Polyamory or Monogamy: Between Self-Determination, Cultural Constraints and Destructive Jealousy

Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir had one of the most famous non-monogamous relationships of the 20th century. Their relationship was based on an ‘essential pact’: a deep, existential connection that at the same time allowed them complete sexual and emotional freedom to enter into other relationships. They distinguished between their ‘necessary love’ – which they felt for each other – and ‘contingent loves’, that is, their relationships with others.

For Sartre, radical human freedom was at the centre of his philosophy – including in love. He regarded any form of ownership, even emotional ownership, as an attempt to appropriate the freedom of the other person. Simone de Beauvoir also saw in traditional marriage an institution that oppresses women in particular – she spoke of marriage as a ‘prison in which the woman administers her own loss’.

Both saw love not as the dissolution of the self in the other, but as a dialogue between free subjects. Their ideas had a significant influence on later feminist and post-monogamous discourses – even though they never used the terms ‘polyamory’ or ‘ethical non-monogamy’.

What if love were not characterised by possessiveness, but by trust and openness?

Polyamory – or polyamory in German – represents precisely this approach. It is not about the arbitrary expression of sexuality, but about consciously choosing a form of love in which emotional and social responsibility, self-determination and mutual consideration play a central role. In an era in which traditional relationship models such as monogamous marriage are faltering in many places, young people in particular are looking for alternatives that better correspond to their individual life realities and values.

At the same time, social perception of polyamory is ambivalent: on the one hand, it appears as an emancipatory alternative to monogamy, but on the other hand, it is associated with excessive demands, chaos or arbitrariness. This has a lot to do with misunderstandings, but also with the image of ‘free relationships’ that has been shaped by the media. It is often forgotten that polyamory is a structured system of relationships based on mutual consent – not a free pass to be emotionally irresponsible.

The central question is: How can love be lived without relying on ownership, exclusivity and jealousy? What opportunities and challenges arise from the decision to be in a loving relationship with several people at the same time?

What it's about:

• What polyamory really is

• What historical antecedents it has

• How it asserts itself as an opponent of monogamy

• Which figures of thought and social dynamics play a role in this

What does polyamory mean?

Polyamory is more than just a relationship model – it is an attitude towards love that replaces possessiveness with openness and understands exclusivity not as proof, but as a limit to affection. People who live in poly relationships consciously choose to have love relationships with several people at the same time – with the full knowledge and consent of all parties involved and without claiming ownership or exclusivity. This form of relationship is based on transparency, reflection and shared responsibility for the emotional well-being of all involved.

Contrary to the myth often associated with ‘free love’, polyamory is not about a lack of commitment or arbitrariness. Rather, these relationships develop in a binding way, simultaneously developed and lived. They require time, care, agreements – and the courage to question familiar relationship patterns. Those who live polyamorously must be willing to deal with their own insecurities and not avoid emotional conflicts, but negotiate them.

Against the logic of ownership

Classic monogamy is often characterised by an unspoken sense of ownership: ‘You belong to me – so you mustn't desire anyone else.’ In polyamorous relationships, this sense of ownership is consciously dissolved. Love is not understood as an exclusion criterion, but rather as something that can grow and multiply without losing any of its depth.

In this context, jealousy is not glorified as proof of love, but exposed as a culturally influenced emotion – a signal that is taken seriously but not used as a basis for possessiveness. Instead, a conscious way of dealing with feelings, insecurities and boundaries develops. Polyamory does not mean less love – but more responsibility. More reflection. More communication. And: fewer illusions about exclusivity as a guarantee for emotional security.

A practical example: the triad

An illustrative example of lived polyamory is the so-called triad: three people have a love relationship together – not as secondary relationships, but as an emotionally equal constellation. They plan their daily lives together, make decisions collectively, and openly reflect on needs and boundaries.

The challenge here is that there are hardly any social role models for this form of living together. What does it mean to negotiate holidays, visits to parents or house hunting in a three-way conversation? What words can be found for the pain when two people get closer and a third person feels excluded? How do you navigate social expectations when there are only two chairs at the table or two names on the invitation?

Such questions make it clear: Polyamory is not just an attitude, but also an everyday practice that questions social norms – and sometimes has to be against them.

Why is that important?

Because Polyamory does not mean declaring ‘lack of commitment’. On the contrary: it is about a new quality of commitment – based on self-determination and mutual respect.

The adversary of polyamory: monogamy and its constraints

Monogamy as we know it today is not a ‘natural’ model. It is a historically grown concept – often associated with property logic, patriarchal structures and a cultural ideal of romantic exclusivity. This ideal was stabilised in the West, and standardised as a universal form of relationship, primarily by Christian-occidental norms and bourgeois moral concepts in the 19th century.

And as early as the mid-19th century, counter-movements such as the free love movement were developing, questioning the legal, sexual and emotional monopolisation of partnership. Utopian ideas such as those of the Oneida Community in the USA or the discussions that followed the Russian Revolution also took up radical alternatives to the marriage model. They can all be seen as forerunners of today's polyamory – even if they were not free of contradictions of their own.

In the 1960s, in the wake of the sexual revolution and the second women's movement, monogamy was once again widely criticised. Feminist theorists such as Shulamith Firestone, as well as French voices such as Simone de Beauvoir, accused the traditional marriage bond of legitimising the economic and emotional restriction of women. The constraints of monogamy and destructive jealousy were recognised as systemic: those who love become jealous. Those who are jealous control. Those who control possess – so the implicit logic.

Today, it is clear that more than a few people feel a deep unease in monogamous relationships. Not because they don't want to love, but because the form in which they are allowed to love is permeated by implicit rules, fears and expectations. Jealousy, emotional dependency and the fear of being alone are rarely seen as collective problems, but mostly as individual ones. Thus, the cultural framework remains untouched.

But once we become aware of these dynamics, we start asking questions: Why is fidelity tied to physical exclusivity? Why is emotional exclusivity considered an ideal, even though people have long since not been limiting their friendships and family ties to the same degree?

Instead of exploring new forms of togetherness, however, this unease is often pathologised or suppressed. The desire for alternative models of living then appears as immature, relationship-unable or even threatening – and not as an expression of the legitimate search for other forms of closeness and intimacy.

This is precisely where polyamory comes in – as a search for alternatives beyond the norm, but not against commitment. As an attempt to rethink freedom and commitment.

Polyamory: A relationship practice of personal responsibility

Polyamory means leading several loving relationships responsibly – without lies, secrecy or possessiveness. It requires not less commitment, but more: more communication, more emotional maturity, more willingness to deal with one's own vulnerabilities. In a poly relationship, it is not assumed that everything will work out intuitively – rather, it requires a common language, clear agreements and the ability to actively seek difficult conversations rather than avoid them.

Polyamory as a school of relationship work

In polyamorous structures, skills are often cultivated that would also be helpful in monogamous relationships: listening, emotional self-regulation, honest feedback and the ability to distinguish between jealousy and actual relationship problems. Polyamory relies on the principle of emotional transparency – not only towards others, but also towards oneself. Those who live polyamory must learn to distinguish between desire, need and boundary transgression – over and over again.

In this sense, polyamory is not a ‘lighter’ or ‘freer’ form of relationship, but one that is based on inner work. It confronts us with the question: How do I want to love without hurting – and without betraying myself?

Central values in poly relationships:

• Communication as equals: Talking about feelings, needs and boundaries is part of everyday life, not the exception.

• Dealing with jealousy as a learning experience: Jealousy is not a taboo, but understood as an indicator of fears, insecurities or unclear agreements.

• Emotional responsibility instead of projection: Feelings are not weapons or IOUs. They belong to the person experiencing them – and can be shared without imposing them.

• Diverse ways of life instead of a one-size-fits-all model: Polyamory opens up space for individual forms of living together – be it in patchwork constellations, queer networks or non-hierarchical relationship structures.

The absence of jealousy is not assumed, but worked out as a possibility. How jealousy is dealt with determines the quality of the relationship – not the number of people involved. Polyamory is therefore not the opposite of monogamy, but an invitation to reflect on one's own understanding of love – beyond automatisms and cultural scripts.

How do you live a love relationship with more than one person?

Those who practice polyamory consciously choose a relationship that requires time, communication and reflection. It's not about simply loving ‘more’ – but about responsibly shaping love in its plurality. The diversity of poly relationships is reflected not only in the number of partners, but also in the way closeness, attachment, everyday life and sexuality are organised.

