AIBU to be furious about this article and cancel my Guardian subscription?

[whycantwegoonasthree]

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/30/children-removed-from-family-home-over-parents-open-relationship

The children weren't removed because of their parents 'open relationship', they were removed because the parents were neglectful and didn't safeguard the children. The headline is a deliberate distortion.

This is a dreadful baity headline/article at the expense of the polyamorous community. I expect better from the guardian - to which I pay a f-ing subscription...

AIBU to cancel my Direct Debit?

It developed into more than we were originally expecting.

Scheduling can be tricky, (we're all pretty busy with work and children and stuff) but it hardly ever leads to upset. We talk it through and work it out between us.

Thank you for answering my curiosity when you didn’t have to whycantwegoonasthree

Missmustbeamug - it's because the headlines and focus - especially to anyone not reading fully or carefully - suggests that it was open relationships which are the issue.

When in fact it was the way this relationship specifically was conducted, and the fact that it was dysfunctional in many ways not linked specifically to it being 'open'.

One ambiguous paragraph is presented towards the end of the guardian article to allude to this, it's not mentioned at all in the independent, and neither talk about all the other issues which contributed to the decision to remove the children aside from 'parenting from the sofa' in the last paragraph.

it's because the headlines and focus - especially to anyone not reading fully or carefully - suggests that it was open relationships which are the issue.

To you. To no-one else here.

Well most of those here have their own axes to grind, as is apparent from the tone of this thread.

I think it's deliberate obfuscation and distortion of the facts to create a scandalous headline. You don't. As I said, we'll have to disagree on that, I guess.

I can admit to being sensitive to it, obviously, but I still think it was appalling journalism from two papers I expect better of. They're not the Daily Mail FFS.

Suburban - my children are with their father today. I'll have them tomorrow.

That’s a relief.

I still don't agree with you OP. To me it's clear that the problem isn't the open relationship but that the kids were neglected. You are reading this as a slight of all parents who are in open relationships but it's not. 🤷🏻‍♀️.

Before reading the article, I found polyarmoury a bit sordid. After reading it, I think the same. I don't think this article will change people's perceptions. The few who think it is a great idea won't stop thinking it.

Suburban, are you equally concerned that all parents who are posting on here aren't neglecting their children?

Pumpkinsquash has posted a lot, maybe she's being neglectful.

Are YOU being neglectful?

Or was there another reason you were particularly concerned that I especially might be neglecting my children's needs today?

Well, I for one, think that seeing as you are child-free today you would have more .....err....interesting things to occupy your time than posting on mumsnet.

Or are your alternatives busy with ...you know...family things?

I think polyarmoury. I think no-one should need more than one lance, sword and shield. If they do I think it's probably because because their first sword, lance and shield was inadequate, or maybe because they have mental health problems. Probably both. They certainly can't commit to a single sword like normal people.

In any case, WILL NO-ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN of these tooled-up-to-the-eyeballs reprobates.

Polyamory, on the other hand, I think is fine, when done sensibly, carefully and consensually.

DarlesChickens - actually I'm just having some alone time today, and generally catching up on things. Through choice. We schedule it in...

And DP, myself and my children are heading g off skiing next weekend, I have a lot to organise...

DarlesChickens - actually I'm just having some alone time today, and generally catching up on things. Through choice. We schedule it in...

There you go....Lets hope they don't all turn up at yours for some serious shagging tomorrow whilst your children are there then.

Otherwise you could be the newspaper headlines on Monday....

Oh wait! Maybe you haven't included them in your planner for this weekend....Who knows??

I know, DarlesChickens. And they know. The planner is the LAW.

First rule of polyamory, is you DON'T FUCK WITH THE PLANNER. The second rule of polyamory...

Well you know the line.

I think it's deliberate obfuscation and distortion of the facts to create a scandalous headline. You don't. As I said, we'll have to disagree on that, I guess

Since you have a major iron in the fire and I couldn't give a shiny either way I think my assessment is more reliable than yours. Especially since it is shared by pretty much everyone else.
(also the fact that I am right helps enormously )

I still don't understand why you see the relevance in this story to yourself. It's like if I got irate at any report of a long married couple whose marriage was poor and it impacted on their children....yes I'm long married but they have nothing to do with me.

If you're so set on normalising the type of relationship you are in then the absolute last thing you should be doing it seizing on this type of story and claiming it as anything remotely to do with you. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

Suppose marriage was a minority position in your society.

And suppose the headline read "children removed from parents because they got married" and went on to focus on how dysfunctional marriage is per se, and how the children were removed because of it, instead of talking about the particular ways in which THIS marriage was conducted in a dysfunctional way, and the many other problems unrelated to their married status they had.

Might you be a bit ruled and defensive about your decision to be married?

And then imagine if people piled in and accused you of damaging your children by getting married, because to do so means they will obviously see you and your DH having sex in front of them, and be exposed to all sorts of sexual conversations, because obviously you only got married because you can't keep it in your pants?

And I'm not yet one repeatedly posting on a topic about which I purport to care not a shiny.

20 posts later: "But I'm not even interested ANYWAY". Oh, ok then. I often post repeatedly on threads about things I don't care about.

Oh no, wait. No I don't...

Suburban, are you equally concerned that all parents who are posting on here aren't neglecting their children?

I would be if, like you, they had also posted constantly about how busy they are, and how their children ask them about sharing their time between their various different families / lovers / whatever.

I’m not neglecting anyone right now - my adult children have both left home and I’m getting ready to go out with DH.

whycantwegoonasthree

No I don't know the line and don't need, or want, to.

I'm happy with the partner and family I have. I'm not a very organised person and couldn't be arsed with all the secretive planning. When I fancy sex I'd prefer it to be spontaneous with the person who shares my life and has 50% responsibility towards the family we created, together.

DH and DS(18) decided to go to the club today to watch a rugby match. They did it ad hoc. No need for either to get their diaries out to see when they could fit in time to spend together.

DD(16) is at a friends for the night. I'm glad of the ad hoc time I bagged for myself today to catch up with facebook and mumsnet on things.

Nah... religious planning of my next jump and looking over my shoulder and worrying about Newspaper Headlines isn't for me.

Anyway Good Luck with your future conquests. Plan them well ;)

Suburban - DD asked DP that, not me. When I have the children they're either just with me, or with me and DP. They don't feel they have to share my time. They are aware than I have to share their time with their DF, but have navigated that really well.

I am busy. I'm busy when I'm with the children doing stuff primarily with and for them. And I'm busy when I'm not with them working, keeping house, investing time in my relationships in various ways, going to the gym, pursuing my hobbies and then working some more. Sometimes I even find time I get my nails done too.

Just like any 'normal' divorced parent, then? Because I am a normal, responsible, loving parent. Even my EXH who has no reason to be my biggest fan, or I his, would concede that.

The only difference is the 's' on the end of the word relationship.

And perhaps being a bit more of a liberal lefty progressive parenting approach than some... But hey, I'm a Corbynite arts grad who works in the 'meedja' and lives in London. So that's hardly a shocker.

Drakes - you've never watched 'Fight Club' then? Apologies, I thought it was a mainstay of contemporary popular culture.

investing time in my relationships in various ways

Hilarious - you can’t even bring yourself to say it.

Anyway, I’m off out. Thanks, OP - it’s been real. Sadly.

And not planning and future conquests, Darles. I'm too fecking busy.

I hope you enjoyed your day off.

I did, in a weird sort of way. Not this bit especially, but I don't believe in post and run. I think if you start an argument conversation you should see it through.

Say what suburban Rhonda?

I would happily have said "having dinner and then sex with DP or one of my partners, or going to the cinema, or going to the gym with DP, or visiting a gallery or just having a long telephone call with my partner who lives in Derbyshire who I don't see very often, or working out diaries between everyone, or thinking about Christmas presents for everyone and their children, or planning DPs birthday surprise... "

But that's a bit fucking long-winded, no?

'Investing time in my relationships' was used for brevity you argumentative so-and-so...