There's no universal rulebook for non-monogamy — the right amount of structure depends entirely on the couple. But a handful of categories come up often enough across different relationship structures that it's worth deciding on all of them explicitly, rather than assuming shared assumptions will match.
Disclosure and communication
How much detail does each partner want to hear about the other's outside connections — everything, general updates, or just confirmation that safer-sex practices were followed? There's no right answer, but a mismatch here (one partner wanting full detail, the other wanting to share little) is one of the more common sources of ongoing friction, so it's worth naming explicitly rather than assuming.
Safer sex
Barrier use with outside partners, STI testing frequency, and what happens if a barrier fails or testing is overdue are worth agreeing on before they come up in practice, not after. See our full guide to STI safety with multiple partners for the practical specifics.
Time and priority
How outside relationships fit around existing commitments — date nights, family time, shared responsibilities — matters more in ongoing polyamorous structures than in occasional swinging, but some version of this conversation applies to most non-monogamous arrangements.
Vetoes and boundaries around specific people
Some couples give each partner the ability to end the other's outside relationship (a veto); others move away from that toward a right to raise serious concerns without unilateral control. Vetoes are more common in newer arrangements and more controversial the longer people practice non-monogamy, since they hand one partner power over a relationship that isn't theirs. Neither approach is objectively correct — it depends on what both partners are actually comfortable with.
Fewer, clearer rules tend to work better
A long list of specific rules can feel like safety early on, but rules written to cover every possible scenario in advance often don't survive contact with a real situation nobody anticipated. Couples who do well long-term tend to agree on a smaller set of clear principles — honesty, safer sex, respect for time commitments — and handle specifics as they come up, rather than trying to legislate every possibility upfront.
Revisit agreements on purpose
What felt necessary at the very beginning — heavy check-ins, detailed disclosure, a veto — often loosens as trust and experience build, and what felt fine at first sometimes needs tightening once real situations expose a gap. Scheduling a check-in on the agreements themselves, separate from any specific conflict, keeps this from only happening reactively after something already went wrong.
Frequently asked questions
Do we need a written agreement, or is talking about it enough?
A written list isn't required, but writing agreements down — even informally, in a shared note — tends to prevent the "I thought we agreed on X" disputes that come from two people remembering a verbal conversation slightly differently.
What's a veto, and should we have one?
A veto is one partner's ability to end the other's outside relationship. It's common in newer or less experienced non-monogamous relationships and controversial in more established ones, since it gives one partner unilateral power over the other's separate relationship. Many longer-term non-monogamous people move away from hard vetoes toward a right to raise serious concerns instead.
How often should agreements be revisited?
Regularly, and explicitly — not just when something goes wrong. Agreements that made sense at the start often need adjusting as comfort and experience grow, and treating the original rules as permanently fixed tends to create friction rather than prevent it.
Get one practical guide a week
Positions, honest toy reviews, and advice that treats you like an adult. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.