Others May Consent to Something You Wouldn't

I'm bumping up this good entry from a while back...

“Anonymous” left a comment on the post "Bigotry Expressed.” My response is below.

Thank you, Anonymous, for your thoughtful consideration and for comment.

I do not think she makes a good argument, because she expresses blanket certainty about diverse things about which she could not possibly be certain. There are adult children who are emphatic that they freely consent to have sex with a parent, some of whom claim to be the initiator, and others who would like to, but haven’t. It is their experienced word against her inexperienced word. Has she interviewed everyone involved and performed careful psychological analysis of each case?

If she had said that some apparently consensual cases could be the result of selfish grooming on the part of a parent, and explained that dynamic, then she would have a good argument.

“It seems pretty reasonable to presume that if a parent is having sex with their child, even an adult child, that the parent groomed the child into the sexual relationship.”

That may be reasonable to presume in some cases, but is a presumption that may or may not turn out to be true. Let’s assume the parent was a primary custodial parent. Is it impossible that a child could grow up having a healthy relationship with that parent, and after getting out of the home for college, the military, or any other form of establishing themselves, that adult child realizes that they have a sexual attraction to their parent? I do not think that is impossible. In addition, consider when the parent did not have primary custody or any custody, as is the case in so many Genetic Sexual Attraction cases.

It used to be widely agreed that it was reasonable to presume that someone who was attracted to someone of the same sex, which was classified as a disorder, must have those feelings as a result of flawed parenting, or a molestation or grooming. The truth is, people have a wide variety of attractions. You probably have some friends who have been attracted to someone and you can’t for the life of you figure out why. Likewise, some people are not attracted to their own parent and do not understand why someone else would be attracted to her own parent.

“It follows then that the law should prohibit incest to make sure that parents aren't grooming their children into a sexual relationship.”

It does not follow. There are mechanisms in place that could be used, especially if enhanced, to protect minor children from deficient parenting. I do believe that the job of a parent is to raise their minor child to be independent adults who only depend on others as a result of consent, usually for mutual benefit, support, or emotional fulfillment. But it is possible for a parent to do that and have the child become an adult and freely consent to sex with that parent. I strongly condemn child abuse. I would consider grooming a minor child to be your sexual partner to be child abuse. The crime should be in the grooming, not in any consensual sex adults have. If you want to write a new law for that one because you don't think existing child abuse laws suffice, go ahead.

There are many reasons a person, including that adult child, will have sex. Some are better than others. The question is legality. I would not advise someone else to have sex for each of the following reasons, but I would not want most of them to be illegal…

1. To bring physical or emotional pleasure to someone else
2. To express love/affection for/bond with another person
3. As a form of recreation or celebration
4. Religious ritual/command (do not withhold yourself from your spouse, etc.)
5. As a form of exercise or therapy
6. To reproduce
7. To satisfy curiosity, a desire, an urge
8. To gain or keep someone else’s attention
9. For ego/conquest
10. To emotionally hurt or anger someone else
11. To gain advantage/information
12. For compensation/trade
13. To infect someone else with a sexually transmitted disease without their consent

That’s not an exhaustive list and and there is some overlap, but out of all of those, the only ones that should be criminal are 13 and perhaps 12. #12 is illegal in many places, especially if the compensation is in the form of cash, but it is not currently the focus of this blog to argue about prostitution laws. An adult daughter (or son) may consent to or pursue sex with a parent primarily for the second reason, and that isn’t wrong if it doesn’t break existing vows to others and shouldn’t be illegal. I would say doing it for #10 would be wrong, but shouldn’t be illegal.

“But, I would ask you if at least some incestuous relationships are wrong?”

Any incestuous relationship involving nonconsent (which includes “consenting” minor children being used by adults) is wrong and should be illegal. Other relationships, including adult incestuous ones, may or may not be wrong. Some people consider a 20-something man and a 40-something woman wrong, or a woman and two men, or someone of Asian ancestry with someone of European ancestry, or a Buddhist and a Christian, or two people who bicker constantly as relationships that are wrong. Should any of them be criminal? No. As long as they are consenting adults, it should not be criminal. Do some people make better decisions than others? Yes. People consent to do all sorts of things they later regret. Doesn’t mean it should be illegal. If you can make a case that a specific 20-something woman is mentally ill or deficient to the point of not being able to consent and that the other person should have been aware of this, then that should be criminal (and the 20-something should have a legal guardian). But that would apply to anyone having sex with her, not just a close relative.

Something else that comes to mind is S&M. If you handcuff a nonconsenting stranger or a child for any reason other than law enforcement or self-defense, you are doing something that should be criminally wrong. But is it wrong to handcuff your consenting lover? Of course not. “Handcuffing” and “incest” are descriptions of behaviors, but those behaviors can be right or wrong. They should only be illegal when there is a lack of consent.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,incest,law,love

Another Ally For the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

I asked if Brazil will lead the way to full marriage equality. Responding to the same story, Jean Hannah Edelstein asked at guardian.co.uk, "Why shouldn't three people get married?"

Photograph: Stone/Getty Images

And yet as we shoehorn ourselves into two-by-two formation, we're not that good at keeping our promises: as Helen Croydon has pointed out, breaking the boundaries of monogamy is far from unusual. Plenty of marriages have three people in them. They're just not legal ones.

I know a beautiful triad, or thruple. They want to get married under the law, and they have a marriage better than anything else I've seen. Why are they denied?

The government can dictate that two people should be in a marriage, but it can't legislate what will make them feel happy or stable or emotionally complete together. And if we accept that, as we do every time we allow anyone the freedom to make a decision about who they'll marry, and furthermore allow them the freedom to call each other by execrable pet names in public, then does it not begin to seem strange, just a bit, that we do allow the government to dictate how many people are allowed to pledge to be together forever?

It is not just strange, it is cruel. Some people couldn't be monogamous if their life depended on it. If three or more people have formed a spousal relationship or multiple spousal relationships in a construct that works for them, why deny them their right to marry?

Is it possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that more marriages might be successful?

Yes!

Here's a very important point...

Legalisation wouldn't send stampedes of people to the registry office in five-aside squads; for many of us, monogamy does feel the most comfortable option, whether it's because our brains aren't wired to love more than one person or because the prospect of making multiple people happy is too complex. But three's not a crowd for everyone. And as long as everyone is entering a marriage equally, as long as everyone is really going to make an effort to be open and honest to everyone else, it's probably not the government's job to tell them how many of them there should be.

Thank you! Thank you!!! It is great that more and more people are seeing that both the same-gender freedom to marry and the polygamous freedom to marry are good things. These rights should not be denied. This is why we will have full marriage equality.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,Brazil,freedom to marry,law,monogamy,polyamory,polygamy,triads

Nobody Could Defend the Denial of Polygamous Freedom to Marry

I asked this question at Yahoo Answers....

Is there any good reason to still deny the polygamous freedom to marry?

To pre-empt the usual Discredited Arguments, I gave a long explanation...

By polygamy, I'm not just talking about polygyny (one man, multiple women) but any form of polygamy, including polyandry (one woman, multiple men), three or more men, three or more women, or multiple women and multiple men. If they are all CONSENTING ADULTS I just don't see why the fundamental right to marry is denied to people who want more than two people involved.

Please do not cite problems for women and children in communities where polygyny is the only form of polygamy allowed, being gay or lesbian is shunned and/or illegal and women would be denied equal rights with or without polygamy.

Please do not cite anything that also applies to (professed) monogamy.



I am talking about a system with gender equality under the law, the equal freedom to NOT marry and the freedom to divorce, protections against domestic violence, protections against preying on children and neglecting children, a system that allows adults to marry any consenting adults.

Consider...

1. A man marries, has kids, divorces. Moves away, marries his pregnant girlfriend, they have another kid, divorce, he moves away again, he gets a new girlfriend pregnant, they live together, but don't bother to marry

2. A man marries a woman, they have kids, there is a female friend they both like, the kids like her, both want him to marry her. But it is illegal.

