@16 - Actually, I think the manipulative nature of the dynamic is the major red flag, here. But either way, moving on is what she should do.
So, this week = two clear "DTMFA" ' s & a punctuation question SLLOTD re-run. Not the hardest week for Dan, huh..? ;)
Speaking of the polyamorous..I write a lot about marriage equality on my FB & Twitter & stuff. This week, I put up a post about the gay couple in Colorado who sued because they were denied a wedding cake by a bake shop. They sued, it went to court, & the gay couple won. the baker's refusal to provide a service - in this case cake - to a couple, in their business/place of public accommodation was in clear violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination laws. I wrote about tis thinking it was a slam-dunk issue. But, I spoke too soon! A few folks were siding with the baker & saying they shouldn't be *forced* to make the cake. Discussion got derailed (like they do) & 209 posts later, people are calling each other bigots & tone trolls & on, & on.
In mentioning this later, a participant in that convo said.."And we won't even *bring up* polyamory, because I'm tired of being ganged up on."
Is it mean ton say, hey, one head of the hydra at a time? Americans are a judgmental, hung-up people (as a nation, not as individuals), what with our Puritanical roots, & separate-not-separate church & state. Gay marriage is legal in 15 states (16 in June, when Illinois' law takes effect), 8 counties in New Mexico, the District of Columbia & 8 Native American tribes. 34% of the population, just over a third. Shouldn't LGBT activists secure rights for LGBT people in the format marriage already exists in - which is two consenting adults - *before* tackling the notion that multiple people can share a legally-sanctioned relationship?
(for the curious, here's a link to the conversation in question - https://www.facebook.com/eva.hopkins.18/…