Newt Gingrich and the Polygamy Question

Running for the Republican nomination in the US Presidential race, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been forced to address the issue of his multiple marriages-divorces and cheating. He recently was questioned about the polygamous freedom to marry. Honest and consensual polygamy is surely preferable on a personal and societal level than repeatedly cheating and going through acrimonious divorces, right?

Newt responded, "That's a fairly unusual question. Having gone through the annulment procedures of the Catholic church I don't meet the standards you just described."

That might make remarrying okay in the eyes of his church, but it doesn't change the fact that he has cheated and failed at monogamy.

"And I can assure you that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I oppose any effort to legalize polygamy."

On what basis does he deny the same-sex freedom to marry or the polygamous freedom to marry? He believes marriage is between "a man and a woman," (though he hasn't lived like it) but granting full marriage equality under the law doesn't have to change his personal beliefs.

Read jezebel.com's take on this encounter.

Yes, We Should Legalize Polygamy

Over at Café of the Cosmic Dance, Paul Sunstone writes that he can’t make up his mind whether he’s for against the legalization of polygamy. In favor of this freedom to marry, he cites the fact that it would be between consenting adults.

However, he goes on to write…

The best summary I've found of the reasons against legalization comes from a Canadian court case.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to reconsider a ban on plural marriage. The core issue was whether polygamy was bad for society. That is, whether anyone besides the partners to a polygamous marriage were harmed by it.

He notes the submissions of Joseph Henrich, which I addressed here, here, here, here, and here. Sunstone notes that Henrich only dealt with polygyny. Quoting from Henrich…

Year-End Recaps of Television

Year-end recaps of television are running in news and entertainment media. Some of them editorialize on the inclusion of incest and faux-incest storylines in recent shows that this blog has noted. Note that if you're not caught up on “Dexter,” "Game of Thrones" (hasn't that been long enough?), "Bored to Death," or "Boardwalk Empire," this will contain spoilers.

Polyamory in an Episode of an ABC Drama

ABC’s fiction drama “Private Practice” will return with a new episode on Thursday, January 5 at 10:02 p.m. Eastern. Clarissa reports that…

Violet and Jake work with two women and a man involved in a polyamorous triad

How will American network television handle the subject of polyamory in prime time? Will the depiction be responsible?

What’s Next For Canadian Polyamorists?

jbash notes the lack of appeal of Chief Justice Bauman’s November 23 decision denying the polygamous freedom to marry, and asks for input.

The good news: without litigation setting an agenda for us, we can set our own, taking a fresh look at what Canada’s poly majority needs. We’re free to think about the long term, and we’d like your help.

If we really are done in court for now, in the coming weeks and months we’ll look at where the CPAA should go next: what our principles should be, where our priorities should lie, what services we should provide, what strategies we should use, who our allies should be, how we’ll be funded, and how we should organize ourselves. We can reinvent the CPAA completely, if that’s what needs to be done.

A reminder of where things stand…

Section 293’s threat has been weakened; it could have been read much more broadly. The lines aren’t as sharply drawn as we’d like, but it applies only to formal, institutionalized multi-partner marriages, clearly not to informal “common law” style relationships.

Still, the CPAA believes that major parts of the finding are legally wrong, and that Section 293 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights. Charter aside, we believe it’s an unwise and harmful law, for our community and for others. Innocent people are at risk, and there are much better ways to address the abuses its supporters are concerned about.

Eliminating Section 293 entirely is still a CPAA goal, but we’ll have to lay a lot of groundwork to do that. And other issues may be as pressing, or more so, for our community.

You may not be polyamorous, and you may not be Canadian, but we need solidarity to reach full marriage equality. Canada has rightly embraced the (limited) same-sex freedom to marry. This will make it more likely that the US an other nations will move towards full marriage equality as well. Right now, there are adults in Canada denied the freedom to marry simply because they are more than two of them. Two of them might want to marry the third, or or three may want to marry. And, there are adults in Canada who want to marry who are denied because they are close biological relatives. They are consenting adults, and they shouldn’t be denied the right to marry.

2011 Was a Big Year For Polyamory, Polygamy

TIME Magazine, in reviewing 2011, had “Polygamy Tries to Go Mainstream” as #9 in their “Top 10 Marriage Stories.”

Belinda Luscombe wrote…

How far can the definition of marriage be stretched? That seemed like one of the Big Questions of 2011, as polygamy moved into the mainstream. Viewers were treated to a second season of Sister Wives, a reality show that centers around the family of Kody Brown, a Kato Kaelin lookalike with four wives and 17 children.

Polygamy is in no way stretching the definition of marriage. Polygamous marriages have been around all along.

Not only is the family living a wide-open polygamous lifestyle in Nevada, but its members are attempting to establish in federal court that they have a constitutional right to do so.

More power to them!

Meanwhile, the judicial system in Vancouver heard arguments for and against legalizing polygamy in a case designed to clarify the province's law. On one side, lawyers asked, If women choose to share a spouse, why should anybody else care? The other side's response: Because there's no polygamous community on earth that lets women choose whom or when to marry.

False!

Polyamory and the polygamous freedom to marry did make some advances this year; polyamory in the Canadian court decision and both in public opinion. But there's still a ways to go.

What we need is full marriage equality as part of a society that has gender equality under the law, domestic violence protections, protections for children, the freedom to not marry, and the freedom to (equal access to) divorce. A woman should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, including a with someone who is already married, even if that someone is a woman, even if that woman is her sister. If you don’t like it, then don’t do it. But let others have the relationships of their choosing.

How Many Stockings Were Stuffed in Your Home?

I've been meaning to call your attention to this blog entry by Macha, “Saving Marriage: Let's Be Realistic.” It has been several weeks since it was published. It was prompted by a Dan Savage video calling monogamy ridiculous. Macha is monogamous, but is an ally for ethically nonmonogamous.

I agree that monogamy is not superior to non-monogamy, whether we're talking about polyamory, swinging, serial monogamy, or just casual sex. There are many forms of loving, fulfilling, satisfying sexual and non-sexual relationships that people can engage in and be happy.

Great message. Although I enjoy polyamory, I fully support anyone who is monogamous and wants a monogamous relationship. I do think people can be happy and have lasting, monogamous relationships. I like to say that I support the the right of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, and that includes monogamy.

Full marriage equality will strengthen marriage. Trying to keep marriage in a small little box that a decreasing percentage of the population is willing to pick up will kill it.

