Ever Wanted to Be In a Documentary?

Or maybe just help the documentary production research? There's a company called Clover Films that is looking for "alternative" relationships, including nonmonogamous or polyamorous, or consanguineous relationships. Someone there contacted me and wrote...

I am currently researching a documentary series for an international broadcaster around the subject of marriage equality rights and the struggles of people in alternative relationships across different societies and cultures worldwide. 

Clover Films is an international award winning documentary company, including 2 Emmys. One of our recent titles includes Transgenders: Pakistan's Open Secret. We explored the relationship between the transgender community in Karachi, Pakistan and Pakistani society. This film was selected by the UNAFF (United Nations Association Film Festival) and had a tremendous response when broadcast. 

We are not aiming to produce a tactless voyeuristic documentary series. We look at tough-to-tackle subjects and put them into the respective cultural context they deserve. There are many complex and complicated questions, and the entire series will be developed to address some of the misconceptions about these issues.

I asked about protecting identities of people who are closeted, and was provided with more information...

If you get a chance, check out our website. You'll see we're always working with people whose identities we must conceal through blurring and voice recognition: Taliban fighters, witnesses to crimes, abused children, etc. One of the reasons we are so respected and get such access is because we devote a lot of time and resources to ensure anonymity for people who need it. It would be irresponsible not to be dedicated to that, first and foremost. Please know we completely understand and respect you for also doing the same. 

That being said, should any participants feel that they want to appear openly, documentary films do have more impact when people can identify with those taking part. We would always work together with our participants and broadcasters to ensure that the right decision is made. On our most recent film in Pakistan, we worked incredibly closely with the broadcaster lawyers to protect the participants of our film.

And...

This isn't a casting call. We're looking to make a serious documentary series, not a voyeuristic reality show. 

Please assure your contacts that Clover is a serious production company that has worked with the BBC, Al Jazeera, PBS FRONTLINE and many, many more channels internationally.

So, if you're interested, follow the link at the top of the entry to make contact. When these things are done right, they can open minds and hearts.

It Must Be Prosecuted Because... Prosecution!

Previously, I noted positive news out of Germany about support for decriminalizing consanguineous sex between siblings. I wanted to take a look at how a couple of other news sources covered the story. Here's the news as it is presented at telegraph.co.uk by Justin Huggler.

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Laws against consanguinamory are actually harmful to families, in many ways, including adults who are in consensual relationships some raising children together, feeling that they can't be completely honest and open with health care providers and being denied equal access to legal marriage when they feel it would benefit them; peaceful homes being disrupted and torn apart as adults are prosecuted for consensual sex and their children taken away; minors close in age engaging in normal adolescent experimentation with each other not being able to talk with parents or counselors about it... on and on it goes.

About one famous case specifically...

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

And what were those consequences? Criminal prosecution! Don't you see how that works? The people PROSECUTING are telling lovers the problem with them being together is... that they could be prosecuted! Hmmm... how to remove the negative consequences... oh yeah... how about... NOT PROSECUTING THEM???

German Ethics Council Gets It Partially Right

One of the most famous cases of Genetic Sexual Attraction that was reported in the news media was the Stübing case in Germany, in which consenting adults were prosecuted, convicted, and given criminal sentences for loving each other. Now there may be some legal progress around the corner.

Several news outlets are reporting on this story, and here's what was printed at dw.de... 

The German Ethics Council has called for the repeal of the prohibition of incest between siblings. In a statement released on Wednesday, the majority of the council's members requested that consensual sexual relations between siblings of legal age should no longer be a crime.

That's a good start.

Among other things, the council argued that the risk of genetic impairment to a child born from an incestuous relationship doesn't completely warrant the current ban and that the social taboos remain even without an implemented law.

They've seen through the sham of Discredited Argument #18.

A spokeswoman for Angela Merkel's CDU party, Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, responded to the Ethics Council's vote saying that the abolition of the law against incest would give out the wrong signal.

"Abolishing criminal punishment against incestuous actions within a family would go completely against protecting the undisturbed development of children," she added.

Huh? How so? This is about grown people. Here's the signal it would give out: We see the folly of prosecuting consenting adults for loving each other.

Nine members of the Ethics Council voted for continued adherence to the ban, highlighting the importance of roles within a family, which they say incest threatens to destabilize.

They never explain how, but let's accept their reason for the sake of argument. Would they support decriminalizing consanguinamory for cases like with the one the article references, in which they were not raised together and thus did not have those roles? Or was the "destabilization" thing just an excuse to mask their personal prejudice? I think we know the answer.

Two members of the council abstained from the vote.

Statistically, at is very likely at least one if not more of the people on council have personal experience with a sibling that was positive.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults. This is a a small step in the right direction.

Couple Expecting a Child Denied Their Right to Marry

This is the thirty-ninth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are, by law, denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law.


The people in interview below are adults, people you might live next to or see every day, in a consensual relationship with each other. Yet they face discrimination and prejudice for their love, having to hide the truth. They aren't hurting anyone; why should they have to hide and be denied their rights?


