Non-Monogamy: Examining the Politics of Consent, Ethics, and Power

Debates around non-monogamy are not new. Queer communities have long practiced kinship forms that resist the nuclear family model. Chosen families - networks of care outside biological or legal ties - often arise from exclusion. These formations are common in, but not limited to, LGBTQ+ communities, highlighting how people can reimagine love, care, and belonging and reject the hierarchy that prioritises romantic, sexual, and legal bonds.

In recent years, consensual non-monogamy (CNM) and ethical non-monogamy (ENM) has gained visibility in mainstream culture. CNM and ENM are umbrella terms that are often used interchangeably, though they have important distinctions (which I unpack below). In these kinds of relationships, at least one partner, with the other’s consent, forms emotional and/or sexual connections with others. Yet too often, in public culture, these relationships are portrayed as quirky lifestyle choices rather than a site of critical reflection.

In feminist, queer and decolonial frameworks, CNM/ENM goes beyond dating multiple people. It’s about rethinking the structures that govern intimacy and questioning why cis-hetero monogamous relationships are treated as the default, while others are marginalised.

Monogamy and Its Histories

Despite its widespread idealisation, monogamy is not a universal or ‘natural’ mode of relating. It is deeply rooted in specific religious, colonial, and economic histories. Through Christianity, capitalism, and imperial expansion, monogamous marriage became a tool for regulating populations and imposing Eurocentric norms. Colonial authorities, for example, often imposed monogamous heterosexual marriage in efforts to ‘civilise’ Indigenous communities, branding other forms of kinship as deviant or immoral.

Seen in this light, CNM/ENM can be understood not simply as a personal deviation from the norm, but as a conscious refusal of dominant, racialised, and patriarchal relationship models. That said, the practise of non-monogamy alone does not dismantle these structures - nor is it immune to replicating them.

Power and Privilege in Non-Monogamy

CNM/ENM should not be romanticised as inherently radical or liberatory. Many of the same dynamics present in monogamous relationships - such as control, power imbalances, and exclusion - can reappear in non-monogamous contexts. In some White, middle-class polyamorous spaces, ‘poly-normativity’ has emerged: a version of non-monogamy that mirrors monogamy’s hierarchies, simply with more people involved.

Moreover, access to non-monogamy and the freedom to love openly is often unequally distributed. Marginalised groups - especially Black and brown women, gender non-conforming, and disabled people - may face greater social risk for stepping outside monogamous norms. Cultural norms around respectability and surveillance mean that not everyone can safely engage in CNM/ENM or be open about their relationships. Emotion work, too, is not equally shared. Navigating jealousy, managing communication, and holding space for others often falls disproportionately to women and marginalised genders, reproducing familiar patterns of gendered inequalities.

Interrogating “Ethical” 

The term "ethical" requires scrutiny. ENM is considered by many to emphasise integrity, transparency, and respect, while CNM centres consent. Although CNM prioritises transparency, privacy and boundaries are also vital to healthy intimacy. Navigating this tension requires sensitivity, reminding us that “consensual” does not always mean “fully disclosed”. In addition, non-monogamy can sometimes involve "surface-level" consent, where one partner agrees but feels uneasy or insecure. If there is resentment or lack of communication, it is consensual, but is it ethical?

The challenge with “ethical” non-monogamy lies in the subjective nature of "ethical" behaviour. While CNM focuses on mutual agreement, ENM requires a nuanced understanding of ethics that vary between individuals, influenced by personal values and cultural backgrounds, often leading to conflicts and misunderstandings. It is important to consider who defines what is ethical. Norms around consent, openness, and communication are often shaped by those with privilege – often White, middle-class, cisgender, and financially secure individuals. A truly ethical approach demands care, accountability, and an awareness of power dynamics. It is not merely about rules but an ongoing commitment to the wellbeing of all involved, alongside reflexivity regarding relational dynamics.

Towards Relational Justice

When practised reflectively, non-monogamy offers a way to envision more inclusive, ethically grounded relationships, prompting us to question whose loves are recognised or marginalised. However, as it becomes more mainstream, there's a risk of its radical potential being diluted. Without addressing structural inequality, non-monogamy may be absorbed into neoliberal frameworks that prioritise individual choice, ignoring the conditions that shape viable options for different people. The goal, then, is to create space for relational justice - where we not only reimagine love but actively dismantle systems that privilege certain lives and loves.

The question of what is "ethical" in non-monogamy is not fixed, but a dynamic, evolving conversation. It requires acknowledging the tension between intention and impact, recognising that even good intentions can have unintended consequences. Ethics in non-monogamy involves a continuous process of learning, reflection, and accountability, as we navigate the complexities of power, desire, and consent in our relationships.

Author Bio:

Abby McCutcheon is a PhD researcher from the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on the social factors that shape transformative moments within consensually and ethically non-monogamous relationships.