Working with couples in distress is notoriously difficult. The balance between empathic understanding on the one side and stretching constrictively and sensitively the boundaries of the familiar is a difficult task. A reason why this is experienced as rather challenging is the high intensity of emotions in the therapy room. There can be rapid escalations of emotional exchanges so that, as the clinician, one minute you can be listening to a couple that seem to be trying to be reasonable with and understand each other, and in the next the partners are metaphorically at each other’s throats. These negative spirals that distressed couples create, and are victimized by, can be rather overwhelming (Johnson, 2008). Salvador Minuchin was one of the earliest therapists to have developed a theoretical and practical framework of working with interactions that take place in the therapy room (Minuchin, 1974). He introduced some very powerful techniques such as “enactment”, “intensification” and “unbalancing”, as part of a therapeutic goal of bringing into the room the couple relational issues which needed to be addressed (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). Often these required the clinician to be more directive at times than her/his usual therapeutic style. Contemporary use of these techniques can be difficult for trainees and newly qualified professionals, who may have been trained in more explicitly collaborative approaches to psychology and psychotherapy. Politically, it can often be a thorny issue when one declares the importance of the couple relationship, for example in relation to problems displayed by children. Many family therapists, for example, are more comfortable working with parenting issues than moving into what some perceive to be the more risky territory of exploring with a couple how their marital, including sexual, issues may be impacting on their children. The term “couple therapy” has taken over from the original, now more value-laden, and for most in the West, outdated term “marital therapy”. These changes in accepted terminology often reflect changes in cultural and societal norms. Changing patterns and expectations of family life, for example in Western cultures, have required psychotherapists and other clinicians to keep up with these changes in people’s relational lives. Robert E. Emery, in writing about “the changing family”, echoes this by reminding us that from different perspectives, such as historical or anthropological, it has been documented that the contemporary Western family is “a continually evolving system” (Emery, 1999, p. 6). He describes how the functions of families and their structures have been continuously changing. In her rich book entitled Family Therapy in Changing Times, Gill Gorell Barnes writes that family relationships need to be re-thought if we in the mental health professions want to keep up with the diversification of family life in the UK: