End the Persecution of Tony Washington

I found ESPN’s coverage of the sad tale of Tony Washington, which I was tipped off to by another piece I examined. Allison Glock should be commended for this article, which highlights the injustice of prosecuting teenagers for consensual youthful experimentation, and labeling such behavior with a word that conjures up images of a father brutalizing a child.

The whole thing is worth a read, but I will try to boil it down. Washington is an impressive physical specimen who could be playing in the NFL if it weren’t for the ridiculous prosecution of his experimentation with his sister, and the branding of him with a “sex offender” tag.

He had a lot of chaos in his life as a child. Someone sexualized him (molested, really) when he was nine years old. His father left the family when he was twelve. There were several moves, and rough neighborhoods. His sister, Caylen, was a constant in his life, younger by only a year, and he looked after her.

On May 9, 2003, Washington pleaded guilty to having consensual sex with his biological sister, Caylen. He was 16, she was 15.

"Incest," he says, looking straight ahead.

He says he didn't plan to do it. He was a teenager. Unstrung. Unsupervised. His world was at war. He was scared. Isolated. Except she was there, the two of them best friends, close as book pages. They loved each other, trusted each other. And one day that tipped into something more. Something neither one felt was wrong in the moment. "We were just sitting there, and it was like, 'Do you want to?'" he says. There was no discussion. "We did it. And it was like, 'OK, what's next?' We never talked about it after that."

Both say it happened only once more. The two never kissed. Never shared true intimacy. Just spontaneous, ill-conceived connections. Needs met when few others were.

So how does innocent sibling experimentation lead to the guilty criminal plea? Overzealous law enforcement using poorly written laws.

A few months after they first had sex, Washington's sister went out one night to meet somebody. Her boyfriend, she says. Johns, the police suspected. Soon after, Washington's phone rang. His sister had been picked up by the cops. He needed to come get her, and he needed to come right away. "All I knew was my sister was in trouble," he says. "So when I showed up, and they asked me about the two of us, I said yes. I didn't know it was illegal."

It shouldn’t be.

Caylen denied she was a prostitute. So they asked her if there were issues at home. Was that why she ran off? Had anyone in her family touched her, abused her? For more than three hours, she stuck to her story: She left home to meet her boyfriend. She adored her brother. He was a good kid who took care of her. Their family wasn't like that.

More officers came into the interrogation room. Caylen was alone. She had no lawyer, just her and a passel of cops and detectives, and it got later and later into the night, and she was hungry and tired. It was then, four hours in, she says, that they started talking about jail.

Caylen did not want to go to jail. She wanted to leave. She says the cops promised her that if she confessed, everyone could go home, that she and her family would get free counseling and all this ugliness would end, and everyone could sleep in their own beds. They said it was her choice. Did she want to end up in prison? Her brother too?

Caylen folded. She said things that she insists now were "half-true" or "complete lies." She nodded her head yes to every question and said whatever she thought they wanted to hear.

"And then, like that, I was in jail," Tony says.

Caylen was let go as promised. Her brother, a juvenile, was processed as an adult and put in jail with grown men. He was released after a month, only to find out he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

This is not justice.

It was an exile to another world. Washington soon found himself in mandatory therapy groups with men who had collected violent child pornography, men who had raped preschoolers. "I never thought I belonged in that club -- not by a long shot," he says. "My offense was over with when I did it. It wasn't a struggle I had or have still."

As a registered sex offender and on five-year probation, Washington could not live within 1,000 feet of a day-care center or school. He had to avoid playgrounds and churches. He could not move or travel without permission, granted at the discretion of a local officer. More immediately, he had to inform his neighbors of his crime: "I was required to put out fliers to a five-mile radius around my house. It was my name, my picture, what I was charged with. Incest."

It can be painful to read this.

Washington's family stood by him. His mom, who blamed herself for the incident -- "I wasn't around," she says -- resolved to soldier on for the kids, "to act like a normal family." His dad, who had moved to New Orleans that same year but had remained largely absent from Tony's and Caylen's lives, was more confused than angry. "I would never have conceived it," Wells says. "My son and my daughter?"

Wells' friends advised him to let his son rot in jail. "But I didn't want to lose him," says the father. "If he had tried to hurt my daughter, I'd feel different. But he didn't."

Wells says his daughter told him that "she was as much to blame as Tony," that they "were experimenting."

The behavior is not rare. Sibling experimentation happens in many families, from an early age through the teens and beyond. It isn’t something for which we should condemn someone when they are close in age and it is consensual. It is wrong to portray Washington as a pervert. So many people who do would think it just fine if these siblings had done the same thing with classmates who couldn’t care less about them. They were exploring their sexuality with someone they cared about and trusted: each other.

"I feel for my brother," Caylen says calmly. "I was so happy when he got out of jail. He had no reason to be in there."

She wants this to be known, to be clear: "My brother never, ever raped me. He never tried to hold me down. Or threaten me. Or abuse me. Or frighten me. Or anything like that. What some of these people are speculating, none of that ever happened."

The haters need to shut down the bandwagon. Get people like Washington off of the sex offender registry. Concentrate on abusers and rapists, not innocent sibling experimentation. And let consenting adults share love, sex, and marriage.

Fearing Self-Incrimination in Canadian Polygamy Trial

How do you testify against a law that criminalizes your marriage, without incriminating yourself? Incriminating yourself would be a problem if the law is upheld. This is the problem facing FLDS members in the Canadian trial that could possibly grant the freedom to marry to polygamists.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its B.C. bishop, James Oler, want immunity from future criminal prosecution.

Oh, not just immunity here; in the United States as well.

They want to testify anonymously, using pseudonyms or hidden behind screens, and they don't want to answer incriminating questions.

The motion was filed Wednesday by their lawyer Robert Wickett and is scheduled to be heard Sept. 8 by B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman.

The request is a longshot.

Muslims also seem to have qualms. None even asked to be heard.

Yet, six members of the secular Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association filed affidavits.

One American even acknowledged that participating in the case may put his application for Canadian citizenship at risk.

But perhaps risking jail for their beliefs is a burden too great for religious polygamists to bear.

End all of this turmoil. Institute full marriage equality. If someone is violating consent by beating someone, or raping someone, or molesting children, then prosecute them for that. But why tie up courts trying to prevent people from having the freedom to marry the person or persons they love? Why should anyone else care if a man wants to marry two women any more than they care if a man marries another man? Or if two sisters want to marry?

A Brief Basic Explanation of Polyamory

Here is a perspective that gives some basic explanation of polyamory.

Polyamory is based on honesty and openness and the key values of polyamorists, as they call themselves, are fidelity, loyalty, respect, trust, dignity, mutual support, communication, negotiations and unpossessiveness. For that reason, polyamorists are also familiar with the term ‘coming-out’.

It is simple-minded and erroneous to call polyamory cheating, and yet prejudiced people do it all of the time. Cheating is not polyamory, nor is polyamory cheating.

Some relationships are bisexual, while others are monosexual (that is, solely heterosexual or homosexual). Polyamory may have a hierarchical structure. The hierarchical version distinguishes between primary, secondary etc. partners. The status of the primary partner may be equal to the status of a marital partner.

Polyamory doesn’t have any rules, but there are different variations in terms of number and gender structure and in terms of partners’ residence and division of work. Some relationships last for a long time and people also have children.

You don’t have to understand it, or like it. But poly people often live together, have children, and otherwise build families. They should have the freedom to marry so that they can, if that is what they choose.

Social Security and Polygamy

Jacob Appel on legalizing polygamy…

My one concern would be, for example, the person who decides they’re going to have 40 wives and will let social Security pay benefits to all of them after their demise. And we have to set up a system to balance the rights of people to marry who and how many people they choose with one that controls funding of this in a way that the rest of society can function.

