In the past few years, thanks to journalists, TikTok, and television, the word “polyamory,” or as some of its proponents call it, “ethical non-monogamy,” has entered mainstream American discourse. The word—itself an ungainly combination of a Greek prefix and a Latin root—denotes an equally unsuitable joining of two (or more) people who wish not to be bound by the obligations of fidelity. Kay Hymowitz comments on a recent spate of articles on the phenomenon:

How could polyamory be ethical? First, partners are supposed to be completely honest with each other. They are not hiding their other relationships; therefore, they argue, they are not cheating. Second, they have frank conversations about emotions like jealousy and fear of abandonment designed to anticipate and respect a partner’s emotions. . . . Though few in the polyamory lobby admit it, this means successful non-monogamy requires a particular kind of high-functioning person. They must be exceptionally high in conscientiousness and executive functioning, and exceptionally low in impulsivity.

Geoffrey Miller, a married, non-monogamous professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico, wasn’t joking when he said that polyamory benefits from modern inventions like contraception, STI testing, cities with a wide selection of educated partners—and Google calendar.

[Yet] as educated and conscientious as many polyamorists may be, they cannot solve the problem of self-delusion. People don’t just lie to their partners; they lie to themselves. They often aren’t sure what they really want today, not to mention what they’ll want next month.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.