If you’re new to the language of mononormativity— the cultural assumption that monogamy is the default or most legitimate relationship structure— I’d invite you to read this post first. It provides important context for much of what follows.

MISTAKE #1: Not taking an honest inventory of your attachment system

Before anything else, opening up requires a clear-eyed look at how you are relationally wired. This isn’t simply about knowing whether you identify as anxiously or avoidantly attached, but rather, it means understanding which specific emotions feel threatening to you in a relational context. Questions to consider: What are the situations that reliably activate my nervous system? How do I respond to these triggers? How does my response impact my partner/s and the relational ecosystem that I am in? What are my growing edges when it comes to self-soothing and regulating, along with reaching to my partner/s in a way that they can respond to?

In Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), we talk a lot about the “attachment dance,” which is the (usually) unconscious choreography between partners when their security feels threatened. When you open a relationship, you are not adding new dynamics on top of a neutral foundation. You are introducing new variables into an existing emotional system. Whatever patterns were already present— pursuer-withdrawer cycles, collapsing under conflict, difficulty tolerating uncertainty— tend to get amplified, not resolved, by the process of opening up. 

Equally important, and often overlooked, is the question of individuation. In Ellyn Bader and Peter Pearson’s Developmental Model, one of the central tasks of a maturing relationship is moving from symbiosis— the early merged state where togetherness feels paramount and difference feels threatening— toward genuine differentiation. Many couples, even long-established ones, are still operating from a largely symbiotic place without realizing it. ENM introduces a level of separateness, autonomy, and distinct inner experience that a symbiotic relational structure is not yet equipped to hold.

A meaningful inventory, then, asks two parallel questions: How does my attachment system respond when my security feels threatened (and how does that impact my partner/s)? And how differentiated is my sense of self— can I know what I feel and need, independently of what my partner feels and needs, while remaining genuinely connected to them? Both of these capacities matter enormously in ENM. And both are worth understanding before the process begins rather than discovering mid-stream.

MISTAKE #2: Skipping the deconstruction of mononormativity

Many couples begin exploring ENM and polyamory with genuine enthusiasm and real intention, and still find themselves using an entirely monogamous framework to navigate it. This isn’t a character flaw. It’s almost inevitable, given that most of us have been steeped in mononormativity since childhood: in the stories we were told, the songs we still listen to, and the relationships we witnessed. Even in academic spaces, psychological research has largely treated monogamy as the relational default.

Deconstruction isn’t about rejecting everything you’ve ever believed about love or commitment. It’s about making the implicit explicit by examining which beliefs about relationships, jealousy, ownership, hierarchy, and security are actually yours, and which ones you simply inherited. Without this step, couples often find themselves trying to build something new using tools that were designed for something else entirely. Conversations about agreements become fraught because the underlying assumptions haven’t been surfaced. Emotions feel more confusing because they’re being filtered through a framework that doesn’t quite fit.

This is ongoing work, not a single conversation. And it’s often worth doing with support.

MISTAKE #3: Moving too fast when opening up your relationship

There’s a particular kind of energy that tends to show up early in the process of considering opening up a relationship— an excitement, a sense of possibility, a feeling that everything is suddenly being seen more clearly. And then there’s New Relationship Energy (NRE), which arrives once connections begin: a rush of feel-good neurochemicals, including a cocktail of feel-good dopamine and oxytocin, that can feel almost intoxicating. Both are real, and both are worth honoring. They can also, separately or together, move faster than the relationship is ready to go.

What I see most often isn’t recklessness, but rather the skipping-over of the foundational steps. Couples move from conversation to action before they’ve had a chance to fully understand their own needs, build agreements that feel genuinely secure, or develop the emotional skills that this kind of structure will inevitably require. The scaffolding gets bypassed because the excitement of what’s possible feels more compelling than the slower work of preparation.

There are frameworks designed specifically to support this process, including thoughtful, step-by-step models from queer and non-monogamous communities that offer a more intentional sequence for opening up. Slowing down isn’t a failure of nerve. It’s often the most loving thing you can do for the existing relationship.

 

**It’s worth noting that “going slow” is a heavily debated concept in ENM spaces, and I want to be transparent about where I’m speaking from. Many people rightly critique this advice as placating partners with more sensitive nervous systems or slower processing speeds, or as a mechanism for control. That tension deserves more nuance than I can give it here, and I’ll address it in a future post. What I can speak to is what I see in my office as a trauma therapist: clients navigating real nervous system responses and relational structures that don’t always move at the pace desire does. The goal isn’t to override what someone wants, but rather to find the sweet spot between working through expected discomfort and honoring what the nervous system actually needs to feel “safe enough.”

