S
Structure and Network Ecology
Network form, closure, centering, polycentricity, shared versus independent relating, and metamour contact.
Specialized dyad & network module
SCOPE
Structure, Consent, Openness, Power, and Entanglement
A multilevel relationship-ecology framework for describing how consensual nonmonogamy actually operates: who is connected, what is open, how agreements are governed, where power resides, and how relationships become emotionally or materially intertwined.
The five SCOPE domains
Labels name a relationship. SCOPE describes its operating system.
Two people can use the same CNM label while living in very different structures—or use different labels while practicing nearly identical arrangements.
→
C
Consent, Communication, and Governance
How agreements are formed, understood, revised, enforced, disclosed, and translated into decision-making authority.
O
Openness and Exclusivity Domains
Sexual, romantic, emotional, social, domestic, reproductive, digital, and public-recognition openness measured separately.
P
Power, Priority, and Partner Autonomy
Hierarchy, veto power, resource control, exit power, privacy, partner choice, scheduling authority, and differentiated priority.
E
Entanglement, Emotion, and Evolution
Attachment, care, finances, housing, parenting, legal ties, emotional responses, developmental possibilities, and change over time.
Four units of analysis
A relationship ecology exists at more than one level.
01
Individual
Identity, preferences, autonomy needs, boundaries, emotional responses, capacity, and relationship history.
02
Dyad
Each pair has distinct agreements, intimacy, power distribution, entanglement, communication, and developmental possibilities.
03
Network
Polycule topology, metamour relationships, information flow, collective scheduling, care distribution, and governance.
04
Environment
Law, employment, housing, healthcare, culture, family recognition, religion, class, disability, and stigma.
Seven relational states
What someone calls, wants, agrees to, does, experiences, can sustain, and is constrained from doing may all differ.
SCOPE avoids treating those differences as contradictions. It maps them.
| State | Core question | Illustrative distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | What does the person or group call the arrangement? | Polyamorous identity can remain meaningful during a currently monogamous period. |
| Preference | What would participants ideally or realistically want? | A person may prefer romantic openness but not sexual openness without emotional connection. |
| Agreement | What has been negotiated, permitted, expected, or prohibited? | Different partners may believe they agreed to different rules. |
| Enactment | What is actually happening? | An agreement may permit outside partners even when no outside relationship currently exists. |
| Experience | How do participants experience the arrangement? | The same structure can feel secure to one participant and burdensome to another. |
| Capacity | What can participants sustain with available resources? | Desire for more relationships may exceed available time, energy, money, or care capacity. |
| Constraint | What is limited by internal or external conditions? | Housing, caregiving, stigma, distance, health, employment, or law can narrow what is safely possible. |
Relationship ecology explorer
The same label can conceal very different systems.
Select a pattern to see how structure, openness, power, and entanglement interact.
Original testable constructs
Where alignment, power, and capacity become measurable questions.
Agreement concordance
The degree to which participants share the same understanding of permissions, expectations, obligations, and boundaries.
Preferred–agreed alignment
How closely a person's preferences correspond to the relationship agreement they have actually accepted.
Governance centralization
How much decision-making authority is concentrated in one person, dyad, or household.
Entanglement concentration
Whether housing, finances, caregiving, social recognition, and legal ties are distributed or concentrated.
Evolution range
Which future developments—romance, commitment, cohabitation, family, closure, or de-escalation—are possible or prohibited.
Capacity–commitment fit
Whether time, energy, money, care, health, and emotional resources can sustain the commitments participants have made.
Ethical boundaries
SCOPE does not prescribe one ideal relationship structure.
Monogamy is not less developed. SCOPE can describe questioning, monogamous, monogamish, open, polyamorous, and other arrangements without treating one as evolutionary progress.
Nonhierarchy is not automatically equitable. Stated philosophy must be distinguished from actual control of resources, information, time, and exit options.
Hierarchy is not automatically abusive. Priority and entanglement require context; risk signals should prompt inquiry, not automated moral judgment.
Compersion is not mandatory. Jealousy, happiness, arousal, insecurity, and ambivalence can coexist and should be assessed separately.
Connect relationship ecology back to the person.
MOSAIC maps the person-level dimensions that enter a relationship system. TRIAD focuses on one specialized three-person configuration within that ecology.