Between structure and fluidity

Polyamorous relationships do not follow a fixed model. Some relationships are organised hierarchically – for example, with a primary partnership and other secondary ones. Others, in turn, rely on complete equality, in which there is no hierarchy, only a variety of roles. Still others are designed as dynamic networks in which relationships develop and change over time, place and life phases.

What they have in common is that there are no automatisms. Each constellation is created through dialogue – and must be continuously reflected upon and, if necessary, adapted. This requires not only emotional competence but also organisational skills. Coordinating calendars, discussing needs, rituals of connection – all this is part of everyday life.

Between commitment and freedom

Polyamory is neither relationship-averse nor conflict-shy – quite the opposite. It offers space for people who want to love without having to exclude others from love. At the same time, it requires the ability to live with uncertainties, to deal with open questions and not to tie commitment to exclusivity.

This form of love invites you to question your own patterns: Does love have to mean a shared household? Does sexuality always have to be emotionally embedded? Can intimacy be platonic? Those who live polyamorously not only question relationship norms, but often also their own inner maps of closeness, care and belonging.

Typical relationship models in polyamory:

• triad

• V-constellation

• relationship networks

Criticism: polyamory as an elite lifestyle?

Despite its emancipatory promise, polyamory is increasingly viewed critically in public discourse – especially when it is presented in the media as an urban lifestyle of the educated middle class. This perspective raises the question: is polyamory a socially just relationship model – or just another symbol of the privileges of those who already have more emotional, temporal and economic resources at their disposal?

Self-realisation or self-overload?

In a widely acclaimed essay, cultural studies scholar Tyler Austin Harper argues that Polyamory – as presented in Molly Roden Winter's book More – primarily reveals the dark side of a hyper-individualised discourse of self-optimisation. The author presents her openness as a search for authenticity, while at the same time suffering from a manipulative partner, physical exhaustion and emotional disorientation.

Instead of promoting self-determination, the narrative reflects neoliberal ideology: all life decisions are considered part of a personal development project. Problems are not politicised, but psychologised. The term ‘therapeutic libertarianism’, which Harper introduces, aptly describes this mixture of self-help rhetoric, emotional self-renewal and market logic. Every relationship becomes a stage, every experience a ‘growth moment’ – even if this means that real burdens and inequalities remain hidden.

Class question instead of promise of freedom

Harper's criticism of the social access to polyamory is particularly harsh: those who have resources, education, time and emotional capacity can afford alternative relationship models. On the other hand, those who are single parents, in precarious employment or receive no psychological support often experience polyamory not as a liberation, but as an additional burden.

This makes it clear that the much-vaunted freedom in polyamorous relationships is not equally distributed. The ability to communicate openly, to process injuries or to share care work is structurally unequally distributed – and the ideal of an ‘equal open relationship’ becomes a privilege. This is precisely where a critical examination is needed: so that polyamory does not become an exclusive utopia, but an inclusive field of relationship diversity, new social conditions are needed – and a political view of intimacy.

Voices from research

From a scientific perspective, polyamory is increasingly being considered a relevant subject of cultural and social research. Thomas Schroedter, a university professor of psychosomatics, describes polyamory as an expression of a profound change in the understanding of love and relationships – away from normative ideals and towards an individualised and negotiable intimacy. In his work, he highlights the psychological and social relevance of non-monogamous relationship patterns, particularly in the context of personal responsibility and modern relationship ethics.

Psychologist and author Christina Vetter also emphasises the extent to which polyamorous relationships broaden our view of what is possible in intimacy. In her research on diversity in relationships and alternative family models, she calls not only for the acceptance of new forms of relationships, but also for the adaptation of counselling contexts accordingly. Polyamory is not the problem, says Vetter, but rather the lack of institutional support and social recognition of such models.

In addition, articles from the Journal for Sexual Research or the Journal for Psychology show that polyamorous structures are particularly stable when they are combined with a clear communication culture, mutual respect and a reflective approach to jealousy. Research underlines: Polyamory is not a fad, but a serious component of plural forms of living together.

Conclusion: Between ideal and reality

Polyamory does not automatically mean equality. But it invites us to question entrenched relationship patterns, to try out new forms of living together in self-determination and self-responsibilty – and to critically examine our own ideas of love, closeness and commitment. It raises questions that go beyond the personal: Who is allowed to love and how? Which life plans are considered legitimate? And what happens when intimacy is no longer defined by possession?

