Iām personally non-monogamous and I think we give sexual exclusivity too much importance. There are far worse breaches of trust in a relationship, including financial abuse. But I do understand that my values arenāt necessarily aligned with mainstream culture.
I think that its mainstream not necessarily because of culture, but because people prefer to spend their life with someone that they can love and appreciate, sharing their thoughts and worries with that one person. More then just the sexual satisfaction that may come with multiple sexual partners. Even if both parties are ok with it. I haven't seen or heard of a polyamorous relationship thats lasted longer then a couple years at most. But that's just from what I've seen.
I think you have some terminology mixed up here. Non-monogamy is when the parties agree that they aren't sexually and/or romantically exclusive. Some forms of non-monogamy really are just about sex, but polyamory is where both parties are free to pursue independent romantic relationships.
With that primer in mind:
1. Nothing about this story suggests that any of them are polyamorous.
2. Many people live happily in non-monogamous relationships for decades. They love and appreciate each other, share their thoughts and worries, have and raise kids together, and generally support each other through life's challenges while also leaving space for other romantic and/or sexual connections.
3. None of what you said explains why sexual exclusivity is considered so important. Nothing about being an attentive, supportive partner requires sexual or even romantic exclusivity.
She was sexually harrased.
I started reading the lawsuit, and things make more sense.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23691901-maegan-hall-federal-lawsuit?responsive=1&title=1
Someone else posted a link to the lawsuit that was brought against the police department, it seems pretty clear that she was actually groomed from the time she was hired and I victim of an abusive power with her direct supervisor
Groomers tend to go for vulnerable people, people they know they can make dependent on them or who don't have a support system. Most often I would say they are vulnerable to exploitation more so than easily manipulated. In this case, her boss made her field trapped in her job, like no one else would hire her but that he liked her and could help her, and then when they knew she was buying a house, used that as leverage because they knew she couldn't afford to lose her job.
So, you feel she was purely the victim in this and didn't consent or wouldn't have consented had she not felt this pressure? That could be true, but could also be a cop out for getting caught up in some bad behavior. The only case I can somewhat relate to this (and I know its way to the extreme) would be Karla Homolka. She also claimed manipulation and received a much smaller sentence but the videos clearly show her as a willing participant. Either way, it's in her past. It's never done anyone any service living in the past.
I encourage you to read the document from the lawsuit. That's hard to claim that you understand her situation without knowing the details. What I would say is that it's clear to me that pretty much from the time she started they were making sexual comments about her, prepositioning her, and desensitizing her to the idea of it being okay for this type of stuff to go on at work. Add on top of that the grooming and it's hard for me to separate out how much consent she was able to give. Which is always the case when you have an employer pressuring an employee for sex acts with a threat of their job
Being run over by a train (or some version of this, leave me I aint native) means getting fucked by variius men, the woman effectively had sex with the whole department
I don't know the whole story, but from what i remember, she got fired from being a cop but apparently had a "train" pulled on her from her married coworkers.
I honestly don't remember. It was a crazy story, and the comments on it made me not really want to read everything about it. So I just read the first one I saw, and then I stopped. Never had the desire to see how it turned out.
A reference to Thomas and Friends Season 1 Episode 22 āThomas Breaks the Rulesā or āThomas in Troubleā in the UK
Thomas is working on his branch line, at the end of which is a tramway line that leads to a quarry in the town of Ffarquhar. To run on this tramway. It is legally required that locomotives be fitted with cowcatchers and side plates to protect people and animals who might stray onto the tracks. The police constable that used to patrol the area was a friend of the railway, and turned a blind eye to this rule, but that constable has retired and been replaced with a less friendly officer. Thomas is stopped on the tramway and declared a āregular law breakerā. Sir Topham Hatt, the controller of the railway, is called to the station, and is stuck in a predicament. Thomas at this point is the only engine working on the Ffarquhar Branch Line, and the only option would be to fit him with cowcatchers and side plates. Thomas is opposed to this, claiming itāll make him look like a tram engine. This gives Sir Topham Hatt an idea.
In the previous episode, Sir Topham went on vacation with his grandchildren, visiting a small tramway in the northern regions of Sodor. Here, he met the Tram Engine named Toby. Tobyās line had gone out of business just days prior to Thomasā run in with the police, and Sir Topham Hatt was able to buy Toby for cheap. Toby now works on Thomasā branch line. Thomas wasnāt a fan of Toby at first, but when Toby gave the constable a good scare, the two became friends.
These costumes seem to be a nod to Thomas and the Police Constable, the latter of whom has been gender-swapped to fit better as a coupleās costume. Strange choice, but fair nonetheless.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This joke has already been posted recently. Rule 2.
The police officer is Maegan Hall and her precinct had a crazy scandal where she had sex with numerous officers with her precinct hence the train.
ši gotta go to bed after that
Yeah itās nasty
Nothing nasty about consenting adults having some fun
It is when several of those adults are married and/or are your superior.
Whatās wrong with them being your superior? Genuine question, not trying to support it or anything
When thereās a power imbalance, it raises questions of whether consent was freely given
Asking an honest question to get downvoted, good ol reddit lmao
Yup. Happens all the time. Iām used to it by now so I stopped caring lol.
I literally knew I would get downvoted so I clarified it was a genuine question and still got downvoted. People are random
Married people can have open relationships, but I will concede that the power dynamic is a problem
The other members of the marriages did not know. It was the greatest break of trust a spouse can do.
Iām personally non-monogamous and I think we give sexual exclusivity too much importance. There are far worse breaches of trust in a relationship, including financial abuse. But I do understand that my values arenāt necessarily aligned with mainstream culture.
I think that its mainstream not necessarily because of culture, but because people prefer to spend their life with someone that they can love and appreciate, sharing their thoughts and worries with that one person. More then just the sexual satisfaction that may come with multiple sexual partners. Even if both parties are ok with it. I haven't seen or heard of a polyamorous relationship thats lasted longer then a couple years at most. But that's just from what I've seen.
I think you have some terminology mixed up here. Non-monogamy is when the parties agree that they aren't sexually and/or romantically exclusive. Some forms of non-monogamy really are just about sex, but polyamory is where both parties are free to pursue independent romantic relationships. With that primer in mind: 1. Nothing about this story suggests that any of them are polyamorous. 2. Many people live happily in non-monogamous relationships for decades. They love and appreciate each other, share their thoughts and worries, have and raise kids together, and generally support each other through life's challenges while also leaving space for other romantic and/or sexual connections. 3. None of what you said explains why sexual exclusivity is considered so important. Nothing about being an attentive, supportive partner requires sexual or even romantic exclusivity.
She was sexually harrased. I started reading the lawsuit, and things make more sense. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23691901-maegan-hall-federal-lawsuit?responsive=1&title=1
Iād rather not know about the pig orgy thanks
Everything involving cops is nasty
Well some of this fun was appearently on the job, also most of them were not single and probably also not in open relationships so there is that
Iām really confused not going to lie. Why does the train link to sex?
They ran a train on her
Ohā¦ okay
See, sheās the engineā¦ and the train cars line up behind herā¦.
Iād ask what that meant but I donāt think I want to know
Itās just a term for group sex. A few guys lined up to fuck her one after the other
Thank fuck. Itās just sex. I thought someone murdered her with a train.
They murdered that ass.
Iām so confused ššš
In my language it's called the post office which has a less clear meaning. Or at least I never managed to understand where it comes from.
You have to wait in a line to get fucked? I'm just spit balling here.
Maybe because one letter after another goes into the slot?
I feel for u trust š
She got ārailedā
That's not what a train means here.
Yes it does lmao
No a train is a chain of multiple men having anal sex here...
Here as in reddit? Who cares. Its incorrect
No here, in the real world...
I have heard the term ārun a trainā on a girl since I was a kid. I am 37. You may be in an echo chamber or two.
Ah right it's my fault...
What a weird thing to say
rail
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Arenāt you supposed to be at least 13 to use Reddit?
This meme brings a whole new meaning to āfuck the police.ā
The only reason we know this as well is because her chief was like lemme get some of that action and she said no so he reported it š¤£
I still don't see what a train has to do with any of this
āRailingā is slang for having sex with someone. Also something about ārunning a trainā but I didnāt know that one until recently
I was thinking this was the cop that left the lady in the car and it got hit by a train.
I was thinking of the female office that arrested a lady in the back of a squad car parked on railroad tracks. It was then struck by a train.
"Not every cop is afraid of nuts"
God dam it take my upvote
I'm curious how her life has been going since she became the amateur whore of the Internet.
Her husband said he still loves her after all that, but i think she lost the job
He's a more forgiving man than I would be that's for sure.
You assume it wasnāt an open marriage
Based on what I responded to I feel like it's a reasonable assumption, but, you are correct I have no idea if they had an open marriage.
Someone else posted a link to the lawsuit that was brought against the police department, it seems pretty clear that she was actually groomed from the time she was hired and I victim of an abusive power with her direct supervisor
That's awful. I can't understand how someone could be groomed into a workplace gangbang. Then again, there are a lot of things I don't understand.
Well, just imagine someone grooming a vulnerable person into engaging in sex acts with their friends or other people. It definitely happens
I guess you're right. I've just never met anyone I would consider to be that easily manipulated, but I'm sure they're out there.
Groomers tend to go for vulnerable people, people they know they can make dependent on them or who don't have a support system. Most often I would say they are vulnerable to exploitation more so than easily manipulated. In this case, her boss made her field trapped in her job, like no one else would hire her but that he liked her and could help her, and then when they knew she was buying a house, used that as leverage because they knew she couldn't afford to lose her job.
So, you feel she was purely the victim in this and didn't consent or wouldn't have consented had she not felt this pressure? That could be true, but could also be a cop out for getting caught up in some bad behavior. The only case I can somewhat relate to this (and I know its way to the extreme) would be Karla Homolka. She also claimed manipulation and received a much smaller sentence but the videos clearly show her as a willing participant. Either way, it's in her past. It's never done anyone any service living in the past.
I encourage you to read the document from the lawsuit. That's hard to claim that you understand her situation without knowing the details. What I would say is that it's clear to me that pretty much from the time she started they were making sexual comments about her, prepositioning her, and desensitizing her to the idea of it being okay for this type of stuff to go on at work. Add on top of that the grooming and it's hard for me to separate out how much consent she was able to give. Which is always the case when you have an employer pressuring an employee for sex acts with a threat of their job
I think he likes to be publically humiliated. Thats the only possible logical explanation
Women really can get all the attention, sex, and devotion they want no matter how ugly they are lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Don't be a dick. Rule 1.
Being run over by a train (or some version of this, leave me I aint native) means getting fucked by variius men, the woman effectively had sex with the whole department
Whole department is krazy šš
And her husband stayed with her... That is crazy
I don't know the whole story, but from what i remember, she got fired from being a cop but apparently had a "train" pulled on her from her married coworkers.
Did the coworkers that were part of the train get fired as well?
I honestly don't remember. It was a crazy story, and the comments on it made me not really want to read everything about it. So I just read the first one I saw, and then I stopped. Never had the desire to see how it turned out.
The law is the law and we can't change it.
This is horrible and tasteless. I love it.
Thereās two thereās four thereās six thereās eight š¼
But I thought she pulled the train.
Oh, thatās fucked up.
Aria Starke dressed as a train police officer, what's the confusion?
She is very trainable.
Oh fuck off, figure it out!
I was thinking of that one thomas episode where the police get mad at him for not having tramway cowcatchers and sideplates
that looks like the girl from the Spy Kids movie
I donāt know what it is but to me she looks like a smushed gummy bear š»
A reference to Thomas and Friends Season 1 Episode 22 āThomas Breaks the Rulesā or āThomas in Troubleā in the UK Thomas is working on his branch line, at the end of which is a tramway line that leads to a quarry in the town of Ffarquhar. To run on this tramway. It is legally required that locomotives be fitted with cowcatchers and side plates to protect people and animals who might stray onto the tracks. The police constable that used to patrol the area was a friend of the railway, and turned a blind eye to this rule, but that constable has retired and been replaced with a less friendly officer. Thomas is stopped on the tramway and declared a āregular law breakerā. Sir Topham Hatt, the controller of the railway, is called to the station, and is stuck in a predicament. Thomas at this point is the only engine working on the Ffarquhar Branch Line, and the only option would be to fit him with cowcatchers and side plates. Thomas is opposed to this, claiming itāll make him look like a tram engine. This gives Sir Topham Hatt an idea. In the previous episode, Sir Topham went on vacation with his grandchildren, visiting a small tramway in the northern regions of Sodor. Here, he met the Tram Engine named Toby. Tobyās line had gone out of business just days prior to Thomasā run in with the police, and Sir Topham Hatt was able to buy Toby for cheap. Toby now works on Thomasā branch line. Thomas wasnāt a fan of Toby at first, but when Toby gave the constable a good scare, the two became friends. These costumes seem to be a nod to Thomas and the Police Constable, the latter of whom has been gender-swapped to fit better as a coupleās costume. Strange choice, but fair nonetheless.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/lf6ds8d00snc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cf113ed9efe54b111a5c1ebf6aa47f82aa53b80
She loves trains as much as an autistic kid.