Listen now (48 min) | In episode 80, Chris and Emma talked with Heather Anne Keyes, a neuroqueer Gestalt psychotherapist and educator based in Durango, Mexico. Together, we explore the intersections between sexuality, neurodivergence, and development through the lens of Dąbrowski’s theory of positive disintegration.
How does one address the possibility of STDs in non-monogamous relationships? Do you have everybody get tested before you sleep with them? It sounds confusing. And then you have to trust that all of your multiple partners are telling you the truth. Even if they tested negative when you first started seeing each other, how do you know they are making sure that all of their partners get tested?
Obviously, this brings up trust. But even if I’m willing to trust somebody, that doesn’t mean that they are trustworthy. Or that one of the partners that they select is trustworthy.
It's actually a bit of a fallacy that monogamy provides some protection against STDs. In any relationship set up, practicing safe sex is important, as is open communication. A monogamous partner who cheats is less likely to be transparent, and is more of a risk, that someone practicing ENM.
Trust applies to everyone in our life, and if you have two or three partners who are completely open about their activities, and practice safe sex, they may in fact be more trustworthy and safe than one partner who sleeps around behind your back and then won't engage in safe sex because it will 'give them away'.
Well, of course that’s true. any person who’s in a responsible monogamous relationship is also going to have the same challenges. However, you’re only testing one person‘s integrity in a monogamous relationship. Every sexual relationship you have is a whole other test. And some people are really good liars. I treat a lot of people and I have over the years seen many cases of all kinds of different relationships. The risk with every partner is just as big. So I’m sorry, but your argument does not hold water.
Thank you for this, Rachel! These are great questions about real concerns that people in ethical non-monogamy communities take seriously. From what I understand, the ethical part means ongoing communication and transparency, not just one-time checks. From a search, I learned that it includes regular STI testing for everyone involved, sharing results openly, consistent protection use, and explicit agreements about risk tolerance and new partners.
Hopefully, others will chime in with more thoughts. I appreciate you asking, because honestly, this isn't my lived experience (I've been with my partner for 25 years). I'm grateful Heather shared her expertise on the podcast to help me better understand these dynamics.
How does one EVER know whether someone is trustworthy? While I appreciate your concern and don’t want to be too harsh, I think that any conscious relationship really requires individuals to be at a fairly high level of development. I’m 52 and only now reaching a point where I think I could manage the kind of conscious relationship to which I’ve always aspired. (I’m a relationship anarchist at heart, but that has looked like being a serial (relatively short-term) monogamist.) Most of us simply didn’t have models growing up.
I’m not trying to suggest you’re not evolved! Your concern about STDs is valid. I just think that trust, discernment, and emotional maturity go far deeper. I can see now how my own dating behavior was reckless, emotionally, for myself and my partners—and relationships have always been an intense “special interest” for me! Dating and relationships are messy. I look at ethical non-monogamy with some wariness because, while I share the general philosophy, I believe it’s extremely difficult to achieve in practice. (I’m still in training, lol…) Adults get hurt; sometimes, kids get hurt. But isn’t that also true within state-sanctioned marriages?
I would agree with this - never was I more reckless (emotionally and physically) than when I was younger and single (and just out of a bad abusive relationship with a "point to prove").
And I'd heartily agree that the relationship set up matters far less than the emotional health of whatever that set up is. I have seen the best and worst in myself and in partners, and the relationship status had very little to do with that.
Thank you for weighing in here, Heather! These are such important questions, and I really appreciate both of you engaging with this so thoughtfully. I'm going to hold off weighing in substantially right now because I'm buried in moving boxes and don't have the capacity to do this conversation justice. I also want to give Emma and our guest, Heather, space to respond, since they can speak to this with much more depth than I can from under my cardboard mountain.
But I'm definitely following along and grateful for this dialogue. More soon when I can think straight!
Certainly, we are taking a risk everytime we become intimate with anybody, physically or emotionally. But dealing with one person who may or may not be trustworthy is a whole lot different than having an Excel spreadsheet to manage them all. Lol.
Don’t get me wrong, I applaud anyone who is living their best life. I’m just wondering about the logistics. I don’t feel comfortable, rolling the dice when there are things like syphilis, herpes, and HIV out there. And, of course, if you pick the wrong partner,… Doesn’t matter if you were monogamous or not.