Read the interview below and see for yourself what they have to say. You may think their relationship is interesting, or it might make you uncomfortable, but either way, should they be denied equal access to marriage?


*** PLEASE NOTE that this is, perhaps, the "most taboo" of relationships between consenting adults; a father and the daughter he raised living together as spouses, having a child together. ALSO,  a few answers get somewhat sexually intense.***


*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe yourself.

Jenna: My name is Jenna, I'm 23, white, 5'3. I live with my father currently. I go to a local technical college for medical science with the hopes to be RN after I graduate. I have one older brother; he's 25. I'm currently pregnant my first pregnancy. It's my father's baby. We live together.

John: My is John, I'm 45 years old, I'm white, 6'2. I stay in good shape because I work in construction and constantly am lifting and moving heavy objects. I've been doing it for twenty years now. I'm a country boy so I enjoy hunting, fishing, going mudding, stuff like that, but I clean up nicely when I go out to eat or whatever. I have two brothers; an older one and a younger one.


FME: Are you married or have you ever been married?

John: I'd been married once, to the mother of my two oldest kids.

Jenna: I have never been married.

Banking on Love

By my count, this is the thirty-seventh ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are, by law, denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law. (Read the interview and you'll see how they decided to work around this.)

The man in the interview below is a responsible adult, someone you might live next to or work with, in a consensual relationship with another adult. Yet they face discrimination and prejudice for their love, having to hide the truth. They are very much in love and it is cruel to discriminate against them or criminalize their relationship.

Read the interview below and ask yourself if there is one good reason why people like this person, going under the name "Ranger," should be denied the right to marry and have their marriages treated equally under the law or should have to hide the full, true nature of their relationship from anyone.



*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Tell us about yourself.

Ranger: I am a 28 year old banker, living in Canada, originally from India. My looks are average and so is the built. I have only one younger sister who is two years younger than me, who is now my wife. She is extraordinarily good-looking.

Search Phrase of the Day

People find this blog through various paths, especially some interesting searches. Here is one that definitely makes sense for arriving at this blog...

Is it wrong if I want to seduce my dad

My short answer is that wanting to seduce your dad is never wrong. Your attractions are yours, and you have your feelings for whatever reason. It is not such a rare fantasy. Also, actually taking action to seduce your father, provided you are an adult yourself, would only be wrong if it was intended to cause some harm (get him arrested, for example) or if it would involve you or him violating intact vows or agreements with others in a way that would be kept secret. It is also a bad idea if you're completely wrong for each other (for example, he wants to reserve sex for a serious ongoing relationship, and you just want a fling.)

There are many women out there who have seduced their father.

If you want to know how to go about doing it, much of what I wrote here, about seducing a mother, applies.

The good news is, as long as you are a gender to which your father is attracted, it is generally easier to seduce a father than it is a mother, but that is a broad generalization. One reason is that it is easier to tell if a man is getting aroused. Also, while it isn't a good tactic to seduce a mother by exposing yourself, exposed skin may be of assistance in seducing a father.

In sex-negative circles, fathers are tasked with denying the sexuality of even their grown children, so a father may be resistant to give in to seduction on this basis. Reassuring him that he's done nothing wrong and this is something you want can help.

Be Afraid! Equality Might Mean More Paperwork!

Brian C. Hales, who has written six books on "Mormon polygamy" asks at sltrib.com if we're ready for a coming age of "omnigamy."  He tries to raise vague concerns about polyamorous or polygamous marriages.

Seven years ago, a historian friend predicted that within 10 years polygamy would be legal in the United States. At the time, I had some doubts. However, the likelihood seems much greater in light of the recent court rulings.

May it happen sooner rather than later. There is no good reason to deny this freedom to marry.

The unavoidable result is "omnigamy," or "group marriage," where everyone is married to everyone, or at least some of the people in the network.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

While it may sound a little far-fetched, legalized polygamy and same-sex marriage would undeniably allow a person to be married to a limitless number of spouses. Perhaps legislators and judges would seek to place limits, but what would they be? No more than 10 spouses in a network? Twenty? Fifty?

I really don't think we need to worry about it. We have trouble just keeping monogamous marriages together. It will be self-regulating. Most marriages will be monogamous in structure. There will be a lot of "V" or triad marriages, and a few "N" or quad marriages, and a few polycules with five. It will be very rare to see marriages involving more people.

Is there anything inherently problematic with this scenario? Well, there would be interesting consequences for the U.S. governmental agencies. For example, as marriage has helped non-Americans receive U.S. citizenship in the past, omnigamy would complicate that process. Also, filing a "joint" income tax could make for much larger tax returns.

Laws and policies can be altered to accommodate fundamental rights like marriage.

It appears logistical repercussions have not been adequately studied.

The same thing could have been said about abolishing slavery. In fact, I think it was. People used to argue about the problems of having all of those freed people around. Here are the repercussions: more people having the relationships they want, and fewer people getting into a marriage they don't want to stay in the closet.

Even more potentially disturbing is the impact these changes might have upon the children who would be raised under this new "family" standard.

Seriously?!? It is very, very common for children to currently be raised today by two warring households of parents and stepparents, or with only one parent in sight. And he's worried about having three or more adults, committed to a cooperative home environment? It is entirely legal for three or more adults to live together and raise children together now, just not for them to have them be legally married. If your argument is that children should be raised in married home, your should be helping those adults marry!

Polyamorists Among Edmontonians

Considering recent history in Canada and media coverage thereof, it is nice to see a piece at edmontonjournal.com that doesn't trash poly people. Instead, Fiona Buchanan interviewed Alyson Sidra. Even the comments, last I checked, had some great explanatory worth.

Photograph by: John Lucas , Edmonton Journal

Polyamory Edmonton is a group of people that practise consensual, non-monogamous relationships. They are in the process of becoming a non-profit organization and want to educate Edmontonians about their unconventional take on romantic partnerships.

Good for them!

What is polyamory?
If someone identifies as polyamorous, they are open to having more than one romantic partner with the openness, consent and honesty of everyone involved. There wouldn’t be any cheating or anything secretive. Everyone knows who the other is dating or involved with.

That's a good way of explaining polyamory. 

What makes polyamory any different from polygamy or polyandry?

Well first of all, polyandry is a form of polygamy. If you only want to describe one male-multiple female marriages, that would be polygyny. As I explain in the link, I consider polygamy to be a subset of polyamory.

Does this relationship structure actually work out in the long-term?

Given how many divorces and breakups there are among claimed monogamists, the same question could be asked of monogamy.

Can you explain why people wouldn’t want to expose their polyamorous relationships publicly?

Sure: ignorance, hate, envy, bigotry, discrimination. There is nothing stopping a prejudiced person from firing a polyamorous person, for example.

Thanks to the news source for running the interview! We need more people like Alyson to inform and educate people to increase awareness. Wherever you live, there are polyamorous people not far from you. You probably interact with someone who is polyamorous on a daily or near-daily basis.

It's Refreshing to See Reason Rather Than Hate

Recently, we saw that the US state of Georgia is still arresting and prosecuting consenting adults for having sex with each other. News of this case has been distributed far and wide, often with hateful and ignorant comments. But Rachel Burger had a better take at thoughtsonliberty.com...

This is just nuts.

Collectively, the two siblings now have an arrest record and will have over $20,000 worth of debt to the state. They may have to register as sex offenders. Even though I, like many Game of Thrones fans, think that incest is unnatural and unhealthy for any future offspring they might have, I don’t think having consensual sex with your brother or sister should mean that the state has license to effectively ruin your life.

Thank you!

Falling For the Girl Next Door

A Friend of Lily who is also a Friend of FME tipped me off to this thread at reddit.com, which can be a great place to read up on consanguinamory.

Someone going by "GSA Brother" kicked it off...

Never knew my dad growing up. My mom's best friend lived a couple houses down from us. I was best friends with her son and daughter. Her daughter is my age.

In high school, we started dating and ended up having sex. She broke up with me when her mom told her we had the same father. We were both pretty upset by it. We thought we were in love.

If she lived a couple houses down, that is an interesting situation. Usually, what we describe as Genetic Sexual Attraction happens when one or both/all the of the people involved spend almost no time together from about age seven well into puberty, and then are reunited or introduced. When genetic relatives are raised together and fall in love, that is generally not considered GSA because there is a different social dynamic at work. But is growing up a couple of doors away being raised together or apart? I guess it depends. Many people have fallen in love with the girl or guy "next door" even though they knew each other throughout childhood.

It was a long time before we started even talking again. But at college (we both go to the same state university) we got to the point we were hanging out all the time like 'before' and eventually our attraction to each other got the best of us. We had sex again. I loved it, but she was freaked out and scared.

We talked it through, and we decided to give it a try as a couple, but in secret from anyone who knew about us being siblings (half).

We've been together for over two years now. Our parents know about it now, and hate it.

So, that was the short version I guess. There was a lot of drama about our relationship when we were in high school (rightfully so).

It's too bad that the parents aren't more supportive.

In a Tizzy About Student Newspaper Printing Account of Threesome

Sex columnists at colleges are a favorite target of sex-negative people. For example, see this posting at collegeinsurrection.com by Casey Breznick with the totally not-trying-to-capitalize-on-incest headline of "Cornell Student Newspaper Sex Columnist Celebrates Incest?"

A guest article submission to the Cornell Daily Sun on Aug. 28 from “Rocky M.” was, to say the least, quite disgusting and very bizarre.

Oh do tell!

Basically, it tells the tale of two Cornellian twin brothers who were with a woman at the same time. 

You call that "disgusting" and "bizarre?" That's a fantasy a lot of women (and men) have.

However, it seems like this kind of smut isn’t fit for a student newspaper, especially for the nation’s number one college newspaper last year.

Well, then, I suppose The Bible is out, too? 

Breznick was so disgusted that a large portion of the "smut" was then quoted, complete with a link.

You can read the "smut" here. Of course is is NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

This stuff happens. Should media ignore it?