Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 14 15 16 17 18 19

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?

OP posts:

LoislovesStewie · 02/12/2017 20:51

Just to clarify for me; you are having sex with A.N Other who is married? Or in relationship with A.N Other 2? is A.N Other 2 also having sex with A.N Other 3?

honeyravioli · 02/12/2017 20:52

it didn't correlate the abuse to their relationship status as the articles I linked to did

Their relationships and how they conducted it was part of the abuse. Do you really not see that or are you so desperate to normalise the behaviour that you have to try and convince us all?

Why can't you get it into your head that their sexual relationships contributed to the neglect and abuse of their children, and you insisting that saying so is bias shows very poor judgement on your part?

LoislovesStewie · 02/12/2017 20:55

I'm asking because if she isn't then that really isn't open is it? It's just being unfaithful.

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 20:56

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

So that's two partners she shags around with that the kids know about then, and then there's her partner and his other bit as well then.
So significantly more than two which she/it professed to upthread.

ButchyRestingFace · 02/12/2017 20:59

She is fucking (occasionally) two other people

That’s what I thought the sitch was until I reached her post of 20:04. Admittedly, I have no idea to whom that post is addressed because OP didn’t say.

Which is why I asked the question, I didn’t make a “factually incorrect statement”.

all the reading comprehension fail on this thread is making my eyes bleed

Yes, starting with you, it seems. My username isn’t Bitchy.

Marriedwithchildren5 · 02/12/2017 20:59

I think you're being a tad paranoid and linking the open relationship with your own lifestyle?? These "parents" were neglectful with their open relationship. You may not be. I don't know. But as long as your children are happy and we'll looked after ss wont be visiting!

99yellowballoons · 02/12/2017 21:02

I think the article is fair, it did contribute to the neglect of the children.

I'm in an open relationship but my dc know nothing about any of my relationships. It's all conducted away from them.

ButchyRestingFace · 02/12/2017 21:07

So that's two partners she shags around with that the kids know about then, and then there's her partner and his other bit as well then.
So significantly more than two which she/it professed to upthread.

Is that not only 3?

lelapaletute · 02/12/2017 21:07

Oh ffs the OP does not think there are any circumstances where having sex with an array of strangers in the same house as your kids does not constitute neglect/abuse. Her contention is that having an open relationship does not necessarily include doing that, so the children were removed not because the parents were in an open relationship, but because they were self centred fuckwits doing being in an open relationship wrong. So she thinks the headline implies to the world at large that being in an open relationship is enough in and of itself to get your kids taken off you. Not that it is unfair to this couple for the press to present it this way, or that this couple have been unfairly treated by the court, or that she identifies with them, or anything like that. Jeeeezus people read.

As it so happens I think OP is being oversensitive - the couple had their kids taken off them because of (among other things) THEIR open relationship, i.e. the way they were doing it (badly) - that doesn't have to be taken to mean any open relationship is suspect... If one uses even the slightest bit of nuance when reading it, esp in conjunction with the actual text of the article.

HOWEVER, given some of the dimlows on this thread I can see why you're worried that unless things are spelled out VERY CLEARLY there is huge scope for people to misinterpret (wilfully or otherwise).

DarlesChickens61 · 02/12/2017 21:11

Here it is in short -

OP is fucking another woman husband (He has a family). She calls him her DP. She is also fucking 2 other men, when she has time. She has 2 children - approx. ages 7 and 10. 7 year old has asked her mothers "DP" if he is shared with other people, as he had to leave early one morning to see his family.

When asked what motherly advice she would give her dc's when they are in their teenage years and struggling with teenage relationships. OP said she would tell them how beautiful, fulfilling, special and respectful sex is with a variety of different partners. Or some such shit!

lelapaletute · 02/12/2017 21:11

Butchy, autocorrect fail there on your name , apologies. Well instead of asking the question (in a rather accusatory way), you could have gone back through the thread and checked, eh?