The concerns about things like Social Security and any other public or private spousal benefit can all be addressed and should not be used as an excuse to deny this freedom to marry.

Polygyny in Islam or Not

Anis Khan gives a religious Muslim and general practical perspective on polygyny.

This post is not prompted by my loneliness, but by a blog post in which a Muslima wrote that polygamy is like cheating; not knowing the difference between cheating and polygamy, one is based on a lie and another on truth. I read many apologetic views of men and intelligent arguments of women, mostly critical of the polygamy. A friend called me some weeks ago and said, “One of my friends wants to marry another woman; does he need permission from his first wife?” I said, “I am not an expert, but his friend doesn’t need permission.”

This is his religious perspective. I believe that legal policy should be that all spouses consent to the marital agreement.

Many non–Muslims believe that Islam propagates polygamy which is not true. No hadith or Quranic verse give preference to polygamy over monogamy because it is a personal matter.

On fairness to a wife…

I read some argument that a man has after all only 100% of time and resources to give to wives, so in either case the wives get less of a husband. But, they don’t think that the wives also have more free time and fewer responsibilities if the husband has more wives. And in some cases, a woman who has less hope for marriage due to old age, handicap, poverty, or any other problem, can marry a husband who will take care of her, how much percentage does she get as compared to what she had before?

He gives practical examples of how polygyny can work:

Let’s imagine that a man has businesses in two cities and he spends his time equally between the two cities. He cannot move his wife and children always because of his business commitments, and the other choice he has is to live alone, which can also be a cause of his taking to unlawful means. Let’s take another example of a husband who has high sex drive and his wife has low (because of psychological, biological, or medical reasons). Human beings vary in their capacity and willingness to eat, work and have sex. If the man can do justice with more than one wife, isn’t it better that he has a respectable marriages. In a normal modern system, he would get frustrated and divorce his wife, to marry another woman, and this will seem alright to all the people who condemn polygamy, not realising that after all the first wife has suffered, and she may suffer again if she remarries for the same reasons. The same way the system of polygamy works for some women as well. I read a report some time back in Arab News that some Saudi women prefer to be co-wives because they have other commitments such as parents, children from first husband, job etc. Thus, they are happy that they have to see their husbands less often. In some societies where there is high ratio of single women, as we see now in US, Saudi Arabia and some other countries, the system might make sense for women who would otherwise be unmarried. Thus, it is not for us to tell whether it is good or bad. But let people use it if they find any good in it.

It is an interesting read and there is much more at he link.

Why I Prefer the Term Consanguineous

Thanks to poorly written laws, we get headlines like this one: “Jury finds Butte Man Guilty of Incest”

The case involves Benny Stewart, 49, who was arrested on Nov. 20, 2009 and charged with felony incest. He pleaded not guilty to the charge in December.

On Wednesday, a jury convicted him of having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with his daughter between January 1998 when she was 7-years-old and November 2009. The verdict was delivered after about three hours of deliberations.

It doesn’t make sense for laws or headlines to use the same word to describe that this man did, which was child rape, to what some consenting adults do to express their love for each other. This man should have been prosecuted for child rape and any other associated crime. He’s a monster. He’d still be a monster even if he had no biological or legal connection to the girl who he terrorized.

As long as “incest” is applied to cases like this, I will prefer the term “consanguineous” to describe consensual sex and relationships between family members and relatives.

Consensual Sex Should Not Be Criminal

The consequences of unjust laws are real and serious.

On this Arizona State University news website is an opinion piece about the Arizona Sex Offender Information website, and the problem of labeling people who have really don’t nothing wrong together with rapists and child molesters.

On the surface, the subsequent creation of registries seems like an important act of legislation with the interest of children in mind. But the registry is dangerous because it doesn’t do a good enough job of discerning between the most dangerous offenders, those who’ve committed despicable sexual acts with children, and the less dangerous offenders.

