Thursday, June 30, 2016

Future Impacts of Legalizing Consanguinamory

Jane posted an entry about what will happen after consanguinamory is decriminalized.

However, incest between consenting adults is a completely different subject, there is no victim here, nor is there any valid reason for banning such relationships. To anyone who suggests that legalizing incest would be bad for society, it would be wise to ask them whether France, Spain, Holland, Japan, China, the Russian Federation, or Rhode Island were dealing with societal disasters as a result of incest being legal there. Of course, those countries are NOT lying in ruins or being overrun with predatory perverts.
Yes, we have places that are examples we can study.
The charge that we would fundamentally change the function of the family unit or threaten family cohesion is ridiculous. There is a vast amount of diversity in what we call the modern family to begin with, and we are just one small part of that diversity. There are many things which can disrupt a family unit, most of which are perfectly legal. Take divorce for instance, that certainly upsets the functioning and cohesion of the family unit at least in the short term, but we don’t outlaw divorce because of this.
"Changing the function of the family unit" and "threat to family cohesion" was what they about interracial marriage, too.

People who are, or have been, involved in consanguinamory are everywhere.

What will happen when we decriminalize and accept consanguinamory?

1. More people will be together happily without having to hide. Currently, most people in consanguinamorous relationships are at least partially closeted, causing endless problems, not just for them, but many others around them.

2. More people will cooperate with law enforcement to stop real crimes that actually have victims, and there will be less wasting of law enforcement resources on victimless crimes. There are people who are going through the criminal courts right now and others who are sitting in jail right now who are there because of their relationship with another adult. There are people who are not cooperating with law enforcement about crimes with actual victims because to cooperate would risk their own victimless "crime" being revealed to law enforcement, or because they distrust law enforcement because of these ridiculous  laws against consensual (to be redundant) sex.

3. More people will get the health care they need because they can be honest with professionals, including psychiatrists, therapists, gynecologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians, among others, who would find it easier to be trained to deal with the issues involved.

4. Fewer people will cheat because they were able discuss the issues of consanguinamory and Genetic Sexual Attraction, get counseling if needed, and won’t feel pressured into turning someone into a beard without their knowledge.

5. Fewer people we be unwittingly used as beards.

That all sounds great. Let's make it happen sooner rather than later. There's no good reason to continue to deny people their rights.
— — —

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

What Happened at the Hull Crown Court in East Yorkshire? - UPDATED

At first, this article by Gaby Bissett at appeared to be about yet another ridiculous, destructive prosecution of consenting adults for having sex.

A man who fathered two children with his niece after the pair started a sexual relationship has been jailed for four-and-a-half years.
"Started a sexual relationship" prompts me to ask why are we wasting resources prosecuting and imprisoning consenting adults for having relationships???
A court heard that the 'appalling and sad case' was revealed after a social services investigation.
The pair had been having a consensual sexual relationship, leading to the birth of two children.
"The pair had been having a consensual sexual relationship" prompts me to say that only thing appalling and sad is that anyone is interfering.
Speaking at Hull Crown Court, East Yorkshire, Nigel Clive, prosecuting, said: 'The situation, in short, is this - Hull social services were invited to intervene as a result of the birth of two children.'
He said DNA tests proved the link between the children and their parents, who appeared in the dock together.
Well I'd think DNA tests would prove a link between children and parents. People who make children together do tend provide their DNA, after all.
Judge Jeremy Richardson QC said: 'The reality is, they were having an intimate, consensual sexual relationship with each other.'
An "intimate, consensual sexual relationship" shouldn't be a crime.

David Godfrey, representing the niece, said she had already 'suffered' after losing her children to social services.
Why were the children taken? It appears so far in the article the only harm here is what is being done by the authorities.

But hold on...

— — —

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Detailing the Good News From the Supreme Court

[This is being bumped up for the anniversary of this decision.]

We're finally getting around to carefully going over Obergefell here in detail. That is the recent US Supreme Court decision on marriage.

