Redefining Intimacy: Companionate Relationships, Tolyamory and the Spectrum of Non-Monogamy
The sixth in a series on Designing Love: Exploring Polyamory and Ethical Non-Monogamy
Sarah and Michel have been married for 20-odd years. They share a home, raised three children together, and by all outward appearances, lead a typical big-city life. But there’s a twist to their story that challenges our conventional understanding of marriage and fidelity.
Every few weeks, Michel goes on a business trip. Sarah knows that on these trips, Michel sometimes shares intimate moments with other women. She doesn’t ask for details, and he doesn’t offer them. It’s an unspoken arrangement that has, surprisingly, kept their marriage strong and stable.
Welcome to the world of “tolyamory” — a term coined by Dan Savage in January 2024 describing a dynamic where one partner tacitly accepts the other’s occasional infidelities. It’s not quite polyamory, not quite monogamy, but something in between.
Sarah and Michel’s story is just one example of how people are managing intimacy and commitment in the 21st century (and for those critical thinkers among us, yes, truth be told, this has been going on for centuries leading up to the 21st — humans sleep with humans outside marriage; what is new here is the term that suggests an [unspoken] agreement or “tolerance” of the practice). From companionate relationships that prioritise friendship over romance to the various shades of ethical non-monogamy (ENM, also sometimes referred to as consensual non-monogamy, CNM), we’re witnessing a quiet shifting of the tectonic plates in how we connect — and talk about connecting — with others.
In this article, we’ll explore these different relationship structures, diving into the concepts of companionate love and tolyamory. We’ll examine how they fit into the broader spectrum of non-monogamy and what they reveal about our changing attitudes towards love, commitment and intimacy.
As we dive in, prepare to challenge your assumptions about what makes a relationship “real” or “valid”. After all, as Sarah and Michel’s story shows us, love and commitment can take forms we might not (yet) have imagined.
The spectrum of non-monogamy
Imagine a line. At one end, we have traditional monogamy: two people, exclusive commitment, “till death do us part”. At the other end? Well, that’s where things get interesting.
This line isn’t just a line — it’s a spectrum. And along this spectrum, we find a colourful array of relationship structures that challenge conventional notions of partnership.
Let’s start with monogamy and its close cousin, “monogamish”. Coined by Dan Savage (yes, the same Dan who gave us “tolyamory”), monogamish describes couples who are mostly monogamous but occasionally dip their toes into sexual activities outside their primary relationship. It’s like monogamy with a dash of spice.
Then we start to get into ethical non-monogamy (ENM). This umbrella term covers a range of relationship styles where people openly engage in multiple romantic or sexual relationships with the full knowledge and enthusiastic consent of all involved. ENM is built on a foundation of open communication, transparency and mutual agreement. It’s like monogamy’s more flexible cousin — same family, different rules, but with an unwavering commitment to honesty and consent.
Here is a quick overview of some ENM structures:
Within ENM, we encounter open relationships, where partners agree to sexual (but not romantic) connections with others.
Then there’s swinging, typically involving committed couples exchanging partners or engaging in group sex, often at organised events.
Polyamory occupies a significant portion of this spectrum. It’s the practice of having multiple romantic and sexual relationships simultaneously, with everyone’s full knowledge and consent. Think of it as love multiplied rather than divided. Polyamory itself has various flavours — from hierarchical (where partners are ranked in importance) to solo poly (maintaining multiple relationships without a primary partner) to polyfidelity (a closed group exclusively committed to each other).
At the far end of the spectrum, we find relationship anarchy, which rejects hierarchies and traditional relationship norms altogether, allowing each connection to develop organically without predetermined rules.
While we’ve explored various forms of ENM in our previous article, “Beyond Monogamy: An Introduction to Ethical Non-Monogamous Relationships”. Today, we’ll focus on two unique points on this spectrum: companionate relationships and tolyamory. These relationship structures challenge conventional notions of partnership in their own distinct ways.
Understanding companionate relationships
Companionate relationships occupy a unique space in our discussion of non-monogamy. Unlike other points on the spectrum we’ve explored, they don’t necessarily involve multiple partners or sexual connections outside the primary relationship. Let’s unpack this concept a bit.
The concept of companionate relationships isn’t new, but its history is more complex than we might assume. For much of human history, marriage was primarily an economic and political institution. In many cultures, marriages were arranged to forge alliances, consolidate wealth or ensure economic stability. Women were often treated as property, exchanged for dowries or bride prices.
The idea of marriage based primarily on love or companionship is relatively modern. While notions of romantic love in marriage began to emerge in the Western world during the 18th century with the rise of romanticism and individualism, it wasn’t until the 19th and early 20th centuries, influenced by the Industrial Revolution and changing social structures, that marrying for love became more widespread across different social classes.
Interestingly, it was partly in reaction to this new emphasis on romantic love that the term “companionate marriage” emerged in the 1920s. Judge Ben Lindsey popularised it, advocating for childless marriages that could be easily dissolved. He saw this as a middle ground between the traditional economic view of marriage and the potentially unstable nature of unions based solely on romantic passion.
Today’s understanding of companionate relationships has evolved far beyond Lindsey’s original concept. These partnerships prioritise friendship and shared goals over romantic or sexual passion. Compared to traditional romantic partnerships, companionate relationships often boast higher levels of stability and lower levels of conflict. There’s less drama, but also less emphasis on physical attraction or romantic gestures.
But here’s where it gets interesting: companionate relationships don’t have to be devoid of all romance or sexuality. Remember our spectrum? Companionate partners might choose to be sexually exclusive, or they might decide to seek sexual fulfilment elsewhere. The key is that these decisions are made consciously, as part of the relationship’s design.
Imagine a relationship where the sparks don’t fly, but the embers glow steadily. Where the butterflies in your stomach have been replaced by a warm, comforting presence. That’s the essence of a companionate relationship.
At its core, a companionate relationship is a partnership built on deep friendship, mutual respect and shared life goals. It’s the couple who’ve been together for decades and finish each other’s sentences, but haven’t shared a passionate kiss in years. It’s the pair of best friends who decide to raise a child together, without any romantic involvement.
The key ingredients? Emotional intimacy, commitment and companionship. What’s often missing? Sexual passion and romantic love, at least in their traditional forms.
But don’t mistake the lack of traditional romance for a lack of love. Companionate love is its own special breed — less fiery, perhaps, but no less meaningful.
In essence, companionate relationships challenge our assumptions about what a partnership “should” look like. They remind us that love comes in many forms, and that a relationship without roses and candlelit dinners or passionate intimacy every day and night can be just as valid and fulfilling as a fiery romance.
As we continue to explore different relationship structures, keep in mind that companionate relationships aren’t a consolation prize or a sign of a failed romance. For many, they’re a conscious choice — a design that prioritises friendship, stability and shared purpose over Hollywood-style passion.
Exploring tolyamory
Now, let’s return to Sarah and Michel’s story, which exemplifies tolyamory — a term as new as your latest smartphone update.
As a mash-up of “tolerance” and “polyamory”, tolyamory represents a unique point on the non-monogamy spectrum. But don’t let the “poly” part fool you — this isn’t your standard polyamorous setup. Think of it more as monogamy with a dash of DADT.
It’s crucial to note the stark difference between tolyamory and ENM. While ENM prioritises open communication, explicit consent and transparency among all parties, tolyamory operates in a grey area of implicit understanding.
In a tolyamorous relationship, one partner tacitly accepts the other’s occasional dalliances. It’s not about having multiple full-blown relationships. It’s more like saying, “I know you might stray sometimes, and I’m choosing not to make a fuss about it.”
Why “tolerate” rather than openly embrace non-monogamy? Well, that’s where things get interesting (again!). Tolyamory often emerges as a compromise when partners have mismatched desires for sex or monogamy. It’s a way of acknowledging human complexity without dismantling the primary relationship.
But here’s the kicker: tolyamory isn’t about explicit agreements or shared adventures. It’s about unspoken understandings and focusing on the strengths of the primary relationship. The tolerating partner isn’t expected to cheer from the sidelines or hear all the juicy details. They’re just… not asking.
This might sound like a recipe for festering resentment, and critics argue it can be. There’s a risk of emotional burden on the tolerating partner, and the lack of open communication could lead to misunderstandings. It’s a delicate balance, walking the tightrope between acceptance and wilful ignorance.
Yet proponents argue that tolyamory offers a practical solution for couples with divergent needs. It allows for some personal freedom without the full emotional labour of polyamory. It’s a way of saying, “I love you enough to accept that you might need things I can’t provide, as long as our relationship remains your priority.”
Tolyamory challenges our ideas about fidelity and commitment. Is turning a blind eye to occasional infidelity a form of acceptance, or a denial of reality? Is it a compassionate compromise or an unequal arrangement?
As with any relationship design, the key lies in how it’s implemented. A tolyamorous arrangement built on mutual respect and understanding looks very different from one born of coercion or fear.