Scenario #1 is entirely legal and commonly practiced and accepted. Why isn't scenario #2 legally and socially accepted? In Scenario #2, the adults can be together in every way, living in a marriage, but the law discriminates against them and won't recognize their marriage.

People can have sex with, live with, have kids with many different people and even be serially married and divorced, but we don't allow one person to be legally married to more than two people at the same time. What kind of sense is that, if they all agree to the marriage?

These are NOT applicable reasons to deny others the fundamental right to marry:

1. “It is disgusting" or "I don't like it" or "I wouldn't want to do it" or "not a lot of people want to do it."
2. “It goes against tradition.” So did the abolition of slavery. But polygamy has a long tradition in world history.
3. “My religion is against it.” Then don't do it.
4. “It's not natural." HELLO! Neither is Yahoo Answers, but you're still here, right?
5. “This will hurt children.” I think it will help children far more than it could hurt. More children would have their parents married to each other. But we allow people to marry who are unable to have children or won't have children anyway.
6. “What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” Freedom for consenting adult persons. Who has a problem with that?
7. "Polygamy is abusive." It isn't. More people are abused in "monogamous" relationships than polygamous ones.
8. “Polygamy spreads sexually transmitted infections.” Wrong. Unprotected sex with someone who is infected is how such infections may be transmitted. Twenty people could have group sex and a group marriage for fifty years and if none of them brings an infection into the marriage and they only have sex with each other, none of them will get a sexually transmitted infection. We do not deny people their freedom to marry based on which diseases they have.
9. “It will be a legal/paperwork nightmare as our system is set up for couples.” That’s essentially what the bigots said about Americans With Disabilities Act and just about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?
10. “What about child custody and child support?” What about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous marriage that's ending? What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal. A court decides custody disputes that aren’t resolved amicably.
11. “This will cause inheritance disputes.” This can’t be a reason for the continued denial of the freedom to marry. With today’s restriction of monogamy-only for marriage, we see inheritance disputes all of the time.
12. “What about insurance/employment benefits?” There are many simple ways to deal with this. It is dealt with when an employee has more kids than the next, isn't it?
13. “This oppresses women.” Gender equality and the right to be unmarried or to divorce are necessary components of full marriage equality. See what I wrote above.
14. “Some men will be left out as polygyny increases.” This is based on the assumption that in a culture with gender equality, polygyny would still be more plentiful than polyandry. But shouldn't people be allowed to enter into polygyny if they freely choose it?

The answers were disappointing.

anonymous wrote...

If people are not allowed to answer your question the way they see fit, why ask in the first place?

People could answer as they wanted, I just wanted to see if anyone had a good answer.

Polygamy is a thing of the past and had nothing to do with people loving multiple others. It had to do with one rich man providing for several women because that's how it was before there was a law protecting women or enabling them to provide for themselves.

Polygamy had nothing to do with love back when it was practiced in the Middle East (and still is sometimes), and it doesn't now.

That wasn't an answer to my question. It merely states an opinion about the past, which has nothing to do with what I was asking.

lovely wrote...

They can't legally marry, in my vows it said forsaking all others and the law agrees with my promise.

This is someone else who didn't read the question. I know they can't legally marry. My question was why not? Not all people make the same vows, and the law doesn't stop people from living with, having sex with, and having children with multiple partners.

If you are going to promiscuous with your chosen partners then why marry?

For many of the same reasons anyone else marries. But polygamy doesn't mean promiscuous. The question doesn't make sense. It is like asking, "If you're going to dance, then why have dinner?"

ThomasH...

the constitution and bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman

The Constitution says no such thing, and the Bible is not a governing document, at least not in the US.

when they decide to split up who gets what ? who gets what when they die? imagine the court battles for inheritence or the battles in divorce

I covered that in my question.

None of the answers was good, but Yahoo encourages Askers to pick a "Best Answer." Here is what Ash Loren wrote...

there really should not be a guideline on how to answer. obviously you are looking not for a wide variety of opinions, but people who only share your own.

IMO polygamy is wrong. a marriage is to be shared by two people, not three or four or more.

I chose that as "Best Answer" and explained...

Your answer is not quite as bad as the others. Nobody was able to come up with a good reason. YOU say marriage is to be shared by two people only, but you don't give a good reason to deny other people their fundamental rights to marry. Nobody else did, either. My point is made.

   

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,myths,polygamy,prejudice,stigma

Ten Tips for Social Security Planning

We here at the Law Blogger are quietly aging along with the rest of our fellow Baby Boomer generation.  A good chunk of this generation is slipping into retirement mode; slowly, but as surely as ever.

Here are some things to keep in mind as you approach the age where certain decisions need to be made; and elections need to be taken relative to the mighty Social Security Administration.

Many folks are faced with a bewildering array of options regarding their social security benefit.  When should  you start taking the benefit?  At the earliest possible age of 62; or should you wait [can you afford to wait] until age 70?

These tips are merely general principles, not intended as specific legal advice.  Here are some things to consider:

1.  Spousal Benefits.  If you are married, and at full retirement age [66], you and your spouse, but not both, can elect to receive a spousal benefit while deferring on your retirement benefits, thereby enabling those retirement benefits to grow.  If you are the low-earning spouse, however, it could make more sense to take your benefit at the earlier age of 62, then switch to your [presumably higher] spousal benefit upon reaching full retirement age.

In general, there is no advantage to waiting to start collecting either spousal benefits or survivor benefits after you reach your full retirement age.

2.  "Start Stop Start" Strategy.  Complicated, but worth it, this strategy involves electing to take your social security benefit at an early age, say 62, then suspending the benefit at the full retirement age of 66, if you can afford to do so.  Then, at age 70, you start the benefits back up, taking advantage of a much higher [over 30% higher] monthly benefit checks for the balance of your life.

3.  One-Year Repay Option.  This one is interesting.  If you elect to begin taking your benefit, but later decide it was not the right move, you have one year to pay back all the benefits you received.  Then you can re-apply for [higher] benefits at a later point in time.  

4.  Working Into Your 60s.  If you are blessed with good health, and are fortunate enough to be in a profession or job you can handle deep into your 60s, the result will be a significantly higher social security benefit when you finally do hang up the cleats.  This benefit will also accrue to any spousal and child benefits; so your family will benefit as well.  If you opt to receive benefits at an early age [62], you could be locking in on a permanently lower benefit.

5.  Divorced?  Depending on the length of your marriage, you or your ex-spouse may be able to file for benefits based on each other's work histories.  This is beneficial for the divorcee that was married to a high earner.

6.  Federal Income Tax Exposure.  When it comes to calculating your income for tax purposes, disbursements from a Roth IRA are not counted [because you already paid the taxes], but withdraws from a regular IRA, 401(k) or 403(b) are included as income.  Therefore, it may make sense to stage your withdraws on these accounts, taking disbursements from the tax deferred accounts prior to your social security election.  Also, as a general principle, it would make sense to deplete your tax-deferred accounts first.

7.  Survivor Benefit Election.  Widowed?  Some folks will want to elect to receive their survivor benefits at age 60, and to take their retirement benefit after full retirement; others will benefit by electing to take their retirement benefit at age 62, and deferring the survivor benefit until full retirement age.  The difference depends on individual circumstances and the projected benefits.  A careful calculation is needed here and a professional should be consulted in most cases.  The differences in strategy could be significant.

8.  Beware of the SSA's Benefit Calculator.  The SSA's on-line benefit calculator does not adequately handle spousal, divorcee, child, mother, father, widow or widower benefits.  Because the benefits calculator does not factor-in wage growth or inflation, a projected benefit output for a younger worker performing a calculation will be distorted; the worker's actual benefit could be much less than anticipated.  The best practice is not to rely on these calculations as accurate benchmarks.

9.  Children's Survivor Benefits.  Provided they are under the age of 18 [age 19 if still in high school], your children can receive a survivor benefit from your deceased spouse, or ex-spouse.

10.  Enjoy Your Retirement!  This tip is the most important in this  post.  You have worked your entire life; now it's time to take your foot off the gas and cost a bit; take a look at the scenery.  By all means take care of your family, but remember that you cannot take it with you.  So be sure to spend at least a portion of your retirement on yourself.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarlstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,estate planning,income tax,lawyer,retirement,Roth IRA,Social Security,spousal benefit

Criminal Sentences For Consensual Sex in New Zealand

As New Zealand moves towards the limited same-gender freedom to marry, it is still criminally sentencing some adults for consensual sex. Updating this possible Genetic Sexual Attraction case I blogged about months ago, this report comes from BNO news…

A father and daughter in New Zealand who say they are in love with each other have been told by a judge to end their incestuous relationship, warning that future incest could land them in prison, a local newspaper reported on Wednesday.

How ridiculous for a judge to tell adults in love with each other that they can’t even love each other the way they want.

The father, 32, and his daughter, 18, appeared in Dunedin District Court on Tuesday and admitted to having an incestuous relationship which began in August 2010 when the woman was 16 years old.

The age of consent in New Zealand is 16.

The incest continued until May this year and resulted in the couple having a baby girl which was born last year.

The article doesn’t mention that there being any problem with the child, which I’m sure is an indication that, like in most of these cases, the child is doing well.

"This must stop. These sort of relationships do not last and are fraught with difficulties," Judge Stephen O'Driscoll told the couple when they appeared in court, the Otago Daily Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Uh, you mean like the difficulty of having a judge enforce bigotry against you??? It is kind of hard for relationships to last when the lovers are forcibly separated as one or both are incarcerated for the “crime” of loving each other. The problem with these relationships is not that people love each other, it is people like this judge! He is the very problem he's warning them about!

The teenager told the court that she is in love with her father and that they had been living as 'husband and wife'.

And they should be allowed to! Why break up another family?

He was just 14 when she was born and he had little contact with her until she was 16, so it is possible this is a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

Psychiatric and psychological reports have indicated that the father and daughter are being affected by a phenomenon known as genetic sexual attraction (GSA), which sometimes occurs when close relatives first meet as adults. The best known case is of a brother and sister couple in Germany who have four children and have fought against the country's anti-incest laws.

The judge is quoted as saying…

"Everyone has choices about the relationships and sexual relationships they enter into. This relationship was wrong, and I fail to see how you can justify it."

Love does not need to be justified. It is the bigots who have failed to justify why they interfere in consensual adult relationships.

Read more »

Posted in: breaking up homes,children,consanguineous,courts,father-daughter,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,love,myths,New Zealand,prejudice,prosecution

Reunited and It Feels So Good

Every once in a while, I find a question asked at Yahoo Answers that appears to be referring to Genetic Sexual Attraction, such as this one by kinkajuu, asked in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered area...

Whats wrong with incest?
i am a 23 yr old man, and i love my twin brother
the only reason incest is considered wrong, is genetic mutations from brother and sisters reproducing

It's not the only reason people give, but it is one of the most common Discredited Arguments.

since we are gay, and love eachother, we cannot have children. so the only problem is gone.
so why is it viewed as wrong!?

we were seperated at birth, when we were 23, 6 months ago, we met and fell in love with eachother
we live in a state where gay marriage is legal.

Later, he added...

he and i were seperated at birth, for 23 years
our mother and father were killed in a car accident, we somehow were seperated though.
we met when my brother was in jail for a few days, a cop saw me and arrested me too, thinking i was him and had broken out.

Quite a story. If it is true, it could very well be a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.


While it is great that their state has the limited same-gender freedom to marry, it is limited. The state would not recognize their marriage (and might even prosecute them for having sex with each other) if the authorities knew their genetic relationship, which is usually quite obvious if they are identical twins.

Among the answers was this one from Some guy...

I obviously never met you before so I don't actually think this but, my immediate thought is this : if you're attracted to someone who either closely or exactly resembles you, doesn't that imply a form of self admiration on an unusual level?

Studies have shown that most people are attracted to people who look like them.

blobby...

I think that you have mistaken this love you have for your brother as love between partners. because you have not seen eachother in a very long time, you feel and instant connection when you finnaly meet. to be completley honest i do not think you love him in the way you think you do, esppecially if you have no other siblings to compare the different feelings of love to.

It is too bad there isn't more understanding of the reality of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

There is nothing wrong with consenting adults sharing love, sex, residence, or marriage. None of the answers I saw effectively explained why this man or anyone else in that position should be denied their rights. Some where somewhat supportive, thankfully.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-brother,consanguineous,freedom to marry,GSA,incest,LGBT,love,prejudice,same-sex,siblings

Polygynists, Obama, and Romney

I've mentioned before the polygyny in the heritage of both President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Thanks to Jesse Walker at reason.com for calling my attention to McKay Coppins' article at buzzfeed.com, "Polygamists See Themselves in Romney, Obama Family Trees."

Anne Wilde still clearly remembers the moment she watched Mitt Romney throw his heritage under the bus.

A practicing polygamist and leading advocate for "plural marriage" rights, Wilde had watched Romney's political rise over the years with an unusual sense of personal investment. She knew his agenda wouldn’t include the polygamist equality that she’d spent years fighting for as co-founder of the advocacy group Principle Voices. She knew he was just a politician trying to win an election.

And look how he's treated gays and lesbians who want to monogamously marry.

But she also knew this was a man who came from a long family line of proud polygamists — ancestors who embodied the best qualities of the lifestyle she loved. And, in 2007, as Romney ascended to the top tier of the Republican presidential primary, Wilde found herself eagerly cheering him on.

Then, in May, Romney gave an interview to Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, where the subject of polygamy came up.

"There is part of the history of the church's past that as I understand is troubling to people," the candidate said. "Look, the polygamy, which was outlawed in our church in the 1800s, that's troubling to me. I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert. And so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

Wilde was crushed.

Really? He couldn't think of anything more awful than polygamy? Well, I suppose it is awful in a time and place where women are property, only men can have more than one partner, lesbians are force to marry men or be shunned and alone, and all of that. But under a system with gender equality, the freedom to not marry, and the freedom to divorce, a woman should be free to marry a man who is already married, provided all involved agree, and provided she is free to marry a woman if she wants to, or more than one woman, or more than one man, or a man and a woman.

Obama, meanwhile, has kept mum on the subject of his ancestral polygamy since entering the White House, Wilde said, though she suspects he wouldn't be quite so harsh, since he doesn't feel the same compulsion to overcompensate that his Mormon challenger does.

Image by Chris Ritter/Buzzfeed

As biographer David Maraniss reports in his book, Barack Obama: The Story, the president's great-grandfather was a polygamist in western Kenya — where it was a common practice in the Luo tribe — and took five wives, including two who were sisters. Obama's grandfather had four wives; and his father already had a wife in Kenya when he went to the University of Hawaii, fell in love with Ann Dunham, and married her.

As for Romney...

In Romney's case, the practice was put to an end several generations ago, but the list of known polygamist relatives is much more expansive, thanks in part to his church’s commitment to genealogy research. Both of Romney’s paternal great-grandfathers, early leaders in the Mormon Church, practiced polygamy, and both spent much of their lives in Mexico, after fleeing a U.S. government crackdown on Mormon plural marriage. One of them had five wives; the other had four — and that's where it stopped. Romney's grandfather and father were born in a Mormon colony in Mexico, but both were monogamists.

Image by Chris Ritter/Buzzfeed

The article eventually gets to the Dargers, and Joe Darger supporting the Libertarian candidate for President.

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,Islam,lack of equality harms,law,LDS,Mexico,polygamy,polygyny,religion,solidarity,Utah

A Loving Couple Denied the Freedom to Marry

[Note: I bumped this entry up because it deserves attention.]

[Anonymous Daughter] is a woman who had been regularly contributing to the original Genetic Sexual Attraction forum. That forum was mostly operated towards helping those who are struggling with their feelings of attraction and experiences related to reuniting with long-lost biological relatives, and for their family members who are dealing with the fallout. For some, though, the only struggle with GSA has to do with the prejudice and pressures from others, including people who have experienced GSA, who do not want them to have consanguinamorous relationships involving sexual contact. In other words, some people experiencing GSA do not struggle with it; they embrace and enjoy it.

[Anonymous Daughter], who stands up for those experiencing GSA and enjoying a consanguinamorous relationship, generously agreed to an interview. I think you’ll agree that her intelligence and character shine through in her answers. If you read through this and would still want to deny her the freedom to marry, then I question your humanity. Yet, there are many who not only want to deny her right to marry, but would throw her into prison and break up her family.

* * *

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background. Where are you from? Who raised you? What kind of childhood did you have?

[ANONYMOUS DAUGHTER]: I am from Canada. I was raised by my mother and maternal grandparents as an only child. I had what I would describe as an idyllic childhood until I was a teenager. Being the focus of four adults’ attention as a youngster can be both good and bad. My grandparents were actively involved in my upbringing as was my mother's brother. Each of them offered me many things of value. My grandfather and I were particularly close. I spent a great deal of time in academic and artistic pursuits, each fostered by at least one of these adults.

When I turned 13 my grandfather died, my mother separated from her second husband, my grandmother fell into alcoholism, my uncle got married and became a fundamentalist christian. I met my father for the first time that summer. It was a rough year. Obviously there were a lot of things I didn't understand at the time going on under the surface. Today, I can say I do but it was a long personal journey to really come to grips with who the people I loved were and how that impacted me. I've learned a great deal from it all but it was a travail.

I started visiting my father and writing him often at this point. I met my half-brother, who was eleven years younger than me, also. We weren't able to see one another that often and our visits were punctuated with long separations.


FME: You are in a spousal (including lovemaking) relationship with your biological father, correct? When did you first notice you had feelings for him? Before you noticed you had these feelings, had you ever thought of the concept of close biological relatives having this kind of love?

Yes. We were reunited the first time when I was a teenager. We had a conventional father daughter relationship externally but were to learn years later that we did not feel 'conventional' about each other then. I was struck with a physical and sexual attraction to him almost immediately. I squelched it. I thought I was 'sick' for feeling that way. We stayed in contact for six years at which point I couldn't handle how I felt anymore and not act on it so... I ran and never spoke to him again until twenty some odd years later.

I was aware that other bio relatives had incestuous relationships and had assumed it was an extension of childhood abuse. I realize now, of course, that this is not always the case. I had never heard of GSA relationships though, and had no idea of the GSA phenomenon happening to separated adults.




FME: How do you feel about the lovemaking side of your relationship? Is it a natural extension of your general feelings and love for him?

Absolutely.


FME: Aside from being father and daughter, is there any aspect of “kink” to you sexuality? Are you monogamous, in a closed relationship with each other?

No [there is no kink], and frankly there is no kink in being related when you speak about GSA. If you understand that GSA is a genetic reality brought about by separation then you understand that the sex is an aspect of the bonding that naturally occurs. It is our separation that results in our connecting as adults would ordinarily connect and not as parent and child.

We are monogamous.


FME: Who knows the full, true nature of your relationship and how did they find out? How have they reacted? Does anyone know you as a couple, but not father and daughter?

Complete strangers know we are father and daughter. We are literally gender opposite mirrors of each other. The only people who know are my children and other GSA people we've connected with online and you, of course. My children came and asked the nature of our relationship early into our reunion. They were a little uncomfortable with it but all of them had come to terms with how it happened before they even came to me. It helped that two of my children are gay. There was some integral understanding of being persecuted for something you can’t help. It also helped that my father was just united with them for the first time last year. They are bio relatives but no ‘ick’ factor for them where he and I are concerned. I also think the striking similarity between him and I (not just looks, but personality) has made it much easier for them to trust him.


FME: It sounds like you had talked about your feelings for each other before the physical aspect of your relationship became sexual as opposed to the kind of affection between platonic friends or family members - is that right? Or had one of you made a pass at the other first? Was the first time there was sexual contact mutually planned ahead of time (like a date where you both knew this was going to happen), or just something that grew spontaneously out of the kissing/hugging/touching that was already going on?

We discussed at great length the feelings we never acted on but felt when we had reunited when I was a teenager and young adult. My father initially brought it up in order to make amends for something he never actually did but only felt. I reciprocated about my feelings at the time so that he was aware that his read on my behaviour was not his imagination. I was upset that he was taking on this mantle of guilt and self castigation for feelings we BOTH had, particularly when his behaviour towards me was entirely appropriate for a father towards his teenaged daughter. In addition I felt he had been heroic in ignoring the loud signals I was giving him at the time. My poor father... if we had only known about GSA BEFORE we reunited we could both have avoided hating ourselves for our feelings. Feelings that were never acted on until twenty plus years later... and feelings that lead to another twenty year separation-both of us running from each other rather than doing something 'sick' or 'perverted'. I was twenty the last time I saw him.

This led to our conversations about staying in each others lives, trying to understand what happened and why. Both of us committed to our relationship as father and daughter ahead of all else. That we would not allow ourselves to be separated again, no matter what else happened. We drew the conclusion before we knew about GSA, quite rightly, that the physical attraction was a replacement for the bonding we had missed and that it was okay even if others would not understand. That if we were to pursue our bonding through the sexual aspect of our relationship and it didn't last we would stay father and daughter.

The first time we had contact was spontaneous in the sense that we didn't plan it ahead of time. The conversations I describe above happened both before and after. This was a very fluid and intense experience. As far as making a 'pass' at each other is concerned, GSA isn't like that for us... the physical connection is very much about bonding. The line between hugging, kissing and being sexually intimate is blurred in GSA. It is an extension of who we really are to each other.


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

This is very private to me, but I will say it is the most spiritual experience of my life.


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

I've mentioned several advantages already... the trust between my children and father is unparalleled. My children have connected with my father in a way they never could with a man I became involved with who was not a biological relative. That's huge. Anyone who has been in a step parent situation knows exactly what I mean. My father loved them instantly; he wanted what was best for them, not because of me but for themselves. There was never an attitude of 'putting up with them' in order to be with me.

I believe our level of commitment to one another is deeper because of the relationship. It is easier to be monogamous. The intensity of feeling both good and bad is deeper. Because we communicate well we have learned to handle the difficulties associated with that better, like jealousy (which is far more intense than in an ordinary couple) and sensitivity. We both have learned to be a little more careful in how we express things to each other as a result.

But the big advantage in this is: I am as certain as he is that we do not ever want to hurt each other. We understand that we each wield a great deal of power over injuring the other but that feeling is concurrent with the desire to have the other's happiness at almost any cost and certainly our own happiness is dependent on the other's. It's a difficult feeling to relate to if you have not experienced GSA, but it is truly selfless and imperative to be that way with one another. In most relationships that is an act of discipline, particularly when you are upset with the other person. In a GSA relationship it is a natural feeling and comes the most freely and quickly when you are upset with each other. Do I really need to explain to anyone who has ever been in a relationship why that would be a huge advantage? I'm guessing not.


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

No, not at all. Though to be fair, I haven't spent much time with any of them yet. My half-brother and I saw each other when he was twenty one and I didn't experience anything like the feelings I had for my father the first time we met.


FME: Some people say an adult daughter can’t possibly consent to sex with her biological father, and thus your father should be prosecuted under incest, rape, or sexual assault laws. What do you say to that?


