Friday, February 28, 2014

Taking the Steps

I have frequently seen the question asked, “It is incest to date my stepbrother?” or “Would marrying my stepsister be incestuous?”

Romance, dating, sex, or marriage between step relations is not literally consanguinamory, but is often subject to the same prejudices, which in some places and cases includes criminalization, as consanguinamorous relationships. With Discredited Argument #18 not a factor, the excuse to try to deny others their relationships is usually Discredited Arguments #1, 3, 19, or 21.

Although someone may try to control our relationships, we can’t effectively control what other people do with their love lives and we shouldn’t try. We don’t pick who our family members love or marry. As such, sometimes someone is brought into our lives as a step relation, such as a stepbrother, stepsister, stepmother, or stepfather whether we like it or not.

Sometimes, we like it. A lot.



Perhaps the most common connection between step relationships is when adults marry and their adolescent or young adult children, who are made stepsiblings, find they are mutually attracted. The Westermarck Effect, which describes the suppression of sexual attraction between people raised together in the same home or close quarters, isn’t experienced by everyone but doesn’t have even a chance to be experienced if young people don’t meet or don’t spend much time together until their pre-teen years or later, as often happens in these cases.

Each of us is our parent’s child. If the person we share genes with and raised us is attracted to someone, is it really surprising that we’d be attracted to that someone’s child? This is especially the case if new stepsiblings spend time under the same roof, perhaps on a full-time basis.

There is no good reason why the relationship of persons A and B should prevent the relationship of persons C and D.

But what about when one person ends up having two lovers from the same family? That can happen if there is a relationship between a stepparent and a stepchild, including cases in which the stepparent never knew the stepchild as a minor. (As always, I’m talking about consenting adults in this entry, or minors close in age to each other.) Perhaps things didn’t work out between the stepparent and the parent, or the parent died, or there’s a polyamorous situation, meaning the parent is still involved. Sometimes, someone’s stepparent is actually from their generation or at least closer in age to them than their parent, due to their parent having entered into an intergenerational relationship. The important thing to remember is that we are talking about consenting adults in these cases. One person’s prejudice against intergenerational relationships or against someone having more than one lover from the same family should not have any control over such consensual relationships.

Relationships like these have existed throughout history. There are also other relationships that have meant someone has (or has had) more than one lover from the same family. Traditional polyandry usually involves brothers marrying the same woman, and many polygynous males marry sisters. Having both mother and daughter or father and son as lovers is a common fantasy, and does happen. (I have had my own experience.)

Someone considering a relationship with a stepsibling, stepparent, or adult stepchild should make many of the same considerations as I have encouraged people to make when it comes to consanguinamorous relationships, and, if applicable, what I wrote about intergenerational relationships.

Parents may not like it when their stepchild gets together with their child, but the parent should remember that it wasn’t the children that created the environment in which they found themselves. Isn’t it better they get along rather than fight? Anyone upset about step relations getting together should read this.

Family strife is one thing. Law is another. There is no good reason to have laws discriminating against adults for their consensual relationships.

Are you, or have you been, involved with a step relation, or someone who later became one? Tell us about it by commenting.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Guilty Pleas in Absurd Prosecution of Consenting Adults


Incest charges pair photo
Frank Humphreys and Eleanor Jackson

To update a case we last reported here, Duncan Bick reports at newsandstar.co.uk that law enforcement official in Cumbria, England have gone ahead with their ridiculous and unjust prosecution of consenting adults for having sex with each other in private. Outrageous.

Frank Humphreys, 51, and 23-year-old Eleanor Jackson both pleaded guilty to a charge of “having sex with an adult relative” during a brief appearance at Carlisle Crown Court.

The pair, of Princess Street, Cleator, appeared at the same court last year and denied the charge but they changed their pleas yesterday.
There's no victim! Why is this a crime?

They spoke only to confirm their names and enter their pleas in front of Judge Peter Hughes QC.
They had sex between December 2011 and February 2012.
So they had sex. And what terrible thing happened as a result??? Judge Peter Hughes QC should've thrown this case out! They will be sentenced in April. Absurd.

THIS is exactly why we need rights for all consenting adults, all over the planet. They should not only be free to be together and love each other as they see best, but marry if that is what they'd like. Instead law enforcement resources are wasted in prosecuting them.

Facebook and Twitter and More

Have you joined the Facebook group yet? Join "I Support Full Marriage Equality."

You should also like this page, Full Marriage Equality, and we meant that.

Are we Facebook friends? I want to be friends with all who support full marriage equality and relationship rights for all adults. Here I am.

Are we connected on Twitter? Here I am.

Are we connected on Tumblr? Here I am.

If you don't want to connect, still feel free to send me a note. I can be reached at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com

You can also follow this blog by scrolling down in the column on the right and clicking on "Join This Site" under "Followers."

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Ally for Equality in New Zealand

Adam Bennett reports at nzherald.com about a political party's leader speaking up for equality.

New Act Leader Jamie Whyte is standing by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be "intellectually corrupt" of him not to be honest when asked such questions. 
In an article published on The Ruminator website, former philosophy lecturer Dr Whyte was asked whether the state should intervene if adult siblings wanted to marry each other.
Good for him.
Dr Whyte told the Herald his response was based on his belief that: "I don't think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here - consensual and adult".
We need more people to speak up for full marriage equality.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Is Being Poly Genetic?


The Ferrett addresses, “Polyamory Genetic? Is Homosexuality Genetic?”

My thoughts on a genetic polyamory link are the exact same as my thoughts on a genetic homosexual link:

I don’t care.

Right! We have many things, including the technology I’m using to write this and you are using to read this, which are not part of our genetics. What difference does it make? See Discredited Argument #5.

Even if the gays were, as some suggest, all conspiring in one big plot to annoy us fine-thinking straight people, wincing as they sucked distasteful d--- and reluctantly chowed p---y out of some misplaced form of rebellion, it should still be allowed.

The truth is, gay sex is between consenting adults, and it hurts no one but those adults – there are way more deadly car accidents caused by beers than queers. You may consider gayness to be a bad choice, but two people should be free to make bad choices together. And what people want to do for fun in their private life is something that should be allowed, no matter how distasteful it may be to me.

Agreed. See Discredited Argument #1.



We often get caught up in the “nature vs. nurture” aspect of gay and transgender issues, forgetting that this is playing to the conservative bent. What’s important is that people all over the world should have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit assuming they’re not actively harming anyone, and as such Teh Gay Should Be Okay.

So is gay genetically disposed? I say probably, but it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.

Getting to polyamory…

I’m sure there are tendencies genetically towards certain aspects that encourage polyamory, but polyamory is such a complex term, encompassing so many styles of relationships, that I don’t think a single set of genes could really cover it.

I think we have enough evidence that some people are not monogamous; it goes against their nature, whether being polyamorous can be found in their genes or not.

But it’s irrelevant. I’ve heard it said that after gay marriage gets settled, they’ll be coming after the polyamorous relationships next.

We can only hope. Actually, I’d like to see it all settled at the same time; full marriage equality.

Miranda commented…

For people questioning their identity, I can see how it would be helpful to know that this is what is natural for you. But do we have to use it to justify ourselves with the opposition? I’d rather not anyway.

Yes. It doesn’t matter if someone is turned off by something, or thinks it is harmful to the lovers. An adult should not need to get permission from some politician to be who she or he is and love the person(s) she or he does in the ways to which they mutually consent. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, persecution, and discrimination.



Is polyamory natural Is polyamory genetic Is being polyamorous natural Is being polyamorous genetic Is polygamy natural

Monday, February 24, 2014

The US Supreme Court Should Rule for Equality

In June 2013, the US Supreme Court took baby steps forward towards full marriage equality. Since then, federal courts and the Obama Administration have been taking more steps forward. But there is still a long way to go and still wasteful resistance to progress.

The Court should consolidate and consider many federal cases now in the system. We want the US Supreme Court to make the best possible ruling, which is to recognize relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults nationwide.

The Court should rule that…


An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why the Court should do this.


1. There are American adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying or even just being together. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As Court precedent states, consensual sex is part of the liberty protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. As Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

5. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

6. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

7. A Court ruling recognizing relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.


8. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out. The Court can end the uncertainties and inconsistencies, and end the hateful, destructive, confusing, costly state-by-state fights that often pit older generations against younger generations, by putting the US on the right side of history sooner rather than later and recognizing relationship rights for all adults. More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Utah's law criminalizingpolyamory has been overturned, but that ruling is being appealed by the state, while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allow them to marry with restrictions, some states ban this freedom to marry entirely, and a couple of states even criminalize sex between first cousins. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.


9. Full marriage equality will end inequalities and confusion in immigration policies.

10. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, their human resources departments will not have to deal with state-by-state conflicts, and employees will be free to move (temporarily or permanently) from one location to another without facing different restrictions on their relationships.

11. Government employees, including the men and women serving in our military, will not have to face different restrictions on their relationships from place to place.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. The US Supreme Court should protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Why? Many of the Same Reasons Anyone Else Does It

Vicky Wireko wrote at myjoyonline.com under "Reality Zone: Why would a father sleep with his biological daughter?"

Without yet getting to the text of the piece, the terms need to be defined. By "sleep," she no doubt means intercourse. But is she referring to rape or is she referring to consensual sex?  Rape and lovemaking are two different things. Rape should always be illegal. Lovemaking should never be illegal. But "biological daughter" can mean a woman the father didn't meet or didn't have a relationship with until she was an adult, or at least hasn't had a relationship with since an early age. Consanguinamory initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction has a different dynamic than consanguinamory growing from an existing sociological relationship.

Why would a father make love with his biological daughter? I'm talking about CONSENT ADULTS here.

For many of the the same reasons a man would have sex with any woman:

He's a heterosexual male and she's a receptive or initiating female he finds attractive.

They love each other.

It feels good and is fun. This is especially true when it comes to consanguinamory.

To bond.

To express love.

To have children.

Some of them have been brought together through Genetic Sexual Attraction, some of them haven't.

There are many reasons, but they shouldn't need to justify it to anyone else. Why is ultimately theirs to share, not anyone else's business. Perhaps a better question is why wouldn't/shouldn't he? Sex is not a bad thing. Those who think it is are probably doing it wrong.

What did Wireko have to say? Let's see...

Everything is certainly wrong with a father sleeping with his blood daughter.
 Does she give a reason?
It is repugnant apart from the fact that it is a taboo in our custom.
Ah, Discredited Arguments #1 and 2.

However, when a father’s love for his daughter straddles beyond parental love veering off to lust, to the extent of sexual abuse, it becomes horrendous.
Abuse and lovemaking are two different things. She goes on to write about abuse, without giving a good reason as to why consenting adults shouldn't be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. Don't like it? Don't do it. But there ARE adult women in loving spousal-type relationships with their biological fathers, despite what prejudiced bigots think.

