Not really a blog

So we discussed.

I asked Jules her plans with Ollie regarding his input into the home. Have they ever spoken about it?

She said the pandemic has made her consider what would happen with him having our home as a second base, especially as it is something that has other advantages for him which she plans to continue to facilitate for a long time. I agreed that he could of course continue to do that and I'd always bear in mind that this is partly why we live where we live. I can commit to that.

As having some solid investment in the home, she feels that have bought a bigger home so he could have his own space which we pay for half of the year. The other part of the year that he is here, he pays his way financially and otherwise. She said he isn't expecting to have some dibs on the house and she doesn't think it is necessary. She told me they actually have a financial plan where they both contribute towards him saving for a deposit and we might have to help with some of the red tape later on around him purchasing so she feels we are doing enough.

The dynamic between Jules and Ollie sometimes means that I treat him very differently than I would most other metamours. They have an intense M/s relationship which is highly protocol driven. At the same time, they're really compatible as people. Ollie would not want me to interact with him the same as I interact with Thorn or Jamie. It isn't that he would insist there is some social hierarchy between us, he's far too polite and conscientious for that, but he thrives in this relationship because I don't mind that they are so protocol driven in my presence. They aren't sexually explicit about it, but I don't mind letting him always clear and set the table for example. Or if he kneels beside Jules and eats his off of a small table. I suspect it is a dog bowl when they are alone just because I've seen one around. I know that he's had Mistresses in the past where their dynamic had to be a lot more concealed around metamours and it didn't work for him.

The funny thing is that I HAVE minded this in the past. Especially from male submissives who just seem to act so creepy and inappropriate at times. But when Ollie is obedient or adhering to protocol, it doesn't seem like he is completing a sexual task all the time. I mean I'm sure he is different in more intimate times but he doesn't make polishing your shoes seem like masturabation on a public bus. He just polishes the shoes.
I have a friend called Phil and he has a partner called Sharon. They have separate homes but spend most of the time together. Phil has always poly but he tends to look to form long term relationships. He is the kind of guy who will talk to a women for months before he meets her and then will hang out with her for months before they go on a date. Most of his partners have been people he knew as friends rather than "recruited" from dating sites or nights out. That is just how he bonds with people.

I haven't known him long. 2-3 years. He actually runs a munch in my area and that is how I got to know him when we moved here and were looking for local activities and groups. He's a really nice guy. Not my type but really ridiculously kind. He wants to start a sort of poly discussion group where we talk about our experiences with certain issues around polyamory and general topics. He wants me to help. We're not sure exactly how it will go just yet but we do know that we want themes such as "unicorn hunting" or "group sex" and we discuss that thing from all sides of the poly equation. We aren't even sure if it will be best as an online or offline thing. It's just a plan.

We've been emailing back and forth and I sent him some notes on a particular theme we had discussed which was around safer sex. He replied to this positively but CC'd Sharon who then saw what I had written about safer sex. It was along the lines of people making their own choices to fluid bond with whom they see fit. Sharon replied to me and said "just to clarify, are you planning to tell a group of novices that if their husband stop uses condoms with his girlfriend, they should just shut up and start using condoms with him if they have a problem?". I then said, yes, basically, I do think that although some people might not be willing to use condoms with such an entangled partner and would rather just split which is also fine and their prerogative. Well it is safe to say that Sharon hit the proverbial roof.

She now claims that I am unethical, inexperienced, cruel, a cowperson etc. She wants Phil to "kick me off the project" and give her a bigger role along with her friend who is a poly woman in a relationship with these 2 older mono guys who just feel lucky a woman gives them the time of day. This woman is seriously gross as she subtly reminds them that they are not conventionally attractive due to their weight but makes out she possesses the depth of soul to see their inner beauty unlike anyone else. They worship her for this reason. I used to text one of the guys as he's actually a great guy, really funny, and he shares a hobby with me and Jules but she put a stop to that.

Jules has never liked Sharon to the point she won't hang out with her at all. She's usually a good judge of character.