It's a load of garbage. I am an adult woman under the law-I can consent to sex with anyone I want. As someone who has been raped and assaulted, I can personally tell you that what I have with my father is an act of mutual love.


FME: Some people who have experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction, whether or not they have had sex with the person(s) to whom they are attracted, insist it is wrong for close biological relatives to have sex, even if they are not prohibited by existing vows to others, and discourage others experiencing GSA from making love. What do you say to that?

That's their personal choice. Don't burden everyone with your personal judgments on what is right for you must be right for everyone. My opinion is this: By automatically removing the physical expression of GSA from the equation they could be allowing society to determine for them what the outcome of GSA should be. Because of the taboo, the illegality of sexual contact with a biological relative, these people are allowing people who haven't experienced GSA rob them a second time of bonding with their relative in the way that nature has intended. I think it's a pretty dangerous thing to define any adult human relationship in black and white terms. I know what my father and I required to heal what we had lost... and even if we had not decided to stay in a committed relationship with each other, the sexual aspect of our reuniting was required to heal those wounds. That may not be the case for others... it's not for me to judge.


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

I've been asked and have accepted, in the event the laws ever change.


FME: What are your plans for the future?

To live out our lives together in peace and love ensuring neither we nor any family members we love are ever separated unnaturally again.


FME: Do you personally know (not just online), or have you met in person other consanguinamorous couples (that you are aware of)?

Other than couples via online forums, no. And that's not surprising... we are not allowed to live openly without fear of legal prosecution.


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

Open, honest communication. Educate yourself about GSA if you were separated during childhood. Do not let society or other people define your path to healing and connection.


FME: Is there is anything else you want to add?

The more thought I give to GSA, to my GSA partner and our relationship, the more I feel that this is the new frontier, following the breakdown of the societal barriers toward homosexuality.

Where the support is required for all of us, in my opinion, is living with GSA in this society or in handling the strong inescapable feelings should you or your GSA partner be in a committed relationship with another when you meet. The other obvious area of support is for people about to reunite- they should be educated and aware that this could happen to them so they can make an educated decision about pursuing reunion. But I am uncomfortable with, in truth, angered by the idea that any of us need to be 'cured' or 'fixed'. We are not broken for feeling this way.

I have read a lot of GSA stories and heartbreaks. And I long for the posts by people who have come to terms with how they feel, those who are living with their GSA partner, aware that they are not ill but are social pariahs because society does not understand that this is not an illness or some twisted sexual deviation... it is a genetic reality brought on by separation. Just as homosexuality is genetic. And that we are treated publicly the same as gays and lesbians and biracial couples were 40 years ago.

The maelstrom is coming. As more and more people connect with their adoptive relatives, as more and more children of IVF accidentally marry their blood relatives, as more and more of us already in this situation process their own personal journey and wake up to the reality of their own innocence in all of it, the quiet whispers of our agony will become a screaming cry of outrage for freedom. Freedom from judgement, freedom from social persecution, freedom from criminal penalty, freedom to have the same legal rights and protection as any other couple.


* * *


They want to marry. They should have their freedom to marry. This is another example of why we need full marriage equality. Denying them their right to marry is unfairly hindering them. They have a loving marital relationship.



If you are experiencing GSA, a consanguinamorous relationship, a polyamorous relationship, or some other relationship involving consenting adults that faces prejudice or prosecution and you’d like to be interviewed or otherwise tell your story of your relationship or identity, please contact me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

You can also support full marriage equality on Facebook:

Group: I Support Full Marriage Equality!

Causes: I Support Full Marriage Equality!

I don't expect to be blogging much this weekend. Especially if you're new to this blog, I recommend checking the blogroll and links found in the column on the right and reading through the archives here.

Read more »

Posted in: Canada,children,consanguineous,family reaction,father-daughter,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,love,monogamy,reunion

Polyamory Isn't All About Sex

Because of recently increased interest in polyamory, I am bumping this entry up.

Robyn Trask, writing about being poly, asks, “What’s Sex Got To Do With It?”

American culture is challenged when it comes to sex and this generates much confusion. Sex is an important part of many romantic relationships but it is not the end all and be all. Sex has been equated with romantic love for centuries and, in more recent years, with monogamous marriage and commitment. Sex, love, romance and intimacy are not all the same thing and you can have one without the other.

Polyamory is more about romance and love than sex. The non-poly world just does not seem to get it; it’s not about the sex. Yes, poly relationships include sex but just like monogamous ones people are there for love, romance, intimacy and numerous other reasons. Sex is often an important component but it is not by any means the focus and sometimes it isn’t even there.

Those who don’t understand this will be mistaken about polyamory.

We would never tolerate our personal choices in work or where we live to be dictated by the neighbors or the government and yet, as a culture, we seek to control who a person loves, how they love, what sexual activities are accepted and even how many they can love. Why, one may ask, because of SEX. Gay marriage, gay relationships, bisexual relating, polyamorous relating all include sex and sex scares most people.

It is way past time to move beyond fear and towards equality.

We know people are able to love many people. Sex is one component of a vast array of ways in which people connect. Why is it so hard to make the leap that people who love someone deeply, are committed to that connection and have a sexual relationship could also love another person as well and in the same way. Human beings do it all the time, they have an affair, they go from one relationship to another, often overlapping, and they often still have strong feelings for past lovers.

I do think cheating, divorce, and family tensions would be greatly reduced if people were honest with themselves, honest with each other, and allowed to have the relationships that are best for them. When a spouse is getting everything they need from their spouse "but...," and they can find that "but" somewhere else by also providing something in return, doesn't everybody win? And lovers have an incentive to stop fighting and make up. When people avoid being lovers because of prejudice or unjust laws, the strife is increased and they have less incentive to end the strife.

Read more »

Posted in: lack of equality harms,love,polyamory,stigma

Debt Relief: Student Loans

Ever since the Great Recession put the strangle hold on the U.S. economy back in 2008, the default rate on student loans has skyrocketed.  This in turn has increased the debt collection case-load among the various United States Attorneys.

Michigan, hit particularly hard in the recession, is ranked 11th among the states in overall student debt load.  A full ten percent of the loans to Michigan students are defaulted.  The problem has become so acute, the U.S. Attorney's Detroit office hired a private law firm to aggressively pursue claims against students that defaulted on federal government loans.

Due to the number of public and private educational institutions located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, and considering the drastic tuition increases to which these institutions have resorted, the USDC - EDMich has one of the most robust civil collection dockets in the nation.

It is crucial for college grads, law students, and other graduate students to avoid getting enmeshed in this collection docket.  Unfortunately, bankruptcy is not an option for educational loans.

The crux of the problem is that the ever-increasing student loan burden is met at graduation with a continuously shrinking job market. A veritable disaster waiting to happen; a disaster that is happening.

What is a graduate to do?  First, do not ignore the problem.  These loans will not go away, regardless of the nievete or hard luck of the student borrower.  Ignoring the debt will only remove any repayment options such as forbearance or rehabilitation periods.

Second, student debtors should thoroughly educate themselves on the student loan statutes and regulations prior to commencing negotiations with the federal lender or collection entity.  The Internet is an excellent source of information that will lead the borrower to primary resources.

Third, consider hiring legal counsel to assist you with negotiations with the lender; definately hire legal counsel if you have been sued.

Fourth, if you are a current student, scour the Internet for as many grant and scholarship opportunities as you can find prior to executing additional loans.  There is "free" money out their for students; you just have to find it.

Finally, be realistic when establishing your educational goals.  Avoid paying out-of-state tuition if at all possible.  Michigan has many great institutions of higher learning that fit the bill.

Good luck out there getting educated.  Take it seriously as you are mortgaging your future to obtain your degree.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: attorney,bankruptcy,Detroit,forbearance,student loan,United States Attorney,United States District Court

The State of Georgia Still Arresting Consenting Adults

According to Sarah Bakhtiari, reporting at norcross.patch.com...

Gwinnett County Police arrested an uncle and nephew on incest charges early Friday at a business in an unincorporated area between Norcross and Peachtree Corners.

Around 3 a.m. Aug. 17, a security guard called authorities to report that two people had entered a semi-trailer behind a business on the 6400 block of Atlantic Boulevard near Jimmy Carter Boulevard.

According to the police report, officers made demands for the people to exit the trailer, and they did so without incident. Police immediately arrested the two for loitering and prowling since they "had no reason to be at the closed business."

If they owned the trailer and were inside the trailer what was the problem, really?

Police noted that at first, the two people appeared to be a woman in her early 20s and a middle-aged man. After further investigation and questioning, it turned out the woman was actually a 21-year-old male from Gainesville. He had been taking hormones since he was 19 that caused him to grow breasts and develop feminine features.

So the younger person is a transgender female. If she identifies as such, the police and journalists should refer to her as female, not in male terms.

The two also told police that they were uncle and nephew, and they had been involved sexually for about two years. The nephew told their family that he was gay, said the uncle, who's a 37-year-old Snellville resident. When his nephew started gaining female features, the uncle asked him about becoming sexually involved together.

Why is this relevant to the police? They are consenting adults.

Police asked if they performed any sexual acts in the trailer, and the uncle said they only cuddled and kissed. The nephew, however, told the officer that he performed oral sex, but it was consensual and not forced.

Note: It is OK to lie to counter unjust laws.

The two were arrested on charges of incest and loitering and prowling. They were admitted into the Gwinnett County jail and remained there as of early Tuesday morning, according to the Gwinnett Docket Book.

Why is incest a crime in this instance? They are consenting adults. The article didn't make it clear if they are biologically related or related by marriage, but it doesn't matter. "Loitering" is really a charge used to punish people for having sex or looking for sex in publicly shared places (like public restrooms) often because of prejudice against their sexuality makes it risky to be seen together at home, but they went inside the trailer. "Prowling" is a charge meant to be applied to burglars. They didn't steal anything. This looks like it just harassment of consenting adults for no good reason. If they actually didn't own the trailer, there should be nothing more than a trespassing charge.

There were comments, of course...

Diana... 

Call me a prude but ewwwww.

Don't do it if you don't want to. Problem solved!

SB...

I am just stunned and shocked ...this is going to be devestating to that family...So happy they are busted...he's probably been molesting him since he was a small boy...so so sad

Doesn't sound like a pedophile situation, but of course if someone isn't like SB, they must be a pedophile, right?

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,Georgia,incest,lack of equality harms,law,LGBT,prejudice,uncle-niece

Cooley Law In-Line with National Trends in Legal Industry

By now, we've heard the familiar tales-of-woe within the legal industry: too many lawyers; no jobs for newly-minted lawyers; young graduates are slaves to their law school tuition debts; and, the legal service industry is contracting.

With such a gloomy backdrop, the nation's largest law school, Thomas M. Cooley Law School, provides an interesting petre dish to test these national trends.  Sure enough, Cooley seems to bear out what is happening in law schools and legal service markets across the country.

The first trend of note is the steady decline in law school enrollment.  According to statistics published by the Law School Admission Council [publishers of the LSAT entrance exam], law schools have experienced more than a 30% decline in enrollment since 2003.

In an article last week in the Lansing State Journal, Cooley Dean Don Leduc admitted that his school's admissions took a hit; dropping by nearly 27% and expected to drop by another 15% when classes resume next week.  Dean Leduc told the LSJ that many law school applicants across the country regard Cooley as their "backup" choice.  Since law schools across the country are plunging ever deeper into their applicant pools to fill their classes, many students no longer need to play their Cooley card.

It is no secret, as the LSJ points out, that Cooley Law is one of the least selective ABA accredited schools in the country, and that out-of-state students make-up a significant portion of its student body.  Presumably, from sea to shining sea, students that cannot get into other law schools around the country flock to Cooley for their "ticket".

The next trend in the industry is the curious response of law school administrators to their steadily declining enrollments: raising tuition.  The National Law Journal has analyzed tuition rates at private law schools like Cooley and reports a 4% average tuition hike for this fall.

This year, the average cost for a single year of tuition in a private law school will crack the $40,000 mark for the first time in history.  In line with this trend, Dean Leduc announced that Cooley was raising its tuition by a whopping 8%.  This fall, students will pay $37,140 to attend Cooley Law School on a full-time basis.

Next trend: is law school worth the expense and effort?  Many voices are saying no.

One way to determine the value of a law degree is to track employment statistics among recent law school graduates, as required by the ABA to maintain a law school's accreditation.  Nationally, the average salary for 2011 law graduates is $60,000; down from $72,000 in 2009.

In related litigation, Cooley was recently sued on a fraud theory in federal court by a group of its alumni.  The law suit was tossed for lack of merit; it was really the ABA's vague reporting regime that was indicted in the case.  The issue involved how Cooley reported employment statistics for its recent graduates.

Earlier this year, the ABA announced that only 55% of recent law graduates held full-time employment that required bar passage to hold the position.  For Cooley, the numbers were well-below that mark.  The LSJ article reported that only 37.5% Cooley's 2011 graduates held full-time law positions.  Of those legally engaged grads, a significant percentage [20%] were solo practitioners straight of of law school; a dubious proposition if you are facing more than $100,000 in student loan debt and have zero experience representing clients.

To combat this negativity, Dean Leduc has recently released his own report, with commentary, citing statistics from the National Association of Legal Professionals and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, concluding the employment rate for law graduates is higher than the overall national average and the unemployment rate across this group is lower.

Regardless of the forecast, lawyers will always be with us.  We agree with Dean Leduc that future legal professionals should not be swayed by the current obvious gloom.

Instead, be persistent and follow your dream.  There is nothing more fulfilling than doing what you love to do for your profession.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: ABA,American Bar Association,Bureau of Labor Statistics,Cooley Law School,Don Leduc,Lansing State Journal,law student,lawyer,National Association of Legal Professionals,National Law Journal

Encouragement From a Friend

I was very pleased that our friend Liz left a couple of comments yesterday. I had lost contact with her for a while and I was a bit worried. She and her brother have a beautiful consanguinamorous relationship that has included a beautiful child. Liz and Ryan are an inspiration. She wrote:

People will come up will all kinds of reasons to explain why consanguineous relationships are wrong or immoral. I just hope that those attitudes change one day. I am in love with my brother, and I feel no shame in that. We have a healthy daughter together. I made sure to see my doctor regularly to make sure the baby was developing normally. As someone mentioned here, there are ways to make sure that genetic risks are managed.

I do wish that I could tell everyone that he is my brother and how great things have been and how happy we are being parents, but I can't. I know what will happen, so I do what I can like making posts here where there are supportive people. This kind of relationship does have it's challenges, but I wouldn't give it up for anything. To anyone in a similar relationship I would say this: Don't let fear and misinformation make your decisions for you.

It's sad that some people feel they cannot be with the one they truly love just because that person is a relative. I understand how that one woman feels - my heart belongs to my brother and it always will. We have our disagreements and arguments like any couple, but the love is strong and I can't imagine being with anyone else. It's not an easy decision to make, and it's not always easy to live this life, but don't let that discourage you - the rewards are worth it.

Thanks, Liz! Don't be a stranger.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,freedom to marry,help,lack of equality harms,siblings

Another Very Active Woman

After I interviewed Chrissy, her friend Megan agreed to be interviewed. Like her friend Chrissy, Megan has quite the sex life, and is explicit in answering my questions.




Megan is bisexual, polyamorous and told me she's in a consanguinamorous relationship with her brother and with her parents.

****

FME: Describe your background.

Megan: My name is Megan. I'm a 19 year old musician who lives in North Florida. I'm Egyptian, but was raised in America.

FME: When and how did you realize you were bisexual? Do you consider yourself polyamorous?

I knew I was bi in elementary school, because I kept getting crushes on all the girls in my class. I'm polyamorous. I f--- whoever I want, and that won't change even if I get a mate.

FME: Do you live with your family?

I live with my family part time. I have my own apartment, because sometimes it's nice to be alone, but I split my time evenly between there and my parent's house. My family is really close.

FME: How did you start having sex with your brother?

We started young. We’re about a year apart in age. My parents had raised us to be completely tolerant, and they told us when we were little that things like incest, homosexuality, and basically all taboo or frowned-upon sexual acts were completely okay, so almost as soon as we started going through puberty, we wanted to f--- each other like any horny kids would.

I'd already started experimenting with my girlfriends, but I really wanted to have sex with a guy. I thought my brother was really cute, and we're naturists, so I had recently begun to notice that he was checking me out alot and constantly getting hard around me, so one day I just kissed him and we had sex in my room. We were, of course, very young, and didn't really know what we were doing, but it was still fun. We told our parents about it, and they were fine with it. They just told us not to tell anyone at school, and they bought me birth control pills and just told us to use protection.

We went through a period where we had sex almost every day for a couple years. Even after I started high school and started bringing boys home I'd still f--- him as much as I could, and I'd often have threeways with him and my friends.

FME: How did you start having sex with your parents?

I started having threesomes with my mom and some guy friends a few years ago. When a boy would come over to hang out or f--- me, I would sometimes invite my mom to join in, and we’d kiss and [touch] each other, but that's as far as it went.

But I've always wanted to have sex with both of my parents. My dad is really hot, and my mom is beautiful, and a couple months ago I finally steeled myself and sat them down to tell them how I felt. I told them that I'd been having fantasies about them for a long time. I had expected a rather awkward rejection, but my parents said they loved me, and then we had a threeway right there. It was amazing, and I was so happy that my fantasy had come true.

FME: You said this is just sexual, not romantic. So is this family-with-benefits?

It is just family with benefits.

FME: You are not only having sex with them, but with others outside your family? If so, do you have boyfriends, girlfriends, play partners, what?

To be honest, I'm quite a s---, and I have sex with alot of people. I have sex with all of my friends, strangers, and I have a long list of f---buddies.

FME: Do you plan on having close, ongoing relationships outside the family, and if so, do you plan to continue the sex with your family members?

I want to fall in love, but my partner will have to accept that I have sex with my family.

FME: Is there anything you haven't done sexually, but want to?

There's no one else in my family I'm interested in f---ing. I want to have foursomes with my brother and my parents.

FME: How does sex with family members compare to sex with others? What is the wildest thing you have participated in or witnessed?

Sex with them is a bit more special than with some random stranger because I love them, and I really want to pleasure them. Plus, my parents and my brother all really know how to f---. The wildest thing I've done... I've taken little stints being people's sex slaves. I'm a bit of a masochist, and being so dominated is really fun ;)

FME: Who outside your family knows the full, true nature/history of your relationships and how did they find out? How have they reacted?

All of my close friends know. I was raised to be completely tolerant and liberal, so I made sure to surround myself with friends who were the same way. They don't care. I've been having orgies involving my friends and my brother for years.

FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your sex life, or anyone having sex with close relatives?

It's quite sad, really. Only very miserable people condemn others for their sexual desires.

FME: What would you say to someone reading this who doesn't believe this is for real?

They need to get out more.

FME: What advice do you have to someone who is curious or has romantic or sexual feelings for a close relative? What advice do you have for parents who find out their children (perhaps still living at home) are doing these things?

Just ask them. It's cliche, but you only live once. Even if they reject you, if they really love you, then they won't be mad. And to parents, if they find out that their kids are having sex with each other, they should be glad they're having fun. Just teach them about sex and using protection.

FME: Do you know in-person others who have had relationships like yours?

Yeah. I have a girlfriend who is dating her sister, and another friend who f---s her parents just like me.

FME: Anything else you want to add?

Thank you for allowing me to share this. I hope this will make people with incestuous yearnings more at peace with themselves.

*****

Thanks to Megan for being generous with her time. Megan could be your neighbor, your coworker, or your classmate. And yet, some people would throw her in prison or deny her employment because of her love life. That’s why we need relationship rights for all adults.

You can read my other interviews here. If you want to be interviewed, you can contact me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,brother-sister,consanguineous,father-daughter,LGBT,love,mother-daughter,open,polyamory,same-sex,siblings

A Very Active Woman

Most of the interviews I have posted have been with people who have been in love and have wanted to marry or have it as a real option or the future, but have been prevented due to a lack of marriage equality. This blog also supports other relationship rights for adults, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, who should not only be free to marry other consenting adults, but free to share love, sex, and residence whether or not they marry. I met “Chrissy” through Yahoo Answers and she was generous enough with her time to do this interview. She’s unapologetically robust in her sex life and does not shy away from talking explicitly about it.



*****

FME: Describe your background.

Chrissy: My name is Chrissy. I'm 19 years old, am madly in love with my husband whom I've been with for 4 years. I'm an artist, was born in Paris, and I split my time between there and Florida.


FME: I’ve read you’ve been with women as well as men. Do you consider yourself bisexual, heteroflexible, what? Would you call yourself polyamorous? Describe your arrangement with your husband.

I'm completely bisexual, and I have known so since I was a little girl. I'm in an open relationship. My husband and I can have sex with whomever we want whenever we want. We spent large amounts of time having sex with our friends, and we'll often bring back guys or girls to our house to have sex with them. I do not believe in monogamy, because if you truly love someone then you wouldn't tell them not to do something that they enjoy.


FME: How did you discover you were polyamorous?

My female friends and I would sexually experiment with each other, and it was so amazing I knew I could never be constricted to one person. I knew that I would be polyamorous before I was even a teenager.


FME: Are you "out" to family, coworkers, neighbors, friends?

Everyone knows that I'm bi and polyamorous. I was raised in a very liberal family so no one really cared when I told them I was bi.


FME: Do you consider yourself inherently polyamorous as part of your personality, or is polyamory just something you do?

I'm polyamorous as part of my personality. I couldn't live any other way.


FME: What is a typical month like as far as your love life? What are some of the "wildest" situations you have been involved in or witnessed?

In a typical month I'll make love to my husband every day, have sex with my best friends almost every day, we'll go to sex clubs and swingers parties looking for new f----buddies. The wildest relationship I've seen is my friend who has sex with her brother and her parents.


FME: Is there anything you want to try, but haven't yet?

I actually would like to have sex with my dad. I've never indulged in incest before, but I've recently begun having intense fantasies about my daddy, and would love to see them become real. I certainly don't care for him in a romantic way, I love him like any daughter loves their father, but I'm incredibly sexually attracted to him. He looks so young we've been mistaken for brother and sister, he's in amazing shape, and every time I see him I just want to pounce. I've seen him checking me out, but he's never said anything, but I'm going to gather my resolve and ask him if he wants to have sex with me. I would especially love a threesome with him and my husband.


FME: What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of being polyamorous? Have you experienced discrimination?

The advantage is obviously that I can have great, kinky sex with whoever I want. I get discrimination, but it's all from sad, pathetic strangers, and I don't care what they think.


FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your sexuality?

Get a life.


FME: What advice do you have to someone who is curious or thinks they may be the same way you are?

Indulge in all of your fantasies before it's too late.


FME: Do you know others who have had relationships like you have with your husband?

Yes. Literally every close friend I have.


****

It isn't a life everyone wants, but those who do want it and live it should not be discriminated against. Not every relationship or marriage looks the same. Thanks to Chrissy for doing this interview.

If you'd like to be interviewed about your "forbidden" consensual relationships or sexuality that falls outside of what the sex-negative folks want to impose on everyone else, contact me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,boundaries,LGBT,open,polyamory

Consumer Reports Reviews Self-Help Legal Sites

In today's world, everybody wants to be the lawyer.

