Polyamory General - Polyamory drama from Facebook, Reddit, and more

[Beluga]

is it normal for newspaper writers to publish their articles anonymously? seems fishy to me
then again, i can understand the guy not wanting the whole world to know what a pathetic cuck he is

You really do live up to your name: "Each week, a reader tells us about their sex life. Want to share yours? Email sex@theguardian.com ".

 

[Cheeseburger Picnic]

But when it comes to fans wanting to sleep with him and how that affects Gates, Middleditch admitted it’s a slippery slope.

“That’s one of the trickier elements of it all, because Mollie doesn’t get that and yet she has to witness it. I’m like, ‘Come on, what about this chick who’s obviously really into me?’ And Mollie will say, ‘Yeah, she’s into you, but where do I fit in?’ That question comes up.”

From his own words it sounds like his poor wife isn't even happy or willing in the arrangement, but goes along with it to make him pleased. He just wants to whore around while she just wants to be with him. It's obviously hurting her to do this, but this guy ignores it because all he wants is to get his dick wet. This shit is fucking abusive, straight-up.

If he's the kind of person who plays head games with his monogamous wife to fuck around with fans it's pretty much a countdown to getting #metoo'd. Garden variety cheaters are usually just selfish, people who manipulate their spouses into thinking it's really for the good of the relationship are straight up sociopaths and almost certainly have plenty of skellies in the closet.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I can only drop in some community watch threads occasionally, but fuck this is a hard one. It’s just like jfc people I’m sure the poly people that actually work out don’t talk about it on reddit ffs. I wouldn’t consider myself poly, but my wife is into chicks and that’s just something we plan to do before having kids. Not fucking date the damn chick willing to fuck a married couple.

R/poly land of the cucks

You sound like you 'bout to get cucked yourself

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

From the Newspaper of Record: "How To Propose an Open Relationship"

How to Propose an Open Relationship

Raise the topic gradually. Talk about famous attractive people.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not usually the type who goes around ranting about "degeneracy", but... wow

Wow they actually have an "expert" telling people to get their spouse drunk and suggest a threesome.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Wow they actually have an "expert" telling people to get their spouse drunk and suggest a threesome.

Rape expert.

 

[AnOminous]

From the Newspaper of Record: "How To Propose an Open Relationship"

How to Propose an Open Relationship

Raise the topic gradually. Talk about famous attractive people.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not usually the type who goes around ranting about "degeneracy", but... wow

If you’re in a monogamous relationship and want to explore making it nonmonogamous, raise the topic gradually. Conley doesn’t drink, but she thinks these exploratory conversations might benefit from the loosening effects of alcohol.

This sounds like advice to a date rapist or a how to guide for a domestic abuser. Abusers also often "raise the topic gradually," starting out with a honeymoon period where they act perfect, then slowly introduce emotional abuse and controlling behavior, ramping up to the actual beatings.

And seriously, alcohol? This is literally date rapist shit. Get the bitch drunk so she'll do anal. What the fuck? And this is presented as legitimate advice, not a horrifying date rape and abuse manual.

 

[Vorhtbame]

This sounds like advice to a date rapist or a how to guide for a domestic abuser. Abusers also often "raise the topic gradually," starting out with a honeymoon period where they act perfect, then slowly introduce emotional abuse and controlling behavior, ramping up to the actual beatings.

And seriously, alcohol? This is literally date rapist shit. Get the bitch drunk so she'll do anal. What the fuck? And this is presented as legitimate advice, not a horrifying date rape and abuse manual.

As with anything else in the realm of the Regressives: It's okay when they do it.

 

[RadicalCentrist]

The law does not countenance cuckoldry and one is presumed to be the father of one's wife's children even if they are Tyrone's, as explained by cuckoldry-hating Justice Scalia in the celebrated case of Michael H. v. Gerald D.

Lol what? That same precedent is used to force cuckolds to pay child support to their unfaithful ex's. The ones that want nothing to do with the homewrecker that ruined their lives. If anything, the court fully approves of cuckoldry.

 

[Captain Hastings Official]

Lol what? That same precedent is used to force cuckolds to pay child support to their unfaithful ex's. The ones that want nothing to do with the homewrecker that ruined their lives. If anything, the court fully approves of cuckoldry.

I think it's "does not countenance cuckoldry" in the sense that "any man who allows his wife to bear another man's child is viewed as so pathetic that he deserves any and everything he gets."

And yes, I agree that this view creates all kinds of perverse incentives for both men and women in marriages.

 

[Vorhtbame]

Lol what? That same precedent is used to force cuckolds to pay child support to their unfaithful ex's. The ones that want nothing to do with the homewrecker that ruined their lives. If anything, the court fully approves of cuckoldry.

It's a holdover from a time when the father automatically had custody, and adultery was one of the few things you could claim to get a divorce. Sort of a disincentive to women wanting to cheat: you lost your comfortable home, your reputation, and your precious child all in one go.

Unfortunately, cafeteria-style morality doesn't work very well, so now it's on full reverse and men are on the hook for children not their own and women are free to be irresponsible assholes.

That being said, I get that it's a terrible injustice to make a man pay for a child who is provably not his own; however, any alternatives run the risk of impairing the actual rights of the extreme majority of fathers, whose children are their own. And what I don't get is the men who think that now is the time for the government and courts to tinker with this, while simultaneously regarding both institutions as their mortal enemies.

I mean, I can make some suggestions about how you can cut way back on this shit, but I suspect the only way out is through, now that we're in terminal-stage degeneracy.

 

[neverendingmidi]

That being said, I get that it's a terrible injustice to make a man pay for a child who is provably not his own; however, any alternatives run the risk of impairing the actual rights of the extreme majority of fathers, whose children are their own. And what I don't get is the men who think that now is the time for the government and courts to tinker with this, while simultaneously regarding both institutions as their mortal enemies.

How so? If a man demands a paternity test, and is proved to not be the father, he doesn't pay. If he is either proven to be the father, or refuses to request a paternity test, he does pay. It wouldn't take that much. Then the woman is responsible for tracking down whoever's the dad to try and shake money out of them.

 

[Francis Dollarhyde]

It's a holdover from a time when the father automatically had custody, and adultery was one of the few things you could claim to get a divorce. Sort of a disincentive to women wanting to cheat: you lost your comfortable home, your reputation, and your precious child all in one go.

Unfortunately, cafeteria-style morality doesn't work very well, so now it's on full reverse and men are on the hook for children not their own and women are free to be irresponsible assholes.

That being said, I get that it's a terrible injustice to make a man pay for a child who is provably not his own; however, any alternatives run the risk of impairing the actual rights of the extreme majority of fathers, whose children are their own. And what I don't get is the men who think that now is the time for the government and courts to tinker with this, while simultaneously regarding both institutions as their mortal enemies.

I mean, I can make some suggestions about how you can cut way back on this shit, but I suspect the only way out is through, now that we're in terminal-stage degeneracy.

Also inheritance. If I could make a baby with a wealthy married woman, and she had a son, I would have certain rights as the father. So, the French found a way around this by making any kid born in a marriage the kid of the father, no way out of it at all. They keep this up to current day. If you are French, and you and your wife both deny you are the father, you are it, the end. Customs actively intercepts these tests even if you do it yourself, because they are illegal. Napoleon spread this around so anywhere Napoleon went, this law (or a variant of it) sticks around.

Imagine a woman, hiding a pregnancy, playing tricks, you get engaged. You find out she cheated, break it off. Turns out she was pregnant. Well well, any woman where you should have reasonably known, in the courts eyes, she was pregnant, and you get married or engaged to her, you are the legal father, dna test will be denied. A method I am personally familiar with, shall we say. I knew this already, but what I did not know, is jurisprudence says any "shown intention toward marriage or engagement" also counts. Did I mention child support can run to 23 years old (and sometimes well beyond that, if still in school)?

Then the woman is responsible for tracking down whoever's the dad to try and shake money out of them.

Provided she can find the dad. Sometimes they cannot because that 1 night stand lied about his name or never gave one, or they had 15 men pay for bareback gangbangs and the new boyfriend refuses to pay up for her kid so she has to find the other men, and can get only 8 to appear. Then will the state happily eat the cost or get some idiot on the hook and be done with it?

 

[Vulpes Incunta]

r/polyamory - Poly is Hard Support Thread

259 votes and 205 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

>198 replies
Its almost like this poly shit doesn't work

 

[NoReturn]

Sort of a disincentive to women wanting to cheat: you lost your comfortable home, your reputation, and your precious child all in one go.

iirc we had this figured out 6000 years ago. Back in Hammurabi's time if a dude left his wife and kids for another woman, she kept the house and money and the kids, and if the woman left for another dude the dude kept the house and money and kids.
Literally the whole point was to make sure the next generation was taken care of for the sake of society.

 

[Vorhtbame]

How so? If a man demands a paternity test, and is proved to not be the father, he doesn't pay. If he is either proven to be the father, or refuses to request a paternity test, he does pay. It wouldn't take that much. Then the woman is responsible for tracking down whoever's the dad to try and shake money out of them.

Spoiler: Off-topic sperging

Okay, let's say they change the laws and men can rebut the presumption of paternity. Great, we're moving forward to a future of men being able to enjoy the fullness of their rights.

But do you think you'll be allowed to refuse? Health-insurance companies have an interest in whether that child is yours, because he or she is going on your insurance policy. They have a fiduciary responsibility to other policyholders and shareholders to ensure that nobody gets paid for who doesn't belong, after all...and they're not paying for some stranger's child. You don't get to refuse, not if you want continuing coverage.

Now all paternity rights are in the hands of some lab tech who may or may not be helping himself to the contents of the medicine cabinet--or even more fun, some feminist lab tech who decided she doesn't like men for whatever reason.

