Whatever the reason is for embarking upon such a relationship, more and more people seem to be involved in open relationships.
Advocates of non-monogamous pairings tout certain advantages, including the 'spicing up' and strengthening of the main relationship. However, opponents state that open relationships promote everything from jealousy to the risk of contracting diseases.
Boris Thomas, a Chicago-based licensed psychotherapist, talked with Windy City Times about the possible merits and drawbacks of bringing another ( or others ) into a same-sex union.
Boris Thomas: When I work with my clients who tell me about their relationships, I have to deal with them on a [ case-by-case ] basis—and meaning is very important. When couples come in I often find that, for example, a partner's sexual history means. If one person has ten times as many partners as the other, that's a significant thing for many couples. Something like that carries meaning into being a monogamous couple—and what that [ signifies ] .
Windy City Times: Aren't honesty and communication integral to having an open relationship?
BT: For the maintenance of any relationship, honesty and communication are critical.
WCT: Are there any other factors that help open relationships be successful?
BT: I guess I'd have to define what success means. For different couples, success means different things. Success might refer to the duration of the relationship. For same-sex couples, there are other factors: support within the community, support within the family, being out, economic well-being, and health issues.
Let me come back to something you raised: the communication issue. Couples have difficulty talking about all types of things—including something like monogamy. Why is it that [ something like monogamy ] isn't discussed? One reason is that it's scary. For some people, monogamy can feel like a choice to limit yourself. For someone else, it can feel like a choice to be intimate and very close. So being able to talk about what each partner wants is extremely important. Couples are so often terrified to say something like 'I want to sleep with other men or other women.'
WCT: Why do you think they're terrified?
BT: Part of it has to do with the fact that monogamy is 'loaded.' As the gay marriage debate rages on, I think that therein lies the question about what our heterosexist culture allows and that gets internalized in the way we look at our relationships.
The model out there is that 'married heterosexual people are at the top of the pecking order' and there's presumed monogamy there—even though studies and anecdotal information indicate that married couples do cheat. The message that you're supposed to be married ( mixed with the reality that people have extramarital relationships ) is confusing. In a sense, open relationships go against what your parents and most religious institutions say how you should act. Another message is to do what you want and do it safely. There are a lot of messages that gay and lesbian people have to manage in the wake of society's numerous thoughts about the subject. There's a lot to unpack there. Then, there's the individual piece of it: 'I feel safe in a monogamous relationship or I might feel safe having an escape [ route ] .'
WCT: I was going to ask you how important you think security and insecurity are regarding monogamous and non-monogamous relationships.
BT: When you said 'security,' I thought of a few things. I thought about the sense a person has about being secure with himself or herself. That has to do with everything from career to finances. Then, I thought about security as it relates to a continuing relationship: 'How secure am I within this relationship and do I have to worry every week that it's going to end?' Everyone who's dated and developed feelings starts to worry at some point about the relationship turning into something or dissolving—and has feelings of security or insecurity.
I will advocate something: support networks. Something that marriage actually provides is an open ceremony where people can witness you making a commitment. What you're doing is making manifest this relationship and saying to people that you're doing this and you want them to support both of you in this venture.
Regarding security, it differs for each person. So the question can be: What are you better able to manage?
Now, a subset of that involves risk—even if you have an agreement with certain [ limits ] ...
WCT: One parameter I find interesting is: 'You can sleep with someone, but don't fall in love.' I find that intriguing because [ I believe ] that if you sleep with someone long enough, you'll develop an emotional bond—which might be love. Once that bond forms, you could easily drift away.
BT: I think that's a really great point. For some couples, there's a real benefit to keeping a certain amount of 'stuff' in the relationship—and that doesn't have to be sexual. Some people have friendships outside the primary relationship that have a certain closeness. Those friendships can affect the main relationship because there's this dilution effect; there's something happening with the non-sexual friendship that's not occurring with the partner.
I'm not saying that people should only be functions of their relationship; relationships outside the primary partnership are very important. Friendships can be very enriching. However, primary relationships can be affected by extremely close friendships.
WCT: What about the adage 'Lovers come and go but friends are forever?'
BT: I question that notion. The idea that lovers come and go...
WCT: It seems like a matter of prioritizing.
BT: Yeah. I think that one of the hopes that committed people have is to be in a relationship for a significant period of time.
'Serial monogamy' is a funny term to me. The fact is, if you're heterosexual and you're married, divorced, married, and divorced, you're a serial monogamist. The entry and exit costs of a state-governed marriage are higher than a relationship without those ramifications. That certainly contributes to the feeling that lovers come and go while friends are forever. You want your friendships are forever—but maybe lovers can be forever as well.
Getting back to that phrase, I wonder about the word 'lover.' Some people don't like it and prefer the word 'partner.'
WCT: [ 'Partner' ] definitely has a more permanent connotation.
BT: Yes. I think language is very important. So having a partner can feel different than having a lover. You can say 'I'll take a lover' like 'I'll take a bus.'
WCT: And sometimes the bus ride lasts longer. Is monogamy outdated? It seems like more and more people are having relationships outside their main ones.
BT: I'm not hearing that monogamy is outdated. So many of my clients are either in or want to be in monogamous relationships. I wonder what monogamous relationships mean to people. Is there a certain level of closeness? Do you want to be able to give to one person? I don't think monogamy is outdated as something that's desired or in terms of being an institution. The idea of same-sex marriage has a germ of monogamy in it. I think that monogamy is very much alive.
Now, can we call a couple monogamous if one partner has sex once or twice with someone outside the relationship? I don't know. Does that become a slippery slope?
WCT: Any concluding thoughts?
BT: I don't think monogamy is dead or outdated. By the same token, open relationships are not outdated, either. Open and monogamous relationships both have value. It's not about the end product, but about how people get there.
E-mail Boris at boristhomas@your-aspirations.com .
