Monday, October 31, 2011

Love Won With This Couple

This article from Vietnam tells the story of Dinh Van Minh, 50, and Dinh Thi Man, 52. When they were 6 and 8, the siblings were orphaned and then became separated. What ended up happening may or may not be a result of Genetic Sexual Attraction, but it most definitely is a beautiful love story.

Talented and good-looking, Minh was the target of several girls at a boarding school in Tay Son District, where he was attending continuing education class in 1976. But the girl who won his heart was Man.

They married each other and only stumbled upon their original relationship in 1982, after Man gave birth to their first daughter.

That’s when ignorance took over around them. Thankfully, they didn’t let ignorance by others break them apart.

"I was in great shock. Neighbours advised us to separate. They felt scared of us. Many families actually decided to move to other areas," Minh told the Thanh Nien (Young People) newspaper.

"But I thought: What would she do if I left her? At that time, our daughter was just three months old."

Minh was sent to prison for two years. I don’t know why he was prosecuted and she wasn’t. But after the prison term, he went back to his lifelong love.

They have since had another child and their children have grown up, married and had their own children, all of whom are normal.

The ignorant people who think children born to consanguineous lovers will be disabled need to read that.

There should have been no prosecution. They belong together. How could anyone be against their love?
— — —

An Ally at Oxford for Consanguinamory

David Leon calls on brother and sisters (and everyone else) to unite in changing unjust laws.

It is currently illegal in the United Kingdom for consenting adults who are close family members to have sex. This is absurd; we should legalise incest.

Agreed! Have enhancements for rape, sexual assault, and molestation by a guardian. But consensual sex between adults should not be a criminal matter.

By far the greyest issue here is that of procreation. If two adults choose to have sex, that’s their own affair, but do they have the right to risk the health of their children? That’s a hefty gamble to take with someone else’s life. As such, there is some justification to the idea that a closely-related couple should be legally prohibited, not from having sex, but from having children.

Please see Discredited Argument #18.

What is simply unjustifiable is that it is not illegal for people with serious heritable diseases to procreate, which is exactly the same thing. Yet how many of you would be comfortable making it illegal for an epileptic or haemophiliac to have children? That strays dangerously close to eugenics, but if that’s your position, fine. However, you can’t have it both ways: either legalise incestuous procreation, or criminalise procreation for those with hereditary diseases.

But in cases without procreation, the issue could not possibly be more clear-cut: we have no right to put consenting adults in jail for humping.

Or making love, for that matter.

The sole, single, solitary argument against this is almost painfully bad: “Yuck.” The thought of family members doing it disturbs me. Make it illegal.

That’s Discredited Argument #1.

The refutation of this argument is reassuringly simple: “Screw you.” (And I mean this very precisely.) What do you or your feelings have to do with it? The Law is not there to prevent you being disgusted. The State is not there to give you a warm, fuzzy sensation inside.

He goes on to make a moral case for legalizing consanguinamory, and I agree. If adults are happy together, it is immoral to try to force them apart. Consanguinamory can be the right thing to do, depending on the people involved.

Thank you, David Leon!
— — —

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Another Positive Article on Polyamory

The Golden Gate Express, which serves the San Francisco State University community, had a positive article on polyamory.

One misconception is that polygamy is the same as polyamory.

“It generally is defined as consensual, mutual, intimate sexual relations among multiple adults,” said Associate Professor of sociology at SF State Christopher Carrington.

Irving feels that polyamory is the opposite of cheating because her relationship with Russo is open and honest. If she feels attracted to someone or feels jealous, she will tell Russo.

I consider polygamy to be polyamory expressed in marriage. Of course, there are many forms of polygamy, such as polygyny and polyandry.

In the case that they decide to have children, Irving and Russo will raise the kids with their other partners.

“With something like a relationship like ours, if she had another partner and I had another partner, that just adds to the people that can build the family and that can actually effectively raise a child,” Russo said.

Even then, Irving and Russo are determined to stay who they are.

“When they ask me, well why isn’t one partner enough? Well, is one friend enough? Is having one child in your life enough? Is having one pet enough? I don’t see why a sexual relationship with someone has to be exclusive when no other one is,” Irving said.
It‘s nice to see polyamory getting more and more attention. More people need to know that it is an option.
— — —

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Polyamory Can Mean More People in Your Corner

Rachel Rabbit White published an interview with Allena Gabosch, founder of Seattle’s Center for Sex Positivity, about polyamory and dealing with breast cancer.

What did cancer teach you about your partners?

I learned a lot about love and commitment and how committed these people truly are to me. One of the ideas people have about polyamory is “well you guys don’t know how to commit, that is why you are poly” I always knew that wasn’t true but here I was really seeing it, my partners were so committed to me, 100 percent.

Go read the whole thing; it is another example of why it is ignorant to dismiss the real love, caring, and commitment that can be found in polyamorous relationships. Quite often, polyamory isn't primarily about having more people in your bed. It is about having more people in your corner, and being in their corners as well.
— — —

Friday, October 28, 2011

Brothers and Sisters

Jena Pincott asked, “Do Brothers Stall Their Sisters' Sex Lives?”

She asks the question because she give birth to a girl fifteen months ago and is afraid she’ll grow up too quickly.

The age at which a teenage girl starts to become sexually active depends a lot on her social environment -- peers, culture and so on. It especially depends on the family environment, according to a recent study by Australian behavioral ecologists Fritha Milne and Debra Judge. But here's the thing: family environment is not necessarily influential for the expected reasons, such as curfews and chastity pledges and other parentally-imposed restrictions.

The hidden influence is the younger sibling.

Milne and Judge recruited nearly 200 women and 76 men, all living in or around the city of Perth, Australia, and asked them questions about their family lives and sexual development. The results were that girls with younger brothers only (no sisters) lost their virginity an average of more than a year later (at age 18.3) than girls with younger sisters only. Girls with both younger brothers and sisters lost it nearly two years later on average (age 19.3) than girls with no younger siblings. Younger sisters alone had no impact.

The chastity effect only applied to girls with younger brothers. Having a big brother (or sister) didn't make a girl any less likely to hold onto her virginity.

Of course, I had to chuckle when I read the headline, given that I know of more than one woman whose first (and sometimes only, so far) sex partner has been her brother.

Anyone have any toughts or stories to tell?
— — —

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Solving Problems Through the Freedom to Marry

Charing Ball is an ally for the polygamous freedom to marry, and she explains one reason why. Prompted by the show “Big Love”…

Some friends, mostly women, and I have been having this on-going discussion about polygamy and whether or not we could see ourselves available to two or more spouses.

It is good that the show got more people talking.

Of course that is an extreme example but the idea of two, three or four consenting adults coming together in perfect matrimony is not so foreign. Despite the natural impulse to curl your lips up in disgust, I have been stunned by the number of female friends, who have said that they are okay with the concept of sharing their husbands.

It is only “natural” for some people to have an impulse towards disgust.

We have all heard the statistics: 42 percent of American black women have never been married, compared to 21% of white American women. Between 1970 and 2001, the black marriage rate dropped by 34%, compared to 17% in the general population. African-American women are the least likely group to get married in the United States. And if we do wed a black man, those couples have the highest divorce rate in the United States. Not to mention the higher incarceration rates for black males, which also play a role in the decrease in the availability of marriageable Black men.

So with those statistics threatening the future of the institution of marriage, could marrying in the plural be the answer to not only saving the black marriage but also stabilizing black families?

Full marriage equality will be good for many people of many backgrounds, without a real downside. There will be more people who won’t have to hide, more people protected from discrimination, more stability, more weddings. People will be happier. Fewer people will be treated as second class citizens.

