The Difference Between Intentional and Compulsory Monogamy
I’ve noticed is that sometimes when you’re an advocate for non-monogamy you can be perceived as being anti-monogamy. As therapists, we are in support of whatever a client believes and knows is best for them. Still, there’s a world of difference between intentional and compulsory monogamy. We believe that people should be allowed to consciously create the boundaries and parameters of their lives and relationships.
Monogamy is the practice of having one romantic and sexual partner at a time. This is the most commonly known relationship structure, and when practiced with intention can create fulfilling relationships. Many of us are most familiar with versions of compulsory monogamy — oftentimes sold to us as “romance” and “love” — harmful narratives in pop culture around romantic relationships are often filled with coercion, assumptions, lack of communication, and jealousy as an indicator of love.
One example might be the “dogged nice guy” trope in movies and TV — guy chases girl, she’s not into him but he persists, and eventually she realizes he is “the one” for her (usually after he makes her jealous)... and they live happily ever after. Not only are the majority of romantic examples given through pop culture heteronormative, but they almost always follow the script of compulosry monogamy. There is nothing inherently superior nor adverse about monogamy; it can be a valid and nourishing relationship structure when done intentionally (as is any relationship). Let’s break down the difference between the two.
What is compulsory monogamy?
The narrative often fed to us from pop culture, religion, and heteronormativity is that our purpose as a romantic partner is to find “the one.” Compulsory monogamy culture assumes that everyone strives to be married to one partner and finds complete fulfillment in that romantic endeavour — that this one romantic partner not only completes us, but fulfills every need and desire we have. Many people who are just beginning to navigate sexual desires and romantic relationships are taught that monogamy is the only relationship structure available to them.
Instead of offering resources and empowering education on navigating healthy relationships, young people are left with little to no education on this topic. Without proper knowledge on relationship green flags and communication skills, young people will replicate the examples they are provided — which often mirror compulsory monogamy and perpetuate monogamy myths. Knowledge about the various ways in which relationships can be structured unravels these unhealthy assumptions about what romantic and sexual relations are “supposed” to look like. This information allows people to create connections that feel empowering for them.
There is no one way to be monogamous
This may sound paradoxical as the definition of monogamy seems quite straightforward — one romantic and sexual partner at a time. However, when the veil of compulsory monogamy is pulled back, it’s possible to see the various ways in which monogamous relationships can be structured. Each person in a relationship comes with their own needs, wants, and boundaries. For example, an intentionally monogamous couple might discuss what their definition of flirting is, which could look vastly different from their best friends who also happen to be monogamous. One couple could include physical touch within the context of flirting and decide that is okay for them to engage in outside of their relationship. Another monogamous couple might have an open relationship policy when they take solo travel trips. These boundaries are created through intentional dialogue within a relationship.
As individuals we are constantly growing and our needs will shift alongside this growth. That will likely impact how we move in relation to others. Allowing monogamy to be defined on your terms gives room for fluidity in definition,creativity in boundaries, and meeting your desires. Intentional monogamy allows you to get curious about how you want to make monogamy work for your life instead of letting it control who and how you are within romantic partnerships.
How to go about intentional monogamy
When someone knows their options for relationship structures, they can make an informed decision about what feels best for them. Knowing that non-monogamy is an option does not mean that it will be for everyone — it simply allows people to decide what relationship structure and boundaries works for them.
If you are already in a monogamous relationship and want to get more intentional with your partner, you can ask them these kind of questions:
How do you define monogamy?
How do you define cheating?
How are we making sure all our needs are being met? (i.e. not relying on your partner as your sole support system and keeping in touch with friends, community, chosen or biological family to meet your needs for connection.)
How do you process jealousy?
Do we want to talk about external attractions when they come up?
How often does it feel good to check in about our dynamic/boundaries?
Engaging in these topics allows each partner to decide exactly how they want to be in relationship with the other. It takes away the assumptions within the context of compulsory monogamy. Being intentional in your romantic relationships means there is space for each person to show up as their full selves -- complexities and all. Most people have the very human experiences of external sexual or romantic desires. While compulsory monogamy might assume a person having those desires or crushes is or will be a “cheater”, intentional monogamy allows space to be honest about how to talk about or move through those moments as a couple. Discussing these topics before you’re in the midst of feeling jealous or having a crush allows you to create a plan and boundaries on how you engage with these topics. This creates more compassion and empathy within a relationship.
BLOG AUTHORS ALL HOLD POSITIONS AT THE GENDER & SEXUALITY THERAPY CENTER (G&STC). FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR THERAPISTS AND SERVICES PLEASE CONTACT US.