Is Tolyamory Just Polyamory Without Compersion?

When I first introduced the concept of “tolyamory” on my social media, it sparked a lively debate.

Tolyamory—a blend of "tolerate" and "polyamory"—is a term newly coined by sex advice columnist and podcaster Dan Savage. It describes a relationship dynamic in which one or both partners in a "socially monogamous" couple (a couple that presents as monogamous but is not fully exclusive) turn a blind eye to their partner’s extramarital sexual activity. Instead of actively endorsing non-monogamy, they tolerate it, raising ethical questions about consent and relational dynamics.

Many of my followers, familiar with my work on compersion (the positive empathy or shared joy in non-monogamy), were quick to push back. They argued that ethical non-monogamy (ENM) requires open, informed negotiation and consent from all parties. In contrast, tolyamory often lacks transparency and mutual agreement, creating a dynamic that some feel closely resembles infidelity rather than ethical non-monogamy.

In my original post, I highlighted how tolyamory often arises from power imbalances. Financial, emotional, or social dependence can make leaving a relationship far more costly than tolerating unwanted non-monogamous behavior. Cultural, gender, and socioeconomic factors further complicate these situations. For instance, consider a pregnant woman who relies entirely on her husband and discovers his infidelity. Faced with the choice of leaving and risking her stability or staying and tolerating the situation, she may opt for the latter. This suggests that tolyamory is far more common worldwide than we might assume, as suggested in a recent Huffpost article.

However, tolyamory is not always a product of unequal power dynamics. Dan Savage engaged with my followers on Instagram, arguing that in certain cases, tolyamory can be a mutually acceptable solution. For example, in sexless marriages, where partners still value companionship, family, and financial stability, tolerating outside sexual encounters may be preferable to ending the relationship over physical intimacy. In such cases, discretion may benefit both partners—the less sexual partner avoids pressure to meet needs they no longer wish to fulfill, while the other finds an alternative outlet without disrupting their shared life.

Witnessing these discussions made me realize that tolyamory exists in various forms, some more ethical than others. To facilitate a more nuanced conversation, I propose categorizing different “flavors” of tolyamory, ranging from less ethical to more ethical, based on the degree of consent, transparency, and relational balance.

The Flavors of Tolyamory

Toly Under Duress (TUD)

A partner despises the fact that their spouse has sex outside the relationship but feels unable to leave due to financial, emotional, or other dependencies. The power dynamic is heavily skewed in favor of the non-monogamous partner. This scenario mirrors Poly Under Duress (PUD), but without explicit negotiation. It is often an abusive dynamic where one person feels completely trapped.

Resigned to Tolyamory (RTT)

A partner knows about their spouse’s infidelity but chooses to tolerate it rather than disrupt their life. They might feel hurt or resigned but ultimately prioritize stability over confrontation. They may roll their eyes, pour another glass of wine, and move on.

Tolyamory of Convenience (TOC)

One partner desires more or different kinds of sex, and the other tacitly accepts their outside activities because it relieves relational pressure. Both partners maintain a socially monogamous image while finding equilibrium in their sex lives. While it may not be the ideal scenario, it doesn’t feel fundamentally unfair.

Egalitarian Tolyamory (ET)

Both partners occasionally engage in discreet sexual encounters outside the relationship without investing time or energy in the emotional labor of polyamory. There is no expectation of compersion, but both benefit from the arrangement without resentment. This is when tolyamory is at its most consensual and mutually agreeable.

Compersion vs. Tolyamory

At its core, tolyamory does not foster compersion. Compersion is the experience of joy for a partner’s external relationships, requiring openness, empathy, and active participation in their happiness. Tolyamory, by contrast, implies an emotional detachment or passive acceptance rather than celebration.

Dr. Sharon Flicker and I define compersion in the Springer Nature Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior:

• Positive emotions experienced in relation to a partner’s extra-dyadic intimacy.

• A broad range of positive attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors toward a partner’s other relationships.

• An empathetic response to another’s gratifying experiences, even outside the romantic context.

Tolyamory lacks the transparency necessary for compersion to flourish. At best, there might be basic consent, but it falls short of enthusiastic support. 

As philosopher Shaun Miller aptly put it, “tolyamory is polyamory without compersion.” More precisely, it is non-monogamy without compersion, as polyamory involves intentional negotiation and transparency. However, not all forms of non-monogamy require compersion—many people practice ENM with a stance of “benevolent neutrality,” where they accept but do not necessarily celebrate their partner’s other relationships.

Why Do People End Up in Tolyamorous Dynamics?

Several factors contribute to tolyamory:

(a) Dependency & Power Imbalances: Financial, emotional, or social dependence can make leaving a relationship unfeasible, leading to reluctant tolerance.

(b) Compromise: When other aspects of the relationship (family, finances, companionship) work well, tolerating non-monogamy may feel like a reasonable trade-off.

(c) Mononormativity & Couple Privilege: Societal norms favor monogamous couples, making “social monogamy” preferable to openly practicing non-monogamy.

(d) Sober Realism: Many recognize that love and sex don’t always align with exclusivity, leading them to accept a pragmatic approach rather than clinging to romantic ideals.

(e) Mutual Convenience: In some cases, both partners benefit from outside sexual encounters while maintaining a primary relationship without polyamory’s emotional demands.

It’s important to distinguish between tolyamory stemming from coercion versus that arising from mutual convenience.

Conclusion

Tolyamory is a broad term encompassing relationship dynamics that range from ethical to unethical, depending on consent and power balance. It challenges conventional ideas of consent in long-term relationships where autonomy is often intertwined with shared responsibilities like children, finances, and emotional support.

While tolyamory may work for some, my hope is that society continues to embrace diverse relationship structures and foster healthier power dynamics. Ideally, individuals should feel empowered to design relationships that genuinely suit them—rather than conforming to default templates that leave them feeling trapped.