The Best Way To Talk To Kids About Dating After Divorce
Objectification and Veto Power - Polyamorous Tribe
Veto Dating: OH Singles & Personals Match.com®
Dating Matters Coaches provide training, supervision, and support to facilitators of the youth and parent programs. They guide program facilitators through their online and in-person training, including observing them in action and providing feedback and support. Contrast Child Marriage Veto. See also Dating What Daddy Hates and Meet the In-Laws. Advertisement: Examples. open/close all folders . Anime & Manga . An episode of Planetes inverts this when it turns out that Edel had to stay away from her husband for five years to prevent her parents from vetoing their divorce. Saying no to a potential partner, or a partner that is already established within your relationship, is called giving a veto, or having veto power. It is an extremely unhealthy use of your couple’s privilege when entering the dating scene in the polyamorous community. Single Parents Women in Veto, OH. Find an online single in Ohio or the Buckeye State today. Match.com is an online dating service for Ohio singles. Are you single and lonely in Veto, Ohio? It's not easy being single in Veto - but it's a cinch meeting single men and single women on Match.com. Making your child part of the process—but without giving them veto rule over your dating life—can help ease them into the idea that Mom or Dad has someone new, and that as the children, they’re still important. Advertising. Reassure Them That Their Other Parent Isn’t Being Replaced. No Sliding Into These DMs! 7 People To Instantly Veto When Online Dating. By amberwarren on November 02, 2012. Online dating is the new way for busy singles to meet each other. Digital dating has swelled into a multi-million dollar industry, and is only going to get bigger. Blind dates and awkward setups are a thing of the past now that people ... Dating Matters® Understanding Teen Dating Violence Prevention Training for Educators helps educators or individuals that work with teens learn how to prevent teen dating violence. EvaluACTION is a tool that allows you to learn the dos and don’ts of evaluation as well as create, save, and download your logic model and evaluation plan. Veto Dating: Browse Veto, OH Singles & Personals. Find an online single in Ohio or the Buckeye State today. Whether you're searching for casual Ohio dating or serious Ohio relationships, Match.com has millions of smart, sexy and attractive singles meant just for you. Dating Matters: Understanding Teen Dating Violence Prevention helps educators, school personnel, youth leaders, and others working to improve the health of teens. Based on insights from teachers, this online, accredited course uses expert interviews, creative visuals, interactivity, and compelling storytelling to communicate the relevance of ... Dating Matters - Understanding Teen Dating Violence Prevention Launch Training. DATING MATTERS ®: UNDERSTANDING TEEN DATING VIOLENCE PREVENTION Training for Educators is a free, online course available to educators, school personnel, youth mentors, and others dedicated to improving teen health. Follow a school administrator throughout his day as he highlights what teen dating violence is and ...
Creepy Talk : The Repository for Inappropriate and Bizarre Messages
2013.07.13 03:38 KrisCraigCreepy Talk : The Repository for Inappropriate and Bizarre Messages
Have you ever received a dick pic on a dating site or a "your hot lets fuck" message from a total stranger on Facebook? Do you enjoy laughing your ass off? Then Creepy Talk is the place for you!
2020.09.30 20:43 workinprogress555Vetoed and hurting
Tldr: I was vetoed by my metamour, even though they had a “non-hierarchical, no-veto” poly marriage. I was vetoed by my metamour this past weekend unexpectedly. I’m married and was dating a married man with two children. When we met in January, his wife was also in a long-term relationship with her boyfriend, who’d lived with them for the past 4 years. Supposedly, they had a “non-hierarchical” poly structure without veto power, with permission for long-term, love-based relationships. His wife and I met, she approved of me, and I was developing a friendship with her and spending time getting to know their children. Then, a few months into our relationship, her long-term boyfriend dumped her and moved out of their house. At first, it seemed like an opportunity to support her and spend more time with her. Then, after a few more months, she began to feel insecure about her husband having a committed poly relationship when she did not. She was casually dating multiple men, but hadn’t found “the one” yet. So she requested to take time off from poly (I guess until she met someone new) and demanded that my boyfriend end it with me. Since they have a non-veto agreement, he refused to do so. She ghosted communication with me and blocked me on social media. Then began making it very difficult for him to see me by tracking his every move and making his life miserable at home. I wasn’t aware of how bad it was getting for him because he gave me details sparingly and made excuses for her behavior. He was holding out hope that she would change her mind and we could work something out. Everything seemed to be going perfectly in our relationship. Both of us were/are very much in love, saw each other a couple times a week, and were spending time with each other’s friends. My understanding was that they’d switch to a don’t-ask-don’t-tell poly, since she also has several casual boyfriends, and that everything was getting easier. He was hiding most of the drama from me for the past 2 months. Then, she gave him the ultimatum - choose your wife and children, or your girlfriend. It was an obvious choice. He was acting a little weird and stressed this past week and finally broke up with me on Saturday. I’m absolutely devastated and feel like I’ll never have closure. To all couples with veto power - Please consider the actual ramifications of using it. I’m a human being who was cut off from someone I will always love because of insecurities and deeper marital problems. This will also put heavy strain on my boyfriend’s already difficult marriage, with long-term anger and resentment. Veto is not an easy, quick-fix for jealousy or insecurity. Really think through what veto power would look like in your situation and how it will affect each person involved.
2020.09.28 19:56 SouthernPlayaCoNew (officially) to poly, trying to figure some things out
Hello all, Long post, TL;DR at bottom. I've known since I was young that I was poly, but only recently discovered the name for it, and this community. I've been reading through posts since this weekend, and wanted to start by saying thank you to everyone who has shared their experiences. I found out about polyamory through a CMV post, and more specifically a comment made that made me not feel alone in my thoughts about poly for the first time in my life. So, I've had several long term open relationships, I guess what most would call ENM. I've also had several long term monogamous relationships, including a marriage. I'm now divorced, and decided when I started dating again I would not be in a monogamous relationship again. I always felt incomplete, trapped, and very much like I was playing a role that wasn't natural to me. I felt a sense of guilt, or maybe selfishness about not committing to one person, and being steadfast in my decision to not be monogamous. I've never cheated in my life. I've always been very open about who I am to every partner (not hiding other relationships from my primary when in open relationships) and I believe I've always been a respectful partner. I come from a non-traditional family, so it was never anything abnormal to me to have the desire for multiple partners, but when I really cared about someone who demanded monogamy, I complied to save that relationship. So, what I'm experiencing now it's difficult and outside of my history of actions. I met a wonderful woman almost a year ago. We immediately clicked, and went on several get-to-know-you dates. On our first date, I explained to her that I am dating several women, that I won't ever get married again, and that I'm not looking for a committed relationship. She was ok with that, and we've developed a very deep and caring relationship since. We have discussed my multiple partners, and her opinion is basically it doesn't effect her if she doesn't see it. Recently, we went on a weekend trip and invited two of her female friends who are both bisexual. We discussed multiple times the potential for group sex, with me stressing that I need the emotional connection with them before I can be certain that something would happen. When the weekend came, everything started great. I felt the connection with both, and physical contact began the first night. In the end, nothing happened between the four of us, as it didn't organically elevate to that point. After the weekend, we discussed how much we enjoyed the time together. She expressed to me that the emotional connection between her friends and I bothered her, and that she worried I would begin a relationship with one or both. I explained to her that my relationships with other women have zero impact on the bond we share, and furthermore I didn't want anything beyond the weekend with them. Beyond that, because they are her friends, any further interactions would absolutely involve her as well. In the end, she expressed that she is not comfortable with me having anything physical with anyone in her social circle. I accepted it as a veto (even though we haven't discussed such a system) because I care very much about her comfort with dating someone that is poly for the first time, and her being mono. Now, I am trying how to figure out how to proceed with our relationship, openly and with trust from both sides. It is important to me that I don't hide things from her, even though she has expressed she prefers that. I would absolutely love if she could build a relationship (sexual or otherwise) with my other partners, but I don't know how to go forward from here. My plan is to discuss it with her, and to express how I would be more comfortable with her fully knowing who I am and the relationships I maintain. I know it won't be easy for her, and will strain our relationship, but I think it is the only way for us to have a lasting relationship without me being dishonest with her or myself, and my polyamory hurting her long-term. Any advice or past experiences would be greatly appreciated. TL;DR I'm poly, girlfriend isn't, she doesn't want to know about others, I don't want to hide them, help.
2020.09.27 23:03 practicaldirigibleCOVID-19, partner's NRE, and... well, me :(
Hey everyone, I'm mostly posting here to vent, but I wouldn't mind some advice or empathy. My nesting partner and I have been practicing polyamory for around 6 years. We are in our 30s, they are non-binary and I am a cis woman. When we opened up our relationship, I quickly became involved with a cis man, and have acted as the hinge of our V for around 6 years (guess no matter what, I tend to be somewhat mono, even while poly!). My nesting partner, on the other hand, has only done some dating, and has no longer-term connections with people. This didn't seem to bother them too much-- if they found a person that they connected with, they would explore that connection, but they weren't very motivated to date, or seek out new people until about the past year or two. This past year or two, they opened up to me that they were interested in finding someone to explore certain kinks of theirs. We do have a D/s relationship, but they wanted to try out a different dynamic/types of play that don't align with the style of our dynamic. I was honestly very excited for them, and supported them fully while they reached out to people looking for a good match. Then, this year, COVID19 hit. I lost my job, and have not been able to find a new one yet. My boyfriend flew home to be with his family, because they live on a large, rural piece of property and his apartment here is tiny and sheltering in place there would be miserable. Ever since lockdown in late Feb/early March, we have taken COVID19 risks VERY seriously in our household. We only see a select group of friends, and only ever outside and masked. We have been concerned for our own safety, but also for my partner's parents safety, as they are elderly and immunocompromised. We have been EXTREMELY rigorous. For months, I was the only person who went to the store every 10 days to shop for groceries, if we wanted to visit (socially distanced and masked) other friends, we had a conversation about it first, all that jazz. All of that changed a month ago. My nesting partner learned that their friend's wife had sort of been... inspired by the COVID lockdown. The lockdown made her realize how she wasn't pursuing the type of kink relationships that she would find fulfilling, and that she really wanted to pursue those relationships. My nesting partner realized that the kind of play this woman was looking for was similar to what they wanted, so they told me that they were going to start emailing with this woman and seeing if they could find common ground to start a dynamic. Well, ever since then, it's felt like I am chained to a giant boulder that's rolling down a steep hill, completely out of control. I feel like I'm being asked to consent to an incredibly accelerated relationship timeline, in a very stressful and risky environment. Before even meeting this woman, or speaking with her at all, my partner wanted to start physically interacting with her while unmasked. In non-COVID times, I would have been fine with this! But I knew absolute nothing about the safety protocols that this woman adhered to, nor about the safety protocols of her OTHER parters. Due to the strict protocols we had been adhering to in our own household, I was taken aback, but when I tried to communicate my feelings to my partner, they immediately became intensely defensive and demanded that I justify why I felt like things were moving extremely quickly. Keep in mind, the whole time I was saying, "I am feeling this way", not "You are doing this bad thing." In addition, they keep making statements/promises that they don't end up keeping. At one point they said that they realized things were moving really quickly, and wanted to pump the brakes. That didn't happen. They said that we could go slowly, but as soon as I met with and spoke with their new partner, I felt pressure to agree to unmasked visits. This woman also invited my partner to a socially-distanced kinky campout, and my partner originally said they didn't intend to go, but lo and behold a few days later they told me "I didn't realize how excited X was about the event and I do want to go", so that's where they are right now. They also told me that our kink dynamic would be prioritized, and I could ask for certain things to be off the table that were important to me, for our kink dynamic, but when I thought of something that I might want to be off the table, they immediately bristled at the idea. Now, I don't even necessarily WANT the power to take certain acts off the table, and I'm 100% okay with trying to negotiate rather than veto-ing, but also please don't tell me that I have the right to ask for something and then take that away. Part of this is my fault, because the accelerated timeline and pressure that I feel has caused me to say "yes" to things that I'm not 100% on board with, mainly because I can't find a "reason" to say no. I have trouble being in touch with my feelings, and I generally assume that my feelings are more or less pointless, unless I have some data to back that up. For example, with the timeline thing, I didn't feel justified about saying "things feel like they've been moving really fast" until we figured out that my partner had only been talking to this person for a week and a half. On top of all of this, I'm still trying to get a full-time job. I have two interviews next week, and a presentation on Monday for a consulting gig that I have been doing, but this whole weekend it's been impossible to concentrate on work. My boyfriend is still at his parent's home, thousands of miles away. The plan has always been that eventually I would go out to see him at his parent's home, and we would drive back together. I've decided to bump up that timeline a bit, because I am struggling so hard to get through all the instability and stay sane. I really deeply hate this situation. I want my partner to be happy. I want my partner to be fulfilled. After meeting this woman and talking to her, I absolutely believe her to be a kind, generous person, who cares about the feelings of everyone involved. But I just keep feeling like I'm being steamrolled in this situation, that communication has been terrible, and negotiation has been nonexistent. I'm taking a break for the next couple of days to get all the work done for this week, and staying at my boyfriend's apartment. I wrote my partner a kind, but firm email detailing my experience, and included the promise that we would work through this together. It feels melodramatic and I went back and forth in my mind trying to figure out if this was something I need, or if I was being petty, but then I remembered how AWFUL the previous week has been, and how I really need the space to get work out of the way. I just wish all of this had gone differently-- this new relationship and this new person isn't the problem, the way my partner is handling their NRE is the problem, and I don't want their relationship to be tainted by my hurt around how my partner is handling things. I guess all I can do is what I said I would do in the email, work things out once I have the chance to take a breath.
2020.09.24 03:24 adgjlpiyrwty1098Criteria for vetoing a baby name
Name nerds, This post is somewhat in jest but I’m still happy to hear your opinions! My partner and I are trying to have a baby. He’s Dutch and I’m Australian with some Dutch (Frisian) and Irish heritage. We plan to live in Australia, but are trying to find names that are nice enough in both cultures - whether we give a child a more Dutch or more Aussie/Irish name (bearing in mind many overlap). As we go through names, we suggest names to each other and often the other will veto the name in the typical scenario: Me: “What about Grace? That’s a nice name?” Him: “The girl I dated before you was Grace, remember, that would be awkward” and then the name is vetoed. The other situation goes something like this: Him: “Nicholas?” Me: “No, I went to school with a bunch of them and they were all awful, particularly this one who used to [story ensues]” and then the name is vetoed. My issue is that my partner keeps trying to veto names for reasons that are more distant, such as: Him: “Lucy? Nope, we aren’t using that. I went to school with a weird girl and one of her sisters was called Lucy.” Me: “Did you know the sister?” Him: “No” In my mind this is a step too far. He should be able to veto the name of the “weird girl” but not her family (unless they’ve done something to him). So - name nerds -
what is the threshold one can justifiably veto a name? Can you use the friends and family of those you dislike or only those you dislike? What about celebrities?
What is the most crazy or distant reason for which you have disliked or vetoed a name?
(In saying this, I realise anyone can veto a name for any reason, and that’s why this is a jokey post - I wouldn’t make my partner name a kid something he didn’t want to)
2020.09.23 21:51 Fordius25The Bloody Pearl Of The Orient (Part 1)
So disclaimer: I am partially gonna rely on a narrative set by Wargame: Red Dragon's Pearl Of The Orient campaign which focuses on a Chinese invasion of Hong Kong and the UK's defense of the colony. I will use some aspects of the story, whilst fleshing out the narrative in a broader context and I have posted this in alternatehistory though I thought it'd be nice if I could post here. Also first time here :) So the scene is set for the 1980s, where Britain and China exchange a war of words that quickly escalates to an actual one. I like to think this is a narrative one, and if I get good enough reception I can start inserting 'anecdotes' like WWZ style. The goal is to make a convincing narrative here. 1982-1983: Official negotiations between the People's Republic of China and Great Britain begin over the question of the future status of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, as the lease on the New Territories nears its end in 1997. One of the last colonial territories in East Asia, Hong Kong had risen from the ashes of Japanese occupation in WWII and was thriving as a regional economic and manufacturing powerhouse. While tensions still lingered in the colony following the war: by the 1980s, British administration and law became generally accepted amongst the populace and Hong Kong remained a land of opportunity and prosperity as one of the four Asian Tigers. For China, Hong Kong was a sore reminder of its 'century of humiliation' and the legacy of the 'unequal treaties' it had been coerced to sign. It was imperative for the country to reunify its former territories and correct the injustice that was the colonial rule by Britain and reclaim the territory. For Britain however, Hong Kong became an adopted region of the mother country, one which had prospered under British rule and one whose denizens associated strongly with British culture. The question in the minds of both sides was who would rule Hong Kong? Britain takes the initiative and first proposes that China reclaim the sovereignty of Hong Kong, but that the British administration be allowed to continue in the territory. Deng Xiaoping firmly rejects this, making clear that China seeks the total return of the colony and that any colonial presence would not be tolerated. Deadlocks and obstructions in the tense negotiations continued- something that the people of Hong Kong do not fail to notice. The total uncertainty over the situation causes bank runs across the territory and the Hang Seng Index plummets to a historic low. Governor Edward Youde and the Executive Council in response seek to allay the chaos and vote in a massive stimulus bill to stabilize the deteriorating markets, the most comprehensive in the city's history to date. To support the colonial administration, Prime Minister Thatcher pledges in a session of Parliament to unwaveringly uphold Britain's obligations to the people of Hong Kong. The PRC also responds, assuring investors that Hong Kong's 'inevitable return' will not affect their standing and that it would be business as usual and accuses Britain of causing the financial ruin of the territory. During another round of negotiations, Deng takes the offensive and bluntly threatens Thatcher an invasion of Hong Kong, and demolish any vestige of British rule. Not taking this aggression lightly, Thatcher responds that such an act will expose China's 'true nature' to the world and the meeting ends in discord. Panic further erupts in Hong Kong Island, as the Royal Hong Kong Police struggle to contain the chaos in the city. Meanwhile, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party convenes in a secret meeting to discuss a planned invasion of Hong Kong. Similarly, a meeting of the Privy Council takes place which discusses a planned defense of the territory. It seemed increasingly clear that the question of invasion was not an if, but a when? Though unsettling Governor Youde, Thatcher orders Hong Kong's garrison to be considerably reinforced while HMS Newcastle docks in Victoria Harbor and plans to sell HMS Antrim are scrapped. British forces in Brunei are put on alert and plans are made to send HMS Illustrious to reinforce a potential invasion. In the UN, ambassadors Sir John Thomson and Ling Qing fiercely battle it out on the diplomatic stage as countries from the Third World sympathize with China's 'decolonization struggle' while the Commonwealth Realms stay loyal to their 'mother country' and support Hong Kong's perceived desire to remain British. Resolutions in the Security Council are vetoed by the opposing side. The United States remains keen observers, contemplating whether a British defense is viable and whether to bolster the 'special relationship' it has with the UK. Things come to a head in June 1983, when Prime Minister Thatcher announces a referendum in September, allowing Hong Kong to 'determine' whether it desires to remain under British sovereignty or otherwise. This infuriates the Chinese who denounce the plot as a ploy. As the date nears, pro-democracy and pro-Beijing voices viciously fight to persuade Hong Kongers to support their sides and China becomes more inclined to invade. A tense shooting across the border which injures five Chinese and British guards only intensifies the looming prospect. In a final bid to recover negotiations between the two, a group of prominent Hong Kongers proposes to mediate a new round in the hopes that tensions de-escalate and some stability can be provided. However, like the preceding meetings, discussions once again end up nowhere and both countries consider any diplomacy to be futile With less than three days before the deciding referendum takes place, China masses hundreds of Type 59 tanks less than 1km from the border in a show of force to intimidate Britain to back down. British guards watch carefully, waiting for any move by the Chinese with each side wondering whether they really would be going to war... (Happy to hear feedback on this- if reception is good then I am happy to post part two)
2020.09.23 19:20 Fordius25The Bloody Pearl Of The Orient: What if China went to war with the UK over Hong Kong? (PART 1)
So disclaimer: I am partially gonna rely on a narrative set by Wargame: Red Dragon's Pearl Of The Orient campaign which focuses on a Chinese invasion of Hong Kong and the UK's defense of the colony. I will use some aspects of the story, whilst fleshing out the narrative in a broader context. Also first time here :) ( Map created by the Central Intelligence Agency of US Government of British Hong Kong) British Hong Kong/ 香港 1982-1983: Official negotiations between the People's Republic of China and Great Britain begin over the question of the future status of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, as the lease on the New Territories nears its end in 1997. One of the last colonial territories in East Asia, Hong Kong had risen from the ashes of Japanese occupation in WWII and was thriving as a regional economic and manufacturing powerhouse. While tensions still lingered in the colony following the war: by the 1980s, British administration and law became generally accepted amongst the populace and Hong Kong remained a land of opportunity and prosperity as one of the four Asian Tigers. For China, Hong Kong was a sore reminder of its 'century of humiliation' and the legacy of the 'unequal treaties' it had been coerced to sign. It was imperative for the country to reunify its former territories and correct the injustice that was the colonial rule by Britain and reclaim the territory. For Britain however, Hong Kong became an adopted region of the mother country, one which had prospered under British rule and one whose denizens associated strongly with British culture. The question in the minds of both sides was who would rule Hong Kong? Britain takes the initiative and first proposes that China reclaim the sovereignty of Hong Kong, but that the British administration be allowed to continue in the territory. Deng Xiaoping firmly rejects this, making clear that China seeks the total return of the colony and that any colonial presence would not be tolerated. Deadlocks and obstructions in the tense negotiations continued- something that the people of Hong Kong do not fail to notice. The total uncertainty over the situation causes bank runs across the territory and the Hang Seng Index plummets to a historic low. Governor Edward Youde and the Executive Council in response seek to allay the chaos and vote in a massive stimulus bill to stabilize the deteriorating markets, the most comprehensive in the city's history to date. To support the colonial administration, Prime Minister Thatcher pledges in a session of Parliament to unwaveringly uphold Britain's obligations to the people of Hong Kong. The PRC also responds, assuring investors that Hong Kong's 'inevitable return' will not affect their standing and that it would be business as usual and accuses Britain of causing the financial ruin of the territory. During another round of negotiations, Deng takes the offensive and bluntly threatens Thatcher an invasion of Hong Kong, and demolish any vestige of British rule. Not taking this aggression lightly, Thatcher responds that such an act will expose China's 'true nature' to the world and the meeting ends in discord. Panic further erupts in Hong Kong Island, as the Royal Hong Kong Police struggle to contain the chaos in the city. Meanwhile, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party convenes in a secret meeting to discuss a planned invasion of Hong Kong. Similarly, a meeting of the Privy Council takes place which discusses a planned defense of the territory. It seemed increasingly clear that the question of invasion was not an if, but a when? Though unsettling Governor Youde, Thatcher orders Hong Kong's garrison to be considerably reinforced while HMS Newcastle docks in Victoria Harbor and plans to sell HMS Antrim are scrapped. British forces in Brunei are put on alert and plans are made to send HMS Illustrious to reinforce a potential invasion. In the UN, ambassadors Sir John Thomson and Ling Qing fiercely battle it out on the diplomatic stage as countries from the Third World sympathize with China's 'decolonization struggle' while the Commonwealth Realms stay loyal to their 'mother country' and support Hong Kong's perceived view to remain British. Resolutions in the Security Council are vetoed by the opposing side. The United States remains keen observers, contemplating whether a British defense is viable and whether to bolster the 'special relationship' it has with the UK. Things come to a head in June 1983, when Prime Minister Thatcher announces a referendum in September, allowing Hong Kong to 'determine' whether it desires to remain under British sovereignty or otherwise. This infuriates the Chinese who denounce the plot as a ploy. As the date nears, pro-democracy and pro-Beijing voices viciously fight to persuade Hong Kongers to support their sides and China becomes more inclined to invade. A tense shooting across the border which injures five Chinese and British guards only intensifies the looming prospect. In a final bid to recover negotiations between the two, a group of prominent Hong Kongers proposes to mediate a new round in the hopes that tensions de-escalate and some stability can be provided. However, like the preceding meetings, discussions once again end up nowhere and both countries consider any diplomacy to be futile With less than three days before the deciding referendum takes place, China masses hundreds of Type 59 tanks less than 1km from the border in a show of force to intimidate Britain to back down. British guards watch carefully, waiting for any move by the Chinese with each side wondering whether they really would be going to war... (Happy to hear feedback on this- if reception is good then I am happy to post part two)
2020.09.22 02:19 prokirtiA polyamorous person in India. Story/rant/seeking advice. Long post.
TLDR: Poly in India, had a hard time understanding what was going on. Can't find other polyamorous partner, thinking of moving to the US. Seeking advice. Holla, fellow polyamorous people. I want to cover a lot of points, so this might become a long post. I'll do the best I can to keep it interesting and well formatted. I am a 24M, from India. Ever since I started dating people, in high school, I kind of never understood why people make such a big deal out of finding their 'one'. And why everyone always had to choose between people. I started my first relationship when I was 17, with a nice, laid back girl. I also had a crush on another girl in my class. I knew it since then that I wanted to be with more than one partner, but I did not want to cheat. I had never heard of the concept of polyamory, and I did not know what my feelings meant. But I knew one thing, I did not want to cheat. I did what every teenager does. I talked to my friends. Big mistake. They gave me the false and toxic impression, that this is how all men are. My only options were to cheat, or to suck it up. I ended up doing neither, but I found a compromise. I'd be serially monogamous. 7 years later, it sounds so childish, but hey, hindsight is 20/20, right? I dated multiple girls, one after the other. Never cheated on any. But I will admit, the only reason I broke up with most of my then partners, was that I wanted to date someone else too. I wanted my cake and to eat it too! And I was told this wasn't possible. This did make me feel horrible though, and I was never at peace with what I was doing. I felt like an animal for feeling what I was feeling. In college, one day while browsing the Internet, I found someone called Franklin Veaux, on quora (look him up if you don't know who he is). OMG! He changed my life. He taught me what polyamory was. He taught me cheating is breaking the rules of a relationship. He taught me what red flags are. He taught me the rules of a relationship, and what standard to strive for. He gave me peace, made me realize I was not just an asshole, but what I felt was acceptable and right. But, by this time. I was in about a year long relationship with one of my classmates. We were very good at having hard discussions, or so I thought. I happily told her what I had figured out, without thinking too much of it. Then shit hit the fan. She started crying. I didn't understand, here I was, having clarity, finally understanding my feelings I had been closetting for so long. But the then most important person in my life was a sobbing mess due to what I had just told her about myself. Thus began 6 months of hell. I figured something new everyday about polyamory. Diving deeper and deeper. My relationship and mental health (also my partner's mental health) took a nose dive. My ex and I made a compromise, I could maybe have sex with other women. Then I realized, I did not just want sex, I wanted multiple emotional partners, then I realized not only did I want multiple partners, I wanted multiple primary partners, then I realized 'veto' is a very toxic concept, and I don't want that. That was the last straw. Everything took 6 months. We finally broke it off.
After my soul searching was over. I had made my decision, I wound never be in a mono relationship. Ever. But where do I find poly partners in India? I tried tinder, I tried okcupid, I tried fetlife, I tried everything. Nada, nope, zilch, nothing. Nobody had heard of polyamory in India, it felt like. My close friends were very supportive, everyone else thought I had gone crazy. They still told me to either cheat, or suck it up. I spent a long time without a partner. Then I made a compromise with myself again (2018). I would allow myself to be in a fwb relationship if possible, that is the only 'acceptable' form of non monogamy, I could find in India. But that is not what I actually want. (Have any of you had to make such 'compromises' due to lack of available partners?) It's 2020, and I am still without a polyamorous partner. Not only without a partner, without ever having met another polyamorous person in my real life. The only polyamorous persons I know of, are all online, that too not in India. Sometimes (for a few seconds) I feel I have made all of this up, and I have a psychiatric condition :) Joking of course.
What is my plan? This is where I want advice. I have decided not to give up. In the last 2 years, I have worked hard, to try and get into a course in the US (will be done by 2022 at the earliest). My plan is to first, get myself into a place, where people atleast know what polyamory is. Then try to get to know actual people who are polyamorous. We'll see where this takes me. My issues?
I don't know if this will do anything to help my cause. It is a very big financial/social decision.
Is it too drastic a decision, to change countries, to find life partners?
What do you people say?
About me. And some FAQ 24M, as I already said. A doctor, with a very good social life. My post might have led many to believe that I may have clinical depression. Yes, I was depressed for about a 6 month period of my life. But that is way behind me. I am happy, I have a lot of friends. I have a very active social life, despite the pandemic. I have a ton of hobbies. I am very good friends with ALL my exs. After I figured out what I wanted in life. I made sure of it, to go back, and explain myself to every partner I had. I apologized for behaving the way I did, and for any wrongs I've done in the past. All of them (including my college gf) forgave me, and we are in very good terms. I talk to them almost daily. I have been actively talking about and promoting polyamory and good relationship ethics in my social circle. I also cut all the toxic people out of my life. I have very open minded friends, and everyone of them supports what I want in my life. Which is nice.
Some more things I need advice on. Due to be being a vocal supporter of polyamory, I am starting to think my identity is becoming too mixed up with polyamory. Everytime I meet someone new I have to explain everything from the beginning, again. I want to be 'the guy who happens to be polyamorous', and not 'the polyamorous guy'. How do you tackle this? At what point, if needed, do I end up accepting that a monogamous relationship is all I have the chance of getting? When I'm 25, 30, 35, 40, never? I don't have too much trouble finding people who'd like to date me, if I were monoamorous. But I have to decline. I prefer to be single, than to be in an average relationship. Specially one that doesn't let such a big part of me, be me.
Note: For those who don't know much about India. India in general is a very conservative community, specially among the older generation (parents). I can never ever ever begin to imagine coming out to them as polyamorous. But, I can't/don't tell them about a lot of things in my life like drinking or even that I've had partners before, and that I've had sex. Yes India, including my parents, are that conservative. I don't think about it much, and honestly am not much bothered by it. It is what is. But the younger generation, is a lot better. You still have to be careful who you open up to. But specially in a highly educated company, such as what I have, I have never had issues with people giving me a hard time.
Bonus question: 😝😂 I also think I'm bi/pansexual to some extent. And I do not have the guts to ever explore this in India. Never ever, not in a million years. Can I talk about it in my safe social sphere, yeah. Without hesitation. Can I ever risk doing something with a guy? No. If word got out, my social life/ actual life would be in real danger. Yes this still is the reality in India. Even in 2020. This makes me want to move to a safer country, even more. Advice?
2020.09.21 22:33 ShiplapprocxyArranged Marriage Vs "Love" Matches
Every time the couples are discussed, a lot of snark is about how the couples are all arranged marriages. I just don't see it. For lack of a better term, I think they're mostly "love" matches, with the obvious exception being Jill and Derick*. With the couples and singles so far, it really does seem like they come to a mutual like (or lust) for each other organically, and it's up to the dads to set the pace of the relationship or veto it. I'd like to see where the DuggarSnark community splits on this, because with Justin and Claire it seems so obvious that these are just two teenagers who are attracted to each other in a cult that won't let them date in peace without commitment, but there's still the idea that this relationship was "arranged" because there's something wrong with him to allow him to jump the line. So the poll question is: Do you think the Duggar couples are mostly arranged or mostly "love" matches? *Jinger and Jeremy were set up by Jessa, but I personally don't count that as an arranged marriage, especially since Jim Bob didn't like Jeremy. View Poll
2020.09.21 19:14 MetaphoricalsimileWhat is hierarchy? Do I have to have equal feelings for all my partners to be non-hierarchal? Absolutely not!
There has been a lot of talk about hierarchy on this sub the last couple of days, and one issue I keep running into is someone saying something along the lines of: "But I've been with one partner so much longer and have so much deeper feelings for them so this hierarchy is natural," or "but we have kids and the kids are always going to come first." I have never actually seen a NHP claim that their feelings or enmeshment with all of their partners must be identical though. Like... that's just bat shit, who thinks that's even possible? So what does hierarchy mean? Hierarchies come from rules. They can be incredibly explicit such as "I have a rule that my relationship with my husband comes first and if he feels threatened by another relationship I end it." That is a hard hierarchy. However other rules such as, no sleepovers, OPP, veto power, not being "out" to friends/family, needing to meet new partners before a date/sex, etc. all establish levels of hierarchy. There can be softer hierarchies too, although a lot of rules by default establish a hard hierarchy. Let's look at the same polycule twice to explore this, partner A and partner B have been with each other for 10 years and have kids, partner C dates both of them, partner D dates A. Let's say that Partner B and C are starting to have bigger feelings for each other leaving partner A feeling de-prioritized. Let's say that they have OPP and partner A has the only penis. This means that by default partner C and B are not going to be able to have biological children with each other. This establishes hierarchy because it precludes partner B ever having as full of a life experience with someone else as they did partner A. Let's say they aren't out to friends and family. This means that at important gatherings/parties/events neither A or B can ever bring C or D, which again establishes a hierarchy. This is also going to limit how enmeshed B and C can become as their emotions grow for each other. Let's look at the same dynamic without rules. If B and C's relationships grow to the point where they wanted to have children too, they would be free to do so. Now in this situation B is still obligated to participate in family life with A because they have children, but that is a logistical problem rather than a hierarchy. Their relationship is somewhat restricted by priorities, but not by rules. Let's say A feeling deprioritized makes them want to date more. Without OPP A is free to date whoever so is less restricted. Without any other rules regarding sleepovers or being "out" with friends and family A will be fully free to find what they are missing from their relationship with B. And again, A still has obligations to kids and family which potential new partners will need to work around, but it's a logistical problem that doesn't threaten to leave emotional needs unmet. I think it is very clear that the exact same dynamics both with and without rules that establish hierarchy look quite different. So when the point is brought up that priorities are not hierarchies, it is not simply a semantic difference, the way relationships with rules work is fundamentally different, because while rules can be renegotiated it is much more work, and in my experience much more emotionally dangerous.
NOTE: The information provided in this thread is given on a best-effort basis. We will cite information with official sources where possible, and if otherwise needed, non-partisan groups. If you find an error, tell us in the comments so that we can fix it. Additionally, we will cite when we find information. Before using anything in this thread, please confirm using the sources we use.
Deadline to Register to Vote - Tuesday, October 13, 2020 Deadline to Change Voter Registration - Tuesday, October 13, 2020 Deadline to request absentee ballot via mail - Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:00pm Deadline to request absentee ballot in person - Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 5:00pm Election Day - Tuesday, November 3 from 6:00am-7:00pm [source: VA Dept of Elections]
From the General Elections Candidates list. Politicians with a "*" to the right of their name marks the incumbent. NOTE: Locations are NOT EXACT. Confirm your districtHERE. District 1 (Prince William County, Stafford County, Fredericksburg)
Article II. Franchise and Officers.Section 6. Apportionment. Section 6-A. Virginia Redistricting Commission BALLOT QUESTION Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission,consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth,that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor's involvement and to give the responsibility of drawing districts to the Supreme Court of Virginia if the redistricting commission fails to draw districts or the General Assembly fails to enact districts by certain deadlines? EXPLANATION Current Law: Under the current Constitution, the General Assembly and the Governor are responsible for drawing new election districts for the U.S. House of Representatives, the state Senate, and the House of Delegates. These districts are required to be compact and contiguous, and to have populations that are equal to each other. Proposed Law: The proposed amendment would shift the responsibility of drawing these election districtsfrom the General Assembly and the Governor to a bipartisan commission, made up of 16persons, half being members of the General Assembly and half being citizens of the Commonwealth. This commission would draw the election districts for the U.S. House of Representatives, the state Senate, and the House of Delegates and then submit the maps to the General Assembly for approval. If the commissioners are unable to agree on proposals for maps by a certain date, or if the General Assembly does not approve the submitted maps by a certain date, the commission is allotted additional time to draw new districts, but if maps are not then submitted or approved, the Supreme Court of Virginia becomes responsible for drawing these election districts. The eight legislative commissioners are appointed by the political party leadership in the state Senate and the House of Delegates, with an equal number from each house and from each major political party. The eight citizen commissioners are picked by a committee of five retired circuit court judges. Four of the retired judges are selected by party leaders in the Senate and the House from a list compiled by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia. These four judges pick the fifth judge from the same list. This selection committee then chooses citizen commissioners from lists created by party leaders in the Senate and the House. Members and employees of Congress or the General Assembly cannot be citizen commissioners. Each party leader in each house gives the selection committee a list of at least16 candidates, and the committee picks two from each list for a total of eight citizen commissioners.For a plan to be submitted for the General Assembly’s approval, at least six of the eight citizen commissioners and at least six of the eight legislative commissioners must agree to it.Additionally, for plans for General Assembly districts to be submitted, at least three of the four Senators on the commission have to agree to the Senate districts plan and at least three of the four Delegates on the commission have to agree to the House of Delegates districts plan.The General Assembly cannot make any changes to these plans, and the Governor cannot veto any plan approved by the General Assembly.The amendment also adds a requirement that districts provide, where practicable,opportunities for racial and ethnic communities to elect candidates of their choice. A “yes” vote will make a bipartisan commission responsible for the initial drawing of election districts.A “no” vote will leave the sole responsibility for drawing the districts with the General Assembly and the Governor.
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #2
Article X. Taxation and Finance. Section 6. Exempt Property BALLOT QUESTION Should an automobile or pickup truck that is owned and used primarily by or for a veteran of the United States armed forces or the Virginia National Guard who has a one hundred percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability be free from state and local taxation? EXPLANATION Current Law Generally, the Constitution of Virginia requires all property be taxed. However, there are certain types of property that the Constitution specifically says is not subject to taxation. Proposed Law This amendment would add to the list of property that is not subject to state or local taxation one motor vehicle owned and used primarily by or for a veteran of the United States armed forces or the Virginia National Guard who has a one hundred percent (100%) service-connected, permanent, and total disability. The amendment says that motor vehicle means an automobile or pickup truck.The motor vehicle would be exempt from taxation beginning on the date the veteran gets the motor vehicle or January 1, 2021, whichever is later. A veteran who claims this tax exemption would not get back any taxes paid on his motor vehicle prior to January 1, 2021.Under this amendment, a motor vehicle that is owned by the spouse of a veteran of the United States armed forces or the Virginia National Guard with a one hundred percent (100%)service-connected, permanent, and total disability could also be free from taxation.The General Assembly is allowed to pass a law that places conditions or restrictions on this exemption. A "yes" vote will mean the Constitution of Virginia will be amended to exempt one automobile or pickup truck that is owned and used primarily by or for a veteran of the United States armed forces or the Virginia National Guard who has a one hundred percent (100%)service-connected, permanent, and total disability from state and local taxation.A "no" vote will leave the Constitution of Virginia unchanged and automobiles and pickup trucks owned and used primarily by or for a veteran of the United States armed forces or the Virginia National Guard who has a one hundred percent (100%) service-connected,permanent, and total disability will continue to be subject to state and local taxes.
Changelog: Sept 28 2:18pm: Added note on absentee ballot tracker and added links to individual locality trackers, if available.
2020.09.20 09:54 Week_OverFIRE vs Starting Business, how much would you allocate?
