Thursday, March 31, 2011

The British Columbia Government Has Finished Its Attack

In the Canadian poly trial, the BC government has finished attacking the polygamous freedom to marry, at least for now.

If the prohibition on polygamy cannot be supported by the evidence presented over the past few months in B.C. Supreme Court, it could never be supported. That's how Craig Jones – the lead lawyer for the B.C. attorney general – closed the government's case Wednesday in the constitutional reference case to determine whether the polygamy law is valid.

That’s something we can agree on.

He then went on to assert that granting the polygamous freedom to marry would not help prevent abuse.

Criminalizing polygamy is a legitimate limit on religious freedom given the harm it causes women and children, he argued.

Certain men may have harmed women and children. Consenting adults marrying each other does not harm women and children.

The closing arguments scheduled to be completed by April 15.

Here’s an update

Federal government lawyer Keith Reimer says the evidence of harm was overwhelming, but he says Parliament doesn't need conclusive, scientific proof that polygamy is dangerous.

Rather, Reimer says the government only needs to show there is a "reasonable apprehension of risk" to support the law that bans any form of multiple marriage.

It isn’t reasonable to think it is harmful to allow consenting adults to marry each other.

The anti-equality people keep bringing up claims that minor girls were transported from one place to another to be married off. I do not defend forcing, coercing, or pressuring minors to marry, but I don't understand how the government lawyers focus on this when the same governments (US and Canada) have repeatedly defended a minor's rights to engage in sex and terminate pregnancies without parental permission or even determining who else was involved in the pregnancy. I fail to see why getting married is different, especially with parental consent. We can better protect minors by bringing polygamy out of the shadows so that we'll have more witnesses willing to testify in child trafficking and child abuse and domestic violence cases.

If it can be proven that a given group is engaging in an organized criminal conspiracy, there are laws to deal with that. Denying consenting adults their rights to love, sex, and marriage makes things worse, not better.

I can’t outdo the coverage being provided by some of my favorite blogs, including...

Dear Polly Amorie
Polyamory in the News
— — —

More Reaction to Sarah Kemp and George Bentley

Emily Abbate writes at about the situation between Sarah Kemp and George Bentley, the siblings separated since childhood who realized they’d reunited an hour into a date made through a dating website.

Reportedly Sarah and George want to see each other as often as possible to catch up on the time they spent apart, which totally makes sense.

Yes it does.

After the big realization, the duo decided to celebrate finding one another with champagne and drank themselves silly. Call me crazy but I just can't help but wonder about their attraction. Did things get a bit awkward once the alcohol was involved? You don't just go meeting a man in a bar from the web that you're not totally in to -- and expect that feeling to disappear, right?

So what if the mutual attraction remained?

One thing's for sure, this must have been hella embarrassing. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is not your standard "I'm looking for love" dating site. This is a website that advertises not to worry about the food, and shows pictures of breasts, half-naked women, and 6-pack abs right on the landing page! And this is how Sarah found her long-lost brother?

What is embarrassing about that? They are adults looking for partners. It shouldn’t be embarrassing at all, unless someone is embarrassed by their body.

What if they didn't put two-and-two together? They could have been the next big incestuous baby-making couple.

As long as they’re happy, what would be the problem with that?

What do you think of their story?

I think they were dealt a raw deal by the actions of their parents. But I’m very happy for them, whatever aspects their relationship has or takes on. They don’t need any prejudiced taunting.

Could you imagine being attracted to your brother?

Some heterosexual women bisexual women, gay men, and bisexual men are attracted to their brothers. Some have had sex, some are in ongoing relationships. The writer, if she has a brother, is either not attracted to him or doesn’t want us to think she is. But other women are different. We don’t all need to be the same in our attractions, do we?
— — —

One Size Does Not Fit All

The question is “Should Alternative Family Structures Be Legally Recognized?” After discussing same-sex marriage, the writer goes on to ask…

What about Common-law Marriage? Some couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, live together without benefit of any State-sanctioned Marriage.

The right to marry also means a right not to marry. I do believe people should be able to live together without being considered married.

The writer discussed polygamy, including polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage.

Now, let's ask a few questions.

Questions are always better than closed-minded dismissals.

How many people are allowed to be legally recognized in an arrangement like this?

No restriction is needed in law.

Who does an employer have to provide insurance for?

How many children are allowed under an unmarried employee's coverage? Why should spouses be any different? Whether or not this is a government’s choice or an employer’s choice is another debate. Either way, there’s no reason this should prevent the freedom to marry.

How does inheritance of property work?

It’s not that complicated. For people who have not provided written instructions, the default would be, under current law, that the property go to the remaining spouses equally. If those spouses were part of an “all-for-all” marriage with the deceased, this is the same thing as the property going to the surviving spouse in a monogamous marriage.
— — —

A Plea From Mimi

Mimi made a plea on her LiveJournal on polyamory

Dear 24 hours and Vancouver,
I read today an article regarding the new laws surrounding polyamory.

I have one plea; don't make me a criminal.
I'm a good person; contributing to society, kind to strangers, and so forth. I am also a free minded woman in a long term polyamorous relationship. While I can accept that my marital choice is not “normal”, I can not accept a law restricting the rights of free thinking people to enter into a relationship by choice. When entering into committed relationship I would like the vows made between me and my partners to be protected by the law, not dismissed because of it.

Mimi and others like her should be welcomed into marriage law, not treated like second class citizens.

Do you not have room in your heart for both your romantic love and your children? This is the root of modern polyamory. The heart is big enough to love more than just one person. The law has no place forcing me to hide and fight with the truth of who I am.

I am not alone. Polyamorous people blend in as best they can to protect their lifestyle and their children.
I am one voice, but I am not alone.

No, Mimi, you are not alone. Polyamorous people are everywhere. Our allies are everywhere, too. Dear reader, whether your know it or not, you interact with polyamorous people all of the time. And there are those you know who aren’t poly but are allies for poly people. Poly people should have their rights to love, sex, and marriage.
— — —

Why Not More Support For Polygamy?

Here’s the question... “Where did the West get the idea that polygamy is bad?”

Americans in general seem to agree that polygamy is a bad thing. My question is: why do we think that way?

I think there are several reasons why some (fewer and fewer) Americans think polygamy is a bad thing.

For one thing, some elements of American culture have relentlessly insisted that monogamy is the only right way. This is drilled into everyone from an early age. This comes from those who want to control the sexuality of others, and perhaps those who wanted to protect women back when they were considered property, couldn't vote, and had little access to education and the professional world. Today, we have much more gender equality. But most people, including those touting monogamy as the only right way, do not actually practice lifelong monogamy. Even most people who get married only once to one person have had other sexual partners prior to the marriage. Then there’s divorce and remarriage, cheating while married, single-encounter or temporary threesomes, swinging, swapping, and more. People who have done these things may still say that polygamy is wrong, or even “monogamy is the only right way.” But their actions speak louder than their words.

Another aspect, I think, is a connection in the minds of some to male dominance, Islam, or mysterious, isolated religious groups in North America where a middle-aged religious leader marries underage girls.

Anti-Mormon feelings in nineteenth century America probably solidified opposition to this freedom to marry as one more way to attack Mormons, as the largest Mormon group practiced it at the time (but no longer.) It is ironic that so many Mormons have recently opposed the same-sex freedom to marry, given how their ancestors were treated.

When people really think through it in a calm way, without invoking their fears of other religions, they really can’t come up with a good reason why consenting adults suited to polygamy should be denied their freedom to marry.
— — —

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Discussing Genetic Sexual Attraction and General Consanguinamory

Consanguinamory and consanguineous sex in general is, unfortunately, illegal in many places under “incest” laws that criminalize consensual sex between adults. And persecution of those who have engaged in consanguineous sex is widespread. There appears to be slightly more acceptance of those who enter into such relationships via Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA), but not much.

Whether you are experiencing GSA or not, if you have 1) experienced mutual attraction with, or unrequited attraction for, one or more family members or close relatives; 2) experienced or want to experience consensual sex with one or more family members or close relatives, or you are a journalist, academic, social scientist, or other researcher interested in the above, there are places to go for help.

Most of such discussion forums have “incest” somewhere in their name. Most of them are full of noise and nonsense.

For positive discussion of consanguineous sex, I recommend these free-to-the-user forums:

Consensual Incest Forum
Incest Therapy Forum
Incestuous Lovers Forum
GSA Yahoo Group

For most, you will need to become a member of the forums in order to see or participate in discussions there. They are friendly and welcoming people, so long as you aren’t there to cause trouble or violate their easy-to-follow rules. So go ahead and sign up to read and join the discussions. Whether or not you do, you are always welcome to comment right here on this blog on any of my postings.

Those experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction who want help in managing those feelings to avoid ever acting on them, or to avoid acting on them again, can find some very helpful information and people at SOAR Voices of GSA. That site is also helpful for those who are having problems dealing with someone who has these feelings. It must be GSA (by their definition) and only between two people, otherwise it will not be a welcome topic there. Also, they discourage frank descriptions of events and feelings that they think might induce sexual thoughts in people trying to resist their attractions.

(This entry was updated on March 22, 2012)
— — —

Babble Covers Lawrence-Ryan and This Blog

Carolyn Castiglia blogged at about Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan’s consanguinamorous GSA relationship, and she cited me here at FME. The title of her posting claims that those with GSA are big trouble for supporters of the same-sex freedom to marry, but doesn’t really explain.

Theirs is not the first instance of GSA nor will it likely be that last; GSA seems to be a fairly common side-effect felt by individuals who meet their blood relatives for the first time as adults.

That is correct.

Many people, including Evans, have no sympathy for the couple, despite their claim of GSA. In her blog post on the topic, Evans writes, “it’s illegal … and disgusting,” adding, “I’m sure it’s tough to grow up without a father, but it still doesn’t excuse or explain such a relationship.”

"It's illegal" and "it's disgusting" (Discredited Argument #1) were also failed arguments used against interracial couples and same-sex couples.

No excuse is needed for relationships between consenting adults.

The Guardian notes that instances of GSA are only going to increase as a generation of babies conceived using IVF and sperm donation seeks out their biological parents.

That is also correct.

It’s the old, “If we allow gays to marry, what’s next? Who’s to stop someone from wanting to marry a sheep – or their mother?” argument.

The same-sex freedom to marry is not the same thing as the consanguineous freedom to marry or the polygamous freedom to marry, but they are all necessary for full marriage equality. Equality just for some is not equality.

I don’t disagree that victims of GSA should be encouraged NOT to act on their feelings for one another, but I think it will be much harder for those experiencing sexual attraction to birth relatives to deal with their feelings if this condition isn’t openly acknowledged and talked about. These people need help, not scorn.

Why shouldn’t adults who are free to pursue others be allowed to act on their feelings for consenting adults?

Furthermore, stigmatizing GSA is only going to cause incest advocates to adopt it as a pet cause, like the individual behind the website Full Marriage Equality, which both supports gay marriage AND incest – a conflation any gay marriage advocate would be smacking themselves in the head over.

And later she writes…

No one wants to see incest supported by society, but victims of GSA need some level of sympathy.

There ARE people who DO want to see consanguinamorous relationships supported the same as any other relationship. And yes, this includes some nonconsanguinamorous LGBT people, who, thankfully, show solidarity.

The few experts in GSA insist that it really is not an incestuous urge, so it’s sad to see Lawrence’s story co-opted by a site like Full Marriage Equality which stands for nothing by standing for everything.

I stand for the rights of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage. That is something. It isn’t everything. What’s wrong with it? This does not hurt LGBT people; it supports them. LGBT people should be supported.

The one comment I found…

As for GSA, I say so what? If they’re consenting adults, where’s the harm?

Thank you!
— — —

More Positive Response to “Sister Wives” Part Deux

The previous post was getting too long, so I split it into two. The first part looked at Annette Kniola’s impression of “Sister Wives.” Below, I look at the responses she got.

virgomoon was highly eloquent…

It really is disheartening the way the polygamy has been portrayed in the news of late. That picture of modern polygamy is one filled with all sorts of back-rooms dealings, child and minor abuse, human trafficking, etc. The problem is that that picture is one of a small, but heinous minority.

And here’s why we don’t see more positive depictions…

Practicing polygamy is a felony. While it is not a crime to have rampant relations with flocks of women and sire children by them for the state or a single mother to care for, taking responsibility for them will land you in jail. That is the fight that modern secular polygamists face. To fight the good fight means coming out into the light of day and finding yourself staring down the barrel of jail time.

It is ridiculous. People have the freedom to have sex and children with multiple partners, and I don’t want that freedom to be taken away. But marrying each of those partners and thus raising all of the children within marriage is illegal. Why???

There is a massive contingent in the US and Canada that want nothing more than to be able to care for their families of intelligent and well cared for children and powerful, intelligent, and opinionated wives that entered into this lifestyle of their own accord without coercion. We want to do so without subsidy from the state and without any greater rights than those afforded our neighbors.

Why are they denied?

cgbexec is supportive.

NedLand wasn’t…

I think you are all out of your minds.

That’s it. No explanation as to what is wrong with the freedom to marry.

keekee, admitting to have never watched “Sister Wives” or the fictional “Big Love,” wrote anyway…

However, the concept of polygamy must be fraught with problems throughout.

Such as…?

Leaving all that aside, and only referring to consenting adults that have entered into this life with open eyes and understanding, I have to wonder if the lifestyle is how it is portrayed in the TV show you describe or if perhaps the TV show is more showbiz than real.

That can also apply to any show with a monogamous couple. So what?

As humans, we are all prone to many emotions, jealousy being one of the worst. In traditional families there are always the little squabbles and hurts. Strong families can overcome these things, but families experience them, none the less. And in the work place, you have jealousy there also.

So… we should all work in business partnerships and never a larger company?

I don’t see human nature being left at the door when living a polygamist life. Does the first wife think she is the boss? And what if the third wife is prettier than the second wife? And what if the fourth wife is well educated and considers herself to be more sophisticated than wife one, two and three? ETC, etc.

None of those are anyone else’s business and are not good reasons to prevent people from having the freedom to marry.

And the children? Are they being done a disservice by being born into a polygamist family? They were given no choice and I have to wonder, wouldn’t they be ostracized by their peers?

This is Discredited Argument #6. Children are never given a choice about their parents. This ostracism thing is a curious one. It goes something like this:

Bigot: “Polygamy is wrong! Shame! Shame on you freaks!”
Me: “What’s wrong with polygamy?”
Bigot: “Their kids will be called freaks!”

Well, yes, bigots, bullies, and ignorant brats will tease kids. If we allowed that to stop freedom and civil liberties, we would still have racial segregation. How about this. How about when you deal with the kids, you don’t disparage the love of their parents? Problem solved, right?

And you do know that not everyone who marries raises children, right?

virgomoon responded to keekee…

Yes, I am in a polygamous home of two wives. Both very different and both very much average American women in their own ways. They go to Wal-Mart, go to the dentist, take pets to the vet, play with kids, have babies, talk to friends, family, etc .. just like everyone else. Were it not for the fact that there were two women, we would be perfectly indistinguishable from your average American household.

Regarding the children…

As for the children .. they don't seem to care less. They have no peer problems that I have been made aware of. All they seem to care about is that they have more laps to sit on and more arms to hold them and more hands to fill their cups. And they really love having more grandparents. Come on, what kid wouldn't like more attention?


If polygamy works for you, your wives and children, who am I to make judgment? I would never presume.

The life you describe sounds like the life of millions of Americans living the traditional marriage.

Wow, was a mind changed? Well, maybe not…

Being honest, I must admit I’m not “enlightened” enough to agree with polygamy, and it probably goes against every idea I was raised to believe. However, I was also raised to understand it takes all manner of people to make up our wonderful world and it would be a sin to presume my life was of any greater value than any life on earth.

God bless you and your family, I wish you well.

I should check back to see if there has been more.

It is easy to be against the polygamous freedom to marry when you allow yourself to believe the only people practicing it are crazy, abusive middle-aged men each with with ten timid 13-year-old girls. Being exposed to polygamous marriages involving normal, consenting adults means someone is more likely to support the freedom to marry.
— — —

More Positive Response to “Sister Wives”

Annette Kniola asks, "Would You Want a Sister Wife?" That’s because she’s been enjoying “Sister Wives.” Her glowing impression of the Brown family is more indication that the show is aiding the cause for the freedom to marry.