I was surprised to discover that many of these women were very well-rounded, educated and logical in their practice of polygamy. Some were stay at home mothers but the vast majority of these women had careers and lives of their own, outside of their unions. They didn’t view their sister wives as competitors but rather helpmates in their family. And more importantly, they took no crap from their husband.

While it is logical to believe that men are the ultimate beneficiaries of polygamy, the reality is that any man, who takes up more than one spouse has to be financially and emotionally stable enough to carry the load of responsibility.

An adult, regardless of gender, should be free to marry any one person or persons of any genders, as long as they are consenting adults.
— — —

Positive Review of Darger Family's Book

Here’s a review of Love Times Three, the book from Joe, Alina, Valerie, and Vicki Darger.

My expectations were pretty high and I’m happy to report that this book met them. I found it to be well written, thoughtful, and compelling. That’s not to say that I agree with everything the Dargers wrote, but I do respect it and have more of an understanding of why they chose plural marriage.

The more people can see into a family like the Dargers, the better it is for bringing about full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

The book is told from the points of view of all four adults, plus some of their older children, and it seems that they tried to give an accurate portrayal of their life – both good and bad.

Sounds interesting. Some people flourish in polygynous marriages, some in polyandrous marriages, some in monogamous marriages, and some in other relationships. Let adults decide for themselves.
— — —

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Congratulations to the Brown Family of "Sister Wives"

America's most visible polygamous family has welcomed another baby, Solomon Brown. As reported at E! Online, Kody's fourth wife, Robyn, has given birth...

A rep for TLC confirmed to E! News that, "the baby has arrived," and Aspyn Brown, Kody's daughter with wife No. 3 Christine, also tweeted, "Solomon is born! Finally."

According to
People, the late-coming babe was a home birth, and came this morning at the family's Las Vegas pad at 2:02 a.m. He tipped the scales at 9 pounds, 10.5 ounces, and was 22 inches long.

The baby is the first child for Robyn and Kody; Robyn also has three kids from a previous marriage.

Congratulations to all of the Brown family. Why shouldn't Kody and Robyn  be free to legally marry? May Solomon grow up in a country that has full marriage equality, so that an adult is free to marry any consenting adults.

(Picture: Kyle Christy/TLC)
— — —

Married in Every Way Except in Law

George Jonas reminisces about his family

My favourite second cousin, for instance - I called her "Aunt" Blanca - had a life-long relationship with her brother. It was insular enough for people to assume it was incestuous. Not that anybody cared.

Even if it wasn’t explicitly talked about much in the past, there were families where everyone, including the children, accepted their relatives who did not enter into legally recognized, heterosexual marriages, but rather were in same-sex or consanguinamorous relationships.

Back then household arrangements such as a sister living with her brother were regarded as strictly the participants' own business, at least in urban and urbane Europe. In large families it was not uncommon for one girl to stay unmarried to keep house for her widowed father or bachelor brother.

In patriarchal societies of the not so distant past, especially when women weren’t allowed to own property and didn’t have much access to most professions, it was expected that women would live in their father’s, brother’s, or uncle’s home until they married. She could suffer loss of reputation if she was alone with some unrelated male. But… there was no such loss of reputation to suffer being alone with a male relative (or, for that matter, any female). Not all of the women went on to marry, sometimes because it wasn’t legal to marry the person or persons they loved.

Most such relationships weren't incestuous, and even those that were, tended to be platonic.

I don’t buy that. I think most lifelong situations like that, at least the ones in which the women weren’t lesbians, were fully consanguinamorous. Most people have a libido (there are a few who don’t). Most people with a libido are not going to go without sex when there is someone they love and trust, available and under the same roof.

Although we gossiped about Aunt Blanca and Uncle Robert, whatever suited them, suited us. We didn't exactly wish an affair on them, but consanguineous liaisons had a certain snob-appeal. "Like Spanish royalty," was the way somebody put it.

A lot of people who ridicule consanguinamory cite the stereotype of poor, isolated hillbillies, rather than Spanish or Egyptian or Hawaiian royalty. But the rich, the educated, the urban, and the royal have been consanguinamorous, as have people from every walk of life.

Uncle Robert passed away in his fifties. Aunt Blanca draped white sheets over the furniture in his study, and cherished his memory for another 30 years. She was quite old when I saw her last, sitting in their sprawling, rundown apartment like a priestess in a shrine.

Sounds like she never stopped mourning the loss of her partner.

People had warned me she wasn't all there, but throughout my visit she seemed all there and then some. When I rose to leave, she waved me back to my chair.

"You want to know if Robert and I were lovers, don't you?" she said, out of the blue.

This sort of thing shouldn’t have to be a secret anymore. We are a more open, honest generation when it comes to sexuality, and people should no longer have to keep quiet, hide, or outright lie about the identity, orientation, or love.
— — —

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Allies, Bigots, and Lovers Write to Dear Abby on Polyamory

The “Dear Abby” column has printed some responses received to a previous letter from a person in a polyamorous triad about being out to family. Please note that polyamory is a form, not the only form, of nonmonogamy, and that polyamorous relationships can be either open or closed.

Kathy in Berkeley wrote…

As a counselor, nurse and consulting hypnotist in private practice, I counsel people every day in developing healthy, happy, open relationships.

Thanks, Kathy!

Polyamory and other forms of non-monogamous relationships are becoming more widely practiced and accepted, as many individuals and couples find the limits of traditional marriage do not meet their needs.

She gives advice about coming out…

I advise couples to "test the waters" first with the most open-minded family member by bringing up the subject of a "friend" who is in an open relationship. If the relative reacts in a neutral or positive way, it may be safe to disclose the truth. Ask this person how the rest of the family might respond to the news. Couples should carefully assess whether their relationship is strong enough to withstand potential rejection.

There is a price to pay for being open, and one for staying secretive. The latter requires lying to family members and excluding one partner from family events, causing pain for everyone.

And here’s why full marriage equality is going to happen…

Families do become more accepting over time if they see that the couple's marriage is not threatened by the polyamory and that everyone seems happy.

Jean in Providence wrote…

My husband and I have been non-monogamously married for many years. My lover joined the household four years ago. Some members of my family welcome all three of us, some don't. One, who doesn't otherwise identify as conservative, has cut me off.

It is that person’s loss. Could be jealousy.

I'm sad that my happy family life offends them, but my household is my primary family unit, and I don't lie or cover it up.

Good for Jean.

Different family styles work for different people. Why is this hard to grasp?

Because some people think they want everyone to be just like them. If life was really like that, they’d be even more miserable, though. They just haven’t realized that. But they think it will affirm their beliefs if nobody is different from them.

Someone else wrote…

Where will she be if she becomes pregnant?

My guess? Either visiting with an OB/GYN, Midwife, Doula, or Nurse Practitioner. Possibly kneeling over a waste basket with morning sickness.

A baby would complicate a triad situation.

A baby would complicate a single person situation.

A baby would complicate a couple situation.

There can be only one biological dad.

Well, yes, when it is a natural conception. I wonder what this person things of adoptions and sperm donations?

Who will play Daddy, and who the uncle?

Why can’t both be Daddy? There are plenty of same-sex couples and various polyamorous families where this is the case, not to mention heterosexual, “monogamous” stepfamilies.

Will each of them really be OK with this then?

That is possible, but that is up to them, isn’t it?

How confused might the child be?

The child would likely only be confused by why some stranger would be upset that he or she has a mother and two daddies, all of whom love each other and love him or her.

As a mom, I feel for the parents of all involved.

I wonder what kind of relationships her children have. Is she one of those parents who has a grown child who is having casual sex with various people, and that is okay as long as it isn’t openly discussed, but she would be upset if he came to her and told her that he is in a committed relationship with two other people? I'm not knocking casual sex. But I see so much inconsistency in the condemnation of choices made by consenting adults. Just about any parent of an unmarried adult out there who looks down on polyfidelity because it isn't monogamy should ask themselves why that is bad in comparison to casual sex with different people or going from partner to partner every few months, as their adult child could very well be doing, if statistics are any indication.

Polyamory in the News picked up on this column, too.
— — —

Here’s One Good Thing Coming to an End

Polly has had one of my top must-read blogs included in my blogroll over there in the column on the right. However, she’s pulling the plug on it.

I was a bit upset when I realized the title of her latest posting appeared to indicate the end had come, and when I clicked through and my fear was confirmed. However, after reading her explanation, I feel a lot better. Please note that she will soon be taking the old entries offline.

There are a few reasons for this. For one, this blog is intensely personal, and there are things I am no longer willing to share with people I do not know personally (and some things I am no longer willing to share with anybody, period). I have already been found by people who do know me "in real life" - and that has sometimes resulted in some interesting conversations.

Certainly understandable. Being out, or “partially out,” can be difficult, unfortunately, given the lingering prejudice and discrimination against polyamorous people.

And I do not want people to believe that my life is so hellish that I only have negative things to say. I want people to know that life as a poly mom is wonderful. Really, really wonderful. However, I may not have as much blog fodder on the wonderful parts, again, because those things are often very private... sometimes more private than the not so wonderful parts.

One of the reasons I enjoyed the blog was that it did something very important. It showed the world that polyamorous people are normal people, and sometimes great spouses, parents, neighbors and coworkers, the kind of people you may already know and not realize it.

I just hope to concentrate less on my "virtual life," and more on my real life. Ultimately, this is the most healthy path for me, and the one that I hope will benefit my family most, and the poly world most.

Ironically, the very reasons I liked the blog… that she’s a good mother and wife… are the reasons for her decision to discontinue and remove the blog. Also, she has good news and plans, including writing a book. So I feel much better now.

Here’s a quote to print out and carry around with you…

The last thing I want to say, as cliche and canned as it may sound: true love really does conquer all. And yes, it is worth it. Hold your loved ones close, have the faith and strength to build your family as you want it to be, and all will be well in the end.

Multiple thanks and lots of love to Polly!
— — —

They Married For Love

Justin Cascio writes about the journey he and Kevin Collins made to marrying for love. Part of the journey to their same-sex marriage included owning their transgenderism, as both were considered female when they were born.

I was aware of those not born to womanhood claiming it for themselves, but it still hadn’t occurred to me that I could do the same in my own life: that the man I saw in the mirror could be made visible to others. I learned it was possible to become a transsexual man when I finally saw others change their female-looking and sounding bodies and voices and names to match their male souls and minds. By the time Kevin and I met through a mutual girlfriend–we were all polyamorous queers–I was several years beyond the awkward phase. No one who met me could tell that I hadn’t been born male.

Kevin wasn’t yet Kevin, but he was nearly on his way. When he decided to transition, he began to act on his emancipation from the gender roles that had confined him. Realizing that he was a man meant that he felt entitled to masculinize his body, as I had, and take a new, male name. This was just part of what his freedom afforded him. It also enabled him to act on his other desires, the ones he had suppressed in order to be a “good” butch lesbian. As my own feminine appearance had belied my masculine identity, Kevin’s looks were interpreted as evidence of another, preconceived set of behaviors and desires: he was typecast as the butch. Despite what he looked like, he loved men, and he was attracted to me. The attraction was mutual, and we fell in love.

Justin recognizes that he and Kevin finding each other was special.

I know this isn’t unique to transgender, gay/lesbian/bisexual, polyamorous, or kinky people, but Kevin and I felt lucky to have found one another. It’s difficult to find someone compatible when your gender and body don’t closely match, when your sexual orientation is in the minority, and your attitudes about sexual monogamy are even less well understood by most people.

Heading towards the end of his essay, he writes…

We are sure to see social and legal changes at an increasing rate, as our private lives accommodate new ranges of possibilities, and even more rights are clamored for and eventually won. Someday we’ll win the rights to create our own marriage contracts, decide for ourselves their conditions and constraints, and even the number of participants in a marriage, or how many marriage contracts one person may enter at any given time.

Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. Nobody else should be checking to make sure what genetalia the members of the wedding party have.
— — —

Monday, October 24, 2011

Artificial Limbs in Official Family Trees

When someone brings up the very good question of “what’s wrong with consensual incest?” or “why is consensual incest illegal?”, there are usually several people who respond confidently with Discredited Argument #18.

The idea that consanguineous parents will produce “deformed” children is an ignorant one, as I explained.

But there is something else that should be pointed out to these people with their knee-jerk reactions, often to the happy relationships of others: the very person expressing their certainty that the descendants of consanguineous parents will be severely mentally and physically handicapped have ancestors, probably not too far back, who were consanguineous.

Marriages between first cousins have been common, and are usually documented in genealogies. But even closer than that, it has not been rare for children to have biological parents who were full or half siblings, father-daughter, uncle-niece, etc. It is less likely for it to have been recorded in treasured family-kept genealogies, but it has happened throughout history, as DNA tests are now showing.

But in years past, there were no DNA tests. Add to that the fact that in many places paternity was, legally, automatically assigned to a woman’s husband. (That practice continues in many places today). Today, it is known through DNA testing that no small percentage of men believed to be the father of a child are not the biological father of that child. Some say as low as five percent, some say as high as twenty percent, which is one in five.

There was also a lack of contraception in years past. Rapes by, and secret affairs with, close family members did produce children. Some were given up for adoption, or taken in by orphanages; some were kept in the family. The same was often true of unmarried family members who were in love, or were simply scratching an itch.

There are also certainly wives who have felt the need to birth an heir, or a child who would, in a few years, be put to work as much needed help on the family farm or in the family businesses. It wasn’t happening with her husband, and so she found someone she knew, someone who would produce a child likely to look like her offspring rather than looking obviously different from her family, and could be trusted to be discreet; a close male relative.

If you go back far enough in anyone’s ancestry, you’re likely to find consanguinity, whether the family-kept genealogy reflects it or not.

So when someone judges the happy relationships of others by insisting that consanguinamory is wrong and should be illegal because they know it produces mentally dysfunctional people, they may actually be explaining why they have such a tough time grasping the idea that consenting adults should be free to share their love. All kidding aside, there are intelligent, healthy people whose parents were close relatives, and this ignorant attack by closed-minded people is personally insulting to them.
— — —

Deep in Their Hearts in Texas

Congratulations to Clara Collins and Trent Holmes for coming out. From the Zimbabwe Mail comes this apparent case of Genetic Sexual Attraction (I have retained apparent typing errors in the article as I found it)…

This is a real life story about a 49 year old Texas woman Clara Collins who gave up her son Trent Holmes for adoption and 24 years later the boy turned up at her door-step looking for her real mum in November 2008, it was "love at the first sight" and the pair have been living together as partners.

Lara Collins insists the moment she said "I do" to her husband is the proudest of her life-despite the fact she gave birth to him.

Incredibly, she says there is nothing sick about her relationship with son Trent Holmes, 27, because she gave him up for adoption as a baby and never raised him.

She’s right that there’s nothing sick about it, but I would say that even if there had been an existing social mother-son relationship. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Brazenly, the 49 year old who was reunited with ehr son three years ago and immediately fancied him - even admits their sex life is the "best ever" and says she feels no shame, even though their "marriage" is deemed illegal because of the incest laws.

