Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Novitz, Senior Lecturer, Writing, Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology

What do our reading choices say about us? When teaching creative writing and literature classes, I always ask my students about their favourite genres and current reading in the first week. It is a good way to get a sense of their interests, gauge how they will respond to set texts, and get them thinking about the kinds of projects they want to work on.

There are always a few students who will sheepishly admit to not reading any fiction at all, and I’ll happily talk to them about comic books, television shows and video games. This exercise often leads to some interesting conversations across the class, where students start to connect over their favourite authors and share recommendations.

Very occasionally, however, someone will mention a book or an author that will give me pause. I still remember a moment from my second year of teaching when a student causally mentioned that they were reading The Turner Diaries, an infamous work of white nationalist speculative fiction (recently referenced in the 2024 film The Order), because they were “just curious” about it.

I didn’t press them further and the student never expressed any extremist views in class or in their writing. In fact, they were unfailingly thoughtful and respectful. I couldn’t see any evidence that this uncomfortable reading choice reflected anything about them as a person, and there are valid reasons to be curious about a book like the Turner Diaries and the warped viewpoint it presents. But it still made me feel a little cautious, in a way that I couldn’t entirely shake.

Reading as a public activity

The idea that reading – and reading fiction in particular – has a formative effect on character is generally well accepted. The books we choose to read are assumed to shape our outlook and identity, or at least reflect our values in some way. Many of us have probably slid over to a host’s bookshelves at a party and attempted to discern something about their personality and interests from the titles.

But what was once a deeply personal activity has stated to feel a lot more public. Online subcultures like Bookstagram and Booktok encourage readers to circulate and share their preferences and opinions. Platforms like Goodreads and The Storygraph allow us to follow the reading goals and experiences of friends and strangers. The once unremarkable habit of pulling out a book in a café or on public transport has now been dubbed “performative reading”, leading to a host of call-out and parody videos.

What and where we individually choose to read now seems subject to greater scrutiny. As reading becomes an increasing public act and reading identities are more extensively and visibly “performed”, we may become reasonably concerned about what our reading expresses about ourselves.

Are there books that we are proud to display and identify with? Or books that we dread being caught with in public?

Lists of supposedly “red flag” books, have been circulating for a while now, the idea being that someone’s bookshelf may reflect something problematic in their personality. These might range from very obvious red flags (e.g. Mein Kampf or the aforementioned Turner Diaries) to works that might indicate incompatible values or outlooks (most often particular genres of self-help, finance, religious or diet books, or contentious authors like Jordan Peterson and Ayn Rand). Some familiar classics and contemporary literary titles can also be taken as a warning of a particularly “toxic” reader.

This last category is invariably the most interesting. It is usually associated with male readers, in particular, and certain titles and authors get frequent mentions. Audiences are jokingly (and not so jokingly) advised to block, ghost or run from men with too many Ernest Hemingway or Charles Bukowski titles on their shelves, which may be an indicator of a particularly noxious brand of hypermasculinity. An interest in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita often shows up as a red flag (though this tends to assume that a reader will be sympathetic to the perspective of the narrator Humbert Humbert, rather than horrified by it).

Fans of Fyodor Dostoevsky often get stereotyped as humourless and self-serious, which, while possibly true, unfairly overlooks just how funny Dostoevsky can be. Anyone who lists David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest as their favourite novel may be dull or pretentious, or just unlikely to ever shut up about having read Infinite Jest.

Dude-bros and hippie-chicks

Perhaps unsurprisingly, warnings about “red flag” books come up frequently in discussions around dating and relationship advice. Dating and social media profiles are common spaces where stated reading interests are used to convey or project one’s personality or values. Just having read or had a passing interest in particular book or author might not in itself be problematic. But the kinds of books that are listed as favourites, or even presented as a component of one’s identity, may be worth scrutinising.

In some cases, these observations may be pertinent, or at least entertaining. People who reference overly familiar titles like Animal Farm, The Catcher in the Rye or The Great Gatsby may not have advanced much in their reading since high school, while nonetheless wanting to appear literary.

Book blogger Ashley Holstrom cautions against what she characterises as “dude-bro and hippie-chick” books, such as The Bro Code by Barney Stinson or Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. Holstrom is also suspicious of classic and popular philosophy (“I’m not saying an interest in philosophy sucks or is a major red flag, but listing one of these boring-ass books as your all-time fave is”) and anyone whose personality revolves around their fandom for a massively popular series, such as Stephenie Meyers’ Twilight novels or Sarah J. Maas’ A Court of Thrones and Roses.

In all these cases, there is a suggestion that the content of these books may appeal to uninteresting, difficult or problematic people; the red flag suggests it is reader who should be avoided. But what about situations where the author’s actions or behaviour may create a red flag around reading their work?

Renouncing fandom

Just as our reading habits have become more public, authors are, in some respects, much less remote than they were previously. Rather than only expressing themselves through published books or articles, they are now encouraged to maintain a strong social media presence, with a regular stream of content.

While this certainly has its benefits, it does mean that authors – in all their virtues and flaws – are now more accessible as people than they have been in the past. Their histories and biographies are readily traceable. This may make it much harder to avoiding conflating problematic authors with their fiction.

In recent years, due to either private behaviour or public statements, a range of authors have been arguably tagged as “red flags” – in ways that may make reading or enjoying their work feel dubious or questionable. My feeds have been full of friends and acquaintances renouncing their fandom of J.K. Rowling and Neil Gaiman, among others (though the sexual assault charges against Gaiman have now been dropped, his documented behaviour remains problematic for many former readers).

As a result, there has been some extensive discussion of how we read and relate to authors whose personal views or actions we find objectionable. We may reasonably decline to support them financially through book sales, or enhance their visibility by discussing or promoting their work.

But what about public or private reading and enjoyment? One commentator suggests the best response is to sequester books by red flag author in a “corner of shame” if we are unable to discard them. Continuing to read and enjoy them is acceptable privately, but should be avoided in public. Other commentators have discussed their inability to separate the author from their work at all and have banished certain red flag authors from their shelves.

Insisting on a kind of cultural or political purity may result in overly cautious or antiseptic art. Closing ourselves off from authors or writers we disagree with may limit our perspective and frame of reference. I find David Mamet’s politics deeply disagreeable, but he remains an unmistakably great playwright and screenwriter.

At another level, continuing to read an author while aware of reprehensible actions or behaviour can be challenging. I would now find it impossible to read or recommend childhood favourite fantasy authors David and Leigh Eddings, knowing that they were tried and convicted for child abuse in the 1970s. Returning to the works of Marion Zimmer Bradley and Alice Munro, or the films of Woody Allen, now feels similarly impossible, in the light of the allegations against them.

But the cultural artefacts they created still have value, and may have meaning and resonance for new audiences who discover them.

Authors behaving badly

Our awareness of an author’s actions and biography may feel entirely at odds with the values that are expressed in their best work. It can become harder, for example, to accept Pablo Neruda as one of history’s greatest love poets after reading about his callous abandonment of his first wife and their disabled daughter.

How we understand and appreciate particular books may also shift when we learn more about the circumstances surrounding their creation. Recently, Saul Bellow’s biographers have given more attention to the collapse of his second marriage, which he loosely fictionalised in his novel Herzog.

Herzog focuses on the protagonist’s discussion of his suffering and humiliation in a series of unsent letters to public figures and dead philosophers. The letters are written after he discovers his wife has been having an affair with a close friend and wants a divorce.

Highly acclaimed at the time of its publication, Herzog cemented Bellow’s reputation as the preeminent American literary novelist of his generation. He would subsequently be awarded the Nobel Prize. But, as Louis Menand observes, Herzog is unmistakably a revenge novel. It aims to settle scores by slandering Bellow’s ex-wife Sondra, who is recognisable as Herzog’s cruel and unfaithful wife Madeleline. The protracted and repeated physical abuse that Bellow inflicted upon Sondra throughout their marriage is not mentioned.

Herzog is justly understood as Bellow’s masterwork. But an awareness of the motivations behind it, and the real stories that have manipulated or omitted through its composition, may complicate how it is read and received in 2026.

How we respond to these questions and choices is extremely personal. Authors are often as complex, human and multifaceted as their characters. It is reasonable to at least try to separate their fiction from the aspects of their personal lives and beliefs we may find unpalatable. But we may, individually, find lines we cannot cross, fictional worlds that we can never visit or return to.

It is important to emphasise that the question of what we choose to read is not the same as what we choose to buy. There may be authors and creators that we rightly feel that we can never support by purchasing their work. Consistently unimpeachable behaviour may be too high of a demand, but it is always possible to find an equally great writer who has not done awful things. Maybe buy their book instead.

But I am not comfortable with discarding red flag books and authors entirely, or confining them to some hidden “corner of shame”. The idea that our reading lists should be carefully curated to avoid projecting a particular persona also seems limiting.

Everyone reads and understands books differently, at different times in their lives. It can be fine – or even brave – to be a little curious about terrible people and unconscionable worldviews. We can have unique or different takes on particular red flags. Our knowledge of what is problematic about particular texts and authors may enhance our reading and make new understandings possible. Despite all evidence to the contrary, we should not close ourselves off to the possibility that a fun, charismatic David Foster Wallace fan may theoretically exist, somewhere in the world.

Reading is ultimately a social as well as a solitary activity. The publishing industry depends on crucial “word of mouth” discussions and personal recommendations. Sharing our reading interests, impressions and experiences – no matter how problematic or “performative” they may be – is important in keeping literacy alive. Our reading is a part of us, but it does not simply define us. We can all probably afford and accept a few “red flags” on our bookshelves.

– ref. Friday essay: ‘red flags’ and ‘performative reading’ – what do our reading choices say about us? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-red-flags-and-performative-reading-what-do-our-reading-choices-say-about-us-268388

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/friday-essay-red-flags-and-performative-reading-what-do-our-reading-choices-say-about-us-268388/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A South Australian Newspoll has given the Liberals just 14% of the primary vote, four weeks before the state election.

And in a Victoria Morgan poll, One Nation has topped both Labor and the Coalition on primary votes, with 26.5%, compared to 25.5% for Labor and 21.5% for the Coalition. Labor leads both One Nation and the Coalition after preferences in the poll.

A separate Victoria Resolve poll has One Nation at only 11%.

South Australian election polls

The SA state election is on March 21. A Newspoll, conducted February 11–17 from a sample of 1,057 people, gave Labor 44% of the primary vote, One Nation 24%, the Liberals just 14%, the Greens 12% and all others 6%.

With One Nation second on primary votes, no Labor vs Liberal two-party estimate was provided.

After the previous SA Fox & Hedgehog poll that had primary votes of 40% Labor, 20% One Nation and 19% Liberals, I said there was some chance of the Liberals winning zero of 47 lower house seats.

If the Newspoll figures are correct, it’s likely the Liberals will be wiped out of the SA lower house at the election, with One Nation winning the very few conservative seats.

Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas had a +40 net approval rating, with 67% of respondents satisfied with his job performance and 27% dissatisfied. Liberal leader Ashton Hurn was at +4 net approval (39% satisfied, 35% dissatisfied). Malinauskas led Hurn as better premier by 67–19%.

A SA YouGov poll for The Advertiser, conducted February 6–17 from a sample of 1,217 people, gave Labor 37% of the primary vote, One Nation 22%, the Liberals 20%, the Greens 13% and all others 8%.

On respondent preferences, Labor led One Nation by 60–40% and the Liberals by 59–41%.

Malinauskas’ net approval was +36 (64% satisfied, 28% dissatisfied). Hurn’s net approval was +7 (40% satisfied, 33% dissatisfied). Malinauskas led Hurn as better premier by 64–20%.

And 52% of respondents thought the Malinauskas government deserved to be re-elected, compared to 24% who didn’t.

Victorian Morgan poll: One Nation first on primary votes

The Victorian election is in late November. A Morgan SMS poll, conducted February 13–16 from a sample of 2,462 people, gave One Nation 26.5% of the primary vote, Labor 25.5%, the Coalition 21.5%, the Greens 13.5% and all others 13%.

On a “three-party preferred”, which distributes respondent preferences from Greens and Others between Labor, One Nation and the Coalition, Labor had 44.5%, One Nation 29.5% and the Coalition 26%. Labor led the Coalition by 52–48 and One Nation by 52.5–47.5 in two-party head to head matchups.

Even though One Nation is first on primary votes in this poll, Labor leads both right-wing parties after preferences. If the election reflected the overall votes and preferences in this poll, Labor would probably be returned to government. But there’s still over nine months until the election.

SMS polls may be prone to attracting too many motivated voters. Other methods of polling are not so prone to this. Many people just don’t care about politics.

An early February DemosAU poll had the Coalition leading Labor by 53–47 from primary votes of 29% Coalition, 23% Labor, 21% One Nation and 15% Greens. However, the Resolve poll below gave One Nation just 11%, although this poll was taken in two waves (January and February).

Labor Premier Jacinta Allan’s net approval in the Morgan poll was -37, with 67.5% disapproving and 30.5% approving. Liberal leader Jess Wilson’s net approval was +10.5. Wilson led Allan as preferred premier by 51–42.5.

Victorian Resolve poll far worse for One Nation

A Victorian state Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the federal January and February Resolve polls from a sample of 1,100, gave the Coalition 30% of the primary vote (down nine since the December Resolve poll), Labor 28% (steady), the Greens 12% (steady), One Nation 11% (not asked for previously), independents 7% (down two) and others 11% (steady).

No two-party estimate was reported, but The Poll Bludger estimated a 51–49 Labor lead over the Coalition. This poll is much worse for One Nation than the Morgan or DemosAU polls,

Despite relatively good voting intentions for Labor, Allan’s net likeability slumped 20 points to -37, only four points higher than Donald Trump’s net likeability in Australia. Wilson’s net likeability was steady at +14. Wilson led Allan as preferred premier by 39–20 (41–24 previously).

All three recent Victorian polls agree that Allan’s ratings are dismal. As voters focus on state issues in the lead-up to the election, Allan’s unpopularity is likely to drag Labor’s vote down.

Queensland Resolve poll: One Nation up and Labor down

A Queensland state Resolve poll for The Brisbane Times, conducted with the federal January and February Resolve polls from a sample of 868, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) 34% of the primary vote (up one since December), Labor 26% (down four), One Nation 16% (up seven), the Greens 10% (down one), independents 9% (up one) and others 5% (down five).

After the LNP won the October 2024 election, Labor had been competitive in this poll from August until December 2025. However, the LNP has regained a big lead, with analyst Kevin Bonham estimating a 54.6–45.4 LNP lead over Labor after preferences.

LNP Premier David Crisafulli’s net likeability surged five points to a new high of +21, while Labor leader Steven Miles was down eight points to -3. Crisafulli led Miles as preferred premier by 44–23 (35–34 previously).

Small-sample post-spill federal Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted February 13–16 (in the days following the federal Liberal leadership spill) from a sample of just 526, gave Labor 32% of the primary vote (up 1.5 since the February 9–13 pre-spill Morgan poll), the Coalition 23.5% (up 3.5), One Nation 21.5% (down 3.5), the Greens 12.5% (down 0.5) and all Others 10.5% (down one).

Labor led the Coalition by 55–45 on respondent preferences, a 3.5-point gain for the Coalition from an unusually strong flow to Labor in the pre-spill poll. By 2025 election flows, Labor would have led by about 54.5–45.5, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

Resolve poll on tax reform

I previously covered the national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers. In further questions, by 50–11 respondents supported income tax cuts.

Asked about ways to fund the tax cuts, by 66–8 respondents agreed with reducing spending, by 58–12 increasing taxation on banks, by 57–13 increasing taxation on mining companies, by 46–17 reducing negative gearing tax concessions, by 40–17 reducing capital gains tax concessions and by 36–24 reducing superannuation tax concessions. The one unpopular proposal was increasing the GST (54–18 disagreed).

Asked to pick up to three areas for spending cuts, 53% said foreign aid should be targeted, followed by 29% for renewable energy projects and 21% unemployment benefits. Foreign aid makes up just 0.5% of the total budget, renewable energy 0.6% and unemployment benefits 2.2%.

– ref. SA Newspoll shows Liberal wipeout likely; Victorian Morgan poll puts One Nation first on primaries – https://theconversation.com/sa-newspoll-shows-liberal-wipeout-likely-victorian-morgan-poll-puts-one-nation-first-on-primaries-276152

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/sa-newspoll-shows-liberal-wipeout-likely-victorian-morgan-poll-puts-one-nation-first-on-primaries-276152/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eduardo B. Sandoval, Scientia Researcher, Social Robotics, UNSW Sydney

Last year, Norwegian-US tech company 1X announced a strange new product: “the world’s first consumer-ready humanoid robot designed to transform life at home”.

Standing 168 centimetres tall and weighing in at 30 kilograms, the US$20,000 Neo bot promises to automate common household chores such as folding laundry and loading the dishwasher.

Neo has a built-in artificial intelligence (AI) system, but for tricky tasks it requires a 1X employee wearing a virtual reality helmet to remotely take over the robot. The operator can see whatever the bot does inside your house, and the process is recorded for future learning.

Other household androids are expected to hit the market this year. But Neo shows the issues at play, which will be familiar to anyone who has watched the AI boom of the past few years: products launched with great fanfare and limited capabilities, concealed privacy risks, and invisible remote workers behind the scenes.

The dream of human-like robots

Machines made in the human likeness have figured in mythology and history for millennia.

But the idea they might realistically be practical consumer products is more recent. Yet it’s a popular one: more than 50 companies around the world are developing this type of robot.

Why now? The past few years have seen improvements in hardware such as batteries, motors and sensors – many thanks to the burgeoning electric vehicle industry. At the same time, the AI systems to control the hardware have also become far more capable.

Hurdles remain

Despite huge technical progress, these robots are still clumsy at handling everyday tasks in homes or hospitals or other uncontrolled environments. While specialised bots such as vacuum cleaners have become a familiar sight, the fact remains that human homes aren’t designed for robots.

And for many fiddly tasks, such as folding laundry, more specialised machines do a better job.

To improve performance, the robots will need a lot of real-world data. The best way to gather that data is by putting these mechanical servants to work in actual homes. And the data in question will include a lot of intimate detail about the lives of specific people – which raises big questions about privacy.

And behind the scenes, at least for now, will be humans. Remote online labour in the tech industry is a growing phenomenon that can increase socioeconomic inequality and have a negative impact on people in developing countries working long hours for low pay, often exposed to disturbing scenes and content.

Other uses for humanoid bots

According to the International Federation of Robotics, useful and widely accepted home androids may still be 20 years away.

But there are other reasons we might want to make artificial humanoids. Japanese researcher Hiroshi Ishiguro has been making human-like “geminoids” for decades with quite different motivations.

My motivation for making humanoid robots stems from an interest in understanding what makes us human, and what it means to be human.

From this perspective, humanoid robots can serve the philosophical exploration of human identity, rather than making life more convenient or generating profits.

What’s ahead

Autonomous humanoid robots will undoubtedly improve as products with the integration of large language models and other generative AI systems.

In the long term, dexterity, navigation, learning and autonomy will get better – but that will require years of research and investment. Humanoid robots will not be immediately available as convincing and useful commercial products.

Concerns around remote work may fade, too. Just last week, 1X announced a software update for its robots that it says will mean less human involvement behind the scenes.

Privacy concerns seem an inherent risk of the technology. An incredibly sophisticated robot in your home will inevitably collect intimate data about your life, opening a new frontier for data exploitation and potential breaches.

Despite these issues, humanoid robots will keep inspiring scientists, engineers and designers. By all means let them inspire us – but we should think twice before letting them stack our dishwashers.

– ref. Humanoid home robots are on the market – but do we really want them? – https://theconversation.com/humanoid-home-robots-are-on-the-market-but-do-we-really-want-them-270370

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/humanoid-home-robots-are-on-the-market-but-do-we-really-want-them-270370/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Priscilla Dunk-West, Professor of Social Work, Victoria University

Should we do couples counselling? Are we happy? Are we both pulling in the same direction? How can we get our spark back?

These kinds of questions are normal in a society that places such importance on coupledom, despite there being no handbook or one-size-fits all approach.

Many people seek out couples counselling when going through a rough patch, or wondering how to improve their relationship. And no doubt the hit show Couples Therapy has boosted public interest in this type of counselling.

So, how do you decide if it’s right for you – and what should you expect?

Should we get couples counselling?

Relationship satisfaction changes over time. Research shows even knowing this can help couples navigate the usual ups and downs of life together.

Some research also shows couples therapy can help lower relationship distress (which might include things such as frequent arguments or feeling dissatisfied in your relationship).

It may be suitable for some couples who want to work through infidelity or stressors such as caregiving responsibilities.

Others may seek out preventative couples counselling, which is focused on finding ways to improve communications before your relationship reaches crisis point.

Does it work? Well, some research has found certain types of counselling did help cut the divorce rate among newlyweds – but so too did getting couples to simply watch romance movies together and discuss the themes with their partner.

Overall, much depends on your motivation for seeking counselling and the mindset you’re bringing to it. Ask yourself: what do I want to work on, and what do I hope to achieve?

If your goal is to get someone to “take your side”, counselling may not help. A good couples counsellor should remain neutral, and they’re not there to take sides.

Many who seek couples counselling do so because they’re arguing and disagreeing a lot with their partner. If that’s you, it might help to let go of notions about who is “right” and move beyond anger. Instead, the focus in counselling may be on finding new conflict resolution skills.

Counselling may help with:

• improving communication skills

• making better connections with each other

• exploring the couples’ hopes for the future

• identifying what’s blocking them from achieving these goals.

Couples counselling isn’t always about staying together. Some use it to explore how to separate in a way that centres the needs of children.

Others may have specific issues with intimacy or sex. In that case, a sexual health counsellor or sex therapist may be more suitable than a standard couples counsellor. You can find one via professional organisations.

With a sex therapist, you and your partner might talk about things such as:

• mismatched libidos

• bodily changes, for example, to do with ageing

• expectations around sex

• communication around sex

• making adjustments to the way you interact to resolve these issues.

Importantly, though, not everyone needs therapy, or would benefit from it.

It’s no silver bullet.

Not for everyone

The problems or harms in some relationships will not be resolved through talking therapy. The most obvious is where violence and/or coercive control is used: safety planning, not couples counselling, is more appropriate.

And it’s important to remember the problems that lead people to conflict or counselling sometimes have structural causes that can’t be “fixed” by a few therapy sessions. For instance, perhaps your relationship is suffering because you’re experiencing stress at work, financial pressures, or you’re supporting a partner with depression. These are complex structural issues.

It’s also unclear how long the benefits of couples counselling last. One study noted “many distressed couples benefit during relationship education courses but that these benefits decline when the program ends.”

How do people choose a counsellor?

There’s a wide range of therapeutic techniques.

One famous approach is called the Gottman method, where couples focus on things such as creating “love maps” recording what you know about your partner, nurturing fondness, turning toward each other instead of away and solving problems. Famously, the Gottman approach also identifies the “four horsemen” of a relationship apocalypse: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling.

Other couples counsellors will take more of a psychological or psychoanalytical approach, informed by techniques such as cognitive behavioural therapy.

Relationships Australia provides a range of services including relationship counselling.

At the end of the day what matters most is that you and your couples counsellor “click”; if you don’t gel with yours, it’s OK to find a new one.

Love is about doing

It can be helpful to use American author bell hooks’ idea of love as a practice of “doing” rather than a passive “being”. In other words, love is about doing things (for each other, together, or for yourself to fuel your relationship) rather than just about “being in love”.

Couples in long-term, contented relationships engage in day-to-day love practices, such as making a coffee for your partner, or watching a show together.

So, consider snuggling up on the couch with your partner to watch something together. Perhaps even Couples Therapy can provide a healthy prompt to reflect on and appreciate one another in a new light.

– ref. Is couples counselling right for me and will the therapist take sides? An expert explains – https://theconversation.com/is-couples-counselling-right-for-me-and-will-the-therapist-take-sides-an-expert-explains-275431

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/is-couples-counselling-right-for-me-and-will-the-therapist-take-sides-an-expert-explains-275431/