I can't help but have been "hooked, lined, and sinker-ed" to the new TV series, "Sister Wives." It's about a polygamist family man, Kody Brown and his three wives, Meri, Janelle and Christine, along with their 13 kids and now the recent marriage to wife number four, Robyn, who has three children from a previous marriage.

I will admit, though obviously monogamous here in my marriage, that I am totally consumed but the lives these people are leading and I think it's great!

Why don’t more monogamists take this respectful approach?

My evening's lately are consumed catching up to all the new episodes on my DVR and being so fascinated on how these women handle themselves as they love Kody so much yet enjoy their relationships with his other wives too. The crazy thing is, they are all so happy!

Polygyny is only a hindrance to happiness for people who aren’t suited to it. For people who are, it aids happiness.

Really, they are all a very well, very intelligent group of individuals that just lead very different lives based on their Mormon faith.

For the record, it is not the Utah-based LDS church, but a related tradition.

So, would you want a sister wife? I know every man on this earth would love to have more than one wife, what man wouldn't?

Most gay men. Men who aren’t interested in being married at all. And some heterosexual men who are genuinely oriented to monogamy. And there are men who would like some aspects of polygyny, but not others. Just like there are some who would like some aspects of a monogamous marriage, but not others.

But here, no thanks, the jealously would kill me. The thoughts racing through my mind would end me up in the loony bin or at least divorced anyway.

That’s fine. She can have monogamy. Let others have the polygamy they need. Isn’t it great when we can have the marriages we choose?

I am just impressed and I really like Kody, he has a great personality and truly is a great guy. And what man wouldn't be so happy as he is? All four women chosen are all so wonderful, they really seem to have it together in raising their families and are very much at peace with their lives and each other. The kids too, they are all very well mannered and very family oriented. Good for them.

Yes, good for them. Seems as though Kody is good at picking wives, and the wives are good people.

I just hope they do not get prosecuted for bigamy. But really, how can they if Kody is legally married to one and spiritually to the others?

Unfortunately, the way some state laws are written, they can be prosecuted anyway. Instead, the law should legally recognize his marriage to each woman as legal.

I wish the best of luck to them and look forward to season two that has just begun and maybe TLC will find a polyandry family to film.

That would be great, too. There have been enough television shows about monogamous, heterosexual, monoracial, nonconsanguineous couples from the same generation. It would especially good to see shows about other poly people and consanguinamorous relationships. The risk in reality shows, of course, is persecution and prosecution and loss of child custody for the people featured.

There were some interesting comments left that I will address in my next posting.
— — —

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Jones Calls Civil Rights Proponents Haughty

Closing arguments are underway in the Canadian poly trial, and Craig Jones is insisting that bigotry needs to be enshrined in law to protect women from their own choices.

“The child brides smuggled across borders to serve as compliant wives to middle-aged men they have never met, the boys expelled or sent to work camps without an education, the harsh mechanisms of control, the grotesque subjugation of women and girls, these are not discrete harms [of polygamy] that are simply coincidental,” Jones said.

Child trafficking is a crime.
Child neglect is a crime.
Polygamy should not be, and no, it isn’t inherently connected to those other things. There are three or more adults living in spousal arrangements all over North America who aren’t abusing or neglecting children, and the women involved are quite happy with the situation, which is something they chose for themselves. And how does any of this “subjugation of women” fit in to a marriage involving three or more women and no men? Or three or more men and no women?

Jones described polygamy as “anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal, and antithetical to the proper functioning of a modern rights-based society.”

How is allowing adults to choose their spouses any of those things? Asserting it doesn’t make it true.

Although he said ‘duplicative marriage’ need not be “exhaustively defined in advance,” Jones said all conjugal relationships involving more than two people are criminal if they go beyond “mere cohabitation” and have some form of imposed consequences related to entering or remaining in the relationship.

Do you follow that? Because I’m not sure what he means. Does he mean it is okay to be polyamorous or have group sex and live together, but not consider each other spouses? Or will living together or group sex or polyamory be subject to prosecution, depending on the whims of law enforcement? If the law is going to allow people to live together, why deny them spousal designations?

‘Duplicative marriage’ is a phrase that sounds to me like it denies the individuality of each person, like saying "All women are the same, so why the need to marry more than one?"

If law enforcement demonstrates that some polygynists have engaged in child trafficking or child abuse, that does not mean that polygyny or polygamy in general is to blame. That is an attempt at guilt by association. We can also point out that almost all of the crime in Canada, including child trafficking and child abuse, is perpetrated by people who do not profess to practice polygyny or any form of polygamy.

An adult should be able to marry any consenting adults. Stop trying to deny other people their freedom to marry.
— — —

Incest Should Not Be a Crime

Incest, meaning sex with a close relative, is a crime in almost all state of the US, and many countries. All laws against incest should be repealed, overturned, or rewritten.

There are two basic points...

1. Consenting adults should be allowed love, sex, and marriage with each other. This would include sex with close relatives; consanguineous sex or consanguinamorous relationships. Unfortunately, the way the incest laws are written, consensual sex between adults is illegal, and is prosecuted. Most people can’t give anything close to a good reason why. These laws are a vestige of when people thought it was a good idea to try to force others into majority-approved relationships: male-dominant, heterosexual, supposedly monogamous, nonconsanguineous, monoracial. Today, most people agree that consenting adults should be allowed their love and sex lives.

2. Child abuse and rape. There is not any form or example of nonconsensual incest that isn’t rape, statutory rape, sexual assault, child rape, or child molestation. In other words, every act of incest that should be criminal is criminal under other laws. So laws with a blanket prohibition in incest are not needed. Incest should only be an enhancing factor in sentencing someone guilty of those other crimes, if they were considered a custodial guardian, or influential family member (significantly older in-home brother, or aunt, for examples.)

Consanguineous sex has been legal in Rhode Island for more than 20 years now. Have there been any negative effects? No. Certain other states won’t prosecute. Things are fine in those places, too.

Intrusive and unnecessary laws that demean happy, loving relationships should be scrapped.
— — —

Could Be Genetic Sexual Attraction

Lostsister at linked to this news item that does not mention GSA.

Sarah Kemp, 42, from Edinburgh met London-based George Bentley, 47 on UK dating website, After swapping photos and emails the pair met up at a pub near George’s home in East Ham.

So they were attracted to each other one at least some level, including physical.

After talking for an hour about shared childhood experiences, she realised he was her brother. It was the first time they had seen each other in 35 years.

What a happy chapter in a previously sad story. They had been separated as a result of their parents’ divorce and subsequent estrangement.

Sarah (speaking to The Daily Record) said: “We had so much in common and we really enjoyed each other's company. It was as if we'd known each other all our lives.


When the pair made the discovery they felt embarrassed, but were soon celebrating the happy news by drinking champagne all evening.

They have since met up several times and George said: "This was the meeting of a lifetime and we are now planning to see each other as often as possible to catch up on the time spent apart."

Whether or not they are experiencing GSA, we wish them a long, happy relationship, whatever that relationship involves. If they go on to find others and marry those others, great. If they turn out to be consanguinamorous, they should be allowed to marry each other.
— — —

Consanguineous Couples in Japanese Movies

Breakstudios lists a few “Japanese Movie Kisses,” saying…

Japanese movie kisses are often met with drama and romance. Japanese cinema is always aware of the emotions involved in every touch, smile, and kiss. Here are a few Japanese movie kisses that are noteworthy.

Here are the ones I could pick out as being relevant to readers of this blog…

1. "Animusu Anima." This Japanese movie tells the story of a young hairdresser and his sister. The hairdresser, Tokio, is a womanizer and modern-day player and his young sister is shy and timid. The sister goes away on a trip with her friend, who just so happens to be in love with her. They share an intimate moment and when the sister returns, she begins an incestuous relationship with her brother, Tokio. They share a scene when they first kiss and its an awkward, bizarre scene to say the least. However, it showcases their behavior as a result of thwarted love.


3. "My Sister, My Love." The title of this Japanese film leaves little to the imagination. This film is about a pair of twins who begin having a relationship together. However, their love for one another isn't about the sex. The kissing scenes in this film are mostly about curiosity and some sort of sweeping innocence. They delicately kiss another to show affection. At its core, this film is about a love that will never work and is doomed in every sense of the word.

Have you seen either of these?
— — —

Monday, March 28, 2011

Full Marriage Equality is Based on Gender Equality

Reza Varjavand, Ph.D., wrote “Polygamy, a Luxury Only the Rich Can Afford.” She actually means polygyny.

An overwhelming majority of Americans think that polygamy is wrong, 91% according a recent poll published by U.S. News.

Fundamental rights should not be denied based on a majority vote. “Wrong” is not the same thing as “I think it should be illegal.” But I haven’t been able to look at the polling methods; I highly doubt that number.

If a similar survey were taken in a Muslim country like Iran, you would be surprised and even startled to read a similar statistic, given the fact that polygamy is permissible under Islamic law.

There goes the silly idea that if we have marriage equality, it will turn people gay or poly.

Almost all recurring references to wife in Quran, Islam's holy book, are in the plural form, wives, signaling the legitimacy of polygamy if the men who contemplate it can afford to provide equal and adequate financial support for all of their would-be wives. It seems that polygamy is a privilege bestowed upon those who are economically well-off.

In cultures where men are expected to financially support women and women are denied their rights, of course polygyny has a correlation to a wealth. In the US, where marriage is limited so as to deny the polygamous freedom to marry, legal monogamy appears to mean that poor men are less likely to be married to a woman at all.

While a monogamous relationship is based on mutual affection, polygamy seems more like a business transaction, especially if you consider the fact that the rich men who can afford it usually prefer younger, more fertile women.

This is an assertion that is not supported. Some monogamous relationships are based on mutual affection, some are like business transations. Same goes for poly relationships, though I think poly relationships are actually more likely to be based on affection rather than materialism than monogamous relationships. The statistics indicate that women who marry men in monogamous frameworks tend to choose men who are older, taller, and wealthier.

We support a culture where there is gender equality, the freedom to marry any consenting adult(s), and the freedom to divorce. Men and women alike should have the right to pursue love, sex, and marriage regardless of birth. Their bodies and hearts are their own, and they can share them with other adults as they choose. Polygyny is not the problem with cultures that oppress women. Oppression of women is the problem.
— — —

More Reaction to Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan

I found this at Cafemom about the GSA couple who recently came out

Last year, Penny Lawrence, 28, set out to meet her father whom she had never met. From her home in Ireland, she was able to track Garry Ryan, 46, down in Texas. They met, connected ... and then connected a little too much.

They didn’t connect too much. It is just right for them.

It is beyond disturbing and completely and utterly unfathomable to me that something like this could happen, but they act as if it's the most natural, beautiful thing in the world.

Why is it disturbing?

Only it's illegal ... and disgusting.

It isn’t illegal everywhere. It shouldn’t anywhere. “Disgusting” is a matter of personal tastes. Some people find interracial relationships or same-sex relationships or unmarried sex disgusting. Some find the idea of heterosexual sex disgusting. Is it polite to publicly call someone else’s consensual relationship disgusting? I think rudeness and prejudice are disgusting.

I'm sure it's tough to grow up without a father, but it still doesn't excuse or explain such a relationship.

No excuse is needed. Does the writer offer excuses for her relationship?

They are clearly not mentally stable enough to serve as parents to this child, and I hope someone intervenes to see that they don't.

Such bigotry. They could be great parents.

Do you think this father and daughter should be allowed to raise their child, who is a result of incest?

Of course they should. I didn’t see one reason given why they shouldn’t.

There are a few comments that are supportive…

Maybe its just me, but whatever two consenting adults do is on them and not for me to judge. Why shouldnt they raise their child? Because I dont agree with their lifestyle choice?

It’s not just you. More and more people are thinking this through and realizing relationships like this are fine.

But there are many comments about it being “gross,” “creepy,” and “disgusting.” It’s a shame that people feel so open and casual with their hatred.

Another ally…

Well I suppose whatever floats their boat. Doesn't bother me, I mean i think it's kinda icky cause I HAVE a father figure in my life but other than that they're two consenting adults it's not for me to tell them what to do with their lives. I guess good luck to them!

Thank you!

Of course the same old myth is invoked…

The whole making a baby thing tho is wierd. The baby will prolly come out mentally or developmetally or even physically handicapped.

The baby is checking out fine so far. “Prolly” not "handicapped." Most children born to consanguineous parents aren’t "handicapped."

Ugh. Now what if he becomes attracted to the baby?

It doesn’t sound like he’s attracted to babies. But I assume the writer means when the baby grows up into a (let’s say) woman. If he raises the baby, then GSA, at least in Gonyo’s definition, won’t be happening. We could just as easily ask this question about a man who has a child with a woman to whom he’s not closely related. In either case, it really isn’t any of our business.

terrible... so she had a baby by the same man her mom did.. thats disturbing in itself...

Why? He was good enough for her mother. He’s probably matured a great deal since then. If he loves her and treats her well, what is the problem?

Really? "Eeww" is not a good enough reason to interfere in the relationships of others.

UPDATE: If you want to discuss the consanguinamorous relationship between Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan (or your own) in an environment that isn’t antiequality, you can do so in this thread at the Incestuous Lovers forum. You have to register (no cost) with the forum to be able to read and respond.
— — —

Child Abuser or Merely a Cheater? Or Innocent?

This news report is woefully lacking in information. Please see what I’ve written about reports like this. Michael Kimball of Great Falls, Montana is charged with two counts of incest.

Court documents state that Kimball committed various sexual acts with one of his children over a period of six years.

The article never gives the age of his child. Someone’s child can be an adult.

The victim told police the first incident occurred in late summer 2005, and that sexual intercourse occurred two to three times per week from February 2007 to July 2010.

Kimball also requested the victim send him nude photos and explicit videos.

This indicates to me that he wasn’t living with his child.

According to the affidavit, Kimball admitted having sex with the victim when confronted by his wife.

So is his wife the mother of his child? Did she turn him in? Was she protecting her minor child, or confronting her husband about his cheating (with an adult relative?) The former should mean a severe prison sentence. The latter, while not something I support because of the cheating, should not be a crime.

UPDATE: The suspect killed himself.
— — —

Louis Andriessen's "Anaïs Nin" to Receive UK Premiere

Details are here

Louis Andriessen's monodrama Anaïs Nin will receive its UK premiere at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in London on April 14 in a staging by the London Sinfonietta, with Cristina Zavalloni in the title role. The London Sinfonietta co-commissioned the work, which explores Nin's erotic memories of 1930s Paris, and will perform it in an all-Andriessen program alongside his minimalist classic from the 1970s, De Staat, conducted by the ensemble's co-founder David Atherton and featuring Synergy Vocals. The composer will be in attendance for the performance.

In case you don’t know…

”In the ’90s the unabridged version of Anaïs Nin’s journal Incest was published, covering the period 1931-33 when she lived in Paris with her mother. The sexual relationship with her father, who showed up after an absence of about 20 years, was clearly to be central to my piece, and this particular part of her journal has lots of beautiful and poetic writing about this. It also provided the necessary context with material about her other lovers at that time, the actor Antonin Artaud, the psychiatrist René Allendy and the writer Henry Miller."

If you go to see it, please let me know what you think.
— — —

Canadian Poly Trial is Back This Week

This article gives a bit of history.

On one side are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a polygamous sect that lives in Bountiful, civil liberties advocates and supporters of so-called polyamorous relationships. They argue the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and violates the charter guarantee of religious freedoms of those for whom multiple marriage is a tenet of their faith.

It isn’t just religious freedom. It is about basic human freedom to pursue voluntary relationships with other adults.

On the opposite side are the federal and provincial governments, women's rights groups and self-described "survivors" of polygamy, who insist polygamy inevitably leads to sexual abuse, child brides and human trafficking - crimes that justify outlawing the practice.

Women’s rights groups? There are women’s rights groups who recognize that laws need to be repealed when they restrict a woman’s right to choose her spouse(s). If she wants “spice” in her life, that should be her right.

The only thing polygamy inevitably leads to is… more than two people sharing life together.

Oppal said he has no doubts about which is the correct answer.

"That's what I was arguing with my son about, you have to look at this in a global sense, the harmful effects of polygamy," he said.

What does that mean? Most of the mess in the world from the last hundred years has been from people in supposedly monogamous marriages.

"And you've heard some evidence about that, the abuse of women and children, the fact that the underlying philosophy of a polygamous relationship is demeaning to women."

Prosecute abusers for abuse. And how is allowing a woman to decide what kind of a marriage she will have demeaning to her? Canada has, thankfully, the same-sex freedom to marry. And yet a woman isn’t allowed to marry more than one woman? Why not? How is it demeaning?

The RCMP did not have enough evidence to support charges unrelated to polygamy, such as sexual abuse, said Gabelmann. It's a problem cited by governments arguing in favour of the law: polygamous wives, including young teenagers, are reluctant witnesses.

You’d get more tips and more witnesses if people didn’t fear having their home torn apart and being thrown in prison simply for having more than one spouse or being married to someone with more than one spouse. So this supports the freedom to marry. Legalizing polygamy will reduce abuse.

Adults should be able to marry any consenting adult(s).
— — —

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Sophie Monk and Her Brother

Some people have better relationships with their siblings than other people. Jess McGuire wrote

I know you lot can’t get enough of the thrilling ride that is closely following the twists and turns of Sophie Monk’s romances, so I thought we’d check in with the former Bardot singer and find out a little more about her recent break up with French millionaire fiancé Jimmy Esebag.

Sure, why not?

So then she began talking about her newest love affair. WITH HER BROTHER! (mates/non-incestuous way.)

She also said she had become closer to her brother since the split, and compared them to Angelina Jolie and her brother.

‘It’s hilarious, we’ve been watching movies in bed and fall asleep in the same bed and I think ‘this is very Angelina of us’. No, he’s my best friend in the world,’ she said.

McGuire is ambiguous in his reponse. I won’t be.

It doesn’t matter if she is just good friends with her brother and affectionate in a friendly way, or if she is his lover and they are having passionate sex all of the time. That’s their business. If they are lovers, it would be great to have someone with some celebrity come out. But that is up to them. Snide comments smack of jealousy. Either way, isn’t it good to see siblings being good to each other, rather than bad to each other?
— — —

Bramham's Latest on Canadian Poly Trial

In writing about the Canadian poly trial, Daphne Bramham presents it as "competing rights." It isn't. It is a matter of whether people have the right to marry the consenting adults of their choice, or not.

Chief Justice Robert Bauman must decide whether having multiple, conjugal partners — as done in Bountiful — is inherently harmful to individuals.

No, it is not. But even if it were, we allow many things that have some inherent harmful. Allowing people to have the marriages that suit them best is beneficial to them.
— — —

Saturday, March 26, 2011

French Movies

From Breakstudios comes “10 French Movies’ Hot Scenes.”

Yes, another movie list. Here are the descriptions relevant to this blog…

1. "Ma Mere". “Ma Mere” tops our list of 10 French movies’ hot scenes. It features a racy scene between mother and son. The film is based on a novel by transgressive French author Georges Bataille.

That film always seems to make these lists.

8. "Pola X". Have you ever been curious about incest? This movie explores the theme deeply and contains several hot scenes between brother and sister!

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that one before. Have any of you seen it?
— — —

Friday, March 25, 2011

Latest GSA News Exposes Bigots

Naughty Chrissy pointed to Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan and asked, “Genetic sexual attraction or two sicko's?”

How about two people in love, and there’s nothing wrong with that? Instead, a bunch of prejudiced, bigoted, and hateful responses were left. Here are some of the “better” ones…

Sttyyy D…

its disgusting i thought this was illegal


My personal opinion would be to walk away from each other, and deal with being apart, rather than face huge problems in the future.

by Robin…

If it had happened without them knowing they were father/daughter, I would mark it up to just sexual attraction. But since they did know and still engaged in that sort of behaviour, I would say they're a couple of freaks.

And yet, no reason is given by these people that justifies their condemnation of people in love. Why are people so hateful? Two adults have found love with each other. What is the problem? Nobody says. They just call them sick.

UPDATE: If you want to discuss the consanguinamorous relationship between Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan (or your own) in an environment that isn’t antiequality, you can do so in this thread at the Incestuous Lovers forum. You have to register (no cost) with the forum to be able to read and respond.
— — —

Priorities in Crime Coverage

This Oklahoma City news source reported “Incestuous Couple Wants Custody of Their Kids”

That, of course, is an important subject around here, so I was interested.

Then I read the first line of the story.

A DNA test proves a brother and sister accused in a kidnapping, rape and murder case are the parents of two children.

Why does the headline focus on their sex lives? They are accused of kidnapping, rape, and murder. Aren’t those things more serious than adults having sex with each other? It’s almost as if consensual sex is considered more serious than murder.

If they aren’t found guilty of the serious crimes, they should be allowed to raise their daughters.

Here’s a headline that as least has priorities: “Siblings Accused of Murder, Kidnapping Have Children Together”

Of course, I don’t think it is relevant to the murder case coverage that they have children together. That is, perhaps, and unfortunate attempt to paint consanguineous sex in the same light as such horrible things as kidnapping, rape, and murder.

There is a bizarre twist involving a brother and sister who were arrested last year in connection to a murder and kidnapping.

It’s not bizarre. People used to write like that about two men having sex or raising children, and interracial couples, too.

During a court hearing Wednesday, it was revealed that Glendon Gouker fathered two children with his half-sister, Michele.

You mean, kind of like Abraham and Sarah in the Bible?

Last September, Glendon Gouker was arrested in the murder of Ethan Walton.

Walton's body was found inside a 55-gallon barrel.

Prosecutors say Gouker killed Walton and then raped his girlfriend.

Walton and his girlfriend should be the focus of the coverage. They are crime victims, regardless of who did it.

Along with the charges related to the murder and kidnapping, Michele and Glendon Gouker are accused of exposing the two children to methamphetamine.

So let’s see… accused of doping up their kids, accused of kidnapping, rape, and murder, but let’s focus on the consensual sex!

Their attorneys say if Michele and Glendon are exonerated they should regain some parental rights.

"I believe that the children, up until now, have been residing with both of these people. They have both been vital parts of these children's' lives and I believe they will be able to be fit parents in the future, " Pam Stephens said, Glendon Gouker's attorney.

That’s the way the system is supposed to work. Unless the parents are proven unfit, they get to keep raising their own kids.

We contacted the District Attorney's office to find out if Michele and Glendon Gouker would face charges of incest.

The D.A. says he has yet to make a decision.

Why? If they are guilty of the murder, it’s silly to charge them with incest. But why prosecute people for consensual sex at all?
— — —

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Last Night’s “Law & Order: SVU”


Rose McGowan played Cassandra Davina, a character that likes to hang out at a swinger’s club. She tries to seduce just about anyone she can. She turns out to be a con artist and she’s having consanguineous sex with her twin brother.

I’ve watched many episodes of the show. I understand the nature of the show is to deal with characters who do bad things. But I’m going to point out what should be obvious anyway:

1) Most swingers don’t come on to everyone.
2) Most swingers are not con artists.
3) Most consanguinamorous people are not swingers.
4) Most consanguinamorous people are not con artists.
5) Most consanguinamorous people don’t come on to everyone.

This series has included realistic, positive portrayals of LGBT people, and kudos to them for doing so. I haven’t been watching lately, so I don’t know if they’ve done the same with swingers, polyamorous people, or consanguinamorous people. I watched at least two other episodes dealing with consanguinamory, both involving what was probably GSA. Neither relationship was presented in a positive light, unfortunately.

If they want to boost ratings, they should try a positive portrayal of consanguineous lovers. That would get a lot of attention. It would also do some social good. Perhaps taxpaying, good-citizen consanguinamorous siblings are subject to harassment, threats, and blackmail attempts because of the ridiculous laws on the books that denigrate their love? I would say they would be special victims. If anyone from the show is reading this, feel free to be inspired by (or steal shamelessly,) from this blog, especially from here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
— — —

Polyamory is Not Immaturity

As you know because it he has been unavoidable, Charlie Sheen has been in the spotlight lately, as has his current relationship situation that is being described as polyamorous or polygamous. This piece by Pamela E. Spender and Damon Smith uses that, and Kendra Wilkerson’s past relationship with Hugh Hefner, as a doorway to discussing polyamory.

So is polyamory - being in an intimate relationship where you know you're not the only girlfriend/boyfriend - becoming more accepted?


Do these relationships work?

Some do. This is like asking if monogamous relationships work. Some do, some don’t.

Pamela says…

Yeah, polyamory works if you're young or if you're a celebrity living on the wild side. But not for very long.

This is not true. There are mature people, the kind of people you meet every day, who are polyamorous and in relationships that work.

When I was in my early 20s, I wasn't thinking long-term when it came to dating. I was having fun. That's what you should do when you're young.

Some people have fun and think about the long-term throughout their adulthood.

The two girlfriends - excuse me "goddesses" - living with Sheen are in 23 and 24, according to recent reports.

Sheen is just one person. I wouldn’t say his situation is typical of poly people.

The Midwest girl in me thinks that eventually, either one or two things happen in a polyamorous relationship: Someone gets tired of partying and leaves willing or he/she gets traded in for a newer model.

She writes that as if that doesn’t happen in monogamous relationships. Only a small percentage of supposedly monogamous relationships last until death, and how many of those are actually monogamous for the duration?

Thankfully, she gets some enlightenment from author Roy Sheppard.

Damon writes…

I have no real clue about it, polyamory or open relationships, save for that they are becoming more common every day. But I can't knock Charlie or those people who engage in these kind of relationships.

Better, but it looks like poly is getting broad brushed.

Sure, open relationships can work.

Some polyamorous relationships are open. Others are not.

Polycules are probably not going to last long when the people in them are immature. Most poly people I know are much more stable than Sheen. Being an egomaniac also does not lend itself to a lasting, happy polyamorous relationship.
— — —

Tiger Droppings Indeed

I found this current discussion on a board for people interested in Louisiana State University (especially football). Their mascot is the tiger, hence the URL

Rex asked “Should incestuous marriage be legalized?”

Of course, our position here is that yes, consanguineous marriages should be legal as part of a policy of full marriage equality allowing an adult to marry any consenting adults.

Scoop displayed ignorance…

Yes. I think clubbed feet and low brow lines are sexy.

That is a bad attempt as Discredited Argument #18. First of all, the question was about marriage, not reproducing. But chances are, there are consanguineous ancestors in Scoop’s not-too-distant past, and Scoop has probably lusted over someone who is the product of immediate consanguineous parentage without knowing it.

H-Town Tiger chimed in with some sense…

Of course, why would it be anyone else's business?



No because incest pregnancies cause f'ed up kids.

Discredited Argument #18 again.

ShortyRob also has some sense…

Between adults. Yes.



The child would still live a tough life if the community is against incest.

That is an argument to eradicate prejudice, not against allowing people to love each other. Think about it. If some people started bullying the kids of nonconsanguineous heterosexual monogamists, would that be a reason to deny such couples the freedom to marry or their reproductive rights?

H-Town Tiger aptly replied…

yeah, well, it wasn't that long ago people said the same thing about mixed race marriages/kids.

I look at this way, its none of my business who other adults are sleeping with, so I don't care.

Thank you!

I wouldn’t pay a penny for the thoughts of Uncommon Cents, who wrote…

I mean if a 30 year old guy falls madly passionately and hopelessly in love with the 8 year old girl down the block, why should the state get involved?

Yes, because a 27-year-old and a 25-year-old getting married is no different than a 30-year-old and an 8-year-old, right?


For as long as the social concept of marriage has been around, which is to say pretty much all of human history, there have been 2 basic restrictions across all societies. 1:male-female
2: non-consanguineous.

Now, let me clarify, that COUSIN marriage has a bit of leeway, but as far as your directly consanguineous marriages? ALWAYS taboo.

This is simply not true (it is also Discredited Argument #2.) Consanguineous marriages were discouraged in some places for some people so as to prevent insular family dynasties from forming among those who were not royals (threat to royal power and wealth), and when patriarchs wanted to arrange their child’s marriage to gain some sort of alliance with another clan. It isn’t true that there was a universal taboo on consanguineous marriages.

Same-sex marriages are more rare in history, but that has to do with church control of countries and the need to have child labor to help in the family business, pay tithes, and pay taxes.

These days, in the West and in many other places, people choose their own spouses, we have formalized adoption, surrogacy, reproductive technologies, religious freedom, and we don’t allow child labor.

The writer then goes on to a eugenics argument. However, reproduction with a consanguineous partner passes along good gene variants as well as bad ones. And since the bad ones are less likely to survive to birth or go on to a reproductive adulthood, it is likely that such reproduction can do more to advance human development rather than inhibit. We see this with animal breeding. I would be interested in knowing if geneticists can correlate a slowdown in human evolution/health improvements to restrictions on consanguineous sex?

So far, it is yet another discussion in which the people who want to deny a freedom to marry can’t provide a good reason why.
— — —

Bitter, Party of One

An Ireland-based singles website has this discussion going about the latest Genetic Sexual Attraction story in the news. Sadly, there’s a lot of prejudice being spewed so far.

Well I think its is just SICK.

Then don’t do it.

why would they feel the need to flaunt their incestuous illegal relationship all over the papers

“Why would they feel the need to flaunt their interracial illegal relationship all over the papers?” I think the real question is, why do bigots feel a need to be so hateful?

Someone else…

They did know , she found he was living in America and then went out to surprise him, and apparently had feelings for each other as lovers rather than father and daughter, i think it's pretty sick knowing she's ur daughter then carrying on like that , i mean he is supposed to be an adult , he should have put her on the next plane home

That doesn’t even make any sense. They are BOTH adults. Let them love each other the way they want.

Someone else asked…

What happens if you're together a year - and then you find out?!

Stay together, of course. You’ve come to know someone and love them. Why does finding out you are related by blood change that?

Incredibly, someone responded…

id probably have to walk away from it

Why would someone walk away from a loving, passionate, positive relationship if it is working?

Looks to me like these singles in the forum who are prejudiced might be jealous that these people have found each other and are enjoying each other and sharing love. A lot of singles are not like that at all. Either they are happy being single or they are happy people looking for a relationship and they are happy for those who have found one. Too bad more people aren’t like that. We have enough hate and misery in this world. Let those who have found love and happiness with each other have it without trying to throw them in prison, or denying them their right to marry, or attacking their love.
— — —

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Congratulations to Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan

Genetic Sexual Attraction is making news again as another happy GSA (apparently) couple comes out.

The Irish Sun splashed this morning with the exclusive story of Garry Ryan, 46, and his long-lost daughter Penny Lawrence, 28, who met last year when Lawrence tracked Ryan down. He had been born in Palmerstown in Dublin but moved with his family to the US when he was two. He made Lawrence’s mother Angela pregnant when he was 18 but left her before their baby, Penny, was born.

Angela died when Penny was four and her maternal grandparents, who raised her, died when she was 18. Lawrence said she became “obsessed” with finding her only remaining close blood relative, her father. Last March she tracked him down to Houston, Texas and after several daily phonecalls, flew there from LA to surprise him.

She now reports she is pregnant by him.

Ryan said that he realises that their relationship is illegal and they are afraid that they will be ordered apart by the courts. But he added:

“It’s no different than if I met Penny in a bar. I’d have fallen for her as I have now. It doesn’t feel we are doing anything wrong.”

It shouldn’t be illegal. They are consenting adults who should be allowed to marry.

Lawrence said that when she first made contact with her estranged father, he had told her he had always felt guilty for leaving her and her mother. He explained:

“I was an 18-year-old kid and when Angela told me she was pregnant I wanted to do the right thing. We decided to get married but Angela’s parents disapproved of the relationship and didn’t want me around.”

The interference of Angela's parents was unfortunate, but nothing can be done to change the past. It is the future that matters. We wish them the best as a consanguinamorous couple and family.

UPDATE: If you want to discuss the consanguinamorous relationship between Penny Lawrence and Garry Ryan (or your own) in an environment that isn’t antiequality, you can do so in this thread at the Incestuous Lovers forum. You have to register (no cost) with the forum to be able to read and respond.
— — —

Liz and Ryan Update

How about some good news?

In November I wrote about Liz and Ryan, a consanguinamorous brother and sister living as husband and wife, although denied their freedom to marry.

I’ve been keeping in contact and wanted to provide a short update.

Their daughter was born in December and is doing well, as are Liz and Ryan. (Congratulations to them.)

We love being parents, even with all the challenges and uncertainties that we go through.

Every time I see that little face I know we've done the right thing. When I see my brother with our daughter I'm reminded again why I fell in love with him. And every day I'm so happy to be part of this family.

Is there anything more beautiful than love?

Their feature continues to be read by many people, and, hopefully, is reassuring those who are going along a similar path. One reason to be reassured is that their feature is changing minds. May it bring freedom ever closer.

There are many other people like Liz and Ryan. We don’t hear much about them in the media, but they are out there (closer than you think) and they shouldn’t have to hide. They should be able to be together and to have their freedom to marry.

UPDATE: Liz's next interview with Full Marriage Equality
— — —

Another Example of a Lacking Report

Here’s another example of a news report that lacks sufficient information. This news comes out of South Dakota.

A Rapid City man serving time in prison for driving under the influence has been indicted on two counts of incest.

The 34-year-old made his initial court appearance in 7th Circuit magistrate court Tuesday.

We are given no other information about the incest charge. “Incest” may refer to a 34-year-old man raping his 4-year-old child, or a niece or nephew of the same age. People like that needs to do hard, long time. But the same term can refer to a 34-year-old man having consensual sex with his 32-year-old sister. That should not be a crime.

His attorney, John Fitzgerald, said his client was brought back from the South Dakota State Penitentiary to answer the accusations. The man was participating in a work-release program when the accusations surfaced and was returned to prison, Fitzgerald said.

So he was serving time for DUI, but he was allowed out in the middle of his time, during which he could have killed someone.

Incest is a Class 5 felony with a potential maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

It shouldn’t be a separate crime. It should only be an enhancement to the molesting, assault, of rape of a child or statutory rape. Consensual consanguineous sex should not be a crime. We don’t know what is alleged to have happened in this case based on the scant information provided.
— — —

Prison For a Father in Ghana Incest Case

To update one of the situations in Ghana that I cited previously

A 43-year-old mechanic, Michael Akwasi Agyapong, who impregnated his 18-year-old daughter, was on Tuesday sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by an Accra Circuit Court.

Again, the law breaks up a family. And for what? What is to become of the family he leaves behind?

Agyapong pleaded not guilty to incest before the court presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa.

However, the court, after a six-week trial, found him guilty.

They were ratted out by neighbors. The news does not cite a complaint by the woman. This was not a rape charge. It was a charge against a man for having consensual sex with another adult who was arguably in a spousal type relationship with him. Let consenting adults have their lives. Consanguinamory should not be a crime.
— — —

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

For Those Who Have Consumated Their Genetic Sexual Attraction

Hopelesslyhopeful posted this at

after getting hit by GSA and my constant and ongoing struggle with it ever since, I have started writing about my thoughts, feelings, desires, wishes and dreams regarding GSA. I'm in this process alone, as my h/b, who I have the GSA to, has not been in touch with me since the start of it all.

The writing helps me, it gives me peace and quiet and calm in my head, my body and my heart. It helps me sleep at night, because the images running around in my head get their own place on paper.

I have only my experience and my fantasy to draw from. I would like to ask you, any of you, to share your experience with me. I am looking for the tales of people who have consummated their GSA feelings, whether they had a happy ending or not. This is mostly for inspirational purposes, in order to make the scenes between my characters more detailed, varied and credible.

I haven't decided on the format of my book yet. It may be one story with just two main characters (that is the format now) or I may turn it into several short stories with different outcomes. Whichever format I decide on, I am writing a fictional story based on my experience, dreams and doubts concerning GSA.

I will of course treat all information as confidential, and if I end up using (parts of) your experience I will send you the final draft for reviewing if so wished. Nothing will be published before I receive your prior written consent.

You can send the writer a private message at the website.
— — —

Prison For Consensual Sex in Zimbabwe

It is 14 months in prison for a consanguinamorous couple in Chitungwiza.

Tafadzwa Zwawapu (21) who sired a child with his aunt Sharon Nyautarisi (17) was convicted alongside the mother of his child.

The two were initially slapped with 24 months in prison but ten months were suspended for five years on condition the duo does not commit a similar offence.

He’s not allowed to have sex with the mother of his child?

In December last year, Sharon gave birth to a bouncing baby boy and when Tafadzwa was interrogated he revealed that he was the one who had sired the child with his aunt. This confession led to his arrest.

Why? What exactly is the problem? Obviously, the law there is not concerned about her age, as she was prosecuted as well. This is a matter of prejudice against consanguineous sex. They should be encouraged to raise their child, rather than being locked up in prison.
— — —

Sentencing For Russell Lee Engleman

I like to make a very clear distinction on this blog between consensual sex and rape, assault, and molestation. I previously blogged about the superfluous charges against Russell Lee Engleman, who should have been put away for the rest of his life for the other charges; for what he did to minor children. Unfortunately, the sentencing was relatively light.

Briseno then sentenced Engleman to 15 years to life, plus five years, eight months, and noted that it was likely that Engleman would be in prison at least until he was 70 before he would be considered for parole.

So he may be paroled, unfortunately.

Deputy District Attorney Heather Brown asked for a minimum sentence of 30 years to life for Engleman, arguing that he violated a position of trust as the boyfriend of the mother of one of his victims, had used his own daughter to assist in molesting one of the victims, and had showed a "callous disregard" for all of his victims.

A five-man, seven-woman jury deliberated for a day and a half before finding Engleman guilty in January of nine counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14, three counts of using young girls for pornographic purposes, and one count of possession of child pornography for images found on his computer. He was also convicted of several penalty-enhancing allegations of substantial sexual conduct and committing crimes against multiple victims. Brown argued that Engleman engaged in continuously sexual abuse with one of his victims from the time she was 9 until she was 13. He molested the second victim – daughter of a friend – over a three-year period by inviting his friend to visit with his daughter at the auto repair shop.

Scummy guys like this should be the ones populating prisons. Not people who stick to sex with consenting adults. It is insulting to equate loving relationships, experimentation, or casual play between close relatives with what this monster was doing.
— — —

Allies for Polyamory

A someone asked “Polyamory? Having more than one love?”

How many of you know what it is/means and what do you think about it?

It is great for the people suited to it.

Would you be capable of being friends with a family that was polyamorous if you yourself are not?

What a strange question. Aren’t we all, except for the most prejudiced or cloistered, friends with families that are different than ours? Are poly people asked if they can be friends with monogamous families?

Most people replied that they were not polyamorous but they could be friends with poly people. They probably already are and don’t even know it.

Over the years, I have experienced people who condemn others for their beliefs or lifestyle can't even tell you a rational reason why... They tend to be against what they are unfamiliar/ignorant about.. I have friends & family that told me I couldn't date a man outside my race or someone of a specific religion ..When I asked them WHY? They would just say something intelligent like... "Because, it's not right" and couldnt give me a reason with any substance ... I just shook my head and did what was right for me... not for someone who couldnt give me a factual reason .. so dont worry about everyone else...

Good advice.
— — —

Monday, March 21, 2011

We Need More Shows That Do This

Sasha Brown-Worsham appears to be a little tongue-in-cheek with her take on “Sister Wives.” According to her, the show makes “polygamy look good.” Good!

To watch TLC's show Sister Wives is to fall in love with the idea of polygamy. If you are in the least bit open minded, this family where all these women help and love one another seems pretty idyllic.

I mean, yes, there is the whole sharing your husband sexually issue, which is less than enticing for many, but once you get past that, the idea is really alluring. In the show, which has the second season premiering on March 13 on TLC at 9/8 c, the women do not talk much about sex, but rather about the benefits. And there are many.

It is so nice to imagine a family in which each person can really play to their strengths. One woman cooks, another cleans, Someone else works outside the home and another takes care of the children. Nice, eh?

Different poly families are going to break things down differently. The important thing is that they do what works for them.

As much as I want to keep an open mind and believe that these people are as happy as they say they are, I also think it takes a very special kind of person to overcome the insecurities and jealousies that might arise.

I am all for varying definitions of marriage and certainly support the idea that consenting adults should be allowed to have whatever kind of marriage they see fit, but it is hard to imagine it working.

Skepticism is common, I’ve noticed. But that is no reason to deny people their marriages. It is, instead, a reason we need poly people to have more visibility.

