The next step is to decide if there is a way to compromise based on the motivation and the resistance for the chosen structure. For example, if a partner wants to be monogamous because they are afraid of being left behind, can the couple explore non-monogamy together by either dating together or attending sex parties? This allows both members of the couple to be involved in the process without leaving anyone out. Or if a partner wants to revel in erotic energy and enjoy flirting, can they satisfy that desire by flirting and long make-out sessions without necessarily having sex or starting a whole other relationship?

Other aspects of compromise can be the degree of emotional entanglement, sexual engagement, or intellectual openness. For example, a couple can agree that their style of non-monogamy consists of casual sex only, strictly with condoms, and they don't share details with one another.

A good rule of thumb is not to seek symmetry but aim for synergy. Not everyone needs the same thing at the same time. Consider a table full of food and people arriving at this table at various degrees of hunger. If everyone felt they had to eat the same amount of food, the chances are nobody will walk away feeling good. But instead, if people ate whatever they needed to satisfy their hunger at the time—which may look like a plate full of food for some people, while others go for a forkful—the chances are everyone will walk away satisfied.

The key here is the table full of food. Make sure as you try to solve any kind of mismatch, you remain connected to everyone's needs: need for attention, need for recognition, need for affection, and whatever else. Making sure these needs are mutually satisfied will enable compromising, creative problem-solving, and agreements to come easier.

If you are not sure where to start or are unclear about what options are available to you, you may want to work with a relationship coach who specializes in non-monogamy. A good coach can support you with both the emotional pain points (such as jealousy) as well as the practical obstacles (like scheduling).