Polyandry in the Himalayas

It's a topic that would be really interesting to bring up at your family holiday get-togethers. On her travel blog, Joy Robinson brings us “Scenes from a (Polyandrous) Marriage.”

The scenes here are from a wedding ceremony in the valley of Kinnaur, which lies along the old Hindustan-Tibet road in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh.

She goes on to explain…

The particular thrill of this encounter was the fact that the wedding was polyandrous. Polyandry is not unusual in Himalayan cultures and often, at least in my experience, involves the union of a woman with two or more brothers.

Go see for yourself. Hey guys who have brothers... how much of your life are you willing to share with yours?

What Century Is It Again?

Here's a case from Ohio in which an adult was prosecuted for having consensual sex with another adult, and the courts think that's just fine.

Lowe was charged with one count of sexual battery for engaging in sexual conduct by means of sexual intercourse with his 22-year-old stepdaughter, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5), which makes it a crime to "engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when . . . [t]he offender is the other person's natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of the other person." Lowe moved to dismiss the charge in the trial court, arguing that the facts alleged in the indictment did not constitute an offense under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5) because there was a "clear legislative intent to have the law apply to children, not adults"

That would make sense.

Lowe also argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the government had no legitimate interest in regulating sexual activity between consenting adults.

He was sentenced to 120 days of incarceration and three years of community control and was classified as a sex offender. A sex offender. Do you really think he's a threat to you?

The court thinks consensual sex is destructive to relationships.

Unlike sexual relationships between unrelated same-sex adults, the stepparent-stepchild relationship is the kind of relationship in which a person might be injured or coerced or where consent might not easily be refused, regardless of age, because of the inherent influence of the stepparent over the stepchild.

That's Discredited Argument #20.

Ohio's paramount concern is protecting the family from the destructive influence of intra-family, extra-marital sexual contact.

How is it a destructive influence? They talk as though sex is bad. Perhaps they are doing it wrong?

I'm not the only person who found this to be a bad decision by the court.

Thank goodness the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't buy Paul Lowe's excuse in his habeas petition for why he should be released from prison, where he's been cooling his heels, hanging out with the Wrong Crowd and eating s---ty food for more than six f---ing years! For having sex with someone he knew simply because he was once married to her mother!

This is why we need a Marriage Equality Amendment that will make it clear that we can't have crazy provincial laws that interfere with the rights of consenting adults to have sex or to marry.

Polyandry Works for Her

Violet at the blog Violet and Emily provides the definition of polyandry (one woman, multiple men), then explains her polyandrous nature…

I’ve been polyandrous for as long as I can remember. Even before I knew there was a word for it, I knew that I wanted to have more than one boyfriend. The idea of being stuck with one person, to the exclusion of all others FOREVER, kind of freaked me out, even as a kid.

I tried monogamy. It didn’t work.

She goes on to explain her journey to discovering polyandry was the right relationship for her.

Violet and the men in her life should be free to have their relationships without discrimination or bullying. If they want to marry, they should not be denied.

No Appeal of Anti-Equality Court Ruling in Canada

Someday, both Canadians and Americans will look back in shame at having fought against full marriage equality. Those who are on the right side of history await everyone else. Here's what I last wrote about this case.

A lawyer who argued to decriminalize polygamy will not be appealing the court’s decision to uphold Canada’s 120-year-old anti-polygamy law, it was announced Wednesday.

“A legal publication suggested recently that (lawyer George Macintosh) had decided to appeal. That report was erroneous,” a statement released by his office said.

This is disappointing.

Hate is Disgusting

Theweek.com has a roundup, much like I’ve done on this blog, of the recent reaction to the incest and faux-incest storylines on recent television show episodes. What caught my attention was some of the comments by readers.

john, 2011-12-20 19:21:48 was scary in his hateful bigotry…

incest is a mental / genetic defect.

His evidence of this is…? Considering the many consanguinamorous people who are intelligent, functioning, attractive people, I'd say the evidence is not in john's favor.

it is sick and it produces genetically scary inbreds that will further weaken the gene pool.

Ah, Discredited Argument #18.

in our culture incest was cause for an instant death penalty...no questions or no arguments from the family. if the family didn't like it they joined the doomed.

What culture would that be, I wonder? Wow. Wanting to kill people for being in love. That is what is sick. And since he called it a mental/genetic defect, it appears john supports killing the disabled.

Bob Johnson, 2011-12-20 19:41:33…

Incest sounds like the final act of desperation - instead of creating something new and original and intriguing embrace the old and vulgar.

Desperation? To be a little more realistic about the fact that these relationships do exist? Why should these relationships be kept off television?

Bruce, 2011-12-21 01:11:14…

2 things: 1) They're ADOPTED siblings, not BIOLOGICAL siblings. Twisted, yes, but not actually incest. 2) It's a show about a guy who goes around and MURDERS people, but I guess that's OK with you?

It’s not twisted. But other than that, great comment, Bruce.

Mehitabel, 2011-12-21 05:50:30…

My ex married his step-sister. So, yes, there is an 'ewwwww' factor but there's nothing wrong with it technically or genetically. And as blended families and families with anaymous sperm donors and surrogates and all this genetic mish-mash become more and more common, it's about time we started to explore this. It's actually a pretty topical issue. 'Who's your daddy?' is actually a fairly serious question these days in some communities.

Gay and lesbian characters used to be kept off of television, too. Hell, heterosexual married couples used to have separate beds on TV shows. The more sex-positive and inclusive TV gets, the better.

Poly

Charlie Glickman writes about polyamory...

Last week, I was chatting with a friend who was telling me about her polyamory difficulties. Specifically, she's perfectly happy having multiple partners, but some of the guys she’s met have tried to convince her to be monogamous with them and she's rather frustrated with that, understandably.

Cowboys?

Glickman uses an analogy about cats to explain, correctly, that some people are monogamous, some are polyamorous, and some can be happy in either a monogamous relationship or a polyamorous one, but trying to change someone else isn't going to work. We should recognize that with our public policy and laws. Some people are heterosexual, some people are gay or lesbian, and some people are somewhere between. Some people are monogamous, some are polyamorous. On and on it goes. Let adults choose the relationships in which they function best.

A Brown Day in Court

The Browns, stars of the TLC show “Sister Wives,” and their lawsuit for the polyamorous freedom of association are back in the news. The case was in court on Friday. Jennifer Dobner of the Associated Press had an update.

A polygamous family made famous on a reality television show is asking a Utah federal judge not to block their challenge of the state's bigamy law.

Kody Brown and wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn filed a lawsuit in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court in July. Oral arguments in the case are set for Friday before U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups.

