasn’t

Let’s suppose you’ve got a marriage on the brink. Communication has eroded. Trust is frayed. But neither party is ready to walk away. Instead, they do what many do when hope runs thin: they reach for something—anything—that might pull them back together.

Some couples have a baby, thinking it will bring them closer.

Jane and her husband tried something else: adding another man to the marriage. I became peripherally involved through a mutual friend, who asked if I’d talk with the couple before they made a decision. It was a unique and unsettling request, and at the time, I didn’t even have a clear category for what they were contemplating. Today, it would be called a throuple—a romantic triad, all parties emotionally and sexually entangled.

They were professing Christians. That added another layer of tension. While I could’ve simply said, “This isn’t biblical,” I sensed that wouldn’t land. The Bible, after all, contains its fair share of plural marriages—not endorsed, but undeniably present. So I tried a more practical approach. I spoke about emotional complexity, jealousy, the unpredictability of children in the mix, and the sheer logistical chaos of trying to merge three adult lives into one functional household.

Well, you might say, “But maybe this was their way of healing—reinventing the relationship.” Maybe. But from what I saw, it wasn’t healing—it was distraction. A patch, not a repair. Adding a third partner wasn’t about building something stronger; it was about avoiding the hard work of dealing with what was already broken.

The arrangement went forward. One house. Three adults. Each man had his own bedroom. The wife had hers. Children from previous relationships were also in the home. There was no set rotation or structure—just a kind of emotional and physical free-for-all. It wasn’t Big Love with scheduled nights and shared beliefs—it was chaotic improvisation, and predictably, it began to unravel.

I later received a call from one of the husbands—emotionally devastated, confused, and feeling abandoned. What he thought would be a creative, even redemptive new chapter turned out to be a slow-motion breakup, wrapped in the language of liberation. His wife, he believed, had already given up on the marriage—but rather than divorce, she’d opted for a workaround: stay married in name, and bring in a new partner under the banner of progress.

The result? Confusion, bitterness, and ultimately dissolution. None of the three are together today. The relationships fragmented. The children were left to absorb the fallout. It reminded me of Chester Copperpot in The Goonies—someone who ventured into unfamiliar territory with a map full of good intentions and ended up crushed by the hidden traps.

It’s easy to theorize about relationships in abstraction. It’s harder when lives are at stake. When children are watching. When adults aren’t operating out of wisdom, but out of exhaustion, fear, or misguided hope. And that may be the greatest tragedy of all: in trying to avoid the pain of a failing marriage, they added more pain, more complexity, more collateral damage. They weren’t building something new. They were trying not to drown—and grabbed onto an anchor.

Interlude: More People, More Problems?

It’s worth noting that the polyamorous world isn’t lacking in resources. In fact, there’s a whole industry of books, podcasts, support groups, and how-to guides aimed at helping people navigate multiple-partner relationships. These are not fringe texts—they often adopt the tone of therapeutic legitimacy, drawing from psychology, communication theory, and even conflict resolution models.

But here’s what struck me: they all admit it’s incredibly difficult.

Every tension that arises in a traditional two-person marriage—finances, parenting, sex, schedules, emotional security—is multiplied. Not added. Multiplied. Think of it like this: Two people trying to decide what to eat for dinner can already feel like an episode of Survivor. Now add a third, or a fourth. Add allergies. Add preferences. Add history. Now try to do that not just with dinner, but with finances, fidelity, emotional labor, and the meaning of commitment.

It becomes a kind of emotional calculus—a juggling act where every added person is another flaming sword. Some books describe elaborate rule systems and communication practices—weekly check-ins, relational contracts, rotating calendars, color-coded intimacy charts. I’ve even come across anecdotes where so much energy was spent negotiating the terms of intimacy that there was no time or energy left for actual intimacy. It begins to feel less like a relationship and more like managing a multinational corporation with no CEO and unlimited Slack channels.

Well, you might say, “But isn’t that the point? To democratize love and responsibility?” Possibly. But when the logistics consume the relationship, what’s left of the love? To be fair, some people do make it work—for a while. But I’ve yet to see it sustained for a lifetime. And that brings us to a deeper, quieter question: if we keep reconfiguring marriage to avoid the pain of permanence, maybe we’re not really redesigning marriage at all.

Maybe we’re just trying to return it to a contract with an expiration date. That, too, is part of this cultural moment: the shift from lifelong commitment to term-limited arrangements. But if marriage becomes a rental agreement, renewed only when convenient, then its power to shape character—to teach endurance, humility, and self-giving love—diminishes. Permanence is not the enemy of freedom; it’s the crucible in which freedom becomes something meaningful.

IV. Practicality vs. Principle – The Exponential Complexity of Polyamory

Let’s suppose a relationship is a garden. Two people tending it together already face weeds, storms, drought, and the occasional pest. Now imagine adding a third gardener—one with their own ideas of what should be planted, when to water, and what “thriving” even means. Is it richer soil—or just a more chaotic field?

Polyamory, in its many forms, presents itself as a more expansive, inclusive way of loving. Theoretically, it offers more emotional support, more perspectives, more flexibility. But in practice? It often leads to a multiplication of every known relational tension—not just added difficulty, but exponential complexity.

Jealousy doesn’t vanish in polyamorous arrangements—it evolves. It becomes layered, hidden, sometimes even institutionalized in the form of primary and secondary partners. Resentment isn’t eliminated—it just finds new channels. Communication doesn’t get easier—it becomes a job in itself.

Well, you might say, “But monogamous marriages have all these issues too.” Absolutely. Marriage is hard. It’s supposed to be. But what we’ve discovered about monogamy is that some constraints foster deeper growth. Commitment channels desire. Scarcity creates meaning. When you’re not free to constantly optimize your experience, you have to become the kind of person worth committing to.

Polyamory, by contrast, often operates on a principle of maximized individual fulfillment, which sounds liberating—until it isn’t. As we explored in the previous section, many polyamorous advocates admit that successful arrangements require constant negotiation. Calendars, boundaries, emotional labor charts. A relational bureaucracy. One person I encountered in the literature spent so much time coordinating schedules for intimacy that, in their own words, “we barely had any.”

It reminds me of the USS Enterprise in its most dysfunctional moments—when too many voices are trying to steer the ship, and no one can agree whether to set a course for diplomacy or destruction. In those moments, leadership is diluted. Decision-making paralyzes. The mission loses focus.

And here’s the core problem: when practicality overrides principle, we are left managing relationships like projects, not covenants. We optimize instead of sacrifice. We coordinate instead of commit.

The danger isn’t just logistical—it’s existential. Marriage, traditionally understood, is not merely about compatibility; it is about transformation. Two people becoming one, not just legally, but spiritually and morally. It requires us to grow, to bend, to endure. Polyamory, by contrast, often circumvents this crucible by creating exit ramps, safety valves, and substitutes. And over time, that changes not just how we love—but what we think love is.

Of course, some polyamorous relationships appear stable. For a while. But I have yet to see one last across the decades, into old age, with a shared story, a deep well of trust, and children who feel rooted rather than fragmented. The long arc of marriage—its capacity to refine the soul over decades—isn’t just about staying together. It’s about becoming something together.

And when you multiply the players, you dilute the arc.

Liberation or Broken

It’s easy to talk about polyamory as if it only exists in some distant subculture. But the mindset that fuels it—that love is a menu of fulfillments to be negotiated, rather than a covenant to be honored—can show up anywhere. It can show up in a church-going marriage. It showed up in mine.

There was a time, toward the end of my first marriage, when my then-wife, who no longer wanted to be physically intimate or spend time doing much of anything together, suggested I take on a lover. She would stay home, live off my paycheck, and watch TV. I could go hiking, explore, have my needs met elsewhere—and we would still be married. It would be “practical,” she said.

And I’ll be honest: I considered it. Not because I wanted a harem or some libertine lifestyle, but because it seemed like a pragmatic compromise. We’d keep the shell of the marriage intact, and I’d just outsource the parts she didn’t want to engage in.

But over time, I realized that what we were really doing was trying to avoid what we already knew: the relationship had died. We weren’t partners anymore. We were coexisting in a shared economic structure, not living in covenant. And dragging out the marriage under new terms—disguised as freedom—was only going to prolong the grief.

Eventually, we got divorced. And here’s what that taught me: polyamory and “open” arrangements often masquerade as solutions to broken intimacy. But most of the time, they’re just delays. Delays in mourning what’s already lost. Delays in facing the hard truth that sometimes, people stop choosing each other—not suddenly, but by erosion. And no amount of partners, schedules, or consensual arrangements can resurrect something that no longer lives.

So yes, some may try to make it work. But in the vast majority of cases, it’s not about building something bigger. It’s about refusing to admit that something essential has already ended.  And in trying to avoid death, we sometimes create a kind of relational undeath—a zombie marriage, animated by logistics but emptied of life.

V. Children in the Crossfire – What About the Next Generation?

Let’s suppose you’re building a house. It’s not just for you—it’s for your children. Would you experiment with the foundation? Would you try out a new kind of concrete no one has tested long-term, just because it looks more flexible or modern? That’s what many of today’s redefinitions of marriage amount to: social experiments with generational consequences.

In every form of marriage—traditional, open, polyamorous, serial monogamy—children are often the ones caught in the gravitational pull of adult decisions they had no voice in. And unlike adults, who can rationalize or reframe their choices, children live the consequences directly. They absorb the instability. They navigate the blurred lines. They try to understand who their real “parents” are, where their home begins and ends, and how to form secure attachments when the relationships around them are fluid by design.

You might say, “But kids are resilient.” Yes, they are. But resilience is not invincibility. Children can survive many things. But we should ask whether we want them to merely survive their childhoods—or flourish within them.

In the throuple I witnessed unravel, the children were not theoretical. They were in the home, trying to figure out their place in a structure that changed not just rules, but roles—often without warning. Who’s in charge? Who disciplines? Who nurtures? What happens when two adults disagree and the third triangulates? It wasn’t a family—it was an emotional committee with unclear bylaws.

And let’s be honest: even stable two-parent homes are hard. Blended families, with step-siblings and custody schedules, require Herculean effort. So imagine layering on multiple romantic dynamics—with all the accompanying jealousy, resentment, and instability—and expecting the children to emerge with clarity and peace.

It’s like raising kids aboard the Event Horizon—a vessel built for exploration but riddled with chaos beneath the surface. Or, more simply, like asking a child to walk a tightrope in a windstorm.

Some might argue, “But isn’t it better to model honesty and consensual love, even in nontraditional forms, than to fake a monogamous marriage full of resentment?” Perhaps. But that’s a false binary. The choice isn’t between polyamory and toxic monogamy. The choice is between relational stability rooted in sacrificial love, and emotional entropy disguised as liberation.

And here’s the thing: children are not just bystanders. They are mirrors. They reflect what they see. They normalize what surrounds them. And when the adults around them treat relationships like contracts of convenience, children often internalize the idea that love is conditional, commitment is transactional, and family is fluid. That’s not a legacy—it’s a void.

If marriage is, in part, about building something that outlasts us, then children aren’t an afterthought. They are the inheritance. And if we keep reshaping marriage to suit adult desires without asking what it does to the next generation, we are not evolving—we are erasing the future we claim to love.

VI. Redefining Marriage or Repackaging Selfishness?

Let’s not dodge the real question any longer. Are we expanding the boundaries of love? Or are we giving our self-interest a makeover and calling it “progress”? In the cultural conversation around marriage today, we hear a lot about freedom—freedom to define love on our terms, to shape relationships around our needs, to escape oppressive structures. But freedom without a moral framework is not liberation. It’s drift.

