Non-Monogamy: Does It Work?

In a previous column, I offered some contrasting perspectives concerning the question of monogamy and non-monogamy and asked you to tell me how you approach it. Like I said in a previous column, talking about this issue is a bit like hitting the “third rail,” so let the sparks fly. The topic comes up often among gay men, so it was no surprise that I heard most from them. Here’s what “Joe” (not his real name) wrote:

“When I was less developed emotionally, …sex provided validation, temporary "love," a feeling of power, a feeling of self-worth, virility, and satisfied an undeniable need. These are all things … I had to go through to learn and grow. If someone approached me about a relationship I would have said no.

If I was in a relationship now and had the urge to be with someone else, or my partner had the urge to be with someone else I would have to ask myself and my partner a series of questions to determine what to do. Lots of talking would be necessary. Pure honesty would be necessary.”

Joe takes what I call a developmental perspective. He views the desire for a relationship as part of his own maturation. He does not dismiss the possibility of an open relationship, but predicates it on honest communication with his partner.

Most of the gay men I’ve known who’ve had any success with open relationships emphasize the deep level of honesty required. I have also observed several other factors that, taken together, create a set of guidelines that can work. I list them here not because I necessarily prescribe open relationships, but because I recognize the fact that many gay male couples consider this at some point or incorporate it into their lives. So, here’s what I hope male couples inclined toward non-monogamy would consider:

1) The decision to open the relationship should be a function of the strength of the relationship, not of its weakness. For example, while it is true that the frequency or intensity of sexual pleasure between partners can wax and wane naturally over time, diminished sexual frequency or pleasure may also signify other problems in the relationship. Is some conflict not being addressed? Are other sources of stress (family, financial, illness) affecting the relationship? Are one or both partners feeling sexually inhibited or turned off by particular sexual practices? If there is an underlying problem, define it and address it.

2) The decision to open the relationship must be mutual. Partners should have equal power in the relationship, and no partner should feel coerced into going along with another. Open relationships don’t seem to work when only one partner wants it and the other accommodates for fear that the relationship will end if he doesn’t. Indeed, I’d say that’s the kiss of death for the relationship. If you’re doing this because you think you have to, don’t.

3) Any agreement to open the relationship should contain within it elements that recognize that the relationship comes first; that’s why it’s called a primary relationship. I’ve encountered a range of such elements, including: a) agreeing to have sex with others only when it’s determined mutually, or prohibiting “pairing off” during a 3-way; b) being emotionally monogamous, i.e. agreeing to avoid becoming emotionally involved with any third party (sometimes translated into agreeing to never hook up with another person more than once), c) limiting sexual activities with third parties so that certain forms of sex are reserved only for the primary couple. There are many other variations, depending on the needs of the relationship and the individual partners.

4) Any agreement should be time-limited and subject to periodic, routine discussion and review. This allows a built-in opportunity to connect, assess, and address potential conflicts before they do damage. It also recognizes that the agreement may no longer be effective or helpful. If non-monogamy does not enhance the primary relationship or if some damage to the relationship occurs as a result, couples can return to a monogamous agreement and address the injury.

5) Partners should agree to do nothing that could expose each other to danger or harm, such as sexually-transmitted diseases, drug use, or interpersonal violence. Safety, particularly in anonymous situations, is paramount, and if either partner feels unsafe, activity must stop. Furthermore, decision-making should not be made under the influence of excessive alcohol or drugs. Partners must be willing to tell each other honestly what they’ve done sexually with others and both HIV- and HIV+ partners must agree on the level of risk of exposure to HIV that is acceptable. If one of the partners has risked exposure to HIV, he should inform his partner and, if partners are HIV-, both must get tested. And, to be on the safe side, non-monogamous partners should agree to practice risk reduction with each other and determine and implement any necessary changes to their own sexual practices.

6) Most important, both partners should have already established a high level of trust in each other. The relationship should have a proven capacity to foster honesty and to deal with conflict, jealousy, competitiveness, hurt, or other types of vulnerability.

While this list of suggested guidelines may not be complete, it creates a sound basis for determining whether an open relationship is desirable and insuring that it’s viable. In subsequent columns, I’ll address the underlying question: “If neither monogamy nor non-monogamy in and of themselves makes for a healthy relationship, what does?” As always, I welcome your comments.

Bruce Koff, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and COO of Live Oak, a group of psychotherapists and consultants who provide counseling and educational services that enhance the emotional and psychological well being of individuals, families, organizations and communities. Bruce specializes in clinical practice with LGBT individuals and their families. E-mail: bkoff@liveoakchicago.com Website: www.liveoakchicago.com

Copyright © 2009 by Bruce Koff, LCSW

Turning Toward Michigan Avenue: Prop 8's Lessons In Healing

Despite the news that Prop 8 passed --- eliminating the right to marriage for same-sex couples in California --- there are lessons in our response to the loss. Of course, there’s plenty of blame going around: religious organizations that out-organized our own, the ambiguous stances of political candidates, and anti-Prop 8 strategies that failed to target or persuade. And yet, the large anti-Prop 8 marches and rallies that followed the vote suggest to me that something much more hopeful is stirring within us. As my spouse and I marched through the downtown streets of Chicago with thousands of others on a cold and windy November afternoon, I was particularly struck by the ubiquitous smiles and echoing cheers --- particularly as the march spontaneously broke through an ill-considered police line and headed for Michigan Avenue. “MICH–I–GAN! MICH-I-GAN!!!” the marchers chanted insistently, roaring as they deliberately veered east toward the heart of Chicago’s upscale shopping district known at The Magnificent Mile. Why did we all want so desperately to descend on Michigan Avenue? What difference did it make if we marched down one street or another?

I realize now that this was literally our turning point that day. Yes, the loss of something we have only barely begun to grasp – the right to marry – has stirred the hearts of more LGBT folks than anything I’ve seen since the AIDS crisis mobilized our community in the 1980s. And yes, having fellow citizens vote to take away your rights is a real kick in the pants! But I don’t think we came out in such numbers and with such enthusiasm only because we care about the security and financial benefits marriage bestows, important though they may be. I don’t think it’s just that so many of us now have children or are planning to have them that we’ve reached a tipping point in our political agenda, or just that so many more LGBT folks want the right to marry. Something else is happening to us. We are re-awakening to some greater truth about how to thrive in a homophobic culture, and it is a truth that is particularly pertinent for same-sex couples.

We live day-to-day with a heightened experience of toxicity and fear, and our lives are shaped by the awareness that whenever we become more visible, we assume more risk. Same sex couples know in particular how the increased visibility that comes with being a couple generates greater vulnerability as well. We walk together down the street and think twice about holding hands; we drop off our partners at work and routinely scan for safety as we kiss them good-bye. We travel beyond our familiar surroundings – maybe only to an unknown neighborhood or suburb – and find the threat level notches up as we ascertain the reduced diversity quotient. And we’re not even talking about the hurdles we may face in including our same-sex partners with our families or seeking access to a spouse in an emergency room.

Having to think twice, exercise caution and maintain vigilance insults our integrity, assaults our psyches and undermines our ability to live and love well. This fact of life is toxic, and yet we all too often accommodate it. We get by, we constrict and constrain, and we grow used to it. After all, few can wage revolution every day.

But something shifted with the vote on Prop 8. The last 4 years of public debate about our right to love, including the leveraging of that debate by Republicans in 2004, has been venomous enough. How repugnant it felt to watch talking heads debate our rights night after Anderson-Cooper-night as if we weren’t really here. But the passage of Prop8 is so toxic that we can no longer just get by. We are saturated.

The turning of thousands of marchers onto Michigan Avenue that day was our self-administered antidote. If we had been rendered invisible, we would now be seen. If our very humanity had been ignored, it would now be considered. If our rights were denied, we would now be empowered. If we were to be exiled, we would now be included. If the message of Prop 8 was to stay in our place, the message of this ad hoc march would be to claim our place where others would not have us. In that moment, Michigan Avenue symbolized that place. We turned towards it and, amidst laughter and cheers, began to heal ourselves.

Others who have preceded us certainly knew and practiced this lesson, but it is one we are re-learning now. Unlike most heterosexual couples, same-sex couples have to acquire an extra set of skills and strategies designed to overcome the insidious effects of fear and disdain. We learn that when we turn toward our aspirations, we overcome our fear. When we become visible despite our discomfort, we restore our dignity. When our partners demand that our relationships be respected, we feel deeply loved. So we bring our partners home for the holidays, we ask hotels for rooms with one bed, we hold hands and kiss our partners “hello” and “goodbye” in public places, we dance with our partners at family celebrations, we insist on our rights and we even get married. Though at times these acts are uncomfortable, though they elicit condemnation and sometimes even endanger us, we summon a gentle courage for the sake of something greater. We administer an antidote every now and then, heal from the effects of a homophobic world and, like a break through the police lines, re-claim the right to love.





Bruce Koff, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and COO of Live Oak, a group of psychotherapists and consultants who provide counseling and educational services that enhance the emotional and psychological well being of individuals, families, organizations and communities. Bruce specializes in clinical practice with LGBT individuals and their families. E-mail: bkoff@liveoakchicago.com Website: www.liveoakchicago.com

Copyright © 2008 by Bruce Koff, LCSW

Monogamy vs. Non-Monogamy: Hitting the 'Third Rail'

“If I know what love is, it is because of you.”
Hermann Hesse


Of the many questions gay men face in forming romantic relationships, two are most prominent: “Can gay men be monogamous?” and “Should they be?” If you want to stir it up at a gathering of friends, go ahead and touch this “third rail” of gay male discourse and watch the sparks fly. Everyone, it seems, has a point of view.

The open relationship argument goes something like this. Gay men, being men, are by nature inclined toward sex with multiple partners. It’s not only natural, but is a vital component of urban gay male culture, and offers a sexually- charged counterpoint to heterosexual norms. Open relationships, it’s argued, challenge traditional beliefs that equate relationship with ownership, that is, the exclusive control of one person’s body by another. When men give each other permission to have sex with others, they are expressing an unselfish love that strengthens the relationship and enhances their sexual chemistry.

The monogamy side, in contrast, views a closed relationship as a more stable one in which the bonds of love are expressed and reinforced through fidelity, restraint and moderation. Some would add that monogamous relationships are more secure, that men in monogamous relationships are happier, and that monogamy fosters psychological health and inhibits the spread of HIV. Proponents of monogamy often view non-monogamy as a visceral reaction to our history of having been criminalized and stigmatized. Sex with multiple partners is a deeply ingrained response to oppression in which the gay man declares: “No one, not even a partner or spouse, can tell me what I can and can’t do sexually.” While that response is understandable, the monogamist might argue that it is irrelevant to the modern gay male relationship. Gay men don’t need to be furtive anymore… they can claim the right to a committed, primary relationship. Finally, those who promote monogamy sometimes suggest that gay men would have a lot less need for the psychological validation obtained through sex with strangers if they felt good about themselves to begin with and overcame the effects of homophobia.

What do male couples themselves say about this matter? Surveys are awfully misleading or inconclusive in that they never are based on true, representative samples. Still, they all report that varying degrees of non-monogamy are fairly common among male couples. Gay men seem more likely to explicitly address this question in their relationships than lesbian or heterosexual couples. Although the question may come up at various points in the course of a relationship, it often appears when the initial throes of passionate attraction to each other subside. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find research that describes the process by which male couples determine their sexual agreements, or their reasons for any arrangement they may have.

So I’m left to my own observations and your input. Let me hear your own thoughts about what paths you’ve chosen, what works, and why. I’m betting that women, queer-identified and transfolk have something to add to this discussion. After all, the question of sexual fidelity is by no means unique to gay men, and others may approach the question in ways that have much to recommend. In a future column, I’ll propose some guidelines for those couples inclined toward non-monogamy, even at the risk of hitting that third rail.


Bruce Koff, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and COO of Live Oak, a group of psychotherapists and consultants who provide counseling and educational services that enhance the emotional and psychological well being of individuals, families, organizations and communities. Bruce specializes in clinical practice with LGBT individuals and their families. E-mail: bkoff@liveoakchicago.com Website: www.liveoakchicago.com

Copyright © 2008 by Bruce Koff, LCSW

Constructing Our Collective Wisdom

“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.”
--- Lao Tzu

In preparing to write this column, I calculated that I’ve probably spent over 100,000 hours over the last 19 years listening and speaking with lesbians and gay men about love and relationships. Finding love, keeping love, and losing love fill my days as a counselor working with our community. You would think all this talking and listening would make me an expert on the topic, but I will deny that at the outset. What my professional experience has revealed, though, is that there are among us many couples who are indeed experts, and I have been fortunate to learn from them.

Through my work, I meet couples in a state of crisis and flux. Some have experienced a breach of trust, others find they are in constant conflict, while still others worry that the thrill is gone and wonder how to get it back. While these relationships may be in jeopardy, they are also the ones that inspire me most. Through their adversity, they often find strength and deeper love. And when I go home each night to my own partner of 25 years, I invariably bring to our relationship some new appreciation or insight obtained through my work.

Even with the benefits of legal marriage in some states, same-sex couples are challenged in ways heterosexual couples are not. You know the litany pretty well: lack of adequate laws to protect us, families that struggle to accept us, the wear-and-tear of living day-to-day as a same-sex couple in a homophobic culture, and the lack of role models or a clearly marked path toward longevity. I know it too. But I also know that many couples manage these challenges incredibly well.

I witness couples who have learned great lessons of love, who have discovered core principles that sustain their relationships, who know how to thrive in adversity and heal from wounds they themselves might inadvertently inflict on each other. The wisdom I encounter in the privacy of my office, however, is not always accessible to others. Couples seem to fall off the radar screen in our community. We lack a forum to talk about these things and to learn from them. And we are unable to pass this wisdom on to others.

So I offer this column as a place to do just that. As opposed to the standard advice column, I ask you to join me in constructing a collective wisdom about how we love and how LGBT relationships work. Let’s make it part of our legacy to future generations.

My work with my clients is, of course, confidential. I will reveal nothing about them. But I will share with you the lessons I take from their experiences and my own, and I ask you to bring yours to this forum as well. In fact, your insights and perspectives will be the central focus of this space. I will do my best to get the ball rolling, ask good questions, share my own observations, and when necessary, get out of the way. And although I know that LGBT couples may differ in many ways, it’s been my experience that the great lessons in life lie more in our differences than in our similarities.

So tell us how your relationship works. How did you pace yourselves in those first few months? How do you deal with conflict? How does monogamy or non-monogamy work in your relationship? What is a “healthy” relationship? How do you deal with changes in sex and attraction? What impact does “outness” have on the relationship? How did you decide whether or not to get married or have children? How do you manage the more vulnerable emotions of fear, sadness, or insecurity in a relationship? How do you know when you feel love instead of lust? How do you make decisions fairly? What do you do to show your partner that you care? How do you manage money? Whose career is more important and why? What do you do to make sure there’s time for the relationship? Where do friends or family fit in and where do you draw the line? What happens when one or both of you are ill, or HIV+? How do you cope with significant differences in age? How do interracial couples thrive?

I could go on, but you get the picture. E-mail me with your own questions, observations, and experiences and I’ll take it from there. Through this column, I hope we connect and forge a path that others can find.

Bruce Koff, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and COO of Live Oak, a group of psychotherapists and consultants who provide counseling and educational services that enhance the emotional and psychological well being of individuals, families, organizations and communities. Bruce specializes in clinical practice with LGBT individuals and their families. E-mail: bkoff@liveoakchicago.com Website: http://www.liveoakchicago.com/

Copyright © 2008 by Bruce Koff, LCSW