As a therapist who works with couples, the three words I most fear hearing from any newly-established pair are: “We never fight.” Individuals new to a relationship must fight. Of course, I don’t mean breaking dishes, intimidation or violence. Rather, I mean a fair fight in which the healthy assertion of oneself occurs in a context of respect, safety, reciprocity and love. Healthy conflicts generate closeness. They help us establish the rules for the relationship. They tell us where our interests and those of our partner diverge and foster the capacity for give-and-take. They set limits and define boundaries. Most important, they allow each to be more fully known and embraced by the other.
Some of us are great with conflict. We can assert without hostility, problem-solve creatively, and not shrink from disagreement or strong emotion. But many of us come to fear conflict, often based on previous negative experiences with it. We may have been overpowered by others as children or witnessed the victimization of others. We may have seen anger turn to rage and encountered physical threats or violence. Some of us learned to avoid conflict by withdrawing from it, by pretending all is well when we know it’s not, or by trying to control circumstances and relationships so that no conflicts can emerge. Over time, with little successful experience in working through differences, we lose confidence in ourselves, our partners and our relationships. We lose the experience of closeness that comes with resolution, including the spontaneous and nearly comic passion of “make-up sex.”
The experience of conflict may therefore hold a special power and promise in same-sex relationships. As we learn to master conflict, we experience ourselves differently, overcome fear, and feel safe and close with another in ways we might never have imagined possible. At times, we even heal old wounds that pre-date the relationship.
So it might be worthwhile to consider ways to utilize conflict as opportunities to strengthen our relationships and enliven them. Here are a dozen do’s to consider:
1) Think of every conflict with your partner as practice. Learning a new skill requires repetition, and conflict resolution is the ability to apply a set of skills to a given situation.
2) Identify your feelings --- all of them. Sometimes you may know that you’re mad, but you don’t recognize all the other emotions tied to this one emotion. Are you also hurt? Offended? Frightened? Jealous? Sad? Excited? Worried about what will happen if you express these directly to your partner?
3) Say what you feel, but don’t try to read your partner’s mind. Starting a sentence with, “I feel that you…” is not a feeling; it’s usually an accusation.
4) Listen actively. Before you respond to something your partner says, take time to repeat to your partner your understanding of his/her words and reflect the feelings that underlie them. Don’t editorialize or add your own “take.” Both of you will appreciate the experience of being fully heard, and that alone can sometimes foster a more flexible response.
5) Be curious. Don’t try to persuade your partner not to feel something. We feel what we feel, whether it seems reasonable or not. Instead, ask about the feelings: Where do they come from? How strong are they? When has your partner felt them before? What triggers them? What part have you played in this?
6) Take a break if you need one, but let your partner know how much time you need and when you’ll return to the discussion. It’s okay to give yourself time when you feel flooded, overwhelmed, or confused, but maintain trust with your partner by reassuring him/her that you will not disappear.
7) Try something new. We all can have somewhat ingrained patterns of reacting to conflict that are ultimately harmful. Do you tend to withdraw? Interrupt? Get defensive? Become hostile? Consider experimenting with a different approach that fosters more connection instead of less.
8) Agree to disagree. We can’t always resolve every conflict in the moment it occurs. We may have a different perspective in a day or two. Someone we confide in may offer a solution, or we may feel differently after rest or a good meal. Give yourselves time to relax, rest, and consider what you’ve heard.
9) Think in win-win terms. Conflicts escalate when it’s assumed that one party must win and the other must lose. Instead, ask how both of you can achieve some part of what each of you want. The give-and-take in relationships, the willingness to compromise, and the ability to think out of the box foster grace in relationships and a generosity of spirit.
10) Be accountable. Take responsibility for your part in the conflict, and hold your partner accountable as well. Apologies are nice, but not sufficient. If you truly believe you’ve done something wrong, admit it and explicitly commit to a better behavior or approach. Expect this of each other.
11) Make sure the solution passes the “relationship test.” Any new agreement is good only to the extent that it strengthens the relationship. At the end of the day, not only must the decision be acceptable to both parties, but it should foster something good and valued in the bond between you. Does the relationship function more fairly now? Do you feel closer and more connected to each other? Has your commitment to each other’s well-being been enhanced?
12) Let make-up sex happen! Don’t use sex to short-circuit or paper over a conflict. You’ll only make it worse. Instead, let it happen as a function of the closeness you genuinely feel for each other. If that’s where you arrive, go ahead and seal the deal.
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 LGBTQ individuals and their families. E-mail: bkoff@liveoakchicago.com Website: www.liveoakchicago.com
Blog: www.couplesconnecting.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2009 by Bruce Koff, LCSW
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
WHAT A DIFFERENCE AN AGE MAKES
“The heart has reasons that reason does not understand.”
Jacques Benigne Bossuel
As my spouse Mitchell and I approach our 27th anniversary, our 7-year difference in age is much more prominent to us than it’s been for some time. At age 56, I am envisioning slowing down, relinquishing work and ambition, enjoying my down-time more, and pursuing unexplored aspects of life. In contrast, Mitchell, age 49, is investing in his career, setting goals that match his ambition, and finding satisfaction in expanding a sound professional reputation. He notices the shift in my thinking. It is new for both of us, and we both worry about how we will manage the change. Will he envy my less pressured approach? Will I feel guilty? Will our different life stages trigger greater conflict about priorities?
In contrast, couples who are just starting out with a significant difference in age face other questions. The older partner who is more settled may wonder if he/she can adjust to the younger partner’s periods of uncertainty and need to explore. A younger person may feel competitive with or overpowered by an older partner’s greater financial/career status, or the older partner may feel intimidated by the younger one’s youth and attractiveness.
Of course, myths about age difference in same-sex relationships abound, and they probably have existed since the Greeks and Romans glorified them. For example, older may mean wiser, but not necessarily. Younger LGBTQ folks may be more at ease with themselves and less troubled by internalized homophobia, given their exposure to so much more positive information about themselves than previous generations. Younger people may also be open to differences than their elders.
I also do not presume that there is an unbridgeable cultural divide between younger and older partners. Tastes in music and culture vary, but it is not unusual for couples with 10 or 20 years age difference to influence each others tastes significantly.
Stereotypes also persist about such couples: the younger partner is a “trophy,” the older partner is a “meal ticket,” one is the “parent” and the other the “child,” or the older partner is engaging in some sort of “rescuing” drama. While there may be some truth to these in particular situations, and exploitation by either partner can occur, unchallenged assumptions can demean and diminish the notion that deep love can exist between two people of different ages.
Still, age differences matter, and it is probably a good idea to anticipate the challenges.
Here are some key arenas to consider:
1) Where are we in life? Are we in significantly different stages now, or will we be at some point in the future? How willing and able are we to address the inevitable differences in the actual aging process, and the potential dependency of an older partner on a younger one?
2) How do age differences enhance or inhibit our ability to share power fairly in the relationship? Does the younger partner exert more influence by virtue of his/her youth or attractiveness? Does the older partner do so by virtue of career and income? How do these characteristics influence the way we make decisions, and how can we correct for the imbalances that might emerge?
3) How do age differences contribute to our appreciation for each other? What can I learn from my partner that someone of my own generation may be less likely to provide? How do I respect and incorporate some of these differences, while simultaneously maintaining my basic integrity and sense of self?
4) How will we address the sometimes inevitable negative judgments of others, especially peers and family? Will we be defensive, or can we approach such instances with dignity and self-respect?
Healthy relationships between same-sex partners of divergent age can and do exist. In many respects, they require the same skills as any other relationship, but with greater attention, obviously, to the impact of age. Perhaps, as life expectancy increases, as we stay healthy longer, and as same-sex relationships continue to find legitimacy and support, many more such couples will thrive. Hopefully, the greatest of them will offer all of us insight into the capacity of love to foster strength, vitality, and mutual respect through the experience of difference.
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 LGBTQ individuals and their families. E-mail: bkoff@liveoakchicago.com Website: www.liveoakchicago.com
Blog: www.couplesconnecting.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2009 by Bruce Koff, LCSW
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Faux Romance
In the past few columns, I’ve written about various attributes of healthy relationships. I’ve noted the unique courage of same-sex couples, the profound honesty of such icons as Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy, and even constructive ways to establish open relationships. I’ve not devoted much time, however, to looking at unhealthy relationships. Here, then, are some thoughts on one type of unhealthy relationship that I suspect is commonly experienced.
Relationships can go off track in so many ways, but I think the greatest risk for many LGBTQ folks lies in our varied responses to fear, especially our fear of rejection. It’s no surprise, really. Getting rejected at any age is pretty rough, but getting rejected as a gay child can be overwhelming. Not only does our tender age ill-equip us for dealing with this, but the rejection we experience is often amplified by ostracism, ridicule, harassment, humiliation, violence and shame. Our families aren’t always good sources of support when such events occur, and some may actually contribute to the problem. Flooded by these experiences, many of us develop remarkably creative strategies to insure that no one will reject us, and we carry these strategies into our adulthood. As adults, we therefore forge relationships that are organized more by the fear of rejection than the courage of closeness. We are safe in them, but we are not truly present. Over the years, some of my clients have named this pattern of relationships “The Faux Romance.” As its name implies, The Faux Romance is no more real than an Italian countryside painted on a wall. It fades with time and lacks dimension, but it tricks us into believing, at least for a moment, that something is really there.
You may know the Faux Romance in various forms. Here are a few I’ve known:
The Fantasy
The Fantasy relationship takes place within our own mind and is never expressed to the other. Many of us, for example, have surely had the experience of falling madly and silently for someone who is straight, not interested, or otherwise completely unavailable. Perhaps it’s someone we work with, live near, or see on the train every morning. The Fantasy relationship, however, becomes an obsession. Fearing that person will reject us or worse, we love them from afar. We never share our desire with our object no matter how tempting; we dare not break the spell. In our heads, however, we carry on, measuring the tone of their “hello’s,” and “good-bye’s,” watching for the slightest indication of flirtation, and sensitive to the faintest hint of rejection. In perpetual awe and angst, we dream of that person without their knowledge. In control of our own fantasy, we are never truly rejected. We deceive no one, of course, but ourselves.
The Illusion
The Illusion relationship looks like something real, but isn’t very real at all. Two people may go out together, have sex with each other, and even live together, but without any real intimacy. The couple will consistently avoid conflict or difficult conversations, hold secrets from each other, and even maintain illusory relationships with others at the same time. Sometimes, it may feel as though one partner has cast another in his/her play. The script is already written; everyone just has to play their part. The Illusion provides a performance of intimacy obtained through the routine physical presence of another, or by simply maintaining appearances. As a result, we don’t have to feel lonely or rejected; we just have to agree to not do or discuss anything that could shatter the illusion. In fact, we are not really there.
The Deal
In this variation of the Faux Romance, the Deal is pretty simple: one partner compensates another with money, material goods, and/or increased socio-economic status. In exchange, the other agrees not to leave. One fosters financial dependency and, in the process, perhaps even impairs a partner’s emotional strength. In this way, we play out a fantasy of commitment and love, when in fact we’ve simply purchased rejection insurance. It’s a raw deal based on a kind of control, and it banishes truth. We may act as if money and all that it can buy have no bearing on the relationship at all, but it is truly the black hole that holds another person in place.
Though these strategies may be unhealthy, it is important to remember that they come from our healthy, albeit thwarted longing to love and be loved. We are simply trying to find a way to connect and still feel safe from rejection and loss. Ultimately, these strategies fail, for the surest path for overcoming those massive fears instilled in us in childhood is to be loved beyond our defenses and strategies, beyond our facades and plays. When we can courageously embrace the possibility of rejection rather than try to manage it, we prepare ourselves for love. The Faux Romance, in all its forms, lacks the healing grace of being loved and accepted for who we truly are. It is, therefore, better left alone.
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 Blog: www.couplesconnecting.blogspot.com .
Copyright © 2009 by Bruce Koff, LCSW
Relationships can go off track in so many ways, but I think the greatest risk for many LGBTQ folks lies in our varied responses to fear, especially our fear of rejection. It’s no surprise, really. Getting rejected at any age is pretty rough, but getting rejected as a gay child can be overwhelming. Not only does our tender age ill-equip us for dealing with this, but the rejection we experience is often amplified by ostracism, ridicule, harassment, humiliation, violence and shame. Our families aren’t always good sources of support when such events occur, and some may actually contribute to the problem. Flooded by these experiences, many of us develop remarkably creative strategies to insure that no one will reject us, and we carry these strategies into our adulthood. As adults, we therefore forge relationships that are organized more by the fear of rejection than the courage of closeness. We are safe in them, but we are not truly present. Over the years, some of my clients have named this pattern of relationships “The Faux Romance.” As its name implies, The Faux Romance is no more real than an Italian countryside painted on a wall. It fades with time and lacks dimension, but it tricks us into believing, at least for a moment, that something is really there.
You may know the Faux Romance in various forms. Here are a few I’ve known:
The Fantasy
The Fantasy relationship takes place within our own mind and is never expressed to the other. Many of us, for example, have surely had the experience of falling madly and silently for someone who is straight, not interested, or otherwise completely unavailable. Perhaps it’s someone we work with, live near, or see on the train every morning. The Fantasy relationship, however, becomes an obsession. Fearing that person will reject us or worse, we love them from afar. We never share our desire with our object no matter how tempting; we dare not break the spell. In our heads, however, we carry on, measuring the tone of their “hello’s,” and “good-bye’s,” watching for the slightest indication of flirtation, and sensitive to the faintest hint of rejection. In perpetual awe and angst, we dream of that person without their knowledge. In control of our own fantasy, we are never truly rejected. We deceive no one, of course, but ourselves.
The Illusion
The Illusion relationship looks like something real, but isn’t very real at all. Two people may go out together, have sex with each other, and even live together, but without any real intimacy. The couple will consistently avoid conflict or difficult conversations, hold secrets from each other, and even maintain illusory relationships with others at the same time. Sometimes, it may feel as though one partner has cast another in his/her play. The script is already written; everyone just has to play their part. The Illusion provides a performance of intimacy obtained through the routine physical presence of another, or by simply maintaining appearances. As a result, we don’t have to feel lonely or rejected; we just have to agree to not do or discuss anything that could shatter the illusion. In fact, we are not really there.
