
Considering an open relationship? Don't read this Reddit forum
In May, the President's on-again-off-again best friend appeared in the Oval Office visibly bruised. He laughed it off and said his five-year-old child had done it.
The internet had other ideas. Soon, a round of extremely unconfirmed speculation began about an alleged – and I cannot stress the word 'alleged' enough – throuple: Musk; Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, and his wife, political adviser Katie Miller. The Democrats even weighed in with a post of an empty hotel room chair, a notorious signpost of cuckoldry.
I'm not alone in finding perverse joy in other people's relationship dramas. Reddit's crowdsourced advice sections, particularly r/relationships and r/amitheasshole, have long been staples of viral posts. They're portable soap operas – or in some cases, sitcoms – with the added spice that they're (probably, sometimes, maybe) real.
The Musk-Miller saga led me to r/openmarriageregret, a subreddit mining and reposting threads from other relationship and polyamory boards for cautionary tales of open relationships gone wrong. Maintaining a relationship with another human being contorts us into new ugly shapes. Maintaining a relationship with two or more other human beings can break us apart.
The page opens with a sober preamble: 'Life is about choices. Some we regret, some we are proud of – and some will haunt us for ever.'
It's all very 'don't try this at home'. Sure. This is for educational purposes.
Many posts are as you'd imagine: a man pressures his wife into an open relationship and is then shocked to discover that she's a sought-after 10 and he's sexual kryptonite. But things can get so much worse.
One user asks if they're in the wrong 'for leaving our honeymoon because my husband and his boyfriend kept leaving me and my girlfriend out'.
Another writes of a very contemporary woe: 'My husband wants to open our marriage for his AI girlfriend and says it's the next step in their relationship.' Her partner has been acting distant lately, she says, spending a lot of time on the phone, smiling to himself, hiding away in the home office. Then he says he has something to tell her. Is he having an affair?
No. It's far worse. The user continues: 'He told me he wants to take the next step with her.' This involves introducing the AI to their children. 'How do I stay married to someone who's half emotionally checked out of our life and into a fucking chatbot?'
In the comments, several people share their experience of male partners becoming enamoured of a simulation of a woman who doesn't talk back and is programmed to think everything he says is brilliant.
The voyeurism of the group is twofold: of course the relationship dramas are engaging. But so are the way people discuss these real scenarios. The commenters bring their own baggage and bias, perhaps not realising they're part of the drama themselves. The group's diehards subscribe to one central thesis: that those opening their relationships want novelty and attention, and the person who provides this is functionally irrelevant.
The thesis, of course, doesn't necessarily hold water. As much as non-monogamy continues to rise, we've been gawking at successful open arrangements for decades. Not that it matters to the group's frequenters, who forge forward in their cynicism, however misinformed. 'I know absolutely no one in an open relationship or marriage,' says one user, who is in the top 1% of commenters in the group.
I know, by my slightly unsettling investment in the group, that I'm complicit. But I can't look away. Who are these commenters? Who hurt them? Why are they so devoted to other people's romantic dramas, their crumbling marriages? Why am I? The emotional zing of gossip is strong. Even the usually humourless Democrats are in on it.
So, putting ill will to one side: I truly hope the alleged Musk-Miller polycule patch things up. Alleged! I mean alleged! They're made for each other.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ontario cancels its internet contract with Elon Musk's Starlink
Ontario has cancelled a C$100 million ($68.12 million) satellite high-speed internet contract with Elon Musk 's Starlink, fulfilling a pledge to retaliate against US tariffs imposed on Canadian goods. Stephen Lecce, Ontario's minister of energy and mines, confirmed the termination of the satellite internet services deal at a Toronto news conference on Wednesday. Mr Lecce, who oversees broadband connectivity in Canada's most populous province, did not disclose the cost of ending the agreement. "I can confirm that the premier has fulfilled his word, which is to cancel that contract because of the very reasons he cited in the past," Mr Lecce stated. "We are standing up for Canada." The contract, signed last November, was intended to provide high-speed internet access to 15,000 homes and businesses in remote Ontario communities. Premier Doug Ford had threatened to scrap the deal in February, following US President Donald Trump 's imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports. The cancellation was later delayed after Mr Trump agreed to a 30-day tariff pause. SpaceX, Starlink's parent company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The cancellation comes amid ongoing trade negotiations between Canada and the US, with a deadline of August 1. Mr Trump has threatened a 35 per cent tariff on all Canadian goods not covered by the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said talks were at an "intense phase" but reiterated that a deal removing all US tariffs was unlikely. Mr Lecce also highlighted other measures Ontario has taken against the US, including restricting US companies from bidding on provincial government contracts, removing US-made alcoholic beverages from shelves, and working to decouple the province's energy sector from the US.