The laws are wrong. There is no legitimate reason to criminalize this, or deny them the right to marry. As far as the sex, it is typical for people in consanguinamorous relationships to experience more intense lovemaking than with any other relationship they’ve have.

Clara says: "I know people will be disgusted, but I have a wonderful fulfilling sexual relationship with Trent. I was shocked by my feelings to start with, but I know this can happen between parents and children when they've grown up apart. I've never been happier - and the sex is mind-blowing!"

Good for them.

For years Clara wrote letter to her son, but never heard a word from him or his adoptive family. She tried to move on, but never settled in a stable relationship or had more kids.

Then, three years ago, in November 2008, Trent, then 24, appaered at her door.

"I saw a tall, dark-haired man standing there. My heart skipped a beat and I knew he was my son. He had my smile and mum's eyes," Clara says. "He confirmed who he was and I felt an explosion of joy and hugged him."

But, incredibly, she faced unexpected emotions. she was hugely attracted to him. She explains: "I couldn't take my eyes off him - he was gorgeous. One moment I felt he was my son, the next I fanced him. It horrified me."

Do people in Texas really use “fancied,” and “mum,” or is that quote a paraphrase by the writer? Maybe I just don’t know my ass from my arse or bum. I shouldn't get my knickers in a wad about it. Anyway, the feelings, which sound like GSA, are not uncommon with reunions like this one.

— — —

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Parlez-Vous Polyamory?

Amy Thompson tells of how being polyamorous helped her to learn French.

I had a man for every day of the week when I was in France. While abroad, my only goal was to speak French. Dating someone turned out to be the best way to learn the language because I was always talking to that person. I had that dynamic multiplied by six, plus the long-distance boy back home.

She explains why monogamy isn't for her...

I’m in love with everyone I meet. For me to have to pick just one [type] is like asking me to choose between cheese and chocolate. I love different things about both. Does my love for cheese affect my love for chocolate? No. So I won’t choose.

Here's the twist, though...

A lot of my friends told me what I was doing was immoral. The word “whore” was used to describe me. I didn’t have sex with any of those guys, not that it would matter. They [my friends] abandoned me for a lifestyle that made sense to me.

Those weren't friends.

It is important to remember that being polyamorous does not necessarily mean "having sex with multiple people right now." A polyamorous person could be not seeing anyone at any given moment, or dating several people, and even have romance and emotional bonding with multiple people while not having sex, at least not at that time.
— — —

Friday, October 21, 2011

An Example of Where Journalism Can Improve

This is all too typical. A local news source provides a list of crimes/criminal charges missing some important information. In this example, the headline was "Burglary Suspects Indicted."

After giving plenty of details about a burglary case as promised, there's a list of other charges and who was being charged, mostly drug related. In the middle of it, there's this...

Jeffrey Leon King, committed the offense of incest from a period of September 2005 to January 2006.

It doesn't say rape, assault, or child molestation, or even "aggravated incest." It says "incest." It does not give the age of the alleged victim, nor even indicate the alleged victim was under the age of consent. I would think that if this was nonconsensual, or the alleged victim was a minor, the charges would be aggravated incest and perhaps statutory rape or child molestation.

If this was a rape or molestation, there should be a little more focus on such a horrible crime that is certainly worse than burglary.

If this was a matter of consensual sex between adults, then it shouldn't be a crime at all.

Please, journalists, make a difference.
— — —

Thursday, October 20, 2011

A Lifelong Couple Denied the Right to Marry

A young man using the name Maki Sola agreed to be interviewed about his consanguinamorous relationship with his sister.

Time and time again, we can see that such relationships can be loving and healthy.

Describe your background.

MS: I'm still a teenager. I've lived in [a southern US state] as far back as I can remember. I do well in school, am largely involved in my Church, and I've always placed my family and friends first.

Tell me about your sister.

MS: She’s my twin. Even though that makes us fraternal, we still look alike, except she has a more feminine figure.

What kind of relationship did you have with her before this dimension of love started?

MS: Before I found out I was in love with her, she was my best friend. My parents seemed to not care whatsoever about how close we were, as they never seemed to see anything wrong with us never separating unless it was absolutely necessary, or the hand-holding, or even the sleeping in the same bed. In fact, they rarely paid us any attention at all. That's probably why they didn't know that she would kiss my lips every night before bed. I didn't know there was anything wrong with that, but it never came up either, so they never found out. I guess that even though our relationship is more true and more developed, it was easier when all I cared about was being at her side. It was a childhood I wouldn't trade for anything.

We grew up together and we are currently living together with my older brother, older sister, mother, and father.

When did you first notice you had feelings for your twin? Were they romantic, sexual, curious, an intense attraction; what?

MS: I couldn't say when I first fell in love with her, but I first realized I was in love with her when I found out exactly what making out meant (this was after we started doing that every other night). I didn't know exactly what to make of it, but that night she started to make out with me and I didn't stop her. I didn't feel bad or the slightest bit of remorse. In fact, this was the first time she ever turned me on. I suddenly looked at her in an entirely new light. It was like a flash-flood in my mind. I started to realize how much I loved every bit of her. I wasn't surprised by these feelings, but I was surprised by their extent; how much I loved her. I guess it was some combination of all the feelings you listed, primarily romantic, curious least-so.

Are you monogamous, in a closed relationship with each other?

MS: We are monogamous, but she recently asked me to start trying to find a "girlfriend" as a cover-up. I was reluctant and tried to insist that I wanted only her, but she made the point that if we were caught we could never be together. She was right, and I got one, but she broke up with me shortly afterwards for refusing to kiss her. It helped for a while though, I think.

Does anyone know the full, true nature of your relationship and how did they find out? How have they reacted?

MS: My older brother found out about us, actually. I think the way he found out... I think it was the jackets. He noticed it when my sis started finding more things for us to do together, but when she got us matching yin-yang jackets with reverse color scheme and we started wearing them all the time, he really started to think we were getting too close. I guess he was spying on us and caught us one night having sex. At first he didn't know what to do. He didn't speak to us for a couple days, and he suggested we "get help" when he finally did. We argued for a while, then he took another day to think. He was a good big bro in the end and said we should do 'whatever you believe is right in your heart of hearts'. (Obviously, we believe this is right) It was actually his suggestion for one of us to get a cover-up. I think the reason my sister asked me to be the one was because boys always make her nervous and I'm ok with girls. I think he's ultimately interested in our happiness, but as far as our relationship goes, I'm not sure exactly what he thinks.

The only other person who knows is my best friend (he caught us making out at the mall). He hasn't actually talked to us about it, though. He just said "I knew it!" and laughs hysterically whenever I try to talk to him about it. He's a total pervert so I don't think he cares much how the sex is happening or who it's with. He told me that before he found out, so I don't think he's much of a liability.

How did you start making love with each other?

— — —

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Some Reaction to the Finlayson Sentencing

The Student Room (in the UK) discussion board had a thread reacting to the criminal sentencing of the Finlaysons, who were prosecuted for having consensual sex.

joancollins, the thread starter, was typically prejudiced in her response…

twisted freaks...

But there were some allies, too, no matter how reluctant.


Don't see what they did wrong really. They both consented and are adults. Twisted freaks? To me yeah. Disgusting act? To me yeah. Deserves jail or any sort of punishment? No.


I find it difficult to describe how little I care.

As long as they don't procreate, it's all good.

What random people get up to is none of my business, nor yours.

Procreation isn’t necessarily a problem, either.


Who cares?

The state should have no say in what two consenting adults agree to do - 50 years ago it'd be headlines about gay people having sex and everyone saying it was disgusting etc......

Not saying I personally agree with what they did but really the press have no right at all to comment on it and ruin their lives like that, nor should the state have any right to prosecute them....


The only crime here is ruining the lives of 2 people who didn't harm anyone just because of some silly petty law. Just because it is sick, doesn't make it wrong, and they shouldn't be punished for their actions.

Ice Constricter…

Sick individuals? yes. But forgetting they were in public, is it any of our business or against the law? NO!!!


As disgusting and bizarre it may seem, at the end of the day they both consented so the only thing they broke was a time-honoured tradition.

Actually, consanguinamory is a tradition itself.


you know what it's their life and their business, the press have no right to demonise them and hound them to the extent they have to go round with a blanket over their head! they aren't celebs they didn't sign up for being in news papers and it's no one elses business!

the papers shouldn't be able to post their names or pictures, i'm sorry but that is wrong. their lives are ruined now, they will be ostracised by everyone who knows them and every potential employer who googles them will find this!

they were stupid doing it in a railway station... but there is no need for this. i think what they did is disgusting but at the end of the day, who am i to judge? it was their decision and i don't see a problem with it, unless it was unprotected sex... even then it's not bad enough to warrant this!

Well, at least there were some allies, no matter how reluctant. Some people have such ease in denigrating the consensual sex that others have.

Again, this is a criminal case that never should have been prosecuted. Consensual sex should not be a crime.
— — —

Texas Anti-marriage Law Challenged

The Browns are challenging the Utah law against the polygamous freedom of association, but there’s also a challenge to Texas’ bigamy law.

Unlike other Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints men charged in Texas, 70-year-old Wendell Nielsen is not accused of marrying underage girls. Instead, the three felony bigamy charges against him are focused on women ages 66, 56 and 43.

In newly filed court documents in Schleicher County, Nielsen’s attorneys argue that the law unfairly targets groups with a religious belief in plural marriage. They quote a landmark decision that struck down the state’s sodomy law,
Lawrence v. Texas.

"The bigamy statute appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to ‘use the power of the state to enforce [majority views regarding morality] on the whole society through the operation of criminal law’ and as such cannot survive even minimal scrutiny," according to a motion to quash Nielsen’s indictment filed this week.

The more people think it through, the more they realize how ridiculous it is to try to stop consenting adults from having relationships. And when they think it through more, they also realize it is unfair to deny the freedom to marry.

In a separate argument, Nielsen’s attorneys claimed the bigamy law is unfairly enforced and unconstitutional because it applies only to certain groups.

The law, for example, would not apply to three women living together who consider themselves married, or three men in the same situation, attorneys wrote, because marriage in Texas can only be between a man and a woman, and the bigamy statute requires that the accused is legally married to one person.

Let’s make it simple by recognizing that an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. State lawmakers could save everyone so much trouble and free up the courts by supporting these basic human rights instead of trying to punish people on an arbitrary basis over the person or persons they love. Yes, some bigots will cry. They'll get over it, just like they got over desegregation.
— — —

Sex is Worse Than Homicide?

When people talk about sex as though it is a bad thing, I wonder if they are doing it wrong. This blog posting from Baker Associates reveals the absurdity of State of Tennessee laws criminalizing some consensual sex, making felons out of lovers.

Incest is defined in T.C.A. 39-15-302 as follows:

(a) A person commits incest who engages in sexual penetration as defined in § 39-13-501, with a person, knowing the person to be, without regard to legitimacy:

(1) The person's natural parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, stepparent, stepchild, adoptive parent, adoptive child; or

(2) The person's brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption.

Notice age is not specified, so this law applies to consenting adults. Even people who insist (wrongly, of course) consanguinamory should be illegal should see how absurd this law is. Consanguinamory involves eroticism between close biological relatives. But under this law, you could have a young woman, Jennifer, who was raised by her divorced mother, goes off to college, and reconnects with her estranged biological father, who had remarried and adopted his wife’s children. One of those children is a young man, John, who is close in age to Jennifer. Jennifer and John are not biologically related. They were not raised together. They didn’t even meet until they are adults. But it would be illegal for them to have sex! It is not unlikely that some bullying sheriff, prosecutor, social worker, school principal, employer, estate lawyer, or someone else would us that law to make life miserable for some lovers.

The good news for some individuals is that this statute does not apply to cousins. However, the most notable thing about it may be that it is a class C felony punishable by fifteen years in prison, which makes incest a more serious felony than recklessly killing another individual. Thus, the State of Tennessee has decided that it would be far better for an individual to recklessly kill their aunt or uncle rather than engage in sexual activity with them.

Emphasis mine.

This statute is, then, reminiscent of federal child pornography laws which punish an offender more harshly for downloading an image of a naked twelve year-old than it does if the individual actually uses the internet to contact the twelve year-old and actually sleep with them.

Unfortunately, many such inconsistencies and illogical consequences are present in the law today. Incest should not be a crime in an of itself. Prosecute those who force themselves on others, and have enhanced charges for guardians who prey on minors. But stop this insanity of going after consenting adults for loving each other or having recreational sex, or minors close in age who experiment with each other.

There are many other examples of ridiculous laws at all levels of government that try to police someone’s love life, sexuality, or gender identity. This why we need something like the Marriage Equality Amendment.
— — —

Unintended Consequences in Discouraging Polygamy

Those involved in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Swaziland have noticed that discouraging traditional polygamy has discouraged polyfidelity, but not having multiple concurrent partners (MCPs). The bottom line is that more people are having sex outside of marriage.

Futhi Dennis-Langa, from the National Emergency Response Council on HIV and AIDS (NERCHA), shared this information at a two-day Panos-hosted HIV/AIDS prevention workshop held at the Orion Hotel in Piggs Peak on October 15, 2011.

"What we find is that people have moved away from the structure of practicing polygamy in a marriage structure. Today the principle and practices are the same without the commitment of marriage.

"The increasing trend of transactional relationships in Swaziland is a major contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDS.

This is where I give my standards reminder that neither polygamy or any other form of nonmonogamy causes HIV. Unprotected sex with an infected person may spread HIV. So, someone who is monogamous with an infected person can contract HIV, while someone who has 100 sex partners who aren’t infected with HIV will not contract HIV.

Young men often have MCPs as a result of peer pressure, or purely for recreational purposes; in older men the reason is usually to counteract boredom, to relieve stress or to rejuvenate their sex lives.

People often have sex because is feels good, or to bond, or express affection. Rather than discouraging polygamy, how about letting people have the marriages they want?
— — —

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Antiequality Discrimination Hurts

The Browns, the polygynous family documented in the TLC show “Sister Wives," told a federal judge about the harms they have suffered as a result of discrimination.

Kody Brown and his wives wrote in new court papers that they've lost jobs, were forced to move to Nevada and suffered harm to their reputations after police launched an investigation last year after the fall 2010 launch of their TLC show.

In July, Brown and wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robin, filed a lawsuit challenging Utah's bigamy law in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court. They contended that the law is unconstitutional and unfairly applied to polygamists.

"Because the Browns are open about their polygamist lifestyle, the criminal bigamy statute has the effect of publicly labeling them as presumptive felons," the Brown's Washington, D.C.-based attorney, Jonathan Turley, wrote in court papers filed Monday. "The statute further brands them as immoral and societal outsiders."

Not only is their right to marry denied, but their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association have been attacked. They’ve suffered financially. Their children have been bullied. Laws denying marriage equality create such an environment.

Under Utah law, it is illegal for unmarried persons to cohabitate, or "purport" to be married. A person is also guilty of bigamy if they hold multiple legal marriage licenses.

The third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Both men and women can be prosecuted under the law, which also applies to unmarried, monogamous couples that live together.

