METAMOURS & STRUCTURES

Defining Commitment Without Exclusivity

In monogamous relationships, we typically equate commitment with exclusivity.

AUGUST 26, 2026

In monogamous relationships, we typically equate commitment with exclusivity. This is often demonstrated by one of the most common criticisms I hear of non-monogamous couples: “What’s the point of being married if you’re sleeping with other people?”. Of course, I find this criticism silly because most people don’t get married just because they are sleeping together. Although sex may play a factor, and romantic love is usually a part of the reason people choose to commit to one another, marriage is usually about much more than that. Oftentimes, there are logistical reasons why we choose long term commitment, such as financial security, having children, and having shared goals for the future.

Lately, a major theme in my work (and personal life) has been one of redefining commitment. Myself and the clients I work with have been asking: “How do you define commitment without exclusivity?”

The definition of commitment is to make an agreement or pledge to do something in the future. In relationships, this usually means committing to stay together long term (and traditionally, forever). The construct of monogamy gives us a sense of security in our relationships, because we believe exclusivity ensures that our partner will not allocate their time, attention or resources to someone else. But the reality is that monogamy doesn’t ensure this at all - anyone can choose to break their side of the agreement at any time - as demonstrated by our ever rising divorce rate. This is true for marriage, legal, and financial enmeshment, too. The aforementioned agreements create an illusion of security but they don’t make relationships more secure; they only make ending the relationship more difficult.

Defining Commitment Without Exclusivity

Comments