Hi! In the time since we put this episode out and the time I discovered there is a comment section, one of my other fav polyamory resource people put out a VERY up to date resource that might help with this question: https://substack.com/home/post/p-178047559 As the creator, Millie says "What kinds of agreements should people consider? How can herpes risks be managed? What happens when someone becomes pregnant unexpectedly from a lover they hadn’t planned to have a child with? How do we navigate differing levels of risk tolerance around fluid bonding? And what happens when consent is violated within a polycule?
The enduring legacy of colonial and sex-negative moral frameworks has left much of the world without access to comprehensive, culturally relevant sex education, especially when it comes to non-monogamous relationships. As a result, polyamorists are often left to piece together information meant for monogamous contexts, which fails to address the unique realities of multi-partner care and responsibility.
At Decolonizing Love, we often try to address these complex questions within short-form content, a soundbite, a ten-slide carousel, but I wanted to offer something more substantial: a practical booklet on safer sex designed specifically for polyamorous people. When I looked around, I realized there was nothing like it on the market. There are a few in-depth books about sexual health, but few for polyamorists and none that offer quick, practical guidance for busy polyamorists living fast-paced, complex, and globally diverse lives."
The first time I tested positive for an STI as a teenager, the clinician looked at me and said, "How did a nice girl like you get this?" That comment taught me more about sexual health than any pamphlet - the real danger isn't the infections, it's the shame that prevents honest communication or further exploration.
I offer this as an intro because, like all things, I learn the hard way first. Heather talks about relationship anarchy, but anarchy doesn't mean no rules; it means being intentional about your containers and navigating those sticky edges within your ecosystem (no system but ecosystem ✊🏼). The kind of explicit honesty I need and desire in others, while still navigating play and novelty, meant getting very clear about logistics.
For me, that looked like explicit initial agreements before getting involved (matching expectations with potential partners), clear communication about testing schedules, understanding that prophylactics and treatment exist (STIs aren't death sentences, they're manageable health conditions), and agreements about disclosure when situations change.
What made this confusing even in committed relationships: 1) other people's shame and unpacked cultural baggage, and 2) we can spread STIs like herpes without ever having an outbreak or knowing we have it. HPV is incredibly common and often asymptomatic. Perfect safety doesn't exist in ANY relationship structure - the question is whether we're building transparency infrastructure or relying on assumptions (I think that's where TPD really can work it's magic)
The hardest part wasn't the logistics. It was unlearning the shame that makes people hide exposures instead of treating them as health information to manage together.
Monogamy doesn't inherently protect you, but doing the inner work combined with explicitly sharing your values is an inoculation against unnecessary violations (or "flaws" if you will) to whatever agreements exist.
I wanted to answer the logistics question explicitly from my lived experience. It's not one size fits all or a prescription, but it's one map that worked well in my relationships. My current marriage is sexually monogamous but imaginally, intellectually, and emotionally "promiscuous" - the rules are simpler right now: "I don't care where you get your appetite, just come home to eat" is the credo 😂
And we pre-installed "software" that established how if that changes, it's all negotiable. He's way less... shall we say "bouncy"... and much more a routine stabilizer type person. But for us it boils down to trust and healthy boundaries.
I appreciate this episode in ways that ended up being quite different from I’d anticipated (based on its title, Sexuality and Relationships). Of course, sexual expression is one possible instance of relationship, though certainly not the only one. Still, it’s a useful lens since sexuality can involve deep explorations of the interconnection of intimacy and vulnerability.
What I found especially interesting was the larger discussion around what Gestalt practices look like. Gestalt is a term I know from my childhood, when my mom was an undergraduate studying psychology and hanging out with Ph.D.s (at 29, in the early 1970’s, she was the oldest full-time student at Clark University and often closer in development age to her teachers than the students who were her younger peers).
Subsequently, I never really got a handle on what Gestalt can mean. Recently it’s been coming up in my travels and I’ve been striving to better understand it (specifically Gestalt Language Processing as manifested in Autistic people). Your conversation with Heather helped me gain more understanding of Gestalt Therapy; I found it resonant with other areas I’m exploring.
You discussed the idea of witnessing and observing, without or avoiding judgement. This recalls the poetry of David Wagoner’s Lost:
“If what a tree or a bush does is lost on you, You are surely lost. Stand still. The forest knows Where you are. You must let it find you.”
As well, another David—Whyte—speaks similarly in his poem, Everything is Waiting for You:
“Put down the weight of your aloneness and ease into
the conversation. The kettle is singing
even as it pours you a drink, the cooking pots
have left their arrogant aloofness and
seen the good in you at last. All the birds
and creatures of the world are unutterably
themselves. Everything is waiting for you.”
