Connect with us

Opinions

Open or closed? No, not your bar tab

The swinging couple’s dream is the hopeless romantic’s nightmare

Published

on

Jake Stewart

(Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part feature on open relationships.)

Boy meets boy. Boy likes boy. 

For the first time in a long time, boy feels that thing, that connection, that spark with boy. 

Then one day boy grabs dinner with boy. Boy’s smiles and laughs throughout are equal parts sincere and excited. Boy wonders, is this the one? After all this time, has it finally happened? 

Boy takes boy home. Boys cuddle. Boys kiss. Boys have amazing sex. And in the glowing aftermath of what can only be described as a perfect night, boy spots an unnoticed ring. 

“What’s that?” boy asks. 

“My wedding ring,” the other replies. “I thought you knew.” 

When I returned to D.C. in 2016, I quickly received a lecture on why open relationships were the future of queer love. Nearly eight years later, they’ve more than just sprouted among the gay scene – they’ve overtaken the landscape. Simultaneously, what became the swinging couple’s dream descended into the hopeless romantic’s nightmare. 

It’s not all so bad given what comes with it: a lot of sex, particularly with hotties who were off-limits before. However, alongside that sex comes a minefield of rules and regulations open couples create but horny singles must abide by. One wrong move, and you’re the villain. 

Truthfully, I’ve soiree’d with open couples before, both separate and together. On the bad end, things get awkward – particularly between me and the other partner. On the good end, I might come home satisfied, but the moment I hop on my couch to watch rerun television, I realize I’m back to where I started: alone. 

If you’re like me and not yet onboard with an open relationship, it’s also easy to feel like a fish out of water. Queer social outings can sometimes become a Swinging 70’s Redux, with partners passed around like gay dishes at a potluck. Next up: ass, and lots of it. 

This leads to another issue: in a scene full of open couples, detached sex is more than just accepted – it’s often expected. The moment you let emotional attachment enter the equation, you lose. Now even the singles are trained to run away, for your attachment may prevent them from jumping onto – or into – the next in their queue. And I can’t even get upset, for I’ve been that guy before. 

For all these reasons, I wanted to dive further into the rise of open relationships. All I needed was someone in an open relationship willing to speak on the matter.

“That’s easy,” quipped my coworker, Chad. “Just open Grindr.” 

Chad and I met working at the pub, and under similar circumstances; he lost his day job a few months after me losing mine. We quickly found solace in our shared circumstance, and now he and I hang in the kitchen of a gay bar divulging details of our sex lives and pining to meet the man of our dreams. 

And Chad wasn’t wrong, for these days Grindr is chockfull of profiles in open relationships looking to play. Yet it turned out I wouldn’t need Grindr, for at that moment, in pranced our fellow coworker, Scott. 

There’s no better way to describe Scott than this: They’re a bundle of positivity and joy. Oddly, I didn’t meet Scott at the bar but rather at a coffee shop in Petworth in 2018, where they were my regular barista. Little did I know we’d work together half a decade later. Life is funny that way, isn’t it? 

Outside the bar, Scott is an actor in productions across the DMV. Naturally, they became my biggest inspiration for abandoning my career for the arts. Following a bar shift last summer we smoked a blunt and talked about it. They taught me to tune out the noise and follow my heart. 

Together, Chad and Scott became my newfound support system. In a way we’re like the Three Musketeers – equally gay, just a lot more working class.

Of course, as soon as Scott entered, I had to ask: “Are you and your partner open?” 

Scott smiled coyly. “Oh yes, honey.” 

So as fate had it, here in the kitchen of a gay bar, I had both ends of the open/closed spectrum represented. On one side Chad, a self-proclaimed romantic seeking monogamy; on the other, the fully open Scott. 

While there were many takeaways from our conversations on the matter, I distilled six truths in the debate between open and closed relationships. But please, take these with a grain of salt – I am just a barback, after all.   

  1. Monogamy is rooted in tradition.

For many of us, gay or straight, finding our one and only was a dream of our youth. Mine was supposed to be Colby Donaldson from season 2 of the hit TV show “Survivor,” but life had other plans. 

Yet many never dissect where this desire stems from. Our culture is inundated with stories of princesses rescued by their prince and true love’s kiss setting us free. There seemed to be a script we had to follow, and if we didn’t, no worries – God would simply banish us to hell. 

This is a common starting point for both the monogamist and the open connoisseur. When I asked Chad what drew him toward monogamy, he replied, “Honestly, it was how I was raised: settle down, have kids, and carry on the family name. I didn’t have any non-traditional role models.” 

Meanwhile, Scott’s past reservations toward open relationships were for similar reasons. “When I was younger, I was not pro-open relationship,” they told me. “I didn’t understand the intricacies of it. I didn’t understand the nuances of it. I also grew up in a very conservative, Catholic household.” 

Both responses touch on a key argument in the pro-open saga: that closed relationships are often reflections of tradition, ranging from folklore to religion, and these traditions held queer people back for centuries. If queer means subverting these traditions, then monogamy is simply outdated. Or so they say.  

  1. 2. The desire to be open is biological.  

Over time, Scott’s views on being open changed. “As I matured and grew into my queerness,” they started, “and saw friends with alternative lifestyles, I realized this is something I could be interested in.”

In Scott’s relationship, this led to an understanding of the core needs for them and their partner. “I knew my partner’s libido was higher than mine. For me, it came from a desire to allow my partner to experience something I wasn’t able to fulfill fully. I personally get a lot of pleasure knowing my partner can go out, meet people, and make connections, knowing at the end of the day we will be each other’s number one priority and person.” 

Scott’s libido reference made me wonder: are open relationships taking off across the LGBTQ community, or specifically among sex-obsessed gay men? Realizing this conversation should probably be more inclusive, I made an arduous journey east – roughly 150 feet, to the front entrance. 

Kelsey is a hot badass who works the door of the bar. She’s stylish, a fellow Aires like myself, and I once told Chad I thought she was Fabulous with a capital F. I realized then I’m getting gayer by the minute. 

While Kelsey is currently in a closed relationship, she enlightened me to the status among lesbians. “It’s about 50/50 with the ones I know,” she replied. Honestly, this surprised me, mainly because I figured men were the ones dicking around.  

Kelsey has also been in open relationships before, and she isn’t exactly closed to that route again. “I don’t think people were made for one person for the rest of their life,” she added. This reflected what Scott shared as well: “The human body craves sex to different degrees, and as you get older those degrees wax and wane.” 

To me, both statements highlight that the desire to be with others sexually is natural for many, so caging that desire can feel confining. As queer people, we can all relate to that. 

Next week: Part two looks at finding the right reasons for pursuing an open relationship.

Jake Stewart is a D.C.-based writer and barback.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Capitalism, patriarchy, and neocolonialism are repackaging the scramble for Africa

Published

on

(Photo by NASA)

The old scramble for Africa was about land, minerals, and control. The new scramble is cloaked in buzz phrases such as “promoting and protecting African family values,” “natural family,” and “defending the sanctity of the African family,” but it is driven by the same trio: capitalism, patriarchy, and neocolonialism. 

Across the African continent, violence against marginalized people, such as women, girls, and LGBTIQ+ people, is not just some unfortunate result of ignorance and intolerance. It is not a cultural misunderstanding. It is deliberate. It is precise. It is profitable. It is pro-hate legislation. It is ideologies. It is business and is being packaged, exported and sold under the glossy buzz phrases used by the same big global forces that have long treated Africa as an experimental lab, an extraction of resources and a playground with African lives. If we zoom out far enough to what looks like moral panic is actually a business model where patriarchy meets capitalism galvanized with extreme religious ideologies, leaving that familiar colonial aftertaste. 

Can ‘Ubuntu’ counter hate?

The anti-rights and anti-gender movement is sweeping rapidly across Africa on a mission to cement hate within African communities, thus making our nations and governments their experimental lab, as mentioned earlier. But we all know that hate is inherently un-African. It does not originate from Africa. It was exported onto our African soil through colonialism, patriarchy, and capitalism.  

When I say that hate is un-African, this is not to claim that our communities — pre and post colonialism — were utopias. It really is to push back against the idea that supporting and protecting marginalized groups is foreign, and that rejecting them is somehow essential to preserving African culture. Protecting and empowering groups such as women and LGBTIQ+ destabilises the pillars of patriarchy and threatens capitalism, as there would be no market to sell refurbished colonialism. 

Africa is not immune to hate, but it is the result of intolerance and inequality that is being imported. Africa has long been a place of respecting diversity, and professor Sylvia Tamale describes it best in “Exploring the Contours of African Sexualities: Religion, Law and Power,” by alluding that “plurality is simultaneously the boon and the bane of Africa. The cultural diversity and richness found between and within the continent’s religious and cultural communities lend to its versatility and beauty.” Tamale reminds us that African diversity enriches and offers multiple intersectional ways of being, navigating the world, and living in community grounded in compassion and humanity — “Ubuntu!” 