You might say, “But isn’t love about making people happy?” Sure—but what kind of happiness? Love at its best is not the fleeting thrill of desire met. It’s the durable, often painful, transformative act of willing the good of the other. It is other-oriented, not a contract for mutual convenience. That’s the deep structure beneath traditional marriage—not just companionship or procreation, but formation.

Marriage, at its core, isn’t about getting what I want. It’s about learning how to give, how to stay, how to grow up. Modern reconfigurations of marriage often promise more freedom, but they quietly dismantle responsibility. When commitment becomes conditional—based on satisfaction or desire or novelty—it ceases to be commitment at all. It’s a subscription plan. And love, real love, does not thrive in a climate of cancellation.

This isn’t just theoretical for me. I’ve watched people—including myself—wrestle with the hard edges of unmet expectations, emotional hunger, loneliness. I’ve been tempted by shortcuts. The offer of an “open solution” can feel merciful when the alternative is pain. But what I’ve seen, over and over, is that these shortcuts trade short-term relief for long-term erosion.

In some cases, open relationships don’t just fail—they hollow people out. Like Smeagol in The Lord of the Rings, they begin with a longing for something precious but end in fragmentation. The thing they wanted begins to possess them.

And let’s not ignore this either: there’s a distinctly modern economic utility to some of these arrangements. Keeping a marriage in name but outsourcing intimacy. Merging incomes while separating lives. Polyamory as a networked form of emotional capitalism. In the end, much of what gets labeled as “new forms of love” are simply old patterns of self-protection—wrapped in language that makes them sound noble.

But if we’re honest, many of us aren’t trying to rediscover the meaning of love. We’re trying to avoid the cost of it.

Well, you might say, “Isn’t it better to redefine love than to live a lie?” Perhaps. But before we redefine, we should ask: Do we even remember what we’re redefining?

If marriage is simply a lifestyle preference, then it can mean anything—and eventually, nothing. But if it is a moral institution, meant not only to fulfill but to form us, then we need to approach its redesign with the same reverence we’d offer to any sacred thing. Or perhaps more aptly: with the caution of someone standing in a room with unstable antimatter, unsure what will explode next.

VII. Toward a New Wisdom – Renewal, Not Redesign

So what now? If modern marriage feels like a broken machine, the temptation is to toss it out and build something entirely new. But maybe the wiser move isn’t reinvention. Maybe it’s renewal.

Some ancient cultures had practices that, though strange to modern ears, may hold unexpected wisdom. In certain Celtic traditions, for instance, marriage was entered into one year at a time. Each anniversary was a conscious decision point—do we recommit, or part ways? Far from trivializing the bond, this practice kept it alive by demanding annual clarity, effort, and intention.

That’s not to say we should all adopt term-limited marriages. But it raises a provocative idea: maybe what we need is not new definitions, but new disciplines. Rituals of reflection. Honest reassessments. Habits of self-giving. A marriage culture that prioritizes inner transformation over outer flexibility.

Because here’s the paradox: what looks like rigidity on the outside—lifelong fidelity, exclusivity, perseverance—can actually produce the greatest inner freedom. The freedom to be truly known. The freedom to grow without fear of being replaced. The freedom to fail, and be forgiven.

And maybe that’s the heart of marriage as it was meant to be—not a perfect structure, but a moral gymnasium, where two flawed people train in the art of covenant. A place where love is not just declared, but developed.

Renewal doesn’t mean ignoring real pain. It doesn’t mean staying in abusive or emotionally dead marriages. But it does mean refusing to let our disappointments be the architects of our ideals. It means recovering a vision of love that endures, not because it’s easy, but because it’s rooted in something deeper than desire.