Please also see Intergenerational Relationships Can Work 



why would a woman sleep with her father why would a father and daughter have sex why would a parent have sex with an adult child why would a woman have sex with her father

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Has Your Partner Experienced Consanguinamory?

I used be active at a certain Big Internet Portal's Question and Answer service, until someone who couldn’t handle me answering questions truthfully when it comes to certain romantic or sexual topics decided to get me "suspended" using a weakness in their automated system. I still will check to see what questions are being asked there, even though I can't participate in any way or even contact anyone there unless they have somehow provided an email address in their question or answer. I will not link to the service, but I will quote it. Someone named Lauren asked this question...

Ok.....complicated one, recently found out my husband and his younger sister had sex for a number of years between the ages of 10-12, this is what he's telling me tho I'm aware this may have more to it? We are a young couple married with two children (boys) my relationship with his family has never been great and this hasn't helped! Can anyone give me any advice or your thoughts on how you would deal with this news? I'm up and down and so confused.....

Questions like this come up more than people might think. Person A is dating or married to Person B and Person A suspects or has found out that Person B has been sexually involved with a sibling or other family member. Person A usually wants to know what they should do.

It is important to clarify the situation by determining the answers to some questions.

1) Is this something that is suspected or has it been confirmed?



Not all families have the same behaviors and boundaries when it comes to physical affection, personal space, joking, and otherwise talking. As such, Person A can look at how Person B interacts with a sibling and think, “I wouldn’t interact with my sibling that way, only a partner” and so think that Person B must have sexual experience with their family member. It isn’t necessarily the case, though. On the other hand, with as common as consanguineous experimentation and sex is, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder.

Unless someone comes right out and makes a clear, credible statement either way, there probably isn’t an easy way to get the truth that will not cause some embarrassment.  One way of handling it could be in expressing needs and negotiating boundaries. Even if someone is monogamous, they should never assume their relationship is monogamous unless that has been explicitly discussed. So perhaps one oblique way of trying to determine if there’s anything current is to say, “I need monogamy. Is that going to be a problem?” Or, if polyamorous, saying “I need to know exactly who else you are going to be having sex with.” Trying to determine if anything happened in the past is going to take being a little less vague. It might be helpful to say something like this, in a nonjudgmental tone: “I was reading that a surprisingly high percentage of people have had sexual experiences with a close family member, enough that everyone knows somebody who has. But I’m not aware of anyone I know who has. Are you?” Depending on how serious the relationship is getting, the questioning can get more direct, because if someone is going to be creating a family with someone else, they should be talking about the dynamics and family history of both families.


2) Was this something that happened in the past or is it ongoing?

If confirmation is obtained, it is important to know whether the sexual aspect of the relationship is likely over for good or if it is ongoing or could easily resume. If it ended, when, why, and how did it end?


3) Was this consensual activity or was it assault/molestation?


I don’t classify assault or molestation as sexual activity or experimentation, as I think those are entirely different things. But as far as abuse or molestation goes, there is a difference between a 12-year-old grabbing his 10-year-old sister once to upset her and realizing it was a terrible thing to do and a 14-year-old forcing themselves on a 7-year-old repeatedly and trying to excuse it with “kids will be kids.” If someone is planning to raise kids with their partner, they should not ignore a history of child abuse.

Some kids engage in mutual exploration or experimentation. Most therapists don’t consider it abusive if minor family members close in age explore by mutual agreement. A 13-year-old and a 12-year-old might be curious. A 20-year-old and an 18-year-old might be in love. And that brings us to another question.


4) If this was a consensual thing in the past, was it a one-time event, a casual family-with-benefits thing, a love affair, or what?

They may have engaged in everything from a one-time instance of playing doctor or some other game, or had an ongoing love affair that they thought was going to last forever. Or perhaps there was something in between. That matters.


Discovering that your partner is cheating on you, deeply in love with a sibling, is a different matter than finding out that your partner used to masturbate in front of a sibling when they were teens, for mutual enjoyment, and both are different than finding out that your partner assaulted three relatives.

Going back to the question that prompted this entry, it wasn’t clear whether both of the siblings were "10-12" or not. Assuming they were close in age, it was not a matter of abuse, and everything ended before they were even teenagers, then there’s nothing for Lauren to do, unless she thinks it is causing ongoing problems in her marriage, in which case she should seek marriage therapy and perhaps individual therapy. If he is a good father and a good husband, she should be happy knowing that he chose to marry her and loves her. That should outweigh what happened in his childhood, even if she thinks what happened is wrong.

All of the above refers to interaction with siblings, cousins or even aunts/uncles who are close in age. There is a different dynamic if the involvement was with an older aunt/uncle, parent, or grandparent (or, in the case of someone who is older, an adult child). Again, abuse is a whole different matter than consensual sex between adults. But consensual adult intergenerational sex does happen, perhaps not as often as intragenerational, but it happens.

If someone is not in a committed relationship, but is rather just dating someone, and they think the other person is “too close” to a family member, they are entirely free to stop seeing them. A casual outsider is not going to change family dynamics, and trying to do so will likely make everyone unhappy. Who wants to be suspicious that their partner is cheating with anyone, let alone a family member? A consanguinamorous bond can be an especially powerful one, and if someone suspects they are dating someone who is has such a bond, issuing an ultimatum will likely mean the dating will end.

Like anything else about a partner’s sexual history, it comes down to knowing what you’ll accept and what you won’t (and what you need to know to begin with). While you may be missing out on a great partner if you “can’t” accept some of the consensual sex in their past or that they will not tell you something, it isn’t a good idea to get in deeper with someone if you’re going to end up holding that aspect of their past against them.