In their article “Understanding Ubuntu and Its Contribution to Social Work Education in Africa and Other Regions of the World”, Mugumbate et al. explore the African philosophy of “Ubuntu” and its relevance to social work education. In taking lessons from their article, “Ubuntu” emphazises interconnectedness, compassion, and communal responsibility. The authors argue that integrating “Ubuntu” can be a weapon used to counter imported hate theories and practices. In our current climate, where anti-rights and anti-gender sentiments are gaining traction across Africa, the principles of “Ubuntu” are more pertinent than ever. It serves as a reminder of the importance of community and shared humanity, advocating for inclusive practices that uphold human rights and dignity for all individuals regardless of their social status, gender identity or sexual orientation.

In all honesty, there is money in hate and exclusion. This is evident in the anti-rights and anti-gender U.S. and European religious conservative organisations’ funding of anti-rights legislation, to supporting conferences where “protecting African values” is code for keeping white supremacy, protecting patriarchy and keeping colonial control. “We see a kind of investment that pays off in political influence and dominance. But who is really in control? African leaders or global north anti-rights and anti-gender groups?”

Anti-rights and anti-gender conservative groups, such as Family Watch International, La Manif Pour Tous and Alliance Defending Freedom have been linked to supporting laws that criminalize LGBTIQ+ identities, strengthening platforms that silence women and girls and manipulate African politicians, Presidents and first ladies who are eager for power, votes and validation. It is colonialism in high definition, backed by capitalism and masked as African traditional values. It is no different from Europe’s scramble for Africa in the 19th century, but this time, they are after our minds, bodies, rights and democracy. 

These are not random acts, they are coordinated crackdowns on humanity. From Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act to Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to Namibia’s amended Marriage Act, we are seeing regressive legislation that is cut from the same hate cloth. Across Southern Africa, from Tanzania, Namibia, Malawi to Zambia, LGBTIQ+ people are being harassed, arrested, or killed. While human rights instruments, such as the Maputo Protocol, which protects women’s rights and bodily autonomy, have come under massive scrutiny by Family Watch International, possibly leaving the rights of women and girls at the mercy of these groups. What is even more saddening is that one can see African leaders mimicking hate sentiments that are being pushed by the global north’s anti-rights and anti-gender groups. “Do our leaders know that these hate groups are controlling them?” Some African leaders have adopted rhetoric that portrays women’s autonomy and LGBTIQ+ people as a threat to national identity and traditional values. But these sentiments are not rooted in African customs but are instead borrowed and repackaged from the anti-rights and anti-gender books. 

The 2025 anti-rights and anti-gender Africa tour

If you thought the colonial era was over, think again. Between May and October 2025, Africa is hosting a series of anti-rights and anti-gender convenings that are supported by US and European conservatives.

From May 9-11, the Ugandan parliament hosted the third Inter-Parliamentary Conference, which was supported by conservatives pushing the controversial African Charter on Family Values. The conference was attended by 29 African MPs, including the deputy speaker of the National Assembly of Zimbabwe. The second Pan-African Conference on Family Values, which was held in Kenya from May 12-17, convened African political leaders, policymakers, and religious leaders. The Africa Christian Professionals Forum organized the conference under the theme “Promoting and Protecting Family Values in Africa.” Attendees included representatives from the Supreme Court of Kenya.

In June 2025, Sierra Leone will host the seventh edition of the Strengthening Families Conference, an event endorsed by the first lady of Sierra Leone. Notable attendees include leaders from Cote d’Ivoire, Congo, Ghana, Gambia, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal. The African Advocates Conference in Rwanda, funded by the U.S.-based Alliance Defending Freedom International, will take place from Aug. 12-17. Think of them as lawyers for oppression. The conference will host delegates from 43 African countries, including government officials, judges, academics, lawyers, and students. Advocates Africa has members from Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Finally, from Oct. 19-23, 2025, Ghana will host the Africa Bar Association Conference, a platform that pushes anti-feminist, anti-rights, and anti-gender narratives, under the guise of debating foreign interference.

These are not African-led spaces, they are U.S.- and European-led laboratories for exporting hate and mayhem. A global machine fueled by capitalism, patriarchy, and neocolonialism.

This article is part of the Southern Africa Litigation’s campaign around addressing hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation. #StopTheHate #TruthMatters

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

I interviewed Biden in late 2024 and he was attentive, engaged

CNN narrative about former president’s mental state is unfair, exaggerated

Published

on

President Joe Biden speaks with White House correspondent Christopher Kane in the Oval Office on Sept. 12, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In the weeks since Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s “Original Sin” came out, there has been so much speculation about Joe Biden’s cognitive health that feels so pointlessly retrospective to me, or conveniently certain — even though I wouldn’t say I disagree fundamentally with what seems to have emerged as the consensus view.