Phil emailed me this morning and said that Sharon understands that we won't be telling people they have to do things a certain way but discussing the range of ways people approach particular issues like safer sex. I know she understands that (she always did) but her issue is that she doesn't want some approaches to be treated as valid or ethical because they are so far removed from what she could tolerate.

I'm taking some days away from replying to either of them. They need to wrestle it out. But I think I can't be involved if Sharon is involved on an organising level. Jules has already suggested that anyone in a "leading" role meet certain poly criteria that Sharon or her friend does not like having long term metamours or experience of both parallel and KTP. Jules really believes that the ultimate test of how well you are really suited to polyamory comes when you have 1 partner and cant do much to find more (maybe studying, new baby, etc) and that partner has other stable partners. She's quite blunt in that she thinks someone "poly" who has only had mono partners has very little experience of polyamory which is transferable or... useful to the wider poly community for want of a better word. She thinks it's very easy to revel in having multiple people in love with you and to balance yourself ethically. She says it is much, much, more difficult to have metamours who are as loved and desired as you are to your partner(s). Jules often asks the longest a potential date has had a metamour over their longest term poly relationship simply because she feels how long they've kept a partner is only half.of the story. How long that partner has been able to keep multiple partners when the potential date is in their life tells her more.
One of the other things we discussed was about this idea of people who know what they want vs people who want too much. Phil actually introduced the idea in email, I'll paraphrase below:

You get a person. They says they knows what they want and aren't afraid of holding out for it. That sounds good. You want someone who knows what they want and won't just settle for less but then you find out what they want and it is a lot with no flexibility. She says she wants calls every day, you have to call every day regardless of what else might have happened. She wants meetings three times a week. If you're otherwise perfect but can only do 2 visits most weeks, not good enough. Unless you can live up to every single one of her expectations, you're not enough which would be alright if she ever found anyone who is enough. The problem however is within them. They're trying to seek something in people they cannot find within themselves. Sometimes they just want too much and someone should tell them.

I've definitely experienced this but through less entangled partners who were worried about being "secondaries" even though they actually didn't want a primary relationship (with me). They wanted everyone to treat them as one might a live in spouse like partner but didn't actually want to be a live in spouse. Like the FWB who wants BF privileges when it suits him but not the burden of being a BF. People are quite shitty really.
I decided on the most annoying thing about Jules today.

Whenever you make her something to eat or drink, she always wants to improve on it. So you make a sandwich with meat, cheese, salad and mayo, she wants to add a bit of sweet chilli sauce too. You give her some cake with ice cream and nuts, she's looking for the toffee sauce. Just be satisfied already!

Honestly it sounds minor but it puts you off making her anything because the most annoying bit is that she often asks you, the maker, to go and get whatever extra thing she has to have.

This has made me so irrationally angry just thinking about it again. OH MY GOD!
Sharon sounds like a tool. Jeez! I would have to forget about the whole project if she's involved. (Although I can point to some other people who have the same attitude about condoms and established partners...)

Jules sounds like a lovely person who are quarantined with a need a break from making her sandwiches :)

I just saw a Tweet about someone whose boyfriend suddenly got up from the sofa without a word, went to the kitchen, measured out ingredients for pancakes, made himself exactly one pancake, came back and silently ate it. Without ever asking the girlfriend if she wanted a pancake.
Sharon sounds like a tool. Jeez! I would have to forget about the whole project if she's involved. (Although I can point to some other people who have the same attitude about condoms and established partners...)

Jules sounds like a lovely person who are quarantined with a need a break from making her sandwiches :)

I just saw a Tweet about someone whose boyfriend suddenly got up from the sofa without a word, went to the kitchen, measured out ingredients for pancakes, made himself exactly one pancake, came back and silently ate it. Without ever asking the girlfriend if she wanted a pancake.

Things have actually improved with Sharon. We are putting together some notes on that exact issue of acknowledging the validity of different approaches without feeling compelled to accept them in your life. If you think about Unicorn Hunting, some people who are very much against it due to personal experience might say that a closed OPP triad isn't polyamory. I think the aspect of fear bias is relevant there.

This is why even though I toy with banning UHs from poly zones, I wouldn't really support it if it came to the crunch. Overall, we have to accept the validity of other people's infomed choices.

Jules is making her own sandwiches for a few days.

That BF is a hero.
I feel bad.

I've been speaking to this person via dating app and text. We spoke on the phone a couple of times. It was one of those situations where we actually started speaking about a year ago but not consistently. They are local to me. We've been speaking more since the lockdown and made tentative arrangements to meet up afterwards. We get on well.

I'll call them Sam. Sam has pics on their profile which I saw. So as I said, we've been speaking for some time on and off but the lockdown has happened so we took the step of sharing social media instead. That's where the problem lies. Sam has more pictures on there and I feel like these pictures are more representative of Sam in terms of how they present themselves. There is an issue of the photos on the dating site perhaps being at a different age/weight but there are other issues too which make me sound shallow but it's what works for me.

Please don't think I need my partners dressed up like the Kardashians all the time. That's not the case. But I do like partners who know how to dress for their body type/age/personality. I like women who know what length skirt best flatters their shape. I like men who know what cut trousers sit best on them. I like people who can match colours and styles.

I'm not into the guy who wears Nike tracksuit pants with lace up church shoes or the woman who wears a mini skirt with short, stumpy legs and a man's goofy unshapely t-shirt. If you're going to pull off that look, you need to know how to wear it, know whether to tuck the t-shirt or not. Wear colours that clash in the right way. Wear a skirt at a length that hits the best part of your legs, not exposes the worst. Never shoes with track pants. Should you be wearing track pants of you're a middle aged guy and not engaged in some form of exercise?!
Haha, I think a track suit is appropriate for any age, as it's comfortable and fine for casual situations. But never with dress shoes!
I speak often about how I used to be a nightmare as a partner. The first time I went into detail about it was here:

Reverie, you're extremely articulate and have a good comprehension of your own feelings. You're able to express them quite fluently. Generally speaking, I'd say women tend to be better at that than men. However, when one is very articulate, expressive and on top of that, opinionated, it can be easy to mistake offloading your thoughts, feelings and desires for an actual discussion.

How this would manifest for me is that I'd make some sort of proposal or give my view on a current situation. My partner would respond with their views, usually expressing some doubts about how my way will work for them and I'd "listen". I'd then basically "alleviate" their concerns by telling them why their doubts and concerns are unnecessary or illogical and keep going until they stopped expressing them. I would talk, email, write letters, send articles, anything. Emails and letters seemed particularly effective because I'd feel like I could say everything I wanted to without interruption. In fact it was a way of me controlling the flow of the conversation and stating "facts" or a premise to build off which might not be true for both parties. I was literally wearing them into submission. And when they did submit, I'd think they now see my perspective and agree when actually they just got tired of explaining that they completely understand what I'm saying, they see the logic, it just isn't what they want/need and actually my continual dismissal of their feelings on their matter is becoming toxic for them. Toxic because they'd start to feel wrong for feeling the way they do since I was so very sure my way was right and could be right for them if they'd give it a chance.

When it became toxic for them, they'd often display behaviors that I'd generally count as beneath them. Not in sync with the person I met. You know, dismissive, rude, aggressive, distant, cold... and I'd see them as the aggressor. As the mean one. In truth, how some of those people behaved towards me was cruel and unacceptable, but my behavior towards them was equally unhealthy and often preceeded the new personality traits they started to show. I was bringing out the worst in them.

I wasn't listening to my partners. I'd come away thinking we just had a productive discussion when actually there wasn't a discussion, it was me telling them why my views, feelings and desires are of greater importance and righteousness than theirs. Changing this about myself has helped my relationships no end.

My format for important conversations was to identify the problem as I saw it and lay out the solutions I envisioned. You see to me, that allowed people to say what they'd prefer and speak freely. However, I've discovered that format actually makes a lot of people feel pressured into saying what they think will cause ME less conflict/disappointment/regret. Other people just find the whole conversation too much pressure so just say anything they can to avoid it and leave the situation.

When it became really important to me that my partner's felt able to interact with me as their authentic selves, I scaled right back on that type of interaction and just tried to foster an environment where we can freely talk about these things as and when. I honestly found that it led to far less incidents of people backtracking on me.

That isn't to say that backtracking is an attractive trait in a partner. You need someone with the confidence to say what they need and not allow themselves to become lost in other people's needs. However, I was instrumental in increasing the likelihood of someone saying what they think I want to make me happy or escape the pressure of my interactions with them.

I remember a partner saying to me before that the last time they felt they made an independent decision about our relationship was three years into what was an an 8 year relationship. This was at the end of it. Imagine 5 years where you have felt just swept away and unable to get your feet set enough to decide what way you want to walk.

It took a lot of years and therapy for me to be the type of partner the good people I love deserve to have.
One of my other partners, Rose, is having issues with her two other non-nesting partners in terms of dealing with the quarantine. She's totally isolating now with her nesting partner, Thorn, because of his high risk status and their feeling that her social distancing isn't adequate given people's inability to follow the rules or take appropriate caution.

My metamours haven't been around long enough to actually feel how much Thorn's health issues affects her availability to others and this has been quite an extreme way to find out. Other people have found ways to keep 2 or more households at a risk level low enough to allow for some visiting or socially distanced meetings outside in accordance with lockdown rules. For instance, I went for a walk with a friend through our local park and back around the block keeping a 2 metre distance. However, Rose is staying in all the time and only accepting deliveries from companies or friends which she disinfects before bringing into the main part of their home though she is probably healthier than me.

This hasn't gone down too well with her other partners who perhaps weren't aware of how couple's privilege manifests in Rose's case. Rose is practical though rather than sentimental. She will see it as in their best interests if they terminate unmet expectations sooner rather than later. Rose would (wrongly) object to calling this couple's privilege because she is protecting Thorn's health and not his feelings. Luckily our longer term relationship as well as my relationship with Thorn means that we have more opportunity to interact. We can Facetime regardless of his presence because he will join in rather than her having to take time away from him to interact with me. On the other hand, the interaction she has with those partners is more likely to have intimacy that would not be appropriate if it is possible in a group video situation where we discuss the horrors of this pandemic.

Following on from this.

Some weeks in, Rose mentioned that 2 households could agree on acceptable measures of shielding and as long as you travelled by cars which were also part of the same shielding conditions, you could reasonably mix households. Similar to a fluid bonding agreement amongst a polycule and what many blended families are doing at the moment to facilitate co-parenting relationships.

I quickly excused myself from that agreement because it would necessitate a level of isolation that isn't reasonable for me and Jules over a long term. What Jules does of course affects me because we live in close quarters. Rose understood.

Rose and Thorn have some local friends who are in a similar position with one half of the couple needing to isolate so the other having to do so to protect them. They've decided to occasionally visit each other because they can trust one another to follow the rules to the letter and have made the choice that them mixing households is worth the mental health advantages.

It isn't following the national rules, no, but scientifically speaking, as 2 households who have totally isolated for some time now, they aren't increasing the risk to themselves or others. They're following a bunch of their own rules which I can only be bothered to summarize as socially distanced visiting.

Rose was apprehensive about telling me because it is breaking the rules and she would not allow me to visit if I asked but that seemed so strange to me. I pretty much have the choice to isolate in order to be on that list of acceptable people but choose to sacrifice that for my own mental wellbeing. I need to get out a bit. Plus Jules has reasons to leave the house too though I could stay where Ollie usually stays and shield from Jules. But that's.... really inconvenient and not what I'm going to do with my live-in partner. That's our couple's privilege at play.

I know 1 of my metamours, Violet, hinted towards isolating with Rose and Thorn when Rose first outlined the level of isolation which this would necessitate but that wouldnt work for Thorn. He wouldn't want a metamour around all the time. Violet cannot isolate because she lives with housemates who are obviously too outside of the equation to include. Violet likes to travel often and not as a backpacker either. She directs her funds towards that and finds sharing in this way allows her to both finance her travel and dip in and out of residential contracts. She isn't tied down.

It's interesting because Violet is a partner of Rose whereas the couple who will be visiting are "just" platonic friends yet they've been afforded a level of contact that no romantic or sexual partner will be allowed for the foreseeable future (what will "safe" even look like?). People often forget that "hierarchy" is quite an inherent part of all relationships and often a consequence of the choices of all concerned. Not just those at the top of the pyramid.

Solo poly has its downsides.
This is mostly in reference to a thread on Reddit. Cookies if you link the correct one below.

Some people might think I lack empathy for the monogamous person who is either blindsided by a established partner with the poly bomb or happens to fall in lust/love with a poly person. Especially a mono person who feels judged and unsupported by the poly people they seek for advice or understanding.

Actually, I had a very similar experience with the asexual "community". By 2010, I had had a variety of partners with differing attitudes and desires for sexual intimacy. I'd never had a partner who identified as asexual though. If we pause here for a second, that's a bit like a mono person who has had FWB type relationships with people who are transparent about their desire to play the field but not someone who IDs as poly. Anyway, I met Stef and Stef identified as asexual and non-monogamous.

This wasn't a problem for me at first. I had long worked out that polyamory afforded me the ability to have partners who didn't meet all my needs. Even all of the ones that are important like sex. It was only when I mistakenly* disclosed to Stef that a sexual incompatibility and terminated another budding relationship that I began to feel there was any issues.

To sum up, Stef felt that it was shallow for me to allow sexual incompatibility to taint any intimate relationship because the simple answer is just not to have sex with that partner. That's a bit like a mono person being told their value of monogamy is infantile or primitive.

I dont know about anyone else but in most cases, wanting different types of sex isn't the same as one person not being into sex generally. Someone wanting sex with others but not with me also wouldn't work for me. I knew that from previous non Ace identifying partners who would have sex with some partners on rare occasions. I couldn't comfortably know this and also know it was extremely unlikely to ever be with me.

Then, I made the stupid mistake of going to an online forum and asking other asexual people their views. Boy oh boy did they lay it on thick. On poking around the group, I found that generally speaking, they judged any sexual partner quite badly for not being able to commit to an asexual partner. Particularly one who discovers their identity after establishing a relationship. Bearing in mind, this wasn't a poly and asexual group though there was a substantial poly crossover.

I did really feel like a pervert for enjoying and needing sex from my partners.

*it was a mistake because I should not have discussed my sex life with Stef. Even though it was not the focus of the conversation, it still invited unnecessary speculation.
There is a thread on Fetlife about SAHDs. Lots of people don't want to date a parent of young kids (or any kids). That's obviously fine. However, I was dismayed to see that some people just won't date a guy who is a primary carer for children. I was disappointed because I suspect that those same people would say that they don't date any women with minor kids as women are usually primary carers. So basically they would date a dad, but only one who plays a typical dad role. You know those who call their kids into their office for an evening appointment like Mr Banks from Mary Poppins.

One person said they don't date dads who have kids that can't be left for a weekend. Supposing he's happy to dump the kids on his co-parent for the weekend (but doesn't return the favor), would they be good with that? Just letting the mother in the situation hold the fort while they go make whoppee with the dad?

Women are each other's words enemy sometimes.
I've raised some kids in my time. I've been a parent. I don't consider myself still a parent though. Most of the time.

I'm still in those kid's lives but I no longer parent them. They are young adults now. One has children of their own.

After I split with their biological parent, it didn't work like it would had they been my children legally. I didn't pay formal child support. I saw them but didn't have set visitation. I attended their big events where invites were not restricted. I bought presents. Gave money. Gave advice. Gave time. But I wasn't their parent. Even though before the split I was handling bedtimes and nutritionally balanced diets and school selections and SAT scores.

If I were still with their parent, that next generation of kids would see me as a grandparent. Their parents are in healthcare so I'd probably have been helping with childcare pretty much full time right now.

I stopped being a parent when we split up. As involved and entangled as I was, it was almost easy and natural that any parent-child relationship evaporated when our relationship broke down. I was never really their parent. Parents don't just evaporate when a relationship breaks down. But at the time, I really did feel like a full-time parent. I did all the things. I had the feelings. I didn't lose those feelings, they just became... inappropriate? The idea of keeping up the kind of expectations a biological parent might have in terms of visitation and having their views considered just seemed unrealistic. Maybe I didnt really have the feelings. Maybe kept something there that you cannot keep up when a child is yours.

I have a friend who was/is a stepfather to a 12 year old girl. He raised her for 10 years. Unfortunately, the relationship between him and her mother ended badly with resentment and bitterness all round. He feels like a parent to this child yet he has no legal right to see her or have any real involvement in her life. He feels compelled to pay for her, which her mother accepts, but she doesn't think it wise to encourage regular contact in the same way she has with her biological paternal extended family. She doesn't want to encourage him to feel that he has rights over the child. He sees her, but for odd days out. Nothing that provides him with any reassurance that he will keep being one of the main adults in her life. The child has adjusted to this well. That makes it more hurtful for him.

I can speak about parenting from real experience. I really did raise those kids for those years. But I still feel like a fraud when I do. Maybe I'm aware that my feelings for those kids were always different to what a parent feels for their child so when I speak about something I consider I did well as a parent, like good bedtime habits for example, a small voice asks me if I was "good" at encouraging independent sleeping because of that degree of detachment. If this was my child that would be my child forever and not contingent on my relationship with their parent, would I struggle to be as firm with things like that?

Maybe I'm like the well organized teacher who cannot take charge of their own little one.
Reverie's return made me think on something. Risk.

Relationships always require a degree of risk. I've noticed that people, myself included, often deflect the insecurity and anxiety that brings by blaming humans for being the source of said risk.

An easy example is vetoes. A poly person can vigorously screen their potential partners for veto agreements to avoid the risk of someone having to sacrifice their relationship with them to keep another relationship, but it can still happen. It's easy to look towards people with an explicit veto agreement as being complicit in the harm one experienced when being dumped for the sake of another relationship.

We do the same with unicorn hunters. Just last week, I suggested banning such problematic demographics and other unhealthy situations from poly forums.

Another big risk is that someone who seems to have established a poly identity just hasn't met someone compatible enough to happily commit to a monogamous relationship. There are plenty of people, I'd even argue that most people who have at one point identified as non-monogamous, eventually meet someone and live in a happy, functionally monogamous relationship.

These people can be another target for this "insecure rage" as it triggers those niggling worries many poly people have about their partner's commitment to this type of relationship style. They want the previously poly person to denounce their poly badge and admit they were never poly at all. It was all a big mistake.

Maybe for some people it was, but I reckon that others do genuinely go through a phase where a poly identity fits until it doesn't.

Yes, it is always a risk that our partner just hasn't met the one. It's a risk in ourselves too. Maybe that is scarier. Maybe next week, those of us with 1+ established relationship will meet someone who is our real, real, soulmate and our existing relationships will no longer make sense. That is actually terrifying to imagine, for me at least.
We were talking about the concept of saturation and how useful it really is when Jules said that she has always known she will get to a point where she has a few steady, established relationships of varying levels of entanglement and attachment and those see her through until the end. Those relationships will be like our relationship in that there will times of intense passion, times of quiet co-existence and times of transition, planned and otherwise. The desire to build that sort of intimacy with people other than those partners will ebb significantly. It just won't seem worth the change any more. She said she thinks this feeling is building now. It's more than those times you just can't be bothered. You actively want to spend that time doing something else.

I asked her if having partners who aren't in that phase and perhaps won't ever be will bother her given that new metamours bring about change too. She said no. It is a personal thing. As we get older and face the inevitable, she can imagine that she might outlive her partners like some of our friends and family already have. She can envisage what life might be like without a significant relationship by living vicariously through them. She doesn't envisage starting again building new intimate attachments. Sort of like a parent of preteen+ children might not be able to envisage starting again with a newborn in much of a positive light.

I have a close friend here who works for a domestic violence organisation. She's literally on call outs every day since lockdown. With the additional money worries plus the fact places which facilitate dependency like betting shops are closed. Street crime is also rife. The people with drug dependencies that steal from shops cannot as the social distancing rules limit cover. They are now forced to commit violent crime to feed their habit. That or sex work which of course put them at direct risk or contracting the virus. My friend who is a drug counsellor in NJ has lost several of her clients. Those on crack cocaine or meth mostly as they have respiratory disease.

Jules is making her own sandwiches and making me some too. We've probably been drinking too much.
There's a thread on Fetlife main poly group about a guy who feels conflicted about the choices of his girlfriend. She's decided not to see him until this pandemic is over. However, he's quite correctly stated that it could be a year or more until that happens.

This situation has made him think about the kind of relationships he wants and he's decided (pretty much) that he doesn't want a partner who would make such a choice. He wants partners who would choose to see all their partners right now but just make it as safe as possible by minimising outside contact.

Everyone's saying how selfish he is because she is making health related choices and he just wants to bang his girlfriend. I completely disagree. I think this pandemic has highlighted where hierarchy lives in our relationships and not everyone will be okay to allow it to remain. A friend said to me that she never understood her how illusion of egalitarian polyamory could be shattered by simply having to stay home but it has brought so many concealed issues to the surface that she thinks she will be functionally monogamous by the end.

I don't think she is wrong for prioritizing her health. I don't think he's wrong for wanting partners who couldn't break contact with a non nesting partner for months on end.People seem to have a hard time accepting the consequences of choice and autonomy. Yes, of course she gets to choose to protect her health over seeing her partner. But she doesn't get to choose how that partner feels about it. Or what they do about it.

I had a friend who had young kids and wanted to date. Some guys would be okay about her being a parent, but when they realised her reluctance to integrate her children into her dating life at all (meaning she was often unreliable or unavailable), many of them chose to stop dating her.

She felt that as she was doing the right thing for her children, the guys should be okay with the inconvenience her choices cause. She couldn't see a decent person could "punish" her for being a good mother by dumping her. She just couldn't understand why her children's welfare isn't a priority for everyone. That doesn't mean they want badly for them. Especially as many parents date and raise healthy, well adjusted children. It just meant that the way she prioritized her children wasn't compatible with the relationship goals many people have for themselves.

I think sometimes we are so busy thinking about what is fair, we forget that we are allowed preferences, dreams and desires that exclude some people.
I've been hit with this overwhelming feeling of fatigue for a few days now. No other symptoms of illness but I'm sleeping as if I have flu. I know other people have said the boredom and worry have made them feel the same. I out it purely down to a mental health thing until Jules "caught" it. She feels the same. Not particularly anxious or depressed or bored. Not ill. Just so tired.

We use that covid tracker as part of the research they want to collect and it monitors symptoms of fatigue, but doesn't alert to it. I'm assuming if you put in classic covid symptoms, it might tell you to stay home.

I am wondering though. This feels like unusual fatigue to me. The feeling like you could sleep for hours or days. I'll avoid going out for anything for now.
So Jules has slept for 15 hours today. That's a night plus 2 long naps during the day. I've slept for about 12 but in shorter bursts on top of a whole night.

When we are awake, we feel fine. We just seem to tire within couple of hours.

I phoned my doctor for advice regarding isolation. He said state guidelines would tell you there is no need but if it were me, I'd stay in.
I'm feeling the same way. I chalk it up to a combination of things. Minor depression. Boredom. Eating way to much sugar. Being inactive. Disruption in sleep patterns.

It's nearly 7pm here and I could lay down and go to sleep right now.

Hopefully you are just experiencing some combination of the above and not something else.