When Is an Open Relationship Actually Open you ask?
When men hear the phrase open relationship, they often assume it refers to a couple who have mutually agreed that they can have sex or romantic relationships with other people. But that assumption can obscure a much more important question of who agreed to what?
Levine and colleagues (2018) draw an important distinction that is often missed in everyday discussions about infidelity. They distinguish consensual nonmonogamy from nonconsensual nonmonogamy. In consensual nonmonogamy, both partners knowingly and willingly agree that sexual, romantic, or emotional relationships outside the primary relationship are permitted within whatever boundaries they have established. In nonconsensual nonmonogamy, one partner violates the agreed boundaries without the knowledge or consent of the other. In ordinary language, this is what we would generally call cheating or infidelity.
The distinction is important because the problem is not necessarily the presence of another person. The problem is the absence of informed agreement. This matters enormously when we talk about men and relationships because there is often an assumption that all relationships operate according to the same rules. They do not. Some couples are monogamous. Some are open. Some practise polyamory. Some permit sexual contact outside the relationship but not emotional relationships. Some allow outside relationships only when both partners are involved. Some have agreements about dating, messaging, pornography, dating applications, former partners, emotional intimacy, or what must be disclosed afterwards.
There is no single relationship structure that automatically makes a relationship healthy. A monogamous relationship can be profoundly dishonest, while a nonmonogamous relationship can be deeply committed, loving and emotionally secure. The defining issue is not simply how many people are involved. It is whether everyone involved understands the arrangement and has genuinely consented to it.
This is particularly important when we talk about gay men and same sex relationships. Gay male relationships are sometimes discussed through stereotypes. There is a persistent cultural assumption that gay men are naturally more sexually open, less interested in monogamy, or somehow less capable of commitment. These assumptions are both simplistic and clinically unhelpful. Gay men can be monogamous, nonmonogamous, sexually adventurous, sexually conservative, deeply romantic, emotionally avoidant, intensely committed or any combination of these things. Sexual orientation does not determine relationship structure.
A gay man who is in an open relationship is not necessarily less committed to his partner than a heterosexual man in a monogamous relationship. Likewise, a gay man who cheats on his partner has not somehow avoided betrayal because his relationship permits sex with other people. An open relationship still has boundaries.
This distinction becomes particularly important in therapy because a couple may use the word open while meaning completely different things by it. One man might believe that the agreement is, “We can have sex with other people, but we tell each other beforehand.” His partner might understand the agreement as, “We can have sex with other people, but we do not need to tell each other.” Another man might believe that casual sex is acceptable but developing an emotional attachment to somebody else is not. His partner might believe that emotional relationships are acceptable provided they do not interfere with the primary relationship. Neither interpretation can simply be assumed to be correct.
The therapist therefore has to ask: What did you actually agree to? This is where the concept of the relational contract becomes useful. Every relationship has rules. Some are explicit and discussed openly. Others are implicit and assumed. Monogamous couples may never have a conversation about whether flirting with another person is acceptable, whether using dating apps counts as cheating, whether pornography is acceptable, or whether developing an emotional attachment to somebody else crosses a boundary. They may simply assume they share the same understanding. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they do not.
The same is true in gay relationships and other same sex relationships. A couple may have negotiated an open relationship very carefully, or they may have drifted into one without ever clearly defining what it means. The word open can therefore create the illusion of agreement when there may actually be considerable ambiguity.
And ambiguity becomes particularly dangerous when one partner interprets flexibility as permission. A man might say: “But we were open.” The therapeutic question is not simply, “Were you open?” It is: “What did being open actually mean to both of you?”
That question can completely change the conversation. Perhaps they had agreed that sex with other men was permitted but romantic relationships were not. Perhaps they had agreed that outside sexual encounters were acceptable but needed to be disclosed. Perhaps they had agreed that sex could happen while travelling but not locally. Perhaps one partner believed that using Grindr was acceptable and the other considered maintaining an active dating profile a breach of trust. Perhaps they had agreed to casual encounters but one partner began seeing the same person repeatedly.
These differences may appear trivial from the outside. Within a relationship, they may be enormous. The central issue is consent to the relationship structure, rather than conformity to a particular model of relationships.
This also allows us to move away from a simplistic moral distinction between “good” monogamous relationships and “bad” open relationships. An open relationship can involve extraordinary levels of communication. Partners may have to discuss jealousy, sexual health, safer sex, emotional boundaries, disclosure, reassurance, time, priorities and attachment in ways that some monogamous couples never discuss.
Equally, an open relationship can become a way of avoiding difficult conversations. Sometimes the declaration that a relationship is “open” is genuinely mutual. Sometimes one partner accepts an arrangement because they are afraid that refusing will mean losing the relationship.
That raises another important clinical question: Did you genuinely consent, or did you reluctantly agree because you felt you had no real choice? Consent within relationships is not simply the absence of the word no. It involves having enough freedom and information to make a meaningful choice. This can be particularly complicated for men because masculinity can discourage expressions of vulnerability and insecurity. A man may feel that admitting jealousy makes him appear possessive. He may fear being seen as sexually inadequate if he says he does not want his partner sleeping with other people. He may worry that expressing discomfort will make him appear controlling, insecure or sexually inexperienced.
So he says: “I’m fine with it.” When internally he is anything but fine. He may then begin drinking, withdrawing, becoming irritable, monitoring his partner, engaging in his own sexual behaviour or emotionally disconnecting from the relationship. The presenting problem might look like anger. The underlying experience might be fear: fear of losing the relationship, fear of not being enough, fear of sexual comparison, fear of abandonment, fear of being replaced, or fear that expressing vulnerability will make him less desirable.
This is one reason why male anger can become particularly important in therapeutic work around nonmonogamy and infidelity. What looks like sexual jealousy may contain grief, shame, insecurity, attachment anxiety or a profound fear of rejection.
The same applies when the relationship breaks down. For a betrayed man, discovering that his partner has been having sex with somebody else can be psychologically destabilising even when the couple were previously sexually adventurous. The question becomes not simply, “Did you have sex with somebody else?”, but “Did you tell me the truth about the relationship we were actually having?”
That distinction is crucial. A man may have consented to his partner sleeping with other people. He may not have consented to his partner lying about where they were, concealing a particular person, developing a romantic relationship, or breaking an agreed sexual health boundary. The betrayal therefore lies in the discrepancy between the relationship he believed he was participating in and the relationship that was actually taking place.
This is why nonconsensual nonmonogamy can produce such profound cognitive disruption. The betrayed partner may begin reconstructing the past: Was he really working late that night? Was that person just a friend? How long had this been happening? Were there other people? Did our sexual relationship mean what I thought it meant? Was I the only person who believed we were committed? What else don’t I know?
The individual is not simply grieving the sexual betrayal. They are grieving the collapse of their understanding of reality. This can happen in heterosexual relationships, gay male relationships, bisexual relationships and relationships of many different structures. The psychological mechanism is not determined by sexual orientation. It is determined by the breach between agreement and reality.
There is also an important distinction between sexual openness and emotional openness. Some men can tolerate their partner having sex with another person but struggle intensely when their partner develops feelings for them. Others experience the opposite. For some couples, the sexual act itself represents the boundary. For others, the emotional attachment is what constitutes betrayal.
This is why therapists should be cautious about imposing their own assumptions onto couples. The therapist’s job is not to decide whether an open relationship is acceptable. The therapist’s job is to understand the agreement, the meaning attached to that agreement, whether consent was freely given, what boundaries existed, and what happened when those boundaries were crossed.
This becomes especially important when working with gay men because clinicians can inadvertently reproduce stereotypes about male sexuality. Assuming that two men will naturally be comfortable with sexual openness can be just as problematic as assuming that every heterosexual couple must be monogamous. Neither assumption allows the couple to define their own relationship.
There is another complication for bisexual men. A bisexual man in a relationship with another man may experience assumptions that his attraction to multiple genders makes monogamy unrealistic. A bisexual man in a relationship with a woman may experience the opposite assumption: that being in a heterosexual relationship means his bisexuality should somehow disappear. Neither is true.
Being bisexual does not create an obligation towards nonmonogamy. Being gay does not create an obligation towards nonmonogamy. Being heterosexual does not create an obligation towards monogamy. Sexual orientation and relationship structure are different things.
This distinction matters because men can sometimes use sexuality as an explanation for behaviour that actually needs to be understood relationally: “I’m a man.” “I have a high sex drive.” “I’m gay.” “I’m bisexual.” “We were open.” “I didn’t think it counted.”
These statements may contain genuine information about a person’s experience, but none of them automatically answer the ethical question: What had you and your partner agreed to?
Understanding why someone crossed a boundary is different from excusing the boundary crossing. A man may have been lonely. He may have felt sexually rejected. He may have been struggling with his identity. He may have felt disconnected from his partner. He may have wanted validation. He may have been frightened of intimacy. He may have wanted excitement. He may have been unhappy in the relationship for years. All of these things may help explain his behaviour. None of them remove the importance of consent.
This is where accountability becomes particularly important in therapeutic work with men. Shame can make accountability extremely difficult. A man who feels that he is being labelled a “bad person” may become defensive, minimise what happened or focus entirely on his intentions.
But accountability requires a different question: Can I understand the impact of my behaviour without reducing myself to my behaviour?
This is particularly important because shame and accountability are not the same thing. Shame says: I am a terrible person. Accountability says: I did something that caused harm, and I need to understand what happened, take responsibility for it and decide what I am going to do differently.
The second position creates the possibility of repair. For the betrayed partner, however, repair cannot be demanded simply because the person who caused the betrayal is now sorry. The injured partner may need time to process anger, grief, humiliation, jealousy, confusion and loss. They may need to ask questions. They may need to establish new boundaries. They may ultimately decide that the relationship cannot continue.
The discovery of infidelity does not automatically mean a relationship must end. Nor does love automatically mean it should continue. Some couples rebuild. Some separate. Some redefine their relationship. Some discover that the relationship they were trying to preserve no longer existed in the form they imagined.
For couples who do remain together, rebuilding trust requires more than an apology. It requires repeated experiences of honesty and reliability. It may involve discussing previously avoided subjects such as sex, desire, attraction, jealousy, resentment, pornography, emotional intimacy, loneliness, identity and dissatisfaction. For some couples, the crisis becomes the first time they have ever had a genuinely honest conversation about their relationship. That does not make the betrayal necessary, but it can become an opportunity to understand what the relationship had previously been unable to say.
Ultimately, the most useful question is not whether a relationship is monogamous or nonmonogamous. It is whether the relationship is consensual, honest and emotionally safe enough for both people to know what relationship they are actually participating in.
A man can sleep with one person for forty years and still be profoundly dishonest with his partner. Another man can have sexual relationships with several people and be completely transparent with the person he loves. The number of sexual partners does not tell us whether a relationship is ethical. Agreement does.
And perhaps this is the more uncomfortable lesson for men. Commitment is not necessarily defined by sexual exclusivity. Commitment can also mean telling the truth. It can mean having difficult conversations before acting. It can mean saying, “I am unhappy,” rather than secretly seeking somebody else. It can mean saying, “I am jealous,” rather than pretending not to care. It can mean saying, “I want an open relationship,” and accepting that your partner has the right to say no. And it can mean recognising that your partner’s consent is not an obstacle to your sexuality; it is part of the relationship itself.
When we understand sexuality in this way, sex stops being something that happens separately from the emotional relationship. It becomes part of the wider relational system of trust, attachment, identity, vulnerability and responsibility. Whether a couple is straight, gay, bisexual, monogamous, open or polyamorous, the fundamental question remains the same: Are we both knowingly choosing the relationship we are actually in?
Open Relationships, Infidelity and Men’s Relationships
Relationships do not all follow the same rules. Some couples choose monogamy, while others choose consensual nonmonogamy, open relationships or polyamory. The important question is not simply how many people are involved, but whether both partners understand the relationship agreement and have genuinely consented to it.
For men experiencing difficulties around open relationships, infidelity, sexual boundaries, jealousy or betrayal, counselling can provide a space to explore what has happened without reducing the situation to simple ideas about masculinity, sexuality or commitment. This can be particularly important for gay men, bisexual men and men in same sex relationships, where stereotypes about male sexuality can sometimes make it harder to talk honestly about vulnerability, jealousy, insecurity and attachment.
At Male Minds Counselling in Reading, I work with men experiencing relationship difficulties including infidelity, betrayal, jealousy, communication problems, sexual difficulties, separation, emotional disconnection and uncertainty about relationship boundaries. My approach is non-judgemental and explores both the emotional experience and the relational dynamics underneath it.
Counselling can be useful whether you are the person who has broken an agreement, the partner who has experienced betrayal, or a couple trying to understand whether your relationship can be repaired. The aim is not to tell you whether you should be monogamous or nonmonogamous. It is to help you understand what you want, what you agreed to, what happened, and what needs to change.
I provide counselling in Reading, Berkshire, including for people from Caversham, Woodley, Tilehurst, Earley, Lower Earley, Wokingham, Pangbourne, Henley-on-Thames, Basingstoke and surrounding areas, as well as online counselling across the UK.
If you are struggling with relationship problems, infidelity, an open relationship, sexual boundaries, jealousy or trust, you can arrange a free 30-minute initial consultation to discuss whether counselling could help.
Male Minds Counselling
NCPS Accredited Counsellor
Reading, Berkshire
Online counselling available across the UK
Email: malemindscounselling@gmail.com
Website: malemindscounselling.com
- Open relationship counselling Reading
- Infidelity counselling Reading
- Relationship counselling for men
- Men’s relationship counselling Reading
- Gay men’s relationship counselling
- Bisexual men’s relationship counselling
- Counselling for gay men Reading
- Counselling for bisexual men Reading
- Couples counselling Reading
- Relationship problems for men
- Jealousy and relationship counselling
- Sexual relationship problems
- Trust issues after infidelity
- Counselling for betrayal
- Consensual nonmonogamy counselling
- Nonmonogamous relationships
- Open relationships and trust
- Men’s counselling Berkshire