Like Father, Like Son

Consanguinamory happens between people and their adult children more than most people think. Another forbidden relationship that is, perhaps, even more frequent is between adults and their new stepparent, especially if their stepparent is closer in age to them than their parent. In addition to steprelations being seen as incestuous, another aspect that also makes many of these relationships forbidden is when they involve cheating due to the stepparent violating a vow or agreement with the parent. (Not all have such agreements and thus the relationship with the "stepchild" would not be seen as cheating.)

At islamweb.net there was something that addressed these topics, headlined with attention-grabbing "His wife and son have regular incestuous relations together."

It appears to be an advice column. From the question...

Respected Sheikh, I am a man in my late sixties and recently discovered that my 33 year old wife has regular incestuous relations with my 17 years old son.

A few things to note right away: 1. Although this is not written so as to make clear she is not the biological mother of his son, I think if she was the biological mother of the son that would have been explicitly stated, which is not. 2. She is closer in age to his son than she is him. 3. Seventeen year-old males generally are bursting with hormones and constantly wanting sex. Leave one alone all day with an attractive person and... well, this isn't surprising. 4. It is entirely possible that where they live 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex with 33-year-olds.

When I confronted them they denied it, but one day I came home unexpectedly and found them in the act. They repented and promised not to do it again.

So this was a matter of cheating.

I am devastated and don’t know what to do. I beg you to tell me in the light of the Quran and hadith what course of actions I shall take.

This is, of course, from a Muslim website. Being cheated on, especially when the other person is another person you thought you could trust, is painful. My advice would be to seriously consider if this is unacceptable, and if he needs her to only have sex with him, if he's going to be able to treat her right going forward without going batty. If not, then the marriage should be over. But he didn't ask me. Let's get to the response was given...



First, there was a statement of what sins were committed according to Islamic teaching.

However, if they had both truly repented, then they did well.

Now, if your wife becomes righteous and shows good conduct, then you should keep her and have good marital relations with her and do not hold her accountable for what she had done, but you are obligated not to have sexual relations with her until you make sure that she is not pregnant from Zina by the passing of one menstrual period.

Also, you should be keen on disciplining both of your wife and son and teaching them the matters of their religion as what they did is mostly due to ignorance and negligence.

I doubt they were unaware what the religious authorities would say. They were horny, and perhaps also in love. But we get some more Quranic verses anyway. Then...

On the other hand, if you are suspicious about your son in the future, then you should take the matter firmly in hand and prevent him from being in seclusion with your wife and prevent her from appearing in his presence without Hijaab. Likewise, if you are suspicious about your wife, then there is no good in keeping her as your wife; rather you should divorce her so that she would not contaminate your bed and give birth to children who are not from you.

Finally, it should be noted that committing Zina is generally due to being lenient in matters that lead to it, like a woman appearing in front of men (other than her husband) in an inappropriate manner, like wearing revealing clothes and so forth. So, one should be careful about this.

Ah yes, this was all because she wasn't covered up in a Hijaab. Uh huh.

I do find other cultures' perspectives interesting.

Something people need to keep in mind is that while the Westermarck Effect (reduced sexual attraction) is common between people raised together or by one another, it isn't there when you bring someone new into your adult/post-pubescent child's life, whether that is your new lover, partner or spouse, or any post-pubescent children they have. This man was attracted to this woman. Why wouldn't his son be, too? That doesn't excuse cheating; someone who needs monogamy and has received a pledge of monogamy should expect monogamy as long as they are not neglecting their partner. But if he was living under the assumption that his son and wife were unlikely to be attracted to each other on some level, it was a mistaken assumption, as demonstrated.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,cheating,family reaction,incest,Islam,mother-son,religion

Like Father, Like Son

Consanguinamory happens between people and their adult children more than most people think. Another forbidden relationship that is, perhaps, even more frequent is between adults and their new stepparent, especially if their stepparent is closer in age to them than their parent. In addition to steprelations being seen as incestuous, another aspect that also makes many of these relationships forbidden is when they involve cheating due to the stepparent violating a vow or agreement with the parent. (Not all have such agreements and thus the relationship with the "stepchild" would not be seen as cheating.)

At islamweb.net there was something that addressed these topics, headlined with attention-grabbing "His wife and son have regular incestuous relations together."

It appears to be an advice column. From the question...

Respected Sheikh, I am a man in my late sixties and recently discovered that my 33 year old wife has regular incestuous relations with my 17 years old son.

A few things to note right away: 1. Although this is not written so as to make clear she is not the biological mother of his son, I think if she was the biological mother of the son that would have been explicitly stated, which is not. 2. She is closer in age to his son than she is him. 3. Seventeen year-old males generally are bursting with hormones and constantly wanting sex. Leave one alone all day with an attractive person and... well, this isn't surprising. 4. It is entirely possible that where they live 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex with 33-year-olds.

When I confronted them they denied it, but one day I came home unexpectedly and found them in the act. They repented and promised not to do it again.

So this was a matter of cheating.

I am devastated and don’t know what to do. I beg you to tell me in the light of the Quran and hadith what course of actions I shall take.

This is, of course, from a Muslim website. Being cheated on, especially when the other person is another person you thought you could trust, is painful. My advice would be to seriously consider if this is unacceptable, and if he needs her to only have sex with him, if he's going to be able to treat her right going forward without going batty. If not, then the marriage should be over. But he didn't ask me. Let's get to the response was given...



First, there was a statement of what sins were committed according to Islamic teaching.

However, if they had both truly repented, then they did well.

Now, if your wife becomes righteous and shows good conduct, then you should keep her and have good marital relations with her and do not hold her accountable for what she had done, but you are obligated not to have sexual relations with her until you make sure that she is not pregnant from Zina by the passing of one menstrual period.

Also, you should be keen on disciplining both of your wife and son and teaching them the matters of their religion as what they did is mostly due to ignorance and negligence.

I doubt they were unaware what the religious authorities would say. They were horny, and perhaps also in love. But we get some more Quranic verses anyway. Then...

On the other hand, if you are suspicious about your son in the future, then you should take the matter firmly in hand and prevent him from being in seclusion with your wife and prevent her from appearing in his presence without Hijaab. Likewise, if you are suspicious about your wife, then there is no good in keeping her as your wife; rather you should divorce her so that she would not contaminate your bed and give birth to children who are not from you.

Finally, it should be noted that committing Zina is generally due to being lenient in matters that lead to it, like a woman appearing in front of men (other than her husband) in an inappropriate manner, like wearing revealing clothes and so forth. So, one should be careful about this.

Ah yes, this was all because she wasn't covered up in a Hijaab. Uh huh.

I do find other cultures' perspectives interesting.

Something people need to keep in mind is that while the Westermarck Effect (reduced sexual attraction) is common between people raised together or by one another, it isn't there when you bring someone new into your adult/post-pubescent child's life, whether that is your new lover, partner or spouse, or any post-pubescent children they have. This man was attracted to this woman. Why wouldn't his son be, too? That doesn't excuse cheating; someone who needs monogamy and has received a pledge of monogamy should expect monogamy as long as they are not neglecting their partner. But if he was living under the assumption that his son and wife were unlikely to be attracted to each other on some level, it was a mistaken assumption, as demonstrated.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,cheating,family reaction,incest,Islam,mother-son,religion

Quick Basic Explanation of Polyamory

With polyamory and polyamorists increasingly becoming topics in media and culture in general, journalists and commentators would do well to know what polyamory is and what it is not.

Polyamory IS loving or having a relationship* with more than one person with the agreement of all. This can be one-on-one at a time, or in a grouping. Having this agreement doesn’t necessarily mean everyone will know everything about all involved and what they do, but it means that nobody involved has falsely promised anyone monogamy.

Since polyamory can manifest in many different ways, it can be helpful to keep in mind what polyamory is NOT…

• Just about sex, any more than monogamous relationships are just about sex.
• Cheating. Cheating is interacting with someone in a way that violates a prior, existing commitment to, or condition with, another. For example, it is not cheating for a wife to take on another lover alone if her spouse has agreed to it, even if she doesn’t tell her spouse when it happens, as long as that was the agreement between the spouses. It would be cheating if all three people in a polyamorous triad agreed not to have sex with anyone outside of the triad, and then one of them does.
• Synonymous with swinging. Swinging is when an established couple, triad, quad, etc. participates as a couple or group in encounters with other couples or groups. It can be a form of polyamory but not all polyamory involves swinging. Some polyamorists swing, some don’t.
• Synonymous with spouse swapping. Swapping usually means when one couple swaps partners with another couple, whether for one time or on an ongoing basis. It can be a form of polyamory, but not all polyamory involves swapping. Some polyamorists swap, some don’t. For example, there are polyamorous couples in which each individual has one other lover, but those lovers do not know each other. That is NOT swapping.
• Synonymous with “open relationship.” An open relationship or marriage is one that is not closed to new participants, whether they are short term or long term participants. Some polyamorists are in closed relationships, some are in open relationships. Some are not in relationships at all at the moment.
• Synonymous with communal living. Some polyamorists live communally, some don’t.Some live with people they do not have sex or a romantic relationship with and have sex or a romantic relationship with people they do not live with.
• Synonymous with threesomes (whether one night stands or ongoing) or group sex. While some polyamorists enjoy threesomes or group sex, many polyamorists have one-on-one sex only.
• Synonymous with promiscuity. Some polyamorists have fewer total sexual partners than some professing monogamists.
• Another way of saying someone is unable to commit, avoiding commitment, or a lack of commitment. Polyamory often involves multiple commitments.
• Another word for polygamy. Polygamy is marriage to more than one person. I consider polygamy to be a subset of polyamory. Most polyamorists would not describe their relationships as polygamy.
• For men who “can’t keep it in their pants.” Polyamorists exercise restraint, too.
• For “weak” people to appease their partner by “letting” their partner have sex with others.
• Abusive to women. Abusive people abuse people. Polyamorists would not consider it polyamory if a man cheats on a woman, beats her into “agreeing” to “polyamory”, or coerces her into sexual situations. Polyamorous women, like polyamorous men, enjoy polyamory and feel empowered, fulfilled, loved, and that they are loving and meetings the needs of others.
• An indication that someone is immature. There are people who try polyamory and find it isn’t for them, but polyamory involves maturity as it requires being aware of oneself and being honest and effective in communicating needs and negotiating boundaries, and meeting the needs of others.
• A fad or something new. The word may be new, but polyamory has existed throughout history, and will continue to exist.
• An STD superhighway. Polyamorists have a lower rate of STIs than the general population.
• For amoral or immoral people. Most polyamorists are moral people, often profoundly so. Some people consider polyamory as automatically immoral because it is not monogamy, but most people who say that can’t explain why someone should accept monogamy as the only moral relationship, or they cite a religious tradition that they probably aren’t living by themselves.
• Harmful to society. A good argument can be made that it is beneficial beyond just the fulfillment of the individuals.
• Something only strangers or “other” people, do. You probably know polyamorists or interact with them in your daily or weekly life and don't even know it.
• Associated exclusively with any one political movement or group or any one religious tradition or spiritual philosophy. For example, there are polyamorists who are Atheist, others who are Wiccan, and others who are Christian. In the US, there are polyamorists who are Greens, polyamorists who are Democrats, polyamorists who are Libertarians, and polyamorists who are Republicans.

About the only thing polyamorists have in common is that they are polyamorous.

Polyamory can be expressed in unattached individuals who have ongoing open relationships that consist of casual dates. It can be expressed in closed “V” relationships, or triads/triangles, or quads. There are many, many ways to live a polyamorous life. Relationships that appear to be very different from each other can all be polyamorous.

See here for more.

*a social or personal relationship, no matter how brief, that is not “just” platonic friendship. It could be called one or more of the following: loving, romantic, erotic, physical, sexual, dating, courting, spousal, or marital.

Read more »

Posted in: myths,polyamory,prejudice,stigma

Quick Basic Explanation of Polyamory

With polyamory and polyamorists increasingly becoming topics in media and culture in general, journalists and commentators would do well to know what polyamory is and what it is not.

Polyamory IS loving or having a relationship* with more than one person with the agreement of all. This can be one-on-one at a time, or in a grouping. Having this agreement doesn’t necessarily mean everyone will know everything about all involved and what they do, but it means that nobody involved has falsely promised anyone monogamy.

Since polyamory can manifest in many different ways, it can be helpful to keep in mind what polyamory is NOT…

• Just about sex, any more than monogamous relationships are just about sex.
• Cheating. Cheating is interacting with someone in a way that violates a prior, existing commitment to, or condition with, another. For example, it is not cheating for a wife to take on another lover alone if her spouse has agreed to it, even if she doesn’t tell her spouse when it happens, as long as that was the agreement between the spouses. It would be cheating if all three people in a polyamorous triad agreed not to have sex with anyone outside of the triad, and then one of them does.
• Synonymous with swinging. Swinging is when an established couple, triad, quad, etc. participates as a couple or group in encounters with other couples or groups. It can be a form of polyamory but not all polyamory involves swinging. Some polyamorists swing, some don’t.
• Synonymous with spouse swapping. Swapping usually means when one couple swaps partners with another couple, whether for one time or on an ongoing basis. It can be a form of polyamory, but not all polyamory involves swapping. Some polyamorists swap, some don’t. For example, there are polyamorous couples in which each individual has one other lover, but those lovers do not know each other. That is NOT swapping.
• Synonymous with “open relationship.” An open relationship or marriage is one that is not closed to new participants, whether they are short term or long term participants. Some polyamorists are in closed relationships, some are in open relationships. Some are not in relationships at all at the moment.
• Synonymous with communal living. Some polyamorists live communally, some don’t.Some live with people they do not have sex or a romantic relationship with and have sex or a romantic relationship with people they do not live with.
• Synonymous with threesomes (whether one night stands or ongoing) or group sex. While some polyamorists enjoy threesomes or group sex, many polyamorists have one-on-one sex only.
• Synonymous with promiscuity. Some polyamorists have fewer total sexual partners than some professing monogamists.
• Another way of saying someone is unable to commit, avoiding commitment, or a lack of commitment. Polyamory often involves multiple commitments.
• Another word for polygamy. Polygamy is marriage to more than one person. I consider polygamy to be a subset of polyamory. Most polyamorists would not describe their relationships as polygamy.
• For men who “can’t keep it in their pants.” Polyamorists exercise restraint, too.
• For “weak” people to appease their partner by “letting” their partner have sex with others.
• Abusive to women. Abusive people abuse people. Polyamorists would not consider it polyamory if a man cheats on a woman, beats her into “agreeing” to “polyamory”, or coerces her into sexual situations. Polyamorous women, like polyamorous men, enjoy polyamory and feel empowered, fulfilled, loved, and that they are loving and meetings the needs of others.
• An indication that someone is immature. There are people who try polyamory and find it isn’t for them, but polyamory involves maturity as it requires being aware of oneself and being honest and effective in communicating needs and negotiating boundaries, and meeting the needs of others.
• A fad or something new. The word may be new, but polyamory has existed throughout history, and will continue to exist.
• An STD superhighway. Polyamorists have a lower rate of STIs than the general population.
• For amoral or immoral people. Most polyamorists are moral people, often profoundly so. Some people consider polyamory as automatically immoral because it is not monogamy, but most people who say that can’t explain why someone should accept monogamy as the only moral relationship, or they cite a religious tradition that they probably aren’t living by themselves.
• Harmful to society. A good argument can be made that it is beneficial beyond just the fulfillment of the individuals.
• Something only strangers or “other” people, do. You probably know polyamorists or interact with them in your daily or weekly life and don't even know it.
• Associated exclusively with any one political movement or group or any one religious tradition or spiritual philosophy. For example, there are polyamorists who are Atheist, others who are Wiccan, and others who are Christian. In the US, there are polyamorists who are Greens, polyamorists who are Democrats, polyamorists who are Libertarians, and polyamorists who are Republicans.