Question: If you are currently on-track to FI(RE) with around half-way to-go but your partner suddenly want to stop contributing to FI fund or even take the money out to fund a new business idea, would you do it? and how much would you allocate for this businesses from your entire FI portfolio? A bit of background, early thirties couple w/o kids and around halfway towards FI number. Only debt is HDB mortgage which can be fully repaid with current savings. Low household expenditure and ~50% saving/invest rate per month. If we go with this business idea, my partner will quit his job and stop contributing so saving/invest inflow would be halved. We pool money together to form FIRE fund and maybe this is the cause of current question too.. On one hand, it feels lousy to push the FI(RE) date a bit later if we embark on business route. I don't particularly hate my job and the perks are really great but FI(RE) lifestyle was too tempting and is so so near :( .. On the other hand, I know it's always his dream to start business and be really "free" from working for others so I don't really want to veto when we are not struggling financially and my salary should be able to cover all expenditures & mortgages while he focuses on the business.. So seeking advice here on how much we should accommodate the FI target and how much % allocation should we give for such "investment" (I'm calling it Angel Investment / Private Equity for our portfolio lol, who knows it might have better yield than any of our current investment) ? Have anybody here considered or achieved FI(RE) via business-building instead of financial investment/savings alone? Thank you!
I am looking to get opinions on veto power - specifically in regards to a situation I have been dealing with for some time now. The question is pretty much: When is it reasonable to "veto" your partner's partner? At what point is it okay to say "I am not okay with this relationship, as your primary, I am going to say you need to stop seeing this other person"? Is there even an ethical means of having veto power? I ask this because a while ago, my current, primary partner of several years has vetoed the past couple of people I've dated. And while I wasn't seeing these other people for too long, because it got shut down really fast, it still hurt me, both times. And still does. I will admit that I did give into NRE a bit, which I regret and understand my primary's hurt in regards to that. I think a huge part of this issue for me is that...veto power was never discussed in this relationship. It...just happened, as if it was an expected thing. My partner said he would willingly stop seeing someone if I vetoed them (after he had put a lot of pressure on me to stop seeing my potential partners), but even after explaining that it doesn't feel right to me, and would rather try to work out any jealousy I have, I don't think he ever really listened. After the second veto, he closed our relationship. But, I've noticed that he still makes comments on how I should explore my sexuality with cis women (as a bisexual cis women), which irks me considering that these potential partners of mine were not cis women. Despite our closed relationship he also makes comments on our supposed poly relationship down the road, but it's starting to breed a lot of resentment on my end, since the very few times I have dated someone else, it results in my partner having really strong negative reactions to it. has anyone else had a similar situation? How did the situation go down? How do you cope with the resentment? And is that resentment a valid way to feel when something like this happens?
“Hello, sister, I wasn’t expecting you to be here,” said Alexis, her smile as beautiful and cruel as ever. “If I had known you would show up, I would have brought you something. Maybe a crockpot or something, I never know what you like.” “Good to see you too,” said Maria, forcing a smile through gritted teeth. Alexis was the sole daughter of the King and the true heir by blood, meaning she was next in line should something happen to her father. If anything happened to the King, natural or not, the duty and responsibility would fall onto the svelte shoulders of Alexis Harrow, and many things had happened over the years that may or may not have been the result of attempted patricide, though no one would admit it. When an exploratory expedition returned with strange legumes, Alexis was the first to pitch the idea that eating them raw was the best course of action to celebrate. It had not been a pleasant evening for those in attendance, and the restrooms of the palace still held some rather questionable stains as a result. Fallen gargoyles and debris, animals let loose in the palace halls, miniature coups that went nowhere - something was off about the way things happened around the King when Alexis was near, and it seemed only Maria could sniff it out. Frankly, it was a miracle the King was alive at all. “Eliza here was just telling me about your guest,” said Alexis. Maria crossed her arms. “And?” “And I think it’s lovely that you’ve taken to these outings after all, sister.” Maria’s eyes widened. It was unusual to see Alexis even feign interest in anything other than herself. “You’ve lost me.” “It just warms my heart to see you participate like this, that’s all,” Alexis said, looking down her sharp nose. “It takes plenty to warm the dead, sister,” said Maria, a scowl barely protruding between her smile. “And I’ve always been here in court. Participation isn’t the problem, making a difference is.” By now the other guests of the event had begun to take notice of the quiet squabble, and they chattered amongst themselves just quiet enough that they could still hear all the dirty details. It wasn’t like they caught this hot gossip often enough to warrant a little discretion, so the ears burned and bent to the sisters. Alexis turned on her heels to face Pilly, not wasting a moment to seize control of the situation. Pilly looked cool compared to his fluster early in the evening, almost serene. Did he know something nobody else did? “You must be Pilsbury then?” she said. “It’s Pilly, ma’am,” he responded. “My friends call me Pill, but you can call me Mr Vedrano.” Alexis, not one to take a backhand like that, stepped closer to him. If it weren’t for her heels, she would have had to crane her neck up at him to match his eyes, but the towering stilettos she wore put them on an even keel. “Do you know who I am?” she prodded. “You must be good old Lexy, right?” Pilly hadn’t had much time to fully plot out a little black book of the who’s who of the kingdom, but he remembered enough. “Stepsister to Maria, first in line to the heir of the throne, royal pain in the neck - yeah, I know who you are.” “And why are you here?” “What, am I not allowed to be here?” Pilly asked facetiously. “Do you really need me to spell it out for you, fairy?” “I don’t know, human, do you know how to spell racial oppression?” She snapped back around to Maria and thrust a finger out, tapping her on the chest. “I don’t know what you think you’re doing or what game you’re playing, but this isn’t the way to go about it. All you’re doing is stirring up trouble that you don’t know how to stop.” “It’s always a game with you, isn’t it?” said Maria. “How else am I going to win?” The conversation seemingly ended, Alexis showed her back to her sisters and walked away. The few members of her entourage fell in quickly behind her, no doubt working up the next big rumour to spread. “Um, thanks for stopping by!” Eliza shouted like the good hostess she was. She faced Maria. “Why do you always have to do that?” “Do what?” Eliza sighed. “You’re new to the family, I understand that, but I have to warn you about a certain policy we like to keep.” She leaned in and whispered, “Don’t spit in the face of others and blame the rain. Everything you disturb will come back to bite you in the end.” Maria grabbed Pilly by the hand and said to Eliza, “I’ll keep that in mind, sis. I’ve got a party to enjoy.” She gently pulled Pilly away from the confections table, knocking the fresh plate of shrimp out of his hands. In a few brisk steps, the two were alone in the back of the room. With Alexis gone, the prying eyes had fallen inexplicably ill and now turned to their own devices. “How are you liking the party so far?” Pilly asked, his mouth full of hors d’oeuvres. “Too much drama, not enough action,” said Maria, adjusting her hair and dress. “Not even a single punch was thrown, though I can think of a few key moments where I should have pitched.” Pilly licked his fingers, savouring the final piece of shrimp. “You should come to my kind of parties then. None of this prissy stuff.” Maria hummed. The night was still young, the music still played, and her dance card was terrifyingly empty. Something needed to change. “Do you think he’s here?” she asked. “What, Julio Studmuffin, or whatever his name was? Your lover boy?” Her face blushed. “Julian Stadafin, and he’s not my lover boy. Yet.” She craned her neck around the shoulders of the nearby guests, trying to find a specific face in the crowd. More looking for the spectacular, chiselled body rather than the face, but all’s the same in love and lust. Her heart fluttered at the thought of speaking with Julian again, and this time in a more appropriate situation and not the horrid mess they’d met in last time. A bloody croquet mishap hadn’t been the best conversation starter, not with all that blood. Just as Maria was about to abandon her search, the door she’d come in through slowly opened again, a small group of individuals stepping in. A few men, armed with sabres at their hips and weighed down by needless medals on their lapels, took charge of the entrance, followed by three younger men clad in the valet’s red. Each of the young men carried either a coat, a bandolier or a plate of drinks, and bowed deeply to the incoming crowd. People from around the room, staff and guests alike, moved over to the doorway for the expected newcomer, eyebrows raised and gazes steadied. Maria tapped on Pilly’s shoulder to grab his attention. The tall fairy, his attention now torn from his snack, followed Maria’s stare to the back of the room. As the small gathering of men and women parted, a sharply dressed man in military dress waltzed in, confidence and assuredness seeping from his aura. His short black hair was carefully parted down the middle, a proclamation of his conquering of male pattern baldness. The sabre at his hip, shiny and new, said he was ready to fight anyone who dared challenge him but would rather have someone else do it for him. “There he is!” said Maria, a tad louder than she intended. “I mean, oh look, he’s here.” “If you need me, I’ll be at the bar,” said Pilly, marching away from the red-faced princess. Marai slowly sidled up the commotion and nudged her way through the shoulders of the other curious patrons, moving like a rat in a maze. Twisting and turning through the crowd, Maria could only think about the cheese at the end of her maze. That hunky, beautiful cheese. She bumped into something strong and stoic and fell on the ground. She looked up to find her strong and stoic hero standing over her, offering a hand. She blushed, grabbed the proffered hand and pulled herself to her feet. She could smell Julian before she saw him. The musk of pine and sweat flooded her senses, however subtle it might have been. But when she levelled out onto her feet again, Maria tried not to stare at Julian’s face. His jaw sharp as a blade and just as disarming, brow wide and strong, eyes deep and soulful like a wishing well. There was just something about him, Maria thought, that made the whole world stop spinning for her. “Are you okay, your majesty?” he asked, still holding her hand. Maria looked down at her hand and wished for this moment to never end. “Never better,” she said dreamily. Julian Stadafin was the son of the late Duke of Coreton, a small hamlet in the mining district, and had inherited more than a fair sum of money from his recent dowry, making him a prime target for bachelorettes everywhere. His looks and bravado wrote cheques his bank account had no trouble cashing. Sought after by every eligible woman in the kingdom, Julian knew he was popular, so much so that, if he was so inclined, he could host a show at the theatre and have every woman who wanted to fight for a single rose to give to him so they might spend their lives together. A silly notion, but it had been done in the past, before the Actor’s Guild came and vetoed the idea right out into the street. Him and Maria had only met once before after a freak, rogue croquet mallet struck him in the face, a blatant rule violation by Maria who apologized profusely. She was unsure if he’d actually heard her as he was carried off by the doctors, but at least it had been memorable. Julian looked Maria up and down, his large, blue eyes shining in the dim light of the overhanging chandeliers. “Mary, right?” Maria dusted off her dress and stood up straight. “Uh, Maria, actually. We met at -” “Right!” he interrupted. “The croquet incident. I remember now. I must say, you have a good swing. A bit inaccurate, but you’ve got some heft to it.” “Perhaps you can show me the ropes one day?” she asked, batting her eyelids. “That would be nice.” The small pause seemed to stretch beyond the room. Quickly realizing that she was still in the middle of the crowd, Maria stepped back a pace. “You must be busy. Maybe we can chat later, possibly even dance?” Julian’s head moved from side to side as he shook the hand of approaching guests, looking for something but saying nothing. Maria went to his side. “What are you looking for?” “Is Alexis here yet?” he asked. “She is. Why? Scared she’ll turn you to stone?” she said, teasingly. “Well, she does make me hard. She’s my date tonight,” he said before walking away. Maria’s heart sank into her gut. Of course that bitch would take the only good thing Maria had going for her. It wasn’t like she’d been crushing on him for weeks or kept a portrait of him in her room or thought about him every day, not at all. She returned to Pilly’s side at the bar, where Pilly cradled a small tumbler in his hands. The fairy looked no worse for wear from the evening’s events, but the same couldn’t be said for Maria. She looked like she’d just escaped the clutches of a hungry predator, which, in a way, she had. “I hate this place,” she grumbled, taking a seat next to Pilly. She pointed to Pilly’s glass then her, and the bartender quickly began fixing up a fresh pour for her Without turning his head, Pilly said, “I told you this wasn’t gonna go well.” The bartender set down a small glass, presumably filled with courage, on the bar and slid it over to Maria who caught the sliding glass in one hand. She brought it to her mouth and downed the drink like a soldier on leave. It burned as the drink went down, and she savoured the feeling of being in control of something. She knew the burn well and it was a partner she didn’t expect to need this evening. She tapped on the bar once more summoning the bartender, mouthing another order. “This was a mistake, coming here,” she admitted. “I think we learned plenty, M,” said Pilly. “Like what?” “I don’t look good in a suit.” Part 1 Part 2 ----- Took a while to get to writing this one. I've been kind of stalled a bit, I don't know why. Hope you enjoyed this chapter! And if you come up with a better name for this than Fairy Godfather, please share. I'd need to delete the posts and relabel them so the sooner the better. Thanks!
2020.09.16 14:00 cincbusIntroducing: The Norwegian Royal Family
Royal Family Instagram https://www.instagram.com/detnorskekongehus/ Crown Princess Mette Marit Instagram https://www.instagram.com/crownprincessmm/?hl=en Princess Martha Louise Instagram https://www.instagram.com/princessmarthalouise/ Princess Martha Louise Instagram #2 https://www.instagram.com/iam_marthalouise/ (I believe she was asked to no longer use the Princess title) King Harald V (b. 1937) Ascended the throne in 1991 after the death of his father, King Olav V. He was the third child of the King, however his older siblings were both females. At the time of his birth he was 16th in line to the British throne as a descendant of Queen Victoria. He spent part of his childhood in Sweden and the US after his family went into exile during WW2. Harald has executive power granted to him by the constitution, however he is not politically responsible for exercising it. His acts must be countersigned with a member of the Council of State (generally the Prime Minister). He also has the power of veto, however no Norwegian King has exercised it since the dissolution of union of Sweden in 1905. Interesting Facts: Represented Sweden in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 Olympic Games in the sport of sailing. Marriage: Harald married commoner Sonja Haraldsen in 1968. They dated (in secret!) for 9 years prior because his father, King Olav, would not allow him to marry a commoner. Olav only relented when Harald told him he would remain unmarried for his lifetime unless he was allowed to marry Sonja. They met at a dinner party. See photos from their wedding here:. As part of his official visit to Washington and Alaska in May, His Majesty King Harald V of Norway spoke at Pacific Lutheran University’s Commencement ceremony, where he received a Doctor of Laws jure dignitatis. Gave a speech that publicly supported LGTBQ+ Queen Sonja (b. 1937) Born to a clothing merchant in Oslo. She received a diploma in dressmaking and tailoring as well as a degree from finishing school. She also attended the University of Oslo receiving a degree in French, English, and Art History. One of my favorite photos of the Queen at age 33. A fun article on Sonja and her love of art Listen to an interview with Sonja (in English) Crown Prince Haakon (b. 1973) CP Haakon is heir apparent to the throne of Norway although he has an older sister, Princess Martha Louise. He has served in the Royal Norwegian Navy, attended classes at the University of Oslo, and completed his education in development studies at the London School of Economics. Marriage: Married Crown Princess Mette-Marit, a commoner, in 2001. Then a single mother, Mette-Marit had a known “party” background that included involvement in the rave scene in Oslo, which included a significant drug-subculture. Additionally, the father of her child, Marius, had prior convictions of drug-related offenses. The Norwegian people were unhappy with CP Haakon’s choice of bride. Many Norwegian conservatives were also upset with the pair when it was made public that they were living together before their marriage. In a heartfelt press conference before their wedding, a tearful Mette-Marit explained her past and apologized for her youthful rebelliousness. Quotes from her press conference: “My youthful rebellion went further than it did for others, and I learnt some hard lessons.” The single mother has what has been described as “a colourful past in Oslo’s famously drug-ridden ‘house party’ scene.” “We tested the limits. It has taken time for me to deal with this. I know it has been difficult for many people. It has been difficult for me. But I can’t make those choices over again, even if I could wish that that were possible.” The Crown Prince told the assembled media that the Royal Family had spent time discussing how the questions around his future wife’s past should be dealt with before she brought up the issue herself. “What we shared was so important that I could not let it go,” said the heir to the Norwegian throne about his decision to marry Mette-Marit. “I think that together we are stronger than I am by myself.” The couple also talked about how both of their mothers were giving lots of marriage advice, and about Mette-Marit’s four-year-old son Marius, who will be a page boy at Saturday’s nuptials. “I think he thinks that he is getting married as well,” commented his mother fondly. See photos from their wedding (including some of your other favorite royals!) here. Watch their wedding: Mette-Marit appeared to weep throughout much of their wedding. Watch a speech from Haakon (in English!) Crown Princess Mette-Marit (b. 1973) Mette-Marit was born in Norway. Her father was a reported alcoholic who, once his daughter’s relationship with the Crown Prince was public, was paid up to $45,000 USD annually by a magazine to share private information and photos of his daughter. His relationship with MM was strained, however they reportedly reconciled sometime before his death in 2007. She completed her high school education before taking preparatory college courses at Agder College. She then worked as a waitress in Oslo before meeting the Crown Prince at a party during Quart Festival, Norway’s largest music festival. Years later, after becoming a single mother, she met Haakon again and their relationship began. Since becoming Crown Princess, MM has taken several college course and completed a master’s degree in Executive Management. In 2018 it was announced that MM had been diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, which will limit her official duties. Watch a speech (in English) from MM. Princess Ingrid Alexandra (b. 2004) The Constitution of Norway was altered in 1990 to introduce absolute primogeniture, meaning the crown will pass to the eldest child regardless of sex. It was not considered retroactive, however, thus Crown Prince Haakon remains the heir ahead of his elder sister Martha Louise. As a result, Princess Ingrid Alexandra will become the country’s second female monarch behind Queen Margaret, who reigned over Norway, Denmark, and Sweden from 1380-1412. Her godparents include Crown Prince Fred of Denmark, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, and the King of Spain. She was a bridesmaid in Victoria’s wedding – see a photo of her and fellow future queen Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands here. Ingrid is second in line to the throne behind her Father, Crown Prince Haakon. Prince Sverre Magnus (b. 2005) Known for dabbing on the royal balcony. He was confirmed in Asker church earlier this month. Marius Borg Hoiby (b. 1997) Marius is the son of CP Mette Marit from a prior relationship. Marius is not a working member of the royal family. He does not hold a title and does not appear in official portraits. On January 10, 2017 (shortly before his 20th birthday), Crown Princess Mette-Marit posted an open letter on the royal family's website, asking the press to let her son get peace, as he is not a public person or wants a life in the public light. "Marius does not want to live a life in public. My commitment to him as a mother is to take the responsibility that was given me at Aker Hospital 20 years ago seriously,” she wrote, before asking some Norwegian media to let him drop from their radar “as he wants, when he now partly for that reason chose to go abroad to study.” You can follow him on Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/marius_borg/?hl=en Princess Martha Louise (b. 1971) Princess Martha Louise is the eldest child of the King and Queen, however due to Norway’s then-agnatic primogeniture rules she was replaced in the line of succession by her younger brother, Haakon. Princess Märtha Louise is a certified physiotherapist following education in Oslo and internship in the Netherlands. She has not practiced her profession, however, choosing instead, from her fascination in traditional Norwegian folk tales as well as a love of music, to establish her own commercial entertainment business based on giving public and televised performances reciting folk tales and singing with well-known Norwegian choirs. After studying physiotherapy at an academy for holistic medicine, she decided to open her own business in 2002. The King, after consulting her, issued a royal edict which removed Princess Märtha Louise's style of Royal Highness (she is conventionally accorded the lesser style Highness abroad, although this style has no legal standing in Norway), in order to provide her freedom from her constitutional role as a princess. She claims she can communicate with animals and angels and started an alternative therapy center named Astarte Education. Founded as Astarte Education in 2007 and dubbed an “angel school,” the company changed its name to “Soulspring” three years ago. The school offered classes in “healing, reading and touching,” and various treatments and therapies aimed at teaching clients “how to find yourself.” The school closed in 2018 due to financial issues. Marriage: Married commoner Ari Behn, an author, in 2002 and they divorced in 2017. He passed away from suicide last year. Together they have 3 children: Maud Angelica Behn (b. 2003) Leah Isadora Behn (b. 2005) Emma Tallulah Behn (b. 2008) See photos from their wedding here. Current Relationship: Is in a relationship with an American citizen, a shaman named Durek Verrett. Durek claims to be able to aid in the recovery from illnesses such as cancer and leukemia, however faces a lot of scrutiny from the Norwegian public, often being called a “conman”. You can read more about him here. Read more about their relationship here. Durek and Martha Louise now hold seminars and workshops in Norway titled “The Princess and the Shaman”, which promise to take attendees “on a self-discovery into wisdoms to reveal to you your divine self activated”. HH Princess Astrid (b. 1932) Sister to the King. After the death of their mother died, Astried (then 22) was the senior lady of the court and acted as first lady of Norway for her father. Like her brother, Astrid married a commoner. They had five children together and he passed away in 2015. You can read about their wedding here. The Princess still takes on some official duties on behalf of the Royal Family. According to one article I read, she is well-liked by the Norwegian people and considered to be funny, friendly, and unpretentious. Interesting Fact: One of her godmothers is Queen Elizabeth of England. Nobels Like their Swedish counterparts, the Norwegians play a role in the Nobel ceremonies. The Peace Prize is handed out in Oslo in the presence of the monarch, however it is a much more muted affair than the Swedes. No tiaras are at this event ☹ Jewels The Norwegians have an interesting collection of tiaras at their disposal. Check out their collection here: http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2016/01/sunday-sparkler-special-norwegian-royal.html Royal Family v Royal House The Norwegians have a clear distinction between the two. The Royal House (kongeheset) is the King and Queen, CP Haakon and CP Mette Marit, and their daughter, Ingrid Alexandra. The Royal Family includes all of the monarch’s children and their spouses, grandchildren, and siblings. See a photo of the family here: https://images.app.goo.gl/sLb4xJzqreemMyfV6 Have anything to add? Want to add your favorite photo or event? Feel free to do so in the comments :)
2020.09.14 20:01 papperonniYou've probably been hearing a lot about Sacramento's measures on this year's ballot. I've tried to break down in simple terms what each one does, and show arguments for and against each one so you can make a decision for yourself how you want to vote.
The phone banking, texting, advertising, and petitioning has begun on each of this year's ballot proposals for Sacramento's local measures. To help you all make an informed decision and not only rely on convoluted or politicized information, I have tried to simplify and summarize each of the local ballot measures and present arguments for and against each one. Note that these are my interpretations after reading each measure as well as the arguments for and against them. If you have any additional thoughts, corrections, or opinions for or against specific measures, feel free to post them below. I tried to remain neutral to each issue and present arguments from both sides so you can make a decision for yourself and not feel pressured one way or the other, and also avoid a situation where you are making an arbitrary decision due to not having enough information. It's also important to remember that changes that may seem arbitrary to you or me may have profound implications on specific political issues, leading to people investing a great deal of time and money in campaigning for or against them. Nobody will phone bank or heavily advertise unless there is something to be gained (or lost) for someone (that someone may be you, in which case you want to participate!) More information is available on the Sacramento City Website Measure A: In a nutshell: This measure makes the mayor more powerful relative to the city council and gives them more executive powers. What it does: Basically enacts a sort of 'strong mayor' type of government in which the mayor has more power relative to the city council. Some of these include more executive powers such as the power to veto ordinances and more ability to directly set policy. Right now, the mayor is sort of like the main city Councillor, like the chief justice of the supreme court (vs associate justices) or like a prime minister - one could imagine the strong mayor being more like a President, who is kept in check by the city council. Sacramento currently has a city manager - this is a little confusing since it sounds similar to the mayor but this is a role sort of like a CEO that implements the policy of the council and mayor. With Measure A, some of the responsibilities of the city manager, like setting the budget, would be determined by the mayor (with council concurrence) instead of the city manager, and the role of "CEO" would shift to the mayor while the manager would become more of a chief administrator - additionally, the mayor may remove the city manager (with limitations) whereas currently it requires a vote among the Councillors. Basically, it gives the mayor more executive power to make and implement decisions. In line with the idea that the mayor is treated more like an executive figure, a 2 term limit would be established for the mayor (currently no limit). Additionally, this measure will enact an additional ethics committee and attempt to ensure that a series of checks and balances is established between the council and the mayor. What are some arguments for it: The mayor can make more executive decisions more readily, making it easier to respond to crises and implement policies with less deliberation and red tape. Proponents claim that the revisions to the city charter will allow for updates that strengthen both the city council, the mayor, and the executive direction of the city and make it easier to respond to issues that affect the city, like homelessness, COVID, inequality, and housing. Supporters also cite many examples of other successful 'strong mayor' cities in the US. Who is in support: city council members, many community organizations and institutions, particularly those for growth and diversity What are some arguments against it: Many are concerned that changing the charter of the city to give the mayor more power is a dangerous permission to grant and that short term considerations like COVID should not dictate essentially permanent long-term policies. Opponents point out that this proposal has been shot down 3 times previously and would give the mayor too much power and would actually reduce accountability, and that this current proposal is an undemocratic distraction during a health crisis. Who is against: city council members, vice mayor, former mayor, Sac. Democrat chair, LWV chair Measure B: In a nutshell: Gives the people creating the new city council districts from the 2020 census data more time to finish the new boundaries due to COVID and the date change for the California Primary. What it does: Sacramento passed a measure in 2016 to require the Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission to establish new council district boundaries within a defined time limit of the 2020 US Census. The purpose of redistricting is to ensure that council districts are fair for population and demographic changes that may have occurred since the last US Census was taken, and that this redistricting is performed by a neutral third party with no political preferences. These districts would directly use data from the 2020 census conducted this year. The previous ballot measure required the commission to be done with their new districts within 6 months of the time of the US Census conclusion, ready for the next election after that. The purpose of a limit would be to prevent the council from sitting on the data between elections, which could be unfair to residents in those districts if they are set to change. This measure is requesting a one time exemption from this 6 month limit. They are requesting this change because: a) the state primary was moved from June to March (meaning there are 3 fewer months to prepare for this change), as well as the coronavirus epidemic, which is projected to delay census data. They do not believe they will have enough time to create fair districts. This measure would give them until October 2021 to prepare the districts, ready for the 2022 elections. What are some arguments for it: This is a one-time exemption, not ripe for future abuse, and it is mainly due to extenuating circumstances out of control of the city. Supporters do not believe that the districting would be possible within the window that was allotted in the 2016 measure. Who is in support: Council members, community organizations What are some arguments against it: No arguments were submitted against it. Theoretically, it could be argued that they should make do with the time they have, but I honestly don't see any reason to vote against this measure (if anyone does, please feel free to chime in). Measure C: In a Nutshell: Measure C would create a new rent control board with elected members that would oversee rent control and ensure landlords are abiding by it. This board would strengthen and supersede existing rent control laws. What it does: Some (but not all) of the apartments in Sacramento are rent controlled. These rules limit the amount that landlords can increase rent each year and how often (with exceptions) and also limit the ability for landlords to kick out a resident after living there for more than a year. Measure C would essentially implement a new rent control committee responsible for managing Sacramento's rent control policy, and implementing changes based on the needs of renters and landlords. It would determine based on economic and demographic conditions what are acceptable limits for annual rent increases, enforce rules and conduct investigations. They will also establish more protections against termination of leases with additional criteria that have to be met and in some cases, large relocation assistance ($5,500+) that would have to be offered to tenants removed from their homes due to factors other than breach of contract, such as the owner moving back into their unit. The board established by Measure C would replace existing ordinances regarding rent control, and the board would have the capability to determine future rent control and management adjustments that would be required. The board would be independent of the mayor and city council. It is important to note that rent control ordinances already exist, and not all who are opposed to Measure C are against rent control, they may just be against the additional provisions of this measure. However, supporters say that current measures do not go far enough to protect residents and prevent evictions. What are some arguments for it: Rent continues to climb in Sacramento due to factors out of most residents control, even during the pandemic. Sacramento has seen some of the largest rent increases in the country in the last decade, and it may take years before more units are available to meet demand. Renters tend to be lower income than home owners and are more susceptible to financial issues that could cause them to lose their housing. This board would create stronger and more dynamic controls that prevent evictions and address issues as they come up. Ideally, this board would provide a more stable and comprehensive group that is able to enact and enforce rent control and eviction policies. Supporters also say that rent controls are currently held by city councilors who may have corporate interests in mind and that an independent committee would be better at considering the needs of renters and preventing evictions. Who is in support: a council member, many community and progressive organizations, Democratic Chair of Sac. What are some arguments against it: The creation of an independently elected board is unnecessary when the city has already enacted some of the toughest rent control laws just last year. The board would be expensive to maintain and add needless red-tape and create conflict with the city council when they try to address housing costs. Opponents say that the measure would do nothing to add new housing or address the reasons why housing is so expensive, and may even make it harder to add new housing stock by deterring investors. Some people who are in support of rent control believe the current measures adopted by the city recently are satisfactory as is and that this new measure is unnecessary. Who is against it: The mayor, many council members, professional and veterans organizations
2020.09.14 11:09 DavidgogoA detailed explainer “Why Quran and not Hadith?” Part II
... Continued from part I Allow me to add my FB friend Hussam Abdelrahman's arguments negating this false claim: "IF THE QURAN HAD BEEN TRANSMITTED AND COMPILED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE AHADITH
There would be an alleged ‘sanad’ (support) or an 'isnad' (supporting) with every Quranic verse.
The Quranic verses would have been arguably collected by fallible compilers representing a completely different sectarian, socio-political milieu, centuries after the death of the prophet.
The compilers would have allegedly traveled many miles to other individuals who had never met the prophet but claimed they possessed isolated Quranic verses based on hearsay, allegedly passed on to them through numerous generations through primarily oral tradition.
The majority, if not all the Quranic verses would be based on what one companion had heard and not corroborated by any other.
Different students of the later compilers would have captured different variants of the Quranic verses and argued over its veracity.
The Quranic verses would have been canonized much later into a recognized corpus arguably after the death of the initial fallible compilers.
There would arguably been a classification of Quranic verses such as 'Sahih' (sound) verses, 'Hasan' (good) verses, 'Da'if' (weak) verses and 'Maudu' (fabricated / forged) verses.
There would have arguably been disagreements of the links of isnad of the Quranic verses and terms such as 'Musnad' (supported), 'Muttasil' (continuous), 'Munqati' (broken), 'Mu'allaq' (hanging), 'Mu'dal' (perplexing) and 'mursal' (hurried) would have been applied to them.
There would have been vociferous exchanges and disagreements regarding the reliability and trustworthiness of the reporters of the Quranic verses.
There would arguably be ‘sectarian’ Quranic Books with different compilations and verses.
There would have been raging debates of the authenticity of the Quranic verses and the corpus throughout Muslim history.
Thank God the Quran was NEITHER transmitted NOR compiled in the same manner as Ahadith" The myth of the Consensus of the scholars When everything else fails, out comes the so-called consensus of the "scholars". Reality check again, the scholars have not even agreed upon what constitutes consensus let alone formed one about anything for that matter. A quick reminder to how the five schools view consensus.
Hanafi: Through public agreement of Islamic jurists
Shafi: Through agreement of the entire community and public at large,
Maliki: Through agreement amongst the residents of Medina only
Hanbali: Through agreement and practice of Muhammad's Companions only (there is still no consensus on what constitutes a sahaba)
Usuli: Only the consensus of the ulama while the messenger of God was alive or Shia Imams
Don't you think they should first sort this core issue before claiming consensus? No less than the death for blasphemy, is based not on the Quran and not even on the Hadith but on this mythical consensus. In essence, they have illegally awarded themselves the right to kill another human being. Imagine that! The Abrogation falsehood The last trick up their sleeve is a late addition, abrogation. A notion so thoroughly refuted that it is not worth wasting time on. Let us just say that straightforward verses of the Quran are stripped of context and twisted to mean that some verse and in extreme cases some Hadith actually abrogates some other verse of the Quran. In typical fashion, the estimates of abrogated verse range from seven to several hundred. This one fact is enough to put this mischievous notion to one side. The nonsense of abrogation was exposed by upright scholars throughout history and one of the earliest oppositions can be traced back to Abu Muslim Al-Asfahani, followed by Ibn Rushd and the Ibn Khaldun and many more. Among the modern scholars Mohammad Asad, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq and Shabbir Ahmed are often cited. Shahada (شَهِدَ ) of the Hypocrites Before moving to the positive, allow me to touch on something that will surely disturb a lot of you but it is necessary because it is a perfect illustration of how far we have deviated from the message of God. The question is: How did the non-Quranic but popular Shahada find its way into Islam? Below are the verses where the word (شَهِدَ) is used in the context of testifying. In twelve out of thirteen it had nothing to do with the Shahada of the sectarians, and in the thirteenth, this is what God has to say about it: When the hypocrites come to you, [O Muhammad], they say, "We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah." And Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. Quran 63:01 Here are the verses where it is used in context: (4:15:11) shahidū they testify فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ (6:19:20) latashhadūna testify أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللَّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَىٰ قُلْ لَا أَشْهَدُ (6:19:28) ashhadu (do) I testify أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللَّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَىٰ قُلْ لَا أَشْهَدُ (6:150:5) yashhadūna testify قُلْ هَلُمَّ شُهَدَاءَكُمُ الَّذِينَ يَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ هَٰذَا (6:150:11) shahidū they testify فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَلَا تَشْهَدْ مَعَهُمْ (6:150:13) tashhad testify فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَلَا تَشْهَدْ مَعَهُمْ (7:37:32) washahidū and they (will) testify قَالُوا ضَلُّوا عَنَّا وَشَهِدُوا عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا كَافِرِينَ (7:172:10) wa-ashhadahum and made them testify وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ (12:81:10) shahid'nā we testify فَقُولُوا يَا أَبَانَا إِنَّ ابْنَكَ سَرَقَ وَمَا شَهِدْنَا إِلَّا بِمَا عَلِمْنَا (41:20:5) shahida (will) testify حَتَّىٰ إِذَا مَا جَاءُوهَا شَهِدَ عَلَيْهِمْ سَمْعُهُمْ وَأَبْصَارُهُمْ وَجُلُودُهُمْ (41:21:4) shahidttum you testify وَقَالُوا لِجُلُودِهِمْ لِمَ شَهِدْتُمْ عَلَيْنَا (41:22:5) yashhada testify وَمَا كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَتِرُونَ أَنْ يَشْهَدَ عَلَيْكُمْ سَمْعُكُمْ وَلَا أَبْصَارُكُمْ (63:1:5) nashhadu We testify إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ Quran 7:158 is sometimes used by the sectarians to justify the Shahada of the hypocrites. The only problem is that the word (شَهِدَ ) is missing from the entire verse. In fact, the word "say" (قُلْ) is used by God in order to make the issue even more clear to us. Furthermore, the actual Shahada is also present in the same verse and is once again distinctly repeated without the phrase "and Mohammad is his messenger" to remove all doubts. Note: The total number of times the word from the root "shīn hā dāl" is used in different contexts is 160, mostly in terms of a witness(s) Besides, there are numerous Ahadith where the true Shahada is detailed. How to interpret the Quran? Let us move towards the positive. Just a quick mention of how to interpret the Quran. When we interpret Islam wrong it is not Islam anymore, it is as simple as that. Similarly, when we succeed in interpreting some verses correctly and others incorrectly then it is just that, partly right and partly wrong. There are no blends, it is all black or white as one would expect from a Divine guide. God is not in the business of maybes. It is reasonable to assume that before wanting to discuss Islam, unless we can agree on the methodology of interpreting Islam, we won't be able to agree on anything. So let us keep the questions on hold for a bit and talk methodologies, because whoever is able to convince the other side on the best methodology can just apply it and get all the answers .just like that. In my humble opinion, this is how I see it and millions have come to more or less the same conclusions. Trust your God-given faculties of observation, logic and rational thought as reminded by scores of verses of the Quran. Yes, the thing to note and emphasize is that the methodology of how to interpret the Quranic verses is embedded in the Quran itself. In contrast, a reference to those who may know more than an average person is mentioned only a few times and that too not in the popular "ask those who know" manner. Those who keep harping on "Ask a Shaikh" need to be told that the number of times "use your brain" is emphasized runs into hundreds but “ask others “not once. There is no "ask those who know" in the Arabic version of the Quran. Please use your brain and observe, research, and draw valid logical conclusions. Remember God is the teacher of the Quran. (Quran 55:02) The actual guidelines of the Quran are not about "asking", but some in the community should be entrusted with researching and making their findings public and open to debate. For the record and with all due respect to those who have a different opinion, the thing about the Quran is, as one would expect from a Divine message, that it is fully Self-Referenced and the Checksums are also all embedded in the body of the message. The core message needed for salvation is easily understood by even a twelve-year-old. The Quran, of course, is much much more and is there for all of humanity, and for all times to come. The message is designed once again to be relevant to people with varying degrees of access to knowledge bases and brain power and who happen to be living at different times and in different space. When one decides to leverage the full potential of the book, the Quran once again comes to the rescue to address the issues associated with serious research and truly demonstrates its timelessness so to speak. For starters, the use of particular words is demonstrated by their use in a priori manner within the Quran and hence protected from the natural evolution of the language. One must research this aspect first. Similarly, the methodology of non-contradiction (there are none in the Quran) not only protects the content and its interpretation but does it in a manner where by and large the domain knowledge constraints are taken out of the equation. In simple terms, if your interpretation of a verse contradicts another verse then there are only three possibilities.
Your interpretation of the first verse is wrong
Or your interpretation of the second verse is wrong
Or your interpretation of both the verses is wrong, hence, seek another interpretation
God is not in the business of maybes as I said. Let's put it this way, every verse in the Quran has a potential veto over a wrongly interpreted verse. We cannot thank God enough for this particular aspect of understanding the message of God. God in His infinite mercy has gifted us a touchstone and if people still insist on "different interpretations" then there is extraordinarily little one can add to the argument. Quran's framework is based on a self-correcting mechanism that needs no outside input. The answer to the question,” Is it even possible to interpret the verses of the Quran in such a manner that it eliminates verses contradicting each other?” is not only an emphatic yes, but yes on several levels. The non-contradiction claim of the Quran serves two purposes; the first , to point out that for mere humans to put together over 77,000 words, covering a full spectrum of domains, is not easy without some elements contradicting others, and the second, is to facilitate our understanding as mentioned above. Mustansir Mir, Professor of Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University, eloquently argues for a multi-layered approach. He writes, “From a linguistic standpoint, it is quite possible for a word, phrase or statement to have more than one layer of meaning, such that one layer would make sense to one audience in one age and another layer of meaning would, without negating the first, be meaningful to another audience in a subsequent age.” So yes, one is free to use different meanings associated with certain words but must do so only in a manner that it does not contradict a chosen meaning in another verse. Add to it a simple rule of restricting the meaning of words to the Arabic language even when they appear to be resembling words of a different language and be alive to the obvious allegorical references and you are done. To seek the best of meanings is an additional and general guideline in order to understand the truth within the verses and hence take out hiding the truth from the equation. Who in their right mind would refuse to follow the instructions of how to understand the intended message of a guide, found in the guide itself, that is if the intention is to understand the message? Indeed, there is no doubt. A word of caution. Some in the Quran focused approach have taken a reactionary stance to the traditional Islam and even legitimate practices of the traditionalists are challenged for the sake of challenging them. One stark example is the issue of Salah. The notion that standing, bowing, and prostration don’t mean what they say they do, because their use in some verses points to a different context, is strange. If we were to reverse this logic and make those different contexts the baseline, then standing should not mean standing anywhere in the Quran. Similarly, if we were to change the definition of a Mosque to mean something other than a physical structure, we would have to do the same with monasteries and churches and synagogues. Quran 22:40. Here once again the non-contradiction aspect of the Quran guides us in the right direction. The impossibility of different interpretations Why is it that there is only one correct way to interpret the Quran? First of all, let me qualify that. It is possible to extract more than one meaning from a given verse (s) of the Quran, as long as each subsequent interpretation (s) does not negate the previous one. Regardless of the number of extracted interpretations, each interpretation will have to pass the test of non-contradiction independently. Let us layout the two elements of non-contradiction. It is hoped that the issue of the language of understanding can also be easily settled through it. Assuming one has already verified the Quran to be the very word of God, the logic is pretty straightforward.
The first rule is that there are no contradictions in the Quran
The second rule is that if the Quran was produced by someone other than God one would find contradictions in that version of the Quran.
When we apply these two rules simultaneously to any interpretation of the Quran, either in its original Arabic or a translated version, we can make the following conclusion. If one were to interpret the Quran in a way that was not intended by God then we are likely to introduce contradictions in the Quran because man is not capable of producing a different version of the Quran without any contradictions. Hence there can only be one correct way to interpret the Quran irrespective of the language of understanding. One is free to claim that their interpreted version is the correct one, but it is not possible to claim that there is more than one correct version of the Quran. Of course, when they make such a claim, they also take on the burden to defend it to be free of contradictions. The choice dilemma By the way, which of the following must one follow and why? Just to help the readers out, of course you always have the option to throw a dart in the direction of the following collections and see where it lands and take that as the one "true" Sunnah and be prepared to be declared a "Kafir" by the followers of all the rest. Mind you, all of them are claimed to have been vetted through the same magical "Science" of Hadith. Needless to say, each and every one of them ignores the all-important, essential, condition of the public delivery of the official message and hopes nobody will notice that 99.9% of them are single third-party narrations, the opposite of public.
Kutub Al-Sittah - (The six books of Sunnis )
Sahih Al-Bukhari ( صحيح البخاري ) Sahih Muslim ( صحيح مسلم ) Al-Sunan Al-Sughra ( السنن الصغرى ) Sunan Abi Dawood ( سنن أبي داود ) Sunan Al-Tirmidhi ( جامع الترمذي ) Sunan Ibn Maja ( سُنن ابن ماجه )
Al-Kutub Al-Arb'ah - (The four books of Shias)
Kitab Al-Kafi ( الكتاب الكافي ) Man La Yahduruhu Al-Faqih ( من لا يحضره الفقيه ) Tahdhib Al-Ahkam ( تهذیب الاحکام ) Al-Istibsar ( الاستبصار )
The Ibadi one Jami Sahih Tartib Al-Musnad
The Mu'tazila collection Comments on the Peak of Eloquence
Now comes the fun part, with the possible exception of the Ibadi collection, each and every collection has an interesting thread running through it. All the collectors were Persians and almost all of them appeared out of nowhere right after the defeat of the Persians. You just need two functioning brain cells to figure out the rest. Now throw in the following to highlight the difficulty of choosing the correct version; Muwatta Imam Malik Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Sunan Al-Darimi Shama'il Muhammadiyah is often referred to as Shamaail Tirmidhi Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān Al-Mustadrak Alaa Al-Ṣaḥīḥaīn Al-Mawdū'āt Al-Kubrā Rīaḍ As-Ṣāliḥīn Mishkat Al-Masabih Talkhis Al-Mustadrak Majma Al-Zawa'id Bulugh Al-Maram Kanz al-Ummal Zujajat al-Masabih Minhaj us Sawi Muntakhab Ahadith The Book of Sulaym Ibn Qays Al-Sahifa Al-Sajjadiyya Uyun al Akhbar ar Reda Sharh Usul al-Kafi Nahj Al-Balagha Wasā'il Al-Shīʿa Bihar Al-Anwar Haqq al-Yaqeen Ain Al-Hayat (17th century) Qalam-e-Mowla Daim al-Islam ETC I wish it was as simple as choosing a version or two and you were done. Not so fast, as the saying goes, even after settling for a particular version you are still totally dependent on the "scholars" associated with that particular version. In essence, they have the final say in what you ought to believe and often their explanations are not only at odds with the word of God but the wordings in a given Hadith as well. No matter where the dart lands, in essence, it will still be no more than a game of "my scholars are better than yours". I for one refuse to assign my eternity to this crapshoot. Narrated Anas: The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire." حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَعْمَرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَالَ أَنَسٌ إِنَّهُ لَيَمْنَعُنِي أَنْ أُحَدِّثَكُمْ حَدِيثًا كَثِيرًا أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " مَنْ تَعَمَّدَ عَلَىَّ كَذِبًا فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ ". Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 108 In-book reference: Book 3, Hadith 5 Some important verses Perhaps these verses may help 80:11 Nay! Indeed, it (is) a reminder, 80:12 So whosoever wills may remember it. 80:13 In sheets honored, 80:14 Exalted, purified, 80:15 In (the) hands (of) scribes. 80:16 Noble, dutiful. Surah Al-Qamar :
We made the Quran easy to learn. Is there anyone who would learn?
We made the Quran easy to remember. Is there anyone who would remember?
We made the Quran easy to understand. Is there anyone who would understand?
We made the Quran easy to memorize. Is there anyone who would memorize?
If you really are interested in the truth, please read the following verses very carefully; Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof - for him is a great punishment. (11) Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, "This is an obvious falsehood"? (12) Why did they not produce for it, four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah, who are the liars. (13) And if it had not been for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that [lie] in which you were involved by a great punishment (14) When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, tremendous. (15) And why, when you heard it, did you not say, "It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah]; this is a great slander"? (16) Allah warns you against returning to the likes of this [conduct], ever, if you should be believers. (17) And Allah makes clear to you the verses, and Allah is Knowing and Wise. (18) Quran 24:11-18 The true level of our deviation from the straight path can be illustrated by naming the stuff we follow without taking the time to verify it. Just to help some of you out, besides the lies about Aisha’s chronologically impossible age, the false justification of slavery and killing of non-Muslims and the un-Islamic notion of ruling the world under the disguise of Khalafat, Shahid Khan, a Facebook user, has compiled the following list; Things NOT Contained In The Quran: List of Interpolations
Saying that the Quran is not self-sufficient and that there is a need for additional speculations.
Taking the hadiths as a source for Islam.
Sectarian scholars pronouncing fatwas or ijtihads (canonical jurisprudence).
Practices conforming to sectarian dictates.
Equating sects with the religion.
Reciting the Quran for the sake of its music without understanding the text.
Using the Quran as a book of prayer recited for the souls of the departed.
Contributing authority to the Prophet outside the scope of the Quran.
The fact that God created everything for the sake of Muhammad.
Competition between prophets. Supremacy of some prophets over other prophets.
Imitation of the ways and manners of the Prophet even before his prophethood.
The belief that the Quran has missing points which can be found in other books.
To announce certain select devotees to be Muslim saints and visit their tombs with all sorts of reverential rituals.
To idolize the sheikhs of religious orders.
Establishing a type of communication with the sheikhs by a special ritual called rabýta. 16. To claim that only the Sunnites or the Shiites are to go to paradise.
To declare the Jews and Christians as the future dwellers of hell.
To adopt Arabic customs and traditions as religious practices.
To come forth alleging to be reformist with a view to changing the Quranic religion.
To formulate religious precepts ascribing them to the Prophet.
To claim that the vote of the majority always prevails.
To interpret the continuity of sects as evidence of their genuineness.
The Hanafi sect. (Yes, they are sects under the disguise of Madhab)
The Shafi sect.
The Hanbali sect.
The Maliki sect.
The Jafari sect.
All Sunni and Shia sects.
Any sect like Maturidiya, Ashariya.
A canon book called Majalla.
To deny reason and favor apishness.
Hostility against science.
Hostility against the arts.
To abide by the rules that the book entitled Sahih Bukhari lays down.
To abide by the rules of the hadith book entitled Muslim
To abide by the rules of the hadith books Kutub-i Sitte or other such books.
To venerate individuals to whom religiosity is ascribed other than the Prophet.
The allegation that all of those who had the privilege to set eyes on the Prophet (sahaba) were on the right path.
The wearing of the headscarf.
The wearing of the veil.
Segregation of men and women.
The fact that a woman is not allowed to travel alone.
The wrong and absurd belief that a woman can never repay the debts she owes to her husband even if she were to lick him from head to foot when he is in a deplorable state covered with pus.
“If prostration was permitted to any entity other that God, the wife should prostrate herself before her husband” claimed the hadith.
That a woman cannot become a head of state or an administrator.
That women have no right to vote for the governing body of the government.
That women’s voices must not be audible to men.
That women are not allowed to perform the Friday salat.
That women are not allowed to perform salat, fast, recite the Quran or enter a mosque during their period.
Covering women with all sorts of outer garments.
That it is forbidden for women to shake hands with men.
That a man is not allowed to sit in a chair previously occupied by a woman whose warmth is still preserved.
That a woman cannot stay in an enclosed space where there are men.
That women are considered along with dogs and pigs to invalidate the salat of a praying man.
That the majority of women are doomed to go to hell.
That women are evil by nature.
That women lack intelligence.
That women must be kept indoors.
That it is forbidden for women to wear perfume.
That women are not allowed to use makeup.
That a wife must obey her husband as a slave does.
That a woman is required to have sexual relations whenever her husband calls her.
That two female witnesses equal one male witness.
That a woman must have her parents’ permission in order to get married.
Stoning to death of the adulterer.
That the papyrus on which the verse regarding adultery was on was eaten by a goat.
Arguments about killing adulterers being practiced even among monkeys.
Prohibition of a man’s wearing golden ornaments.
Prohibition of men wearing silk.
Prohibition of use of golden and silver utensils and plates.
Prohibition of sculpture.
Prohibition of drawing and painting.
Prohibition of chess.
Prohibition of musical instruments and music.
Prohibition of consumption of seafood like mussels, shrimps, etc.
Prohibition of eating the flesh of donkeys, horses, or wild animals
The fact that kidneys and ram’s testicles are abominable to eat.
The fact that smoking is religiously unlawful.
That there is a separate list containing things considered to be abominable (makruh). 80. That the sexual act must take place under covers.
The prohibition for the couple to look at each other’s sexual organs.
Prohibition of masturbation.
Prohibition for women to use birth control.
That an individual should keep his/her sexual organs covered even when taking a bath lest the angels be offended.
Circumcision of men.
Circumcision of women.
The sunnah of letting beards grow.
The prohibition of trimming a beard.
The sunnah according to which the hair had to be parted from the middle of the scalp.
The sunnah regarding the oiling of hair.
The sunnah of applying henna to hair and beard.
The sunnah of applying mascara to the eyes for men.
That lying face down is a satanic act.
To sleep on a mattress spread on the ground.
To use one’s right foot going out of the house or getting up from the bed.
To enter a soiled place like a WC with the left foot.
Saying that canonical purification of the body can only be performed using water after defecating.
The obligation for men to crouch when urinating.
To relieve yourself in the direction of Mecca.
The fact that eating with the left hand is a satanic act.
To wound a turban.
To use miswak to clean the teeth.
To wear a robe with a long skirt reaching down to one’s feet.
For men to wear a loose dress (antari). .
To wear shalwar (a type of wide trousers) as sunnah.
To interpret as a meritorious act the wearing of white, green, or black raiment.
The prohibition to wear yellow or red.
To consider eating dates or squash as meritorious acts.
To eat seated on the ground.
To eat from the same dish with others.
To eat with three fingers.
To drink water in three gulps.
To drink water in a seated position.
To lick one’s fingers after having eaten with them.
Not to use perfumes containing alcohol.
Not to use eau de cologne.
To kill black dogs.
Not to let dogs into the home.
To cover the mirrors at night.
To perform black magic with or without the use of the Quran.
To write on and wear amulets.
To use the Quran as a book of magic.
To believe that whistling is a satanic act.
To knock on wood or wear trinkets against the evil eye.
To take fortunetellers and magicians for religious figures.
Feasts celebrated at the end of the holy month of Ramadan and on the occasion of sacrifices.
To avoid passing underneath a ladder and to consider black cats, black dogs as ominous signs and to melt lead against the evil eye.
To believe that there are special days on which linen can be washed and sexual intercourse can be performed.
To recite the Mevlit (poem written to celebrate the birth and the death of the Prophet) for the souls of the departed.
To hold ceremonies for the soul of the dead on the 7th, 40th and 52nd days after death. 131. Stories concocted about the suffering that the dead is to be subjected to after burial. 132. Rumors about the bridge of Sýrat from this world to paradise, more slender than a hair and sharper than a sword and a person’s traversing it riding the animal he sacrificed in this world.
The belief that a person who cannot avoid his urine from sprinkling on his clothes shall undergo excruciating torture in the grave.
To fast in the place of a dead person.
