Translate

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Solidarity and This Blog

I explain on this page why solidarity is important. Go read that page if you haven’t already.

I encounter a lack of solidarity sometimes in regard to this very blog. For example, I link to a forum called, descriptively enough, “Porn Free Incest.” It is where some people get together and discuss their involvement or interest in consensual consanguineous sex without having to wade through whatever is determined to be porn. Before I go further, I want to make it clear that I’m not angry with anyone there. I’m just a little disappointed in how things have been playing out.

I have posted there in recent months, and when I first posted, I had a signature that included a link to this blog. I figured people would be interested in knowing about a blog that was advocating their right to not be made criminals because of their love lives. People could either click on the link in my signature or not. But the link was removed, with the explanation that I link on this blog to sites that contain pornographic content (forums where people may post pictures and videos in addition to the discussion), as well a site that has one or more people with which at least one person at Porn Free Incest has some sort of personal issue. (I was unaware of this personal issue.)

I was also invited to write about polyamory, as the forum topics are wide-ranging. So I did, and that was met with some less than supportive response.

But I still check in there and write when I feel I have something relevant to contribute.

Recently, “Dr_Z” joined the site, and made the “mistake” of linking to this blog

I've been perusing a couple of websites that I find particularly useful with interesting news and incisive commentary about incest (and NO PORN).

http://incestnews.blogspot.com
Incest News - timely and relevant news articles on incest issues, often with useful commentary...

“Justme” edited Dr_Z’s message to strike the second link, which was apparently to this blog…

Edit: the second link really didn't deal with incest, so it was not relevant.

“Beepy” replied…

As for the "full marriage equality" one, I wouldn't visit it. I may be involved in incest, but putting it on the same podium as zoo behavior like Polygyny isn't right.

Of course, there are also polygynists who don’t want to be “on the same podium” as those who engage in incest. It's like looking back sixty years ago and watching African Americans not wanting to be associated with Latino Americans as both groups struggled for civil rights in a "whites only" society.

Site administrator “Mytoes” added…

the second link had no place here.

No place? A blog that discusses consensual incest has no place being linked to in a forum that discusses… consensual incest?

Dr_Z was obviously not expecting this reaction. He added…

In regard to FME (and in defense of my earlier effort to recommend it as a useful resource), I don't have any particular "dog in the hunt" in regard to that blog - I don't know who publishes it, I've never even posted a comment to it... BUT I far as I'm concerned it's full of news and commentary that definitely has relevance to incest issues, particularly advocating the legal right to consensual incest. And it's definitely NOT "pornographic" - in fact, I can't recall a single photo I've ever seen on it. Furthermore, the FME blog has been waging one of the most intrepid, determined, consistent, and cogently presented campaigns for legal rights, including marriage, of incestuous partners of any website or organization I know of.

Thanks, Dr_Z. I appreciate the compliments and the (attempted) link.

Beepy added…

The fact is, dear Dr. Z, that incest should not be "lumped together" with these activities.

Incest must be advocated on it's own terms and merits. Public opinion about it isn't going to change any time soon, and it will certainly be harmed if it is "lumped together" with behavior that is extremely unsavory, such as polygamy.

Again, there are polygamists who would say the very same thing about the consanguineous sex being discussed in that forum.

Take, for example, you have a country.
In this country, gay people aren't allowed to marry.
There then starts a movement in this country.
In this movement, it says "We lobby for the rights of gays, pedophiles and practitioners of beastiality to be allowed to marry"

There is a clear and obvious distinction between advocating for the rights of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage and advocating for pedophilia and beastiality. Yes, as I have detailed elsewhere on this blog, sexual orientation as in heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual is a different category than monogamous/polygamous and both of those are different categories than "exogamous, endogamous, or consanguineous," but all of these categories deal with consenting adults. They are all categories involving consenting adults who are being told by powerful forces that they can't love the person or person(s) they choose to love.

If you lump one thing in with a bunch of other, gross, unrelated things, it actually worsens the standings of that particular group.

The topics I deal with on this blog are not unrelated. They all have to do with struggling against the “sex police” and anti-equality forces that want to deny consenting adults their sexual and relationship rights. As far as “standing,” from what I can tell monitoring developments around the world and especially in the Anglosphere, it is those engaged in consanguineous sex and relationships who stand to gain the most from solidarity, as interracial, same-sex, and poly relationships are currently making more legal and social progress than consanguineous relationships. Thus, rejecting solidarity is done to their own detriment. Ironically, some of the people in that forum say they can't see the laws against consanguineous sex being repealed in their lifetime. They'll be right, if they reject solidarity.

Despite the indifference, or at worst, hostility, and the lack or reciprocal linking, I’d like to continue participating there and linking to that forum because I want this blog to provide the most help possible for people looking for information and encouragement. I also recognize that the forum administrators have every right to run their forum and limit the topics as they see fit. It is a service free to users, which is one of the reasons I link to it, and if someone does not like how it is run, they don't have to read it.

GeneticSexualAttaction.com is a site that is decidedly not a porn site and is another forum linked to by this blog. Regular participants there are not welcoming to discussing things like polyamory or consanguineous relationships in general, but that is because that forum is focused on a very specific subset of consanguineous relationships, especially in regards to helping people who are struggling because of a reunion with a relative. I completely respect that. I also like that they do allow me to link back to this blog in my signature. (Some of the people at GSA would be horrified by the discussions at Porn Free Incest. Probably more horrified than they would be at polygynists.)

Incestuous Lovers Forum has been very friendly. As the name implies, it is also a forum for people to discuss their participation or interest in consanguineous sex and relationships. They have allowed links to this blog and I have one in my signature there. I appreciate all of that. And yes, they also have sections in which people can post pornographic pictures and videos. Those sections are clearly labeled and if you don’t want to see anything like that, it is easy to avoid those sections.

I link to a couple of other forums that discuss consanguineous sex, but haven’t really had a lot of time to participate much in them, and yes, they have porn. For many decades now, there have been magazines with excellent, thought-provoking articles and essays on political and social topics, between nude pictorials or pictures of people having sex and stories of people having sex. Does that negate the value of the articles and essays? I say no.

Purely based on my own experience and observation, it appears to me that out of the three categories that have relationships and marriages struggling for legal equality in places like North America, the British Isles, and Australia (same-sex, polygamous, and consanguineous), polymorous people tend to be the most likely to express solidarity for the other two (as well as other forms of polygamy). I wonder why that is? Yes, there are LGBT people who are not poly and not into consanguineous sex who do express solidarity, and there are monogamous, heterosexual people in consanguineous relationships who express solidarity. But like I said, in my own experience, it looks like poly people are more likely to.

Anyway, be warned. Don’t assume mentions of this blog or the cause this blog supports will be welcomed in a forum that dicusses a subset of “illicit” sexuality or banned marriage. I do appreciate links and compliments, however.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.