On this, I am in full agreement. Rapists and child molesters are highly dangerous, and I should be able to know if I am living near one. But someone can be labeled a “sex offender” and be of little threat to anyone.

Also on the lesser side of the spectrum are those who had consensual sex with a minor who was a few years younger than themselves (think high school sophomore girl with college sophomore dude), and those who’ve engaged in unacceptable acts like incest.

Unacceptable? Why is it unacceptable, unless we’re talking about rape or child abuse (which the writer makes clear we’re not)? These articles never seem to explain why consensual, mutually enjoyed, consanguineous sex is “unacceptable.”

A recent article on ESPN.com documented the story of Tony Washington, a former all-American lineman at Abilene Christian University who, at age 16, was convicted of having consensual sex with his 15-year-old sister. Now Tony Washington is a registered sex offender. Both parties maintain that it was consensual, and that it only happened twice. Nonetheless, as a result of a mistaken prostitution bust, Washington’s sister was arrested and questioned about her childhood. She revealed that she had sex with Tony, albeit consensually, and Tony was convicted of incest.

I’ll have to check that article out for myself, but from what this writer says, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that a teenager would be convicted of a crime for this. Their proximity in age and their mutual consent makes this matter a private one.

What Tony did with his sister was despicable, and just plain gross.

Whoops. The writer’s bigotry is showing.

But, it was in no way a threat to the general public. Tony was not, and is not, a predator. He and his sister made a conscious decision to engage in incest.

Thank you for that, at least.

Most everyone would agree that what they did was wrong, but are they deserving of public humiliation?

First of all, many people do not agree that what they did is wrong. There are many mental health and sociological professionals who would chalk up their two sessions to healthy youthful experimentation and play, and many other people who have engaged in such behavior and have no regrets whatsoever, other than having closed-minded prejudice thrown in their faces. Secondly, no, they do not deserve public humiliation. Depending on the circumstances, they may deserve to be held up as positive examples. With all of the date rape, casual unprotected teen sex with strangers that is later regretted, and other problems in the lives of teens, including sibling animosity and sibling domestic violence, these who may be model citizens.

Is Tony a threat serius to the general public? The typical story ensues: guy finds football, goes to college and get over his sad past. The problem for Tony, though, is that the National Football League won’t touch his embarrassing rap sheet. Taking on a player with Tony’s baggage, even though his crime was non-violent, would simply be too dangerous for a professional club.

This is so ridiculous. Have you seen the rap sheets of some in the NFL? How is sibling bonding and play anything like violent crime or DUI? As the writer points out, it is the “sex offender” label being applied where it shouldn't that is causing the proble.

Enough is enough. Minor siblings close in age who experiment should not be labeled or treated as criminals. Adults engaging in consensual sex should not be labeled or treated as criminals. Nobody can point to any harm in the example cited that isn't caused by bigotry itself.

The Unjust Prosecution of Katheryn Thornton

Officials in King County, Seattle should be ashamed of themselves for prosecuting Katheryn M. Thornton for having consensual sex for eighteen months with a man who was about 27 years of age when it started. Reading through the various news reports, it appears that the man, whose name is not given due to his “victim” status, could be using unjust laws against adult, consensual, consanguineous sex for nefarious reasons.

From the Seattle Times…

A 54-year-old Eastside woman has been charged with first-degree incest for allegedly conducting a two-year sexual relationship with an adult son she had given up for adoption when he was an infant.

Sounds like a possible case of GSA.

Katheryn M. Thornton invited her son, now 33, to live with her near Kirkland in March 2004 after he tracked her down through an adoption agency, according to charging papers filed in King County Superior Court earlier this month.

He tracked her down. Then she invited him into her home. He could have said “no” right then and there, for starters. I wonder if he is planning to sue her and the adoption agency?

In May, the man reported the alleged incest to a King County sheriff's detective.

Why would he do this? Blackmail? Revenge? I have my suspicions.

