惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

Cisco Talos Blog
Cisco Talos Blog
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
A
About on SuperTechFans
H
Help Net Security
F
Full Disclosure
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
IT之家
IT之家
K
KPMG report finds enterprise disconnect between AI and its ROI | CIO
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
H
Heimdal Security Blog
博客园_首页
cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
B
Blog RSS Feed
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
V2EX - 技术
V2EX - 技术
The Register - Security
The Register - Security
Security Archives - TechRepublic
Security Archives - TechRepublic
G
GRAHAM CLULEY
美团技术团队
S
Securelist
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
Vercel News
Vercel News
L
LINUX DO - 最新话题
Hacker News: Ask HN
Hacker News: Ask HN
W
WeLiveSecurity
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
月光博客
月光博客
Attack and Defense Labs
Attack and Defense Labs
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
博客园 - Franky
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
I
InfoQ
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
Forbes - Security
Forbes - Security
罗磊的独立博客
O
OpenAI News
AI
AI
cs.CV updates on arXiv.org
cs.CV updates on arXiv.org
雷峰网
雷峰网
S
Security @ Cisco Blogs
MongoDB | Blog
MongoDB | Blog
Schneier on Security
Schneier on Security
P
Proofpoint News Feed
Webroot Blog
Webroot Blog
V
Visual Studio Blog

Vox

Vox Vox Vox Vox Vox Vox Trump says Cuba is “next.” What does that mean? What twins can teach us about friendship Trump’s next redistricting targets Graham Platner’s triumph, explained by a Maine reporter A major new study found AI outperformed doctors in ER diagnosis — but there’s a catch What China is learning from the US war in Iran The surprising reason why buying guns helps endangered species Why “neighborism” is having a moment This is what it takes to become Trump’s attorney general The Voting Rights Act is all but dead. Prepare for maximum gerrymandering. Activists tried to free 2,000 dogs bred for lab research in Wisconsin. Then came the tear gas. The sad, ugly debate behind the new Michael Jackson biopic We’re missing the economic fallout of the Iran war — just like we did with Covid Why famous people want to be death doulas This billionaire could be California’s next governor — and he wants to arrest Stephen Miller What really happened after Trump slashed HIV funding What haunts America’s animal shelter workers James Comey gets indicted (again) The numbers on US political violence MAHA wellness culture is coming for teens. Grown-ups aren’t ready. Renewable energy just broke a 100-year-old streak What Trump wants out of the Correspondents’ Dinner shooting The Supreme Court seems nervous about letting the police track you with your phone Has Lena Dunham changed? Have we? The great 2028 Olympic ticket crashout, explained Democrats’ latest critique of Walmart is wrong — and dangerous The surprising reason why pedestrian deaths are down in the US Welcome to the May issue of The Highlight Should you feel guilty for killing the bugs in your house? What we know about the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Caregiving has a burnout problem 5 of your biggest questions about the Iran war, answered Why colleges are going out of business How charities should handle the next Jeffrey Epstein Live Nation lost. Will anything change for ticket prices? Are the latest Iran talks for real? Can Mayor Mamdani get Democrats back on track? Why America’s HIV epidemic hasn’t ended The 1980s sex scandal that explains TMZ’s move to DC The real problem with Hasan Piker The return of resistance crafting The most successful health campaign in modern history Nobody is laughing at Donald Trump anymore Trump’s big marijuana move Please don’t inject yourself with bootleg peptides Am I the bad friend? Democrats are winning the redistricting war — for now, anyway Yes, you need “me time.” Here’s how to do it right. The next global Trump ally to fall? Trump’s cruel plan for Afghan refugees, briefly explained The wide-ranging fallout from the Supreme Court’s new terrorism decision, explained The best thing you can do for the planet on Earth Day What happens when a tradwife has to put her money where her mouth is Why are states unleashing millions of these fish? Anthropic just made AI scarier Another Trump official exits in scandal Want to fight climate change effectively? Here’s where to donate your money. The Supreme Court will decide if migrants can be sent back to war zones The fight for paid parental leave is more winnable than you think Virginia voters just handed Democrats another win in the Great Redistricting Wars Why the Pentagon is dropping a flu vaccine mandate The war in Iran isn’t ending — it’s becoming something new The diabolical, millennial obsession with chicken Caesar wraps Can you profit off nature without destroying it? These venture capitalists are betting on it. Is it wrong to send your kid to private school? What do we lose when we erase ugliness? RFK Jr. is in his influencer era The lucky few who can apply for tariff refunds How to make unemployment suck a little less The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you Israel’s critics are winning the battle for the Democratic Party Is “time confetti” ruining parenthood? What to do about burnout at work Rubén Gallego on why he defended Eric Swalwell — and why he regrets it now The simple question that could change your career How Americans really feel about immigration Is the Strait of Hormuz really open? An expert forecasts how the Iran war could hit your budget Live Nation lost in court. Here’s what it means for concerts. How to ask for help when you’re really going through it Trump’s ceasefire announcement, briefly explained What to know about the Israel-Lebanon conflict The alcohol crisis quietly hitting high-stress, “high-status” workers Trump’s bungled Iran negotiations didn’t have to go this way Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions Donald Trump messed with the wrong pope 8 ways to zone out and relax that don’t involve being on your phone Why Americans can’t escape credit card debt A cautionary tale about tax cuts The tax code rewards generosity. But probably not yours. Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups The case for AI realism The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained Why inflation is up
First comes marriage. Then comes a flirtatious colleague.
Sigal Samuel · 2026-06-14 · via Vox

