Now illegal to have sex with partner you don't live with?

[Sueannnnna]

Lots of newspapers/online articles announcing this today.
Being in a private place with partner and having sex can lead to a £100 fine if i've read correctly.

The world is going cuckoo.
But who cares about seeing my boyfriend, at least I can go shopping in Primark and go sit on a packed train (sarcasm)

If takeaways and non-essential shops and schools were closed, i would still be folllwing it strictly. But the government deem those to be safe to begin opening.

But i feel safer seeing my boyfriend than getting on a packed tube or eating some food a stranger has made. And guess which ones i'm "allowed" to do

[quote Sueannnnna]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras yes the lockdown was to stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. Nightingale hospital hasn't even been used properly yet (despite the scare.mongering!)

If you want to say cooped up until a vaccine is created then that's your life. But I think a lot of humans will learn to live with it as i think most would rather take the risk and live life than be stuck between four wallks for a year or more, only being out to shop or work.

People can die of.many things. Should we just stop crossing roads incase a car hits us?
Fatty foods and cigarettes are awful for us but do humans stop eating them?

In life, there is always a risk.[/quote]
Maybe you should check your privilege? Most of us shielding know only two well that we can die of other things.

I don't have much choice about staying indoors and for you to say that shows just how ignorant you are about people with serious medical conditions.

You don't have the right to risk other people's lives by your actions. If you want to risk your own life, well, have at it but why do you think you have the right to potentially spread this to people you might come in contact with - a shop worker or a health care worker, a bus driver or a child's school teacher?

This is not about individual brights at the moment. It's about restrictions being applied to everyone so that the whole country can get through this. I can't understand how individuals think they are more important than a whole country.

@blueluce85 excuse me? Our circumstances mean we can't move in together yet.
You would probably be the same person who would comment that a woman is moving her partner in too soon if she asked before a pandemic.

Just because someone has moved in together doesn't.mean they love their partner less than people who have.

People are still having affairs and live with their partner, so no co-habitating does not mean "i love my partner more" than non-cohabitating

Does sex not count as exercise?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras
Why don't you go moan to the government about non-essential shops, drive-thrus and takeaways opening, packed beaches, shopkeepers mingling together in groups before you moan about me seeing my boyfriend.

If takeaways and non-essential shops and schools were closed, i would still be folllwing it strictly. But the government deem those to be safe to begin opening.

So you think getting a take away, or shopping in Primark, are as risky as having sex with your boyfriend? What on earth do you do in Primark? Or do you plan on having sex from two.metres apart?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras me seeing my boyfriend and others seeing their partners is not going to make everybody drop dead is it?
People are hysterical and scare mongering!!

I am not different to a co-habitating couple who go out and work, mingle with co-workers and then come home to their partner.
Apart from I don't go out apart from to shop and see boyfriend.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras
Let's also ban co-habitating couples having sex then if sex is such a risk.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras whilst we're at it,
Let's all just become house hermits who live to work.

Have any of the posters getting worked up about this law disadvantaging them been vocal on other issues?

I hope you all defended Neil Ferguson who was publicly shamed and lost his job for seeing a lady he was in a sexual relationship with.

You are suggesting you know what I am thinking!

If a partner had moved in at the start of the pandemic then it would have reduced travel to and from to see each other (which clearly is still happening). I'm assuming there aren't any children involved, so that wouldn't have affected the decision to move in. It would only have been potentially temporary, or a make or break.

I personally chose to put my child first and I didn't see the person I was seeing before lockdown, and it got too hard so we separated. My childs needs came above mine and I want to return to normality sooner rather than later so am doing as I am told in the hope that I am one of many and this will speed the process up

Why don't you go moan to the government about non-essential shops, drive-thrus and takeaways opening, packed beaches, shopkeepers mingling together in groups before you moan about me seeing my boyfriend.

What.makes you think I haven't?

But all of those things aren't equal when it comes to risk. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Takeaways are pretty safe as long as you socially distance during delivery and wash your hands after handling the containers.

Non essential shops - more risky just because they are encouraging people not be out and about and entail handling goods and money, but as long as people socially distance and wash their hands it's still relatively low risk.

Packed beaches are just a symptom of what's being displayed on this thread. The individuals concerned are idiots and are displaying monumental.levels of selfishness, as are any shopkeepers who mingle together.

However, out of all, meeting someone for sex has to be the most riskiest of all. You aren't six feet apart and you will be kissing - this is a virus spread by droplets so if either of you have it it's a pretty safe bet that the other will catch it. That's the difference.

@Floatyboat the difference is Neil Fergueson was an advocate for lockdown and was one of the scientists to propose lockdown as an essential measure.
I am not going around making people stay indoors and then shagging my mistress

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras i love how you avoided whether co-habitating couples who go out and mingle in work should also be banned from having sex

@blueluce85 i'm suggesting that you generalised everybody into one bucket! Not everybody can move in together.
Some people moved in together after only being with each other a month, are they more in love or serious than a couple who have been together a year or a few years but circumstances prevent them moving in?

Stop generalising

But we have had our rights and freedoms removed. Why? Because of the virus per se? No, but because the government have told us it’s necessary. And we’ve just all rolled over and accepted it. You carry on being blind to it all though and what it really means, and willingly just give up all your rights to save the lives of at absolute best some of 0.5% the population.

@SudokuBook - you do realise that 0.5% would be the rough equivalent of wiping out say Exeter and Plymouth, literally every living person dead? It might be less obvious when it's spread across the country but it's still killing a lot of people. It's already killed the equivalent of the whole of Torquay (you can see by the places picked where I've spent a lot of my life!!), is that not enough? How is the lockdown and rules not to do with the virus per se?

And of course deciding whether a partner moves in, people always think firstly 'ooh will it lead to reduced travel?' rather than 'hmm is this right for my kids?'

My partner lives very close. Same shops. Both at home. No "travel" we can walk.

@sue

The Neil Ferguson saga was only bad if you think he did something wrong. He did not come up with actual policy, his insights just informed it. You are saying there's nothing wrong staying over with your lover for sex so therefore you should defend him or you're a hypocrite.

Just follow the rules. If you agree with them or not they're there for a reason.

[quote Sueannnnna]@ItsGoingTibiaK i'm not saying they will last 2 years. People would not comply anyway. But the virus is not going anyway. So what difference is me seeing my partner now and me seeing him in his house a month or 2 going to make? The virus will still be here.
We're just waiting for "permission" of the government. A government that sees opening non-essential shops over loved ones.
No thank you. If I can go shopping in Primark or Ikea or have a teenage boy make my Mcdonalds food, then I will see my boyfriend.

I find it awful that some people have the mindset of - "it's okay to open non-essential shops because they pay taxes and NI so help our economy but you seeing your partner doesn't help anybody"

I'm sorry but the virus doesn't discriminite on 'oh Primark is helping the economy, I won't get those people they pay NI. Oh look over there, there's a couple kissing. They both havent really left their house in 2 months but they don't live together, let me infect them"[/quote]
@Sueannnnna

Because the legislation isn't designed to specifically prevent you from seeing your boyfriend. It's designed as written - to prevent two people from different households meeting inside a private home. While you may deem your own circumstances to be low risk, it would be impossible at the moment to write legislation that covers this, hence the temporary blanket restriction.

People meeting in private homes are much more likely to be in close contact with each other for a long period of time - which carries a greater risk of infection than briefly sharing space in Primark.

In an ideal world, we would all be able to risk-assess our own circumstances and the emergency legislation would never have been needed. Unfortunately, humans are generally pretty poor at assessing risk in an unbiased, objective manner, and many of them behave in selfish ways that put others at risk.

And despite your protestations, you're still talking about being "cooped up until a vaccine is created".

But to be fair to @Hearhoovesthinkzebras they have resolutely been against everything except staying indoors in isolation from the start so no change.

'Prof Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist whose modelling helped shape Britain’s coronavirus lockdown strategy, has quit as a government adviser after flouting the rules by receiving visits from his lover at his home.

Ferguson runs the group of scientists at Imperial College London whose projections helped persuade ministers of the need to impose stringent physical distancing rules, or risk the NHS being overwhelmed.'

Please do more research.

I am not hypocrite.
I would be a hypocrite if I was shouting at people to stay in whilst doing what I want. But i don't police other people'e actions since it's none of my business

@ItsGoingTibiaK i won't be cooped until a vaccine is created and I doubt most of the population will.
If people want to stay indoors, do that. If people want ti hug their mum or dad, do that.
If a 50 yesr old teacher can teach a reception class, then she should be able to hug her grandchild.

21000 cases in America diagnosed the other day, people rebelling on mass there....