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:
Violletta · 01/12/2017 17:55

"She said of the mother: “It is plain some complete strangers have visited her house while the children were there to have sex with her.”

and you think this is ok??

Viviennemary · 01/12/2017 17:56

You can't agree with everything a newspaper writes. Why not just write to the editor and express your disapproval of this particular article. I' more of a DM fan myself though I don't agree with what it writes.

TheDowagerCuntess · 01/12/2017 17:57

I'm assuming the OP is talking about people who are in committed relationships with more than one person, rather than 'sleeping around' (haven't heard that phrase in a long time!).

But anyway, YABU. If you want to end your subscription, do it. Why do you need to hold a Mumsnet referendum on it?

WorraLiberty · 01/12/2017 18:09

I cancelled a direct debit just this morning.

It hadn't occurred to me to consult Mumsnet first Sad

MrLovebucket · 01/12/2017 18:22

Jesus. Just cancel your fucking membership.

I think you're taking this too much to heart, it's not about your open relationship (unless you invite online strangers into your home and shag them while your children are there).

RhiannonOHara · 01/12/2017 18:38

Why do you need to hold a Mumsnet referendum on it?

For heaven's sake. People come on here to 'hold referendums' on all kinds of things. That's basically what the talk section is FOR. Or do you think no discussion below the level of world geopolitics or particle physics should be allowed?

Midge1978 · 01/12/2017 18:40

Op if you have commitment issues that's your issue. Stop expecting the whole world to agree with you. Children can only be confused and damaged when their partners have various partners whether they sleep with them or not. I know, I've seen it happen. This paper simply reported what happened and if you can't deal with that then you're best not reading the news.

Midge1978 · 01/12/2017 18:41

Parents not partners

bbcessex · 01/12/2017 19:09

I get your point, OP.
people are being deliberately obtuse.

You are saying that being in an open relationship does not make you predisposed to being a bad parent.

However - it does add colour to the case, as would any 'extra-ordinary' aspect, and therefore any media reporting will look to attribute that..

YouThought · 01/12/2017 20:23

bbcessex
You are saying that being in an open relationship does not make you predisposed to being a bad parent.

The OP was perfectly clear what this thread was about. She was ranting about the headline in the Guardian (or possibly The Metro 😉). She misread the Guardian headline which makes the thread a bit pointless. There is no indication that the Guardian or the judge or the social workers think that being in an 'open relationship makes you predisposed to being a bad parent'.

Hopefully the OP will return and clear things up 🤔

TheMathsTrainee · 01/12/2017 20:35

Yanbu to pay 💰 for the Guardian in the first place.

I find its brand of sanctimonious, supposedly intellectual, PC gone bonkers writing devoid of any common sense or critical thinking, it annoys the hell out of me. They are just useful idiots to those who want wants to destroy this country. And yes yes to PP who said they cancelled the Guardian subs after the (non) reporting of the Cologne NYE, and I also remember that they supported that the police should apologise to the family of the girls who went to Join ISIS...and now this whole gender fluid madness

MargeryFenworthy · 01/12/2017 20:42

Frankly, I would think any parents in a 'polyamorous' relationship are showing a pretty awful example for their children.

MrLovebucket · 01/12/2017 20:48

The open relationship contributed to the children being removed because of the way it was conducted.

This wasn't a case of a situation where one or two others were invited into a long term, respectful relationship. It was the father going out clubbing to pick up women (or men) and the mother inviting strangers into the home for a shag. It sounds seedy and damaging to the children.

Not sure why the OP is taking it so personally if their open relationship bears no resemblance to the one described in the news report. Surely they should be having a pop at the people making polyamory seem seedy rather than the papers reporting the situation.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 20:49

ok - the guardian has changed the headline now (possibly because it was the same as the Metro?) however it's the old one in the URL... which outs them!

bbcessex
You are saying that being in an open relationship does not make you predisposed to being a bad parent.

Exactly. My problem was that the article was conflating the two. These weren;t bad parents BECAUSE they were in an open relationship, but they were bad parents full stop who happened to be also in an open relationship.

Thanks for getting my point!

But they way it was/is presented was pejorative towards parents in open relationships generally. Particularly for anyone who only read the (original) headline...

Midge1978 - that's very judgey. And ignorant. And I have no commitment issues whatsoever.

'Children can only be confused and damaged when their partners have various partners whether they sleep with them or not. I know, I've seen it happen.'

Course you have love. I'm sure you're very well versed in all the various aspects of consensual non-monogamy and have conducted extensive research to back up your claim.

HoneyBeeMum, I'm just going to ignore your narrow-minded, pearl clutching insults.

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 20:53

It was the father going out clubbing to pick up women (or men) and the mother inviting strangers into the home for a shag.

Point being that there must be hundreds of parents doing this exact thing - and it's not news.

It's only newsworthy because they're in a (committed) relationship and doing it.

It's the dramatising and sensatinalising of something which is quite common, and perfectly normal that bothers me, because there is so much negativity towards non-monogamous relationships, and this just fuels that.

OP posts:
MoseShrute · 01/12/2017 20:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Midge1978 · 01/12/2017 21:00

Course you have love

Please don't patronise me just because you're being outvoted on this one. You can't keep taking offence at everything you don't agree with.

TrinitySquirrel · 01/12/2017 21:03

The tone of the article isn't giving the full story. I find it hard to believe that having strangers in the house would be the main cause for removal. There will have been 100 other aspects of how they parented/looked after their kids at play here.

I mean FFS they let crack and heroin addicts still keep their kids these days so why would debauchery be such a big deal unless she was shagging the randoms in the living room?

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 21:05

Well midge I won't patronise you if you don't hurl insults regarding matters about which you have no clue.

Deal?

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 21:07

Trinity - exactly. And yet that's the headline.

The Guardian is apparently picky in its liberalism and gets very Daily Mail when it finds something it doesn't like.

And I'm disappointed by that, frankly.

OP posts:
TrinitySquirrel · 01/12/2017 21:07

@MargeryFenworthy what a bizarre thing to say Hmm

I guess those that get new partners every few months are ok though? As opposed to genuine loving relationships that just happen to be between more people than the initial couple?

Christ alive.

TrinitySquirrel · 01/12/2017 21:14

@mrlovebucket that's also the point here... what you class as 'seedy' is not always what others would.

I wouldn't do it personally but god forbid a couple stay together but still have fun with other people.

Why would it be OK for her to shag her partner at home but not another guy? The couple have already denied the relationship as open so it's not even them pushing that angle, it is the courts and the press. That's the issue!

MrLovebucket · 01/12/2017 21:18

Why would it be OK for her to shag her partner at home but not another guy?

Surely you can see the difference between a partner and some random man she's found on the internet Confused

TrinitySquirrel · 01/12/2017 21:25

@mrlovebucket
It's no different than a one night stand and depending where she sourced her kicks (several 'reputable' for lack of a better term, sites exist where people looking for similar are verified and vetted) it's a lot safer than 'a random'.

I don't think it's wise to do it with kids at home but again that's not the point.

It should not have gone to court with that agenda, when there must have been 1000 other things wrong for them to remove 3 children beyond their parents having an overactive sex life.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 21:26

Frankly, I would think any parents in a 'polyamorous' relationship are showing a pretty awful example for their children.

What example is that, Margery?

That relationships take many forms? That it's possible to love more than one person? That sex is a good, enjoyable and beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of? That sharing time and affection with people who bring colour to your life is open-hearted and positive?

OP posts: