Readers are rethinking what makes a relationship “valid”, from monogamy and polyamory to the difference between having a type and fetishising a partner. Myra DuBois offers her characteristically sharp take in Attitude, reminding queer couples that honest communication matters far more than keeping pace with anyone else.

Essential Takeaways

  • There’s no relationship hierarchy: Monogamy and polyamory can both be healthy, depending on the people involved.
  • Consent comes first: Any move towards non-monogamy needs open, ongoing agreement rather than pressure.
  • A type isn’t automatically a fetish: Attraction becomes troubling when someone is reduced to a body or trait.
  • Self-reflection helps: Ask whether your preferences come with unconscious bias or cause harm.
  • Queer relationships aren’t one-size-fits-all: Community expectations can be freeing, but they can also create a new kind of pressure.

Monogamy doesn’t need defending

The strongest message in Myra DuBois’s relationship advice is refreshingly simple: monogamy isn’t a lesser choice. A couple who decide to be exclusive aren’t necessarily being conventional, fearful or unadventurous. Sometimes they’ve talked, listened and chosen what feels right.

That matters in queer communities, where greater freedom from traditional relationship scripts can be both liberating and confusing. As Time has reported, non-monogamy is often discussed as an alternative to infidelity and restrictive social expectations, but that doesn’t make exclusivity outdated. Different arrangements suit different lives.

There’s also a quiet pleasure in refusing the idea that every relationship needs a manifesto. If two people are happy, honest and free to revisit the agreement, that’s a solid foundation, whatever the label.

The real issue is pressure, not labels

Polyamory works through consensual, transparent relationships involving more than two people, while monogamy centres on exclusivity. The important word is consensual. Neither model should be adopted simply because friends, partners or an online community suggest it’s more enlightened.

Psychology Today’s discussion of consensual non-monogamy highlights how varied these arrangements can be. They’re not a single lifestyle with one rulebook, but a broad set of agreements shaped around communication, boundaries and the people involved.

That’s useful context for anyone wondering whether they’re “holding someone back” by wanting monogamy. A partner can agree to exclusivity freely, just as they can request a conversation about opening the relationship later. The answer doesn’t have to be decided for ever on the first serious date.

Is having a physical type a problem?

Not necessarily. Most people notice recurring patterns in who attracts them, whether it’s a particular sense of humour, style, voice or body shape. Attraction can be instinctive and complicated, and it doesn’t come with a neat instruction manual.

The more important question is what happens after attraction gets someone through the door. Scientific American has noted that polyamory isn’t simply about sex, a useful reminder that relationships involve emotional recognition, care and responsibility as well as desire. The same applies to monogamous dating: a preference becomes uncomfortable when the person disappears behind the preference.

So, if someone is attracted to larger-bodied partners, that alone isn’t evidence of a fetish. But it’s worth asking whether partners feel seen as whole people, whether language is respectful and whether the attraction depends on treating a body as a novelty. A type can be flattering; objectification is not.

Curiosity makes preferences healthier

A little self-questioning can go a long way. Consider where a preference came from, whether it’s shaped by stereotypes and how it lands with the people you date. This isn’t about putting every crush on trial, but about staying awake to the difference between desire and dehumanisation.

The same principle applies to relationship structure. Time’s reporting on monogamous relationships and polyamory points to the importance of examining assumptions rather than treating one model as automatically natural or superior. In practice, the healthiest arrangement is usually the one that everyone understands and genuinely chooses.

That can mean having slightly awkward conversations early. Ask what exclusivity means, what would count as crossing a boundary and whether either person feels they’re agreeing out of fear. It’s less glamorous than grand romantic gestures, perhaps, but considerably more useful.

Queer love works best on its own terms

Attitude’s editorial coverage has long placed relationships, identity and culture in a wider conversation about how LGBTQ+ people live and express themselves. That makes this advice feel timely: freedom from old rules shouldn’t become a demand to follow new ones.

The pressure to appear progressive can be surprisingly powerful. A monogamous couple may worry they’re boring, while people in open relationships may feel obliged to present everything as effortless. Neither performance is necessary. Real relationships are often messier, quieter and more negotiated than the glossy version suggests.

And Myra’s theatrical persona brings a useful dose of mischief to a serious subject. Beneath the jokes is a grounded point: your relationship belongs to the people in it, not to the spectators around it.

Choose the relationship structure that lets everyone feel loved, respected and free.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: