Yes, Iowa Still Prosecutes Consenting Adults

We now have an update of a criminal case out of Iowa involving adults. The previous coverage is here. As I suspected, this is a matter of sex between consenting adults and charging them with a crime for that is absurd. Randy M. Cauthron at spenderdailyreporter.com writes...

A preliminary hearing, originally scheduled for today, has been cancelled according to Clay County Attorney Mike Houchins after trial information, in an alleged incest case involving an uncle and a niece, was filed by District Court Judge Charles Borth Tuesday. Felony incest charges were filed against Elizabeth Ann Welch, 18, and Jerrold Marble, 35, Jan. 7, following an investigation initiated by the Department of Human Services and Spencer Police Department just prior to Thanksgiving.

Houchins summed up the basic facts of the investigation associated with the allegations.

"The two individuals were charged with incest. They were relatives and apparently, from the facts, it was consensual. And they were charged," Houchins said.

Let them go! It was consensual. This shouldn't be a crime.

So how did the authorities get involved? This is how...

"Law enforcement were called to the house due to a disturbance," the county attorney continued. "While they were interviewing occupants of the house, information came out that led to the charges."

Laws against consanguinamory are unjust, but they're still in effect in many places. There is nothing wrong with refusing to incriminate yourself, or even lying to avoid an unjust law. There was no need to tell law enforcement what they were doing or have done together.

Houchins indicated he doesn't anticipate any further charges associated with the specific allegations in this case.

Then drop the charges and apologize. There's no victim! Now, if one is beating up on the other, then there should be assault charges. But that's not on the table.

Sandra Cano Give Short Mention of GSA Situation

This short video clip sounds a lot like she's talking about her children having a Genetic Sexual Attraction situation.

They Can't Seem to Provide Me Any Good Answers

And that's ironic.

As promised, here’s what happened (so far) regarding a certain Big Internet Portal “question and answer” forum.

I had been participating there for years, helping people, clearing away the cobwebs of ignorance, making friends, and often getting “thumbs up” and Best Answer in the process, along with private positive feedback. Sometimes I linked to the service here on this blog, promoting them free of charge.

I had provided many, many, many answers and had asked a grand total of two questions.

But I may never be allowed to participate there anymore, due to being suspended. (If you are still active there, feel free to copy & paste anything from this blog, including from the FAQs and Discredited Arguments page, to answer questions there.) Also, if you know of a more reasonable question & answer forum, point me to it.) Nobody there seems to have the time or inclincation to actually discuss my suspension.

Now, I do understand it is their ball. There’s no law requiring them to be reasonable, fair, sensible, or actually discuss the matter with me, instead of sending me generic copy & pasted corporatespeak. But I did want to share with you, dear readers, what happened.

The gruesome details are below.

Still No Good Reason to Keep Polygamy Ban

Over at omgchronicles.vickilarson.com, a good question was asked: "Why is polygamy illegal in America?"

Although 92 percent of Americans say adultery is morally unacceptable, there are no legal sanctions against those who indulge anyway. But if two (or more) women are happily simultaneously married to a man or a man is happily simultaneously married to two (or more) women, not only will they likely be ostracized, but they also can face criminal charges in many places in the United States and Canada.

It's convoluted, to be sure.

But I was curious why polygamy — which is legally practiced and accepted in some 850 societies across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands — is illegal here.

The short answer is persecution of religious minorities, intrusion of church into state, and sex-negative laws. There were laws that criminalized birth control, sex with anyone other than your spouse, oral and anal sex, gay sex, sex with the lights on, sex toys, "dirty" talk during sex, erotica, so on and so forth. Most of those laws have been overturned by the courts, repealed, or rendered unenforceable, but the ban on the polygamous freedom to marry remains, for now, in more places than the ban on the same-gender freedom to marry.

Well, that’s because the Supreme Court doesn’t much like it, determining more than 100 years ago that polygamy was “an offence against society” (Reynolds v. U.S.) and compared it to “murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres,” or so writes lawyer and social critic Wendy Kaminer.

Yet it seems somewhat hypocritical of us that although we seem to be OK with serial monogamy, we aren’t OK with people who seek alternative lifestyles to get their needs met while also being committed, loving and honest with their partners.

Our laws and attitudes aren't often consistent, but we can work towards full marriage equality. Readers are asked for their opinions, so if you click through, consider sharing yours.

A comment was left by someone identifying as Jancis M. Andrews, who apparently thinks patriarchal religion-based polygyny under a system of gender inequality is the only form of polygamy that exists...

It is clear that in the 21st century, polygamy is a matter of the equality of women. Canadians do not want concubines and harems in their country. The year is 2013 AD, not 2013 BC, and polygamy belongs to the dark ages when women were considered nothing but chattels.

Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused
by sexism and gender inequality under the law.

An adult, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share the fundamental right to marry with ANY consenting ADULTS. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love with, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but isn't free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree. A woman, like a man, should be free to marry a woman, two women, two men, or men and women.

All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn't have the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Polygamy and polyamory should not be criminalized nor kept in the shadows. Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if the polygamous freedom to marry was legalized. We need FULL marriage equality! Equality just for some is not equality.

Latest Consanguinamory Poll at SodaHead

I enjoyed contributing to a certain question-and-answer forum. Unfortunately, I'm not able to right now (perhaps I will go into detail about that in another entry), but fortunately, there are other places for questions and answers. A recent poll at sodahead.com asked, "Incest is it wrong?" I found the wording of the question and the pre-listed answer choices to be a bit awkward, but I was happy to see someone raising the issue again, even if it did attract some ridiculous (and what some would find offensive) responses.

John said it is wrong, writing...

Kind of sick IMO. There is no shortage of willing partners outside the home why would you stoop so low?

And we call those Discredited Arguments #1 and 21.

Drebi is an ally...

Regardless of my personal stance on the matter, I believe that competent, consenting *Human* adults should be able to engage in whatever activities they want, so long as it does not (directly and unnessecarily) contribute to the detriment of humanity.

VampFreak13 is not...

Incest is normally applied to close family relatives...first and second mostly...this closeness can cause deformities in offspring...not to mention the fact that is is not socially acceptable...as well as morally wrong...yes is history it has happened but that still does not make it right... :)

Discredited Arguments #2, 4, and 18.

Drebi adds...

Actually, incest of even close genetic relatives (siblings, parent/child) does not tend to cause any more mutations than when a female smoker aged 35 decides to breed.

Interracial relationships were not always (and in some places are still not) considered socially acceptable and were/are considered immoral. That doesn't necessarily mean it was/is wrong.

Slavery and the owning of women was at one point (and in some places still is) considered socially acceptable and moral. That doesn't necessarily mean it was/is right.

The only time society should intervene in others' lives is when it involves children, non-human animals and non-consesual/competent adults.

Excellent!

Last I checked the poll, there were some allies and the rest of anti-equality people, as usual, just invoked their persona disgust, which doesn't make consanguinamory wrong. So again, we see that there is no good reason to discriminate against people who have consanguineous sex or relationships.

Speaking of Advice Columns

Dear Abby recently published a letter from Girl Left Behind in California...

"Myles" and I have known each other for five years, but have grown really close over the past three. We tell each other everything, and I have fallen in love with him.

A few months ago, Myles sent me a text saying he needed to tell me a "secret." He went on to say the guy he had told me was his brother, "Jeff," is really his lover. Needless to say, that bombshell floored me.

We have discussed it in person, and I have never told him how I feel. I visit them a couple of times a month and always go home feeling hurt. I want Myles for myself, even though I know I can't have him. I don't want to lose him as my friend, but it hurts seeing him and Jeff together. How do I resolve this?

Abby's response doesn't address the fact that Jeff and Myles could be brothers. Myles could have very well said that Jeff is his brother and not have been lying. They could be brothers and lovers. Either way, if they are monogamous, or if Myles is gay rather than flexible or bisexual, the letter-writter won't stand a chance in getting anywhere with Myles.

