What empirical studies exist comparing long‑term relationship satisfaction between monogamous couples and those practicing consensual cuckolding?
Executive summary
Empirical literature comparing monogamous couples to people practicing consensual non‑monogamy (CNM) shows that, overall, relationship and sexual satisfaction tend to be similar across these broad categories, but important caveats about measurement, sampling, and the heterogeneity of CNM apply [1] [2] [3]. There are no robust, large‑scale empirical studies specifically isolating "consensual cuckolding" as a unique configuration and comparing its long‑term relationship satisfaction to monogamy, so conclusions must be drawn from CNM research more generally and treated cautiously [4] [2].
1. What the big reviews say: parity, not superiority
A 2025 meta‑analysis and several syntheses conclude that people in consensually non‑monogamous relationships report overall levels of relationship and sexual satisfaction statistically indistinguishable from monogamous people across many studies and countries; the headline framing is that the "monogamy‑superiority" myth lacks empirical support [5] [1] [6]. Those reviews aggregate dozens of studies and tens of thousands of respondents and report no consistent advantage for monogamy in core outcomes such as trust, commitment, intimacy, and sexual satisfaction [1] [2].
2. What individual studies add: nuance and subgroup differences
Several individual investigations find mixed results: Conley et al. directly compared sexual satisfaction in CNM versus monogamous respondents and found that group differences are often small or non‑existent once sampling and motivations are accounted for [7] [8]. Other more recent studies report that certain CNM subgroups—sometimes women in CNM samples—show higher dyadic sexual desire or better conflict‑resolution strategies compared with monogamous counterparts, demonstrating that gender and relationship style can modulate effects [9]. Conversely, national survey data from 2012 found open‑relationship participants reporting lower relationship satisfaction in that specific dataset, illustrating heterogeneity across methods and samples [10].
3. Why the literature can seem contradictory: methods matter
The body of research is fragmented: many studies use convenience samples recruited online, self‑report measures, and broad umbrella terms (e.g., “open relationships,” “polyamory,” “CNM”) that collapse distinct practices and motives, which undermines clean comparisons to monogamy and makes longitudinal inferences difficult [2] [11]. Meta‑analysts and scoping reviews therefore stress that differences between relationship structures often shrink after controlling for communication style, motivations for CNM, adherence to pro‑monogamy beliefs, and contact with metamours, meaning context and process explain much of the variance in satisfaction [11] [12].
4. The missing piece: consensual cuckolding specifically is understudied
"Cuckolding" is a particular erotic and relational script within CNM that involves arousal tied to a partner’s sex with others, sometimes with power‑exchange dynamics, but the peer‑reviewed empirical literature does not offer substantial, targeted longitudinal comparisons between consensual cuckolding dyads and monogamous couples on long‑term relationship satisfaction [4]. Available CNM findings cannot be uncritically extrapolated to consensual cuckolding because the practice may involve unique interpersonal dynamics, risk profiles, and boundary negotiations that have not been isolated in large empirical samples [2] [4].
5. Bottom line and research gaps to watch
The best current evidence indicates parity in relationship and sexual satisfaction between monogamous and CNM populations when examined at scale, but heterogeneity across CNM forms, recruitment biases, cross‑sectional designs, and inconsistent labeling undermine definitive claims—especially about niche practices like consensual cuckolding, for which direct long‑term empirical studies are lacking [1] [2] [11]. Future research must disaggregate CNM subtypes, use representative samples and longitudinal designs, and measure relationship processes (communication, jealousy management, motivations) to determine whether specific forms such as consensual cuckolding produce comparable long‑term outcomes to monogamy [11] [12].