Translate

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

New and Interactive Work of Fiction on Polyamory



Lauren Soldano at oaklandlocal.com shares about journalist Laird Harrison and his interesting new work of fiction, Fallen Lake.

But the book — which tells the story of two couples who decide to pursue their love for each other through a group marriage — isn’t neatly contained on the printed page. Readers can interact with present-day versions of the characters in real time through a blog on "Fallen Lake’s" website.

Great idea.

"Fallen Lake" is based on years of research and interviews with polyamorous couples and their families, as well online forum and book-based research. In fact, although the book is fiction, Harrison’s own parents lived for two years as part of a group marriage household.

Published on Valentine’s Day by Verdant Books, a small Vermont-based publishing house, "Fallen Lake" originally contained two narratives — one taking place in modern day and another in the 1970s. While the printed novel tells the historical story, the blog (which launched on the same day as the book’s release) will gradually unfold the present-day narrative, which can be altered by comments from readers.
I like the concept, and I like the subject matter. It would be good to see more fiction on polyamory and group marriage by good writers, and more notice of the topics in the news.
— — —

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Put Down the Cookie Cutter


Lisa Evans asks at blogher.com, “Monogamy: the Ultimate Form of Love or a Restraint on Your Freedom?”

She was inspired by a conversation with a friend…

Essentially, my opinion was that if you do not naturally want to be monogamous to your significant other, then you are not with the right person. Her side was that no one person can fulfill all the needs of another. I did agree with this point, however, I consider that statement to be limited to things other than intimacy such as friendships and other forms of platonic relationships.

For some, monogamy is required.
For some, polyamory or some form of nonmonogamy is required.
Some people could be happy in a monogamous relationship, polyamorous, or open relationship.

But for all of those, people need to be in those relationships with the people who are right to share those relationships with them.

Some people aren’t in a place in their life to be in any relationship.

No one way is right for everyone. This is why we should let consenting adults form and keep the relationships they decide are for them, with any consenting adults. If they want to share friendship, sex, love, residence, marriage… any or all of those things… that should be up to them, and they should be able to do so without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination.

— — —

Monday, February 27, 2012

Solidarity For Full Marriage Equality



At prolongedeyecontact.tumblr.com I was pointed to “Why We Should All Be Against ‘Gay Marriage’” at gaywrites.org, while prolongedeyecontact.tumblr.com was getting it from f---yeahsexeducation.tumblr.com. Got that?


For a while, we referred to the overall political topic of people of the same sex getting married as “gay marriage.” But that’s never been right. Why? Because marriage is marriage. Whether two people who enter into a marriage are the same gender or not, it’s still a marriage under the law, and we don’t need to distinguish between those that are “gay” or not.
I like to say the same-sex or the "0same-gender freedom to marry," because that is what we're talking about.

Prolonged Eye Contact (I think... maybe someone else deserves the credit) calls for solidarity...



Ya’know I used to be taken in by this “marriage equality” rhetoric, but then I really sat back and thought about it. It’s not marriage equality that the cLGB are fighting for at all. Every time bigoted heterosexual politicians say we can’t have “gay marriage” because it will lead the way to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality activists are more than willing to take the bait and throw poly people in with pedophiles and animal abusers. And where exactly does that leave queer poly people [like me]? Exactly. They don’t care about marriage equality, they care about assimilation. Until they care about all people in consensual, adult relationships having the right to marry, until they stop acting like group marriage is an abomination on par with abuse, they are not really fighting for equality.
There are monogamous LGBT people who do support full marriage equality, and they should be thanked for their solidarity by polyamorous and consanguinamorous people, just as anyone who throws other consenting adults under the bus should be called out. At the same time, poly and consanguinamorous people should be supporting LGBT rights even if they are heterosexual.

Vivienne Chen writes at equalwrites.org, "Why We Need a More Inclusive LGBTQ Movement."

— — —

A Strong Plank

Did you pick the Oscar winners? Were you able to vote as a member of the Academy? The big night is over for another year. That allows for more attention to turn to another voting matter; the US election for President.

At Upper Left, Shaun also supports the proposed plank in the US Democratic Party platform...

The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.

As Shaun said...

I do, and my Party should.

I do, too. An adult should be free to marry any consenting adults. Full inclusion of all families is a must. Tear down the barriers of bigotry.

Whatever party, if any, you have joined, work to get the party on board with full marriage equality. Be on the right side of history.

I do. Do you?
— — —

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Taking a Swing Through Austin, Texas

Hump Day is The Daily Texan's weekly sex and sexuality column. In this edition, they covered swinging in Austin, Texas.


Not to be confused with polyamory, which is when a person practices both sexual and emotional relationships with multiple people, swingers are usually couples looking to have sexual relations with other couples or with other single parties. Some couples will keep swinging with their same partners multiple times, while other couples will choose different partners each time they swing for different experiences.

That's a pretty good explanation.

The methods that couples use to find their other partners differs within swinging culture. Craigslist, although very direct, can be fruitless when people replying to listings may not may not be as be physically stunning as they advertised. A more personal and natural way of exploring swinging choices is to go to either a swingers club or a house party.


Clubs tend to be more open to new members, but house parties require an invitation. There are also membership fees for clubs and the atmosphere in clubs and house parties tend to differ.
The article has some explanation and advice for swinging that is applicable to many other places. Silly laws often impose some restrictions in some places, like barring certain sex acts (like anything involving genitalia) at the clubs, so officially the clubs in those places are limited to being meet-up/conversation facilities. Swinging definitely isn't for everyone, but some people enjoy it, and consenting adults should not be restricted by the hangups, tastes, and prejudices of people who are not even there.
— — —

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Just In Case You're Still in Kansas, or Moving There

Some questions and answers on Kansas marriage law were printed recently in The Emporia Gazett. The answers are from Emporia attorney Tom Kruege. Unfortunately, many states have laws very much like Kansas.

This disclaimer preceded the Q & A...
DISCLAIMER: The information that you obtain regarding your inquiry is not nor is intended to be legal advice. You should consult an attorney for legal advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting me through this site does not constitute an attorney/client relationship nor do my responses constitute a legal opinion.
Now, on to just how restricted the freedom to marry is in Kansas...

— — —

Friday, February 24, 2012

Major Movie With Polyamory Getting Mixed Reviews

You may have seen the ads for "Wanderlust," starring Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd, and noticed that there is polyamory in the movie.

At vancouversun.com, the headline reads "Cliché-ridden comedy is a bad trip, man."

Couple trade life in the Big Apple for stereotyped commune in mean-spirited story

Hmm.

Imagine Martha Marcy May Marlene with a laugh track, or Jonestown with a jukebox playing the music from The Big Chill, and you get a good sense of the creepy edge on Wanderlust.

Eh...

At nydailynews.com, the headline is "Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd’s ‘Wanderlust’ is all over the place, but going nowhere."

Despite the calculated advance press about the movie's nudity, polygamy, dirty talk, etc., David Wain’s comedy is depressingly banal. And all that breathless hype now feels like nothing more than manipulation.

Someday, it won't be shocking to see a positive, realistic portrayal of polyamory in a top big-studio movie. If you see this movie, let me know what you think of how the polyamorists are portrayed.
— — —

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Woman Sentenced For Consensual Sex in Nova Scotia


Completing an absurd case, a Canadian woman has been criminally sentenced for having consensual sex.

A 27-year-old Amherst woman was sentenced Tuesday in Amherst provincial court to a suspended sentence, 24 months probation and a five-year weapons prohibition after pleading guilty Nov. 9 to incest by having sexual intercourse with her brother.

Why? What public good does it serve to have prosecuted and sentenced her?

The 20-year-old brother was sentenced Dec. 6, and received probation for 24 months, and a 10-year weapons prohibition after pleading guilty to having sexual intercourse with a person, knowing the person was his sister.

Look at that. He was younger and yet he got the harsher sentence. Why? And since they were both prosecuted, who was the victim?

He was also sentenced to a suspended sentence with probation for 24 months after pleading guilty to committing assault on the sister involved in the incest incident.

As I wrote before, assault is the crime that should have been the focus of the prosecution.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. If these siblings want to have sex or get married, that should be their choice and not a criminal matter. How embarrassing for Canadians that their government wastes resources on things like this. As an American, I get embarrassed when prosecutions like this happen in the US. These prosecutions are inconsistent vestiges of a dead, sex-negative past. This woman can legally marry a virtual stranger and can legally have anonymous sex with ten strangers in one night. That should remain her right, but she should also have the right to have sex with or marry her sibling, who is a consenting adult.
— — —

Not All Polyamorous Relationships Are Open Relationships

Note to journalists, especially editors:

Not all polyamorous relationships are open relationships. The terms should not be used as synonyms.

Polyamory means there are more than two people involved, with the informed consent of all. The most simple form is a "V" in which one person has two lovers (girlfriends, boyfriends, spouses, whatever) who only have that person as a lover... not each other, not anyone else. This would not be an open relationship. This would be a closed relationship.

An open relationship means one, both, or all people involved, by agreement, have an ongoing relationship but are open to dates or ongoing relationships with others (whether or not the other person(s) in the existing relationship are involved in that process.)

There are a wide variety of polyamorous relationships. Some are open, some are not. There are many polyamorous people who have never been swingers and have never swapped. Some poly people are boring, good neighbors who raise kids and are good citizens active in their local communities and look suspiciously like soccer moms and dedicated dads (as some swingers and swappers are, too.) Because they are.

Being more precise in terminology is especially important given the prejudices and myths that poly people deal with from ignorant or hostile people.
— — —

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Unjustly Convicted or Getting What He Deserves?

From Montana comes this report, “Jury convicts Helena man on incest charge,” which is scant with relevant details. The Independent Record has a few skips in it. (You young’uns might not get that reference.)

A Helena man was convicted late Thursday in District Court of incest Thursday evening.

Once again, we must note that “incest” can mean rape, including rape of a minor, or consensual sex with an adult. Those are two very different things. Which was it? We aren’t told. Since he wasn’t convicted of sexual assault, isn’t that an indication that this was consensual?

Randy Bill Ring, 57, is already serving a two-year federal prison sentence for possessing 11 guns after being prohibited to do so following a forgery conviction in Powell County in 2008.

The man is no stranger to the law. Still, unjust laws are unjust regardless to whom they are applied.

In the incest case, prosecutors said Ring gave alcohol to a family member in February 2010 and had intercourse with her.

“Had intercourse with” doesn’t sound like assault. “Gave alcohol” is also vague. If she didn’t know she was drinking alcohol, or was under the age of 21 (or 18… I’m not going to bother to look up the drinking laws in Montana,) wouldn’t he have been charged with those crimes? And how much alcohol did she actually consume? I know some are of the belief that any amount of alcohol consumption on the part of a woman means that any male who subsequently has sex with her is guilty of assault, but I don’t buy that. (Perhaps if you do, we should close down all bars.) The article doesn’t say she was inebriated.

He could face 100 years in prison for the crime.

District Judge James Reynolds set a sentencing hearing for April 5.

I sure hope this isn’t another case of someone being prosecuted and convicted for consensual sex. It is outrageous that someone could be sentenced to 100 years in prison for that. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults without prosecution. If this was a matter of a sexual assault, the language of the article and the charges should have reflected that.

It is too bad we don’t have more information.

You do know that if you serve on a jury and you do not think the laws applied are just, you have the ability to acquit the defendant, right?
— — —

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Allies For the Consanguinamorous

Rachel wrote  "Sunday School: On Kissing Cousins" at queereka.com, and I want to thank her for the link to this blog, but even more for showing solidarity for the consanguinamorous.

Also, thanks to the person "C" who asked Rachel this...

Lately I’ve read advocacy for *full* marriage equality, including for close relatives (consanguineous relationships). The only reasonable objections I’ve ever heard have to do with the increased risk of disorders and immunodeficiency. However, I’m not versed in the scientific / medical literature, and unless the risk is extreme it seems more appropriate to educate rather than stigmatize (as with teen pregnancy).

So, what should we bear in mind about consanguinamory? Where can we find reliable information (esp. for our large and geographically mobile population)? What should we learn before becoming consanguineous allies?

From the response...

“Essentially, yes, there is a certain amount of risk in consanguineous breeding,” answered Leslie Kendall, a graduate researcher in genetics at Texas A&M University. “Genetic testing can mitigate some of this as far as well established genetic disorders, but you have to remember that not everything is testable, so even if these parents had clear tests, there is the possibility of something popping up (a greater chance than from non-consanguineous breeding). It depends solely upon what they are bringing to the party.” For a more thorough entry-level explanation, she recommends this very illuminating 2003 Discover article.

Given that cousin marriage is pretty widespread and has been through the majority of human history, and that as a species we seem to have done just fine–albeit with some pretty high-profile outlying exceptions, like the Tsarevich Alexei–rejecting it on a biological basis is illogical. Even an isolated close-relative coupling (half-siblings or closer, as expressed by a mathematical coefficient of inbreeding F) within an otherwise robustly branched family tree is unlikely to have serious deleterious effects, so long as the partners aren’t carriers for a marquee genetic disorder like hemophilia or Tay-Sachs, both of which are testable.

So, Discredited Argument #18 isn't strong, but is likely a cover for DA #2...

Cultural stigmas surrounding incest, however, can’t really be =dismissed with straightforward math in the same way. Ultimately I believe that consenting adults have a right to whatever bedroom activities tickle their individual fancies, so long as they exercise some minimum amount of due diligence to ensure that nobody’s getting hurt in a way they didn’t ask for. Healthy, satisfying relationships between individual persons are good for all of us in aggregate. If a couple experiences genetic sexual attraction, for example, there is no rational reason to treat them differently than any other couple.

Thank you!

In a fairly stunning coincidence, while I was working on this column, Dear Prudence on Slate ran a letter from half of a consensually incestuous gay couple that basically said exactly what I would have said, except better. I definitely would refer readers to Emily Yoffe’s answer. She appears to be a pretty good model for consanguineous allies!

Yes, I looked at that one in this posting. Thanks to the people leaving comments at slate.com who've linked to this blog.

There were comments after Rachel's answer.

— — —

Monday, February 20, 2012

Hungary May Become Slightly Less Oppressive


The national penal code of Hungary is getting tweaked.
And that only brings us through the letter “I”, as in “incest” – which, oddly, is now about to become less illegal.

While tightening the screws on drugs, the new draft penal code will loosen the strings on vérfertőzés. According to Index, the government thought that the current penalty – one to five years in prison – is “excessive” compared to “international practices” as well as the punishment meted out for other crimes. As a result, the most you can get for incest is three years, while sex involving siblings (including twins!) will only cost two years’ max.

The government’s new pro-incest policy could be seen as clashing with its new anti-drug policy, which according to state newswire MTI seeks to “help the physical and mental development of young people, as well as to strengthen families and utilize the power of communities.” That said, if there are really not going to be any drugs available from now on, we’re certainly willing to give it a try.
I realize that this is supposed to be humorous (and, unfortunately, it is okay in some circles to express prejudiced humor towards some lovers), but I would hardly call keeping prison terms for consanguinamory to be "pro-incest. People in consanguinamorous relationships should consider moving. Nobody should be sent to prison for how they love another consenting adult. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.
— — —

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Interracial Marriage Up in the US

And despite what the bigots said, it has made thing better, not worse. The latest information is from the Pew Research Center.


The Associated Press reports...

Interracial marriages in the U.S. have climbed to 4.8 million — a record 1 in 12 — as a steady flow of new Asian and Hispanic immigrants expands the pool of prospective spouses. Blacks are now substantially more likely than before to marry whites.
Can you believe that, in many states, interracial marriages used to be banned? Someday, people will be saying the same thing about same-sex, polygamous, and consanguineous marriages.

"The rise in interracial marriage indicates that race relations have improved over the past quarter century," said Daniel Lichter, a sociology professor at Cornell University. "Mixed-race children have blurred America's color line. They often interact with others on either side of the racial divide and frequently serve as brokers between friends and family members of different racial backgrounds," he said.
And they may even grow up to be President.

The study finds that 8.4 percent of all current U.S. marriages are interracial, up from 3.2 percent in 1980. While Hispanics and Asians remained the most likely, as in previous decades, to marry someone of a different race, the biggest jump in share since 2008 occurred among blacks, who historically have been the most segregated.
The number go higher in the younger generations.

In all, more than 15 percent of new marriages in 2010 were interracial.


The numbers also coincide with Pew survey data showing greater public acceptance of mixed marriage, coming nearly half a century after the Supreme Court in 1967 barred race-based restrictions on marriage.
 It is time for the court to act again.

Reuters also covered this.

Regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. We're making progress!
— — —

Another Case of Genetic Sexual Attraction?

How cheesy. In Wisconsin, a man is facing a long prison sentence for apparently consensual sex with another adult.
A 23-year-old Delavan man was charged Thursday with four counts of incest after he allegedly had sexual relations with his half-sister.

He was charged with incest. He wasn't charged with sexual assault.

According to the criminal complaint, a Reedsburg police officer met with a woman who said she was reunited with her half-brother as a result of a family member's death.

That sounds like it could be Genetic Sexual Attraction, depending on how long they'd be apart.

The woman receives services from Sauk County and is considered a "vulnerable adult," according to the complaint.

Most people "receive services" of some sort from their county government. What does that mean? Are they saying she is incapable of making decisions on her own? If so, does she have a guardian? I suppose that is why he is charged and she isn't?

The woman told investigators that she and her half brother engaged in numerous sexual acts between Jan. 6 and Feb. 9 at her Reedsburg apartment.

That makes it sound consensual.

When questioned by a Reedsburg police detective, the man said his girlfriend couldn't get pregnant so he wanted to get his half-sister pregnant, the complaint states.

If he said that, it wasn't the smartest thing to say to investigators. Half-siblings can and do have healthy children, however. Laws against consanguinamory are unjust, and so it is okay to deny involvement when talking with investigators. Unjust laws should be resisted.

The man, who is on probation for contributing to the delinquency of a minor conviction and disorderly conduct charge in Rock County, was ordered held in custody despite a $25,000 signature bond in the new case.

Doesn't sound like a model citizen, but everyone should be free to have consensual sex with other adults.

If found guilty, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 50 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.

50 years in prison? I would expect that for rape. This doesn't sound like rape. If it was, charge him with that. Either this article is lacking or something is seriously messed up in Wisconsin.
— — —

Friday, February 17, 2012

Consanguinamorous Twins Get Advice From Dear Prudence

Dear Prudence got a letter from, Tired of This Greek Tragicomedy, someone in a consanguinamorous relationship. This is what the lover wrote...


My fraternal twin and I (both men) are in our late 30s. We were always extremely close and shared a bedroom growing up. When we were 12 we gradually started experimenting sexually with each other. After a couple of years, we realized we had fallen in love. Of course we felt guilty and ashamed, and we didn't dare tell anyone what we were doing. We hoped it was "just a phase" that we’d grow out of, but we wound up sleeping together until we left for college.
Sometimes, siblings experiment, and then move on. Sometimes, it instead becomes the start of a lifelong spousal relationship. It is too bad that they didn't know at the time that there were other consanguinamorous siblings happily together as spouses.

We knew this could ruin our lives, so we made a pact to end it. We attended schools far apart and limited our contact to family holidays. But we never fell out of love with each other, so after graduation we moved in together and have been living very discreetly as a monogamous couple ever since.
 Nobody should try to stop them, and they should not be denied marriage equality.

Our dilemma is how to deal with our increasingly nosy family and friends. They know we’re gay, and we live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, so we’re getting pressure to settle down. I feel we should continue being discreet for the rest of our lives and blow off their questions. It's nobody's business, and I fear they would find our relationship shocking and disgusting. My brother, though, is exhausted with this charade. He thinks that if we get the family together with a therapist to talk through the issues, they'll eventually accept it. I think he's out of his mind, but I also want to make him happy. 
That's because he really loves him.

Here is the response...

I spoke to Dan Markel, a professor at Florida State University College of Law. He said that while incest is generally illegal in most jurisdictions, the laws tend to be enforced in a way that would protect minors, prevent sexual abuse, and address imbalances of power. Those aren’t at issue in your consensual adult relationship, but Markel suggests you have a consultation with a criminal defense attorney (don't worry, the discussion would be confidential) to find out if your relationship would come under the state incest statutes. Either way, it’s better to know, and if it is illegal, as long as you remain discreet the likelihood of prosecution is remote.
 It wouldn't be illegal for them to be together in Rhode Island or New Jersey.

When  people ask when you’re each going to go out there and find a nice young man, tell them that while it may seem unorthodox, you both have realized that living together is what works for you. Say no brothers could be more devoted or compatible, and neither of you can imagine wanting to change what you have.
Good answer. "We're happy with our lives now" should be enough, though. That goes for ANYONE. Nobody should be pressured into a marriage or a relationship. The freedom to marry includes the freedom to NOT marry.

Will telling the family help anything? That is the most important question to ask. If it will not help, or the harm will outweigh the help, then it is best not to be completely open with them. Some of them probably have figured it out already anyway, and are happy with it being unspoken.

Kudos to Prudence (Emily Yoffe) for being respectful of the relationship.

The folks at queerty.com admit to lacking the spirit of solidarity when it comes to this.


I have interviewed consanguinamorous brothers and others in consanguinamorous relationships.

Meanwhile, another advice columnist, Dear Abby, got a letter from a man who discovered that his late father was gay, and was closeted, at least to the letter writer and his sister. Was his mother unwittingly used as a beard? That will happen less as we move towards full marriage equality. But the third letter in the column was also of interest. MIXED UP IN WISCONSIN wrote...

I have been dating "Jared," who is the nephew of my sister's husband. Due to the family situation, this is a very weird relationship. I was widowed at 22. I am now 27, and this is the first relationship I have had since my husband died. I'm not sure what to do.


Is it wrong to date Jared? How do I introduce him to family and friends? My sister always refers to him as her nephew. That makes me feel like my relationship with him is incestuous.
No, it isn't wrong for her to date Jared. All that matters is what she and Jared need, want, and how they treat each other. It is bad enough consanguinamorous relationships are attacked, but to allow such prejudice cause trouble for people who aren't even related by blood is additional hate.This planet needs more love. Dear Abby is supportive. Go Dear Abby!
— — —

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Polyamorous Triad Parents Well


Sarah Morrison had an article looking at different relationships at independent.co.uk, and one of them was a polyamorous triad...

DK Green, 45, and his wives, Rachel Green, 49, and Luisa Green, 47 – affectionately dubbed the "tripod" – have lived together for more than a decade in a committed polyamorous relationship. They have raised three children and, like most other married couples, they share one bed – albeit 7ft in size – in their home in Chesterfield.

Only, they are not married – and will never be allowed to be under British law.

Never? Don’t bet on that. We will reach full marriage equality; it is just a question of when.

DK Green, self-defined "daddy of the house", is biologically a woman and the mother to all three children – Kirsty, 25, Tony, 22, and Lina, 14 – as well as five step-grandchildren. His two wives were married to him and each other via a pagan ceremony known as handfasting. They have brought other partners into their home, on the condition of mutual consent, but say they view their marriage as "sacrosanct".

DK, who has been in a heterosexual marriage before, says: "We all met online in 1999, within two weeks of each other. The three of us are loyal to each other; nobody does anything without the others' consent. If it's honest, open and hurts no one, it is not cheating. We respect each other as wives, although I am head of the household. The response has been varied. Lina, our youngest, has had the hardest time, but that's as much to do with the fact that her parents are gay as that she has three mums.

The biggest problem appears to be the bigotry of others. If people really care about children, they won't bully them because of the marriage their parents have.

"There is a tribal kind of feel to our family and our children always have someone to go to. If they want advice or a cuddle, they come to me. If they want a laugh, they go to Luisa, the American, and if they want to know something, they go to Rachel, because she's a genius. We all have things to offer them. Then there are the practical things: three of us were able to buy a house together; one of us [alone] couldn't. We are traditional in a non-traditional sense. We have children, grandchildren, mortgages and bills; there just happens to be three of us.

Contrary to someone's polyamory being harmful to their children, it can be beneficial.

"People absolutely believe that you fall head over heels with someone and can't possibly see someone else, but my love for Luisa doesn't change the fact that my love for Rachel is deep and abiding. Just like a parent can love more than one child, so too can you love more than one partner. Your heart doesn't split in half, it doubles; there is an endless supply of love."

Polyamory isn't for everyone, but it is for some. Why should they be denied their right to marry? There isn't a good reason. All denying them their civil rights does is make them second-class citizens based on their love. They're together. That's not going to change. Why not let them marry?
— — —

We Get Letters

Anonymous left a comment against a loving couple. Scroll down to the comments to see it and see my response.
— — —

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Wlll US Democrats Officiall Adopt Full Marriage Equality?

Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of the Democratic Party in the US are calling on their party to officially adopt at least the limited same-sex freedom to marry in the party's 2012 platform. Good for them!

This being an Presidential Election year, the platform and the party convention are especially important.

Although there are Republicans who support equality, we supporters of relationship rights are more likely to get a favorable platform plank in the Democratic Party sooner than the Republican Party, and those are the two parties that pretty much run all of US politics.

Democrats should stand up and say that every adult, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, should have the right to share marriage with any consenting adults. Now is the time for the party to stand up for full marriage equality, not just one limited freedom to marry at a time.

I humbly suggest calling for the adoption of the Marriage Equality Amendment.
— — —

Passionately in Love, Denied the Freedom to Marry


“Janet,” 39, and “John,” 43, were kind and generous enough to be interviewed for this blog. As you can see from their ages, they are adults. Yet they are denied their rights to share the fullness of their love, sex, residence as lovers, and marriage. Why? Because they are brother and sister, brought together through Genetic Sexual Attraction.

***

FME: Are you half or full siblings?

Janet: We are full blood siblings.


FME: Describe your backgrounds.

Janet: I am from the south of England now living with my brother in the north of England, I was adopted at the age of 1 and raised by my adoptive family, but knew I had a 'blood' family from about the age of 5, although I never met them. John has lived in the north of England from the age of 11. He was raised by his biological mother with his younger three half sisters and younger full blood brother. Our father was off the scene from when I was 6 months, and neither me or my brother have had contact with him and are not really interested.

John knew of me all his life; he remembered when I was given away when I was 1. John was told to keep me a secret and not to mention my name to anyone. However this was a secret that he thought about every day.

My adoptive family explained to me I had another family when I was about 5. We met briefly when I was 17. It was difficult for me to deal with as I had problems and didn't get on with my birth mum. I was this secret to her new husband and her other children that turned up, and I guess she felt a bit embarrassed. John and I, at this time, really had no form of relationship or contact. I cut contact completely with the family and got on with life.

Years later, John contacted me. We met up one week after our first phone call, with others. The similarities and uncanny traits we had in our personalities were truly mind-blowing.


How would you describe the nature of your relationship? Are you living together?

— — —

Zimbabwe Proudly Prosecuting Adults for Consensual Sex



The government managers of Zimbabwe are so proud of the fact that they prosecute consenting adults for loving each other that they tell everyone about it themselves, not relying on independent journalists.

TWO brothers who were involved in an incestuous relationship with their 23-year-old niece appeared in court and admitted to being intimate with her.

Wellington (31) and Nomore Marange (24) of Dzivarasekwa, Harare, appeared before magistrate Ms Bianca Makwande yesterday.

The niece Lucia Mahachi (23) also pleaded guilty to incest.

So, if they are all criminals, who is the victim?

The trio was remanded out of custody on free bail to February 17 to give the State time to amend its papers.

How about the state amend its laws so it doesn’t try to stop consenting adults from loving each other?

The trio was ordered not to interfere with State witnesses and not to commit the same offence.

What century is this again? Some strangers sit there and order other people not to make love with each other in private.

On February 8, Nomore and Mahachi were caught pants down by his elder brother's wife, Manyara Mugwagwa.

Mugwagwa reported to her husband that his young brother was being intimate with a relative.

What, was she jealous?

But the husband, Wellington, instead beat his wife and later went to investigate the incident.

Okay, so did Mugwagwa know her husband was having sex with Lucia, too? Did her husband know Lucia was also having sex with his brother? The article leaves much unexplained. Wellington should be prosecuted for beating Mugwagwa, but the article treats that like it is no big deal. Talk about messed up priorities. Whether or not cheating was involved, the sex should not be a criminal matter. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.
— — —

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

More Research Being Done on Genetic Sexual Attraction



Maxine in the UK is doing undergraduate research on Genetic Sexual Attraction, and wants your help. I understand and support anyone who stays away from these things if they believe them to be a threat to their relationship, but I encourage any qualified person who is willing to participate to do so. The more research on GSA, the better.
From speaking to Barbara some time ago I understand that many members are sensitive to people wanting to study GSA, understandably so. I am not making any claims, I just want to be able to gain some first hand accounts of those experiencing GSA…The only requirement I have from any participants is that they spent a large proportion of their childhood apart and reunited after the age of 18 and that the GSA is either mother / daughter / sister / father / son / brother, can be related as half siblings but not distant such as cousins.

If any of you would be so kind to complete the questions you can email them directly to me:-

ampplumbing.cleethorpes@yahoo.com

(I am now director of my family plumbing company - hence the email address)

More information and questions are below…

— — —

Kudos to the State of Washington

Fitting for Valentine's Day, we now know when the limited, monogamous same-sex freedom to marry will be coming to the US state of Washington, not to be confused with Washington, D.C., which already has that.

Congrats to leaders of Washington for doing this, and happy pending nuptials to all who will be marrying as a result.

We will keep moving forward until the all of the US (and Canada, and everywhere else) has full marriage equality, so that an adult is free to share marriage with any consenting adults.

Happy Valentine's Day!
— — —

Monday, February 13, 2012

Polyamorists and Valentine's Day


Those of us who speak up for relationship rights find some opportunities this time of year as the media looks for different angles on relationships, romance, and sex.


At huffingpost.com, Arin Greenwood interviewed Tamara Pincus for “Valentine's Day For Non-Monogamists.”

Pincus lives in Northern Virginia with her two children, her husband and one of her husband's girlfriends. Her husband also has one other girlfriend and Pincus has two boyfriends.

So Pincus is polyamorous. She has a radio show where it is a topic.
HuffPost DC: What does it mean to be in a polyamorous relationship?

Pincus: We are open and honest about having multiple relationships with multiple people. My poly family consists of me and my husband. We've been married for nine years. One of my husband's girlfriends lives with us, so she also helps out with childcare and house work, and that kind of stuff. And we also have outside relationships on top of that.

That is a common form of polyamory.

In reference to Valentine’s Day…
HuffPost DC: So you wouldn't all go out for dinner together?

Pincus: No. We don't have the kind of relationships where we're all romantic with each other. It's not like that. So it wouldn't really make sense for us. It might make sense for other groups. I know some triads [relationships involving three people] who would probably end up doing something like that. We did, actually, on New Years. We invited all our partners over with their kids. We all hung out, and let the kids run around. That was fun. But Valentine's Day is not really a big holiday for me. I can't say for the poly community as a whole.

Good answer. The poly community is a diverse community.

— — —

Valentine's Day



Tomorrow is Valentine's Day. Many people will be getting married. Married people will be celebrating their anniversaries, or simply having a night out, as will other people hoping to get married someday, or maybe just enjoying being together in public.

If you are in such a situation, good for you and enjoy it.

Whether you are or not, take a moment to think about all of the people who can’t marry the person or person(s) they love, or can’t so much as hold hands in public without being accosted. Think about the people, consenting adults, who have to completely hide their relationships because they could be sent to prison for simply having sex in private. Think about the people who have to hide who they are because, where they live, they could be killed for being who they are. Think about the people who can’t accept gifts from their their lover(s) at work, or even a loving comment on their Facebook wall, because it would out them and get them fired.

This is what goes on because some people are being denied their rights to share sex, love, residence, and marriage. A woman can’t marry the woman she loves in most states in the US. She can in Canada and some other countries, but most countries still deny this freedom to marry. Hopefully, the US will change that as national policy soon. At least some victories are happening around the country, the latest being in Washington state. In most of the world, a man can’t marry both of the women he loves, despite both women being in favor of such a marriage.

The people in these interviews can't have legally recognized marriages anywhere in the world, with perhaps one or two exceptions, and we need full marriage equality before people like Linda, Melissa, and Matthew can tie the knot.

So enjoy Valentine’s Day if you are able, but think for a moment about the people who will only be able to fully enjoy theirs when we have full marriage equality so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination.
— — —

Friday, February 10, 2012

I'll Be Back Soon

There is no shortage of items to blog, but it may be a day or three before I get back to blogging. With all the movement on the freedom to marry in the US, I remind all lawmakers, journalists, lovers, and our allies that it is good to gain ground on a freedom to marry, but it isn't full marriage equality if any marriage is denied equality. Polyamorous marriages and consanguinamorous marriages do exist, and they should not be outlawed or made second-class. All adults should be free to share marriage with any consenting adults.
— — —

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Slurs

It seems like every day I see examples of one reason why I prefer the terms...

-consanguinamorous
-consanguinamory
-consanguineous sex
-consanguineous marriage

to "incest" or "incestuous."

Here's another one from phillyxp.com. Like so many others, it derides a government as incestuous. The headline is "The Incestuous Ties Binding Kenney, Butkovitz and the Parking Authority" and the very first sentence perpetuates a popular myth...

Incest has long been taboo among human societies for its propensity to produce deformed and retarded offspring. Among political circles in Philadelphia, however, incest is a cherished, closely-guarded tradition, which might go a long way toward explaining our deformed and retarded government. Like our own little Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel, everyone’s in bed together, while our piggy-tailed mess of a city is left to be carried away by ants.

Here is what I wrote to them in response...

I know this isn't the focus of your article, but you start it out this way:

"Incest has long been taboo among human societies for its propensity to produce deformed and retarded offspring."

While this may be the most often-used excuse to deny relationship rights to consanguineous lovers in the some places TODAY (even though some such lovers are gay or lesbian), it can't account for longstanding bans on consanguineous sex and marriage. It's a myth that this is WHY there is a "taboo." Most children born to close relatives are healthy, and look like anyone else, sometimes even beautiful. The throw-away line starting this article is repeated over and over again, and it slows down the inevitable progression to full marriage equality. That is why I had to say something. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults.


Ignorance and defaming of love and stigmatizing children needs to be countered.
— — —

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

We Get Letters

This blog welcomes comments, even anonymous ones, on all of our entries and most pages.

Most of the comments are positive and supportive.

Sometimes, though, we get comments like this one from stacy, left in response to this entry...

obviously your inbred!!what a sicko you are to say 2 people that are related should be able to have sex!!your a sick twisted individual!!obviously its not right or the kids wouldnt come out retarded with 12 fingers and 3 feet!!shame on your inbred ass

Here's what I wrote in the comments feature in response...

Thank you for expressing your ignorant and bigoted opinion, stacy. I'm not inbred any more than the average person (we all are, somewhat) and what's more, I know how to type capital letters and I know the difference between "your" and "you're."


By the way, most children born to consanguinamorous parents are healthy. Also, most sex does not result in the birth of a child to begin with.


Always feel free to express your opinions here. By doing so, you will show that those who oppose full marriage equality are prejudiced.

Notice that stacy did not give a real reason why close relatives should be denied their sexual rights, but only made an attempt to explain why they should, according to stacy, be denied their reproductive rights.

Keep the comments coming, everyone. I like to get feedback.
— — —

Baby Steps For Marriage Equality

There is much to celebrate with the news from yesterday that the federal appeals court confirmed Prop H8 is unconstitutional. The cloudy lining to this silver moment is that no gay or lesbian couples can get married in California again, as they could in 2008, just yet. Also, it is looking like this ruling will not directly bring the limited freedom to same-sex marriage to any other state unless the Supreme Court takes this case and takes it in an unlikely direction.

However, California and other states can still move forward towards full marriage equality in other ways, and perhaps President Obama will take some action, too. Also, the Supreme Court could get another case that could help.

From sfexaminer.com

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the earliest marriages could potentially begin again is 21 days after the decision, but he acknowledged it would be “very unlikely” the court would deny an extension of the stay.

“We’re going to wait and see what happens,” said Herrera, whose office took up the fight to defend same-sex marriage eight years ago.

“I have no doubt that the tide of history is on our side,” he said.

Sooner or later, we’re gong to have full marriage equality. Sooner is better.
— — —

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Introducing Polyamory


How does one introduce polyamory to someone else?

Not by getting caught cheating, that's for sure. That's not polyamory.

Nor it is ideal to try to introduce polyamory to someone when there has been an established commitment to, and expectation of, monogamy in the relationship. But there are times when someone in a relationship that supposed to be monogamous realizes she or he is polyamorous, or at least better suited to polyamory than monogamy. This should only happen to a person once. A person should not be getting into monogamous relationship after monogamous relationship and ending each one by "realizing" he or she is polyamorous.

Most likely, the other person in what was established as a monogamous relationship is not going to want to continue the relationship, or will try to tell himself or herself he or she can handle their partner being polyamorous, but it turns out they won't.

The ideal time to introduce someone to polyamory is before there is an establishment of monogamy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

In order to introduce it, one needs to be able to explain it. Polyamory means being in a romantic, dating, sexual, or marital relationship with more than one person, under agreement by all.

A person may be polyamorous even if she of he isn't seeing anyone at that time in her or his life, so a person can definitely be polyamorous even if she or he is only seeing one person.

Someone who is polyamorous will find it easier to stick to seeing people who already know of polyamory and are either poly themselves, or are willing to have a love interest who is polyamorous. There are websites and organizations where one can meet other poly people (see below.) There is more and more awareness, so the numbers are growing.

It is possible to introduce someone to the concept, it is just more difficult.

My recommendation? Nobody should assume monogamy, no matter how many dates they've had with someone or what they have done on those dates. Unless there has been a discussion with mutual agreement about how they're going to be monogamous with each other and what exactly that means (would heterosexual-he still be free to have lunch alone with other women for business? friendship?)

I do think it is best to be upfront with a date about why you're dating, whether you just want some temporary companionship, wanted to get to know the other person better, want a monogamous relationship, want a polyamorous relationship, are dating to eventually find a spouse, etc. But the poly person can date someone and not say anything that would lead that other person to believe he or she is promising monogamy. Conversely, though, one need not volunteer exactly what he or she will be doing when not available to the other person. "I have plans" should be enough, if there has been no agreement or commitment otherwise.

When the other person brings up exclusivity or monogamy, the poly person can then point out that she or he is not able or not desiring to be monogamous; that she or he has the desire or need (whichever it is for them; not everyone is the same) and ability to have steady relationships with more than one person. That is where the explanation of polyamory comes in. The poly person can then explain what her or his needs as far as partners in terms of sexual and social boundaries and information. The poly person might want exclusivity from all of her or his partners or might not, and if not, might want to be informed of what happens with others or might not.

It is up to the other person, as it always is, if she or he wants to continue seeing the poly person or not. She or he may even discover that polyamory is for them. Or, she or he may need mutual monogamy, and no longer see the poly person, and that's okay.

Monogamy has been presented as the only way, despite most people not being lifelong monogamists in practice. This lingering, one-size-fits-all imposition is being lifted somewhat, but for now, polyamorists are still likely to have a lot of 'splainin to do and much prejudice and rejection to endure.

These are just a few of the websites that can help in explaining polyamory and connecting with other polyamorists...

http://polyamoryonline.org/
http://www.polyamory.com/
http://www.polyfamilies.com/
http://polyadvocacy.ca/
http://www.worldpolyamoryassociation.com/
— — —

Prop H8 Killed Again, But the Corpse Still Remains in the Way


The appeals court did the right thing in backing up Judge Walker as a professional and agreeing with his decision to use a little thing called the US Constitution to kill the infamous, hateful Prop H8 (California's Proposition 8.)

I'm a little late to the party, which saves me some work. Click through to one of our favorite blogs, Life as a Reader, for some good links.

It is good that the court did not throw Judge Walker under the bus, but I didn't think they would.

It would have been nice to immediately reinstate the limited same-sex freedom to marry that Prop H8 took away, but the court left that corpse in the way, pending appeals.

It would be great of the Supreme Court soon did a broad ruling granting full marriage equality; that an adult has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. But I know court cases usually are more narrow, which is why the Loving vs. Virginia case only lifted the ban on interracial marriages when it came to monogamous, heterosexual, marriage.
— — —

Monday, February 6, 2012

Break the Condemnation Cycle

From Adoption.com comes this essay on Genetic Sexual Attraction

Because of the social, moral, and legal taboos on incestuous relationships in the United States and many other countries throughout the world, those affected by GSA can become quite distressed as they sort through their feelings and attraction and their core beliefs and values. Many people who experience GSA know that being sexually attracted to a family member isn't acceptable, but they know that their feelings are strong.

Isn’t acceptable to some, which is ridiculous. Feelings are there, whether someone “accepts” them or not.

As a result of these strong feelings, many people decide to break off contact completely. It is their way of protecting themselves and stopping themselves from going too far.

What they think would be too far, often based on the prejudices of others.

There are two main fears when it comes to experiencing genetic sexual attraction. The first is a fear of discovery. You may feel ashamed or embarrassed for the feelings you're having.

Because people have been erroneously taught they should be ashamed or embarrassed.

The second fear is of being separated.

Well, yeah! Most people fear being separated from their loved ones.

The first way to deal with GSA is to confront the issue and realize that what you're feeling isn't abnormal; it happens to a lot of people affected by adoption.

Correct.

You may not be able to overcome GSA on your own.

There may not be a reason to “overcome” it, if the feelings are mutual and acting on them would not violate existing vows to others.

If not, consider joining a support group for GSA.

There aren’t many of those around, and unfortunately, one must be wary that “support” will actually end up being “do things my way or you are wrong.”

Remember that having GSA doesn't mean you can't have a relationship with your family.

It could mean having the best relationship you’ll ever have.

So much sex-negativity. There are people who have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, a loving (in every sense of the word) relationship initiated or heightened through Genetic Sexual Attraction. They exist, and they should be free to live together and marry, if they want, without being attacked by anyone, especially not those who have also experienced GSA.

Break the cycle of condemning the normal feelings and sexuality of others, and justifying that condemnation by noting the negative emotions experienced  by the people being condemned. It's like noting suicide by gay teens as a reason to condemn being gay, which leads to more suicides. Stop it already!!!
— — —

Will Appeals Court Rule For Freedom to Marry?


There’s more than one question to be answered tomorrow morning when the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on Prop H8 (Proposition 8,) the infamous California ballot measure that rescinded the limited same-sex freedom to marry. The biggest question is whether or not the court will affirm the federal court ruling that Prop H8 was unconstitutional, and then whether or not they will do so in a way that will only apply to California, or if opponents of the same-sex freedom to marry will be able to appeal to the Supreme Court, and if so, whether same-sex weddings can resume immediately in California or not.

Whatever happens, I hope it moves us further to nationwide full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult is free to marry any consenting adults.
— — —

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Polyamory Should Mean More Love, Less Hate

Modern Poly asks...

Why is there so much ill-feeling about poly fidelity?

From the conservative side - it deviates from the traditional two-person marriage. Within the poly community, there’s mixed opinions. Some are comfortable with polyfidelity. Others either balk at the implied boudaries/restrictions of a closed relationship, or anything that appears like the “couples model” but expanded to include multiple people.

There is a tendency by many to attack anything different from how they are or what they do. There are heterosexuals who hate lesbians and gays; there are gays who hate bisexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people; there are lesbians who hate gays, bisexuals and transgendered people; there are people who have endured Genetic Sexual Attraction who condemn others experiencing GSA who continue to be together; and as noted, there are monogamists who hate all polyamory. Poly people, while they do (in general) tend to be more supportive or tolerant of others, are not necessarily immune to this. A few poly people insist it has to be done the way they do it.

I reject one-size-fits-all, whatever that size may be. Polyfidelity, no matter how close it looks like a "Main Street" couples model, is great if that is what the people in the relationship want. Likewise, if people in a polycule all want to be open to flings or additional relationships, and that works for them, then good for them. Same goes for if one or more people in a polycule have decided to only have a sexual relationship with the third person in that relationship, know that the third person is with both of them, and perhaps others.

Let people decide for themselves. It is understandable if someone thinks their way is the best. The problem comes in when they insist that everyone else needs to live life the same way.

We need to get along and be supportive of each other. We need solidarity. You may think your plural marriage or polygyny is the only acceptable way to live (other than monogamy, maybe) but those who want to reserve marriage and relationships for monogamists are the ones currently in power, and the only way things are going to change is if we all support each other and agree that an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. Polyamorists should be supporting each other and supporting the LGBT community and consanguinamorists.
— — —

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Federal Judge Does Not Dismiss Poly Freedom Lawsuit

The lawsuit by the Browns of "Sister Wives" for the polyamorous freedom to cohabitation in Utah is still going. From sltrib.com...

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by polygamous family made famous by a reality TV show who says Utah’s bigamy law is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups did remove the state’s governor and attorney general from the case in a 21-page ruling issued Friday, but allowed the suit to go forward against Utah County prosecutors.

Waddoups decided Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Christine, Janelle and Robyn — face a "credible threat" of prosecution in Utah County, but not at the state level.

Hmm. The state law needs to be overturned.

Waddoups lambasted Utah County prosecutors, who discussed a bigamy investigation to the Salt Lake Tribune, People magazine and other media shortly after the show premiered in 2010. County attorneys haven’t filed any charges, but have repeatedly said the investigation remains open.

"The entirety of actions by the Utah County prosecutors tend to show either an ill-conceived public-relations campaign to showboat their own authority and/or harass the Browns and the polygamist community at large, or to assure the public that they intended to carry out their public obligations and prosecute violations of the law," Waddoups wrote.

As long as the bigoted law remains on the books, this can keep happening.

From TV news coverage...

— — —

Friday, February 3, 2012

John Goodman is Not Committing Incest

We're not talking about the actor, but someone else.

Goodman is a Houston native and heir to the late Harold Goodman, who founded Goodman Manufacturing, the second-biggest producer of air conditioning units in the country. He's also the founder of the Palm Beach International Polo Club and lives in neighboring Wellington, Fla.

He is facing a huge payout in a lawsuit because according to authorities, he caused a fatal accident while allegedly driving drunk. I am NOT here to defend drunk driving or vehicular homicide.

In an unusual move that seems an attempt to shield some of his trust fund wealth from a potential civil verdict, Goodman has legally adopted his current girlfriend, 42-year-old Heather Hutchins. According to CBS 12 in Florida, by naming Hutchins as his child and heir, she is immediately eligible to one-third of his estate as she is over the trust maturation age of 35. Goodman has two other children (who live in Houston) but both of them are under 35.

The judge in the case wrote that "the events border on the surreal and take the court into a legal twilight zone." Strangely, adult adoption has been used before to benefit relationship partners, particularly by gay couples who can't legally marry or pass on their wealth without significant tax barriers.

The most famous case of an adult adopting a girlfriend for estate purposes is when Olive Watson, daughter of IBM founder Thomas Watson, legally adopted her lesbian partner Patricia Spado in 1991. The couple broke up a year after the adoption, but once Thomas Watson and his wife passed away, Spado claimed that she was entitled to a share in the estate as his legal grandchild. The Maine Supreme Court declared the adoption legal in 2009, but a probate court has declared that since Watson was not aware of the adoption at the time of his death, she should not inherit, but an appeal is still pending.

So now tongues are wagging with "eeew!" and "Isn't this incest?" No, it isn't incest biologically, nor sociologically (she did not grow up as his daughter), nor legally (at least not in Florida.) He is, according to authorities, responsible for what amounts to murder, and people are concerned about whether or not adopting his adult lover is incest?!? People need some priorities. An adult should be free to HAVE SEX with ANY consenting adults (and for whatever reasons), including an adult he or she adopts.

If someone wants to reform some laws as a result of this move, they should reform the inheritance laws, not further criminalize sex between consenting adults. This negative fixation on the sex lives of others is ridiculous. Murdering someone is disgusting, not consensual sex.
— — —

Happy News


It has been several months, but an update has been issued about the pregnancy I last mentioned here. A healthy, beautiful baby boy was recently born to Pau and her husband. They are half-siblings in a consanguinamorous relationship initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction.

He was not planned and I freaked out when I found out but we did genetic testings and were honest with the drs and they assured us everything should be fine.
It is frightening to me that anyone would try to break up this family or deny them marriage. Despite the myths so prevalent out there that they are even believed by some people in consanguinamorous relationships, close relatives can and do have healthy, beautiful children. This is another example of why we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Congrats to the happy parents!
— — —

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Full Marriage Equality Includes All Freedoms to Marry


The good news is that more of the US is allowing more lovers access to marriage. There are several US states, such as Washington and New Jersey, in the process of moving towards the same-sex freedom to marry through legislative action. The national law, DOMA, needs to die, and there’s renewed effort to that end. But while DOMA still exists, states should move ahead.

But states should take the opportunity to bring in full marriage equality, not stopping short with just the limited, monogamous same-sex freedom to marry. States should settle their law now rather than do things piecemeal, returning to it time and time again later, because equality just for some is not equality.

States should adapt the Marriage Equality Amendment with something like this:

The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.
— — —

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

More Reports on Criminal Sentence For Consensual Sex


Additional reports online have noted the sentencing of the woman convicted in a criminal prosecution for having sex. There was a report at thejakartaglobe.com reprinted from the Straits Times Indonesia.

The court heard that the woman, then a technical executive, had been accompanying her father to coffee shops since 2006 to meet his friends for drinks. They became close over time to the point of touching and fondling each others private parts when they were alone in the flat.

One night in April 2008, after the father and daughter came home from a drinking session, an argument broke out when she showed little interest in her father who was trying to speak to her while she was checking her e-mail on her laptop. Her mother was not in.

She eventually apologized. They hugged and caressed each other.

They had sex.

There’s more on what the court is requiring…

During her probation, the accused must live with her maternal aunt and attend therapy sessions with a psychiatrist.

The maximum penalty for the offense is five years’ jail.

Five years in jail for consensual sex. Ridiculous.


It was on Yahoo! News, and here it is in todayonline.com

In what is believed to be Singapore's first case of consensual incest, a 25-year-old woman was yesterday placed on probation for one year for having sex with her father.

It is most certainly not the first time there has been consensual sex in Singapore. It is just the first time it has been prosecuted and reported. And it should be the last time. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults without fear of prosecution.
— — —

How Marriage Equality Supports Family Values and Morality

There are people who constantly make a point of telling us their beliefs that marriage is important for our countries, that being married is good for adults and for children, that commitment is good, that unmarried sex is bad, unmarried cohabitation is bad, that being a single mother is bad, and that marriage is needed to “channel male sexuality.” They cite with worry the fact that there are fewer married households now and more children being raised outside of a home headed by married parents. These are what they say “family values” and “morality” are about. Everyone should get married and only have sex and raise children in marriage and should go to church every week and enjoy “freedom of religion.”


Let’s consider some facts, at least how the stand in the US (your country may vary.)…

  • Some people are gay, some people are lesbian, and almost all of them are going to be having sex for all of their adult lives.
  • Some people are inherently nonmonogamous, and won’t be monogamous even under the threat of losing everything in their life.
  • Some people belong to religions that promote a form of polygamy or polyamory.
  • Consensual adult sex, gay, heterosexual, or whatever, monogamous, group, or whatever, is only illegal if it is consanguinamorous (in most states) or even if it isn’t, but still falls under anti-incest laws. Legally married or not, it isn’t illegal for adults to have sex with multiple adults they and perhaps their church considers their spouses, or complete strangers, including a different person (or two) every night.
  • There are people in consanguinamorous relationships, some with children together, who would marry if they legally could.
  • It isn’t illegal for one man to get multiple women pregnant at the same time.
  • It isn’t illegal, in most states, for three or more adults to live together as spouses or sexual partners.
  • A man can have woman carry a child for him as a surrogate mother and he can raise the child by himself or with another man or men. There’s also adoption.
  • A woman can use donated sperm to get pregnant and raise a child by herself or with another woman or women. There’s also adoption.
  • There are people doing all of these things, and they’re not going to stop.


Given all of these facts, if these adults could legally marry any consenting adults, and at least some of them did as we know some would, it would mean more of the sex, cohabitation, and parenting that is going to happen anyway would happen within marriage. More of the households would be married households. Fewer children would be living with unmarried parents. More people would have the benefits of marriage.

Given these facts, wouldn’t it be better for “family values” and “morality” and “freedom of religion” to support full marriage equality?

Full marriage equality would also mean fewer marriages undertaken solely for something like immigration purposes and fewer people being unwittingly used as beards for someone who is in the closet. Polygamous marriage even makes it more likely that young children can be with a parent rather than in day care, if that is something someone is worried about. Think about it; in many places families can't live on one income, but if there are three spouses, two can earn incomes while the third is home.

If “family values” are really about helping people, and reducing unmarried sex, cohabitation, and parenting, then people who use that phrase will support full marriage equality. It not, then we’ll know they’re really most concerned with protecting privileges for heterosexual, claimed-monogamist, Christians-of-only-some-denominations.
— — —