Connect with us

Opinions

Successful open relationships take effort

We have options as couples but they all require work

Published

on

Jake Stewart

(Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part feature on open relationships. Click here for last week’s installment.)

Open relationships are often ridiculed as the easy way out of commitment. After speaking with Scott and Kelsey, however, it’s clear they’re anything but easy. 

Kelsey reflected on the ups and downs of being open in the past. “Younger me definitely needed it,” Kelsey said. “At the same time, drama came with it as well.”

While Scott and their partner have been together for nine years, it took four before they decided to open their relationship. “It came from the desire for the two of us to meet boys together,” said Scott. “Then we had some really terrible threesomes.” 

Drama. Bad threesomes. Yikes – these aren’t exactly selling points for being open. But their experiences underscore something important: open relationships, like all relationships, are actually quite hard. Couples considering openness shouldn’t trick themselves into thinking it will make things easier. In reality, they take a lot of work. 

For Scott, those really terrible threesomes led them to opening up further, but with established boundaries. “We came up with ground rules. Use protection. No spending the night at somebody’s house, etc.”  

Since Scott and their partner are happy in their relationship, these rules seem to work even if they’ve shifted over time. “Being in an open relationship comes down to being really good at communicating with your partner,” they added. “It’s about communicating and checking in to see where your partner is.”

Open relationships should be for the right reasons 

As open relationships began taking off, observers were skeptical for good reason. “In the past, people were just cheating,” said Kelsey. Another comment from Scott echoed this. “I’ve seen open relationships and it felt like one partner was being taken advantage of by the other.” 

It turns out there is a fine line between sexual exploration and free passes. While some open relationships walk that line well, others – not so much.  

In all fairness, now more than ever it’s difficult to remain monogamous, and one culprit is the rise of accessible hookup culture via social media. Apps like Tinder, Grindr, and dare I say Instagram are facilitating secret sexual connections never seen before. They ushered in a new era of cheating into relationships, alongside a bit of excessive stalking as well. 

So, to avoid an atmosphere of mistrust and pain, a natural evolution for couples is to change the rules altogether. Cheating can’t be cheating if it’s allowed, right?

However, once it is allowed, I wondered why these people don’t cut the strings altogether and be single. In response, Chad made an interesting point: people aren’t just afraid of being cheated on – they’re afraid of the appearance of being single as well. We live in flashy times where our online image means everything. The dream is not necessarily having a partner, but showing the world you have a partner. Without that, you otherwise appear lonely. 

So, do open relationships ease the pain of cheating and perceived loneliness? As a proud lone wolf I’m not the best person to assess, but based on my observations I can say this: being open works for some couples, but by no means is it a fast pass to being happy. Understanding why you want one is just as important as discovering how to make one work. 

With all this said, the undeniable risk – and perhaps downside – of a monogamous coupling is the higher chance of cheating outright. Unfortunately, that’s something Chad knows all too well. 

Preferring monogamy is still OK

Chad had dated someone for two years before they married for five. Then, just over a year into the pandemic, his husband informed him he was dating someone else. They separated a few days later. 

For Chad this was painful, as it is for anyone, gay or straight, who’s gone through something similar. But when I asked him if this experience shaped his outlook on what he’s looking for, his response came as a bit of a surprise: 

“It has not changed my view for or against open relationships,” he said. “I learned a lot in my marriage. It takes a lot of love, trust, and communication, which at times can feel like work. It also takes two; one can’t carry the relationship. I want to date someone who wants to be in a relationship with me.” 

My heart swells hearing that, for even after experiencing the deepest kind of hurt, Chad searches for his one and only. Why? Because for him, the love he’s looking for is worth the wait. It’s a beautiful sentiment that makes so-called hopeless romanticism the raddest feeling in the world sometimes. 

More importantly, Chad doesn’t let fear alter his view on love, and to me that’s the most important lesson of this article. Love always comes with risks, and lowering your standards to reduce them never really pans out, does it? The best we can do is to be ourselves. 