Conversely, if you'll love them and let them know they can be honest with you about their past and whether or not it (still) holds an erotic charge for them, you can have a great time or a great life together, especially if you are willing to sometimes play off of that history in fantasies.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Novels to Buy

[Bumping this up... just because!]

I’m not going to pretend I can give an unbiased review of Diane Rinella’s new book, Time’s Forbidden Flower, which completes the story began in Love’s Forbidden Flower, the novel I first blogged about here. After all, I have been in ongoing contact with Rinella and the plot of the works involves something near and dear to my heart. Also, I may have influenced this latest work. There’s a third work involved: "Love’s Erotic Flower," a short story which was released between the two novels and is a sizzling detailing of the sexual coupling (over multiple encounters) between the main characters.

One need not read the novels to enjoy "Erotic" nor read "Erotic" to enjoy the novels, but both novels should be read in sequence, and to only reason to avoid "Erotic" if you enjoy the first novel is if you hate to get aroused by fiction.

I can’t recommend all three works more strongly. I even like the cover art.



Lily and Donovan are soulmates, complete with a mutual erotic and romantic attraction. They happen to be brother and sister as well. Yes, this story involves consanguinamory, which is something some people find shocking or disgusting, but is something that is experienced on some level by enough people that you do know someone who has been, or is involved, whether you know it or not.

That’s why these works of fiction are more than just something that is engaging. They are important. They are important because there are people who will identify with the characters and will no longer feel so alone. Although the forbidden nature of the issue is addressed multiple times, the “i” word is never spoken, nor is there a lecturing of the reader on all the points you will find here. I don't recall that she ever explains that in Rhode Island, the home state of the characters, their love is not criminalized as it still is in most US states. This is a story about forbidden love from a writer with strong empathy that may get people to think and feel differently than they did when they picked it up, but not a contrived polemic.

Rinella does not chicken out by going the stepsibling route or through some other escape hatch. Lily and Donovan are blood siblings, who grew up together. However, there are twists I didn’t see coming. I thought things might go in one direction and they went another. This is not a simple straight line, but neither is it something that is convoluted to the point of losing the reader. The characters seem real, complete with real flaws. Not everything happens exactly the way the reader might want when wanted, and not everything is tied up in a pretty bow by the end. Yet, the satisfactory payoffs are there. It is just that Rinella draws the reader in to make them feel the hot and cold of a good multi-course meal, rather than spoonfeeding them lukewarm junk food.

I noticed that at least one character is polyamorous in the sense of being able to truly love more than one person at the same time.

The novels are for anyone who wants to read a modern tale of still-forbidden love, or anyone who wants to read a realistic account of consanguinamory, or anyone who is in or knows someone who is in or has been involved in such a relationship. Or, maybe you simply prefer a good story about love and family that pretty much spans the lifetime of the main characters.

They are not for anyone who is absolutely unwilling to give a romance between siblings any consideration. (If that is you, I’m surprised you’re still here reading my blog.)

How nice it is to have something that treats this love between sibings with dignity and depth. I would very much like to see these works adapted for the screen.

Have I been clear enough?  Buy all three!

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Discovering Consanguinamory in the Family Tree

I am [or, had been] active on [a certain Big Online Portal's question and answer service], especially when it comes to explaining the importance of relationship rights, full marriage equality, and decriminalizing consanguinamory. Someone had this question...

Family Tree Concerns..?
My Grandfather recently passed away and my Grandmother told us all that her and my Grandfather were never married, they had always celebrated an anniversary (or so we thought,) but didn't understand while she waited till he died before telling us. After further research into my family tree I have discovered that my Grandmother married her Uncle (is this incest!?!), my Mother feels all weird because it feels like her life has been a lie and the only person she could have asked and got a proper answer was her Dad but now he's gone so we are both just looking for some advice or if anyone has been or is going through a similar situation...
This was my answer, which was chosen as the best answer (thankyouverymuch)...
= = = =
Here's what matters: Was your grandfather a good person? A good spouse to your Grandmother? A good parent? A good grandparent? THAT is what matters, not any genetic or legal relation to your grandmother. There's no lie about any of that. Your mother's life is no different now than it was before she knew that information. She's just allowing cultural prejudices to influence her reaction. Your grandparents had what is called a common-law marriage. As long as they were good to each other, that is what matters.

You didn't make it clear, but it appears you mean your grandfather was the brother of one of your grandmother's parents (he would still be an "uncle" to her if he had, at one time, been married to one of your grandmother's parents' sister without any biological relation to your grandmother). Assuming there was a genetic connection (though it is possible he had been adopted into the family, too), that is still no reason for alarm. This is much more common than people think. People are finding out about this through DNA testing and family records, although family records don't always reveal the truth. If you go back further, it is virtually guaranteed you'll find you have consanguineous ancestors.

You don't have to go too far back in anyone's family tree to find these kinds of things. I doubt there is a person out there whose ancestry has nothing like this.

In other words.... you and your family are as normal as everyone else.
= = =

Just about everyone has incestuous childbearing in their family tree. In some cases, someone was raped, which  of course is a horrible,  or there was cheating. In other cases, it was true love between people who were not cheating on anyone. If the law prevented them from legally marrying or from telling the truth, that is a problem, a terrible problem, of the law, and just one of many reasons we need full marriage equality. It is not something wrong with the lovers.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Bus Sighting at Media Matters

Luke Brinker at mediamatters.org, in responding to an anti-equality column by twice-divorced-now-in-third-marriage radio talk show host and author, Dennis Prager, threw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus.
Prager's prediction dovetails with those of other marriage equality opponents who similarly suggest that necrophilia and bestiality might become commonly accepted practices if gay couples are allowed to marry. But in the 10 years since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage equality, there hasn't been a rush to legalize polygamous unions. Meanwhile, most states that allow incestuous marriages are right-leaning states where same-sex marriage currently isn't allowed.
As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has observed, the problem with "slippery slope" arguments of the kind advanced by Prager is that they ignore the deep differences between allowing a committed, loving same-sex couple to get married and permitting, say, a brother and sister to get married. Incestuous relationships, Lithwick notes, are often exploitative and psychologically destructive, with severe consequences for children's health.

Here is how I responded in the comments (with links added here for further reading)...
 
The response to bigots when they bring up polygamy and consanguinamory is "What's wrong with letting consenting adults marry?" Please note that under our broad legal systems, corpses and other species (necrophilia and bestiality) are not considered consenting adults. However, a consenting adult might want to marry more than one person, or marry a close relative. When (white) women got the right to vote, there wasn't a rush for voting rights for people of color, and when Loving v. Virginia knocked down bans on monogamous interracial marriages, there wasn't a rush to grant to same-gender freedom to marry, but there should have been.

It is unfair to say that incestuous relationships are often exploitative and psychology destructive. That is ABUSIVE relationships in general, which can include complete strangers and interracial couples same-gender couples. Also, it is the abusive relationships that tend to come to the attention of law enforcement and counselors. Nobody in a good relationship is calling up a shrink or law enforcement and saying, "Hey, I just want to tell you I'm in an incestuous relationship and it is great!"

The "mutant baby" argument is a smokescreen. First of all, some consanguinamorous relationships involve only people of the same gender. Yes, they are gay marriages, so to speak. I have interviewed people in these relationships myself. Secondly, marriage shouldn't be equated with baby-making. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. Thirdly, contrary to myth, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems (I know some of these children, and so do you, whether you know it or not); while births to
other parents do sometimes have birth defects. Heterosexual couples with obvious, series genetic diseases are not prevented from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying, so the "mutant baby" argument is not a justification for stopping genetic half-sisters who didn't even grow up with each other from marrying.

I expect more from Media Matters than to throw some consenting adults under the bus to assuage bigots. There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The Changing Map For the Freedom to Marry

If you've been unable to keep up with the all of the news of the building momentum for nationwide full marriage equality in the US, Jonathan Capehart at washingtonpost.com has posted a useful graphic of the status of the limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry in the various states.
During an appearance on “Now with Alex Wagner” on Friday, I had to sneak a peek at the cheat sheet I made for our discussion about the same-sex marriage victory in a Virginia federal court. Ever since the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),  the lower federal courts have been busy hearing challenges to state statutes and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.
(Jonathan Capehart)
He draws the obvious parallel to where bans on interracial marriage were when the Supreme Court struck them down. The graphic is larger at the link.

There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Frequently Asked Question: How Common is Incest?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Clearing Up Consanguinity

Many people get confused about terms like "second cousins" and "once removed" when referring to close but not-so-close relations. Your parent's sibling's child is your first cousin. That person's child would be your first cousin, once removed. That person's child and your child would be second cousins.

Here's a helpful chart that can help explain it.



Source: http://www.sanantonio.gov/atty/ethics/ConsanguinityChart.htm

Remember, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with, dating, or even marrying a cousin. Consanguineous relationships and marriages are nothing new. There are some countries and a little over half of US states where the bigotry against marriage equality extends to preventing first cousins from marrying, but there are many places where marrying a first cousin is legal and common. I'm only aware of a few US states where sex between first cousins is technically illegal, so check the laws of your state if you are concerned. It should be searchable on your official state website.


Saturday, February 15, 2014

Help for Friends and Family of Consanguinamorous Siblings

Our friend Gott has done great service and had given this blog permission to repost what was just posted on Tumblr. I recommend following that Tumblr blog. What is below is all Gott's work...

(Here is a PDF version of the full text)

This is for the benefit of friends or family of romantically involved siblings, who may have recently discovered their secret. Though I’ve used “incest” in the title, I won’t continue to use the terms “incest” or “incestuous,” I will use “consanguinamory” and “consanguineous” (pronounced “con-sang-gwin-am-or-ee” and “con-sang-gwin-ee-us). “Incest” is too loaded a word for intelligent discussion, and I only ever use it for sexual abuse. If I say “consanguinamory”, assume I am talking about consensual sex. (I’m going to assume that the couple is opposite-sex, but most of this also applies for same-sex couples.) Remember: there’s a difference between love and abuse.
This might be long, but bear with me. All of your concerns are about to be addressed. If you truly love them, you will have the patience to read this.


- INTRODUCTION

First, stop and take a breath. I know that this must be a lot to take in. I seriously doubt that you’ve ever sat down to consider the possibility of this happening. I don’t expect you to be calm, but I do expect you to care enough about their well-being to seriously consider what I’m about to say.

Did you discover them accidentally? If so, talk to them individually – with an open mind – and make sure that there was no coercion. Ignore the taboo nature of what you just found out. If you have no evidence of coercion or manipulation, then do not try to project abuse where there is none, and do not force them to internalize your own sense of what’s “taboo.” Why would you ever want to burden them with so much unnecessary guilt and shame? Talk to them together, and get the story from them, calmly. See how they act together. Remember to treat them with respect, especially if they’re already adults; it’s what you would want for yourself.

