Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. " Just a small gang-bang then (with people you are in an established relationship). Is having someone on your hotlist an established relationship? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. " Yay, 5 guy gangbang lol xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No it’s not. It means for people who are in a relationship but don’t live together. " The difficulty with that, is defining relationship. You could probably argue that someone you have had sex with previously, and with whom you communicate frequently, is someone that you have a relationship with. It would certainly be hard to say that you don't, whether it's a conventional relationship or not. As with most "rules" this government have release around this, it's incredibly non-specific and wishy-washy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No it’s not. It means for people who are in a relationship but don’t live together. The difficulty with that, is defining relationship. You could probably argue that someone you have had sex with previously, and with whom you communicate frequently, is someone that you have a relationship with. It would certainly be hard to say that you don't, whether it's a conventional relationship or not. As with most "rules" this government have release around this, it's incredibly non-specific and wishy-washy." Yes. I think if you have one long term fwb then it’s fine. That’s a relationship in my eyes. People will do what they do anyway I’m sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No it’s not. It means for people who are in a relationship but don’t live together. The difficulty with that, is defining relationship. You could probably argue that someone you have had sex with previously, and with whom you communicate frequently, is someone that you have a relationship with. It would certainly be hard to say that you don't, whether it's a conventional relationship or not. As with most "rules" this government have release around this, it's incredibly non-specific and wishy-washy." There was a bloke years ago that avoided deportation through the court of Human rights. He won by the owning a cat. That cat was 'family' to him, and had a human right to his family life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" People will do what they do anyway I’m sure. " Also true! But by being unspecific and unclear, the Government leaves the door open to people to interpret these things themselves. As Dominic said, using our own common sense. Which as has been made abundantly clear is not the UK population's strong suit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" People will do what they do anyway I’m sure. Also true! But by being unspecific and unclear, the Government leaves the door open to people to interpret these things themselves. As Dominic said, using our own common sense. Which as has been made abundantly clear is not the UK population's strong suit." Especially his own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. " . He is quick witted if nothing else  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No it’s not. It means for people who are in a relationship but don’t live together. The difficulty with that, is defining relationship. You could probably argue that someone you have had sex with previously, and with whom you communicate frequently, is someone that you have a relationship with. It would certainly be hard to say that you don't, whether it's a conventional relationship or not. As with most "rules" this government have release around this, it's incredibly non-specific and wishy-washy. There was a bloke years ago that avoided deportation through the court of Human rights. He won by the owning a cat. That cat was 'family' to him, and had a human right to his family life." The cat story isn't true. He was allowed to stay because he had a partner, and one of the (many) pieces of evidence they used to show that they were a genuine couple (like utility bills, bank statements etc.) was that they had a pet together. Theresa May was pulled up at the time for her inaccurate retelling of that case. Not that that really relates to this, but my snopes alert went off! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Matt Hancock says it's OK to have sex with people from different households, if in an "established relationship". I imagine arranging a meet on FAB is establishing a relationship isn't it? " No it isn’t  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Matt Hancock says it's OK to have sex with people from different households, if in an "established relationship". I imagine arranging a meet on FAB is establishing a relationship isn't it? " You answered your own question . . . Established relationship . . . isn't the same meaning as Establishing a relationship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
But one after the other is absolutely fine
(PS. Tongue in cheek before everyone starts quoting stuff at me)
V x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Matt Hancock says it's OK to have sex with people from different households, if in an "established relationship". I imagine arranging a meet on FAB is establishing a relationship isn't it? You answered your own question . . . Established relationship . . . isn't the same meaning as Establishing a relationship. "There's still no precise explanation though. Did you have to have had a physical engagement before covid-19, socially distanced for x meets before sex, can have multiple fwb as long as established, etc? People will be doing what seems right for them, which is perhaps what was intended. It was tougher during lockdown, as we weren't allowed to mix with others or travel, except for work or to weekly shopping trips. I never was lucky enough to get shagged in the supermarket buns spot.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Matt Hancock says it's OK to have sex with people from different households, if in an "established relationship". I imagine arranging a meet on FAB is establishing a relationship isn't it? You answered your own question . . . Established relationship . . . isn't the same meaning as Establishing a relationship.
There's still no precise explanation though. Did you have to have had a physical engagement before covid-19, socially distanced for x meets before sex, can have multiple fwb as long as established, etc?
People will be doing what seems right for them, which is perhaps what was intended.
It was tougher during lockdown, as we weren't allowed to mix with others or travel, except for work or to weekly shopping trips. I never was lucky enough to get shagged in the supermarket buns spot.
"Shopping in the wrong places! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Matt Hancock says it's OK to have sex with people from different households, if in an "established relationship". I imagine arranging a meet on FAB is establishing a relationship isn't it? You answered your own question . . . Established relationship . . . isn't the same meaning as Establishing a relationship.
"So you accept it is establishing a relationship? Therefore, once that establishment is complete (i.e. a few moments after agreeing where/when), it must be an established relationship? ...and before people start saying "that's not a proper relationship", I am sure there are many relationships on FAB that people outside this community would not consider "proper". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No it’s not. It means for people who are in a relationship but don’t live together. The difficulty with that, is defining relationship. You could probably argue that someone you have had sex with previously, and with whom you communicate frequently, is someone that you have a relationship with. It would certainly be hard to say that you don't, whether it's a conventional relationship or not. As with most "rules" this government have release around this, it's incredibly non-specific and wishy-washy." its incredibly non specific and wishy washy because imagine the uproar if they tried to put any further parameters on if it must be a relationship between a man and a woman - the govt hate the gays long term - the govt can’t decide how long before it serious monogamous - oi don’t discriminate against polyamory etc etc etc god forbid however that they hope that people will actually follow the spirit it was intended in and only meet people they actually already had some form of meaningful relationship with ... its meant to be about supporting lone living adults to have some human connection ... not so you can get your legover off a website | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. Yay, 5 guy gangbang lol xx" DIBS!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. Yay, 5 guy gangbang lol xx" Yes 5 guys and you would be a nice number jessica 
And I'm sure as OP said four messages counts as an established relationship | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You answered your own question . . . Established relationship . . . isn't the same meaning as Establishing a relationship.
So you accept it is establishing a relationship?
"No. I don't accept that it is 'establishing a relationship'. Didn't say anything of the sort. 
But the real point is everybody knows exactly what it means - some just want to find a way to work around it.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. Yay, 5 guy gangbang lol xx"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnson, when asked, says that they've not put things into law but the rule of 6 obviously applies. Yay, 5 guy gangbang lol xx "So are only gangbangs and orgies allowed from now on? Must be 6 people at all times? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just write yourself a new law that overwrites the government's rules and when questioned say well although we voted the government in we didn't mean it and so it's ok. " Or “We are following the example of the government with relation to Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham and breaking the law in a specific and very limited way”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Matt Hancock says it's OK to have sex with people from different households, if in an "established relationship". I imagine arranging a meet on FAB is establishing a relationship isn't it? " If I order a nice Adult Escort online and obviously establish a price I'm sure that would count   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just write yourself a new law that overwrites the government's rules and when questioned say well although we voted the government in we didn't mean it and so it's ok. Or “We are following the example of the government with relation to Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham and breaking the law in a specific and very limited way”. "NO. Actually we are NOT. Stop using excuse after excuse after stupid excuse to break the rules. 'Officer. That man was traveling at 120mph so I am to. I want to look as stupid and dangerous as he does!'. Jeepers Cripes - Stop acting like children. !!! The chip paper really has blown away on the Dominic Cummings Story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just write yourself a new law that overwrites the government's rules and when questioned say well although we voted the government in we didn't mean it and so it's ok. Or “We are following the example of the government with relation to Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham and breaking the law in a specific and very limited way”.
NO. Actually we are NOT. Stop using excuse after excuse after stupid excuse to break the rules.
'Officer. That man was traveling at 120mph so I am to. I want to look as stupid and dangerous as he does!'.
Jeepers Cripes - Stop acting like children. !!!
The chip paper really has blown away on the Dominic Cummings Story.
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
