Miss Manners on Polyamory

Polyamory in the News, a great blog I have in my blogroll here, tipped me off to this issue of "Miss Manners" by Judith Martin. It shows that more people are become aware of polyamory.

The letter asks how to address invitations and introducing (members of) a polycule to others in a social gathering.

The more polyamory is discussed and depicted in the media in positive or neutral terms, the better. And the more people can be honest about their polyamory with non-poly people, the more people will see that poly people are real people.

Criminal Charges For Consensual Sex in West Virginia?

Out of Mason County, West Virginia comes this news blurb that is lacking in crucial details. Eric Haynes, 35, of Milton, has been arrested and charged with incest.

Troopers say the incidents with an adult female relative took place four different times between 2004 and 2006 at residences in Mason County and Milton.

Since the blurb says the other person is an adult, and does not indicate Haynes was charged with sexual assault or rape, are we to conclude this was consensual sex? If so, why has he been arrested at all? Will his lover be arrested and charged as well?

Why are taxpayer resources being wasted interfering in the consensual sex lives of adults? Charge rapists with rape.

Monogamy Does Not Suit All

Here’s a good write-up about nonmonogamy and why monogamy is not for the the writer.

This idea of ownership or ‘belonging’ to one other person might feel comforting and natural for many people, but for others, including myself, this type of possessiveness and jealousy limits my ability to function as a self-determining individual. If I’m dating a straight man, he might be concerned about me choosing to form close personal relationships with other men. In straight relationships, this might not be questioned, but I’m not straight. I’m interested in men, women, and gender-variant folks. Do I now have to be careful about how I interact with everyone I might potentially be attracted to?

Every adult should be free to pursue (or not) happiness with any other consenting adults, including love, sex, cohabitation, and marriage.

Cleaning Up the Law Books

Here’s an article about silly or outdated laws still cluttering law books. Mississippi has laws against teaching someone about polygamy, cohabitation outside of marriage, having children outside of marriage, and “seducing a woman by promising matrimony carries a sentence of up to five years in jail, providing she was ‘of previous chaste character.’”

“The law is a fundamentally conservative thing, typically not very progressive, and it seeks to embrace and protect the social status quo,” said Matt Steffe, a professor at Mississippi College’s law school. “As such, laws provide a snapshot of what was important to society at the time they were enacted. We think they are silly, but they were certainly serious to the people who enacted them. We can’t predict what may look silly to people 100 years from now.”

Steffe and others at MC’s law school are working on a project to modernize the state’s criminal code. He said his group will identify antiquated laws or wording, then bring it before the Legislature “as one global package” recommending changes.

Repeal all laws banning marriages, cohabitation, or sex between consenting adults.

I suggest a state-level variation of the Marriage Equality Amendment:

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

Uganda Be Kiddin' Me

Uganda isn't doing a very good job of embracing the twenty-first century. David Kato was murdered there, remember. Now there a is a serious call to ban polygamous marriage because “this practice undermines the rights of women since it is discriminatory.” I’m assuming that refers to polygyny being legal, but not other forms of polygamy. Why not support full marriage equality, including the right to any form of polygamy?

Treating Others Well

Someone who is a little hostile asked a question...

Listen up all you people who write/read or all together love incestuous stories.

What would you do if you knew someone in a mutual incestuous relationship in real life?

This isn’t a hypothetical for me.

For me, there are two things that make this different from the same question with the word “incestuous” removed.

We all know relationships where the individuals are obviously well suited to each other, and others where they are not at all right for each other. In the latter case, how often do such people listen to outsiders? Not every often. They have to discover it on their own. But I’m assuming the question is really about the former.

So getting back to the two things. First and foremost, I would honor their desires. If they want to remain in the closet because they don’t want to face the hatred and prejudice and prosecution directed against consanguineous or consanguinamorous relationships, then I support them in that. The other thing is that I would admire the intensity of their love. This is a common element of such relationships.

Would you still respect the person as any other normal human being?

Of course.

Would you treat them like a 'gay' person and stand up for their rights?

Some involved in consanguineous sex are LGBT, some aren’t. Everyone deserves their rights, and should only be denied in some cases where they violate another person’s right.

Because there's a whole lot of crap about gay rights yet I don't think I've seen a person stand up for incest.

Crap? Being able to be oneself without living in fear is not crap. As far as standing up for the right to consanguineous sex, I’m waving my hand in the air.

Some allies checked in…

I'd never do it with any of my relatives, but if they're two consenting adults and no one's trying to take advantage of the other, let them be.

There were also bigots…

I think i'd be freaked out and probably call them all sorts of names and spread the news and in general just think that they're extremely creepy.

If I were friends with them, I can imagine myself trying not to be to close to them physically, because I'd fear something strange would rub off on me :s

Sounds like that person might be suppressing something.

The original question seems to be based on the fact that fiction depicting consanguineous sex is very popular, but people do not publicly speak their support for those enjoying consanguinamory. The writing and reading of the fiction is likely based on desires the writers and audience have. Expressing those desires publicly, given the bigotry and prejudice that is still directed at consanguinamorous people is another matter. Not everyone who enjoys reading or writing about something would do such things in real life, of course. But the high popularity of this topic indicates such desires are more common than generally presented.

Sister Births Brother’s Child in India

From Ahmedabad, India comes this report about a young woman in Jamnagar…

In a one-of-its-kind incident, a 17-year-old girl gave birth to a child after being impregnated by her 15-year-old brother.

This is clearly not the only time this has happened in history.

The conceiving was the result of a maiden act of copulation between the siblings.

That line doesn’t make sense with what is written in the rest of the article. Sounds to me like this had been going on for months.

The shocking incident saw the teenaged girl deliver a baby boy on Thursday morning in Sir GG hospital in Jamnagar. Both, the mother and son's condition is said to be stable.

That’s good.

As the girl, who came to the hospital with her parents, was not only unmarried but also a minor, the hospital authorities thought it prudent to inform the police about the issue.

Sure, depending on the age of consent laws.

According to the police, the indiscretion took place a year ago when the brother-sister duo ended up having sexual intercourse while watching a late night movie at home.

Okay, well, if the child was just born, then the child was not conceived a full year ago. Or am I forgetting some new revelation in biology or prenatal care? Perhaps the cosanguinamorous relationship began a full a year ago?

Confirming the development, Subhash Trivedi, superintendent of Jamnagar police, informed DNA that, "the act occurred between the 17-year-old girl and her younger brother. However, we cannot take any legal action as consensual sex, by a girl above 16 years of age, is not a crime."

Why then, did the hospital contact the authorities?

The police have lodged a formal entry using information provided by the hospital authorities.

Why?

"We have taken the statement of the girl. She said she and her younger brother committed incest while watching a movie at home," said GA Sarvaiya, police inspector of A division police station.

Sounds like a date.

Meanwhile, Dr Nilesh Gadhvi, head of the gynaecology department of the hospital told DNA that, "the girl was brought to the hospital late night on Wednesday. The attending doctors found that she was eight months pregnant. The parents were unaware as the girl had not disclosed anything about the pregnancy. She has no complaint against anyone.

I don’t know what the new mother’s life is like. Some her age are focused on getting married and having children, but I would tell Americans her age they should be focusing on education, career, and learning themselves in their youth before marrying and starting a family. If she and her brother are in love, and ready to raise this child together, they should be allowed to marry, if that’s what they want. Perhaps they could live with their parents for a while?

It's Not Complicated

Elizabeth Abbott asks, “In a liberal society, is polygamy still intolerable?” Much of her piece dwells on what has, or has been alleged to have, happened in Bountiful.

Most convincing, perhaps, was the testimony of former FLDS members. Carolyn Jessop, who fled a community in Utah with her eight children in the middle of the night, summed it up well: “Polygamy is not pretty to look at. It is nice that it is tucked away in a dark corner where nobody has to see its realities, because it’s creepy.”

However, if I recall correctly, she actually agreed that legalizing the polygamous freedom to marry would be beneficial.

Abbott gets into the complications of divorce as a problem with legalizing polygamy.

Finally, what, if any, of their contribution would she have a right to? The women didn’t marry each other; they married their husband.

Actually, that would be up to each set of spouses to decide themselves the exact spousal relationship. If they want a triangle instead of a vee, that is up to them.

And that’s why it would not only be infinitely complicated to apply divorce law to polygamy; it would never meet Western liberal standards of fairness. A husband could always dilute his wife’s stake in the family assets by unilaterally deciding to marry another wife.

All of these concerns have been dealt with, and should not be used to deny a fundamental right such as the freedom to marry.

She even includes an answer...

American legal scholar Adrienne Davis, who believes that conventional family law rooted in monogamous marriage may not be up to attempts at cobbling polygamous marriage onto it, points out an alternative: commercial partnership law. Typically used when two or more parties go into business, according to Davis it would certainly address “polygamy’s central conundrum: ensuring fairness and establishing baseline behaviour in contexts characterized by multiple partners, on-going entrances and exits, and life-defining economic and personal stakes.” Of course, there would be a huge administrative cost to both adapting the model to marriage, and to ensuring that over the course of a union all partners consented to any new additions to it and renegotiated their respective rights as the landscape changed.

Legalizing polygamy will not clog our systems. Every legal marriage already involves laws and marriage licenses and may involve prenuptial agreements and postnuptial agreements, and every divorce involves paperwork and courts or arbitration. It’s not like an additional courtroom will be needed because the divorce involves a polygamous marriage. One judge or one arbitrator can decide, just as they do with monogamous marriages.

If anything, legalizing polygamy may actually reduce the divorce rate, as there are divorces that happen now because the ban on polygamy forces some married couples who have found new primary lovers to divorce each other in order to provide legal standing to their new primaries, when in some cases, they would have rather remained legally married to each other as well. Also, legalizing polygamy can reduce the amount of probate paperwork as there is more likely to be a surviving legal spouse who will retain the estate upon a death, as opposed to the estate having to be dissolved.

Referencing same-sex marriage, she writes…

The former brought people into an existing system of rights; the latter poses a significant threat to that system. And that’s probably our cue, as a liberal society, to hold our noses and draw the line.

What? How does polygamy pose any threat to the system? How is it not bringing people into the existing system? The case wasn’t made in the piece. See Discredited Argument #8. Two men should be able to marry. One man should also be able to marry two men. Three men should be able to marry each other. They should be able to do that even if they are closely related. None of those scenarios hurts anyone else.

A Feminist Revisits Polygamy

Jessica Mack has followed up on her “Is Polygamy Inherently Bad for Women?” She looked back at the Canadian poly trial…

So what’s the takeaway? First, I think the disparity in stories should suggest a re-focus from persecution of the general (polygamy writ large) to accountability for the particular (instances of abuse). It’s irresponsible to allow one voice or story to stand for many, especially when it comes to survivors. For example, Carolyn Jessop’s famously singular memoir about being a polygamous wife of Warren Jeffs certainly stands, but should do so on its own.

Moreover, I think it’s important to remember that the stories of abuse and oppression emerging have been happening already, right under the nose of Canadian and US law enforcement officials, and under laws that already criminalize polygamy. Perhaps what these testimonies should point out first and foremost is the failure of the Canadian state to implement its laws and protect its women.

She picks apart the prejudiced attacks on the polygamous freedom to marry…

Their assertion that: “the greater prevalence of monogamy has gone hand in hand with the gradual rise of democracy” is nothing more than an axiom (which I’d like a citation for); It is not a compelling argument to me for why polygamy is inherently wrong.

If there is a timeline correlation, it does not establish causation.

If Canada and the US have failed thus far at protecting their citizens experiencing abuse in polygamous communities, couldn’t de-criminalizing it offer our systems a second chance to step up and protect women’s rights?

Yes. Bring polygamy out of the shadows so that good citizens aren’t prosecuted and don’t fear the authorities simply because they are married to more than one spouse or are married to someone who is. That will make it easier to bust abusers, because more victims and witnesses will come forward.

Go read the whole thing. Artificially and externally limiting a woman's choices in marriage in no way protects her. Denying a child's parents a legal marriage may disadvantage the child.

Erik comments truthfully…

It would be extremely dangerous – and indeed on par with the anti-gay marriage camp – to say that there is any type of relationship arrangement that is inherently bad for either men or women (or indeed children). Polygamy or polyamory, monogamy or cuckoldry, the fairness etc. of these relationships really depends on the specific situation and those involved – consent, equality, etc. The media is right to out those situations where coercion or abuse is occurring, but they shouldn’t extrapolate to a general criticism of a relationship type.

Thank you, Erik!

Benefits From Polyamory

At Steve Pavlina’s website, there’s this discussion about experience with polyamory. Velorien reported…

I entered my second triad a few months ago. My partner of five years (F) is a heterosexual, strictly monoamorous woman (i.e. she hasn't been seriously interested in any other men since she fell in love with me), while I'm a (mostly) heterosexual, strongly polyamorous man. Our new partner (R) is a bisexual, moderately polyamorous woman - we've both known her for five years as friends.

He lists some of the benefits…

Benefit 1) A lot of extra love. It may be obvious, but it's worth saying. Each person in the triad is loved by two people. When all three of us are together, no matter what we're doing, it makes us even happier than when it's just one of the dyads.

Benefit 2) Extra support. Each of us has two people with a deep interest in our welfare and a commitment to support us. Even if two of us have a conflict, it is possible for the third to support both in resolving it in a loving fashion. This has happened, and made life a lot easier for all concerned.

Benefit 3) Division of labour. Our interests and beliefs overlap a lot, but there are some things which we may not want to do with one person but can do with the other. I share my spiritual beliefs with one partner but not the other. I am more compatible sexually with one partner than the other. I have broad tastes in anime, and watch things with each partner that the other doesn't like. Likewise, I have no interest in music or singing, whereas F and R are former and current choir girls respectively who enjoy going to concerts together.

Benefit 4) Accelerated personal growth. While this is not an absolute rule of human relationships, I find it a lot easier to get to know a romantic partner deeply and quickly than a platonic friend. I'm still learning a lot from F, and I'm learning even faster from R because she has a lot of new things to share. I get to do both at the same time, and I get to pass on insights from each one to the other as they come.

There are plenty of other things as well.

Polyamorous people should have the right to pursue the relationships that benefit them, including marriage.

A Way of Thinking of Polyamory

Rowdy explains his polyamorous heart.

I like to think of my polyamorous heart as a house with many rooms. It’s constructed by the people I love, and filled with warmth and memories. It grows as each person I love adds something to my house, maybe a decoration or boardgame, maybe an entire new room.

Many people enter my heart, friends and strangers, and hang around in the common spaces... sometimes just a short while, and sometimes much longer. They wear down the floors and scuff the walls, they throw parties and help me fix the place up.

Each new romantic love builds their own room, an addition onto my house. We work on it together and it grows over time, a special place filled with emotions, experiences, and memories. There is always space to add another room, and build additions onto the rooms already built - it only takes time and energy, the material provided by our lives. No two rooms are alike, each one shaped by the person who built it.

Read the whole thing.

A person can authoritatively deny that he or she can love more than one person at a time in a romantic or erotic sense. But they can't speak for others. Others people can love more than one person. Other people should be allowed their right to do so.

Still No Good Reason to Deny Freedom to Marry

Discussions about the legal and social phohibitions against consensual incest (consanguineous sex and consanguinamory) seem to pop up everywhere. I think this is a good thing, because over and over again, it demonstrates that there is no legitimate, rational basis to deny consenting adults their right to love, sex, and marriage. Usually, someone will note the lack of such basis, and those who support the denial of rights will counter with “I would’t want to do it” or “Gross!” or some other response that doesn’t provide a good reason to perpetuate the unjust laws and social prohibitions.

Another recent example of this is this discussion at “allhiphop.com.” Johnny Green VI wrote…

I Don't See Anything Immoral About Incestuous Sex

If it's consensual between two family members, how is there any harm to anyone? I just don't understand how society can try and tell someone who it is and isn't acceptable to have sex with.

I have yet to read a valid argument as to why incest is wrong.

This challenge to provide a valid argument went unmet, the last I checked the discussion. Thankfully, some allies checked in.