Off to the family courts, to divorce that unfaithful whore and sever your ties to her bastard child she tried to foist on you. You might even get her jailed for paternity fraud. She swears she's never been with anyone but you, but the evidence is there, incontrovertible! Let the real father pay for his own kid--and if she never finds him, well, that's no concern of yours. She can get welfare.

On the long odds that you find out the tech was a supreme fuckup, well...good luck reconciling with your now ex-wife, much less fixing all of it without bankrupting yourself in court proceedings (before a judge who already hates you for being male).

Over the top? Maybe. But then again, people do have a bad habit of ignoring the evidence of their eyes and their gut in favor of "scientific" proofs (no matter how easily forged, falsified, or corrupted they can be).

TL;DR: You seem to think it's simple, but it's not. It never is. Law is something that has developed over thousands of years of human asshattery, and exists to hold society together in a shape that functions for another dozen years. Most laws are the way they are not because of technology or the lack thereof, but because human nature takes certain predictable paths. Open a door to losing your rights, and you will get pushed through it.

 

[AnOminous]

TL;DR: You seem to think it's simple, but it's not. It never is. Law is something that has developed over thousands of years of human asshattery, and exists to hold society together in a shape that functions for another dozen years. Most laws are the way they are not because of technology or the lack thereof, but because human nature takes certain predictable paths. Open a door to losing your rights, and you will get pushed through it.

A major reason for the presumption of paternity in marriage, and for making it irrebuttable, is that while it may be unfair to force a married man to support the product of an adulterous affair, it is even more unfair to force the taxpayer to pick up the cost instead. If you are married, you are presumed to be the father of any offspring.

Since the primary issue in support actions is the welfare of the child, that doesn't mean this necessarily works both ways, and the biological father can be sued for child support as well, either by the presumed father, mother, or the state if it has had to pay welfare benefits to the child as the result of a deadbeat parent.

So the presumed father might not be entirely out of luck. Although I'm not sure how many states actually would allow such a legal action, the Supreme Court decision wouldn't preclude it.

 

[Captain Hastings Official]

A major reason for the presumption of paternity in marriage, and for making it irrebuttable, is that while it may be unfair to force a married man to support the product of an adulterous affair, it is even more unfair to force the taxpayer to pick up the cost instead.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow this reasoning at all. Why it is more unfair for one man who has been abused by his wife to be forced to pay for all of the costs of this random, unrelated child than it is for those costs to be split among tens of thousands or millions of strangers who have already agreed to contribute to the general welfare of their neighbors? The latter seems much less burdensome than the former.

EDIT: Fuck, I'm getting angry about politics on KiwiFarms and trying to debate people. That's awful. Here, take some depressing screencaps from the recent "Talking to kids about polyamory" thread. It's awful too, but at least it's on topic.

Spoiler: but seriously, for the love of all things holy, won't someone think of the children?

Those six year olds are just too pure and open minded for that evil monogamy! Whew.

"It's just a normal part of [her 8 year old's] colorful world."

...This lady's poor, poor daughter sounds so much more mature than either her or her husband or any of their fuckbuddies. I hope she grows up safe. And I feel bad for the son who "just thinks we should be friends," too, who doesn't get told anything. Although at least he doesn't have to play therapist for his middle-aged mother like it sounds like her daughter has to. Jesus.

 

[break these cuffs]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow this reasoning at all. Why it is more unfair for one man who has been abused by his wife to be forced to pay for all of the costs of this random, unrelated child than it is for those costs to be split among tens of thousands or millions of strangers who have already agreed to contribute to the general welfare of their neighbors? The latter seems much less burdensome than the former.

None of those stranger's wives bort another man's baby. This isn't rocket appliances.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow this reasoning at all. Why it is more unfair for one man who has been abused by his wife to be forced to pay for all of the costs of this random, unrelated child than it is for those costs to be split among tens of thousands or millions of strangers who have already agreed to contribute to the general welfare of their neighbors? The latter seems much less burdensome than the former.

He married the bitch, I didn't.

 

[NoReturn]

CHOO CHOO! Let's get this train back on the rails.

Those six year olds are just too pure and open minded for that evil monogamy! Whew.

Yeah. It's not like we were already watching Disney movies and cartoons with monogamous couples at that age oh waaaait...

...This lady's poor, poor daughter sounds so much more mature than either her or her husband or any of their fuckbuddies. I hope she grows up safe. And I feel bad for the son who "just thinks we should be friends," too, who doesn't get told anything. Although at least he doesn't have to play therapist for his middle-aged mother like it sounds like her daughter has to. Jesus.

And now that poor kid has to keep mommy's secret at school and from her friends.
Also, the mom saying her daughter is "very 'rule book'" and that her kids are "sneaky and suspicious" tells me the daughter is dealing with an immature parent who probably rags on her for "not wanting to have fun" or being "too uptight" (I also may be projecting here but whatever).