|
from Books & Reviews
Treating Infidelity In Same-Sex Couples
Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.
The November, 2005, issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology featured a special series of articles addressing the clinical treatment of infidelity. Included in the series was an article entitled, "Treating infidelity in same-sex couples," by Christopher R. Martell and Stacey E. Prince. The article is noteworthy in its frank discussion of the different norms (compared to heterosexual couples) the authors view as applicable to the affirmative treatment of the infidelity of same-sex couples.
According to the authors, "It is important to note that sexual relationships outside of the primary relationship are not de facto affairs, and that the context of the couple's agreement with one another about outside sexual activity is crucial in understanding what impact such activity will have on the couple" (p. 1430). Thus, the implication appears to be that infidelity is to be considered a clinical issue only if its occurrence has not been agreed upon by the couple. Although the authors attempt to apply this guideline to couples regardless of sexual orientation, they then immediately go on to acknowledge that this practice is much more common for gay couples:
Although some heterosexual and lesbian couples agree to non-monogamous relationships, the particular arrangement is more relevant to gay couples. For some gay men, non-monogamy is viewed as a political statement, a rejection of dominant cultural norms that have been oppressive to them, and such sexual activity is viewed as recreational rather than as a betrayal of the primary relationship. Several studies have confirmed that such arrangements are not detrimental to the primary relationship, and that sexually non-monogamous versus monogamous couples have comparable levels of relationships satisfaction" (p. 1430).
The authors present the case of David and Ron, a couple who sought therapy to resolve issues pertaining to Ron's continuing to have a sexual relationship with another man. While the couple had agreed to allow each other to see other men for the first six months of their relationship, they had eventually discussed expectations regarding monogamy. However, while David came to expect that outside sexual relationships would cease, Ron continued to see another man and lied about this to David. It was David's discovery of Ron's infidelity that brought them to therapy.
After two months of therapeutic impasse, an agreement was reached whereby Ron agreed to commit to being monogamous while he would allow David to have sex with other men. This arrangement, the authors noted, "helped assuage Ron's feelings of guilt, but did not make much of an impact on David's mistrust" (p. 1434). Following this period, "...the couple decided that neither of them wanted to have a monogamous relationship, but they agreed to non-monogamy with very clear rules" (e.g., full disclosure, no sex with friends, end the outside relationship if either felt uncomfortable). It is by no means insignificant that the authors felt the issues and dynamics involved in this case study to be prototypical enough to present them as the single example of treating gay male couples for infidelity. Within this therapeutic framework, it is evident that the value of honesty is placed higher than the value of sexual fidelity.
In conclusion, the authors summarize their guidelines for treatment, which include the need for utilizing culturally sensitive norms when evaluating the meaning and impact of sexual behavior outside of the relationship, not assuming that sex outside of the relationship equals an affair, and not underestimating the partner's commitment to one another or to fidelity if they choose a non-monogamous relationship.
The Martell and Prince article makes for interesting reading, especially in comparison to the other articles in the series that address heterosexual infidelity. In these articles sexual fidelity is not something to be potentially negotiated away, but rather the expected outcome toward which clinical efforts are to be aimed if the relationship is to be saved.
In contrasting the articles of the special series, the tacit implication appears to be that sexual fidelity is a significantly more difficult accomplishment for gay men than it is for heterosexual men. This is reflected in the latter being held to the clinical standards of honesty and sexual monogamy while the former need only uphold the practice of honesty. Meanwhile, outside of the isolated vantage point of the clinical setting, the sustainability and consequences of these differing normative visions of infidelity for societal cohesion and functioning over time remain deserving of serious attention.
Reference:
Martell, C. R., & Prince, S. E. (2005). Treating infidelity in same-sex couples. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 61, 1429-1438.
Updated: 3 September 2008
|