By the way, this is a lesson I should also apply. My main hesitation toward an open relationship is that I’m a jealous bitch, and I fear that jealousy will never go away. Yet this can be hard to admit when everyone around you is propping up a culture where open is supreme and jealousy is immature. 

When I brought this up to Kelsey, she pushed back with a simple question: “Do you think jealousy is a bad thing?” 

This caught me off guard. “I’m not sure,” I replied. “Do you?” 

“Jealousy is a natural, human emotion,” she said. “It’s what you do with it that matters.” 

So, maybe my goal is not to suppress my jealousy but rather be upfront about it. If it’s part of me, I should own it, then ideally find someone who loves me regardless.  

Changing your mind is OK, too

In gay man speak, I was a top for my first seven years before I embraced bottoming. For some, they’d be shocked to hear it. Yet maybe no one should be surprised, for as we all know sexuality is fluid, and this applies to more than just your orientation. Your sexual preferences can shift over time, too, and this will inevitably affect your relationships. 

This was the case for Scott and their partner. “When we first started dating, we did not want to be open,” they mentioned, “but as our relationship grew, we decided to reevaluate that.” Meanwhile, Kelsey went the opposite direction – she was open back in the day but chooses to be closed now. 

Even Chad remains open to being open. “I’m not opposed to an open relationship, but I feel like it would take more work. I just don’t see myself starting a relationship open. The first few years there is a lot of learning about each other.” 

In a world of shifting preferences, the best we can do is reflect on what we want and be honest about it. Life is a process of discovering who we are, and damn is it messy. So, perhaps I should cut some slack to the couple trying things out. And perhaps they can cut me slack for not understanding their rules. 

For the couples: remember, a solid relationship is not only about meeting the needs of your partner, because your needs matter, too. The best relationships, open or closed, strive to find that balance. 

For those still searching: remember that love is more than just that thing, that connection, that spark. In fact, love is so complex that the “spark” is just one of many factors, alongside timing and how you want to be loved, that come together and form an imprint as unique and special as the person you want to be with.

In this sense, open and closed relationships aren’t diametrically opposed but rather complimentary, a sort of yin and yang where both become better because the other option exists. Today, we have options as couples, and that’s significantly better than abiding by rules because we assume that’s how it must be.

And that feels right. Because regardless of whether you’re more a Chad or a Scott, the truth is: I feel lucky to have both.  

(Writer’s note: A big thank you you to Chad, Scott, and Kelsey for allowing me to share their stories.)

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

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Tammy Bruce, Trump’s lesbian nominee for deputy UN ambassador. Just say no!

Senate Foreign Affairs Committee advanced former State Department spokesperson’s nomination this week

Published

on

Tammy Bruce speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2015. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

One evening In the late 1990’s, I drove over to the home of my late friend, Jim Hormel, to review a number of countries to which he was being considered by the Clinton administration to serve as our country’s first openly gay ambassador. It was a very big deal. Secretary Madeleine Albright would eventually swear him in during a teary-eyed ceremony, but only after a recess appointment in order to avoid an ugly, partisan fight in the Senate over Jim’s sexuality. 

Fast-forward to today, and our country has had over 30 openly gay male ambassadors — both career diplomats and political appointees — and one, single lesbian at an ambassador-ranked position at the Asian Development Bank, Chantale Wong. (Ambassador Wong is also one of only two people of color among the openly gay or lesbian ambassadors.) I am very proud to have helped convince Amb. Wong to come out of retirement to take on that important role, because the time was right for someone with her passion, experience, and commitment to push for inclusive development policies at a major international financial institution. In fact, she had occupied the position once before as acting executive director of the ADB under the George W. Bush administration, and used that expertise to successfully champion an inclusive development policy that explicitly names sexual orientation and gender identity as a non-discrimination category, as well as other programs that benefit community members. But getting through the Senate confirmation process was not an easy task before this second Trump administration, especially for those without the resources or connections to deploy their own personal lobbyists, even when the candidate was superbly qualified. 

So, a few months ago, when I read that Tammy Bruce was nominated by President Trump to be one of our ambassadors to the United Nations, I choked on my coffee. I couldn’t believe that our second ever openly lesbian ambassador would be a far-right, anti-trans, anti-Muslim, Trump loyalist. But, maybe the choice was not so surprising after all, which then says a lot about the Biden administration’s priorities. Trump was also the president who made good on the Human Rights Campaign’s longtime push for an openly gay G7 ambassador, with the appointment of another far right, anti-Muslim, gay ambassador, Richard Grenell to Germany. These two people alone should convince any sane human why identity-politics alone has severe limits. 

After 16 years of submitting short lists of qualified lesbian-identified and trans-identified candidates to the White House Office of Personnel Management to be considered for appointed ambassador positions, and also simultaneously trying to support senior, career diplomats  who are lesbian or trans to advance in their careers, I was particularly frustrated and enraged. While I believe it’s time to move beyond identity politics, I also deeply believe that diverse representation matters. Not tokenization (and not donor-purchased ambassadorships) but exceptionally well-qualified, diverse American people, who represent the actual plurality of our nation, which makes us stronger. The foreign affairs arena, in particular, is overly white and male dominated. Think what you may about “DEI,” but a diplomatic corps that doesn’t reflect the diversity of our nation doesn’t make our country stronger — it actually makes us less globally relevant and decreases our understanding of this rapidly changing, multi-polar world. 

The 34:1 ratio of gay men to lesbians among our nation’s openly queer ambassadors that exists today is infuriating to me as a woman, a feminist, a lesbian, and as a human rights leader. And yet, the nomination of Tammy Bruce, infuriates me even more. She is an extremist ideologue who uses her platform for hate. 

Bruce’s hate centers on her anti-Muslim extremism. According to CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck, “Trump’s pick for deputy UN job questioned [the] loyalty of American Muslims … (Bruce) for years promoted inflammatory, anti-Muslim and conspiratorial claims, including suggesting that former President Barack Obama was a secret Muslim bent on harming America. A CNN KFile review of Bruce’s blog posts, social media posts, columns and radio commentaries starting in the early 2000s shows a pattern of demeaning language about Muslims, including suggesting that American Muslims needed to prove their loyalty after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks … Bruce didn’t respond for comment.” 

When nominating Bruce, Trump said, “after being a liberal activist in the 1990s, (Bruce) saw the lies and fraud of the Radical Left, and quickly became one of the strongest Conservative voices on Radio and Television.” Bruce wrote the book “The New Thought Police,” aiming to “expose the dangerous rise of left-wing McCarthyism.” In addition to poking fun at feminists, anti-racists, and progressives, she has particularly promoted misguided anti-trans ideology, such as championing the cause of Chloe Cole, a “detransitioner” who had top surgery at age 17. Bruce uses this outlier case to justify legislation to ban trans health care in the United States.

The extremist right loves to scapegoat trans people and their right to appropriate, life-saving health care. Confirming Ms. Bruce for this role as a U.S. representative at the United Nations, with all of her whacky and fringe ideology, is incredibly dangerous for U.S. citizens and for others throughout the world. The person who represents the United States at the United Nations must be able to talk to every other country representative, in order to be effective. Ms. Bruce will be viewed with suspicion and avoided because of her past statements and views. Again, such extremism has no place in our government or representing our country. In her confirmation hearing, Ms. Bruce called President Trump’s leadership at the United Nations “inspirational.” She refused to call the massacre in Sudan a genocide. She didn’t seem to understand what leverage the U.S. might have with the UAE to stop arming this genocide. She deferred multiple times to serving this President in whatever foreign policy aims he has. In this era of increasing authoritarianism, we do not need more obsequious servants to King Trump. Now that Ms. Bruce has been voted out of committee, this proud lesbian, respectfully requests all U.S. Senators to not confirm Ms. Bruce for U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations.