Both poets speak toward a recognition that we are “whole, able, and complete, just as we are and just as we are not.” I’m coming to understand the Gestalt process as seeing what is and allowing that to be. We may choose to engage with it or not, or partially. Not unlike the tree or the rock which simply “are.” They are not flawed or need to be “optimized” (though we, as humans, may try to do that to them). We humans often forget that we are part of nature, not separate from it. We simply “are being” as well, all the while interacting with other elements of the world around us, be they flora, fauna, or others of our species. It’s a refreshing perspective in a time where the duality of subject and object predominates. Rather it echoes the oneness of I and Thou.
Perhaps, as I sense from the conversation, it’s language that is flawed and not humans. We are trying to describe an experience (and eventually various sums of our experiences); and, to communicate that to others, seeking connection that sustains. Yet, language is what we have (be it prose, poetry, music, dance, drawing, et al.). I am seeing that Gestalt offers to provide a framework for better understanding one another’s experiences. And perhaps finding meaningful relationship through that.
Thank you, Eric! What a gorgeous reflection. I really appreciate how you wove in those poems from David Wagoner and David Whyte, they capture so much of what Heather was pointing toward in describing Gestalt awareness, that invitation to be with what is, rather than trying to fix or categorize it.
I love what you said about language, too. It’s such a paradox: we reach for words to express connection, yet words can also separate. Gestalt, like Dabrowski’s work, asks us to notice that tension and stay present with it... to keep seeing and naming what is without collapsing it into explanation. Thank you for listening and for sharing this reflection.
Perhaps some of the commenters might enjoy checking it out. The hosts are lovely--kind, matter-of-fact, smart, and curious. I find it to be an instruction manual for nonviolent communication and self-acceptance, not just for relationships.
Thanks so much, H! I’m so glad you enjoyed this one. And thank you for the recommendation. Normalizing Non-Monogamy sounds like a great resource. I love hearing about work that models open, compassionate communication.
How does one address the possibility of STDs in non-monogamous relationships? Do you have everybody get tested before you sleep with them? It sounds confusing. And then you have to trust that all of your multiple partners are telling you the truth. Even if they tested negative when you first started seeing each other, how do you know they are making sure that all of their partners get tested?
Obviously, this brings up trust. But even if I’m willing to trust somebody, that doesn’t mean that they are trustworthy. Or that one of the partners that they select is trustworthy.
It's actually a bit of a fallacy that monogamy provides some protection against STDs. In any relationship set up, practicing safe sex is important, as is open communication. A monogamous partner who cheats is less likely to be transparent, and is more of a risk, that someone practicing ENM.
(See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515002030#:~:text=Highlights,partner%20to%20be%20non%2Dmonogamous.)
Trust applies to everyone in our life, and if you have two or three partners who are completely open about their activities, and practice safe sex, they may in fact be more trustworthy and safe than one partner who sleeps around behind your back and then won't engage in safe sex because it will 'give them away'.
Well, of course that’s true. any person who’s in a responsible monogamous relationship is also going to have the same challenges. However, you’re only testing one person‘s integrity in a monogamous relationship. Every sexual relationship you have is a whole other test. And some people are really good liars. I treat a lot of people and I have over the years seen many cases of all kinds of different relationships. The risk with every partner is just as big. So I’m sorry, but your argument does not hold water.
Thank you for this, Rachel! These are great questions about real concerns that people in ethical non-monogamy communities take seriously. From what I understand, the ethical part means ongoing communication and transparency, not just one-time checks. From a search, I learned that it includes regular STI testing for everyone involved, sharing results openly, consistent protection use, and explicit agreements about risk tolerance and new partners.
Hopefully, others will chime in with more thoughts. I appreciate you asking, because honestly, this isn't my lived experience (I've been with my partner for 25 years). I'm grateful Heather shared her expertise on the podcast to help me better understand these dynamics.
You’re welcome, Chris! I hope you can dig yourself out of the cardboard avalanche soon.
How does one EVER know whether someone is trustworthy? While I appreciate your concern and don’t want to be too harsh, I think that any conscious relationship really requires individuals to be at a fairly high level of development. I’m 52 and only now reaching a point where I think I could manage the kind of conscious relationship to which I’ve always aspired. (I’m a relationship anarchist at heart, but that has looked like being a serial (relatively short-term) monogamist.) Most of us simply didn’t have models growing up.
