As consensual non-monogamy (CNM) has become a more visible part of our society, we’ve come to view monogamous and polyamorous relationship structures as opposites.
In actual fact, monogamy, with its connotations of marriage, isn’t a natural opposite to polyamory, and “monoamory” perhaps better reflects the existing diversity of single-partner relationship types.
The sex and relationships lexicon is ever-expanding, and it can be hard to keep up. This can lead us to dismiss new terms as semantic distractions from reality. But words matter: in the changing landscape of what it means to love and be loved, language plays a crucial role in understanding and articulating our experiences to others.
So today, we’re not just geeking out about a word. Instead, we’re trying to forge new ways of communicating and connecting with others.
Photo: Jessica Felicio via Unsplash
The Language of Love and Relationships: Monogamy, Polygamy, and Polyamory
There are three words we often hear used when we’re talking about relationship structures:
Monogamous relationships are exclusive partner relationships. The word comes from the Greek “mono,” meaning one, and “gamos,” meaning marriage.
Polygamous means being married to many/more than one spouse. It comes from the Greek “poly” meaning many, and “gamos,” which we know means marriage.
Polyamorous refers to having, or being open to having, multiple partners. It combines the Greek “poly” for many and the Latin “amor” meaning love.
Before we move on, I should briefly tell you that the word “polyamorous” stirs up controversy in certain linguistic quarters. Some language purists can’t stand the hybrid etymology of the word, detesting that it combines Greek and Latin.
But many of the terms we use daily are hybrids like “claustrophobia,” “meritocracy,” or “television,” for example. This piece says it better than I could, but essentially, my message here is that hybrids are fine, and lexical purism is a red herring. Anyway, I digress.
Photo: Zelle Duda via Unsplash
What’s the Problem with Monogamy?
The use of monogamous as a catch-all term for exclusive relationships, rather than solely for married couples, is a relatively modern development. As social norms and values have shifted, we’ve come to understand the word more broadly.
So, what’s the problem? Well, there are several. For a start, it’s confusing. We’ve given monogamy two opposites in “polyamory” and “polygamy,” and this is technically impossible. More importantly, the word “monogamous” has an overly narrow frame of reference for relationships baked in!
We’re living at a time when relationships are more diverse than ever:
Many couples choose to live together but not to marry
Increasing numbers of committed couples—both married and unmarried—choose not to live together or to live together only part-time in LAT (living apart together) relationships
The number of CNM relationships is rising rapidly
Given this context, using monogamy as the catch-all opposite of polyamory or CNM feels increasingly outdated and inaccurate. It fails to capture the diversity of relationship structures and how people are redefining love and commitment.
Photo: Edward Eyer via Pexels
What is Monoamory? And Why is it Better?
From our brief linguistics lesson above, you can probably work out the meaning of the term “monoamory” yourself. It combines the Greek “mono” for one and the Latin “amor” for love, and it means having only one partner.
Monoamory is a better term for several reasons. First, it doesn’t include marriage as the only form of partnership. Ultimately, it encompasses the whole gamut of exclusive, dyadic relationships.
The word “monogamy” describes an exclusive, married partnership.
It creates a linguistic order where polygamy and monogamy are natural opposites referring to a number of marriages, and monoamory and polyamory are broader, more inclusive terms relating to the number of partners.
Lastly, the most beautiful thing about monoamory is that just as polyamory does for multiple partners, it is love centric. And after all, whether you have one partner or many, isn’t that why you’re with them?