Judge Waddoups should side with relationship rights for consenting adults.

Incest in Media, Again

Tracy Clark-Flory at salon.com questions “Why is incest all over prime time?” She not only looks at the television shows we’ve been talking about, but the high school prank going viral. She says that…

these fictional imaginings reinforce the taboo by playing on our supreme squeamishness toward the idea of incest.

Hmm.

In addition to quoting a similar article in the New York Times from 1997 by Karen De Witt, the article quotes James B. Twitchell, author of “Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture,” Mary Jean Corbett, author of “Family Likeness: Sex, Marriage, and Incest From Jane Austen to Virginia Woolf,” and Nancy Fischer, a sociology professor and author of the journal article “Oedipus Wrecked? The Moral Boundaries of Incest.” Fischer says…

Sibling incest isn’t that common and when it occurs, it’s more likely to be an older, bullying brother with a younger, powerless sibling

I disagree. Consensual experiences, both neutral and positive, are usually kept secret. Sociologists, therapists, social workers, and law enforcement are, of course, going to mostly be dealing with molestation or assault. Recreation, exploration, experimentation, or lovemaking is quite a different thing than molestation or assault.

Two New Places to Talk About Consanguinamory

Actually, one is new and the other is newly open instead of closed.

If you want to talk about issues surrounding reunions/introduction and Genetic Sexual Attraction, you can now join this Yahoo Group.

If you are or have been or may become involved in a consanguinamorous relationship with a sibling, you might want to check out this very new and still-sparse forum.

TV Critics Still Talking Consanguinamory and Faux-Consanguinamory

Noting the series with recent family-love plotlines, Jamie Peck asks, “What’s With All The Incest On Television This Season?”

Are TV writers simply running out of plot ideas? Are they resorting to incest to try to shock an increasingly un-shockable viewership? Or does the incest serve a justifiable purpose on some of these shows?

Consanguinamory (consensual incest) is part of life. It isn’t a small percentage of the television audience that has been or is currently involved, and they can relate. It would be good to get some distinctly positive portrayals, however.

Tim Molloy of Reuters reports that the storyline on “Dexter” has been under consideration for a long time.

Congratulations to the Caulfields and Emily DiSanto

In a victory for relationship and religious freedom (see the picture of the god Odin), an American woman, Emily DiSanto, on the right to stay in Britain with the father of her child and his wife. David Barrett and Claire Duffin write at telegraph.co.uk…

The 25-year-old now shares Alan and Anne-Marie Caulfield’s marital home in south-east London with his two children – one by each of the women.

The American's lawyer told the court that their religious beliefs bar the Caulfields from divorcing.

Immigration judges were also told that forcing her to leave the country would affect the wellbeing of Mrs Caulfield’s son, as well as her own young daughter.

The case is the latest example of how human rights laws are being used to overturn the decisions of civil servants and ministers in immigration cases in what critics say are dubious circumstances.

The article states that the legally married couple are no longer in a sexual relationship. So, it is possible that this isn’t polyamory in a sexual sense, but it could be described as polyamorous in other ways. Or perhaps it used to be polyamory in the sexual sense. Whatever the labels or what they adults are or aren’t doing with each other, the court’s decision is best for all involved.

Deficient Journalism Strikes Again

From the Solomon Islands comes another news report that does not contain enough information. A Man is being prosecuted for incest with his daughter.

The father who cannot be named to protect the identity of his daughter because they are closely related faces one count of incest.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge yesterday when the charge was read out to him by the presiding judge.

This was for the alleged incident on unknown dates between January 1 and 30 this year at a village in Gela, Central Province.

Why is he charged with “incest” instead of rape? The article could let us know if the daughter was of the age of consent or not. That would not in any way reveal her identity. If his daughter was of the age of consent and if she consented, this prosecution should not be happening. However, if this is a matter of rape he should be prosecuted for rape.

So we are left with a news article that does not tell us whether this man is a victim of sex-negative laws that criminalize sex between consenting adults, or if he’s someone who preys on others, including children. There's a big difference.

Dexter Season Finale

The coverage of “incest on TV” continues. Ian Grey wraps up the sixth season of “Dexter.” There are spoilers, so you are warned.

More Reaction to Video of Blindfolded High-Schoolers

Reaction continues to the video taken at Rosemount High School in Minnesota. At other schools, or perhaps at this one, pranks have been done before in which the blindfolded person is kissed conservatively by other students (such as their known girlfriend or boyfriend, or cheerleaders) and when the blindfolds are removed, their parents are standing in front of them pretending to be the ones who kissed them. But as we’ve seen, in this case the parents of the students were the ones actually doing the kissing, hugging, and touching.

From Rheana Murray at nydailynews.com…

While flooded without outside complaints, Wollersheim told the Associated Press that he had received no objections from the school’s athletes or parents.

In fact, he’s gotten some positive feedback, he said.

“I think people need to have more of a sense of humor! Kudos to you for all that you do – as I do not feel as a parent there was anything offensive about the video,” wrote one person in an email, which Wollersheim shared with the news service.

Inquisitr.com wrote “Kissing Prank Blends Sexual Abuse, Humiliation, and Incest.”

Someone at Rosemount High School pitched this idea for a kissing prank: “OK, so here’s the idea. We blindfold a bunch of high school kids and have them stand in front of the entire student body in the gym. Then we tell them that they’re going to get a surprise kiss. As their adolescent hormones start raging we take of their blindfolds and reveal that they’ve been making out with their parents.”

And people agreed. And they did it. And it was gross.

Elizabeth Scalia at patheos.com asks, “What the Hell is WRONG with these people?”

What the hell is wrong with people? What the hell were these parents thinking? What was the school thinking? Is self-respect a concept utterly lost to this country?

Is her problem the potential sexual assault aspect (given that some of these students may not ever have consented to this level of affection with a parent, or with someone of a different gender)? Well...

Queasy hell, I watched the video; it’s full-on disgusting. Incest Surprise! Let’s normalize incest, now!

We should “normalize” consensual affection. We should never “normalize” assault. But then she does go on to write...

Forget the sex-and-incest vibe; it’s too creepy to dwell on. Ponder what sort of parents would want to embarrass their kids publicly like this, what sort of school would think so little of their student’s human dignity?

Deacon Greg Kandra wrote at patheos.com…

Besides stupefied, you can also describe me as nauseated. Give that last line a gander, will you? “None of the students or parents involved in the kissing antics complained about the routine at all…” Let that sink in.

