Alternative Lifestyles

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 101–108 | Cite as

Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: A comparison of dyadic adjustment

  • Arline M. Rubin


In a study conducted in 1978, using Spanier's (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), couples in a sexually open marriage and couples in a sexually exclusive marriage were compared on dyadic adjustment. One hundred and thirty sexually open respondents were matched with 130 sexually exclusive respondents. It was found that there was no difference in response patterns between people in a sexually open marriage and those in a sexually exclusive marriage who were still living together with their spouses. On the other hand, persons who were no longer living together with their spouses, regardless of whether they were open or exclusive sexually, scored significantly lower on dyadic adjustment.


Social Policy Social Issue Response Pattern Dyadic Adjustment Dyadic Adjustment Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Butler, E.W.Traditional marriage and emerging alternatives. New York; Harper and Row, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Buunk, B. Sexually open marriages: Ground rules for countering potential threats to marriage.Alternative Lifestyles 1980,3 312–28.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, C.L., & Spanier, G.B. Comarital mate-sharing and family stability.Journal of Sex Research 1974,10 21–31.Google Scholar
  4. Denfield, D. Dropouts from swinging: The marriage counselor as informant. In,Beyond Monogamy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Gilmartin, B.D. Some social and personal characteristics of mate-sharing swingers. In,Co-marital sex: Recent studies of sexual alternatives in marriage. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972.Google Scholar
  6. Glenn, N.D., & Weaver, C.N. Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital and homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970's.Journal of Sex Research 1979,2 108–18.Google Scholar
  7. Gough, H.G. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists, 1957.Google Scholar
  8. Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebhard, P.H.Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1953.Google Scholar
  9. Knapp, J.J. An exploratory study of seventeen sexually open marriages.Journal of Sex Research 1976,12 206–19.Google Scholar
  10. Knapp, J.J., & Whitehurst, R.N. Sexually open marriage and relationships: Issues and prospects. In R.W. Libby & R.N. Whitehurst (Eds.),Marriage and alternatives: Exploring intimate relationships. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1977, pp. 147–60.Google Scholar
  11. Paulson, C., & Paulson, R. Swing in wedlock,Society 1972,9 28–37.Google Scholar
  12. Ramey, J.R. Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequences of sexually open marriage.The Family Coordinator 1975,24 515–30.Google Scholar
  13. Ramey, J.R.Intimate Friendships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. Spanier, G.B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads.Journal of Marriage and the Family 1976,38 15–25.Google Scholar
  15. Watson, M.A. Sexually open marriage: Three perspectives.Alternative Lifestyles 1981,4 3–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arline M. Rubin
    • 1
  1. 1.Brooklyn CollegeCity University of New York

Personalised recommendations