Some people have a hard time imagining monogamy working, and yet they keep trying it. Ever see two people from homes where monogamy was only paid lip service try to make it work, and think constant bickering is the way it is supposed to be? Their parents cheated, fought, divorced, remarried to others, fought, cheated, divorced, and gave them a bad model of marriage. And yet those same parents might discourage their children from an openly polyamorous life. I’m sure you know someone like that.

People should be allowed to find the kind of relationships to which they are suited. If they find that monogamy is what they want and can live by, great. But some are going to find some form or polygamy works best for them, and they should be allowed that and should not be denied the freedom to marry.
— — —

Libertarian Blogger on Freedom to Marry

Steve writes at Libertarian Jew, a blog described as “The political and religious musings of a Right-leaning, libertarian, non-Orthodox, traditionalist, Zionist Jew who emphasizes rationalism, common sense, and free, open-minded thought.” He wrote a piece called “Where I Part From The Right.” One of the subjects is marriage…

As long as the individuals are consenting and doing this of their own volition, I do not care what you do behind your bedroom doors, whether you are gay or straight. Gay marriage would simply be a contract between two consenting individuals of the same sex saying they want to commit their lives to one another. To deprive consenting individuals from entering such a contract is a deprivation of contract rights, to say the least. The conservative's aversion towards gay marriage, whether brought on by religion or ignorance, gets in the way of a typical conservative viewing the issue clearly. With that in mind, I will go as far as saying that with that argument, I would also be pro-polygamy, providing that the individuals within the polygamous marriage are all consenting individuals. I know that this is a widely unpopular view in America because "marriage is between one man and woman." It has even been codified in American law under Reynolds v. United States. Aside from arguing contract rights, I will say that Jacob, King David, and King Solomon all had more than one wife in the Bible. From a Jewish standpoint, I will say that until very recently, polygamy was acceptable and practiced within the Sephardic world.

Thanks, Steve, for your support of the same-sex and polygamous freedoms to marry. Libertarians should support full marriage equality.
— — —

Another Ally for Consanguinamory

sirnasty dismantles arguments against consanguineous sex

Argument: It’s gross, ew! Icky!

Yes, this is Discredited Argument #1

Rebuttal: Same “argument” used by anti-gay folks, or people that don’t like anal or any other sexual practice that doesn’t fall into “heterosexual white cisgendered missionary-position sex for the purposes of procreation”. If you don’t personally like it, that’s not actually an argument for keeping other people from participating in it. I don’t care for sports because everyone ends up covered in dirt and sweat and grime and that’s gross and icky for me, but that doesn’t mean SPORTS SHOULD THEREFORE BE ILLEGAL.


Argument: It’s just unnatural. I could never be attracted to my mother/sister/brother/father/whoever. They’re FAMILY.

Discredited Arguments #3 and 5.

If you’re not attracted to a family member, that’s fine….most people aren’t either. But some folks ignore that biological imperative and become attracted to their family members and…that’s fine too! It’s a personal decision and isn’t affecting you in any way, so why do you care?


Argument: But if two family members have sex, their children will be deformed!

Discredited Argument #18.

Rebuttal: What is the actual rate of genetic abnormalities amongst children born of incest? What is the actual percentage risk? Putting that aside, way to be heteronormative! Not all incestual relationships are female/male pairings, and not every sexual encounter people have results in children! I’m gonna go into a moral grey area here: no one chooses to be born or miscarried or aborted. A uterus-owner receives news that their offspring, if they choose to bear it, will have a genetic abnormality. They can choose to abort it or give birth. What would you say to this person? “Don’t abort! People with disabilities have every right to live!” Well ok, what are you going to say to the incestuous couple that gets pregnant? Are you going to automatically assume that the child will have some sort of disability?


There are other arguments, such as loss of familial order (if a grandmother and a grandson have a child, what is the child’s relation to both of them? What is the child’s relation to the rest of the family?),

Discredited Argument #19.

coercion through familial power dynamics,

Discredited Argument #20.

The only real objective I have to incest is if they choose to have a child. I don’t think it’s wrong and it’s not even the chance of genetic abnormalities that sets me off, but if it were me I wouldn’t be able to have a child with my brother and then force him into a world where his parents relationship was labelled as wrong. I chose as consenting adult to enter an incestuous relationship and deal with the ridicule and social rejection, but to do that to a child who had no choice in being born. I couldn’t do it.

I believe that if this was 70 years ago and I was a gay individual, I would have the same thoughts about bringing a child into this world.

We should not let bullying by the prejudiced to stop us from living our lives. Going forward in the face of bigotry changes minds.

Looks like progress is being made.
— — —

Gay Sex Can Still Send You to Prison in Iowa

A man having sex with another man can still get sent to prison, if they are closely related. Can someone please explain why such a thing would be illegal? Why do unrelated people have rights that related people don’t? That is discrimination based on someone’s birth.

A 48-year-old Hiawatha man was sentenced to three years probation Friday in Linn County District Court for having sex with an adult male related to him last year.

Having sex with another adult should not be criminal. Notice that neither the prosecution, nor the news report, accused this man of rape or sexual assault.

Sixth Judicial District Senior Judge Thomas Koehler sentenced Craig Aswegan, who pleaded guilty to incest in January, to a five year suspended sentence based on his employment record and supportive statements from his employer and his sister.

The victim didn’t offer an victim’s impact statement for the court’s consideration.

Has the “victim” complained at all?

“I’m taking a chance on you and giving you probation,” Koehler said. “If you do something like this again you will do prison time.”

If he has sex with another adult?

Granted, this person doesn’t sound like a nice guy…

Aswegan was convicted in 1997 for third-degree sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

So he was in his early 30s, perhaps, and abusing a child under the age of 11? And he only got sentenced to ten years for that? He should still be in prison for that. But regardless of whether someone is likable or not, laws should not criminalize consensual sex between adults. Incest laws banning sex between close relatives who are adults should all be gone. Prosecute rape, sexual assault, child molestation, etc.
— — —

Polyandry and Polygyny in India

This article examines an area in northern India where polygamy, including polyandry, is common. The article uses "polygamy" in place of "polygyny."

"There are at least 50-60 polyandrous and polygamous families in Jaunsar-Bawar. In Monti village, four brothers have one wife. In Sidi, Soopa had three wives. His son has [outdone] him and married four times. It's another matter that two of his wives died and the third split from him," said Moham Singh (name changed at his request), our local guide for the Jaunsar-Bawar tour.

The polygamy seems to be working out just fine.

The Jaunsaris have strong reasons for following polyandry and polygamy. While they attribute polyandry to the Pandava brothers — Yudhishthir, Bheema, Arjuna, Nakul and Sahadev — their devtas (deities) who shared Draupadi amongst themselves, for polyandry, they say more wives mean more hands to do domestic chores, farming and cattle rearing.

More often than not, it's the people from affluent castes and those with large landholdings who practice polygamy. Bhagat Singh, a farmer in Pokhri village, for instance, has three wives.

Anything wrong with this? No.

Another interesting feature of polyandry is that though the brothers share one wife, the children sired by them only carry the name of the eldest brother.

Without full marriage equality, which would allow men to marry each other and close relatives to marry each other, if the wife dies, the family will be dissolved unless they can find another wife.
— — —

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Good For George Macintosh

He makes sense. May the Canadian authorities do as he says: scrap the ban on the polygamous freedom to marry and prosecute forced marriage and other real crimes.

A lawyer appointed to represent parties seeking to scrap the polygamy law has rapped the authorities for failing to prosecute cases of child rape and sexual exploitation.

And George Macintosh suggests in written submissions filed in B.C. Supreme Court that a new criminal law to crack down on forced marriages should be enacted.

He points out that the marriage ban actually makes it harder to uncover and prosecute child abuse because the witnesses are afraid of the authorities.
— — —

Friday, March 18, 2011

More on the B.C. Civil Liberties Association Filing

March 28 is right around the corner. That's the next major day in the Canadian poly freedom to marry trial. Here's another article on the filing by BCCLA...

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling for Canada's polygamy law that bans multiple marriages to be found unconstitutional and "relegated to the scrap heap of history."

In written submissions filed Thursday, the association urged B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman to find that the law offends fundamental freedoms.

You can read the filing for yourself here.

Every adult should be free to pursue their rights to love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults. Canada is on the way to more freedom to marry, and, hopefully, full marriage equality.
— — —