Max Lindenman rounds out the patheos.com reaction…

Now, I don’t imagine for a moment that any of these parents were acting out incestuous impulses. More likely, they were just trying to make their kids look like total dorks in front of their friends. Still, at least with me, the incest taboo is deeply enough ingrained that nothing I write in these folks’ defense can keep my skin from crawling.

Stefanie Blejec reacts at thefrisky.com…

I’m sorry, innocent peck or not, I would be mortified if I removed my blind fold and saw my mom or dad standing there.

Jennifer Hartline at Catholic Online has “Cheering for Incest?!? Some Healthy Shame Would Do Us Some Good.”

You know what I think we need a big, healthy dose of? Shame! Yes -- bring back shame! Bring back a healthy, appropriate, moral sense of shame.

In case you didn’t catch that…

We need to start being ashamed of our bad behavior again. We need to stop coddling ourselves and our kids in a bubble of fragile self-esteem and feel mortified when we screw up royally or behave like uncivilized animals.

I explained my problem with the prank already. Notice how much of reaction online is about the consanguity between the participants, and there are many, many comments left after the articles that are hateful and prejudiced against consanguinamory in general.

No Shame Here

The film "Shame" apparently has characters that are brother and sister, and they may or may not have engaged in consanguineous sex at some time before the film takes place. Let me know what you think if you see it.

Carey Mulligan talks about her nude scene in the film.

It helped that Sissy, the character Mulligan plays in "Shame," has the exact opposite view about going nude that Mulligan does.


"It was absolutely right," the actress said, recalling when she stripped down. "She wanted to be seen, she's an exhibitionist and she's provocative."


She even took a moment to bask in the freedom of nudity on-set. "You take your clothes off, and you're like, 'Ah, all of you are wearing clothes and I'm naked, ha, ha, ha," Mulligan laughed.

Here is the trailer for the movie...

More TV Talk

There's more reaction to the "incest on TV" that I have been covering in entries like this one and this one.

More "Fear Factor" talk at dailymail.co.uk...

In the opening ten minutes of stunt/ dare reality programme, the host Joe Rogan and fellow contestants appear to imply a mother and son doubleact - who are competing in the show - have an incestuous relationship.

Rogan and some of the other participants crack jokes and raise eyebrows as Monica and her son Matias share a lingering hug as they psyche themselves up for a helicopter stunt.

Sara McGinnis at sheknows.com offers...

Though she says she doesn't plan to sue Fear Factor at this point, Monica did go on to clarify, "In no way, shape or form am I inappropriate with my son... I’m broken hearted. Joe Rogan... shame on you. You are a father. How dare you talk about my son that way?"

Just what kind of comments is Monica referencing? One viewer wrote on the Fear Factor Facebook page:

I think I missed most of it because I'm covering my eyes! But, I love it. Definitely grossed out though by the "touchy-feely" mother & son. I've heard some argue that they were "just close" and we all had dirty minds to think otherwise. I'd have to agree, they were close, but not in a healthy looking way. The way he dangled his hand over her overly exposed boobs was disturbing. They acted like a couple. Yuck!

Though most of the comments were celebrating the return of Fear Factor and Joe Rogan, other fans gave the 'thumbs up' to the message above.

Kelli Catana writes about "The Incest Plot Twist", referencing "Dexter" and "Boardwalk Empire"...

Minnesota Rosemount High in Minnesota: Family Affection Should Not be a Joke

I posted the video in question earlier here. I make no secret of being all for voluntary, consensual affection between close relatives. I don't consider it to be consensual when someone is deceived into making out with someone they wouldn't choose to make out with. For example, if a lesbian woman is blindfolded at a party with other women, any of whom she would be willing to kiss, and one of them kisses her, that's fine. But if she is averse to kissing men, and she is blindfolded so that a man can kiss her as a prank, that's a problem. Likewise, it is entirely possible some of these high school students would freely choose to share this level of affection with their parents. But some might not. And sadly, they weren't given the choice. And, it wasn't just at a party with friends, it was in front of the whole school and the whole world.

I also object to setting up such affection for ridicule. And there is plenty of ridicule.

From gawker.com, which calls it the "grossest idea"...

Minnesota's Rosemount High had an awesome idea for a prank at this year's winter pep rally. Just awesome: blindfold all the sports captains and have them make out with people. And the "prank" part is that they're making out with their parents. Who aren't blindfolded.

From City Pages...

Officials from Rosemount High School are apologizing for a so-called "prank" that will almost surely lead to a lifetime of awkward family gatherings and thousands of hours of therapy for the students involved.

If so, much of it will be because of a ridiculous attitude by some in societal towards consanguinamory and other forms of familial affection. It is bad enough people who have chosen to experience consanguinamory are bullied; it is even worse that these people didn't even have the choice, and now they will be bullied.

Dads kissing daughters. Mothers kissing sons.

And these are not just innocent pecks on the lips. The parents are intimately lip-locking their children for several seconds. One even progresses to rolling around on the gym floor. In another instance, a mother moves her son's hand south so he's grasping her butt.

From buzzfeed.com...

Students were blindfolded at a pep rally and then got to make out with someone. But those fools didn't realize they were making out with their parents (who by the way aren't blindfolded and totally complicit in all of this)! Man this Minnesota high school totally burned them (and all of our retinas).

Whether someone has been a victim of sexual assault by a relative, or someone has a loving, affectionate relationship with a close family member, this prank can offend both.

High School Prank Goes Viral

This is getting much attention. What do you think?



My thoughts later.

More Fear Factor Fallout

TMZ.com reports that Monica, the mother who appeared on “Fear Factor” with her son Matias, was not happy with how the show depicted them.

Joe Rogan even took a shot at the duo on the show ... joking, "I hug my mom every time I see her ... but then I let go."

Monica tells us, "Last night when the show aired, I was SHOCKED. I am appalled and disgusted at the comments of people on the show about Matias’ and my relationship and how it seems ‘inappropriate’ for a mother and son. Are you kidding me?"

Monica adds, "In no way, shape, or form am I inappropriate with my son ... I’m broken hearted. Joe Rogan ... shame on YOU. You are a father. How dare you talk about my son that way?"

Here’s a clip…


Here are some comments

Jackie was good…

Hmm!!!...I am extremely close to mother. Only idiots who have never been close to their parents will trash talk. I don't see anything wrong with people being close to their parents.

So many of the others are from bigots. JJ…

I thought her and her son were lovers, not because the show made it seem that way BUT BECAUSE OF HOW THEY ACTED TOWARD EACH OTHER. She needs to shut the hell up and think about how she and her son share intimacy in public or on national television.

Why is it okay for strangers to have sheet-obscured sex on national TV, but it isn't okay to be affectionate with someone you love?

ChristmasCaroll…

You could edit that tape a million ways, but she WAS very CREEPY with her son. They both need their heads examined. I've never seen a guy THAT awkwardly kissy, feely with his mother. I've also never seen a Mom act that way. She did talk weirdly about him all the time, they hang on each other and kiss, and for crying out loud, she said they gaze into each other's eyes

She comments again just to make it clear she’s being hateful…

They ACTED like they were dating. If you watched and listened, you'd see how uncomfortable they make others feel. It wasn't Joe Rogan's fault. They were all over each other like lovesick teens and that was too weird for me, too. No guy hangs on his mom and keeps kissing her, holds hands, talk about each other like they are 'in love' and 'gaze' into each others' eyes. (her words, not mine...during the stunt with the truck...she said it gave them that moment. Ewww) She's raised him strangely to say the least.

Fluttergirl…

What about the brother & sister who were chest-bumping? Ew.

I feel sad for Fluttergirl's brother.

OhYesItWas…

It would have been majorly creepy no matter HOW that program was edited. Ewww. If you watched it, you'd hear her even say at one time that it gave them longer to 'gaze into one another's eyes'. What MOM says that about her son? They were abnormally touchy to the tenth degree. It really made me feel creeped out. It was like watching a girl and boyfriend. Sorry, Mom on show, but you have no right to be pissed no matter how they re edit that show. You guys are very, very, very overly on each other in non mother/son ways. Never have I seen that before, honestly.

That’s part of the problem, and that that’s too bad. These are adults who should be free to be affectionate with each other in any sense of the word. The people who make such comments are hurting so many people around them, and they don't even know it. They may not care.

Lisa Ling’s “Our America” Changes Minds

Stephanie Elie asks “Could Plural Marriage Be the Answer?” She was apparently prompted by Lisa Ling’s “Our America” episode dealing with the subject, which she approached with a cautious, even negative attitude towards the subject.

I mean what kind of crazy person would purposely allow their spouse to engage in relations with another woman. And how selfish those men must be to try and have their cake and eat it too. But as I watched the episode I realized something. The people, at least in the community Ling was interviewing, are really truly committed to each and every person in the relationship. The wives seem to form emotional bonds and friendships with each other and often spend more time together than with their husband.

And here’s something that really took me by surprise, it’s the women that actually control the relationship, they get to decide what man they are going to marry and it’s up to the elders to make it happen.

She goes on to ponder if plural marriage (polygyny) could reduce the divorce rate, reduce out-of-wedlock births, reduce the number of parents raising children alone, and reduce the number of children living in poverty.

In a plural marriage no one is left alone to raise their children as a single parent because if the husband isn’t around, the wives still have each other to help raise and support their children, both financially and emotionally. You have a support system at ALL times, not just on a court ordered schedule.

Good points.

Keep in mind that for every 100 single women of marriageable age in the United States there are fewer than 70 single men, and as we get older the numbers spread further apart. That means statistically if marriage is still considered only a monogamous relationship, there will always be more women than men which probably means there will always be infidelity in what we are calling monogamous relationships.

The sooner we achieve full marriage equality, so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, the better. People will be more likely to have the relationships they want, and I do think there will be more marriage, less divorce (at least in comparison to marriage rates), less cheating, more children raised within marriage, fewer children raised in poverty, and other benefits (economic, social, environmental.) A woman should be free to marry a man who is already married. She should also be free to marry a woman, or two women, even if one of them is her sister. If that is what they want, they should have it. It helps them and it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

Did You See the New Fear Factor?

Louis Peitzman didn’t like it for many reasons. But this is what is relevant to this blog…

The first hour of Monday night's premiere featured a mother-son team who was definitely too close for comfort. They never stopped touching! And incest is so hot right now, but by hour's end, they'd been eliminated.

Peitzman, I didn’t see it, but since it ran on broadcast TV in prime time I’m sure they were only “too close” if you personally have exclusive claim to any touching by either one of them. Otherwise, what is the problem with touching or physical affection between a mother and son?

I’ve picked apart comments like this already. See here, here, here, here, and here.

What's next? "Those two women were just a little too friendly?"

More Talk About Incest on TV

The discussion continues. This entry has “Dexter” and “Boardwalk Empire” spoilers, so you are warned.

Jaime Weinman wrties that “Incest Plots Replace Hoarder Plots.”

There are several reasons why incest is a perfect HBO subject. It’s a taboo subject, and taboo subjects are what HBO producers are always on the lookout for.

Most of Weinman’s reasons are negative.

Ian Grey takes a look at “Dexter”. This link is for salon.com.

It's Not Wrong

There was a link at huffingtonpost.com to the the “Is Incest Wrong” piece I looked at yesterday, and some responses after the link. The sex police “arguments” are so weak it is a wonder that laws against consanguinamory still exist. Most of  the statements against consanguinamory were made by people who obviously didn’t read the essay or have no reading comprehension.

The first comment I’ll look at…

It IS WRONG....hello? Genetics?

That was answered in the essay. It is Discredited Argument #18.

How can something as natural as homosexuality even be mentioned alongside incest? We are not BORN to mate with our siblings.

Those are Discredited Arguments #5 and 8.

Another comment…

Is it wrong, morally? No. I agree with the author of the column that no moral argument against incest stands up to scrutiny.

If we're talking consenting adults, why should I care what their relation to one and other is? What they do in the bedroom is up to them.

Thanks! That was the rare reasonable comment.

Yes, it is wrong. It is a social compact with which the majority agree.

Discredited Argument #3 Another comment…

Are people really asking this question? This makes me sad for humanity.

Being shocked is not an argument. Why be sad about the happiness of others? Another comment…

Our society likes to think that sex should be between those of equal status. Incest has no guarantees of such equal status, forcing the ugly possibility of coercion (and rape).

In that context, incest is wrong.

Discredited Argument #20. We’re not talking about coercion or rape. We’re talking about consensual sex. Exploration. Experimentation. Recreation. Bonding. Lovemaking. Another comment…

I don't even like to think about having sex with a longtime friend.

So that person appears to think casual sex is preferable to sex with someone you know and care about.

Over and over again, we see that there’s no reason to deny these people their right to marry or be together openly.

His First Time With a Married, Poly Woman

I like to bring you real-life examples of everyday people, the kind of people who are your friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers, who are in consensual, yet “forbidden” adult relationships. I do this so that more of you will see that normal people have these relationships, experiences, and feelings, and that they should be free to have them.

JT Eberhard wrote about the first time he knowingly had sex with a married woman. It wasn’t cheating; it was polyamory. A woman, Christina, befriended him. He knew she and her husband were polyamorous. Christina asked JT to have sex (one on one), and JT explains what happened.

A Critical Thinker and an Ally?

Tauriq Moosa, a critical thinking tutor at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, asks, “Is Incest Wrong?”

Assuming we are talking about consensual incest (consanguinamory), which Moosa is, our answer is “Of course not!” See what I wrote about why some consider consanguinamory wrong and why it is illegal in some places, and read my answers to the common arguments against this freedom of association and freedom to marry. Of course not everyone is right for everyone else, but that any given person is not right for a certain close relative when it comes to romance, sex, or marriage does not meant that consanguinamory is inherently wrong.

But let’s get to what Moosa wrote.

More on Incest on TV? How About More Consanguinamory?

The discussion about television shows continues. If you’re a “Dexter” fan who isn’t caught up, this link and discussion contain spoilers. Richard Rys at nymag.com has the show recap for season 6 episode 11.

In the scene where Deb chews out Quinn and Batista, Carpenter masterfully tightrope walks between anger and emotional meltdown. There’s also the speechless pause after her shrink suggests she may have unsisterly feelings for Dexter that says more than any F-bomb she’s ever dropped. Maybe this attraction to Dexter is a temporary diversion, or even a stress-induced response to all the f---ed-upitude in her life. But the therapist makes a convincing argument about her possible semi-incestuous feelings, which aren’t as sick as they seem at first. Sure, they grew up together, but they’re not (irony alert) blood-related. They’re also each other’s best friend, save for one teeny secret Dexter is somehow still keeping from her. Still, it seems impossible for Deb to avoid either death or institutionalization by the end of the series.

Scibz commented…

Although I have many issues with this season, this potential Dexter/Deb incest story line takes the cake. There is a psychological phenomenon called the Westermarck effect that makes it unlikely for sexual attraction to occur between two people who lived together as children. There have been many studies to back up this theory (Chinese minor marriages, Israeli kibbutzim, etc.). So it's pretty rediculous that the writers are even exploring this (also, even though they aren't genetically related, it still seems pretty gross to me).

Various sexual things are gross to various people. But not everyone experiences the Westermarck effect, or experiences it strongly enough to overpower other feelings.


Nymag.com also asks “How Much Is Too Much Incest on TV?”

There isn’t too much, just not enough positive depiction of consanguinamory.

Mrshowscan commented…

I never watch any of the shows mention but I'm thrilled you're talking about them. I had an incestuous relationship with my sister 40 years ago.

Mrshowscan, thanks for speaking up. Contact me.


Amelia McDonell-Parry at thefrisky.com has “12 Examples Of Not-Totally-Repulsive Incestuous Relationships In Pop Culture.” Before getting into all of the examples, she writes…

On last night’s episode, Debra Morgan’s therapist — who I was kind of hoping might end up igniting some latent lesbian fantasies for our favorite foul-mouthed Lieutenant — suggests that Deb is hot for Dexter. Dexter, of course, is Deb’s brother, though they are not related by blood. While initially pissed off by the suggestion, she starts to, well, entertain the thought that her shrink may be right. Seriously … is “Dexter” really going to go there?!

Let me be the first to say, I SURE HOPE SO.

There are actually attractive, well-adjusted, intelligent people out there in happy, lasting relationships with close relatives. You may know some. You certainly know people who have engaged in consanguinamory at some point, with positive results rather than tragedy. This should be reflected in fiction. It could still be dramatic because of all of the prejudice and ignorance about it. You might be disgusted by the thought, but I know gays and lesbians disgusted by the thought of any heterosexual sex others are engaging in. So what? We're not all going to want each other's love lives. There are other television shows to watch, other entertainment sources, and other things to do.

Reacting Continues to Canadian Court Ruling on Polyamory and Polygamy

I’ve been leaving the reaction to the ruling by the B. C. court to other people for the most part, but I did want offer my thoughts, especially looking at the media coverage as I can. Happily, as polyamory becomes more widely recognized and understood, there are other bloggers and columnists who are doing a great job advocating for this freedom of association and the polygamous freedom to marriage. That leaves me more time to do the same work on behalf of consanguinamory as we move towards full marriage equality.

If you haven’t seen it yet, check out John Ince’s open letter to the Canadian polyamory community, which he makes clear convey his thoughts, not legal advice, and not the official policy of the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA).

The good news…

In general terms, I think that the decision allows us to do virtually anything the vast majority of polyamorists would want to do.

The bad news…

The judge interpreted Canada’s criminal law against polygamy narrowly so that it only criminalizes non-monogamous relationships that are a) institutionalized b) marriages.

This means that poly people can live together or not, have children with many different people, or go from relationship to relationship, or marry and divorce, marry and divorce, and that’s all fine... as long as they don’t make a formal commitment to that is institutionally recognized to more than one person at a time. What’s the sense of that?

An interesting issue would arise should a polyamorous couple want to borrow the institutionalized structure of a group that is not formally polyamorous. For example, say there is a ceremony that is overtly defined as a “marriage”, that also follows Wiccan traditions and which is presided over by an accredited Wiccan official. Or say there was a break-away sect of the Catholic Church led by a former priest who has a congregation and who will “marry” anyone or any number of people, using all the trappings of the Catholic Church.

I think the prosecution could make a strong argument that there was sufficient “borrowed institutionalization” applying to these official purported “marriages” to make them offend the law. Hence any explicitly purported “marriage” conducted by any official from a real community would not be advisable in my opinion. If you want to call your ceremony a marriage, getting any “official” involved increases your legal risk.

Having an “official” from a community preside at a ceremony increases the risk of criminalization, but if you are determined to do that, your legal situation will be better but not absolutely secure if you do not call the ceremony a “marriage” and even better, formally disavow that the process is a “marriage”.

Depressing.

We need to remember that the gay marriage issue was the last major legal issue to be resolved about gay equality, not the first. If there are polyamorous people who want exactly what homosexuals got, who want the right to traditional institutionalized poly marriage, then the first step toward that goal is resolving all issues pertaining to pensions, and immigration in a purely co-habitational context and then some time in the future seek the final step of the legal recognition of polyamorous marriages.

That may be the way it ends up happening, but it seems like those issues could be resolved with relatively minor adjustments in law, allowing for more than one spouse at a time. It seems a little like going into the southern US fifty years ago and desegregating so that African-Americans are integrated, but not Latinos or Asians, and telling them to go back and go through the steps taken by African-Americans. Why not just grant full marriage equality? Equality just for some is not equality.

Under the Boardwalk

If you’re a fan of the television show “Boardwalk Empire” and you haven’t watched the last two episodes of this season, you may want not want to click through to read the rest of this entry if you are trying to avoid spoilers. I will first look at reaction to the second-to-last episode, and then I’ll give another warning before doing the same for the season finale. It has been nearly impossible to miss spoilers and if you’re reading this blog, then you’ve probably put two and two together already. But here’s goes…

It’s Good For Heteros, So Why Not?

The link is definitely “not safe for work” (there are pictures, too), but the question raised is relevant to this blog: “Fake Gay Porn Incest: So Wrong or So Right?” The video in question has a father-son scenario.

More after the jump…

Polyamory in Davis, California

Justin Cox discussed nonmonogamy in general and polyamory specifically with some Davis, California-area therapists who facilitate a group dealing with those issues.

Jezzie: College is a really normal time to be dating around. We often have a humorous moment saying, “Polyamory is what used to be called dating.”

It’s pretty normal to be dating multiple people at the same time. Polyamory just emphasizes a set of values around that.

Many of the people who look down on polyamory have friends and grown children who are not monogamous. Isn't it better to be honest and ethical about it?

What’s the distinction between openly dating and identifying as Polyamorous?

Adam: The core difference is the identity part. Of people who are in relationships, the overwhelming majority will be monogamous and they’re going to be fine with that. One step up from that are people who think it’s an interesting idea, but probably too much trouble. One step up from there are people who are in a mostly monogamous relationship, but they have a little arrangement of some sort.

Only the tip of that pyramid says: “This is my identity. This is who I am and it’s important for me to have a community around this.” If you’re a couple and you sometimes have a threesome, you might not really need to have a support group.

Right. Some people are inherently polyamorous. Others don't need to be polyamorous, but can be happily in a poly relationship.

Is the number of people who identify as Polyamorous growing?

Adam: I think, tremendously.

Jezzie: The divorce rate of this generation -- with so many kids growing up watching their parents get divorced -- has really contributed to a cultural shift around the idea that maybe 50 years of marriage isn’t the best option for everybody. This (current generation) is the generation after divorce went up.

Clearly, monogamy doesn't work or everyone. People should be free to be polyamorous and have a polygamous marriage.

Adam: There’s a huge relief in just hearing that other people are struggling with this. A lot of information out there says “Yay, yay, go Poly. Everyone can do this; everyone should do this. It’s healthier. It’s more evolved.”

A lot of the work I do as a therapist is with people who say, “Something’s terribly wrong with this,” and they need somebody to tell them that it’s totally normal (to struggle).

People need to know this an option, and there's nothing wrong with being poly.

One Example of Trying to Silence Voices For Equality

It's a minor example, and hopefully, it won't work completely.

Someone asked at Yahoo Answers about marrying a cousin. A cousin.

This was my answer:

"First cousins can marry (usually, only heterosexuals) in about half of US states and many countries. I'm not aware of any US states where sex between first cousins is illegal. It really doesn't matter if someone considers it incest. Marriage is fundamental right. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults."

That is a political statement, and hardly a radical one at that. It does not violate their community guidelines. Someone simply didn't like my opinion and reported it to get it removed and to try to silence me. If it works, that will be very chilling. It already worked to hide the answer.

Bigotry is ugly.

Clearing Up Myths About Polyamory

Here's a fantastic write-up dealing with some of the myths about polyamory. Topics covered include...

Alright! Group Sex!

With so many partners, you must get laid a lot!

So you can take the best parts of 2 different guys and make 1 perfect man!

So, polyamory is just cheating then.

Oh, so polyamory is like swinging!

So you just have a bunch of friends then?

Polyamory is for people who can't commit

All that screwing around sounds dangerous, there must be a problem with STDs.

Polyamory is harmful for children

Love is Limitless

Poly people don't feel jealous.

Polyamory oppresses and objectifies women.

I must not be adequate if my lover wants someone else - or - If you love someone, you shouldn't want anyone else - or - my partner shouldn't want anyone else if I am "enough".
I've seen lots of non-monogamous relationships fail, therefore non-monogamy is flawed and monogamy is the solution.

Go read it!

Criminal Sentence For Consensual Sex in Canada

In what appears to be an update of a case in Nova Scotia covered previously here…

A 20-year-old Amherst resident was given a suspended sentence with probation for 24 months, and a 10-year weapons prohibition after pleading guilty in court on Tuesday to having sexual intercourse with a person, knowing the person was his sister.

Another source reports…

The man, who can’t be named, was placed on probation for two years after pleading guilty Tuesday to incest.

At least he won’t have to serve a prison sentence for the consensual sex. Assault is bad. Consensual sex isn’t, and should not be a criminal matter. Who is the victim? Both he and his sister, who is six years older, were prosecuted. Ridiculous.

An Example of the Absurdity of Prosecuting Consenting Adults

In what looks like an update of a case covered in this earlier entry…

A 65 year-old Samoan man has escaped a jail sentence after being found guilty of incest, which will allow him to join his family in Australia.

Instead he will pay a 5-thousand US fine, with half to be paid to the victim.

I’m glad that he’s not going to jail. That he was prosecuted and fined is ridiculous.

During the trial the defendant denied the charges but the court accepted his ex-wife’s evidence that he was the father of the victim.

Both the father and daughter were charged with incest, the daughter pleaded guilty, and is already serving a three year sentence.

Okay, so what do we have here?

The article twice describes the thirty-something woman as a “victim.” The father is even ordered to pay a fine, half of which will go to her. Then, in the very next sentence after the second reference to her as a “victim,” it says they were both charged with incest, and she is serving a three year jail term. Why send a “victim” to jail? She went to jail, he got fined. Again, I ask why? Did she force herself on him? Why did she get the harsher sentence, especially being the “victim,” who is going to receive part of the fine? She even pled guilty, while he denied guilt, and often courts will go lighter on someone pleading guilty. Is this because she is a woman?

The whole thing is absurd. Neither one should have been prosecuted in the first place. What waste of government resources.

Another Couple Denied the Freedom to Marry

"Anonymous" is an attractive woman with an attractive boyfriend. They appear to be a happy couple, the kind of people you might work with or live next to. But they are denied their right to marry. They can’t even be open about their relationship, which is apparently the result of genetic sexual attraction. She generously took the time to be interviewed.

***

FME: Describe your background.

ANONYMOUS: I'm in my early twenties, live in the UK, and have no children.


What is your relationship to your lover?

He is my half-brother


How would you describe the nature of your relationship?

Boyfriend and girlfriend, but also best friends.


Did you grow up with him?

We did not grow up together. We only met a few years ago. Now we live with our father.


When did you first notice you had feelings for him? Were they romantic, sexual, curious, an intense attraction, what? Did it surprise you?

I was attracted to him from the moment we met. It was a mixture of lust and curiosity. I was very surprised, confused and ashamed of these feelings.


How do you feel about the lovemaking side of your relationship?

Great. It's just a natural way of showing our love.


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

Yes, we’re in a closed relationship with each other.


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

A few close friends know, and they accept it. We sat them down and explained the situation to them in full and that seemed to help.


How did you start making love with each other?

The first time was spontaneous. We were watching the TV, cuddling, and then one thing lead to another. Prior to that, we had indulged in foreplay and oral sex. My brother started that. At the very start, it was touching using being drunk as an excuse (not that it was ever questioned.) Then I visited him in his home city when we lived apart, and decided that we'd share a hotel room and a double bed which lead to foreplay, but nothing more as I was wary of pushing the situation too soon. It was only when he lived here that things turned sexual because I couldn't hold back anymore.


Can you describe that first event where you gave yourselves to each other, especially your feelings?

It was instinct. We'd both waited so long that we couldn't resist any longer.


Do you think relatives have some things better or some advantages that unrelated lovers might not, such as more intense feelings and lovemaking? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages?

I think you're less likely to take each other for granted and therefore the relationship is better for it. The disadvantage is, of course, having to sneak around and not be totally yourselves unless you're away from home.


Do you have feelings for other close biological relative that are anything like the ones you have for him, whether they are as intense or not?

No.


What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your love?

Mind your own business. It's completely consensual and the world would be a happier place if everyone learned to accept and love a little more.


Would you get legally married if you could, and if that included protection from things such as bullying and workplace discrimination based on your relationship?

We have discussed it and yes we would.


Any plans for the future?

Explore the world together and move in together by ourselves.


Do you personally know, or have you met in person, other couples like you (that you are aware of)?

No, but I would like to.


What advice do you have to someone who has romantic or sexual feelings for a close biological relative?

Play it safe at first, test the waters with flirting, etc. Don't go in all guns blazing because you could destroy the relationship you have if you do that. Be patient and don't worry, you are not a freak.


Is there is anything else you want to add?

Live your life. Don't care what anyone else thinks. So long as you're not harming anyone, go for it!

***

There’s no good reason these lovers should have to hide, or be denied their right to marry. They are another example of why we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Read other interviews here.

Blog Update

There's much to talk about from recent news and current events, so I'll try to keep updating regularly.

As far as the structure of the blog itself, I'm continuing to make changes.

I've added a tab at the top for a new page, "Case Studies." That is where I will have links to all the interviews I have personally conducted of people in relationships that do not have all of their rights.

Along the right side of your screen, I've added a link to my entries answering Frequently Asked Questions. I plan to answer more soon. I've also added links to all of my entries on Genetic Sexual Attraction, consanguinamory, polyamory, polyandry, and polygyny, even though I do run a complete label list much further down.

I welcome feedback and suggestions. Thank for reading.

Connect with me on Facebook.

Facebook Group: I Support Full Marriage Equality!


Follow me on Twitter!

Another Polyamory vs. Monogamy Debate

The Mancunion, “Britain's biggest student newspaper, serving Greater Manchester,” has printed defenses of polyamory and monogamy. Isabelle Dann touts polyamory… sort of. The piece includes some four-letter Anglo-Saxon words you can’t say on US FCC-regulated airwaves.

Firstly, the assumption that polyamory is a strictly enduring desire is ridiculous, considering that, as the author observed, its proponents “are mostly young people” – the logical and pragmatic quality behind a polyamorous twenty-something life in preparation for a potential lifetime of monogamy circa thirty-something is obvious enough to require minimal explanation.

Yes, some people practice polyamory while younger, and become monogamous later. But there are people who are inherently polyamorous who will always be polyamorous. And there are also people who will, after being monogamous (happily or unhappily), find they are more suited to polyamory as they age.

At the same time, the wish to experience all your own personal sexual desires by no means necessitates a permanent aversion to commitment.

For many, polyamory does involve commitment.

The difference is that, at the end of the day, you have nobody to answer to but yourself.

Uhm, for many polyamorists, it is the opposite. They have multiple people to “answer to.”

You’re free to ask out that cutie from class and share a goodbye make-out at the end of the night.

Not necessarily. It depends on the agreements, if any, with others.

Just when I think the writer is equating polyamory with “sleeping around on a casual basis,” there’s this…

Attention Americans

You can support repealing DOMA with the Respect for Marriage Act by signing this petition. Personally, I think we need a Marriage Equality Amendment as the best solution.

Nothing is Wrong With Welcome Affection

With the holiday season comes another look at this Folgers coffee advertisement.



Eireann Michael Dolan wrote on her blog…

Having spent so long in West Africa, where some tribes still practice familial marriage, he felt it was appropriate to leer at his now All-Growed-Up sister, because that is a custom he is now used to, and how long was he gone for? His sister looks 25.

And…

She puts the bow on him and tells him that his safe return from West Africa, where they definitely don’t have real coffee, is all the present she needs.

Then the parents come downstairs before the two have sex.

Some comments were left.

Heather Harmon…

Oh my god yes! I saw this the other day and kept yelling for someone to tell me if they were brother and sister or lovers. Or both.

Molly…

I think they did it BEFORE he went to West Africa and now they are in that awkward “Oops, I slept with my sibling but now it’s Christmas so I’m just gonna be cool” phase.

What do YOU think? I’m not talking about the other stuff she deals with about ad, just the sibling relationship.

I’ve written about bigotry like this before. People are too judgmental of siblings who have positive, affectionate relationships; they feel comfortable openly denigrating such relationships, as if all siblings should be mortal enemies or live like strangers. Not only do these people condemn siblings who have spousal relationships or who, like no small percentage of others, have experimented, but they assign any kind of affection between siblings to those other situations, which they clearly condemn. The message? Do not show your sibling any affection or warmth. That is sick, not siblings who have every kind of love together.