What Do You Think “Monogamy” Means?

Just the two of us... or is it?

monogamy-01521

Last week, the APW team was discussing relationships (which we do for both business and pleasure) and the subject of non-monogamy popped up. It became immediately clear that we weren’t on the same page about a whole host of things, starting with the basic definitions of Monogamy.

The way I figure, if we can’t even all agree on how to define something, that usually means it’s something we should be talking about. Monogamy is a loaded word, with a whole host of cultural, class, and political implications. Some people see it as an archaic concept, some people see it as a sacred pact… and then there’s the “monogamish” folks, who… maybe fall somewhere else?

As the conversations continued, we realized we had far more talk about than we can cover just one post. So this is the start of a series we’re calling Monogamy Mondays: posts that will talk about cheating, polyamory, monogamy, non-monogamy, and all that jazz. And where else should we start but with a simple question: What do we think Monogamy means? Here’s what the staff had to say (note: all staff responses are anon because it’s more fun/honest that way).

For one person, it monogamy is cut and dry (and highly efficient):

Until this conversation started, I didn’t see any nuance to my monogamy. In my mind, monogamy is not sleeping with (or kissing, or otherwise messing around with), folks other than your partner. Done. And by this definition I consider myself pretty naturally monogamous, and I settled down with a life partner who might even be more monogamous than I am. I don’t really have the time, energy, or even desire to hook up with other people. I like my life as simple as possible, because… I’ve got shit to get done!

Another one of us took an activist stance, that monogamy has a particular historical and societal definition:

When I think of Monogamy, I think of the dictionary definition (“the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner/mate”), but also of an inflexible social value that has been used to oppress women. Historically, men have been given license to wander, but monogamy is considered essential to wifely duties (for a multitude of reasons that mostly boils down to women/the womb as property). On that note, I think that biologically and in practice, pure, lifelong monogamy doesn’t work for enough people (adultery sound familiar?) to be considered a societal standard or norm we’re all supposed to aspire to. I don’t see monogamy as synonymous to devotion or primary commitments (open relationships have both)—just a value judgment on fidelity.

While a few felt that that monogamy was more of a personal, not political, construct:

I strongly feel that monogamy is relationship-specific and definitions change depending on individual partners involved. In my current relationship, it’s not having any physical relationships outside of our marriage, and also not having an emotional relationship with another person that’s closer/stronger than the one we have we each other. Case in point, I don’t identify as naturally monogamous, but I am [happily] in a monogamous relationship. For me, monogamy is… a compromise to promote peace and stability over anxiety and flux. A building of a long game rather than transient experiences. A prioritization of a relationship’s needs over one’s own wants. An opportunity to model something different from what I saw growing up.

Though some felt that personal construct was more flexible than others:

I actually do identify as naturally monogamous, but maybe that’s because I believe monogamy is more about the relationship than sex. For me, it means keeping your marriage as your core relationship, both romantically and physically, and not seeking similar relationships outside your marriage. Basically, if we do it together, it’s monogamy. If we do it apart, it’s not. For example, I believe that you can call yourself monogamous and still engage in a threesome. And you can be non-monogamous if you go on a romantic date with someone else but don’t engage in any sexual activity with them. While it might seem arbitrary, this monogamish definition allows a certain fluidity in our relationship while still offering the security and protection of what I would consider traditional monogamy.

And finally, one staff member agrees with… basically all of it:

When I think and speak about monogamy, I am first and foremost speaking about the emotional context of the relationship. For me personally, being monogamous means that the emotional health of our partnership comes first, and that we refrain from physical contact with people outside of the relationship second. My definition of monogamy can change depending on the context of the relationship. Right now in my relationship, being monogamous means that we don’t get emotionally or physically involved in a romantic and/or sexual sense with anyone else… but that doesn’t mean it will always mean that (or that it has in the past). I think the idea of monogamy, like many terms and labels before it, is one of the last vestiges of a more patriarchal system that is slowly being whittled and ebbed down, and that will continue to change as the needs of societies change.

So, dig deep APW (and go anon if need be), and tell us: how do you define the concept of monogamy? Is it legal, political, or personal? Is it akin to fidelity or devotion or both? Do you even think it’s worth aspiring to? And can you have a threesome and be monogamous? We want to know. 

Featured Sponsored Content

Please read our comment policy before you comment.

The APW Store is Here

APW Wedding e-shop

go find all our favorites from around the internet, and our free planning tools

Shop Now
APW Wedding e-shop

Planning a wedding?

We have all the planning tools you need right now.

Budget spreadsheets, checklists, and more...

Get Your Free Planning Tools