“We had an arrangement, be discreet and don’t be blatant. There had to be payment, it had to be with strangers,” sings Lily Allen in her surprisingly candid and detailed album thought to be about her open relationship with her ex-husband.
The album has catapulted the concept of non-monogamous relationships into the spotlight, and couples therapists report that an increasing number of their clients are choosing to go down this route.
But as Allen’s album makes clear, while open marriages, or consensual non-monogamy, may work for some, they can also go very wrong — and there are a number of common pitfalls to avoid.
Photo: AFP
“It’s a risky business emotionally. I’m seeing it more and more in the work that I do, but how it manifests itself varies hugely,” said Katherine Cavallo, a psychotherapist and spokesperson for UK Council for Psychotherapy.
“It’s normal for feelings of jealousy and insecurity to emerge, and those need to be responded to. The existing relationship, the attachment between the couple, needs to be maintained as well. And things can always change. It has to be an ongoing process in which things are continually reviewed to make sure it remains consensual.”
Communication, consent and trust were key, she said, and if agreed boundaries were not adhered to, it could lead to “significant emotional and relational trauma.”
People choosing to open up their relationship after one partner has had an affair, or doing it in order to “fix” something, are cause for concern.
“It’s bound to be problematic going down that route,” Cavallo said.
Katerina Georgiou, a psychotherapist and senior-accredited member of the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, said there was an important distinction to be made between people who identify as polyamorous, and heteronormative couples choosing to do this.
The latter might choose to open up a marriage for “sexual experimentation, to create intimacy by playing with sexual dynamics, or an agreement as a result of circumstances such as being apart for a while,” she said.
The modern dating world, and dating apps, were also fueling the shift, she said.
“People are being more liberal, but I think there’s also some people maybe being pressured into it. I’m seeing more of that feeling that it’s too vanilla to just want straight monogamy.”
Juliet Rosenfeld, a psychoanalyst and author of Affairs: True Stories of Love, Lies, Hope and Despair, said the growth of open relationships was part of a wider societal trend in which “the idea of the couple is shifting radically.”
“It’s a challenge for therapists because there is a much wider range of ways to be in a couple now,” she said. “A monogamous lifelong relationship is simply not what a lot of people, in particular women, want.”
Rosenfeld said there were a number of potential positives, as well as negatives, in opening up a relationship.
“In marriage now there is feeling that people want the other person to be everything — a partner, best friend, teammate, lover — which is very pressurizing. So one way of looking at an open marriage is it’s a way of taking pressure off that,” she said.
“But I would be looking to understand whether wanting other people in the relationship was a way of avoiding ending it. If you are in an open marriage, how do you not know that your partner isn’t trialing someone else to replace you?”
She said there was a growing acceptance and normalization of open relationships, but still a lack of understanding about exactly what makes them work well.
“We don’t know enough about what kind of characterological capacity or strength people need to be in a consensual non-monogamous relationship. What happens if one person falls in love, for example? What does the couple do then? When you remove sexual exclusivity, what else are you removing? What else are you taking away?”
When Taiwan was battered by storms this summer, the only crumb of comfort I could take was knowing that some advice I’d drafted several weeks earlier had been correct. Regarding the Southern Cross-Island Highway (南橫公路), a spectacular high-elevation route connecting Taiwan’s southwest with the country’s southeast, I’d written: “The precarious existence of this road cannot be overstated; those hoping to drive or ride all the way across should have a backup plan.” As this article was going to press, the middle section of the highway, between Meishankou (梅山口) in Kaohsiung and Siangyang (向陽) in Taitung County, was still closed to outsiders
US President Donald Trump may have hoped for an impromptu talk with his old friend Kim Jong-un during a recent trip to Asia, but analysts say the increasingly emboldened North Korean despot had few good reasons to join the photo-op. Trump sent repeated overtures to Kim during his barnstorming tour of Asia, saying he was “100 percent” open to a meeting and even bucking decades of US policy by conceding that North Korea was “sort of a nuclear power.” But Pyongyang kept mum on the invitation, instead firing off missiles and sending its foreign minister to Russia and Belarus, with whom it
President William Lai (賴清德) has championed Taiwan as an “AI Island” — an artificial intelligence (AI) hub powering the global tech economy. But without major shifts in talent, funding and strategic direction, this vision risks becoming a static fortress: indispensable, yet immobile and vulnerable. It’s time to reframe Taiwan’s ambition. Time to move from a resource-rich AI island to an AI Armada. Why change metaphors? Because choosing the right metaphor shapes both understanding and strategy. The “AI Island” frames our national ambition as a static fortress that, while valuable, is still vulnerable and reactive. Shifting our metaphor to an “AI Armada”
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a dystopian, radical and dangerous conception of itself. Few are aware of this very fundamental difference between how they view power and how the rest of the world does. Even those of us who have lived in China sometimes fall back into the trap of viewing it through the lens of the power relationships common throughout the rest of the world, instead of understanding the CCP as it conceives of itself. Broadly speaking, the concepts of the people, race, culture, civilization, nation, government and religion are separate, though often overlapping and intertwined. A government
RSS