Ridiculous. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. We need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.
— — —

Parsing, Semantics, Technicalities, and Prohibited Sex

Clarisse Thorn is “a feminist, sex-positive educator who has delivered sexuality workshops and lectures to a variety of audiences” and recently wrote a two-part piece on “BDSM versus Sex.” I’m not into BDSM, but there were some parts of her well-written piece that I wanted to note.

The first part of her piece is about “The Political Side of BDSM versus Sex.”

Is BDSM always sex? Is it always sexual? A lot of people see BDSM as something that “always” includes sex, or is “always sexual in some way”.


“BDSM versus sex” could be viewed as a facet of that constant and irritating question — “What is sex, anyway?” I’ve always found that the more you look at the line between “what is sex” and “what is not sex”, the more blurred the line becomes.

Further clarifying…

So we already have this weird ongoing debate, about what “qualifies” as sex. And you throw in fetishes such as BDSM, and everyone gets confused all over again. A cultural example of this confusion came up in 2009, when a bunch of professional dominatrixes got arrested in New York City … for being dominatrixes … which everyone previously believed was legal. Flutter, flutter, argue, argue, and it turns out that “prostitution” (which is illegal in New York) is defined as “sexual conduct for money”.

But what does “sexual conduct” mean? At least one previous court had set the precedent that BDSM-for-pay is not the same as “sexual conduct for money” … and yet, in 2009, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office decided that “sexual conduct” means “anything that is arousing to the participants” … and then decided that this suddenly meant they ought to go arrest dominatrixes. It’s not clear why the Manhattan DA did not, then, also begin arresting strippers. And what about random vanilla couples on a standard date-type thing, where the woman makes eyes at the man over dinner, and the man pays for the meal? Sounds like “sexual conduct for money” to me. Which could totally be prostitution, folks, so watch your backs.

She taps into the solidarity thing

It’s just one more example of how sexual stigma for “different kinds of sex” is constantly intertwined. No type of consensual sexuality can express itself freely until people agree that “among consenting adults, there is no ‘should’.” The Romans, those ancient imperialists, used to say: “Divide and conquer.” When consensual sexualities are scared of each other, we will continue to be conquered. As long as “vanilla” people are afraid of “BDSM” … as long as “BDSMers” are afraid of being seen as “sexual” … as long as the social penalties for being a “slut” or a “whore” are incredibly steep … as long as sex workers are stigmatized and criminalized … everyone will be bound by these oppressive standards.

In the second part of the piece, “The Embodied Side of BDSM versus Sex,” she writes…

Some polyamorous BDSMers have very different rules about having sex with outsiders, as opposed to doing BDSM with outsiders. For example, during the time when I was considering a transition to polyamory, I myself had a couple relationships where we were sexually monogamous — yet my partners agreed that I could do BDSM with people who weren’t my partner. Those particular partners felt jealous and threatened by the idea of me having sex with another man, but they didn’t mind if I did BDSM with another man.

It is one thing for adults to come up with agreements between each other. It is entirely different for someone who isn’t involved to attempt to control the behavior of other consenting adults. There are places in the world where the laws are so homophobic it is illegal for two men to be seen holding hands. In some places in the US, it is illegal, essentially, for a man to say he has more than one wife, while having sex with strangers and impregnating multiple women is legal. Giving a sibling a hug, a massage, and kisses is legal as long as neither the massage nor the kisses involve their genitals.

There is a messy patchwork of laws that don’t make sense. What we need, whichever country we live in, is nationwide legalization for consensual behavior between consenting adults. An adult should be free to share hugs, kisses, love, sex, BDSM, dinner, dancing, money, Scrabble, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. To get there sooner rather than later, we need solidarity.
— — —

Whose Idea Was This, Anyway?

The Daily Mail had a positive article on polygyny, based on OWN’s Our America. It is about a husband and two sister-wives in Centennial Park, Arizona.

But a new documentary has revealed that it is actually the women instigating polygamous marriage in Mormon communities.

I want to be clear that the largest Mormon church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, hasn’t taught polygyny (at least for this life) for a long time now. In fact, that’s one of the reason there are so many other Mormon churches (a Mormon church being a church that cites Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as scripture). When the LDS church gave up polygyny for this life, some members... kept practicing polygyny, and were either forced out or left (or the LDS church left them, depending on how you look at it).

— — —

Monday, October 17, 2011

Another Example of Sister Wives Opening Minds

Liane Bonin Starr has some good things to say about “Sister Wives”…

A sincere bond connecting the wives is evident as well -- instead of competing with one another, they seem to value what each wife brings to the table (to say nothing of the joys of having three back-up babysitters). Surprisingly, on this show, the conflict isn't internal but comes largely from the outside world, which in this case is more than enough to keep things interesting.

Still, it can read like a backhanded compliment…

In a world of "Dance Moms" and "Jersey Shore," "Sister Wives" is a jarring anomaly -- a show with a prurient hook that retains viewers by being downright wholesome. Heck, if you can get past the whole husband-swapping angle, this is family-friendly programming.

It is family-friendly, period. Why shouldn’t the whole family be able to watch a show about a polygynous family? The show isn’t about Kody Brown having sex with multiple women. It is about Kody Brown being married to multiple women. These people love each other and care for each other. And, it will do younger people good to know that a monogamous marriage isn't the only option.

The review of the show brought some responses.

Jancis M. Andrews…

Polygamy entrenches the hateful ancient double standard, whereby men have lots of sex partners, but women have to remain faithful to only one man.

No, polygamy simply means there are more than two spouses. What Andrews has a problem with is polygyny. I have no problem with women choosing to marry a man who is, or will be, married to other women as well, but then I think women should be free to marry multiple men, multiple women, one of each, or more than one of each. Or not marry at all.

As well, only the first (legal) wife and her children are entitled to share in Kody's life insurance, health, vision and dental insurance, tax benefits and pensions. The remaining women and their children are on their own, and God help them if any one of them has a serious health problem.

Sounds like a reason to legalize polygamy, so everyone can be protected.

bkgirl responded…

Why, Jancis, you would think that the Brown's family marriage is based only on sex, is beyond my understanding. When I watch this show I see caring people who are doing their best to life their lives with their own beliefs within a world that shames them for it. There is no sexual abuse that I have seen within the home, either of the children or the wives. Each, are adult women, and have decided to live this life on their own. Nobody forced them.

Thank you! The more people see nonmonogamous relationships and same-sex relationships and interracial relationships and and consanguinamorous relationships that work, the better.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.
— — —

Not Going to Make the New York Times Bestseller List

From Malaysia

An "Obedient Wife Club" known in Malaysia for its controversial views has published a book urging men in polygamous Muslim marriages to have group sex with their wives, a report said Friday.

I think very few men would need to be told twice.

The club, formed earlier this year, has made headlines with its radical suggestions on sex and marriage in conservative, Muslim-majority Malaysia.

They include earlier calling on women to be "whores in bed" to prevent their men from straying and pursuing divorce.

Some people cheat and divorce regardless.

In a 115-page book titled "Islamic Sex, Fighting Jews to Return Islamic Sex to the World," the group calls on Muslim husbands to have sex with all their wives simultaneously, The Star daily reported.

What’s with hating Jews? And what is “Islamic” sex?

One chapter, "How Sex Becomes Worship," contains unusually explicit sexual descriptions for a Malaysian publication, such as a tutorial on breast-fondling.

AFP was unable to immediately obtain a copy of the reported book, published by Global Ikhwan, the Malaysian Islamic group that formed the wives' club.

I’m sure the AFP will obtain a copy if they haven’t already. It is important for… research.

Global Ikhwan first shot to prominence in 2009 when it formed the equally controversial "Polygamy Club".

Global Ikhwan member Maznah Taufik told AFP the book was exclusively for wives' club members and declined to comment further.

Wait, is this like a Columbia Record Club?

The Star said Jamil Khir Baharom, Malaysia's minister in charge of Islamic affairs, has promised to investigate the book's contents.

Oh, I’m sure he will.

Malaysia bans books deemed to be pornographic or insulting to Islam.

Sounds like there must be many insecure people there.

Maria Chin Abdullah, executive director of women's advocacy group Empower, called the book a "very backward, narrow way of presenting women's role".

"It's really an affront to the women's rights movement," she said. "We have come forward so far to say women are not just sex objects."

People, regardless of gender, should be respected, including in their identity, orientation, and personal choices. Gender equality is essential to full marriage equality. “Obedience” to a spouse, unless, we’re talking about a fetish or kink or a mutual thing, is probably not the best way to have a marriage. Mutual respect, love, kindness, and deference are important.
— — —

Time to Leave the Nest and Make Their Own

In discussion forums such as Yahoo Answers, Answerbag, and GirlsAskGuys, there are often questions posed about issues related to full marriage equality. In this instance, someone with the name Jenna who is in Australia wrote on Yahoo Answers

Our parents caught us: What should we do?

To start this off, I understand that some people will think I'm sick, and others that I'm faking, but I'm not either of them, so if there are going to me any cynical, insulting replies, keep them to yourselves. I have a real problem and I need help.

My brother and I were making out in my bedroom and our parents caught us. It was so embarrassing and we are lucky we weren't doing anything more. They were supposed to be out so we thought it would be okay but they came home early and ruined everything. Now my Dad won’t speak to me and my Mum keeps telling me what we are doing is wrong and we are bringing shame to the family.

It can be very hard for parents to accept the sexuality of their children, no matter how old those children are. But when you add in a knee-jerk reaction against consanguinamory, the initial reaction is often going to be bad. That is one reason I offer this page to help.

I come from a very hippy family. When we were kids, my parents would take my brother and I to a naturist camp, but they stopped taking us when we got to puberty, because they thought it would be very uncomfortable for us. They're very good, understanding people. We've really learned that sexuality is a free thing, and sex can be tremendously loving and free.

Sounds like they have the potential to come around, then.

It gets a little graphic after this, so I am putting the rest of the jump.

— — —

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Do You Support Full Marriage Equality?

If you are in favor of having any law that would prevent an adult from sharing love, sex, residence, or marriage with any consenting adults, then you are against full marriage equality.

If you think a same-sex couple should be happy with a second-class relationship designation, you are not supporting full marriage equality.

If you would deny a marriage license to a woman and man who want to marry another man, you are not supporting full marriage equality.

If you would deny a marriage license to partners who are polyamorous or to partners who agree to have an open marriage, you are not supporting full marriage equality.

If you would deny a marriage license to two sisters, you are not supporting full marriage equality.

If you support a law against any of these people even living together or having sex, you are certainly against full marriage equality and you are trying to interfere in the private lives of others.

You may support the freedom to marry for yourself or your friends. But do you support the right to marry and marriage equality for all? Equality just for some is not equality.

Full marriage equality depends on gender equality, freedom of association, the right to not marry, protections against domestic violence, equal access to divorce, and protection against bullying and discrimination. The sooner we reach full marriage equality, the better, as people will be able to have the relationships of their choosing, the relationships in which they can best function and share love and happiness. If you think marriage is dying and you don't like that, revive marriage by allowing more people to have happy marriages.

A Call to Solidarity

Answering Arguments Against Full Marriage Equality

How You Can Help

On Facebook:

Group: I Support Full Marriage Equality!

Causes: I Support Full Marriage Equality!
— — —

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Another Loving Couple Denied the Freedom to Marry

The person going by "foreverinlove" is a man who is a consanguinamorous relationship with his biological daughter, initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction. He graciously agreed to this interview about their relationship.

How were you separated from your daughter and reunited?

foreverinlove: I split up with my daughter's mother when she was very young, and then my daughter was adopted out.

I didn't see her until she was 12 when she got in contact with me. She came to live with me almost straight away. She had been abused by her adoptive father since she was 6, so I wouldn't let her return there.

We went through a long process and eventually she was allowed to stay with me.

How were things between you before you got involved sexually?

foreverinlove: We were always cuddling and holding hands; I didn't know about Genetic Sexual Attraction then.

I really did try to fight the feelings I had inside me about her, and so did she. We tried to be “normal” and we both had relationships with others that produced children.

How did the sexual side of your relationship start?

foreverinlove: We were always cuddling, one night I became aroused as she sat on my lap in her nightie. She reached down and put it inside her. Afterwards, we felt bad, especially me. How could I do this to my own daughter? But she was all smiles. From there we were like rabbits, we were very lucky not to get caught. We made love everywhere, did it outside a lot.

We did try to hold back; it seemed so wrong. We have tried and tried not to be what we are, but all efforts failed; we now just want to be together forever.

I had a tough time accepting us. I was a man's man, how could I do this, it's been hard... real hard. I wouldn't have ever understood unless it happened to me.

How are things now?

foreverinlove: Now that we both fully accept each other, we have decided to stay true to each other to the end. No more fighting it. We spent many many years fighting it. She is the only girl for me.

We share a very deep relationship. Our lovemaking is one of the most intense things that I've been through. When we make love it's just unbelievable. I've had sex with many women and nothing comes close to us. It is a natural extension of us, it feels so right, it really is making love. . I love and worship every part of her.

I think people experiencing GSA, if they accept it fully, are in for the best relationship of their life... the love we have for each other is truly amazing. It's so strong and so good.

Does anyone else know the full nature of your relationship?

foreverinlove: No one else knows about us. That's far too risky. We have our own places, We are very private and good at hiding what we are, we will never tell anyone ever, because no one would ever understand. We would be called freaks and it would be hard for our families. We have only just truly accepted it now ourselves.

What do you say to people who disapprove of your relationship?

foreverinlove: I understand how they feel. I would of been the same had this not happened to me.

Would you marry her if the law allowed it?

foreverinlove: Yes, of course if I could marry this girl I would in an instant. Our plans for the future are to be together to the end.

So there we have it... more people who are forced into the closet when they'd rather be legally married. And fighting against their love led to problems. We need full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that people can be together without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination, and so that other people around them can come to see that there's nothing wrong with love.

You can read my interviews with others here, here, here, and here.

If you'd like to be interviewed about your relationship, or having to be in the closet or the experiences you had when you came out of the closet, you can contact me via fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.
— — —

Friday, October 14, 2011

Finlaysons Not Jailed For Consensual Sex

That's the good news about the brother and sister who were prosecuted for having consensual sex. But they are still being treated unjustly.

Here's the latest on today's sentencing.

They had previously both pleaded guilty to committing incest and during sentencing at Hamilton Sheriff Court on Friday, the brother received a two-year probation order while the sister received a one-year probation order.

Richard Finlayson was also put on the sex offenders register because his sister was only 17 — a minor — at the time.

I think that's the first time I've seen news that she wasn't yet 18. But would a complete stranger aged 20 or 21 who had sex with her really be prosecuted like this?

Sentencing them, Sheriff Ray Small said: “I’m sure you both understand that most right-minded members of society will find the details of this case unacceptable and difficult to comprehend.”

Small sounds small-minded. There are siblings who are enjoying each other on a casual basis or as the love of each other's life. They don't need lectures from bigots.

But he said both defendants were “vulnerable” and spared them jail because they had no previous convictions and were not viewed as any threat to the public.

But the public has been a threat to them.

