Why Monogamy Feels Harder Than It Used To

By Logan Wagner

Is monogamy an outdated ideology—or a system under pressure?

Monogamy is rarely rejected outright.
More often, it is quietly exhausted.

In contemporary culture, questioning monogamy is framed as provocation—an act of rebellion, indulgence, or moral drift. But most people raising the question are not trying to dismantle intimacy. They are trying to understand why a structure once meant to organize emotional life now feels disproportionately heavy. The unease is subtle, persistent, and deeply personal. And yet, it is not personal at all.

What we often call a “crisis of commitment” is better understood as a crisis of expectations.

For most of its history, monogamy functioned less as romance than as social infrastructure. It stabilized property, clarified lineage, organized labor, and ensured care within a limited economic framework. Love mattered, but it was not required to be endlessly fulfilling, sexually expansive, emotionally omniscient, or individually transformative. The relationship existed within a wider network—family, faith, community, shared labor—that absorbed much of life’s weight.

That world no longer exists in the same form.

Today, monogamy has been recentered as the primary site of meaning. One relationship is expected to perform an extraordinary range of functions: emotional regulation, sexual fulfillment, financial partnership, identity affirmation, intellectual companionship, and long-term personal evolution. The modern couple is asked not only to endure, but to optimize—to grow together at the same pace, in the same direction, for decades at a time.

This is not romance.
It is structural overload.

What has changed is not our capacity for love, but the conditions surrounding it. We live longer. We move more. We reinvent ourselves repeatedly. We are more visible to one another than ever before, exposed to endless alternatives and imagined compatibilities. Choice, once a promise of freedom, now hums constantly in the background. Every partnership exists in the shadow of infinite possibility.

Under these conditions, dissatisfaction is no longer interpreted as friction.
It is interpreted as failure.

Modern culture treats intimacy as a referendum on the self. When a relationship struggles, it is framed as evidence of emotional immaturity, insufficient communication, or inadequate effort. Rarely do we ask whether the structure itself is misaligned with the demands placed upon it. We personalize what may, in fact, be systemic strain.

This is why conversations about monogamy feel so charged. They are not really about sex or commitment. They are about ideology. In a society that equates fulfillment with moral success, questioning monogamy can read as a rejection of stability itself. The relationship becomes not just a bond between two people, but a symbol—of responsibility, adulthood, and worth.

Symbols crack under too much pressure.

It is important to be clear about what this essay is not arguing. It is not declaring monogamy obsolete. It is not advocating alternative structures. It is not suggesting that commitment is incompatible with modern life. Monogamy continues to work for many people, and will likely continue to do so. But endurance alone is not evidence of alignment.

The more precise question is quieter, and more difficult:
What was monogamy built to stabilize—and what is it being asked to stabilize now?

When people express restlessness, boredom, or longing within long-term relationships, the cultural instinct is to moralize. To work harder. To recommit. To optimize intimacy the way one might optimize productivity. Rarely do we pause to consider whether intimacy has become the primary vessel for expectations once distributed across a broader social world.

In this sense, the modern relationship has inherited the burden of meaning left behind by the erosion of other stabilizing structures. As community thins, work becomes precarious, and identity grows increasingly self-authored, monogamy absorbs the overflow. It is asked to be sanctuary, witness, mirror, and future—all at once.

That is a remarkable amount of meaning to house inside a single bond.

The persistence of monogamy does not signal its perfection. It signals its adaptability—and the human desire for connection that animates it. But adaptability has limits. Systems strain when asked to perform beyond their design. The tension that follows is not necessarily evidence of failure; it may be evidence of misalignment.

If a cultural reckoning is taking place, it is not with love itself, but with the quiet assumption that love alone can organize a life.

Perhaps the most honest answer to whether monogamy is outdated is this: it is not obsolete, but neither is it static. It exists now under conditions it did not anticipate, carrying expectations that would once have been shared—by community, tradition, and collective responsibility.

The strain people feel is real.
The mistake is treating it as personal.

Greay does not offer prescriptions. It offers clarity. And the clarity here is simple, if unsettling: intimacy has become one of the last places we expect permanence in a culture defined by change. What we are witnessing is not the collapse of commitment, but the accumulated weight we have placed upon it.

The question is not whether monogamy can survive modern life.
It is whether we understand how much we have asked it to hold.

Creative Direction & Photography Airport Famous Creative Agency