About the only thing polyamorists have in common is that they are polyamorous.

Polyamory can be expressed in unattached individuals who have ongoing open relationships that consist of casual dates. It can be expressed in closed “V” relationships, or triads/triangles, or quads. There are many, many ways to live a polyamorous life. Relationships that appear to be very different from each other can all be polyamorous.

See here for more.

*a social or personal relationship, no matter how brief, that is not “just” platonic friendship. It could be called one or more of the following: loving, romantic, erotic, physical, sexual, dating, courting, spousal, or marital.

Read more »

Posted in: myths,polyamory,prejudice,stigma

Happy Halloween!

Is it true what I've heard, that outside the US Halloween is no big deal? Halloween is October 31 and it is celebrated widely and diversely here in the US.

Do you have any special plans for Halloween? Did you do anything fun or interesting over the past weekend at a Halloween event?


Here in the states, the stores depend on Halloween to sell a lot of merchandise. There are parties, costume contests, what amounts to theatre in front of (and inside, sometimes) the homes of people as they try to scare or entertain neighbors and strangers with things ranging from silly to sexy, spooky to gory. In some places, kids (and often parents) in costumes go from door to door collecting candy or other treats.

Many amusement parks, ranging from small to the largest, do special entertainment in the weeks leading up to Halloween, and this is a favorite time of the year for movie studios to release horror movies, and for broadcasters to show ones from years past.

For some, there are religious or spiritual aspects to the day, and it might be called by other names.

Some interesting things can happen when people are having fun at costume parties, or cuddled up together watching scary movies.

So, as always, feel free to comment or share your stories.

Read more »

Posted in: religion,US,USA

CEO Divorce: Impact on Shareholders

By: Timothy P. Flynn

There is no doubt that a divorce proceeding affects any professional's work routine; that includes, of course, corporate executives.  The distraction of a divorce in the board room, however, affects others outside the company; it pulls the corporate shareholders within its scope.

We're not just talking about guys like Mad Men's Don Draper, whose divorce temporarily but significantly affected the partners of a successful NYC advertising agency.  A CEO's divorce can affect the bottom-line for the shareholders in the company.

There are several ways that an executive's divorce could affect the company for which he or she manages.  First, if the executive has a significant stake in the company, the divorce could affect the executive's controlling interest.  The divorcing spouse will want a portion of the value owned by the executive and that value could affect control of the company.

Second, the divorcing executive's corporate focus and energy levels will be impacted by the trajectory of his or her divorce proceeding.  It is no surprise that business studies and surveys have shown that well over one-third of companies report a negative productivity impact directly arising from the divorce of an executive.

Third, the divorcing executive's strategic decision making can be influenced by the divorce proceeding.  If, for example, the executive is funding her divorce settlement with personal assets so that she can retain her share of corporate ownership, her outlook toward risk could be impacted: i.e. she may become more risk-adverse in the short term in order to protect her suddenly less-diversified and more concentrated net worth.  Being less risk-adverse may not be good for the company or its shareholders.

All of this affects a shareholder's interest in the company.  In many cases, perhaps because of the above examples, corporate divorces are handled as privately as possible.

The collaborative model we prefer here at Clarkston Legal serves the executive, and thus her company, very well.  The collaborative model is where the divorcing parties, and their team of professionals, meet and negotiate a settlement before a divorce proceeding is officially filed with the family court.

If you or your spouse are considering a divorce and there are corporate implications, you should give serious consideration to the collaborative model.  To learn more, contact us for a free consultation.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: CEO,collaborative divorce,divorce,divorce lawyer,shareholder

Dear Prudence on Consanguinamory in Adult Media

The Dear Prudence column/chat session, penned by Emily Yoffe, addressed topics relevant to this blog again.

Someone was snooping through a boyfriend’s iPad…

I recently opened up Google Chrome on my boyfriend's iPad and it was on private browsing. So I hit “back” a few times,

Nosey, aren’t we?

I found “Find a Shemale Lover” which was attached to a fake Gmail account. I tried logging in using the same password for his computer and BINGO. I went to user history in Gmail and found incest porn. I don't know what to say or think. I confronted him and his reply was, "It's not like I want to be with my mom!" "And I am bored with regular porn." So my question(s) are why do people watch incest porn? I have small nieces, should I be worried? Fine, he's bored, what happens when he runs out of porn genres?

“Incest porn” can mean many different things. Him mentioning his mother makes it sound like this was material depicting men with their mothers. The person with the concern did not indicate otherwise, unless her mentioning of her nieces is an implication that this was child porn, which is an entirely different matter.

People watch incest porn for the same reason they watch any other kind of porn. For arousal, for laughs, out of curiosity, for ideas, to vicariously live something they'll never experience, or to relive something they have experienced.

Porn with incestuous themes is very popular, and his viewing of the material is not an indication that the nieces would be in any danger.

But notice the issue of “find a shemale lover” was not questioned. This did not escape Yoffe…

Why aren't you focusing on the fact that your boyfriend is perusing "Find a Shemale Lover" websites? It's true your boyfriend must be very bored with porn if he needs "incest porn" to get aroused.

Enjoying something does not necessarily mean it is needed.

I think the average person would start envisioning their family members and screaming, "No, not incest porn, I beg you!"

Perhaps, depending on which definition of average we are talking about. Some people do not picture themselves or someone they know in the material they view, such as voyeurs who simply like watching other people. And again, consanguinamory is a very popular theme in erotica. Many people who enjoy it may not have any experience or desire to experience it.

But you are glossing over the fact potentially more germane to you that he's possibly using the Internet to find sexual partners. That could have serious consequences for your health.

Yes, an honest and frank discussion about fantasy and reality would be in order. The writer never said anything about their sex life or any other aspect of the relationship. If things are great, and if he’s not doing or going to be doing anything in real life that the writer has a problem with, then there isn’t an issue.

Following up, someone wrote…

Don't you know that there is not even a gap but an ABYSS between our real-life desires and our fantasies? I'm a female in her mid-30s who enjoys a very normal, monogamous, vanilla sex life. But, for as long as I can remember, regular porn's never turned me on. What does it for me is weird stuff that I myself can't even believe turns me on: fat black lesbians, incest stories (not with children!), and even bestiality. None of these things would ever appeal to me in real life (YUCK!) and there's a good chance that's what's going on with her boyfriend too—please change your answer and let her know there's plenty of us out there who just have an active imagination but no desire to bring it into the real world.

I’m so glad that response was included.

Yoffe answered by supporting fantasy but emphasizing her concerns about child porn and the boyfriend having secret encounters with others.

As with so much porn (or media in general), porn with consanguinamorous themes is not the same thing as reality. There are people in consanguinamorous relationships who do not want to be stared at during their most private moments, but would very much appreciate support for their rights. If the data is any indication, if everyone who enjoys media (erotica or not) with consanguinamory as an element were to support the rights of consanguineous lovers, we'd quickly be closer to full marriage equality.

Read more »

Posted in: cheating,consanguineous,incest,media

Decriminalizing Genetic Sexual Attraction

This is necessarily a long essay, and I apologize, but I’ve heard so many arguments before that I want to deal with them preemptively.

In many places, certain acts of affection between close genetic relatives are still a crime, regardless of all involved being consenting adults, regardless of their backgrounds. This includes when the adults have experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA).

The fact is there are people who are happy together, in every way, who were brought together through GSA. The main problem in the relationship is the discrimination, often codified in laws that include the possibility of criminal prosecution, against their relationship. There are other people who are experiencing GSA who, for any number of reasons, do not want their relationship to become sexual, or remain sexual if it has already become sexual. Both of these groups, and the other people who love them and depend on them, would benefit from decriminalization.

The first group would be free to live their lives.

The second group would be able more find effective help and support.



There is no reason to keep laws against any affection between consenting adults in these cases that is consistently applied elsewhere. For example, in the USA, we have firmly established the legal concepts that adults have the freedom of association and a right to privacy that extends to consensual sex and that protects them from prosecution, and we have firmly established as a social concept that consenting adults should be allowed to do with each other what they want. It is just taking some time for these to be consistently applied.

A Good Reason for Criminalization?

Let’s look at the reasons people give for making criminals out of consenting adults who are experiencing GSA by denying them the freedom to be together…

1. “It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument wouldn’t want to do it, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from doing something those other people want to do. We all have seen relationships that disgust us, but it is up to the adult involved, not anyone else.

2. “Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” The second one is much like #1 above, and many people who are in, or have been in, GSA relationships never thought they would want to do something like this before they experienced it for themselves. The first is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against these relationships are wasteful and unnecessary.

3. “It goes against tradition.” So did the abolition of slavery. A tradition of inequality is not a justification for continuing to deny equality.

4. “My religion is against it.” We should all have the freedom of religion and in places like the US, we have separation of church and state, so this can’t be a justification for keeping laws against GSA, only a reason why one person would not feel free to be affectionate that way.

5. “It's not natural." Actually, yes, it is. GSA is a normal, natural reaction to the circumstances (see references below). But even if it wasn't, people are allowed artificial things all of the time, like using smart phones.

6. “What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” Freedom for consenting adults. Who has a problem with that?

7. “These relationships are abusive.” These types of relationships are not inherently abusive. Abusive people are the cause of abuse. We have several examples showing that outlawing consensual behavior correlates to an increase in problems as people try to avoid law enforcement and other authorities. Legalizing these relationships will most certainly reduce abuse, as abuse victims can go to the authorities with much less fear. So the solution isn’t the status quo, it is in decriminalizing such relationships and prosecuting abusers. Victims will be much more forthcoming.

8. “It ruins, confuses, or distorts family relationships.” Ever notice how people who use this argument against GSA relationships almost never say the same thing about any other relationship? It is okay for say, siblings, to be coworkers, business partners, roommates, lender and borrower, best friends, on and on… but never lovers. Why the inconsistency? They don’t say it about any number of additional relationship dimensions relatives might have with each other, or at least this objection is not enshrined in law, as it is with laws criminalizing GSA sex. It is as if these people think sex is a bad thing and about doing bad things to the other person(s). Maybe they are doing it wrong?

Most people experiencing GSA already have sociological families. The genetic sibling, child, or parent with whom they have been reunited or to whom they have been introduced is an addition to their life, not someone who is dropping or conflicting with an existing sociological role. Some people in these relationships see the affection as a form of compensation for what was lost and can never be regained.

9. “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for making criminals out of lovers. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. One person is more emotionally needy than another. One earns more than the other. One is more educated than another. One has more friends and family than another. One has more life experience than another. On and on it goes. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. There are sober, functional, healthy adults who consent to sex with an older relative. It shouldn’t be illegal or questioned, unless you would do the same to any intergenerational relationship between adults.

10. “There are so many people outside of your family. Go have sex with one of them, instead.” This is usually said out of ignorance of what GSA is. There is a relationship going on that can’t be duplicated with anyone else, and if sex is involved, it is just one aspect of a powerful whole. Consenting adults should free to make their own decisions about their relationships, regardless of the prejudices of others. There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial relationships.

11. “This will hurt children.” This is usually meant one of four ways:

   a) “Children you have together will have two heads.” This is one reason why some lovers have decided not to have children together. But does it hold up as a reason for criminalizing GSA sex? No. 1) As I just said, many lovers have decided not to have children together, and would keep that decision regardless of law. Most people do not believe sex is only for reproduction. Most sex does not result in a birth, and there are gay and lesbian GSA relationships, and other GSA relationships where pregnancy is not even a possible result of sex. 2) We don’t prevent other people from having sex or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. 3) Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification for criminalizing GSA. Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too.

   b) “The children will find out their parents are related, and will be taunted.” First, see above. Secondly, what the children will know is that their parents love each other, and love them, and that is what is important to a child. Finally, people used to say this about interracial and gay parents. The biggest problem appears to the rudely outspoken bigotry of others. Don’t want the kids to be taunted? Then don’t taunt them.

   c) “It will make it easier for children to be groomed for sex or otherwise abused.” GSA specifically involves people who were not raised together or by each other, so grooming doesn’t really apply with GSA. But will decriminalizing GSA make it easier for custodial guardians and parents to abuse children? The law could be written in such a way as to only decriminalize GSA and not apply to guardians/custodial parents, but there are places, such as Rhode Island and various countries in the world, where consensual sexual affection between close adult relatives is legal, GSA or not. Where is the proof that child abuse increased in those places as a result? Consensual sex and abuse are two different things. There are people abusing their own children RIGHT NOW in places where consensual adult incest is illegal. Meanwhile, does anyone really think that allowing consenting adults to have their love lives means more adults will prey on children? Society already disapproves of preying on children, and it still happens, sadly. Many things legal for adults are not legal for children, such as joining the military, getting married, purchasing prescription medication, driving automobiles on public roads, buying adult media, working in coal mines, etc. Not every law or norm or sensitivity can cater to young children.

   d) “This will break up the home of children.” This is applied to GSA situations involving people who have existing relationships that are threatened by GSA, and those relationships involve children. Personally, I think children would rather their parents not split up unless one is abusive, and I do not think it is OK to violate existing vows to others. This is definitely an important consideration for someone experiencing GSA. But… it is their consideration, not for strangers to try to decide for them in law. We do not prevent people from breaking up or divorcing even if they have children. It is perfectly legal, or any reason. In most places, laws against adultery are no longer applicable. A parent can have sex with a complete stranger every night, or divorce and remarry multiple times; it is all legal, even if it is often a bad idea.

Conclusion

As we can see, there isn’t a compelling reason for the continued criminalization of GSA. It will make laws more consistent and people will be better off if GSA is decriminalized. In many places, is legal for complete strangers to have group sex, with different people every night if they’d like, but not legal for two people who have an ongoing relationship and love each other to, say, have oral sex, simply because they are close genetic relatives. Does that make sense?

GSA is real and is a common, normal response to the circumstances involved, which are often circumstances nobody experiencing the GSA can be blamed for creating. GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with the people involved. It is not wrong to have these feelings. I also argue that in many cases, it is not wrong to act on such feelings, that there is no good reason why adults in these cases who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Even if and when wrong, that doesn’t mean it should be criminal.

Has acting sexually on GSA ruined the lives of some people? Like all sexual relationships, the answer is yes, for some it has. Some people are not right for each other, even if they are strongly attracted to each other, and some people are abusive (sometimes that is a reason for the separation circumstances to begin with). Some people aren’t free to be together. But that is no reason to categorically condemn and criminalize all GSA sex.

It is a waste of precious resources to keep GSA criminalized; it is also harming people.

For those brought together through GSA who are enjoying their relationships in every way, nothing else compares. They should be free to share their lives with each other, if that is what they want, and they should not be prosecuted, bullied, or discriminated against.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,freedom to marry,GSA,law

Decriminalizing Genetic Sexual Attraction

This is necessarily a long essay, and I apologize, but I’ve heard so many arguments before that I want to deal with them preemptively.

In many places, certain acts of affection between close genetic relatives are still a crime, regardless of all involved being consenting adults, regardless of their backgrounds. This includes when the adults have experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA).

The fact is there are people who are happy together, in every way, who were brought together through GSA. The main problem in the relationship is the discrimination, often codified in laws that include the possibility of criminal prosecution, against their relationship. There are other people who are experiencing GSA who, for any number of reasons, do not want their relationship to become sexual, or remain sexual if it has already become sexual. Both of these groups, and the other people who love them and depend on them, would benefit from decriminalization.

The first group would be free to live their lives.

The second group would be able more find effective help and support.



There is no reason to keep laws against any affection between consenting adults in these cases that is consistently applied elsewhere. For example, in the USA, we have firmly established the legal concepts that adults have the freedom of association and a right to privacy that extends to consensual sex and that protects them from prosecution, and we have firmly established as a social concept that consenting adults should be allowed to do with each other what they want. It is just taking some time for these to be consistently applied.

A Good Reason for Criminalization?

Let’s look at the reasons people give for making criminals out of consenting adults who are experiencing GSA by denying them the freedom to be together…

1. “It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument wouldn’t want to do it, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from doing something those other people want to do. We all have seen relationships that disgust us, but it is up to the adult involved, not anyone else.

2. “Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” The second one is much like #1 above, and many people who are in, or have been in, GSA relationships never thought they would want to do something like this before they experienced it for themselves. The first is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against these relationships are wasteful and unnecessary.

3. “It goes against tradition.” So did the abolition of slavery. A tradition of inequality is not a justification for continuing to deny equality.

4. “My religion is against it.” We should all have the freedom of religion and in places like the US, we have separation of church and state, so this can’t be a justification for keeping laws against GSA, only a reason why one person would not feel free to be affectionate that way.

5. “It's not natural." Actually, yes, it is. GSA is a normal, natural reaction to the circumstances (see references below). But even if it wasn't, people are allowed artificial things all of the time, like using smart phones.

6. “What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” Freedom for consenting adults. Who has a problem with that?

7. “These relationships are abusive.” These types of relationships are not inherently abusive. Abusive people are the cause of abuse. We have several examples showing that outlawing consensual behavior correlates to an increase in problems as people try to avoid law enforcement and other authorities. Legalizing these relationships will most certainly reduce abuse, as abuse victims can go to the authorities with much less fear. So the solution isn’t the status quo, it is in decriminalizing such relationships and prosecuting abusers. Victims will be much more forthcoming.

8. “It ruins, confuses, or distorts family relationships.” Ever notice how people who use this argument against GSA relationships almost never say the same thing about any other relationship? It is okay for say, siblings, to be coworkers, business partners, roommates, lender and borrower, best friends, on and on… but never lovers. Why the inconsistency? They don’t say it about any number of additional relationship dimensions relatives might have with each other, or at least this objection is not enshrined in law, as it is with laws criminalizing GSA sex. It is as if these people think sex is a bad thing and about doing bad things to the other person(s). Maybe they are doing it wrong?

Most people experiencing GSA already have sociological families. The genetic sibling, child, or parent with whom they have been reunited or to whom they have been introduced is an addition to their life, not someone who is dropping or conflicting with an existing sociological role. Some people in these relationships see the affection as a form of compensation for what was lost and can never be regained.

9. “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for making criminals out of lovers. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. One person is more emotionally needy than another. One earns more than the other. One is more educated than another. One has more friends and family than another. One has more life experience than another. On and on it goes. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. There are sober, functional, healthy adults who consent to sex with an older relative. It shouldn’t be illegal or questioned, unless you would do the same to any intergenerational relationship between adults.

10. “There are so many people outside of your family. Go have sex with one of them, instead.” This is usually said out of ignorance of what GSA is. There is a relationship going on that can’t be duplicated with anyone else, and if sex is involved, it is just one aspect of a powerful whole. Consenting adults should free to make their own decisions about their relationships, regardless of the prejudices of others. There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial relationships.

11. “This will hurt children.” This is usually meant one of four ways:

   a) “Children you have together will have two heads.” This is one reason why some lovers have decided not to have children together. But does it hold up as a reason for criminalizing GSA sex? No. 1) As I just said, many lovers have decided not to have children together, and would keep that decision regardless of law. Most people do not believe sex is only for reproduction. Most sex does not result in a birth, and there are gay and lesbian GSA relationships, and other GSA relationships where pregnancy is not even a possible result of sex. 2) We don’t prevent other people from having sex or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. 3) Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification for criminalizing GSA. Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too.

   b) “The children will find out their parents are related, and will be taunted.” First, see above. Secondly, what the children will know is that their parents love each other, and love them, and that is what is important to a child. Finally, people used to say this about interracial and gay parents. The biggest problem appears to the rudely outspoken bigotry of others. Don’t want the kids to be taunted? Then don’t taunt them.

   c) “It will make it easier for children to be groomed for sex or otherwise abused.” GSA specifically involves people who were not raised together or by each other, so grooming doesn’t really apply with GSA. But will decriminalizing GSA make it easier for custodial guardians and parents to abuse children? The law could be written in such a way as to only decriminalize GSA and not apply to guardians/custodial parents, but there are places, such as Rhode Island and various countries in the world, where consensual sexual affection between close adult relatives is legal, GSA or not. Where is the proof that child abuse increased in those places as a result? Consensual sex and abuse are two different things. There are people abusing their own children RIGHT NOW in places where consensual adult incest is illegal. Meanwhile, does anyone really think that allowing consenting adults to have their love lives means more adults will prey on children? Society already disapproves of preying on children, and it still happens, sadly. Many things legal for adults are not legal for children, such as joining the military, getting married, purchasing prescription medication, driving automobiles on public roads, buying adult media, working in coal mines, etc. Not every law or norm or sensitivity can cater to young children.

   d) “This will break up the home of children.” This is applied to GSA situations involving people who have existing relationships that are threatened by GSA, and those relationships involve children. Personally, I think children would rather their parents not split up unless one is abusive, and I do not think it is OK to violate existing vows to others. This is definitely an important consideration for someone experiencing GSA. But… it is their consideration, not for strangers to try to decide for them in law. We do not prevent people from breaking up or divorcing even if they have children. It is perfectly legal, or any reason. In most places, laws against adultery are no longer applicable. A parent can have sex with a complete stranger every night, or divorce and remarry multiple times; it is all legal, even if it is often a bad idea.

Conclusion

As we can see, there isn’t a compelling reason for the continued criminalization of GSA. It will make laws more consistent and people will be better off if GSA is decriminalized. In many places, is legal for complete strangers to have group sex, with different people every night if they’d like, but not legal for two people who have an ongoing relationship and love each other to, say, have oral sex, simply because they are close genetic relatives. Does that make sense?

GSA is real and is a common, normal response to the circumstances involved, which are often circumstances nobody experiencing the GSA can be blamed for creating. GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with the people involved. It is not wrong to have these feelings. I also argue that in many cases, it is not wrong to act on such feelings, that there is no good reason why adults in these cases who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Even if and when wrong, that doesn’t mean it should be criminal.

Has acting sexually on GSA ruined the lives of some people? Like all sexual relationships, the answer is yes, for some it has. Some people are not right for each other, even if they are strongly attracted to each other, and some people are abusive (sometimes that is a reason for the separation circumstances to begin with). Some people aren’t free to be together. But that is no reason to categorically condemn and criminalize all GSA sex.

It is a waste of precious resources to keep GSA criminalized; it is also harming people.

For those brought together through GSA who are enjoying their relationships in every way, nothing else compares. They should be free to share their lives with each other, if that is what they want, and they should not be prosecuted, bullied, or discriminated against.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,freedom to marry,GSA,law

False Alarm of the Day

Someone reading over my entry answering why consensual incest (consanguinamory) remains illegal in some place was apparently startled by this comment...

I have also been in an incestious relationship with my younger sister. ( only three years) and I also don't feel it is wrong enough to be criminalized, but her family has drove us apart ( half siblings). I'm glad there are others that think the same way I do, but I doubt I'll ever get my sister back unless things change quickly. I appreciate what you have done with this post and I hope that in time things will change for later generations so that they don't have to live in my pain. Thank you again for this article. It has given me more respect and hope for the human race.

Here is the submitted response to that comment...

u had a relationsihp with a 3yr old????!!!!11 OMG im not sure if i should report this 2 the police or not. thats absolutely PIG DISGUSTING!1

I guess some people are prone to think of child abuse when they hear the word "incestuous," (which is why I prefer the terms "consanguinamory" or "consanguineous sex") but that's not the way I read it all. I read it as that their relationship has/had only been three years long so far. Or, perhaps, that she is three years younger than the person who left the comment. I did not see the meaning someone else was so quick to find, that of abusing a three-year-old. Family does not "drive apart" a three-year-old and an abuser, as a three-year-old has little choice in the matter. Rather, family would keep an abuser away and inform the police. So I do not think that comment could possibly be about a person who is three years old.

I have made it very clear that this blog is about consenting adults, not about adults preying on children and that I am completely against child abuse.

Fight abuse. Support love.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,terminology

False Alarm of the Day

Someone reading over my entry answering why consensual incest (consanguinamory) remains illegal in some place was apparently startled by this comment...

I have also been in an incestious relationship with my younger sister. ( only three years) and I also don't feel it is wrong enough to be criminalized, but her family has drove us apart ( half siblings). I'm glad there are others that think the same way I do, but I doubt I'll ever get my sister back unless things change quickly. I appreciate what you have done with this post and I hope that in time things will change for later generations so that they don't have to live in my pain. Thank you again for this article. It has given me more respect and hope for the human race.

Here is the submitted response to that comment...

u had a relationsihp with a 3yr old????!!!!11 OMG im not sure if i should report this 2 the police or not. thats absolutely PIG DISGUSTING!1

I guess some people are prone to think of child abuse when they hear the word "incestuous," (which is why I prefer the terms "consanguinamory" or "consanguineous sex") but that's not the way I read it all. I read it as that their relationship has/had only been three years long so far. Or, perhaps, that she is three years younger than the person who left the comment. I did not see the meaning someone else was so quick to find, that of abusing a three-year-old. Family does not "drive apart" a three-year-old and an abuser, as a three-year-old has little choice in the matter. Rather, family would keep an abuser away and inform the police. So I do not think that comment could possibly be about a person who is three years old.

I have made it very clear that this blog is about consenting adults, not about adults preying on children and that I am completely against child abuse.

Fight abuse. Support love.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,terminology

Polyamory is Rising, Solidarity is Best

This piece at inquisitr.com asks, "Is Polyamory the New Same-Sex Marriage?" It starts with the rise in visibility of polyamory, then gets very strange...

The idea of not only tolerating but encouraging what we’ve been socialized to see as the worst possible betrayal of a partner is certainly jarring — even if a committed relationship survives what we see as “infidelity,” it’s considered one of the literal worst things an adult human can endure in their lives.

Say what? This is not cheating. If a polyamorous person is in a committed relationship, polyamory involves the agreement of the other person(s) in the relationship. And, sometimes, their participation. This is an entirely different dynamic than cheating.

The issue is a sticky one, threatening not only to create a ton of legal and societal quandaries,

Sounds like Discredited Arguments #2, 11, and possibly 12, 13, and 14. Adaptable laws are already in place.

but also — if we’re being honest, if someone curmudgeonly — undermine the shaky and tenuous gains made by the marriage equality movement.

That's like saying rights for Latino Americans undermined the gains made by the racial equality movement. Equality just for some is not equality. The polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry is part of full marriage equality just like the same-gender freedom to marry is, and sometimes they overlap as some LGBT people are polyamorous. Solidarity will help, not hurt, LGBT monogamists.

After all, didn’t opponents of same-sex marriage loudly predict that “polygamy” would soon follow, with men seeking to marry multiple wives once the institution of marriage was “destroyed” by extending the rights to our gay brothers and sisters?

Although broken clocks can be right twice a day, bigots who make such statements should be met with "What's the harm of letting adults marry any and all consenting adults?" Marriage equality strengthens marriage; it doesn't destroy it.

The piece ends with...

It seems polyamory is destined to present a redux of the same-sex marriage debate, and will shape up to be the same exhausting fight. But at the end of the day, are we arguing about whether to admit and accept a long-practiced thing, and does legal recognition make any change in how people choose to live their lives going forward?

It really isn't complicated. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

The polygamous freedom to marry, and acceptance of polyamorous people, will come about faster.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,freedom to marry,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,polygamy,same-sex,solidarity

Polyamory is Rising, Solidarity is Best

This piece at inquisitr.com asks, "Is Polyamory the New Same-Sex Marriage?" It starts with the rise in visibility of polyamory, then gets very strange...