Pop culture rarely helps us here. Our stories glorify intensity, not endurance. We applaud beginnings, not maintenance. We love the chase, not the staying. Even in science fiction, we idolize innovation over stability. But maybe we need a different image—not the sleek starship racing toward the unknown, but the Battlestar Galactica, holding together against impossible odds, carrying the remnants of humanity through the void. Marriage isn’t just a personal arrangement. It’s a cultural inheritance. And like any inheritance, we can spend it foolishly—or invest it wisely for those who come after us.

VIII. Conclusion – Eyes Wide Open

We’re living through a relational upheaval—a time when the definitions, expectations, and structures of marriage are being questioned, reshaped, and sometimes discarded entirely. Some see this as overdue liberation. Others see it as dangerous unraveling. But wherever you stand, one thing should be clear: this is not something to enter into lightly.

Redefining marriage—whether to include same-sex couples, polyamorous groups, or time-limited contracts—is not just a private decision. It’s a civilizational question. Marriage, in every culture, has always functioned not just as personal commitment, but as social architecture. When we change its structure, we don’t just alter the shape of families. We alter the shape of the world they live in.

Let me be clear: I’m not against same-sex marriage, nor do I believe that every polyamorous relationship is doomed to failure. I have no interest in policing love. What I am against is carelessness—the refusal to think critically and humbly about the long-term consequences of our choices. Whether you believe in divine design or evolutionary adaptation, there is wisdom in the way human societies have historically structured marriage. Perhaps we should pause before we throw that inheritance out.

To put it plainly: you do you. But do it with your eyes wide open. Don’t confuse novelty for wisdom. Don’t assume that because something feels freer, it will produce more love. And don’t forget that children, communities, and futures are often shaped by choices we make in the name of personal happiness.

And for those who like to compare our relational instincts to those of bonobos or chimpanzees—well, that’s an intriguing conversation. One I’m happy to have. But that, as they say, will have to be another blog post.

In the meantime, let’s be courageous enough to ask hard questions. Let’s be humble enough to listen to the wisdom of both tradition and consequence. And let’s be honest enough to say that love isn’t made sacred by our freedom to define it—but by our willingness to be formed by it.

Reflection

Imagine inventing a new word—let’s call it blurp. When someone asks what blurp means, you smile and say, “It can be anything you want it to be.” Sounds fun, right? But then we both start using blurp in conversation—each with our own private definition. To anyone listening, it’s meaningless noise. If a word can mean anything, does it still mean something? Or does it lose all meaning altogether? That’s a question not just about language, but about how we define things like marriage, identity, and truth. But don’t worry—we’ll blurp that open in another post.

Excerpt

What happens when we redesign marriage to fit desire rather than purpose? This post explores the rise of designer marriages, from polyamory to open contracts, asking whether we’re expanding love—or just avoiding its cost. A call for reflection in an age of reinvention. Eyes open, hearts engaged.

References

• The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley
• Open Monogamy: A Guide to Co-Creating Your Ideal Relationship Agreement by Tammy Nelson
• Bisexual Married Men: Stories of Relationships, Acceptance, and Authenticity 1st Edition, by Robert Cohen
• Eight Things I Wish I’d Known About Polyamory: Before I Tried It and Frakked It Up by Minx M
• The Polyamorous Relationship: Discover What it is, How it Works, and Whether or Not It’s Right for You – (Poly Relationship, Polyamour, Polyamory Dating, Polyamorous Dating) by Peter Landry
• When Someone You Love Is Polyamorous: Understanding Poly People and Relationships (Thorntree Fundamentals) by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff
• Polyamory and Jealousy A More Than Two Essentials Guide by Eve Rickert and Franklin Veaux
• More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory (More Than Two Essentials) by Franklin Veaux, Janet Hardy, & Tatiana Gill,
• Stories From the Polycule: Real Life in Polyamorous Families by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff & Tikva Wolf
• The Ethical Slut, Third Edition: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Freedoms in Sex and Love by Janet W. Hardy and Dossie Easton
• Opening Up: A Guide To Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships by Tristan Taormino
• Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships by Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jetha
• Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Nonmonogamy by Jessica Fern