And her kids ONLY know about her DP. As far as they are concerned he is the only person she is -fucking- in a relationship with. They know HE is also in a relationship with someone else. But they do not know their mother is, thy do not know her other two partners. Hope that's clear!

lelapaletute · 02/12/2017 21:14

Darles, you're STILL getting it wrong! She's fucking ONE other man and ONE other woman. F. F. S.

By all means pour disapprobation on the OP on the basis of remarkably little if you must, but at least GET IT RIGHT. Yeesh.

DarlesChickens61 · 02/12/2017 21:16

No! She has said herself she is fucking one married man and another two when she has time. Its on this thread. Go and find it. I have linked it once a few pages back. I cant be arsed to look for it again. Jungle Celeb is on

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 21:17

Is that not only 3?

OP
Shag Partner 1
Shag Partner 2
Shag Partner 2's Shag Partner

That's 4 people by my counting. All intertwined sexually with each other in some way even if one of them isn't Shag Partner to OP.
These are just the ones OP says her/it's kids knows about as there's more.
Christ, no wonder it's confusing everyone.

lelapaletute · 02/12/2017 21:18

Her DP (married man) and two other lovers, one is a bloke one is a woman! Not two men!

MissMustBeAMug · 02/12/2017 21:18

I thought the op has:

The married man
A long distance partner
Someone else

The last two she doesn’t see as often and I haven’t included married mans wife as she doesn’t have a sexual relationship with the op.

Is that right?

honeyravioli · 02/12/2017 21:20

Her contention is that having an open relationship does not necessarily include doing that, so the children were removed not because the parents were in an open relationship, but because they were self centred fuckwits doing being in an open relationship wrong

nobody said it did. The guardian never said it did, which is why her hysterical ranting is so stupid.

She'e created her own straw man and is now arguing vociferously against it.

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 21:21

Darles, you're STILL getting it wrong! She's fucking ONE other man and ONE other woman. F. F. S.

Seriously. Go back and read the thread again. Slowly.

ButchyRestingFace · 02/12/2017 21:22

Well instead of asking the question (in a rather accusatory way), you could have gone back through the thread and checked, eh?

Yes, rather than ask the OP directly for clarification, I suppose I could have tried to work out who her post was addressed to in a 350 + deep thread in a bid to see if that threw any light on what was said.

Just like you could have refrained from making factually incorrect statements about me making factually incorrect statements.

It’s come to a sad pass though that I feel perversely mildly relieved that she’s putting it about too (not for the kids sake, obv).

itsgettinghotinhere80 · 02/12/2017 21:22

Jesus, your poor children op. You sound totally deluded

lelapaletute · 02/12/2017 21:23

I give up Pumpkin, I really do. Where are you getting this extra partner from??? The OP's kids know about OP (obvs), her main partner (DP), and his other partner/wife (who the OP does not have sex with). They know about no-one else. That's three romanticall involved people they know about by anyone's counting, even if you count THEIR OWN MOTHER. Seriously, if you think polyamory is so awful there's no need to exaggerate is there?

fingersonbuzzersplease · 02/12/2017 21:24

I honestly think you should leave it now, OP.

Roughly 90% of the people on this thread don't agree with your lifestyle.

You just have to find a way to live with that fact.

DarlesChickens61 · 02/12/2017 21:27

whycantwegoonasthree Fri 01-Dec-17 23:52:02
MrLoveBucket. Three years ago or so whenever that last post was, there were just three of us. And we are still primarily a three, but I now have two other loving relationships in my life, although I see them relatively seldom, due to being very busy

There you go Lela. She has stated all the way thru this thread that her DP is a married man. Plus another two when she has time. She does not state whether they are male or female. But we do know that her DP's wife isn't one of them....

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 21:28

I give up Pumpkin, I really do.
You're the one who said "is that only 3?" from my counting of 4.
FFS, this thread is ridiculous

ButchyRestingFace · 02/12/2017 21:29

OP
Shag Partner 1
Shag Partner 2
Shag Partner 2's Shag Partner

That's 4 people by my counting.

No, that’s three. You’re surely not counting the OP as being involved in a sexual relationship with herself?

She’s only shagging three other people from what’s described.

Flip

1 2 ··· 14 15 16 17 18 19

Swipe left for the next trending thread