Relationship Structures 

One of the most common questions people ask when exploring their bonding style is: What kinds of relationship structures will work for me? 

The answer is rarely straightforward—because the same structure can feel wildly different depending on how it’s negotiated, who’s involved, and what agreements are in place. Still, certain bonding styles tend to thrive (or struggle) in particular configurations. Understanding these patterns can help you make more intentional choices about the relational frameworks you pursue. 

The Four Primary Structures 

One-to-One 

Traditional dyadic partnership, often with expectations of exclusivity or primary focus on a single partner. 

Strengths: Clear roles, simplified logistics, social legibility, deep focused intimacy. 

Challenges: Can feel constraining for those who desire variety or multiple deep bonds; risk of enmeshment or unmet needs if one partner can’t fulfill all roles. 

Best suited for: Anchored, Focused, Prioritized, and/or Interdependent bonders who thrive on concentrated intimacy. 

One-to-Many 

A primary partnership with one or more additional partners. Often involves some form of hierarchy (explicit or implicit). 

Strengths: Combines stability of a primary bond with variety or additional connection; allows various needs to be met by different people. 

Challenges: Requires significant emotional labor, time management, and communication; hierarchy can create hurt for non-primary partners; jealousy and insecurity may surface. 

Best suited for: Prioritized bonders who want a clear anchor but also desire additional connections; works when a primary partner is secure and secondary partners want that kind of connection. 

Many-to-Many 

Non-hierarchical polyamory or relationship networks where multiple people are connected romantically, without a single “primary”relationship organizing the system. 

Strengths: Distributes care and intimacy across a web; can feel liberating for those who resist hierarchy; creates community-based support. 

Challenges: Logistically complex; requires exceptional communication and emotional maturity from all parties; can lack the clarity and security that comes with prioritization. 

Best suited for: Expansive, Collective, and/or Open bonders who thrive in networked intimacy and resist traditional hierarchy. 

Solo 

Maintaining independence while having romantic or intimate connections—often without cohabitation, merged finances, or a “primary”partner. 

Strengths: Preserves autonomy, allows full self-direction, reduces entanglement; can feel deeply honest for those who value independence. 

Challenges: Can feel lonely or unsupported; partners may want more integration than solo structure allows; social/financial systems often penalize solo living. 

Best suited for: Self-Sufficient bonders who need high autonomy; works well for those in transitional life phases or who resist traditional escalation. 

Structure Is Not Identity 

It’s important to distinguish between relationship structure (the practical configuration of your connections) and relationship orientation (your underlying preferences and identity). 

Someone may practice monogamy while preferring non-monogamy. Someone may be in a hierarchical polyamorous structure while identifying as relationship anarchist. Someone may be solo by circumstance rather than preference. 

Structure reflects what you’re currently doing. Orientation reflects what you’re drawn toward. The Bonding Project measures orientation—but we recognize that context, constraint, and compromise all shape the ways that people can structure or implement their orientations. 

Flexibility Within Structure 

Most people’s lived experiences don't fit neatly into one structure forever. Relationships evolve, people grow, and life circumstances shift. A structure that worked beautifully in one season may feel stifling or unsustainable in another. 

As you read your archetype profile’s “Relationship Structure Preferences”section, keep in mind: 

• Flexibility over time: What worked at 25 may not work at 45 

• Contextual variation: Different relationships may call for different structures 

• Growth edges: Some discomfort is developmental, not diagnostic 

The goal is not to find the “perfect”structure and lock it in forever. The goal is to understand your patterns well enough to make intentional, informed choices—and to renegotiate when needed. 

© The Bonding Project 2026