This should have never been a criminal matter. It has wasted public resources.
— — —

Same-Sex Genetic Sexual Attraction

When Genetic Sexual Attraction happens, it is usually orientation-specific. In other words, a heterosexual man meeting his biological father or brother for the first time, or the first time since puberty, is unlikely to experience GSA for him, but there is no small chance that if he was meeting his biological mother or sister for the first time, he’d experience GSA for her. A gay man could easily experience GSA for his biological father, full or half-brother, etc., but not his biological mother, sister, etc.

Another journalist is asking for help from people who've experienced GSA, this time with same-sex GSA.

I hope you don't mind me posting this.... my name is John and I'm a journalist in London, England. I'm writing a feature for Gay Times magazine about homosexuality and GSA. After watching a fascinating programme about GSI on the TV here recently, I looked online to research homosexuality and GSA and was surprised to find so little written about it.

Not enough has been written about GSA in general.

I would love the opportunity to talk to any of you about it who have experienced same-sex GSA to use as case studies for my feature.

It would of course be completely anonymous, names, locations, ages etc can all be changed so there is no chance you would be identified.

And of course the feature would be unbiased and completely non-judgemental. The purpose for the story is to educate people about something they know nothing about, not to criticise.

I can do it by phone, or via email - whatever you prefer.

I really hope you'll consider this and be rest assured there will be no way for anyone at all to identify you if that is your preference. If you are willing to help or would like to ask me any further questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Many thanks for your time,


This sounds like something that can help, although I always advise caution in dealing with the media. As he says, you can remain anonymous, which is good if you have to do that to protect yourself or your relationship.
— — —

Thursday, October 13, 2011

She's Not Going to Win Mother of the Year

A 40-year-old woman is in big trouble in Waukesha, Wisconsin for something she allegedly did with her 16-year-old daughter. Wisconsin is famous for cheese, but this involved cheesecake.

According to the criminal complaint:

The woman — who isn’t being named in order to protect the identity of the victim — took pictures of her daughter dressing, her bare breast and at least one other picture of the two performing sexually explicit acts.

Taking pictures was risky, even if they didn’t do this…

The pictures were discovered by another woman who was using the mother’s computer to download a picture from Facebook.

Even if they didn’t let someone else use the computer, there’s always the risk of hacking, provided the computer is ever connected to the network.

The woman told police they had taken sexually explicit photos together in order to know if someone were using the computer without her permission, while the victim told police they made the photos as “a joke.”

The “why” doesn't really matter to the law. She could have helped her daughter make herself look like someone who was brutally murdered as a Halloween thing (or with her daughter pretended to be a murdering maniac) and taken a picture of that, but a picture showing her bare breast and whatever it was they appeared to be doing together? Nuh-uh. Not allowed.

The woman is charged with one count of incest and one count of possession of child pornography. If convicted, she faces up to 65 years in prison.

I notice that she isn’t charged with sexual assault or anything implying force. No indication is given that the daughter was anything but a willing participant. That being said, the age of consent in Wisconsin is 18. I have to wonder what charges there would be if the 16-year-old had taken nude photos of herself, or if she had taken one with another 16-year-old. And notice that the charge isn’t about having sex with a minor, though that would make more sense to me. It is about having sex with a close relative, which shouldn’t be a crime in and of itself. But then, the law in Wisconsin treats sex with a 16-year-old as a misdemeanor, unless they are married, and the charge applies to “sexual intercourse.” Can two women, under the laws of Wisconsin, actually have sexual intercourse? And I find it interesting that a 16-year-old can apparently get married in Wisconsin but can’t consent to sex… unless it is within marriage. Also, the 16-year-old can consent to getting married, but can’t consent to being photographed nude? So, the daughter could have gotten married, but couldn’t have legally posed nude for her own spouse?

I also notice that there isn’t a charge of abuse or neglect.

Was this a matter of an otherwise good mother who did something stupid? What does the daughter have to say about all of this? We let 16-year-olds operate heavy machinery at high speeds and get married. Surely she can have an opinion that should be taken into consideration, unless she is shown to be mentally incompetent?

The focus on this blog is rights for consenting adults, and I’m not asking for the age of consent to be lowered anywhere. But I do think there should be some sense and consistency. There is no indication that this was a situation with a predator who was looking to exploit images of a child. It will be interesting to see what the sentence ends up being.
— — —

Karen Ruskin Gets Schooled on Her Monogamy-Only Attitude

“Dr. Karen” has books and does TV and radio in the New England area, talking about marriage and parenting. You know the type. Recently, she gave “expert advice” on “open relationships.” She not only touts monogamy as superior to anything else, but the only possible relationship type. To make her opinion clear up front, she wrote…

No, the answer is NO – DO NOT, I repeat in capital letters: DO NOT have any additional partner/person in your marriage.

But how does she really feel?

Threesomes, swinging, polyamory, any inclusion of any one in addition to your spouse as a sexual partner in your marriage–the answer is no, do not do it!

And why not? According to her…

Through my 18 years of providing couples counseling, with consistency couples who report they decided to have some form of open relationship rather than a monogamous relationship have ended up in an awful mental place and have destroyed their marriage.

(Emphasis mine. It is important.)

The pattern is that, time and time again, having a threesome, swinging, polyamory, or any kind of sexual interaction with someone in addition to your spouse eventually always negatively impacts the marital relationship in a horribly ugly traumatic way.

That’s interesting. I know of multiple situations in which cheating, while problematic in the short run, ended up being the wake-up call the marriage needed and the marriage ended up better as a result. That’s cheating, not an agreed-to side event or relationship. Still, I don’t advocate cheating, but my point is, the relationship not only recovered, but got better… in some cases. And I know, very, very well, polyamorous relationships that are happy, healthy, and lasting.

But she is talking about people who based their relationship, in part, on an agreement to monogamy. They have always tried to be monogamous. Most of these people have monogamy ingrained into their personality. It’s like someone who has spent twenty years playing tennis one-on-one and then expecting to automatically, immediately do well at two-on-two tennis.

For some couples, it is from that moment during the sexual three-way, swing interaction, or polyamorous experience that the couple is never the same, nor are the individuals within the couple unit. For other couples, it is that same day or a day later they are impacted and are never the same again, in a negative way. For other couples, it is days later, and for some it is weeks later. Then there are other couples who don’t fully recognize the damage this choice caused the relationship until a few months later as the negative effect builds over the days and weeks to come.

…and sometimes not until someone like her insists that the problems they have are a result of their nonmonogamy. Their choice is either to agree with her or to stop talking with her.

There are couples who so desperately want to succeed in their new venture of having an open relationship that they try to sell their choice like a product and offer to others that this lifestyle is a healthy way to remain married. It is obvious to a relationship expert such as myself that they are trying to force themselves to believe the choice they made is healthy by advertising it to others in a desperate attempt to be validated.

Couldn’t one say the same thing about someone who insists monogamy is the only way?

When you speak with these couples you typically learn that one of them was no longer fulfilled in the marriage and the marriage was headed for divorce if an agreement of extra- marital inclusion was not made.

So… wouldn’t that mean that the nonmonogamy wasn’t the problem after all?

I view this as selling one’s soul to save your family and really what you are doing is destroying the family, your children, the beauty and gift of what marriage is, and your own mental health.

Hey, if someone doesn’t want to do it or agree to it, after careful consideration, then they shouldn’t, of course.

Couples that choose to have an open marriage simply do not know how to have a successful monogamous relationship.

And Elton John just hasn’t found the right woman, right?

The fantasy is always better than the reality.

Funny, I’ve heard some people say that about monogamous marriage, too. Should people give up on them?

There's much more, as people left critical comments and Ruskin tried to defend her closed-mindedness.

— — —