The decision was a big win, to be sure, although in our dreams it would have done even more, instantly. Thanks to the Court majority, we are well on our way to full marriage equality. Even though the immediate effect was only to make the limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry nationwide, they left the door wide open to bring about full marriage equality.

Before we get into the details of the decision, permit us to note that, unfortunately, there's not a single explicit mention of bisexual people, pansexual people, transgender people, or anyone other than monogamist gay people and lesbian people. While it is good that (monogamist) gays and lesbians are being affirmed, there is still much progress to make.
But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.
This is also true of people still barred from legally marrying in their relationships.
The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.
Yes! That is why the polygamous freedom to marry and the consanguineous freedom to marry must be recognized.
Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

There is a right to marry.

— — —

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Seniors Grow Closer After Many Decades

Longtime famous sexpert Dr. Ruth Westheimer's column addresses a subject relevant to this blog. The attention-grabbing headline invokes "incest," which headline writers appear to enjoy using. This indicates it draw attention much more than it repels.

Q: I have an uncle who recently became widowed. I've been very fond of him since I was a child. I'm 60 and divorced, and he's 69.
"Uncle," if not being used honorarily, can mean a parent's full-blood brother, half-brother, adopted brother, even stepbrother, or the husband of parent's full-blood sibling, half-sibling, adopted sibling, or stepsibling. It is also sometimes used of older cousins, or a parent's uncle (great uncle). Based on the ages and lack of clarification other than the mention of his divorce and knowing him since childhood (which means for well over 40 years), it is probable that this is uncle the biological sibling of the letter writer's mother or father.
My uncle and I are getting very fond of each other. He kisses and fondles me and wants to be intimate, but I hesitate because I feel it might be incest. I'd appreciate if you could let me know an answer to this question, because I feel I'm weakening.
Most people would classify this as incest. If there is no genetic connection, it isn't incest biologically. However, that shouldn't matter. What matters is what these two mature adults want and mutually negotiate. Nobody else should get a veto.

How did Dr. Ruth answer?

— — —

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Casting Call

Some of you might be interested in this casting call for a "docu-series". As always, I urge caution in dealing with media projects, especially if your relationship with another adult puts you at risk for discrimination or even criminal charges. On the other hand, visibility can help move us forward to securing rights.


Do people think your Mr. or Ms. Right is wrong for you? Do you face significant opposition in dating your significant other? Do friends, family or society oppose your relationship?

Now casting controversial couples for an all-new docu-series, Taboo Love. We are looking for couples that are determined to date the love of their life, regardless of what others think about their unorthodox relationship.

If you're in a teacher-student relationship, or if you're dating your best friend's ex, or if you are in any other relationship that has people around you raising an eyebrow and voicing their opposition, then we want to hear from you.

Angelo Ierace
Development Producer, Kinetic Content

— — —

Monday, June 20, 2016

Family Rats Out Consanguineous Lovers in Papua New Guinea

From comes this infuriating news of first cousins sent to prison for the "crime" of loving each other.

Two first cousins in East New Britain  in Papua New Guinea were sentenced recently to five years each in jail for having an incestuous relationship.
The National Court in Kokopo sentenced Janice Lucas and Sakia Tobing from Tinganagalip village in Central Gazelle after they were found guilty.
In addition to being cruel, this is a waste of resources.

— — —

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Happy Father’s Day

For all men raising or helping to raise a child, whether you are a biological father, presumed father, grandfather, stepfather, bonus father, adoptive father, foster father or any variation… Happy Father’s Day!

A special thanks to fathers who have supported and loved their children who are LGBT, polyamorous, consanguinamorous, or have otherwise faced persecution or oppression because of who they are or the person(s) they love.

