Marriage held steady as flirtation tests boundaries

marriage boundaries – In a new advice column, a wife describes how her husband’s growing interest in a married colleague is clashing with her desire to repair their relationship and keep attention focused at home. The columnist argues that love requires freedom and secure attachmen

At home, they had already built a relationship that felt strong—at least on paper. The couple communicated well. talked seriously about personal growth. and had even discussed ethical non-monogamy after being exposed to friends with an open marriage. But the current problem isn’t a theoretical debate. It’s a married colleague, and the way the wife says her husband’s attention is drifting toward someone else.

The wife. writing in “Your Mileage May Vary. ” says her husband is now interested in ethical non-monogamy and is attracted to the colleague. The colleague is married and, according to the wife, has no idea the couple has conversations about her interactions. The husband, she adds, doesn’t know the colleague’s relationship agreements with her husband.

She describes her own position plainly: she is not interested in ethical non-monogamy right now. She says she wants to work on issues within their marriage—specifically. that she wants more of her husband’s attention and energy. She isn’t objecting on moral grounds; she says the cost-benefit analysis for her comes out to “not now.”.

Her husband, she says, admits he is hoping she will change her mind. She insists she doesn’t want to force him—while continuing to say clearly what she wants in the relationship. The compromise question is immediate and tense: if he cuts ties with the colleague, she says he will resent her. If he continues pursuing something with her. she feels disrespected and says she would feel the need to do something. even though she doesn’t want to leave.

The columnist begins by praising the wife’s openness and her insistence on stating what she wants and doesn’t want. She then leans on the philosopher and psychologist Erich Fromm, arguing that love is rooted in freedom. Fromm’s writing. as quoted in the column. frames love not as a feeling but as an active striving aimed at the happiness. development. and freedom of the person you love.

The columnist pushes that idea further. warning that love can fail when someone’s sense of self is “crippled” in Fromm’s terms—when affirmation becomes hard. and love becomes ambivalent. She also draws on Fromm’s cautions against what he calls “masochistic love” and “sadistic love. ” describing them as pseudo-love rooted in anxiety and an inability to stand alone.

From that foundation, the columnist argues that the philosophical ideal can’t be treated like a commandment. If non-monogamy would mean masochism for the wife, then pretending she is fine with it wouldn’t be real love. The question. she says. is whether it’s possible for the wife to reach a place where she genuinely feels ready and interested in ethical non-monogamy.

At the same time, she doesn’t let the couple bypass the crisis in front of them. She reframes the core issue as not really about non-monogamy itself. What’s driving the wife’s alarm. she writes. is the condition of their current monogamous relationship—especially her sense that her husband isn’t giving enough attention and energy.

In a marriage, she says, partners usually want emotional security. But she points to therapist Jessica Fern’s argument—via Fern’s book “Polysecure”—that security comes from consistent attunement. not from the structure of monogamy alone. The column quotes Fern emphasizing that readers should examine relationship insecurities that may be disguised by monogamy and then work with a partner to strengthen the emotional experience.

So the next step, the columnist writes, is not to ask the wife to swallow her discomfort. It’s to ask her husband to adjust how he shows up. She urges the wife to talk to her husband about how unsafe it doesn’t feel to open the relationship without him doing more to be fully present. understood. and valued. If he starts implementing those skills more reliably, the relationship can move forward on firmer ground.

As they work on that. she says it’s “absolutely reasonable” for the wife to ask her husband to cool it with the colleague he’s attracted to. She doesn’t insist he must cut ties entirely, noting it may not be possible if they work together. But she says he can avoid feeding flirtation—because the fantasy of another person is. in her view. a distraction from the reality work they need to do to improve their marriage.

The columnist also calls for parallel responsibility. She recommends inner work for both partners—again referencing Fern’s emphasis on building secure attachment within yourself. including awareness of feelings. desires. and needs. She adds that understanding attachment style can help; she gives an example of an anxiously attached person reaching out for reassurance and practicing spending time alone.

After that, she says the couple should come back together and revisit the question: whether the wife would be more receptive to opening the relationship, and whether it would add more than it subtracts.

If the answer comes out as “yes” or “maybe,” the columnist suggests a temporary structure. She describes Fern’s term “vessel” for easing into non-monogamy. One option in the column is a staggered approach to dating. where the more hesitant partner starts dating new people first. and the other partner starts after a predetermined amount of time. Another option is a months-long experiment in which both partners engage in certain romantic or sexual experiences that are less triggering to each other. then assess what worked and what didn’t.

If the answer is “no,” she says the wife shouldn’t be the one blamed. She argues that after sincerely doing the work to explore non-monogamy, the husband doesn’t get to resent her. He can be sad or disappointed. and he can choose to leave if the outcome is intolerable—but she says he has to respect her. and more importantly. she has to respect herself.

The column ends with a reading list tied to the question. The columnist says the wife’s question prompted her to revisit Abraham Maslow. who—she writes—was influenced by Fromm and spoke of two kinds of love: Deficit-Love and Being-Love. She also recommends “What Love Is and What It Could Be. ” by philosopher Carrie Jenkins. describing Jenkins’s view that romantic love has been constructed in ways that serve social functions like structuring society into nuclear family units. and that the concept can be revised.

The columnist adds that a Wired piece she refers to documents how millennials and Gen Z are increasingly forming non-hierarchal relationships with multiple partners and friends. often called “relationship anarchy.” She notes that the term was 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.”.

ethical non-monogamy marriage relationship boundaries emotional security attachment style advice column