He told the detective that the day after he moved in, Thornton "came into his room and lay next to him. He said [on] day three, she invited him into her room. He said on day four, they had sex," charging papers say.

He would have been about 27 at the time. There is no indication in the news coverage that he was of congenital or drug-induced mental deficiency. No force indicated. This was consensual. Why is this a crime?

The man said the sexual relationship lasted until March 2006, according to the charges.

Why did it last so long? Surely he is stronger than her, and able to be independent. He was probably enjoying himself.

The son, who is not being named because he is considered a victim of sexual assault, was granted a sexual-assault protection order against Thornton on Tuesday, barring her from coming within 500 feet of him, court records show.

This is convenient for him. We’ll see why later.

First-degree incest is a Class B felony. If convicted, Thornton would face a 12- to 14-month prison sentence and be required to register as a sex offender.

This is outrageous. He is just as “guilty” as she is. Can you imagine going to prison for this? Registering as a sex offender? I want to know if a child molester or rapist moves in to my neighborhood. I have no reason to fear a woman who has consensual sex with another adult.

The Associated Press picked up the story, but at least they don’t give her name in the report I saw, as they shouldn’t unless they want to come to her defense. His name should be published alongside hers, or neither name should be published. I include her name because I do want her to know there are people who are against this persecution of her.

From Seattle Weekly…

And on the fourth night, mother and son had sex for the first time, beginning what would eventually become an incredibly creepy 18-month relationship.

Why is that creepy? This blogger’s bigotry is showing.

Thornton told prosecutors that she was excited to have her son living with her and that the two had an "awareness." Like many love birds, the relationship started off hot and heavy, with Thornton reporting that initially they had sex all the time, including in a locked bathroom so her other children wouldn't catch them, but eventually the amorous affections tapered off to about once every two weeks.

Sounds like many other relationships with a passionate start and ups and downs. I believe her account because he didn’t leave. It is understandable when dependents don’t leave. He was no dependent or hostage.

Given that he was an adult at the time, it wouldn't seem that the man should be considered a victim. But the King County prosecutor's office has charged Thornton with first-degree incest, a felony. And Deputy Chief of Staff Ian Goodhew says the office has its reasons.

"We're pretty conservative when we make a charging decision regarding incest," says Goodhew. "But there were a number of concerning factors weighed before filing this charge."

Those factors: the two underage kids living with Thornton.

Then charge them both with child endangerment, though I fail to see what the legal problem is given that married people, unmarried cohabitating people, and virtual strangers have sex all of the time even though there are children in the same home.

And the way she confessed to sleeping with her son with no apparent sense that it might be against the law or, ya know, morally repugnant.

It shouldn’t be against the law. And how is it morally repugnant? Merely saying it is doesn’t make it so.

Now here is where we start to get a better idea of what is really going on here…

The wheels were put in motion in May, when Thornton's son plead guilty to a (surprise, surprise) charge of child molestation.

So a child molester complains that a woman has been having sex with him for eighteen months? Hey, I agree that people should shun child molesters (which would include not having sex with them) but there’s nothing illegal about adults having sex with child molesters. It happens all of the time, unfortunately.

But it is awfully convenient that a child molester’s name is being kept out of the media now because he is a “victim.” Is he getting some sort of deal in his case for this, too?

From this report, we get…

The son said his mother's younger children knew he slept in Thornton's bedroom, but they did not know about the sex, according to the documents.

Maybe they didn’t, maybe they did. I don't think his word is worth much. Children sometimes think of their parents only have sex enough times to make them. Other children figure things out for themselves. And still others just don’t think about it at all, if they are prepubescent.

If this man is a child molester, she shouldn’t have exposed her children to him. But she isn’t being charged for that. She is being charged with having consensual sex with another adult, behind closed doors. We need these laws wiped off the books. Prosecute people for child endangerment, neglect, abuse, molestation, assault, rape, you name it. But let’s not allow consensual sex between adults to be prosecuted or illegal.

