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?

I don't read the guardian, but the headline is true:

The children were removed after parents' open relationship contributes to neglect.

The open relationship did contribute to the neglect for the reasons the article states. How can you disagree with that?

I grew up with parents who were swingers.

They failed to set boundaries between their sex lives and their children and exposed me and my sibling to it all when we were growing up.

My brother then went on to sexually abuse me.

I can't help but think that my parent's 'anything goes' attitude to sex didn't help.

Just an alternative view to yours, OP.

"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?"

Gosh yes, all of those things were going through my mind when I was wondering downstairs late at night to find Mummy sitting on Daddy's friends lap and Daddy's hand down Mummy's friends dress.

I think fingersonbuzzersplease sums it all up. So very sorry to hear of your experience.

Quite honestly, what springs to mind is a man who's having his cake, eating it and then having a second portion elsewhere, all the while rubbing his hands together with glee and wondering how he has managed to get away with it.

Open relationship does not equal neglectful parenting.

The children were removed because the parents were neglectful. But I guess that's not a story.

But the judge expressly referred to strangers visiting the familial home for sex with the mother as a point of concern.

Those poor kids. One wonders how they’ll feel when they come of age if the circumstances surrounding their adoption are revealed to them.

You batter in there and cancel your subscription though. Nowt unreasonable about that. 👍

fingersonbuzzersplease - I'm genuinely sorry that was your experience.

The consensual part of consensual non-monogamy is key - and that includes exposure of minors or anyone else who hasn't explicitly consented, to any kind of sexual activity.

I would say that things have moved on significantly in recent years, and there is more guidance around as to how to do alternative relationships well and in a healthy way for all concerned.

Have they changed the headline hen as the way it reads now seems ok?

Interested to know which paper you’ll read instead?

That relationships take many forms? That it's possible to love more than one person?

The mother in this case wasn’t in love with the “strangers” she met at her drive-thru shagging sessions.

MargeryFenworthy what makes you assume it is only men who are having more than one relationship?

So while that may be what springs to your mind, that's probably just because you haven't bothered to open it recently.

Sorry, op, but you've described setting this example and I can only assume it's because you've exposed your kids to this stuff:

"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?"

Perhaps you meant something different than I am intepreting , however, and you have shielded your children from this.

You seem to think that you know more about these kind of relationships than anybody else here.

I can tell you - from a child's point of view - that being raised in this way was extremely damaging to me.

I wish my parents had been able to put their children first before their sex lives.

ButchyRestingFace

The mother in this case wasn’t in love with the “strangers” she met at her drive-thru shagging sessions.

I wasn't saying that. I was responding to Margery's sweeping generalisation of all poly relationships as setting an awful example for children.

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

It's exactly the point. You say yourself you don't think it's wise and it seems the court agreed with you, hence it contributing to why the children were removed.

I have no issue with people having as many partners as they like, just keep it away from the home where it could have a negative effect on the children. Get a cheap hotel or go to the other person's home. Put your children, not your sex life, first.

• cheap as in not costing you too much, not having a dig (honest)

Can't remember the paper, but isn't there research that indicates a higher incidence of depression, anxiety and mental illness in those in polyamorous relationships than monogomous/conventional partnerships?

I don't know how to do links but the first blue link in the guardian story sends you to a lot of information about the court case.

Those poor poor children

*meant to say ..than the general population in monogomous/conventional partnerships?

Fingersonbuzzers - unfortunately the op will not respect your view until you have 'conducted extensive research to back up your claim'.

Your tragically moving first hand account of growing up in a home like this says it all and shows up the op's ridiculous hallmark sentiment for what it is. It's one thing to have an open relationship but quite another to do it when children are involved. These people who put their own gratification before the well-being of their own children are selfish at best. Children are left feeling confused about sexual and relationship boundaries and they will find out however discreetly you hide the colour bringers

My children know very little detail of our setup - but if they ask a question they get it answered honestly. They don't ask because they don't need to.

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, but if they did I would tell them honestly. And if they ask questions regarding sex, they will get a very sex-positive answer.

But they witness nothing directly or indirectly, are not put at risk or in awkward situations, and they are very much put first.

I'm genuinely sorry that wasn't what your parents did. Allowing children to witness adult scenes is very much not ok.

"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, but if they did I would tell them honestly. And if they ask questions regarding sex, they will get a very sex-positive answer."

This sounds very much as though you are exposing them to it, to me.

And why would you feel the need to be "sex-positive" with children.

My children know what sex is, but I certainly don't sell it to them.

You're actually really creeping me out now.

Midge - it's possible to do polyamory well or poorly. To leave children feeling confused, or to help them to understand to a level that is appropriate to their age and capacity.

And I would say that children are quite able to learn a lot more about poor relationship boundaries in many 'traditional' marriages then they do form people who are concerned with ethical, equal, communicative, 'open' relationships done well.

The fact that my children were seeing such a poor example of respect, boundaries, consideration and honesty in my marriage was why I left it.

I've just read the judgement and it's very sad. The mother has a learning disability and the father has since left her and is living with another woman he was having an affair with. I wonder how 'consensual' all of this was Definitely not an 'open relationship', just an abusive and dysfunctional one.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B86.html&query=(Williscroft)+AND+(Sandwell)

...anyway...

The article said the open relationship contributed to the neglect. Which it did. So OP, I can't understand why you don't agree with the article.

Why would anyone want to be 'sex negative' with children? Tell them it's bad or shameful or wrong? I don't sell it, they don't ask about it anyway, because they're too young.

But as and when they do, then they won't be getting negativity about it from me, that's for sure. I grew up thinking that sex was a dreadful burden that had to be endured and was best avoided. So maybe we all react to our upbringing.

Well quite MrLoveBucket. That's entirely my point. This has nothing whatsoever to do with open relationships per se.

"Why would anyone want to be 'sex negative' with children? Tell them it's bad or shameful or wrong? "

Don't build a straw man - I haven't suggested anybody should be sex-negative.

Just factual with small children. This is what it is. Only adults do it.

No need to sell it to them.

You're still creeping me out.

You remind me of my mother, actually. Still completely convinced that she didn't do anything wrong. Couldn't possibly reflect on how her behaviour might affect somebody else.

She has no relationship with me or my children because of this. Same with my Dad.

And obviously, I don't have contact with my brother either.

A family completely ruined.

But hey, it was only a bit of wonderfully positive sex.

So what would I know?