In the end, tolyamory reminds us that relationships are as complex as the humans in them. It’s another colour in the spectrum of relationship possibilities, another tool in the Conscious Relationship Design toolkit. Whether it’s a viable long-term strategy or a stepping stone to more open communication is a question each couple must answer for themselves.
Designing non-traditional relationships: The Conscious Relationship Design (CRD) approach
So, you’ve decided that a white picket fence and 2.5 kids — or the Relationship Escalator — isn’t your cup of tea. Maybe you’re leaning towards a companionate partnership or toying with the idea of tolyamory. Let’s explore how to consciously design these non-traditional relationships.
Conscious Relationship Design (CRD) provides a framework for intentionally crafting your relationships, whether they’re companionate, tolyamorous, or any other point on the spectrum. It’s like being the architect of your love life — you’re not just picking a spot on the relationship spectrum; you’re actively designing your relationship blueprints, ideally co-creating them with your partners.
For companionate relationships, this might involve sitting down with your partner and mapping out what friendship means to you. Do you want to live together? Share finances? How about emotional support — what does that look like when romantic love isn’t in the picture? It’s like designing a best friend contract, but with more significant implications.
When it comes to tolyamory, even though it’s not about explicit agreements, it doesn’t mean you should wing it. Ideally, you’d have a heart-to-heart about what you both need from the relationship. The tolerating partner might say, “I don’t want to know details, but I need to feel secure.” The other might respond, “I’ll always put our relationship first, but I need some freedom.” It’s a delicate dance of spoken and unspoken rules.
In both cases, communication is key. You can’t rely on societal scripts in non-traditional relationships — you need to write your own. This means regular check-ins, not just when things go sideways. Think of it as tuning a musical instrument — you don’t wait for it to sound off-key before you adjust it.
Boundary-setting is another crucial piece of the puzzle. In a companionate relationship, you might need boundaries around emotional intimacy with others. In a tolyamorous setup, it could be about when and where outside encounters happen. The key is to be specific. “Don’t make me feel bad” is vague. “Don’t cancel our standing Friday night plans for a date” is clear and actionable.
The beauty of this conscious design approach is its flexibility. As people’s needs and circumstances change, they can redesign their relationships accordingly. A couple might start with a traditional monogamous design, later renovate to include elements of openness, and eventually remodel into a companionate partnership — with or without the non-monogamy extension.
This CRD process isn’t always easy. It requires open communication, clear boundary-setting, and regular relationship “maintenance checks”. But it’s through this intentional approach that people can create relationships that truly fit them, rather than squeezing themselves into ill-fitting societal moulds.
Remember, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Your relationship design should be as unique as you are. It might take some trial and error, and that’s okay. The key is to keep communicating, keep adapting and keep growing — both individually and together.
Benefits and challenges
Both companionate and tolyamorous relationships offer unique advantages and face distinct challenges. Let’s explore these more broadly.
Non-traditional relationships often offer significant benefits. Companionate partnerships, for instance, typically provide a level of stability that’s hard to match. Without the ups and downs of romantic passion, these relationships can serve as a consistent emotional anchor. It’s essentially having a best friend who’s also your life partner — someone who’s reliably there for you, without the drama often associated with romantic relationships.
Tolyamorous arrangements can offer a unique blend of security and freedom. For some, it provides the comfort of a committed relationship paired with the excitement of new experiences. This can lead to personal growth, increased self-awareness and even a deeper appreciation for your primary partner.
Intellectually, these relationship models can be stimulating. They challenge you to think critically about societal norms, communicate more effectively and navigate complex emotional landscapes. It’s an ongoing exercise in emotional intelligence and self-reflection.
Practically speaking, non-traditional setups often offer flexibility that traditional models might not. Companionate partners might find it easier to balance career and relationship, while tolyamorous couples might discover new ways to meet diverse needs within a committed framework.
However, these relationships also come with their share of challenges. In companionate partnerships, the lack of romantic passion might lead to feelings of missing out or questioning the relationship’s validity. Some might find themselves craving the intensity of romantic love, even as they appreciate the stability of their partnership.
Tolyamorous relationships face their own set of challenges. The “tolerating” partner might struggle with jealousy or insecurity, while the other might grapple with guilt or fear of hurting their partner. Maintaining this delicate balance requires constant awareness and effort.
Unlike ENM, where partners openly discuss and consent to outside relationships, tolyamorous arrangements may lack this level of explicit communication. This can lead to misunderstandings and emotional challenges that ENM relationships might be better equipped to handle through their emphasis on ongoing dialogue and consent.