Finally, a note of encouragement to all fathers who can’t legally marry the person(s) they love, but would if they could, or who face bullying due to love or who they are: We will win so that every adult can pursue love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Oh, and if you have an especially interesting Father's Day, tell us about it.
— — —

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Step This Way and Play the Field

Dear Prudence (Mallory Ortberg) again addressed a topic relevant to this blog.
Q. In love with my stepbrother: When I was 18, my mom remarried a guy with a son my age. My stepbrother and I didn’t know each other well back then, but after returning from college, I’ve realized that I have a huge crush on him.
This is very common. We've discussed the issue of stepsiblings before.
He’s single, funny, mensch-y, smart, and very good-looking. I think he feels the same way about me, and we totally flirt. If he weren’t my stepbrother, I would definitely ask him out, but I see that there are infinite potential problems here. First off, if we break up it will be insanely awkward, but it’s also kind of weird and incestuous. (On the flip side, we’ve barely known each other five years, so he’s not REALLY like my brother.) Prudie, please tell me not to date my stepbrother so I don’t keep thinking about it!
Those really aren't compelling reasons to avoid exploring the relationship possibilities.
From the answer...
As you point out, if things don’t work out between the two of you, it will certainly complicate your family get-togethers. That said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with your feelings for him.
Not at all.
You’ve never lived together, you weren’t raised together—in no way is this situation incestuous.
And why would having lived together or being raised together in any way make a dating relationship wrong? If they find they like having a romantic and/or sexual relationship, they should be free to pursue that without being harassed by anyone.

Actually, the column had more than one topic relevant to this blog...
Q. Wife wants to re-explore bisexual feelings: When my wife and I met, we were both busy professionals who didn’t want children. We were a great match sexually—we’re both experienced and adventurous and very open about our paths. We became exclusively monogamous before we married and have been so ever since. Twenty-two years later and we still have a great life together and have sex regularly.
But recently, my wife told me she would like to re-explore her bisexual feelings. She said she wanted to stay married but wanted to have relations with “any woman, at any time without recrimination or consequences from me.” I, on the other hand, was to honor our monogamous vows.
Oh. I wonder if he has some clear reason other than a feeling? Feelings can be enough, but other things ("I worry about STIs") can be worked through and negotiated.
I love her and I do understand that sex with me is different than sex with a woman, but I see this as infidelity. She does not believe we need couples counseling, as this is just about exploring something I was aware she had done in the past. I asked whether I could think for a few days and then give her an answer. My answer at this point is to give her complete freedom and a divorce.
What are the real options here? He knows her feelings and she presumably knows his. His desire for strict monogamy is incompatible with her desire to also see women. I'm polyamorous myself, but I don't think either of these spouses is right or wrong. It's just a matter of what they each feel they need at this point in their life.

He said they have a "great life together." She wants to keep that going, except for the monogamy. She said, according to him, that "she would like to..." start seeing women again. That doesn't make it clear whether she is willing to defer to his desires or if she's informing him she is no longer going to be monogamous with him. If she defers to his desire for monogamy, she might be resentful. If she's going to start seeing women again, he can stay (in which case he might be resentful) or leave. He already knows what he has with her. If he leaves, there is less certainty. He might be on his own for the rest of his life (which he might like) or he might find a new woman with whom he can have a monogamous relationship. That might be even better than what he has with her, or it might not be as good. Would losing him be "worth it" to her to see other women and, if she wants, look for another man?

From the answer...
Bisexuality does not entitle a person to demand an open marriage without warning or discussion.
She has provided warning and discussed it.
If you’re not interested in a marriage where she’s free to sleep with any woman she likes but you’re required to be monogamous, tell her so.
I didn't see where he said that his wife was saying he had to monogamous. He's indicated that's what he wants. Or, at least, he wants the relationship to be monogamous more than he'd like to be with others.It's quite possible he's wanted to be with others but didn't want his wife to be with anyone else and he decided it was only fair that he be monogamous if he wanted his wife to be.

