Laura: Most relationship advice is designed to help you find 'The One.' But what if the secret to a secure, loving relationship is realizing there might be a 'Two,' or a 'Three,' and that the rulebook for 'The One' is actually holding you back? Sophia: Huh. That really lands. Because every movie, every book, every song is about that one singular person. The entire cultural script is written for a cast of two. If you have a third or fourth person in your life, you're basically off-script, with no director. Laura: Exactly. You’re improvising in a world that only has one approved storyline. And that feeling of being off-map is exactly what we're exploring today. We’re diving into a book that has become a cornerstone for so many people navigating this, Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Nonmonogamy by Jessica Fern. Sophia: And what’s so compelling here is that Fern isn't just an author; she's a psychotherapist who specializes in trauma. She wrote this from a place of deep clinical and personal experience, which I think gives it a weight that a lot of self-help books lack. This isn't just theory; it's born from real people's struggles. Laura: It absolutely is. In fact, she opens the book with a story that perfectly captures the problem we’re talking about—the pain of trying to use a map for the wrong city.

Sophia: I’m curious, what happened? Laura: She tells the story of a man she calls Corey. Corey is in a polyamorous relationship. He lives with his husband and child, and he also has a partner, the author, who lives in a nearby town. He knows he has an anxious attachment style, and he really wants to build a secure, loving bond with her. Sophia: Okay, so he's self-aware. He's trying to do the work. That's a great start. Laura: A great start, but he hits a wall. He and the author decide to listen to a popular audiobook on attachment theory together. But as they listen, Corey gets more and more discouraged. The book's advice for building security is all things like: move in together, merge your finances, make each other your number one emergency contact, become primary partners. Sophia: Oh, I see the problem. All of that advice assumes you only have one main partner. For him, those things are already in place with his husband. It's completely inapplicable to his other loving relationship. Laura: Precisely. He feels like a failure before he even starts. The book is essentially telling him that the only way to be secure is through a structure he can't, and doesn't want to, replicate with another partner. It pathologizes his relationship. Sophia: That's heartbreaking. It’s like being told the only way to be healthy is to eat apples, but you live on an island that only grows oranges. So you're just doomed. What does Fern call this phenomenon? This underlying assumption that there's only one right way. Laura: She calls it "mononormativity." It’s the pervasive, often invisible, societal assumption that monogamy is the default, the superior, and the most natural way to conduct relationships. It’s baked into our laws, our media, and, as Corey discovered, our psychology books. Sophia: Okay, but let me push back a little, playing devil's advocate here. Isn't it possible that those books are right? That maybe these kinds of relationships are just inherently more insecure? I mean, that’s the common wisdom, right? More people means more jealousy, more instability. Laura: That is absolutely the common wisdom. And it’s what makes Fern’s work so important. She points to the research, which is admittedly still a growing field, but what exists is fascinating. One major study she cites found no significant difference in attachment anxiety between people in monogamous and non-monogamous relationships. Sophia: No difference in anxiety? Wow. Laura: And here's the kicker: the same study found that people practicing consensual non-monogamy actually reported lower levels of attachment avoidance. Sophia: Wait, lower avoidance? How is that possible? Laura: The thinking is that to succeed in CNM, you have to communicate. You have to talk about jealousy, boundaries, and needs constantly. You can't just rely on the silent, built-in rules of monogamy. You are forced to lean in and engage, which is the opposite of avoidance. So the very structure that seems insecure might actually build the skills that lead to more security. Sophia: That’s a fantastic paradox. The lack of a safety net forces you to become a better climber. Laura: A perfect analogy. You can't just fall back on the structure of the relationship, like marriage or being a "primary," for your security. You have to build it through the quality of your interactions. Sophia: Okay, so if the old map is wrong, and the old structures aren't the source of security... what is? What does Jessica Fern’s new map look like? How do you build security without those traditional guardrails?