Power imbalances can emerge in any relationship, but they’re particularly nuanced in non-traditional setups. In tolyamory, the partner who engages in outside relationships might hold more power. In companionate partnerships, financial or emotional dependencies could create imbalances. It’s crucial to regularly assess and address these dynamics to maintain a healthy relationship.
Navigating these challenges requires a set of essential skills. Open, honest communication is crucial — use it often and effectively. Regular check-ins help keep things balanced. Flexibility is key, allowing you to adapt when circumstances change. These aren’t just nice-to-haves; they’re fundamental to making non-traditional relationships work.
Addressing emotional risks isn’t about eliminating them entirely — that’s unrealistic in any relationship. Instead, it’s about acknowledging these risks, preparing for them and having strategies in place to handle them when they arise. This might involve individual or couples therapy, establishing clear boundaries, or creating contingency plans for various scenarios.
In the end, the benefits and challenges of non-traditional relationships are as unique as the relationships themselves. What works wonderfully for one person might be deeply uncomfortable for another. The key is to keep communicating, keep adapting and keep growing — both individually and together.
After all, isn’t that what any great relationship is about?
Personal stories and case studies
Let’s put faces to these concepts by looking at some real-life examples and diverse perspectives on non-traditional intimacy.
The relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip offers an intriguing case study. While their union began as a love match, it evolved over decades into a partnership characterised by deep friendship, mutual respect and shared duty. However, rumours of Prince Philip’s affairs, particularly with stage actress Pat Kirkwood, persisted throughout their marriage. The Queen’s apparent tolerance of these indiscretions, while never publicly acknowledged, could be seen as an early example of tolyamory.
Similarly, the relationship between Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier of Monaco was rumoured to have elements of tolyamory. Despite their fairy-tale wedding, both were said to have extramarital (physical and emotional) affairs that were tacitly accepted within their marriage.
In the world of cinema, Marcello Mastroianni and Faye Dunaway’s two-year relationship in the 1970s provides another example. Despite Mastroianni being married, his wife reportedly tolerated his relationship with Dunaway, creating a complex dynamic that resembles modern concepts of tolyamory.
For a more recent and public example, consider Elton John and David Furnish. Together for over 30 years, their relationship has evolved from a passionate romance to a strong companionate bond. They’ve challenged traditional norms as a high-profile same-sex couple raising children, demonstrating how love and partnership can adapt and grow over time.
For a less public example of companionate relationships in the LGBTQ+ community, there’s the story of Tom and James, both in their 70s. After losing their respective long-term partners, they found companionship with each other. While their relationship isn’t romantic or sexual, they provide each other with emotional support, share a home and have become each other’s family. Their story highlights how companionate relationships can offer comfort and stability, particularly in later life.
In the realm of tolyamory, consider the case of Damian and Maria, a couple in their 30s. They’ve been together for a decade and are committed to their relationship. However, Alex has always felt drawn to non-monogamy. Rather than end their relationship, Maria has chosen to tolerate Alex’s occasional connections with other women, preferring not to know the details. This arrangement has allowed them to maintain their primary relationship while accommodating Alex’s needs.
These stories illustrate the diverse ways people navigate non-traditional intimacy. From royalty to retirees, from heterosexual to same-sex couples, people are finding ways to design relationships that suit their unique needs and circumstances.
It’s important to note that these arrangements aren’t without their challenges. The individuals in these relationships grapple with societal judgement, personal insecurities and the complex emotions that come with non-traditional setups. However, many find that the benefits — the deep companionship, the maintained family units, the balance of intimacy and independence — outweigh the difficulties.
Societal implications and future outlook
As we’ve explored the spectrum of relationship structures, from traditional monogamy to ethical non-monogamy and the newly coined tolyamory, you might be wondering: What does this mean for society at large? How might these shifts in how we approach intimacy and commitment reshape things?
Relationships are changing, as are our perceptions of intimacy and commitment. We’re moving away from a default setting towards a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges the complexity of human connections. ENM, with its emphasis on open communication and consent, stands in stark contrast to tolyamory’s tacit agreements. Yet both, along with companionate partnerships, are challenging our traditional notions of what constitutes a “real” relationship.
This shift is likely to ripple across various social structures. Take marriage, for instance. As more people embrace non-traditional models, we might see a decline in conventional marriages or a reimagining of what marriage means. Perhaps we’ll see a rise in contracts that accommodate various forms of non-monogamy, or legal recognition of multiple partners, as in Somerville, Massachusetts four years ago.