I’m not trying to suggest you’re not evolved! Your concern about STDs is valid. I just think that trust, discernment, and emotional maturity go far deeper. I can see now how my own dating behavior was reckless, emotionally, for myself and my partners—and relationships have always been an intense “special interest” for me! Dating and relationships are messy. I look at ethical non-monogamy with some wariness because, while I share the general philosophy, I believe it’s extremely difficult to achieve in practice. (I’m still in training, lol…) Adults get hurt; sometimes, kids get hurt. But isn’t that also true within state-sanctioned marriages?
I would agree with this - never was I more reckless (emotionally and physically) than when I was younger and single (and just out of a bad abusive relationship with a "point to prove").
And I'd heartily agree that the relationship set up matters far less than the emotional health of whatever that set up is. I have seen the best and worst in myself and in partners, and the relationship status had very little to do with that.
Thank you for weighing in here, Heather! These are such important questions, and I really appreciate both of you engaging with this so thoughtfully. I'm going to hold off weighing in substantially right now because I'm buried in moving boxes and don't have the capacity to do this conversation justice. I also want to give Emma and our guest, Heather, space to respond, since they can speak to this with much more depth than I can from under my cardboard mountain.
But I'm definitely following along and grateful for this dialogue. More soon when I can think straight!
Certainly, we are taking a risk everytime we become intimate with anybody, physically or emotionally. But dealing with one person who may or may not be trustworthy is a whole lot different than having an Excel spreadsheet to manage them all. Lol.
Don’t get me wrong, I applaud anyone who is living their best life. I’m just wondering about the logistics. I don’t feel comfortable, rolling the dice when there are things like syphilis, herpes, and HIV out there. And, of course, if you pick the wrong partner,… Doesn’t matter if you were monogamous or not.
Hi! In the time since we put this episode out and the time I discovered there is a comment section, one of my other fav polyamory resource people put out a VERY up to date resource that might help with this question: https://substack.com/home/post/p-178047559 As the creator, Millie says "What kinds of agreements should people consider? How can herpes risks be managed? What happens when someone becomes pregnant unexpectedly from a lover they hadn’t planned to have a child with? How do we navigate differing levels of risk tolerance around fluid bonding? And what happens when consent is violated within a polycule?
The enduring legacy of colonial and sex-negative moral frameworks has left much of the world without access to comprehensive, culturally relevant sex education, especially when it comes to non-monogamous relationships. As a result, polyamorists are often left to piece together information meant for monogamous contexts, which fails to address the unique realities of multi-partner care and responsibility.
At Decolonizing Love, we often try to address these complex questions within short-form content, a soundbite, a ten-slide carousel, but I wanted to offer something more substantial: a practical booklet on safer sex designed specifically for polyamorous people. When I looked around, I realized there was nothing like it on the market. There are a few in-depth books about sexual health, but few for polyamorists and none that offer quick, practical guidance for busy polyamorists living fast-paced, complex, and globally diverse lives."
Have a read, support a creator.
Thank you for sharing this, Heather! 🙏
The first time I tested positive for an STI as a teenager, the clinician looked at me and said, "How did a nice girl like you get this?" That comment taught me more about sexual health than any pamphlet - the real danger isn't the infections, it's the shame that prevents honest communication or further exploration.
I offer this as an intro because, like all things, I learn the hard way first. Heather talks about relationship anarchy, but anarchy doesn't mean no rules; it means being intentional about your containers and navigating those sticky edges within your ecosystem (no system but ecosystem ✊🏼). The kind of explicit honesty I need and desire in others, while still navigating play and novelty, meant getting very clear about logistics.
For me, that looked like explicit initial agreements before getting involved (matching expectations with potential partners), clear communication about testing schedules, understanding that prophylactics and treatment exist (STIs aren't death sentences, they're manageable health conditions), and agreements about disclosure when situations change.
What made this confusing even in committed relationships: 1) other people's shame and unpacked cultural baggage, and 2) we can spread STIs like herpes without ever having an outbreak or knowing we have it. HPV is incredibly common and often asymptomatic. Perfect safety doesn't exist in ANY relationship structure - the question is whether we're building transparency infrastructure or relying on assumptions (I think that's where TPD really can work it's magic)
The hardest part wasn't the logistics. It was unlearning the shame that makes people hide exposures instead of treating them as health information to manage together.
