Gynaecologist and obstetrician Dr Padi Ayertey has said that individuals in monogamous relationships are expected to fully meet each other’s needs, stressing that personal mood should not determine sexual intimacy.

Speaking on Joy FM's Home Affairs during a discussion on mental health care, he explained that choosing monogamy comes with a clear and deliberate commitment between partners to consistently satisfy each other without conditions.

“There are two aspects to this. If you choose to say you are in a monogamous relationship, that means you have chosen to satisfy each other’s needs completely. Mood does not enter the calculation,” he said.

Dr Ayertey stressed that this responsibility is mutual and applies equally to both partners, noting that monogamy is based on shared obligation rather than selective participation depending on personal feelings.

According to him, within such relationships, refusal based on mood is inconsistent with the principles of monogamy.

“We cannot say that we are not in the mood. The same way the man cannot say, ‘I am not in the mood to do what a man is supposed to do in that relationship,’” he explained.

He added that misunderstanding this principle can create wider challenges within relationships, extending beyond intimacy into other areas of shared responsibility.

Dr Ayertey further emphasised the need for clarity in how monogamous commitments are understood, warning that if partners begin to operate based on personal mood, it could affect broader duties such as provision, support, and accountability within the relationship.

Dr Ayertey further noted that monogamy is grounded in mutual provision, where both partners are expected to consistently support each other’s needs.

“If I say I will provide all your needs and you provide all my needs, it means we must do exactly that,” he stated.

He explained that individuals who prefer flexibility based on personal feelings may opt for non-monogamous arrangements instead, where expectations are less rigid.

“If you are not in a monogamous relationship, then you can say, ‘I am not in the mood today, so you can sort yourself out,’” he added.

Using an analogy, he likened relational responsibility to everyday obligations that cannot be dictated by mood.

“Can my pocket have a mood when you need provisions?” he asked.

He concluded that monogamous relationships should be understood as holistic commitments that extend beyond intimacy to everyday support, requiring clarity, discipline and shared accountability from both partners.