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?

So I'm the OP's lover or a sock puppet because I can count. Interesting

Seriously. Go read the thread. Properly. OP HERSELF/ITSELF said there was that many!

^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^

So Lela - seeing as you are the one in the know- Who are the 3 that OP mentions in her post (above). That's 3 plus another two (that she mentions above) that she doesn't see very often??

Why wont my posts do the bold or italic thingy???!!!

Darles, already done this. The three are OP, The Married Man,and his wife/K. Both women sleep with The Married Man, they don't sleep with each other. These form the core of the OP's family life, her children know K's children etc. These are the"three" people the OP's children know about, herself being one of them.

The other two people her children don't know about, and she sees them occasionally and (as I understand it) separately from each other.

Does that help?

Why wont my posts do the bold or italic thingy???!!!

bold only works if there's no paragraphs or big spaces so could be to be with the way the top bit of the post came out

So Lela to answer a question asked by pp "How many are in this relationship" the answer is either 5...

OP, DP and his wife (as posted by OP as the number originally in the relationship)

Plus another 2 that she sees when she can

OR...4

OP
DP (Other woman's husband but not his wife because OP is not shagging her
Plus 2 that she sees when she can

Ah thanks Pumpkin. I'll have to remember that....

Strange how OP disappeared when Lela appeared tho. Have you upset OP Lela??

But he question wasn't about how many people were involved per session, but about how many were being 'paraded' in front of her kids. Which is effectively one lover plus his lover, so two.

I'll just ignore your goady troll hunting. If you are trying to draw some nefarious connection between me and the OP, then you really are barking up the wrong tree.

Per se, not per session!!! That would be a very personal question!

But he question wasn't about how many people were involved per session, but about how many were being 'paraded' in front of her kids. Which is effectively one lover plus his lover, so two.

You really, really don't get it do you.
It's not ABOUT how many is being paraded.
Your own words - one lover, plus his lover, so two.

The kids are aware that there's OP, OP's lover, OP's lover's lover, and there's another one thrown into the mix too. THAT'S FOUR.
Three that they know about for definite, and another one on the sidelines.
They know of at least three of them all interconnected in some way, hence the primary school child asking "mummy" if she minded sharing herself about, even if you refuse to see that.

Strange how OP disappeared when Lela appeared tho. Have you upset OP Lela??

Yup. Surely to God there can't be two of them so numbskullingly obtuse.

whycantwegoonasthree Sat 02-Dec-17 20:04:43
Ok, me, my DP and K. That's three people in total and one of them is me OP counts herself as one of them - On, at least, two separate occasions. But lets not worry about that. The number is irrelevant!! Why are you so desperate to be right Lela?

Still didn't work! And I left no spaces :(

whycantwegoonasthree Sat 02-Dec-17 20:04:43
Ok, me, my DP and K. That's three people in total and one of them is me
OP counts herself as one of them - On, at least, two separate
occasions. But lets not worry about that. The number is irrelevant!!
Why are you so desperate to be right Lela?

Try that. Although obv with no spaces before/after the *s.

Pumpkin
^The kids are aware that there's OP, OP's lover, OP's lover's lover, and there's another one thrown into the mix too. THAT'S FOUR.
Three that they know about for definite, and another one on the sidelines.^

No they don't. They don't know about the other two lovers. They know about OP, her male partner, and his other female partner. Where are you getting that they know about anyone else "in the sidelines"?

They know of at least three of them all interconnected in some way, hence the primary school child asking "mummy" if she minded sharing herself about

Booo, the child was asking the OP's male partner if HE minded being shared. The OP specifically states her kids haven't asked her whether she herself is also "shared". You really do struggle to read what people write don't you?

Darles I'm not desperate to be right, I just am. You and Pumpkinneed to read what's been written. I think the fact Pumpkin mistook me for Butchy when our names are clearly written above our posts on the very page she accuses me of saying what Butchy said (a mistake she still hasn't acknowledged) demonstrates clearly that she is not firing on all cylinders tonight.

Furthermore Lela...Is there a specific reason why you are trying to detract from the thread - The OP's post is about children being abused. It makes no difference how many of their parents sex partners "were paraded in front of them" does it??

One is too many when they have to share their mother with another family's father who has no time for them. What is the reason OP needed her children to become part of his family. They are not. He has his own wife and family.

They have a father figure who they live with on a regular basis. Why do these children have to be involved in their mothers sexual lifestyle at all?

Well Lela it seems everyone is confused (probably because OP tends to forget what she has written). Except you Haha!!

If everyone is confused (except you of course) how do you think the children are coping with it all? The children are important - right??

I can actually kinda see where the OP is coming from, it's well documented that newspapers highlight all sorts of irrelevant shit which in turn makes life worse for a variety of minorities.

So you get 'black man attempted burglary' as opposed to just man as per the case for a Caucasian.

Or 'gay woman commits fraud'.

So it can be argued that there is a bias when reporting matters, but I'm on the fence in this case as it's the couple's sex life that led to the court decision to a large degree.

But why the insistence on calling it an open relationship as the two knobheads didn't call it this? Why not call them casual encounters or similar?

Furthermore Lela...Is there a specific reason why you are trying to detract from the thread - The OP's post is about children being abused. It makes no difference how many of their parents sex partners "were paraded in front of them" does it??

Exactly

Darles, I am only intervening because people were making things up to suit themselves. If you want to attack the OP based on what she has actually said, then have at it. Same as if you want to prove to me that I'm wrong based in what I've actually said. But making things up to make her seem worse than she is, then getting the hump when people point out you're telling porkies/are confused, is just a bit childish really.

Since you ask, personally I think the OP's situation and approach is less than ideal for her kids, and actually posted something to that effect some time ago in the thread. I don't think they are being exposed to danger, nor do I think their morals are being dragged through the mire. But I do think this situation will cause them to have to grow up a bit too fast, and also to feel isolated/odd in their teenage years. But so do a lot of things parents do/believe/advocate. Poor Jehovah's Witness lass I was at school with want allowed to wear deodorant, or celebrate Christmas or her birthday. I think the OP his obviously very intelligent, articulate and thoughtful, even if she is making some less than ideal choices, and has conducted herself pretty well on this thread by being patient and polite in the main. I felt she was getting an unfair kicking founded on nonsense.

As for the children in the case referenced, they were shamefully neglected and abused by their parents and I dont think anyone at all including the OP was ever suggesting otherwise.

They have asked my partner - whom they know also has another partner, if he minds being 'shared' and things like that. To which they have recieved a frank and open answer. They haven't asked me if I am shared with others too

You're obviously reading this from a point of view as someone who sees it as completely normal to share around in front of the kids (not visually* before you start getting pedantic) so we're never going to agree.
The kids KNOW that OP is being shared, because they KNOW that her boyfriend is shared with others. Her boyfriend being shared obviously means that that by default means the OP is being shared too as she isn't exactly his number one, is he?
She/it's being shared. How on earth can you not see that?

Darles I'm not desperate to be right, I just am.

Excuse me! Where have I made things up? I have linked 3 times now to OP's posts. I don't give a rats arse how many people she is sleeping with. She can sleep with a hundred men, every night - I don't care what she does. Her children do not need to know about their mothers sexual lifestyle. Nobody does!

The children are the most important. A fact that OP refuses to acknowledge!

Lela, Seeing as you know everything why is OP is incensed about a headline she purports has nothing to do with her situation?

I'm asking you because OP has disappeared and you think you know everything.