Julie Dorf is co-chair of the Council for Global Equality.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Victory Fund continues to shun me and my place in LGBTQ history

Before Buttigieg, my presidential campaign made headlines

Published

on

Fred Karger attends a campaign event in New Hampshire in 2012. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

I am honored to be speaking this weekend at the National Council for the Social Studies Annual Conference (NCSS), made up of 5,000 teachers from across the county. I will be talking about my history-making campaign for president back in 2012, when I ran as the first openly gay major party candidate to do so. 

I will be joining many other prominent featured speakers, including Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Washington, D.C. Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, Dr. Richard Haas, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. This engagement was arranged by the prestigious History UnErased, and I will talk about my roller coaster run for president 

It was a hard-fought, two-and-a-half year, full-time campaign in the Republican primaries. I appeared on six state ballots, gave hundreds of speeches, did thousands of media interviews and attracted thousands of volunteers, donors, and voters. In fact, when the primaries ended, I had received more votes than two former governors, Jon Huntsman, Jr. (Utah) and Gary Johnson (New Mexico). 

My constant message to the LGBTQ community was, you can do anything you want to do in life, even run for president of the United States. I heard from so many people young and old that I was giving them newfound hope.

Eight years later, when openly gay Mayor Pete Buttigieg ran for president, I endorsed him in February 2019, served on his National Finance Committee, and did a lot of surrogate work on his behalf. We developed a strong bond, being the only two openly gay candidates to ever run for president. He told me, “You’re a trailblazer who made it a little easier for those who follow your path.”

I applied pressure on many of the nation’s largest LGBTQ organizations to endorse Pete early, when it would make a difference. I wrote op-eds in Newsweek and the Advocate urging the LGBTQ Victory Fund, HRC, The Task Force and many others to support Pete. Eventually the reluctant Victory Fund came around and endorsed Pete at a big splashy campaign event in Brooklyn on June 28, 2019 during WorldPride. 

That early support from the nation’s sole organization to help propel openly LGBTQ candidates to victory, made a huge difference in Pete’s success.

I was not as fortunate. One of the first meetings I had was with Chuck Wolfe, the then head of the Victory Fund in January 2010. He blurted out, “we’re not going to help you!” And true to his word, they actually worked to hinder my historic run. They made me submit a number of applications including a 56-page campaign plan and budget. Several months after delivering it, Chuck told me they would not even put my endorsement to a vote. “You don’t want to know,” he told me. “Yes, I do,” I replied.

I have met with or spoken to all of his successors at the Victory Fund, offering my help and asking for some sort of recognition of my historic campaign. Finally in 2018, after a lot of negotiations, then-President Annise Parker gave me one sentence in their Under Our History section on their website. 

I have been an LGBTQ activist and major donor since I worked closely with David Mixner to defeat the Briggs Initiative in 1978, which would have outlawed gay teachers in California. I spent 30 years as a political consultant. Since 2008, I became the only one, through my organization Californians Against Hate, to fight back against the mega donors to California’s Proposition 8 and other anti-same-sex marriage campaigns. 

I shamed millionaires and billionaires and even the all-powerful Mormon Church, who funded and ran all these hateful campaigns. The New York Times published a full page column three years ago on all I did to help gay marriage become the law of the land, “Cancel Culture Works. We Wouldn’t Have Marriage Equality Without It.” 

So, I’ve earned my stripes. That is why I find it ironic that while I am speaking to the 5,000-member NCSS gathering in Washington, the same weekend that the LGBTQ Victory Fund is holding its annual Victory Institute gathering a few blocks away, while they continue to shun me and my rightful place in history.


Fred Karger is the first openly gay major party candidate to run for president.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Thank you, Mayor Bowser

An impressive record of accomplishment for D.C.

Published

on

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Thank you, Mayor Muriel Bowser, for all you have done for our beautiful city. I am proud to say I have been a supporter of yours since you first announced your run for City Council in Ward 4, when you took some of my suggestions for your first speech. I have known since then what an amazing woman, politician, leader, and now mother, you are. You have moved our city forward in so many ways no one could have anticipated when you were first elected.

You have always proven your mettle, and your ability to rise above the chaos, and done the right thing for all the people of the District. Whether it was during economic uncertainty created by others, the pandemic, the backlash against police after the murder of George Floyd, during the first Trump administration, or the ongoing crisis, continuing today after the felon was elected for a second time. This time, contrary to his first term, he has even more venal people around him. They are acting out their fascist beliefs, and directing him, as he threatens the very basis of home rule. You have stood your ground, and done it with grace and smarts. You managed to work through the budget crisis, and Congress’s attempt to derail all the progress you have made, by not letting us spend a billion dollars of our own money. You have been walking a tightrope, and managing to keep our city from falling into his hands.  Not everyone has understood how difficult that has been. 

Then you managed to get James Comer (R-Ken.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, to support your efforts to have 180 acres of valuable land, the RFK site, turned over to the District for redevelopment. After that, you achieved your goal of getting the Commanders to agree to move back to D.C.; in the process securing the largest private investment ever for the District, the $3.7 billion the team’s owners agreed to pay to build a new domed stadium. That being only the catalyst for an entire new community with 6,000 units of housing, including affordable housing, a supermarket, hotel, sports complex for students in D.C., parks, nature trails, and more. 

While balancing budgets and fighting crime, you have had to deal with the felon in the White House every day. Some accused you of acquiescing to the felon when what you were actually doing was saving our city from the even worse disasters he could visit upon us.

You understood to rebuild the economy Trump and the pandemic worked to destroy, you needed to look at other options. You rightly determined part of what D.C. needed to grow was a sports economy. When Monumental Sports owner Ted Leonsis was trying to move the Capitals and his business out of the District for pure greed; you worked behind the scenes and successfully kept them here. Prior to that you engineered a public/private partnership between the city, and DC United, to get Audi field built. 

Then besides sports you have worked with the private sector to begin the work of converting empty office buildings in the downtown area, into apartments, which will generate new needed taxes for the District. You oversaw the reconstruction of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, and the redevelopment of the South Capitol Street corridor. Along with all this you have overseen the rebuilding of schools, sports fields, recreation centers, and libraries across the city. In the past five years you have added nearly 10,000 affordable housing units in the District, built new shelters for the homeless, and a new hospital in Southeast D.C. 

You have fought for fairness and equality for the LGBTQ community. You didn’t just walk in our parades, but worked to make them successful. You added budget money to build a new LGBTQ community center, and money to support WorldPride, while the felon’s policies threatened it in every way.  After years of many of us trying to get the city to take responsibility, and fund, the annual High Heel Race, you were the mayor who finally agreed to do it. You have always stood proudly with the LGBTQ community that I am a part of, in large and small ways, both in public and privately. 

You now have one more year to serve as mayor, and I can’t wait to see what you will yet accomplish. It will not be an easy time, as we saw the day after you announced you would not run again. You, and we, faced the tragic shooting of the two National Guard members from West Virginia, who walked our streets at the felon’s orders. But I am confident your energy and drive, your smarts, and understanding of people, will allow you to deal with this and won’t let you stop working for us until the minute the next mayor of the District of Columbia is sworn in at noon, Jan. 1, 2027. 

It is clear to all of us, that person, he, or she, will have very large shoes to fill. Mayor Bowser, we all owe you a debt of gratitude for all you have done for D.C. I for one look forward to all you will do in the future; in whatever area you choose to work. I know your work is far from done.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular