Stories Told Together : Male Narratives of Non-Monogamous Bi+ and Heterosexual Men

The stories we tell about our identities and sexual orientations shape how we perform gendered scripts and negotiate relationships with significant others. Previous literature inquired the styles and outcomes of consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships, but more research is need on how CNM men resist or abide to hegemonic models of masculinity. To understand how constructions of masculinity and conceptualizations of sexual orientation are embedded in CNMs, the study analysed the stories of non-monogamous Bi+ and heterosexual men. Following a critical narrative approach, the study inquired the diverse conceptualizations of masculinity, sexual orientation and relationship practices in the narratives of 20 non-monogamous Bi+ and heterosexual identified men. The semi-structured in-depth narrative interviews (105 min on average) were analyzed via Nvivo 12 and explored their stories of desire and the sense-making process of being sexually oriented to one or more genders and to one or more partner/s. Engaging in non-monogamy was signified as a relevant insight from their personal stories and/ or from adopting new concepts of desire beyond the “love as a zero-sum game.” The latter theme was also shared by many heterosexual participants that, when negotiating a non-monogamous agreement, signified their attractions to more than one person as part of their personal identity. Finally, the paper discusses how non-monogamous spaces can offer a positive and safe space for bisexuals/Bi+ people to explore and reaffirm their identities, constantly challenged by biphobia, invisibility, and erasure. Experiences and stories of Italian cisgender Bi+ and heterosexual men cannot be generalized to the whole spectrum of masculinities within CNM spaces, and the study lacks how other gendered and sexual subjectivities construct masculinity. Diverse stories and construction of sexuality and gender can lead to similar relationship preferences and understanding how we signify them can greatly improve our understanding of intimacies