Consensual Non-monogamy in Intimate Relationships Between Men 1 - Melbourne EFT

Consensual Non-monogamy in Intimate Relationships Between Men

Increasing numbers of individuals and couples of various sexual persuasions are
beginning to engage in consensual or ethical non-monogamy. Therefore, EFT
therapists need to be careful not to assume that their clients necessarily follow the
traditional heteronormative model of strict monogamy. In the case of relationships
between same gender attracted (SGA) men, many (although certainly not all) of
them incorporate different forms of non-monogamy at particular points in the life of a
couple.

They range from two partners having consensual casual sex either
separately or together with other men, to various forms of polyamory which are
imbued with significant levels of emotional intimacy. In this article, I will focus on the
most common form of non-monogamous (or “open”) intimate relationships between
men that I have encountered in my work. This is where one or both partners engage
together or separately in casual sex with other men.

It is important to understand that there are normally agreed “rules” for extra-relational
sex in non-monogamous relationships between men. Andrews (2014, p.40) found
that in his clinical work as a therapist, “Many gay men who had sex outside their
relationships did so in the context of an explicit agreement with their partner that
outlined the meanings of such contacts and what behaviours were or were not
expected.”

For example, partners might agree not to have these sexual encounters
in their shared home if they live together. It is often the case that these extra-
relational sexual encounters are expected by both partners to be devoid of emotional
significance, especially when they occur between only one of them and other men.
Indeed, to avoid any potential complication of this kind, they may agree that these
encounters should be strictly of a “one off ” nature and therefore can’t be repeated
with the same men.

Partners may also decide that they should fully disclose to each
other the details of their separate encounters immediately after they have occurred.
Alternatively, they may adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and agree to keep them
secret from each other.

Another common form of non-monogamy is where the two partners have sex with
one or more other men (i.e., in threesomes or groups). Again, there may be an
agreement on how often this can occur with the same men. There may also be a

shared plan on whether an encounter should end if one of the partners feels left out,
such as when a casual partner is more engaged with one of them than the other.
To the therapist with little or no experience of working with non-monogamous
couples, including men in intimate relationships, it might be difficult to imagine that
casual sex with other partners could possibly form a healthy part of these
relationships.

Yet, in reflecting on his own professional training, Andrews (2014,
p.40) explains that, “…. much of what I learned in my studies of couple and family
therapy did not provide adequate ways to think about how non-monogamy could co-
exist with expression of commitment, belonging and emotional security.” (My
emphasis.)

In addition, after reviewing the relevant research to date, Allan & Westhaver (2018)
conclude that, overall, non-monogamous and monogamous SGA men do not vary in
attachment styles or relationship satisfaction.

In my clinical experience, extra-relational sex can enhance relationships between
men provided they already have a strong attachment bond. This important caveat
highlights the notion that non-monogamy comes with potential threats as well as
benefits. If the attachment bond is not well established or in trouble, these other
sexual encounters have the potential to seriously undermine it.

The partners must also be able to negotiate and adhere to clear rules for both their sexual and
emotional involvement with other men, and how much they disclose to each other
about their separate encounters. There is the possibility of betrayal and the
consequent breakdown of trust if these conditions are not met. On the other hand,
where a strong attachment bond does exist, consensual extra-relational sex can
enrich the relationship by allowing partners the freedom to explore and express their
sexuality beyond the confines of their primary relationship within a clear agreement
to which they both consistently and respectfully adhere.

If managed in this way, it has been my clinical observation that the gift of sexual non-exclusivity can actually
strengthen the trust and sense of security between partners.
A brief case study based on my work with a biracial/ bicultural couple brings these
issues to life.

“David” (aged 37) and “Mustafa” (aged 34) have been in a relationship for ten years
and lived together for the last eight years. I worked with them on a fortnightly basis
over six months. In our initial sessions they both described their relationship as
reasonably secure over the past decade although neither had felt emotionally very
close to the other. They described their sexual relationship as predictable and not
particularly fulfilling.

Two years prior to coming to therapy they agreed to open their
relationship so that they could both have a more varied and rich sex life. In their
case, opening the relationship meant they both could have sex separately or
together with other men. The only general guiding “rule” they established at this time
was that neither of them should do anything to jeopardise their relationship.
However, the change to non-monogamy soon caused serious tensions in their
relationship which brought them to therapy.