Writing in POLITICO, James Kirchick took the Beltway reporters to task for what he argued was their (our) failure to investigate and cover the “truth” about the president’s mental acuity, as if the truth were a simple binary (is he okay?) and as if the answer was as evident at the time as it now appears with the benefit of hindsight.

“Lack of access is no excuse,” he wrote. I happen to disagree: Not only is that an excuse but it’s also a perfectly serviceable explanation.

We can report only what we know, and we can know only what we can observe with our own eyes and ears. If you happened to catch a White House press briefing in 2023 or 2024, there’s a pretty good chance you heard difficult questions about Biden’s health. When we don’t have much time with the president, we rely on the testimony of those in his inner circle who did.

And at this point I become agnostic on the question of whether there was a coverup by those closest to him or an effort to obfuscate the truth. Because even now the reality looks murky to me, and I was fortunate enough to spend more time with Biden than many of my colleagues near the end of his tenure in the White House.

As many of our readers will know, in September 2024 I had the great privilege of interviewing the president one on one across the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

Biden was as attentive and engaged as anyone I’ve spoken with. When I reflect on the experience, I remember how blue his eyes looked and how electrifying it felt to have his gaze and focus fixed on me.

Part of that is charm and charisma, but I also think he took very seriously the opportunity to talk about his legacy of helping to advance the equality of queer people in America. He wanted to be there. He spoke clearly and from the heart.

The president came with a binder of talking points prepared by the press secretary and the communications director, but he barely glanced at the notes and needed assistance from his top aides only very briefly — on two moments when he stumbled over the name of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 (specifically the “2025” part) and Karine Jean-Pierre spoke up to help him.

On the one hand, Project 2025 was a critical part of the messaging strategy of his and then his vice president’s 2024 campaign, and our conversation came at the tail end of the election cycle last year. On the other hand, considering the totality of my experience talking with Biden, looking back it doesn’t seem like those lapses were that big of a deal.

I guess what I am ultimately trying to say is this: I think we should extend some grace to the former president and those closest to him, and we should also have some humility because a lot of these questions about Biden’s cognitive health are unclear, unsettled, and even to some extent unknowable.

And another thing. I am grateful for the opportunity to interview him, for his years of public service, and for his unwavering defense of my community and commitment to making our lives better, safer, richer, healthier, happier. I pray for his recovery such that these words might come to describe not only his legacy in public life, but also his years beyond it. 


Christopher Kane is the Blade’s White House correspondent. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

LGBTQ health equity must not be abandoned

Beneath the glitter of Pride there is a simmering fear

Published

on

(Image by vladm/Bigstock)

Pride month feels different this year. There is a simmering fear beneath all the glitter. Of course, Pride has always been a festivity interwoven with a certain amount of unease. Our rainbow parades were forged from protest marches, demonstrations that erupted from a community under the searing fire of violence and humiliation. Accordingly, our rhinestone costumes and glimmering disco balls have always held an element of precarity, though that edge may have felt less present recently. Nevertheless, Pride is a holiday in active conversation with our communities’ place in society. At once, it is a moment of radical celebration while also an act of resolute defiance. 

However, Pride month feels different this year because that conversation has shifted. The discourse around our communities carries a renewed threat of violence: systemic, political, and physical. In just six months since the inauguration, the Trump administration has worked swiftly to strip protections from LGBTQ+ communities, erase our histories, and demonize us in the public imagination. The vitriol that Trump and his lackeys have spewed against the trans community specifically is completely baseless and profoundly dangerous. Although our communities have long weathered such abuse, the return of such bigoted ideology at the highest levels of power is alarming, to say the least. 

One of the key ways Trump has attacked LGBTQ+ communities is by targeting our access to healthcare. While healthcare is essential for anyone, for LGBTQ+ people, it can mean life or death. Our medical needs are unique and complex, often compounded by intersecting identities of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Denying us affirming, equitable care is not just negligent, it’s dangerous. By enacting barriers to gender affirming care, slashing tens of millions of dollars in grants for LGBTQ+ medical research, and stripping away essential protections, the current federal administration is carrying out a calculated assault with catastrophic consequences.