Editor’s note, June 14, 8 am ET: We’re bringing you some of our best-loved Your Mileage May Vary columns while Sigal Samuel is on parental leave. The one below originally published on June 8, 2025.

This unconventional advice column offers you a unique framework for thinking through moral dilemmas. It’s based on value pluralism: the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Stay tuned for more original Your Mileage May Vary columns coming in June. In the meantime, submit your own question here.

My husband and I have a good relationship. We’re both committed to personal growth and continual learning and have developed very strong communication skills. A couple of years ago we were exposed to some friends with an open marriage and had our own conversations about ethical non-monogamy. At first, neither of us were interested.

Now, my husband is interested and currently is attracted to a colleague who is also into him. She’s married and has no idea that he and I talk about all of their interactions. He doesn’t know what her relationship agreements are with her husband.

I’m not currently interested in ethical non-monogamy. I see things in our relationship that I’d like to work on together with my husband. I want more of his attention and energy, to be frank. I don’t want his attention and energy being funneled into another relationship. I don’t have moral issues with ethical non-monogamy, I just don’t actually see any value-add for me right now. The cost-benefit analysis leaves me saying “not now.”

My husband admitted that he’s hoping I will have a change of mind. I don’t want to force his hand, although I am continuing to say very clearly what I want in my relationship. How do we reach a compromise? If he cuts ties with this woman, he has resentment towards me. If he continues to pursue something with her, I feel disrespected, and while I don’t want to leave him I would feel the need to do something.

Dear Monogamously Married,

I want to start by commending you for two things. First, for your openness to discussing and exploring all this with your husband. Second, for your insistence on clearly stating what you actually want — and don’t want.

I think Erich Fromm, the 20th-century German philosopher and psychologist, would back me up in saying that you’d do well to hold tight to both those qualities. For starters, radical openness is important because, according to Fromm, the basic premise of love is freedom. He writes:

Love is a passionate affirmation of its “object.” That means that love is not an “affect” but an active striving, the aim of which is the happiness, development, and freedom of its “object.”

In other words, love is not a feeling. It’s work, and the work of love is to fully support the flourishing of the person you love. That can be scary — what if the person discovers that they’re actually happier with somebody else? — which is why Fromm specifies that only someone with a strong self “which can stand alone and bear solitude” will be up for the job. He continues:

This passionate affirmation is not possible if one’s own self is crippled, since genuine affirmation is always rooted in strength. The person whose self is thwarted can only love in an ambivalent way; that is, with the strong part of his self he can love, with the crippled part he must hate.

Have a question you want answered in the next Your Mileage May Vary column?

Fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here!

So far, it might sound like Fromm is saying that to be a good lover is to be a doormat: You just have to do whatever’s best for the other person, even if it screws you over. But his view is very much the opposite.

In fact, Fromm cautions us against both “masochistic love” and “sadistic love.” In the first, you give up your self and sacrifice your needs in order to become submerged in another person. In the second, you try to exert power over the other person. Both of these are rooted in “a deep anxiety and an inability to stand alone,” writes Fromm; whether by dissolving yourself into them or by controlling them, you’re trying to make it impossible for the other person to abandon you. Both approaches are “pseudo-love.”

So although Fromm doesn’t want you to try to control your partner, and although he suggests that the philosophical ideal is for you to passionately affirm your partner’s freedom, he’s not advising you to do that if, for you, that will mean masochism.

If you’re not up for ethical non-monogamy — if you feel, like many people, that the idea of giving your partner free rein is too big a threat to your relationship or your own well-being — then pretending otherwise is not real love. It’s just masochistic self-annihilation.

I’m personally partial to Fromm’s non-possessive approach to love. But I equally appreciate his point that the philosophical ideal could become a practical bloodbath if it doesn’t work for the actual humans involved. I think the question, then, is this: Do you think it’s possible for you to get to a place where you genuinely feel ready for and interested in ethical non-monogamy?