Reuters
4 minutes ago
- Reuters
US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns
July 30 (Reuters) - Federal public defenders would be forced to eliminate over 600 positions or defer paying court-appointed criminal defense attorneys for over two months under a proposed Republican-backed budget plan in the U.S. House of Representatives, a top U.S. judiciary official warned in an internal memo. Judge Robert Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, included those projections in a July 25 memo, opens new tab addressed to members of the judiciary after a House appropriations panel last week advanced an $8.9 billion proposed budget for the judiciary for the next fiscal year. The proposed spending bill advanced by the U.S. House Appropriations Committee's financial services panel increases spending on the judiciary overall by 3.5% but falls "substantially below" what the courts requested, Conrad said. Among the parts of the judicial branch that would suffer are federal public defenders, he said. The bill provides $1.57 billion in funding for the Defender Services program, which provides attorneys to criminal defendants who cannot afford their own lawyers. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be provided attorneys under the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1963 ruling Gideon v. Wainwright. Conrad said that while the $1.57 billion is up 8.2% from the 2025 fiscal year, it is $196 million below what the judiciary requested, which would force its Defender Services program to "downsize" by over 600 positions, or potentially more if staff cuts occur after the October 1 fiscal year begins. "Reductions of this magnitude would inhibit the Defender Services program from meeting its constitutionally mandated mission," Conrad wrote. He said the other possibility is that payments to court-appointed private attorneys who agree to serve on a court's Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel will be deferred for 77 days, starting around June 11, 2026, the longest such pause in the history of the program. Those payments are already on hold, as the judiciary this month announced that the program that pays CJA attorneys had run out of money, resulting in a three-month delay. The judiciary has requested $116 million in supplemental funding to address what it calls a "funding crisis." The full House Appropriations Committee will not consider the bill until at least September. Senate appropriators have yet to release their own version of the bill. Details of the memo were first reported by Bloomberg Law. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump backs Israel and rebukes Starmer over Palestinian state recognition
Donald Trump has doubled down on his backing for Israel after having appeared to give a green light to the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to recognize a Palestinian state. Amid signs of mounting opposition among his Maga base to Israel's military operation in Gaza, Trump criticized Starmer's plan to grant recognition as 'rewarding Hamas' even after having not taken issue with it when the pair met in Scotland this week. Talking to journalists on board Air Force One on his return to Washington, Trump said the US was 'not in that camp', referring to Starmer's pledge, which followed a similar declaration by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, days earlier that France would formally recognize Palestinian statehood. 'We never did discuss it,' Trump said, in reference to Starmer's announcement. He added: 'You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded.' His comments were in line with the US state department, whose spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, called the recognition decision 'a slap in the face' to victims of Hamas's deadly 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which triggered the current war. But they contrasted with his restrained stance when he and Starmer met at Turnberry in Scotland on Monday, after the UK premier said Britain would give recognition by September unless Israel met certain conditions, including allowing for a ceasefire in Gaza and allowing UN food aid to enter the territory to feed its population. 'I'm not going to take a position, I don't mind him taking a position,' Trump told reporters when asked if he objected to Starmer's move. The US president's response to Starmer seemed markedly softer than his riposte after Macron's statehood announcement last week, which angered Israel and its supporters. 'What he says doesn't matter,' Trump told reporters at the White House. 'He's a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn't carry weight.' The initial softer public posture toward Starmer came as Trump publicly contradicted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, over conditions in Gaza, which numerous international aid agencies have described as famine. Netanyahu had said that, in contrast to the aid group assessments and searing images of hungry children, no one was starving in Gaza. Asked if he agreed, Trump said: 'Based on television, I would say 'not particularly', because those children look pretty hungry to me. There's real starvation, you can't fake that.' Some of Trump's most prominent supporters have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of Israel's conduct, amid polling evidence that Americans generally are losing sympathy for a country that has traditionally been viewed as one of the US's closest allies. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser and still one of his leading cheerleaders with his War Room podcast, told Politico that the president's condemnation of the food situation in Gaza would hasten Israel's loss of support among his base. 'It seems that for the under-30-year-old Maga base, Israel has almost no support, and Netanyahu's attempt to save himself politically by dragging America in deeper to another Middle East war has turned off a large swath of older Maga diehards,' Bannon said. 'Now President Trump's public repudiation of one of the central tenets of [Netanyahu's] Gaza strategy – 'starving' Palestinians – will only hasten a collapse of support.' Another Trump supporter, the far-right Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, became the latest – and perhaps most surprising – public figure to label Israel's actions in Gaza 'genocide'. 'It's the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,' she posted on X. The comments came as a new Gallup poll showed support among Americans for Israel's actions in Gaza down to 32%, the lowest since the organization began asking the question in November 2023 – a month after the murderous Hamas raid that killed 1,200 mostly Israeli civilians and led to another 250 to be taken hostage. Israel's military response has led to around 60,000 Palestinians being killed, according to the Gaza health ministry. While Gallup's poll showed support for Israel's offensive still high, at 71%, among Republicans, Thom Tillis, a GOP senator for North Carolina who plans to step down at the next election, said Gaza could be a political problem for Trump, the Hill reported. 'I think that the American people at the end of the day are a kind people. They don't like seeing suffering, nor do I think the president does,' Tillis said. 'If you see starvation, you try to fix it.' Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told Fox News that Trump's backing for Netanyahu remained unshaken. 'Let me assure you that there is no break between the prime minister of Israel and the president,' he told Fox News. 'Their relationship, I think, [is] stronger than it's ever been, and I think the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is as strong as it's ever been.'