Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Midge1978 · 01/12/2017 22:25

I feel quite uncomfortable with this thread. The op is using a real life case of child neglect to promote her own lifestyle choices. I don't think she was actually "offended" by the headline at all. It's very distasteful.

I find it so sad that a seven year old is already aware of these things. Op I think you already have your head firmly in the sand regarding the effects it's having on your daughter.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 22:39

Ok, I'm not going to spend days of my life, again, justifying non-monogamy to those who have no interest in hearing anything that doesn't fit with their preconceptions. I did that a few years back and it was a huge waste of my time and energy.

I think this was an poor excuse for an article that used the 'open relationship' angle as click bait, when the legal case in question wasn't really about that at all. It was unjustifiably conflating poor parenting with non-monogamy, and that to do so was disingenuous, and pejorative towards those who do open relationships of all shades, in an ethical, appropriate, safe and honest way.

And so yes, I was very offended by it.

OP posts:
FlowerPot1234 · 01/12/2017 22:44

when the legal case in question wasn't really about that at all.
Yes it was - it was about neglect and how the open relationship was a contributory factor to that neglect.

It was unjustifiably conflating poor parenting with non-monogamy
No, it cited precisely how the open relationship these parents had resulted in neglect.

and that to do so was disingenuous, and pejorative towards those who do open relationships of all shades, in an ethical, appropriate, safe and honest way.
No, it didn't say anything like that. That is all fabricated by you. It is not there in the article.

And so yes, I was very offended by it.
You've made yourself offended by words which aren't actually there nor inferred.

OP, do you think there is any connection between your depression and anxiety and your polyamorous choice?

PumpkinSquash · 01/12/2017 22:47

Ok, I'm not going to spend days of my life, again, justifying non-monogamy to those who have no interest in hearing anything that doesn't fit with their preconceptions. I did that a few years back and it was a huge waste of my time and energy.

Yeah, you carry on, stick your head in your hand, la la, la, in you're I'm not listening mode.
I hate these types of AIBU's.
OP - AIBU?
MN - near enough an unanimous YABU.
OP - Wah, no I'm not, you're all wrong and you just don't GET me."

Why post?

NeedsAsockamnesty · 01/12/2017 22:47

Stop kidding yourself op it’s not the open relationships people have such an issue with other than a handful (at least I don’t) I personally have very little interest in monogamy, these days it’s not even a out there alternative lifestyle.

You don’t have to justify that. But try and justify why you think it’s acceptable to involve your children in your adult interpersonal decisions and choices.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 22:49

Flowerpot. No there is no link between my depression and anxiety and my polyamorous choice no. My depression and anxiety predates it, as I've said, I have experienced it since childhood.

However, I have found that those who practice ethical non-monogamy have developed good communication skills, and are more than averagely open and honest, and that I find that to be very helpful. But it didn't dictate my choice, as I discovered that having already made that choice.

I simply never felt sure that traditional monogamy was for me. I tried it, and found that indeed it really wasn't.

Clear enough for you?

OP posts:
FlowerPot1234 · 01/12/2017 22:53

Flowerpot. No there is no link between my depression and anxiety and my polyamorous choice no.
Really?

My depression and anxiety predates it, as I've said, I have experienced it since childhood.
Yes, understood. But I am not speaking of a causal relationship between polyamorous relationships and depression and anxiety, I am speaking of a greater incidence of depression and anxiety found in those who choose polyamorous relationships, and in some cases a long-term worsening of such depression and anxiety (even if masked by a short-term improvement).

As for the article, it really didn't say what you think it said.

Toadinthehole · 01/12/2017 22:54

OP, I think YANBU to be annoyed by the headline. Imagine if it was simply "Children removed after parents' relationship contributes to neglect". Well, you wouldn't get a headline like that because it wouldn't be news. The whole point of the headline is that it is an open relationship. I imagine there are functional and dysfunctional open relationships just as there are with all relationships (personally I disapprove of open relationships, but that's by the by).

YABU though to cancel your Guardian subscription. I agree that a lot of Guardian journalism at present is shrill and one-dimensional compared to what it was even a few years ago. I grew up reading the Guardian, and I hardly recognise what is being written in its name though. However, the reality is that everything else is worse, particularly online. The Guardian needs your support because if it doesn't get it, something worse will replace it. It's probably the best Internet-based source of news in the English language. Do you really want to have the Guardian abandon the Internet to Breitbart, Fox News and the Daily Mail sidebar of shame? If not, then continue your subscription.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 22:55

NeedsAsockamnesty - I simply answer the questions my children ask honestly and appropriately. For example they know my partner has another relationship because they've met his other partner and his children from that relationship.

They take it at face value and are quite unfazed about it. Sometimes they have questions about how it works in practice – things like "how do you make sure you have the right clothes at the right house". They can relate to this as they spend time at my house and at their father's and often find the shoes they want are at the other one.

OP posts:
MistressDeeCee · 01/12/2017 22:57

Why did they have to mention open relationship? Sounds like the usual disapproving moralising. Of course it implies open relationship is an issue. When the issue is neglect, just as it would be if it were a different type of relationship. Stupid, "bait" article

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:04

Flowerpot, the original title - before they changed it, absolutely did.

And I've been in this relationship for five years, and I've never been more well during that time.

The other people involved I know well and have been very open with them about my own mental health struggles, and so have no reason to believe they would conceal anything of this nature from me. And as far as know they have no history of mental health issues of any kind.

But unless you can link to the study we're speaking in hypotheticals. I read widely on the subject and have never come across any such correlation... And that has not been my experience.

OP posts:
Toadinthehole · 01/12/2017 23:05

I think it's less about moralising than getting clicks to earn advertising revenue. I understand the Guardian is struggling financially. Given the state of Internet journalism, that should worry everyone.

Toadinthehole · 01/12/2017 23:08

Has the headline actually been changed? This thread got posted at 01-Dec-17 16:50:35. Someone quoted the headline as it currently stands at 01-Dec-17 17:13:52; 23 minutes later.

The link is the same as when this thread was originally posted.

If it's changed, what was it before?

Killdora · 01/12/2017 23:09

Oooohhh I remember you now op.

Children in therapy yet?

If I remember rightly you had a massive thread going about poly-fuckery relationships a few years ago. Used lots of big words about how ethical, moral and oh so awesome your life was.

Then stuck your fingers in your ears as the posts rolled in.

Posters who had been in your dc’s situation telling you how god awful it was to be the child in that set up, no matter how it was done.

Posters who were in poly relationships themselves but were disgusted at how you kept ‘involving’ your dc in utterly age inappropriate ways, how you seemingly needed them to know the details when it wasn’t warranted at all. And tried to disguise it as Envytelling the truth.

I’m not surprised to see you’ve still got your fingers firmly wedged in those eardrums, a chip on your shoulder and still putting your sec life ahead of your dc.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:13

The article as it was sent to me had a different title: Children removed from family home over parents' open relationship.

I don't know when it was changed. The original title as I saw it is still in the article URL though.

OP posts:
FlowerPot1234 · 01/12/2017 23:13

whycantwegoonasthree OK. For what it's worth, you've debated coherently and politely, and I appreciate that. I have concerns and worries, for you and your children, but well handled.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:17

Killdora as I remember I answered questions consistently and respectfully throughout that thread over many days.

And my children didn't even know about DP at the time so you're talking out of your arse, they weren't 'involved' at all. Most of the abuse I got on that thread was because I hadn't told them. Damned if I do… etc.

And they are still not involved in age inappropriate ways, and never will be.

OP posts:
LipstickHandbagCoffee · 01/12/2017 23:19

Good Social Work Practice, removing risk and consideration of welfare and safeguarding
It’s not the polyamarous nature of the relationship.its the lack of adult supervision, no consistency, other unknown adults in the home, unstructured and unsafe boundaries regarding parenting

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:21

No need to worry Killdora.

My children are well and happy, as am I.

The only challenge, really is coordinating diaries.

Oh, and narrow mindedness.

For what it's worth all our family members know of our set up, and none of them are remotely concerned about us or the children. They were at first, as it was new and unconventional, but they just see healthy happy relationships being played out, and the children thriving. It's a shame that side of things doesn't often make it into Guardian articles.

OP posts:
dentalplanlisaneedsbraces · 01/12/2017 23:23

Your children are aware of your other partners, which means they have been exposed to your lifestyle and you are being inappropriate. It's bizarre you can't see that.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:26

And thanks Flowerpot. I try and keep a cool head... but don't always succeed!

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:27

Why is an understanding that people can and do love more than one person inappropriate?

OP posts:
LipstickHandbagCoffee · 01/12/2017 23:27

Sorry it’s a shame what?that the guardian isn’t running article on open relationships?
Why should they?

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:30

"Mummy loves P. P loves mummy and also K. They all know and like each othe. Sometimes Mummy and P go out together. Sometimes P and K go out together. Sometimes mummy and K go out together (because they both like yoga and P doesn't…).

Nothing inappropriate or damaging there…

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 23:32

Lipstick - no it a shame that they only run articles that purport in their (original) title to be about the negatives effects of open relationships but aren't really. It's about balance and honesty.

OP posts: