Oscar-winning actress and lifestyle tycoon Gwyneth Paltrow made news this week when she disclosed that she and her husband, producer Brad Falchuk, don’t always live together.

The founder of lifestyle company Goop said in an interview with The Sunday Times earlier this week that Brad spends four nights a week at her house and the rest of the time with his children from a previous marriage.

This arrangement is unusual, owing to the fact that few families have the financial means to run two residences or the mental energy to figure out who would monitor the kids. However, it is gaining popularity, particularly among older, divorced, or widowed folks. (Paltrow is 46 years old, whereas Falchuk is 48.  They’ve both been divorced.)

It’s an arrangement with attractive benefits: less dispute over domestic housekeeping preferences, less conflicts or disturbances with older children, the joy of companionship without loss of freedom. It can’t be a coincidence that Paltrow’s “intimacy coach” lists herself as a “counselor to the stars in Hollywood” and a consultant “specializing in succession and second generation wealth strategies” on her website.

“Oh, all my married friends say that the way we live sounds ideal and we shouldn’t change a thing,” Paltrow said.

Paltrow’s support for this unconventional arrangement attracted controversy. Meghan McCain criticized Paltrow’s marital arrangement as “rich people stuff” on Monday’s broadcast of “The View,” while Whoopi Goldberg vigorously supported it.

It’s referred to as “living apart together,” or LAT, by social scientists.

According to experts, LAT couples may discover that a little amount of distance may help break up the monotony of their relationship; because you don’t see one other all day, every day, you have to be extremely purposeful about making the most of your time together. In certain circumstances, living apart might help you avoid the inertia that makes it difficult to break up when things aren’t working out.

There’s another reason to suppose it’s a good idea. Paltrow and Falchuk’s scenario, according to relationship expert and therapist Rachel Sussman, may be a creative solution to the issues of merging families.

“When you have young kids, it’s not always easy to fully blend a family,” Sussman told TIME. “Cheaper by the Dozen can glamorize or make it seem easy to blend families, but it can be complicated. And couples who blend families need to be aware of that, and be willing to think outside of the box.”

“The arrangement is especially attractive in New York, which has such a thriving public culture and little stigma about how people live their lives,” sociologist Eric Klinenberg of New York University told The New York Times in 2013. In Los Angeles, where Paltrow and Falchuk live, one might expect the same absence of stigma.

This may be a method for couples like Paltrow and Falchuk, who spend part of their time as a couple living apart, to ensure that all of their connections are healthy and thriving. There’s also the benefit of the ancient saying that “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” which Sussman claims can work if a couple has a strong bond and talks openly.

“It’s good to miss someone, it’s good to look forward to seeing someone,” she said. “You just have to make it work. With the divorce rate being what it is, I don’t know if living together with someone all the time is necessarily proven beneficial. I think what’s the most beneficial is the connection between the couple; that it’s a healthy union; that there’s love, trust, respect, communication and openness.”