Key takeaways
- Less conventional relationships can take more time and money
- Swingers are likely to be better educated and better off
- People in low-end circles have much less to lose by publicizing their lifestyle
Power and Privilege in Relationship Dynamics
Theoretically, relationships in high-end social circles will deviate from traditional norms due to the unique privileges and lifestyle dynamics that accompany wealth and status. Individuals in these circles may prioritize career ambitions, public image, or social alliances over traditional romantic ideals, leading to transactional partnerships rather than partnerships based on an emotional connection. Wealth and influence can foster environments where power dynamics and discretion shape how relationships are formed and maintained, making them appear more unconventional in nature.
The Prevalence of Non-Monogamous Practices
When we consider unconventional relationships, non-monogamy naturally comes to mind. A survey on the prevalence of non-monogamous practices in the US found that 2.35% of adults identified as swingers, and another 4.76% had been swingers at some point in their lives. That translates to more than one couple in 25. One of two dozen couples is involved in open relationships, also known as consensual non-monogamy (CNM). Based on 2025 US Census data, 4% means almost 14 million people. The prevalence is similar to the north. A recent online survey of a representative sample of Canadians found that 4% took part in CNM.
A survey by Indiana University showed that 18% of men and 10% of women had had one threesome or more. Census data on 8,718 single US adults reveals that more than one in five (21%) reported at least one experience of CNM.
That said, there is a distinction between full-on swinging and soft swinging, where couples can agree to engage in sexual encounters with other people, but penetration is off the table. If soft swingers are added to the statistics, the number of people in such relationships is likely to be much higher.
In elite social environments where discretion is paramount, soft swinging may be more common than reported. These arrangements offer a degree of exploration without the perceived risks of full non-monogamy, aligning well with the careful image management expected in upper-class settings. In many high-net-worth households, the pressure to uphold a polished public image often leads to creative expressions of intimacy behind closed doors.
Swingers’ Demographics Skew Above Average
CNM relationships take time and money, both of which lower-income couples will have less of. Booking hotels, going out for dinner and drinks with other couples, and hiring babysitters all require a level of financial comfort that tends to attract more affluent people to these practices. While that’s certainly not exclusive, and you can meet and play with people from all walks of life, you’ll generally meet people who are better educated and more well-off.
Members of swinging communities share on niche forums that they ask for photos of other couples’ homes’ interiors before meeting in real life and “will avoid anyone with bad carpet in their pictures” and “messy bathrooms.” People in unconventional relationships are likely to attract others who live nearby and are of similar economic status.
It’s also to be expected that middle-class or wealthy individuals will tend to stay away from members of low-end circles, who have much less to lose by divulging details of their lifestyle. The lifestyle will not enhance a doctor’s or a lawyer’s career, nor are professional peers likely to accept it, so people in open relationships will try to meet equally discreet partners.
While not a given, it’s logical to expect a connection between being sufficiently intelligent to see beyond traditional norms and that same intelligence leading to more financial success.
Discretion, Lifestyle, and Status
In affluent communities, privacy is often a form of capital. Those engaging in alternative relationship structures, such as polyamory or swinging, must manage how much of their lifestyle becomes public. In some cases, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or private social memberships help preserve boundaries. This type of discretion is not always available to individuals in lower-income groups, who may not feel the same societal pressures—or have the same tools—for image control.
Additionally, unconventional relationships in high-end social groups may not necessarily be rooted in rebellion against traditional values. Instead, they often reflect a broader lifestyle of autonomy, where individuals feel empowered to define love, commitment, and partnership on their own terms. The freedom to customize life paths without immediate economic consequences gives rise to alternative relational dynamics—ones that still prioritize stability but allow room for experimentation.
Final Thoughts
Access to upper-class social networks and liberal cultural influences often exposes individuals to diverse relationship models. This exposure can normalize non-traditional choices like polyamory, co-parenting without marriage, or unconventional family structures that might be stigmatized elsewhere. While not all relationships in these circles are unconventional, the freedom to define one’s personal life without the same societal pressures that affect members of lower-end circles allows for more flexible self-expression depending on individual status and needs.
Ultimately, unconventional relationships in high-end social circles are not just about experimentation or indulgence—they are frequently the byproduct of complex socio-economic factors. From managing reputation to affording greater autonomy, these individuals often operate in a space where discretion, education, and affluence give them more leeway to redefine intimacy on their own terms. As society continues to evolve, understanding these dynamics is essential to having a more nuanced view of what modern relationships look like across class divides.
