For the most part, relationship structures and elements and the way people connect with each other is a spectrum that isn’t necessarily fixed. A person can move up and down the spectrum. Hell, it’s even postulated that they can go through planes of time and space and alternate dimensions or universes (my digital art skills aren’t that sic tho, just pretend that image does some kind of cool time warp animation). The point is, most people experience a variety of connections and structures throughout their lives. People can go through seasons. They can be single for a long time. They can date several different people in succession, or all at once. People can be mutually interested in one another but things never quite line up. One person can be more into the other. They can be in one long-term relationship until they die, or several throughout their lifetime for various reasons. Some people might even argue that their relationships reach through several lifetimes. Someone might be in a monogamous relationship and still identify as non-monogamous, and vice versa. And there isn’t any space that is more valid than another. They just *are*.

Due to societal narratives, monogamy has long been the most widely practiced relationship structure, so much so, that it never really occurs to most people that other relationship structures exist – at least not without negative connotations. Indeed, if someone is single or non-monogamous, the consensus is something must be out of the ordinary with that person – if they are single, they must not be desirable, or they must be in some type of mourning and in-between relationships after a breakup or some other form of loss. If they are non-monogamous they must be unfaithful, or unsettled, or even eccentric. While those descriptions aren’t always wrong, they are a very narrow perspective of those words and associations.

The reality is, there is more than one way to relationship. We know this already – we have different types of connections as parents, siblings, children, relatives, friends, classmates, coworkers, colleagues, acquaintances, community members, nationalities, and race. Relationship dynamics can be intimate, ambivalent, indifferent, benevolent, malevolent, and abusive. They can be secure, or shaky. They can be on and off. They can be rocky. They can span across various factors such as distance, age, and language. We can connect in any number of ways, and it can be steadfast, or it can be very inconsistent.

But for some reason, when someone is considered a partner or interest (in whatever capacity – romantic, sexual, etc) – we lose our damn minds. We toss away the knowledge and understanding that there is more than one way to connect with someone, and that connections do not necessarily determine our personal value. (I say necessarily, because, imo – how we love and connect to others is a vital element of how we define ourselves, and regardless of what is true and accurate, what we believe is our own personal reality that no one else can really experience for us. – but that is a different post for a different day).

Because we are human, we have a great need for labels and parameters and simplicity for the sake of communication and functionality. And even though most of us will probably admit that we don’t know it all, we find a certain level of comfort in thinking we’ve got things figured out.

Unfortunately, sometimes we over-simplify things and we lock ourselves into certain patterned ways of thinking with a rigidity that is hard to even know exists until it is challenged, and when it is, our cognitive dissonance will defend itself to the death, even when we are actively trying to wrap our minds around something new or bigger or more complicated. We start to define things with value because of the associations our brains make. What works for me or what is familiar must be “good” and anything different from that must be “bad”.

Thus, monogamy has been widely accepted as the go-to way of doing things, and anything else must not be the “right way”, ergo, it must be bad. These oversimplification tools of communication have equated to survivalism tactics and have been used as fodder for adaptive behaviors that societal groups and hierarchies and religious practices have built on since the dawn of civilization.

In truth, there isn’t a best way to relationship, rather, there is only a best way to relationship for each individual.

It’s not a one-size-fits all chart. And while people really do try to squeeze into those parameters, it can be a really uncomfortable shirt and it’s okay to look for outfits that flatter and accentuate our best traits, even if it isn’t everyone else’s taste. It’s also okay to look in the mirror and say “man, that looks great, but this material doesn’t feel right”, or “this isn’t the right season” and take it off and try something else. Diversity is what makes the world go ‘round and trial and error is how we all learn and grow and experience life.

A person who is single may be single by choice rather than circumstance.

A person who is monogamous might not be the epitome of loyalty and commitment.

A person who is non-monogamous might not be part of the BDSM community and having multiple person sex sessions.

Again, it’s a spectrum. And it’s not fixed. And there are SO MANY variables!

So to break it down, we have the main relationship structures of being Single, being Monogamous, and being Non-Monogamous. (If there are other relationship structures, please feel free to message me, I love to learn, I just really couldn’t think of anything else). Some would even argue not only are these structures, they are orientations. This is a matter of great debate amongst the LGBTQIA+ and polyam communities – that’s not something I plan to address in depth in this particular blog post, but I feel it is important to share in relation to the fact that it is Pride month and sometimes it is assumed that polyamory is lumped into the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. Indeed, there is an overlap of those who identify as both, but not everyone claims polyam/non-monogamy as an orientation and it is important not to diminish those who have struggled under the prejudices against orientations other than cishetero narratives and systems. I have known people who feel that being single or polyam or non-monogamous is their orientation, and others who do not and that it is an active choice they make or a circumstance they find themselves in. In fact, it can get even MORE convoluted as some people even identify as Ambiamorous, meaning they feel comfortable (that’s a relative term –  we all know relationships can be uncomfortable regardless of how many people are involved) –comfortable in either being Monogamous or Non-monogamous (not sure if being single is included in that spectrum, I haven’t seen anything indicating one way or another – if somebody knows, fill me in). I can only speak to my own experience and say that I feel like identifying relationship structures as identity descriptors is something that people should decide for themselves as individuals, and be mindful of how to share it in a way that isn’t harmful or dismissive of others. (I’d also like to add, sometimes people are just trying to communicate a concept and a feeling they haven’t quite grasped how to relay, so things get shared with a really broad vocabulary, so it can also be a matter of ability and understanding in *how* to share their experience that can take a little bit of intuition and clarification processing to get to what they’re really trying to say). Tbh, it’s a pretty complicated nuance that I’m personally still actively trying to process and understand about myself and I’ve been working on it for YEARS, so, mostly I’m just hoping we can all allow each other a bit of grace as we stumble through trying to untangle that ball of yarn. (Another blog for another day).

Moving on….

Underneath those umbrella structures comes some more specific elements. “Monogamish” is a term relating to individuals in a monogamous relationship that have some level of outside relations. Again, this is (hopefully) determined by the people in that relationship (I will say I typically see the term monogamish used as an active choice that couples make, not something one person secretly exercises behind the other’s back). It might mean more theoretical scenarios like being okay with the other person fantasizing about people outside of the relationship, or having a very deep emotional connection to someone in a romantic kind of way, or it may be more in a more physical way, like occasional intercourse with another person outside of the relationship (either as individuals, or as a threesome, or something that looks similar to swinging – but swinging is another thing on its own – we’ll get there).

(Bare with me…)

Polygamy/polygny/polyandry are also part of the in-between of monogamy and non-monogamy depending on perspective. By definition, polygamy is the overarching term referring to a relationship where one spouse has many paramours. Most often this term is has a religious affiliation (I have no doubt there are examples where it is not, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head). Polygny is a male identifying person with many female identifying partners, and polyandry is a female identifying person with many male identifying partners. (Again, I think this is one of those terms that is more specified to cis-het relationships, but I could be wrong. I still like to honor gender identity and be as inclusive as possible though.)

(Ya’ll are doing great, I promise we’re getting somewhere…)

Now we get to swinging. Swinging is typically a term used to describe a dynamic in which a couple engages with other couples for play/sex. The couple’s relationship is still honored as the primary element of the dynamic, but they may choose to engage with other couples as a group or “swap” or engage with other individuals with the understanding that the coupled relationship is to be respected as a primary entity. Swingers define these agreements amongst themselves as the couple, and as the participants. (I hope I have done that description justice, my swinger friends, please feel free to correct me anywhere as I am not deeply experienced in this way of practicing relationships).

(Yes, yes, polyamory, I know, I haven’t forgotten, we’re almost there…)

At this point I’m sure you’re wondering where cheating/infidelity and “friends with benefits” or “joyfriends” and BDSM/kink come in. In my opinion, I don’t think they are headings in relationship structures, but rather are elements. Those are really dynamics that can occur anywhere on the relationship spectrum – a single person might have a friend with benefits, swingers might not practice BDSM, a non-monogamous person can cheat, etc.,  and  so for these reasons, I didn’t add them in the structures but I do feel they are important terms to mention, because like LGBTQIA+ and orientation, there is a lot of overlap between how people relationship and who they are and what they do.

Open relationships are very similar to swinging with the exception that they seem to be a little less “coupled” as it were. People who are in open relationships operate where the coupled relationship is the primary dynamic, but the individuals may have outside engagements. Again, the specifics of how this looks are determined by the people in them (their unique, personalize, negotiated relationship agreements), but most of the time it seems to be more of a physical relation to others, and very limited outside of that.

And that Ya’ll, leads us to what we’ve been working up to – the moment you’ve all been waiting for – WHAT EVEN IS POLYAMORY?!?!?