Why Mononormativity Matters

Catherine Kurfman
Dec 31, 2025
5 min read

Updated: Jan 2

How Compulsory Monogamy Impacts Mental Health, Sexual Wellness, and Relationship Choice

By Catherine Kurfman Originally written December 2023 as an academic literature review while studying Human Sexuality at Front Range Community College Adapted here to support clients and the general public

Why I Wrote This

In December of 2023, while enrolled in a Human Sexuality course, I wrote an academic literature review exploring mononormativity and compulsory monogamy—two forces that quietly but powerfully shape how we understand love, commitment, morality, and “healthy” relationships.

At the time, I was not only a student, but also a future coach, a queer and genderqueer person, and someone deeply embedded in communities where non-traditional relationship structuresare common, intentional, and deeply ethical. I was witnessing a consistent pattern: people in consensual non-monogamous relationships were experiencing shame, confusion, self-doubt, and even harm—not because their relationships were unhealthy, but because society lacked the language and literacy to understand them.

I wrote this paper to ask a simple but radical question:

What happens to people’s mental health and sexual wellness when society treats monogamy not as one option, but as the only acceptable one?

This blog post translates that research into accessible language so that clients, curious readers, and helping professionals can better understand how cultural assumptions about relationships affect well-being—and why unexamined mononormativity matters far more than most of us realize.

What Is Mononormativity (and Why You’ve Probably Never Been Taught About It)?

In mononormative cultures, monogamy is treated as the default, morally superior, and expected form of romantic and sexual relating. Mononormativity goes beyond personal preference—it is a cultural rule set that defines what is “normal,” “healthy,” and “committed” (Herdt & Polen-Petit, 2021).

Closely related is compulsory monogamy, the social pressure to engage in exclusive romantic and sexual relationships regardless of personal capacity, desire, or values. This mirrors the concept of compulsory heterosexuality, which assumes heterosexual attraction as the default sexual orientation (Herdt & Polen-Petit, 2021).

These norms are reinforced through:

Cultural storytelling
Religion and moral frameworks
Legal systems
Media representation
Therapeutic and psychological models
Educational systems

Importantly, mononormativity is not biologically mandated. Humans are the only species that constructs moral belief systems around sex and relationships, embedding them into culture, religion, and law (Herdt & Polen-Petit, 2021).

How Common Is Consensual Non-Monogamy?

One of the most striking findings from the literature is how widespread consensual non-monogamy (CNM) actually is—despite its invisibility.

Research estimates that:

4–7% of U.S. adults are currently engaged in CNM
21–22% of young adults report having participated in CNM at some point
1 in 5 Americans and Canadians have experienced some form of non-monogamy (Cardoso et al., 2021; Grunt-Mejer & Chańska, 2020)

Despite this prevalence, monogamy remains culturally framed as the only legitimate or “serious” relationship structure. Non-monogamy is often dismissed as a phase, a failure, or a moral deficit rather than a valid relational orientation.

Stigma, Cheating Narratives, and Social Consequences

In mononormative societies, non-exclusivity is often automatically equated with betrayal. Even consensual, transparent, and ethical non-monogamy is frequently mislabeled as cheating or infidelity (Kean, 2017; Grunt-Mejer & Chańska, 2020).

This framing creates stigma through:

Sexual prejudice (judgment based on sexual behavior)
Moral condemnation
Social exclusion
Hate speech, especially online (Cardoso et al., 2021)

The consequences are not abstract. They include:

Risk of job loss due to morality clauses
Military penalties framed as adultery
Custody battles where non-monogamy is used to demonstrate “unfitness”
Legal invisibility of multi-partner families (Obadia, 2020)

These risks force many people to remain closeted about their relationship structures, even when those relationships are deeply intentional and healthy.

The Mental Health Impact: Minority Stress and Internalized Shame

One of the most important findings across the literature is that the harm associated with non-monogamy is not caused by the relationship structure itself—but by social stigma.

Using minority stress theory, Moors et al. (2021) demonstrate that people in CNM relationships often experience:

Chronic stress from concealment
Anticipation of rejection
Internalized CNM negativity
Hostile social environments

This mirrors what LGBTQ+ communities have long documented: when identities or relational orientations are stigmatized, mental health outcomes worsen, regardless of the inherent health of the identity itself.

Internalized stigma can lead to:

Reduced self-esteem
Difficulty trusting one’s desires
Relationship anxiety
Shame-driven decision-making

Bias in Therapy and Helping Professions

Perhaps one of the most concerning findings is how mononormativity shows up in therapeutic spaces.

Grunt-Mejer & Chańska (2020) document that therapists may:

Treat CNM itself as pathology
Attempt to “restore” monogamy
Attribute unrelated distress to non-monogamy
Apply judgment that would not be used with monogamous clients

Moors et al. (2021) caution clinicians to examine their own biases and understand how internalized CNM stigma may be impacting clients.

When therapy reinforces cultural shame instead of challenging it, clients are harmed rather than supported.

Intersection with LGBTQIA+ Communities

Non-monogamy and LGBTQIA+ identities overlap significantly. Research shows:

Approximately 75% of gay and bisexual men in CNM are sexual minorities
56% of lesbian and bisexual women in CNM identify as queer
CNM communities are often intertwined with trans, nonbinary, BDSM, and chosen-family networks (Moors et al., 2021)

Historically, queer relationships outside of marriage—including chosen families—have long existed as survival strategies (Maine, 2022).

While CNM individuals may not face identical forms of violence or criminalization as LGBTQ+ individuals, the parallels in moral panic, pathologization, and forced concealment are striking.

Why Sexual Literacy Is the Missing Piece

Multiple authors argue that mononormativity persists because people are never taught alternatives.

Olmstead & Anders (2022) found that:

Lack of education is a primary reason people reject CNM
Exposure to accurate information reduces implicit bias
Normalizing discussion does not increase harm—it increases clarity

Sexual literacy allows people to:

Make informed, values-aligned choices
Communicate boundaries effectively
Understand desire without shame
Separate cultural expectation from personal truth

Why This Matters for My Clients

This research directly informs my coaching practice.

Many clients come to me struggling with:

Guilt around wanting more than one connection
Fear that desire equals betrayal
Shame for not fitting relational norms
Confusion between values and conditioning

By understanding how mononormativity operates, clients gain:

Language for their experience
Relief from misplaced self-blame
Permission to explore intentionally
Tools for ethical communication and accountability

My work is not about pushing anyone toward any specific relationship structure. It is about supporting autonomy, consent, clarity, and integrity—whatever form that takes.

Moving Toward a More Inclusive Future

Mononormativity is deeply encoded—but not inevitable.

Mental health professionals, educators, and coaches have immense power to:

Reduce stigma
Challenge outdated assumptions
Support sexual individuality
Normalize relational diversity

By increasing sexual literacy and dismantling bias, we create conditions where people can pursue intimacy that is aligned, consensual, and life-giving rather than fear-driven.

That future begins with conversations like this one.

If this reflection connects to something you’re navigating, you’re welcome to schedule a free consultation.

References

(References preserved exactly as in original academic paper)

Cardoso, D., Rosa, A., & da Silva, M. T. (2021). (De)Politicizing polyamory: Social media comments on media representations of consensual non-monogamies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1325–1340.

Grunt-Mejer, K., & Chańska, W. (2020). “How do they even know they love?” The image of polyamory in Polish expert discourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(8), 2829–2847.

Herdt, G. H., & Polen-Petit, N. (2021). Human sexuality: Self, society and culture (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Kean, J. (2017). Relationship structure, relationship texture: Case studies in non/monogamies research. Cultural Studies Review, 23(1), 18–35.

Maine, A. (2022). Queering marriage: The homoradical and anti-normativity. Laws, 11(1), 1.

Moors, A. C., Schechinger, H. A., Balzarini, R., & Flicker, S. (2021). Internalized consensual non-monogamy negativity and relationship quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(4), 1389–1400.

Obadia, J. (2020). Responsibility, respectability, recognition, and polyamory. Feminist Studies, 46(2), 287–315.

Olmstead, S. B., & Anders, K. M. (2022). Willingness to engage in consensually nonmonogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(3), 1813–1822.

Rothmüller, B. (2021). The grip of pandemic mononormativity. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 23(11), 1573–1590.