Although it was Mustafa who had initiated the idea of an open relationship, it became quickly apparent that David was
more successful in finding other sexual partners for himself. Mustafa was less
successful as he experienced a great deal of racist hostility and rejection on the
online dating apps as an immigrant and a person of colour. There was also friction
between him and David. This was caused firstly, by David’s reluctance to reveal
much to Mustafa about his separate sexual encounters with other men, and more
recently, how close (emotionally and sexually) Mustafa perceived David was
becoming to their main shared partner “Steven.” This had begun to pose a
particularly serious threat for Mustafa to their relationship.

Mustafa felt very distressed as, from his perspective, he stood to lose much more if the relationship
broke down. Unlike him, David had his family and more close friends to turn to.
Their respective attachment histories revealed a lot of important information. Mustafa
had been repeatedly sexually abused by a family friend in his country of origin when
he was only 11 years old. The perpetrator told him he would punish Mustafa if he
told anybody in his family. Mustafa also had not been able to come out to his family
because where they lived, sex between men is a serious criminal offence. He had
therefore decided to emigrate to explore and integrate his sexual identity elsewhere.
Because of these traumatic experiences, David’s secrecy in their relationship
triggered anxiety, fear and insecurity in Mustafa.

David described growing up in a family where his father was emotionally detached
and his mother gave him only inconsistent emotional support. In his teens his
parents were both very preoccupied with his elder sister who had become a drug
addict. David felt like he had to be the successful, perfect son in order to be noticed
and validated. He still felt some shame around his sexuality as his parents accepted
rather than embraced it.

Overall, his family experience made him afraid of criticism
and easily shamed. As a result, David craved validation from other people, including
the sexual partners he had met since he and Mustafa opened up their relationship.
Disagreement about these matters led to the creation of a negative cycle of conflict
in which Mustafa was the pursuer and David the withdrawer. David’s refusal to share
details of his separate sexual encounters or to be open about his feelings for Steven
would elicit angry protest from Mustafa. David would then withdraw because he felt
overwhelmed by Mustafa’s insecurities and shamed by Mustafa’s criticism and
hostility.

Firstly, their negative cycle was de-escalated by them agreeing to “close” their
relationship (i.e., revert to monogamy) for the time being with a view to re- assessing
this decision at a later date. This created an important sense of safety and
containment for them in the early and middle stages of therapy (both in Stages 1 and
2 of the EFT model).

Secondly, each of them started to explore their own and the
other’s attachment needs in ways they had not done before in the relationship.
Mustafa needed to feel that his primary relationship with David was completely
secure. To this end, Mustafa needed David to trust him enough to share details of
other sexual encounters and perhaps even more importantly, to reassure Mustafa
that Steven was not a threat to their relationship.

The main primary emotion that emerged was his fear of David abandoning him. David, on the other hand,
recognised that he had needed more validation from Mustafa even before they
opened the relationship. His search for this with other sexual partners, especially
Steven, made him realise his deep need to feel affirmed by Mustafa as his life
partner. His primary emotion was a deep sense of longing for Mustafa to affirm and
love him unconditionally.

Opening up the relationship, therefore, triggered a relationship crisis for David and
Mustafa, exposing the fault lines of their previously unacknowledged and unmet
attachment needs. Through the process of fully experiencing and expressing their
primary emotions and communicating their needs to each other in therapy, they were
able to greatly strengthen their attachment bond.

Two months before finishing therapy, the two men decided to re-open their
relationship but with much clearer guiding rules built on a shared recognition of the
primacy of their attachment bond. They decided to limit their extra-relational sex to
encounters where they were both present and to carefully avoid emotional
involvement with other men by not having sex with the same person more than a
couple of times.

They therefore made a clear choice to be emotionally monogamous
while only sexually non- monogamous in each other’s company. They also wanted to
focus more strongly on their own sexual relationship than on extra-relational sex.
At the conclusion of therapy, their re-invigorated sex life with each other and new
rules for sexual engagement with other men were enabling them to strengthen their
relationship. Underpinning this success was the greatly enhanced security, trust and
emotional intimacy in their relationship that they had both achieved during their
course of therapy.

This case study underscores the complexity of non- monogamy in intimate
relationships, in particular, between SGA men, and the extent to which casual extra-
relational sex can enrich or undermine them. Therapists therefore need to continue
to learn and be open when they encounter SGA or other couples who are non-
monogamous in this way.


Written by – Kieran O’Loughlin, PhD
Melbourne Community for EFT
Clinical Member of Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia

References
Allan, R., & Westhaver, A. (2018). Attachment theory and gay male relationships: a
scoping review. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 14,4: 295-316.
Andrews, P. (2014). How gay men make decisions about the place of extra-relational
sex in their committed relationships. Psychotherapy in Australia 20,3:40-47.