housands of Ukraine civilians are being held in Russian prisons. Russia plans to build many more https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-prisons-civilians-torture-detainees-88b4abf2efbf383272eed9378be13c72 ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian civilians woke long before dawn in the bitter cold, lined up for the single toilet and were loaded at gunpoint into the livestock trailer. They spent the next 12 hours or more digging trenches on the front lines for Russian soldiers.
Many were forced to wear overlarge Russian military uniforms that could make them a target, and a former city administrator trudged around in boots five sizes too big. By the end of the day, their hands curled into icy claws.
Nearby, in the occupied region of Zaporizhzhia, other Ukrainian civilians dug mass graves into the frozen ground for fellow prisoners who had not survived. One man who refused to dig was shot on the spot — yet another body for the grave.
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are being detained across Russia and the Ukrainian territories it occupies, in centers ranging from brand-new wings in Russian prisons to clammy basements. Most have no status under Russian law.
And Russia is planning to hold possibly thousands more. A Russian government document obtained by The Associated Press dating to January outlined plans to create 25 new prison colonies and six other detention centers in occupied Ukraine by 2026.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in May allowing Russia to send people from territories with martial law, which includes all of occupied Ukraine, to those without, such as Russia. This makes it easier to deport Ukrainians who resist Russian occupation deep into Russia indefinitely, which has happened in multiple cases documented by the AP.
Many civilians are picked up for alleged transgressions as minor as speaking Ukrainian or simply being a young man in an occupied region, and are often held without charge. Others are charged as terrorists, combatants, or people who “resist the special military operation.” Hundreds are used for slave labor by Russia’s military, for digging trenches and other fortifications, as well as mass graves...
Chechnya 2.0 was the plan for when they took the whole country. I'd be emptying the UK armed forces for the UA least we have to watch another genocide.
Or Gulag 2.0
Ben Wallace's 'ingratitude' comments are piss poor in context.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no e arly on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
Without going into the Huw Edwards case, where we don't know what he actually did, except it wasn't illegal, the key point is whether we as citizens have any right to privacy. Legally, we don't have that right unless it involves the State and the Human Rights Act. Several European countries do have a right to privacy enshrined in law. Leveson was an attempt to deal with the issue outwith the law. It doesn't seem to have worked.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
So we can a new ailment to the list
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
Yes, it is hard to see a way back for Huw Edwards, even if completely vindicated. His future might lie more with obscure documentaries about Wales than being national mourner-in-chief.
One thing he has, it seems, is the support of alot of his colleagues. Certainly the well known ones.
Unlike Phillip Schofield, who had made a few enemies, but his well known "friends" just happily ditched him.
His career is as dead as, for a different reason, Michael Barrymore.
He does from people of a similar level to him. But now we have these allegations that he was inappropriate towards more junior members of staff. The BBC News team, to their credit, were quick to report on this.
Without the full facts (and if we get any new complaints), it impossible to tell how serious these other allegations are and what was the timeline i.e. is this something that has all happened very recently relating perhaps to a mental health issues or is it something that has gone on for a long time and people have been scared to speak out.
Yes, it would seem to be an in house domestic HR issue now rather than illegality.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
Or "why pick baboons as your example when you could've picked Bonobos"
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
Or "why pick baboons as your example when you could've picked Bonobos"
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
Only porn made by married couples should be legal
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. C of E approved porn would certainly be a new niche.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
A cold bath, followed by a five mile run across country.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You do have the advantage that, even if you don't, it won't be on the front page of the national press, or even an inside page of the local paper.
I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that there are plenty of journalists working in the press today who have behaved just as badly as Edwards, and quite a lot who continue to behave worse. We just don't know about them, because nobody can be bothered to check. But that doesn't feel like a good way to draw a moral line.
Which is why some of the attempts to defend the Sun cause me to arch an eyebrow.
Well, yes, who'd be in the public eye? It must be difficult enough to go through this in obscurity. OTOH, Huw Edwards is paid an awful lot of money for a not particularly skillful job partly because, like all job, it involves doing some things humans ordinarily wouldn't do, otherwise they wouldn't need to be paid for it. In this case it's being enough of a public figure so you can't get away with naughtiness on the grounds that no-one would be interested. Having a bit of self-restraint, or finding the consequences of not doing so embarassing, is part of what he's paid for.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
Only porn made by married couples should be legal
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. C of E approved porn would certainly be a new niche.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Good luck with finding any single answer. What can be said is this: in the western cultural tradition there are two foundational answers in contradiction with each other as to how to approach the question. The broadly humanist/christendom approach which is that to be a grown up in a society with more than one member, then it is always the case that someone else's needs are more important than yours - you put someone else first.
Contrasting this is what might be called the Nietzsche/solipsistic approach, (this is why he hated Christianity so much) which claims that this tradition is servile and humiliating rubbish and that unless you place yourself as number one at all times you will be walked over.
A liberal society like ours deals with it by having as few as possible compulsory rules/laws about how to be married/partnered.
The key bit is the BUT. I can't see how that can be done- too much of the total budget in schools (80 percent or so) is staff pay.
Agreed, and the main reason most teachers I know rejected the last offer was that it was unfunded.
It does place the unions in a tricky position, though. The 6.5% for teachers seems a fair compromise (which is, after all, the point of the review bodies) but accepting it will further weaken the sector, which already feels stuck together with masking tape.
Reject it, though, and I don’t see a funded offer replacing it…
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
So that’s it. For the rest of their lives? I’m talking healthy men in their 50s here. Not 80-somethings
Involuntary celibacy can cause deep depression
I’m telling them all to go to hookers and just be discreet. Shoot me
Just tell them to get a grip. If necessary twice a day.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
A cold bath, followed by a five mile run across country.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Good luck with finding any single answer. What can be said is this: in the western cultural tradition there are two foundational answers in contradiction with each other as to how to approach the question. The broadly humanist/christendom approach which is that to be a grown up in a society with more than one member, then it is always the case that someone else's needs are more important than yours - you put someone else first.
Contrasting this is what might be called the Nietzsche/solipsistic approach, (this is why he hated Christianity so much) which claims that this tradition is servile and humiliating rubbish and that unless you place yourself as number one at all times you will be walked over.
A liberal society like ours deals with it by having as few as possible compulsory rules/laws about how to be married/partnered.
Frankly, the wife should allow the man to have the occasional hooker, as long as he does it with great discretion and it never impacts the family. No serious affairs. No emotional intimacy. But yes, a sex worker now and again. Fine
Asking a healthy man of 56 to give up sex forever because YOU have gone off it is cruel and perverse
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up. Also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this, so given past episodes they absolutely can't risk trying to soft play it.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
Only porn made by married couples should be legal
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. C of E approved porn would certainly be a new niche.
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up (also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this).
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
Only porn made by married couples should be legal
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. C of E approved porn would certainly be a new niche.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional Western-style relationship (eg. one man is in a relationship with one woman) is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any, which tend towards violence and instability.
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up (also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this).
I know its his friend, but is he really suggesting the BBC News should never investigate any claims of wrong doing among their own....its literally in their code of conduct to do so without fear or favour.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Thanks, but I am rather overweight.
There is truth in that argument. Rape tends to be worse in polygamous societies.
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up. Also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this, so given past episodes they absolutely can't risk trying to soft play it.
I really don't get why the fact he's not very well should be allowed to close the whole thing down. Amy investigation by his employers must obviously continue regardless.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up. Also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this, so given past episodes they absolutely can't risk trying to soft play it.
I really don't get why the fact he's not very well should be allowed to close the whole thing down. Amy investigation by his employers must obviously continue regardless.
As I said down thread, what BBC management should do is come out and say we are going to have an independent investigation. We encourage anybody within or outside the BBC to come forward and report their story to this investigation. It will take time to sort through the chancers and weirdos who will undoubtedly be part of the complainants and at the end it might be that there isn't anything more to it (but there might be).
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
I would imagine though the alpha male would be hoping to have the delights of multiple young blondes rather than the likes of women who look like Ann Widdecombe.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional Western-style relationship (eg. one man is in a relationship with one woman) is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any, which tend towards violence and instability.
There was more violence and instability in previous centuries, though.
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up (also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this).
I know its his friend, but is he really suggesting the BBC News should never investigate any claims of wrong doing among their own....its literally in their code of conduct to do so without fear or favour.
BBC has a duty as employer, and there is such a thing as staff confidentiality during disciplinary proceedings, speaking generally. And there is such a thing as GDPR.
No idea how this works out in this case, mind. (Employee? Contractor?)
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women plus run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Nevertheless, that still evolves to a 1:1 sex ratio, more or less. So what do you do with the surplus males?
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up (also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this).
I know its his friend, but is he really suggesting the BBC News should never investigate any claims of wrong doing among their own....its literally in their code of conduct to do so without fear or favour.
Should BBC News be investigating internal HR issues, or should it hand over whatever evidence it has to HR whose responsibility this is?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
As the couples wouldn't have husbands or wives, they would be in a lower form of sexual relationship than the one preferred in the New Testament ie lifelong marriage but as long as the husband in the marriage didn't have a physical sexual relationship outside his wife watching legal pornography would not be a major problem
I'm anticipating some total ****ing idiot claim the Boris Johnson Whatsapp passcode situation is evidence we need to destroy encryption as a concept by deliberately installing a 'back door'.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
I would imagine though the alpha male would be hoping to have the delights of multiple young blondes rather than the likes of women who look like Ann Widdecombe.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women plus run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Nevertheless, that still evolves to a 1:1 sex ratio, more or less. So what do you do with the surplus males?
We need to change the evolutionary sex ratio, obviously.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
I would imagine though the alpha male would be hoping to have the delights of multiple young blondes rather than the likes of women who look like Ann Widdecombe.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
So that’s it. For the rest of their lives? I’m talking healthy men in their 50s here. Not 80-somethings
Involuntary celibacy can cause deep depression
I’m telling them all to go to hookers and just be discreet. Shoot me
The Pope and many priests and nuns manage a vow of celibacy their whole lives, even in their 20s and 30s and early 40s ie their prime physical and sexual peak. So 50 somethings+ not getting much sex when they are past their physical prime is hardly a big issue
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
I would say this requires a lot of conversation, possibly therapy or mediation, and eventual evaluation of what people value more - their marriage or their sex drive.
If the man is saying he has an urge for sex that he wants to sate, and his wife doesn't want to be involved in that, I don't think it unreasonable to ask for an open marriage. But if the wife says no, then through discussion they will both have to weigh up how important those things are to them. If the husband says sexual satisfaction is a must, and the wife says monogamy is a must, then I would suggest divorce. I also suggest therapy / mediation not because they are necessary, but because it is useful to get to the root causes of these wishes - does the wife really have a desire to feel valued rather than a desire for monogamy, does the husband really have a desire to feel close to someone rather than actually a need for sexual release. If those are the true motives, fine, but they may not be and it would be good to explore. Also, most people are not really equipped for the kind of sensitive understanding conversation this would require, and mediation via therapist or mediator would help facilitate that.
BREAKING: The Government has suffered a major defeat as the High Court rules that its “strike-breaking” agency worker regulations are unlawful.
The important judgement means employers can no longer use agency staff to fill in for striking workers during industrial action.
Preposterous.
Anyone who wants to strike should absolutely have a right to withhold their own labour.
Nobody should ever have a right to withhold anyone else's labour though.
If strikers don't want to work, but others do, then the strikers should lose their jobs and the others get them accordingly. If you're not happy with that, then don't strike, but if nobody else wants your job then the strikers can get what they want perhaps.
Hang on, you're suggesting that companies should be able to dismiss people engaged in legal strike activity - i.e. as part of a union, following a ballot that met required thresholds etc?
In my opinion? If someone else wants the job and so long as the employer doesn't discriminate (ie sacks all the strikers not just one or two)? Yes, absolutely.
Of course in reality most of the time the form won't be able to lose all its staff at once like that. But if there's a queue of people wanting the job, and the strikers aren't willing to do it themselves? Yes of course the work should be able to be offered to someone else, on either a temporary or permanent basis.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U by not being a wanker.
Now there is always more hot and successful options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up (also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this).
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Delighted to agree with Leon. The numbers thing is obvious really. Unless there is a 'one each' or 'one each at a time' approach to partnering then you end up with large numbers of men who are poor, less favoured looks wise, young and without a prospect of a young lady.
A civilised and stable society rests on young men being able to find a girl, and a job, and four walls and roof. I live in a WWC, high industrial employment levels community sustained invisibly by exactly this.
Despite secularisation and a good deal of selfishness thus far in our society the 'one each at a time' (replacing the old 'one each and on average one of them dies early') has dominated. Good. Even our legal system to some small extent protects it.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women still to date and marry too
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
I'm anticipating some total ****ing idiot claim the Boris Johnson Whatsapp passcode situation is evidence we need to destroy encryption as a concept by deliberately installing a 'back door'.