As a queer, nonbinary person and practicing psychiatrist, I have an intimate, visceral understanding of these issues. Even before Trump ever set foot in the Oval Office, the medical disparities affecting my LGBTQ+ friends, colleagues, and patients were obvious to me. As a young medical student in Indiana, I quickly became aware of the substantial gaps in access to healthcare for LGBTQ+ communities. At a base level, there is already significant distrust between LGBTQ+ patients and their providers, stemming from a long history of mistreatment and, in many cases, outright gaslighting, abuse, and trauma. This distrust can prevent patients from seeking care, and even when they do, providers often lack the training to deliver the affirming care they need. 

This lack of equitable and affirming healthcare led me to found OutCare Health. OutCare started with a carefully curated list of medical professionals with the knowledge, training, and experience to provide LGBTQ+ people with the care they desperately need and deserve. That list has since blossomed to more than 6,000 providers and has become a vital resource for LGBTQ+ communities, their families, and allies. Over the last decade, our grassroots efforts have grown into a national force, and our programming has expanded to include health equity training, care navigation, and public education. That early momentum gave me hope that we were making headway in the fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ communities have access to the care they deserve. 

However, with the return of Trump to the White House, it feels like everything has changed. We endured his first administration, bolstered by what felt like a nationwide resistance to his presidency, but this time, something is different. Instead of resistance, the air feels thick with despair, lulling the country into a doleful acceptance of our fate. Moreover, there is a pervasive sense of fear. Some providers have asked to have their names removed from our OutList of affirming providers, not out of a desire to stop helping our community, but out of a legitimate fear of retribution, professional retaliation, and even their own safety. This is a request I completely understand. There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself, your livelihood, and your family, but the need to do so speaks volumes about the political climate in which we find ourselves. 

What has been truly demoralizing has been the behavior of the healthcare field at large. The willingness to grovel to the unscientific, harmful, and ignorant policies of the Trump administration is not just disappointing, it’s disgraceful. Even more disturbing is the speed and enthusiasm with which some health systems and organizations have preemptively distanced themselves from LGBTQ+ equity work, as if racing to prove their compliance with regressive ideology. Many of our past partners have vanished, most without a last goodbye. To those outside our communities, this quiet retreat from providing life-saving care to those of us who are being vilified may seem unfortunate yet pragmatic. But let me be clear: if you abandon your values in moments of inconvenience, you never really held them in the first place. 

Nevertheless, I do not believe we can resign ourselves to walking despondently into the future being laid out for us. Although we are seeing an attempt to systematically dismantle many of the structures that we have put in place to help ensure health equity for LGBTQ+ communities, it is worth remembering that it was we who built those structures. Fifty or even 25 years ago, we had so much less than we do now, even after these attacks. Today, we have life-saving medications and therapies that we used to only dream of. We have networks and coalitions with deep knowledge and formidable strength. They may force us to take a step backward, but they cannot and will not make us turn around. 

Most importantly, we have each other, and we have the wisdom of those who came before to guide us. From the Stonewall Riots to seizing control of the FDA, the LGBTQ+ community has shown a staunch resilience and strength of spirit that has always been one of our greatest assets. Although we are a broad and diverse banner and may not always agree, we must remember that our sense of community and our ability to organize are what have gotten us where we are today. We must stand shoulder to shoulder, hand in hand. The echoes of our footsteps drumming the streets can cause even the most unyielding enemy to cower. These are lessons we cannot afford to forget. Our survival depends on it. 

So yes, Pride month does feel different this year. There is indeed a simmering fear beneath the glitter, but deeper than that fear, more enduring and infinitely stronger, there is grit—grit forged in fire and defiance. We are vibrant, colorful, and unapologetically queer, but do not mistake our joy for weakness. We’re loud, we’re resilient, and we’re holding the damn line. 

In this spirit, let me make one thing abundantly clear: OutCare Health is not going anywhere. When I founded this organization 10 years ago, I knew it wouldn’t be easy, but I didn’t do it because it would be easy. I did it because it was necessary. Because it was right. Because it was my life. Your life. Our lives. We will not back down, and we will not be erased. We will continue to uplift our communities and fight for truth, equity, and democracy—no matter what the bigots throw at us. 

To my OutCare family and all LGBTQ+ families, know that we are here for you, and we will not stop. To our allies, now is the time to show up—loudly, proudly, and relentlessly. To those who fear our freedom, despise our joy, and resent our very existence: our glitter may catch your eye, but don’t underestimate the strength burning beneath it. We will not break. We will not be silent. We’re not going anywhere. 

Happy Pride!


Dustin Nowaskie, MD is founder and chief medical officer of OutCare Health.

Continue Reading

Popular