Monogamy doesn't inherently protect you, but doing the inner work combined with explicitly sharing your values is an inoculation against unnecessary violations (or "flaws" if you will) to whatever agreements exist.
I wanted to answer the logistics question explicitly from my lived experience. It's not one size fits all or a prescription, but it's one map that worked well in my relationships. My current marriage is sexually monogamous but imaginally, intellectually, and emotionally "promiscuous" - the rules are simpler right now: "I don't care where you get your appetite, just come home to eat" is the credo 😂
And we pre-installed "software" that established how if that changes, it's all negotiable. He's way less... shall we say "bouncy"... and much more a routine stabilizer type person. But for us it boils down to trust and healthy boundaries.
Great episode, gang. Lots to think about!
I appreciate this episode in ways that ended up being quite different from I’d anticipated (based on its title, Sexuality and Relationships). Of course, sexual expression is one possible instance of relationship, though certainly not the only one. Still, it’s a useful lens since sexuality can involve deep explorations of the interconnection of intimacy and vulnerability.
What I found especially interesting was the larger discussion around what Gestalt practices look like. Gestalt is a term I know from my childhood, when my mom was an undergraduate studying psychology and hanging out with Ph.D.s (at 29, in the early 1970’s, she was the oldest full-time student at Clark University and often closer in development age to her teachers than the students who were her younger peers).
Subsequently, I never really got a handle on what Gestalt can mean. Recently it’s been coming up in my travels and I’ve been striving to better understand it (specifically Gestalt Language Processing as manifested in Autistic people). Your conversation with Heather helped me gain more understanding of Gestalt Therapy; I found it resonant with other areas I’m exploring.
You discussed the idea of witnessing and observing, without or avoiding judgement. This recalls the poetry of David Wagoner’s Lost:
“If what a tree or a bush does is lost on you, You are surely lost. Stand still. The forest knows Where you are. You must let it find you.”
As well, another David—Whyte—speaks similarly in his poem, Everything is Waiting for You:
“Put down the weight of your aloneness and ease into
the conversation. The kettle is singing
even as it pours you a drink, the cooking pots
have left their arrogant aloofness and
seen the good in you at last. All the birds
and creatures of the world are unutterably
themselves. Everything is waiting for you.”
Both poets speak toward a recognition that we are “whole, able, and complete, just as we are and just as we are not.” I’m coming to understand the Gestalt process as seeing what is and allowing that to be. We may choose to engage with it or not, or partially. Not unlike the tree or the rock which simply “are.” They are not flawed or need to be “optimized” (though we, as humans, may try to do that to them). We humans often forget that we are part of nature, not separate from it. We simply “are being” as well, all the while interacting with other elements of the world around us, be they flora, fauna, or others of our species. It’s a refreshing perspective in a time where the duality of subject and object predominates. Rather it echoes the oneness of I and Thou.
Perhaps, as I sense from the conversation, it’s language that is flawed and not humans. We are trying to describe an experience (and eventually various sums of our experiences); and, to communicate that to others, seeking connection that sustains. Yet, language is what we have (be it prose, poetry, music, dance, drawing, et al.). I am seeing that Gestalt offers to provide a framework for better understanding one another’s experiences. And perhaps finding meaningful relationship through that.
Thanks for another thought provoking episode.
Thank you, Eric! What a gorgeous reflection. I really appreciate how you wove in those poems from David Wagoner and David Whyte, they capture so much of what Heather was pointing toward in describing Gestalt awareness, that invitation to be with what is, rather than trying to fix or categorize it.
I love what you said about language, too. It’s such a paradox: we reach for words to express connection, yet words can also separate. Gestalt, like Dabrowski’s work, asks us to notice that tension and stay present with it... to keep seeing and naming what is without collapsing it into explanation. Thank you for listening and for sharing this reflection.
Thank you for another great episode, Emma and Chris. It reminded me of another podcast I like, called Normalizing Non-Monogamy
(https://spotify.link/ixVg1GhPAXb).
Perhaps some of the commenters might enjoy checking it out. The hosts are lovely--kind, matter-of-fact, smart, and curious. I find it to be an instruction manual for nonviolent communication and self-acceptance, not just for relationships.
Thanks so much, H! I’m so glad you enjoyed this one. And thank you for the recommendation. Normalizing Non-Monogamy sounds like a great resource. I love hearing about work that models open, compassionate communication.
I can’t wait to hear what you think, Robin!