The legal system may need to adapt, too. How do we handle property rights, healthcare decisions or child custody in polyamorous families or companionate partnerships? As these relationships become more common, there will likely be pressure to create legal frameworks that recognise and protect these non-traditional bonds.
Family structures are another area ripe for change. We might see a rise in chosen families, where partners from across the non-monogamy spectrum, friends and even metamours (your partner’s other partners) come together to create supportive units. This could lead to more diverse and flexible caregiving arrangements for children and the elderly.
Looking ahead, it’s likely we’ll see even greater diversity in relationship structures. As society becomes more accepting of non-traditional intimacy, people may feel more empowered to consciously design relationships that truly fit their needs and desires.
Technology will likely play a role in this evolution. We’re already seeing dating apps that cater to ENM individuals. In the future, we might have AI relationship coaches helping us navigate the complexities of multiple partnerships or virtual reality platforms for long-distance polycules to share experiences.
However, these changes won’t happen overnight, nor will they be universally embraced. We’re likely to see pushback from more conservative elements of society who view these shifts as a threat to traditional values. There may be heated debates about the definition of family, the purpose of marriage and the nature of commitment.
Despite potential resistance, the trend towards greater relationship diversity seems set to continue. As we become more aware of the myriad ways humans can connect and support each other, our societal structures will likely evolve to accommodate these realities.
In the end, the future of relationships isn’t about replacing traditional models but expanding our options. Whether someone chooses conventional monogamy, ENM, a companionate partnership, a tolyamorous arrangement, or something we haven’t even conceived of yet, the goal remains the same: to create connections that bring fulfilment, support and joy.
As we move forward, the key will be fostering a society that respects and supports this diversity of relationship choices.
The takeaway
As we’ve explored companionate relationships and tolyamory, it’s clear that human connections are far more diverse than conventional wisdom suggests. These relationship structures challenge our assumptions about intimacy, commitment and the necessity of romantic passion or sexual exclusivity in partnerships.
Remember Sarah and Michel? Their tolyamorous arrangement might seem unconventional, even controversial, to some. Yet it represents a reality that many couples navigate, often without a name for it. Their story reminds us that lasting bonds don’t always fit neatly into societal expectations of what a “real” or “valid” relationship should look like.
Companionate relationships challenge our assumptions about the necessity of romantic passion or sexual intimacy in committed partnerships. Tolyamory offers a glimpse into the complex, often unspoken negotiations couples make to balance personal freedom with committed partnership.
These relationship structures, along with the broader spectrum of ethical non-monogamy, underscore the importance of conscious design in our intimate connections. Whether we choose traditional monogamy or venture into less conventional territories, the key lies in open communication, mutual respect and a willingness to co-create relationships that reflect our needs and desires.
As society evolves, so too do our concepts of love, intimacy and partnership. The emergence of terms like tolyamory and the renewed interest in companionate relationships suggest that we’re actively seeking new, more nuanced ways to connect with each other.
Ultimately, this exploration invites us to question our assumptions about relationships and to consider that there might be more than one valid path to fulfilment and happiness in our intimate lives.
What do you think?
As we conclude this brief exploration of some alternative relationship structures, I invite you to reflect on your own concepts of intimacy and commitment:
Had you heard of companionate relationships or tolyamory before? How do they challenge or align with your views on relationships?
If you’re in a relationship, where would you place it on the spectrum we’ve discussed? Does the idea of consciously designing your relationship appeal to you, or does it strike a discordant note?
More broadly, how do you feel about the evolving nature of relationships in our society? Does the relationship spectrum we’ve explored resonate with your experiences or observations?
Whether you’re happily monogamous, exploring ethical non-monogamy, or somewhere in between, how has this perspective on relationship diversity shifted your needle? Are there aspects of your own relationships you might consider viewing differently now?
What challenges do you think might arise from embracing more diverse relationship structures? How might society need to adapt?
I encourage you to share your thoughts, questions and experiences in the comments. Your voice is a valuable contribution to this ongoing dialogue about love, connection and relationships today and into the future.
Additional resources
This work is a piece from my current writing project on Conscious Relationship Design. If you’d like to read along and follow more, hit the “subscribe” button to get a notification when I publish new articles on this topic.
If you are interested in exploring consciously designing your relationships, join me in a free online session.
Feel free to share this article if you enjoyed it. Comment or reach out if you’d like to share your thoughts. I’d love to hear from you.