The Guiliani name redeemed by Rudy's daughter

Caroline Guiliani writes in Vanity Fair about her love of being polyamorous and a "unicorn" for threesomes



She's pretty average looking, but if she's providing that rare service, I'll bring her up to a 9.

I wonder what Rudy thinks about this? Regardless am I alone here or does his son resemble Gary Busey?

Good for Caroline, but it will probably take a lot more to redeem Rudy at this point than her coming out as pansexual.

Rudy needs to just hurry up and die so we can all move on.

He fucked his own cousin. His opinion is invalid.

And what's worse? That his daughter is whoring it up at as a unicorn, or that she advocated for Biden?

Too close to call. I have a daughter pretty close to her age, and either behavior would be disconcerting.

Unicorn? She is an Otherkin too?

1. Sex Work is work. Whoring shouldn’t be used as a pejorative.

2. Nothing wrong with being a unicorn. It’s the unicorn hunters that are the problem.

https://www.unicorns-r-us.com/

true about #1 up to a point. I have no problem with sex workers or promiscuous women. It really upsets me when serial killers target prostitutes. Yes, I realize odds are the prostitutes won't be "missed" by their families so it's harder to get information or as much urgency in solving the murders but still.....those serial killers are some cowardly shit heads.

And promiscuous women (sometimes referred to inaccurately as "whores") are awesome! I can't wrap my mind around a woman not being promiscuous especially if they are hot, but that's just me! That said you might get killed by a pissed off husband but eggs and omelets, am I right?

No objections here. Thanks for the PC language lesson, tho.

No.

A great number of man/woman couples, when they decided to give polyamory a try, decide "hey, how about we both date the same woman? We'll be a three-person relationship and we're all equal, except we still get to act like a two-person couple when it suits us." A woman who joins a couple is called a unicorn because women who actually want to essentially 24/7 sub for a couple are somewhere between rare and non-existent, and couples who want such a thing (Unicorn hunters) and don't understand why such an arrangement is super toxic and unfair to the person they're looking for are, unfortunately, extremely common.

Go to any polyamory group anywhere on the internet. You will easily find posts along the lines of "hey, I'm bisexual but my boyfriend isn't, we're new to polyamory and we're looking for a third," followed by a long stream of rage comments and the OP not understanding why everyone is mad.

MFF relationships that are conducted ethically do exist, but it's a completely different dynamic.

And yet if everyone consents and people are honest about what they want, what's the problem with "unicorn hunting?" If a man goes on Tinder and says he wants only a one night stand, that's going to be a hard sell for most potential partners as well. Still there are women who do it.

If everyone gives free, informed consent to a relationship dynamic, then everyone is good to go.

The issue with Unicorn Hunters is they present things as an "equal, three person relationship," a third person agrees to that, and then in practice, the original couple does not treat the the third person like an equal, and then gaslight that person into thinking that's fair. Consenting to be an add-on to a couple is one thing, consenting to be an equal person in a three-person relationship and then being treated like an add-on is a completely different thing.

So we can say it's gaslighting and manipulating people on false pretenses that's wrong, not unicorn hunting in and of itself.

"Unicorn Hunting" usually refers to the shitty version of things. Although, people who are doing things ethically often jokingly refer to themselves as Unicorns and Unicorn Hunters.

Polyamory communities are complex, confusing, and often annoying places.

Thank you, I joked because I know otherkin and people who are connected with a unicorn spirit. Yes, that would also extend into furry sexuality. I had not yet mnade the full association of unicorn being that third person in a polyamorous relationship.



I guess that makes a bit of sense. Bettrer to find out here than meeting a unicorn and going back to the room and getting out my horn for some furry action and then having to have this sort of conversation. It does make me wonder what a unicorn otherkin who was a unicorn in a threesome would call themselves. Would they be a unicorn unicorn, or unicorn squared?

My experience with the polyamorous community is from the gay male side. So it is normally the guy who has found a woman he loves and they are looking for the occasional dude to jump in the mix because she might be more on the hetero side of the bisexual spectrum. That is why I probably never heard the term unicorn because that seems to be a thing within the gay male community.

I am not actually shocked at the reality there are unicorn hunters. From what I have heard it is just really hard picking up that third person that both connect with and want around outside the bedroom. From the point of being a loner who would consider playing around with two people, I am not sure if I would want to play around with the heartstrings as a heavily involved third. I find it hard enough to de8al with one other person next to me when I wake up. I am already on may way out the door into my lair for my alone time when I awake. I do not want two people feeling bad because I need to go home and pop the pressure cap on my head.

everything but uniamorous relationships are complex, confusing, and annoying places.

FTFY

Which is why I don't do "relationships."

I was thinking "uniamorous" meant "love for one self," but that would be "autoamory."

Anyway, I'm definitely feeling that sentiment. I mean, I enjoy interacting with people romantically and sexually, but I have no desire to be in prescriptive relationship structures. In my experience, if someone has goals in mind for a relationship with me, they care about those goals far more than they do me; I'm a means to an end, and they don't care about me beyond that.

I used to call myself a relationship anarchist, but I stopped using that label because everyone else I've encountered who uses that label is a vile human being. I interpreted the idea behind RA to be "keep things fluid, and go with what works for you and others involved," while it seems everyone else seems to think RA means: "My personal autonomy is the only thing that's important, and must be maintained at all costs. Your personal autonomy is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with mine. If it does, you're wrong and an asshole and should do what I want you to do, because, reasons."

^ Agree on all three of those paragraphs.

I think of autoamory as being in love with my car. I do love my car, but I do not want to fuck it. I am also not in love with my car. I like that it is there and has utility and it is mine.....Anyway, uniamoros seems to be a better term as I know people in love with their cars. Really the best times of sex for me have overwhelmingly been with myself. The only thing that sometimes makes it is the computer, but we will save that for another time.

I think of myself as a bird on the wind. Sure, i will land here and there, but I do not want to stay here or there permanently. I can fly next to someone for a while, or land and be around someone for a while, but I don't respect a person who would cut themselves off for my goals and desires, and I am not going to cut off my goals and desires for someone else. The closest I have come to wanting to be with someone is secure roommates. That is really just due to capitalism making it more convenient to share household expenses. I also do not want to be someone else's reason for living and existing. The whole idea about not being whole without someone else does not fit with my philosophy. I can understand working together in a partnership because you get more working together, but that means you can live alone also. I do not want to be emotionally dependent on someone, or for someone to be emotionally dependent on me. I have had people say they really need me in their lives and that is the quickest way to make me not respect you. I am sure as fuck not going to be in a healthy relationship with someone I do not respect.

Other people's mileage may vary on all of that. I should also say it is probably a self fulfilling prophecy that I always get left alone because people have their lives to live. That hurts sometimes, but it always seems to be for the best when a person goes their way and lives for themselves and not me.

I’ve heard the latter called ‘Relationship Libertarianism’ and yeah you gotta look out for them.

I like the term used in 12 Monkeys when referring to sex with oneself - anti-social sex.

In my case it's more of a favour TO society.

This is the first time I've heard that term, and it is definitely a good description of that sort of mindset. Although, I've noticed non-monogamy and kink communities attract a shit-ton of narcissists so they get filtered out automatically.

Still, I'm done with the label. Many relationship anarchists insist that one is not allowed to use the label unless they are also politically anarchist, and that it is the only path to ethical relationships. I have no interest in gatekeeping or One True Wayism. People do similar things with polyamory as a label, but polyamory is already established as a diverse thing where it's generally accepted there are different ways to do things.

Unicorns are great fun, but you have to let them choose you and yeah don't promise anything more than what is actually on offer.

edit: Also don't really like that term, because it in and of itself comes with various implications.

I hear you.

I think RA Seattle might be a bit different from other areas just because it is pretty big (I think only SF is larger), heavily HEAVILY queer and not underground. Relationship Libertarians get identified and a reputation relatively quickly.

Good. I was hoping the entirety of RA wasn't just narcissists justifying toxic behavior. I intend to visit Seattle at some point. While I'm there I'll probably see if they have anything going on that I can attend.

The Detroit group RAD... they do public events which I haven't been to, they also have private things that one has to be invited to, which I have attended. They have a cult-like mindset, even if they aren't, strictly-speaking, a cult, a good number could probably be described as relationship libertarians, everyone who isn't an anarcho-collectiveist is evil, and they're heavily HEAVILY queer to the point of being borderline, if not outright, queer supremacist.

Just to be clear: Heavily HEAVILY queer is a good thing. "Queer people are better than non-queer people, also, we get to dictate who is and is not part of the queer community" is annoying and destructive.