It sounds like you’re intellectually open to the idea, and given that you said you’re committed to personal growth and continual learning, non-monogamy could offer you some benefits; lots of people who practice it say that part of its appeal lies in the growth it catalyzes. And if practicing non-monogamy makes you and/or your husband more fulfilled, it could enrich your relationship and deepen your appreciation for each other.

But right now, you’ve got a problem: Your husband is pushing on your boundaries by flirting with a woman even after you’ve expressed that you don’t want him pursuing something with her. And you already feel like he isn’t giving you enough attention and energy, so the prospect of having to divvy up those resources with another woman feels threatening. Fair!

Notice, though, that that isn’t a worry about non-monogamy per se — it’s a worry about the state of your current monogamous relationship.

In a marriage, what partners typically want is to feel emotionally secure. But that comes from how consistently and lovingly we show up for and attune to one another, not from the relationship structure. A monogamous marriage may give us some feeling of security, but it’s obviously no guarantee; some people cheat, some get divorced, and some stay loyally married while neglecting their partner emotionally.

“Monogamy can serve as a stand-in for actual secure attachment,” writes therapist Jessica Fern in Polysecure, a book on how to build healthy non-monogamous relationships. She urges readers to take an honest look at any relationship insecurities or dissatisfactions that are being disguised by monogamy, and work with partners to strengthen the emotional experience of the relationship.

Since you feel that your husband isn’t giving you enough attention and energy, be sure to talk to him about it. Explain that it doesn’t feel safe for you to open up the relationship without him doing more to be fully present with you and to make you feel understood and precious. See if he starts implementing these skills more reliably.

In the meantime, while you two are trying to reset your relationship, it’s absolutely reasonable to ask him to cool it with the colleague he’s attracted to; he doesn’t have to cut ties with her entirely (and may not be able to if they work together), but he can certainly avoid feeding the flames with flirtation. Right now, the fantasy of her is a distraction from the work he needs to be doing to improve the reality of your marriage. He should understand why a healthy practice of ethical non-monogamy can’t emerge from a situation where he’s pushing things too far with someone else before you’ve agreed to change the terms of your relationship (and if he doesn’t, have him read Polysecure!).

It’s probably a good idea for you to each do your own inner work, too. Fern, like Fromm, insists that if we want to be capable of a secure attachment with someone else, we need to cultivate that within ourselves. That means being aware of our feelings, desires, and needs, and knowing how to tend to them. Understanding your attachment style can help with this; for example, if you’re anxiously attached and you very often reach out to your partner for reassurance, you can practice spending time alone.

After taking some time to work on these interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, come back together to discuss how you’re feeling. Do you feel more receptive to opening up the relationship? Do you think it would add more than it would subtract?

If the answer is “yes” or “maybe,” you can create a temporary relationship structure — or “vessel,” as Fern calls it — to help you ease into non-monogamy. One option is to adopt a staggered approach to dating, where one partner (typically the more hesitant one) starts dating new people first, and the other partner starts after a predetermined amount of time. Another option is to try a months-long experiment where both partners initially engage in certain romantic or sexual experiences that are less triggering to each other, then assess what worked and what didn’t, and go from there.

If the answer is “no” — if you’re not receptive to opening up your relationship — then by all means say that! Given you’ll have sincerely done the work to explore whether non-monogamy works for you, your husband doesn’t get to resent you. He can be sad, he can be disappointed, and he can choose to leave if the outcome is intolerable to him. But he’ll have to respect you, and what’s more important, you’ll have to respect yourself.

Bonus: What I’m reading

  • This week’s question prompted me to go back to the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow, who was influenced by Fromm. Maslow spoke of two kinds of love: Deficit-Love and Being-Love. The former is about trying to satiate your own needs, while the latter is about giving without expecting something in return. Maslow characterizes Being-Love as an almost spiritual experience, likening it to “the perfect love of their God that some mystics have described.”
  • In addition to Polysecure, which has become something of a poly bible in the past few years, I recommend reading What Love Is and What It Could Be, written by the philosopher Carrie Jenkins. I appreciated Jenkins’s functionalist take on romantic love: She explains that we’ve constructed the idea of romantic love a certain way in order to serve a certain function (structuring society into nuclear family units), but we can absolutely revise it if we want.
  • Many people are already revising the traditional view of romantic love. As a piece in Wired documents, millennials and Gen Z are increasingly forming non-hierarchal relationships with multiple partners and friends. This is often referred to as “relationship anarchy,” a term coined in 2006 by writer Andie Nordgren, who said it “questions the idea that love is a limited resource that can only be real if restricted to a couple.”