Unicorns & Unicorn Hunters - Merged Threads, General Discussion

Exactly. Sometimes I get the feeling that people are simply wanting to find a new class of victims to save - and a Unicorn fits the bill. It simply doesn't sit comfortably with these 'rescuers' to accept that a person (OK, most likely a woman) might able to make clear, rational and informed decisions about her life.

Actually I get almost as frustrated with women who do seek couples, or even call themselves Unicorns! Nortthome, this thread was started in response to a closed thread STARTED by a self IDed Unicorn.


... stop trying to save people from themselves.

Silly statement. One of the main purposes of a board like this is to share information and support between more experienced polyamorists and those that are new to it; helping people by sharing experiences so they don't have to reinvent the wheel.
 
You know, northhome, you're beginning to annoy me.

Your first sentence was sarcastic. Personally, I think sarcasm is disrespectful in communication, between friends, partners or parents and children.

Oh dear, oh dear.

I consider myself suitable chastised.
 
Silly statement. One of the main purposes of a board like this is to share information and support between more experienced polyamorists and those that are new to it; helping people by sharing experiences so they don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Sharing experiences is one thing. Putting people into boxes and labelling them is another. Anyway, this is going nowhere - I think we're speaking completely different languages here.

I've no doubt you mean well (and that is not sarcastic, in case you require reassurance).
 
yes YouAreHere, he has some good advice that can help, and most of his put downs are so subtle and indirect they aren't picked up on so they are easy to not pay attention to and pick out the tidbits of good advice he picked up from various boards like these and I really should give it a rest because because most people already know my opinion of the author

and to Magdlyn and Natja, your replies in this thread have pretty much mirrored the styles of over-exaggerating-then-dial-it-way-down as if nothing happened and you are just trying to help settle a dispute or at least clarify the points of contention so that people can disagree, agree to it, and move on.

I fully understand the inside joke of "unicorn" hunters, but when you call every couple who would like a triad, hunters, and their mythical creature a unicorn, you might as well call every person who is poly and not maxed out the number of loved one in committed relationships to also be looking for a mythical lover that doesn't exist

I understand that some people come to poly forums with completely unrealistic notions about "adding" another woman to their relationship, but looking for a another person to love is not the problem as much as it is not really understanding what love truly is, and it isn't sex, and it sure as hell isn't setting up some trap to make couples interested in poly a way to embarrass themselves.

If you don't see how you may be a little quick to call couples unicorn hunters, you are not likely to see that doing that (calling all couples who desire a triad) might play a part in people self identifying as a unicorn or a unicorn hunting couple. Most people understand that any relationship will never fit their idealized image in their head, however those who enter relationships without understanding the saying "be careful what you wish for" are probably going to blind to the fact that a good friend and genuinely caring partner will help you realize and create a functional "dream come true" relationship when you are patient enough to compromise and bend in any relationship where your partners are not taking advantage of you.


A topic can either be brought up so that it can be discussed in direct straight forward ways wherein much can be gained when all participants are genuine and honest with their words and intent behind those words. It is completely different than a debate with an intent to win the debate, or prove a theory wrong and another right. The problem with support boards this, and topics such as this, is when they are used as the debate/prove an opinion as fact -- which cannot done unless you are among those with the same opinion -- yet they are given the label of "discussion" or people who turn them into right and wrong debates using the excuse that the interwebs are filled with people who are not considerate, conscientious repliers and to expect that is ludacris

often people blur the lines of a discussion and a pissing contest debate, and that sucks, esp whenever the topic somewhat serious and not just being someone or something for a poly community to make fun of

there is nothing wrong with being wrong, or making a mistake and I don't personally see myself as having issues with not being able to admit when I am wrong or being embarrassed about making a mistake.

I have no problem with friends of FV or even devout followers, but I have little sympathy for those who pretend to not understand what I mean what I am talking when I speak of the behavior which I liken to someone grabbing a hold of the volume dial and rolling it back and forth from silent to way too loud. When I am listening to the radio and someone moves the volume from lowest to maximum, quickly back and forth I tend to get irritated.

If on top of that they claim to be attempting to help sooth listener's ears, as if that's a functional, working way to go about listening to the radio when one group likes the volume lowered and another likes it loud, it tends to piss me off

But I hear you saying, you don't understand how I think the way you, Magdlyn and Natja have been a little harsh, quick to jump to assumptions in regards to "couples" interested in polyamory only to back away with disclaimers and be much more understanding to you own attitudes by saying something to the effects of :

we are just telling them what to look for

While I agree that Magdlyn once stated a near perfect paragraph to stamp all "couples seeking" posts, if do believe if you are going to a have a stamp that is one size fits all, it should not be overly harsh and judgemental and when it is, it should be very specific about the parts it is going to judge, and if the party is not guilty why continue to harp on couples unless they are one penis policy, closed or otherwise enforced against their will polyfidelity triad?

I don't agree with the theory that poly couples (yes I know how that makes absolutely no sense to some people, but they know full well what people mean and every time they bring up the fact that they claim it makes no sense to them is only to insert a point from which to control the conversation from a fictitious point of not making sense)

I don't agree with the theory that poly couples should feel they need to be open to casually dating separately and segregated and those dates must include sex to be considered polyamory. What happens is you get a bunch of people who take advantage of polys and are looking for sex.

Just like in the every relationship world (poly, mono, non-mono and everything in between) people who get tired of being taking advantage of would rather you be their friend first. Because it is these people who genuinely care enough about you to be in a healthy relationships and are not simply "dating" you in order to get sex, become popular, have one way emotional support without supporting others, et. cetera, Et. cetera, etc...

preventing your spouse from having friends and creating lasting bonds with others is something even mono's have no trouble identifying as abusive

the same way both monos and polys tend to agree that letting someone claiming to be the friend of your spouse but is using them for sex and disrespecting your spouse, you, your relationship and the entire poly community is enabling abuse and laboring to destroy strong communities.

Most morally and ethically conscience polys have a lot more in common with mono that have morals and ethics, and instead of creating a divisions between one good group of people, it would be wise to speak out against abusers instead of polys with morals and ethics and paint the picture as the problem being with monos, couples, single men or single women, regardless of their sexual orientation

The same way that mistaking the two similar situations which are actually very distinctly different occurrences can damage a forum board-- the difference between a discussion and a pissing contest debate

For poly people to not distinguish between casual sex and a loving relationship that sex is a natural extension of, damages poly relationships and communities.

it's not that either of the similar situations is bad or wrong, but being misidentified or even just not distinguished from each other by any party involved can be very damaging, to everyone and everybody

If you are distinguishing between "true" unicorn hunter/unicorns and couples/single poly women, when people have attitudes like River Dwellers, it might be best to inform them that they are not unicorn hunters

as the subtle difference between them and unicorn hunters -- when not distiguished -- can also be damaging
 
Last edited:
I completely understand that many people have done unrepairable damage to their relationships, I just disagree that it was the triad configuration that is the problem.

I believe that in a good many cases, it's "attachment to a specific outcome" that is the problem. When you have no flexibility about how things unroll, it makes it extremely easy to deviate from The Plan, and The Rules of The Plan stipulate that any deviations from The Plan will result in immediate termination of The Arrangement.

This thread just happens to be about attachments to triad outcomes. It's not a chicken or the egg game. We're talking about triads because that's the topic of the thread. We're not talking about other configurations because they are not the topic of the thread. It's pretty simple, really.

Putting people into boxes and labelling them is another.

I react most strongly when people put themselves into boxes without understanding the consequences. If a straight man goes around calling himself a "fag" because he heard the word somewhere and knows it applies to men of some sort... then yeah, we're gonna have problems. This particular thread was started because someone labelled herself a unicorn when it was clear she actually wanted to be treated like an free woman with her own rights and opinions, which is exactly what a unicorn does not have.

When people merely express what they seek and I detect language or undertones that hint at patterns I've seen before, I don't just leap out and yell "BACK THEE UNICORN HUNTERS!" Depending on how strongly they come on, I might ask them to consider certain points, or if it's really bad, point them to the "Someone called you a unicorn hunter" article.
 
Despite the irony of fuelling the fire, I think FV gets far too much attention. He's just one guy with a blog. It happens to be popular. That in no way makes him an authority, no matter how authoritative his tone may be. Like me, he has an opinion on everything and he's convinced he's right. I, at least, am capable of questioning my opinion when presented with contradictory evidence, and outright changing it with sufficient evidence to prove me wrong. I don't follow FV so I don't know if he has this capacity as well. I doubt it, because the problem with authority is that changing your mind is bad for credibility.

Like anyone who writes enough, some of what he says is gold, some is utter garbage. Anyone educating themselves on anything should consult multiple sources and use critical thinking to make up their own minds.

A lot of what he says is basically common sense. However, anyone who's spent any time talking to people knows: common sense does not exist. Common sense is what clever people figure out without assistance and therefore assume is obvious to everyone. But not everyone is clever, so the world needs people to write down common sense to make it accessible to those who lack the intellect to figure it out for themselves.
 
I also started this poly journey with my current husband as a unicorn hunter. I had been in a poly quad (mostly hetero) in my first marriage, but that broke up. My husband knew nothing of poly when I met him, and I was discovering my own attraction to women, so we decided we would try to find a woman we could both date. It felt SAFE to do that. I think for many (not all) of these couples, that is a huge consideration. They feel it is important to maintain the integrity of their couplehood, and to not be "cheating", and/or think it will avoid jealousy.

After many years of looking, I realized that we were really doing ourselves a disservice by trying to find, like LovingRadiance said, that one miracle person in 2% of the population...

For me, our attempt at finding a "unicorn" felt like a "safe" way for us to explore poly and for me to get my poly needs met, AND my bisexual needs met. I always made it clear to both my husband, and to any women I did meet, that we were not always having threesome sex. My attraction to women was NOT for HIS benefit. It was for myself, and for her, if he was invited to participate, by both of us, that was a bonus for him. He never had that kind of expectation. WE just hoped beyond hope that perhaps there was a women who would enjoy hanging out with us both. It was a fantasy....

I now realized that my attraction to women is present, but not as strong as my attraction for men. And, my husband, who has always had insecurity issues and preferred a one penis policy (not because he is a jerk, but because he was scared to let me be with another man because I might leave him..) is learning that my having another male partner does not take away from my relationship with him. It's kind of like phobia therapy. A little bit of exposure at a time... :)



I think it would be helpful to both the forum and individuals if they could be honest about their prejudices and why they have them. I spoke about why I'm hypersensitive about people who demand the family style of poly with lots of metamour interaction. There was a time when I categorically believed that anyone who expresses a strong preference, let alone a need to meet metamours was a complete control freak. Time and understanding has taught me differently but I am still wary of it because of my fear that a relationship that I develop will be dictated by someone else. I think it is wise to recognise the risks in particular relationship configurations, especially the ones relevant to you, but also acknowledge when your own fears and experiences are colouring your views and leading you to make assumptions.

London, I understand what you mean by this. Yes, making demands that a certain partner "has to" socialize with the family can come across that way. However, I wonder if perhaps these people are craving or desiring community. I know quite a few poly people who prefer "inclusive" love styles, where everyone knows everyone else. And stating that they would like the new partner to be part of the "community" is okay, but I agree the individual should be free to decide how much they would like to interact with that community...

Ultimately, I think we can all "theoretically" know what kind of poly relationship we would like, until we actually try it. That is when we find out whether it will really work for us or not. I know quad works for me, just not with the people I was with. I know V can work for me, but may not work for my guys. We are still exploring. :)
 
London, I understand what you mean by this. Yes, making demands that a certain partner "has to" socialize with the family can come across that way. However, I wonder if perhaps these people are craving or desiring community. I know quite a few poly people who prefer "inclusive" love styles, where everyone knows everyone else. And stating that they would like the new partner to be part of the "community" is okay, but I agree the individual should be free to decide how much they would like to interact with that community...

Even in our V, I can still feel "smothered" in this way. I LOVE people, don't get me wrong, but I don't like feeling that someone is trying to bash their way into my "inner circle" - that's up to ME, not them - and I will push back when I feel that happening.

Not sure what my point is, other than I think you have a good point, and it's a good idea to be mindful of this in any configuration.
 
Yes, making demands that a certain partner "has to" socialize with the family can come across that way. However, I wonder if perhaps these people are craving or desiring community. I know quite a few poly people who prefer "inclusive" love styles, where everyone knows everyone else. And stating that they would like the new partner to be part of the "community" is okay, but I agree the individual should be free to decide how much they would like to interact with that community...

This can be true for sure.
But-the other thing is-that there is a huge difference between saying "YOU HAVE TO socialize with my family"
and
"I only have 1 day a week available to date outside of my current family commitments. You are welcome to see me ANY day-but the other 6 days-you would be seeing me AND my family."

That isn't forcing anyone.
That is letting them know the limits of your time availability-which seems to be a damn difficult concept to a few people on this board.

My situation is that I have school M/W. I am NOT available those days AT ALL period.
T/TH/F I have the kids and no available babysitter. But-I am open to date or socialize if someone is willing to do it WITH the kids in tow.
Weekends I have a couple hours free to do with as I please alone. But the largest chunk of my time is devoted to family activities. Others are more than welcome to join. But I'm not available if they are wanting exclusive time with me.

It's not manipulative or controlling to identify your limitations upfront. It's honesty and actually freeing-because it gives the other person the option to decide if your limitations work for them.
I think of it as being very similar to condom use. I'm not available for sex without a condom. That isn't manipulative even if the guy wants to have sex without a condom. That's my choice for MY body. He can choose to have sex with someone else.

Likewise-someone who wants more than a couple of hours a week and is unwilling to socialize with my family-can date someone who is available more without contact with their family. It's not manipulative. It's my life, my time, my body, my choice.
Their choice is to accept or decline.
 
Last edited:
This particular thread was started because someone labelled herself a unicorn when it was clear she actually wanted to be treated like an free woman with her own rights and opinions, which is exactly what a unicorn does not have.

And this is the kind of overloading of the term which does not belong....

The Unicorn term is used outside the poly world, through the swinging realm, and possibly some areas of the BDSM community. It doesn't belong exclusively to the poly community to redefine along a particular political agenda.

The common factor of the definitions basically comes down to the bi female who is willing to engage with couples. Period, End, Stop. That's the only factor that plays into the rarity paradigm, because everyone is looking for one, yet few if any ever seem to find one.

All this other nonsense about a unicorn being rare because they're somehow willing to give up their adult rights or to enjoy being an indentured sex slave, etc. is specific only to a few area's of the poly blogging sphere from some particular individuals with an axe to grind. Frankly doesn't do the community as a whole any service, as it's been mostly a drive to chastise and alienate a wide swath of people in or coming into poly from the monostream world.

Now, if we want to look at patriarchal overtones in things like OPP's, Unicorn hunting patterns, and lopsided relationship agreements, then there might be a basis for these issues in that discussion, because most of them are vestiges of the over-ridding patriarchal systems prevalent in the western world.
But they are not part of the Unicorn definition.
 
And now Urban Dictionary, so....well I think our definition will probably prevail.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unicorn

Thank you, Nadja. Let's put that definition right here, shall we? It's a well written and comprehensive overview of a common phenomenon in this poly world.

1. Unicorn
Colloquial; Synonym for hot bi babe or HBB, often derogatory, condescending, or ironic. A bisexual person, usually though not always female, who is willing to join an existing couple, often with the presumption that this person will date and become sexually involved with both members of that couple, and not demand anything or do anything which might cause problems or inconvenience to that couple.

The term is often used to be dismissive of a couple seen to be only superficially polyamorous. Because of the demands that this type of couple places on the woman (that she be single and not take on any additional partners, and become involved with both members of the couple equally, and often "complete" their family as a surrogate mother and housekeeper and/or breadwinner and not do anything that may threaten or disrupt the existing couple), many in the poly community call this type of woman a "unicorn", as in mythical and not likely to be found, even though there are plenty of bipoly women around.

Sometimes the unicorn is expected to not develop any emotional attachment and is strictly there for a sexual relationship (equally distributed to both members of the dyad) and/or is prescripted as a secondary. This term is used as a reminder that bipoly women are people with their own desires, needs, and pre-existing lives, and not fantasy figures or pets. See related prescriptive vs. descriptive.
John wants a single, attractive woman who will love and have sex equally with him and his wife, but not interfere with their marriage, move in together, help raise their kids but not have any of her own, and not have any other partners. He's looking for something that doesn't exist - he's looking for a unicorn!

I see it's 974 thumbs up, 563 down. Perhaps II gave it a thumbs down. But about twice as many people agree with this definition as reject it.
 
And this is the kind of overloading of the term which does not belong....

The Unicorn term is used outside the poly world, through the swinging realm, and possibly some areas of the BDSM community.

II, are you a swinger? Did you hunt Unicorns in the swinging world? Have sex with them and your female partner, or know people who did? I don't swing, but, I imagine 3way sex (FMF) is fairly common. So, a woman willing to engage in a 3way sex sesssion wouldn't be that rare and wouldn't really be a Unicorn.
It doesn't belong exclusively to the poly community to redefine along a particular political agenda.

"Political?" I hate politics. I just want to warn people away from being and seeking a woman that doesn't exist, given the definition above. I don't want couples to be foolish and deluded (like my ex husband and I were), and I don't want Unicorns to be hurt (as I hurt my husband's gf when she wasn't interested in me romantically).

The common factor of the definitions basically comes down to the bi female who is willing to engage with couples. Period, End, Stop. That's the only factor that plays into the rarity paradigm, because everyone is looking for one, yet few if any ever seem to find one.

"Engage?" You mean sexually? Then it's not polyamory, it's just polyfuckery. Engage romantically, sexually, domestically, etc.-- that is the way I define it for the purposes of discussion on a poly board. We aren't a swingers board. If someone comes here from the swinging world, thinking they can get a HBB, or be a HBB in the poly world, they will see the concept here has more ramifications than just hot 3way sex. As in the thread you locked, the Unicorn was expected not just to "engage" with a couple, but to only have 3way dates and sex, never be in a dyad, and also miss out on much of the discussion her couple were having behind her back (a factor of "couple privilege.")

All this other nonsense about a unicorn being rare because they're somehow willing to give up their adult rights or to enjoy being an indentured sex slave, etc. is specific only to a few area's of the poly blogging sphere from some particular individuals with an axe to grind.

Let me just say "axe to grind" seems a rather offensive way to put it, when we are just up to here with unsuccessful Unicorn Hunters and their unwitting prey. Don't call them Unicorns if YOU don't want to. I happen to think it does some good to have a term for it. Expanding the definition from merely "a woman willing to engage with a couple" to "a woman who is a hot bi babe who probably will get the short end of the stick in a relationship with a committed couple," seems perfectly fine to me. I don't understand why you are so angry about it.

Frankly doesn't do the community as a whole any service, as it's been mostly a drive to chastise and alienate a wide swath of people in or coming into poly from the monostream world.

Is that so? Do you mean we've driven Unicorn Hunters away from this board and back to Craigslist, or swinging, or *gasp* to getting therapy and working on their issues, or becoming monogamous, or splitting up? Well, if an explanation about why Unicorn Hunting and trapping and catching and engaging often turns rather abusive is enough to turn away a couple from polyamory altogether, were they really poly to begin with? Do we just placate them and tell them to go on with their noble quest? Or is it OK we tell them the pitfalls of searching for this woman without calling her a Unicorn, in your opinion?

Now, if we want to look at patriarchal overtones in things like OPP's, Unicorn hunting patterns, and lopsided relationship agreements, then there might be a basis for these issues in that discussion, because most of them are vestiges of the over-ridding patriarchal systems prevalent in the western world.
But they are not part of the Unicorn definition.

:rolleyes: :eek:
 
Last edited:
often derogatory, condescending, or ironic

Could it be that to use a term that is "derogatory and condescending" might not be the best way to engage in constructive, amiable and helpful discourse?

There might be nicer ways to get the message across. Just saying.
 
Something I posted in another thread:
. . . "unicorn hunters" is a phrase that means a couple is looking for something mythical that doesn't exist. So, just because a bi woman is, or has been, in a triad doesn't mean she is a unicorn - to call her that doesn't make sense. If she exists, she isn't a unicorn! It isn't a triad, per se, that is mythical. The mythical creature is used to describe the unrealistic fantasies of the unicorn-hunting couple, not the relationship configuration nor the actual woman herself.

To that, BorinGuy responded:
I'm quoting this. Nobody will read it though. People will still think "unicorn " is a term of endearment and that "unicorn hunters" are misunderstood victims of victim-blaming.

In a different thread, AutumnalTone posted this:
You're coming at it backwards, though. The actual term is "unicorn hunters" and refers to the *couple* with unrealistic expectations. A woman is only thus a "unicorn" by dint of being sought by said couple.

As far as the term "unicorn hunters" being derogatory..I agree that it is, to a degree. I also think it is *rightly* derogatory, as what it describes is not a healthy situation. The presence and use of such a term provides notice to those to whom it may apply that they are best off examining their motivations and expectations to have a good chance of success with multiple relationships.

The term is not applied to all situations and relationships--at least, not by anybody who is at all knowledgeable about the term.
I know folks who are interested by the prospect of "finding a third" and who most definitely are *not* unicorn hunters.

. . . you're positing that the term is aimed at the "unicorn" and that it is applied indiscriminately. Neither of those are true.

Just thought I'd toss these into the mix.

Also, here are some juicy old threads on the topic, if anyone wants to spend some time reading:

OPP, unicorns, and derogatory poly terminology


Do I qualify as a unicorn hunter?

What's in it for a unicorn?

Single ladies, using the term "unicorn"
 
Last edited:
And now Urban Dictionary, so....well I think our definition will probably prevail.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unicorn

I think urban dictionary is about as useful as toilet paper..

haha.. in this case, it isn't a synonym for hot bi babe. A unicorn can be one but it isn't the same. What a crock!!!

I am married, as well as dating.. hot bi babes that aren't unicorns... :O:O:O holy smokes urban dictionary is wrong..

I am with II. unicorn is not a poly term. Its an alternate lifestyle term. I knew what it meant long before coming into poly. Just because some of us want to redefine a meaning doesn't make it true. Calling a donkey a horse because urban dictionary might tell me, doesn't make it so.

I did/do "swing" (my relationship is open and I liked threesomes, I didn't do swinging parties but did know swingers) and I did have threesomes. And not every fmf threesome is a "triad" setup. Finding women who actually want to fuck women and men, isn't that easy (there is also the case of bi-experimenters, which is far more common then actual bi-sexuals). So yes, they are still unicorns even in the swinging community. As we have all ascertained many times, you can have threeways without everyone involved touching everyone else.

In the end, my personal opinion and those in the poly circles I am involved in. a unicorn is a bi-sexual women interested in getting involved with a couple in a locked in threeway relationship. Period. Doesn't have to be hot, doesn't have to even be unhealthy.. I know a few "unicorns" that prefer it that way. gives them the ability to be a secondary which suits some personalities.

Is a poly unicorn more rare than a swinging one.. sure, maybe. Maybe we need to come up with sub labels for unicorns to add more clarity to the situation... (that was sarcasm by the way)

I also know very happy poly unicorn .. couplings?, trouplings?.. groups.. ahh that works, that work quite well and people are happy. So the premise that a unicorn hunting couple is damaging is just plain incorrect and ignorant. Are there ones who suck, yep as with all relationships, lots of people suck at them. Unicorn "hunters" don't own the rights to co-dependent abuse. Luckily most of the happy ones I know, don't come to forums like this. The pent up abuse because there are bad ones, would just be plain horrible for them.

Its unfortunate circumstances. But this forum abuses people who don't fit this forums poly-ideals which is dictated by the active members. The abuser is sometimes blind to the abuse they dish out, but that doesn't make it less true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But this forum abuses people who don't fit this forums poly-ideals which is dictated by the active members. The abuser is sometimes blind to the abuse they dish out, but that doesn't make it less true.

Thanks for pointing this out, I agree totally. You're being quite blunt about it, but subtle hints have been of little use I notice. Sometimes one has to draw line in the sand.
 
Luckily most of the happy ones I know [unicorns and their hunters...], don't come to forums like this. The pent up abuse because there are bad ones, would just be plain horrible for them.

Its unfortunate circumstances. But this forum abuses people who don't fit this forums poly-ideals which is dictated by the active members. The abuser is sometimes blind to the abuse they dish out, but that doesn't make it less true.

This would be the reason that my wife and her (and my) lover don't read in this forum. I filter HEAVILY to pass on stories that are interesting. They can't stand the attitude toward those who want to stay married AND want to (each) have a close, intimate, sexual relationship with (gasp!) the same person, or those who date two members of a couple and want them to stay together. Frankly, I'm leaning toward returning to lurking status for the same reason. If there were a place to more safely talk about three-person-relationships, that'd be great. But these meta-conversations about what words mean and co-dependency/flaws/fuckups get annoying. Yes, there are lots of silly personals ads, but there's also plenty of, as you say, abuse.
 
Last edited:
This would be the reason that my wife and her (and my) lover don't read in this forum. I filter HEAVILY to pass on stories that are interesting.

Ditto-the guys don't care about which type of relationship, it's just the general caustic-ness of the conversations and the pulling apart of definitions.
They were both on the board and both found themselves more annoyed and frustrated than helped. So now they avoid it like the plague.
 
Back
Top