Did they come out to you on their own? Then there’s even less chance that there was any coercion involved. In fact, coming out to you is one of the bravest and most trusting gifts they could ever give you. Not only is their love extremely taboo, but even if they are adults, in most places on Earth they could be thrown in jail, possibly for the rest of their lives. You could get them thrown in jail. Every person they tell is a potential threat who could ruin their lives forever, getting them locked up for years and permanently placed on the sex-offender registry. And yet, despite all that, they told you. They could have lied – it wouldn’t have been easy, but they could have – but they told you. However much you thought they trusted and loved you, they just proved that their true trust and love is greater.



If they say that it’s consensual, and there’s no evidence it isn’t – especially if they came forward on their own – how can you still assume that no person could consent to it? How can you possibly disrespect their intelligence and agency so much? Have you ever had any other reason to doubt that they are of sound mind and soul? Then why should this one thing counteract years of personal experience? Did they hurt anyone? Of course not. If you think there must be something wrong, it’s because that’s the story society has been spoon-feeding you.

Consider: if one of them was adopted – if they weren’t genetically related – would you still feel as uncomfortable as you do? Because if you wouldn’t, then there’s no good reason for your discomfort now; socially, whether adopted or not, their relationship would be the same. If they weren’t even raised together, then in no way are they family, though they are blood relatives. Ignore for a moment the particular, taboo nature of their relationship. Just consider them as individual people. If your daughter/sister/friend was dating a man like her brother, knowing everything you do about him, would you be displeased, or happy? If your son/brother/friend were dating a woman like his sister, knowing everything you do about her, would you be upset, or glad?

If you are their parent, unless you’ve done an awful job of raising them, my guess is that, before you found out, you were quite proud of them. Well, they’re the same people now, the same people who made you proud. Wouldn’t you want your daughter to date a man who made you as proud as your son? Wouldn’t you want your son to date a woman who made you as proud as your daughter? Aren’t they more to you, and to each other, than just their genes?

- MENTAL HEALTH
 
Society has taught you to feel a certain way about consanguinamory. It was handed to you, and you accepted it without much thought. You’ve probably never met anyone who was openly sexually involved with a close family member. This has allowed you to go around without seriously considering what such a relationship might look like, how it could work, and how you should feel about it. It has allowed you to absorb the limited perspective put out by the media, giving you a narrow, stereotyped view of what’s possible. You have been listening to only one side of the story your whole life.

Just because you don’t know that you’ve met such a couple before, doesn’t mean that you haven’t met one. In fact, as you follow your family tree further and further back in time, the probability that you will find at least one consanguineous couple approaches 100%. Self-reported surveys have found that as much as 10% of college students have had consensual sexual contact with a sibling (mostly childhood experimentation). (If we extrapolate this to the whole population, this equates to about 30 million people in the U.S.) The fact that a couple is related tells you exactly nothing about what their relationship is like, nor whether it is consenting or not, nor whether it is fulfilling or not. Each of those things is independent of their blood relationship.

The cultural stereotype of such relationships is that they are dysfunctional, self-destructive, and abusive; anyone who willingly participates must somehow be mentally ill. Besides this view being incredibly condescending, it also has no meaningful basis. What is considered “healthy” and “unhealthy” changes, and is very subjective. On what standard are we to decide what constitutes mental “illness?” Is it that they’re doing something they know society disapproves of? I don’t think any reasonable person thinks we should use the preconceptions of the majority to decide what constitutes mental illness. It must, then, be that the behavior is self-destructive, or causes them to destroy the lives of others.

Do you see anything indicating that those things are happening? Aside from their experience of bigotry, do they seem unusually disturbed? Are they lashing out at themselves, at each other, or at you? Are they unable to operate normally in a social environment? If not, then you have no reason to think they are any less mentally healthy than before. In fact, their love may have made them healthier, by bringing them fulfillment and peace.
“From a scientific perspective, we do not know what constitutes normal childhood sexual behavior or feelings. […] Sexual behavior varies drastically among different groups of people due to their moral beliefs, values, social class, and culture. Sexual feelings and behaviors also vary widely among youth due to individual differences and variations in development. […] Some of the behaviors mentioned above are harmful. However, many are socially unacceptable because they would be classified as immoral or indecent by many people, not because they are harmful.
As I’ve said, you’ve probably already met a consanguineous couple. They couldn’t have stood out as any more dysfunctional than the average couple, or you would have become suspicious that something was wrong. Unfortunately, prejudice keeps people in the closet, which perpetuates ignorance, which itself perpetuates prejudice. You have been given the rare opportunity to examine your own assumptions, and break your own cycle of prejudice. Most people have never gotten that chance.

The “pedophile” label has long been used to brand sexual minorities as deviants, as threats to society and to our children. Homosexuality has long been heavily attacked as pedophilic, and in the past when people had limited experience with open, healthy same-sex relationships, they believed the propaganda. Now that so many homosexual couples are out in the open, we realize that there is a clear difference between the consenting majority, and the predatory minority.

Even today, opponents of legal rights for homosexuals try to brand the gay rights agenda as pro-pedophilia. There is a homophobic Neo-Nazi “vigilante” group in Russia called “Occupy Pedophilia,” but it isn’t pedophiles they’re targeting: they target young gay men. They go around torturing them, sometimes to death, and use “fighting pedophilia” as their implicit justification.
It is the same for consanguinamory. The vast majority of cases that come to light are the most unhealthy. (In the previously quoted summary of studies, only 30% of respondents answered that their reaction to sexual contact with a sibling was “negative.” Of that 30%, 25% were non-consensual. The remaining 5% may be due to stigma and shame.) Those in healthy, fulfilling relationships never come forward, and we only see them in the news when they are caught and thrown in jail.