I call on any judge or jury that gets a say in this case to refuse to convict someone of a crime for having consensual sex in private.

Some Basic Rules For Good Relationships

Over at Smart Love, Michael Whitehouse gives three important rules for polyamory and a corresponding application for monogamy.

Smart Love Poly Rule #1: Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
Mono Companion Rule #1: Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

Couldn’t agree more.

One of the most common reasons not to communicate is that someone does not want to cause trouble. They might be worried that saying something would cause a fight or make the other person unhappy. What they forget in doing this is that the issue will come out sooner or later. When it comes out later, it usually comes out at a much more inopportune moment and often with much greater emotion making it more difficult to deal with than it otherwise might be.

Wise words.

Smart Love Poly Rule #2: Never Make One Choose Between Lovers/Never Accept an Ultimatum
Mono Companion Rule #2: Never Make Your Partner Compete

Go read the whole explanation.

Smart Love Poly Rule #3: Don't Let Strife in One Relationship Create Strife in Another
Mono Companion Rule #3: Don't Let the World Outside Your Relationship Create Conflict Inside

It is best to turn to your partner(s) rather than against your partner(s). That applies to just about all of problems and stressors, but it is also important to remember that when your relationship is being attacked for being interracial, or same-sex, or poly, consanguineous, or intergenerational. Let the people who express their prejudice towards you be ashamed by how you work together instead of turning against each other.

Unhelpful Answers

In this Yahoo Answers entry, someone asked “Is incest acceptable?” The explanation…

I have recently been spending a lot of my time with my sister and we have discovered that we have a lot in common, more than I have ever had with any other girl, she even finishes my sentences.I cant stop thinking about her even when I'm with my girlfriend, I am in love with her and I think she feels the same way about me, but I'm scared that my parents will find out. I need to be with her but don't know how to get around the obstacles, what should I do?

These answers are the typical resonses…

no! sorry but it is just wrong. dont confront her and just get over her. just leave it for now

**** your girlfriend not your sister, you would have babies with fins.

That is purely inacceptable unless you want to have distorted-looking offsprings! You are not thinking properly at the moment. Go for a walk, talk to someone( apart from your sis). What you're feeling now isn't healthy.

how would you feel if you had a son and a daughter and they started having sex together...what would other people think? and theres absolutely no point in the thought of having children because they would nearly always have something seriously wrong with them, because they have been inbred.

You should punch yourself in the beanbag until you learn not to think about your sister this way.

No. It sounds odd. I love my brothers and dad and uncles and cousins but I could never ever think of them in a sexual way as u would a partner. Neither could I imagine any brothers and sisters thinking that way about each other.

Nobody offers an explanation to why they believe consensual sex between siblings is wrong. There responses are summed up with:

1) “It disgusts me.” Okay, well, then don’t do it. That doesn’t give a reason why he shouldn’t do it.
2) “I don’t want to have sex with anyone in my family.” Same as above. And as for the “what if your kids did that” reponse... I will be happy if my children are with someone who is good to them, regardless of who that person is or people are.
3) “It’s illegal.” Well maybe that is the point. It shouldn’t be illegal, especially if you can’t explain why it is wrong.
4) “Your kids will be deformed!” He didn’t say he wanted to have children with her. Even if they were to have children, the odds are that the children will not have birth defects unless a certain birth defect is common in the family.

This last objection is even cited in a response that isn’t hostile…

It is your life, ignore what people would think, if she loves you too do as you wish. Only make sure she does not get pregnant, for obvious reasons; use contraception.

There was a response that was supportive…

Be honest with her. Tell her about your feelings you have for her, that have been growing for a while now. Talk with her about the future, where you think you and she, as well as the rest of your family, will be and do. She deserves truth, and to decide for herself.

If you love her and care about her, you will want what is best for her, not just for yourself. Incest can cause many problems, and she deserves to know what the hazards are. Ask yourself if you are willing to expose her to the risks.

None of the answers I saw said that “It is wrong to cheat on your girlfriend.” Some of them said he could, forgive my crudeness, screw his feelings for his sister away by having sex with his girlfriend. That is about as silly as telling a man who is attracted to another man that he can get over that by having sex with a woman. Siblings have a special bond.

But since he did mention his girlfriend, I want to state that I do not support cheating. If he and his girlfriend have a closed relationship, then he shouldn’t pursue his sister without breaking up with his girlfriend or negotiating an opening of the relationship. Although the chances are slim, there is a possibility that, should his sister feel the same way about him, that his girlfriend would still want to continue their relationship if he and his sister take that step. His girlfriend may be agreeable under certain conditions, which may range from “just keep in private and don’t talk about it around me” to “I have to be there” to “only if I get alone time with your sister, too.” Many people would be jealous just of sharing their lover with someone else, but when you add in the sibling factor, the green monster can be more rabid. I continue to witness how special the bond can be between a brother and sister. Instead of letting jealousy ruin a good thing, I bask in the glow, enjoying the fact that I sometimes get to participate in the fun and the love.

Oppressive Polygyny is Not All of Polygamy

There continues to be coverage in Canadian media about the legal issues surrounding polygamy. This article reduces it to the polygyny practiced by Muslims and the FLDS. The only voices in the article are negative ones.

Dena Hassouneh, a nurse practitioner and professor at the Oregon Health and Sciences University School of Nursing, was asked by the province to address the emotional, psychological and social impacts of polygamous relationships, compared to monogamous relationships.

Hassouneh, who like Hogben is Muslim herself, has published a paper titled, "Polygamy and Wife Abuse: A Qualitative Study of Muslim Women in America."

She studied 17 women in polygamous marriages and found they had greater frequency and severity of a variety of psychiatric symptoms, decreased marital satisfaction, and lower self-esteem.

"My work with women in the community indicates that the practice, more often than not, is a harmful one," she said in her affidavit. "Patriarchal family structures lend themselves to abuse of power regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous."

The last sentence is very telling. This really isn’t about polygamy. It is about polygyny as practiced under abusive conditions in which women are oppressed. The people being talked about abuse and oppress women, and they practice polygyny. They may also have dogs and beat dogs, but are the dogs beaten because of polygamy? No. They are beaten because these are abusive men.

My support for the right to polygamy is built entirely on the foundations of equality and consent, which means someone has to be old enough to consent. People, male or female, should have the freedom to marry the person or persons of their choice and to not be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to, or stay married to someone they no longer want as a spouse. And nobody should be hit, kicked, groped, penetrated, or in any way hurt against their will as a result of these decisions.

We need more coverage of poly people in general. Like any relationship, you can find poly people who have happy relationships as well as people who have rocky or abusive ones. The problem is, poly people who are happy are not going to call up a doctor or a counselor or a police station or domestic violence shelter and tell everyone what a great time they are having.

Ongoing GSA Research

The Good Dr. Eric Anderson is looking for some more information over a Genetic Sexual Attraction. Here are the questions he asks…

1) Has anyone who has always been heterosexual, felt strong GSA for a bio-family member of the same-sex?

2) Has anyone who has always been gay, felt GSA for a bio-family member of the opposite sex?

3) Who supports the idea that GSA comes not from psychological disturbance of meeting a lost-sibling, but instead a chemical lock produced by an attraction of pheromones linked to our genetic ancestry of evolution? Who has had an experience of hugging your lost family member and feeling a euphoria from the nose to the genitals (for lack of a better example). I.e. who has gone, 'oh my god he/she smelled so good?'

4) Does anyone else have a theory of how GSA comes to be? Regardless of how obscure you might think it. Regardless of how well you might be able to articulate it or not, please post.

If you can give him relevant information, I recommend doing so. I think his work could aid in advancing the freedom to marry.

There is a much helpful discussion on that website, not just in that one thread. Not everyone there encourages the rights I do, but even the perspective of those who don’t can be helpful.