To go on Hajj in the place of a dead person.
That tears shed after a death will cause his soul to suffer beyond endurance.
To predict the hour of the Day of Judgment.
The Muslim Messiah, Mahdi.
To say that Dabbe has the ears of an elephant, eyes of a hog and head of an ox.
The Second Coming of Christ.
The belief that Agog and Magog are Turks.
Racism, superiority of the Arab race.
The belief that Agog and Magog are the homunculus.
To set down prayer hours not indicated in the Quran.
To prescribe a certain number of rakats as a binding duty.
The requirement of performing the salat by reciting verses in the original Arabic language.
Prohibition for women to conduct the congregational prayer.
To have to repeat always the same thing during the kneeling and prostrating in the course of the performance of the salat.
The obligation to recite the fatiha at every rakat.
The obligation to sit and recite attahiyyat at the end of the salat.
To make a long list of the particular requirements during the salat not mentioned in the Quran.
To make a detailed description of the praying man with regard to his posture, such as how he will place his hands).
That the compensation of a wilfully broken fast is two months without interruption.
Special salats like the taravih (the superfluous night service during the month of Ramadan performed immediately after the prescribed night service of worship, consisting of twenty genuflections with an interval for rest and breathing after each two or four acts), and the congregational prayers at the end of the month of fasting and at the festival of sacrifice. 156. To put people in misery by restricting the period of Hajj to a short space of time.
The stoning of Satan during the Hajj.
To slaughter animals at the Festival of Sacrifice.
To believe that certain restrictions start after the Hajj.
Calling holy the water from the well zamzam, to pray over sugar or salt for luck.
To give zakat (alms, charity) as 1/40 of one’s assets.
To assign special rates for zakat for camels, sheep, and agricultural products.
The belief that one invalidates his ablution by certain acts other than nature’s call.
The belief that total ablution (ghusl) is required not only after sexual intercourse but also by other causes.
To make the order of acts during the performance of ablution strictly binding.
To say that rinsing one’s mouth and blowing one’s nose during the major ablution is a binding duty.
The requirement of washing one’s heels along with the feet.
Details such as the obligation of pouring water three times each to the right and left of a person performing the total ablution.
The requirement of total ablution before reciting the Quran.
Saying that one sins when he/she goes about not having performed total ablution.
The nullification of ablutions for a person who has a tooth filled.
The nullification of ablutions for men/women having a tattoo.
Martyrdom for those having died in an earthquake or a flood.
Martyrdom of those having suffered stomach pains.
That the earth is supported by an ox or a fish.
The belief that earthquakes occur when the fish shakes its tail.
The fact that the moon is unattainable.
To define the setting of the sun as the loss of the sun as a guide for prostrating.
The belief that the eclipses of the sun and the moon occur when they are drawn by carriages equipped with handles.
Existence of angels in the form of bulls, lions, and eagles.
Accounts related to the 600 wings of Gabriel.
God’s opening His calf in paradise.
God’s touching the back of the Prophet.
God’s coming down on earth on special days to shake the hands of His creatures.
The bargaining between God and the Prophet for the reduction of the times of salat from 50 down to 5.
The Institution of the caliphate.
The sultanate and the making the subjects into slaves of the political power.
Classes of clergy.
To sanctify the Arabic language and ascribe sanctity to the Arabic letters.
To terrorize people with the countries outside the dominion of Islam (Dar-ul Harb).
To loot and disregard the rights of people living outside the dominion of Islam.
To beat or kill persons who refuse to perform salat.
To compel people to fast and beat those who fail to do so.
To beat women who have put on makeup and go around uncovered.
To kill the renegades (of Islam to other religions).
To flog the renegades (even those who convert from one sect to another).
To make conquests merely for the sake of looting.
To beat drunkards.
To use force and compel people to abide by religious rules.
To call Islam by the names of sects, etc.
The myth of the Muslim majority What "vast Majority"? The reality is a sea of fragmented competing sects constantly at each other's throats. The only thing that unites them is defending their illegal relevance and attacking those who point out the illegality of their position. They are in it for the money. They are masters at duping the unsuspecting to part with their hard-earned wages. When pushed, the majority of their own members reject their sect's nonsense. People are not fools in general, they can tell when they have been taken for a ride. It is one thing to go along with the "majority" under duress and another to take all this nonsense to heart. Here is what God has to say about the majority: 2:100 the majority do not believe (in The One God) 2:243. Majority are ungrateful. 3:110 the majority are wicked. 4:114 the majority whispers lies. 5:32 the majority are transgressors 5:49 majority are wicked 5:59 majority are wicked 5:62 the majority hasten to sin and transgression and consuming money illicitly. Miserable indeed is what they were doing. 5:64 the majority are rebels and rejecturers Here are some other verses with similar warnings 5:66 5:71 5:81 5:103 6:37 6:111 6:116 6:119 7:17 7:102 7:131 7:187 8:34 9:8 10:36 10:55 10:60 10:92 11:17 12:21 12:38 12:40 12:68 12:103 12:106 13:1 16:38 16:75 16:83 16: 101 17:89 21:24 21:93 23:70 25:44 25:50 (thanks to Wan Ibnul Bahar)
2020.09.13 10:10 kamakameliaI (f20) am falling in love with one of my best friends of two years (m50)
I cannot tell anybody in my life, because i (and he) would get a ton of shit for it coz nobody would understand. But i need to share this! I cannot keep it secret any longer. I have a thing for older guys, always had. At this point, most of my friends are above 35. It sounds strange but it works for me. Its gonna be a long rant probably. Sorry not sorry. So, at the beginning of 2018 i started salsa dancing as a hobby. I kinda had a crush on one of the best dancers in the class early on, and we kinda hit it off. Ill call him Luke. We met a couple of times, i was still super shy around him, and very cautious when at his place (like, i followed him to watch him pour me a glass of water instead of sitting on the couch and waiting for him to bring me. He was very accepting of my caution, even considered it positive, and did everything he could to make me feel more comfortable. the first time i was at his place, he even put the keys in on the outside of the door to show me that there will not even be any way for him to lock them) and then, i had a ball from ballroom dancing classes i previously took, and i invited him to come. We found ourselves sitting next to each other on a couch somewhere a bit further away from all the other people. We looked at each other intensely, then luke said: "usually, wed be supposed to kiss in this situation" and i looked at him and said "we shouldve been kissing all along" Well, i took him somewhere even further away from the people and we started making out. It was like in the end of a romantic movie, except it was only the beginning of our story. At that time i still was in a (dying) open relationship with my boyfriend, so while everything i did was allowed, he was less than pleased to hear about luke and actually decided to put a veto on him because he was so convinced luke was a creep. I remember one time during class he touched my butt and i went completely mad, like i was so pissed and so certain that my bf was right about luke. Luke swore that hed never do that and that it mustve been an accident. Luke is a teacher, and an old friend of mine actually used to be his student. She told me some strange stories about him aswell, so i was weary. to make it short: I broke up with my boyfriend (not coz of luke) and ended up sleeping with luke once or twice. In the following two years, we did a lot of dancing, dance festivals, workshops and so on. Sometimes we were in closer contact, sometimes we were further away from each other. We kissed sometimes, but never really had sex anymore. Shortly after i broke up with my boyfriend, i got into a short, monogamous relationship with another guy, so sex with luke was off the table. After that relationship also ended, it just never really went back on the table. But i found a great friend in luke, someone i could discuss anything and everything with. We quickly noticed we both had the same outlook on relationships and love (both polyamorous/non-monogamous) and also on a lot of other things in life. This kind of dips into my backstory, but i have a lot of issues regarding my sexuality. I was terrified hed leave me if i didnt have sex with him, but he didnt. It wasnt even an issue at all, ever. I told him about these issues and the issues that formed from my sexual relationships with other men, and he was there and listened and wished me all the best for my future and my development in that regard. I watched him get to know women and date them and helped him make decisions in that regard sometimes. Also, on the festivals, we shared hotelrooms and beds a ton of times. He never made any moves, even in a hotel with no-privacy-showers in the room (wtf, interior designer?) i felt comfortable showering naked infront of him, he didnt look, didnt make it awkward, and i didnt feel weird having him naked in there either. We cuddled a lot in those hotels. Fast forward to a couple of months ago. Were having dinner with some other dancers, and he makes a joke about how ill get angry if they get too drunk. I laugh and tell him that ive never once been angry with him in 2 years of friendship. He stops and thinks, then says he only just realized thats true. Sooo, a couple days or so later, we take mdma. Ive convinced him, because ive been wanting to share it with him for ages. In the middle of our (amazing) roll, he suddenly blurts out "okay, this is going to sound absolutely criminal, but... I was thinking.... Oh man, I can't say that out loud... So, why arent we together, actually? We work so well together" i am laying on my back next to him with the biggest grin on my face, i canr believe hes actually asking that. I tell him that theres no reason, ive been wondering about the same thing before, so if we like to label what we have as a relationship, we can do that. The rest of the trip, we share a lot of deep fears, a lot of loving words and a lot of cuddles. I feel like thats the point when i really started to fall in love with him. Eversince then, its just been getting more and more. The other night, we hung out again. It started so normally, we danced, cuddled, (thats when it stopped being normal), he asked me if id like to sleep over (made my heart skip a beat) we had sex, drank fine wine and fell asleep in each others arms. Before we really got started with the sex, he slowed it down and we had a long conversation about boundaries and how hes a bit worried hes taking something from me and how hes heard all those stories i told him, and he doesnt want that for me, and hes scared things will change and all that. He said, he sometimes worries hes like a vampire for my youth and my time. After i admitted that i sometimes worry im a vampire for his love and affection and time and all that aswell, we could both laugh about it and realize its bullshit. Then, we finally had sex. It was great. He was super careful to never cross any lines, as soon as i gave any "no" indication, hed stop. Later, while i was in his arms, i had the biggest smile on my face. Whenever i was looking at him, he was the most beautiful man to me. His voice is so calming to me. I love his smell. Lmao even him shoving his dick down my throat felt like a romantic gesture. I havent been in love like this in years, and i cant tell anyone about it, because they woulsnt understand. They wouldnt understand the age difference, they wouldn't understand how i can see someone i love only like once or so a week. They wouldn't understand why both of us see and sleep with and kiss other people while we do love each other (and them) Last time i saw him, i wanted to say "i love you" all the time. It was stuck in my head, as a sentence. I couldnt think clear because it was fogging up my brain, but i didnt have the courage to say it. We have this habit of telling each other we love each other in other ways, but never said it directly so far. Yea, so uh. Moral of the story, im in love and cant shut up about it, sorry. If you read this far, thanks! About the stories of my friends, idk. He says, as a teacher its normal that the students tell a lot of roumors.
My husband and I are polyam (obvi) He decided to date my X that I broke up with because I couldn't trust them due to their constant lying. I said I would still be their friend and I put them at arms length to protect myself a little. Because we don't do veto I have been trying to radically accept their relationship and have been even been working to communicate with them to build a friendship so we can be happy metas and create less stress for my husband. They have been completely combative and have been ignoring me the vast majority of the time and seem completely unwilling to bridge the gap. I had a ton of anxiety about them dating because of their manipulative behaviors. Well in the 5 or so months that they have been dating his partner has actively lied about theirs and mines interactions multiple times to my husband. He caught them in it but keeps forgiving them. I'm beginning to harbor resentment for my husband because he keeps choosing to forgive them. I'm hurt. I feel like he thinks his relationship is more important then the mutual respect and compassion I deserve. I feel like I don't matter to him. I don't know what to do. I want him to be happy and have what he wants but his partner seems to be actively trying to break us up or cause chaos in our relationship. Has anyone ever dealt with this? How did you over come? Is this right and I just need to learn how to deal? Any and all advice is appreciated. Thank you.
François l'embrouille - Le vétérinaire (full video) - YouTube
The final four houseguests compete in the final veto competition of the season. Subscribe to the 'Big Brother' Channel HERE: http://bit.ly/1lvQig6 Watch Full... The Houseguests compete for the chance to win the Power of Veto. Click HERE to subscribe to the Big Brother channel: http://bit.ly/1lvQig6 Don't miss a minut... Dating Matters®: Communities for Healthy Teen Dating - Duration: 3:00. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Recommended for you. 3:00. leveterinaire.mp4 Thanks for watching!!!! Help us get to #10K subscribers 💪🏾 NOTIFICATION GANG WHERE YALL AT ⁉️👀 SUBSCRIBE TO THE GANG 🤘🏾 AJ MOBB https://www.youtube ... Teen dating violence is a topic not often heard of, in fact, according to loveisrespect.org, eighty-one percent of parents do not even know that it's an issu... Krystal and Saagar discuss Biden and Bernie's electability in tonight's primaries. About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that ... Lovely short movie from 1947 on how to be popular. How to talk to girls and date. A nostalgic look at a very different kind of America, where respect for the... Did you know that statistically 1 in 4 teens (boys & girls) is in a physically abusive relationship today? Join us on October 24th as we discuss Healthy Emot... DON'T FORGET TO LIKE AND HIT THAT SUBSCRIBE BUTTON! 🤟🏾 Y'ALL GO SUBSCRIBE TO THE GANG🤟🏾 SUBSCRIBE TO VR VETO - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr3Ar ...