MISTAKE #4: Treating emotions as a signal that something is wrong

Jealousy, fear, and a sense of threat are not signs that you’re failing at ENM. They are completely expectable emotional responses to a process that touches the deepest layers of your attachment system.

The question isn’t whether these difficult emotions will get activated— they will. The question is what you do and your partner/s do with them when they show up.

When jealousy is treated as shameful or as proof that “I’m not cut out for this,” it tends to go underground. People minimize it to their partners, dismiss it internally, and push through in ways that build resentment rather than safety. The attempt to suppress emotion in ENM relationships is one of the most common paths I’ve seen toward genuine rupture.

A more useful frame is to think of these emotions as data— as signals about unmet needs and attachment fears, about places where security needs tending, about parts of your attachment system that are asking for attention. That doesn’t make them comfortable, but it does make them workable. And the ability to move through difficult emotion together, rather than around it, is one of the most important capacities a couple can build before and during the process of opening up. Indeed, it is one of the biggest predictors of ‘success’ in ENM that I have anecdotally observed as a therapist. 

MISTAKE #5: Not building intentional agreements

It is remarkably common for couples to open their relationship with the assumption that they’ll figure things out as they go. Sometimes this comes from a genuine desire to stay flexible. Sometimes it’s a way of avoiding conversations that feel uncomfortable or premature. Either way, the absence of intentional agreements creates conditions where misunderstandings multiply and where people end up feeling hurt in ways that could have been anticipated.

Agreements in open relationships and polyamory aren’t about controlling each other. They’re about co-creating a structure that both people actually feel safe inside of. This looks different for every couple and there is no universal template. But it does require real conversations about time, disclosure, limits, safety, boundaries and attachment fears & needs.

It’s also worth noting that agreements cut both ways. Just as important as setting expectations for a partner is being honest about your own limits— what you can genuinely offer, what you actually need, and where your edges are. Agreements built around what you think you should be able to handle rarely hold.

MISTAKE #6: Lying or withholding out of fear of disappointing or triggering someone

ENM and polyamorous structures, by their nature, involve finite resources, time being the most precious of them. This means that choices will need to be made, and those choices will sometimes disappoint people. That is not a failure of the structure. It is simply true.

What I’ve seen many times, though, is that the fear of disappointing a partner can lead people to minimize, omit, or outright obscure the truth. A small lie about where you were. A softened version of what actually happened. A detail withheld because the full picture felt like too much to navigate.

These small dishonesties tend to compound. And in a relational context where trust is already being asked to expand into new territory, they are one of the fastest ways to erode the sense of security that everything else depends on. Indeed, many couples come to me to heal from betrayals that have happened in the context of CNM, which profoundly interrupt the process and jeopardize safety. Radical honesty in ENM doesn’t mean narrating every thought or feeling. It means telling your partner what actually happened, even when the full picture is uncomfortable to share.

**It’s worth noting that “transparency” is itself a heavily debated concept in couples therapy and CNM/ ENM spaces. Partners often come with genuinely different needs around disclosure: one person may need to know very little to feel secure, while another needs a great deal of information to feel the same way. Neither is wrong. What matters is that these differences are surfaced and negotiated intentionally, and ideally before opening up, not in the aftermath of a disclosure that landed badly. This is one of the many reasons that the agreements conversation in Mistake 5 is so important.

“It is not a partner’s desires that ultimately threaten the bond. It is the protest behaviors activated in response to those desires that do the real damage.”

MISTAKE #7: Letting existing relationships go unattended

New connections carry a particular kind of energy, often refered to as New Relationship Energy (NRE). That intensity is real and it’s compelling, and it can very quietly (or not-so-quietly!) pull focus away from existing relationships.

I’ve worked with partners in couples therapy who find, several months into opening up, that their primary relationship had become the least tended-to relationship in their lives. The existing bond with all its history, familiarity, complexity and comfort doesn’t announce its needs with the same urgency as something new. But those needs don’t disappear. 

Ongoing intentionality about the original relationship isn’t optional. This means continuing to invest in connection, continuing to repair ruptures promptly, and continuing to make time for the kind of depth that only comes from sustained presence with someone over time.

MISTAKE #8: Modeling your relationship on someone else’s

Thankfully there is now more visibility around ENM than at any previous point! We are surrounded by memoirs, podcasts, social media communities, and a growing body of literature all offer images of what non-monogamy can look like. That visibility is genuinely valuable. It can also become a subtle trap.

