Intimate relationships between men have certainly received more recognition and validation in recent times, at least in Australia and other western countries. However, in working with same gender attracted (SGA) men, EFT therapists need to be careful not to assume that they follow the traditional heteronormative model of strict monogamy. Many (although certainly not all) relationships between SGA men 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 blog 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 (or “open”) relationships between men. Andrews (2014, p.40) found that in his clinical work as a therapist that “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, 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. The partners may also decide that they must 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. Often, the partners also agree not to have these sexual encounters in their shared home if they live together. 

Another common form of non-monogamy is where the two partners have sex with one or more other men (i.e.nin 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 intimate relationships between men, it might be difficult to imagine that casual sex with other partners could actually enrich, rather than undermine, 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)

He describes meeting SGA men in therapy and social settings who regularly had sex outside their relationship while maintaining an intimate bond with their primary partner. This may seem very surprising to some readers. Indeed, in more traditional heterosexual relationships, non-monogamy is often associated with attachment avoidance and therefore less relationship commitment. However, after reviewing the relevant research to date, David & 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.

A brief case study based on my work with a 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. David is from Perth, Australia and Mustafa from Algiers, Algeria. 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 quicky apparent that David was more successful in finding other sexual partners for himself. Mustafa was less successful, experiencing a great deal of racist hostility and rejection on the online dating apps. 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 in Australia. 

Their respective attachment histories revealed a lot of important information about them for therapy. Mustafa had been repeatedly sexually abused by a family friend in Algeria 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 in Algeria where sex between men is a serious criminal offence. He therefore decided to leave Algeria to explore and integrate his sexual identity in Australia. 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 heroin 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. His family experience overall 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.

Their negative cycle was de-escalated firstly, 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 his (David’s) other sexual encounters and perhaps even more importantly, to reassure him 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 clear 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 together 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 they had both achieved during their course of therapy. 

References

David, 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.

Written by Dr. Kieran O’Loughlin

Connect with Dr Kieran O’Loughlin