The consanguinamorous are lumped in with a predatory minority, and because of the closet, the public buys it. Just because these siblings love each other, it doesn’t mean that they want to have sex with any other relatives, and it doesn’t mean that they are pedophiles. Despite the propaganda, their relationship does not automatically mean they are abusive and emotionally damaged.

Besides, so what if every other consanguineous relationship in history has been abusive and emotionally damaging? We consider people as individuals, and don’t punish them based on the sins of others. Even in murder trials, attenuating circumstances are considered. If murderers get the benefit of the doubt, if murderers get to be treated as individuals, then why not these siblings? Even if every other relationship like theirs was damaging, that doesn’t automatically mean theirs is. If they are the only loving, consenting blood-related couple in the world, then that’s all the more reason to treat them with respect and dignity.

- ABNORMALITY

However, they are not the only siblings to have a consenting, loving relationship. It is not some newfangled idea. Societies’ attitudes towards various sexual relationships – especially familial – have changed all throughout history. They are in illustrious company, among some of the greatest people to ever live. These are just a handful of the examples known, and there are certainly many more lost to history.
Not only are they in glorious past company, but in beautiful present company as well. In the past, only royals and aristocrats could break society’s rules and marry whom they wished. Why should the right to love whom they wish to love be denied to the common man or woman? Romantic sibling relationships are much more common than most realize. Many of these relationships, when allowed to flourish, grow into something astoundingly beautiful.

- FORCING THEM APART

You may wish that they would just find other people. There are plenty of non-blood-related fish in the sea. If they did that, it would certainly make things easier for you, wouldn’t it? You may even be able to convince yourself that it would somehow be easier for them, too. Well, why should they find other people?

Do you have someone you love? If so, why don’t you find someone else? It’s easy to see that it’s not so easy. If you knew a bisexual man who was dating another man, would you tell him that, because he has “more acceptable options,” that he must date a woman? The “homosexuality isn’t a choice” argument is strawmaning: it serves as a nice talking point, but that’s not ultimately why society now feels that homophobia is wrong. We’ve come to understand that love doesn’t always fit the conventions proscribed by society; that it is morally wrong to police people’s sex lives and love lives; that society is better off when we nurture people’s natural love. A bisexual person may be capable of loving someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn’t mean they will. No-one chooses who they fall in love with. It is no different for siblings in love.

Besides, have you stopped to consider the consequences of forcing them to break up? People think only of the consequences of letting siblings stay together, but not of destroying their relationship. Consider: how will breaking them up, causing them misery and pain, shaming them, and policing them make their relationship “healthy?” Even if you think it’s “unhealthy” now, their relationship is guaranteed to be much worse after that kind of trauma. They’ll remember what they had, they’ll remember the pain of its loss, they’ll remember the judgment, they’ll remember the shame, and they will probably know that they still love each other. What kind of family dinners do you expect with that kind of angst floating around? They may in fact choose to never see each other again, because it would be too painful.

What if they shun your judgment and shaming? Many consanguinamorous couples, when facing judgment and intervention by friends and family, break off all ties with them for the sake of preserving their own relationship with each other. If you really do care about them, and also want to be part of their lives, learn to at least tolerate their love. Better that you have a presence in their lives. Don’t force them to choose between family and friends, and the love of their lives.

- RELATIONSHIP INSTABILITY

Now, there is one legitimate concern regarding consanguinamory: won’t introducing sex and romance destabilize the family dynamic? What if it ultimately doesn’t work out? Won’t that make it difficult to go back to being just family for them? The short answer: not necessarily.

Now for the long answer. First of all, yes, it might, but many people pursue love at the risk of existing relationships, and we don’t begrudge them their pursuit of happiness, even if risky. No truly good things in life are gained without risk. As a culture, we even romanticize such risky pursuits of love. I would argue that, aside from the threat of social stigma breaking them apart, they are actually less likely to break up than other couples. Assuming they were raised together, they’ve already had decades to get to know each other, most of it probably non-sexually. Imagine if a man and woman lived together for sixteen or more years, without any sex at all, before they decided to be romantically involved. We would all consider that comically conservative, and yet that is the kind of experience these siblings have had.

Even when romances do end explosively, they can still go back to normal, given time and space. There are couples that have broken up very dramatically, but after having a couple years to themselves are able to go back to being friends. Even if these siblings do ultimately break up, given all of their prior experience as siblings, the common familial relationships, etc., they should be much more likely to eventually get back to being friendly than non-related couples. They would have more motivation to.

Remember too, not all romances end explosively. Some marriages end after over a decade, on amicable terms. If a relationship ends, the destructiveness of its end is related directly to the destructiveness of the relationship itself. What destroys a relationship in such a way? Lying, abuse, lack of communication, emotional unavailability, bad conflict resolution skills, lack of respect, lack of appreciation, etc.

Since you know the couple, you should have some idea whether they have problems with any of these things in their lives. If you are their parent, then you are in a unique position to ensure that they both treat each other with respect, empathy, and honesty. You have an interest in their relationship being healthy in the long term, and you also have the power to help that happen.

