Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

475 replies

whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 16:50

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?

Angry
OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:54

I'm only 'exposing' my children to one of my partners. The don't know about the others because they have no need to. They've also met his other partner though, I suppose. But it wasn't in any kind of sexual context. More like extended family, which is kind of what it is.

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 19:55

I am listening pumpkinsquash

Yeah, if you say so. Hmm

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:56

I DON'T IDENTIFY WITH THE PROPLE IN THE ARTICLE THAT'S EXACTLY MY BLOODY POINT.

I honestly don't know how to make that any clearer.

ConfusedAngryWine

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 19:58

I'm only 'exposing' my children to one of my partners. The don't know about the others because they have no need to. They've also met his other partner though, I suppose.

So that's four of you that your kids know about. "Only exposing to one" even though there's apparently others.
K'in ell. You can't be for real. Your head's so far stuck in the sand ostrich like it's a wonder you can still see to type.

Killdora · 02/12/2017 19:59

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5036751/amp/Couple-accused-severely-abusing-three-young-children.html

Has anyone seen this?! I am absolutely aghast, how dare they suggest that the couple being married had anything to do with them abusing children. There were a myriad of other subtle reasons that the article didn’t mention. I am outraged.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 20:04

Ok, me, my DP and K. That's three people in total and one of them is me. Honestly what the fuck are you talking about?!

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 20:05

And I'm only having a sexual relationship with one of those three.

(Unless you include masturbation.)

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:06

Ok, me, my DP and K. That's three people in total and one of them is me. Honestly what the fuck are you talking about?

OK, apologies, three. Christ, if I;m getting confused I dread to think how confused your kids are!

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 20:08

You appear far more easily confused than my children, Pumpkinsquash.

OP posts:
OssomMummy1 · 02/12/2017 20:12

Sadly, guardian is competing with dailymail, daily mirror and daily star to the bottom of the sh-tpot

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:13

More like extended family, which is kind of what it is

Since when do people sleep around and share their extended family? It really isn't like that at all, but keep telling yourself that to make yourself feel better.
You obviously see yourself in this article to be so wound up about it and writing outraged from Tunbridge Wells type posts and complaints.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 20:13

Killdora, that article only put married in the headline, it didn't correlate the abuse to their relationship status as the articles I linked to did.

There's no reason to have it in the headline at all, mind you, but it's the Fail, so...

Anyway, you know this, you're just trying (and failing) to make a point because you know you don't have a point.

OP posts:
DarlesChickens61 · 02/12/2017 20:15

Killdora that is shocking :(

How can the newspaper report allude to all married couples abusing their children? Must be because they are married! Shock

Oh wait all elderly married couples are at it too...www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4476502/Elderly-couple-tortured-children-jailed-21-years.html

Damn ALL married couples! Must remember to email the newspapers to give them a piece of my mind......

On second thoughts I'll just get a grip and use some common sense to understand not ALL married couples abuse their children. Although some do.....

Neither of these articles are screaming out "Couples abuse their children because they are MARRIED!" Exactly the same as the Headline depicting the abuse of children from a couple who chose to be in an "open" relationship.

OP of this thread is never going to see that tho. She obviously has an agenda.....

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 20:16

Righto, pumpkinsquash, because clearly since wasn't enough to get it into your skullI shall post it again:

I DON'T IDENTIFY WITH THE PROPLE IN THE ARTICLE THAT'S EXACTLY MY BLOODY POINT.

I honestly don't know how to make that any clearer.



CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THAT SENTENCE, YES OR NO?

I'd make the type bigger if I could. Maybe that would help.

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:17

Anyway, you know this, you're just trying (and failing) to make a point because you know you don't have a point.

Near enough the whole sodding thread is telling you you have issues, your children will be suffering, but no, you are so deluded that it's all us or wrong, "never once thinking actually, it could be me at fault here."
You're either trolling or really don't give a shiny shit whether it's affecting your kids or not.

DarlesChickens61 · 02/12/2017 20:17

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elderly-couple-who-locked-up-10366146

Sorry Dail Fail link didn't post. Here's another

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:17

OP of this thread is never going to see that tho. She obviously has an agenda.....

Absolutely.

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:24

Righto, pumpkinsquash, because clearly since wasn't enough to get it into your skullI shall post it again:

I DON'T IDENTIFY WITH THE PROPLE IN THE ARTICLE THAT'S EXACTLY MY BLOODY POINT.

CAPS NOW? OK. IF YOU DON'T IDENTIFY WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE ARTICLE THEN WHY ARE YOU SO OUTRAGED FROM TUNBRIDGE WELLS ABOUT IT? THE ARTICLE HEADLINE IS ACCURATE AS IN THIS CASE IT DID CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEGLECT AND THE SAFEGUARDING.
SO YOUR POINT IS NON EXISTENT.

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:26

ANYWAY NO IDEA WHY I'M FEEDING THE TROLL, ALL THIS SHOUTING IS MAKING MY HEAD HURT SORRY EVERYONE

Grin
DarlesChickens61 · 02/12/2017 20:32

Pumpkin Squash The sad thing about this thread is that it may not be a Troll. There really might be someone out there who feels totally justified in messing with her children's heads for her own sexual gratification.

As far as why she is so enraged about a Newspaper Headline is anyone's guess as she/it is certainly unable to clarify why she/it is so invested...

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:36

The sad thing about this thread is that it may not be a Troll. There really might be someone out there who feels totally justified in messing with her children's heads for her own sexual gratification.

Sad that's why I prefer to think of it as a troll as the alternative is too horrible.
Poor kids.

ButchyRestingFace · 02/12/2017 20:37

And I'm only having a sexual relationship with one of those three.

So male partner gets to fuck two women but the two women only fuck him?

That’s not polyamorous. That’s just depressingly patriarchal and ... crap.

You should covert to Mormonism, move to Utah and get him to stick another ring on it.

honeyravioli · 02/12/2017 20:48

I DON'T IDENTIFY WITH THE PROPLE IN THE ARTICLE THAT'S EXACTLY MY BLOODY POINT

If that were true why would you think they represent you and your lifestyle?

You seem so confused. Perhaps you aren't as relaxed and happy in your choices as you claim to be? If you were, this article would not bother you.

lelapaletute · 02/12/2017 20:49

Fucks sake literally none of you can read or count. Or you're deliberately trying to wind the OP up.

Bitchy, the OP (female) is not only fucking her DP. She has said so. She is fucking (occasionally) two other people, and one assumes enjoys the liberty to fuck others if she so chooses. She is not having a sexual relationship with his other female partner. She has her own. Whether the other female partner is having sex with anyone else but the OP's DP is an open question but pleeeeease dont make statements that are factually incorrect, all the reading comprehension fail on this thread is making my eyes bleed and I'm not even the OP!

bridgetoc · 02/12/2017 20:49

As someone involved in an Open/Cuckold relationship, I find it hard to understand why anything in that article would rile the OP so much.

Swipe left for the next trending thread