Those who live polyamory as a way of life not only opt for more honesty and communication, but also for constant negotiation. It is a practice that is not based on clear rules, but on needs, agreements and trust – always new. It is not about a romanticised ideal of boundless love, but about concrete work on relationships – with all their ambivalences, ruptures and learning processes.

At the same time, social realities must not be ignored. Polyamory requires structural resources: time, emotional capacity, and often financial security as well. It shows how strongly the private sphere is also shaped by politics – through gender relations, the division of labour, and cultural expectations.

Polyamorous people are therefore not free per se, but operate within existing power relations. It takes conscious work – not only on oneself, but also on the conditions that enable or prevent love. Only when these conditions are taken into account can a way of life become an attitude. An attitude that stands up for relationship diversity – and in doing so connects rather than divides.

Understood in this way, polyamory is not a finished model, but an invitation to reflect. It is not an exclusive concept for the brave, but a solidary offer to all who want to think about love differently – more honestly, freely and responsibly.

Glossary and frequently asked questions about polyamory

What does polyamory mean?

Polyamory – or in English: polyamory – refers to the possibility of having several consensual love relationships at the same time – with the knowledge and consent of all parties involved. It is not about infidelity or arbitrariness, but about a reflected way of life in which emotional responsibility, communication and honesty are central.

Is polyamory a sexuality?

No. Polyamory means that love does not have to be exclusive. People who live polyamory do not rule out the possibility of loving more than one person at a time – emotionally, romantically or sexually. What is always important is to be transparent about feelings, boundaries and agreements.

Is polyamory a sexuality?

No, polyamory is not a sexual orientation, but a form of relationship. People of all sexual identities – whether hetero, bi, gay, pan or queer – can live polyamorous. It is less about sexual desire than about relationship diversity, emotional openness and other models of intimacy.

Why become polyamorous?

Many people discover polyamory as an answer to the unease they feel in monogamous relationships – for example, through jealousy, possessiveness or emotional constriction. Others experience polyamory as a natural expression of their ability to love several people at the same time. Often, it begins with a philosophical, ethical or personal examination of one's own understanding of love.

Is polyamory forbidden?

No. Polyamory is not forbidden in Germany. It is within the legal framework of free partnerships. However, what is not legally possible is to marry several people – because of the prohibition of polygamy. Polyamorous relationships are legal.

When are you poly?

You are polyamorous if you are openly and consensually in several loving relationships or want to be – regardless of whether you are currently in one, two or no relationships. Polyamory is therefore not a status, but an attitude and practice based on personal responsibility and transparency.

When was the term ‘polyamory’ coined?

The term ‘polyamory’ was first used in an essay by the American author Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart in 1990. In the following years, it quickly became established in communities of non-monogamous people. However, concepts that are now regarded as forerunners of polyamory existed long before that – for example in the free love movement of the 19th century or in the 1960s during the sexual revolution.

When was polyamory invented?

The form of relationship was not invented. Even if the term is young, the idea is old: plural forms of love already existed in early and ancient cultures, spiritual movements and radical social utopias. Polyamory is therefore not a modern fad, but the resumption of an old human theme – under new ethical, communicative and social auspices.

Is polyamory normal?

Polyamory may not (yet) be the social norm – but it is normal in the sense that it is viable, conceivable and ethically justifiable. It poses different questions about relationships, demands reflection and transparency – and for many people it is a stable, fulfilling form of relationship.

Is polyamory a way out of the constraints of monogamy and destructive jealousy?

It can be – but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Polyamory questions the classic logic of ownership and exclusivity, which often intensify jealousy. Instead, it tries to deal with jealousy consciously, to reflect on it and not to glorify it as proof of love. Nevertheless, polyamory requires relationship work – and does not automatically protect against emotional pain.

Is monogamy the solution?

For some, yes; for others, no. There is no universal relationship concept. Monogamy can offer security and depth – but it can also lead to control and narrowness. What is important is that people choose their relationship form in a self-determined and reflective way – without social pressure or moral judgement.

Does polyamory really work?

Yes – for many people, polyamory works very well. Studies and testimonials show that when communication, emotional responsibility and mutual respect are practised, polyamorous relationships can be just as stable, loving and long-lasting as monogamous ones. The key lies not in the model, but in the quality of the relationship.