“We’re monogamous” or “we’re in an open relationship”: these phrases aren’t always enough to describe the relationship. Two people may use the same label but not share the same definition of fidelity, flirting, secrecy, or safe sex. Explicit agreements can make these expectations clearer, though they alone do not guarantee the quality of the relationship. Recent research does not establish that one structure is superior to the other. Rather, it encourages us to examine what is said, what remains implicit, and what can be renegotiated.
A Label Is No Substitute for an Agreement
Monogamy may seem familiar, but it isn’t always clearly defined. A kiss, erotic messages, or using a dating app might be harmless to one person but constitute infidelity to another. So simply saying “exclusive” doesn’t solve everything.
Consensual non-monogamy is based on a mutual agreement allowing for multiple sexual and/or romantic relationships. Here, “open relationship” refers to a relationship that allows for certain outside relationships, though it does not encompass all polyamorous arrangements. Breaking an agreement is still considered infidelity; honoring it does not require giving up all privacy.
Studies Do Not Identify a “Winning” Model
A study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships in 2026 compared sexual health and well-being in two populations. The first was based on an international convenience sample of 888 people. Among women with multiple partners, desire, satisfaction, and total sexual functioning scores were higher with a non-primary partner than with the primary partner; their arousal with this non-primary partner was also higher than that reported by women who reported having only one partner. These differences were small in magnitude.
The second study analyzed population-based data from 10,503 people in Finland: non-monogamous women reported higher levels of desire, non-monogamous men reported fewer symptoms of premature ejaculation, and non-monogamous individuals reported higher levels of dyadic desire. No statistically significant differences were detected for the other measures compared. The categories differed between studies and did not exclusively describe open relationships. Some comparisons also lacked statistical power: the absence of a detected difference does not prove equivalence.
Another study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology in 2025 and available via its abstract, involved 576 adults aged 18 to 35. It found higher-reported quality of sexual communication among individuals in consensual non-monogamous relationships; no statistically significant differences were detected for the other variables studied. Associations between sexual communication and relationship outcomes were found and did not differ based on relationship structure.
These results do not demonstrate that better-quality sexual communication leads to higher satisfaction. They rely largely on self-reports and, for several analyses, on data collected at a single point in time. They do not allow us to identify exclusivity or openness as a superior model.
Transparency Is Not a Right to Surveillance
Being transparent does not mean revealing everything in real time, showing one’s phone, or giving up one’s private life. It involves sharing information deemed necessary for consent and safety. The boundary between personal privacy and concealment must therefore be discussed.
In a monogamous couple, this discussion may involve past partners, online interactions, or attractions to others. In an open relationship, it may concern when to give advance notice, safe sex practices, spending the night elsewhere, or the emotional significance of a new relationship. The goal is to prevent one person from discovering after the fact that they had not consented to the same arrangement.
Deciding What to Share—and When
Research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2026 developed the Multiple Relationships Maintenance Scale, or MRMS. It identifies nine categories of practices used to manage consensual non-monogamous relationships, including disclosure of attractions, communication about jealousy, attention to sexual health, resource allocation, and partner hierarchy. Five dimensions show low internal consistency. These include sexual health, resource allocation, and partner hierarchy. This framework therefore constitutes a research scale that has undergone initial validation but is not yet sufficient for therapeutic recommendations.
The following questions are an editorial adaptation intended to spark a conversation, not a scientific questionnaire:
- What do we mean by fidelity today?
- What information must be shared before taking action, and what can be shared afterward?
- What changes also affect the other person’s health or consent?
- How can we express jealousy, pain, or discomfort without being punished or ridiculed?
- What happens if one of us wants to change the agreement?
Clarity matters more than a long list of prohibitions. “No feelings” seems clear, but an emotional attachment can develop unexpectedly. A more practical rule describes what needs to be said when the nature of a relationship changes. Similarly, “always protect yourself” requires specifying the practices involved, testing, and the steps to take after an incident.
Consent to a model can evolve
A relationship agreement is not an unlimited authorization. One person may have agreed to an open arrangement and then discover that it doesn’t work for them; another may feel trapped in an exclusivity that was never discussed. Renegotiating doesn’t mean that one person has to give in. It may reveal a genuine incompatibility.
The conversation benefits from distinguishing between facts, emotions, and the decision. What happened? How does this make you feel? What does each person need in order to agree to move forward?
Compare the rules each person believes they agreed to
A simple exercise is to ask each person to describe the relationship’s rules separately. If the two versions differ, the next step is to clarify expectations, decide what can be revised, and preserve the right to refuse.
In a few words
The key is not to add more rules, but to know how to renegotiate them when they no longer fit the relationship.