Laura: Well, the first thing she does is completely reframe what "security" even depends on. She introduces what she calls the "Nested Model of Attachment and Trauma." Sophia: That sounds very academic. Break it down for me. Laura: Think of it like a set of Russian nesting dolls. At the very center is you—your 'Self' level. That's your own history, your temperament, your self-care. The next doll out is the 'Relationship' level—your one-on-one bonds. But it doesn't stop there. Sophia: Okay, I’m with you so far. Laura: The next doll is 'Home'—the actual physical and emotional environment of your household. Then 'Community'—your friends, your workplace, your social circles. Then 'Society'—the larger cultural and political systems. And finally, the 'Global' level—your connection to the planet and collective consciousness. Her point is that a rupture in any of these outer layers can destabilize your core. Sophia: Whoa. So you’re saying my feeling of security in my romantic relationship could be shaken by, say, losing my job or feeling disconnected from my neighborhood? Laura: Exactly. She tells a story about a client who had a perfectly secure attachment with her parents—the 'Relationship' level was solid. But her family moved four times in a few years. That constant disruption at the 'Home' level left her with a deep-seated anxiety in her adult relationships, a feeling that as soon as she gets comfortable, the rug will be pulled out from under her. Her insecurity wasn't coming from her partner; it was coming from an echo of a different layer of her life. Sophia: That is a massive idea. It takes the pressure off the romantic partner to be the sole source of all safety and security. It distributes the load. Laura: It completely distributes the load. And once you see that, you can start to build security in a more intentional, architectural way. And for that 'Relationship' level, she gives us a wonderfully practical toolkit, an acronym: HEARTS. Sophia: An acronym, I love a good acronym. What does it stand for? Laura: It stands for: Here (being present), Expressed Delight, Attunement, Rituals and Routines, Turning Towards after conflict, and the big one, Secure attachment with Self. Sophia: That's a lot to unpack. Let's pick one. 'Expressed Delight' sounds... potentially cheesy. How do you do that in a way that feels genuine, especially in a polyamorous context where someone might be feeling insecure or competitive? Laura: That's the perfect one to pick, because it's designed to combat that exact feeling. Expressed delight isn't just a generic "you're so great." It's about specificity. It’s telling a partner, "I was just thinking about the way you analyze movies, and it just lights up my brain. No one else sees films the way you do." Sophia: Ah, so it’s about highlighting their unique, irreplaceable value. Laura: Precisely. It’s saying, "My connection with this other person doesn't diminish what is special and unique about you and our connection." It’s a direct antidote to the fear of being interchangeable. It’s not about ranking partners, but celebrating the distinct flavor each one brings. Sophia: I can see how that would be incredibly reassuring. It’s like telling someone they are your favorite painting in a gallery full of beautiful art. It doesn't mean the other art isn't beautiful, but your connection to that specific piece is unique. Laura: That's a beautiful way to put it. And each letter of HEARTS has that same practical, targeted function. 'Rituals,' for example, could be as simple as how you always say goodbye and hello, creating predictability. 'Turning Towards' is about the skill of repair after a fight, which builds trust that the bond can withstand conflict. It’s a blueprint for building a secure emotional home, together.

Sophia: You know, as you lay all this out, a central idea is really crystallizing for me. It feels like the book is arguing that security isn't a structure you inherit, like a house you just move into with a partner. It’s something you have to actively build, brick by brick, with intention. And Fern is giving you the architectural plans. Laura: That's the perfect summary. And maybe the most radical part of that blueprint is the final brick, the foundation itself. The 'S' in HEARTS: Secure attachment with Self. Fern argues that you have to become your own safe haven and your own secure base first. Sophia: What does that mean, to be your own safe haven? Laura: It means learning to soothe your own distress, to be present with your own difficult emotions without needing someone else to fix them immediately. It’s about developing self-compassion. Her point is that if you don't have that internal foundation, you'll always be outsourcing your security to your partners, making them responsible for your emotional well-being. And that's a fragile system, whether you have one partner or five. Sophia: Wow. So the book, while it's called Polysecure, is really about a kind of universal emotional self-reliance. It’s not just for non-monogamous people. Laura: Not at all. The principles are universal. The book has been so widely acclaimed because it uses the complexities of polyamory as a lens to reveal truths about all relationships. It forces us to ask questions that people in monogamous relationships can often ignore by relying on the default script. Sophia: That makes me wonder, then, how many of us, even in the most traditional monogamous relationships, are just outsourcing our security instead of truly building it ourselves? It’s a question for everyone, really. Laura: It really is. And it’s a powerful place to start. We'd love to hear what you think. Does this idea of 'building' security instead of 'finding' it resonate with you? Find us on our socials and join the conversation. Sophia: We’d love to hear your stories. Laura: This is Aibrary, signing off.