Don’t assume that their relationship as siblings and their relationship as lovers are mutually exclusive. It’s a common, false assumption that they must be, but the personal testimony of people in such relationships refutes it. I doubt they fell in love because they were bad siblings, but more likely it grew out of an especially close sibling relationship. We all acknowledge that people can serve multiple roles in a relationship, being both best friends and lovers. Well, so it is that they are best friends, lovers, and siblings. Each one of those relationships strengthens the others: their relationship becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Even if familial and romantic love were mutually exclusive, who are you to decide which of those options is best for them? So they happened to be born as siblings. Why must that chain them the rest of their lives? Maybe they will be better as lovers than as siblings. As consenting adults, they get to decide which kind of relationship makes them happiest.

- HEALTH OF THEIR CHILDREN

Assuming you’re okay with all of the points I’ve just made, you may still have one objection: what if they have babies? This is one of the last refuges for those who can’t quite justify banning consanguinamory, but still want to. After all, what about all the stories of monster babies? Well, there are actually very few of those stories, they are an over-publicized minority, and that stereotype goes against actual scientific and historical evidence.

These siblings may already have a child. They may be pregnant. They may be planning on having a child in the future. You might have even found out about it because a pregnancy or genetic test of a child brought it to light. Once again, I must ask you to calm down, and listen carefully to what I’m about to say. The feelings you have are coming from a lot of cultural baggage and stereotyping, again. I won’t deny that the risks are higher than for the general population, but they’re not nearly as bad as you hear, and slightly elevated risks are never any reason to curtail a woman’s basic rights.

One hears an ingrained, “But it’s unnatural!” argument quite a bit. “Inbreeding” is not “unnatural,” as many would claim. Many species engage in consanguineous mating in some form or another, and it can have both positive and negative effects, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes, species even evolve a resistance to problems from “inbreeding.” In nature, as in society, things are always more complicated than a blanket judgment can capture.

If we should force people to only have babies with people that are distantly related from them, for eugenic reasons, then why stop at prohibiting consanguinamory? Why not forbid all sex between people of the same race? Genetic similarity within a population can still be great enough that genetic diseases are passed on – just look at Tay-Sachs. Of course the idea is ridiculous, but it just follows the logic of policing women’s uteri to minimize genetic disease.
“[…] [S]cientists have rejected the explanation that [the] incest taboo is a social mechanism that reduces the risk of congenital birth defects. One of the reasons is, findings have concluded that recessive or defect-carrying genes in a population may increase or decrease in instances of inbreeding. The frequency of birth defects depends on the availability and effectiveness of healthcare in a population. A recent genetic report also stated that children of unrelated parents have a 3% to 4% risk of having serious birth defects, while the offspring of first cousins have only a slightly higher risk of about 4% to 7%.”
We can extrapolate from this that for siblings, it is at least 7%, and probably no higher than 10%. This is lower than the risk of birth defects for women over the age of 35, which is 12.5%.
I have also written about how new scientific discoveries are illuminating why, over many generations, having children with blood-relatives can have an effect on a population. It’s not what most people think, it’s not as threatening as most people think, and more importantly, we may soon be able to fix it.

Whether considering the genome, or the epigenome, a single generation can be completely inconsequential. All of the risks are population-wide risks: the chances that a random sibling couple would have a child with defects are that high, but these two siblings are not a random couple. They are a specific couple, with individual genomes. Their family history of disease is specific to their family. Those things tell you much more about their chances than some randomized study. They may, in fact, have a lower probability of defects than the general population.

Either way, we do not, as a society, agree with eugenics, and for good reason. We do not espouse the views of racists who spent decades sterilizing the poor and black in the U.S. They’ll have to care for the child, it is her body, it is their risk to take. It doesn’t matter whether you approve of it on a “massive scale” (which wouldn’t happen without society forcing people), all that matters is whether it would be okay for this specific couple.

You’re probably also worried about how the child will deal with the taboo nature of its parents’ relationship. Isn’t it better that a child grow up in a normal family? This is the kind of reasoning that punishes all sexual minorities for the bigotry of the majority. Not only do they have to deal with the derision of the masses, but now they have to give up their own children because of that derision? No enlightened person in this day and age would argue that we should take the children of same-sex couples away from them and have them raised in “normal” families. It would be barbarous, and yet there are homophobic reactionaries who argue against same-sex adoption with a similar argument.

We should never let the bigotry of others police our families. A child can learn to deal with ostracism, as long as they have a good support network at home, but no child can learn to live without experiencing love. Isn’t it better that this child grows up in an “abnormal” household that loves them dearly, than a “normal” one that doesn’t?

- CONCLUSION

Here are refutations of many arguments people make against sibling consanguinamory. It’s a good addition to what I have just said. This quote from the article is especially apropos:
“There are siblings who are together right now, providing each other love, comfort, support, or their first sexual experience in a safe and reassuring environment. The biggest problem with sibling consanguinamory seems to be the prejudice and sex-negative attitudes of others. In most cases, trying to force consanguinamorous siblings apart only makes things worse. It can be a mutually beneficial way of bonding, expressing their love for each other, learning, and discovering their sexuality; it may even be a beautiful, lifelong romance. Let’s not let ignorance cause needless concern or repression.
Don’t be ashamed of changing your mind. Other people have had to walk the same intellectual and emotional journey. Don’t be ashamed that you were once wrong. Better to grow as a person than cling to terrible beliefs out of a misplaced sense of embarrassment and ego. Let yourself grow, for the sake of your child/sibling/friend. You may think you have nothing left to learn, but everyone can learn something, and everyone can teach something. This is their moment to teach you.
Here are some extra resources:

Categories