With more than 5% of the population in some form of non-monogamous configuration, it’s disappointing that there is no specific relationship therapy modality tailored towards consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. Couples therapy was first developed in the 1930s and has existed in its modern form since the 1960s, emerging out of modern-day family therapy. And yet there remains a gulf of care and experience when it comes to supporting CNM relationships.
With nearly a century under its belt, relationship therapy has had ample time to step out of its mononormative bias that emotional and sexual commitment to one individual constitutes the social norm for engaging in romantic relationships. Still, the lack of a specific CNM-based relationship therapy and the mononormative bias of existing couples’ therapy make it hard for those in CNM relationships to find suitable support that’s adapted to their needs.
While some couples therapy modalities have been adapted over the years to support CNM relationships, not all of them are created equal. It can be hard to know which modality to choose without research or prior knowledge. Furthermore, the lack of therapist training and awareness and potential for judgement complicates the problem.
The following is a quick guide to the main forms of relationship therapy and their suitability for CNM. For simplicity’s sake, I have divided the modalities under three primary headers: behavioural, affective (emotion-based) and systemic.
This will hopefully remove some of the stress of finding a supportive therapy modality when you’re in an CNM relationship.
Behavioural therapy
Gottman Couples Therapy
Gottman Therapy is probably the most well-known form of relationship therapy. Gottman Therapy has a strong focus on mutual understanding, partner behaviour dynamics and conflict management and repair. In the Gottman model, partners are defined as ‘masters’ or ‘disasters’ of a relationship based on their ability to manage conflict and create shared meaning. Interestingly, research into CNM relationships indicates that those in CNM structures tend to be relationship masters, perhaps because CNM emphasises communication and boundary-setting skills, as well as identity and meaning-making.
However, Gottman therapy is intensely dyadic (two-person focused) and mononormative. It doesn’t allow for relationships outside the primary couple relationship. It also doesn’t include interventions to support partners in exploring CNM. Preliminary research on CNM and Gottman suggests that Gottman approaches are more useful at the beginning of relationship therapy, during the assessment phase, with other modalities being preferable in the treatment phase.
Pros: Easy to find Gottman therapists. Clear structure for mutual understanding, repair, and relationship dynamics.
Cons: Highly mononormative. Gottman therapists are likely to be unskilled with CNM.
Integrative Behavioural Couple Therapy (IBCT)
IBCT is a behavioural therapy that incorporates mindfulness-based acceptance techniques, to help individuals align with values and find adaptive interaction patterns.
On the surface, IBCT seems ideally suited for CNM, as it emphasises values, meaning, and being present with uncomfortable feelings without attempting to change them. It places a lot of emphasis on resolving relationship conflict and partners identifying maladaptive behavioural patterns to create relational change. Nonetheless, IBCT suffers from the same issues as Gottman: it is dyadically focused and hasn’t been rigorously tested or adapted to work for CNM.
Further limitations of IBCT that may not make it suitable for CNM include not adequately addressing underlying trauma or working with agreements or internal power dynamics, which may be problematic when working with CNM relationships.
Pros: Easy to find. Emphasis on values, resolving conflict, meaning and managing distress.
Cons: Suffers from the same limitations as Gottman. It’s also not adapted for CNM and less effective at working with dysregulated states or managing the nuts and bolts of a CNM relationship.
Affective therapy
Emotion Focused Therapy (EFT)
EFT was developed by the late Sue Johnston. This framework views relationship ruptures as indicative of underlying attachment wounds and has a strong focus on attachment repair. Research on EFT outcomes suggests it’s highly effective for attachment repair, and research on positive adaptation to CNM relationships exists in clinical settings.
EFT is very dyadic, however. EFT processes are constructed around one partner exploring a wound while the other partner attends and listens. Further, with a focus on attachment repair, it’s very limited when it comes to managing the nuts and bolts of being in an CNM relationship, such as boundaries, scheduling, paramours, and so on.
One major criticism of EFT that may make it a deal-breaker for CNM is that it doesn’t effectively handle internal power-dynamics within relationships. Furthermore, there is a risk of the modality becoming overwhelming when mis-handled by unskilled therapists.
Pros: Very effective at relationship repair and at addressing attachment issues. Demonstrated and successful attempts to adapt to CNM.
Cons: Not nuanced and capable of dealing with some of the minutiae of CNM relationships.
Systemic therapy
Family & systemic therapy
Family therapy might seem like an odd choice for CNM relationships. Family therapy originated out of the work of pioneering systems theorist Gregory Bateson in the late 1960s and, early on, focused on traditional nuclear families. However, through the research and development of several feminist and postmodern therapists, family therapy has evolved to become inclusive of diverse family and relationship structures.
What sets family therapy apart is its focus on relationships as systems rather than on individual behaviours, a predominant focus of mainstream psychology. Because polycules are systems within systems, family therapy is well-equipped to provide systemic support. A small body of research supports this and suggests that structural family therapy is transferable to CNM relationships.
The major drawback of family therapy is that it remains a niche discipline, and it would be difficult to find therapists who have a solid understanding of CNM.
Pros: Well-suited to CNM systems. Demonstrated research on suitability to CNM.
Cons: Lack of therapists who understand CNM relationships.
Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy (PACT)
PACT is a relatively new approach, especially in Australia. PACT was derived from strategic family therapy and blended with attachment theory and neuroscience, with a strong emphasis on nervous system regulation, safety, and agreements. This makes it seem, on the surface, well-suited to CNM.
However, as the word ‘couple’ is in its name, PACT has historically had a strong mononormative bias. Nonetheless, in recent years, it has made an effort to become more inclusive of different relationship styles and has opened itself up (no pun intended!) to supporting CNM relationships.
Pros: Strong emphasis on safety, attachment, nervous system regulation and agreements.
Cons: Not as many PACT therapists in Australia, and therapists may be mononormative.
Notable mentions
Other major relationship therapies in Australia include ACT for Couples, Imago Therapy, and Narrative Therapy. Of the three, only Narrative Therapy has any research regarding its application for CNM relationships and that research is speculative and lacking in clinical evidence.
There are also many therapists practicing psychodynamic or psychoanalytic (such as you see on the show Couples Therapy) modalities and somatic or sexological approaches. The first two generally experience the same mononormative issues as the other mainstream modalities. One might think that sexologists might be more open to CNM, however this is not always the case. Furthermore, few sexologists have specific relationship therapy training and, of course, not all CNM problems are sexual in nature. The same goes with somatic therapies.
Bottom line
No single therapeutic modality is perfect—even for monogamous couples—but understanding the strengths and limitations of a modality may help those in CNM relationships make more informed choices about which best meets their relationship needs.
Some modalities do on the surface appear to be a better fit than others. When screening a prospective therapist, it can be a good idea to ask what modality (or modalities) they practice and how they have specifically adapted it to CNM.
More than modality, the research says that the other most important criterion in undertaking therapeutic work is the relationship with your therapist. So, at the end of the day, it may be about balancing your therapist’s training against the need to feel understood and held by them.
May you find the therapist you need.
If you are navigating an CNM relationship and need support, find out more about CNM-affirming relationship therapy.