No two couples open their relationship the same way, for the same reasons, with the same needs, constraints, and histories. What works beautifully for one couple— a particular structure, set of agreements, or pace— may be completely wrong for another. When couples borrow a framework wholesale from somewhere else, they often find that it fits awkwardly, and then wonder what’s wrong with them rather than with the fit.

It is also worth naming that people in open and non-monogamous partnerships navigate a significant amount of external bias, misunderstanding, and outright bigotry. This stigma is not incidental. It is a direct extension of mononormative culture, and it can be incredibly difficult to carry. It shapes how people talk about their relationships, who they feel safe being honest with, and sometimes even how they come to understand their own experiences. When the outside world sends constant messages that your relationship structure is wrong or suspect, it becomes even harder to trust your own internal compass about what is actually working for you.

From a narrative therapy perspective, this is an invitation to author your own story and ask: “What actually serves us, given who we are?” That is a harder question to sit with. It requires more honesty and more self-knowledge. But it tends to produce something far more durable.

MISTAKE #9: Treating agreements as permanent, rather than evolving

The agreements that make sense at the beginning of opening a relationship are often not the agreements that will serve you six months or two years in. People change. Circumstances change. What felt like more than enough space at one point may start to feel constraining. What felt secure may need to be renegotiated as trust deepens, or as something unexpected surfaces.

When couples treat their initial agreements as fixed, they tend to accumulate quiet resentment around things that no longer fit. Or they quietly stop following agreements they feel they can’t bring up for renegotiation. Neither of those is sustainable.

Building regular, structured check-ins into the relationship— not just crisis-driven conversations, but proactive ones— allows agreements to evolve in real time. It also signals something important: that both people are invested in keeping the structure responsive to who they actually are, not just who they were when they started.

MISTAKE #10: Using opening up a relationship to repair what’s already broken

This one is worth being direct about: ENM is not a relationship repair strategy. It cannot fix a broken foundation, and in my experience, it tends to amplify whatever cracks are already present rather than filling them in.

Opening up requires a baseline level of trust, communication, and emotional safety. Not perfection, as every couple brings unresolved things into any new chapter. But there’s a meaningful difference between a relationship that has some growing edges and a relationship that is in genuine distress or prolonged disconnection.

If the existing bond doesn’t yet have the tools to navigate conflict, repair rupture, or hold difficult emotion together, adding the complexity of ENM is very likely to make those things harder, not easier.

If you’re in that place, it doesn’t mean ENM is off the table forever. It might mean that the most loving thing you can do right now is tend to the relationship you already have before expanding its structure. This is where Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy can often support couples in securing the relationship prior to taking the leap.

BONUS: Trying to open up the relationship perfectly

In my experience, people drawn to ENM are often some of the most thoughtful and intentional people I encounter. They are characterized by a desire to deconstruct dominant narratives, to challenge inherited assumptions, and to build lives that actually reflect their values around autonomy, choice, expansive love, equity, and sustainability. They tend to be people who take relationships seriously and who care deeply about the people they let into their lives.

And sometimes, that same thoughtfulness comes bundled with an enormous amount of pressure to “get it right.” Any hint of hierarchy and you’re characterized as toxic. Not immediately structuring things the way a poly educator recommends, and something must be wrong. There is a particular kind of perfectionism that can develop in progressive spaces— born, genuinely, from a desire to do better— that can sometimes unintentionally do real harm. It can perpetuate controlling stances under the guise of accountability, ironically reproduce highly colonizing agendas around how relationships “should” look, and arrive right back at a binary, black-and-white philosophical place that deconstruction was supposed to move us away from.

Humans are imperfect at baseline. ENM asks us to navigate something extraordinarily complex— relationally, neurologically, systemically. The antidote to perfectionism isn’t lowered standards. It’s grace. Seeing this as longitudinal work. Consistently leaning into growing edges. And holding the realities of time, nervous systems, and the beautiful messiness of being human with as much compassion as you extend to the people you love.

A Final Note

None of what I’ve described above is meant to suggest that opening a relationship is inherently risky or ill-advised. To the contrary, for many couples, it is one of the most meaningful and expansive choices they make together. I know from clinical and lived experience that open relationships can work, and not only can they work, they can be profoundly healing!

What I’ve tried to offer here is an honest picture of where the process tends to get difficult, not to discourage, but to help you walk in with your eyes open. 

If you’re beginning this journey and would like support, I work with couples in Pasadena and throughout California via telehealth and I would be honored to support you and your partner/s!