Siblings Need Support, Not Prejudice

Dear Prudence (Emily Yoffe) may become the go-to column for siblings involved in consanguineous sex, but only if she is consistently positive.You might recall that a consanguinamorous pair of brothers were featured previously. This time, it is a sister writing about her relationship with her brother.

No Sibling Rivalry wrote…

My brother and I are having a physical relationship. Our parents are admirable people who took good care of us, but are distant and aloof, and I think that my brother and I turned to each other for warmth and emotional support. He’s two years older and looked out for me in high school, and I shared with him what girls are like, which made him more confident socially. After he went away to college, I chose a college in the same city as his, so we continued to see a lot of each other. I'm now a senior and he's a graduate student. About three months ago we were sitting on my couch watching a sad movie and when it was over we turned to each other, exchanged a look, and started kissing.

So they were educated adults when this level of their relationship started. But they are close in age anyway.

Now we lie on the bed, clothed, and kiss and talk and hold each other. When I'm with him I feel loved and cared for. We have not had sex because there's a psychological barrier that neither of us wants to cross.

That’s likely a matter of allowing irrational prejudice to intrude into their relationship.

I go on dates with other men, but I never feel the emotional connection that I feel with my brother. I needed to talk to someone about this so I went to a counselor at the student health service and in the first session she practically ordered me not to see him for three months.

Ridiculous.

We want to lead normal lives and have families.

That won’t be easy until we have relationship rights and full marriage equality for all, but it is possible. Others are doing it.

We both know intellectually that we shouldn't be doing this, but we don't feel the wrongness of it.

That’s because it isn’t wrong.

Here’s part of the response given…

I know I more or less gave a pass recently to a pair of middle-aged incestuous gay twins, but they had long ago made a physical and emotional commitment to each other, and were asking me about whether they should let their family know. I think even those two men would advise you two to stop the rubbing and get yourselves disentangled emotionally.

There is no reason why these siblings should be struggling. They no doubt fear the bigotry and stigma against consanguinamory, but they shouldn’t have to settle for other people they don’t care as much about or have as much chemistry with. That isn’t fair for anyone involved. They should be free to be together, and to get married, etc. if they want.

This column is being discussed at the Kindred Spirits forum, where people who have “been there, done that” and are happy together aren’t imporessed with the counselor or with the reponse given in the column.


No Sibling Rivalry, if you find this blog, please know that you're not alone. This may help you, and I encourage you to join the friendly people at Kindred Spirits.

Some Unique Benefits to Polyamory

We get "7 Unique Benefits of a Polyamorous Relationship" from Heather Jensen at allwomentalk.com. According to her, some of these benefits include added support and less pressure. I agree that with the right people, this is true. Go read it yourself.

There are tradeoffs for any relationship, and with polyamorous relationships there are some benefits, and some people find some benefits with monogamous relationships. For someone who needs polyamory, however (someone who is polyamorous as part of who they are, dating or not), the tradeoff in promising monogamy is usually too big.

As Jensen notes, polyamory isn't for everyone. But it is for some.

Anti-Equality Utah Law in Court

The court case involving the "Sister Wives" polygynists (plural marriage) is in the news again. Remember, this case is in court because Utah has laws that more or less criminalize polyamorous cohabitation or considering more than one person your spouse. Here is the report at sltrib.com by Nate Carlisle and Jim Dalrymple II...

As the hearing proceeded, Waddoups zeroed in on the definition of a polygamous relationship. Posing a hypothetical question he asked what the difference was between a polygamous relationship and an unmarried man who chooses to have intimate relationships with three women.

After a series of increasingly heated exchanges, Assistant Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen replied that a polygamous relationship is different. He said it was defined by people representing themselves as married.

“I think it’s the representation that they make to the world,” Jensen said.

Waddoups questioned whether the state had created an arbitrary standard for prosecuting relationships.

“The law has to draw a line somewhere,” Jensen argued.

“They have to be rational lines,” Waddoups shot back.

The rational line is consenting adults. Adults should be free to share love, sex, residence and marriage with ANY consenting adults.

Waddoups said he wondered if Utah’s bigamy statute was created to “stamp out a religious practice.”

Jensen said that religion clearly was a part of past anti-polygamy laws, but also argued that every state has laws that ban polygamy.

Waddoups questioned Jensen for about 40 minutes. Waddoups questioned Turley for about half that.

Turley criticized the states’ reliance on stories and anecdotal evidence to say polygamy fostered abuse.

“I can give stories in the tens of thousands in monogamous marriages where abuse has occurred,” Turley said.

There is no good reason to deny adults the right to love who and how they want. The law in Utah needs to go, but it will be just one step along the way. Nationwide, we need to allow freedom of religion, freedom of association, and full marriage equality. Abusers will be easier to find and prosecute if the stigma and criminalizations against plural marriages, polygamy, and polyamory are eliminated. There more at the website's blog.

Bigots Trying to Silence Equality at Yahoo Answers

There sure are some bigoted yahoos lurking at Yahoo Answers. I'm active at Yahoo Answers, standing up for relationship rights and reducing ignorance, but bigots just can't handle that.

If you're not familiar with Yahoo Answers, it is one of many, many services that allows people to ask questions and then have others give answers to that question. It also allows for people to vote other answers up or down, and the asker can select a Best Answer or allow voters to select a Best Answer. There is a point system involved that progressively allows privileges.

If a question or an answer violates the "Community Guidelines" it can be reported. An appeal can be made to counter the tattling, but to do so risks points.

Some bigoted coward has taken to reporting my answers again. This happens from time to time, even though I can give the very same answer to essentially the same question and get Best Answer frequently. Anyway, when your answer gets reported, you aren't told who the rat is, or what the specific violation/offending statement was, but you're allowed to appeal at the risk of losing points. So, I appealed a recent reporting, and explained that I had not violated the Guidelines. My appeal was denied. Why? I was only given a one word answer inferring that the topic of my answer was the problem... but the QUESTION was ABOUT that word/topic in the first place. How do you answer a question about a topic without referring to that topic in some way?

If an answer is reported for violating "Community Guidelines," the answer writer should get to know WHO reported the answer AND the person reporting the answer have to quote which part of the answer or what about the answer violates which guideline. Isn't that basic fairness?

I put thought and effort into my answers and I am available to be contacted if someone has a problem with an answer. People can vote down answers or give their own if they don't like mine or anyone else's, so reporting an answer should take some effort and come with some accountability.

Will there be some people who will retaliate against someone who reports their answer? Probably... in which case the Yahoo Answers administrators can suspect or ban the retaliatory person, right?

Bigots are full of fear. They are losing their fight to deny equality and relationship rights. They're going to act on their hate in many different ways. And although they may win very small battles, their on the wrong side of history... regardless of what happens at Yahoo Answers.

GSA is Real

Genetic Sexual Attraction is real. It doesn't always lead to sex, but it always involves powerful feelings, reciprocated or not. The best GSA-specific forum to discuss GSA is here.

Here's a recent post by someone who is looking for help...

Well, here I am. Never heard about GSA before, and if you would have asked me about this a few years ago, I would have said it was perverted, wrong, and immoral like so many people out there who do not know what gsa is about would think.

However, if one has never experienced this so powerful phenomenon, they would not know how truly beautiful it is.

I met a half sister which is the most amazing and nicest person in the world. We share a common bond. I am not even talking about sex or wanting to have sex, it is a connection that is so deep and elusive, that to actually experience it is a gift in my opinion. I love her and she means everything to me. I have not talked about this to her of course, and have not gotten any further than normal meeting and getting to know each other, but I can sure feel a bond and connection. I wonder if she does. The complicated part of gsa happens when it backfires and they do not reciprocate, and also nobody can know about it. Treading lightly right now. Any suggestions? I dated women in the past, and have never felt a connection with anyone who is so much like myself until now.

Feelings like these are typical for someone experiencing GSA. This is something that needs to be researched and brought out of the shadows, rather than subject to bigotry and criminalization.

Will Queensland Regress?

The Australian territory may regress by changing the law to interfere more in consensual relationships. See this article from Rae Wilson at qt.com...

A LOOPHOLE enabling de facto partners a legal defence to incest in Queensland through marriage is a step closer to being shut.

Two petitions against the defence, enacted in Queensland during 1997 to legalise "Brady bunch" relationships among step-siblings, have been lodged in Queensland Parliament.

Stepsiblings, adopted siblings, half-siblings, or full siblings... if they are all consenting adults or are minors close in age who are acting with mutual interest with no coercion, should not be subject to criminal charges or discrimination.

Child safety advocate Beryl Spencer collected the 252 signatures after becoming closely involved with an Ipswich family in a case where the Court of Appeal quashed an incest conviction through this defence in 2008.

The man was initially convicted after a trial in Ipswich for having sex with his de facto wife's 17-year-old daughter, making her above the consenting age but not yet an adult.

However, the Court of Appeal found the man and teen were "lawfully entitled to be married".

The Court of Appeal did find his actions "morally reprehensible" though, noting he regarded the girl as his daughter and she regarded him as her father.

Prosecute predators for abuse, neglect, assault, etc. Leave lovers alone. If the law allows her to consent to have group sex with five strangers in their 40s or 50s, should it prevent her from having sex with someone who married her mother? Either we take her ability to consent and her decisions over her own body seriously or we don't. I am not arguing against age of consent laws, but they should be applied consistently. Nobody has to think any given relationship or sexual encounter is a good idea to see that if others choose to do it, that should be their right.

Queensland, and Australia as a whole, should adopt relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all. If someone does not have the right to decide with whom she can share her body and her love, what rights does she really have?

ADDITION: I should have noted that there are current, former, and future stepsiblings and stepparents/adult stepchildren who have had sex or ongoing romances. To criminalize their relationships is absurd. Also, what will the legal restrictions be? If a John legally weds Jane, it will be illegal for him to have sex with Jane's 30-year-old daughter Helen even though Jane is supportive? But it would still be legal for John to have sex with Jane one night and Helen the next and live with both of them as long as he doesn't legally wed Jane? Would two people who met in their late teens be forbidden from getting together because their parents then married? Isn't is much more simple and fair to stick to prosecuting assaults/molestation, rather than consensual sex?

Taiwanese Perfoming Artist Affectionate With Mother

That shouldn't make headlines, but unforunately it did. Show Luo is is a singer, dancer, and actor who has been the target bigoted remarks. From asiapopstarnews.wordpress.com...

The series of concerts have drained him physically and mentally as he had to challenge difficult dance steps, performing dangerous stunts such as singing on a flying wheel. As a result, Show’s mother was terribly worried and had to even seek medication to stabilise her blood pressure.

At the post-concert celebration, Show said, “What I want to do now is to say sorry to my mother”. Show subsequently demonstrated his love for his mother by kissing her on her lips.

Earlier, the pop singer had been criticised as being incestuous for kissing his mother on her lips. Unfazed by the harsh criticisms, Show said, “Those who called me incestuous Show do not know what love is!”

He added, “I only have one mother. If I do not love her, who else will?”

These are adults. Whatever level of affection they have should be up to them, not anyone outside their relationship. Nobody should be discouraged from hugging, hand-holding, or kissing in public because other people have a proglem with affection.

Consanguinamory is Not Wrong

More and more people are publicly explaining why consanguinamory (consensual incest or consanguineous sex) is not wrong. Scott at (perhaps NOT SAFE FOR WORK due to discussion and some language) sexpressed.com is the latest example I found...

But what if the incestuous acts are happening between people who are not intending to or cannot possibly bear children and all persons involved are consenting adults? This is where the term “ethical incest” comes into play. If the reasons that incest is made illegal are taken out of the equation shouldn’t the incest cease to be illegal?

That some consanguineous couples can have children together is not even a reason in the first place. See Discredited Argument #18.


Now I’m sure that if two consenting adults are engaging in ethical incest the police aren’t going to come bang down their door and arrest them.

No, but a jealous person may rat them out.

But could the mother and son get married? Could they be “out” about their relationship and not risk prosecution? No, and no.

And that is a problem. It is inequality.

As a sex-positive person I just can’t get behind that; these two people are adults consenting to sexual acts that put no one in danger so they should be allowed to do as they please.

Exactly!

He then demolishes Discredited Argument #1

The only reason left that this 25 year old man and his 55 year old barren mother can’t have a relationship is because it is icky. It is gross and immoral and oh my god the mother and son thing is so fucked up. But folks, that’s not a good reason. Just because John Q. Public thinks that gays having sex and getting married to eachother is disgusting doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Just because someone is horrified by the idea of people going to S&M clubs doesn’t mean they should all be shut down. We as a society need to be open to all ethical forms of sexuality and relationships, even if they make us want to puke.

Thank you, Scott!

University Course to Discuss Consanguinamory

I offer qualified kudos to Stefani Engelstein and the University of Missouri for offering this course...

WGST 8005/German 8087/English 8110 - Topics in Women's and Gender Studies-Humanities
Stefani Engelstein
MW 2:00-3:15pm | Strickland Hall 115 

Semester Topic: Sibling Incest in Theory and Literature 

This course will explore a number of theoretical and critical perspectives on incest, and sibling incest in particular, alongside readings of literature of the late eighteenth through early twentieth century. We will consider the way incest functions to establish or to upset identity in the context of national, religious, racial, and familial structures. We will also examine the deployment of erotic desire, love, and sympathy as political, economic, and textual strategies, and analyze the gender dynamics involved in such deployment. Finally, we will investigate the positioning of the incest taboo at the border of nature and culture, or science and the humanities, in the context of the founding of disciplines and the policing of their boundaries.

No knowledge of German is required for this course, but Masters students in German Studies will be expected to read texts in German when that was the language of composition.

It is great to see a discussion of something that is, and has always been, a part of life and literature. Hopefully, Engelstein's course will dispel false notions, wiping away ignorance and prejudice.

The professional bigots and sex-negative nutjobs are already threatening to faint. I found they were linking to campusreform.org's coverage by Oliver Darcy...

The university did not make a spokesperson available for comment, despite multiple requests from Campus Reform. Engelstein did not respond to requests for comment.

Engelstein, who will teach the class, has also authored a number of scholarly articles on the topic of sibling incest and a book entitled Sibling Logic: Incest, Collective Identity, and the Subject.

Sounds interesting. Darcy was tipped off by Jennifer Kabbany at thecollegefix.com, under the heading of "Outrageous Offerings: Top Five Worst Classes of Spring 2013 Semester."

Perusing class schedules at universities across the nation illustrates that legitimate courses of study can be found among the hallowed halls of higher education, but there’s plenty of fringe, questionable, biased or pointless classes peppered throughout. Here’s a look at some of the most extreme examples of that from this spring’s course catalogs:

Fringe? No, it is certainly not fringe. Questionable, biased? How are we to know since we haven't taken the course? Pointless? Clearly not.

Bottom line: it’s a ridiculous compilation of academic gobbledygook that ultimately seeks to defend and normalize incest as commonplace and acceptable.

It is commonplace and it is acceptable.

I am certain there are far more students at the university who've engaged in consensual incest with a sibling than will be taking the course. The fact is, sibling consanguinamory has gone on throughout human history, and is going on right now. Consanguineous sex play, exploration, and experimentation is going on all over the world, and in some cases, siblings are living out lifelong spousal relationships. Why should higher education ignore that, or the depiction  of such in literature or the other arts? Would these naysayers ban Greek Mythology classes? Expunge from film classes the scene in "The Empire Strikes Back" in which a sister kisses her brother? The histories of the royals in Hawaii, ancient Egypt, and elsewhere? There's a lot of history and classic art that would be ignored in academia, all to push a sex-negative agenda by sex police types. Some of these very same critics will wave their Bible, which, ironically, depicts and implies incest in many passages.

Nobody should challenge the University of Missouri by asking why it will have a course discussing sibling incest. Rather, other universities should be asked why they don't.

Polyamory and Children

At psychologytoday.com, Bella DePaulo, Ph.D. addresses "Is Polyamory Bad for the Children?" In the years to come, there will be much more research on this topic.

In the interviews, the parents described a number of ways their children benefited from the polyamory:

• “The children had more individualized time with adults.”

• They “could spend less time in day care because of the flexibility of having multiple parental figures involved in their lives.”

• “…the greater diversity of interests available from adult figures helped children foster a wider variety of hobbies and skills.”

I expected those. Regarding the first one, it is a relatively new development in history to group 20-30 kids of the same age together under the limited supervision a lone, unrelated adult or several situations like that through the day, day in and day out. Children used to work alongside their parents and other adults on farms, in the family business, care for younger siblings, or do things in groups with an age span. I'm not saying we should pull children out of school to work in mines and factories, but there is something to be said for having multiple adults and other children of different ages around.

The parents mentioned drawbacks as well, particularly “the discomfort of having partnerships between adults dissolve and the resulting emotional trauma for children who may have been very attached to a departing partner.”

That is something you find in all relationships, not just polyamorous ones.

Update on Nevada Prosecution

A former police captain pleads guilty to incest. This is an update to this story and it ran at elkodaily.com. Dylan Woolf Harris reports...



Ross Andreson/Elko Daily Free Press

Despite facing the possibility of life in prison, Aaron Hughes pleaded guilty Monday to incest and will avoid a public trial and additional charges.

The 40-year-old former Elko police captain matter-of-factly admitted in court to having sex with a female relative.

“I entered into an act of fornication with a relative,” Hughes told District Judge Nancy Porter.

What a farce.

The judge will have few options when sentencing Hughes on March 25. By statute, defendants guilty of incest are to be sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after two years. However, Hughes will under go a pycho-sexual evaluation and if he’s deemed to be low risk for repeating the offense, he could be given probation instead of prison time.

Life sentences are appropriate for rape or child molestation, not for consensual sex or even statutory rape. Nevada law needs to be changed.

He will also be required to have lifetime supervision and register as a sex offender.

Absurd.

UPDATE: He was sentenced to life. Outrageous.

UPDATE from February 2017.

Does Iowa Still Prosecute Consenting Adults?

Breaking news out of the state of Iowa, and the details are scant. At spencerdailyreporter.com we are told in the headline that a "Spencer pair" was "charged with incest."

Two Spencer residents were booked into Clay County Jail on Sunday, each charged with incest. Jerrold Marble, 35, and Elizabeth Welch, 18, were each arrested and charged in the matter.

The blurb go on to say that investigation is ongoing and that more information will provided after completion of the investigation.

Three things I noted from the scant information provided:

1. These people are both adults.
2. Their pictures were included in the online article.
3. They have different last names.

I did find a Facebook page that appears to be Elizabeth's, and one of her "friends" is someone by the name of Jerrold Marble, though he has no picture displayed on the Facebook page. I also found a second Facebook page with the name and picture of Elizabeth Welch connected to the other one as a "sister," but I think they are the same person. An additional name is also provided at that page, and again that name is different than Marble's, while plenty of other family members are listed. Marble is not listed as a family member.

So, my experienced speculation based on this information is that we should either expect there is an underage victim we have yet to hear about, or, more likely, this is a matter of consensual sex between the adults named and pictured, making it a victimless "crime." After all, the news wouldn't print the name and picture of a sex crime victim, right? Given the information available, I think it is entirely possible this was a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

If this is a matter of consensual sex between adults, I urge law enforcement, including Spencer Police Chief Mark Lawson, to stop wasting taxpayer resources. Drop the case and set them free, with apologies. If they want to be together, there is no good reason to keep them apart.


If this pair abused a minor, that is a far different matter.

I will track this story.

Through the Years

If there is a better place online to discuss consanguinamory and consanguineous sex than the Kindred Spirits forum, I am unaware of it. There's a great group of people there and the administration is excellent. There are many brother-sister couples represented there, but everyone is welcome as long as they read and immediately follow the rules: parents and their adult children, aunts/uncles/nephews/nieces, cousins, etc., including those who are polyamorous.

Here's an example of someone explaining why they came to the forum (be warned it's a little explicit, although no words are used that can't be used on broadcast radio/televions in the US)...

Rhode Island and Illinois Could Increase Freedom to Marry

The two US states are already progressive on consanguineous sex, as Rhode Island has no laws against it and Illinois doesn't prosecute if the lovers are adults. Now, both states are considering legislation to adopt the limited same-gender freedom to marry.

This is a step in the right direction.

Both states should adopt relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality. There is no reason why, for example, a grown woman should be denied the freedom to marry another woman, or two women, or a man and a woman, even if one of them is her sibling. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

I call on the lawmakers of Rhode Island and Illinois to lead the way in the US to full marriage equality.

Is Michigan Still Prosecuting Consenting Adults?

I can't tell from this news article, the headline claiming an criminal charge for "incest," whether this is a matter of consensual sex between adults or a predatory assault. Obviously, there is a big difference between those two. Here's what the article by Brad Devereaux reported at mlive.com (emphases are mine)...

The 45-year-old Farwell man who was arrested on Christmas Day and charged with criminal sexual assault third degree involving incest appeared in the 80th District Court in Clare County on Wednesday, Dec. 26.

Merry Christmas!

Michigan State Police arrested Nokes at his home in Farwell after an investigation of a complaint they received several months earlier from Nokes' family member, alleging three instances on incest in Farwell and one instance in Clinton County.

That sounds like a third party complaining, rather than the possible victim.

Thankfully, the article was helpful by linking to this information about the applicable state law. Again, emphases are mine...

Freedom to Marry Doesn't Always Mean Marriage Equality

[I'm bumping up this entry because Maryland finally has the limited same-gender freedom to marry and I see many reports about how it is "marriage equality." What you see below was originally posted on February 13, 2011. Again, Maryland now has the limited same-gender freedom to marry as of TODAY!]

Maryland is one of the US states currently debating the implementation of the freedom to same-sex marriage. Some people refer to this as marriage equality, as seen in this blog...

So, the Maryland Senate is discussing a bill for marriage equality.

Or here at this Patch article, "Councilman Testifies for Marriage Equality"...

"Right now, because marriage equality is already in effect just down the road in the District of Columbia, countless dollars are being diverted away from Maryland, to Washington D.C.'s hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, flourists [stet], caterers, tailors -- not to mention all the attorneys, accountants, financial planners, and others who provide services to couples after they are married. Right now, many of our businesses are losing a critical sector of clientele, and in the process, we are not preventing anyone who wants to get married from doing so. So many of our businesses are missing out on a tremendous opportunity, because of a legal roadblock that - years from now - will seem like an antiquated notion."

And believe it or not, you can also see an example of this at RationalSkepticism.org...

It looks like Maryland is going to be the next state to offer full marriage equality for its citizens.

I disagree with this phrasing. Full marriage equality would mean that all marriages are legal and recognized; that any adult can marry any consenting adult(s). It's not equality if it is only "equality for some." It will be great if Maryland will move towards full marriage equality by adding another freedom to marry; the same-sex freedom to marry. But I do make the distinction between a freedom to marry, such as the right to same-sex marriage or the right to consanguineous marriage, and when we will have all freedoms to marry; full marriage equality. Let's keep the momentum going!