Polycule falls apart

Is that real? I always thought Tatchell was very TWAW - bit of a row back from him?

I think he's said similar before, when the Isla Bryson stuff happened. Prompting shrieks of horror from TRAs

I wonder if Tatchell’s really saying this because he wants a justification for refusing to have sex with TIFs? After all, if TWAW then TMAM…

I should think it's just because like most people he assumes TWAW TMAM are a polite fiction that has limits, although it's far too gauche to actually say so out loud. It's one of those you know, meaningful look, things.

This unspoken boundary beyond which TW are no longer W and TM are no longer M lies after everything women are asked to accomodate, obviously. We are just being unnessessary mean and rude to point out or act as if TWAM, TMAW.

Ehmagahd

Et tu, Peter?!

Tatchell is more or less saying what was often said about something else when he was at a formative age; ie "women and men are equal but different." Now he's saying that in a slightly different form, but the same thing: "women and man are equal but different, even if the men say they are women."

Over on the new thread about Jolyon Maugham, his substack pleading his Weren't Me Guv stance on the failures that led to the death of Jason Arday has led to speculation as to the level of duty of care that he gives to people whose cause he deigns to fight for

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5573978-our-friends-at-the-good-law-project-pt-2?reply=155087779&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

JM would presumably have a duty of care over Smolly/ pot noodle. Well I'm sure the lad will be well looked after....

We're nearly full. Is this worth another thread.

Herbert will be speaking in favour of a motion from the Scottish greens conference to recognise polyamorous relationships

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-green-activists-push-for-legal-recognition-of-polyamory-9304387

https://bsky.app/profile/heatherherbert.uk/post/3myjdj4mu5c2n

https://bsky.app/profile/sophiemolly.co.uk/post/3myiwtfe24k2j

Recognised as what, in what way? And when they explode messily, how does the divorce get sorted if it's all legally binding? Can one person acrimoniously flinging out break up the whole thing so that there has to be a new ceremony?

How complicated.

Do they mean recognised in the same way as it is proposed to recognise cohabiting relationships?

Or something more formal in, say, a registry office?

Either way, as you say, undoing the arrangement could get very complicated. Still, more money for lawyers. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.

There's nothing really green about the Greens anymore is there? Just a bunch of wankers with various obsessions meeting together to virtue signal and promote screwing opportunities.

I think the Greens are massively divided. There’s the old school organic macrame allotments bunch who really do care about climate change. There’s the radical lefty/Marxists who joined post Corbyn. And there’s your blue haired zie/zer loons who adore all things trans. Not sure how long they can pretend they’re all in the same party and that’s before you add in the Muslim small business owners. Small parties are vulnerable to entryism and the Greens have been entered by multiple groups.

It’s kind of like a macrocosmic polycule in itself, really.

I think they will continue to be a source of thread worthy content for much time to come. I vote for a second thread.

seconded - we don’t know what big Scott’s been charged with or when Chris is on court for the alleged sexual assault charges. I want to see what that is all about

From @Lalgarh 's link to the story on the Scotsman

“Where support for immigrant or refugee people involve support for legal partnerships or protection from existing abusive partnerships this should recognise where this may involve multiple partners.”

Can anyone tell me what this means please? I've read it quite a few times and can't understand what it's trying to say, other than as proposed it only applies to immigrants and refugees. I gave up in the end. Anyone want to take a stab at translating it for me please?

The first half might mean "Supporting an immigrant or refugee person may involve either supporting that person's marriage or rescuing that person from an abusive marriage." The second half looks like "If someone is running away from an abusive polycule the fact that more than one person may be being abusive should be recognised."

Also, considering there's only three of them in that household now: shouldn't they be identified as a throuple rather than a polycule.

Unless they are actively recruiting a 4th, 5th member

I think that’s a non zero possibility

How would they advertise for lover number 4

Well they could start by advertising for a cleaner and seeing how it goes....

Must like Butterscotch Angel Delight✅
Must vote Green✅

There are some religions where it is permissible to have more than one wife, not husband though, just wife…..

It is a happy point of union between the blue haired Reddit moderator faction and the Angry Gaza Bros

Molly is calling for a polyamorous Revolution. Prince was calling for a love revolution at least 40 years ago so that's not new

But noodle linked to an article in the Scottish Sun. I thought that was haram on Bluesky. The Scot Sun, being the Sun, goes for the Threesome angle and name checks David Haye

https://bsky.app/profile/sophiemolly.co.uk/post/3myky27oxm22f

Throuple is apparently favoured over these terms though. Or 'Triad'.

Consent and open communication will become mandatory in all relationships.

Please explain to me, dear Sophie Molly, how you see that being enacted. I think mandatory means backed by the law and confess I'm at a loss to see how secretive, closed or shifty spouses will be encouraged to be more open by the cops knocking on the door.