Consumer Reports, that trusty publication that does in-depth research on products that we consumers know little about, has targeted three of the most popular self-help legal websites in the attached report.  The web sites reviewed are Legal Zoom; Nolo; and Rocket Lawyer.

The most popular of the three sites is Legal Zoom, founded by Los Angeles lawyer Robert Shapiro, and hawked by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

The CP review of the sites is luke warm, as you may expect.  The general conclusion is that, if you have a very simple matter, these sites are "better than nothing."  If you have any complexity to your legal matter, however, you will be better off hiring a lawyer.

As any lawyer knows, the devil is in the details in any legal situation.  One-form-fits-all simply does not work in the law. Sure, lawyers are trained to use checklists and forms, but every document drafted must be customized to some extent to ensure that the client's objective is completed within the four corners of a document.

These days, with on-line review services and easily accessible electronic profiles, you can do a lot of preliminary groundwork and research at your computer.  This is true of your specific legal issue, as well as for the lawyers who are in the best position to handle your matter.

So take a look at the linked report before paying fees to one of these sites.  And be careful out there...

Post Note 11/24/2012: Here is a great post in the Simple Justice blog about the litigation erupting between legalzoom and rocketlawyer.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Consumer Reports,lawyer,Legal Zoom,Nolo,Robert Shapiro,Rocket Lawyer,self-help legal sites

Former Lesbian Finds Religion Kidnaps Child

.

This case from Vermont displays some of the worst features of a parent taking family law into her own hands.  It is one thing for a parent to denounce her same-sex union and her lesbianism; it is entirely another to then plunge into a "born-again" culture, kidnapping her child to Central America and removing her from the other legal parent.

The case of Lisa Miller, Janet Jenkins and their 10-year old daughter, Isabella, is in the headlines as the Mennonite pastor that assisted Miller in fleeing the country goes on trial today in federal court in Burlington, Vermont.  No one knows where Miller and Isabella are today; Jenkins has not seen her daughter in over 3-years.

The civil union between the two women began to deteriorate 8-years ago when Miller denounced lesbianism in favor of her born-again conversion into a conservative Christian sect known as the Beachy Amish Mennonites.  Miller moved with Isabella to Virginia to be near church headquarters and tried to terminate Ms. Jenkins' parental rights.

The resulting protracted family court battle, waged in two state courts, resulted in an order of the Vermont Supreme Court granting custody to Jenkins; the Vermont ruling was honored and upheld by the courts in Virginia, where Miller tried to plead her cause.

Apparently, Miller had a change-of-heart regarding the family she created with Jenkins, and the lifestyle to which the parents belonged.  Once Miller "found God" within the conservative Christian Mennonite sect, she saw lesbianism as an "addiction" and found her partner to be an unfit parent who would not be allowed into heaven because she lived, in sin, with women.

At that point, as is so often the case with folks who find religion later in life, no laws of man or high court rulings could hold her back from her religious convictions.  In Virginia, Miller was employed for a time at Liberty Christian Academy, a school with close ties to Liberty University, the conservative christian college founded by Jerry Falwell.

Miller was represented in the family courts in the two states by lawyers from the Liberty Counsel, affiliated with the Liberty University's School of Law.  Her lawyers took the position that Virginia law, not Vermont law, should apply to the custody dispute in this case on the basis that the latter state "recognized as a parent a person that is not a parent", contrary to "biblical truths."  Virginia does not recognize same-sex unions as Vermont does.

Nevertheless, the Virginia family court and appellate courts ultimately ruled that Vermont properly had jurisdiction of the case.  When the Vermont family court judge ordered a parenting schedule that Miller refused to follow, he changed custody of the child to Jenkins in Vermont.

Shortly after this custody ruling, Miller disappeared with her daughter to Nicaragua.

Stay tuned to see how the federal jury that is being selected today in Virginia decides the fate of the local pastor that assisted Miller with fleeing the country, and whether Miller and her daughter will ever turn-up.

Clashes over child custody, lifestyle and religion; this case features all that and then some.  But we here at the Law Blogger must insist that it is never a good idea to take the law into your own hands.  That principle holds true whether you are the parent, or the pastor.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child custody,family court,family law,Janet Jenkins,Lisa Miller,Mennonite,same sex parents,same sex union,Vermont

Michigan Supreme Court Acknowledges an "Impossibility" Defense to Felony Child Support

This blog has covered the child support saga of Ms. Selesa Likine.  Her felony child support conviction was just reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court, and her case has been sent back down to the Oakland County Circuit Court.

The family court was created by statute pursuant to the Michigan Constitution back in 2000; now, there is a family court division for every county in Michigan.  Family courts issue support orders that obligate a parent to pay a specified sum each month for the support of their minor children.

Ever since parents have been ordered to pay child support, there have been those who cannot or will not make their required  payments.  There are different reasons for not paying: some withhold payment from their ex-spouse for revenge; others simply cannot afford to pay, or do not put a high priority on their child support obligation.  [e.g. the "Worm" aka Dennis Rodman.]  Still others find it impossible to satisfy their court-ordered obligation based on hard economic circumstances.

Regardless of the reason, when a child support payor fails to pay pursuant to a court order, an arrearage builds-up and the courts take notice.  Quite apart from the family court, the county circuit courts of general jurisdiction are the courts where felony criminal matters are prosecuted.

The Michigan Penal Code has a law on the books known as "failure to pay child support"; a four-year felony.  This felony has always been considered a "strict liability" crime, meaning that there is no defense to the charge once the prosecutor proves that the family court issued a support order and the payor, for whatever reasons, did not pay.

On Tuesday, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the felony child support statute in People v Likine.  This case is significant to the extent that it expressly reverses a Court of Appeals decision that precludes a defendant from asserting any "ability to pay" defense whatsoever.  The Likine Court held that "impossibility to pay" is an affirmative defense on which a jury can be instructed at a trial provided certain offers of proof are tendered.  Also, the Court reaffirmed that, despite the availability of this affirmative defense, felony child support remains a "strict liability" crime.

In the initial divorce case, Selesa Likine was diagnosed with depressive schizoaffective disorder.  Family Court Judge Linda Hallmark initially ordered her to pay only $54 per month in support; a relatively low amount.

Likine's support was increased, first to $184 per month then to $1131 per month, on the basis of "imputed income".  At a support hearing conducted before the FOC Referee, evidence revealed that Ms. Likine made [false] representations of high income on two mortgage applications in order to purchase an expensive home.

Based on these representations, and based on the  projected earnings of someone paying on that large a mortgage, the FOC Referee imputed income of $5000 per month to Likine.  Of course, this was a fiction; not only did Likine never earn that much income, she basically had no chance whatsoever to satisfy her new increased child support obligation.

Enter the criminal charge against Ms. Likine.  When her lawyer tried to "tell it to the judge", and then to the jury, about her lack of income, it was too late.  The trial judge relied on the holding of a Michigan Court of Appeals case [People v Adams] precluding Likine from presenting any evidence on her so-called "inability to pay."

Bottom line: now, a felony defendant is able to offer proof of an "impossibility" to pay, but not an inability to pay.  The latter concerns must still be addressed to the family court.  The reason is that our criminal jurisprudence requires a "mens rea" or "guilty mind" as a required component to every crime listed in the Michigan Penal Code.

Note to attorneys: The Likine case was a companion case with two other consolidated cases.  In those other cases, the felony child support convictions of the child support payors were NOT reversed on the basis that neither defendant had preserved the "impossibility to pay" issue in the trial court.  

Just sayin; had they done so, those convictions also may have been reversed.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child support,divorce lawyer,felony child support,Judge Linda Hallmark,Michigan Penal Code,Michigan Supreme Court,Oakland Circuit Court,Selesa Likine