The Deal
In this variation of the Faux Romance, the Deal is pretty simple: one partner compensates another with money, material goods, and/or increased socio-economic status. In exchange, the other agrees not to leave. One fosters financial dependency and, in the process, perhaps even impairs a partner’s emotional strength. In this way, we play out a fantasy of commitment and love, when in fact we’ve simply purchased rejection insurance. It’s a raw deal based on a kind of control, and it banishes truth. We may act as if money and all that it can buy have no bearing on the relationship at all, but it is truly the black hole that holds another person in place.
Though these strategies may be unhealthy, it is important to remember that they come from our healthy, albeit thwarted longing to love and be loved. We are simply trying to find a way to connect and still feel safe from rejection and loss. Ultimately, these strategies fail, for the surest path for overcoming those massive fears instilled in us in childhood is to be loved beyond our defenses and strategies, beyond our facades and plays. When we can courageously embrace the possibility of rejection rather than try to manage it, we prepare ourselves for love. The Faux Romance, in all its forms, lacks the healing grace of being loved and accepted for who we truly are. It is, therefore, better left alone.
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 Blog: www.couplesconnecting.blogspot.com .
Copyright © 2009 by Bruce Koff, LCSW
Sunday, April 26, 2009
New link for Couples Connecting
Just a note that some of my articles and essays for Couples Connecting are now featured on MeetGayCouples.com, a great networking and information website. I'm thrilled, and look forward to a new way to communcate with LGBTQ couples. A link to the website is listed on this blog. Here's a link to the announcement: http://www.meetgaycouples.com/RussnDarrylAZ/blog/265/
Thursday, April 2, 2009
How Relationships Last: Lesson 1
For one human being to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of our tasks; the ultimate, the last test and proof; the work for which all other work is but preparation.
---Rainer Maria Rilke
Recently, my spouse and I watched “Chris and Don,” a documentary about the 34-year relationship between Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy. Isherwood was the remarkable 20th century novelist best known for his work “Berlin Stories” that inspired the musical, “Cabaret.” Bachardy, 30 years his junior, became a renowned portrait artist who continues to reside in Los Angeles. Through interviews with Bachardy and various friends and associates, as well as clips from home movies, the film documents the course of this trailblazing relationship between the two men. The film also becomes an inspirational and incisive study of how same-sex relationships last.
Chris and Don met in the early 1950’s, an era known for its climate of conventionality, conformity, and contempt for difference. This context was made even more difficult when even some close friends withheld support for the couple because of the age difference between Chris and Don; a difference that posed unique challenges to the internal workings of the relationship as well. Yet Chris and Don thrived in these barren times.
In the starkest and most revealing moment of the film, Don shares with the filmmaker the portraits he drew of his beloved Chris as Chris lay dying. Though the portraits are heartbreaking, a close friend remarks that they ultimately reveal both the power of Don’s love for Chris and his unblinking, uncompromising honesty. There is no mystery here; the amalgam of these qualities clearly sustained the relationship.
Love and honesty are indeed intimately linked. What is one without the other? Surely, love cannot thrive when that which is loved conceals itself. When I hide from my partner some part of myself, -- my fears, my jealousies and insecurities, my anger, my desires -- he cannot love me. What love he might feel is but for an image of me, carefully constructed and maintained. In such a state, love dies.
Conversely, honesty without love is often a brutal conceit. How many of us have spoken truth without caring for the well-being of another? How often do we pat ourselves on the back for being honest, when in fact we were hurtful? Love gives truth a purpose greater than itself.
For Chris and Don, as one friend remarks, honesty “was their religion.” In the film, Don recounts how he and Chris struggled as Don entered his twenties. Don sought to open the relationship and explore the same passions and desires that Chris had explored at that stage of his life in Berlin. Don even entered an affair with another man, placing enormous stress on the relationship. Yet their bond strengthened as they engaged in an honest struggle over several years, Don subsequently ending the affair. Love seemed to embrace truth, and truth engendered love.
So many of the same-sex couples I know can recount the experience of falling in love. The “falling” seems accidental, unintentional, and most likely, irresistible. It is by no means a controlled descent. But once we fall, we choose to love more fully by being increasingly present and known. Chris and Don chose to reveal themselves to each other consistently over 34 years, and to remain honest and visible to the world. Consequently, their relationship deepened with each challenge.
In Don’s portraits of Chris’ dying and his death, Don portrays the essence of the man he fell in love with decades before on a California beach. Chris finally and ultimately departs in the loving, complete and knowing embrace of an artist’s love, and his lover’s art. Their story reveals the art of loving.
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 © 2009 by Bruce Koff, LCSW
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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
“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
Monday, March 16, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)