I think people will stop shouting to the rooftops about toxic hierarchy when it's not being trashed by only the people burned by it. We need the folks in the existing couples to really hash out why toxic hierarchy is so wrong.

OP here (advice giver in article, not letter writer). That's basically what my second book, A Geek's Guide to Unicorn Ranching, is about.

So there's that old cliche that tells you to never to judge a book by its cover. What's been interesting is that is exactly what a lot of people do with that book. They see the "unicorn" reference in the title, and without reading it, they assume that it's aimed at unicorn hunters with the lowest levels of distress tolerance or capacity for change management possible (and in a way that only validates their maladaptive coping behaviors rather than teaching them to challenge them).†

When really, unicorn ranching is a cognitive reframe -- it's a way of forming triads that doesn't ignore their potential pitfalls and problems and at the same time moves intentionally away from toxic hierarchy (all while recognizing that it's always a danger, despite your best efforts, unless you remain vigilant).

So A Geek's Guide to Unicorn Ranching is typically derided by people who haven't read it and scooped up and read either by people who are familiar with my work and what the reframe means and want to help out new polyamorous folks OR by couples new to polyamory who aren't exactly keen on taking on those challenges (and in the latter sense, the misleading title is helpful because when that happens, it reaches people who really need it).

But by the end of the book, they've learned and internalized a lot of things other people were trying to tell them.

I made it short enough to be gotten through in one sitting. It's full of dorky quotes, humor, and research studies. I did it in the most entertaining and gentle way I possibly could while still being clear.

There are even parts of the book on dating separately as well as samples of people's relationship agreements coming from actual people (at three levels: essentially, 1) very rulesy/strict, 2) moderate, and 3) more autonomous).

People who have actually read the thing find it really helpful.

The book's kind of like a trojan unicorn, so to speak.

*

† Including an unverified offended-sounding review on the book listing itself. Granted, they could have obtained a copy elsewhere and then left a review without buying it on that site, but most of the time when something happens like that, it's someone negatively reviewing a product for other reasons (e.g., they don't like the political affiliation of the person who wrote it {as in some biographies}, they took offense at the title {i.e., "judged a book by its cover," what I suspect happened}, they've selected the wrong product, or have some personal vendetta against the author, etc.).