The idea of not only tolerating but encouraging what we’ve been socialized to see as the worst possible betrayal of a partner is certainly jarring — even if a committed relationship survives what we see as “infidelity,” it’s considered one of the literal worst things an adult human can endure in their lives.

Say what? This is not cheating. If a polyamorous person is in a committed relationship, polyamory involves the agreement of the other person(s) in the relationship. And, sometimes, their participation. This is an entirely different dynamic than cheating.

The issue is a sticky one, threatening not only to create a ton of legal and societal quandaries,

Sounds like Discredited Arguments #2, 11, and possibly 12, 13, and 14. Adaptable laws are already in place.

but also — if we’re being honest, if someone curmudgeonly — undermine the shaky and tenuous gains made by the marriage equality movement.

That's like saying rights for Latino Americans undermined the gains made by the racial equality movement. Equality just for some is not equality. The polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry is part of full marriage equality just like the same-gender freedom to marry is, and sometimes they overlap as some LGBT people are polyamorous. Solidarity will help, not hurt, LGBT monogamists.

After all, didn’t opponents of same-sex marriage loudly predict that “polygamy” would soon follow, with men seeking to marry multiple wives once the institution of marriage was “destroyed” by extending the rights to our gay brothers and sisters?

Although broken clocks can be right twice a day, bigots who make such statements should be met with "What's the harm of letting adults marry any and all consenting adults?" Marriage equality strengthens marriage; it doesn't destroy it.

The piece ends with...

It seems polyamory is destined to present a redux of the same-sex marriage debate, and will shape up to be the same exhausting fight. But at the end of the day, are we arguing about whether to admit and accept a long-practiced thing, and does legal recognition make any change in how people choose to live their lives going forward?

It really isn't complicated. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

The polygamous freedom to marry, and acceptance of polyamorous people, will come about faster.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,freedom to marry,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,polygamy,same-sex,solidarity

Now is the Time - Solidarity is Best

This recent piece coincided with something I had meant to write. It is about solidarity.

This blog, and the related Facebook page, calls for relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality. When we say that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults, we actually mean it. We have not hidden that.

I've had more than one polyamorous person think that this is great... when they realize it means I support the polygamous (or polyamorous) freedom to marry... then react negatively when they realize it means I support the consanguineous freedom to marry.

Yes, I do. I support the right of an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to marry any and all consenting adults. So yes, I support the right of a white woman to marry a man of African ancestry, or 30-year-old man to marry a 60-year-old woman, or a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry two men, or a woman to marry the half-brother she first met when they were both adults. None of these marriages hurt anyone else. None of these marriages hurt anyone, at least not in and of themselves. There are people who aren't right for each other, there are abusers, but that has to do with the individuals involved, and not the general freedom to marry.

There are patriarchal polygynists who want support for their "plural marriages" but do not want to associate with anyone or anything standing up for the rights of LGBT people, or polyandrists, or any non-polygynist polyamorists.

There are monogamist gays and lesbians who dismiss someone else's need for polyamory or for the need of cousin couples to marry.

There are cousin couples who grew up together as much as any siblings who do not support the rights of half-siblings who did not grow up together to get married or even just be together without being criminally prosecuted.

There are many other examples like this. Everyone has their own interests, priorities, likes and dislikes, prejudices, and biases. Some people care only about their needs, not those of anyone else.

But we (including many LGBT people, and many people who are in or seeking plural marriage, a polygamous marriage, a polyamorous relationship, or a consanguineous relationship) are people who support the rights of all adults. We support full marriage equality, not just a freedom to marry for this group or that group. A decent person does not have to like the idea of every one of these relationships to support the rights of adults to have the relationships they want. A person doesn't have to want something for themselves or a loved one to have compassion for others who do need it.

Solidarity is:

1. The right thing to do

AND

2. It will prove to be the most effective way of securing rights.

Even some people who agree with #1 do not agree with #2.

Recently, a polyamorous person expressed to me her concern that my support for consanguinamorous relationships is a threat to the rights of poly people. Consanguinamory just isn't supposed to be how a relationship works, she said to me publicly. But haven't we heard these same things from some monogamist LGBT people about polyamorists? Shoot, we hear it about the "BT" in "LGBT". "Drop the bisexuals and transgendered in order to further the rights of lesbians and gays!" It is not only an awful thing to do, it is a false promise. There's the real slippery slope: allowing those who oppose equality to deny rights to anyone. 

But I was told that I was asking for too much in asking for full marriage equality, that by insisting that consanguineous lovers have their rights, too, that I was going to hurt the cause for poly people and there could be a swing of the proverbial pendulum, essentially back to the hetero-monogamous married only climate of condemning and denying rights to poly people, LGBT people, unmarried lovers, etc. Texas was cited as an example because of the recent vote on abortion restrictions. Texas is an outlier, though. Texas criminalizes consensual adult sex between first cousins, who can legally marry in about half of the states. Remember it was Texas law criminalizing "sodomy" that was stuck down in Lawrence vs. Texas. That was as recently as 2003. Meanwhile, just a year later, the limited same-gender freedom to marry began in Massachusetts after a long-building momentum.

Momentum is strong and increasing. We're not going to see a reduction in LGBT or poly rights; we're going to see a continuing advance. Including rights for the consanguinamorous will not jeopardize this; rather, standing up for relationship rights for all will strengthen the rights for LGBT and poly people. That is true because the people are evolving, for the most part, not because they no longer have their own aversions to relationships different than their own (many of them still do), but because they can think and they have thought through it and realized that consenting adults should be themselves and have their relationships and not be treated as second class citizens for doing so. When someone says we should support rights for consenting adults ...except for consanguinamorous relationships they are actually undermining LGBT and poly rights and the related freedoms to marry, because the people to whom they are making their appeal find the appeal insincere.

Almost all who do oppose or have opposed interracial, same-gender, polyamorous, and consanguineous sexuality/relationships/marriage have done so for two primary reasons:

1. personal disgust
2. their religion

Sometimes those two reasons are indistinguishable.

But when people are calmly but firmly asked to think it through, and their concerns are addressed, they realize that there is no good reason to oppose consensual relationships between consenting adults. When someone insists that it is still OK or right to oppose consanguineous relationships, they are almost invariably bringing back an argument that they just dismissed when it comes to other freedoms to marry, as Greenfield points out. To say that it is permissible to deny consanguineous lovers their rights, someone actually undermines the case for their own rights. Specifically, a polyamorous person runs a risk because the consanguineous freedom to marry takes less paperwork and adjustment than adjusting for polyamory. Also, more people have experienced consanguineous experimentation (at the very least) than have experienced polyfidelity or open coupling. 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a siblings. The percentages increase in older age groups (due to more opportunities as time goes by.) That doesn't include contact with cousins, aunts, uncles, or parents. Some of those people enter into lasting relationships.

Now is the time to push for the rights of ALL adults. The bigots are in retreat. There's no going back. There may be some isolated backlash, but this kind of prejudice is dying out... literally. When we respond to the stubborn bigots by saying yes, discrimination against some adults is OK, the remaining observers, who are the ones who can be persuaded to support rights for polyamorists and LGBT people, are going to lose respect for the argument for equality. So the best response to "What's next?" is "Rights for all consenting adults. Why is that a problem?" The bigots won't have a good reason. Put them on the defensive, and they'll lose.