The same total ****ing idiot will declare that it is a Total Fascism that someone on His Side is then caught out by said back door.
housands of Ukraine civilians are being held in Russian prisons. Russia plans to build many more https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-prisons-civilians-torture-detainees-88b4abf2efbf383272eed9378be13c72 ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian civilians woke long before dawn in the bitter cold, lined up for the single toilet and were loaded at gunpoint into the livestock trailer. They spent the next 12 hours or more digging trenches on the front lines for Russian soldiers.
Many were forced to wear overlarge Russian military uniforms that could make them a target, and a former city administrator trudged around in boots five sizes too big. By the end of the day, their hands curled into icy claws.
Nearby, in the occupied region of Zaporizhzhia, other Ukrainian civilians dug mass graves into the frozen ground for fellow prisoners who had not survived. One man who refused to dig was shot on the spot — yet another body for the grave.
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are being detained across Russia and the Ukrainian territories it occupies, in centers ranging from brand-new wings in Russian prisons to clammy basements. Most have no status under Russian law.
And Russia is planning to hold possibly thousands more. A Russian government document obtained by The Associated Press dating to January outlined plans to create 25 new prison colonies and six other detention centers in occupied Ukraine by 2026.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in May allowing Russia to send people from territories with martial law, which includes all of occupied Ukraine, to those without, such as Russia. This makes it easier to deport Ukrainians who resist Russian occupation deep into Russia indefinitely, which has happened in multiple cases documented by the AP.
Many civilians are picked up for alleged transgressions as minor as speaking Ukrainian or simply being a young man in an occupied region, and are often held without charge. Others are charged as terrorists, combatants, or people who “resist the special military operation.” Hundreds are used for slave labor by Russia’s military, for digging trenches and other fortifications, as well as mass graves...
Chechnya 2.0 was the plan for when they took the whole country. I'd be emptying the UK armed forces for the UA least we have to watch another genocide.
Or Gulag 2.0
Ben Wallace's 'ingratitude' comments are piss poor in context.
It is Baldy Ben's department that's getting hollowed out with partial, if any, recompense from the Treasury. He will also be getting lined up to take the blame if this doesn't end in a glittering Ukrainian victory.
Combine that with the fact that he is as thick as shit and salty over the NATO job then the context for his inconvenient truth speaking is apparent.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
Well tough.
If they aren't rich or aren't good looking and beautiful they aren't going to get a rich or good looking husband. That is just reality.
So they should get off their high horse and marry plain honest Fred the plumber down the road and have a nice family life!
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
Off-topic: biased weather news, instance no.7438: ground temperatures in parts of Spain have hit 60 degrees.
That's extremely hot, but the temperature usually quoted in weather reports and forecasts is air temperature. Air temperature in Spain hasn't yet hit 48. It's hit 47 a few times, e.g. in 2012, 2017, and 2021, and, oh look, also in 1846, 1946, and 1964.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
Well tough/
If they aren't rich and aren't good looking they aren't going to get a rich and good looking husband. That is just reality.
So they should get off their high horse and marry plain honest Fred the plumber down the road and have a nice family life!
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
Well tough/
If they aren't rich and aren't good looking they aren't going to get a rich and good looking husband. That is just reality.
So they should get off their high horse and marry plain honest Fred the plumber down the road and have a nice family life!
But that's the point, they don't feel the need to, especially if they have already had a relationship that has brought them kids. Its not for us to tell people who they feel they want to live their lives in regards to this.
I'm anticipating some total ****ing idiot claim the Boris Johnson Whatsapp passcode situation is evidence we need to destroy encryption as a concept by deliberately installing a 'back door'.
The real backdoor being how many durians you need to hammer into Johnson's before he gives it up.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Is that right? Are there really more female lions born than males? That's unusual, fir mammals (indeed, for vertebrates) isn't it? I think - though can't remember the details - that monogamous socities worked better for both men and women. Though what they mainly worked better for is the survival of children. Hence why they evolved - because monogamous societies outbred non-monogamous ones. But I can't evenremember where I read this. Dawkins? Robin Dunbar?
On Leon's earlier point about men married to post-menopausal non-sexual women - that is a pickle wuthout an obvious good solution. That, I guess, is where the imbalancein wedding vows came from - "I will not have sex with anyone else as long as you continue to put out." If the total amount of sex that women want in the world is rather less than the total amount of sex that men want, what happens? We get, a) transactional sex, and, possibly b) Huw Edwards. (I know of at least one man who left his wife for a man who was in principle happy to fish from either pond but went for the pond where he was going to get more sex.) I speculate wildly, of course.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
So that’s it. For the rest of their lives? I’m talking healthy men in their 50s here. Not 80-somethings
Involuntary celibacy can cause deep depression
I’m telling them all to go to hookers and just be discreet. Shoot me
The Pope and many priests and nuns manage a vow of celibacy their whole lives, even in their 20s and 30s and early 40s ie their prime physical and sexual peak. So 50 somethings+ not getting much sex when they are past their physical prime is hardly a big issue
Yeah, celibate Catholic priests? - that turned out REALLY well
I imagine most people under 30 would be horrified at the idea that anyone over 50 has sex of any kind. "WTF man, it's gross" would be a typical reaction.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
Well tough/
If they aren't rich and aren't good looking they aren't going to get a rich and good looking husband. That is just reality.
So they should get off their high horse and marry plain honest Fred the plumber down the road and have a nice family life!
But that's the point, they don't feel the need to, especially if they have already had a relationship that has brought them kids. Its not for us to tell people who they feel they want to live their lives in regards to this.
And why should they have the need to?
It takes two to tango. If a party isn't interested, move on.
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
There is also savage peer pressure among many groups of women to "marry up".
I hope that fully implementing Leveson is in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos.
If they do, it would be a good reason NOT to vote for them. Starmer's prosecutions of journalists under Operation Elveden (convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal) deserve far more criticism than the Savile nonsense. Labour's approach to the press is far too authoritarian for my liking.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
Is that right? Are there really more female lions born than males? That's unusual, fir mammals (indeed, for vertebrates) isn't it? I think - though can't remember the details - that monogamous socities worked better for both men and women. Though what they mainly worked better for is the survival of children. Hence why they evolved - because monogamous societies outbred non-monogamous ones. But I can't evenremember where I read this. Dawkins? Robin Dunbar?
On Leon's earlier point about men married to post-menopausal non-sexual women - that is a pickle wuthout an obvious good solution. That, I guess, is where the imbalancein wedding vows came from - "I will not have sex with anyone else as long as you continue to put out." If the total amount of sex that women want in the world is rather less than the total amount of sex that men want, what happens? We get, a) transactional sex, and, possibly b) Huw Edwards. (I know of at least one man who left his wife for a man who was in principle happy to fish from either pond but went for the pond where he was going to get more sex.) I speculate wildly, of course.
No: lion birth ratio is more or less unity. The difference arises in a more dangerous life, esp. whenm trying to take over a pride, or just being a failure and living out in the wild [edit] on one's own sans females.
I imagine most people under 30 would be horrified at the idea that anyone over 50 has sex of any kind. "WTF man, it's gross" would be a typical reaction.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
And for the 80-90% of males who end up single?
5-10 women for every straight male. So either change the population sex ratio, or have most men gay.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
So that’s it. For the rest of their lives? I’m talking healthy men in their 50s here. Not 80-somethings
Involuntary celibacy can cause deep depression
I’m telling them all to go to hookers and just be discreet. Shoot me
The Pope and many priests and nuns manage a vow of celibacy their whole lives, even in their 20s and 30s and early 40s ie their prime physical and sexual peak. So 50 somethings+ not getting much sex when they are past their physical prime is hardly a big issue
Yeah, celibate Catholic priests? - that turned out REALLY well
Most celibate priests were not and are not child abusers, devotion of a life to God is the highest calling
Off-topic: biased weather news, instance no.7438: ground temperatures in parts of Spain have hit 60 degrees.
That's extremely hot, but the temperature usually quoted in weather reports and forecasts is air temperature. Air temperature in Spain hasn't yet hit 48. It's hit 47 a few times, e.g. in 2012, 2017, and 2021, and, oh look, also in 1846, 1946, and 1964.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U.
Now there is always more hot options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
And if you are an unattractive, not particularly successful man, there are also plenty of less attractive, not particularly successful women to date and marry too
Talking to my single female friends, many just won't accept that. They have a job, they are financially independent, they aren't interested in just getting with a guy who is not particularly successful or attractive, just to be with somebody.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
Well tough/
If they aren't rich and aren't good looking they aren't going to get a rich and good looking husband. That is just reality.
So they should get off their high horse and marry plain honest Fred the plumber down the road and have a nice family life!
But that's the point, they don't feel the need to, especially if they have already had a relationship that has brought them kids. Its not for us to tell people who they feel they want to live their lives in regards to this.
Well that is their problem. If they end up an elderly spinster that is their choice.
If they have already had a family and children that is a different matter, they have already produced their children even if no longer married
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
Yes those on £60 a week universal credit or the state pension really are living a life of luxury with that 10%, then inflation linked, income rise! Finance workers are seeing a 9% average pay rise now, nearly the same percentage from much higher weekly income
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
I would say this requires a lot of conversation, possibly therapy or mediation, and eventual evaluation of what people value more - their marriage or their sex drive.
If the man is saying he has an urge for sex that he wants to sate, and his wife doesn't want to be involved in that, I don't think it unreasonable to ask for an open marriage. But if the wife says no, then through discussion they will both have to weigh up how important those things are to them. If the husband says sexual satisfaction is a must, and the wife says monogamy is a must, then I would suggest divorce. I also suggest therapy / mediation not because they are necessary, but because it is useful to get to the root causes of these wishes - does the wife really have a desire to feel valued rather than a desire for monogamy, does the husband really have a desire to feel close to someone rather than actually a need for sexual release. If those are the true motives, fine, but they may not be and it would be good to explore. Also, most people are not really equipped for the kind of sensitive understanding conversation this would require, and mediation via therapist or mediator would help facilitate that.
In the situations I am talking about, it is as basic as this: the woman just does not want sex any more, the man really does. That's it
Quite a difficult problem to get around, especially if you are still friends and even more if you have a family - kids at school, a home and a life you built together - that you are both loathe to destroy
In that situation, as I have said, my mediation would be simple. You compromise. The women allows the man to have brisk sex with hookers, very very discreetly, the man promises no affairs, no possible emotional intimacy with anyone outside the marriage
The marriage is preserved. The family home is undestroyed. No one finds out. No one gets hurt (unless you feel that prostitution itself is an abomination)
Yet some women will not allow this, and at the same time they expect the man to stick around and simply endure it. Nor is this trivial. I have one upstanding friend who has been cast into severe, near suicidal depression over this. He's highly sexed. He loves his wife. They have kids. He doesn't want a divorce
She says no sex, and no straying, either, not even hookers. Completely unreasonable, to my mind
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
And for the 80-90% of males who end up single?
5-10 women for every straight male. So either change the population sex ratio, or have most men gay.
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up (also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this).
A BBC journalist using BBC resources to investigate a BBC news presenter using BBC resources to investigate another BBC news presenter?
Surely it is a good sign that an organisation can investigate itself?
It's a good thing nothing of significance is happening in, for example, Sudan, eastern Congo, Ukraine, Russia, Myanmar, Chad, India, Mali, Nigeria or the Baltic states so that 100% of our attention can be devoted to this.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
And for the 80-90% of males who end up single?
RAF Regiment.
What is the "RAF Regiment" and why is it a response to this question?
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
Yes those on £60 a week universal credit or the state pension really are living a life of luxury with that 10%, then inflation linked, income rise! Finance workers are seeing a 9% average pay rise now, nearly the same percentage from much higher weekly income
Not sure my wife's pension of £4,700 pa affords a life of luxury
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
And for the 80-90% of males who end up single?
RAF Regiment.
What is the "RAF Regiment" and why is it a response to this question?
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Not the case because even disregarding the fact the prison guards are working for their income, there's fewer prison guards than there are people on welfare.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
And for the 80-90% of males who end up single?
RAF Regiment.
What is the "RAF Regiment" and why is it a response to this question?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U by not being a wanker.
Now there is always more hot and successful options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
There is a mathematical approach to selecting the supermarket checkout with the best queue or finding a life partner. You reject the first 1/e (i.e. about 37%), and then choose the next one which is better than all those you've rejected so far. Interestingly, this also gives your chances of selecting the optimum option as 1/e (i.e. 37%). Even more interestingly, humans, in general, instinctively understand this. Of course, in a supermarket, you know roughly how many queues there are open - whereas you don't really have an idea of how many potential life partners you are likely to meet. But in olden days, you had a pretty good feel for it. And by and large, that was the strategy people adopted, consciously or not. However, in a world where Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, that's at least 370,000 you have to reject before you're ready to settle. It's no wonder this generation is romantically listless.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
I wouldn't expand the duty of sanction to one's family and the duty of care should not be stretched that far: an adult does not require permission from one's parents (in fact, that's a working, albeit simplistic, definition of adulthood). But a marriage commitment is freely undertaken - nobody points a gun at you at the altar - and should not be easily thrown away.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
Presumably you'd be in favour of a planned sexual economy. The government could give people assigned partners based on a range of objective criteria.
That, I believe, is a policy of some incel groups. The government should assign free sex workers - paid for by the state - to men who can't get it any other way. Thus avoiding 47% of mass shootings in America etc
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?
Comments
Ben Wallace's 'ingratitude' comments are piss poor in context.
It doesn't seem to have worked.
He is not out of the woods yet.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12294163/ITV-journalist-Robert-Peston-praises-producer-Huw-Edwards-wife-Vicky-Flind.html
EXCLUSIVE:
Rishi Sunak has accepted recommendations of *all* public sector pay review bodies
Millions of public sector workers including teachers, doctors and police officers will get pay rises of 6% or more
BUT it will be funded from existing budgets
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1679443871296569351?s=20
The key bit is the BUT. I can't see how that can be done- too much of the total budget in schools (80 percent or so) is staff pay.
OTOH, Huw Edwards is paid an awful lot of money for a not particularly skillful job partly because, like all job, it involves doing some things humans ordinarily wouldn't do, otherwise they wouldn't need to be paid for it. In this case it's being enough of a public figure so you can't get away with naughtiness on the grounds that no-one would be interested. Having a bit of self-restraint, or finding the consequences of not doing so embarassing, is part of what he's paid for.
No, really
Contrasting this is what might be called the Nietzsche/solipsistic approach, (this is why he hated Christianity so much) which claims that this tradition is servile and humiliating rubbish and that unless you place yourself as number one at all times you will be walked over.
A liberal society like ours deals with it by having as few as possible compulsory rules/laws about how to be married/partnered.
It does place the unions in a tricky position, though. The 6.5% for teachers seems a fair compromise (which is, after all, the point of the review bodies) but accepting it will further weaken the sector, which already feels stuck together with masking tape.
Reject it, though, and I don’t see a funded offer replacing it…
Asking a healthy man of 56 to give up sex forever because YOU have gone off it is cruel and perverse
Jon Sopel - 'The Sun said it was not going to reveal anything more and then you hear on BBC News: 'We've got fresh allegations that he approached people in a flirtatious or inappropriate way' and you think woah, the guy's in hospital', he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12294319/BBC-crisis-handling-Huw-Edwards-sex-pics-scandal.html
If members of the BBC are coming forward with evidence, I totally understand why the BBC are reporting this. For starters, if they didn't, they could be accused of a cover-up. Also the Sun claim they unpublished testimonials from BBC employees on this, so given past episodes they absolutely can't risk trying to soft play it.
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises
Police - 7%
NHS - 6%
Junior doctors - 6%
Prison officers - 7%
Armed Forces - 5%
Teachers - 6.5%"
https://news.sky.com/story/millions-of-uk-public-sector-workers-including-teachers-and-doctors-to-get-pay-rises-12920175
Jon Sopel
@jonsopel
A BBC news presenter using BBC resources to investigate another BBC news presenter.
Does it get any weirder or madder?
https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1679447070585892870
There is truth in that argument. Rape tends to be worse in polygamous societies.
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
EXCLUSIVE:
Boris Johnson has been unable to give the Covid inquiry Whatsapp messages from his old iPhone because he has forgotten passcode
Government security experts trying to establish if they can stop the iPhone erasing itself if passcode is wrong
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1679440577765539842
I would suggest trying some combination of his childrens' birthdays but that would take forever.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1679449725982978048
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
No idea how this works out in this case, mind. (Employee? Contractor?)
If the man is saying he has an urge for sex that he wants to sate, and his wife doesn't want to be involved in that, I don't think it unreasonable to ask for an open marriage. But if the wife says no, then through discussion they will both have to weigh up how important those things are to them. If the husband says sexual satisfaction is a must, and the wife says monogamy is a must, then I would suggest divorce. I also suggest therapy / mediation not because they are necessary, but because it is useful to get to the root causes of these wishes - does the wife really have a desire to feel valued rather than a desire for monogamy, does the husband really have a desire to feel close to someone rather than actually a need for sexual release. If those are the true motives, fine, but they may not be and it would be good to explore. Also, most people are not really equipped for the kind of sensitive understanding conversation this would require, and mediation via therapist or mediator would help facilitate that.
Of course in reality most of the time the form won't be able to lose all its staff at once like that. But if there's a queue of people wanting the job, and the strikers aren't willing to do it themselves? Yes of course the work should be able to be offered to someone else, on either a temporary or permanent basis.
Now there is always more hot and successful options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
Surely it is a good sign that an organisation can investigate itself?
A civilised and stable society rests on young men being able to find a girl, and a job, and four walls and roof. I live in a WWC, high industrial employment levels community sustained invisibly by exactly this.
Despite secularisation and a good deal of selfishness thus far in our society the 'one each at a time' (replacing the old 'one each and on average one of them dies early') has dominated. Good. Even our legal system to some small extent protects it.
Many have worked hard to get a career, they don't want a "dependence" in their life. They want somebody who is equal, or preferably somebody who will better their life. Dating apps, at least on the surface, provide you will continuous new leads to find that person.
Combine that with the fact that he is as thick as shit and salty over the NATO job then the context for his inconvenient truth speaking is apparent.
If they aren't rich or aren't good looking and beautiful they aren't going to get a rich or good looking husband. That is just reality.
So they should get off their high horse and marry plain honest Fred the plumber down the road and have a nice family life!
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
That's extremely hot, but the temperature usually quoted in weather reports and forecasts is air temperature. Air temperature in Spain hasn't yet hit 48. It's hit 47 a few times, e.g. in 2012, 2017, and 2021, and, oh look, also in 1846, 1946, and 1964.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/heatwave-in-spain-2023-weather-temperatures-b2374423.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Spain
I think - though can't remember the details - that monogamous socities worked better for both men and women. Though what they mainly worked better for is the survival of children. Hence why they evolved - because monogamous societies outbred non-monogamous ones. But I can't evenremember where I read this. Dawkins? Robin Dunbar?
On Leon's earlier point about men married to post-menopausal non-sexual women - that is a pickle wuthout an obvious good solution. That, I guess, is where the imbalancein wedding vows came from - "I will not have sex with anyone else as long as you continue to put out." If the total amount of sex that women want in the world is rather less than the total amount of sex that men want, what happens? We get, a) transactional sex, and, possibly b) Huw Edwards. (I know of at least one man who left his wife for a man who was in principle happy to fish from either pond but went for the pond where he was going to get more sex.)
I speculate wildly, of course.
European heatwave looks pretty horrible to be honest. I’m in Dubai and it’s only 41ºC today. Humid as Hell though.
It takes two to tango. If a party isn't interested, move on.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
If they have already had a family and children that is a different matter, they have already produced their children even if no longer married
Quite a difficult problem to get around, especially if you are still friends and even more if you have a family - kids at school, a home and a life you built together - that you are both loathe to destroy
In that situation, as I have said, my mediation would be simple. You compromise. The women allows the man to have brisk sex with hookers, very very discreetly, the man promises no affairs, no possible emotional intimacy with anyone outside the marriage
The marriage is preserved. The family home is undestroyed. No one finds out. No one gets hurt (unless you feel that prostitution itself is an abomination)
Yet some women will not allow this, and at the same time they expect the man to stick around and simply endure it. Nor is this trivial. I have one upstanding friend who has been cast into severe, near suicidal depression over this. He's highly sexed. He loves his wife. They have kids. He doesn't want a divorce
She says no sex, and no straying, either, not even hookers. Completely unreasonable, to my mind
Not even an inverted pyramid of bullshit.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
They are despised and sneared at by everyone else in the British Military.
Of course, in a supermarket, you know roughly how many queues there are open - whereas you don't really have an idea of how many potential life partners you are likely to meet. But in olden days, you had a pretty good feel for it. And by and large, that was the strategy people adopted, consciously or not. However, in a world where Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, that's at least 370,000 you have to reject before you're ready to settle. It's no wonder this generation is romantically listless.
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?