British economists, in their ongoing attempt to put a price tag on every human sigh, have now declared that owning a cat or dog is emotionally equivalent to having a spouse—or receiving an extra £70,000 per year.

Congratulations.

Your emotional needs are now quantifiable, furry, and chew-resistant.

The study, published in Social Indicators Research, makes a striking claim: a companion animal boosts life satisfaction by roughly the same margin as marriage.

And in economic terms, pet ownership equates to the wellbeing you’d get if the universe direct-deposited seventy grand into your account each year, no strings attached.

Let’s pause.

Because while this is delightfully affirming to people who share their beds with golden retrievers or read their horoscopes aloud to rescue cats, it also raises the question: what the hell has happened to human relationships that dogs are now our emotional equals?

Somewhere in the woods of Dartmouth College, a group of well-meaning scientists built a therapist out of code. Not one of those chirpy “Hi! I’m here to help you!” apps that tells teenagers to do yoga when they’re suicidal. No, this was different. This one worked.\

Or at least, that’s what the numbers suggest.

A peer-reviewed, New England Journal of Medicine-certified, randomized clinical trial (which is science-speak for “not just hype”) recently demonstrated that a well-trained AI therapy bot could help people manage depression, anxiety, and even early-stage eating disorders—sometimes as well as, or even better than, your average human clinician.

Welcome to the future. Please remain seated.

The year was 5176, though nobody called it that anymore because the concept of linear time had been discontinued after the MetaChron bankruptcy in 3410.

Folks now lived in “cycles of relevance,” which meant your birthday was whatever day your profile reached peak engagement.

Our story begins in the neon-shadowed gutters of Neo-Toledo—once an Ohioan backwater, now the smut-tech capital of the Inter-AmericAlliance.

That’s where the Comfort Workers—technically named NeuroIntimacy Units™, Mark V—stood on chrome heels and pretended to be scandalized by your presence.

Of course, they weren’t human.

Not anymore.

Or maybe they never were.

The definition of “human” had been edited so many times, the UN had to outsource it to a fanfiction subreddit for consistency.

Attachment theory may have started in the nursery, but it’s in the kitchen at 9:00 PM during a standoff over who should apologize first where it truly comes to life.

As attachment-based couples therapy gains cultural traction, it’s time we take a long, critical look at what it offers, what it misses, and where it must evolve to stay relevant in an increasingly diverse, neurodiverse, and trauma-aware world.

Attachment theory is no longer confined to therapy offices and psych textbooks—it’s on TikTok, in dating app bios, and behind every viral meme about ghosting and emotional labor.

But as it surges in popularity, it's worth asking: is Attachment Theory keeping up with our culture?

Disorganized attachment has long been the ghost in the machine of couples therapy.

Defined by contradiction, confusion, and chaos, it’s the style that defies clean categorization—a nervous system primed for both approach and avoidance, intimacy and terror. T

raditionally seen as the most severe and intractable of the attachment styles, it has also been among the least understood.

But like many concepts born in the 1970s and codified in the 1990s, our understanding of disorganized attachment is now undergoing a dramatic rethinking.

This post is about that rethinking—a contrast between the old clinical map and the emerging terrain, where trauma science, neurobiology, and complexity theory are reshaping how we support disorganized individuals in relationship.

Let us begin by stating something sacrilegious in traditional attachment circles: the conventional Secure-Avoidant framework, while helpful in its day, may be running on legacy software.

Attachment theory has evolved since Bowlby and Ainsworth first introduced their elegant model, and what was once a tidy categorization has become a limiting vocabulary for increasingly complex relational realities.

In this re-examination of the Secure-Avoidant dynamic, we’ll integrate fresh research, critique conventional narratives, and explore emerging models that treat attachment not as a fixed set of traits but as a dynamic, plastic, intersubjective process shaped by culture, neurodivergence, trauma, and adult developmental trajectories.

We navigate an age of dopamine loops and disappearing attention spans, where even our to-do lists have to be optimized for virality, there's something quietly radical about paying deep, sustained attention to one another.

Not scrolling, not diagnosing, not self-optimizing—just noticing. Profoundly. Tenderly. Without agenda. Bestowed attention.

As a couples therapist, I spend my days in the land of half-heard complaints and misunderstood glances. But when a couple stumbles into what I call profound noticing, something shifts.

Tension thaws. The room softens.

One partner says to the other, “You looked so tired when you walked in, I wondered if something hard happened at work.” And suddenly, we are no longer talking about chores or mismatched libidos—we are talking about mattering.

Love in the age of lag, emojis, and algorithmic warmth is getting more complex.

Let’s begin with a simple question that’s not so simple anymore: Can a heart emoji ever replace a hug?

Welcome to 2025, where some parents tuck in their kids over FaceTime, lovers schedule digital date nights from opposite time zones, and families mourn, celebrate, and check in through carefully curated text threads.

The technology is intimate. The connection is real. But is it enough?

Or, to put it bluntly: Can digital intimacy stand in for physical

affection—or is it a beautifully lit facsimile, a love story stuck in 720p?

Let’s begin with a beautiful thought:

“Compersion is when your partner experiences joy with someone else, and instead of feeling jealousy, you feel happiness for them.”

Lovely, right?

It sounds like spiritual enlightenment with better sex. It sounds like love unchained from ownership, love evolved beyond mammalian insecurity. It sounds like something written on driftwood in a polyamorous co-op bathroom in Vermont.

But here’s the truth: compersion is a useful lie.

It’s a noble fiction, like Santa Claus, or bipartisan cooperation. It’s an idea so beautiful, so aspirational, that even if it doesn’t quite work in reality, we feel compelled to believe in it anyway—like a unicorn grazing in Shangri-La.

And no, this isn’t an attack on polyamory. Quite the opposite.

This is an inquiry into whether compersion can exist without polyamory, and what it tells us about human attachment, jealousy, and the myth of boundless love.

So far in 2025, these specific search queries are on the rise:

• “Why I left polyamory”

• “Poly burnout symptoms”

• “Can polyamory cause emotional exhaustion?”

As more people explore ethical non-monogamy, another trend is quietly gaining momentum: polyamory burnout.

In forums like Reddit’s r/polyamory and confessionals across Medium and TikTok, people are beginning to share their polyamory exit stories—a new phase of visibility for a movement that once promised boundless love and emotional liberation.

This post explores polyamory burnout from the inside, through the story of an imaginary therapy client named Mirelle.

Her emotional exhaustion, identity fatigue, and eventual return to monogamy illustrate a broader phenomenon emerging in 2025.

We’ll look at current research, poly burnout symptoms, and why many are stepping back from polyamorous relationships without shame or regret.

If emerging intimacy trends in 2025 were high school students, these would be the quietly interesting ones in the corner—not viral cheerleaders yet, but pulling focus just the same.

They’re not dominating the feeds (yet), but they’re generating real curiosity, engagement, and that odd but promising mix of hope and embarrassment. Here's your early access tour.

If ambition is the espresso shot of capitalism, underachievement is the warm cup of chamomile tea you sip while everyone else is bouncing off the walls and sweating through their dress shirts.

You are not racing. You are not optimizing. You are simply vibing. And contrary to popular belief, vibing can be virtuous.

Welcome to the gentle, rebellious philosophy of underachieving—where mediocrity isn’t a failure, but a survival tactic wrapped in a soft hoodie of wisdom.