Consenting adults of any relation can be together in Rhode Island. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to marry, and no reason why first cousins, who can legally marry in California, should not be free to be together in Texas. There's no reason for Utah to criminalize polyamory. There's no good reason for any state to deny consenting adults their fundamental rights to be together and to marry.

Those who oppose equality and have cited my blog have never explained what is wrong with what I have argued. Conversely, people have told me that I have opened and changed their minds about same-gender relationships, about polyamorous relationships, and about consanguineous relationships. I have received relieved and thankful messages from people who are so happy to find that someone speaks for them. I will not throw these people under the bus.

These disputes are nothing new to the civil rights movement. Going all the way back to when African-Americans were still enslaved, there were disputes about what rights to seek and how to seek them. "Do we fight for desegregation? For interracial marriage?" Those fighting for women's rights have had similar disputes. "Do we fight for lesbians or not?"To this day, there are people who say civil rights are for African-Americans. Not for gays, not even for Mexicans. Don't play that game. Stand up for the rights of all adults. You don't have to like the idea of interracial relationships, or same-gender relationships, or polyamorous relationships, or consanguineous relationships to realize that people should have their rights.

Standing up for full marriage equality is not only the principled thing to do, it is the practical thing as well. There are people who are suffering right now because their loving, lasing, happy, healthy relationship is denied equality or even criminalized. This is not right, and it needs to end.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,myths,solidarity

The Two Main Paths to Consanguinamory

There are two main paths to consanguinamory, or the objective reality that at least two closely biologically related people have sex, and perhaps an ongoing romance or marriage-style relationship. While the prejudiced may dismiss all consanguinamory as the same (in their small minds) inexcusable behavior, the differences in these paths do have an impact on the participants and those around them. This is why people who are on one path may not understand those on the other, or want to be associated with them.

One main path to consanguinamory is Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA). GSA is an extremely intense attraction that may occur when close biological relatives meet any time after puberty either for the very first time, or the first time since the youngest went through puberty. These situations are likely to increase due to increased human mobility and the high rates of co-parents who do not stay together. Whether a marriage that involved at least one child ends in divorce, or a one night stand results in pregnancy, or anything between, a man and woman who have a child together may go their separate ways, often going on to have more children with others. The situations are are also likely to increase due to increase in the use of donated eggs, sperm, and embryos to have a child. In addition to the various forms of adoptions, some governments, such as some states in the US, allow someone to bring a newborn to a hospital, police station, fire station, etc, and surrender custody of the child with no penalty.

As you can see, there are many situations in which close relatives, such as full or half siblings, or a parent and child, can be reunited post-puberty.



Only some reunification/first contact involves a person experiencing GSA, but some estimates are as high as 50%. Even if there is mutual attraction (both or all, if more than two experiencing GSA), it doesn't always lead to sex. However, GSA is so strong that if it is mutual, it often does lead to sex sooner or later. The sex may not last for any number of reasons. In addition to all of the other reasons people may stop having sex with each other, there are external pressures on such relationships (like criminal law and social disapproval) or a conflicted conscience on the part of one or all involved due to years of sex-police thinking being drilled into their heads.

GSA is almost always a painful path for one reason or another.

Sometimes GSA leads to lasting, happy consanguinamory, but even if any internal pain is a thing of the past, there might be pain from outside interference. That's something I am trying to help change.

With the GSA path, the people usually have established identities and lives in which they are not known as related. For example, half siblings find out about each other in their twenties; the friends and coworkers of one, or both, don't know they are related if they haven't told them. Also, they usually don't have that history of the social connection to their biological roles. They haven't been functioning as brother and sister. A son given up for adoption at birth meets his birth mother twenty years later. He has a mother: the woman who raised him, if she is still alive. Still, someone experiencing GSA may seek to have that familial relationship that would have been expected should there have never been a separation. This is not always possible; it can be very difficult. The history is not there, and nobody can go back to being nine years old; nobody can reverse time.

In GSA relationships, as with any other relationship, it usually takes time for the people get to know each other. Almost always, they find remarkable commonalities.

Those who know of their biological relation may try to break them up or separate them, sometimes by force of law. This can be especially insulting if the person or people trying to douse their love was somewhat responsible for the original situation in the first place. Their actions denied these GSA-experiencers all of the typical parent-child or sibling relationship experiences; after those experiencing GSA have reunited (or met for the first time) and found happiness with each other, this happiness is threatened or taken away.

If the lovers don't want someone else knowing that they are, in fact, lovers, they may be able to use the cover story of making up for lost time with a long-lost relative. (In actuality, an enjoyable consanguinamorous relationship is, in their case, the compensation for that lost time.)

If the sexual aspect of the relationship ends, and does so acrimoniously, the risk includes again losing a long-lost relative. However, if the relationship lasts, it can be a very exciting and fulfilling one.


The other main path to consanguinamory involves close relatives who didn't grow under the separation conditions involved in GSA. This includes cousins (who can legally marry in some places), but it also includes...
-full or half siblings, either raised in the same home or interacting throughout childhood
-parents and their adult children, either with the child raised in the parent's home or with that parent throughout childhood through shared custody or visitation
-aunts/uncles with their nieces/nephews (close in age, or after all are adults)
-grandparents and adult grandchildren.

Cousins and siblings are probably the most common examples of consanguinamory.

On this path, consanguineous sex may begin (and sometimes end) as youthful experimentation between minors who are siblings, cousins, or aunts/uncles with nieces/nephews who are close in age. Sometimes it is more than experimentation, and a full-fledged love affair develops, and may continue into a marriage in everything but (usually) law. Or, it may begin later, at any in their adult life, as young singles or after a divorce or breakup or as seniors.

The consanguinamorous dimension of a relationship, when one person is significantly older than another, such as parent-adult child, may be added at any time after the youngest person reaches the age of majority. This can and does happen without any "grooming." (Grooming and abuse cases are another matter that I'm not addressing here, as I am writing about consensual, loving, healthy relationships.)


Differences from the GSA path include that the lovers have that existing social relationship with the familial context. Consanguinamory on this path builds on that, adding another dimension. Who is more loving, caring, or trustworthy? They already know each other extremely well. Still, there is even greater potential for inner conflict than there is with GSA as one or all of the lovers deals with the notion of "this is wrong," due to years of sex-police thinking being drilled into their heads for no good reason.

Lovers on this path may have had more opportunity to share physical intimacy, but a more difficult time hiding the true reason their demeanor lights up when their (secret) lover walks into the room. However, there is a long tradition of adult siblings or parents and their adult children sharing residence, so if they develop a spousal-type relationship, it can easily be concealed from the finger-waggers with that cover.

If the sexual aspect of the relationship ends, and does so acrimoniously, the risk includes general family disruption. However, if the relationship lasts, it can be extremely intense in a positive way, full of a layered and passionate love.

As I have already said recently, most romantic or sexual relationships don't last; if they did, most of us would still be in our first ones. But they should be allowed to develop and continue, or end, on their own merits, without interference from overbearing law enforcement, bullies, or self-appointed sex police. There are happy, health, lasting consanguinamorous relationships, and I say good for everyone in them. May they continue to share their fun, joy, and love.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,GSA,help,incest,lack of equality harms,love,reunion