A rip off. Anybody demanding monogamy while saying it's casual is wanting all the benefits of a relationship with none of the costs. Better to call it what it is "friends with benefits" and retain your ability to look for something more fulfilling and engage in whatever other dalliances you may wish.

Something that sounds like one party who doesn't want pressure to have a commitment but wants sex as needed.

I'd call it an "understanding" and the expectations and rules should be understood, agreed to and honored by both parties. It can be secret or public, but honesty between the parties is imperative.

A realtionship with one foot out the door.

But if it works for you and the other person there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Not really that casual. But also, kinda awesome. Like go away, I only want to see you once or twice a month, but when I do, we have mindblowing sex, great conversation, and then go back to our lives, while neither of us is out getting STDs to pass on to the other next time. I could do that.

Surely that’s a contradiction? If the relationship requires monogamy then it is not, by definition, casual. Sounds like one party wants to have their cake and eat it.

How casual is anything that has expectations of exclusivity? Christian Dating?

Does it need a title so long as both parties understand it?

I'd say not entirely casual. If there are specific expectations, that's different than casual. That's an opinion.

I would call that a temporary position which will either evolve into a committed relationship or end/become un-monogamous in time.

It's a 'lets give this a go and see where we wind up' position, but not stable in its current form.

It is called "we are both passing time until we find something better"

If a casual relationship requires an expectation of monogamy it is, in my opinion, no longer a casual relationship.

It sounds like it's not casual.

Nothing based in reality.

Decidedly not casual.

Not too casual .

Friends with benefits Neighbors...lol.

Casual tends to imply no commitments, while monogamous implies a commitment. So, there seems to be some confusion of definitions here. I'd predict such an ill defined situation is nto likely to end happily.

I say I have a monogamous partner. Though it's been a while. I think that really meant like "I don't want people to know I sleep with this guy."

I also had a boyfriend who wanted to break up, but I bargained my way out of it. I really wanted to introduce him as my boyfriend because he was an incredibly accomplished and attractive guy. Eventually, I was like fine, you don't have to be my boyfriend but let's stay "friends." Except I still came over every weekend and eventually convinced him we can still have make out sessions, it was ok to still be attracted to me, I'm totally a chill laid back girl. Which, that facade broke my heart and essentially he wouldn't become more attentive or proud of me. I actually regressed and wasn't the person he was attracted too in the beginning. So don't end up in that situation either.

Essentially after being single single, nobody online, no lingering exs, no future prospects, etc I had a moment to breath.

Labels are bullshit. I had to reevaluate the purpose I gained from men. What relationships are for. What companionship looks like. If intimacy amd sex meant the same thing. How to sustain my identity while coupled.

Figure out what you want them to call you, make sure it means the same thing, don't compromise. Compare what's expected of you, what you expect from them. And it is ok if these evolve as you grow and change together.

I would call it non-committal. If you’re cool with that, so be it. If you’re not, time to move on.

For some people, "casual" might mean any relationship where marriage isn't a clear expectation (i.e., actively working toward a formal, official commitment). To me, though, casual but monogamous would simply mean that we're not pursuing romantic interests elsewhere, but we don't have the expectation that we'll coordinate all of our time around one another — so we're scheduling time for one another, but we're not living together, our lives aren't so intertwined that we are continually checking in with one another, and we don't have an expectation that weekends and/or evenings are automatically spent together. For me, it's an issue of coordinating time to spend with each other as part of our schedule, as opposed to conforming our schedules to one another by default.

It's called "Nope." Too many potential mindgames here.

A really good idea if that's what you both want and agreed on.

Well the last time I did that was 13 yrs ago..
And I have been married for 13 yrs.

I'd be down. Some of us are really busy so keeping things light & just spending free time together would be nice. When/if life settles down, the relationship might become more serious, but something casual could be better than nothing at all.

Not sure it needs a different name than "casual but monogamous"