It's not an easy situation.
— — —

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Consenting Adults Imprisoned in Swaziland

Here's another case of an outrageous prosecution of consenting adults for loving each other. Starsky Mkhonta reports at
Police pounced on a brother and sister for continuously having sex, which resulted in two children being born.
The incestuous relationship between Sampi Dlamini (35) who is a soldier and his blood sister Ntombifuthi Dlamini (22) had worried residents of Mahlalini for a long time.
What's to worry about? Why not just let them be?
This newspaper established that the Dlamini siblings had even gone public with their illegal relationship. It is a crime in Swaziland to have a sexual relationship with your biological relative.
It shouldn't be.
— — —

Monday, June 13, 2016

A Tale of Two GSA Situations

Genetic Sexual Attraction is back in the news. This time much of it is about Shane Burke and Rose Bestall. For example, see this report at from Sarah Barns...
A 19-YEAR-OLD man has confessed to being sexually attracted to his long-lost mum.
Shane Burke, who lives in Manchester, used Facebook to track down his birth mother Rose Bestall, 35, after being apart for 13 years – and he ended up falling in love with her.
Generally, if there is negligible contact from age 7 into puberty, the Westermarck Effect doesn't develop, meaning there could easily be attraction, even intense attraction, when they reunite.

Shane Burke and Mother Rose Bestall

After an emotional reunion, Shane became “confused” about his feelings towards Rose and “developed romantic feelings”.

Rose, who gave Shane up for adoption when he was five, revealed the declaration of love left her with a “massive dilemma”.
She told the Sunday People: “I knew Shane’s feelings were completely inappropriate but I had searched for him for so long and I didn’t want to push him away again.
What is inappropriate about adults being attracted to each other? That's a natural thing.
— — —


What can anyone say at a time like this? We cry, we scream, we shake our fists.

People should be free to go about their lives, including holding hands, hugging, and kissing in public, partying at a club, living together, marrying, and just... loving and living... without being murdered or assaulted.

We must, must, MUST ensure that love prevails over hate. Laws matter. Media matters. Education matters. Use your actions and your words to spread love, to support love.
— — —

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Is the Disney Channel Doing a Polyamory Plotline?

'Girl Meets World'

At I found this publication of something from this write up. It's about what's taking place in the sitcom, "Girl Meets World," which is a successor to the sitcom of yesteryear, "Boy Meets World."

When Season 2 of the series came to an end, Riley (Rowan Blanchard) and Maya (Sabrina Carpenter) were no closer to sorting out their feelings for Lucas (Peyton Meyer) and he definitely wasn’t about to choose between them.
Fast forward to the Season 3 premiere and the group’s first day of high school. After getting hassled by some seniors, Riley and Maya were put on the spot to explain who they were to Lucas. “A girlfriend,” Riley says with hesitation. “A girlfriend, equally as much,” Maya explains of herself.
It would be really great if this was done as a serious, ongoing polyamory situation, rather than a lesson about how Lucas chooses one to the exclusion of the other, or how they both dump him (the most likely sitcom/young adult drama plotlines). These shows need to depict that not all relationships are hetero-monogamous and between a cishet guy and cishet gal of the same race, but not related. It would be great to see polyamory and it would also be great to point out that being in no romantic or sexual relationship at all is fine, too.
— — —

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Captain America: Civil War - SPOILERS

If you haven't seen the movie and don't want anything at all spoiled, don't read this entry until you see the movie.
— — —

Monday, June 6, 2016

Relationship of Two Talented Siblings Detailed in New Book

has a report at taking a look at Arthur Lubow's new book "Diane Arbus." The piece has the headline "Sibling incest, WU poet discussed in upcoming Diane Arbus biography." So again, we see that consanguinamory is a subject known to catch attention.
Diane Arbus and Howard Nemerov were two famously talented siblings and artists - she the New York photographer and he the poet laureate and professor at Washington University.
In Arthur Lubow's book "Diane Arbus," which goes on sale Tuesday, he discusses the close relationship the pair had as children and their apparent rivalry as adults. Some of the details, however, probably won't expand either's reputations.
This is the first dig at consanguinamory.
On Pages 18-19 Lubow writes: "As Howard later acknowledged, he and his sister experimented sexually when they were young." They liked to "play house," he writes.
This is very common.
More surprisingly, though, Arbus told her psychiatrist during her last two years that her sexual relationship with her brother had never ended; she went "to bed with him" in New York in 1971, a few weeks before her death.
For some it is a lifelong romance.
"Characteristically, she referred to their ongoing sexual liaison in an offhand way, as if there was nothing so remarkable about it."
Clearly it was a matter of sharing affection with someone she loved. That's only "remarkable" because of absurd taboos.
Later, Lubow references the pair's sister, Renee, and her husband, Roy, as confirmation: "Renee believe that they were adolescent lovers, and her husband, Roy, told her he was convinced that they continued their amorous relationship throughout their lives. Indeed, Roy attributed Howard's worsening alcoholism to torment and guilt over the relationship."
Guilt? How about the pressure of bigotry?
Nemerov died in 1991, leaving his wife, Margaret, and three sons. He was one of the country's most respected poets, having served as poet laureate from 1988-90. He won a Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award in 1978 and received a National Medal for the Arts from President Ronald Reagan. 

His book goes far beyond the Nemerov's privileged upbringing on Park Avenue, of course, delving into Arbus' controversial photos of circus performers and transvestites and her affairs with both men and women.
Oh, the scandal.

Consanguinamorous people are everywhere; some are accomplished and awarded artists, some are scientists, some are sanitation workers, some are skilled athletes. Firefighters, police officers, teachers, accountants, investment bankers, chefs, bus drivers... some are troubled, some are relatively happy and healthy except for having to deal with hiding their love. Whenever I read of a suicide or substance abuse in someone involved in consanguinamory, I have to wonder if those problems would have been avoided if there wasn't discrimination against these lovers.
— — —

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Of Course Polyandry Should Be Legalized

Some people think polygamy means one man married to multiple women, but that's polygyny, just one form of polygamy. Some religious groups call that plural marriage. And some people say, suspiciously, that they only ever see polygamy expressed as one man married to multiple women. The the fact is, some cultures have practiced formalized polyandry, with one woman married to multiple men, and there are no small number of women in polyamorous relationships with two men or with a woman and a man, or with other multiple-partner configurations.

This blog supports full marriage equality, which includes the right of a woman to enter into a polyandrous marriage with consenting husbands. Barkha Herman started a long discussion when she asked...
Why not legalize polyandry?
One of the major justification of the traditional marriage is child rearing. However, with the advent of genetic testing, there is no confusion in parentage of a child any more. Moreover, more and more households are either single parent, or multiple parent (50% of marriages end up in divorce; and most of the people involved re-marry).  It is not uncommon for a child to have a mother, father as well as step mother(s) and step father(s).  I know a kid who has 6 parental units, through multiple marriages and divorces.

So, if gender is not an issue, and "serial marriage" is OK, then why not parallel marriage? Why can't one woman have multiple husbands? There are cultures around the world that have historically had examples of polyandry.
Some allies responded. Some people responded with what amounted to "nobody would want to do this" which is essentially Discredited Argument #3. If nobody ends up doing it, then that still doesn't mean there was a good reason not to legalize it. If it is legalized and nobody does it, well, then, no loss, right? For example, see what Albert Arthur wrote... 

No man would ever agree to polyandry.
Clearly that's not true, because many men have. As Zafar point out...
There are traditionally polyandrous groups in the Indian Himalyas - where one woman marries a group of brothers (like Draupadi did in the Mahabharata).  This *does* result in women having a more powerful position in hill societies than they do in the plains; but the power comes at a price.  The women do an AWFUL lot of work (unsurprisingly, if you think about it, they're 'taking care of' more than one husband), the motivation is arguable (it's usually about minimising division of the inheritance, since the [fewer] children are all the brothers') and it raises the question: what happened to all the other girl babies?
Polygamy is optional under full marriage equality. There will not be any more "extra" women or men than there are right now under our supposedly monogamous system. There will definitely be fewer people unmarried who want to be married. A woman should be free to marry a woman, or two women, even if one of those women is her sister. There is no good reason to deny full marriage equality.
— — —